======================================================================== WRITINGS OF JOHN GILCHRIST by John Gilchrist ======================================================================== A collection of theological writings, sermons, and essays by John Gilchrist, compiled for study and devotional reading. Chapters: 149 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ TABLE OF CONTENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. 01.00.1. Christianity and Islam Series 2. 01.01. Nuzul-I-Isa: The Second Coming of Jesus Christ 3. 01.02. Millat-A-Ibrahim: The True Faith of Abraham 4. 01.03. Al-Masihu-Isa: The Glory of Jesus The Messiah 5. 01.04. An Analytical Study of the Cross and the Hijrah 6. 01.05. The Love of God in theQur'an and the Bible 7. 01.06. The Temple, The Ka'aba, and The Christ 8. 01.07. THE TITLES OF JESUSIN THEQur'an AND THE BIBLE 9. 01.08. The Uniqueness of Jesus in the Qur'an and the Bible 10. 02.00.1. Facing the Muslim Challenge 11. 02.00.2. Table of Contents 12. 02.01. Introduction 13. 02.02. Chapter One The Integrity of the Bible 14. 02.03. Chapter Two The Doctrine of the Trinity 15. 02.04. Chapter Three Jesus the Son of the Living God 16. 02.05. Chapter Four The Crucifixion and the Atonement 17. 02.06. Chapter Five Muhammad in the Bible? 18. 02.07. Chapter Six The Gospel of Barnabas 19. 02.08. Bibliography 20. 03.00.1. JAM' AL-QUR'AN 21. 03.00.2. Table of Contents 22. 03.01. INTRODUCTION 23. 03.02. SOURCES AND REFERENCES 24. 03.03. CHAPTER 1: THE INITIAL COLLECTION OF THE QURAN TEXT 25. 03.04. CHAPTER 2: THE UTHMANIC RECENSION OF THE QURAN 26. 03.05. CHAPTER 3: THE CODICES OF IBN MASUD AND UBAYY IBN KAB 27. 03.06. CHAPTER 4: THE MISSING PASSAGES OF THE QURAN 28. 03.07. CHAPTER 5: SABAT-I-AHRUF: THE SEVEN DIFFERENT READINGS 29. 03.08. CHAPTER 6: THE COMPILATION OF THE QURAN IN PERSPECTIVE 30. 03.09. CHAPTER 7: THE EARLY SURVIVING QURAN MANUSCRIPTS 31. 04.00.1. Muhammad and the Religion of Islam 32. 04.00.2. Table of Contents 33. 04.00.3. Preface 34. 04.01. An Outline of the Life of Muhammad 35. 04.02. A. THE PROPHET OF THE ARABS AT MECCA. 36. 04.03. THE FOUNDER OF ISLAM AT MEDINA . 37. 04.04. C. THE CONFLICT WITH THE JEWS. 38. 04.05. D. THE CONQUEST OF MECCA AND THE FINAL TRIUMPH. 39. 04.06. A Study of Muhammad's Personality 40. 04.07. A. AN ASSESSMENT OF HIS PERSONALITY. 41. 04.08. B. HIS TREATMENT OF HIS PERSONAL ENEMIES. 42. 04.09. C. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS MARRIAGES. 43. 04.10. The Nature of Muhammad's Prophetic Experience 44. 04.11. A. AN-NABI UL-UMMI: THE UNLETTERED PROPHET. 45. 04.12. B. MUHAMMAD'S CONCEPT OF REVELATION. 46. 04.13. C. SATAN'S INTERJECTION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS. 47. 04.14. C. AL-MI'RAJ: THE ALLEGED ASCENT TO HEAVEN. 48. 04.15. The Qu'ran: The Scripture of Islam 49. 04.16. A. THE COMPOSITION AND CHARACTER OF THE QUR'AN. 50. 04.17. B. THE MECCAN AND MEDINAN SURAHS. 51. 04.18. C. SIGNIFICANT QUR'ANIC DOCTRINES AND TEACHINGS . 52. 04.19. The Collection and Sources of the Qu'ran 53. 04.20. A. EVIDENCES FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE QUR'AN. 54. 04.21. B. JEWISH INFLUENCES IN THE QUR'AN. 55. 04.22. C. OTHER QUR'ANIC ORIGINS AND SOURCES. 56. 04.23. D. ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF THE QUR'AN. 57. 04.24. The Hadith: The Traditions of Islam 58. 04.25. A. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SUBJECT OF HADITH. 59. 04.26. B. THE MAJOR WORKS OF HADITH LITERATURE. 60. 04.27. C. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE TRADITIONS. 61. 04.28. The Principal Duties of Islam 62. 04.29. A. FUNDAMENTAL MUSLIM TENETS AND BELIEFS 63. 04.30. B. SINLESSNESS OF THE PROPHETS: THE ISMA DOCTRINE. 64. 04.31. C. THE FIVE PILLARS OF ISLAM. 65. 04.32. D. THE HAJJ PILGRIMAGE TO MECCA. 66. 04.33. The Social Laws and Customs of Islam 67. 04.34. A. MUSLIM FESTIVALS AND CELEBRATIONS. 68. 04.35. B. SOCIAL AND FAMILY LAWS IN ISLAM. 69. 04.36. C. CULTIC TRENDS IN POPULAR ISLAM. 70. 04.37. D. THE CONSEQUENCES OF APOSTASY FROM ISLAM. 71. 04.38. Muslim Movements and Schisms 72. 04.39. A. SUFISM IN THEORY AND PRACTICE. 73. 04.40. B. THE SOURCES AND TENETS OF SHI'ITE ISLAM. 74. 04.41. C. A STUDY OF THE AHMADIYYA MOVEMENT. 75. 04.42. D. OTHER IMPORTANT SECTS IN MUSLIM HISTORY. 76. 04.43. Bibliography 77. 05.00.1. Sharing the Gospel with Muslims 78. 05.00.2. Table of Contents 79. 05.01. Introduction 80. 05.02. Adam 81. 05.03. Eve 82. 05.04. Noah 83. 05.05. Abraham 84. 05.06. Isaac 85. 05.07. Joseph 86. 05.08. Moses 87. 05.09. David 88. 05.10. Solomon 89. 05.11. Isaiah 90. 05.12. Jesus 91. 05.13. The Son of God 92. 05.14. Al-Masihu Isa 93. 05.15. The Love of God 94. 05.16. Nuzul-I-Isa 95. 05.17. Bibliography 96. 06.00.1. The Christian Witness to the Muslim 97. 06.00.2. Table of Contents 98. 06.00.3. Preface 99. 06.01. The Opportunities Facing the Church Today 100. 06.02. A. EMIGRATION OF MUSLIMS TO THE WEST. 101. 06.03. B. SAMUEL ZWEMER'S VISION FOR SOUTH AFRICA. 102. 06.04. C. BROKEN BARRIERS AND WIDE-OPEN DOORS. 103. 06.05. D. MUSLIMS IN A CHRISTIAN ENVIRONMENT. 104. 06.06. Friendship Evangelism among Westernised Muslims 105. 06.07. A. THE DEVELOPMENT OF PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS. 106. 06.08. B. "YOU ARE THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD". 107. 06.09. C. PRACTICAL CARE FOR MUSLIM PROBLEMS. 108. 06.10. D. THE GIFTS AND POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 109. 06.11. Communicating the Gospel to Muslims 110. 06.12. A. BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR MUSLIM EVANGELISM. 111. 06.13. B. THE BIBLICAL APPROACH TO MUSLIMS. 112. 06.14. C. AN ALL-ROUND COMPREHENSIVE MINISTRY. 113. 06.15. D. CARING FOR THE MUSLIM CONVERT. 114. 06.16. Abraham in the Qur'an and the Bible 115. 06.17. A. KHALILULLAH: THE FRIEND OF GOD. 116. 06.18. B. MILLAT-A-IBRAHIM: THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM. 117. 06.19. C. EID-UL-ADHA : THE FESTIVAL OF SACRIFICE. 118. 06.20. D. ISHAQ OR ISMAIL: THE MUSLIM DILEMMA. 119. 06.21. The Uniqueness and Titles of Jesus in Islam 120. 06.22. A. JESUS' BIRTH, ASCENSION AND SECOND COMING. 121. 06.23. B. AL-MASIHU ISA: GOD'S ANOINTED MESSIAH. 122. 06.24. C. THE TITLES WORD AND SPIRIT OF GOD. 123. 06.25. D. JESUS THE RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE. 124. 06.26. Comparing Biblical and Qur'anic Tenets 125. 06.27. A. THE LOVE OF THE FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPIRIT. 126. 06.28. B. THE FALL OF ADAM AND THE CROSS OF CHRIST. 127. 06.29. C. THE CRUCIFIXION IN ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY. 128. 06.30. Objections to the Integrity of the Bible 129. 06.31. A. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE. 130. 06.32. B. TYPICAL MUSLIM OBJECTIONS TO THE SCRIPTURES. 131. 06.33. C. THE TESTIMONY OF THE QUR'AN TO THE BIBLE. 132. 06.34. Objections to Fundamental Christian Doctrines 133. 06.35. A. THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 134. 06.36. B. JESUS THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD. 135. 06.37. C. THE ATONING WORK OF THE CHRIST. 136. 06.38. Miscellaneous Muslim Objections to the Gospel 137. 06.39. A. THE "PAGAN ORIGINS" OF CHRISTIANITY. 138. 06.40. B. PROPHECIES TO MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE. 139. 06.41. C. THE GOSPEL OF BARNABAS. 140. 06.42. D. THE NUMEROUS CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 141. 06.43. Bibliography 142. 07.0.1. The Qur'an and the Bible Series 143. 07.0.2. Table of Contents 144. 07.1. An Analysis of the Gospel of Barnabas 145. 07.2. CHRIST IN ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY 146. 07.3. The Crucifixion of Christ:A Fact, not Fiction 147. 07.4. What Indeed Was the Sign of Jonah? 148. 07.5. Is Muhammad Foretold in the Bible? 149. 07.6. THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF THE QUR'AN AND THE BIBLE ======================================================================== CHAPTER 1: 01.00.1. CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM SERIES ======================================================================== Christianity and Islam Series by John Gilchrist ======================================================================== CHAPTER 2: 01.01. NUZUL-I-ISA: THE SECOND COMING OF JESUS CHRIST ======================================================================== Nuzul-I-Isa: The Second Coming of Jesus Christ 1. The Return of Jesus in the Bible 2. Islam and the Descension of Jesus 3. The Implications of the Second Coming 4. How Jesus Will be Identified on His Return 5. The Present Status of Jesus in Heaven 6. The Purpose of His First Coming to Earth 7. When the Lord Jesus is Revealed from Heaven It is not every day that one sees a man being lifted from the earth to heaven with the assurance that he will return centuries later to stand on the earth again. Such an event must surely demand the attention of those who profess to believe that it will occur, and all the more so when the world’s two greatest religions, whose adherents jointly number half of those who dwell on the earth, both make this very profession about the same man. Christianity and Islam both hold to the firm conviction that Jesus Christ, who lived in the land of Israel nearly twenty centuries ago, was raised alive to heaven and will return to earth in the fulness of time. No one can regard such a belief purely as a tenet of each respective faith. The implications are so profound that the subject must be studied further. It is universally believed, in both the Christian and the Muslim worlds, that Jesus will come again to this world at the end of the age. Although the two religions differ in their estimate of how he shall appear and what he is due to accomplish when he returns, they both unanimously teach that he will return from the heavenly places heralding the climax of human history. It is surely incumbent, therefore, on every Christian and Muslim, to analyse this great anticipated event and to discover the real meaning and purpose of his advent and to simultaneously come to know the true identity and character of the central figure in what will surely be one of the greatest spectacles of history. We propose to make a brief study of both the Christian and Islamic teachings about the return of Jesus Christ from heaven and will then press on to examine the implications of this great event and the real identity of the one whose advent will interrupt the course of human history and bring it to a speedy conclusion. 1. THE RETURN OF JESUS IN THE BIBLE. One of the great themes of the Christian Scriptures is the return of Jesus to earth at the end of the age. The ultimate glory of the Messiah, God’s Supremely Anointed One, was foretold by many of the prophets who went before him and the Jewish Scriptures are replete with predictions about his eternal reign. So likewise early Christian writers dwelt much on this theme. It is our purpose, however, to begin by examining the words of Jesus himself on this subject to see what he, the focal point of this great drama which is yet to unfold, taught and believed about his coming return to earth. On the last night that he was alive before the end of his natural life on earth, he sat with his disciples and, in a long discourse in which he poured out many of the deepest truths he could convey to them, he spoke much of his eventual return to earth. He said to them: "In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And when I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also." John 14:2-3. With these words Jesus introduced a theme that was to recur again and again during his last message to his disciples. "I will come again" was his ultimate promise, one couched in terms calculated to bring comfort and hope to all who truly believe in him. He encouraged those who sat with him with the assurance that he was only going to heaven to make ready a place for them also and that he would duly return so that they could join him in his everlasting kingdom. As he continued with his deep teachings that night he went on to promise: "I will not leave you desolate; I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world will see me no more, but you will see me; because I live, you will live also." John 14:18-19. Again the reassuring words came, "I will come to you", this time with the added promise that, just as he would be alive for ever in the kingdom of heaven, so they too would be taken to be with him and would also enjoy eternal life. As his discourse continued he returned yet again to the day when he would return to earth saying to them: "A little while and you will see me no more; again a little while, and you will see me." John 16:16 His disciples were perplexed, not understanding what he could possibly mean. Jesus promptly warned them that, as soon as he had gone, they would suffer much persecution and loss and that their lot in this world would be at best uncertain and of no abiding value. Yet to give them a thorough hope and assurance that their trials would be but for a while and that their ultimate destiny was eternal life and glory in the kingdom of God upon his return, he said to them: "So you have sorrow now, but I will see you again and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you." John 16:22 Before his own disciples Jesus set his eventual return to earth as their greatest hope and the ultimate objective of their faith. A promise of eternal rejoicing was placed before them as the great reward they would enjoy by keeping their faith in him until he returned and they duly saw him again. Jesus himself obviously regarded his ultimate return to earth as the supreme hope of all his true followers. He told them they would suffer much anguish and rejection, many tears and trials, before that day, but exhorted them to endure them all because of the glory that was to follow at his return. Not only did he make such promises to his disciples, however, but he also warned his enemies that his return would wipe away all their gaiety and confidence and would spell their eternal doom and disgrace. He boldly testified to the Jewish High Priest: "But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven." Matthew 26:64 The predictions he constantly made of his return to earth, therefore, were given as words of comfort to his disciples and as a warning to his foes. The former would be raised to eternal glory in heaven, the latter would be cast down to eternal punishment in hell. He spoke not of returning at some time before the end of the age but, rather, on the Day of Judgment itself and summed up his teaching in these words: "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, and the goats at the left." Matthew 25:31-32. Those at his right hand, he promised, would inherit the kingdom prepared for them from before the foundation of the world, while those at his left would be thrown into the fire prepared for the devil and all his host. The return of Jesus, therefore, in the teaching of Jesus himself as it is recorded in the Bible, will be the great, climactic event of history when he will return to judge the living and the dead, awarding eternal life to those who love and obey him while casting the rest into outer darkness where they will remain for ever and ever as objects of God’s wrath and anger. Let us now examine the teaching of Islam, as it appears in the Qur’an and the Hadith, regarding the return of Jesus to earth. 2. ISLAM AND THE DESCENSION OF JESUS. It is universally accepted in the world of Islam that Jesus Christ will eventually return to earth. It generally agreed that he will descend in the Middle East where he will destroy the Dajjal (Antichrist), that he will lead the whole world to embrace Islam, that he will marry and have children, and that he will die after forty years and be buried in Medina alongside the tombs of Muhammad, Abu Bakr and Umar. The Qur’anic text invariably referred to in support of the doctrine that Jesus will return to earth towards the end of human history this one: And (Jesus) shall be a Sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgment): Therefore have no doubt about the (Hour) but follow ye Me: this is a Straight Way. Surah 43.61 The context of this verse does indeed appear to support the interpretation that the ilm (knowledge) of the Hour will be determined by the return of Jesus to earth. The whole passage, from verse 57 to verse 67, centres on Jesus and there can be little doubt that he is the focal point of the sign of the coming Hour of Judgment. Yusuf Ali has the following comment appended to Surah 43.61: This is understood to refer to the second coming Jesus in the Last Days just before the Resurrection when he will destroy the false doctrines that pass under his name, and prepare the way for the universal acceptance of Islam, the Gospel of Unity and Peace, the Straight way of the Qur’an. (Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, p.1337). Maulana Abdul Majid Daryabadi also has a similar comment on this verse in his translation, saying "The reference is to the second advent of Jesus" (The Holy Qur’an, Vol.2, p.493B). Indeed the vast majority of Muslin commentators take Surah 43.61 to be a prophecy of the descension of Jesus to earth, an interpretation sustained for centuries in Muslim writings. The anticipated event has become known as the nuzul-i-Isa, the "descension of Jesus". The Hadith teach unambiguously that Jesus will return towards the end of the world. There are no less than seventy accredited traditions supporting this doctrine and they are regarded as mutawatir, "universally-attested" traditions of unquestioned reliability. One of these traditions reads: Abu Huraira reported that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: By Him in Whose hand is my life, the son of Mary (may peace be upon him) will soon descend among you as a just judge. He will break crosses, kill swine and abolish Jizya, and the wealth will pour forth to such an extent that no one will accept it. (Sahih Muslim, Vol.1, p.92). Another tradition states that "spite, mutual hatred and jealousy against one another will certainly disappear" during his reign when returns (Sahih Muslim, Vol.1, p.93) and in yet another tradition we read that Surah 4.159, which teaches that "there is none of the People of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) but must believe in him before his death", is also a proof that Jesus will return to earth to receive the homage of all to whom the Scriptures have been given (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.4, p.437). Such are the testimonies to the return of Jesus to earth in Islam. There are obviously key differences between Christian and Muslim beliefs regarding the return of Jesus from heaven but the fact of the event is universally agreed. Christians do not accept that he will come to live again as an ordinary human being on earth, least of all that he will die and be buried. He has been alive in the glory of heaven for nearly two thousand years and we find it very hard to seriously consider the suggestion that he must return to complete a life that was interrupted on earth at the age of thirty-three and live out a further forty years before dying and being buried like any other man. It is our firm belief that he is already alive for ever more in the glory of the kingdom of God and that an earthly demise at a time yet to come would be an unfortunate anti-climax and a strange anachronism. Nevertheless there are principles in the Muslim beliefs about his earthly reign that Christians can accept as symbolic of his heavenly rule yet to be revealed. Islam teaches that he will return from heaven, that he will destroy the Antichrist and all his host, that he will lead all true believers into an era of unprecedented bliss and prosperity, that he will rule over all earth, and that he will establish a universal faith God during his reign. To the extent that these beliefs can be transferred to a heavenly rule in an eternal kingdom, Christians can agree with Muslims. 3. THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE SECOND COMING. Islam and Christianity are agreed that Jesus will return from heaven to earth. As said already, such an extraordinary event cannot be catalogued as simply one of the tenets of each respective faith. The implications of this persuasion are so profound that it must be analysed further. The concept of a man returning to earth from the realms of heaven itself, a man who once lived on the earth many centuries ago, begs further scrutiny. The very uniqueness of the whole event and its climactic character must surely lead us to conclude that there must be something very special about the one who is at the centre of it all - Jesus Christ. The return of no other prophet is awaited by Christians and Muslims. Indeed, even in their lifetimes, the influence of each prophet of God rarely spread beyond the confines of the prophet’s own community and nation, yet it is agreed between Christians and Muslims that Jesus will, on his return, assume control over the whole world. There must be more to him than mere prophethood and his return will surely usher in greater benefits than a boom period in the economies of the nations. A key to the real meaning of the return of Jesus is found in the expression used by both Yusuf Ali and Maulana Daryabadi in their comments on Surah 43.61. Yusuf Ali speaks of the "second coming of Jesus" and Maulana Daryabadi likewise refers to the "second advent of Jesus". Some years ago, in South Africa, Adam Peerbhai published a booklet entitled Hadis Text on the Second Coming of Jesus which canvassed the various traditions referring to the descension of Jesus. The key is in just one word used by all three Muslim authors - the word second. Each one speaks of the second coming of Jesus, a typical Christian definition of his return and one adopted by Muslim writers without much reflection on its immediate implications. Christians speak of the second coming of Jesus from heaven because they believe that he came from heaven the first time. If there is to be a second coming, there must have been a first coming. This is, to us, the great key behind the return of Jesus to earth. He will come from heaven a second time because he came from heaven the first time. We believe that he pre-existed and that he was in the beginning with God before anything was ever created (John 1:1). He came as a spirit into the world directly from heaven and was thus conceived in the womb of a woman without any normal human agency. This belief is to some extent supported by the Qur’an which says of Jesus that he was a ruhun minhu, a "spirit from him (i.e. God)", a title applied to no other human in the book (Surah 4.171). This is just what Christians believe - that Jesus came into the world the first time as a spirit directly from God and this explains why his mother underwent such a unique experience in conceiving him without the agency of a human father. It is in this expression "second coming" that we see the first real implication of the outstanding event to come at the end of time. Jesus will come from heaven to earth simply because he came in precisely this manner the first time. We need to peruse some of the statements of Jesus himself which relate to this very subject to see what he said about his first coming into the world. On numerous occasions Jesus declared that he had come down from heaven and in such plain language that it could not be interpreted in any other way than literally. He declared to the Jews: "For I have come down from heaven, not to do my will, but the will of him who sent me." John 6:38 In response to this the Jews murmured against him, saying "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ’I have come down from heaven’?" (John 6:42). In reply Jesus simply commanded them not to murmur among themselves about matters they did not understand, once again declaring that he had, in fact, come originally from heaven (John 6:51). When even some of his own followers began to murmur at his teaching, he said to them: "Do you take offence at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?" John 6:61-62. Jesus spoke often about the fact that he had originally descended from heaven (John 3:13) and that he would ascend again (John 20:7), "ascending where he was before". It was his plain teaching that he had come down from heaven and that he would return there. Indeed it should not be too hard for Muslims to consider that Jesus had come down from heaven at the beginning. If it is possible for them to believe that he will come from heaven towards the end of the world, it should be equally possible and indeed logical to believe that he came from heaven in the first place. On another occasion, while Jesus was debating with the Jews, he said to them: "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world." John 8:23. This was an outstanding statement - "I am from above ... I am not of this world". It is a true maxim that man returns whence he came. We all return to the earth because we come from the earth. "You are dust, and to dust you shall return" (Genesis 3:19). We are all from below and we therefore go back to the dust. Jesus was from above and he therefore ascended where he, too, was before. This is why he is in heaven now and why he will return from heaven - because he came from heaven in the first place. He could not have put it more plainly or simply than he did when he said: "I came from the Father and have come into the world; again, I am leaving the world and going to the Father." John 16:28 We do well to ask why Jesus has been kept alive in heaven for nearly two thousand years when all other men, both small and great, have returned to the dust. David lies buried in Jerusalem and Muhammad likewise lies dead and buried in Medina. Neither lived beyond a normal lifespan. "No one has ascended into heaven", Jesus said while he was still on earth (John 3:13). Why then should this one man be taken up above the clouds, indeed right out of this universe, into the presence of the eternal Father where he has been for nearly two thousand years? There can only be one rational, logical conclusion. He must likewise have been in heaven for thousands of years before he came into the world. If he has been there for nearly twenty centuries since his ascension it is logical to assume that he had been there for at least a similar period before his first nuzul, his first descension into the world. Fortunately, however, we do not have to rely on logical presumptions or speculation for Jesus himself, on a number of occasions, made it plain that he had, in fact, been in the presence of God even before the world was made. When his disciples one day exclaimed to him that even the demons were subject to them in his name, he replied: "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. Behold I have given you authority to tread upon serpent and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing shall hurt you. Nevertheless, do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you; but rejoice that your names are written in heaven." Luke 10:18-20. The statement that concerns us is the first one: "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven". According to the Bible the fall of Satan took place when he attempted to usurp the throne of God in heaven and make himself like the Most High (Isaiah 14:14). We do not know exactly when this happened but it must have been either before or at the time of creation for he was cast down to become the devil and thus tempted our first parents, Adam and Eve. The Qur’an places the fall of the great Shaytan, whom it names Iblis, at the beginning of creation, saying that he refused to bow to Adam at God’s command (Surah 34), complaining that Adam had only been made of dust whereas he had been made of fire (Surah 7.12). As a result God cast him down and expelled him in disgrace (Surah 7.18). Both the Bible and the Qur’an therefore agree that the fall of Satan took place as far back at least as the very beginning of creation, yet Jesus declared "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven". It was his way of saying "I was there in heaven, I saw it happen." This could only have been possible if he had in fact been alive in heaven before the creation of the world. Furthermore, in his last great prayer on earth he said: "And now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made." John 17:5 In these words we have a very clear statement by Jesus himself that he had, in fact, shared the glory of the eternal Father in his own presence in heaven before the world was ever made. We thus have clear testimonies by Jesus himself that he was alive in heaven at the very beginning of the world - is it surprising, therefore, that he will return from heaven at the end of the world? We are now beginning to get a clearer picture of the meaning of the nuzul-i-Isa, the descension of Jesus to earth from heaven at the climax of history. He stands uniquely above all the prophets of God and men on earth as one who was alive in heaven at the beginning of time and as the only person today who has ascended to heaven where he has been for almost two thousand years. We will obtain further insight into his real identity and the purpose of his return to earth if we spend a little time considering how he will be recognised when he comes. 4. HOW JESUS WILL BE IDENTIFIED ON HIS RETURN. If we were to turn on a television set one night to find satellite coverage from Damascus showing a large crowd gathered excitedly around a man claiming to be Jesus returned to earth, how would we know whether it was really him or not? If, upon being interviewed, he said "I am Isa. I returned from heaven yesterday. No one saw me, but here I am", how could you be sure it was him? Islam has not been unaware of the possible difficulties in identifying Jesus when he returns if he is to come purely as an ordinary man of flesh and blood. A superstition has arisen that a bone will be missing in one of his fingers. This is a typical myth, but it does show the consciousness of a required means to positively identify Jesus. Even in the Hadith there is a saying attributed to Muhammad which tells how to identify him. Muhammad is recorded as saying: There is no prophet between me and him, that is Jesus (peace be upon him). He will descend (to earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man medium height, reddish hair, wearing two light low garments, looking as if drops were falling from his head though it will not be wet. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol.3, p.1203). The need to identify him positively has also led to speculation as to where he will descend on earth. Some say he will land on the Ka’aba in Mecca, others that he will land on the eastern minaret of the great Umayya mosque in Damascus which is accordingly known as the Isaya Minarah. Maulana Syed M.B. Alam, on the cover his book Nusul-e-Esa: Descension of Jesus Christ, has a drawing of the Dome of the Rock with ladders alongside it. We take the picture to mean that Jesus will return by landing on top of the Dome of the Rock and that others will help him to the ground on a ladder. It seems absurd to consider that, after crossing the vast expanse of the universe on his way from heaven to earth, he will need a ladder to help him down the last thirty feet of his descent! It is perhaps in this seeming absurdity that we see the weakness of all Muslim theories about his descent all of which are based on the assumption that he will return as nothing more than an ordinary man of flesh and blood to rule the earth. On the other hand, a Muslim friend once said to me, "I believe Jesus will return from heaven shining like a light". I said, "What makes you say that? This is Christian belief." He replied, "Look where he is coming from. You cannot come from heaven looking like this" he said, pointing to himself. It takes an enlightened mind to draw what should be such an obvious conclusion. He hit the nail on the head. The issue is not whether Jesus will return to Damascus, Jerusalem or Mecca, the issue is where he is coming from. He is coming from heaven. When he came the first time he assumed flesh and blood on earth and became a man but, having ascended to heaven, it is grossly unlikely that he will return as a man of nothing more than flesh and blood. His human nature must have undergone a transformation to enter the realm of the kingdom of heaven - is it not far more likely that he will return in heavenly splendour? Jesus himself described how he will return to earth at the end of time. He told his disciples: "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken; then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory; and he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." Matthew 24:29-31. In these words we have a far clearer picture of how Jesus will return. The sun will be darkened, the moon will lose its light, the stars of the sky will fall, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken, and then, in their place, a new brightness will appear. The whole earth will see Jesus appear in a cloud with heavenly power and glory as he calls out all those who are his own. The contrast between the present order and the new order he will bring in is finely described in this passage. The glory, brightness and power of the present order will recede before the revelation of his majesty and power when he returns from heaven. On a dark night a car with bright headlights can almost blind another driver’s vision but, if that same car should drive down the road in the middle of a sunny day, the same driver will hardly be troubled if its bright lights are on. A candle in a dark room is very conspicuous, but on a sunny day it may not even be noticed. The greater light makes the lesser fade and, as it were, be darkened. The sun is the one supreme source of light in the sky - before it all other lights fade into insignificance. No one can look directly into it without his eyes being blinded. The point Jesus was making was this: when he appears in heaven even the sun will cast a shadow and be darkened. Before his glory not only the sun but all the stars will fade and recede. All the energies and powers in the universe will be shaken. His light will be so splendid that even the sun’s light will not compare with it. When the Apostle Paul had his great vision of the glory of Jesus on the way to Damascus he said that he saw "a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining round me and those who journeyed with me" (Acts 26:13). The Apostle John likewise had a vision of Jesus in heaven after his ascension and testified that "his face was like the sun shining in full strength" (Revelation 1:16). In Jesus’ own words, therefore, we get a very clear picture of how he will be recognised when he returns to earth. No one will fail to recognise him. He will not descend on to a mountain or minaret in a body of ordinary flesh and blood. He will be revealed from heaven in all his glory and power and his splendour will be the one dominating spectacle in that moment over all the earth, just as the sun to a lesser extent is the sole, supreme light of our present skies. All the nations of earth will see Jesus as he returns from heaven in the glory of his Father, and all those who have not followed him will be in great torment when he appears. Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, every one who pierced him; and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so, Amen. Revelation 1:7 5. THE PRESENT STATUS OF JESUS IN HEAVEN. It is not every day that men are raptured to heaven. Jesus was only taken up to heaven because he had come from there in the first place. We have also seen that he will return, not as an ordinary man of flesh and blood, but as a glorious, heavenly man shining with glory and power. We must therefore ask, what is his present status in heaven? According to the Bible the angels of heaven number "myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands" (Revelation 5:11) and the glory of any one of these angels is such that, if he was to appear to any man in all his splendour, he would blind the man’s eyes (Genesis 19:11). Their power is also beyond human comprehension. Just one angel has the power to destroy a whole city (2 Samuel 24:16) or a whole human army of up to two hundred thousand soldiers (2 Kings 19:35). Yet even the angels bow before the throne of God in awe and great reverence. The glory of all God’s holy angels does not even begin to compare with his surpassing splendour. The great prophet Daniel one day had a vision of God’s glory and the angels of God before his throne and described what he saw in these words: "As I looked, "thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze. A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him. Thousands upon thousands attended him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. The court was seated, and the books were opened." Daniel 7:9-10. When Isaiah the prophet had a similar vision of the glory of God and his angels before his throne he trembled in fear and bemoaned his human weakness and uncleanness before the sight (Isaiah 6:1-5). Daniel likewise must have felt right out of place as he beheld his glory and considered himself unworthy to be there. Yet, as he gazed at the courts of heaven he saw an amazing thing happen: "Behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one which shall not be destroyed." Daniel 7:13-14. He went on to say, "my spirit within me was anxious and the visions of my head alarmed me" (Daniel 7:15). Well might he have been perplexed and bewildered. "One like a son of man" means one just like himself, a man ordinary flesh and blood. He seemed to be so out of place, and yet, instead of trying to hide from the glory of heaven, he was brought on a cloud and set before the throne of God, and to him was given all the authority of heaven and earth that all the nations of earth and the angels of heaven should bow down before him. Daniel saw a vision of Jesus Christ in heaven. He lived before the first coming of Jesus into the world when he came as an ordinary man of flesh and blood and in that form Daniel saw him. Yet, as he beheld him, he realised that, notwithstanding his human nature, he was to become the eventual ruler of the whole universe. When Jesus was on earth his disciples saw him as an ordinary man like themselves. He was so obviously human that to this day hundreds of millions of men cannot believe that he was anything more than a man. One day, however, he took three of his disciples up a mountain and suddenly he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his garment became white as light. Matthew 17:2 For a brief moment his disciples saw something of his real glory which, during the rest of his earthly life, was veiled within his body of flesh and blood. When he ascended to heaven he returned to the realm where he had always enjoyed that splendour and glory. Is it logical to believe that he is there today as just an ordinary man, the only one to ascend to heaven, feeling somewhat lost and out of place among millions of angels clothed in heavenly glory before the splendour of God’s throne? In Daniel’s vision we saw this man brought before the throne itself and the authority of all the universe bestowed on him. What Daniel saw was a vision of the ascent of Jesus to heaven after his first coming when he returned in an ordinary human body. Some time after the ascent of Jesus to heaven his disciple John had a similar vision of Jesus in heaven, only this time it was different. Daniel saw Jesus as he was to be on his return to heaven after his first coming to earth in flesh and blood - John saw him as he will be at his second coming when he will return in all his heavenly glory. He described his vision thus: "I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden girdle around his breast; his head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters; in his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth issued a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength." Revelation 1:12-16. Like Daniel John also saw "one like a son of man", one just like himself, but whereas Daniel saw him presented to him who sits upon the throne of heaven, John saw him as the one seated upon the throne! Daniel saw the Son of man presented to the "Ancient of Days", God himself, whose "raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool" (Daniel 7:9), but John saw the Son of man himself upon the throne of God and he was "clothed with a long robe and with a golden girdle around his breast" (Revelation 1:13) and "his head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow" (Revelation 1:14). John did not see the Son of man as a lone human figure out of place among myriads of angels, he saw Daniel’s vision fulfilled and the Son of man seated on the throne of God ruling over the whole universe. Another early disciple of Jesus named Stephen had a similar vision as he was about to become the first Christian martyr. He cried out: "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God." Acts 7:56 Jesus himself went on to testify to John as he fell before his glory, saying "Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one; I died, and behold I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades" (Revelation 1:17-18), and, after giving him many instructions for his followers in the form of seven letters to the seven churches throughout Asia Minor, he concluded by saying: "He who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I myself conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne." Revelation 3:21 We have already seen that the Qur’an teaches that, at the creation of Adam, all the angels of God were commanded to bow down before him (Surah 20.116). It is hard to understand why such heavenly creatures should be required to bow to a man of flesh and blood who came from the dust for a season, only to return to it. Yet it is not hard to understand why the angels of God should bow before the Son of man who sits on the throne of God in all heavenly splendour, ruling over the whole universe, angels and nations put together. It is also no wonder that the Bible says of Jesus, "Let all God’s angels worship him" (Hebrews 1:6), he who has become "as much superior to angels" (Hebrews 1:4) because he has been crowned the King of kings and Lord of lords (Revelation 19:16). There are nearly five billion people today alive on earth and billions of others have been buried in the earth, prophets, saints and all who have lived on the earth, small and great alike. But right now one man is alive in heaven where he ascended and from whence he will return. He has been there nearly two thousand years, whereas few other men live much beyond a hundred years. It is surely absurd to believe that he is, to this day, nothing more than an ordinary human being. No, he sits on the throne of heaven in all his glory "with angels, authorities and powers subject to him" (1 Peter 3:22) and he will return in that same splendour to take control of all the earth until all things are subjected to his universal authority. "For God has put all things under his feet" (1 Corinthians 15:27). We must conclude by recognising that Jesus is alive in heaven today because he came from heaven the first time, that he is not just an ordinary man but the Ruler of all the universe who will return at the end of time in all his splendour. This makes it essential that we enquire why he ever came into the world the first time and why he ever assumed human flesh. He lived in heaven for centuries before coming to earth for thirty-three years and has been alive in heaven for centuries ever since. The real question is not why Jesus ascended to heaven, the real question is why he ever came into the world in the first place. 6. THE PURPOSE OF HIS FIRST COMING TO EARTH. There must have been a very special purpose for the coming of Jesus into the world if he came from heaven and returned there when his earthly course was over. He could not have been just a prophet for God had called many ordinary men out to be prophets and they had died at the end of their ministries and returned to the dust whence they had come. If Jesus came from heaven and returned there he must have come for a greater purpose. There are, in the context of all that we have that far considered, two basic reasons for the coming of Jesus into the world. The first is that he came to bridge the gap between heaven and earth, between the God of holiness and sinful men. There is a very common phrase in the Qur’an - "To Allah is all that is in the heavens and in the earth" (Surah 2.284). Constantly the Qur’an distinguishes between the samaawaat, the "heavens", and the ardth, the "earth", and in the Bible too we find, in the very first verse of the book, the same distinction: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). No matter how long men live on earth none ultimately ascend to heaven. Of no man can it be said "he lived happily ever after". On the contrary, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that disaster comes to one and all. We all return to the dust when we die and come to nothing. As Jesus said, "No one has ascended into heaven" (John 3:13). There is an unbridgeable gap between heaven and earth, between God and men, and no man from the earth is able to bridge it. "God is in heaven and you upon earth; therefore let your words be few" (Ecclesiastes 5:2), is an exhortation that likewise bears out the distinction between the realms of God and men. The reason for this chasm between heaven and earth is plainly set out in this passage: Behold, the Lord’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save, or his ear dull, that it cannot hear; but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you so that he does not hear. Isaiah 59:1-2. There is a great gulf between sinful men on earth and the holy God of heaven who dwells in unapproachable light with his holy angels. Sin has destroyed the capacity in man to rise by nature above the realm of the world in which he was made. He is, by nature, nothing more than mortal flesh and blood and "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable" (1 Corinthians 15:50). Jesus Christ, who from all eternity was in the presence of his holy Father and his angels in the kingdom of heaven, descended to the earth and was born in human form to bridge the gap between heaven and earth. He did this by bringing something of heaven into the world - he brought his very own self. He became a human being in every way and lived on earth as a normal man, but the spirit within him was a divine spirit which had come down from heaven. He not only closed the gap between heaven and earth but bridged the gap the other way as well. When he came into the earth he came, as the Qur’an rightly puts it, as a ruhun minhu - a spirit from him (i.e. God). But when he returned to heaven he returned as an insaan, a human being. His divine spirit returned to its heavenly abode but he took something of earth to heaven with him - he took the human nature he had assumed when he first came into the world. He came then purely as a spirit, but he returned as a man, as a human being. He thus fully bridged the gap between heaven and earth. His living presence in the kingdom of heaven as a human being is our pledge and assurance that we too, though mortal men of flesh and blood, can one day be in heaven with him in eternal glory and bliss. The second, and the greatest reason for the first coming of Jesus into the world, was to become like us in every respect so that he might save us from our sins. Because we are only flesh and blood, "he himself likewise partook of the same nature" (Hebrews 2:14) so that he might deliver us from the power of Satan and redeem us to God. From his heavenly throne he saw all men under the power of the evil one, enslaved to sin, and unable to overcome death. He saw the need of a mediator between men and God so that they might be saved from their sins and, to compensate for our guilt and sinfulness, he became a human being just like us so that, through the cross, he might endure the consequences of our sins in our place and make it possible for us to rise from earth to heaven and become partakers of the divine nature by receiving the Spirit of God (2 Peter 1:4), just as he had, in turn, descended from heaven to earth to become partaker of our human nature by assuming a body of flesh and blood. Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people. Hebrews 2:17 The crucifixion of Jesus Christ, so complacently overlooked in Islam as an unsuccessful plot of the Jews, alone explains why Jesus came from heaven the first time and why he will return again. He came not to be a mere prophet, he came as God’s chosen Deliverer and Redeemer to save millions of men and women by dying for them on the cross of Calvary, where he endured what was due to all of them for their sins, so that they might receive the hope of eternal life by following him as their Lord and Saviour. He did not come like the Superman of the American comics, a man who can fly through the skies at his own discretion and from whose body bullets simply bounce off. He came like us in every respect and at no time did he use his divine powers to give himself any advantage over us. He came as a normal human being and he suffered, died and was buried so that he might bridge the gap between heaven and earth completely not only between God and men but to the very extreme of sinful man’s separation from the Lord of heaven - between God and sinful men who lie hopelessly dead and buried in the dust of the earth. Islam teaches that Jesus will return to earth because he did not finish his ministry as it likewise teaches that Jesus was raised to heaven without being crucified. It is no wonder that it teaches that Jesus did not accomplish his mission. It makes the life of Jesus on earth end just six hours before Christianity does, yet in those six hours that Jesus spent on the cross the whole purpose of his coming to earth was indeed fulfilled. In his last great prayer the night before he died he said: "I glorified thee on earth, having accomplished the work which thou gavest me to do." John 17:4 In triumph he could boldly claim that he had indeed accomplished the work he had been given to do. As he began to breath his last on the cross, knowing that he had fully satisfied God’s wrath against sin and that he had just accomplished the greatest work ever to be done by a man on earth, he cried out in triumph, "It is finished" (John 19:30). The original Greek text has only one word to describe this exclamation and it can, perhaps, more accurately be translated simply thus: "Accomplished!". He had descended from heaven to earth, had become an ordinary man and was now at the point of death and about be placed in a tomb. But this was no moment of defeat for him. It was all victory, the fulfilment and accomplishment of all that he had been sent to achieve to bring men back to God. It is against this background alone that we can conclude our study and discover why Jesus will return at the end of time and what he is destined to do for those who love him as their supreme Lord and Master. 7. WHEN THE LORD JESUS IS REVEALED FROM HEAVEN. Jesus rose from the dead and ascended to heaven whence he is to return. We have already seen that he came into the world to make himself like us in every way so that he might save us from our sins. What, then, is the supreme purpose of his second coming? It is just this - that he might make those who believe in him just like himself. The first time he was manifested in human flesh, the second time he will be revealed in all his heavenly glory and the whole earth will see him as he really is. Then those who have followed him will likewise be transformed into his image to be made just like himself. One of his disciples could confidently write to his Christian brethren: "Beloved, we are God’s children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. 1 John 3:2 He will return shining with all the brightness of his heavenly glory, and then those who are his will be transformed into the same image and share his glory. After declaring that all sinners and evildoers will be cast into the fire on the Day of Judgment Jesus said "Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father" (Matthew 13:43). Those who have died in ordinary human bodies, who nevertheless followed him as their Lord and Saviour will, on that glorious Day, be raised from the dead and taken up to be with him in heavenly glory for all eternity. Their present bodies are perishable, but they will be raised imperishable. They are mortal now, but then they will be raised immortal. They share now the ordinary human body of flesh that Adam, their first father, shared, but on that Day they will inherit the same resplendent, heavenly body of spirit and life that Jesus Christ, their eternal Saviour and Lord, already shares. As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. 1 Corinthians 15:48-49. The great Christian hope is to be raised from the dead to eternal life on that Day just as Jesus himself was raised from the dead. This was the supreme purpose of his coming into the world, not just to teach, preach and heal as if he were an ordinary prophet, but to give effect to the ultimate hope of all mankind - the resurrection of the dead at the end of time. No earthly prophet could bring such a thing about - only the Lord of Glory from heaven could do so. When Jesus heard one day that his friend Lazarus was ill in Bethany, instead of going down to heal him, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was (about a hundred kilometres away) and deliberately let him die (John 11:6). As soon as he suggested to his disciples that they should go down to Judea again, where Lazarus had been buried, they were appalled at the suggestion, exclaiming "Rabbi, the Jews were but now seeking to stone you, and are you going there again?" (John 11:8). Their immediate fear was that he was going there only to die. But when Jesus insisted, Thomas said to his fellow disciples, "Let us also go, that we may die with him" (John 11:16). The spectre of death hung over the whole scene. Even when Jesus got to Bethany and found that Lazarus had been dead four days already, the two sisters of the dead man both said to him "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died" (John 11:21; John 11:32), and some of the Jews, weeping in consolation with them, said, "Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?" (John 11:37). The pall of death hung like a cloud over the scene. The attitude of all of them was the same - if only Jesus had been there, in the right place at the right time, he could have healed Lazarus while he was still alive. But now that he was dead, what could Jesus do? The seemingly irreversible shadow of death hung over the whole place and Jesus appeared to have arrived too late to do anything. The recent Superman film which did the rounds showed an incident where a huge truck was leaning over a bridge. Superman was called for and he flew through the sky in his fancy costume to lift it up with his great power. Before he arrived, however, the truck toppled into the river below. When Superman finally got there he was told "It is too late now" and, despite his powers, there was nothing he could do. Jesus wore no fancy costume. He did not come with power to fly through the skies, nor did he have superhuman powers to lift heavy objects. He was made just like us, but he had come for one supreme purpose and, as he arrived at the tomb of Lazarus, he did not stand by impotently as Superman was obliged to do. He challenge Martha, one of the dead man’s sisters, saying, "Your brother will rise again" (John 11:23). When she replied that she knew her brother would be raised on the Last Day, that he would be raised by a God who was far off on a day that seemed extremely remote, Jesus made a declaration that sounded forth with all the authority of heaven and breathed newness of life into an apparently hopeless situation. He said to her: "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?" John 11:25-26. In the midst of the deathly atmosphere that prevailed over the scene came a glorious exclamation from one who in their very presence was not just a healing prophet but the very source of the resurrection and eternal life that will be given to all that believe in him and follow him. As a sign of the supreme purpose for which he had come to earth, he thereupon raised Lazarus from the dead and gave him back to his sisters. In that environment of death and despair - the destiny of all men sooner or later - Jesus Christ, there and then the Resurrection and the Life himself, demonstrated the real purpose of his first coming. Shortly after this great miracle he himself rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. Those who believe in him are now reaching out to one who has already conquered death, and who is even now alive in heaven for evermore. He alone is the world’s hope of the resurrection and eternal life in the age to come. The Qur’an often speaks of God as he who "bringeth the dead to life" (Surah 2.73). There are more than twenty passages which speak of God’s power to raise the dead to life, to give haya to the mayyitun (e.g. Surah 10.31). Yet in one verse we read that Jesus said: "I give life to the dead by God’s permission" (Surah 3.49) and in another verse God himself speaks of Jesus’ power to raise the dead by his leave (Surah 5.113). Apart from these verses which attribute to Jesus the power to give life to the dead there is no other passage attributing to any other prophet or man the same power. In the Qur’an itself, therefore, we find that God’s power to raise the dead has been given to Jesus alone. Here is a clear confirmation of the fact that Jesus did not come into the world purely as a prophet to preach and teach. Jesus came the first time to conquer sin and rise from the dead in triumph, thus securing for his followers the assured hope of the resurrection at the Last Day. Jesus will return on that Day to raise all his own from the dead, to give them the fulness of eternal life and to make them just like himself in the Kingdom of Heaven. This is the supreme meaning and purpose of the nuzul-i-Isa, the second coming of Jesus. Instead of limiting him to the status of ordinary prophethood along with other mortal men, will you not put your faith in him as the appointed Lord of heaven and earth and be raised to eternal life on that Day "when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven" (2 Thessalonians 1:7) to be glorified in all his saints? Or will you rather "shrink from him in shame at his coming" (John 2:28)? Will you not commit your life to the only man who has conquered death, who alone dwells in heavenly glory above billions of men on earth, both dead and living, and who alone will return to earth shining in all his heavenly majesty to award the crown of life to all who love him and remain faithful to him even unto death itself? Will you not bow to him as your Lord and Saviour and be saved by his grace? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 3: 01.02. MILLAT-A-IBRAHIM: THE TRUE FAITH OF ABRAHAM ======================================================================== Millat-A-Ibrahim: The True Faith of Abraham There are many similarities between the three great monotheistic religions in the world, namely Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Not only do they all confess the existence of one Supreme Being only, hut they place the revelation of his will and the development of prophetic history against the same background. All three teach that God created the world in six days, that the first man created was Adam and that Eve (Hawwa) was his wife, that men have sinned against God and need his forgiveness, that God has sent a series of prophets into the world (such as Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, etc.), and that there will be a Day of Judgement for the vindication of the righteous and the destruction of the ungodly. Yet the same three religions have marked differences, so radical and so crucial that there is ultimately no prospect of reconciliation between them. Each looks to a respective founder - Judaism to Moses, Christianity to Jesus, and Islam to Muhammad - and the former faiths are not prepared to acknowledge the founders of the religions that succeeded them. The result has been much dispute and debate about the two great authors of the world’s two universal monotheistic faiths, Christianity and Islam. Am objective approach to all three religions must lead to the conclusion that the true religion is somewhere among these three, but which one is it? An open mind, aided by the guidance of God, can no doubt discover the one true religion, but as there is so much debate and dispute between the three major faiths, especially over the personalities of Jesus and Muhammad, perhaps it is better to look towards one of the great prophets who preceded all three religions and about whom all three are generally in agreement, namely the patriarch Abraham. Although ho was not the founder of any of those three, yet he is openly regarded by all of them as a true prophet and an example of a man of true faith, a prototype of the fuller revelation of God’s truth yet to come through his antitype. It is indeed fascinating to discover that all three monotheistic faiths, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, acknowledge that Abraham was a central, and yet unique figure in the matter of God’s revelation of his truth to the human race. In fact there are three major points relating to Abraham where the major monotheistic religions all agree and, in the circumstances, it can be presumed that these points of agreement are based on a foundation of truth common to each one. The religion and faith of Abraham therefore, called in the Qur’an millata-Ibrahim (Surah 2.130), is commonly acknowledged to be the true one. All three religions can openly testify that these words express a conviction cherished and recognised by each one in turn: Say: Follow the religion of Abraham the upright, for he was not one of the Pagans. Surah 3.95 It is thus agreed that "the religion of Abraham" (millat-a-Ibrahim) was indeed the true one and that he foreshadowed a greater revelation of it yet to come. But which one was it? We all agree in principle that he was a man of true faith, but which faith did he represent, Judaism, Christianity or Islam? Let us proceed to analyse the three points of agreement referred to and press on from there to study the implications of each, for if we can truly discover what Abraham’s faith really was, we can settle the whole issue between us and duly discover God’s true final revelation to mankind. By establishing a foundation of truth based on those facets of Abraham’s life and faith upon which we agree, we can build until we come to a realisation of what the true religion of Abraham really was and on what grounds he was found pleasing and acceptable to God. 1. ABRAHAM - THE FRIEND OF GOD. Our first point of agreement relates to a title given to Abraham which is found in all three of the sacred scriptures of each respective religion, namely the close Friend of God. In the Jewish Scriptures, the Tawraat (which Christians commonly call the Old Testament), he is twice so described. On one occasion the upright king of Judea, Jehoshaphat, prayed to God in these words: "Didst thou not, 0 our God, drive out the inhabitants of this land before thy people Israel, and give it for ever to the descendants of Abraham thy friend?" 2 Chronicles 20:7 In another very similar passage we find that God himself spoke from heaven and openly acknowledged that Abraham was his friend: "You, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, my friend". Isaiah 41:8 The Jews, therefore, have always believed that Abraham was not just a servant of God but also his friend, meaning that a very intimate relationship existed between them and that God was willing to communicate with him on a far more familiar level than that of master to servant. In the Christian Scriptures, the Injil (which Christians commonly call the Now Testament), we find that Abraham is again described and recognised as the friend of God. The verse roads: The scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he was called the friend of God. James 2:23 Significantly Islam also recognises that Abraham was, in a special way, the friend of God. Whereas Muhammad is called in Islam the "messenger of God" (rasulullah), and David is called the "vicegerent of God" (khalifatullah), with Moses being designated the "word of God" (kalimatullah) and Jesus the "spirit of God" (ruhullah), so in turn the specific title given to Abraham in Islam is the "friend of God" (kalilullah). The title duly appears in the following verse of the Muslim Scriptures, the Qur’an: For God did take Abraham for a friend. Surah 4.125 Just as Judaism and Christianity therefore acknowledge him to he the friend of God, so the Qur’an states explicitly that the great prophet Ibrahim was duly taken by Allah to be his very own friend, his khalil. What is the implication of this title? Clearly it has a very special significance. It obviously implies that Abraham was not just a willing servant of God to whom God gave commands which the prophet summarily obeyed, nor was he purely a prophet to whom God dictated re-velations through the medium of an angel. He had a very close relationship with God, so close and so intimate that God was willing to confide in him, share his secrets with him, and even trust himself to him. A common bond of loyalty and mutual trust clearly existed between them, for this is the true meaning of friendship. A beautiful example of the distinction between a servant and a friend was given by Jesus Christ when he said: "No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you". John 15:15 In the same way we must presume that if God was willing to take Abraham as his friend, this means that he was willing to confide in him and let him know many of his deepest counsels and purposes that he would not otherwise reveal to someone who was only his servant. We must conclude, therefore, that in a unique way God revealed to Abraham his plans and decrees for the future, confiding in him as a loyal and trusted friend who would believe in his revelations and faithfully and loyally preserve them for the generations to come. Our study of the first point of agreement between Judaism, Christianity and Islam relating to the prophetic office of the great patriarch Abraham, therefore, has laid a sure foundation on which to build and from which we can explore the nature of his relationship to God. Before doing so, however, let us proceed to analyse the other two points of agreement so that the foundation may first be completed. 2. THE FATHER OF ALL TRUE BELIEVERS. The second great point of agreement between the three great monotheistic religions is that Abraham is respected as the head of all the faithful and the father of all true believers. In the Jewish Scriptures it is recorded that God said to Abraham: "I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing". Genesis 12:2 On two other occasions God renewed this promise, adding that he would be the father of a great multitude whom no man could number: "I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth; so that if one can count the dust of the earth, your descendants also can be counted". Genesis 13:16 "I have made you the father of a multitude of nations". Genesis 17:5 God later confirmed that his covenant would be made, not through his son Ishmael who was born of a slave woman, Hagar, but through Isaac who was born of his wife Sarah (Genesis 17:19). As a result the Jews, who were all descended from Abraham through Isaac, looked on him as the father of their nation and regarded themselves as his true offspring and the nation that had been promised to him. Furthermore, because they also considered themselves the only nation on earth who were the true people of God, they accordingly saw him also as the father of all true believers. Christians likewise regard Abraham as the father of all true believers, but we do not believe that the promises made to him referred ultimately to his physical offspring, the Jews, but rather to his spiritual offspring, that is, all those who have the same kind of faith that Abraham had. Indeed, in our view, the very choice of Isaac as the son through whom the covenant God had made with Abraham was to be fulfilled, shows that God was not thinking of his physical offspring. If he had, he would have chosen Ishmael, the first son born to Abraham, but he chose Isaac to show that he intended the blessings of the covenant to become effective for those who were spiritual and true in faith towards him. For it is recorded in both the Jewish Scriptures (Genesis 16:12) and the Christian Scriptures (Galatians 4:29) that Ishmael was a decidedly unspiritual man (one born of "the flesh" as opposed to Isaac who was born of "the Spirit") and God therefore overlooked him in favour of Isaac to show that the true beneficiaries of his promises would not be those who would bear Abraham’s genetic image in their flesh but rather those who would emulate his faithful character in their spirits. As it is put in the Christian Scriptures: Not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants; but "Through Isaac shall your descendants he named". This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants. Romans 9:7-8. So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham ... So then, those who are men of faith are blessed with Abraham who had faith. Galatians 3:7; Galatians 3:9. To us Abraham was accepted by God because he had faith in God and accordingly he became the father of the faithful. As the moon reflects the sun’s light, so Abraham in his faith reflected the faithfulness of God. As the sun generates light, so God generates faithfulness and trustworthiness. Abraham responded to this by trusting God and by having faith in him (as we shall see in greater detail shortly). Therefore, just as God is the true Father of all true believers, so Abraham became a reflection of his leadership and was told, "I have made you the father of many nations" (Romans 4:17). In our view, too, because this promise was made in the plural ("a multitude of nations - Genesis 17:5), it means that Abraham is not only the father of all true believers in Israel but also of all those in every nation who follow the example of his faith. It is therefore said in our Scriptures that the promise was made to all "those who share the faith of Abraham, for he is the father of us all" (Romans 4:16). Just as the Jews believe, therefore, that Abraham was really a Jew and the father of the Jewish nation, so we believe that he was really a Christian at heart because he had the same kind of faith of which all true Christians are made - not in self-righteous piety through the performance of religious works and good deeds, but in a God-given righteousness by faith in a God who is faithful (1 Corinthians 10:13). We believe he was accepted and appointed as the father of all true believers, not because he had a righteousness which he had in himself, but because he had faith in God’s own righteousness and faithfulness. He trusted not in works of law which he performed but in the grace of God towards all who respond to him in true faith. Islam also appoints Abraham as the representative of all true believers on earth. According to the Qur’an he was made an imam, a "faithful leader" for the whole human race. The Qur’an states that Allah said to him: "Lo, I have appointed you a leader for mankind". Surah 2.124 Islam follows Christianity in regarding him, not as a father of one particular nation, but as the father of all true believers. He is regarded as the head because his belief and creed is regarded as the true one. On the other hand, whereas Christianity marks him out for his faith in God’s faithfulness, Islam credits him for his belief in the oneness of God against the polytheism of his day (Surah 21. 66-67) and for his submission to the will of God (Surah 2.131). We shall go into this in greater detail as well in the next section, but at this stage it is important to note that as Judaism and Christianity regard him as a true Jew and Christian respectively, so the Qur’an, honouring his submission to God, calls him a muslim (Surah 3.67), saying of him that he was haiifaam-muslimaan - "an upright Muslim" or, more literally, one who was righteous and submissive. Once again his belief in the unity of God (tauhid) is also emphasised as both titles, hanif and muslim, are used for monotheists in the Qur’an in contrast with unbelie-vers (kafirun) and idol-worshippers (mushrikin). Abraham, as a true Muslim therefore, is regarded in Islam as the imam of all true Muslims and the Qur’an, therefore, again and again exhorts Muslims: faattabi’uu millata Ibrahim - "follow the faith of Abraham", alternatively, follow his creed or form of religion. The true faith that Abraham had, therefore, is called in the Qur’-an the millata-Ibrahim and this very faith is set before all Muslims as the kind of faith they should emulate. We have now considered two of the great points of agreement between Judaism, Christianity and Islam on the prophetic character of Abraham and shall now analyse the third. 3. AN EXAMPLE AND PROTOTYPE OF THE TRUE RELIGION TO COME. Although all three religions look to Abraham as a leader and the father of all true believers, none regards him as its founder or its most prominent figurehead but sees him solely as a prototype and example of what was yet to come. This is the third great point of agreement between Judaism, Christianity and Islam regarding Abraham’s prophetic office. In Judaism, Moses has always been regarded as the true founder of the religion of the people of Israel for it was to him that God’s law was given. All the religious books of Judaism, including its Scripture and its traditional works (such as the Mishnah) distinguish him above all the other prophets of God. Some strictly orthodox Jews once summed it up when they said "We are disciples of Moses" (John 9:28). Jesus Christ himself also spoke to the Jews of Moses as "him on whom you set your hope" (John 5:45). The place Moses has in Judaism is well summed up in this description of Jewish worship: For from early generations Moses has had in every city those who preach him, for he is read every sabbath in their synagogues. Acts 15:21 Christianity likewise looks to another man of God as its founder and central figure, namely Jesus Christ. Although Abraham is highly respected and honoured as a fine example of true faith, Jesus is the real founder of Christianity and its ultimate patron. Christians view the faith of Abraham as symbolic of their own faith in Jesus Christ, both being based on an implicit trust in the revealed faithfulness of God rather than any merit in the life and works of the believer. In our view the covenant God made with Abraham was precisely a shadow of the real covenant to come. God said to Abraham: "Surely I will bless and multiply you". Hebrews 6:14 The covenant which God later made with Moses, a covenant of law, was based on commands which placed the responsibility of compliance squarely on the shoulders of those with whom it was made, namely, "You shall be holy, you shall keep my commandments, you shall be careful to observe my statutes" and, negatively, "You shall not kill, you shall not steal, you shall not commit adultery", etc. These were the kinds of commandments God gave to the people of Israel. But to Abraham God said simply, "I will bless you". This was not the "you shall ... you shall not" of the Mosaic Law. God, when making promises to Abraham, said "I will bless you ... I will make your name great", etc., thereby holding himself responsible for the fulfilment of the covenant he made with him. Abraham’s part was to trust in God and to believe that he would do what he had promised. In this way we see Abraham’s faith in God as an example of a true Christian’s faith in Jesus Christ. We trust in the promise God made to send a Saviour, we have faith in Jesus Christ as our Redeemer, and we are saved by God’s grace through the great work of salvation he wrought through his crucifixion and resurrection. Abraham’s faith is well described in this outline of his trust in God that he would duly receive the son which God had promised to him: No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. Romans 4:20-21. Here we find what really commended Abraham to God, not his good deeds or religious works, but his faith that God would fulfil his promise. It was because he so trusted God that "his faith was reckoned to him as righteousness" (Romans 4:22). In this he was an example of true Christian faith which depends on God’s grace in sending his Son to save us from our sins just as he had promised through the prophets who came before him. So our Scriptures say that as Abraham was declared righteous by God because he trusted in him, so we too will be equally regarded if we place all our confidence and trust in Jesus as our Lord and Saviour. But the words, "it was reckoned to him", were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification. Romans 4:23-25. Abraham did not try to gain God’s favour through his own piety or self-righteousness - he put all his confidence in God’s grace and faithfulness. He is thus an example of true Christian faith for we likewise do not seek our own glory but trust in what God has done in Jesus Christ. This helps, furthermore, to give the title "the friend of God" more meaning. The marks of friendship are trust, loyalty and a close personal relationship. Abraham was not commended for any good work but was regarded for what he was. God took him as a friend. His good standing depended not on some form of individual righteousness by which he gained God’s favour, but a personal relationship based on mutual friendship. This is precisely what true Christian faith is. All true Christians are declared in the Christian Scriptures to be "children of God" (1 John 3:1), people who have a personal relationship with their Father in heaven. Through faith in Jesus we too enter into the same covenant of grace, faith and the promises of God which cha-racterised God’s relationship with Abraham. So we read in this passage of our identification with Abraham in a covenant based on faith in the promises of God: That in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Galatians 3:14 In Islam we likewise find that the central figure is not Abraham, even though he was declared to be an imam for mankind. Muhammad, proclaimed in Islam as the last and greatest of God’s prophets, is the ultimate founder and figurehead of the religion. Yet, as with Judaism and Christianity, Abraham’s own faith is set forth as a good example of true Muslim faith and in the Qur’an Muslims are bidden: Say, we follow the faith of Abraham the upright. Surah 2.135 Once again Abraham is regarded as an example of true faith and the Qur’an thus highly commends the millata-Ibrahim, the "faith of Abraham". Yet, as pointed out already, there is a clear distinction between Christian and Muslim views of what Abraham’s faith really was. Islam determines it principally as submission to the oneness of God. The Qur’an thus summarises his faith as follows: Behold! His Lord said to him, "Submit". He said, "I have submitted to the Lord of the Worlds". Surah 2.131 The very word fs/am means submission and a Muslim is one who submits to God. Both words come from the same root letters. In Surah 2.130 we again read that the true faith of a Muslim is the mil1ata-Ibrahim, the "faith of Abraham", and in the verse quoted it is defined in the command of God, Aslim! ("Submit") and the reply of Abraham, Aslamtu ("I have submitted"). The two words are also from the same root letters as the first two and in the next verse (Surah 2.132) we read that Abraham exhorted his sons to die purely as muslimuun - "those who have submitted". In another passage Muhammad himself is bidden to proclaim that the religion he has been commanded to follow and preach is nothing less than that which Abraham himself followed. He was bidden to say to all who questioned the source of his religion: Say: "Verily, my Lord has guided me into a straight path, an upright religion, the faith of Abraham the upright who was not one of the idolaters". Surah 2.161 Here the Siratal-Mustaqim the "Straight Path" defined in the Suratul-Fatihah as the religion of all true Muslims, is regarded as synonymous with the millata-Ibrahim, the "faith of Abraham". There are differences between Judaism and Christianity as well as Islam regarding the nature of Abraham’s faith. Both Christianity and Islam agree that he believed in the one God and that he submitted to his will, yet Christianity explores a characteristic of his faith that obtains no mention in the Qur’an, namely his implicit trust in God’s faithfulness. As we proceed we shall see what the implications of this distinction are, but at this stage it will he useful to summarise as the foundation we sought to lay through our analysis of the common ground between our respective faiths is now complete. All three agree that Abraham was the friend of God, that he is the head of all true believers, and that he was an example and prototype of the true religion which was to be revealed later in all its fullness through another figurehead yet to rise upon the earth. Let us press on to discover what that religion, that which the Qur’an calls the mil1ata-Ibrahim, really was. 4. THE PROMISE OF A SON TO ABRAHAM. We begin with the promise God made to Abraham that he would give him a son, a promise recorded in both the Bible (Genesis 15:4) and the Qur’an (Surah 37.101). When he was seventy-five years old God said to him: "Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves". Genesis 12:1-3. This glorious promise was repeated on a number of occasions to Abraham. On one of them God said to him that he would make his descendants like the dust of the earth so that, if the dust of the earth could be counted, his descendants also could be numbered (Genesis 13:16). On another occasion he made him look at the stars and said "Look toward heaven and number the stars, if you are able to number them" (Genesis 15:5), adding that in the same way his descendants would be an innumerable multitude. At the same time he promised him that, although he was childless, his descendants would not come from a slave in his house but that his own son would be his heir (Genesis 15:4). Abraham knew that it was physically impossible for his wife Sarah to have a son as she was barren and "it had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women" (Genesis 8:11), she being no less than sixty-five years old. Abraham knew, therefore, that if he was to have a son God would have to act in a supernatural way to bring it about. Without doubting in any way, however, he believed that it would happen. His response of faith and God’s appreciation of his trust are described as follows: And he believed the Lord, and he reckoned it to him as righteousness. Genesis 15:6 There are many people who believe that God can act in a supernatural way and such a conviction is no doubt essential to true faith in him. Abraham, however, believed in the promise for another reason. He responded in positive faith, not because he was persuaded of the power of God to accomplish anything he purposed, but because he trusted to the holy character of God who, he believed, would always be faithful to his own word. It was for this reason that God counted his faith to him as righteousness. To return to the illustration of the sun and the moon, the sun generates light and the best the moon can do is to reflect it as far as its nature allows. So God generates faithfulness and the best a man can do is to have faith in God and so reflect his faithfulness. When Abraham did precisely this, God, who also generates righteousness, counted Abraham s faith to him as a reflection of his righteousness as well On this count he constituted and declared him righteous in his sight not by virtue of his own good works but by virtue of his trust in God’s goodness and faithfulness This then is the first thing we learn about the faith of Abraham the millata-Ibrahim as the Qur’an calls it It was a faith in God’s faithfulness. He based his whole trust on this precept which was firmly fixed in his mind: Every word of God proves true. Proverbs 30:5 This brings us to the second thing we learn about his faith, and that is that his belief that God would exercise his power in a supernatural way to fulfil his promise arose, not out of a conviction that God could act in such a way because he was all-powerful, but that he would so act to fulfil his promise. The faithfulness of God to his own word demanded, in Abraham’s mind, the conclusion that, although such things had never happened before, they would now, because God would surely fulfil his promise. He believed in God, therefore, as he who "gives life to the dead and calls into existence things that do not exist" (Romans 4:17). The only way a son could be born to him was if God intervened in the natural order and brought about a conception that could not naturally result, and so give life to the womb of a woman that was as good as dead, having ceased to function years earlier. In hope Abraham "believed against hope" (Romans 4:18) because he knew that God would surely fulfil his promise. He knew that God would never break his word and it was this conviction that gave him the grace to believe that he would duly bear a son. The third thing we learn about the real millata-Ibrahim, the true "faith of Abraham", is that he was not a man of blind faith, of uncomprehending resignation to the will of God. He was not the kind of man who did not reason about difficult matters and just trusted to what he had been brought up to believe without any kind of reflection or consideration, like so many people today. Fatalistic resignation was not Abraham’s idea of surrendering to the will of God. As we analyse his faith we are bound to see it was far mare profound than this. We cannot accept that God simply said to him Aslim! - "Submit!" - in the way a dog-trainer will command a dog "Heel!" If the dog does so respond, we will not say he has faith in his master, rather that he has been programmed into responding appropriately to the command. The only state of mind in the dog will be a fear of the consequences if he fails to obey. This certainly was not the attitude of Abraham. He did not say aslamtu - "I have submitted" - and come immediately to heel . No -this man Abraham is set forth in both the Bible and the Qur’an as the great human figurehead of faith whose example should be followed by all men (Galatians 3:9). There must have been more to Abraham’s faith than blind, uncomprehending submission. Because he always trusted in the faithfulness of God, he gave God’s promise to him that he would have a son serious consideration and reflection. Be considered that it came from a God who is faithful, reasoned that God would fulfil his word, came to a conclusion that it must therefore come to pass, and thus believed it. He reasoned carefully about the promise. He questioned whether it could be fulfilled. He could not naturally have a son but he knew that God was faithful and if God had promised to give him a son, then because of the faithfulness of God to his own word, the promise must surely come true. Because of this exercise of faith, because he rea-soned carefully about the matter and did not just accept the promise fatalistically, he came to understand how the son would be conceived and in so doing gained a greater understanding of the mind and will of God. A further proof that God was, in fact, both testing and proving Abraham’s faith in this manner is found in what followed. Instead of immediately giving him the son he had promised, God waited twenty-five years before he fulfilled his promise, by which time Abraham was a hundred years old and his wife ninety. In the meantime Abraham had begotten a son through his slave-woman Hagar and, believing God’s promise to be fulfilled, he called him Ishmael, meaning "God hears". But no word came from God when Ishmael was born. For thirteen years no communication of any kind came from heaven to confirm that Ishmael was the child of the promise. Instead, at the end of this period, God finally called Abraham again and said to him of his wife Sarah: "I will bless her, and moreover I will give you a son by her; I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall come from her". Genesis 17:10 At first he was astonished and even laughed to himself when he thought of the respective ages of Sarah and himself. But, being a man of the kind of faith he had, that which alone is true faith, namely a conviction that God will, in his faithfulness, make every word he says come true he immediately realised that this word of God would surely be fulfilled and that Sarah 5 son to come was the real son God had promised. He cried out to God, "O that Ishmael might live in thy sight (Genesis 17:18). God replied emphatically "No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him (Genesis 17:19). The great promises of God were thus not to be fulfilled through the son of Abraham’s slave-woman Hagar, whom Abraham named Ishmael, but through the son of Abraham’s free woman and wife, Sarah, whom God named Isaac. Even the Qur’an confirms that the only son promised to Abraham by God was Isaac. In some passages (e.g. Surah 37.101) the son promised is not named, but in others he is specifically named as Isaac, the son of his wife Sarah. Wa bashsharnaahu bi Ishaaq - "And we announced to him Isaac" (Surah 37.112, so also Surah 11.71). Nowhere in the Qur’an is it specifically stated that Ishmael was ever promised to Abraham by name as Isaac was. This was a severe test of faith for Abraham but here, as anywhere else, we see his faith proved in all its fullness. He knew God was faithful and so he trusted yet again to his faithfulness. He knew that "every word of God proves true" (Proverbs 30:5) and therefore he was quickly assured that Isaac would be born as the promised son. He reasoned carefully yet again and this exercise of his faith is set out very strongly in this passage: He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead because he was about a hundred years old, or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb. No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. Romans 4:19-21. He trusted, he considered, he grew strong in his faith and he became fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. "That is why his faith was reckoned to him as righteousness" (Romans 4:22). This was the true mil1ata-Ibrahim, the true faith of Abraham, and it enabled him to pass the test when God, through a promise that was finally fulfilled, put him through an exacting trial of patience and willingness to confide in him until the end. In this we see how Abraham came to be called the friend of God, not because he was a righteous servant who did a measure of good deeds, but because he at no time wavered through distrust in the promises God had given him. So also we see why he became the father of all true believers - because his faith was a reflection of God’s faithfulness who likewise is the ultimate Father of the faithful. Finally we see why he was an example and prototype of the true religion to come - because he had the only kind of faith that is commendable and acceptable to God, that is, a comprehending and full conviction by sound reason (and not blind resignation) that God is Faithful and True and that every word of God will surely come to pass. 5. THE COMMAND TO SACRIFICE HIS SON. The rejection of Ishmael came as a shock to Abraham but far worse was to follow. God was nowhere near finished with testing and proving the intensity and degree of his faith. The final and great test was about to confront him. Just as he had watched Ishmael grow to thirteen years of age in hope of the fulfilment of the promises God had given him, only to see them dashed, so now he watched his son Isaac grow to the same age. Suddenly God again called him, "Abraham!" (Genesis 22:1). Immediately he responded "Here am I", expecting some indication of the fulfilment of God’s promise that he was to have descendants as many as the stars of the sky. But God said to Abraham: "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall show you". Genesis 22:2 This command must have shocked and bewildered Abraham. Most people regard it - quite rightly - as a supreme test of Abraham’s love for God, there being nothing more precious that he could offer to him than his only son by his wife Sarah and the only one still with him, Ishmael having departed from him with Hagar many years earlier. But Abraham is marked out more as a man of faith than a man of love. God was indeed testing Abraham’s love for him but it is not often realised that God was really testing his faith and was putting himself on trial before him. Less than twenty years earlier he had promised him that he would give him descendants as many as the stars of the sky through his son Isaac - how could this promise now possibly be fulfilled if Abraham was to strike him down and consume him as a burnt offering? (Both the Jewish and the Christian Scriptures state plainly that the son who was to be sacrificed was Isaac - Genesis 22:2, James 3:21 - and while the Qur’an does not say which son it was, it does confirm, in Surah 37. 101-102, that it was the son promised to him who, as we have already seen according to other Qur’anic passages, was Isaac). Abraham could well have contemplated in his mind a gust of wind coming down on the smouldering ashes, saying to himself, "there goes the promise of God to the wind". It seemed that a pair of scissors was about to cut the string that tied the promise of a son to the promise that he would ultimately have descendants as many as the stars of the sky. The command to sacrifice appeared to cut right through these promises and hopelessly annul them. How could he have the descendants promised to him if his son Isaac was to be annihilated before he was old enough to bear offspring? If the call to reject Ishmael cane as a shock to Abraham, the command to destroy Isaac must have taxed him to the limit. What was to be his response to this command? There were at least four possible responses. Firstly, he could have said to himself, "God has forgotten his promise". After all, men forget things and fourteen years is a long time. But Abraham had far too high an impression of God’s glory to believe such a thing. God would never forget such a promise, not even in a million years. Secondly, he could have mused, "God has changed his mind". Perhaps his son was not turning out to be quite what God had hoped for and expected and he bad therefore changed his mind. Once again, however, Abraham could not entertain such thoughts. He believed that God is absolutely faithful and therefore there was no possibility that he would forego his promise. Thirdly, he could have said to himself, "I do not know how the promise can be fulfilled if I offer my son as a sacrifice but, if God so commands, I will do it in obedience to his will. Let him resolve the dilemma". This is the spirit of fatalistic resignation, of blind faith that refuses to enquire or discover the will of God in accordance with his faithfulness. It is not true faith at all. There are millions today who believe that real faith is just simply to accept what their elders educate and bring them up to believe. To these any spirit of enquiry, any form of questioning, any willingness to doubt or critically analyse their heritage is regarded as the first step on the slippery road to unbelief. Abraham was not such a man. He would not summarily abandon himself to the command to sacrifice his son without considerable reflection on its implications and circumstances. God put this very test of faith before him precisely because God knew that he would never see it through unless, as in the case of the birth of Isaac, he was fully convinced that it was consistent with God’s faithfulness and the promise that he would have descendants like the stars of the sky. The greatness of this man’s faith is found in his refusal to simply bow to a command without understanding how it could be consistent with the absolute faithfulness of the One who gave it. God would have been most unimpressed with Abraham’s attitude if he had simply said aslamtu - "I submit" - to the command to sacrifice his son without any consideration of what God’s purpose was or what conciliation there was between the promises he had received and the command which now appeared to contradict and negate them completely. God wanted him to once again exercise his faith, to explore at length the harmony between this seemingly dreadful command and the eternal faithfulness of the God who gave it, for it was through precisely such reasoning that God intended to reveal to him the glory of his salvation for all mankind. This leads us to the fourth and last possible response, the only one which could reconcile the promises God had given him with the command to sacrifice his son. 6. ABRAHAM’S CONTEMPLATION OF THE COMMAND. We have seen that Abraham reasoned very carefully about the promise that his wife would bear him a son and that he believed it would surely come to pass, not just because God has the power to do anything he chooses, but because he believed that God is so faithful that he will always fulfil his word. As Abraham himself said on another occasion, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Genesis 18:25). When the command came to sacrifice his son, therefore, Abraham did not suddenly lose heart and throw his hands in the air in confusion. No, he was a man of faith as the Bible and the Qur’an both testify, and at this point the genuineness of his faith was about to be proved in all its fullness. Abraham considered none of the other three options we have mentioned with any degree of seriousness. He based his attitude on the same foundation which had seen him through all This previous tests. He believed that God is always faithful and, therefore, the promise that he would have children like the stars of the sky must surely be fulfilled. Although this promise appeared to be beyond fulfilment if his son was to be sacrificed, in the providence of God it must yet come to pass. There was only one way that Abraham’s son Isaac could beget offspring if he was to be sacrificed and that was by rising from the dead. Abraham concluded that this was the only way God’s promise could be fulfilled and he reasoned that, if God could give him a son when it was naturally impossible to have one, then God could also raise him back to life from the ashes. We have already seen that he believed in God as he who "gives life to the dead and calls into existence things that do not exist" (Romans 4:17), and he therefore considered that if God could give life to a dead womb so that a child could be conceived by a woman who was ninety years old and who had always been barren, then he could also raise the sane child from the dead. The Qur’an itself also teaches that Abraham once prayed, "My Lord, show me how you give life to the dead" (Surah 2.260). The whole of Abraham’s contemplation of the command to sacrifice his son is summed up in these words: By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son, of whom it was said, "Through Isaac shall your descendants be named". He considered that God was able to raise men even from the dead; hence, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back. Hebrews 11:17-19. Abraham believed that God would raise Isaac from the dead and, through this belief, he gained a remarkable understanding of God’s real purpose behind all that was happening to him. He suddenly realised that it was a risen Isaac who would be the one through whom all his descendants would come. No wonder his son would become a blessing to his offspring and one through whom all the nations would be blessed. Abraham realised that, by conquering death, his son Isaac would fulfil God’s promise that he would become a blessing to the world. In this spirit he went forward boldly with the sacrifice in the faith that God would fulfil his promise by raising Isaac from the dead. We need to notice how often it is said of Abraham that he carefully considered all that God said to him. "He considered his own body ... he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb ..." are the words describing his response to the promise that he would bear a son (Romans 4:19), and now we read, in response to the command to sacrifice, "He considered that God was able to raise men even from the dead ..." (Hebrews 11:19). Abraham did not just accept all he was told to believe without contemplation and reflection. Be was not like many who just accept what they are brought up to believe and will not consider alternatives lest they become confused or be required to give up all they have hitherto held dear. Abraham, rather, considered very deeply the promises God had given him as well as the command to sacrifice and he was able to reconcile these two apparently contradictory statements which came to him from heaven. At first the command, as we have seen, seemed to cut through the promise like a pair of scissors slicing through a piece of string. The promise had consisted of two extremes - the birth of a son at the beginning and countless descendants at the end. In between these two came the devastating command to sacrifice. But Abraham could not believe that it was really contrary to the promise for both came from the God who, Abraham believed, was always faithful and consistent in his acts. Be thus reasoned that the command, instead of violating the promise, must in some way be inseparably linked with it and that somehow the promise of descendants was dependent upon and to be fulfilled through the sacrifice of his son Isaac. This led to the only possible conclusion - that God would raise his son from the dead, and through this Abraham saw, in a wondrous way, what God was really doing. A risen Isaac was to be the source of blessing to his offspring and to the world. Instead of cutting through the string that linked the promise of a son to that of countless descendants, he saw that the command was actually the hand that tied the two together and gave effect and meaning to the promises. This was the true mil1ata-Ibrahim, not an uncomprehending, unquestioning submission to God’s commands, but an exercise of real faith that considered all God’s promises and commands against the sure background of his faithfulness, a faith that led to an outstanding realisation of what God was really doing with him. If this were all we would do well to marvel. But it was only a shadow, a foretaste of what God was really going to do. The sacrifice of Isaac was only a prototype of a far greater sacrifice to come and we must press on to find out how Abraham saw the ultimate significance of what God was doing in all this and how he discovered the true religion that was to come. 7. THE GOSPEL THAT WAS PREACHED TO ABRAHAM. We have seen, in the early chapters of this booklet, that Abraham was called the friend of God, that he was made the father of many nations, and that his faith was a prototype of the true religion yet to come. In this closing chapter we shall see the real essence of all three of these great teachings about Abraham which Islam and Christianity have in common. Abraham was a man who carefully considered all that God said to him, so he also thought much about God’s statement to him, "I have made you the Father of many nations" (Romans 4:17). Why, he reasoned, should he be made a leader for mankind and the father of the faithful? We return to the illustration of the sun and the moon. The sun brilliantly generates light and the best the moon can do is to reflect that light. So Abraham, as we have seen, merely regarded his faith and trust in God as a reflection of God’s own inherent faithfulness and eternal trustworthiness. In the same way, therefore, his status as father of the faithful could only be a reflection of God’s own glory as the true Father of the faithful. Abraham saw his high status, therefore, as a reflection of God’s great glory in heaven. He realised that he was merely a type of the true Father and this surely meant that all that had happened to him was likewise only a human and an earthly type of a divine and heavenly course yet to be revealed. If he was, thus, only a type, then his son Isaac, the unusual circumstances of his birth, the sacrifice, the resurrection from the dead, and the innumerable descendants were also all types of a greater reality yet to come. He realised that the whole process had issued from him purely as a man and that a similar process, therefore, must yet come from God. Abraham put it all together. The course he had perceived that was yet to be emulated in a divine parallel was this - the father was to have a son born in this world, born in unusual circumstances by the intervention of the Holy Spirit, and this son would be a decidedly spiritual man all his days. Before he could have any descendants, however, he was to be offered as a sacrifice to God, struck down by the hand of his own father. But he would rise from the dead and the risen son would beget descendants of a great number through whom the nations of the world would be blessed. God had promised Abraham descendants "as many as the stars of heaven and as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore" (Hebrews 11:12). Were the latter not surely a reflection of the former? Both appear to be tiny specks to the human eye and both are too many to number. So the true children of God appear to be of the same stature today as the natural children of men and both are a great multitude. But what a vast difference there ultimately is between a grain of sand and a star. The first is really only a speck of dust on the earth, the second is a heavenly giant of unimaginable glory and splendour. Grains of sand are only feeble types of the splendid stars that shine in the heavens. So Abraham realised that his earthly descendants through his promised son Isaac, namely the Hebrew people, would only be an earthly shadow of the true children of God who would one day "shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father" (Matthew 13:43). He realised that he would have physical offspring through Isaac but that he would also have spiritual offspring through the one that Isaac was representing and that they would be men of the very same faith that had commended him to God. Abraham searched out the meaning of all this as he moved away from the reflection to the reality, from earth to heaven, from man to God, and in doing so discovered God’s glorious process of salvation and the true religion that was yet to come. God, the true Father, was to send his own Son into the world. He would be born miraculously by the power of the Holy Spirit, he would live solely by the same Spirit as the image of his eternal Father in every way, and would transform men of all nations from sinners of mere flesh and blood into saints of true spiritual dignity, bringing them eventually into eternal glory in the kingdom of God. But first he must be cut off and sacrificed as an offering for sin. He was to burn within as he endured the wrath of God on behalf of those he was to redeem. He was to be struck down, not only physically at the hands of men, but spiritually by the hand of his own Father as he endured his wrath against the sins of men so that he might make full atonement for them. The Son of God was to rise from the dead, however, and the risen son was to make available to all men of true faith the Spirit of God so that they might inherit the blessings of God and become his children in his heavenly kingdom. Ibis, Abraham realised, was the logical divine parallel that would follow the pattern God was al ready taking him through To put it plainly in one glorious flash of inspiration and revelation, Abraham saw the whole of the Christian Gospel By a faithful consideration of nothing more than two apparently contradictory statements, he worked out the whole of God’s plan of salvation that was yet to come. By exercising faith in the "unchangeable character of his purpose" (Hebrews 6:17), he saw the glory of the Gospel of the grace of God. As Abraham walked with Isaac to the place of sacrifice, his son asked him what they were going to sacrifice. He had to explain to Isaac that he himself was to be the sacrifice, but as he did so he made a remarkable statement. He said to Isaac: "God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son". Genesis 22:8 Abraham’s answer to him was, "My son, you are to be the sacrifice. I, your own father, must offer you like a sacrificial lamb to God. But take heart, God will give of himself a lamb for an offering. God, the true Father, will give his own Son as the lamb for the salvation of the world". Abraham genuinely believed that he would have to go through with the sacrifice of his son Isaac. He did not anticipate that God would stop the process and put a sheep in his place. This would have negated the whole test Abraham was being put through. No, Abraham obviously had another lamb in mind - the Lamb of God who would yet come as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, God’s own Son. When God stopped the sacrifice and told him to sacrifice a sheep instead, Abraham saw his perception of God’s ultimate plan of salvation being fulfilled. The sheep was sacrificed as a substitute for his son Isaac, and so Abraham saw that God’s own son would become the true Lamb who would be substituted for sinful men as he died as a sacrifice for their sins. We have already seen that, whereas Judaism, Chris-tianity and Islam all came after Abraham, each one sees Abraham as an example of true faith in God, and we noted that Abraham must have had some knowledge of the true religion to come. Now it is important to observe that, whereas Moses and Muhammad both knew much about Abraham, neither ever claimed that Abraham had anticipated their day. There is no suggestion that Abraham looked forward to the form of religion they were to introduce. On the other hand Jesus Christ, in an argument one day with the Jews about Abraham, boldly declared to them: "Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it, and was glad". John 8:56 It is thus clear that the one to whom Abraham was looking as the Son of God who would come into the world to redeem men from their sins was Jesus Christ. He rejoiced, said Jesus, "that he was to see my day" and it was to him that he looked for the ultimate fulfilment of all his hopes, not to Moses or Muhammad, but only to Jesus. He looked ahead, not to his immediate son Isaac, but to his greater son yet to come who he knew would be the Son of God. Be had exercised his faith in a very deliberate way, had reasoned carefully about the promises, and thus foresaw, in one glorious comprehension of the significance of the sacrifice, the coming of the Son of God as his greater offspring to bring salvation into the world. It is for this reason that one of the very first titles of Jesus in the Christian Scriptures is "the son of Abraham" (Matthew 1:1). Indeed one day, when John the Baptist (the prophet yahya in the Qur’an - Surah 3.39) saw Jesus coming towards him, he cried out: "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world". John 1:29 Abraham had comforted Isaac, promising that God would "provide of himself the lamb for a sacrifice" and, when John beheld Jesus, he exclaimed "There is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world". The whole key to Abraham’s remarkable discovery of what was to happen is found in his faith, a trust in God’s faithfulness through which he reconciled the promise of descendants with the command to sacrifice. He foresaw the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ and worked out that the Son of God would become the ultimate sacrifice for sin and that through him the blessings promised to Abraham would become real to all men in all nations who would emulate his faith and trust in the same Jesus. The whole of this vision which Abraham had of the coming salvation of God is well summed up in these words: That in Christ Jesus the blessings of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Galatians 3:14 The Qur’an says that Abraham could not have been a Christian because the Gospel, the Injil, was only revealed long after him through Jesus Christ (Surah 3. 65,67). But we can see clearly that this very "Gospel", that is, the "Good News" of God’s saving grace, was in fact revealed to him during his very lifetime and that he fully discerned it when he, in true faith, contemplated the command to sacrifice his son. This revelation is well described in this verse: And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed". So then, those who are men of faith are blessed with Abraham who had faith. Galatians 3:8-9. When the promise of descendants as many as the stars of the sky was made to Abraham, the Injil was in fact revealed to him. The Qur’an asks why Christians dispute about Abraham when the Gospel was "not revealed till after him" (Surah 3.65), yet here we see plainly that this very Gospel was preached beforehand to Abraham (Galatians 3:8). His faith led him to a full realisation of what was to come and he thus anticipated the atoning death and resurrection of the Son of God and so became a prototype of all true Christians, rejoicing that he was to see the day of Jesus Christ. This, then, is the true faith of Abraham, the only real mil/ata-Ibrahim - faith in the Son of God who died that we might be forgiven and rose from the dead so that we too might conquer death and obtain eternal life. This Abraham worked out by exercise of faith in God’s faithfulness and here his faith rested. He "died in faith, not having received what was promised, but having seen it and greeted it from afar" (Hebrews 11:13). It was through this very kind of faith that he became approved of God and it is through the same kind of faith that we too can become acceptable to God. But the words, "it was reckoned to him", were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification. Romans 4:23-25. Abraham became the friend of God because he trusted him and rejoiced to see the day of Jesus Christ who likewise promised that all who become his disciples will also be his friends (John 15:15). He became the father of all true believers who are now his children if they share his faith and believe in the Gospel (Galatians 3:8-9). He was the prototype of the true religion to come and, as his search for the purpose of God led him to discover the coming of the Son of God as the Saviour of the world, so the true religion has to be Christianity for it was in Jesus that his faith reached its goal. In conclusion it needs to be said that if the willingness of Abraham to offer his son to God was the highest proof of love that any man could show for God, then the grace of God in giving his Son Jesus Christ for us must be the greatest manifestation of God’s love for men. The sacrifice of Isaac was only a type and shadow of God’s love for us revealed in the gift of his Son as the means of our salvation. No greater love than this could have been shown by God to sinful men. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his son to be the expiation for our sins . . . So we know and believe the love God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. 1 John 4:9-10; 1 John 4:16. Furthermore Abraham, as the servant of God, was obliged to obey God in whatever he commanded him, and it was only a man of dust like himself, though his own son, that he was willing to offer to the God of glory in heaven. But what obligation lay on the heart of God to give his Son, who had always shared his everlasting glory, for sinful, feeble men on earth? It goes further. God eventually spared the son of Abraham but he did not spare his own Son. What further proof do we need that all the blessings promised to Abraham will one day be ours if we will commit ourselves in faith to the one who laid down his life for us, whose day Abraham eagerly anticipated - what more can we ask or need? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him? Romans 8:32 Both the Bible and the Qur’an mark Abraham out for his faith and declare that this faith is the essence of true religion. We have shown comprehensively that Abraham’s faith reached its zenith when he saw the coming of Jesus Christ as the Saviour of the world and thus "rejoiced" to see his day "and was glad" (John 8:56). The Christian faith is, therefore, the only true faith and Abraham was accordingly a prototype of a true Christian. The command to Abraham to sacrifice his son may be regarded as the greatest example of the love of a man for God being tested and proved to the limit, indeed it reveals this love almost to perfection. But it cannot be treated in isolation. God was surely not just putting Abraham through an exercise of faith and love as an end in itself. It is unthinkable that God could ever ask more of a man than he was willing to do for man. And if he did not in turn give his own Son as a sacrifice to save us from our sins and give us the hope of eternal life, then what expression is there, in all history, of the love of God for man to compare with this supreme example of a man’s love for God in giving his own son, the closest thing to his heart, as a sacrifice to God? It surely must be true that God’s command to Abraham was only a shadow and foretaste of what God himself intended to do for the human race in time. It is often said that a good leader will never ask anything more of his followers than he himself is willing to do for them. So likewise Abraham saw that the command to sacrifice was not a one-sided test that would tear at his heart without any reciprocal act of love from heaven in return. He willingly went ahead with the sacrifice, because he had, by the time he took his son up the appointed mountain, worked out that all that he was doing was only a shadow and human example of a real and divine work of grace to follow. It is little wonder that Jesus said that Abraham rejoiced to see his day and that he was delighted in his spirit. Will you not, too, become one of the true children of Abraham by putting your faith in Jesus Christ so that you also may shine one day as one of those stars of heaven who was promised to Abraham? Will you not believe in Jesus as your Saviour and Lord and likewise rejoice and be glad with Abraham that you will also be privileged to see his day? Will you not acknowledge him as your only true Master so that you too may enjoy the riches of God’s grace and kindness towards us? If you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. Galatians 3:29 ======================================================================== CHAPTER 4: 01.03. AL-MASIHU-ISA: THE GLORY OF JESUS THE MESSIAH ======================================================================== Al-Masihu-Isa: The Glory of Jesus The Messiah 1. Al-Masihu-Isa: The Messiah in the Qur’an 2. The Biblical Concept of the Messiah 3. The Messianic Hopes of the Jews 4. Jesus of Nazareth: God’s Anointed Messiah 5. What do You Think, Whose Son is He? 6. The Suffering Servant of God 7. The Glory of God’s Anointed Saviour Who was Jesus of Nazareth? Was he the Lord and Savior of all men as Christians believe? Was he just a prophet as Islam teaches? Was he an impostor as the leading Jews of his time claimed? (Matthew 27:63). Who really was this man Jesus? There are few people in history who have demanded the attention of the world as Jesus has and few popular figures have been debated about as much as he has been. Indeed, right from the beginning, during the early days of his ministry, there was much discussion about him among the Jews, some approving of his good works with others claiming he was leading the people astray (John 7:12). The disputes continued right through his ministry. One day, when Jesus was retiring with his disciple to the district of Caesarea Philippi to the north of the Sea of Galilee, he asked them: "Who do men say that I am?" Mark 8:27 They answered that some said he was John the Baptist, raised from the dead, while others claimed that he was Elijah and yet others that he was one of the prophets. The general consensus of opinion was that he was a prophet. John the Baptist is mentioned as a prophet in the Qur’an under the name Yahya (Surah 3.39) and Elijah is likewise named as one of the prophets under the name Ilyas (Surah 37.123). The Jews concluded that Jesus was one of the prophets - which one, they were not sure - but nonetheless a prophet, no more, no less. So likewise Islam today regards Jesus (Isa in the Qur’an, Surah 3.45) as a mighty prophet of God, but nevertheless as no more than a prophet. After his disciples had told him that the Jews all appeared to agree that he was one of the prophets, he turned to them and said, "But who do you say that I am"? (Mark 8:29). One of them, Simon Peter, answered him: "You are the Messiah". Mark 8:29 Peter’s reply was, "the people may say that you are only a prophet, but I say you are far more than a prophet - you are the Messiah" (In most English translations the original Greek word Christos is usually translated "Christ", but as the Greek word itself is a translation of the Hebrew Mashiah, we shall always use the word "Messiah" in this booklet). The Jews had long believed that their Messiah was coming into the world and it was universally believed that he would be far more than a prophet. Peter’s exclamation was clearly intended to be in contrast with the opinion of the masses. They were prepared to accept Jesus as a prophet but he was willing to go much further and declared Jesus to be the long-awaited Messiah. The Jews cherished the hope that their Messiah would be a political leader who would free the nation from the Romans and set them up as the greatest nation on earth in a timeless reign of unparalleled prosperity. As Jesus regularly resisted their attempts to set him up as the King of the Jews (John 6:15) and spoke to them of their own need to repent and humble themselves before God, they turned away from him. The whole Christian world throughout the centuries, however, he has openly declared Jesus to be the true Messiah and has also accepted him as far more than a prophet, indeed as the very Lord and Saviour of all mankind (Titus 2:13). 1. AL-MASIH: THE MESSIAH IN THE QUR’AN. Islam, on the contrary, only accepts Jesus as a prophet like all the other prophets. In one passage he is joined with Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and Moses as simply one of the prophets (an-nabiyyin) between whom no distinction of any kind is made (Surah 2.136). In another verse he is said to have been no more than a servant (abd Surah 43.59) and in yet another as nothing more than a messenger (rasul - Surah 5.78). One would therefore expect to find the Qur’an denying that Jesus was the Messiah, especially as the Jews and Christians have always regarded the title as signifying more than prophethood and as Peter’s testimony that Jesus was indeed the Messiah was intended to be in contrast with the opinion of the Jews that he was only one of the prophets sent by God. It comes as a surprise, therefore, to find that the Qur’an openly admits that Jesus was the Messiah. He is often called in the Qur’an al-Masihu Isa - "the Messiah Jesus" (Surah 4.157, 171). The title al-Masih ("the Messiah") sometimes appears by itself (Surah 4.172) and on other occasions he is called al-Masihubnu Maryam ("the Messiah, son of Mary" - Surah 9.31), but on each of the eleven occasions where it appears the title al-Masih - the Messiah - is applied specifically to Jesus alone. The Qur’an even goes so far as to say that right in the beginning, when the angel Gabriel first appeared to Mary he deliberately stated that the name of her son was to be al-Masihu Isa (Surah 3.45). Islam thus joins Christianity in declaring Jesus to be the long-awaited Messiah promised to the Jews through the prophets of old. Nevertheless, as said before, the Qur’an’s acknowledgement that Jesus was indeed the Messiah comes as a surprise, for it denies that Jesus was anything more than a prophet, whereas the promises of God about the coming Messiah had made it plain that he would be far greater than a prophet. The Christian confession that Jesus is the Lord and Saviour of all men is thus consistent with the teachings of the former prophets that the coming Messiah would be the supreme man of history, far above all the prophets (2 Samuel 7:12-14). The Qur’an on the other hand, declares Maal-Masihubnu Maryama illa rasul - "the Messiah, son of Mary, was no more than an apostle" - like the other apostles who had passed away before him (Surah 5.78). Why, then, does the Qur’an also acknowledge that Jesus was the Messiah if it denies that he was anything more than a prophet? It is significant to discover that, while the Qur’an unreservedly applies the title al-Masih to Jesus, it attempts no explanation of it. This is all the more surprising in view of the Jewish and Christian belief that the title is reserved to the specially-chosen one of God, one man alone who stands above all other men, prophets and apostles included. The declaration that the Messiah was only an apostle appears to be self-contradictory and the Qur’an’s complete silence on the meaning of the title hardly serves to avoid this conclusion. The Qur’an’s suggestion that Jesus was only a prophet is not only clearly compromised by its own admission that he was indeed the Messiah, but the issue is intensified even further by the fact that it calls Jesus, without exception in every case where the title appears, al-Masih - the Messiah. The definite article positively distinguishes him from all the other prophets. Not only is no other prophet in the Qur’an called Messiah, but by describing Jesus as the Messiah, the Qur’an declares that the application of this title to anyone else would be quite inappropriate. Not only does the Qur’an attempt no explanation of the meaning of this title but even great scholars in Muslim history like Zamakhshari and Baidawi admitted that it was not an original Arabic word. The average Muslim will be hard-pressed to venture a plausible explanation of this supreme title given to Jesus, al-Masih, based on the use of the word in the Qur’an, and consistent with the claim that he was in no way different to the other prophets who went before him. It is therefore quite clear that we shall have to turn to the Bible if we are to find the true meaning of the title. 2. THE BIBLICAL CONCEPT OF THE MESSIAH. The common word used for Messiah in the Christian Scriptures, in the original Greek texts, is ho Christos. Twice it is said to be a translation of the word Messias (John 1:41; John 4:25) and, as in the Qur’an, no attempt is made to define or explain the meaning of the title. Nevertheless, just as the Qur’an uses the definite article al to apply the title to Jesus alone, so in the Christian Scriptures he is constantly called ho Christos, that is, the Messiah. Throughout our scriptures the title is set forth applying to God’s supreme Deliverer who was eagerly awaited by the Jews. It is therefore to the Jewish Scriptures that we must turn to find its real meaning. In many places in the original Hebrew texts we find the word mashiah, meaning "anointed". It is applied to the anointed high priest in Israel (Leviticus 4:3) as well as the nation’s king (2 Samuel 1:14). It is also given to the prophets of God (Psalms 105:15) as well as to the Persian king Cyrus who was anointed by God to prepare the way for the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem and its Temple after its destruction by a previous king, Nebuchadnezzar (Isaiah 45:1). The prophet Daniel, however predicted that after the rebuilding of Jerusalem, a prediction of time would pass whereafter a Mashiah, an "Anointed One", would come (Daniel 9:25). This use of the word as a title for the coming Prince of God led the Jews speak freely of him as ha Mashiah - "the Messiah". The prophets of old spoke regularly of this great personality who God promised would come to the nation. The great prophet Isaiah spoke of him in these words: There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots. And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord. And his delight shall be in the fear of the Lord. He shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide by what his ears hear; but with righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked. Righteousness shall be the girdle of his waist, and faithfulness the girdle of his loins. Isaiah 11:1-5. The prophet went on to say of him: "In that day the root of Jesse shall stand as an ensign to the peoples; him shall the nations seek, and his dwellings shall be glorious" (Isaiah 11:10). The prophecy clearly could not be applied to any of the prophets who were appearing at times among the people. It spoke of one man alone who would rule the whole earth and who, by the breath of his mouth alone, would slay the wicked. In another passage of the same prophecy we read that God himself said of this coming Ruler: "Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him, he will bring forth justice to the nations Isaiah 42:1 One after the other the prophets of Israel foretold the coming of this supreme representative of God on earth who would bring the justice of God to the whole world and rule over it. Through another prophet God also spoke of the coming Anointed One and described his glory in these words: "Behold the man whose name is the Branch: for he shall grow up in his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord. It is he who shall build the temple of the Lord, and shall bear royal honour, and shall sit and rule upon his throne." Zechariah 6:12-13. The Jews began to realise that, whereas prophets arose at fairly regular intervals to declare the will of God, one great figure was to follow them all who would be far above all the prophets of God in honour and majesty. This supreme ruler was destined to be God’s own chosen representative who would establish his kingdom and rule upon his throne. Through yet another prophet God foretold where he would be born: But you, 0 Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days. Micah 5:2 As the predictions increased, so the outstanding features of the coming chosen one of God became more apparent. In this prophecy it was plainly stated that the coming ruler, although yet to be born, had in fact existed in the heavens from the beginning of time. Daniel the prophet gave a climactic review of his coming glory and authority when he described a vision he had seen during his time of exile in Babylon: "Behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed." Daniel 7:13-14. It was little wonder that the Jews concluded that the Ruler of God’s own kingdom, whose origin was from old, and whose dominion would last for ever, was to be far greater than a prophet. When Daniel spoke of him a God’s "Anointed One" (Daniel 9:25), the title Mashiah stuck and became the common title to describe him. "The Messiah" became their long-awaited Ruler and Deliverer. We therefore see that the title "Messiah" clearly means, not just a prophet among many prophets, but God’s supremely Anointed One, whose origin was from of old and whose rule over the whole universe would last forever. It was an apocalyptic figure they awaited, the climax of God’s revelations to the world. Ha Mashiah he was called - the one and only supremely anointed, chosen one of God to rule over all his dominions. This brief survey of the real meaning of the title al-Masih, that is, "the Supremely Anointed One", shows how inappropriate the Qur’anic statement Maal-Masihubnu Maryama illa rasul - "the Messiah, son of Mary, was no more than an apostle" (Surah 5.78) - really is. The whole meaning of the title al-Masih, as considered in its original Hebrew context, totally negates the suggestion that the one bearing this title was, after all, only an apostle like others who had gone before him. One can only presume that Muhammad did not know the meaning of the title al-Masih and, hearing it freely applied to Jesus by the Christians, unquestioningly adopted it without realising that it completely undermined his belief that Jesus was only one of a long line of prophets. 3. THE MESSIANIC HOPES OF THE JEWS. We have only considered a few of the predictions of the coming Messiah, yet these are sufficient to show that the Jews had every good reason to believe that he would be a majestic figure, far greater than any of the prophets who went before him. At the time Jesus was born the Jews were eagerly awaiting their coming Messiah. They had been ruled for centuries by a succession of foreign, Gentile powers. Both the Persians and the Greeks had had their turn and, about sixty years before the birth of Jesus, the Romans conquered Judea and assumed control of the province. The Jews strongly resented this succession of foreign rulers and longed for their coming Messiah. They believed that, as they were the physical descendants of Abraham through his promised son Isaac, they enjoyed the special favour of God over all other nations. Accordingly, when they heard that Mashiah was coming, they presumed that the prophecies about his eternal reign over the kingdom of God would be immediately fulfilled in the establishment of the Jewish race as the greatest nation on earth with all other nations subject to it. They believed the Messiah would be a climactic figure who would bring in God’s eternal rule on earth. A brief survey of some of their expectations about the coming Messiah, as expressed in their utterances recorded in the Gospel of John, one of the records of the life of Jesus in the Bible, give us some idea of the kind of Messiah they were awaiting. On one occasion, when Jesus told them that the Son of man would be "lifted up" (John 12:32, cf. John 8:28), a prediction of manner of his death to follow a few days later by crucifixion (John 12:33), the Jews answered him: "We have heard from the law that the Messiah remains for ever. How can you say that the Son of man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of man?" John 12:34 They recalled the prophecies of their former prophets which foretold the eternal reign of the Messiah. They could not understand how Jesus could speak of the "lifting up" of the Messiah, the Son of man, to die. On another occasion they recalled the prophecy of the prophet Micah that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Although Micah did not describe the ruler he spoke of as the Messiah, yet by his mention of the fact that he had existed long before the world was made, they realised that he spoke plainly, not of an ordinary prophet to arise among men, but of the Messiah whose goings forth were from everlasting days and whose reign would last for ever. The prophecy clearly applied to the one great supremely anointed Ruler and Deliverer to come. When some of the Jews said of Jesus, "This is the Messiah" (John 7:41), others recalled this prophecy about the place of his birth and said: "Is the Messiah to come from Galilee? Has not the scripture said that the Messiah is descended from David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village David was?" John 7:41-42. Because Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee, they presumed he could not be the Messiah. It appears that they were unaware that he had, in fact, been born in Bethlehem in perfect fulfilment of Micah’s prophecy that he would come from this small Judean village (Luke 2:4-7). On yet another occasion, when some of the people questioned whether, perhaps, Jesus really was the Messiah, they said to themselves: "Yet we know where this man comes from; and when the Messiah appears, no one will know where he comes from." John 7:27 The outstanding predictions of the coming Messiah, especially those which made it plain that he had already existed right through the ages and would come from heaven, made the Jews speculate that no one would really know whence he had come. In reply Jesus told them plainly that they really did not know where he had come from (John 7:28) and on other occasions bluntly told then that he had, in fact, come down directly from heaven (John 6:38; John 6:51). The question whether Jesus really fulfilled the prophecies of the coming Messiah does not really concern us, however. While stating plainly that he did in that he was an eternal personality who came from heaven into the world as the Son of man, we nevertheless must constantly bear in mind that Christianity and Islam both unreservedly acknowledge that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. This is not an issue between us - the question is purely one of the true meaning of the title al-Masih which is left unexplained in the Qur’an. There can be no valid dispute between Christians and Muslims as to the identity of the Messiah, however. It was clearly Jesus. The important thing to note here, however, is the expectations of the Jews at the time of Jesus regarding the coming Messiah. They were wrong when they expected him to exalt the nation and set himself up as a ruler of an earthly kingdom, but they were quite right insofar as they believed that he would come from heaven, would have existed for ages prior to his advent, and would ultimately establish the kingdom of God and rule over it as its Lord and Sovereign. In these convictions we can plainly see that ha Mashiah, the long-awaited, promised Anointed One of God, was anticipated as a glorious figure far above the status of the prophets who had preceded him. The first great mistake of the Jews was to fail to distinguish between the two separate advents of the coming Messiah. Their scriptures indeed foretold the coming of a glorious King who would establish the kingdom of God and rule over it forever and ever, but these same scriptures, as we shall see, also spoke of a phase of relative obscurity when the Messiah would first suffer and come apparently to nothing. In truth these prophecies referred to two separate occasions when the Messiah would appear on earth - firstly to suffer in a comparatively insignificant lifespan, and secondly to return in a glorious triumph over the established kingdom of God. Christians take these predictions to refer, firstly to the life of Jesus on earth when he was relatively unknown and apparently devoid of rule and authority, and secondly, to his return at the end of time when he shall return to establish the kingdom of God and rule over it as the manifestly Anointed One of God, now visibly triumphant in a glorious reign of power over all the universe. As Islam itself accepts that Jesus will return to earth, it should not be too hard for Muslims to accept these two distinct phases in his revelation as the Messiah, the supremely Anointed One of God. Islam itself accepts that Jesus will have a universal rule when he returns to earth. The second great mistake of the Jews was to presume that they, as an earthly nation, would constitute the kingdom of God and that the Messiah would be a Jewish king ruling on the earth as we know it over the nations. They failed to see that God was speaking of a heavenly king who would become the Messiah by appearing in human form and that his rule and authority would be a spiritual one over the true people of God, the true followers of the Messiah in spirit and truth, and that it would only be manifested at the end of time. The one great perception of the Jews, however, indeed the one thing in which they were most certainly not mistaken, was that the Messiah would not be a mere prophet or messenger but that his origin would be in heaven, that his goings forth would be from many ages past, and that his throne and rule over the kingdom of God would be established as an everlasting dominion. These were vital perceptions and it is a great pity that they could not see that the Messiah would first come in relative obscurity to prepare the way for his dominion before it would be finally established and revealed in all its fulness at the end of time when he would return to the earth in glory and power. 4. JESUS OF NAZARETH: GOD’S ANOINTED MESSIAH. We have already seen that the Qur’an openly acknowledges that Jesus was indeed al-Masih, "the Messiah", the long-awaited Deliverer whom God had promised. We have also seen how the Jews failed to recognise the Messiah when he came because they could not fully understand the prophecies of the former prophets regarding him and the purpose of his coming to earth (Acts 13:27). We now proceed to see whether Jesus regarded himself as the Messiah and whether his coming was announced. The Qur’an openly acknowledges John the Baptist (Yahya) as a true prophet of God and confirms that he was announced to his father Zakariya (Surab 3.39). He is listed along with Jesus, Elijah (Ilyas), and a number other prophets as one of the righteous messengers of God to whom favour was given over the nations (Surah 6.84-86). As the Qur’an states that all the prophets were equal to one another and that no distinction is made between them, we would not expect to find John regarding Jesus as superior to himself. If they were both kinsmen of equal prophetic status, John would hardly have looked on Jesus as more worthy of honour and respect than himself or any other of the prophets who went before him. Yet, when we read a contemporary record of John’s life and ministry, we find that he looked toward the coming Messiah as one far superior to himself. As all people of that time were in expectation of the coming Saviour and "questioned in their hearts concerning John whether perhaps he were the Messiah" (Luke 3:15), John replied to them all: "I baptize you with water; but he who is mightier than I is coming, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." Luke 3:16 John clearly regarded the coming Messiah as far superior to himself, even though he was a true prophet of God, so superior in fact that he boldly proclaimed that he was not even worthy to bow at his feet and untie his shoelaces. On another occasion he said: "You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Messiah but I have been sent before him ... He must increase, but I must decrease." John 3:28; John 3:30 He clearly regarded the Messiah as far mightier than himself and on yet another occasion he gave way to him, saying of Jesus as he saw him coming towards him: "This is he of whom I said, ’After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me’." John 1:30 These statements were all consistent with those of the former prophets who had predicted the glory of the coming Messiah whom John openly identified as Jesus. John too spoke of the pre-existence of the Messiah as Micah and others had done before him and, being the only prophet to rise at the same time as Jesus, rejoiced at the honour of being appointed to reveal him to the nation (John 1:31). He was indeed sent from God, but only as a prophet to bear witness to the true light who was coming into the world just as the former prophets had done. "He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light" (John 1:8). Some months later a Samaritan woman came to the well of Jacob at Sychar and saw Jesus sitting next to it. A brief discussion followed and, when she saw that he could see right through her and could read the background of her life, she said, "Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet" (John 4:19). Yet, as he continued to discuss with her and now began to speak of a new age that was about to be brought in where opportunities would arise for all men in all nations to have a living knowledge of the truth of God in their hearts and thus worship him fully in spirit and in truth, she sensed that he was far more than a prophet and said to him: "I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ); when he comes, he will show us all things." John 4:25 To this Jesus openly replied, "I who speak to you am he" (John 4:26). Her question was an indirect way of prompting Jesus to disclose himself - was he just another prophet or was he possibly God’s Supremely Anointed One, the heavenly ruler of ancient days who would bring the full and final revelation of God to man? Jesus gave her an emphatic answer - I am he. On another occasion, when the Jews said to him, "How long will you keep us suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly" (John 10:24), Jesus again answered quite openly "I told you and you do not believe" (John 10:25). He had no doubt whatsoever that he was the Messiah, the man of glory foretold in the prophecies of the prophets who came before him. Indeed, when the high priest of Israel himself directly asked him "Are you the Messiah...?" (Mark 15:61), he answered equally directly, "I am" (Mark 15:62). Jesus of Nazareth, the lowly man from a village in Galilee, was indeed God’s Messiah, his Anointed One whom he had promised to send into the world as its Saviour and Deliverer. Both the Bible and the Qur’an openly declare Jesus to be the Messiah and it is therefore incumbent on every Christian and Muslim to acknowledge him as such. Much time has been spent showing that the Messiah was to be far greater than any of the prophets of God. The time has now come to analyse who he really was and what he was sent to accomplish as God’s Anointed One and chosen Saviour on earth. 5. WHAT DO YOU THINK, WHOSE SON IS HE? Among the many prophecies of the coming Messiah were regular promises that he would be descended from David, the great prophet and king who foreshadowed his coming in many ways. A distinct prophecy of this kind was given to the prophet Jeremiah some six hundred years before Jesus was born. Although the elders of Israel turned away from leading the nation in God’s ways, he promised to send a Deliverer: "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he shall be called: ’The Lord is our righteousness’." Jeremiah 23:5-6. Once again the prophecy contains hints of the Messiah’s glory but, as the Jews could not distinguish between the first coming of the Messiah in comparative obscurity and his second coming in a blaze of glory, they failed to identify Jesus as the one promised when he came. But they got one thing right - the Messiah would be descended from David. A very similar prophecy appears in Jeremiah 33:14-18 and also in Ezekiel 34:24, where David is openly identified as the forerunner and type of God’s supreme shepherd and prince to come. The most emphatic promise of the coming Messiah as one of the sons of David, however, was made to David himself. During his great reign as king over Israel David sought to build a great temple to house the ark of the covenant of God. Through the prophet Nathan, however, God stopped him from doing so, at the same time making this promise to him: "Moreover I declare to you that the Lord will build you a house. When your days are fulfilled to go to be with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for me, and I will establish his throne for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son; I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from him who was before you, but I will confirm him in my house and in my kingdom for ever and his throne shall be established for ever." 1 Chronicles 17:10-14. When Solomon, David’s son, duly built a great Temple for God (known in Islam as baitul-muqaddas, "the holy house", and spoken of in Surah 17.7 as al-masjid - "the Temple"), it seemed that the prophecy had been fulfilled. Nevertheless, shortly after Solomon’s death the kingdom of Israel was split in two and within three hundred years fell away completely, Solomon’s temple being destroyed in the process. The Jews then realised that God had, in fact, been speaking ultimately of the Messiah as the prophecy had been couched in eternal language - "I will establish his throne for ever ... I will confirm him in my house and in my kingdom for ever and his throne shall be established for ever" (1 Chronicles 17:12; 1 Chronicles 17:14). God had clearly spoken of his Supremely Anointed One who would establish his kingdom and rule it for ever. Solomon and his temple were clearly only shadows and types of the Messiah and his kingdom to come. "One of your own sons", therefore was to be applied ultimately to David’s "greater son" yet to come, the Messiah, who would be descended from David’s line. As a result the Jews coined the express "Son of David" as a title for their coming Messiah and often used it of him to identify the line of offspring from which he would rise. "Has not the scripture said that the Messiah is descended from David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?" (John 7:42), was the constant belief of the Jews, a belief Jesus Christ fulfilled when he was born of David’s line in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1). It is recorded in the Gospel of Matthew that about two days before his crucifixion, Jesus engaged in lengthy debate with the Jewish leaders. Firstly the Pharisees and then the Sadduccees tried by every verbal twist and trick to trap him in his talk. At the end of the day, when their efforts were exhausted and they all were standing before him, he finally put a question to them. It was to be the last time he would engage in debate with them. He said to the Pharisees: "What do you think of the Messiah? Whose son is he?" Matthew 22:42 They promptly answered: "the Son of David", in accordance with the prophecies in their holy scriptures. Jesus then replied to them: "How is it then that David, inspired by the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, ’The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I put thy enemies under thy feet’? If David thus calls him Lord, bow is he his son?" Matthew 22:43-45. David, said Jesus, called the Messiah his Lord and Master, how then could he be David’s son? What man looks on his son as his lord and master? We read that "no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did any one dare to ask him any more questions" (Matthew 22:46). This momentous question ended all debate between Jesus and the Jews. Any Jew in the crowd who had been awake, however, could have given a very complete answer to the question. Let us go back to the prophecy Nathan gave David that one of his sons would establish his throne forever and ever. We have read it already, but let us now repeat the key words of God to David. He said of the Messiah who would be descended from him: "I will be his father, and he shall be my son." 1 Chronicles 17:13 I will be his Father and he shall be my Son, God said to David - a prophecy contained to this day in the scripture of the Jews, a people who no more believe that Jesus is the Son of God than Muslims do. Yet there it is, right in their scripture. Any discerning Jew could have said, in answer to Jesus’ question, "What do you think of the Messiah, whose son is he?" (Matthew 22:42) - "he is the Son of God", for so God had spoken to David. This is why David called the Messiah his Lord, for he knew that although he would be descended from him, God would be his true Father and he would be God’s Son. He might well have said, as John did, "After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me" (John 1:30). David knew that the Messiah would be the Son of God and therefore openly called him his Lord and Master. "The Lord said to my Lord" to David meant simply "The Father says to his Son, sit at my right hand till I put thy enemies under thy feet." In one of the great Psalms of old God spoke of the coming glory of the Son of David at his second advent at the end of time: "He shall cry to me, ’Thou art my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation’. And I will make him the first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth. My steadfast love I will keep for him forever, and my covenant will stand firm for him. I will establish his line forever and his throne as the days of the heavens ... Once for all I have sworn by my holiness; I will not lie to David. His line shall endure for ever, his throne as long as the sun before me." Psalms 89:26-29; Psalms 89:35-36. No one but the Son of God could so boldly address the Lord of heaven and earth. Bedded into the glorious predictions of the coming Messiah, who would rule the kingdom of God for ever and ever, are clear statements that he would be God’s own Son. The promises to this effect came directly from God himself. The Messiah, God’s Supremely Anointed One, would far surpass the prophets in glory and majesty because he would be no less than the Son of God himself. Jesus himself gave the answer to his own question how the Messiah could be both the Lord and the Son of David at one and the same time. In the last great book of the Bible and at the very end of the book Jesus made this bold declaration: "I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star." Revelation 22:16 Because be was David’s offspring he could indeed be called his son, but he was also his root and was therefore rightly called his Lord. In effect Jesus was saying "I am indeed the Son of David, his offspring, for I am descended from him. But ultimately I am his root, for he came originally from me." We have already seen that a host of prophecies spoke of the Messiah as one who would come from "ancient days", from the beginning of the world. How gloriously the exalted status of Jesus the Messiah is described in these words: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities - all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things and in him all things hold together." Colossians 1:15-16. "The world was made through him", another scripture says (John 1:10), and in this way he could truly be said to be the Root of David (Revelation 5:5), his ultimate Lord and Master. "What do you think of the Messiah, whose son is he?" Jesus asked the Jews, a final, climactic charge at the end of is public confrontation with them. Its significant timing makes it universal for all men in all ages. What do you think of him - whose son is he really? Moses wrote of him (John 5:46), Abraham rejoiced to see his day (John 8:56), and David called him his Lord (Matthew 22:45), Jesus declared. If such great prophets as these recognised that his coming would herald the arrival of God’s Supreme Ruler and Saviour, should not all men bow before him even now and become heirs of the hope of eternal life, which is in him, and partakers of the glory which is to be revealed when he, Jesus the Messiah, returns to bring forth the kingdom of God over which he will rule for ever? We have now seen who the Messiah really was. We must press on and conclude with a study of what he came to do at his first coming and what be will achieve at his return at the end of time 6. THE SUFFERING SERVANT OF GOD. As already pointed out, the Messiah came the first time in relative obscurity. Jesus was a lowly man, living in a small village in Galilee, an insignificant district north of Judea which itself was an unimportant province in the vast Roman Empire. Most of the Jews missed their Messiah because they confused the prophecies of his second coming, which all foretold his eternal glory and rule over God’s everlasting kingdom, with those of his first coming which spoke of him as a humble servant destined to suffer reproach and rejection by the masses who would not follow his path of righteousness and holiness. Throughout the prophecies in the writings of the former prophets there are predictions of his coming sufferings. Indeed, in the very prophecy in which he is called Mashiah, from which the title "Messiah" came, there is a plain statement that he would be struck down in the middle of his course. And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing. Daniel 9:26 The prediction was quite clear: "mashiah shall be cut off, and shall have nothing." This was a direct warning that the Anointed One of God would be suddenly struck down and killed - a clear reference to the death of Jesus the Messiah on the cross which came quite unexpectedly upon his disciples. There are many such predictions in the writings (e.g. Jeremiah 11:19, Lamentations 3:30 etc.), but we shall confine ourselves to the three most prominent passages which foretold the coming sufferings of the Messiah. The first is Psalms 22:1-31 where the spirit of the Messiah spoke through the prophet David, beginning with a cry of desolation, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Psalms 22:1). These are the exact words that Jesus himself uttered from the cross a millenium later (Matthew 27:46). The promised Messiah himself took these words on his own lips during his hour of trial, so we can see right from the outset that the Psalm is a Messianic prophecy anticipating his sorrows. The prophecy continues: But I am a worm, and no man; scorned by men, and despised by the people. All who see me mock at me, they make mouths at me, they wag their heads; "He committed his cause to the Lord; let him deliver him, let him rescue him, for he delights in him." Psalms 22:6-8. As the prophecy develops we hear the cries of a desolate man being reviled by those around him for his commitment to God. Indeed, as the chief priests stood around the cross after Jesus had duly been nailed to it, they mocked him saying: "He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him; for he said, ’I am the Son of God’." Matthew 27:43 This insult was precisely that which was foreseen in Psalms 22:8. The priests seemed to be blissfully unaware that they were reviling him just as the prophecy a thousand years earlier said they would. Right from the outset we see the crucifixion and sufferings of Jesus being foretold in fine detail centuries beforehand. The suffering one goes on to cry in his heart: Yea, dogs are round about me; a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my bands and feet. I can count all my bones - they stare and gloat over me; they divide my garments among them, and for my raiment they cast lots. Psalms 22:16-18. He had just cried out that all his bones were out of joint and that his tongue was cleaving to his jaws (Psalms 22:14-15), words which describe precisely those sufferings that a crucified person would undergo in his ordeal. In verse 16 there is a blunt statement, "they have pierced my hands and feet", which can only be a prediction of the crucifixion of the one thus suffering. Crucifixion was only invented some centuries later by the Phoenicians and it is remarkable to find a clear prediction of the crucifixion of the Messiah, his hand and feet duly being pierced, many ages before the form of execution was actually invented. The last verse contains an unusual riddle. The speaker says that those gloating over him would divide his clothing among themselves and would cast lots for them. This riddle would have confused those who first heard it - were his garments to be split up and divide among the bystanders or were lots to be cast for them? It is only in the story of the crucifixion of Jesus that the riddle is solved. We read: When the soldiers had crucified Jesus they took his garments and made four parts, one for each soldier; also his tunic. But the tunic was without seam, woven from top to bottom; so they said to one another "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be." John 19:23-24. The garments of Jesus were duly divided among the soldiers but, as his tunic had no seam, lots for it we cast alone. The Gospel writer had no hesitation in stating that this incident fulfilled Psalms 22:18 to the very finest detail of its contents (John 19:24). We therefore see that the suffering of the Messiah, through which he would be "cut off", was clearly predicted to be by crucifixion and that its attendant events were foretold in fine detail. Psalms 69:1-36 is a similar Messianic prophecy of the great prophet David. Agonising like a man suffocating in deep waters the same man cries: "I am weary with my crying; my throat is parched" (Psalms 69:3). He continues: More in number than the hairs of my head are those who hate me without cause. Psalms 69:4 On the night before his crucifixion Jesus plainly told his disciples that this very prediction in their prophetic writings was about to be fulfilled in him (John 15:25). As he had done with Psalms 22:1-31, Jesus deliberately applied the sufferings of the despised one in Psalms 69:1-36 to himself. The theme is so similar to that in Psalms 22:1-31 as we see in this cry: For it is for thy sake that I have born reproach, that shame has covered my face. I have become a stranger to my brethren, an alien to my mother’s sons. For zeal for thy house has consumed me, and the insults of those who insult thee have fallen on me. Psalms 69:7-9. The first part of verse 9 is also directly applied to Jesus in the Christian scriptures (John 2:17) and in the following section, which likewise speaks of the agonies and desolation of the suffering Messiah, another point of detail occurs which was fulfilled at the crucifixion as it had been foretold. I looked for pity, but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none. They gave me poison for food and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink. Psalms 69:20-21. When Jesus cried out "I thirst" shortly before he expired on the cross (John 19:28), the bystanders took a sponge full of vinegar, put it on a reed, and gave it to him to drink (John 19:29). Once again we have a prophetic text written centuries before the crucifixion of Jesus which foretold his sufferings and the events around it in fine detail. Our last passage not only predicts the sufferings of the coming Messiah but also gives the full reason for them, namely that he would suffer that others might be healed and die that others might live. It comes from the prophet Isaiah who lived some centuries before Jesus was born and begins: Behold my servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high. As many were astonished at him - his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the sons of men - so shall he startle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which has not been told them they shall see, and that which they have not heard they shall understand. Isaiah 52:13-15. The text contains clear predictions of the coming glory of the Messiah at his second advent, but in between these promises of his ultimate exaltation comes a clear warning of his rejection and suffering at his first advent - "his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance". The prophecy contains an unambiguous declaration that he would have no apparent honour at his first coming and would generally be overlooked and rejected by his people: He had no form or comeliness that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. Isaiah 53:2-3. Almost immediately after this, however, comes a clear prediction of the atoning character of his sufferings. In this Jewish scripture written some six centuries before the coming of Jesus we find his crucifixion foreshadowed, not as a defeat, but as the means by which many would be saved: Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, be was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. Isaiah 53:4-6. These words clearly show that the great chosen servant of God, the long-awaited Messiah, would have the sins of the world placed on him in his hour of trial and that he would die that others might live. "Stricken for the transgression of my people" (Isaiah 53:8) he would be, dying for the sins of those he was suffering to save. Once again we not only find the sufferings of the Messiah foretold but also attendant events which were fulfilled to the letter. The next verse states: And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death. Isaiah 53:9. Here again we have a riddle - how could a man be buried with honour among the wealthy if his grave was prepared among the wicked? In the crucifixion of Jesus we have a perfect answer. All Jews put to death by crucifixion were, upon their demise, cast into a large pit reserved only for criminals. But when Jesus died, a rich man named Joseph of Arimathea came and took the body of Jesus and buried it is his own tomb which he had hewn out of a rock (Matthew 27:60). The prophecy continues with a similar detail: "he poured out his soul to death, and was numbered with the transgressors" (Isaiah 53:12). As with Psalms 22:1-31 and Psalms 69:1-36, Jesus directly applied this prediction (and thus the whole prophecy) to himself the night before he was crucified, saying to his disciples as he sat at table with them: "For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ’And he was reckoned with transgressor for what is written about me has its fulfillment." Luke 22:37. We see quite plainly, therefore, that the prophets of old foretold that the coming Messiah would suffer and die for the sins of the world at his first coming and, to give substance to their predictions, they recorded fine detail events surrounding the climactic hour of desolation to come upon him, all of which were duly fulfilled in the crucifixion of Jesus. These great prophecies, made and recorded centuries before his coming, are incontrovertible proofs that Jesus the Messiah came not simply as a prophet to teach the people but as God’s anointed Saviour to save them from their sins. 7. THE GLORY OF GOD’S ANOINTED SAVIOUR. Nevertheless the majority of the prophecies in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures refer, not to the first coming of Jesus, but to his second coming as the eternal Lord of Glory. It has been estimated that there are up to five hundred prophecies relating to his second coming. On that Day he will be revealed in all his glory. Let us not anticipate, however. We left off at the point of crucifixion and death of Jesus the Messiah in fulfilment of the hosts of prophecies foretelling his sufferings and atoning work. Did he simply come to nothing and remain buried in the tomb? Not at all. The Bible plainly teaches that Jesus rose from the dead on the third day and subsequently ascended to heaven. Indeed, in the three great passages predicting the sufferings of the Messiah, we find clear hints and predictions of his resurrection. The first twenty-one verses of Psalms 22:1-31 contain a heart-rending plea for comfort as the subject of the Psalm cries out in awful anguish to God in heaven above. In the following verses, however, the tone changes completely. The subject cries out in complete peace and in joyful triumph: I will tell of thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the congregation I will praise thee: You who fear the Lord, praise him! all you sons of Jacob, glorify him, and stand in awe of him, all you sons of Israel! For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; and he has not hid his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him. Psalms 22:22-24. The rest of the Psalm is a glorious expression of confidence in God for his complete deliverance and faithfulness towards the one who just a short while before was expiring in considerable agony and desolation. The sudden transition can only be explained in one way - the one who but a few days before was suffering and dying in unimaginable agony had suddenly been raised to perfect health and newness of life. It is important to note that the confident exclamation of praise in the congregation of the righteous in verse 22, following immediately upon a long section of despairing isolation, is applied directly to Jesus Christ himself in Hebrews 2:12. The passage is a clear prediction of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead after his awesome ordeal and trials just a few days earlier. In Psalms 69:1-36 we find precisely the same thing. Here too the first twenty-nine verses set out the inward pleas of a suffering man staring an awful death in the face. The passage comes to a climax when the subject, the Messiah, cries out "But I am afflicted and in pain; let thy salvation, 0 God, set me on high!" (Psalms 69:29). Suddenly the whole Psalm changes into an exclamation of praise and triumph as the subject, in perfect peace and joy, praises God for the wonderful deliverance he has suddenly experienced: I will praise the name of God with a song; I will magnify him with thanksgiving. Psalms 69:30. Once again we have a clear foreshadowing of the resurrection of the Messiah from the dead. The lonely agony of the greater part of the Psalm suddenly gives way to a glorious expression of triumph and praise as the subject glorifies God in the remaining verses for his salvation. Needless to say, Isaiah 53:1-12 too contains obvious prophecies of the resurrection of the Messiah after his death through which he wrought salvation for all those who were to become his own by faith in him. The prophet contains this wonderful promise that his lonely death would not be in vain: When he makes himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his band; he shall see the fruit of the travail of his soul and be satisfied. Isaiah 53:10-11. Although be would die for the sins of the world, he would yet see the heirs of his salvation, he would yet look in triumph on the immense benefits of his redeeming work, and the fulness of God’s saving grace would yet be brought to light in his own hands. "He poured out his soul to death", the prophecy continues (v.12), yet the Lord God of heaven himself left him with the assurance that he would still, in good time, obtain the fruits of his victory. There are many other prophecies of the resurrection of the Messiah in the writings of the former prophets. David himself plainly foretold that he would rise again to life in these words: For thou dost not give me up to Sheol, or let thy godly one see the Pit. Thou dost show me the path of life; in thy presence there is fulness of joy, in thy right hand are pleasures for evermore. Psalm 16:.1-10. David could hardly have been speaking of himself as he both died and was buried and his tomb remained untroubled through the centuries that followed (Acts 2:29) He passed away and was laid with his fathers and his body duly saw corruption (Acts 13:36). Just as his son Solomon was only a type of the Messiah, so that the Jews soon realised that the prophecies of the eternal rule of the Son of David referred not to Solomon but to David’s greater son, the Messiah, so the disciples of Jesus realised that David’s prediction that God’s holy one would not see corruption after his death was not to be applied to the prophet himself but rather to his offspring, the coming Messiah. As one of Jesus’ closest companions duly declared just after his resurrection from the dead: "Brethren, I may say to you confidently of the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants upon his throne, he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we are all witnesses." Acts 2:30-31. It is hardly surprising, therefore, to find that Jesus himself made much of the fact that the former scriptures foretold not only the crucifixion of the Messiah but also his resurrection. On the very day that he was raised from the dead he joined two of his disciples who were walking to Emmaus near Jerusalem and he discussed with them as they walked. Their eyes were kept from recognising him, but in the end he rebuked them, saying: "0 foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" Luke 24:25-26. Indeed, when he was gathered together with all his disciples that same evening, he said to them: "These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled" (Luke 24:44). And what was it that was written about him by Moses, David and all the other great prophets who preceded him? Just this: "Thus it is written that the Messiah should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem." Luke 24:46-47. Jesus plainly told his disciples that all the previous prophets had spoken of both his crucifixion and resurrection from the dead three days later. The same close companion of Jesus referred to earlier once wrote to the early companions of the Messiah, saying: The prophets who prophesied of the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired about this salvation; they inquired what person or time was indicated by the Spirit of the Messiah within them when predicting the sufferings of the Messiah and the subsequent glory. 1 Peter 1:10-11. Here again is a clear reference to the two advents of the Messiah - the first time to suffer, the second to reign in glory. Forty days after his resurrection Jesus ascended to glory in heaven where he has been alive for nearly twenty centuries. On the great Day of Judgment he will return to earth, not like his first coming when he came almost unnoticed as a baby child born in a stable of common Jewish parentage. At his second coming he will return in all his glory. Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, every one who pierced him; and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen. Revelation 1:7. In perfect humility he came the first time as a lowly man, apparently no different to his kinsmen. He sought not to be praised as one of the kings of earth but was content to appear in the form of a servant. And being found in human form be emptied himself further and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross (Php 2:8). From the heights of heaven he did not disdain to plumb to the lower parts of the earth. His condescending grace and humilty, however, were to lead him from the depths of human despair to the heights of divine glory and triumph. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Php 2:9-11. As another scripture says, God "raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right band in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come; and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all" (Ephesians 1:20-23). Such is the glory to which he has attained. Jesus the Messiah is destined to reappear at the end of time in unspeakable glory. He was no ordinary prophet. He came from heaven where, in his eternal spirit, be had been throughout all ages. He was not raised up purely as a messenger to preach and teach, he was sent from above to bring the salvation of God to all the earth. He did not simply die and return to dust, he was raised from the dead in an outstanding victory over death and hell, and he returned to his eternal home in heaven where he rules to this day. The Messiah was no ordinary messenger of God. "I came from above", he declared (John 8:23), and he will yet return from above to reveal the true children of God, establish the kingdom of God, and be anointed as its ruler for ever and ever. Al-Masih the Qur’an calls him, "the Anointed One" it duly owns him to be, yet in all its teaching it unwittingly robs him of his glory, suggesting be appeared only as a messenger and that he will return as a servant. If so, then there is no meaning it the title. Its specific application to Jesus alone lose all meaning if he is discounted and regarded purely as prophet among prophets. Jesus the Messiah is the Lord and Saviour of the world, the one whom God set forth for the salvation of all who are prepared to believe in him as their only Master and Deliverer and commit themselves in faith to him as the one who will return as the Ruler of the Kingdom God. Will you not acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah in all that the title really means and submit to God’s Supreme Anointed One who once appeared to die for your sins and who will appear a second time to save those who are eagerly waiting for him (Hebrews 9:28)? Will you not believe in him as your Lord and Saviour and be saved? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 5: 01.04. AN ANALYTICAL STUDY OF THE CROSS AND THE HIJRAH ======================================================================== An Analytical Study of the Cross and the Hijrah 1. The Similarities between Jerusalem and Mecca 2. The Opposition to Jesus and Muhammad 3. The Ways of Escdpe Before both Men 4. Muhammad and the Ummah at Medina 5. The Contrasting Path Chosen by Jesus Christ 6. The Cross - the Choice of the Saviour of the World 7. The End Result: the Glorious Kingdom of God An Analytical Study of the Cross and the Hiirah It is not often realised how many similarities there are between the ministries of Jesus and Muhammad up to the point of Muhammad’s departure from Mecca for the city of Medina (then known as Yathrib). The Islamic calendar traditionally dates from this exodus which is described in Islamic history as the hijrah (the "emigration"). In the biographies of the founders of the two greatest religions in the world we find them both pursuing a religious purpose and vocation that was to provoke intense opposition from their respective countrymen to the point where plans were laid to put them both to death. Each one was to learn of the plot against him and a moment of crisis, of crucial decision-making, was to face him. In this booklet we shall briefly analyse the similarities between the events in the lives of these two men that led to the point of crisis, examine the actual decisions taken by them, and the vastly different courses their lives and ministries were to take as a result. 1. The Similarities Between Jerusalem and Mecca During the lifetime of Jesus the city of Jerusalem was the centre of Judaism, the religion of the people of Israel, the Jews, to whom Jesus himself belonged. He had been born of David’s line (Luke 1:32) and was thus descended from Judah (Hebrews 7:14), one of the twelve sons of the prophet Jacob. Nearly six centuries later Muhammad was born in the city of Mecca, the leading city of the Arab tribes throughout the Arabian Peninsula and the custodian of its most important shrine and relics. The Quraysh tribe controlled the city and its religious ceremonies and Muhammad was duly born into this tribe in 570 AD. Both Jesus and Muhammad, therefore, were members of the very nations that ruled their major cities respectively and were brought up in the environment of their forefathers and their religious customs. Just as Jerusalem was the centre of Judaism at the time of Jesus, so Mecca was the focal-point of Arab paganism during the lifetime of Muhammad. Each city, furthermore, had its own special place of worship, a shrine that was the focal-point of all the religious ceremonies practised by the Jews and Arabs respectively. In Jerusalem the great Temple of the Jews stood at the time of Jesus. It had originally been built by Solomon nearly a thousand years earlier, had been rebuilt during the reign of Zerubbabel after the exile to Babylon a few centuries later, and by the time Jesus began his ministry it had gone through a radical phase of reconstruction that had already taken forty-six years (John 2:20) and became known as "Herod’s Temple" when it was finally completed. This temple had a number of courtyards and porticoes but its chief building was a cube-like structure in the middle of the Jewish courtyard known as the "Holy Place" which contained the Holy of Holies, an inner sanctuary where the presence of God was known to be and into which only the High Priest could go on the Day of Atonement to offer a sacrifice for the sins of the people of Israel. Wherever the Jews were in the known world of the time, whether in Africa, Asia Minor, Greece or Rome, they would turn towards the Temple in Jerusalem to pray, signifying their rejection of the pagan rites and customs of the Gentile nations and their identification with the God of Israel, the one true God. This practice had been enjoined by Solomon (Suleiman) himself when he completed the first temple in Jerusalem. He prayed to God at the dedication of the temple in these words: "And hearken thou to the supplication of thy servant and of thy people Israel, when they pray toward this place; yea, hear thou in heaven thy dwelling- place; and when thou hearest, forgive". -- 1 Kings 8:30 In Mecca the pagan Arabs had a similar shrine which today likewise has porticoes and an inner courtyard. Like the Holy Place in Jerusalem it too contained a cube-like structure known as the "Ka’aba" (the word in Arabic in fact signifies a cube) and to this day it is known in Islam as the holiest shrine in all the world. As the Temple in Jerusalem has been called bait ul-muqaddas in Islam (the "Holy House"), so the Ka’aba has been called baitullah (the "House of Allah"). Although Muhammad never believed that Allah himself manifested his presence in the shrine, it has nonetheless become the point of identification with Allah on earth for all Muslims and, like the Jews of old, they too all turn towards their holy house when offering their prayers to God. Every mosque in the world faces Mecca so that all Muslims will be facing the Ka’aba when they pray. The similarity between the shrines goes still further. Not only did the Jews face Jerusalem when praying but they also came to the city from all over the known world for the various Jewish festivals held every year. Many made the journey to the city for the Passover Feast, the Festival of Booths, and other festivals. On the Day of Pentecost that followed the ascension of Jesus to heaven we read that the Jews were astounded to hear the disciples of Jesus preaching fluently in their own languages and in their exclamation of amazement we obtain some idea of the distant lands from which they had come. Thousands were gathered together and as this multitude of worshippers stood bewildered at the manner in which the apostles addressed them they said: "Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians, we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God". -- Acts 2:7-11. In a similar way Arabs came from all over Arabia in the holy months to worship at the Ka’aba during the time of Muhammad. The Festival of Ukadh was their major fair but many others were held every year to which Arabs from the Najran province, the Hijaz mountain areas north of Mecca, the state of Yemen to the south, and various other cities and provinces flocked. Both the Temple and the Ka’aba were thus the focal-points of Judaism and Arab paganism respectively to which the Jews and Arabs turned in prayer and flocked in pilgrimage to perform their devotions. Into these two similar environments Jesus and Muhammad were born, and within the precincts of their holy cities Jerusalem and Mecca they preached in the name of God to their country-men, both making special use of the annual festivals to deliver their messages to the representatives of their nations gathered together. 2. The Opposition to Jesus and Muhammad Jesus and Muhammad both rose from among their own people and came into prominence as they began to preach in their holy cities. It took only a short while, however, before each was strongly opposed and persecuted by the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Mecca respectively. They both acknowledged the sanctity of the holy shrines in their cities but stood firmly against the practices and ceremonies being conducted around them. Jesus recognised that the Temple was the sacred house of the God of Israel and constantly referred to is as "my Father’s house" (Luke 2:49, John 2:16). So likewise Muhammad acknowledged that Allah was the "Lord of the Ka’aba" and the Qur’an teaches that it was originally built by Abraham through a direct command of Allah in these words: We covenanted with Abraham and Ismail, that they should sanctify My House for those who compass it round, or use it as a retreat, or bow, or prostrate themselves (therein in prayer). -- Surah 2:125 Jesus stood against the Temple worship, not because he did not accept that it was the true Holy Place of God on earth, but because the religion of the Jews, in particular the rites being practised around the Temple, had become a gross perversion of what God had intended it to be. The Jewish leaders had forsaken the commandments of God for the sake of their own tradition (Matthew 15:6). Shortly after his baptism and at the very beginning of his public ministry Jesus entered the Temple and made a public remonstration against the religious orders of the day. The incident is recorded as follows: The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the moneychangers at their business. And making a whip of cords, he drove them all, with the sheep and the oxen, out of the temple; and he poured out the coins of the moneychangers and overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, "Take these things away; you shall not make my Father’s house a house of trade". -- John 2:13-16. This act immediately set the Jews of Jerusalem against him and when he repeated it during the last week of his ministry, the chief priests and scribes and principal men of the Jews took counsel against him to put him to death (Luke 19:47). Jesus, on this latter occasion, condemned the whole Jewish system around God’s House in these words: "It is written, ’My house shall be a house of prayer’; but you have made it a den of robbers". -- Luke 19:46 Muhammad stood against the rites around the Ka’aba because the shrine was polluted with idols. It is said there were more than three hundred in and around the shrine. At the age of thirty-five, some five years be- fore the commencement of his public preaching, he was selected to replace the black stone in the Ka’aba as it was being rebuilt. He willingly consented and throughout his life regarded the Ka’aba as a sacred shrine built originally for the honour of Allah alone. His early teachings, however, struck right at the root of the pagan idolatry surrounding the building. He constantly declared that God was One, that he had no partners, and that any association of any creature with him was an unforgivable sin (Surah 4:116). He thus condemned out of hand the whole of the Ka’aba worship as idolatrous and whereas, like Jesus at the Temple, he did not disdain to worship at the Ka’aba, he nevertheless opposed the idol-worship associated with the shrine. In both cases the cities rose in defiance of these men who promised nothing less than the supreme punishment to their most distinguished inhabitants. Jesus plainly said to the Jewish leaders, "How are you to escape being sentenced to hell?" (Matthew 23:33), and Muhammad likewise warned the Arabs against the Day of Judgment when they would be dragged through the Fire, being commanded, "Taste ye the touch of Hell!" (Surah 54:48). Each came to a point of crisis and decision. When Muhammad made a covenant with certain men from Yathrib (Medina), it was discovered by the Quraysh and they finally determined to put him to death. A three-year trade ban on the sub-tribe of Banu Hashim to which Muhammad belonged had failed to negate his influence and the Meccan Arabs decided on the ultimate method of silencing him. Muhammad’s life was no longer safe in Mecca - the point of decision had come. The Qur’an itself mentions the plot laid by the unbelieving Arabs to kill Muhammad: Remember how the Unbelievers plotted against thee, to keep thee in bonds, or slay thee, or get thee out (of thy home). They plot and plan, and God too plans, but the best of planners is God. -- Surah 8:30 Muhammad had to take a quick decision in this moment of crisis. He had to act one way or the other in the face of the, by now, extreme threat from the idolatrous Arabs of Mecca. Jesus reached a similar point where he too had to make a sudden decision in the face of a growing scheme to destroy him. When he raised Lazarus from the dead the chief priests among the Jews at Jerusalem, concerned at his growing influence, finally turned their desire to do away with him into a deliberate plot to kill him: So from that day on they took counsel how to put him to death. -- John 11:53 Like Muhammad he was faced with a moment of destiny. Should he remain in Jerusalem and endanger his life, or should he move away from the city? 3. The Ways of Escape Before Both Men Just as opposition against Muhammad was coming to a head in Mecca, and not long after he had been rejected by the people at at-Ta’if to the south-east of the city, a welcome opportunity to escape the pending dangers and find an alternative haven came his way. The two major tribes in Yathrib. the Aus and the Khazraj, had for a long time fought with one another and, in an attempt to resolve their differences, they sought an independent leader. Men from both tribes made a pact with Muhammad during one of the fairs at Mecca and a year later a group of seventy returned and, at the Second Pledge of Aqabah, committed themselves to Muhammad, pledging to defend him even at the cost of their lives. Not long afterward Muhammad left Mecca for Yathrib with a few score followers, later known as the muhajirun (the "emigrants"), and was duly met by each of the ansar (the "helpers") who had covenanted with him at Aqabah. Muhammad made the city his home and headquarters, renamed it al-Madinah ("the city"), and set about establishing himself among the people to the north of Mecca who had offered him a suitable haven of refuge and a way of escape from the growing dangers he had faced. The great Hijrah, the Emigration, was complete. The parallels between the crises that both Jesus and Muhammad met continue at this point as well. As soon as Jesus knew that the chief priests were planning to put him to death, he no longer went about openly among the Jews until the Feast of the Passover when he returned again to Jerusalem (John 11:54; John 12:1). He came into the city seated on a donkey, fully aware of the schemes being laid against him. He had been rejected and despised by the priestly hierarchy in Jerusalem and knew that he faced all sorts of dangers from the Jews in the city. Suddenly a way of escape opened to him, uncannily similar to the one presented to Muhammad. Shortly after he had entered the city a delegation of Greeks came to Philip, one of Jesus’ disciples, and they said to him, "Sir, we wish to see Jesus" (John 12:21). Philip and Andrew duly went and told Jesus. Jesus must have felt the same sense of potential relief that Muhammad was later to feel in similar circumstances. He could go away from the Jews and make his home among the Greeks - a possibility considered sometime earlier by the Jews themselves in Jerusalem (John 7:35). At his moment of destiny and crisis Jesus too discovered an inviting prospect of escape. Thusfar the analogy between him and Muhammad goes, but no further. When he heard that the Greeks wanted to see him he replied to his disciples: "The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified. Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit". -- John 12:23-24. He had come into the world with an express purpose and he knew that his hour of destiny had arrived. The hour had come for him to fulfil his glorious mission and as he considered the request of the Greeks, he told a brief parable to illustrate his reason for rejecting the opportunity to escape. If a grain of wheat is left by itself on a shelf it will retain its own identity but will serve no purpose. If it is buried in the ground, it will lose its identity, but the plant that will grow from it will bear many new grains of wheat. Jesus came into the world to save it. He came to give his life as a supreme sacrifice that would give life and a new hope to the world (John 6:51). His purpose was to make the kingdom of heaven available to sinful, dying men. To achieve this he knew that he himself must die and be buried and that it would only be through this atoning work that the kingdom of heaven could truly be established on earth and many men become its heirs through faith in him. The seed had to lose its identity and first be buried before it could bear much fruit. Jesus first had to suffer and die for the sins of men before his salvation could become available to Jews and Greeks and all the other nations of the world. He considered the way of escape offered to him but rejected it in these words: "Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? ’Father, save me from this hour’? No, for this purpose I have come to this hour". -- John 12:27 Should he appeal to his Father to save him from his moment of destiny by finding a refuge among the Greeks? No - he rejected the idea. He had come for this hour. He solemnly turned down the opportunity to escape that Muhammad gratefully accepted. He set his face towards the cross that he knew was facing him and the work of salvation that he was to accomplish on it. Instead of appealing for help he boldly declared, "Father, glorify thy Name", and a voice came from heaven, "I have glorified it and I will glorify it again" (John 12:28). The similarities between the course of events in the lives of Jesus and Muhammad come to an end at this point and from here on all is in contrast. Muhammad took a pledge from the Ansar to defend and save his life, even to the point of sacrificing their own lives. Jesus renewed his own pledge to lay down his life so that all his followers might find life instead. These contrary decisions in the moment of crisis and destiny were to lead these two men on totally different paths thereafter and their missions were to have sharply contrasting consequences. 4. Muhammad and the Ummah at Medina For many years scholars tended to distinguish between Muhammad as a lonely preacher in Mecca and Muhammad as the head of a community of believers at Medina dedicated to defeating their opponents in Arabia through jihad, religious warfare. It has often been suggested that Muhammad’s personality and objectives changed at Medina and that the militant figurehead of a large body of believers in this city compared sharply with the passive preacher at Mecca who patiently endured all the insults heaped on him and the persecutions levelled against his followers. In more recent years, however, scholars have concluded that there was really no change in the man at all and that the rule he established in Medina and the means it he adopted to enforce and spread its influence had been forming in his mind long before he left Mecca. It is now suggested that the prophet of the Arabs at Mecca was seeking favourable circumstances to employ his ultimate objectives and that the Hijrah was not simply an escape from Mecca but a deliberate stepping-stone towards the establishment of the circumstances Muhammad perceived necessary to bring about the religious order he believed he was called to establish. A brief study of the teaching of the Qur’an at this point tends to confirm this latter view. The book plainly teaches that it was God’s express will to create a well-balanced and stable ummah, a "community" of believers, to be a witness to the nations (Surah 2:143). Furthermore, whereas jihad only became a tenet and regular feature of Islam at Medina in contrast with the situation at Mecca where no Muslim was taught to retaliate against the enemies of Islam, the Qur’an nevertheless places the Hijrah and jihad side by side, indicating that one of the purposes of the escape from Mecca was to establish a better base from which the struggle of jihad against the unbelievers could be launched. Not long after the Hijrah a party of Muslims made an attack on a small Meccan caravan at Nakhlah near Mecca in which one of the pagan Arabs was killed and two were captured. The Muslims at Medina were surprised at this new venture and were also quite disturbed to find themselves on the offensive against the Meccans. Although they had been the victims of prolonged persecution during Muhammad’s preaching years at Mecca, it was not the policy of the Quraysh to put them to death. Now, very shortly after the Hijrah, one of their opponents had been slain by fellow-Muslims and the fledgling community at Medina questioned the wisdom of provoking possible large-scale retaliation from Mecca and the whole prospect of fighting in the way of religion. The following verse in the Qur’an, however, soon came to Muhammad to reassure them: Fighting is prescribed for you. -- Surah 2:216 The very next verse justified retaliation against the Meccans for denying the Muslims access to the Ka’aba and for the constant oppression heaped upon them and the following verse reads: Those who believed and those who suffered exile and fought (and strove and struggled) in the path or God, - they have the hope of the mercy of God; and God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. -- Surah 2:218 In the original Arabic the words translated "and those who suffered exile and fought in the path of God" read as follows: wallathiina haajaruu wa jaahaduu fii sabiilillah. It is very significant to see the concept of exile, hijrah, directly linked with that of fighting, namely jihad. Those who have been "exiled" (haajaruu) are also those who have "fought" (jaahaduu) in the way of Allah. The Hijrah was thus merely a stepping-stone towards jihad. It was not only an opportunity to escape for Muhammad but also a means to deal more effectively with those who opposed him. It was the pathway to jihad. Muhammad left Mecca only to take steps immediately to interrupt its trade and ultimately to conquer and subdue it. He escaped from the city that had rejected him only to confront it from Medina. The growing Muslim ummah at Medina at last found itself able to deal forcefully with those who opposed it. Even though there were hostile elements in the city, both Jewish and Arab, Muhammad gradually asserted his authority. He exiled two of the Jewish tribes and despatched the third after his final confrontation with the Meccans at Medina and although he never fully subdued the Arahs in the citv who were opposed to him. he did eventually annul their influence completely. Even during the period when they sought to undermine his influence they did outwardly swear allegiance to him. The three confrontations with the Meccans before Muhammad was finally able to conquer Mecca with a superior force in 630 AD all helped the ummah to establish itself. Though outnumbered at Badr in 625 AD the Muslims inflicted a serious defeat on the Meccans, killing a number of their leaders including Abu Jahl who had been one of Muhammad’s chief opponents. The Muslims suffered a reverse at the Battle of Uhud which followed but their security within Medina was unchallenged and when a major effort by the Meccans to drive them out a year later also failed, the ever-growing Muslim community was able to take the offensive and conquer the Meccans. Many Muslim writers have sought to justify jihad in Islam by suggesting that this applies purely to self-defence and they argue accordingly that all Muhammad’s wars including those of his successors (in particular the battles fought during Umar’s caliphate which spread the rule of Islam to Egypt, Syria, Iraq and parts of Iran) were purely defensive. We are not concerned to debate this subject here and only wish to note that it is at least admitted that the sword may be unsheathed for the protection of Muslim communities and the faith of Islam. Muhammad himself saw nothing wrong with the destruction of his enemies by force of arms and the Qur’an itself calls for the demise of his uncle and radical opponent Abu Lahab (Surah 111:1). Muslims themselves were told that every Muslim who died while fighting for Islam was a shahid, a martyr (the word principally means a "witness"), and the Qur’an duly guarantees Paradise to them. A typical passage setting out the benefits of dying while fighting for the faith is this one: Those who leave their homes in the cause of God, and are then slain or die, - on them will God bestow verily a goodly Provision: Truly God is He Who bestows the best Provision. Verily he will admit them to a place with which they shall be well-pleased: for God is All-Knowing, Most Forbearing. -- Surah 22:58-59. Significantly the first verse speaks once again of the haajaruu, those who go into exile, and who are then killed (qutiluu) in the way of Allah. The Hijrah thus led directly to the establishment of the initial ummah of believers, a kind of "kingdom of God on earth". The body of believers was thus an earthly community that was entitled and exhorted to defend its identity against all who would oppose it or stand in its way. It was thus clearly Muhammad’s objective to establish a theocratic, Muslim state and community and to protect and maintain its identity by fighting those who resisted it. The later passages of the Qur’an give Muslims the right to take up arms against all-comers who threaten the Muslim ummah and to slay them wherever they be found (Surah 2:190-191). The book even contains an open licence to make war on all who do not acknowledge Islam, including Christians, until they "feel themselves subdued" (Surah 9:29). It is thus quite apparent what the natural consequence and, indeed, express objective of the Hijrah was. Although the concept of jihad, fighting in the way of God against unbelievers, was a novel one in Arabian society, the principle of faith versus unbelief as a justifiable cause for physical warfare became one of the tenets of Islam. Nonetheless, despite its religious character, the employment of force of arms for the subjugation of opponents, whether in self-defence or otherwise, is historically nothing more than the customary method of establishing an earthly rule. It has been resorted to throughout the ages. It was this very means which Muhammad adopted to protect the ummah of Islam against its opponents and, when he was strong enough, to subdue them. Its express purpose was to safeguard and expand the visible identity of the people of Islam as a distinct community on earth. The Hijrah led perforce to the concept of what can best be described, in Christian terms, as a visible kingdom of God on earth, and its very character necessitated the use of forceful means to protect its identity whenever this appeared to be threatened. 5. The Contrasting Path Chosen by Jesus Christ Jesus Christ could have chosen a similar path to that chosen by Muhammad. Not only were the Greeks prepared to welcome him but the Jews in Galilee also were only too willing to make him their king (John 6:15). The opportunity to gather a band of loyal followers around him and stage a revolt was presented to him on numerous occasions. Nevertheless, when the chance to escape from the designs of the Jews suddenly came to him as he entered Jerusalem for the last time, he resisted it and set himself positively on the road to his moment of destiny - the cross. There were many people in Israel in those days who attempted to overthrow the Roman rule and establish themselves as the leaders of the Jewish race. The notorious Barabbas was just such a man, one who had been "thrown into prison for an insurrection started in the city and for murder" (Luke 23:19). Gamaliel, the great Jewish teacher of the law in Jerusalem, spoke of other such men who had arisen at various times in the nation’s history and had endeavoured to overthrow the existing rule by forceful means: "For before these days Theudas arose, giving himself out to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him; but he was slain and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After him Judas the Galilean arose in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him; he also perished, and all who followed him were scattered". -- Acts 5:36-37. So likewise Bar Kochba gathered a number of men around him in 130 AD and attempted to drive out the Romans as well. In each case the usual means was resorted to - the followers were armed with weaponry and sent forth to fight in the name of God against unbelievers. Jesus was different. The Jews tried more than once to persuade him to aspire to become the ruler of the nation and enable it to resist the unbelieving Gentiles by force of arms, but he resisted the temptation every time it came his way. At last the moment of crisis, the hour of destiny, arrived. Jesus sat together with his disciples on the Thursday night after his entry to Jerusalem the previous Sunday when the Greeks had sought to see him. He knew that the Jewish soldiers would come to arrest him that night and would look for him in the Garden of Gethsemane where he usually met with his disciples (John 18:2). Even now escape would have been easy enough for him but instead he went straight to the very place where he knew they would come for him, knowing everything that was to befall him (John 18:4). "I have come to this hour" he had boldly declared (John 12:27) and when he saw the crowd coming towards him with lanterns, torches and weapons he said: "The hour has come; the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners". -- Mark 14:41 At this very moment his disciples saw what was about to happen and they cried out, "Lord, shall we strike with the sword"? (Luke 22:49). Simon Peter immediately drew his sword and cut off the ear of one of the servants of the high priest. At the hour of crisis the followers of Jesus were possessed with the spirit of jihad. The sword was promptly unsheathed by Peter in the defence of his master in fulfilment of his pledge that he was willing to die for Jesus (Matthew 26:35). Jesus, however, had rejected the whole idea of a hijrah or jihad. If Peter had laid down his life for Jesus it would have been a courageous act of martyrdom. But Jesus had come to lay down his life for Peter and for all his followers instead. He had come to bring new life to them and sought to open the door so that they could be transformed into true men of God and inherit eternal life. He said to Peter: "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the scriptures be fulfi]led, that it must be so?" -- Matthew 26:52-54. To the astonishment of his disciples he promptly healed the ear of his captor! (Luke 22:51). This was the opposite of the spirit of jihad, it was the spirit of sacrificial love and grace. He did not seek to destroy his enemies by means of jihad so that he might live, he was willing to be destroyed so that even his enemies might live and be reconciled to God (Romans 5:10). In one breath he commanded his followers once for all to sheathe the sword. He had not come to set up an earthly ummah which was to be defended by force of arms, he had come to prepare his followers to become citizens of the kingdom of God, a heavenly ummah. When Jesus was brought before Pilate the next day the Jews laid the false charge against him that he had been attempting to set himself up as a king in opposition to Caesar. Pilate duly asked him if he was the King of the Jews and why he had been handed over by his own nation. Jesus answered him: "My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servands would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world". -- John 18:36 "My servants would fight", he said, if he had come to set up an earthly ummah, just as Muhammad’s servants duly did to protect him and his community of followers. But his kingdom, as he said, was not of this world. He had come to make the kingdom of heaven accessible to men on earth and to prove the love of God by paving the way for them to become citizens of heaven. He was not interested in a hijrah to preserve his life on earth, nor in a jihad to protect an earthly community. He sought to establish a heavenly kingdom and the only way to achieve this was entirely different to the path of jihad. The kingdom that was not of this world that Jesus came to establish was a heavenly one, a kingdom of love, grace, holiness and peace. He did not seek to subdue his enemies, he came into the world because he was endowed with heavenly love for them. He sought to save them and, to achieve this, he was willing to lay down his own life for them. He came to establish a spiritual people constituting one body over all the earth, not to be gathered into an earthly community to be protected against all other tribes and nations, but to be united in one spirit, secure and prepared for a kingdom ready to be revealed at the last time. He therefore chose the only possible path that could bring his mission to fulfilment. 6. The Cross - the Choice of the Saviour of the World On the night that Jesus was arrested the hatred of those who sought to destroy him was finally given an opportunity to express itself. The Jewish leaders, who were his sworn enemies, immediately took steps to have him put to death and within less than twenty-four hours he was nailed to the cross. His disciples were shattered. They "had long hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel" (Luke 24:21) and, in this moment of apparent defeat, it appeared that all was suddenly lost. His enemies were jubilant. At last they had him in their power and were determined to see him put to death before their very own eyes. As Jesus hung on the cross he seemed to be a failure. All his labours appeared to have been in vain. While the hijrah had taken Muhammad from the depths of disconsolation to the prime of success, the cross took Jesus to an early grave. It was all so sudden and unexpected. It had seemed that the chief priests could do nothing to withstand him. Suddenly they had laid hold of him and had arranged a swift execution. What went through the mind of Jesus at this point? Did he regret not taking the many opportunities he had enjoyed to escape from the Jews? Did he look back on the occasion a few days earlier when the Greeks had desired to talk with him and wish he had hearkened to them? Did he despair in the sudden horror of all that had befallen him? Did he curse his enemies in his heart for achieving what they had so long sought? Not one of these thoughts entered his mind. Shortly after he was crucified he spoke from the cross and he prayed in these words: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do". -- Luke 23:34 The crucifixion did not catch Jesus by surprise at all. He had often predicted that he would be crucified (Matthew 17:23; Matthew 20:19) and as the time approached he spoke of it as his "hour" (John 12:27). On the night of his arrest he plainly told his disciples that he was about to be betrayed (John 13:19) and in everything he said during his arrest, trial and crucifixion we find him reacting without surprise to the events that were rapidly unfolding against him. He spoke of this hour as the moment which he had anticipated and as the one in which he was to be "glorified" (John 12:23; John 13:31). He looked toward it as the climax of the glorious work he had been sent to fulfil. He did not view it as a sudden disaster that he should have anticipated and fled from in hijrah fashion, he saw it as his moment of glory, as the occasion he had long awaited when the fulness of his love was finally to be revealed. The moment had come for him to achieve what he had long been constrained to accomplish (Luke 12:50). He did not cry out from the cross in despair, nor did he curse those who had condemned him. He prayed that they might be forgiven. He was willing to suffer in their place and be consumed that they might be forgiven. He died so that his enemies might live. He revealed the perfection of his Father’s love for those who hated him by enduring on the cross the penalty that was due to them for their sins. In his crucifixion he gave the ultimate proof of God’s love for wayward sinners. Jesus Christ chose the opposite path to that chosen by Muhammad. The cross was the antithesis of the Hijrah and its objectives were the opposite of those sought in the escape from Mecca. Muhammad fled his enemies only to engage in battle with them and slaughter them so that he and his companions might live. Jesus made no attempt to escape from his enemies that fateful night but gave himself up for them and died that they might live. When God called on Abraham to sacrifice, he tested him to see whether he loved him so much that he would give his very own son for him. When this same God, the eternal Father, willingly gave his own Son for the human race and took the initiative in securing the forgiveness even of his enemies, he manifested to the full his love for mankind. Muhammad willingly destroyed those whom he considered to be the enemies of God, but in Jesus Christ God willingly forgave those whom he knew to be his own enemies so that they might live instead. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins. -- 1 John 4:9-10. From an earthly point of view it may yet appear that Muhammad’s decision to flee his enemies was a wiser one than the decision of Jesus to passively give himself up to them. After all, Muhammad’s decision was the turning-point in his mission. Twelve years of frustration in Mecca were soon to be forgotten as the Islamic ummah was established at Medina and as Muhammad grew in power and authority. Successes became increasingly regular and in the end he was able to return to Mecca with an overwhelming force and conquer his enemies. At the time of his death he had subdued virtually the whole of the Arabian Peninsula. Did he not die in peace, beholding the triumphs of his mission? After only three years ministry Jesus was suddenly apprehended and put to an untimely death in what was generally considered to be a shameful and disgraceful manner. His small band of disciples deserted him and his enemies gloated over him in triumph. Did not his life, in contrast with Muhammad’s, end in miserable defeat and apparent disaster? As he hung on the cross, two thieves who were crucified with him began to mock him with the Jewish leaders for claiming to be the Messiah (Matthew 27:44). After a while one of them again reviled him, calling on him to come down from the cross and save them if he really was the Messiah. It was to be the last temptation from Satan to Jesus to express himself as a worldly Messiah and make a public display of his real authority and conquer all his enemies. At this late hour, however, the other thief finally repented and had a change of heart. He said to his fellow criminal: "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong". -- Luke 23:40-41 But what good would such repentance do at this moment for a hardened criminal who had done no good in his life at all and was now only a short while from death? With his hands and feet nailed to the cross, what could this enemy of God do to redeem himself, one who not an hour earlier had heaped abuse on the Anointed one of God? In his moment of helplessness and complete demoralisation he said to Jesus: "Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingly power". -- Luke 23:42 He finally perceived that the crucifixion of Jesus was not a sudden defeat but the very purpose for which he had come into the world and in penitence asked only to be remembered, even as the most undeserving of sinners and least of men, the last man who might hope to enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus immediately replied: "Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise". -- Luke 23:43 A faint hope that he might yet obtain access to the kingdom of God as the last man in was transformed in a moment into a full assurance that he would be the very first man to die after Jesus Christ in true faith and walk with him that very day into Paradise! The Hijrah opened the way for Muslims on earth to obtain temporary security in the ummah of Islam. The cross opened the way for all true followers of Jesus to obtain eternal life in the kingdom of God. Apparent defeat was about to be transformed into glorious victory. At first glance the Hijrah might appear to have been a wiser choice than the cross. When viewed in perspective, however, the opposite turns out to be the case. 7. The End Result: The Glorious Kingdom of God The crucifixion of Jesus Christ stands with his resurrection from the dead and ascension to heaven forty days later. The only historical record of the life of Jesus is found in the Bible and it testifies to both the crucifixion and resurrection as facts of history. Who really succeeded in his mission - Muhammad who lies dead and buried in Medina, or Jesus who reigns in life in heaven above? The Hijrah led Muhammad to Medina, the seat of his earthly ummah, but the cross led Jesus to resurrection and glory in the kingdom of heaven, the realm of eternal life. Muhammad duly went the way of all flesh as his earthly body returned to dust in a city made of dust. Jesus returned to heaven and to "a city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God" (Hebrews 11:10). What striking parallels and contrasts there are between the events that led to the Hijrah, which Muhammad chose, and the cross, to which Jesus submitted himself. Ultimately, however, it is the contrasts and their consequences that fix themselves before our eyes. Jesus could have chosen to escape and find refuge among the Greeks, but what good would that have done? The seed would have remained alone. It had to die if it was to bear much fruit and so Jesus willingly gave himself up to die on the cross. But he rose again from the dead and his atoning work guarantees life beyond the grave to all who believe in him. How gloriously this wondrous statement sets forth the success that he wrought through his crucifixion and resurrection to life three days later: "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live". -- John 11:25 One fact cannot seriously be ignored - death brings disaster on all men. "They all lived happily ever after" is the myth of the average fairy story. The true human destiny is quite another thing. All men, no matter what their achievements, waste away and come to nothing. For many the demise of the body is a painful, humiliating experience. No real success can be achieved in a world where all come to nothing eventually. Death is the dreadful consequence of sin and it holds all men in its vice-like grip. Jesus Christ obtained the greatest victory this world has ever seen when he conquered death and rose from the grave. This is the one, supreme success story of history. No other remotely compares with it. While men continue to die all over the world, one man - just one man - sits alive in the heavens above and has done so for nearly two thousand years. While billions lie in the dust, one man alone enjoys the power of eternal life having not only conquered death but having also risen above the perishable world below, where all is bound to decay, into the realms of heaven where all is imperishable and unfading. Both Jesus and Muhammad planned to return to the places where they had been so ruthlessly opposed. Muhammad returned to Mecca some years after the Hijrah in triumph over his foes who were this time bound to acknowledge his claims. Death, however, was not far away and within two years it took him permanently into the earth where he remains to this day. Jesus, however, visited death first, burst out within three days from the grave, and ascended to heaven. From there he will return in triumph to reign over his foes, when every knee will bow to him and every tongue will be constrained to confess "that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father" (Php 2:11). Similarities there are indeed between Jesus and Muhammad, but the contrasts are far more striking. Muhammad established the ummah of Islam at Medina which asserted itself after the conquest of Mecca. Jesus has also chosen a people for himself, but his community is yet to be revealed in its glory. At the cross he wrought salvation - on his return he will raise to glory all true believers who are presently interred, "awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds" (Titus 2:13-14). He will come not only in triumph over his foes but also in eternal glory with those who are his own. Then the true success of his mission will be revealed. As he himself came back to life, so he will raise from the dead all who love him and follow him as their only Lord and Saviour. Only one man could conquer death and there was only one means to achieve it. Jesus Christ was the man and his crucifixion and immediate resurrection the means. "Cometh the hour, cometh the man" - of no man could these words be more truly said than of the Saviour of the world who, when the hour came, did not shirk its terrors but graciously endured them all so that those who believe in him might share his total victory and look forward, as all true Christians do, to the Day of their Redemption when he will return and raise them from the dead to eternal life. Will you not believe in the Living Saviour of all men, Jesus Christ, and join the ummah of true believers who are assured of eternal life and a place in the kingdom of heaven ready to be revealed in the last time? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 6: 01.05. THE LOVE OF GOD IN THEQUR'AN AND THE BIBLE ======================================================================== The Love of God in theQur’an and the Bible THE LOVE OF GOD IN THE QUR’AN AND THE BIBLE 1. The Great and First Commandment 2. The Love of God in the Qur’an 3. The Fatherhood of God in the Bible 4. The Revelation of God’s Love in Jesus Christ 5. Knowing God’s Love through the Holy Spirit The Love of God in the Qur’an and the Bible "You shall keep the commandments of the Lord your God, by walking in his ways and by fearing him". Deuteronomy 8:6 Moses spoke these words to the Children of Israel shortly before he died. No one need marvel at them for our Creator naturally has the right to demand that his creatures obey his laws and commandments. It is our bounden duty to keep God’s laws and we deservedly incur his wrath if we do not do so. Just as a servant is obliged to render loyal service to his master, so it is the duty of all men to fear God and keep his commandments (Ecclesiastes 12:13). If we were to ask, however, which is the greatest of all God’s commandments, what would the answer be? Would it be simply that we must believe in the oneness of God and perform the duties he lays upon us? Or is some higher obligation expected of us? Let us hear Moses again to discover whether indeed there is a greater duty upon us towards God other than that of simply keeping his laws. "What does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul". Deuteronomy 10:12 Once again the command to serve God is given to us but now a new dimension has come into the command. It is found in these three words: "to love him". Principally the difference made by these three words is that our service to God is not to be merely the servile exercise of the duties he lays upon us but clearly must be the expression of the affections of our own hearts toward him. Moses very carefully made his people know that such is the service God expects from men. The mere discharge of a duty is not what he requires. The only service he will accept from men is that which flows from love that proceeds from the heart. Moses emphasises this fact again and again during his last words to the Children of Israel: "You shall therefore LOVE the Lord your God". Deuteronomy 11:1 "I command you this day, to love the Lord your God". Deuteronomy 11:13 In his eyes, therefore, it is of supreme importance that we serve God out of love and that all that we do should be done in love towards him. 1. The Great and First Commandment Centuries later a Jewish scribe came up to Jesus and put a question to him to test his interpretation of the law to see whether he agreed with the opinions of the Jewish elders: "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" Matthew 22:36 The Jews had studied God’s laws exhaustively and this one wished to test Jesus to see what answer he would give him to this question. At once Jesus said: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment." Matthew 22:37-38 The command to love God is therefore the greatest and foremost of all his commandments. All other laws and all the teachings of the prophets are summed up in this one law to love the Lord with all our hearts, souls and minds. No other law can faithfully be kept unless it is kept in a spirit of love. What, however, is love? Can we say that by our a efforts to obey God’s laws we automatically show that we love him? That obedience to his commands is an essential aspect of love towards him is not to be disputed. No one who disobeys his commands loves him. Nevertheless the mere performance of religious duties is not proof of the presence of love. Men who endeavour to serve God may do so through fear, pride or prospect of reward. Love, therefore, is not necessarily the motivation behind such service. We must serve and obey God if we love him but this service must be done out of love, and must be motivated by love. One of the closest disciples of Jesus, the Apostle John, put it as follows: "And this is love, that we follow his commandments; this is the commandment, as you have heard from the beginning, that you follow love." 2 John 1:6 There is clearly something intensely deep about obedience that grows out of love. When we analyse the basic principles of love, we find certain essential features which must be present for this love to be truly exercised. Firstly, love must be genuine (Romans 12:9). It must be an uninhibited expression of the affections of the heart. There must be complete freedom for such love to be genuinely exercised. If there is any presence of fear in the heart, love cannot be openly displayed. The fear of punishment will automatically disqualify the one who has it from genuinely loving the one he fears. All his service towards that person will be done with the purpose of alleviating the wrath of that person towards him. Such service, therefore, springs not from love but from self-motivation. The man who serves God because he has no assurance of forgiveness from God, and seeks by this service to obtain that forgiveness, has his own welfare at heart. He most certainly does He not truly love God for love is selfless. Love, as a motivation of the heart, knows no partners. For love to be genuine there cannot be any other factor affecting the service of the one who seeks to express that love. "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and he who fears is not perfected in love". 1 John 4:18 Accordingly, if a man would serve God and keep his commandments through genuine love, there may not be any fear of God’s wrath in his heart. This makes it essential, from the outset, for there to be complete knowledge of forgiveness in the heart of the man who would to serve God out of love. That forgiveness must be experienced now, and may not be an uncertain prospect at a time to come in the future. If a man is unsure of God’s complete remission of his sins, and if he does not enjoy a state of permanent forgiveness for all that he may think or do, he cannot possibly serve God out of genuine love. Though he profess love towards God, he must really serve him with the primary objective of obtaining his forgiveness and alleviating his wrath. Such service is, as we have seen, principally self-motivated for it seeks approval for itself rather than the glory of God. Therefore, if we are to truly love God, we must first experience the perfect knowledge of his forgiveness in our hearts. For our love to be genuine, a condition of complete peace with God must reign within us. Secondly, love must be expressive. Unless deeds of love flow from the heart, there is no love in the heart of the worshipper. Love is an empty vacuum unless it manifests itself in appropriate ways. "Little children, let us not love in word or speech but in deed and truth". 1 John 3:18 From the side of man the obvious form of this expression is through heartfelt obedience to God’s commands. As Jesus himself put it on the last night he was with his disciples: "He who has my commandments and keeps them, he is it who loves me". John 14:21 God will discover no love in us towards him if we do not obey his commandments. Nevertheless, if it is God’s desire not only that we should obey his laws but that we should do so completely out of love, then it is essential that there be in the nature of God that which merits this love. The expression of man’s love towards God must be in response to, and in gratitude for, the manifestation of God’s love towards man. If men have knowledge of the love of God through some definite revelation of it in the history of God’s dealings with them, then it is not only possible but essential that men express their appreciation of this fact through love towards God. In one of the most beautiful books in the Bible, the Song of Solomon, we have a splendid example of this principle. The book concerns the deepest affections of a man and his bride for one another. On one occasion when he was apart from her, she sought him desperately, saying to her companions: "I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, if you find my beloved, that you tell him I am sick with love". Song of Solomon 5:8 Mildly surprised by this determined quest for the presence of the one she loved (which they apparently did not share for their own partners), her companions said to her in reply: "What is your beloved more than another beloved?" Song of Solomon 5:9 In a lengthy reply she detailed the worth of her loved one and showed that she considered him to excel in every respect, from his head to his feet. He was, in her view, distinguished among ten thousand. It was little wonder that a deeper expression of love for her beloved sprang from her heart than from those of her companions for their spouses. She summed up his worth in these words: "His speech is most sweet, and he is altogether desirable. This is my beloved and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem". Song of Solomon 5:16 Because he excelled in honour all the other men oft her nation she naturally expressed a deeper affection for him than her companions did for their husbands. With these principles in mind it must surely be true that those who see the very best of God’s love towards men will respond in the most fervent way in love towards him. Those who see God’s love in the works of nature and the many providential graces he extends towards us will find it possible to express love to him in return. But if God should choose to demonstrate his love for mankind by giving of his very own self to redeem them from sin, no men on earth will know the capacity of love towards God which those have who are in fact partakers of this redemption. The deeper the revelation of God’s love towards mankind, the deeper will be the response of love towards him in those who believe in and appropriate the effects of this love. Thirdly, love must be mutual. No man will be able to sustain love in his heart towards a woman who scorns that love and within a marriage love can only really develop where the spouses reciprocate their love for each other. If we are to be rooted and grounded in love, for one another, it is necessary that such love be mutual for a perfect balance to take effect. An achievement of such mutual love will result in such an expression as this from the one who shares in that love: "I am my beloved’s and my beloved is mine". Song of Solomon 6:3 Love is the greatest of all abiding graces (1 Corinthians 13:13). When God commands men to love him with all their hearts, he is drawing on the greatest of all virtues in doing so. He seeks the best form of worship he could possibly obtain from them. But for such worship to develop to its highest possible potential in men, the expression of love between men and God must be mutual. Not only is it necessary for God to manifest his love towards men but he must also allow men the fullest possible experience of that love in their own hearts for such mutual love to truly be present. Therefore let us at this stage formulate our conclusions about the "great commandment" that each of us should love God with all his heart, soul and mind. This commandment demonstrates the will of God that men should give of their very best for him. Nothing less than genuine love, expressed in positive ways, is acceptable to God. But for this to be possible on the part of men, three initiatives are needed on the part of God. They are these: 1. He must offer forgiveness of sins to all from whom he expects this love so that it may be real and undisturbed by fear. 2. He must manifest and reveal his love for men in such a way that they can respond to him in love. 3. He must allow men the personal knowledge of his love and a living experience of it in their hearts if a mutual, abiding communion based on love is to develop between him and them. It may seem strange, even presumptuous, to some men to say that God "must" do these things, but when all the implications are considered it is surely obvious that for creatures to obey the commandment to love God, these factors must of necessity be present. Otherwise men cannot possibly exert such genuine love towards God as he expects of them. 2. The Love of God in the Qur’an Christianity and Islam have different views of God. Both the Bible and the Qur’an claim to be the Word of God but the theology of God is often strikingly different in these two books. What we are particularly concerned about here, however, is to discover in which book we find the best revelation of God’s love towards men. Let us begin by studying briefly the teaching of the Qur’an about the love of God. Firstly, there is in the Qur’an an exhortation to men to love God. Perhaps the best verse in the Qur’an which contains this injunction is this one: "Say, If ye love Allah, follow me; Allah will love you and forgive you your sins". Surah 3:31 Significantly, however, one does not find in this verse (nor in any other in the Qur’an) the command to love God with "all your heart, soul and mind". The reason is fairly clear from the verse itself. The hearer is exhorted to love God so that he may thereby obtain God’s love and forgiveness. The basic object, therefore, of this love is the acquittal and approval of God for the believer. Accordingly the motivation for such love must be the welfare and comfort of the believer. It is not suggested in the Qur’an that such love must be exercised in a disinterested and selfless manner with the glory of God foremost in the believer’s mind. On the contrary the object of such love is really the believer himself. He seeks by this love fundamentally to turn aside God’s wrath and to gain his approval in its place. Now this is not the fruit of genuine love. Such love, as we have seen, must be the exercise of the purest affections of the heart towards God - it cannot be accompanied by an ancillary motive such as the principal objective of obtaining God’s forgiveness. For this reason it is therefore quite significant that the Qur’an does not exhort the believer to love God with all his heart. Such love from the heart is essentially selfless in nature. That which seeks its own security does not proceed from the heart. It is not the expression of the deepest affections of the very kernel of a man’s being. Love in the latter sense seeks principally the glory of its object - but that which strives for the approval of God and considers primarily its own prospects of forgiveness is fundamentally self-motivated. It cannot be described as genuine love and certainly he who loves God chiefly to obtain his forgiveness is not fulfilling the royal commandment - indeed what Jesus called the "great and first commandment" to love God with all his heart, soul and mind. As we saw earlier, the fear of God’s wrath disqualifies the potential for genuine love in the heart. The Qur’an does not give the believer any total assurance of the forgiveness of all his sins this side of the grave. Accordingly it is hardly surprising that it sets the prospect of forgiveness at the end of life as the reward of service to God. Even then there is no complete assurance that the believer will be forgiven and the believer can only die in the hope of God’s mercy (Surah 17:57). It must again be stressed, however, that such service is done purely out of love towards oneself with the welfare of the self at heart. Only when the believer begins with the total knowledge of God’s forgiveness can he serve God freely out of genuine love. As long as he fears God’s wrath he cannot possibly exercise real love towards God with the glory of God as the principal concern of his heart. Accordingly it must be concluded that the teaching of the Qur’an does not meet the needs of genuine love. It leaves presently undecided the fact of forgiveness and its exhortations to men to love God are given with one chief objective - the realisation of his acquittal and approval. In such circumstances a man cannot honestly love God with all his heart. He cannot express such love without some prospect of acquittal and acceptance with God foremost in his soul and mind. Secondly, we find that the Qur’an says very little about the expression of God’s love for mankind. Almost invariably the Qur’an speaks of this love as an expression of approval of those who do good. This verse gives a typical example of this fact (and has the same theme as the others on this subject): "Spend your wealth for the cause of Allah, and be not cast by your own hands to ruin; and do good. Lo! Allah loveth the beneficent". Surah 2:135 Throughout the Qur’an we read that Allah loves those who do good and does not love those who do evil. This means principally that he approves of those who do good and accordingly disapproves of those who do evil. In every case where the expression occurs in the Qur’an it can easily be translated "approves of" instead of "loves" without any change in the meaning of the expression at all. The knowledge and realisation of this approval will also only be known at the Last Day. This is virtually all that the Qur’an says about the love of God towards mankind. In our view this is insufficient to awaken in men heartfelt love towards God. There is no present expression of that love from God which can evoke the response of love in men towards him. Indeed the Qur’an often appeals to that which is visible in nature as a proof of God’s existence and character. But it is the order in nature itself which reveals the existence and sovereignty of the one true God (Romans 1:20). The Qur’an does not reveal this fact - it is merely appealing to the revelation of it in nature. But apart from this the Qur’an tells us really nothing about the depth of the love of God towards men outside of that which can be discovered in nature. It does not disclose any great act of love in the history of God’s dealings with men which should cause the response of heartfelt love towards him in return. To put it in a nutshell, there is no definite expression of love in the heart of God towards men in the Qur’an. No proof of deep affection towards mankind is given at all. The filial love that a father has for his own children and the revelation of that love is not found in the relationship between God and men in the Qur’an. It has no concept of the Fatherhood of God and whereas God is most commonly called "the Father" in the Bible no such exalted title is found in the Qur’an. Furthermore there is no manifestation of God’s love towards mankind which is of the greatest form of love - that of self-denial and self-sacrifice. One does not find in the Qur’an a unilateral display of love in God which expresses itself on behalf of mankind in such a way that God is willing to give of himself to prove and manifest that love. Indeed, even in respect of the teaching that he "loves" those who do good we do not find that this love is an expression of sentiment in the heart of God towards the faithful. In the context of this hadith - which is very consistent with the teaching of the Qur’an about the attitude of Allah towards mankind (Surah 5:18) - we see very clearly the total lack of sentiment in this love: "Verily Allah created Adam and then rubbed his back with His right hand and took out a progeny from him and said: I created these for Paradise and with the actions of the inmates of Paradise which they will do. Afterwards he rubbed his back with His hand and took out a progeny from him and said: I created these for Hell and with the actions of the inmates of Hell which they will do". (Mishkat al-Masabih, Vol.3, p.107) We are constrained to conclude that there is no expression of glorious, heartfelt love of God in the Qur’an which would enable men in return to honour his desire and command that we should love him with all our ’hearts, souls and minds. If God in his very own nature does not have heartfelt love towards men, they cannot possibly be expected to express such love towards him in return. Lastly we find, as a matter of course after what has already been said, that there is, in the teaching of the Qur’an, no capacity for mutual love between God and men such as that between a man and his wife which we discover in the Song of Solomon. It is not possible, according to the Qur’an, for men to actually experience God’s love in their very own hearts such as a son’s experience of his father’s love and a wife of her husband’s love. God is indeed called the "Loving One" (al- Wadud) in the Qur’an but only on two occasions (Surahs 11.90, 85.14). This statement, however, does not imply the depth of love in the nature of God such as is found in the Biblical declaration "God is love" (1 John 4:8). Instead one of the great theologians in Islamic history,) al-Ghazzali, is at pains to inform us that the expresssion "the Loving One" means far less than the title would seem to indicate. In his work on the names of God in the Qur’an entitled Al-Maqsad Al-Asna he states that this this title in the Qur’an is a lesser one, for example, than "the Merciful" (ar-Rahim) - an opinion with which we find ourselves compelled to agree, for God is called "the Merciful" over two hundred times in the Qur’an but "the Loving One" only twice. Al-Ghazzali explains this love as consisting solely of objective acts of kindness and expressions of approval. He denies that there is any subjectivity in the love of God, that is, that God feels any love in his own heart towards mankind. "He remains above the feeling of love". (Al-Maqsad Al-Asna, p.91). How anyone can be "above" the feeling of love is not at all clear. Love is the greatest of all virtues and anyone who does not feel love in the inmost part of his being must surely be below this excellent grace - indeed far below it. But if it is indeed true that God is devoid of such subjective love towards mankind, then men cannot develop love in their hearts towards him especially to the extent where they love him with all their hearts, souls and minds. Al-Ghazzali confirms this unfortunate fact by saying of God’s love: "Love and mercy are desired in respect of their objects ONLY for the sake of their fruit and benefit and NOT because of empathy or feeling". (Al-Maqsad Al-Asna, p.91). The emphases are mine. Men therefore cannot have the greatest of privileges - the actual personal knowledge of God’s very own love. They can receive things from God as tokens of kindness and approval but God himself cannot be known. There is no possibility of a mutual expression of love between God and men which can develop and grow into a wondrous communion and fellowship between him and the believer. In these circumstances we can understand why the Qur’an omits the Biblical command to love God with all our hearts, souls and minds. If men cannot now obtain total assurance of forgiveness of their sins, no such genuine love is possible from them. If love is not part of God’s very own being but is only discerned in that which he gives to men; if he has not manifested deep love towards mankind in any specific way; and if he likewise withholds from men any personal experience of his very own love, then no one can possibly love him in return from his heart. There is nothing in him that can awaken the response of such love in men. Moses and Jesus, however, both declared that the fundamental thing that God requires of men is indeed such heartfelt love. Were these men imposing on their followers an impossible command - or did they, on the contrary, have a greater and deeper knowledge of God’s real nature than we find in the Qur’an? Because of its limited view of God’s love, the Qur’an wisely refrains from commanding of men the greatest possible devotion to God - that of inexhaustible love from the heart. Such love could only be expected of men if God himself is far greater than the Qur’an makes him out to be. He will have to be far more majestic, positively greater, distinctly superior and infinitely more loving if men are to succeed in loving him with all their hearts. God can only make such a lofty claim on the devotion of men justly if he is prepared right now to give them forgiveness of sins, reveal through some act of love that he is positively worthy of that love, and graciously extend to men the full personal knowledge of this love. If he expects of men the greatest possible expression of devotion - love from the heart - he must be a God worthy of that love. Let us turn to the Bible to see whether the God of Moses and Jesus is indeed such a God. 3. The Fatherhood of God in the Bible One of the striking features of the Christian Bible is the title "Father" for God. He is given no name in the Christian Scriptures (unlike the other major religions of the world where God is always given a name in their holy books) but is always called by this title - either as "the Father" or "our Father" or "God the Father". When one considers the intimate relationship that exists between a father and his children, it is very easy to understand why we have no name for God. [ A man is addressed by his name when other men speak to him but his child always calls him "father". He does not address him by his surname for he himself bears his father’s name. A name is given to a person to identify him from other men and a child bears his father’s name because of the very close relationship between them. But, in view of this intimacy, it is not necessary that a father and his son should address one another by that common name. Therefore, if God is pleased to become the Father of his people, this must mean that he is willing to enter into such a deep personal relationship with them that no name will be in any way needed to distinguish him from them. Not only so, but the command to love him with all our hearts, souls and minds has the best prospect of fulfilment if God, in deep love for us, is willing to become our very own Father. What child is there whom his father does not love? As John put it: "See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are". 1 John 3:1 This does not mean that God has taken to himself offspring but rather that he is prepared to draw so near to us in love that the intimate communion which will result from this love between him and true believers can only be compared to that which exists between a loving father and his children. Now we know that God is Judge of all the earth and that he will deal with the sins of men on the Day of Wrath to come when his righteous judgments will be revealed. If we only know God as Judge of all we can expect no mercy on that day for men are brought before judges to be tried and condemned for their misdeeds. But a father is very different to a judge. While he may, in love and with the purpose of correction, chastise his children, it is forgiveness that really characterises the relationship between him and them. They will always be his children and, while a servant must work to earn his place in a home, and even then only stays outside in the servant’s quarters and can be dismissed at any time, a son has absolute freedom in his father’s house. He does not need to work to earn a place there, nor does he reside outside the house. He cannot be dismissed, but remains the heir to all things in his fa-ther’s house. That which is the father’s is his also. We all surely know the expression "one day my son, this will all be yours", symbolising the inheritance the son has to all that the father has built up during his lifetime. The following brief conversation between Jesus and his close disciple Peter brings this fact out very clearly: "What do you think Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their sons or from others?" And when he said "From others", Jesus said to him "Then the sons are free". Matthew 17:25-26. In this context we must consider the Biblical teaching that God is the Father of the true Christian. If so, it means that the kingdom of heaven is the rightful home of every true believer. Because he is a child of God, he must right now be recognised as a lawful member of the household of God (Ephesians 2:19). He does not have to earn his place there, nor will he ever be dismissed from this kingdom. Indeed he will never even dwell outside it. He has as much right to a place in God’s kingdom as a son has in his father’s house. If God is indeed willing to share such grace with his true children, then "what love" indeed is this that he has given us. Jesus made it plain that God indeed wills to W have such an intensely deep and personal relationship with the true believer: "Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom". Luke 12:32 This heart-warming promise leads us to the issue that particularly concerns us about the genuineness of love that men must have towards God. We have seen that fear of God’s wrath and the uncertainty of his forgiveness destroy the potential for genuine love. Now, if God is prepared to be our Father, then this problem is solved immediately. By becoming our Father he has made us his children and we are therefore set free from the fear of God’s wrath because we are now already assured that heaven is, and always will be, our real home. A father always loves his own children in a very special way and no matter how well-disposed he may be towards children generally, he will always have a deeper affection for his own children than for others. The reason is simply that he sees something of himself in his own children that he does not see in others. Even though he may have sons very different to each other in looks and temperament, he will in so many ways, as he looks at them both, be able to say, "that is me". So also, if God becomes our Father, we may know that he has a special affection for us, that in some unique way he sees something of himself in us, and for this reason will assuredly never disown us. No wonder Jesus said "Fear not". The fear of punishment has been set aside. We no longer anticipate a judge on the throne of justice before whom we must be condemned to eternal damnation for our sins. We look to a father whose kingdom is our own home and we rejoice in our hope, as children, of sharing and inheriting his glory to be revealed at the last time. Two thousand years ago Jesus instructed his disciples, in praying to God, to call on him as "our Father" (Matthew 6:9). This indicates, not a status to be longed for in the next age, but one which is presently enjoyed by every one of his disciples. As two of Jesus’ followers put it, indeed his two most eminent apostles: "We ARE children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ". Romans 8:17 "We ARE God’s children NOW" . 1 John 3:2 In these circumstances God can be known as Father NOW and he who is a child of God need fear no wrath in the age to come. Judges execute wrath on wrongdoers and separate them from society; masters punish wayward slaves and dismiss them from their service; but fathers love their children and will always do so. So the Christian has no fear of God’s wrath but only the knowledge of his love. As Jesus said to his own disciples: "The Father himself loves you". John 16:27 Accordingly the Christian can place all his trust in God, knowing that the deep intimate relationship he shares with him will never be broken - for God is his or Father and he is one of his children. Therefore the God of the Bible meets the first requirement of genuine love from the heart. As the father of all true believers he need not be held in dread. The Day of Judgment will, instead, be a day of glory for the true Christian. God has, in these circumstances, the right to expect those who believe in him to love him genuinely with all their hearts. There is an implied expression of the love of God for us in his declaration that he is our Father and, as a Father can be known more intimately by his children than by anyone else, the potential for mutual love here is quite obvious. Let us press on to see more fully what God has done to express his love for us so that we may know that he is indeed our Father and how he has made it possible for that love to be mutual between him and his children. 4. The Revelation of God’s Love in Jesus Christ We saw earlier that love must be expressive and, in particular, that God must manifest his love for us in some way if we are to love him with all our hearts in return. Now the Christian Bible gives such a manifestation of God’s love - indeed the greatest possible expression of it that men could ever expect from him. In the following passage this revelation of God’s love is fully set out: "Beloved, let us love one another; for love is of God, and he who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No man has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us". 1 John 4:7-11. The striking feature of this passage is the frequent recurrence of the words "God" and "love". The writer is so persuaded of the inseparable link between the two that he sums it up in these words: God IS love (1 John 4:8). This means that right in the very heart of God’s own personal interest in men rests the deepest possible affection and concern for them. The love of God in this case is clearly not to be found solely outside of himself in "fruit and benefit" as al-Ghazzali suggests. On the contrary it is that love which exists within the very nature of God and it is the love of God himself that is revealed to men in the Gospel. One can safely say that more is said of God’s love in this one short passage in the Bible than in the whole of the Qur’an. What was it that persuaded the Apostle John of the intensity of God’s love for mankind? To what does he appeal to prove this magnificent love of God towards men of which he speaks? What had God ever done to manifest his love in such a way that he could be spoken of as the epitome of love itself? It is simply this "In this is love, not that we love God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation of our sins". 1 John 4:10 Herein lies the proof of the depth of God’s love towards us. He has done the greatest thing he could possibly do to reveal his love for us - he gave willingly his very own Son Jesus Christ to die on a cross for our sins to redeem us to himself. No greater proof of God’s love can be given to mankind than this. It is no wonder that John does not appeal to anything further to make his point. He has given the very best possible proof of God’s love towards men. How may we understand the depth of this love? Let us go back in history to the prophet Abraham who was commanded by God to give his only son in a sacrifice. If we ask why God chose to ask his son of him rather than his cattle, goods or land, the answer must be that a man’s own son is very different to these other things for he proceeds from his father and is part of the father’s very own being. He is accordingly dearer to his father’s heart than anything else. Therefore the best way that God could test Abraham’s love for him was to command that he sacrifice his son for him. For surely, if Abraham would give his son for God, he would give him all things. This is precisely what mankind can, discover about God’s love for the human race in the gift of his Son Jesus Christ as a sacrifice for the remission of our sins: "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him?" Romans 8:32 Furthermore we may well ask whether God would ever ask any man to express his love for him in a greater, more heart- rending way than God was ever disposed to show his love for men. When God asked Abraham to give his son, was this not surely a sign that a reciprocal demonstration of God’s own love would follow in the gift of his Son for us? If not then we must conclude that one man gave a greater proof of his love of God than God has ever given for the whole of mankind in return. The thought is unthinkable. God would never ask any man to do more for him than he was willing to do for men himself. And the wondrous manifestation of his love in giving all he had in the death and resurrection of his Son Jesus Christ is proof sufficient of this. What better proof can we want of God’s love for us? He has given his Son for us - one who proceeds from him - surely, then, he will give us all things with him. If he has, in his deep love, given us the greatest of all gifts, we must assuredly know that he will give us all lesser things as well. Furthermore we see that Abraham, a lowly creature, was prepared to give one like himself for the eternal God of the universe. It was his duty to obey any command God gave him. But what duty was imposed on the eternal Father of the heavens when he gave his Son - one like himself in every way for lowly men on earth? What other than infinite love could have motivated such action? "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life". John 3:16 The Father did not stand idly by as men put his Son to an awful death, nor did he in an act of cruelty make an innocent victim of him. Oh no! Both the Father and the Son, in one united display of wondrous divine love for mankind, endured separation from each other to ensure that many men might be saved from an eternal separation in hell and be brought instead into eternal communion and glory with them. Nothing else but love could have endured the cross with all its horrors. Here we have a visible expression of God’s love for us. In the gift of his Son he has given a full manifestation of the depth of his love towards us: "God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us". Romans 5:8 "In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world that we might live through him" . 1 John 4:9 Surely men can now respond to God with unlimited I love in their hearts. Here is the glory of the Biblicalo revelation of the love of God in Jesus Christ. It is hardly surprising that the Qur’an has so little to say about the love of God when it denies that God gave his Son to redeem us from our sins. It has denied the greatest manifestation of this love that could ever have " been given by God to men. As Jesus said: "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends". John 15:13 This is the greatest and most abiding form of love - love that is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6) and cannot be overcome by it. Such love was revealed in Jesus Christ when he willingly laid down his life: "When Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end". John 13:1 Here we have proof, not only of God’s inestimable love, but also of the fact that we can depend on it forever. The true Christian will never know a whit of God’s wrath for he is the eternal object of his immeasurable love. The willing gift of his own Son was perfect proof of the truth of this promise: "I have loved you with an everlasting love". Jeremiah 31:3 The cross of Jesus Christ was a magnificent proof of the eternal love of both the Father and the Son for mankind. Each was prepared to endure the loss of the other’s presence - a circumstance which we cannot possibly estimate in our minds - so that we might never be lost. Not only so, but it is little wonder that after the death of Jesus and his resurrection to life again three days later God is only known as Father in the Holy Scriptures. This inexpressible gift shows us more than anything else ever could that God is indeed willing to become our Father. Through the cross he has redeemed all true believers in his Son to himself and has made possible even now the forgiveness of all our offences so that we might be transformed from children of wrath, which we are by nature, into children of God. Not only has God become our Father through that which Jesus has done for us but, being the eternal Son from the Father, he has in fact revealed God himself to us as well: "He who has seen me has seen the Father". John 14:9 Therefore, not only do we see God’s love made manifest in the gift of his Son Jesus Christ but we also have the glorious privilege of seeing in him the very personification of God’s love. We are able, in all that Jesus said and did, to obtain a very full knowledge of the love of God for us. For no man ever loved as this man did. No deity of any other religion compares with him in his inexhaustible love for men. He lived for them and he died for them. His whole life was a living expression of love. He never once avenged himself on his enemies but loved them to such an extent that he even prayed on the cross for them in these words: "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do". Luke 23:34 He gave his disciples such a remarkable revelation of love in all that they saw him do in the three years he was with them that he was able to say to them on the last night that he was with them: "A new commandment I give to you; that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another". John 13:34 He ordered them to love each other as he had loved them. The world had never seen such depth of love as it saw in this man. Therefore, when he commanded his disciples to love one another in the same way that he had loved them, it was indeed a new commandment because the standard of this love was such as the world had never known before. Even others, who were not his disciples, when they saw how he grieved over the loss of one of his followers through an untimely death, said: "See how he loved him!" John 11:36 We have, therefore, in the life of Jesus a wondrous example of the measure of the Father’s love for us. As Ramsey, a former Archbishop of Canterbury, once put it so well: God is Christlike, and in him there is no un-Christlikeness at all. This is an incredible statement. Yet in no other way can the extent and wonder of God’s love properly be expressed. The Father in heaven is the One whose image the Son bears (as we say 6 in a proverb, "Like Father, like son") - therefore that love which was so great which the Son fully expressed in his life and death was nothing more or less than the Father’s own love for us. Not only so, but the Son lived among men and was known by them. Surely, therefore, if the Father was revealed in the Son, then anyone who truly knew him knew his Father also (John 14:7). This means that we can not only have the magnificent privilege of beholding the love of God for us in the gift of his Son - a fact which demands the only reasonable response that men can give to this revelation of love, namely that we love him in return with all our hearts - but also that we can have the wondrous joy of actually KNOWING the love of God within our very own hearts. God himself has been revealed to us in Jesus Christ - by this we can not only perceive the expression of his love for us but also gain opportunity to actually experience that love within us. This leads us to our last consideration - the way by which God’s love has become mutual between him and men - something which not only gives us potential to express heartfelt love for God but even to develop it to the full through the experience of his love for us in our own hearts. 5. Knowing God’s Love through the Holy Spirit Because God is our Father, we are able to have genuine love in our hearts towards him. Through his great work in his Son Jesus Christ we have seen how worthy he is of that love. But now, through the Holy Spirit (which is given to every true believer in Jesus Christ) we are able to actually experience his love for us within our hearts. As the Apostle Paul put it: "Hope does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us". Romans 5:5 What a wonderful statement this is. God’s love has actually been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which is given to every one at that moment that he turns and puts his faith in Jesus, seeking salvation in him alone. Not only do we behold God’s love, therefore, for us in the gift of his Son but we can actually experience it within our own souls through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. This principle of our adoption as children of God through Jesus Christ and our living experience of this relationship in the Holy Spirit was summed up by Paul in these words: "But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying ’Abba! Father!’" Galatians 4:4-6 Here we have the climax of the revelation of God’s love towards us. We have become children of God through the work of Jesus Christ whom God sent into the world to save us from our sins. But now, by sending the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, he has made us conscious right within our beings of our status before him. Not only are we children, we know we are children. We have been brought into the very same eternal, intimate communion that the Father and the Son have shared with each other from all eternity. Just as Jesus was able to call on his Father in heaven with an expression of intense intimacy, namely "Abba, Father" (Mark 14:36), so we have now been brought, by the mercies of God, into this same intimate relationship. ("Abba" is a Hebrew word which means "Father" but which is not translated into English because we have no corresponding word in our language which can possibly express the intimacy and closeness denoted by this word in Hebrew). Sufi Masters of old claimed to know the hundredth name of God (there are ninety-nine al-asma al-husna, "beautiful names" of God according to traditional Islam) but, in our view, if there is indeed another name of God which is missing from the ninety-nine, it is not the hundredth name but the first - namely this one: Father. Within our very own hearts God has made us conscious of our relationship with him. As Paul put it: "When we cry, ’Abba! Father!’, it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God". Romans 8:15-26. Christians, through the Holy Spirit, are able to call on God as their Father, a title which represents their relationship with him as no other really can. The Holy Spirit within us has made us particularly aware of the fact that God is now our Father and we, therefore, call on him as such out of the deep knowledge of the love that he has for us. He is our Father in the very closest manner that he could be and through his Spirit he has impressed this fact very surely on us. All this has been done through the redemption which he set forth and accomplished through his Son Jesus Christ. By dying for our sins to cleanse us from all evil Jesus has made it possible for us to fully enjoy this new relationship. "For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father". Ephesians 2:16 Through him the Christian has obtained access to this grace in which he now stands. The love of the Father, made manifest in the Son, has now become our own personal possession through the Holy Spirit which he has given us. Jesus himself urged his disciples to strengthen and develop this love in their hearts: "As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love". John 15:9 We cannot tell how deeply the Father, through the Son, desires that we should know this love in our own hearts. When Jesus prayed to his Father in heaven on the last night he was with his disciples he made it clear that his whole purpose in coming to earth was to make this love real to them: "I made known to them thy name, and I will make it known, that the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them". John 17:26 Ten days after the ascension of Jesus to heaven his disciples first received the Holy Spirit. From that day the personal knowledge of God’s love has become available to all men. All who turn to him in faith and love through his Son Jesus Christ will not fail to discover the joy of salvation that accompanies the consciousness of this love in our hearts. As Jesus said to his disciples again on the last night he was with them: "For the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from the Father". John 16:27 Here, then, we find the final proof of God’s love towards men. By becoming our Father he has made it possible for us to express genuine love towards him without fear of his wrath in our hearts. He has shown his love to us in a remarkable way by giving his Son Jesus Christ to redeem us from our sins. By giving us his Spirit he has made it openly possible for that love to become thoroughly mutual between him and us. In turn we are now able to truly love him with all our hearts, souls and minds. He is worthy of such love and has made it possible for us to express it to the full. What will a man offer to God in return for such love? Can he give anything to compare with it? After all that God has done for us, can we honestly believe that we can merit favour with him through our own half hearted, feeble religious efforts? "Many waters cannot quench love, neither can floods drown it. If a man offered for love all the wealthy of his house, it would be utterly scorned". Song of Solomon 8:7 God does not want from sinners their pilgrimages, prayers and religious devotions and various ecclesiastical duties mixed through and through with the evils they think and do every day. He cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly (Isaiah 1:13). If we hope to obtain his good pleasure by anything we do on our own account, while we casually overlook the sins we commit, we scorned utterly the love he has revealed to us. The Father wants none of your efforts - he wants YOU. He desires that you respond to this glorious manifestation of his love. This wondrous revelation of the love of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit has been given to the world so that God may obtain from us that which alone is acceptable to him. He wants us to become his children and to love him with all our hearts, souls ant minds. Any good work of grace or religious deed that flows out of such love is acceptable to him. But no work other than this can ever merit acceptance with him. So many, with no certainty of forgiveness, offer religious works to God with the hope of thereby obtaining his approval and forgiveness. But how can our paltry efforts, wrapped in the multitude of sins that we commit every day, ever possibly merit his approval? God has provided a better and more certain way of gaining his commendation. He who turns away from his own works and trusts in Jesus Christ instead obtains forgiveness of his sins and newness of life. The true Christian dies in the assured knowledge of God’s love and favour. Will you not rather turn to him who can save your soul? God stretches out his hand to you in eternal love - will you not clasp it and obtain the salvation God is freely offering you? Will you not believe in his Son who died for you so that you can become a child of God? Will you not receive the Holy Spirit so that, like an orphan, you can experience his warm embrace and know in your heart that God is your Father? "That which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ". 1 John 1:3 ======================================================================== CHAPTER 7: 01.06. THE TEMPLE, THE KA'ABA, AND THE CHRIST ======================================================================== The Temple, The Ka’aba, and The Christ There are three great monotheistic religions in the world, namely Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Each of these not only recognises the existence of one sovereign God who rules the universe but has sources and roots common to the other two. All three admit that human history began when God created Adam and Eve and continue to agree on the immediate course of this history after the creation. The initial temptation and fall of Adam and Eve, the great flood of the time of Noah, and the calling of prophets such as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, are admitted by all three religions. Nevertheless the distinctions between these three religions are far more significant than their points of agreement. Each one of these three claims to possess the ultimate revelation of God and while Christianity and Islam acknowledge divine influence in the monotheistic religions which preceded them, they both make exclusive claims to have superseded the earlier faiths and to be in this age the final revelation of God to man. At the same time Judaism and Christianity have conceded nothing to the religions which have followed them, holding firmly to their claims to be God’s only true religion in the world. One of these religions is indeed the true religion of God. All three may trace their religious histories to the same sources but, by virtue of the sharp divergences between them, they cannot all be true religions in this age. If there is indeed only one God, there can only be one true religion - one faith that alone can give men access to the presence, knowledge and favour of God. It is unthinkable that he could be the author of three religions which differ so radically in this age. In this booklet we intend to examine the focal points of these three religions and to compare then with one another to discover which religion really offers mankind access to God in this age. Judaism claims that Moses was its real founder but the focal point of the Jewish religion was not its prophet hut the Holy of Ho-lies - a shrine which contained a manifestation of the divine glory which was initially a portable edifice but which, from the time of Solomon, became a permanent structure and central feature in the Temple of the Jews. This Temple stood in Jerusalem until forty years after the ascension of Jesus Christ to heaven and is known in Islam as baitul-muqaddas (the "holy house"). It is spoken of in the Qur’an as al-masjid ("the Temple") in Surah 17.8. In Islam it is another structure which is the focal point of identification for the Muslim with God, namely the Ka’aba (known in Islam as baitullah the "house of Allah"). All Muslims face this house when they pray and are obliged to make a proper pilgrimage to it at least once in their lifetimes if they can afford it. Like Moses, Muhammad is only considered to be a prophet and while his name will appear over a photograph or poster of his tomb in Medina, it is always the name of Allah that appears over the Ka’aba. Hence the Ka’aba has become for the Muslim world its source of identification with God. For the Christian Jesus Christ himself is the focal point of the Christian faith and the meeting-place of God with man. Therefore the Christian has no "house of God" on earth to perform the function of identification with God but looks to Jesus in heaven to perform this office. Accordingly he has become the qiblah of the Christian Church and all prayers to God are therefore offered in his name. We shall proceed to compare these three to discover which one really offers men access to God in heaven. The Temple of Judaism When the Jews were first delivered out of Egypt during the time of Moses, God chose to move and dwell among them in a special way. He ordered Moses to arrange the construction of a tabernacle in these words; "Let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst. According to all that I show you concerning the pattern of the tabernacle and of all its furniture, so you shall make it". Exodus 25:8-9. In the very heart of the tabernacle there was a small ark with a wooden mercy-seat on top of it. This portion was the holiest part of the tabernacle and was to be separated from the rest of the tabernacle by a veil. God commanded Moses to construct it as such in these words: "The veil shall separate for you the holy place from the most holy. You shall put the mercy-seat upon the ark of the testimony in the most holy place". Exodus 28:33-34. God’s transcendent holiness demanded that no access of any form should be allowed to man in the Holy of Holies. A visible cloud of glory by day and fire by night rested over the mercy-seat. On only one occasion a year, on the Day of Atonement, the Jewish high priest was allowed into the Holy of Holies to offer the blood of a sacrifice for his own sins and the sins of his people. (Aaron, the brother of Moses, was the first high priest. He is named in the Qur’an Harun). It was only the blood of the sacrifice, a symbol of atonement, which allowed the high priest into the holiest portion. On all other occasions men were to stay outside the Holy of Holies because men are sinners and no sinner was allowed to stand before the presence of the Holy God of Israel. The veil before the holiest place was a frank and abiding reminder of the gulf and separation between God and his people. Nevertheless it pleased God to reveal his glory among his people in the centre of this shrine. God spoke of this holy place as follows: "There I will meet with the people of Israel, and it shall he sanctified by my glory; I will consecrate the tent of meeting and the altar; Aaron also and his sons I will consecrate, to serve me as priests. And I will dwell among the people of Israel, and will be their God". Exodus 29:43-45. 1. THE ORIGINAL TEMPLE OF SOLOMON. When the Israelites came to Canaan (later known as Israel and Palestine), this shrine remained with them and was at all times the holiest place for the nation. During the succeeding centuries it was housed in a tent at various places but the prophet David, during his reign as King of Israel, decided to ensure that a permanent structure would he built to house the ark and the mercy-seat. God prevented him from building such a shrine during his lifetime but promised that it would be built by his son Solomon: "When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name". 2 Samuel 7:12-13. As soon as David died, Solomon became King of Israel. At the beginning of his reign he declared: "I purpose to build a house for the name of the Lord my God, as the Lord said to David my father, ’Your son, whom I will set upon your throne in your place, shall build the house for my name’." 1 Kings 5:5 Solomon built a great Temple to house the ark and mercy-seat. God promised that his divine presence would continue to remain with the people of Israel in the Holy of Holies which now became a cubic structure in the centre of the Temple. This building was a magnificent edifice and was built with gold, hewn stones and cedars from as far afield as Lebanon. When it was completed Solomon ordered the chief priests to bring the ark of the covenant to the Temple and it was, at his command, placed in the most holy place in the centre of the building (1 Kings 8:6). When the priests came out of this holy place in the middle of the Temple, "A cloud filled the house of the Lord, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud; for the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord." 1 Kings 8:10-11. With great joy Solomon blessed God and praised him that his divine presence was to be manifested henceforth in the Temple he had built. He declared his joy in these words: "I have built the house for the name of the Lord, the God of Israel. And there I have provided a place for the ark, in which is the covenant of the Lord which he made with our fathers when he brought them out of the land of Egypt". 1 Kings 8:20-21. Immediately, conscious of the fact that however splendid his Temple was, it could not possibly reflect the glory of God or contain his eternal being, Solomon added this prayer: "But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built! Yet have regard to the prayer of thy servant and to his supplication, 0 Lord my God, hearkening to the cry and to the prayer which thy servant prays before thee this day; that thy eyes may be open night and day toward this house, the place of which thou hast said, ’My name shall be there’, that thou mayest hearken to the prayer which thy servant offers toward this place. And hearken thou to the supplication of thy servant and of thy people Israel, when they pray toward this place; yea, hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place; and when thou hearest, for give". 1 Kings 8:27-30. In acknowledging God’s omnipresence, Solomon nevertheless expressed his desire that God should be honoured at this place and that every Israelite, no matter where he might be, should face toward the Temple when he prayed. In time the Temple became not only the qiblah of the Jews but the centre of all their major festivals as well. Sacrifices had previously been offered only at the tabernacle and now could only be offered at the Temple. Accordingly Jews flocked to Jerusalem at the major feasts to offer the necessary sacrifices and draw near to God in communal worship. God’s presence was manifested in the Temple and so it was proper for the Jews to face the building containing his presence whenever they prayed to him. Solomon’s Temple lasted about three hundred and fifty years and was finally destroyed when Jerusalem was sacked by the armies of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar (the incident is referred to in the Qur’an in Surah 17.7). Judaism was no longer the religion it had been in Solomon’s time. Israel had turned her back on the Lord and the people had opposed and rejected the prophets he had sent to them. As a result of this tragic national apostasy, God withdrew his presence from the Temple and gave it over to the hands of Israel’s enemies. 2. THE TEMPLE AT THE TIME OF CHRIST. Even though Israel proved faithless, God remained faithful and sixty years later the Temple was rebuilt. It probably did not possess the grandeur of Solomon’s Temple but was nevertheless built on the same lines. Once again the Holy of Holies - a cube-like structure -was constructed in the centre of the Temple. God continued to show his favours to the nation of Israel at this time and his presence remained in the Temple. At this stage it will be useful to point out that God favoured no other nation as he favoured this one. From the time of Abraham, and especially from the tine of Moses until the time of Jesus, the Jews alone were the recipients of his particular providential favours. Therefore the Temple rightly became the focal point of Judaism and no other nation on earth had a "house of God" for it was here, and here alone, that the divine glory was manifested. The Bible and the Qur’an have the following to say about God’s favours to this nation: "To them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. Romans 9:4-5. And verily We gave the Children of Israel the Scripture and the Command and the Prophethood, and provided them with good things and favoured them above all peoples. Surah 45.16 Accordingly the Temple was the only true "house of God" in the world. The second Temple stood for nearly five hundred years. Gradually, however, Israel forsook the path of God and apostasy again infected the nation. On this occasion they did not turn to idols hut abandoned spiritual worship and substituted it with numerous religious formalities which had the form of godliness but denied the spiritual power which these formalities were intended to represent. They had their sacrifices, ablutions, times of prayer, festival days, Temple worship and the like, but true godliness - holiness, love, truth, humility and honesty in the heart, had departed from them. Shortly afterwards Herod, the King of Judea, decided to rebuild the Temple. This new building took at least forty-six years to complete and rivalled Solomon’s in material splendour, but that is as far as the comparison goes. No cloud of divine glory filled this Temple. Once again the Holy of Holies with its veil was erected and once again it stood as a testimony to the wide separation that existed between the Holy God of the universe and sinful men on earth. But whereas the religion of Moses had been like a rich, multi-coloured garment, being endowed with spiritual splendour, the garment had by now become worn out. It had lost its colour and Judaism had become a lifeless and colourless religion of petty religious rituals and formalities. The covenant God had made with Moses was practically obsolete and the Temple was ready to pass away. Significantly this Temple was not built by a faithful prophet of God but by a Gentile overlord who ruled over the Jewish race. About this time Jesus was born in Bethlehem which is near Jerusalem. He lived for thirty-three years and the Temple had much significance in his life and ministry as we shall see shortly. Forty years after his ascension to heaven, however, the Temple of the Jews was destroyed by the armies of the Roman governor Titus. Not one stone was left standing upon another. Although nineteen centuries have passed since then the Temple has never been rebuilt. It never will be. It will never again be a symbol of God’s presence among men on earth. Something greater has come (Matthew 12:6). By the mercy of God men have obtained a better form of access to the divine presence and this access is now available to all nations. Judaism lost its true nature and is no longer the religion of God on earth. Both Islam and Christianity claim to possess that which has superseded it. But these two religions are so different in character and emphasis that they cannot both be the possessors of the new covenant Which one is in this age the final revelation of God to men? Let us begin by examining the equivalent of the Temple in Islam, namely the Ka’aba in Mecca, to see whether Islam offers that final, complete form of access to God which replaced the Temple of Judaism. The Ka’aba of Islam Anyone who has studied comparative religion cannot fail to be struck by the similarities between the Temple of Judaism and the Ka’aba of Islam. The photographs in this booklet show very clearly the resemblances between them. Just as the Temple had a large courtyard which was surrounded by porticoes, so the Haram in Mecca has the same features. And in each case we find a cubic structure in the centre (the very word "Ka’aba" means cube) which in both religions appears as the holiest place on earth. Furthermore, just as Jews came from all over the world to worship at the Temple in Jerusalem, so Muslims come on pilgrimage to Mecca to pray and worship in the Great Mosque in the centre of the city. Likewise, as Jews turned towards Jerusalem when they prayed (1 Kings 8:30) to unite in worship of the one true God, so all Muslims face the Ka’aba in Mecca when they pray in accordance with the teaching of the Qur’an (Surah 2.150). The function and design of the Ka’aba in Mecca is so remarkably similar to the Temple in Jerusalem that one cannot help but conclude that this is not a coincidental phenomenon. Clearly there is a link between them. Furthermore the forms of prayer and the fact of pilgrimage in Islam today are practically a perpetuation of the Jewish forms in pro-Christian times (though the actual rituals of the pilgrimage resemble the pro-Islamic rites of the pagan Meccans rather than the forms of worship at the Temple in Jerusalem) . 1. ITS RELEVANCE TO SOLOMON’S TEMPLE. The issue which we have to consider here is whether the Ka’aba has in fact become, by God’s appointment, the replacement of the Temple in this age. The obvious similarities between them can lead one initially to conclude that such a substitution has indeed taken place, and to speculate whether Cod has, perhaps, taken the true form of worship from the sons of Israel and delivered it to the sons of Ishmael. Certainly the resemblances between the two appear, at first sight, to give some support to this contention. Nevertheless, when the issue is considered in detail, and when all the facts are carefully compared with one another, the only possible conclusion that can be arrived at is that the Ka’aba, on the contrary, is definitely not that which God has provided as a better means of access to his presence than the Temple of the Jews which stood in Jerusalem. Firstly, the Qur’an does not claim that the Ka’aba, at the time of the destruction of the Temple, became the centre of true worship. It claims in fact that the Ka’aba was built before the Temple by Abraham and his son Ishmael as a house of worship for God (Surah 2.125-127). The Qur’an, in fact, alleges that from the time of Abraham the Ka’aba became, by God’s command, the holiest place of worship on earth: We made the house (at Mecca) a resort for mankind and a sanctuary, (saying): Take as your place of worship the place where Abraham stood (to pray). Surah 2.125 Nowhere in the Qur’an is it suggested that the Ka’aba replaced the Temple as the true house of worship. While the Qur’an acknowledges that the Temple was in fact the house of worship for the Jews while God favoured them above all nations (Surah 17.7), it nevertheless claims that the Ka’aba was built before it as the first sanctuary for mankind (Surah 3.96). Therefore it cannot be claimed that at the time of the destruction of the Temple God instituted the Ka’aba as the true place of worship on earth. Such a sequence of preference is precluded by the Qur’an’s claim that the Ka’aba was in fact built before the Temple. In fact we saw in the last chapter that the Temple, during its history, was the only "house of God" on earth and this fact seriously undermines the Qur’an’s claim that the Ka’aba was built by Abraham long before the first Temple was ever built by his descendant Solomon. Secondly, we find that when Muhammad first prayed in Medina his qiblah was Jerusalem and not Mecca. He faced the site of the Temple rather than the Ka’aba. (In addition to the mihrab facing Mecca there is also a mihrab in one of the mosques in Medina to this day giving Jerusalem as the qiblah in commemoration of this fact). Indeed the Qur’an itself alleges that Muhammad’s decision to face Jerusalem was a result of God’s express command to this effect: We appointed the qiblah which ye formerly observed. Surah 2.143 It was only as a result of the opposition in Medina from the Jews that Muhammad changed his qiblah to Mecca. What is most significant about this incident is that the Prophet of Islam himself, nearly six hundred years after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, chose this place as his initial qiblah - and that, according to the Qur’an, at God’s command. Furthermore he faced a place where no shrine stood. A bare piece of ground which had supported the Temple centuries earlier was, according to the Qur’an, prefer-red by God to the Ka’aba in Mecca. This incident also seriously undermines the Qur’an’s suggestion that the Ka’aba was built by Abraham - if it was, why did God command Muhammad to face Jerusalem? It also most certainly shows that the Ka’aba did not replace the Temple. Even though the Temple site had been derelict for centuries, the very Prophet of Islam was commanded to prefer this place to the Ka’aba in Mecca. If the Ka’aba had replaced the Temple, assuredly no such command would have been given. The simple answer would have been to face it right from the beginning as the qiblah It cannot be suggested that God chose Jerusalem in preference to Mecca simply because the Ka’aba was, at that particular time, a shrine of idol-worship. For the command to change the qiblah to Mecca in the Qur’an predates by many years the conquest of Mecca. During all those years when Muhammad faced Mecca, the Ka’aba remained a shrine of idol-worship. Thirdly, secular history in no way supports the Qur’an’s claim that the Ka’aba was ever a place of monotheistic, non-idolatrous worship. The first mention of the Ka’aba is found in the writings of Diodorus Siculus who, about 60 BC, described it as a "temple greatly revered by the Arabs". Accordingly the Ka’aba dates hack at least to before the time of Christ. But this fact only helps to support the final conclusion we shall draw in this chapter. It certainly does not in any way suggest that the Ka’aba existed before the Jewish Temple. On the contrary, before the time of Muhammad, the Ka’aba was only known as the principal shrine of pagan idolatry of the Arab world in and around Mecca. We do have clear evidence, however, that the Ka’aba is not of monotheistic origin. We refer to the black stone built into its east corner known as al-hajarul-aswad. Before Muhammad’s time the Arabs worshiped stones and the black stone was one of these objects of worship. Not only was the kissing of this stone incorporated into Islam, but the whole form of the Hajj Pilgrimage today is fundamentally that of the Arabs before Islam. Muhammad only changed the moaning of the formalities - ho made no attempt to change the forms and rites of the pilgrimage themselves. Some have suggested that stone-worship among the Arabs arose out of veneration of the black stone, but this is highly improbable. Any form of veneration of a dead stone - especially to the extent of bowing down and kissing the stone - can only be identified with pagan idolatry rather than pure monotheistic worship. Even Umar was reluctant to imitate the pagan Arabs by kissing the stone and only did so because he saw Muhammad do it. But in our view Muhammad likewise was only perpetuating one of the forms of Meccan idolatry and we cannot possibly see how veneration of a form of idol-worship can be reconciled with the worship of the one true God. Secular history knows of only one form of pre-Islamic veneration of the Ka’aba and that is the idolatry of the pagan Arabs. There is no corroborative evidence whatsoever for the Qur’an’s claim that the Ka’aba was initially a house of monotheistic worship. Instead there certainly is evidence as far back as history can trace the origins and worship of the Ka’aba that it was thoroughly pagan and idolatrous in content and emphasis. Certainly in the six hundred-odd years between the destruction of the Temple and the final conquest of Mecca the Ka’aba was purely a shrine of thriving pagan idolatry. Therefore the Ka’aba cannot have become the form and place of true worship in God’s providence when the Temple of the Jews was destroyed. Fourthly, and most importantly, far from becoming a house of greater spiritual worship than the Temple, the Ka’aba in fact, and all the forms of worship around it, are positively of lessor import and effect than those of the Temple. Within the Holy of Holies the living, abiding presence of God was visibly manifested, but no such claim has ever been made for the Ka’aba. It is only a symbol of worship and has never been a place where God’s definite presence has been literally revealed. A supernatural cloud overshadowed the Holy of Holies when it was first built as a sign of God’s living presence in the Temple, but the Ka’aba can make no such claim for itself. Accordingly its importance in Islam is decidedly loss than the Temple was in Judaism. While the Ka’aba is called the "House of Allah" (baitullah), the divine presence has never filled it as it did the Temple. Pilgrims are in fact allowed into the Ka’aba when the doors of the shrine are opened to them. Nevertheless we have admitted that the form of worship around the Ka’aba is linked to that of the Temple. But far from this being proof of the divine origin of the Ka’aba, the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that the Ka’aba is in fact derived from the Jewish Temple. It has never compared with the splendour of the Temple but is remarkably similar to it in design and size. The form is repeated but not the splendour - this argues strongly for imitation. It is extremely likely that Arab proselytes to Judaism (there were many) spoke intensely favourably of the Temple when it existed and that the sons of Ishmael in Arabia felt it would be appropriate to construct a similar shrine to that ordained by God for the sons of Israel. This suggestion is strongly supported by the evidence that the Ka’aba existed before the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. Similar shrines existed all over Arabia at the time of Muhammad. One still stands at the al-Kabir mosque in Yemen. It is strikingly similar to the Ka’aba in Mecca. In considering the chronology of God’s dealings with mankind, one can only conclude that the worship which centres around the Ka’aba is at best merely an imitation of that which focused on the Temple. But although this worship resembles some of the forms of Jewish worship (for example, facing the shrine in prayer), it has far more similarities with the pagan rituals of the Quraish prior to Islam. In any event what it does not have is a manifestation of the divine glory confirming the presence of God himself as the Temple had. Therefore, far from being a replacement or substitution, it in fact lacks the very thing that gave the Temple its marvelous significance. The divine presence - a living reality - is not there. Accordingly we must reject the suggestion that the Ka’aba, and with it Islam, provides the fulfilment of that which the Temple foreshadowed. Instead of providing a superior and bettor form of access to God, it in fact provides no access to him at all and is inferior to the structure which stood in Jerusalem. The former shrine had at least a manifestation of God’s presence among the people, oven though they could not obtain access to him within the Holy of Holies, but the Ka’aba has never enjoyed a revelation of the actual presence of God within its walls. It was at the time of Jesus Christ that the divine presence left the Temple in Jerusalem. Judaism lost its exclusive identification with God but the whole of mankind - Israel included - gained a better form of access to God. Lot us now proceed to examine the life of Jesus, particularly those events and sayings of his which affected the Temple, to discover precisely how and where the whole human race has, in this age, gained this far greater access to the presence of God himself. The Christ of God Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea in the days of Herod the King. At the time of his birth the new Temple was being built in Jerusalem. Although it was being constructed under the auspices of a foreign ruler, it nevertheless conformed to the pattern of the original Temple and was accordingly a proper representation of the House of God in Israel. No prophet of God could disassociate himself and his ministry from the Temple of God and therefore we must expect to find some connection between Jesus and the Temple during his life on earth. 1. JESUS AND THE TEMPLE. Shortly after Jesus was born he was brought to the Temple by his mother Mary and her husband Joseph to be dedicated in accordance with the law of the Lord (Luke 2:22). Every year thereafter his family visited the Temple in Jerusalem to observe the annual Passover festival (Luke 2:41). Nothing unusual happened at these feasts until Jesus was twelve years old. On this occasion ho stayed behind in Jerusalem when the feast was ended. It was customary for all the children to mix freely in the company of those who wont up to the feast and it was only after a day’s journey that Joseph and Mary discovered ho was missing. They returned to Jerusalem and after three days they found him in discussion with the Jewish teachers and scribes in the Temple. Those men marcelled at his knowledge of the law of God for it was not to be expected that a young boy would have such an intimate knowledge of the law. His mother, however, was distraught after searching for him for three days and she said to him: "Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously". Luke 2:48. Joseph, however, was not really the father of Jesus and his mother Mary knew only too well that she had conceived her son while she was still a virgin. Accordingly Jesus met this ill-considered reproof of his action with those words: "How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?" Luke 2:49 He expressed his wonder that Joseph and Mary had not sought for him right from the start in the Temple of God for it was, in his own words, "my Father’s house". Mary should have remembered what the angel said to her when she first conceived him, namely: "He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High ... therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God". Luke 1:32; Luke 1:35. Two things, however, must be noticed in this incident. Firstly, Jesus identified himself with the Temple at a very young ago and identified it as the "House of God". Secondly, he described it as "my Father’s house" - something he was to do again twenty years later (John 2:16). By this we must of necessity conclude that God was, in a very real and eternal sense, the true Father of Jesus Christ. The next connection that Jesus had with the Temple was during the forty days that he fasted in the wilderness of Judea after he was baptised. At the end of this period Satan tempted him no less than three times to turn away from the path God has chosen for him. One of those three temptations related directly to the Temple in Jerusalem: Then the devil took him to the holy city, and sot him on the pinnacle of the Temple, and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down; for it is written, ’He will give his angels charge of you’ and ’On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone’." Jesus said to him, "Again it is written, ’You shall not tempt the Lord your God’." Matthew 4:5-7. Satan knew who Jesus was. Having heard Jesus describe the Temple as "my Father’s house" and having also heard God describe him as "my beloved Son" at his recent baptism (Matthew 3:17), ho now tempted him to prove to all the Jews gathered at the Temple that God was indeed his Father. Satan tried to persuade him to stand on the Holy of Holies and jump down in the sight of all Israel; for surely, if God was his Father, he would send his angels to save him lest he injured himself in the fall. If this were to happen, surely all the Jews would fall at his feet and acknowledge, in the very precincts of the Temple of God, that he was indeed the Son of God. Jesus resisted the temptation and refused to yield to Satan’s suggestion. This incident tells us much about the condition of the Temple at the time of Jesus. There must have been something radically wrong with the worship around it for the devil to incite Jesus to obtain by spectacular means the honour and obeisance of the Jews who were gathered there in that worship. If the people had been drawn to the Temple through a deep spiritual desire to worship God in spirit and in truth and to have fellowship with one another in the knowledge of God, the last thing Satan would have wanted was the discovery by the Jews that Jesus was indeed the Messiah they had long awaited. On the contrary we must presume, from the fact that Satan did everything in his power to persuade Jesus to reveal himself publicly as the Messiah in the Temple precincts, that the religion of Judaism had largely become false and that their worship at the Temple no longer focused spiritually on God but in fact had become contrary to the purpose of God which was to draw all men in true worship to himself. Quite obviously the Jews had turned away from him even though they outwardly still conformed to the prescribed pattern of the Temple worship. That this was indeed the case is clear from an event that took place on the very next occasion that the Passover feast took place in Jerusalem. Jesus went up to the feast and immediately reacted to the rituals and practices taking place in the Temple: In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons and the money-changers at their business. And making a whip of cords, he drove them all, with the sheep and the oxen, out of the temple; and he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. And ho told those who sold the pigeons, "Take these things away; you shall not make my Father’s house a house of trade". John 2:14-16. Far from approving of the worship at the Temple, ho displayed his utter opposition to what was taking place. God’s house was meant to be a house of worship but they had made it a market for secular trading. The chief priests had transformed the Temple into a place of mercantile objectives. They sought only to obtain wealth at the expense of the many pilgrims who came regularly to Jerusalem to worship and observe the feasts. Jesus cleansed the Temple as a sign that the true worship of God in future was to be revealed in his ministry. We can see now why he resisted Satan’s temptation. When he finally came to the Temple, far from seeking to draw the honour and praises of the Jews to himself, he in fact opposed them to their faces and, by his actions, showed that he disapproved entirely of what was passing for the worship of God in its precincts. Once again he described the Temple as "my Father’s house". While he reverenced it as such, he displayed an open abhorrence of the affairs of the Temple which were supposedly being conducted in the name of God. A few years later, when he repeated this action, ho accused the Jews of making the Temple "a den of robbers" (Matthew 21:13). As was to be expected the Jews took strong exception to this action. On the first occasion they asked him what sign ho had to show them that ho acted on authority from God in entering the Temple and behaving as if he were the Lord of it. Jesus answered then: "Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up". John 2:19 The Jews marcelled at this statement. They declared that it had taken forty-six years to build the Temple and were amazed at his suggestion that ho could rebuild it within three days. But Jesus had not spoken of the Temple building. One of his disciples, who records this incident, tells us: He spoke of the temple of his body. John 2:21 Yet, by describing it as "this temple" immediately after ho had driven the money-changers out of the Temple building, it is no wonder that the Jews took his statement to refer to the building itself. This identification of his body with the Temple building was not coincidental, however, but was deliberately implied in his reply to the Jews. Henceforth the true Temple of God was no longer to be the building in Jerusalem but the person of Christ himself. From this moment onwards Jesus drew a clear distinction between himself and the Temple and many incidents in his life show that Jesus himself had become the new focus of true worship and had replaced the Temple as the meeting-place of God with men. When Jesus left Judea to return to Galilee he passed by Jacob’s well in Samaria which was not far from a town called Sychar (in what is known as the "west bank" of the Jordan river today). In this province lived a people who had a mixed ancestry, part of which was Jewish. They held that as the prophet Jacob had worshipped on Mount Gerizim, and not at the site of the Temple in Jerusalem, so they should do likewise. When a Samaritan woman asked Jesus which of the two was indeed the true place of worship, he replied: "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth". John 4:21-24. Be plainly told her that the hour had now come when the Temple in Jerusalem would no longer be the focus of worship. In his answer ho clearly implied that no place on earth would fulfil this function. Now that Jesus had come, the situation was to be changed. His advent at this time heralded the new age when worship was to be directed not towards a place on earth (for example, Gerizim, Jerusalem or Mecca) but spiritually towards God in heaven. On another occasion, when Jesus was reproved by the Jewish leaders for allowing his disciples to pluck heads of grain in his presence on the Sabbath, he replied: "Have you not read in the law how on the sabbath the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is hero". Matthew 12:5-6. If God allowed the priests to perform functions on the sabbath which appeared to profane the day, and were not censured by God even when this was done right in his presence in the Temple, so likewise the disciples were free from blame before God when they plucked these heads of grain on the sabbath in the presence of Jesus and were not reproved by him. Clearly Jesus was portraying himself as the replacement of the Temple and as the centre of the abiding presence of God among men. Something greater than the Temple was now here in the person of Jesus and we shall shortly see why this was indeed the case and how it came to pass. A climax was reached when Jesus took his three closest disciples up a high mountain and was transfigured before them. His garments became white as light and his face shone like the sun. A bright cloud overshadowed him and a voice from heaven said: "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him". Matthew 17:5 Centuries earlier this bright cloud of glory had settled in the Holy of Holies in the tabernacle (Surah 2.57) and then in the same chamber in the Temple as a sign of God’s real presence in the shrine. Now it settled above the person of Jesus as a manifestation of God’s presence in him and as a proof of the fact that from henceforth God’s presence and favour were only to be found in Jesus. All prayers and worship were from this time forth to be offered in his name and he had therefore become the "qiblah" rather than the Temple. As he stood in the Temple for the last time at the end of his ministry, Jesus was deeply moved in spirit and foresaw the demise of this great building as the place where God was to be identified with his people on earth. Jesus declared to the multitude: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ’Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’." Matthew 23:37-39. Immediately afterwards, as he withdrew from the Temple for the last time, he said to his disciples of the buildings in the Temple: "Truly I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another". Matthew 24:2 With these words Jesus pronounced God’s judgement on the Temple. It was forsaken and desolate. For centuries the Jews had opposed the prophets God had sent to them and had practised a false worship around the Temple. Forty years later the Temple was duly destroyed by the Roman armies under Titus and so it no longer represented the presence of God among men. 2. THE ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MEN. Jesus had become instead, in his own person, the centre of true religion on earth. The Temple had merely foreshadowed and anticipated his coming but he, ultimately, is the identification and focus of worship between God and men. The purpose of praying towards the Temple and of pilgrimages to its feasts within its precincts was a way by which God through Christ had sought to draw the worship of the Jews towards himself. But even when Jesus himself stood among them in human form they opposed and rejected him. Their religion centred on the Temple but not on him. In distinguishing between Christ and the Temple, and by preferring the latter to him, the Jews lost the knowledge of God for it is in Jesus alone that the divine presence is ultimately revealed to men and through him alone that men can obtain access to God. Therefore he told them that their Temple was forsaken and that they would not in any way rediscover the path of access to God until they found it in him and admitted that he was indeed their Messiah and that the divine presence was henceforth to be manifested in him alone. But how is this access obtained through Jesus to God? We must return to his saying, "Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up" to find the answer to this vital question. Two days after Jesus pronounced God’s judgement on the Temple he was arrested and put on trial before the Jewish leaders. Of all his sayings this one remained foremost in their minds. Two witnesses came forward and said: "This follow said, ’I am able to destroy the Temple of God and to build it in three days’." Matthew 26:61 But Jesus had said nothing of destroying the Temple himself. What he did say was that when they destroyed it ho would raise it in three days - and by this he meant his own body as we have already seen. When they sentenced him to death and obtained permission to crucify him the following day, the sign Jesus had promised them was about to be fulfilled before their very own eyes. By having him crucified they were themselves destroying the temple of his body. Nevertheless, even as he hung on the cross others said: "You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross". Matthew 27:40 Jesus, however, intended to fulfil this prophecy in a far greater way than by coming down from the cross. He hung on the cross for reasons unknown to these scorners. Without realising it, by their efforts to have him put to death they were helping to fulfil his prediction. As ho died on the cross a remarkable thing happened: The curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. Matthew 27:51 The veil in the Temple which had for centuries signified that a sharp separation existed between God and mankind was torn from the top as an earthquake shook Jerusalem, signifying that God, from above, had torn down the barrier between men and himself through the death of his Son Jesus Christ on the cross. Jesus had died on the cross not because ho could not save himself but to save others from their sins. Three days later God raised him from the dead to fulfil the prophecy and sign ho had given to the Jews. He had overcome death and had conquered the power of sin. He had bridged the separation between God and men and forty days later ho ascended to the very presence of his Father in heaven above. Ten days later the Holy Spirit descended from heaven in visible form, not into the Temple, hut into the very hearts of the disciples who had gathered in Jerusalem to wait for this event. Something greater than the Temple was indeed hero. By faith in Jesus his disciples gained direct access to God by the fact that the Holy Spirit came, not into a forbidden part of the Temple, hut right into their very own hearts. Until Jesus comes again men will only be saved and obtain access to God through faith in him. It is God’s plan to unite all things in him - things in heaven and things on earth (Ephesians 1:10). This indeed was that which motivated Jesus to endure the cross far by this means he ensured that the last prayer he offered for his disciples would be answered: "I do not pray for those only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may also be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." John 17:20-21. Instead of facing the Temple and making pilgrimages to Jerusalem, Jesus desired, by his abiding presence in heaven, to draw men through himself directly to God in true spiritual worship. The Christian has no Temple or Ka’aba, no holy place on earth. Instead ho has in heaven one who has gone before him right into the presence of God; and a holy city in the heavens ready to be revealed at the last time. The Christian has within himself, through the Holy Spirit which is given to him, direct access to God in heaven. Christ is in him and ho is in Christ. By this profound mystery, ho is actually represented in Christ who beholds and shares the glory of his Father without measure - and who has promised that that glory will be ours as well when he returns to earth at the end of time (John 17:24). The torn veil was an everlasting sign that the death and resurrection of Jesus had broken down the barrier between God and men. Although the Temple had been a sign of God’s presence in Israel, its stone walls and veil were really a reminder of God’s absence from man. Only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies once a year and then only with the blood of a sacrifice as a symbol of atonement. That symbol was fulfilled through the death of Jesus on the cross. Through him all true Christians have access beyond the veil to God himself. For Christ has entered, not into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Hebrews 9:24 When the Temple was destroyed it was a permanent proof of the fact that the barrier between God and man was forever broken down. The Jew could travel all the way to Jerusalem on pilgrimage but he could only touch the stones of the building. He could not obtain direct access to God. But in Jesus, no matter where he may be, the Christian has this access right into the presence of God’s temple in heaven. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. Ephesians 2:18. Therefore Christianity indeed possesses that which replaced the Temple. This shrine was laid low at the time of Jesus to allow for a far better form of access to God. We look not to a house of stone made with hands but to a living person like ourselves who is seated on our behalf at the right hand of the very presence of God in heaven. Jesus, in heaven, is indeed our "qiblah" All we do or pray is done in his name. This shows that the Ka’aba is not relevant to God’s dealings with man in this age. The Ka’aba, in its resemblances to the Temple, is only a symbol of the barrier that once existed between God and man - and also a symbol, perhaps, of the gulf that still exists between God and those that have not experienced renewal and access to him through faith in Jesus. Like the Jews before them, the Muslims can only touch stones; but in Jesus Christ we have access, through the Spirit he has given us, directly to God our Father in heaven. No cloud of glory filled or settled on the Ka’aba when Muhammad had all its idols destroyed after the conquest of Mecca. The glory of God had settled on the Temple when Solomon dedicated it to God and later upon Jesus himself when he was transfigured but no such thing happened when Muhammad consecrated the Ka’aba for the worship of Islam. The glory of God, instead, will forever be vested in Jesus Christ and will be manifested again when Jesus returns at the end of time. This glory is also available to all who turn to God through faith in him. When he is revealed in all his glory, then the righteous too will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father (Matthew 13:43). For this reason Jesus declared in the Temple itself on the great day of the Feast of Tabernacles: "If any one thirst, let him come to me and drink". John 7:37 We look, not to buildings made with stone on earth, but to the best of qiblahs, a living Saviour who has given us direct access to God, Jesus Christ himself. In the words of Peter, one of the closest disciples of Jesus, we appeal to all Muslims: Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God’s sight chosen and precious. 1 Peter 2:4-5. In him, Jesus our Lord, salvation, forgiveness of sins, the knowledge of God, the assured hope of glory and the indescribable anticipation of eternal life are vested. He alone is the "living" stone, in him alone will men ever find access to the living God of heaven. There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. Acts 4:12. Will you not forsake vain things which cannot profit or save by turning away from rites and ceremonies which concentrate on stones and other lifeless objects and turn instead to the living way which brings eternal life? Will you not turn to him, to Jesus Christ, and so become a partaker of the glory that is to be revealed? Will you not submit your whole life to him and follow him as your Lord and Saviour? He is alive in heaven and is ready to receive you now. Will you not commit yourself to him and receive the living Spirit of God which he is willing to pour into your heart? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 8: 01.07. THE TITLES OF JESUSIN THEQUR'AN AND THE BIBLE ======================================================================== THE TITLES OF JESUSIN THEQur’an AND THE BIBLE TITLES OF JESUS IN THE Qur’an 1- The Messiah 2- The Word of God 3- A Spirit from God TITLES OF JESUS IN THE BIBLE 1- The Son of Man 2- The Son of God TITLES OF JESUS IN THE Qur’an Jesus is defined in the Qur’an as a messenger and a prophet no different nor superior to all the other messengers who went before him. The Qur’an expressly denies the Christian beliefs about Jesus that make him pre-eminent among men and it is known in the Christian world primarily for its denials that Jesus is the Son of God and that he was crucified. Nevertheless, while the denials in the book are very emphatic, the positive teaching about the person and life of Jesus is considerably vague and indeed strangely mysterious. For much of the teaching in the Qur’an about Jesus really appears to be far more Christian than Muslim in content and emphasis. Many of the admissions it makes about the features of his life, far from supporting the bare denials of the Qur’an about his deity and the Christian belief that he is the Son of God, tend rather to strongly uphold these Christian beliefs. (Many of these features have already been thoroughly examined in "The Uniqueness of Jesus in the Qur’an and the Bible" in this series. In this booklet the emphasis has been placed solely on some of the titles which the Qur’an gives to Jesus). Whereas the Qur’an concedes unique features in the life of Jesus that are not in any way adequately explained in the book, but which clearly imply that he is the Son of God and that he came to earth to die for the sins of men, so it also awards certain eminent titles to Jesus alone which are also not explained and which in no small measure also strengthen Christian belief about Jesus. No sincere Muslim can study the teaching of the Qur’an about Jesus without honestly feeling that there is more to this man that meets the eye and that the assertion that he was no different to other messengers is not supported by the evidence the Qur’an concedes to the Bible. Jesus is given many titles in the Qur’an but only three will be treated in this booklet. The reason for this is twofold. In the first place, the three titles referred to are applied to j alone. Secondly, all three of these titles appear in one short passage where the Qur’an bluntly denies that Jesus is deity and that he is the Son of God. This makes it possible to study the meaning of these three titles right in the very context of the basic teaching of the Qur’an that Jesus was only a messenger like those who went before him. The passage is: "O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and his messengers and say not "Three" - Cease! it is better for you! - Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from his transcendent majesty that He should have a son". (Surah 4,171). As strongly as anywhere else in the Qur’an the Christian belief that Jesus is the Son of God is here denied. But in this same passage Jesus is given three titles, however, which are majestic, exalted and splendid and are of supreme importance because they are applied to Jesus alone. Let us consider them in the order in which they appear. 1. THE MESSIAH (Al-Masih) Jesus alone is called the Messiah in the Qur’an. Eleven times he is given this title and occasionally he is referred to solely by this title without being referred to by name. No explanation of the title is given in the Qur’an. What is of interest, however, is that Jesus is chiefly called the Messiah in passages that are alleged to have been revealed to Muhammad at Medina after the Hijra. The title Messiah is extremely relevant to both the Christian and Jewish religions. The Jews, in their holy scriptures, have an abundance of prophecies of one glorious Savior to come who is called the Messiah (Daniel 9:25), the anointed one, and they have long awaited his coming. At the time of Jesus this Messianic expectancy reached its peak but after the destruction of Jerusalem forty years after the ascension of Jesus this hope waned among the Jews. To the Christians, Jesus is the promised Messiah. He said he was in no uncertain terms. (John 4:25-26). The Jews in his time could not perceive that Jesus was the Messiah because they had expected a military leader who would drive out all foreign powers from the land of the Jews and set up a kingdom in Israel which would possess world-wide authority. But the Messiah came "not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many". (Matthew 20:28). In Hebrew the word Messiah means "the Anointed One". It can, in a lesser sense, refer to any priest or anointed leader and occasionally the expression is used in this context in the Jewish Scriptures. But it became in time a title for the one who was to come, the final herald of God’s salvation, the Redeemer of the world. Significantly the title only appears in the Qur’an after Muhammad has made some contact with the Jews and Christians of Arabia. Clearly Qur’anic use of the title is linked to Jewish and Christian beliefs about the Messiah. Therefore, we must go into Jewish expectations and Christian beliefs about the Jewish and Christian beliefs about the Messiah to find out what the title means. At this stage, however, we must ask whether this title Messiah has any meaning that makes the one who holds the title in any way superior to the other great prophets of God. In Surah 4.171 it is said that the Messiah is "only a messenger" but to both the Jews and the Christians the Messiah is a man who is the greatest among men, one possessed of regality, majesty, excellence and splendour for above that of all other men. He is unique in his glory and there is no one to compare with him. By offering no explanation of this title, the Qur’an is at the same time making no contest against the accepted longstanding beliefs of the Jews and Christians about the Messiah. To both he is far more than just a messenger. The title in Jewish and Christian scriptural usage clearly implies greatness of such a degree that all the true messengers of God will ultimately bow to him in homage and obeisance. By admitting the Christian contention that Jesus is the Messiah, the Qur’an is in fact implying that he is the ultimate man of glory in human history and that the is the one who is the final expression of the revelation of God to men. Nevertheless we cannot even stop here for we find in the Bible that, to both Jews and Christians, the title Messiah is in fact synonymous with the title Son of God. In these circumstances it is rather amazing to find that the Qur’an calls Jesus the Messiah and denies that he is the Son of God in the same breath. Let us examine some of the test in the Bible that show that the expressions Messiah and Son of God are synonymous. (The word "Christ" means "Messiah" and as we have been consistently referring to the "Messiah" and have been quoting from a Muslim translation of the Qur’an which uses the word Messiah rather than Christ which is used by other Muslim translators, we shall continue to do so). a) Jewish believers in Jesus called him both the Messiah and the Son of God, Simon Peter was the first to do so: "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God". (Matthew 16:16) Martha also used the two titles simultaneously in her expression of belief in Jesus. "I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, he who is coming into the world". (John 11:27) b) The High Priest of the Jews used the titles simultaneously with one another asking Jesus if he was the Messiah. "I adjure you, by the living God, tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God". (Matthew 26:63) c) The early Christians used the titles synonymously with one another as well in various contexts: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God". (Mark 1:1) "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah the Son of God and that believing you may have life in his name". (John 20:31) d) Even the demons did so as well when they spoke to Jesus: "And demons also came out of many, crying, "You are the Son of God!! But he rebuked them, and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Messiah". (Luke 4:41) From these many texts we can see that the Messiah is no less than Son of God himself. This is no ordinary title - it is a title of the highest eminence and only the Son of God could exclusively claim the title of Messiah for himself according to the expectations of the Jews and the teachings of the prophets who preceded him. By admitting that Jesus is the Messiah and by confirming his own emphatic declaration to this effect (John 4:25-26), the Qur’an has given Jesus a title which implies nothing less than that he is indeed the Son of God. 2. THE WORD OF GOD (Kalimatullah) Jesus is also called "His word" in Surah 4:17, meaning the Word of God. In Surah 3:45 we also read that the angels said to Mary "Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary". More than once in the Qur’an, therefore, Jesus is called God’s Word. He is also called the Word of God in the Bible. "He is clad in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God". (Revelation 19:13) Once again, therefore, Jesus is given a title in the Qur’an which the Bible gives him as well. Like the title Messiah this is a very distinctive and exalted title. Whether we take it in its actual Biblical form, "The Word of God", or in its actual Qur’anic forms, "a Word from God" and "God’s Word", two things are strikingly and abundantly clear. Jesus himself, in his actual person, is the Word; and the source, origin and the fountainhead of the Word is God. As with the title Messiah, the Qur’an gives no explanation of the title Nevertheless, in seeking to reconcile it with the Qur’anic assertion that Jesus was only a messenger, Muslim commentators generally have claimed that Jesus is called the Word of God solely in accordance with the teaching in the Qur’an that he was created in the womb of a virgin-woman by the Word of God: "She said: My Lord!! How can I have a child when no mortal hath touched me? He said: So it will be. Allah createth what He will, if He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only; Be! and it is." (Surah 3:47) By the single word of God "Be", it is alleged that Jesus was created and from this verse Muslim commentators have concluded that this is why Jesus is called the Word of God. It is a convenient but inadequate conclusion. According to that verse, this is how anything is created by God. But Jesus alone receives the title Word of God and its unique character must compel us to reject this theory as over-simplistic. Secondly it is exposed further as being an insufficient answer to the question of its meaning by a simple consideration of a similar statement just twelve verses later in the same Surah: "Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam, He created him from dust, then He said unto him, Be! and he is". (Surah 3:59) Once again it is said of Jesus that he was created by God purely through the expression "Be" but this time it is said that "the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam", implying that both were made by the single word of God "Be" in the same way. If Jesus is called the Word of God purely as a result of the manner of his conception, then Adam too must be the Word of God for according to the Qur’an they were both created in the same manner. Now a real difficulty arises because Adam is not called the Word of God in the Qur’an. Nor are the angels, nor is any other creature so called in the Qur’an. Jesus alone is called the Word of God. The very exceptional nature of the title, by which Jesus is distinguished from all other men and all creatures, demands that there is some other meaning and significance behind it. The very fact that the title is given to Jesus alone in both the Qur’an and the Bible clearly shows that there is something about the person of Jesus that makes him the Word of God in a way in which no other man or creature can compare. Jesus himself is called the Word of God and the title relates to his person and not to any feature or circumstance of his life. As mentioned earlier, one of the distinctive features of this title is the emphasis of deity as the source of the person who bears it. the Word is from God. And the title Word implies that he is the communication and revelation, in his own person, of God to men. The Word of God is one who indeed is actively the real manifestation of God to Moses en. To know him is to know God. He does not merely bring the religion and words of God to men, he himself is the word and revelation of God, Jesus himself made this clear when he said: "He who has seen me has seen the Father". (John 14:9) Let us now turn to the plain teaching of the Bible about Jesus as the Word of God. The prologue to the Gospel of John gives us a clear explanation of the title: "In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. And the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him and without him was not anything made that was made". (John 1:1-2) To emphasize strongly that Jesus himself is the Word of God and not that God’s word is somehow related to him as is suggested by the major Muslim commentators, let us briefly paraphrase those two verses: In the beginning before God ever began to create, the Word already existed. Far from being part of the created order, the Word was in the realm of God and indeed the very nature of the Word was that of God. When God first began to fashion the created order, the Word already existed in the divine order. He himself was not created but all other things were created by God through him as agent, indeed as the very Word of God. Because he alone is the Word of God, and is therefore the sole means of communication between God and his creatures, nothing was created without being created by and through him. (John 1:1-2) The clear teaching of the Bible is that Jesus existed as the Word of God before God ever created anything and that he is therefore deity. But then the Word of God became the man Jesus, the son of Mary. "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth". (John 1:14) Jesus is the Word of God not because of any intervention by God at his conception nor by any other circumstances. He always was, from all eternity, the Word of God before he took on human flesh and became the man Jesus, the son of Mary. Every prophet of God has been a messenger but only Jesus is the Word of God. The distinction comes out in this contrast; whereas every prophet only delivered the words of God when proclaiming God’s message, Jesus at all times spoke the words of God. In private conversation with their friends, for example, the prophets spoke their own words and we accordingly distinguish between the prophet’s own words in normal conversation and the words of God which the prophets spoke at various intervals whenever bidden to do so by God. But Jesus is the Word of God and every word he spoke - whether in teaching or in private conversation - was God’s work. There was no distinction between the words of Jesus and the words of God. This is abundantly clear from the teaching of Jesus himself: "I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has given me commandment what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has bidden me". (John 12:49-50) "The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works." (John 14:10) The words which Jesus spoke were not the words of a man but of God. Yet because Jesus himself is the Word of God, he could quite justifiably call them his own words. This is something no other prophet could do. No one else could say that his own words were the words of God. See how Jesus speaks of his words as his own and yet also on the words of God. "He who does not love me does not keep my words, and the word which you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me". (John 14:24) Again, whereas Jesus often proclaimed that nothing he said was on his own authority (as we have seen) but that every word he spoke was God’s, yet because he is the Word of God he could quite rightly claim then as his own. "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life". (John 5:24) "If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free". (John 8:31) "If I know that you have but little power, and yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name". (Revelation 3:8) Nevertheless not only does Jesus on every occasion speak of God’s words as his own because he is the Word of God, but he himself, being himself the Word of God, is the final, ultimate and complete revelation of God to men. "He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities - all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell". (Colossians 1:15-19) So we see that far from being only a messenger of God, that is, one who receives an independent message from God, Jesus himself is the message of God and there is accordingly no independence between God and his Word. This is why Jesus alone is the unique Word of God. He is not a created messenger, he is the eternal Word of God. Other men are made from the dust - this man is from God. Other men return to the dust - this man returned to God. At this stage we are constrained to say that we Christians do not really see where we are exaggerating in our religion as the Qur’an suggests in the passage under review (Surah 4:17). Because we believe that Jesus is the Son of God, we are supposedly exaggerating in our belief in him and yet, in that very same passage, the Qur’an calls Jesus the Messiah which implies fundamentally that he is the Son of God. But now we come across the title Word of God which, to all intents and purposes, is really more emphatic and suggestive of deity than the title Son of God. The latter title at least implies some limitation and submission on the part of its bearer - a son is subject to his father - but the title Word of God implies no such limitation. By itself it clearly implies that its bearer is the express image of the invisible God and only the latter, title Son of God implies some submission on his part to the Father. The Qur’an denounces Christians for believing that Jesus is the Son of God and yet, in the very same breath, gives him the title Word of God which is as indicative of deity on the title Son of God. There is really no meaningful difference between the titles. Quite where we are exaggerating in our religion is not at all clear to us! So we see that the first two titles in Surah 4:171 that we have considered, i.e. Messiah and Word of God far from supporting the suggestion that Jesus is "only a messenger", in fact heavily reinforce the Christian belief that Jesus is the Word and Son of God incarnate. But let us press on now to the third title in Surah 4:171. 3. A SPIRIT FROM GOD (Ruhullah). This third title is very little different from the second one for once again the title belongs to Jesus alone and God again is the source of the Spirit as he was the source of the Word. (It is sometimes said of Adam that God breathed something of his spirit into him but this must be carefully distinguished from the title Spirit of God which is given to Jesus alone). Jesus is his Word and his Spirit. This title is also not explained in the Qur’an but frankly supports the Christian belief that Jesus was not a creature made out of dust but an eternal spirit who took on human form. In this case, however, we do find some evidence in the Qur’an that helps us to identify the meaning of this title. Elsewhere in the Qur’an we read of the "Holy Spirit" (Ruhul-Quds - cf. Surahs 2.85, 2.22,53, 16.103) and it is presumed that the Holy Spirit is the angel Gabriel. Whoever it is, it is generally agreed that the Holy Spirit is greater than man and comes from heaven and is purely a spirit. Jesus, however, is now called "a Spirit from him" (ruhun-minhu) from which he has received the title in Islamic traditions "Spirit of God" (Ruhullah). The expression in Surah 4.171, ruhun-minhu ("a spirit from him") is used in exactly the same form in Surah 58.22 where it is said that God strengthens true believers with "a spirit from him". Very significantly Yusuf Ali, commenting on this latter verse in his translation of the Qur’an states that here the "phrase used is stronger" than that for the Holy Spirit (Ruhul Quds). He implies that the Spirit from God is greater than the Holy Spirit and says that it is "the divine spirit, which we can no more define adequately than we can define in human language the nature and attributes of God" (note 5365). This is a remarkable comment which is clearly a veiled implication that the ruhun-minhu is the very Spirit of the living God, uncreated and eternal in essence. Yusuf Ali says it is "the divine spirit" and that it is as incomprehensible as God himself. This language is unambiguous - the Spirit from God is clearly believed by him to be from the realm of deity and not from the created order. He is, according to this interpretation, practically synonymous with the Holy Spirit in the Christian Bible. Now this is the very title that the Qur’an gives to Jesus in Surah 4.171. The exact same words are used - he is the ruhun-minhu, "a Spirit from God". If we merely apply Yusuf Ali’s interpretation of the expression in Surah 58.22 to the very same expression given as a title to Jesus in Surah 4.171, we can only conclude that Jesus is the "divine spirit, which we can no more define adequately than we can define in human language the nature and attributes of God". He is, therefore, God in essence and nature. Because of the simultaneous denial in 4.171 that Jesus is the Son of God, Yusuf Ali is constrained to deny that the title ruhun-minhu when applied to Jesus implies deity, but he is hardly consistent in his exposition of the Qur’an when he teaches in another place that ruhun-minhu is indeed a divine spirit possessing the nature and attributes of God and is an incomprehensible as God as well. For our part we believe that, as with the titles Messiah and Word of God, this title Spirit of God also strongly supports the Christian belief that Jesus is indeed the Son of God and that, not in any metaphorical sense, but in an eternal one which is based on the fact that he is very deity himself. The only way Yusuf Ali could avoid this admission when commenting on Surah 4.171 was to frankly contradict what he said in his commentary on Surah 58.22. Nevertheless all three of these titles not only support but plainly imply that the one they refer to is the Son of God. In the Bible this is clearly the case and in the Qur’an the lack of an explanation for each title, together with the fact that the titles are much the same as those in the Bible, and further together with the underlying implication of each title by itself, leaves us with no other alternative but to conclude that Jesus is indeed the exalted figure that the Bible reveals him to be. We have concluded our study of the most significant titles of Jesus in the Qur’an. Let us now turn to the Bible and let us briefly examine the two most significant titles of Jesus in this book - Son of Man and Son of God. We are selecting these titles, not simply because the Bible gives them to Jesus, but because these are the two titles which Jesus used of himself more often than any other in describing himself and his mission and ministry on earth. TITLES OF JESUS IN THE BIBLE The Bible gives Jesus many magnificent titles. He is given the titles Savior of the World, King of Kings, Redeemer, The Lord our Righteousness, the Sun of Righteousness, among many others which, when combined with one another, leave the unmistakable impression that he is indeed the Lord of Glory. We will now consider, however, the two titles Jesus used of himself more than any other, the Son of Man and the Son of God. Indeed from these two titles, we can gain a sufficient impression of the whole person and work of Jesus Christ. 4.THE SON OF MAN In the Bible the title Son of Man is undoubtedly one of the most important titles of Jesus for he used this title of himself more than any other during his ministry. It is in fact the first title we find him using of himself. He addressed his new disciple Nathaniel in these words: "Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man". (John 1:51) Not only is this the first title of Jesus in the Gospels, it is also the last title he used for himself during his earthly life. When he was arraigned before the Jewish High Priest on the last night he was alive, he said to him: "Hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven". (Matthew 26:64) Quite obviously this title was a very important and distinctive one to Jesus. But what does it mean? Is it simply a way of expressing the humanity of Jesus? That Jesus was a man is disputed by neither Christian nor Muslim in this world. But the title Son of Man cannot just be an expression of humanity. The definite form of the title, the Son of Man, refers to more than this and clearly implies that it is a unique man who bears this title and that in some exceptional way he is the figurehead of the human race. Secondly one might be tempted to say that if Jesus so often called himself the Son of Man, was he not perhaps contrasting himself with the beliefs of some who followed him who held that he was the Son of God? Was not this his way of emphasizing his humanity over and against the assertions of others that he was the Son of God? On the contrary, no fair exposition of the Bible can allow this interpretation at all. Firstly Jesus never used the title Son of Man in a context where it is contrasted with the title Son of God. Secondly it is only in the four Gospels in the Christian Bible that these two titles Son of Man and Son of God are found and as the writers quoted Jesus as using both titles for himself, we cannot imagine that they would have done this if the title s of Man was in any way contrary to the title Son of God. We discover the meaning and import of the title Son of Man from a prophetic passage in the Book of Daniel where the prophet describes a vision he saw many centuries before Jesus was born. He was given A vision of heaven where God is and saw all the nations of earth gathered before him. Then in the night he saw this great even happen. "Behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a Son of Man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was give dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed". (Daniel 7:13-14) The Son of Man is an apocalyptic figure who is able to come right into the presence of God and it is to him that God gives authority over all the powers of the universe that every creature in heaven and on earth should serve him. Quite obviously the Son of Man is a glorious person, the epitome of human perfection and honour. And it is in this context that we find Jesus calling himself the Son of Man. Elsewhere in the Bible we find the expression Son of Man used in a lesser sense (Psalms 8:4, Job 25:6, Ezekiel 11:15) where it does not refer to Jesus but is used in a general sense denoting humanity. Nevertheless whenever Jesus used it of himself, he used it as a title which belonged to him alone. In an exclusive sense he is the ultimate Son of Man, the one who was beheld by Daniel in all his glory in the vision he was allowed to receive, one who is unique and pre-eminent among men. The Son of Man, through something he head done and achieved as a man, was entitled to enter the presence of God and become the heir to the kingdom God has prepared for all those who truly love him. What the Son of Man had done was to die for the sins of the world. By reconciling men to God, he was entitled to receive the kingdom which he had now made accessible to all who draw near to God through him. By conquering sin he had become the sovereign over those he set free from its power. For this reason we invariably find Jesus using the title Son of Man in respect of his crucifixion and the glory he was to receive subsequent to it. He often told the Jews that it was the destiny of the Son of Man to be "lifted up", an expression which implied firstly that he was to be lifted up on a cross as an object of scorn before all men as he took their sins on himself and, secondly, that he was thereafter to be lifted up by God to glory in heaven to reign with him in wondrous majesty over all the sons of men. (See John 3:14-15; John 8:28; John 12:32-34). To his closer circle of disciples Jesus made this even clearer. On the last night before he was to be crucified, when he knew that Judas was about to betray him into the hands of the Jews, he said: "The Son of Man goes as it is written of him". (Matthew 26:24) As many of the prophets of old had foretold (e.g. Psalms 22:1-31, Psalms 69:1-36, Isaiah 53:1-12), the Son of Man was to die for the sins of men to make atonement for them. Only two days earlier Jesus had said to his disciples: "You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified". (Matthew 26:2) On numerous other occasions Jesus spoke of himself as the Son of Man in the context of a lowly man on earth serving his fellow men finally laying down his life for them - much the same as the concept of the son of man in a general sense where the expression is used, not only to imply humanity, but to imply lowly humanity and human weakness. The Lord of all glory had voluntarily taken on the form of a servant and had in deep humility elected not only to serve God in form of a creature but even to serve his fellow-men: "The Son of Man came, not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many". (Matthew 20:28) But far from the pending crucifixion being a final humiliation, Jesus spoke of it as a means of being glorified. More than once he spoke of his hour of destiny on the cross on the hour of glory for him. Shortly before his crucifixion he said to his disciples: "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Truly truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it abides alone, but if it dies, it bears much fruit". (John 12:23-24) Again, as he began his last discourse to his disciples after Judas departed, he said: "Now is the Son of Man glorified, and in him God is glorified. If God is glorified in him, he will glorify him in himself, and will glorify him at once". (John 13:31-32) Far from the crucifixion being a disgrace for Jesus or even a triumph for his enemies, it was merely a means to that ultimate glory which the Son of Man was to receive in heaven according to the vision which Daniel saw many centuries earlier. He went to the cross to redeem thousands of sinners so that he could ultimately lead them in triumph into the kingdom which God was to give him. Three days after he had died on the cross, God raised him for the dread and forty days later God lifted him up and raised him to glory in the heavens until he should return to receive his own and lead and rule over them in the kingdom of heaven for evermore. Accordingly we often find Jesus speaking of himself as the Son of Man in the context of glory as well as in the context of crucifixion. We only have to refer to the two texts quoted of the beginning of this section to see how emphatically Jesus spoke of himself as the Son of Man in the context of heavenly honour and majesty. In the first quote he said to Nathaniel "You will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man" and to the High Priest he said "You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven". One day all men will see the Son of Man coming from heaven with the glory he head already obtained in the kingdom of God. Other quotes in the same context are these: "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne". (Matthew 25:31) "Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory". (Matthew 24:30) In all these quotes we find a deeply significant trend. The Son of Man is the central figure in the kingdom of heaven. He is unique among men - not just one who has found his way into heaven, but the one who is the focal point of glory before the eyes of all men and all angels of the highest place that heaven affords, at the right hand of the throne of God. After Jesus had ascended to heaven, we have a wonderful example of a vision granted to one of the early Christians, Stephen, who was about to die for his Master and so became the first Christian martyr. As Daniel had seen a vision of the ultimate honour of the Son of Man in heaven, so Stephen also received a similar vision as he was about to die, and said: "Behold I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God". (Acts 7:56) So we see the pattern of the life of the Son of Man - from apparent disrepute at the hands of sinful men as he died for them on the cross to transparent honour and glory at the hand of God when he raised him from the dead to sit at his right hand, there to receive the kingdom he had rightly earned for all who are saved by faith in him. So we see what a glorious personality the Son of Man is. Far from being a simple expression of humanity, the Son of Man is a title given only to the ultimate Redeemer of the earth and all who follow him. But if the Son of Man has gone to sit at the right hand of the throne of God, we are constrained to ask - does not this lead us to consider that the title "Son of Man", far from contrasting with the title "Son of God", rather corresponds to and is wedded to it? While the title implies humanity, do not the circumstances that Jesus spoke of which are found to accompany the ministry and work of the Son of Man imply that he is also in very truth the Son of God and that the Son of Man possesses divinity as well as humanity? Let up press on to see how the Jews themselves got this very impression - and then let us conclude with a very brief examination of this title Son of God which Jesus also gave himself. 5. THE SON OF GOD At the time of Jesus the Jewish people failed generally to believe in him and to follow him but despite this they did not fail to grasp his claims about himself. When Jesus stood before the Council on the last night before he died, he said "From now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God". (Luke 22:69), to which the Jews promptly replied "Are you the Son of God, then?" (v. 70). Although he had called himself the Son of Man,, what he had said about the Son of Man seemed to imply that he was also the Son of God. Jesus answered "You say that I am", meaning, "Indeed what you have said is true - I am the Son of God - and you have borne witness to the fact". Likewise we find a similar answer from Jesus when the High Priest said to him, "I adjure you, by the living God, tell us whether you are the Messiah, the Son of God" (Matthew 26:63). Jesus answered "I am - and you have said so" (Mark 14:62, Matthew 26:64). To this answer the High Priest exclaimed "He has uttered blasphemy" (Matthew 26:65). Jesus had been arrested by the Jews on the order of the High Priest because he had learnt that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. At his trial no evidence could be brought which could be made to stick against Jesus, so the High Priest stood up and asked him the one question that was on his heart. "Are you, the Son of God?" The question was as unambiguous and as plain as it could be - and Jesus was put on oath before God to give him the true answer. Jesus replied in equally obvious language: "I am". Not only did he confirm without reserve that he was the Son of God but he did so in the full knowledge of the consequences - that he would immediately be sentenced to death for blasphemy by the unbelieving Jews. This was the climax of the growing hostility of the Jews to Jesus because of his repeated assertions that he was the Son of God. When they were angry with him for healing a man on the Sabbath, Jesus answered: "My Father is working still, and I am working". (John 5:17) As a result of this claim they sought all the more to kill him because he made himself the Son of God by calling God his Father and by unreservedly equating his work with the Father’s work. On another occasion Jesus again incurred the wrath of the Jews for saying "Before Abraham was, I am". (John 8:58). They did not except to his claim to pre-exist Abraham but were struck by the present tense, "I am", which implied that he had an eternal spirit. To them this was the equivalent of God’s statement to Moses "I am the God of Abraham" (Exodus 3:6). So they took up stones to stone him for blasphemy. A third time Jesus said to them "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) - an emphatic statement that God was his Father and that he existed in absolute unity with him - and was therefore the Son of God. Again the Jews took up stones to stone him for blasphemy. Now their own scriptures confirmed that the expression "Sons of the Most High" faith was used metaphorically of all true believers (Psalms 82:6). Why then were they accusing him of blasphemy because he claimed to be the Son of God in an absolute sense? (He at no time took exception to their conclusion - he reacted solely against their charge that he was falsely claiming to be the Son of God ). His own words were: "Do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world "You are blaspheming" because I said "I am the Son of God?". (John 10:36) For two reasons the Jews could not validly accuse him of blasphemy. Firstly, they could not genuinely object to terminology like "I am the Son of God" because their own scriptures used such terminology only in a metaphorical sense while Jesus was claiming to be the Son of God in an absolute sense, they still could not sincerely charge him with falsehood because the good works he did from the Father showed that his claims for himself were equally good and that this proved that he as indeed the Son of God. All this had come to the ears of the High Priest and to avoid any further dispute, he put Jesus on oath to say whether he was indeed the Son of God to which Jesus replied "I am". The Jews then promptly went too the Roman governor, Pilate, seeking the execution of Jesus - for only one reason: Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. The Jews said to Pilate: "We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he has made himself the Son of God". (John 19:7) Once they thought they had succeeded in their designs, when Jesus hung on the cross, they exclaimed: "He trusts in God, let God deliver him now, if he desires him, for he said ‘I am the Son of God’" (Matthew 27:43) It is of great importance to observe the thrust of the accusation of the Jews against him - "he has made himself the Son of God"; "he said ‘I am the Son of God’". While many men since that day have accused the Christian church of making Jesus the Son of God, the Jews heard it from his own lips - and they accused him of making himself the Son of God. Jesus made no attempt to deny this charge. So we see that Jesus himself is the source of Christian belief that he is indeed the Son of God. Just as the expression "son of man" is found elsewhere in the Bible in a general sense, so is the expression "sons of God", but just as Jesus took the title Son of Man for himself in an exclusive and glorious sense as a majestic title, so he claimed to be the Son of God in the same exclusive sense. No one can honestly doubt that Jesus himself claimed to be the Son of God. Only one question remains, however, - was he indeed speaking the truth when he made this claim for himself or was he uttering blasphemy as the High Priest alleged? In three definite ways God bore witness to the truth of Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God. When he promised the Jews centuries earlier that the Messiah was to come from David’s line, God said of him: "I will be his father and he shall be my son". (2 Samuel 7:14) God made it clear that the Messiah was to be his own Son and this prompted Jesus to say to the Jews at the end of his ministry among them: "What do you think of the Messiah ? Whose son is he?" (Matthew 22:42) When the Jews replied that he was to be the Son of David, Jesus pointed to a Psalm where David called him his Lord. How then could he be his son, Jesus asked? The Messiah was to be the offspring of David but had not God said that he would be his own Son? Secondly, God spoke from heaven of Jesus at his baptism, and later again, at his transfiguration and said: "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased". (Matthew 3:17) Thirdly, Jesus was raised from the dead three days after his crucifixion according to his own predictions to this effect (Matthew 16:21, etc). In this way God bore witness to the fact that everything Jesus said about himself was true - including his oft-repeated claim to be the Son of God. His resurrection proved beyond shadow of doubt that he was indeed the Son of God (Romans 1:4) and that God was truly his Father. It was the express united will of both the Father and the Son that Jesus should die as a man on a cross to redeem men to God. Perhaps the Father was never less obviously revealed in the Son than during those hours when Jesus hung, forsaken of his Father, on the cross as he took the sins of men on himself. But never was the absolute and awesome love of the Father and the Son more revealed to hell-deserving sinners than during those moments when Jesus endured what is rightfully due to all other men for their sins. You must answer this question as well - what do you think of the Messiah? Whose Son is he? Will you agree with God and testify that Jesus, the Messiah, is indeed his Son? Will you not commit yourself to Jesus as your Lord and Saviour and receive the salvation he obtained for you by dying on the cross for your sins? Will you not believe in him fully and recognise that eternal life is found in him alone? Will you not receive forgiveness of sins in his name? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 9: 01.08. THE UNIQUENESS OF JESUS IN THE QUR'AN AND THE BIBLE ======================================================================== The Uniqueness of Jesus in the Qur’an and the Bible Truths about Jesus in the Qur’an and the Bible The Uniqueness of Jesus Implications of the Uniqueness of Jesus The Uniqueness of Jesus in the Qur’an The Reasons for the Uniqueness of Jesus The Glory of Jesus in the Bible For too long Christians and Muslims have debated their differences of belief about Jesus Christ in a context which has allowed scant room for discussion about those points in the Qur’an and the Bible where these two books are in agreement about certain features of his life and personality. The time has come, surely, for Christians and Muslims to analyze these points of agreement for we are unlikely ever to come to a consensus of belief about Jesus until we begin by seriously reflecting on those facts where the Qur’an and the Bible are in agreement. While these two books may differ in the interpretation of the facts they both admit, we can confidently study these points as a stepping-stone to the true knowledge of Jesus simply by virtue of the fact that the facts are themselves common cause between Islam and Christianity. It can safely be assumed that where the Qur’an and the Bible agree in any matter, that matter can henceforth be accepted as true without further ado by Christians and Muslims alike. It may well be necessary for both of us to prove these facts to outsiders but it is not necessary that we prove them to one another if they are admitted in the books we respectively believe to be the Word of God. However, as in recent years a liberalistic trend has infected and diseased both religions, where some of their nominal adherents have abandoned the plain teaching of the Qur’an and the Bible about Jesus purely so that they can reduce this man to the level of common humanity and strip him of all his glory and honour, it will be profitable to begin by briefly mentioning and proving four very significant points about the life of Jesus where the Bible and the Qur’an are in agreement about the relevant facts. 1. TRUTHS ABOUT JESUS IN THE QUR’AN AND THE BIBLE. a). The Virgin-Birth. This first feature - so strangely denied in some of the peculiar quarters of Islam and Christianity - is one of the most obvious and unambiguous teachings of the Qur’an and the Bible and is fundamentally upheld by both books. It is referred to more than once in the Qur’an but is particularly set out in some detail in Surah 19, verses 16 to 34. The following verses from this passage are here quoted to prove the point: And make mention of Mary in the Scripture, when she had withdrawn from her people to a chamber looking East, and had chosen seclusion from them. Then We sent unto her Our spirit and it assumed for her the likeness of a perfect man. She said: Lo! I seek refuge in the Beneficent One from thee, if thou art God-fearing. He said: I am only a messenger from thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son. She said: How can I have a son when no mortal hath touched me, neither have I been unchaste? He said: So it will be. Thy Lord saith: It is easy for Me. And it will be that We may make of him a revelation for mankind and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing ordained. And she conceived him, and she withdrew with him to a far place. Surah 19:16-22. If Mary had conceived by another man, why would the angel have appeared to her to explain the conception of her son? Clearly from the text we can see that the angel had come not only to set her mind at rest about the pregnancy she was about to experience but to explain that this unique event was simply the effect of God’s desire to make this son a revelation for mankind. She was to conceive him in a special way because there was to be something special about her son. Secondly, what other interpretation can be derived from the words "How can I have a son when no mortal hath touched me, neither have I been unchaste?". These words clearly imply that Mary was a virgin when the child was conceived. It is surely not necessary to press this point further. The language of the Qur’an is unambiguous about the virgin-birth of Christ and further support for it is found in Surah 4.156. In that verse Mary is cleared from the base charge of the Jews that she had illegitimately conceived Jesus out of wedlock. Again Surah 21:91 explains the conception of Jesus as the direct action of God within an unmarried woman who was completely free of any unchastity. Surely this is even more abundantly proved by the title Jesus is given more often than any other in the Qur’an - the son of Mary. It is common in Semitic communities to name a man as the son of his father, for example, Muhammad ibn Abdullah, Muhammad ibn Ishaq (early historian of Islam), Zaid ibn Sabet, etc., but we do not find men named as the sons of their mothers. Why then is Jesus so often called the son of Mary (Isa ibn Maryam) in the Qur’an? Surely the striking repetition of this name as well as its exceptional character demand that Jesus was born of his mother alone. Is not the frequency of this title evidence of the unique manner of the birth of Jesus? In the Qur’an the names of women are conspicuous by their absence. Surely the mother of Jesus is mentioned by name so regularly because of her significant place in human history as the only woman to bear a son while still a virgin. This alone can explain the prominence Mary receives in the Qur’an. It is safe to conclude that the Qur’an teaches the virgin-birth of Jesus Christ. No right-thinking man will deny that the Bible also teaches the virgin-birth of Jesus Christ. Throughout its history the Christian Church has held to this belief and we need only quote this passage to prove that the doctrine is soundly based on the Bible: In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And he came to her and said "Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!" But she was greatly troubled at the saying and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus". Luke 1:26-31. Twice the mother of Jesus is plainly described as a virgin in that passage. When she replied to the angel, "How shall this be, since I have no husband?" (Luke 1:34), the angel then explained that the conception would not be by human means but by the power of the Holy Spirit of God. We are particularly privileged to have a second, independent account of the virgin-birth in the Bible and it is set forth in this passage: Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered this, behold an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins". Matthew 1:18-21. Once again the conception of Jesus is described as being the result of he work of the Holy Spirit and once again, as in the Qur’an, it is found that an angel appears to explain the phenomenon, in this case to Joseph. Why should there be these instances of angelic manifestations to explain the birth of Jesus if his mother had conceived him through some other man? The texts speak plainly for themselves and there can be no question about the birth of Christ. The angel appeared to Joseph and Mary to explain to them both that the conception of Jesus was by the special intervention of the Holy Spirit. Therefore Christians and Muslims have, in the birth of Jesus, something in which the Qur’an and the Bible are agreed. These two books both teach as a fact that he was born of a virgin-woman by the will of God through the power of the Holy Spirit. b). The Sinlessness of Jesus Christ. It is a simple matter to prove from the Qur’an and the Bible that Jesus was absolutely without sin through out his life. When the angel appeared to Mary, the Qur’an says that he told her "I am only a messenger of thy Lord that I may bestow on thee a faultless son" (Surah 19.19). The Arabic word for "faultless", zakiyya, implies that he was totally without sin. In the Bible there are numerous proofs of the sinlessness of Jesus Christ. Passages proving the point are: He committed no sin, no guile was found on his lips. 1 Peter 2:22 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 2 Corinthians 5:21 You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in in him there is no sin. 1 John 3:5 At this stage, however, it will be profitable to note that in the Qur’an and the Bible, Jesus Christ alone is described as sinless. He is emphatically described as such in both books. No other prophet or man is so described. Nevertheless both books describe the sins of other prophets and both leave us with the firm impression that Jesus alone was without sin. (In the Qur’an, in Surah 19.19, the unique birth of Jesus is explained by the angel as the medium for the faultlessness of the son of Mary. This implies that a man cannot be faultless unless he is born of a virgin-woman. Hence Jesus Christ, being the only man to be born in this way, must of necessity also be the only sinless man who ever lived). The Qur’an attributes sin to the following prophets: Adam. "And their Lord called them, saying: Did I not forbid you from that tree and tell you: Lo! Satan is an open enemy to you? They said: Our Lord! We have wronged ourselves. If thou forgive us not and have not mercy on us, surely we are of the lost". Surah 7:22-23. Abraham. "And Who, I ardently hope, will forgive me my sin on the Day of Judgment". Surah 26:82 Moses. "He said: My Lord! Lo! I have wronged my soul, so forgive me". Surah 28:16 Jonah. "And the fish swallowed him while he was blameworthy". Surah 37:142 Muhammad. "So know, O Muhammad, that there is no God save Allah, and ask forgiveness for thy sin and for believing men and believing women". Surah 47:19 Jesus Christ was never commanded to pray for forgiveness because he was faultless. We also never find him praying for any faults, wrongs and sins such as the Qur’an attributes in the verses quoted to other prophets. He never wronged his soul, nor was he blameworthy. Instead the Qur’an emphasizes that he was entirely without sin and was faultless. We can therefore conclude by saying that the Qur’an teaches that of all men, Jesus Christ alone was sinless. In the Bible the universal effect of sin is recorded often, but it will be sufficient to quote these words to prove the point: None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one. Romans 3:10-12. The Bible plainly teaches that no man, other than Jesus Christ, has ever faithfully sought out God and done good all his days. Every other man has at some time turned away from him and sinned against him. Once again, we find that Jesus Christ alone is sin- less. So we find that as the Qur’an and the Bible both teach the virgin-birth of Jesus Christ, so they both al- so teach that he alone was sinless and faultless. c). The Ascension of Jesus. One of the standing orthodox beliefs in Islam about Jesus is that he ascended to heaven. The ascension of Jesus is mentioned in the Qur’an in these words: Allah took him up to Himself. Surah 4:158 The text plainly implies, not that Jesus was taken to the second sky or third heaven, as some suppose, but that God took Jesus to himself. That is, he took him into his own glorious presence in the highest heavens. The Bible confirms this in some detail but we need only quote a few passages here to prove both the ascension of Jesus and his exaltation at the height of the heavens in the presence of Almighty God. And when he had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven". Acts 1:9-11 Seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Colossians 3:1 Which God accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion. Ephesians 1:20-21. "I glorified thee on earth, having accomplished the work which thou gavest me to do; and now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made". John 17:4-5. So we see that both the Qur’an and the Bible teach the ascension of Jesus, not just into heaven, but indeed above the heavens into the ultimate presence of God. (The only Hadith that exist on the ultimate destiny of Jesus confirm that he went to heaven. While there are many Hadith supporting the ascension of Jesus, there are none against it). It is well-known to Christians and Muslims that the Qur’an and the Bible differ on the time and cause of the ascension of Jesus, but what is of extreme importance is that they both agree on the fact - that Jesus did indeed ascend to heaven and is alive there to this day. d). The Second Coming of Jesus. The last point of agreement between the Qur’an and the Bible on the life of Jesus that concerns us is the second coming of Jesus. As with the ascension, the Qur’an is backed by many Hadith on this point. The one verse in the Qur’an which does appear to clearly teach the second coming of Jesus is this one: And (Jesus) shall be a sign for (the coming of) hour (of Judgement). Surah 43:61 The text is somewhat briefer in the original Arabic but the interpretation of it in the English is ostensibly correct. Again Christians and Muslims differ on the manner and effect of the second coming but agree on the fact. The second coming of Jesus is one of the grandest and most extensive subjects of the prophetic texts of the Bible, but just a few quotes will suffice: "Then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory". Matthew 24:30 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. 1 Thessalonians 4:16 Behold he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, every one who pierced him; and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Revelation 1:7 We can conclude by saying that the second coming of Jesus to herald the Day of Judgment is a fact upon which the Qur’an and the Bible are agreed. It is significant also to note that many illustrious titles of Jesus in the Bible are repeated in the Qur’an. For example, he is called the Word of God in both books The Qur’an agrees with the Bible in calling him the Messiah. Likewise he is also called a Spirit from God in the Qur’an. These titles, however, are treated in the companion booklet to this one in this series entitled ’The Titles of Jesus in the Qur’an and the Bible’. As we intend to show presently that the four features dealt with thus far in this booklet make Jesus especially unique in his life and personality, it will be profitable to bear in mind, nevertheless, that the Qur’an and the Bible also give him titles which are applied to no one else. 2. THE UNIQUENESS OF JESUS. We have outlined four features of the life of Jesus which are taught in both the Qur’an and the Bible. What can we learn about Jesus from these features? Firstly, they reveal to us a man who was quite unique in the history of mankind. Secondly, they show that this uniqueness implies singular greatness - such as no other man possesses. Let us briefly analyze the uniqueness of Jesus in the four features we have thus far considered in this booklet. a). The Virgin-Birth. Being born of a virgin-woman, Jesus had an exceptional and unique beginning to his life. He is the only man in all human history who was born in this unusual way. b). The Sinlessness of Jesus. He alone led a sinless life. Every other man has, at some time or other, thought or done evil as the Qur’an and the Bible jointly testify. But Jesus alone led a sinless and totally pure and holy life. Not only, therefore, did his life begin exceptionally, but it was conducted in a unique way as well. c). The Ascension. If the life of Jesus began in unusual circumstances, it ended in an even more remarkable way. While other men return to the dust, Jesus ascended into heaven. In this he is unique as well - no other man without any change in his nature ascended to the very presence of the living God as the Qur’an and the Bible both teach. He alone could go where no angel dared to tread - to the ultimate throne of the God of glory. The Qur’an and the Bible do not teach that any other man ever did this. In this Jesus is unique as well. d). The Second Coming. The Christian and Muslim worlds await the return of Jesus from heaven. The Qur’an and the Bible both teach that he alone is to herald the hour of Judgment. Christians and Muslims may differ in what they expect Jesus to accomplish on his return but both in any event expect him to take complete control of all the earth with himself as Judge of all. This alone puts him head and shoulders above all other men in accomplishment and again makes him unique among men - a uniqueness which is vested in majesty and glory. Though he has been in the highest heavens for nearly two thousand years, he will return looking not a day older than he was when he first ascended to heaven. Over all these centuries neither death nor time have been able to make any impression on him. On this the Qur’an and the Bible are agreed as well. Of no other man in history can we read of such a phenomenal beginning and end to his life on earth. And no other man than Jesus is now awaited by Christians and Muslims - and that from heaven as well. In the light of these admitted facts we can only conclude that Jesus Christ is a remarkably unique man. No one compares with him. In his birth, his character, destiny and ultimate glory he stands head and shoulders above all other men who have ever lived on earth. Be it noted that the uniqueness of Jesus is not the consequence of favourable circumstances, nor the result of the favour of men, but solely the effect of the spe- cial will of God who in every way alone is responsible for his eminent greatness. It is God who has made Jesus unique among men. It is by his power and will alone that we behold a man whose very being from start to finish is charged with exceptional greatness and honour. It is from heaven that his majesty originates and comes. All this demands serious consideration. Certain questions are begged by these circumstances. Why did God vest Jesus with such uniqueness? What is implied by all these exceptional features of his life? What sort of man is this who does not share these features with other great men but has all of them vested in himself? And Lastly - and most importantly - who indeed is this man Jesus, when these exceptional features of his life and personality demand that he cannot just be an ordinary man like all other men? The rest of this booklet will be devoted to a comparative study of the Qur’an and the Bible to find the ultimate answer to these questions. 3. IMPLICATIONS OF THE UNIQUENESS OF JESUS. The unique features of the life of Jesus demand that he is more than a prophet. God has raised up many prophets who were ordinary men, who were born naturally, who died naturally, had failings common to other men, and were therefore in no way especially distinguished from other men except for the gift of prophecy and the work of God in their lives. But the virgin-birth of Jesus Christ, his sinlessness, his ascension and his second-coming demand and imply that he was not just a prophet. In the light of these unique features of his life, surely the Christian cannot be blamed for believing that he is pre-eminent in all things above all other men. Surely even the Muslim can see that, by the glorious nature of his life and destiny, there is more to him and his relationship with God than first meets the eye. Quite obviously Jesus was not just a messenger. Whereas the Qur’an appeals to the fact that other messengers like him went before him (Surah 5.75), nevertheless in respect of his birth, life, destiny and second coming, it can hardly be said that those other messengers were like him. If Jesus was just a messenger of the same kind as the others, why did God interrupt its process of pro-creation to conceive Jesus in the womb of a virgin-woman by the power of his Spirit? Why did he lead him without blemish whatsoever in the ways of righteousness while leaving other messengers to wrong their souls occasionally? Why did God take Jesus to be with himself for all these centuries in his own glorious presence while leaving the other messengers to return to the dust whence they came? And why send him back to this world to take control of it and also choose him to be the herald of the Day of Judgment? The suggestion that Jesus was just a messenger like all the others cannot be sustained against this wealth of evidence of his distinguished and exceptional life and honour - and particular closeness to God. While all other men have come by nature’s way and gone by the way of nature, God seems to have deliberately pushed nature aside to have a direct influence and involvement in the life and destiny of Jesus Christ. God brought him into the world by having him conceived by his Spirit in the womb of a virgin-woman. God raised him to heaven to be with him in his own glorious presence for all these many centuries. God is to send him to earth again to wind up human history and herald his Judgment. It is quite obvious that God is in every way involved in this man Jesus Christ. While other men come from the dust and return to it, Jesus came from God and returned to God (John 16:28). In some way God and Jesus have a relationship that transcends that enjoyed by any other being that has ever lived. The Qur’an admits Biblical evidence that implies that Jesus has this exceptionally intense relationship with God which correspondingly demands that he was far more than just a messenger. Does the Qur’an give us any significance of the uniqueness of Jesus and does it harmonize and reveal what it is about him that makes him so exceptional in human history? Let us see whether it does - or whether we have to turn to the Bible to find the answer we are looking for, and to discover just who the man Jesus Christ really was. 4. THE UNIQUENESS OF JESUS IN THE QUR’AN. We shall consider the four unique features of the life of Jesus as they appear in the Qur’an to discover whether we obtain any light on their significance. a). The Virgin-Birth. The Qur’an treats the birth of Jesus purely as an expression of God’s power and declares that it is no more significant than the creation of the first man Adam. We read: She said: My Lord! How can I have a child when no mortal hath touched me? He said: So it will be. Allah createth what He will. If he decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is. Surah 3:47 Lo! The likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the like- ness of Adam. He created him of dust, then He said unto him: Be! and he is. Surah 3:59 The second verse does not directly refer to the virgin-birth but by comparison with the first it is quite clear that this is what the Qur’an has in mind. In both verses the Qur’an teaches that Jesus was created and that this was purely a manifestation of God’s power. In the second verse we read that his creation is neither different to nor more wonderful than that of Adam. Let us briefly consider these two points. Firstly, is the virgin-birth just an expression of God’s power? That it was brought about by the power of God goes without saying but this does not explain its meaning or purpose. Surely the great act of creating the whole world out of nothing, and the other allied facts of creation (the giving of life to men, animals, and other creatures) are sufficient proofs of God’s creative power. What necessity was there to give a new demonstration of this power? In the Qur’an there are many occasions where Muhammad is told that, if the people will not believe in God despite all the evidence present in creation, nor will they believe if new portents and signs come to them. (See Surah 6. 1-41, for example). So likewise the Qur’an teaches that no proof of the ultimate resurrection is needed for the unbelievers - the mere fact that God could create men out of nothing is surely proof that God can raise them from the dead (Surah 22.5). So we also consider that the creation itself is sufficient evidence of God’s creative power - and if men will not believe in him despite this evidence, no latter portent will be able to make them do so. The virgin-birth of Jesus cannot just have been a manifestation of God’s power. Indeed it would require only a very limited exercise of this power to cause it and there was also no visible demonstration of it. The virgin-birth could not be physically proved - there was no visible evidence of it. We accept it as a fact by faith in God’s word that it did indeed so happen. But there was no way of physically proving it. Therefore we conclude that the virgin-birth could not have been an arbitrary demonstration of the power of God for the visible demonstration is entirely lacking. There must have been another reason for it. Secondly, we must consider the suggestion in the Qur’an that the birth of Jesus is no different to the creation of Adam. We will immediately agree that, as an expression of the power of God, the virgin-birth is indeed no more wonderful than the creation of Adam. Rather it required a negligible exercise of this power in contrast to the creation of Adam, but this suggests all the more that there was some other purpose behind it. What was the necessity for the virgin-birth of Jesus? God surely does not do such unusual things arbitrarily if they are unnecessary. He would surely only cause the virgin-birth if it were necessary to do so. Something must have required that Jesus be born in this way. The comparison with Adam does not help us at all. Adam was created out of dust and could not have had a father or mother - it was necessary that the first man should be created without father or mother. But Jesus was born of a woman when the creative work of God had long ceased and the pro-creation of the human race had long been in existence. We can see why it was necessary for Adam to be created without father or mother - but what was the necessity for Jesus to be born of a mother alone? The comparison with Adam does not answer this question at all. This question really demands a thorough answer when we put it in this way: why was Jesus born of a virgin - and no one else? Why should the mother of Jesus be the most eminent woman in the Qur’an and the Bible rather than some other woman? Compare these two verses: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb". Luke 1:2 And when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah hath chosen thee and made thee pure, and hath preferred thee above all the women of creation. Surah 3:2 These verses unambiguously teach that Mary was the greatest woman who ever lived. Why was this? Because she was the virgin-mother of Jesus. She was the greatest among women because she mothered the greatest among men. All this demands that there was something extremely unique about her son - and that this uniqueness in some way made it necessary for Jesus to be conceived and born of a virgin-woman. The only clue the Qur’an gives us is that the purpose of the angel’s visit was to bestow on her a "faultless son". Somehow this exceptional holiness of Jesus made the virgin-birth necessary. But this only leads to the next feature that, with the others, leads up to the conclusion of the uniqueness of Jesus and does not actually reveal what that uniqueness was. But let us press on and see what light we can obtain. b). The Sinlessness of Jesus. Why should Jesus be the only man who was without sin among men? The Qur’an admits his sinlessness but gives us no reason for it. The fact that he was a prophet does not answer our question Other prophets are not described in the Qur’an as faultless and quite a few are shown to be wrongdoers. But we must again ask - why was Jesus sinless and not other men? We could understand that he was only a messenger if he had one unique feature while all the other prophets had exceptional features of their own. But all these unique features are vested in one man at the expense of all the others - and that man is Jesus. Here again the Qur’an does not reveal what made Jesus so unique. c). The Ascension of Jesus. The Qur’an only gives one reason for the ascension of Jesus - God took him to heaven to save him from the murderous intentions of the Jews. But this hardly explains why God has elected to enjoy the presence of Jesus for nearly twenty centuries. If the sole purpose was to save him from the Jews, why did he not send him back when those who sought his life were dead? Surely God could have found more mundane way of delivering Jesus if he was just a messenger like those who went before him. This was surely a most extraordinary and drastic way of saving him from the Jews. We have concrete support for this argument from the Bible for shortly after Jesus was born, Herod, the King of Judea, sought his life when word came to him that the long-awaited Messiah had been born in Bethlehem. Immediately an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying: "Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there till I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child to destroy him". Matthew 2:13 Joseph and Mary duly left for Egypt by night with the child. But when Herod died shortly afterwards, the angel again came to Joseph, saying: "Rise, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the child’s life are dead". Matthew 2:20 Surely God could have adopted a similar procedure the second time if he intended to rescue Jesus from the Jews. We must reject the theory that Jesus was taken to heaven solely as an escape-route from the hands of the Jews. Those who sought his life perished nineteen centuries ago, but God remains pleased to keep Jesus in his presence in heaven and has done so over all these generations since he ascended from the earth. We can only conclude that it was the express purpose of God to raise Jesus to heaven in any event and that he most certainly did not do this purely to save him from the hands of the Jews. We must again ask - why did Jesus ascend to heaven, and not some other man? (John 3:13). Why did God will, between the time of the life of Jesus on earth and the end of time, that Jesus should reign with him in glory in the highest heavens? With all due respect we are constrained to conclude that the Qur’an gives us no answer to this question. d). The Second-Coming. Why has God chosen Jesus to bring the whole world under his control? Why not Muhammad? Why will he not raise another man but instead has elected to vest Jesus with another glorious office that transcends any of those given to the other messengers? Far from answering questions like these, the Muslim world has, in our view, devoted itself to efforts to ex- plain away the uniqueness of Jesus rather than disclose wherein it consists. This tendency to explain away the glory of Jesus rather than investigate it can only lead to the path of error. The wonderful birth of Jesus was caused by God’s direct intervention. His whole life was one of absolute communion with God. The same God vested Jesus with majesty and glory by raising him to heaven and has decreed that he will be the herald of God’s final sentence on all human history. Does not this pattern demand that there is something particularly glorious about the person of Jesus to knit all these unique features together? Surely they are all meaningless if Jesus was only a prophet and a messenger from God. These circumstances are collective evidence that there is something majestic about the man Jesus but whatever it is, the Qur’an is silent on the matter. Why is this so? The answer is found in what follows. The Qur’an is known to the Christian world not so much for what it admits about Jesus but for what it denies about him. The Qur’an denies that Jesus is the Son of God and it denies that he was crucified. In our view - and we say this solely with respect to our right to state what we believe to be true and with no desire to cause offence - the Qur’an, by denying these two striking point about Jesus, has simultaneously robbed all the unique features it concedes of their significance. We shall proceed to behold how all these unique features harmonize and find their meaning and significance in the two fundamental doctrines of Christianity - that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died for our sins. 5. THE REASONS FOR THE UNIQUENESS OF JESUS. a). Jesus is the Son of God. The Virgin-Birth. If Jesus is the Son of God, it is absolutely necessary that he be born of a virgin-woman if he comes in the likeness of men. To be the Son of God he must have existed from all eternity. Therefore he could not have been born of a human father if he is the Son of God, when he became man. The life of the human race is in the male seed - Jesus could not be procreated by means of a human father if he is the Son of God. Any man born of a human father must be man and man alone. Only God can be the Father of the Son of God. This explains the necessity of the virgin-birth and gives the reason for it. At last we see the significance of the virgin-birth. The necessity for it is now realized. Jesus had to be born of a virgin-woman if he is the Son of God and accordingly existed before becoming man. The reason for the exceptional birth of Jesus is also made clear by this fact as well as the necessity for it. He was born in this unique way by the special involvement and intervention of God because he is the Son of God. This is why God has caused all other men to come into the world by natural means (including Adam who was created out of the natural realm he found himself in) but was especially involved in the birth of Jesus. All other men are made out of the same dust Adam was created out of, but Jesus was conceived solely by the Spirit of God - because he is the Son of God. This is why he had this unique beginning to his life on earth - because he himself is unique in that he is the Son of God. This is indeed what the angel told Mary when he came to explain the miraculous conception: "He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High ... therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God". Luke 1:32; Luke 1:35. The Sinlessness of Jesus. No Christian would believe that Jesus is the Son of God if he had ever sinned against God. It is essential that he be sinless if he is the Son of God for, if the Father and the Son be one as Jesus said they are (John 10:30), the Son must always do the will of his Father. And this we always find him so doing, as it is put in the following words: Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that the Son does likewise". John 5:19 If he is the Son of God, he must be one with the Father. Therefore he can do nothing of his own accord, for if he did anything independently of his own accord, he would no longer be one with the Father, nor would he be doing what the Father does - so he would not be the Son of God. One who is always doing the absolute will of God cannot sin against him. So we see why it is absolutely necessary that Jesus be sinless if he is the Son of God - because the Son of God can only be doing the will of his Father at all times. So Jesus said: "I always do what is pleasing to him". John 8:29 So we see why Jesus is the only man who is faultless and without sin. Ordinary men do things of their own accord, but the Son of God can only do the will of his Father in heaven. The Ascension of Jesus. If Jesus had returned to dust like all other men naturally do, no Christian would believe that he is the Son of God. The Son surely must have his home in heaven. Therefore if he became man, he could not naturally go the way of all men but must ultimately return to heaven. If Jesus is the Son of God, his ascension to heaven is a necessity and also a fundamental feature required to prove the point. We are seeing that the unique features of the life of Jesus not only, with one accord, support the belief that he is the Son of God, but are totally necessary features in his life if this belief is to be proved true. But surely it is also becoming clear that the very presence of these unique features - necessary only if he is the Son of God - imposes on our minds the realization that he is indeed the Son of God. These unique features of necessity imply that the man they point to must possess the only uniqueness that can possibly make these features necessary - he must be the Son of God. The Qur’an to make known to our finite minds and give us some understanding of God’s glory, often tells us of the throne on which God sits (Surahs 10:4, 7:54, 13:2, etc). This metaphorical language makes us aware of the royal sovereignty that God enjoys over the universe. the Bible makes the same point, but to give us a concrete understanding of the status of Jesus in heaven, says in similar language that he sat down at the right hand of the throne of God: "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God". Acts 7:56 God accomplished his great might in Christ when he raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places. Ephesians 1:20 Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven. Hebrews 8:1 This is not to be taken hyper-literally but purely in the sense that the Qur’an speaks of the throne of God. In both the Qur’an and the Bible the expression reveals the regal authority God has over the universe and the Bible speaks of Jesus at the right hand of the throne to express the relationship and status he enjoys in heaven with God the Father. In most kingdoms in Biblical times every person had to bow before the King on his throne - his son alone being excepted. His wife, his daughters, lords, princes, officers and subjects had to bow before him on his throne and acknowledge his rule, but the king’s son did not do so - he stood or sat at the right hand of the throne. The reason for this is surely obvious - he is the heir to the throne. The father’s throne is his also. This is why the Bible says Jesus is at the right hand of the throne of God and sometimes speaks of it as his throne (Hebrews 1:8 and Revelation 3:21). As a son was in those days to his father the King, so is Jesus towards his Father in heaven. He ascended to heaven to be in God’s own glorious presence (as we have seen from both the Qur’an and the Bible) because he is the Son of God. The Qur’an speaks of the throne of God - the rightful place of Jesus in heaven is at the right hand of him who sits upon it. The Second-Coming. Who but the Son of God could bring the judgment of God? This alone explains the second coming. The Son of God, by becoming man, has become the obvious medium of the judgment of God for two reasons. Firstly, he has revealed God to men. The Qur’an only professes to reveal the will and attributes of God. Jesus claimed to reveal God himself to men. The following verses make this clear: "All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him". Matthew 11:27 "He who sees me sees him who sent me". John 12:45 "He who has seen me has seen the Father". John 14:9 Secondly, he has brought men face-to-face with God. It is fitting, therefore, that, having become a man, the Son of God should become the medium of the judgment of God to be revealed at the last time: "For as the Father has life in himself so he has granted the Son to have life in himself also, and has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man". John 5:26-27. This alone explains the second-coming, gives a reason for it, and makes it necessary. Thus the second coming also harmonizes with the uniqueness of Jesus as the Son of God. He stands for God’s judgment in heaven as the one who reveals God to men and, having become a man, is fitly appointed to call them to judgment. So we see that all the unique features in the life of Jesus owe their necessity and reality to the fact that Jesus is the Son of God. Indeed the fulsome existence of all these features demands the conclusion that he is the Son of God. If any one of them was lacking, Christian belief would fall to the ground. But in the Bible every crucial circumstance exists to support the doctrine that he is the Son of God. What is fascinating, however, is that the Qur’an admits all these unique features! While denying that Jesus is the Son of God, by the features it admits, it is tacitly and unreservedly implying that he is indeed the Son of God. For there is nothing in the Qur’an on the features of the life of Jesus that can be brought as evidence against the theory that he is the Son of God. For every feature that it allows implies that he is. We can draw only one conclusion - Jesus is unique in the Qur’an and the Bible because he is the Son of God. Even though he was a man on earth, everything about him places him ultimately on the level of deity rather than on the level of humanity. b). The Crucifixion of Jesus. We have seen to some extent why Jesus is coming a second time to earth, but we are at this stage constrained to enquire why he ever came from his heavenly abode the first time to dwell among men. Why did the Son of God become the unique man Jesus? Whenever God wished to send a message to mankind, he raised up prophets. Why then did he send his Son? Why did the eternally holy Son of God come down to live among sinful men in a mass of corrupt humanity? The adjectives in that question give the answer. Jesus was a unique man - he came to earth because he had a unique mission to fulfill. God had given laws, messages, covenants, warnings and exhortations to men in times past through the prophets, but none of these helped to turn the human race from its wickedness and love of sin. No matter what God sent, men continued to sin. When he told the Israelites to have no other God but himself, they promptly made a golden calf and worshiped it. All men sinned because they were sinners. Sin is an integral part of human nature - no man is free from its power. As Jesus himself said, "Every one who commits sin is a slave to sin" (John 8:34). Within the body of flesh that weighs the human soul down is every fountain of lust, greed, pride, envy, malice, and all manner of iniquity. From the head to the foot the human body is the breeding ground and playground of sin. Every sinful thought, word and deed has its source within man and not within the world in which he lives. It is his own evil heart that makes him stray after sinful passions. The temptations of the flesh, the love of money and the pride of life are rooted in men because sin has a vicious control within which makes it impossible for men to follow after God in sinless and perfect purity. Neither the law of God on tablets of stone nor the commands he gave through the prophets could overcome the basic tendency in us to commit sin and to follow its impulses. Jesus came down to earth from heaven to do what the law and the prophets could not do. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk, not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. Romans 8:3-4. The pure and sinless Son of God took on human flesh with all the power of God’s holiness that he possessed without measure. This ensured that the coming battle between the Son of God and sin in the flesh could only result in victory for the former. Jesus came "in the likeness of sinful flesh" - that is, he took on the very thing that has been in all ages the fountainhead of sin and wickedness - the human body. He did not conquer it from without - he entered it from within. For centuries sin had found an irresistible spring in the human body for the exercise of its designs and purposes. Jesus, as it were, met sin in its own lair. He went right into its camp and fortress. He became man and assumed a body which in all other men had fallen victim to the power of sin. Jesus allowed that power to try its worst on him. He went into the desert and fasted for forty days and nights without any food or water until he was emaciated from hunger. The evil one fired his deadliest darts of sin at Jesus. The Spirit of God had made stones his companions. Satan tempted him to disobey God and satisfy the hunger of his flesh by turning them into loaves of bread. Jesus refused this. God had made the wilderness his domicile - Satan offered him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment, that for which emperors of many nations have striven without success. By the power he possessed, Jesus could conquer them all. He needed only to listen to Satan as other men do rather than to his Father who had another kingdom prepared for him. Jesus duly resisted and defied this temptation as well. God had made him the loneliest man on earth in that wilderness - Satan offered him the homage of all peoples if he would only seek their obeisance for himself alone against his Father’s will. Jesus rejected this. He did not want men to honour him according to the senses of human pride such as Satan was offering him. He did not wish to be a ruler after the order of this world - a companion of kings who have achieved fame and prestige solely because they have sought the praise of men rather than the praise of God which Jesus always sought. He was not prepared to go the way of so many before him by seeking to rule the earth according to his own devices, rather than humbly submit to God in total faithfulness. He "condemned sin in the flesh". No human body at that moment was, by its emaciation, less inclined to resist the power of sin. But Jesus destroyed the power of sin in its own lair and all that remained was to pass on the fruit of his victory to the captives of sin whom he had come to liberate. But to do this he had to not only suffer the fullest temptation of sin but also its direst consequences He voluntarily went to the cross to achieve this. God will vent his full wrath against sin. The human body is the only place it will be found and it was accordingly in a human body that Jesus endured on behalf of all men everywhere on the cross the full consequence of sin. He entered its deepest chamber when he died. Death is the worst effect of sin. Jesus drank its dregs to the last to obtain an absolute triumph over it. When he was crucified he endured the wrath of God against sin and when he died he paid its penalty once for all. When he rose from the dead three days later, he had once for all gained a glorious and inestimable victory over God’s greatest foe. When he ascended on high he sent down the Spirit of God to his disciples so that they might share the full spoils of his victory. He had made it possible for men to be reconciled to God, to be forgiven of their sins, and to obtain power within their weak bodies to live triumphantly by the indwelling strength of the Spirit of God within them. He had made it possible for men to walk by the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ, to be fully controlled by it, and so fulfill the requirement of God’s law that men should love him with all their hearts, souls and minds. He had opened the door so that all men could be delivered of their sinful tendencies and become partakers of the divine holiness and walk in the ways of righteousness. 6. THE GLORY OF JESUS IN THE BIBLE. Jesus came into this world the first time to become like us in every respect so that he might free us from the evil that besets us. By emptying himself of the glory which he has had with the Father from all eternity, he became a man like us and looked so much like a man and nothing else during his period of voluntary condescension on earth that millions of people to this day think he was nothing more than a man. But Jesus will come a second time and this time the roles will be reversed. He will come as he really is with all his glory and the radiance of his majesty will make the sun seem like a faint flicker in comparison. As he said of his coming: "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken; then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory". Matthew 24:29-30. Every other form of light will fail and pass away when he is revealed in all his resplendent glory. But as he came into the world the first time to be made like us, so he will come a second time to make all his true followers just like himself. When he appears from heaven on that day in all his glory, "Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father". Matthew 13:43 Then every vestige of sin will be torn away and he will raise his own in glorious, sinless bodies. As he in his immeasurable love for sinners took all our evil deeds and sin upon himself when he died on the cross, so by his inestimable grace and love he will give us his righteousness and sinlessness in its place. This man Jesus is unique because he is unique in his love, glory, holiness, righteousness and eternal majesty. He is the eternal Son of God and he showed us how much he loved us, and what are the immeasurable riches of his grace and kindness towards us, when he died on the cross for our sins. What will you do with this unique man Jesus? Will you fall at his feet in awesome wonder at his honour and grace, or will you fall under his feet on that Day when God’s judgment is revealed and his enemies are trampled underfoot? Will you choose to believe in the Son of God and find eternal life in his name, or will you continue to reject him in his resplendent glory and the salvation he is offering you and find instead that the wrath of God rests upon you? These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name. John 20:31 ======================================================================== CHAPTER 10: 02.00.1. FACING THE MUSLIM CHALLENGE ======================================================================== Facing the Muslim Challenge A Handbook of Christian-Muslim Apologetics by John Gilchrist 2002 first print 1999 [ Life Challenge Africa, PO Box 23273, Claremont/Cape Town 7735, Rep of South Africa ] ======================================================================== CHAPTER 11: 02.00.2. TABLE OF CONTENTS ======================================================================== Table of Contents Introduction The Christian-Muslim Cutting-Edge The Christian Response: Right Methods and Approaches 1. The Integrity of the Bible The Textual Authenticity of the Qur’an and the Bible 1.1 The Ancient Biblical Manuscripts 1.2 The Early Different Qur’an Codices 1.3 The Passages in Mark 16:1-20 and John 8:1-59 1.4 Missing Passages from the Qur’an 1.5 Variant Readings in the New Testament 1.6 Evidences of Qur’anic Variant Readings Biblical Contents and Teaching 1.7 Apparent Errors in Biblical Numerics 1.8 The Authorship of Matthew’s Gospel 1.9 The Variety of English Translations 1.10 The Genealogy of Jesus in the Gospels 1.11 Biblical "Pornography" and Obscenities The Qur’an in Relation to the Bible 1.12 The Jewish and Christian Scriptures 1.13 Tahrif – The Allegations of Corruption 1.14 The Tawraat, Injil and Qur’an 1.15 The Old and New Testaments in the Bible 2. The Doctrine of the Trinity The Christian Doctrine of God 2.1 Biblical Origins of the Trinitarian Doctrine 2.2 The Incomprehensible Nature of God 2.3 The Unity of God: The Basis of the Trinity 2.4 Does the Doctrine have Pagan Origins? 2.5 The Father, Son and Holy Spirit 2.6 The Qur’an and the Christian Doctrine 3. Jesus the Son of the Living God The Deity of Jesus Christ in the Bible 3.1 The Qur’anic Rejection of Jesus’ Deity 3.2 The Son of God in a Metaphorical Sense? 3.3 Biblical Limitations on the Son of God 3.4 The Unique Sinlessness of Jesus 3.5 Old Testament Prophecies of his Deity 3.6 "Flesh and Blood have not Revealed This" 4. The Crucifixion and the Atonement The Historical and Spiritual Issues 4.1 The Consequences of Man’s Fallen Nature 4.2 Do Christians Enjoy a License to Sin? 4.3 The Young Ruler and the Commandments 4.4 The Substitution Theory in the Qur’an 4.5 The Swooning Theory of Muslim Apologists 4.6 What Really was the Sign of Jonah? 5. Muhammad in the Bible? Muslim Arguments from Biblical Texts 5.1 The Prophet Like Moses in Deuteronomy 18:1-22 5.2 Jesus – The Prophet Foretold by Moses 5.3 The Prophet From Among their Brethren 5.4 Jesus’ Promise of the Coming Comforter 5.5 "His Name Shall be Ahmad" in the Qur’an 5.6 The Holy Spirit: The Promised Comforter 6. The Gospel of Barnabas The Spurious Gospel in Islamic Apologetics 6.1 Muslim Interest in the Gospel of Barnabas 6.2 Medieval Origins Proving it is a Forgery 6.3 Other Evidences Against its Authenticity 6.4 The Original Authorship of the Gospel 6.5 Paul and Barnabas in the Book of Acts Bibliography ======================================================================== CHAPTER 12: 02.01. INTRODUCTION ======================================================================== Introduction The Christian-Muslim Cutting-Edge Great conflicts come and go but one, which has endured for nearly fourteen centuries, appears destined to remain until the end. It is the classic battle – a universal one which outlives every generation. It is the struggle between Islam and Christianity for the souls of all who live on earth. Although mostly unrecognised, it is probably the supreme contest – one which tackles the greatest of issues, namely the very purpose of human existence and its ultimate destiny. Each has its own figurehead who is claimed to be God’s final messenger to all mankind – Jesus Christ the Saviour of the world or Muhammad the universal Prophet to the nations. Each has its own mission – the spread of the Gospel to the ends of the earth or the establishment of an ummah (community) which covers the globe. Each, likewise, has its own conviction of its ultimate triumph over all the philosophies, religions and powers that have challenged human allegiance. It is only natural that they should come into conflict. This book tackles the cutting-edge between Islam and Christianity, in particular the arguments Muslims employ in discussion or debate with Christians to establish the pre-eminence of Islam by rigorously refuting the authenticity of the Christian scriptures and its fundamental doctrines. Any Christian who engages Muslims in conversation will soon find that they are equipped with an armoury of objections which they will interject into the conversation to undermine the Gospel message and distract the Christian by placing him firmly on the defensive. Islam’s Onslaught against Christianity The challenge goes back to the time of Muhammad himself. The Qur’an, the Muslim holy book, has numerous polemical passages confronting Christian beliefs, not only opposing them but proposing rational arguments to disprove them. In the early centuries of Islam Muslim scholars wrote numerous disputations challenging the integrity of the Bible (Ibn Hazm), the doctrine of the Trinity (Abu Isa al-Warraq), the social structure of Christian Society (Al-Jahiz) while also arguing forcefully that Muhammad is foretold in both the Old and New Testaments (Ali Tabari). Modern times have seen polemical material mass-produced for distribution throughout the world, in particular the booklets of Ahmed Deedat, a Muslim propagandist from my own country, South Africa. Christians have been equally confrontational at times, powerfully calling the credentials of Muhammad’s prophethood into question and producing numerous evidences against the assertion that the Qur’an is the Word of God. In both cases the thrust has often been strongly partial and imbalanced. The finest ideals of the adherent’s faith are often set in contrast to the worst excesses of the other’s in practice without the debater apparently being aware of the unfairness of his method. For example, the Christian may argue forcefully that women are treated very poorly in parts of the Muslim world in contrast with the Biblical teaching that they are entitled to enjoy equality in a monogamous marriage (Ephesians 5:28-33) without taking the prevalence of divorce and immorality in traditional Christian societies in the Western world into account. Likewise a Muslim will teach that Islam is the religion of perfect peace while ignoring the numerous conflicts in the Muslim world and the bombings of embassies, aircraft, trade centres and the like in the name of Islam. Muslims will also claim that the universal unity of the Muslim world compares favourably with the numerous divisions in Christian churches while ignoring the vast numbers of conflicting sects in Islam and the fact that Islamic unity is really a uniformity of worship only based on the strictly prescribed nature of Muslim prayers, fasting, ablutions and the Hajj pilgrimage. In this book my aim is to deal mainly with Muslim arguments against Christianity, providing Christians with effective answers to their contentions. I have had the privilege of engaging in discussion with thousands of Muslims in South Africa over twenty-five years and must have heard just about every objection that they could possibly raise to the Christian faith and its scriptures. I have also perused all the Muslim booklets listed in the Bibliography at the end of this book. I can, with genuine conviction, say that I have never heard a Muslim argument that cannot be legitimately and adequately answered. The arguments listed in the following chapters are those most commonly put forward by Muslims in personal conversation and are presented in an objection/answer form to give Christians firsthand examples of how to counter them. Muslim Attitudes which Frustrate Christians What I have often discovered in lively debate with Muslims is certain attitudes on their part that are calculated to hinder profitable discussion. At best Christians and Muslims should argue their positions with a common goal to discover God’s ultimate truths. What often happens, however, is that Muslims seek only to frustrate Christian witness, putting forward their arguments as a smokescreen rather than as a platform for healthy interaction. Objections are regularly stated without any opportunity being given for a Christian reply. For example, I have often heard questions such as "How can God have a Son when he has no wife?", "If Christ died for your sins, does this mean you can sin as much as you like?", etc., as if the objection itself proved the point and was the last word on the subject. The Muslim often does not want to hear a reply, let alone an effective refutation! Very few Muslims have a real understanding of Christianity as is abundantly evidenced in the booklets they produce against it. Christians are accused of believing in three gods, the New Testament is presumed to be a changed version of the Old Testament which is assumed to be the original scripture, while the deity of Jesus Christ is discounted on physical grounds, it being alleged that God cannot have a Son without a wife even though the Qur’an itself, in Surah 19:20-21, teaches that by God’s power and decree Mary could have a son even though she had no husband! Christians need to show much patience when reasoning with Muslims in such cases. Another source of frustration is the inclination on the part of many Muslims to freely assail the authenticity of the Bible or basic Christian beliefs while at the same time becoming highly offended when the tables are turned on the Qur’an and Islam. Yet again Christians need to be tolerant and remain focused in such cases, not resorting to a similar approach in return. Other Muslims will argue purely to find fault with no desire to hear reasonable answers. I have often had encounters where Muslims have boldly proclaimed an objection against a tenet of our faith which I have taken time to effectively answer. Often the answer cannot be given as briefly or emphatically as the argument is proclaimed. Nevertheless, even though the Muslim has made no effort to counter the explanation, he will at a later date triumphantly repeat the same argument as if no refutation had ever been given. Patience and perseverance are necessary in such cases! Prejudices are not easily removed. Muslim Arguments Need to be Answered Some might say, "Why argue at all?" – why not just exchange our different beliefs in a spirit of mutual understanding and leave the issues between our faiths alone? There are a number of reasons why Christians, if they are to be true to their faith and themselves, must be willing to answer Muslim objections and counter their arguments. Firstly, if you cannot defend your faith, the Muslim will conclude that you may be fervent in your beliefs but cannot justify them. Your unwillingness to tackle the cutting-edges will persuade the Muslim that your religion is actually indefensible. Secondly, when you can not only state what you believe but can also effectively say why, the Muslim will be more inclined to listen to you, knowing you have personally tested the credibility of your beliefs and can convincingly defend them. Thirdly, when Muslims do become Christian believers, they invariably want to know right away what the evidences are for the faith they now profess, especially as they may well be challenged by Muslims to revert to Islam and will need to be well-trained to resist such pressures. The Apostle Peter stated very plainly that Christians must be ready to face the challenges put to them and also finely stated the spirit in which they should respond: Always be prepared to make a defence to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence; and keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behaviour in Christ may be put to shame. 1 Peter 3:15-16 The Apostle Paul never shirked the duty to substantiate what he believed with adequate proofs. While in the company of contentious Jews who thrived on controversy, he would "argue with them from the scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead" (Acts 17:2). He was not interested in a mere exchange of religious views, hoping his Gospel message would prove attractive enough merely by its presentation. He knew he had to be able to accredit everything he said if his detractors were to take him seriously. On another occasion he said "We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle to the knowledge of God" (2 Corinthians 10:5), proving himself to be a man who had mastered his subject and fully confident in his ability to endorse the truth of what he believed. In Muslim evangelism it is essential that the Christian be able to counter the objections and arguments Muslims readily produce. In the next section we shall consider the spirit in which the Christian should respond. The Christian Response: Right Methods and Approaches The chapters of this book give examples of effective ways of answering the commonest Muslim arguments against the Bible and its teaching. It is essential that the content of these examples be sound and convincing. Nonetheless this book would be seriously incomplete if some attention was not given to the manner in which the Christian should conduct himself while in discussion with Muslims. The spirit of our approach is as important in making a genuine impact on Muslims as the substance of our arguments. Examples of Wrong Approaches and Attitudes There are many ways in which Christians damage their witness to Muslims of which three will be considered here. 1. The Spirit of Triumphalism Many years ago I attended a public meeting in Durban, South Africa, where up to two thousand Christians and Muslims were waiting for the local City Hall to open its doors. Entrance had been delayed and the crowd simply stood outside in silence. Dr Anis Shorrosh, a Palestinian Christian, had advertised the meeting as a rebuff to Ahmed Deedat, the local Muslim champion of anti-Christian polemics, having challenged him publicly to have the courage to share the platform with him. The atmosphere outside the hall, understandably, was tense. Suddenly one of the local Christian pastors shouted to one of his friends, "let’s sing a few songs to the Lord". They began by boldly singing the chorus Let God arise and let his enemies be scattered which was soon followed up triumphantly with In the name of Jesus we have the victory, in the name of Jesus demons will have to flee. Unfortunately the "demons" did not flee – they fought back. And they won! A Muslim soon interrupted the singing with a bold chant of Allahu Akbar! In no time one thousand Muslims roared to the incessant chant of Allahu Akbar! (Allah is Most Great) which was soon followed up with La ilaha illullah! (There is no God but Allah) in great unison and purpose until the Christian chorus-singing was thoroughly drowned out and silenced. A Christian bystander nervously asked me "What are they singing?" (this was still in the heyday of Islamic revolutionism and frenzied fundamentalism) to which I replied "Calm down, they are merely chanting that God alone is Great". It is easy to boldly sing such choruses in the comfort of Christian fellowships when no one else is listening. Triumphalism is a common feature of many contemporary forms of Christian worship. It has no place, however, in the frontline of Christian-Muslim interaction. We are called to be a humble people speaking in a spirit of love to all we meet. It has well been said that our aim is to win Muslims to Christ, not to win a battle for Christianity. Christians must avoid the temptation to try to lord their faith over Muslims. Likewise we need to resist the inclination to try to prove points simply to win a debate. The hearer himself is our major point of concern. All we say and the spirit in which we do it must be geared to win the confidence, hearing and goodwill of our opposite number. Our approach should be that which is enjoined in this passage: Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer every one. Colossians 4:6 In various seminars I have repeatedly urged Christians to memorise the following proverb – if necessary to write it out one thousand times until it sinks in: I-S-L-A-M stands for I Shall Love All Muslims! I have heard it said that Christians must hate Islam but love the Muslim. May I suggest it would be more appropriate to love all Muslims and to strive to understand Islam. The more you learn about the Muslim faith, the more you will learn to respect it (I speak from personal experience) and the more Muslims will respect you and be willing to listen to you. When Christians show that they have gone to much trouble to find out sincerely what Muslims believe and to become acquainted with the Qur’an and the Islamic heritage, Muslims invariably respond by becoming more inclined to enter into serious discussion rather than sheer debate and argument. We need to earn the right to be heard. 2. The Inclination to Demonise and Misrepresent Islam Many Christian writers and public speakers have assailed Islam by ignoring its actual history and basic teachings while projecting false assumptions instead which are much easier to vilify and condemn. Some years ago in my own country, South Africa, a public campaign was launched by certain Christian leaders against the Muslim halaal symbol which appears on the wrappings of margarine, poultry and other products in local supermarkets. It was claimed that this was a sign which indicated that the product had been offered as a sacrifice to the Muslim idol, Allah, and that Christians should not eat such products as Paul forbade the eating of foods sacrificed to idols in 1 Corinthians 10:19-22. Other recent Christian publications have claimed that Allah was the "moon-god" of the pagan Arabs prior to Islam and that the god of the Muslims is, in effect, really only a cult-god. Once you classify Allah in Islam as a false god or idol it becomes that much easier to attack Muslim beliefs. In discussion with Muslims such falsehoods must be avoided. Allah is the universal Arabic name for the only Supreme Being of the whole universe and is freely used by Arabic speaking Christians and Jews as well as Muslims. Likewise the halaal symbol is purely an indication that the product is "loosed" from any restrictions and may freely be eaten. In a way it means the exact opposite of what some Christians have alleged (the contrary word haraam is used in Islam to describe foods set apart for non-consumption such as swine-flesh) and certainly never indicates that the food has been offered in any kind of sacrifice. Another popular Christian fallacy being widely promoted (and unfortunately believed) these days is that Islam was originally a Catholic conspiracy to eliminate Jews and Christians who refused to bow to the Vatican’s authority. Muhammad was supposedly deceived by an ingenious plot whereby his wife Khatija, said to be a Catholic spy, motivated him to become a great leader to execute the Vatican’s designs and purposes. Unfortunately, as Islam became strong with Vatican financial support, it rebelled and took its own way through history. This story is not only fanciful in the extreme, defying all the extensive historical records of Muhammad’s life and Islam’s beginnings, but has been promoted by one Dr Alberto Rivera purely on hearsay from a Jesuit cardinal known as Augustine Bea in secret briefings said to have taken place within the Vatican. Even though it is based on pure falsehood, large numbers of Christians (who often know little else about Islam) fervently believe it and bring it up in discussion with Muslims. In promoting error you can only drive Muslims further from the truth. Christians need to strive at all times to be truthful in their witness and objective in their perspectives. Be true to the Word of God, to the credible records of history, and avoid trying to gain an advantage over Islam by pursuing false charges against it. 3. Negative and Militant Attitudes towards Muslims About a thousand years ago the world saw the beginning of a new Christian approach to Islam which was to dominate the Middle East for three centuries. The Crusades, up to fourteen in all, were launched from Western Europe against the Muslim world in an attempt to wrest much of it for Catholic Christianity, in particular the holy sites in Jerusalem, so that Christian pilgrimages could freely take place and so that a dominant Christian presence and power might be maintained in the region. Many paintings survive of battles between Christians and Muslims, the Christian soldiers invariably holding a sword in one hand and a shield with a painted cross on it in the other. The Christians were undoubtedly the aggressors and the Muslim world endured a series of wars, conflicts and campaigns that can only be described as an exercise in Christian jihad. The First Crusade, promoted by Pope Urban II, was surprisingly successful for, even though the Christian armies were small, they caught the Muslims unawares and, under leaders such as Godfrey de Bouillon, conquered many cities including Jerusalem, ruthlessly putting Jews and Muslims to the sword until their blood flowed in the streets. Later crusades were neither as successful nor as brutal as the initial ventures but they left a legacy of Christian-Muslim hostility that endures to this day. Modern Christian militancy against Islam takes a less violent form but is still prevalent. "We are at war with Islam" is a rallying call I have personally heard Christians declare and it leads to a negativity towards Muslims which they can easily sense. As our Saviour is described as the "Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6) such an approach hardly seems appropriate. Should our mission not rather be seen as a peace campaign? Instead of harping on embassy bombings, international hijackings, incidents such as the downing of an American airline over Lockerbie in Scotland and the like which cultivate a negative sentiment towards Muslims, we should surely rather develop an attitude of goodwill and love towards them. Likewise we should be willing to give ourselves sacrificially in witness and service just as Jesus Christ did for us when he did not count our faults against us but willingly gave his own life to bring us back to God. Only when we are willing to love Muslims irrespective of who they are or what they might have done will we be truly able to manifest the love of Jesus towards them and fulfil the fundamental purpose of our witness – to draw them to his grace and salvation. Important Principles in our Approach to Muslims At a more practical level let us have a look at certain principles of witness we should endeavour to express while either witnessing to Muslims or engaging in argument with them. 1. Fairness, Patience and Gentleness You no doubt are familiar with the saying "Keep your head even while all around are losing theirs". Muslims often, in argument with Christians, deliberately harass and challenge with the main purpose of rattling the Christian until he loses his temper or becomes angry and offended. This to them is a sign that they have won the day and that the Christian’s response is a proof that he cannot answer their objections. It is essential to maintain composure all the time and, even if you find Muslims frustrating and annoying, to keep up a spirit of quiet goodwill and reasoned conversation. Likewise do not be surprised or deflated when they attack the very core of your message. Muslims are trained in anti-Christian arguments. Picture the fervent evangelist knocking on a Muslim door for the first time. When the Muslim opens he declares "I have come to tell you the glorious news of God’s Son Jesus Christ who died for you that you might be forgiven and go to heaven". He might well expect the hearer to respond "Why, this is the most wonderful thing I have ever heard in my life. Where can I be baptised?" If so, he is likely to be sorely disappointed. He is far more likely to be confronted with this sort of response: "God has no partners! Where did he get a Son from? Who was God’s wife? How could he let his Son die anyway? Have you got sons? Would you just stand by watching while criminals murdered them? You want us to believe God did nothing to save his own Son? What sort of a Father is that? Anyway, no one can die for your sins – every soul bears the burden of its own guilt. If Christ died for you, does this not give you the right now to sin as you like seeing you are already forgiven?" Muslims readily reduce Christian witness to a level of debate, conflict and argument. This cannot be avoided. Christians at such times will need to reason fairly with them, endeavouring to provide solid answers to their arguments, and do so in a spirit of gentleness and patience. 2. Avoid Quarrelling and Disputations While accepting that it is essential to answer Muslim arguments, it needs also to be said that you should never let what started out as a healthy witness degenerate into nothing more than quarrelling and controversy. The Apostle Paul says: Have nothing to do with stupid, senseless controversies; you know they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to every one, an apt teacher, forbearing, correcting his opponents with gentleness. 2 Timothy 2:23-25 Misconceptions must be gently but effectively removed wherever possible. A patient but well-reasoned answer may not immediately appear to have had an effect where the Muslim is either promoting his own triumphalism or is heated and aggressive and will not freely listen to you, but in the long term the impact will inevitably be more profound. When the atmosphere has quietened and the dust is no longer flying around your confident and assured response will be remembered. Whatever you do, do not be the one who first provokes arguments and disputes. 3. Be Serious About your Faith Witnessing to God’s grace in Jesus Christ is one of the most important and serious things you can ever do in your life. In conversation with Muslims avoid flippancy and irreverence. Let the Muslim know, especially if he argues with you in a spirit of ridicule or casualness, that you take your faith very seriously and wish to discuss any points he may raise in that spirit. Even in normal Christian witness it is important to maintain a right spirit and seriousness about your message. After all, you want him to be serious about it too. Just recently, after a solid witness to a Muslim on all the greatest points of our Christian faith, I discovered on leaving his home that he supported the same English football team as me – Manchester United. As all good Muslims in South Africa support United (the rest back Liverpool and Arsenal) I immediately took the conversation to the team, knowing from experience that a shared interest is often a door to a Muslim’s heart and interest in you. On this occasion, however, I discovered I had made a far greater impact than I had thought and he quickly changed the subject back to my message again. "My mother is a Christian and converted from Islam some years ago. She has a peace I genuinely want. I was really moved by your message and will keenly read your literature". I knew immediately that I had to leave him right there and promised to see him again soon. At such times the seriousness of our ministry to turn people to the knowledge of Jesus has to prevail. We must never lose it. 4. Be Biblical in your Responses I cannot emphasise this point strongly enough. When discussing the Trinity, for example, it is often tempting to reason theologically and doctrinally, trying to explain how God can be three persons in one being. I have often found that, after a while, I am as confused as the Muslim about this profound subject! There is so much of it that I do not understand and, quite frankly, do not think we are meant to understand. At other times Christians try to use illustrations to explain the doctrine, such as H20 which is a single substance but can be steam, water or ice. Or the egg illustration is used (yolk, white and shell in one egg). Muslims will hardly understand the Trinity through such reasonings. In the section on The Father, Son and Holy Spirit in this book I have shown how a Biblical presentation of the role of the three persons is without doubt the most powerful means of dealing with this subject while at the same time allowing you to resume the initiative and get back to genuine witnessing. The Bible itself says: For the Word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Hebrews 4:12 Know your Bible. The more you can master the Word of God, the more effective you will become in your discussions with Muslims. It is our finest handbook and is the means the Holy Spirit uses above all others to stir the hearer to respond to the Christian message. There is a power in the Word and very often, while finding myself on the defensive while trying to explain things in human terms, I have found that new authority comes once the Bible is quoted and again made the source of my witness. Often nothing needs to be proved – the Bible only needs to be quoted properly and it will make its own impact on the objector. Naturally, when the attack is on its own teaching and contents, human reasoning is needed, but by keeping your response Biblical the greatest influence is likely to be obtained. Try to avoid being rational or theological with Muslims. You cannot reason people into the kingdom of God – they need to respond to a message of God’s grace and forgiveness from their hearts and that requires not just an assent to the truth but a repentance and conviction deep within. And the Bible is the best tool for achieving this end. Do what you can to get Muslims to read it! 5. Use Objections as an Opportunity for Witness This is my last point but most certainly not the least. It will appear constantly in this book. Do what you can to use the Muslim’s arguments to strengthen your witness to them. It helps to get you back to where you really want to be – challenging the Muslim to respond to your message and the claims of Christ on his soul. Let’s go back to an argument I have already mentioned, let’s expand it a bit, and see how it can be turned around into an opportunity to emphasise the Gospel message. The Muslim says "How can God let his Son die? We only regard Jesus Christ as a prophet and yet we honour him and God by believing that God delivered him from the cross. Yet you claim he was God’s Son but teach that God did nothing while they crucified him. How can you expect us to believe this?" The argument is usually sincere – the Muslim genuinely believes its logic, especially as sons are treasured in Muslim families throughout the world. One Muslim took it further with me. "How many sons have you got?" he asked me. I responded "two". "Well" he responded, "if you saw a group of thugs attacking just one of them and could see they were going to kill him, would you not go to his rescue? Do you not love your son?" As soon as you fall into the trap and simply answer "yes", the Muslim closes the argument – that is precisely what a good heavenly Father would have done for his Son. I responded "Let me strengthen your argument further before I answer it. What if you saw me walking down the road with a knife in my own hand and my son in the other, intending to kill him myself. Would that not be far worse?" He agreed (and fell into my trap!). I continued "Then how can you believe that Abraham was such a great prophet and father when that is precisely what he did. He prepared one day to kill his own son according to the Qur’an (Surah 37:102-103). God told Moses ‘You shall not kill’ (Exodus 20:13) – How can you think well of Abraham when he was prepared to do this to his very own son?" He emphatically replied (and I am quoting him!): "You do not understand. That was different! (my emphasis). It was a test of his love for God. If a man will give his son for God, he’ll give anything for him!" The door was open for a more effective witness than any normal presentation of the Gospel message would have achieved. "Exactly", I replied, "and that is precisely what we are saying about God. He did not stand by watching, he willingly gave his Son for us to save us from our sins. It was the greatest proof of his love that he likewise could have given. John 3:16!" I continued "God spared the son of Abraham but he did not spare his own Son. God showed, in commanding Abraham to give the best proof of his love for God by sacrificing his son, just what he was going to do by giving the greatest manifestation of his love for us. Christians know that in the cross God has done the very best he could for us. Does Islam have anything to compare with this? Has Allah ever matched Abraham’s supreme example of sacrificial love?" What started as a Muslim offensive against the Gospel ended as a more purposeful witness than I could possibly have given had he never raised his arguments. Use Muslim arguments to strengthen your witness. Take the Muslim away from objections and disputes as far as you can and bring the discussion back to where it should be – evangelistic witness. In conclusion I can only again emphasise that it is just as important to take care how you approach Muslims as what you actually say. Be sure that all you do and say is done in a spirit of genuine love for them. John Gilchrist.Benoni, South Africa. 20th March 1999 ======================================================================== CHAPTER 13: 02.02. CHAPTER ONE THE INTEGRITY OF THE BIBLE ======================================================================== Chapter One The Integrity of the Bible The Textual Authenticity of the Qur’an and the Bible 1.1 The Ancient Biblical Manuscripts Muslim: Your Bible does not contain the original scriptures revealed to Moses, Jesus and the other prophets. It has been changed many times. Our learned maulanas have taught us this. What proofs do you have that your Bible is totally authentic and reliable? Many years ago a young Muslim woman asked me "Has the Bible ever been changed?" I answered that it most certainly had not, to which she responded "But does it not teach that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?" I confirmed that it does – again and again – to which she replied "Then it must have been changed". Any Christian who reads through the Muslim publications in the bibliography at the end of this book will be surprised to find that the arguments produced to disprove the integrity of the Bible are often extremely weak and unconvincing. There is only one reason for this – the Muslims do not believe that the Bible has been changed because they have discovered adequate evidences that it has but because they have to disprove its authenticity to maintain their conviction that the Qur’an is the Word of God. Two conflicting books cannot both be the Word of God. Once the Muslims discovered, in the early centuries of Islam, that the Bible emphatically taught fundamental Christian doctrines such as the deity and redeeming work of Jesus Christ they could no longer approach it objectively. Ever since they have sought to prove what is nothing more than a presupposition. The Bible must have been changed! The major reason why Muslims do not believe in its integrity is that they have no choice but to do so if they are to sustain their confidence in the Qur’an. It is important to know what the evidences are for the Bible’s textual authenticity, especially the fact that we have actual manuscripts going back centuries before Islam that show that the Bible we have in our hands today is precisely that which the Jews and Christians of ancient times alone knew as their holy scripture. The Three Great Ancient Codices There are three great manuscripts still existing of the Bible in Greek (containing the Septuagint of the Old Testament and original Greek text of the New) dating centuries before the time of Muhammad. They are: 1. Codex Alexandrinus This volume, written in the fifth century after Christ, contains the whole Bible except for a few leaves lost from the New Testament (Matthew 1:1-25; Matthew 2:1-23; Matthew 3:1-17; Matthew 4:1-25; Matthew 5:1-48; Matthew 6:1-34; Matthew 7:1-29; Matthew 8:1-34; Matthew 9:1-38; Matthew 10:1-42; Matthew 11:1-30; Matthew 12:1-50; Matthew 13:1-58; Matthew 14:1-36; Matthew 15:1-39; Matthew 16:1-28; Matthew 17:1-27; Matthew 18:1-35; Matthew 19:1-30; Matthew 20:1-34; Matthew 21:1-46; Matthew 22:1-46; Matthew 23:1-39; Matthew 24:1-51; Matthew 25:1-6, John 6:50-71; John 7:1-53; John 8:1-52 and 2 Corinthians 4:13-18; 2 Corinthians 5:1-21; 2 Corinthians 6:1-18; 2 Corinthians 7:1-16; 2 Corinthians 8:1-24; 2 Corinthians 9:1-15; 2 Corinthians 10:1-18; 2 Corinthians 11:1-33; 2 Corinthians 12:1-6). Nothing is contained in it that is not part of our current Bible. The manuscript is in the British Museum in London. 2. Codex Sinaiticus This very ancient text, dating from the late fourth century, contains the whole of the New Testament and much of the Old. Preserved for centuries in the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg in Russia, it was sold for one hundred thousand pounds to the British Government and is also now kept in the British Museum. 3. Codex Vaticanus Probably the oldest surviving manuscript of the whole Bible, it was written in the fourth century and is preserved in the Vatican Library in Rome. The last part of the New Testament from Hebrews 9:14 to the end of Revelation is written in a different hand to the rest of the manuscript (the original scribe probably was not able to complete the text through death or some other cause). These manuscripts prove conclusively that the only scriptures in the hands of the Church at least two hundred years prior to Muhammad’s time were the Old and New Testaments as we know them. Other Early Evidences of the Integrity of the Bible There are numerous other evidences for the integrity of the Bible dating from many centuries before Islam. In discussion with Muslims you should emphasise the following: 1. The Hebrew Massoretic Texts Not only do Christians possess early Biblical manuscripts but Jews likewise, who hold to the Old Testament as the only scripture ever written for them, possess texts in the original Hebrew language in which the Old Testament was originally written, going back at least a thousand years. They are known as the Massoretic texts. 2. The Dead Sea Scrolls First discovered in caves in the wilderness of Qumran around the Dead Sea in Israel, these contain numerous portions of the Old Testament in the original Hebrew dating back to the second century before Christ. No less than two copies of the Book of Isaiah were included in this collection containing predictions of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Isaiah 53:1-12), his virgin-birth (Isaiah 7:14) and his deity (Isaiah 9:6-7). 3. The Septuagint This is the title of the first translation of the Old Testament into Greek. It was likewise transcribed in the second century before Christ, containing all the great prophecies to the coming of the Messiah, the fact that he is the Son of God (Psalms 2:7, 1 Chronicles 17:11-14), as well as details of his suffering and atoning death (Psalms 22:1-31; Psalms 69:1-36). The early Church freely used the Septuagint. 4. The Latin Vulgate The Roman Catholic Church translated the whole Bible into Latin in the fourth century after Christ using the Septuagint and ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. The Vulgate, like the Septuagint, dates from the fourth century after Christ and contains the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as we know them. It was established as the standard text for the Roman Church. 5. Portions of the Greek New Testament There are numerous pages, fragments and portions of the original Greek New Testament surviving from as early as the second century after Christ. They all, taken together, form the contents of the New Testament as we know it. It is very interesting to compare this wealth of evidence with the texts which exist for the oldest of the Greek and Roman classics, many of which date not earlier than a thousand years after Christ. In fact no other ancient writings from the same era have such a mass of manuscript evidence as that for the Greek New Testament. What is most important and must be emphasised with Muslims is that there is no alternative source of evidence suggesting that the life and teachings of Jesus Christ were substantially other than that which is recorded in the Bible. All the apocryphal writings rejected by the Church at least generally follow the same threads as those in the New Testament manuscripts. Certainly no historical evidence from the same period exists to suggest that he was really the prophet of Islam which the Qur’an makes him out to be. In conclusion it is useful to challenge the Muslim to produce historical evidences to substantiate their argument that the Bible as we know it has been changed. What was it originally? What, precisely, was changed to make it the book it is today? Who made these changes? When were they made? Once you challenge any Muslim to identify the actual people who are supposed to have corrupted the Bible, at what time in history it took place, and precisely what textual changes were made to original manuscripts, you will find them entirely unable to do so. Such evidences quite simply do not exist. Always remember – the Muslim onslaught comes not from a scholarly examination of the evidences but from a necessary presupposition. The Bible, in their minds, must have been changed if it contradicts the Qur’an and unfortunately Muslims all too often pick up a Bible, not to read it or understand its teachings, but purely to find fault with it to justify their prejudices against it. 1.2 The Early Different Qur’an Codices Muslim: Fortunately our Qur’an has been preserved intact without so much as a letter being lost or out of place. It has never been changed, unlike the Bible, and this proves undoubtedly that the Qur’an is the infallible Word of God. From early childhood Muslims are taught one of the greatest of all fallacies – that the Bible has been corrupted while the Qur’an has been miraculously safeguarded from change. The truth is that the evidence for the textual authenticity of the Bible is far greater than that for the Qur’an. Considering also the fact that the Bible contains sixty-six books compiled over a period of nearly two thousand years while the Qur’an, a much newer book, derives from only one man during a short period of twenty-three years, there is every good reason to believe that it is the Bible that has a greater claim to be the preserved Word of God. Let us consider, in contrast to the evidences we have for Biblical manuscripts, what happened to the earliest codices of the Qur’an. The Original Compilation of the Qur’an Text During Muhammad’s lifetime the Qur’an was fully never written down or collected into a single text. In one of the most reliable records of Muhammad’s life and teachings it is stated that the Qur’an came down to him most abundantly just before his death and that this period was the time of the greatest part of its revelation (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 474). Thus there was no reason to attempt to collect it into one book, especially as more portions could be expected as long as Muhammad remained alive. It was only after Muhammad’s death that the first attempts were made to compile written manuscripts of the whole Qur’an text. The same source states that Abu Bakr, Muhammad’s immediate successor, encouraged a well-known reciter of the Qur’an, Zaid ibn-Thabit, to collect it. This young man recorded that he had to acquire it from various sources, namely palm-leaf stalks, thin white stones and other materials upon which parts of it had been recorded as well as from the memories from those who learnt it by heart. At least one verse was found with only one person, Abi Khuzaima al-Ansari (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 478). Taken together, these were hardly the ideal source for a perfect, inerrant compilation. At the time this manuscript had very little significance other than being commissioned by the Caliph himself. It receded into the private custody of Hafsah, one of the widows of Muhammad (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 478). Other codices were soon put together by close companions of Muhammad and it is important to be familiar with the most well-known. 1. Abdullah ibn Mas’ud He was one of the earliest converts to Islam and it is recorded that when Muhammad mentioned the four greatest authorities of the Qur’an from whom it should be learned, he deliberately mentioned Abdullah first (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p. 96). It is well-known that he compiled his own manuscript of the Qur’an while at Kufa where it became the official text. He is recorded as saying that no one knew the book better than he did (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 488). 2. Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa He was the second person Muhammad mentioned in the list of four authorities. Although he was killed at the Battle of Yamama not long after Muhammad’s death, it is reported that he was the first to collect the Qur’an into a mushaf – a manuscript or written codex (As Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii ‘Ulum al-Qur’an, Vol. 1, p. 135). 3. Ubayy ibn Ka’b Also named among the four, Muhammad is said to have been commanded by Allah to hear him recite portions of the Qur’an. He was known as the sayid al-qurra (the master reciter) and also compiled his own text of the Qur’an which became the preferred text in Syria. Numerous other codices were transcribed at the same time. Of these the manuscripts of Ali, Ibn Abbas, Abu Musa, Anas ibn Malik and Ibn az-Zubair are well-documented. Uthman’s Order to Destroy the Other Codices During the reign of Uthman, the third successor (caliph) to Muhammad, word came to him that the Muslims in the various provinces were differing considerably in their reading of the Qur’an. Uthman decided to unite the people on a mushaf wahid (single text) and, after calling for Zaid’s codex which was conveniently in Medina in Hafsah’s possession where the caliph had his seat of government, he ordered Zaid with three others to transcribe his manuscript into seven exact replica copies and to send one copy to each province with the order that all the other manuscripts of the Qur’an in existence be burnt (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 479). The codices of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy ibn Ka’b were specially singled out and both were destroyed. Abdullah ibn Mas’ud at first strongly resisted the order. Zaid’s copy had never been standardised as an official text and it was used purely as a matter of convenience, being close at hand in Medina and not identified with any particular group of Muslims. Abdullah complained that he had directly obtained seventy surahs from Muhammad while Zaid was still a young child – why should he now forsake what he had acquired? (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p. 15). He also plainly stated that he preferred the Qur’anic recitation of Muhammad himself to that of Zaid, implying that he did not regard Zaid’s codex as completely authentic and adding that "the people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur’an" (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p. 444). Although there is abundant evidence that Zaid’s codex was only one of a number of early manuscripts and had no grounds for being regarded as the best available, least of all a totally authentic copy, it became standardised by Uthman as the official text of the Qur’an and remains so to this day. Later in this chapter a comparison will be drawn of the hundreds of textual variant readings between all the early codices of the Qur’an and the few of the Bible. At this point, however, we need only consider the action of Uthman in consigning to the flames a number of handwritten manuscripts of the Qur’an compiled by some of the closest companions of Muhammad including two of the four he named as those who knew the Qur’an best and from whom it should be learned. The Bible has only been burnt by its enemies. Uthman burnt every other manuscript of the Qur’an other than the one he conveniently had at hand. Codices that had been widely recognised as authoritative texts in the various provinces were burnt in favour of a manuscript that Hafsah had simply kept under her bed! This action contrasts most unfavourably with the evidences we have considered for the Biblical texts. 1.3 The Passages in Mark 16:1-20 and John 8:1-59 Muslim: There are two passages in the Gospels which appear in some of the ancient manuscripts but not in others. Some editions of the RSV Bible include them in the text while others omit them. Does this not prove conclusively the Bible has been changed? Despite the great length of the Bible (it is five times the length of the Qur’an) there are only two passages about which there can be any question of their authenticity. They fill less than a page of a book consisting of more than a thousand pages. Let us consider them. Mark 16:9-20 : The Resurrection Appearances of Jesus This passage describes a number of post-resurrection appearances of Jesus and his ascension to heaven. It does not appear in the very oldest manuscripts of Mark’s Gospel but concludes the book in many of the Greek texts dating shortly after those manuscripts. Did someone interpolate Mark’s Gospel with this short passage? As no other case is known of the possible addition of any passage to the Christian scriptures making up the New Testament (other than John 8:1-11) it is highly unlikely that this section was fabricated some centuries after the book was originally written and that it gained acceptance somehow as part of the text. It is far more probable that it is authentic and was omitted from the earliest texts as a result of unknown circumstances. Each of the four Gospels has a conclusion. Without this passage Mark’s Gospel ends abruptly. It records an appearance to three women by an angel who tells them to go to Galilee where they would see Jesus. It is most unlikely that the Gospel would end here without further reference to what happened to him. Another issue is whether it teaches anything contrary to the rest of the New Testament. These points are relevant: 1. Jesus’ Appearance to Mary Magdalene Verses 9-11 record that he first appeared on the day of his resurrection to Mary Magdalene. The incident is reported in greater detail in John 20:11-18. 2. A Further Appearance to Two Followers Another brief reference follows outlining Jesus’ interaction with two of his disciples later the same day. This incident is likewise outlined in specific detail in Luke 24:13-35. 3. His Commission to his Eleven Disciples Following this is an appearance to his eleven remaining disciples (after the demise of Judas) where he met with them as they sat at table. A commission to preach the Gospel to the whole creation follows with certain statements about it. The incident, once again, has parallels in Matthew 28:19 and Luke 24:36-43. 4. Jesus’ Ascension to Heaven The passage concludes with a brief statement that Jesus thereafter ascended to heaven while his disciples went out and preached his message everywhere. This likewise is confirmed in the first chapter of Acts. There is nothing in this passage which is not repeated elsewhere in the New Testament. What the Muslims need is to prove that the present teachings of the Christian Bible are not what was originally recorded and that the whole book has been changed from what was allegedly a scripture originally consistent with Islam. Arguments around this passage do not remotely canvass the real issue. Nothing here conflicts with the overall contents of the New Testament and, as has been seen, every incident recorded has parallels elsewhere in the book. John 8:1-11 : The Woman Caught in Adultery The only other passage about which there is any uncertainty in the New Testament is the story about Jesus and the woman caught in adultery recorded in John 8:1-11. Some ancient manuscripts include it right here, others omit it completely while some others have added it as an appendix to Luke’s Gospel. There seems to have been a general consensus in early Christian times that it was genuine save that its exact location was disputed. There are, in fact, a number of reasons to conclude that it was originally part of John’s Gospel just where it stands today – at the beginning of the eighth chapter. 1. The Contrasting Ministry of Moses and Jesus Throughout this Gospel a contrast is drawn between the limited ministry of Moses and the fulfilment of all God’s purposes in Jesus Christ. "The law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (John 1:17) sums this principle up. For example, although Moses fed the people with bread for forty years, they still died. He who feeds on Jesus who is the bread of eternal life will, however, live forever (John 6:31-35). Likewise people could be circumcised on the sabbath simply to comply with the law of Moses – how much more could a man’s whole body be made well on the sabbath by Jesus. (John 7:23) So in this passage the law of Moses convicted the woman involved of adultery but, under the light of Jesus’ teaching and presence, all present left the scene convicted of sin (John 8:7-9). The woman, however, was left to experience the saving grace that Jesus brought (John 8:10-11). 2. Jesus’ Use of the Term "Woman" When all the Jewish leaders had departed from the scene Jesus addressed the adulterous woman "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" (John 8:10). This unusual use of the vocative "Woman" by Jesus as a personal mark of respect (like "Sir") appears again in John’s Gospel on a number of occasions (John 2:4; John 4:21; John 20:15) but does not appear in the other Gospels. 3. The Logical Sequence of Events The Pharisees, who are not mentioned in this Gospel until now, suddenly appear without introduction in discussion with Jesus in John 8:13. The introduction clearly appears in John 8:3. Likewise the heated debate between them and Jesus which follows in the rest of the chapter is obviously a consequence of the narrative recorded in John 8:1-11. Throughout his Gospel John records incidents in the life of Jesus which gave rise to discourses and debates with the Jewish leaders (cf. John 6:1-59) and without the story of the woman caught in adultery and subsequent interaction of Jesus with them this trend is uncharacteristically broken. 4. Jesus and Moses: Conviction of Sin In the debate with these leaders Jesus interjected "Which of you convicts me of sin?" (John 8:46). This statement would be somewhat isolated had the incident with the woman not occurred. It is here that Jesus boldly declares to them "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her" (John 8:7). One by one, in response to this challenge, they left the scene, beginning from the eldest, until Jesus was left alone with the woman before him. The thrust is clear – he had convicted them all of sin – which one of them could do the same to him in return? There is considerable, if not convincing, evidence that John 8:1-11 belongs just where it is found. In any event yet again there is nothing in the incident which conflicts with anything else taught in the New Testament. There is, therefore, no significant or relevant evidence anywhere to show that passages have been omitted from or added to the Bible which have changed its overall teaching from an originally Islamic basis to a Christian theme. Arguments around the two passages considered here do not begin to prove the Muslim case. As said already they fill less than half a page – hardly the kind of proof that the Bible as a whole has been changed. On the contrary we will proceed to show that there are far greater evidences for passages from the Qur’an that were said to have originally formed part of the text but have since been omitted. It will be seen yet again that the Qur’an’s original textual integrity is far more questionable than that of the Bible – even though the Bible is five times the length of the Qur’an and was compiled over a much longer period many centuries earlier. 1.4 Missing Passages from the Qur’an Muslim: The Qur’an is a complete book, just as it was originally revealed to our holy Prophet. Nothing has ever been added nor is anything missing from it. This also proves that it is the infallible Word of Allah. Contrary to popular Muslim belief there are numerous evidences to prove that the Qur’an is incomplete as it stands today. Abdullah ibn Umar had this to say in the very early days of Islam: Let none of you say "I have acquired the whole of the Qur’an". How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur’an has disappeared? Rather let him say "I have acquired what has survived." (As-Suyuti, Al Itqan fii ‘Ulum al-Qur’an, p. 524). There are many records of verses, passages and even whole sections that are said to have originally been part of the Qur’an which are no longer there. Some important examples follow. Whole Surahs Missing from the Qur’an Abu Musa al-Ashari, a close companion of Muhammad and one of the earliest authorities of the Qur’an, is recorded as teaching the Qur’an-reciters (qurra) in Basra: We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara’at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: "If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust". (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p. 501) The tradition is preserved in one of the two most recognised collections of the sayings of Muhammad. Next to the Sahih al-Bukhari the Sahih Muslim is regarded as the most authentic record of his life. Other companions, such as Anas ibn Malik and Ibn Abbas, also reported that Muhammad used to recite the verse quoted but were not certain whether it was from the Qur’an or not. Abu Musa also mentioned another surah which was recited in the early days of Islam by Muhammad’s companions: And we used to recite a surah which resembled one of the surahs of Musabbihat, and I have forgotten it, but remember (this much) out of it: "O people who believe, why do you say that which you do not practise" (61:2) and "that is recorded in your necks as a witness (against you) and you would be asked about it on the Day of Resurrection" (17:13). (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p. 501) The Musabbihaat are a group of five surahs (57, 59, 61, 62 and 64) which begin with the words "Let everything praise (sabbahu or yusabbihu) Allah that is in the heavens and the earth". These records of at least two lost surahs are proof that the Qur’an is not perfect and complete as Muslims claim. When they raise arguments against the passages in Mark’s and John’s Gospels which we have considered, it will be useful to mention these in return. Verses Missing from the Qur’an In addition to the verses mentioned in the two traditions from the Sahih Muslim, there are evidences of others missing today from the Qur’an. Some of these are the following: 1. The Religion of Allah is al-Hanifiyyah There is a tradition from the Jami as-Sahih of at-Tirmidhi that the following verse once formed part of Suratul-Bayyinah (Surah 98) of the Qur’an: The religion with Allah is al-Hanifiyyah (the Upright Way) rather than that of the Jews or the Christians, and those who good will not go unrewarded. (As-Suyuti, Al Itqan fii ‘Ulum al-Qur’an, p. 525). This passage could well have once belonged to the Surah as it fits well into its context and contains words found elsewhere in it, namely din (religion, v. 5), aml, (to do, v. 7) and hunafa (upright, v. 4). The Surah also contrasts the way of Allah with the Jews and Christians in other passages in the text and it is a good example of a verse now missing from the Qur’an. 2. Stoning of Adulterers to Death Umar ibn al-Khattab, one of the very closest companions of Muhammad and his second successor, taught plainly from the pulpit in Medina while he was Caliph that whereas Surah 24:2 teaches that adulterers should be lashed with a hundred stripes, a verse in the Qur’an originally stipulated that married men and women who commit adultery were to be stoned to death: See that you do not forget the verse about stoning and say: We do not find it in the Book of Allah; the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) had ordered stoning and we too have done so, after him. By the Lord Who holds possession of my life, if people should not accuse me of adding to the Book of Allah, I would have had this transcribed therein: "The adult men and women who commit adultery, stone them". We have read this verse. (Muwatta Imam Malik, p. 352) Various other sources confirm that this verse was originally part of the Qur’an but is now missing from it. One quotes Umar as saying that part of the scripture revealed to Muhammad was the ayatur-rajam (the Stoning Verse) and that they memorised, understood and recited it. He added that he feared people in time to come, on finding no mention of the verse in the Qur’an, would forget the ordinance (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 8, p. 539). 3. Being the Offspring of Fathers Alone Another verse said by Umar to have been originally part of the kitabullah (the "Book of Allah", that is, the Qur’an) but which, by his time as caliph, had been lost from its text read as follows: O people! Do not claim to be the offspring of other than your fathers, as it is disbelief on your part that you claim to be the offspring of other than your real father. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 8, p. 540) 4. The Good Pleasure of Allah Anas ibn Malik, another companion of Muhammad, taught that the following verse originally formed part of the Qur’an but was later abrogated and deleted from its text: Convey to our people on our behalf the information that we have met our Lord, and He is pleased with us, and has made us pleased. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p. 288) It is also recorded that this text was "sent down in a Qur’an verse until it was withdrawn" (As-Suyuti, Al Itqan fii ‘Ulum al-Qur’an, p. 527). It is yet another proof that the Qur’an has not been preserved free from any change, alteration or omission as Muslims believe. Instead the evidences for missing passages from the Qur’an are, as we can see, far greater than those for the Bible. 5. Marriage Between People Fed by the same Mother Yet another tradition reported from Ayishah, one of Muhammad’s wives, states that there was once a passage in the Qur’an which taught that, if two people had been fed at the breast of the same mother at least ten times, they could not marry. Later, she said, it was reduced to five: A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur’an that ten clear sucklings made the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated by five sucklings and Allah’s Apostle (saw) died and it was before that time in the Holy Qur’an. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p. 740) These are only a selection of evidences that the Qur’an is an incomplete book. Christians should use these proofs with Muslims to show that their challenges about the textual integrity of the Bible can very easily – and far more effectively – be turned on the Qur’an. As the saying goes, people in glass houses should not throw stones. 1.5 Variant Readings in the New Testament Muslim: There are a number of examples in the Bible of verses that appear in some manuscripts and not in others. Other types of variant reading can also be found. How can your Bible be the true Word of God if its text cannot be completely verified? Muslims fondly believe that the Qur’an is a perfect book, that not a dot or letter has been altered or omitted, and that this miraculous state of preservation of the book proves it is the Word of God. At the same time any proof whatsoever is sought to show that the Bible has been changed and cannot therefore be regarded as reliable. We do not believe a book has to be perfectly intact to be the authentic Word of God but rather that, if it has been protected and handed down in its original form with only a few copyist errors, negligible variant readings and one or two uncertain passages, its overall integrity cannot be challenged. As we have seen and will again see in the next section, the Qur’an in any event has not been perfectly transcribed and in fact suffers from far more variant readings, lost passages and the like than the Bible. The Few Variants in the New Testament It is remarkable that the Biblical text as it has been preserved has no more than a few variant readings, about twenty in all, and that they all come from the New Testament. As Kenneth Cragg has pointed out, only a one-thousandth part of the book is affected. This is hardly the sort of proof the Muslims need to prove that the Bible, as a whole, has been so dramatically changed that it no longer contains what was originally written. What is more, none of the New Testament variants remotely affects the teaching of the book as a whole and some of them in any event have parallels in other Gospels where the text is virtually repeated. Let us consider some of these variant readings as typical examples. 1. Mark 15:28 : A Quote from Isaiah 53:12 A verse, found in some of the ancient copies of Mark’s Gospel but not in others, reads: "And the scripture was fulfilled which says ‘He was reckoned with the transgressors’" (Mark 15:28). The passage referred to is from the great passage of Messianic suffering in Isaiah 53:12. It is repeated, however, in much the same form in the following quote which appears in every surviving copy of Luke’s Gospel: "For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was reckoned with the transgressors’; for what is written about me has its fulfilment" (Luke 22:37). This passage from Mark’s Gospel, like all the others in the New Testament, in no way disturbs the overall text. A scratch on a Rolls-Royce may slightly impair its perfection, but it does not stop the car from being a Rolls-Royce or turn it into some other vehicle. 2. Matthew 21:44 : Being Broken by a Falling Stone In the parable of the tenants in the vineyard recorded in Matthew’s Gospel the following saying of Jesus is found in a few of the most ancient manuscripts of the book but not in the rest: "And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but when it falls on any one, it will crush him" (Matthew 21:44). The text, however, is repeated almost word-for-word in Luke 20:18. Thus the variant has no affect on the text as a whole. The same applies to Matthew 23:14 which contains another saying of Jesus pronouncing a woe upon the Pharisees for devouring widow’s houses. It is only found in some of the earliest manuscripts of Matthew’s Gospel but is again repeated in every manuscript of Mark’s Gospel (Mark 12:40). 3. Matthew 27:49 : The Piercing of Jesus’ Side Once again in some manuscripts of Matthew’s Gospel these words appear: "And another took a spear and pierced his side, and out came water and blood" (Matthew 27:49). The statement is paralleled in John 19:34 where it appears in every manuscript of the Gospel. 4. 1 John 5:7 : The Father, Word and Holy Ghost In this case we consider a verse which appears in none of the ancient Greek manuscripts, the original language of the New Testament scriptures, but which can be traced back to the Latin translation of the Bible known as the Vulgate. From here it appears in much later Greek transcripts of the New Testament and, as the King James Version of the Bible (best defined as the King James English translation) was based on these texts, it found its way into the translation. The verse reads: "For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one" (1 John 5:7). As the verse does not appear in any of the oldest texts of John’s Gospel it is probable that it was a marginal note of a scribe, a complement to the rest of the verse which reads "There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree". Muslims have made great efforts to discredit the integrity of the Bible text with the disputed verse, claiming it is the only passage in the Bible which teaches the doctrine of the Trinity. Conveniently overlooked is an equally dogmatic trinitarian statement, "Baptising them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19) as well as similar statements in 2 Corinthians 13:14 and Ephesians 2:18. There are a number of cases in the New Testament, mainly in the four Gospels, where slight variant readings occur affecting single words, brief expressions or short clauses. Once again, none of them affects the teaching of the book as a whole or its overall authenticity. The variant readings in the Bible are so easily accounted for and of such little importance that they in no way affect the integrity of the book as a whole. The scriptures, in their entirety, have been preserved for us virtually unaltered, unlike the Qur’an where every manuscript transcribed by Muhammad’s own companions except one was cast into the flames to be destroyed. 1.6 Evidences of Qur’anic Variant Readings Muslim: There are no variant readings affecting the actual text of the Qur’an. In the early days the Qur’an was recited in different dialects which only affected the pronunciation of its verses. That is why the early manuscripts were burnt – to eliminate these differences of pronunciation alone. This statement, which is self-evidently illogical, is typical of most Muslim explanations for the burning by Uthman of all but one of the codices compiled by Muhammad’s companions which contained a variety of variant readings. Pronunciations have nothing to do with written texts. You cannot burn differences of dialect in common speech! There must have been real textual differences between the various written manuscripts for such a drastic order to be given. During the time of Uthman the Qur’an was still best known in the memories of most of the Muslims and the burning order did not eliminate the knowledge of what the variant readings were. Over a period of time historians of the text of the Qur’an such as Ibn Abi Dawud who compiled a record of these variants which he titled Kitab al-Masahif (Book of the Manuscripts), and Muhammad Abu Jafar at-Tabari, author of the monumental work on the Qur’an titled Jami al-Bayan fii Tafsir al-Qur’an (A Comprehensive Compilation for a Commentary of the Qur’an), preserved a record of all the known variants between the various texts. The Differences Between the Earliest Texts The evidences, especially from at-Tabari’s extensive records, show that there were literally hundreds of variant readings between the early manuscripts. Arthur Jeffery, who compiled a catalogue of the different readings mainly from Ibn Abi Dawud’s and at-Tabari’s works, listed them over no less than three hundred and sixty-two pages of his book Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’an. His book also contains the whole text of Ibn Abi Dawud’s Kitab al-Masahif. They make the number of Biblical variants seem negligible in comparison and, once again, it has to be remembered that the Bible is centuries older than the Qur’an, five times its length, and was compiled by numerous authors over a two-thousand year period. When Muslims argue that the Bible has been changed it will be very useful to mention some of the numerous variant readings known from these early writings. Some interesting examples are the following: 1. The Day of Resurrection Surah 2:275 begins with the words "Those who devour usury will not stand" (Allathiina yaakuluunar-ribaa laa yaquumuuna). The reading of Ibn Mas’ud was the same except that he added the words yawmal qiyaamati – "on the Day of Resurrection". This variant is mentioned in Abu Ubaid’s Kitab Fadhail al-Qur’an and was also recorded in the codex of Talha ibn Musarrif. 2. Fasting for Three Successive Days Surah 5:91 as it stands in the Qur’an today contains the exhortation "Fast for three days" (fasiyaamu thalaathatiu ayyaamin). Ibn Mas’ud’s text included the adjective mutataabi’aatin, meaning "fast for three successive days". At-Tabari records the variant (7.19.11) as did Abu Ubaid. Ubayy ibn Ka’b also recorded it as did Ibn Abbas and Ar-Rabi ibn Khuthaim. 3. The Path of Allah Surah 6:153 in the Qur’an begins "Verily this is my path" (wa anna haathaa siraati). Ibn Mas’ud, in place of this clause, read "This is the path of your Lord" (wa haathaa siraatu rabbakum). At-Tabari is once again the source of the variant (8.60.16). Ubayy ibn Ka’b, the other great expert of the Qur’an text and close companion of Muhammad, had the same reading except that he read rabbika for rabbakum. Other variants around this text have also been recorded. 4. The Mothers of the Believers Surah 33:6 says of Muhammad and all believing Muslims "his wives are their mothers" (azwaajuhuu ummahaatuhuu). At-Tabari once again records a major variant reading (21.70.8), namely that Ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy ibn Ka’b included the words apparently now missing from the Qur’an text "and he is their father" (wa huwa abuu laahum). Ibn Abbas, Ikrima and Mujahid ibn Jabir also recorded it. The number of witnesses to its conclusion suggests that Zaid’s text (the current Qur’an) overlooked its inclusion. These are merely four of the vast collection of variant readings that exist. There are so many (well over two thousand in fact) that it is remarkable to behold the confidence with which Muslims attack the integrity of the Bible. Most of the time they have quite simply been kept in the dark about the manner in which the Qur’an was standardised from a wealth of variant readings into the text we have today. Changes to the Qur’an made by Al-Hajjaj There is clear evidence in the Kitab al-Masahif of Ibn Abi Dawud that no less than eleven changes were made to individual words in the Qur’an by the scribe al-Hajjaj on the orders of his caliph, Abd al-Malik. His book contains a chapter headed Bab: Ma Ghaira al-Hajjaj fii Mushaf Uthman ("Chapter: What was Changed by Al-Hajjaj in the Uthmanic text"). His text begins: Altogether al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf made eleven modifications in the reading of the Uthmanic text. In al-Baqarah (Surah 2:259) it originally read Lam yatassana waandhur, but it was altered to Lam yatassanah. (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p. 117) Some of the other changes to the Qur’an made at this time as recorded in this chapter were the following: Shariy’ah was changed to shir’ah (law) in Surah 5:48; Yuthasharukum was altered to yusayyirukum (travel) in Surah 10:22; Ma’a’ishahum was changed to read ma’ishatahum (livelihood) in Surah 43:32; Yasin was changed to Aasin (brackish) in Surah 47:15. In each of these cases, as in the other seven recorded, the variant reading is generally only of a letter or two, but it once again is not confined to pronunciation but reflects an actual change in the consonantal text, thus undermining the Muslim claim that not even one letter in the Qur’an has ever been altered. The word Ibn Abi Dawud always uses in between each alternative is faghyirah meaning "changed, altered, replaced by, or varied" – words Muslims would not like to find used at such an early date to explain alterations in the Qur’an! Dialects and the Text of the Qur’an It is very important to know that there were no vowel points in the earliest Qur’an manuscripts. Written Arabic has no vowels and it took centuries before vowel points were added to the Qur’an. The oldest Qur’an texts surviving to this day date not earlier than at least a hundred and fifty years after Muhammad’s death and are written in the al-ma’il script of Medina. Most other ancient Qur’an scripts surviving are in kufic script, a bold form of writing which first came from Kufa in Iraq. Claims are made to this day that original Uthmanic manuscripts survive, even with his bloodstains on a page he was reading when he was assassinated. One such manuscript is in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul and another is the famous Samarqand Codex of Tashkent. Both were written in kufic script and date at least a century after Uthman’s time. As stated already, the favourite Muslim argument used to sustain the hypothesis that the Qur’an text today is an exact replica of the original is that the only variant readings which existed in the early years were in dialectal pronunciation. The evidences prove conclusively otherwise. Such differences would not have appeared in the written text and, in fact, countless different forms of reading survived for at least three centuries until Ibn Mujahid, a well-known authority on the Qur’an at the Abbasid court in Baghdad, ordered that only seven be authorised in terms of a tradition from Muhammad himself that the Qur’an had been revealed in "seven different ways" and that each Muslim could choose whichever was easiest for him to read (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 510). All the variant readings recorded in at-Tabari’s Jami and Ibn Abi Dawud’s Kitab al-Masahif as well as other similar records are of substantial differences in the actual written text, its words and expressions, its consonants and clauses. There were so many that Uthman simply had no alternative but to order the destruction of all but one which was conveniently standardised as the only official text of the Qur’an. This sequence of events in the early days makes the history of the Qur’an text appear decidedly unfavourable when compared with the text of the Bible. Biblical Contents and Teaching 1.7 Apparent Errors in Biblical Numerics Muslim: There are occasions in the Bible where obvious contradictions appear between parallel passages where the figures given are not the same. These discrepancies and factual errors prove the Bible is unreliable and cannot be the Word of God. Muslim writers often fasten on to a few parallel passages in the Old Testament where there certainly are apparent contradictions between the numbers and ages given in narratives of specific events. It is not only important to know them but also to be aware, once again, of precisely the same phenomenon in the Qur’an! Copyist Errors in the Old Testament There are four examples from the whole text of the book which we will consider as typical of the problem. In each case, although Muslims claim that they are evidences of wholesale contradictions which must be the errors of the original authors, it will be obvious that the problem arises solely from copyist errors made during transmission of the text. 1. The Reigns of Jehoiachin and Ahaziah, Kings of Judah In one passage the Bible states that "Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king" (2 Kings 24:8) while in another it says "Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign" (2 Chronicles 36:9). All that has happened here is that the single Jewish letter for "ten" was omitted during copying of the text of 2 Chronicles by a Jewish scribe over two thousand years ago. A similar distinction occurs here between one passage which states that "Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign" (2 Kings 8:26) and another which records "Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he began to reign" (2 Chronicles 22:2). Apart from this discrepancy the texts agree that he reigned only one year and that his mother was Athaliah, the granddaughter of Omri. Once again, in the original Hebrew, the difference between the two ages is represented in only one letter. Again the error would have occurred solely in the copying of the text. It is obvious that the second age is incorrect for, if Ahaziah had been forty-two years old when his reign began he would have been two years older than his father! 2. David’s Charioteers and Solomon’s Stalls In one passage in the Old Testament it says that "David slew of the Syrians the men of seven hundred chariots" (2 Samuel 10:18) while in another it is recorded that "David slew of the Syrians the men of seven thousand chariots" (1 Chronicles 19:18). There are marked resemblances between Jewish numerical letters and here, as in the other examples quoted, the difference in the original text affects but one letter which is very similar in each book. We have but another case of an obvious copyist error which in no way affects the text of the Bible or its teaching in any significant way. The same applies to a verse which states that Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses (1 Kings 4:26) in comparison with another which states that the number was four thousand (2 Chronicles 9:25). In all these cases and others Muslims might quote the issue is often a fractional difference in the transcribing of a letter in the original Hebrew text. This sort of hair-splitting argument does not begin to deal with the key issue which is the integrity of the Bible as a whole, especially its Christian (rather than Islamic) content and emphasis. Contradictions in Qur’anic Numerics There are more obvious discrepancies in certain similar numerical excerpts from the Qur’an. Here we do not find the problem confined to single, very similar letters but rather to whole words which create obvious contradictions. Two examples should be learned by Christians and quoted whenever Muslims attack the numerical differences we have mentioned. 1. The Length of the Day of Judgment According to one text the Great Day of God will be "a thousand years of your reckoning" (Surah 32:5) while in another it is said that the measure of the same Day will be "as fifty thousand years" (Surah 70:4). In this case the distinction is far more obvious for it is not confined to one letter but a whole word, namely khamsiina ("fifty") which appears in the second text in addition to the words alfa sanatin ("A thousand years"). Muslims hide in the clouds by explaining the contradiction away as an example of "mystical", "cosmic" or "allegorical" language. But, as the first text states clearly that the length of the Day will be a thousand years "of your reckoning" (meaning precisely as we would measure it on earth), there is a very real contradiction between the two texts that cannot easily be explained. How can one thousand and fifty thousand revolutions of the earth around the sun be exactly the same? 2. The Original Creation of the Heavens and the Earth. In one Qur’anic passage it is said that the heavens, the earth, and all that is between them were created in six days (Surah 50:38) while another teaches that the earth was made in two days, the heavens likewise in two, and the earth’s sustenance between them in four days (Surah 41:9-12), making eight days in all in anyone’s simple mathematics. Once again it is hard to reconcile the two texts with the contradiction being found not in solitary letters but in a whole calculation of different time periods. One of the problems Christians experience in witness with Muslims is the tendency of the latter to set unreasonable standards for the authenticity of the Bible which they somehow cannot see can be applied with greater forcefulness against the Qur’an. They begin with the premise that to be the Word of God a book cannot have numerical errors, variant readings and the like. Fondly believing the Qur’an is free from such defects they freely launch into attacks on the integrity of the Biblical text. Christians need to know the evidences that show that the textual integrity of the Qur’an can be challenged on precisely the same grounds as the Muslims live under the fond illusion (and are taught by their maulanas and leaders from childhood) that the Qur’an is a perfect book without contradictions, different readings and the like. The aim must be not to win an argument or discredit the Qur’an but simply to counter false and unjustifiable attacks on the Bible. 1.8 The Authorship of Matthew’s Gospel Muslim: Matthew was not the author of the Gospel attributed to him. There are proofs that it was written long after his time by another author whose identity is unknown. At time it seems Muslims will use any argument they can to discredit the Bible. More than once I have heard Muslims challenge the authorship of Matthew’s Gospel. The argument is usually centred on the following text from the Gospel itself: As Jesus passed on from there he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax office; and he said to him, "Follow me". And he rose and followed him. Matthew 9:9 Although the earliest Christian sources all attribute this Gospel to the Apostle Matthew, Muslims argue that he cannot have written it because he describes his own conversion in the third person in this verse. More than one Muslim author has claimed that a first-person account of the incident should have been given if Matthew himself was the author of the Gospel attributed to him. One can only marvel at times at the manner in which Muslims set themselves up as judges of the Biblical text and prescribe what should have been done. When approaching any book like the Bible or the Qur’an, a far better approach is to let the book speak for itself and to apply a scholarly approach to its contents. Too often the aim is purely to find fault by whatever means possible. In response to a Muslim who once challenged me on this very issue during a personal conversation I replied "Who is the author of the Qur’an?" He immediately answered "Allah" to which I responded "How is it, then, that Allah likewise constantly refers to himself in the third person in the book?" I used the following verse as an example: He is Allah and there is no god besides who He is. Surah 59:22 The Arabic begins Huwallaah ("He is Allah") and finishes with the same pronoun it begins with, huwa ("he is"). In both cases the pronoun used is the third person singular. Allah, too, is mentioned by name just as he is nearly three thousand other times in the book. If Matthew cannot be the author of his Gospel because he both names and speaks of himself in the third person in the book, then Allah – by the same Muslim reasoning – cannot be the author of the Qur’an. There is quite simply no difference between these two uses of the third person in the Bible and the Qur’an. Christians often justifiably become frustrated at the manner in which Muslims try to discredit the Bible. Often their arguments are extremely weak and can be turned equally effectively against the Qur’an. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that they are trying to prove a case by whatever means they can and that they base their arguments on convenient presuppositions rather than solid evidences. Christianity stands on its own and its historical records of the life of Jesus as found in the Gospels. It does not need to disprove a religion which only came six hundred years later. Islam, on the other hand, because it acknowledges Jesus but has no alternative historical records of his life, has to disprove Christianity to establish itself. This is why the Qur’an itself constantly argues against Christian beliefs and practices and is also why Muslims try so hard to discredit the Bible. As long as Christians remember this they will be patient in dealing with argumentative Muslims, especially when they tend to resort to any means they can to attempt to prove their point. Other Arguments Against Matthew’s Gospel Very often Muslims acquire arguments against the integrity of the Bible from the writings of modern liberal Western scholars basing their conclusions on what has become known as "higher criticism" of the Biblical text. Almost invariably this source is highly questionable as such authors do not simply assess the evidences but work on all manner of assumptions. A typical example is the hypothesis in many such works that behind the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) there was an original source of traditions about the life of Jesus. It is presumed that it had been compiled in a written collation of teachings and events derived from the disciples of Jesus some time earlier than the writing of the four Gospels and has been called "Q" purely because no proper name or source can be applied to such a text conveniently assumed to have existed. It is then concluded, perforce, that Matthew could not have been the author of the Gospel attributed to him. There are three very good reasons to challenge not only this conclusion but the very means used by such scholars to prefer their own subjective reasonings to factual evidences to the contrary. 1. The Evidences of Early Christian Writings All the earliest Christian sources, as stated already, attribute this Gospel to Matthew. The subjective reasonings of modern scholars who prize twentieth-century speculations over factual, contemporary evidences, cannot be preferred to the testimonies of those who lived at the time when this Gospel was first copied and distributed. These same scholars challenge the original story of creation, write off the flood of Noah as a myth, scoff at the sojourn of Jonah in a fish for three days, and reject the virgin-birth of Jesus for the same reason – pure speculation, this time on rational grounds. Muslim scholars, who know that the Qur’an confirms all these events, cannot honestly rely on sources that also discredit Islam for the same reasons. 2. No Alternative Authorship for Matthew’s Gospel J.B, Phillips, in his introduction to this Gospel, while confirming that some modern scholars reject the traditional sources for the authorship of this Gospel, states that he can still conveniently be called Matthew. This is because there is quite frankly no reasonable alternative to his authorship, nor has the history of the early Church ever suggested another possible author. 3. The Supposed Oral Traditions behind this Gospel Phillips also states, without any proofs, that the author has plainly drawn on the "mysterious Q" for much of the material in his Gospel. There is no evidence anywhere in early Christian history that such a body of oral traditions was ever collected into a written collection. Its identity is not so much a mystery as a historical myth. The very title "Q" testifies to the whole speculative nature of this supposed source behind the Synoptic Gospels. At this point we are dealing no longer with actual evidences but with pure speculation. These modern scholars generally do not take the textual evidences for the Bible as they stand but rely on nothing more than their own convenient assumptions. Christians, in discussion with Muslims, must encourage them to stick to the facts and avoid resorting to conjectures which cannot possibly be proved. 1.9 The Variety of English Translations Muslim: Why are their so many different versions of the Bible? There are the King James Version, Revised Standard Version, New International Version amongst others. Fortunately we have only one Qur’an which has never been revised. This argument is only common in English-speaking countries, usually those where Muslims are in the minority. When Muslims hear of all these different English translations of the Bible, especially when they are titled "Versions", they immediately assume each one is a changed edition from a previous one – obvious proof that the Bible is still being changed by Christian priests and leaders to suit themselves. English Translations: No Revision of the Bible Itself For some reason Muslims who raise the kind of argument which is presented here cannot see its immediate irrelevance. They compare what are no more than English translations of the Bible to the Arabic original of the Qur’an. With patience Christians need to point out that all our translations are based on the oldest Hebrew and Greek manuscripts we have for the Old and New Testaments respectively. These have never been altered or replaced and each "Version" is no more than a particular translation into another language. There have been numerous translations of the Qur’an into English as well over recent decades but no one suggests these are different "versions" of the book. Each one has its own character. During a debate with Yusuf Buckas, a local Muslim propagandist, in Durban, South Africa, in 1985 on the integrity of the Bible he quoted from the Preface to the Revised Standard Version of the Bible as follows: "Yet the King James Version has grave defects ... these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision" and there he stopped, saying "unquote" as he concluded. He used this as an argument to prove that the Bible has been undergoing various changes to remedy its many defects. In reply I had to point out that his "unquote" was no unquote at all and that he had not finished the sentence which reads "to call for revision of the English translation" (my emphasis). A few minutes had to be used to show the Muslims present that the Bible was not being revised but only an English translation and that the purpose was not to corrupt the original text but rather to get as close to it as the translators possibly could. Certain Differences in Translation Muslims do, however, endeavour to make something of certain differences between the King James Version and Revised Standard Version. Two passages will be mentioned and dealt with as typical of the type of arguments Christians can expect to hear with indications of how to respond to them. 1. Isaiah 7:14 : Young Woman or Virgin? In the King James Version this verse states that a virgin would conceive and bear a son whereas the same text in the Revised Standard Version states that a young woman would do so. These are merely differences in translations of the original Hebrew word almah but Muslims have endeavoured to use the different choice of words as a proof of a change in the Bible. The argument goes that the Bible originally taught that Jesus would be born of a virgin-woman but that a later edition has revised the text, eliminating a fundamental truth supported by the Qur’an (Surah 3:47, 19:20-21). The Christian response to this argument is quite simple. Firstly the original Hebrew word in the original text is almah and that it has never been changed. Therefore the issue is purely one of translation. Secondly, the word literally translated means a young woman and the Revised Standard Version’s translation is perfectly accurate. The normal Hebrew word for "virgin" is bethulah. On the other hand, from the context of the passage it is quite obvious that the conception by a young woman would be unique and a dramatic sign to the people of Israel and the King James Version quite fairly interprets this to mean what is obviously intended, namely that a virgin would conceive. The Greek Septuagint of the Old Testament, dating nearly two thousand years before the King James Version, also translated it "virgin" and either term is quite acceptable. There is, therefore, no question of a "change" to the Bible at this point. 2. John 3:16 : God’s Only Begotten Son A similar argument centres on the translation of this verse in the same two Versions. In the former, the King James Version which dates back to 1611 AD, the verse states that God so loved the world that he sent his only-begotten Son that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. In the Revised Standard Version, dating from 1952, the verse simply says that God would send his only Son, leaving out the word "begotten". Muslims argue that the Bible has been changed to remove the objectionable idea that God has "begotten" a Son, a concept very forcefully rejected in the Qur’an which states: Say he is Allah the One, Allah the Eternal One. He does not beget, nor is he begotten, and like unto him there is not one. Surah 112:1-4 Once again the Muslims are making capital of absolutely nothing. The Greek word in the original text is monogenae which means "the one" (mono) "coming from" (genae) the Father. It is quite correct to translate this as "only" or "only begotten". Both expressions mean the same thing – the only son coming from the Father. The word begotten is an old English word freely used in the seventeenth century when the King James Version was written but one which is not part of twentieth-century spoken English. This is why the Revised Standard Version omits it. Yet again there is no question of a "change" in the original text – the issue is purely one of interpretation in English translations. Over the years I have heard an assortment of arguments against the Bible which have taxed my patience with Muslims. "Why are there four Bibles in your New Testament?" is one, another being "Why do your Popes change the Bible every year? It is not only the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope of the Baptist Church does the same". Another classic: "According to the Qur’an only one Injil, the "Gospel", was revealed to Jesus. But in your Bible there are many Gospels. Matthew wrote a Gospel, so did Mark, Luke, John and Acts. Romans wrote a Gospel and Corinthians wrote two"! While you may wish to focus purely on the actual Gospel itself and the effect of God’s love as revealed in Jesus Christ it is important to answer Muslim arguments against the Bible, even when they are poor and irrelevant to the real issues between us. It is my personal experience that a positive, effective answer to each point patiently argued can go a long way to convincing the Muslim that the message you really want to present needs to be seriously considered. 1.10 The Genealogy of Jesus in the Gospels Muslim: The genealogies of Jesus in the Gospels give very different lines of descent. How do you explain this contradiction? Also, some of the women mentioned among his ancestors were very great sinners – how could the perfectly pure Son of God have been descended from such an impure ancestry? Very often Muslim arguments against the Bible reveal little more than a serious lack of awareness of what Christianity is really all about. In answering these two objections Christians not only have an opportunity to clarify misunderstandings but also to witness to the Muslims who raise them of the saving grace of Jesus Christ. It needs to be emphasised again and again that every Muslim argument against the Bible should be seen as an open door to witness to its essential message. The Two Different Genealogies The Hebrew line of Jesus’ descent is recorded in both Matthew 1:2-16 and Luke 3:23-38. There is no difference between these two records from Abraham to David but thereafter they diverge considerably. Matthew traces the line of Jesus’ genealogy through David’s son Solomon while Luke takes it through his son Nathan. From there on the two accounts are very different. Muslim writers have summarily concluded that they are contradictory and cannot be reconciled. The following points should be raised in reply whenever Muslims raise this issue: 1. Every Child has Two Genealogies It is hardly necessary to say that every man on earth has two lines of ancestry, one through his father and another through his mother. The one obvious thing about the two genealogies in the Gospels is that each is traced to a common source, David, and from there consistently to Abraham. What the two lines reveal, upon a close study of their context in each respective Gospel, is that Joseph, the legal guardian and registered father of Jesus (although not his natural father) was descended from David through Solomon while his mother Mary was descended from the same ancestor through Nathan. Thus there is no contradiction between them. 2. Matthew and Luke Clearly State their Lines of Descent It is not a convenient assumption that these two Gospel writers are recording the paternal and maternal sequences of Jesus’ ancestry respectively. Matthew makes it plain that he is recording the line of Joseph (Matthew 1:16) and throughout the first two chapters of his Gospel we find Joseph to be the central character. Each appearance of the Angel Gabriel recorded here is to Joseph. In Luke’s Gospel, however, Mary is always the central personality and only the appearance of Gabriel to her is mentioned. 3. Luke Deliberately Qualifies his Genealogy Luke himself states specifically that Jesus was the son, "as was supposed", of Joseph (Luke 3:23) and it is in this little expression that the key to Jesus’ genealogy in his Gospel is found. Unlike Matthew he mentions no women in Jesus’ ancestry and, to maintain the general practice of outlining the masculine order only, Luke records Joseph as the supposed father of Jesus. He very carefully qualified Joseph’s role so that it would be clear that he was not recording the genealogy of Jesus through his representative father but rather his actual genealogy through his real mother Mary. The Four Women Named in Matthew’s Genealogy Muslim writers have often tried to discredit the absolute purity of Jesus as the Son of God by referring to the four women Matthew names in his record of Jesus’ ancestry. They are Tamar, who committed incest with her father Judah from which Perez was born as a forefather of Jesus; Rahab, the prostitute and Gentile woman who helped Joshua and the Israelites at the conquest of Jericho; Ruth, the wife of Boaz who was also a Gentile; and Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah who committed adultery with David and from whom Solomon was born. It is obvious that Matthew has deliberately named the very four women who disturbed the genealogy of Jesus by having moral or ethnic defects. He, clearly, did not think he was undermining the dignity of Jesus in doing so. Had there been any stigma attaching to such an ancestry he would assuredly have named some of more famous Hebrew women from whom Jesus was descended like Sarah and Rebecca. Why, therefore, did he specifically name the four women who supposedly unsettled the "purity" of his ancestry? The Apostle gives the answer himself. He records that, when the Angel Gabriel came to Joseph, he said of the child to be born: You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins. Matthew 1:21 It was precisely for people such as incestuous Tamar, Rahab the harlot, Ruth the Gentile and Bathsheba the adulteress that Jesus came into the world. He descended from the holy portals of heaven and took human form in a sinful and decaying world so that he could save his people from their iniquities and make his salvation available to all men and women, Jew and Gentile alike. In another passage recorded in the same Gospel we find Jesus making his purpose very clear: Those who are well have no need of a physician but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice". For I came not to call the righteous but sinners. Matthew 9:12-13 Jesus did not come to set an upright example for pious, religious people to follow. He came, primarily, to save all who turn to him from their sins and to make it possible for them to receive the Holy Spirit so that they might have power to live genuinely holy lives. Here it is obvious how effectively an argument against the Bible can be turned into a very good opportunity for witness. Whenever a Muslim challenges the Bible on a point such as this it is essential that we look not only for ways of refuting the objection but also for openings to share what our faith is really all about. 1.11 Biblical "Pornography" and Obscenities Muslim: How can a book which is supposed to be God’s Holy Word have stories about Judah’s incest, David’s adultery, Hosea’s marriage to a prostitute as well as passages where God speaks in terms that are clearly obscene and pornographic? This line of argument has become increasingly common in recent times. It derives from a Muslim assumption that all the prophets were sinless and that God would never use blunt language to describe the infidelity of his people or, to put it another way, to "call a spade a spade". Let us begin with the first part of the argument.The Supposed Sinlessness of the Prophets The Bible records many stories of moral failure on the part of the prophets and patriarchs of ancient times. Judah committed incest with his daughter Tamar (Genesis 38:12-26) just as Lot had done with both of his daughters some time before (Genesis 19:30-38). David committed adultery with Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite (2 Samuel 11:2-5) and subsequently arranged to have her husband deliberately killed in the forefront of battle (2 Samuel 11:14-21). Other prophets sinned in different ways – Moses murdered an Egyptian, Jacob lied to his father Isaac, and Solomon took wives and concubines from the Egyptians and other Gentile nations. Muslims recoil at such stories as they have been taught that all the prophets, from Adam to Muhammad, were sinless. This teaching, known as the doctrine of isma ("sinlessness"), is not founded on the Qur’an but is derived from orthodox Muslim creeds such as the Fiqh Akbar II of later centuries. It was established to counter the Christian teaching that Jesus alone was without sin. When Muslims raise this argument Christians need to point out that the Qur’an teaches that the prophets also committed sins. Many of them in the Qur’an are recorded as praying for the forgiveness of their sins or were commanded to do so. For example: 1. Abraham. He said of God, the Rabb al-’Alamin ("Lord of the Worlds") that he was the one "who, I hope, will forgive me my sins on the Day of Judgment" (Surah 26:81). Muslim writers try to dilute statements like these, saying he was only praying for protection from mistakes and faults, but the words used here are yaghfira, which is the standard Arabic word for "to forgive", and khati’ati, a strong word plainly meaning "sins" and never mistakes or minor errors. It is so used in another passage which states that the people of Noah’s time were drowned "because of their sins" (Surah 71:25). 2. Moses. The Qur’an confirms that Moses killed one of his enemies but immediately thereafter prayed "O my Lord! I have wronged my soul, so forgive me!" (Surah 28:15-16). Allah duly did so because he is Al-Ghafur, the "Forgiving One". 3. David. The story of his adultery is not repeated in the Qur’an but the challenge of Nathan to him afterwards (2 Samuel 12:1-15) is in a somewhat varied form. The parable of the man with many flocks and herds who deprived a poor man of his one ewe lamb, used by Nathan to expose David’s wickedness in taking Uriah’s only wife from him while he had many wives of his own, is repeated in a short passage in the Qur’an (Surah 38:21-25). It concludes with a statement that David "asked forgiveness" (fastaghfara) and that Allah duly forgave him (faghafar), the standard word for forgiveness of sin again being used. Muslim writers use all manner of arguments to avoid the implications of such passages, denying that the parable relates to David’s adultery, but not being able to provide an alternative explanation for it (as the Qur’an does not place it in a context as the Bible does). Very significantly, however, Allah then commands David not to "follow your own lust" as others do who will face a grievous punishment (Surah 38:26) on the Day of Reckoning (Yawma’l-Hisab). 4. Muhammad. The Prophet of Islam himself is ordered to "ask forgiveness of your sins" as well as for those of all believing men and women (Surah 47:19), the words used here being wastaghfir lithanbik which are exactly the same words used when Zulaykah (the Muslim name for Potiphar’s wife) is commanded to repent of her desire to seduce Joseph (Surah 12:29). The Bible quite simply does not gloss over the faults of the prophets and its fundamental opinion of all men is that none of them is righteous, that all have gone astray, have sinned against God and turned aside to their own ways (Romans 3:9-18). For this reason Jesus Christ came into the world, the only sinless man who ever lived, so that all might be saved. Once again there is an obvious opportunity here for witness and it is important to point out to Muslims that the Qur’an is much closer to the Bible than they are when it freely concedes the sins of the prophets. Alleged Pornographic Passages in the Bible The second part of the argument presented here is based on passages like the following which certain Muslim writers claim contains obscene and pornographic language: She did not give up her harlotry which she had practised since her days in Egypt; for in her youth men had lain with her and handled her virgin bosom and poured out their lust upon her. Therefore I delivered her into the hands of her lovers, into the hands of the Assyrians upon whom she doted. These uncovered her nakedness; they seized her sons and her daughters; and her they slew with the sword; and she became a byword among women, when judgment had been executed upon her. Ezekiel 23:8-10 The whole chapter is cited as an example of impure language which, it is claimed, is unbecoming of a holy God to use. Another typical passage to which exception is taken is the following: Plead with your mother, plead – for she is not my wife, and I am not her husband – that she put away her harlotry from her face, and her adultery from between her breasts; lest I strip her naked and make her as in the day she was born. Hosea 2:2-3 Both of these passages are illustrative of the extreme anger of God at the unfaithfulness of his people, Israel, towards him. This is why he told Hosea to take a prostitute as his wife because it would symbolise how God felt about his own people. They were constantly turning away from him to false gods and idols and adopted the lewd practices of the nations around them instead of submitting to his holiness. The language God uses in these passages is designed to shock his people into an awareness and consciousness of how defiled they are in his sight. Their behaviour toward him is like that of an adulterous wife who freely gives herself up to other lovers. It required strong, emphatic language to make them realise the ugliness of their foolish ways. On the Day of Judgment God will declare all filthy practices to be precisely what they are – sodomy, sexual perversion, prostitution, lewdness and the like. He will not use nice terms to describe immoral behaviour as some Muslims seem to think he should if he is to be God. He has seen all the perverse passions of the human race and nothing shocks him. He will deal with them for what they are. Muslims must be encouraged to let God be who he is and to speak as he wishes. No one on earth can prescribe to him how he should describe unfaithfulness and infidelity. When a Muslim tells you that such language in the Bible encourages young people to think impure thoughts and creates all sorts of lustful desires you need only to quote the following verse in reply to them: To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted. Titus 1:15 Such impurity is only in the mind of the reader, not in the scripture. It is amazing to hear the Bible – a book which has turned millions away from perverse practices – described as pornographic or obscene. It is Christians, people who believe in the book, who have always been at the forefront of campaigns to ban real pornographic literature. Once again you have here an opportunity to make an impact on Muslims. When they raise such passages ask them if they have read the whole Bible through from cover to cover. Encourage them to do so – and to desist from paying attention only to passages which have to be wrenched totally out of context to be made to appear "obscene" or "pornographic". The Qur’an in Relation to the Bible1.12 The Jewish and Christian Scriptures Muslim: The Qur’an itself confirms that the Bible has been changed. The Old and New Testaments are not the books that were revealed originally to Moses and Jesus. Where are those books today? What you have in your hands is no longer the Word of God. Throughout the world Muslims are taught that the Qur’an accuses the Jews and Christians of having tampered with their scriptures. The charge that the Bible has been changed is one of the greatest falsehoods ever proclaimed in the cause of truth as we have seen already. Yet what is most interesting is to find that the Qur’an, in contrast with the general Muslim attitude, actually speaks very highly of the Jewish and Christian scriptures and positively confirms their authenticity.The Tawraat: The Jewish Scripture The common title for the whole Jewish scripture in the Qur’an is at-Tawraat, "the Law". It is said to be specifically the kitab (book) which was given to Moses (Surah 11:110). Its integrity and existence in the hands of the Jews at the time of Muhammad is confirmed in this verse: How will they make you their judge seeing they have the Tawraat, wherein is Allah’s judgment, then afterwards turn their backs. Surah 5:46 This passage quite plainly teaches that the Jews (specifically named as the people being referred to in Surah 5:44) actually have the Tawraat. The words used in the original Arabic text confirm this. The book is said to be inda hum – "with them". It is quite clear that the Qur’an, in this verse, teaches that the book was in their possession at the time of Muhammad. As the verse speaks of Jews who were actually coming to him for judicial decisions it is obvious that it speaks of Jews who were in the environment of Medina. The passage goes on to describe the Tawraat as a "guidance and light" which the former prophets used to apply the law of God to the Jews, their rabbis and judges (Surah 5:47). Further appeals are made to judge by what has been revealed therein. Throughout their history the Jews of the world have known only one scripture – the books of the Old Testament as we know them today. We have already seen that as far back as the second century before Christ (eight centuries before Muhammad’s time) the Hebrew Old Testament had already been translated into Greek in what is known as the Septuagint. The New Testament scriptures quote from the Old Testament books at length and our earliest extant manuscripts also date centuries before Islam. There can be no doubt, then, that the scripture to which the Qur’an refers can only be the Old Testament. The Qur’an always speaks of the former scriptures with great reverence. It would hardly exhort the Jews to judge by them if they were corrupted and unreliable. Significantly it uses the very word, Tawraat (Torah), which the Jews themselves use to describe the first five books of Moses in the Bible. The Injil: The Christian Scripture The Qur’an once again, when describing the Christian scripture, uses a word with which Christians are very familiar. It calls it al-Injil, "the Gospel", and says it was revealed to Jesus: And following them we sent Jesus the son of Mary confirming what came before him in the Tawraat, and we gave him the Injil in which are guidance and light and confirming what came before him in the Tawraat. Surah 5:49 From this text and other similar passages (Surah 3:3) it is clear that the Qur’an regards the Tawraat and Injil as the sum total of the Jewish and Christian scriptures respectively. Once again we find the Qur’an confirming the existence of the second scripture in the hands of the Christians at Muhammad’s time: Let the people of the Injil judge by what Allah has revealed therein. Surah 5:50 If the book was not intact in their hands, how could the Qur’an exhort the Christians to make their judgments by its guidance and light? It is significant that this text calls the Christians ahlul-Injil, the "People of the Gospel" – a further confirmation of the existence of the book in their hands at the time of Muhammad. Yet, as with the Jews, the Christians have known only one scripture throughout their history – the books of the New Testament as we know it today. In another passage the Qur’an again confirms that the two scriptures were in the possession of the Jews and Christians during Muhammad’s days: Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered prophet, will find him mentioned in the Tawraat and Injil with them. Surah 7:157 Again the Qur’an states that these scriptures are inda hum, Arabic words meaning very specifically "with them". It is obvious that Muhammad never doubted the integrity of the books which the Jews and Christians of his day regarded as their holy scripture. He had no reservations about confirming their integrity. Another passage from the Qur’an emphasises this fact very clearly: Say, O People of the Scripture. You have no ground to stand on unless you stand fast by the Tawraat and the Injil and what has been sent down to you from your Lord. Surah 5:71 How could they stand fast by these scriptures if, firstly, they did not possess them and, secondly, if they were not completely authentic? It is undeniable that the Qur’an teaches that the Jewish and Christian scriptures were intact at the time of Muhammad. In another verse Muhammad is encouraged, if he was in doubt about anything revealed to him, to consult those who had been reading the scriptures before him, namely the Jews and Christians. (Surah 10:94) It is important, in discussion with Muslims, to know these Qur’anic passages which witness to the integrity of the Bible. The Qur’an testifies quite unequivocally to its authority as the revealed Word of God whether Muslims like it or not. In the light of the reverence and respect which their book shows for ours we should not hesitate to challenge Muslims to show the same esteem towards it and to read it for their own hudan and nur – "guidance and light". 1.13 Tahrif – The Allegations of Corruption Muslim: There are a number of passages in the Qur’an which clearly teach that the former scriptures have been changed and corrupted. How can you say that the Qur’an testifies to the integrity of the Christian Bible? There are a number of passages in the Qur’an which, at first sight, do appear to teach that some misrepresentation of the former scriptures did indeed take place. On investigation, however, it is obvious that each one deals with instances where the Ahl al-Kitab (the "People of the Book", viz. Jews and Christians) are accused of misinterpreting the teachings of their holy books. None of these passages ever suggests that the texts of the Tawraat or the Injil themselves ever became corrupted. Let us begin with texts specifically aimed at the spoken word.A Twist of Their Tongues A number of texts invariably quoted by Muslims to prove that the Bible has been changed according to the Qur’an are, on close inspection, found to deal solely with verbal misquotes of the sacred texts and never of the written word itself. A typical example is this verse: From among the Jews there are those who displace words from their places, and say: "We hear and we disobey"; and "Hear what is not heard"; and ra’ina; with a twist of their tongues and an insult to religion. Surah 4:46 This passage is alleged by Muslims to teach that the Jews have removed parts of the original text of their scripture and replaced it with other passages of their own invention. The following points prove otherwise: 1. The Twists were purely Verbal The charge in this verse is solely one of verbally changing the true meaning of words. "They twist with their tongues", the text says. There is no allegation of tampering with or changing the actual written text. A similar charge against the Jews of "changing words from their places" appears again in Surah 5:44 where, as in Surah 4:46, actual quotations of sayings of the Jews are mentioned to show how they did this. 2. The Charge is Against Discourses of Jews of Muhammad’s Time The word ra’ina in Surah 4:46 is an Arabic word meaning "Please attend to us" but, with a subtle twist, can be turned into an insult. As the original Jewish scriptures were in Hebrew it is obvious that the Qur’an is referring to Jews of Muhammad’s own time who conversed with Arabs in Arabic. Once again it is obvious it is the conversation of Jews, where they subtly played on words, that is the issue here, not an alteration of their actual scriptures.A Verbal Misrepresentation Another typical verse which has been raised as a supposed proof that Jews and Christians have changed their original scriptures is this one: Do you hope that they will believe you while a party of them heard the word of God and consciously perverted it after they had understood it? Surah 2:75 Here again there are a number of points that show that this verse is concerned only with verbal misrepresentation and not with an actual change in the text of the early scriptures. 1. The Opinion of Great Muslim Scholars Both the great early Muslim scholars Razi and Baidawi taught that this passage deals only with what they called tahrifi-manawi, corruption of the meaning of the word of God, and not tahrifi-lafzi, an alteration of the actual scripture itself. Nowhere does the Qur’an teach that either the Jews or the Christians engaged in a tahrif (corruption) of their holy books and such a charge was never levelled against them in the early centuries of Islam. 2. The Spoken Word of Allah In this verse the Qur’an expressly states that it was the kalam of Allah that was being perverted. This is the spoken word which they "heard" as the verse clearly states. It was not the kitab, the written book, that was being changed. When referring to the Jewish and the Christian scriptures the Qur’an always refers to them as the kitab of Allah. Here it is solely a preached message that is in issue. 3. The Word is the Word Preached by Muhammad It is obvious that it was the preaching of the Qur’an that was being misrepresented. A group of people who had heard it preached by Muhammad are said to have perverted it afterwards – how, then, could he hope that they would believe him? It requires a fair stretch of the imagination to turn this into a proof of a corruption of the written text of the Bible! 4. Only a Party of His Hearers Perverted It It is obviously only a group of Jews from Muhammad’s own time who are being charged with misrepresenting his message. The very next verse accuses them of claiming to believe when they meet with Muslims only to privately work out afterwards how to twist the message. Once again it is obvious that this verse does not even remotely deal with any supposed corruption of the Jewish and Christian scriptures. Verbally Twisting the Word of God Another very similar passage used by Muslim writers as a proof that the Bible has been changed according to the Qur’an but which deals solely with verbal distortions is this one: There is a party of them who twist the Book with their tongues to make you think it is part of the Book, while it is not from the Book, and they say it is from Allah when it is not from Allah, and they consciously lie against Allah. Surah 3:78 It is quite obvious, once again, that the charge is not one of actually corrupting the text of the Bible. The word used to describe what has taken place are yaluwnal-sinatahum meaning very simply "tongue twisting". The use of the Arabic word lisan (tongue) shows clearly that it is only a verbal misrepresentation that is in issue. The issue is purely one of quoting non-Biblical passages as if they were in fact part of the Bible. Other Passages Relating to the Charge of Tahrif There are a few other texts Muslims use to further their arguments against the integrity of the Bible. One which they think really supports their cause is this one: Then woe to those who write the scripture with their own hands and then say: "This is from Allah" to sell it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands write! And woe for what they gain thereby! Surah 2:79 This time there is a clear statement about actually writing a text purporting to be scripture for resale and profit. It is only small portions of passages compiled by an unnamed group of people that is referred to, however, and yet again there is no charge that the Bible itself was being changed. The original Tawraat and Injil are always spoken of with great reverence and there is not a hint here that these books themselves were being altered. It is other writings that are mentioned. Furthermore the text is too vague, like many of the others, to determine exactly what is being dealt with here. There is no statement as to what was being written, who was actually doing it or precisely when it occurred. The last verse we need to consider which is often quoted by Muslims to show that the Qur’an teaches that the Bible has been changed is this one: O People of the Book! Why do clothe the truth with falsehood and conceal the truth when you know otherwise? Surah 3:71 Yet again, however, it is a general charge of misrepresentation of the truth and in no way can be said to teach that the Bible itself has been changed. The actual scriptures of the Jews and Christians are not even mentioned. It is no wonder that early Muslim scholars only claimed that the Qur’an taught that the tahrif of which it speaks was solely of the meaning and teaching of the scriptures, never of the text itself. Muslims who claim otherwise are consciously "clothing the truth with falsehood" themselves and it is perhaps they who "conceal the truth" when they likewise know otherwise! 1.14 The Tawraat, Injil and Qur’an Muslim: The Bible you have today is not the original Tawraat and Injil which were revealed to Moses and Jesus respectively. You have the books of Paul and other writers but not the Word of God. Where are the original Tawraat and Injil? There are no historical evidences whatsoever that books revealed to Moses and Jesus, in the form of the Qur’an, ever existed. Not so much as a page can be found anywhere to support the Muslim claim that these were the original scriptures. This is all the more strange in the light of the Muslim belief that the Qur’an has been perfectly preserved, dot for dot and letter for letter, in its original form. If Allah could so preserve one book, why could he not preserve even so much as a shred of evidence that the other two actually existed? This teaching of the Qur’an has no support at all in the factual records of human history. The Nature of the Tawraat and Injil The Qur’an, in addition to stating that these two books were actually sent down to Moses and Jesus, also teaches that they were very similar to the Qur’an: He has sent down to you the Scripture (al-Kitab) with truth, confirming what came before it, and he sent down the Law (at-Tawraat) and the Gospel (al-Injil) before it, a guidance to mankind. Surah 3:3 As we have seen the Qur’an is quite correct in dividing the book of the Jews and Christians into two sections even though it often refers to both books collectively as al-Kitab (the Book) and followers of both religions as Ahl al-Kitab (People of the Book). We have also observed very clearly that the Qur’an freely recognises the scriptures that were in the possession of the Jews and Christians of Muhammad’s day as the actual, unchanged Tawraat and Injil respectively. The problem for the Muslims is that the only two books the Jews and Christians have ever known as their holy scripture are the Old and New Testaments respectively. They are very similar in form and style to each other and the latter consistently quotes from the former. Each contains narrative works, prophetic material, quotations from prophets and apostles, the actual words of God and instructive teaching. Neither, however, is remotely like the Qur’an. Muslims spend much time trying to discredit the Bible or prove it has been changed without, perhaps, tackling the key issue. As our two books are so different to any Tawraat and Injil in the form the Qur’an presupposes them to have been, the real task before them is to produce the original books or at least some evidence of their former state. Until they do so it can only be presumed that such books never existed. In turn Muslims will argue that as the Qur’an is the Word of God its statements are the only evidence needed to prove their original existence. On the contrary the absolute silence of history on what would have been the most important books ever to have been handed down militates against the supposed divine origin of the Qur’an. The logical conclusion is that Muhammad knew there had been two former scriptures and that the Jews and Christians had them in their hands and read them daily. He had no reason to doubt their authenticity but wrongly assumed that they were in the form of his Qur’an. More than once Muslims have said to me "Where are the original Tawraat and Injil? Produce them for us to see". My response has always been very emphatic: "No, you produce them! It is your book that alleges their existence, not ours. We have no interest in such books and do not believe they were ever revealed. The obligation rests on you to present them to us so that we may examine them". The Law and the Gospel Once again, however, the issue is not one of point-scoring off Muslims. Our ultimate aim is to witness to the grace of God as it has been revealed to us in Jesus Christ and, whenever Muslims raise the issue of the former scriptures, it is an opportunity to ask the quite simply what the titles Tawraat and Injil actually mean. Every Muslim translation of the Qur’an translates these two words "Law" and "Gospel" respectively. What, it might be asked, were they? Why was the Law revealed to Moses and what was the Gospel that came through Jesus? Here is an opportunity to show how no man can be saved by the Law and why salvation is purely by the grace of God in Jesus Christ. This verse sums up the contrast: For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. John 1:17 Throughout his Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians, Paul concentrates on the fact that sin has caused such a devastating breach between God and men that the Law, as revealed to Moses, could not save anybody. The Israelites in the wilderness rejected it entirely by making a golden calf and breaking virtually every one of the ten commandments in one fell swoop through dancing and partying – a bold way of saying to God "We will not obey your laws". Deep within the human heart there is an instinctive resistance to the holy laws of God. Often I have asked Muslims very simply "Is sin acceptable to God or not? Can it be justified in any way?" The answer has always been "No", to which I have responded "Then why don’t you, upon waking tomorrow morning, pledge to God that you will never sin again for the rest of your life?" The response to that has never been quite so emphatic! Muslims know sin dwells deep within them no matter how much Islam may teach them it is only a choice to do a wrong deed as opposed to an equal choice to do right instead. Much can be achieved by showing them that, although sinful man cannot reach up to God, in his kindness and mercy God reached down to us in his Son Jesus Christ. For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16 That is the Gospel, that is what the expression Injil means. So likewise the very name Jesus means "God is our Saviour" (cf. Matthew 1:15). Let the Muslim know precisely what the Good News (the meaning of "Gospel") of God’s salvation really is. Whenever a Muslim questions you as to the whereabouts of the original Injil, tell him it is everywhere! When he asks you to produce it, share the good news of the true Gospel with him. Ask him in return what the Arabic expression means and why it is always used in conjunction with the person of Jesus in Islam. Once again be aware of how Muslim arguments can be transformed into wonderful opportunities to witness effectively to them. 1.15 The Old and New Testaments in the Bible Muslim: No matter what you say we are satisfied that the Old and New Testaments are not the true Word of God. At some time in the centuries before Islam they must have been corrupted. Muslims have always unanimously held this view. There are a few points in conclusion that Christians should master to counter the Muslim arguments against the integrity of the Bible. Prophecies to Jesus in the Old Testament Although the Old Testament is the Jewish Scripture and was completed some centuries before Jesus Christ came to earth, it contains numerous prophecies to Jesus, especially the following two essential features of Christian belief and New Testament teaching: 1. The Deity of Jesus Christ This is foretold in 1 Chronicles 17:13, Psalms 2:7, Psalms 89:26-27, Isaiah 9:6 and many other passages of the Old Testament. The Jews could never have allowed the Christians to interpolate such teachings into their holy scripture. 2. The Crucifixion and Atonement The actual event of the crucifixion of Jesus is clearly foretold in Psalms 22:1-21 and Psalms 69:1-29 while the atonement is also set out in Isaiah 52:13-15; Isaiah 53:1-12 as well as in other Old Testament passages. This is once again a strong testimony to the integrity of the book for the Jews would surely have replaced these texts first if they had corrupted their scripture at any time. Who Corrupted the Former Scriptures? The Muslims have never been able to produce so much as an iota of historical evidence to show who actually corrupted the scriptures and when this took place. It needs to be remembered that the Christian world has freely accepted the Old Testament of the Jews as the unchanged Word of God together with the New Testament. We do not believe that God ever allowed any portion of his Word to be changed. All of it has been preserved intact, not just one portion of it as Muslims believe. As we have seen the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament into Greek was done two centuries before the time of Jesus Christ. It is completely consistent with the oldest Hebrew texts and there can be no doubt that the Old Testament today is the scripture held sacred by the Jews before the times of both Jesus and Muhammad. Yet this same book contains prophecies of both the divinity and crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the two New Testament teachings that the Qur’an so strongly denies. Judaism and Christianity are very different, at times strongly opposing religions. Both religions have had their own internal divisions. Are we to seriously believe that, at some unknown point in history, they all came together to change their scriptures by complete agreement? Such an event could hardly have gone undocumented, let alone the possibility of such an improbable conspiracy. Had representatives of even one of the two major religions decided unanimously to pervert the Old Testament, they could never have persuaded the other to do likewise. There is quite simply no logic, evidence or reason in the Muslim contention that the Bible has been changed. It is one of the great illusions of history. Early Muslim Scholars and the Bible It is very significant that, in the early centuries of Islam, the authenticity of the Old and New Testaments was freely acknowledged and their identity as the Tawraat and Injil of the Qur’an was never disputed. Even though the Bible did not take the form of the Qur’an Muslim scholars accepted it, partly because they knew the Jews and Christians had known no other scripture and partly because the book is an awesome record of God’s dealings with his people from Adam to Jesus Christ. After all, if the Bible does not contain the original books, where did it come from? Why would the Jews and the Christians over so many centuries forge a book of such holy teachings in defiance of the very books of God if they had them in their hands? The attitudes of some of the great Muslim scholars of the earlier centuries of Islam can be contrasted with the prejudicial arguments set forth in modern Muslim publications. 1. Ali Tabari He was a well-known physician at the court of the Abbasid Caliph Mutawakkil about two hundred and fifty years after Muhammad’s death and wrote a defence of the Prophet of Islam including a study of numerous Biblical prophecies which he believed all referred to him. He freely taught that the first book which came into existence was the Tawraat of the Jews and that it was in their possession. He taught the same about the Injil which he likewise conceded was in the hands of the Christians. When speaking of their contents, however, he outlined the contents of the Old and New Testaments respectively. 2. Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali He is one of the most original thinkers the Muslim world has ever known and is generally regarded as its greatest theologian. He wrote a long exposition on the Trinity and, although he lived some five centuries after Muhammad when other radical scholars such as Ibn Hazm were attacking the integrity of the Bible text, he also freely accepted its authenticity. He argued only that the Christians had misinterpreted their scriptures. He died in the year 1111 AD. 3. Fakhruddin Razi Another great and famous theologian, he lived a hundred years after al-Ghazzali and died in 1209 AD. He was quite emphatic about the Biblical text – that it had not been changed and that the teaching and narratives of the Qur’an were perfectly consistent with those of the Bible. These great scholars only perpetuated the position the Qur’an itself takes on the former scriptures – that they are the authentic Word of God and have not been changed. It is important for Christians to know these facts in response to the relentless challenge one experiences these days from Muslim writers who do all they can to undermine the genuineness of the Bible. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 14: 02.03. CHAPTER TWO THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY ======================================================================== Chapter Two The Doctrine of the Trinity The Christian Doctrine of God 2.1 Biblical Origins of the Trinitarian Doctrine Muslim: The Bible nowhere teaches that God is a Trinity. The word "trinity" does not appear in the book. Jews believed in one God while Greeks and Romans believed in many gods. The Church invented the three gods in one theory to placate them both. The doctrine of the Trinity is one of the great divisive issues between Christians and Muslims. The latter believe it strikes at the very heart of God’s absolute oneness which is one of the fundamental themes of the Qur’an. Muslims believe that any attempt to attribute partners to Allah is shirk ("associating"), the greatest of all sins and the only one which cannot be forgiven: Truly Allah will not forgive any associating with him but will forgive anything else to whomever he pleases. For whoever associates (shirk) with Allah verily commits a great sin. Surah 4:48 The Christian doctrine is viewed as precisely that – an association of Jesus with God together with the Holy Spirit. For Allah to beget a Son is presumed by Muslims to be the ultimate expression of unbelief. From childhood all Muslims are taught this particular Surah by heart, already quoted in this book, and regarded as one of the greatest in the Qur’an, indeed as equivalent to one-third of the whole book: Say, He is Allah, the One, Allah the Eternal One. He does not beget, nor is he begotten, and like unto him there is not one. Surah 112:1-4 In witness with Muslims you will soon find that, on the one hand, Muslims will strenuously deny any possibility of God being Triune while, on the other, they will vociferously attack the doctrine which they presume to be the weakest point of Christian belief. After all, how can three persons exist in one God? When Christ died, did God die? Did all three persons expire on the cross? They must have if they were one, Muslims will argue. They will also, as the argument cited above does, claim in any event that the Trinity is not found in the Bible. Let us begin by examining clear proofs that the doctrine is firmly founded on the Bible. The Deity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit With Muslims it is necessary to emphasize the nature of the Triune God as he is revealed in the Bible – Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Let us consider each one in turn. 1. God the Father This is the commonest name for God in the New Testament – the Father – although it is rarely found as a description for God in any other religion and never in Islam. Jesus always spoke of God in heaven as "my Father" (Matthew 18:11), "your Father" (Luke 12:32), "the Father" (John 14:12) and when praying simply addressed him as "Father" (John 11:41). The important point here is that God is spoken of in relational terms. He is not just the sovereign ruler of the universe, he has a definite relationship within his divine being beyond his own individual personality. 2. God the Son It is with a second personality – the Son – that he enjoys his primary relationship. This second person became the man Jesus Christ. He always spoke of himself as the Son of the Father in absolute and exclusive terms. No one knows the Son but the Father and no one knows the Father but the Son (Matthew 11:27). Whoever does not honour the Son does not honour the Father who sent him (John 4:23). He came from the Father into the world, he was to leave it and return to the Father (John 16:28). It is important, when discussing the Trinity with Muslims, to emphasize such texts to show the divine relationship between the Father and the Son which no other human being enjoys on such exclusive terms. 3. God the Holy Spirit Throughout the New Testament a third personality constantly appears – the Holy Spirit – and he enjoys an obviously intimate relationship with both the Father and the Son at their divine level. He would be sent by the Son from the Father, he proceeds from the Father, and he bears witness to the Son (John 15:26). The Father would send him in the Son’s name and he would bring to remembrance all that the Son had taught his disciples (John 14:26). All these quotations are from Jesus Christ himself, the great Word of the Father who was in the beginning, was with God, and is God (John 1:1). He is constantly called the Son of God in the Bible, by no less than the Father himself who twice spoke from heaven and declared "This is my beloved Son" (Matthew 4:17; Matthew 17:5). Biblical Trinitarian Statements There are a number of statements in the Bible which speak of all three persons of the Trinity in one breath. We will consider three that can effectively be quoted in discussion with Muslims on this subject. 1. Matthew 28:19 : The Father, Son and Holy Spirit In this passage Jesus Christ himself commands his disciples to make further disciples throughout the world, "baptising them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit". It is very significant that Jesus spoke of the name of all three, using the singular to denote an absolute unity between them. Likewise the word "name" in the Bible is often used to define something about a person, for example Mosheh (Moses) who was so-called because he was drawn out (mashah) of the water. In Matthew 28:19 Jesus used the word to express the common nature of the three persons, saying in effect "baptising them into the one essence of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit". 2. 2 Corinthians 13:14 : The Triune blessing Paul concludes this letter by commending the Corinthian Christians to the grace of the Son, the love of the Father and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. Once again each person of the Trinity is cited in union with the other two and it is a benediction and communion of overall divine goodwill which is commended to them. 3. Ephesians 2:18.Access to the Eternal Father Paul again mentions all three persons of the Trinity together in a statement of common purpose and divine union. In Jesus Christ the Son both Jewish and Gentile believers have access through the same Holy Spirit to the Father. Once again the unity between the three persons cannot be missed and the emphasis, yet again, on the divine realm in which they relate to each other. In Matthew 28:19 it is a common divine nature, in 2 Corinthians 13:14 a common divine blessing, and here a common divine accessibility that are presented to the reader. There are numerous other proofs of the Trinity throughout the Bible. Even in the Old Testament the second person is often mentioned as the Son to the Father as we have seen in the last chapter while the Holy Spirit is often spoken of as God’s direct agent and his own spirit (Genesis 1:2, Psalms 51:11). It is essential, in witness with Muslims, to show that the Church did not invent the Trinity or adapt its belief about God to prevailing monotheistic or polytheistic beliefs, but obtained it directly from the teaching of its original scripture, the Bible. It is also useful to point out that it was the coming of Jesus Christ into the world that opened up the revelation of God as a triune being. Before him the Old Testament generally spoke of God as Yahweh, the Lord God of Israel, but when Jesus began to teach he frequently spoke of God as the Father, himself as the Son and of the coming of the Holy Spirit in such terms as to leave no doubt that all three shared the realm of the divine glory, that they shared a common nature, essence and purpose, and that there was an absolute unity between them. The New Testament, in consequence, focuses consistently on each of the three persons in the divine Trinity as the sphere in which Christian believers can come to know God (the Father), be forgiven by him (through his Son Jesus Christ) and enjoy his divine presence (in the Holy Spirit). All references to Yahweh disappear in the light of the intimate unity which all believers enjoy with God now more fully revealed in his true nature and triune personality. 2.2 The Incomprehensible Nature of God Muslim: The concept of God is very easy to understand in Islam but your Christian doctrine of the Trinity defies reason. Even if you were to write a thousand books you could never fully explain it. Yet our doctrine can easily be placed on a postage stamp: Huwallaahu ahad – He is Allah the One. Muslims sincerely find it very hard to understand how God can be triune and, in explaining the doctrine, Christians are often likely to confuse themselves as much as the Muslims! It is not a simple concept as we should freely concede. Nonetheless its complexity is not an argument against its tenability, if anything it is the strongest point in its favour. After all, we are dealing with the nature of the eternal God of the Universe. He is greater than the heavens and the earth – would it be surprising to us, who are merely mortal, finite creatures, to find that his basic character is incomprehensible? As the Bible itself says: Can you find out the deep things of God? Can you find out the limit of the Almighty? It is higher than heaven – what can you do? Deeper than Sheol – what can you know? Job 11:7-8 Muslims claim that Islam’s concept of God can very easily be comprehended and is therefore more acceptable than what Christians admit is an incomprehensible doctrine. One cannot help asking whether a concept of God that can easily be understood in the human mind was not perhaps conceived there in the first place. As Kenneth Cragg has said, a doctrine of God does not commend itself by its ability to be reduced to a statement on a postage stamp. We are not dealing with simplicity here. The Muslim writer Afif Tabbarah is more to the point when he says that the Almighty God is much dissimilar to his creatures and more sublime than simple minds can imagine. Searching Out the Knowledge of God The doctrine of the Trinity is not contrary to reason. Quite simply it is above the realms of finite human reasoning. It requires a different approach to come to terms with it. A rational, analytic study of its tenets will yield little of substance. The Apostle Paul once said: Why is it thought incredible by any of you that God raises the dead? Acts 26:8 Paul, addressing King Agrippa and other members of his court, made no attempt to rationally explain how the dead can be raised back to life. All scientific studies of the world of nature will never be able to give a rational explanation of how this can be possible. The issue here is one of faith. All Muslims, on faith alone, will concede the resurrection of the dead to life. Why then, we may ask, is it thought incredible by any of them that the Almighty God who rules this universe is incomprehensible in his infinite and eternal nature? The New Testament is far more concerned about our relationship with God than our understanding of his nature. What we know about God is not nearly as important as the need to actually know God. The pursuit of his holiness, the forgiveness of our sins and the assurance of eternal life are the concerns of the Christian scriptures. As Paul says, we have come to know God or, rather, to be known of God (Galatians 4:9). It is through the revelation of God in his eternal triune nature, especially as revealed to us in Jesus Christ who is the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15) in whom the whole fulness of God dwelt bodily (Colossians 2:9), that we have come to know God and to be known of him. Muslims need to be told that what is most important is that we should be right with God, approved of him, loved and forgiven, rather than that we should we able to understand or comprehend his nature. God wants to be loved and obeyed, not studied or analysed. The Trinity: A Divine Revelation It is important also to point out to Muslims that although the mainline Roman Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox churches have differed on many subjects, they have never even remotely argued over the doctrine of the Trinity including its finer details. The reason is simply that the Church never created this doctrine, it discerned it from a study of the revelation of God in the holy scriptures. It is the only doctrine of God that can be formulated from an objective study of the books of the New Testament. The Council of Nicaea in 325 AD finally defined the Trinitarian doctrine. The term Trinity was first proposed by Tertullian, the great early African Christian scholar. Muslims often fasten on this as a proof that the doctrine is an invention of the Church some centuries after Christ. Crudely put, some Muslims argue that God had always been a unitarian being until the third century when the Church turned him into a Trinity. I can suggest a very useful line of argument that I have found to be very effective in getting past this objection. For centuries all mankind believed that the earth was flat and that the sun, planets and stars revolved around it. A few centuries ago Galileo, Copernicus and other astronomers began proclaiming that in fact the earth is round, is suspended in space, and is revolving around the sun. The theory was denounced (most prominently by the Church!) for the simple reason that throughout history it was common knowledge that the earth was flat and, in any event, common sense could tell anyone that this planet was not moving and that the sky was rotating around us. The idea that we are circling at more than one thousand miles an hour on our own axis daily, are revolving around the sun at tens of thousands of miles an hour, and are spinning through the universe at even phenomenally greater speeds, was to the minds of people of those days entirely irrational. It is only because we have scientific proof that we accept the theory today but it is still very hard to comprehend. God’s nature, however, cannot be scientifically proved. He may, however, turn out to be very opposite to what people naturally would expect just as the planetary system has done. Yet the Church discerned the Triune nature of God some fourteen centuries before the truth about our universe was discovered. Why? Simply because God revealed his true nature to us in the scriptures. The Church did not turn God into a Trinity – he was so from all eternity. Some Muslims argue that the Trinity cannot be mathematically proved. After all, 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, they argue. There is no way they can be made to be one. Yet even mathematics uses an independent symbol, ∞, to define infinity, simply because it cannot be multiplied, divided, added to or subtracted from by ordinary numerals. So too the infinite God cannot be comprehended in finite terms and our mathematics are a quite inadequate standard for determining eternal realities! Christianity makes no attempt to present a comprehensible God to the world. Its aim is to reveal a knowable God – the Father who loves his own children, the Son who died to redeem them, and the Holy Spirit who renews and sanctifies them. Man’s goal is to get to heaven and to be with God – not to able to plot heaven on a map or produce a concept of God that can be easily comprehended, analysed or reduced to a statement on a postage stamp. 2.3 The Unity of God: The Basis of the Trinity Muslim: The truth is that Christians in fact worship three gods and are guilty of shirk. The Bible emphasises the fact that God is one God. Your doctrine is inconsistent with your own scripture. You cannot put three personalities into one God. It is intriguing to find Muslims arguing that the Bible emphatically teaches that God is one as if this undermined the Trinity doctrine. The Old Testament declares that "the Lord is God on heaven above and on earth beneath – there is no other" (Deuteronomy 4:39) while the New Testament likewise states "The Lord our God is one Lord" (Mark 12:29) and that "God is one" (Romans 3:30, Galatians 3:20). It is useful in conversation with Muslims on the Trinity, nevertheless, to quote these texts to establish the point from the outset that the unity of God is as much a fundamental teaching of the whole Bible as it is in the Qur’an. The issue is the complex nature of this unity in the Biblical doctrine of the Triune God. God: A Tri-Unity, not a Tritheism How can three be one, the Muslim fairly asks? All human beings are distinct creatures and personalities. In no way can three of them become one being with one single nature. Our answer to this has to be to go to the Bible and see how it projects the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 1. 1 John 1:5 : God is Light The Bible focuses on this theme often. God is called the "Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change" (James 1:17). The Son of God, Jesus Christ, also declared "I am the light of the world. He who follows me will not walk in darkness but will have the light of life" (John 8:12) while the New Testament also says of him that he likewise will never change, being the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8). Through the Holy Spirit, furthermore, God shines into our hearts to give "the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ" (2 Corinthians 4:6). There is clearly an absolute unity of essence and purpose between them. 2. John 3:33 : God is True Just as this text declares Truth to be an essential essence of God the Father, so the Son of God could declare "I am the Truth" (John 14:6). Likewise the Holy Spirit is called the "Spirit of Truth" (John 15:26). There is no falsehood in any of them. Once again one discovers that, while human beings may differ in personality and character, there are no such differences between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They are the Truth. 3. 1 John 4:8 : God is Love The New Testament often speaks of the love of the Father (John 16:27) but goes on to say that the love of God was made manifest in the fact that he sent his Son to redeem us from our sins (Romans 5:8, 1 John 4:10). Likewise it states that God’s love has been "poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us" (Romans 5:5). Again we have an absolute unity in essence and purpose between the three persons of the Trinity. Much the same can be said of the life of God. As the Father is the source of all life, so the Son called himself "the Life" (John 11:25; John 14:6) and is called the Author of Life (Acts 3:15). The Holy Spirit is likewise the one through whom God will give eternal life to our mortal bodies (Romans 8:11). In all these texts we can see a divine tri-unity, not three independent personalities. Our doctrine is only held within a definition of God’s unity. Without it the Trinity’s fundamental nature falls away. You quite simply cannot establish the doctrine outside of God’s essential oneness. As Jesus said, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) and this total unity is shared with the Holy Spirit. Early Muslim Reactions to the Trinity It is very interesting to see how early Muslim writers responded to the doctrine of the Trinity. The most important and exhaustive work was a dissertation in the ninth century after Christ by Abu Isa al-Warraq which he titled Ar-Radd ala al-Tathlith ("The Refutation of the Trinity"). Abu Isa wrote purely in response to the Christian theorists of his day. They taught the tri-unity of God in a very technical manner and focused on the Son as the Word and the Spirit as the Life – a poor distinction as Jesus Christ so often spoke of himself as "the Life" as we have seen. Just as modern Christians often use illustrations to define the Trinity (such as the one egg with three parts, its shell, yolk and white), so the Christians of those days also used what in my mind was an inadequate (and often misleading) approach. They tried, from reason, to prove that three separate hypostases could be one being. Abu Isa responded in kind. He followed the principle first stated by the Muslim scholar Al-Kindi, namely that God is a being who is neither multiple or divisible in any way, not by his essence nor by something other than it, and one whose substance likewise cannot be divided or multiplied in any way. While most Muslim writers usually attacked the Christian doctrine from a Qur’anic standpoint, namely that Allah could not have a Son, has no partners, and that Jesus was only a messenger, Abu Isa took the doctrine at face value. He made himself well acquainted with it. He argued that if the hypostases are the substance, and the substance is one and undifferentiated while the hypostases are three, then the Christians have made what is differentiated not differentiated. Again, he argued, if the substance is identical to the hypostases, the one must be the other. There cannot be three of one and one of the other. If they are distinct, the substance is a fourth. Abu Isa based his arguments on the popular rational theories of his day, one of which was that human reason is always the sole criterion of judgment and that prophets must speak within its dictates. You can see what happens when Christians try to prove the Trinity by analytical reasoning and on finite principles. Once again I must emphasise the point made in the introduction to this book – be Biblical and not doctrinal, rational or illustrative in your answers. Our response to the Muslim is that our doctrine is the product of divine revelation and cannot be judged by finite human reasoning. We respond to what God has revealed about himself because, as Carl Pfander said, human reason cannot grasp the eternal being. Its dim torch must give way to the bright sunrise of truth. 2.4 Does the Doctrine have Pagan Origins? Muslim: Your doctrine is founded on contemporary pagan religions which all had their own trinities of gods long before Christianity came into being. The Egyptians, Hindus, Romans and Greeks all had triads of deities in which they believed. The Muslim tendency to overlook the essential unity of the Triune God and to regard the Christian faith as tritheistic leads to charges that the doctrine has parallels in ancient pagan religions where a plurality of deities were worshipped. All sorts of examples are proposed in Muslim writings on the subject. Specific Examples of Supposed Parallels All sorts of triads are mentioned in Muslim writings, such as the Greek gods Zeus, Demeter and Apollo, even though there was never any suggestion of an absolute unity between them or any semblance to the actual Biblical Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We will look at two of the commonest examples Muslim writers cite to prove their case. 1. The Egyptian Gods Osiris, Isis and Horus In Muslim publications it is often argued that the Egyptians also had their own trinity of Osiris, Isis and Horus and that these were, as claimed by a Muslim writer, a "kind of trinity of gods" who were supposed to be the Egyptian equivalent of the Trinity. It is once again important, in discussion with Muslims, to emphasise the essential unity of God and the fundamental monotheism of the Christian faith. The very word Trinity embodies a divine unity and only a Muslim can know what he means when he speaks of a "trinity of gods". The very expression is self-contradictory. The mythological family of gods known as Osiris, Isis and Horus constituted a family of father, mother and son – as far from the Christian doctrine of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as you can get. Furthermore they were only three of a multiplicity of Egyptian deities which also included Nun, Atum, Ra, Khefri, Shu, Tefnut, Anhur, Geb, Nut and Set. There were also more than one Horus – Horus the elder, Horus of Edfu, Horus son of Isis, etc. The Egyptians were not trinitarians believing in one Supreme Being who is triune in personality and nature. They worshipped many gods of whom Osiris, Isis and Horus were but three and they did not believe that these three shared an absolute unity. As will be seen these pagan triads are closer to the Qur’anic misconception of the Christian doctrine than they are to the actual doctrine as it is founded on the Bible. 2. The Hindu Trimurti: Brahma, Vishnu and Siva The Hindus have a belief in a Trimurti – a triad of Brahma, Vishnu and Siva. Muslims often claim that the Christian Trinity is founded on this concept as well. An historical analysis of the Hindu theory will soon show, likewise, that there is not even a remote parallel between the two. Brahma is an impersonal deity in Hinduism with no personality, representing everything that exists in a state of perfect nirvana (absorption in a universal state). Vishnu was married to a female deity and Siva is the great god of the Hindu Savites. They have no particular relationship with each other. Hinduism has numerous other deities such as Krishna, Rama, Sita, Ganesh, Hanuman, Kali and others. The Upanishads, Vedas and other ancient Hindu texts taught no such thing as a threefold relationship between Brahma, Vishnu and Siva. The Vedas acknowledged at least thirty-three different deities who were separate gods, often opposed to each other. Most of them were married to Hindu goddesses. The Trimurti concept is only found in late Sanskrit and cannot be dated earlier than the 5th century after Christ – long after the Christian doctrine of the Trinity had been fully established. Muslims are, quite simply, doing all they can to father the Christian belief in a Triune God on all sorts of pagan deities even though there is no similarity between them. The Uniqueness of the Biblical Trinity Muslims who argue that our doctrine has pagan origins will have to produce far better proofs and actual chains of evidences to prove that it is dependent on pagan beliefs. The doctrine of the Trinity is an absolutely unique one which has no parallels in any other religion or philosophy. No one could have invented it and it would never have been discovered had it not been revealed to us in the pages of the New Testament. It originated in a dominantly monotheistic Jewish world and represents a deity entirely consistent with the God of Israel of the Old Testament. When Muslims argue a pagan origin for the Trinity the Christian has a great opportunity to witness very effectively to the glory of God and his great work of salvation for us. The unique feature of our doctrine is its threefold personality of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The New Testament writers themselves made no effort to define the Christian doctrine of God or to codify or explain it. They simply proclaimed it! It was left to later generations of Christian scholars to interpret their teachings in a clearly defined doctrine. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul and the other New Testament authors were concerned primarily to project the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to Christian believers. The aim was to call forth a response of faith from the heart and to strengthen it. As pointed out already, God does not want to be defined, analysed or conceptualised as much as he wants to be believed, obeyed and implicitly trusted. He cannot be seen, materialised, computerised or reduced to anything that can be finitely determined. He can, however, be known and the issue between Christians and Muslims is not so much one of his identity but rather of what we most urgently need to secure, namely to be forgiven by him, to receive his Spirit, to personally know him, to become his children and to eventually inherit his kingdom. In the next section we will look at the best ways of canvassing the Trinity with Muslims and will see why it is better to use this subject as an opportunity for witness rather than one to be argued or proved. 2.5 The Father, Son and Holy Spirit Muslim: The Qur’an teaches that man’s highest honour is to be a servant of Allah who is our Lord and Master. What is required is that we should obey his laws and believe in the Last Day when we hope he will forgive us our sins. To a Muslim God’s favour cannot be guaranteed, his forgiveness cannot be assured in this life, and it is not possible to know him or to enter into a personal relationship with him. The Qur’an says: There is no one in the heavens and the earth who can come to the Compassionate except as a servant. Surah 19:93 The word used for servant is abd and earlier in the same surah Jesus is recorded as declaring "I am a servant of Allah" (Surah 19:30) where the same Arabic word is used. According to Islam this is the highest status of any man before Allah – no more than a servant to his divine Master and Judge. Hence Muslims believe that they need to live purely as servants of God, working to earn his favour and hoping for his good pleasure on their lives when the great Day of Resurrection comes. Here the Christian has a glorious field to proclaim the Trinity in such a way as to set forth a much greater hope and more glorious God. The Father: God For Us According to the Hadith records of Islam Allah has ninety-nine "beautiful names" (al-asma’ ul husna) which are his attributes. Whoever recites them can expect to enter into Paradise (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, p. 1410). The first thirteen occur in order in Surah 59:22-24 and begin as follows: Ar-Rahman (The Compassionate), Ar-Rahim (The Merciful), Al-Malik (The Sovereign), Al-Quddus (The Holy), etc. According to Sufi Muslims Allah has a hundredth name which has been revealed only to the great Sufi masters of history. I have often suggested to Muslims that, if a name is missing from the hundred names of Allah, it is not the hundredth but rather the first, the commonest title for God in the New Testament – the Father. It is most significant to find that God is nowhere called Father in the Qur’an or any other work of early Islamic literature. The point is, logically, that if the greatest role men can have towards God is solely to be his servants as the Qur’an teaches, then he can only be their Master (Al-Malik). The Qur’an quite simply does not allow for the possibility that we can become children – in fact it states the opposite quite emphatically (Surah 6:100). When Jesus began to preach, however, he consistently taught that God is the Father of all true believers. This title, given to the first person of the Trinity, tells us that God is for us. If he has become our Father, then we are no longer just slaves and servants of God but his children. It is very useful to compare the roles of a servant and a child with Muslims in conversation. A servant has to earn his keep every day. His master does not necessarily have any affection for him, he only expects him to do his duty. The servant can be dismissed if he does not perform his task properly. He likewise will live outside his master’s home in his own quarters. A child, however, knows he is loved by his father and that he will never be dismissed from his father’s home. He does not have to earn his place, he has it by right. He lives in his father’s home in his own room. He experiences a freedom a servant never has because he knows his father is for him. So it is with true Christians who know God’s love personally. See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. 1 John 3:1 Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Luke 12:32 It is only by knowing God as Father that the fulness of his love can truly be known and that believers, as his children, can be assured of his goodwill towards them and their place in the coming kingdom. God the Son: God With Us Jesus Christ constantly not only called himself the Son of God but also assured his disciples that, through faith in him, they too could become children of God. It is in the willingness of Jesus to lay down his life for us that we see the love of God actually revealed to us. Here, too, is God with us. By taking human form the Son, the Second person of the Trinity, also brought God and man together in a new and unique way. I have often asked Muslims what the greatest act of Allah’s love towards them has ever been and have received a variety of answers. Has he, however, ever given of himself to reveal his love for them in the same way that Abraham did when he was prepared to sacrifice his own son as the supreme test of his love for God? Islam has no positive answer to this question. Only in the revelation of the Triune God can you find such a perfect display of love. It is summed up in these words: In this is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation of our sins. 1 John 4:10 God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Romans 5:8 In Jesus we can be assured of the forgiveness of our sins and are able to behold just how great God’s love is for us. Muslims do not know such love. When the Qur’an speaks of the love of God and calls him the Al-Wadud – the Loving One (Surah 85:14), it means (according to Muslim scholars) only that he expresses approval over those who follow him. It does not mean that he has any personal feelings towards them or that he is prepared to make any sacrifice to show his love towards mankind. In my experience there are numerous Muslims who warm freely to the Christian revelation of God’s love in Christ. Human beings are capable of expressing the greatest acts of sacrificial love towards those they cherish and many Muslims long to know God in the same way and actually be assured of his eternal favour and personal love towards them. In Jesus Christ alone they can find it, the very one who fulfilled his own saying that no greater love can a man have for his friends than to lay down his life for them (John 15:13). It is our most powerful point of witness. God the Holy Spirit: God In Us It is in the third person of the Trinity that God’s love can not only be known, seen but also actually personally experienced. Jesus spoke often of the need to receive him – the Holy Spirit. It is not just some special force or divine power, he is the very Spirit of God and, when he indwells anyone, in a unique way (true only of believers) God himself actually lives in that person. Here we see the third great effect of the revelation of the Triune God – God in us. No wonder the New Testament writers made no effort to define the Trinity or explain it. To know God, to be assured that he is for us, with us and in us, is all that we need to know to fully relate to him. The Spirit gives believers power to live according to God’s holy laws but, more than this, he gives a living experience of God’s presence in us. God sent forth his Son so that we might become his children but, because we are children, he also sends his Spirit into our hearts so that we may actually be able to cry out "Abba! Father!" (Galatians 4:4-6). When we cry, "Abba! Father!", it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirits that we are children of God. Romans 8:15-16 Hope does not disappoint us because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us. Romans 5:5 I have found an illustration very helpful at this point. A couple may decide to adopt an orphan and will go through a legal process to officially confirm the adoption. The child will still not know he has parents and a home but when his new father and mother take him to their own home, show him his room and tell him that the house is his also, thereafter embracing him affectionately, he will know he is no longer an orphan and will personally experience their love for him. This what happens when the Holy Spirit enters our hearts. There is no better way to explain the Trinity to a Muslim than to show him this threefold revelation of God’s love for us – a revelation that stops at nothing less than perfection itself. It is only in the Triune God that such love could ever be, or has ever been, shown in all its fulness. In the introduction to this book I said that Christians must be Biblical in their witness and nowhere does this apply more importantly than to the subject of the Trinity. Do not let Muslims weigh you down with arguments against the logical reasonableness of the doctrine, nor try to make your point through defective three-in-one illustrations. Use the opportunity to show them that the Triune personality of God was only finally revealed when Jesus Christ came to earth and spoke freely of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It was only when the time had fully come for God’s love to be completely expressed in Christ that the true nature of God’s whole being was imparted to us and this is why the New Testament writers focused on this theme and no other when dealing with the Trinity. We will do well to do likewise in our witness to Muslims. 2.6 The Qur’an and the Christian Doctrine Muslim: The Qur’an denies the Trinity expressly. God is only one God – not three as you believe. It is a great blasphemy to say that Allah has any partners. Everything in the heavens and the earth gives glory to him alone. The great cause of Muslim misconceptions about the Trinity is the complete misrepresentation of it in the Qur’an. The word "Trinity" also nowhere occurs in this book but it is clear that the Qur’an is out to oppose the Christian belief in a threefold divine existence, no matter what form it may take. Nonetheless it does not even begin to address the basic Christian belief in God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit but reacts to a perversion of it possibly derived from sectarian beliefs in and around the Arabian peninsula. The Qur’anic Threesome: Jesus, Mary and Allah The Qur’an quite emphatically rejects the Christian belief as a triad of deities and names them as Jesus, his mother Mary, and Allah – in that order! In three passages this concept is assailed as polytheistic and blasphemous. The first reads as follows: And do not say: Three. Desist – it is better for you! Truly Allah is only One. Glorified be he above taking a son to himself. Surah 4:171 The word used here for "three" is thalathah, a common Qur’anic word appearing nineteen times in the book. It always means "three" and cannot be translated or rendered "Trinity". The command not to speak of Allah as a threesome is contained in a passage exhorting Christians generally not to exaggerate in their religion. By contrasting the oneness of God with the threefold Christian deity it is clear that the Qur’an is unaware of the essential unity of the Christian doctrine of God. In another passage the Qur’an actually identifies the three different deities which Christians supposedly worship. Interestingly all three passages which deal with this subject come from the very last portions of the Qur’an to come to Muhammad and it seems that it was only late in his life that he first heard of a Christian divine threesome without ever having the opportunity to discover precisely what the Trinity represents. The second verse on this subject reads: They speak blasphemy who say that Allah is the third of three. There is indeed no god except the one God. Surah 5:73 The words used in the first sentence to express the "third of three" are thalithu thalathah. Once again there is no specific reference to the Trinity or any awareness that the Christian God is a Triune being. The distinction, yet again, is purely between one and three with no allowance for a threefold unity. A few verses later the Qur’an identifies the other two deities in the triad Christians are supposed to worship: The Messiah son of Mary was only a messenger; messengers before him had passed away. And his mother was upright. They both had to eat food. Surah 5:75 The argument is quite clear. Jesus and his mother Mary were only human beings. Though he was a messenger of Allah others just like him had preceded him. And his mother was no more than a righteous servant of Allah. After all, they both had to eat food to sustain themselves. So how could they be deities along with Allah? The Qur’an has clearly mistaken the Christian doctrine and represented it as a triad of Jesus, Mary and Allah. It is most significant to find Allah described only as the third of these three. In the Christian doctrine of the Triune God the Father at least has first place! There were various sects such as the Nestorians, Monophysites and others in the vicinity of Arabia who had confusing beliefs about God, Jesus and Mary but none of them represented the Trinity as consisting of these three. You can see why Muslims think our beliefs are based on the Egyptian Father-Mother-Son family of Osiris, Isis and Horus. What is most probable is that Muhammad was totally unaware of the actual Triune God of the Christian faith and simplistically confused it with pagan beliefs in a Father-Mother-Son triad. If God was indeed the author of the Qur’an it is hard to see how he could make such a mistake and not even remotely represent the Christian doctrine, held to by all the major Christian churches of the Roman Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox traditions, as Father, Son and Holy Spirit in one eternal Supreme Being. The third passage which canvasses the supposed Christian belief in three separate deities is this one: And when Allah will say: O Jesus, son of Mary! Did you say to mankind "Take me and my mother as two gods besides Allah"? He will say, Glory to you! I would not have said what I had no right to say. If I had said it, you would have known it. You know what is in my mind though I do not know what is in yours. You are the Knower of the Unseen. Surah 5:116 Once again the other two deities are said to be Jesus and Mary. The veneration of Mary has been a major article of Roman Catholic belief and the Ethiopian Church, in particular, has historically revered her as the mother of God. It seems, however, that their excesses and confusion have only resulted in the Qur’an compounding the confusion! No Christian Church, no matter how much it reveres or glorifies Mary as, for example, the Queen of Heaven, has ever confused the Trinity or made it out to be what the Qur’an represents it to be. When Muslims challenge the doctrine of the Trinity and will not allow that it is an expression of divine unity in a different form to the unitarian concept of the Qur’an it is important to raise these texts as evidence, firstly, that the Qur’an misrepresents the doctrine completely and, secondly, that it is the source of the erroneous Muslim conviction that we believe in three separate gods. It is also important to know that the true Christian doctrine was known in Arabia prior to Muhammad’s time. Edward Glasser, an explorer in Yemen, discovered an inscription there in 1888 in a narrative about the revolt against the Ethiopian rule in the country in pre-Islamic times. The inscription dates to 542 AD – twenty eight years before Muhammad’s birth – and it reads in Arabic (without vowels which were not written in the Arabic of the time): Rhmn w mshh w rh qds – "(In the power of) the Compassionate, and the Messiah, and the Holy Spirit". Thus the true nature of the Christian Trinity was known in the Arabian Peninsula many years before the Qur’an ever came to be written and the book’s total misrepresentation of the doctrine can only be ascribed to Muhammad’s personal ignorance of Christian theology. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 15: 02.04. CHAPTER THREE JESUS THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD ======================================================================== Chapter Three Jesus the Son of the Living God The Deity of Jesus Christ in the Bible 3.1 The Qur’anic Rejection of Jesus’ Deity Muslim: The Qur’an is quite emphatic in denying that Jesus is the Son of God. He was only a prophet just like all the other prophets who went before him. If Jesus is the Son of God, who was God’s wife? You speak a great blasphemy against Allah. What to Christians is the foundation of their belief – that Jesus Christ is God’s own Son who alone could redeem us from our sins and take us into heaven – is to the Muslims one of the greatest expressions of unbelief and the one which, more than any other, is likely to keep them out of heaven. It is crucial to recognise this. In fact the distance between Christians and Muslims on the person of Jesus is the greatest factor driving Christianity and Islam apart. The greatest stumbling-block to bringing Muslims to Christ is the flat rejection of his deity in the Qur’an. Allah has Taken Neither a Wife nor a Son In the last chapter we saw that the Qur’an misrepresents the Trinity as a family of Allah, Mary and Jesus. On this subject, namely Jesus as the Son of God, the Qur’an takes it to mean that Allah must have taken a wife to himself to have a son. It seems Muhammad was unable to consider the title in anything but finite, human terms. The Qur’an says: Creator of the heavens and the earth! How can he have a son when he has no consort? Surah 6:101 And glorious is the majesty of our Lord – he has taken neither a consort nor a son! Surah 72:3 It seems that Muhammad understood this doctrine purely in a carnal sense and could not see what Muslims need to know, namely that the spiritual relationship between them is the same as that of a father to a son. Three main principles are involved here: 1. The Same Essence of Being Just as fathers and sons on earth are both human and have the same essential being, so in heaven the Father and Son are both divine. The Son took human form at a point in history and became the man Jesus Christ. The Father never took to himself a Son, they were so from all eternity and will always remain so. 2. The Authority of the Father Although the same in essence, the Father has authority over the Son just as on earth sons, though as human as their fathers, submit to their control over their lives. That is why, when on earth, Jesus could assume a relationship of master and servant as well, just as sons in their father’s businesses submit to their rule and lordship. 3. His Affection Towards His Son While a father has authority over his son, he nonetheless will feel a greater affinity with him than he does with any servant and all he has will eventually be passed on to the son. Although the Son could do nothing of his own accord but only what he saw his Father doing (John 5:19), nonetheless the Father has a special love for the Son (John 5:20) and reveals all his purposes to him, intending one day to delegate his authority to him so that all the earth will honour the Son in the same way it honours the Father (John 5:22-23). This is what the Bible means when it says that Jesus is the Son of God. The issue is relational in an eternal, spiritual context. It is not a carnal, earthly one as the Qur’an supposes. The Great Unpardonable Sin in Islam To Muhammad the belief in Jesus as the Son of God appeared to be parallel to the pagan Arab belief that many of their idols, such as Al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat, were the "daughters of Allah". Idolatry, per se, was to the Prophet of Islam an act of blasphemy, ascribing as it did partners to Allah which was unthinkable and an affront to the very glory of his being. The problem seems to have arisen from the environment Muhammad found himself in. When dealing with the Arab concept, he attacked the contradictory nature of their convictions. They believed, after all, that the birth of a daughter was a cause of grief and shame (Surah 16:58-59). How then could they believe that Allah would take only daughters to himself while giving them sons according to their preferences (Surah 43:16)! With the Christians, however, he contented himself with simply emphatically denying that Jesus is the Son of God in verses like these: And the Christians say that the Messiah is the Son of Allah. These are the words from their mouths. They but imitate the sayings of those who disbelieved before. Qaatalahumullaah – Allah’s curse be upon them! How they are turned away! Surah 9:30 They say Allah has taken a son. Subhaanah – Glory to Him! He is Self-Sufficient! All that is in the heavens and the earth is his! You have no justification for this. How can you say of Allah what you do not know? Surah 10:68 These are very strong denunciations. Muhammad thought it compromised the glory of God to say he had a Son whereas, according to the Bible, the revelation of his grace, mercy and kindness in giving his Son to die for us is the greatest proof of his glory! Christians need to emphasise this great truth in their witness with Muslims as they are very conscious of the need to honour his glory above all else. The great tragedy of the denial of Jesus’ deity in the Qur’an is the fact that it is identified with the greatest of all sins in Islam – ascribing partners to Allah. As we have seen in the previous chapter this sin is unforgivable in Islam, indeed it is the only unforgivable sin according to the Qur’an (Surah 4:48), and will keep a Muslim out of Jannat al-Firdaus (the Gardens of Paradise) forever. The Apostle John wrote to the Christians of his day, encouraging them in the knowledge that they had eternal life in believing in the name of the Son of God (1 John 5:13). In his Gospel he plainly taught that all who do not believe in his name are already condemned and that only those who believe in Jesus as the Son of God will be saved (John 3:18). What to the Christian is the only door to heaven is, to the Muslim, the one sure step into the abyss! The Qur’an argues that, as Allah has no partners, he cannot have taken to himself a son. In one place it does not seem to teach that it is absolutely impossible for him to have a Son but rather that "it is not befitting to him to do so" (Surah 19:35). The issue seems to be one of what glorifies him and here the Christian has his opening for witness. Jesus Christ revealed the glory of God in a way it might otherwise never have been known: 1. The Greatest Display of God’s Love for the World We have already looked at this subject in the last chapter. Islam has no parallel to the example of God’s sacrificial love in giving what was dearest to him, his own Son to die for our salvation. If he is prepared to give so much for us we can be sure that he will eventually give us all things with him (Romans 8:32). 2. A Perfect Example of God’s own Humble Spirit It is freely acknowledged by Muslims that pride is an ugly thing, a character defect. Who is to say that, if God is so concerned to maintain his own glory above all of his creation all the time (as the Qur’an seems to teach), he did not create it purely to lord himself over it? When the Son of God came to earth we were able to witness the wondrous humility of God. Although he had a divine form by right, the Son did not proudly grasp at his equality with the Father but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant in becoming a human being. Moreover, he did not stop there but humbled himself further, becoming obedient to death, even such a shameful demise as death on a cross (Php 2:6-8). The Bible plainly teaches that God has a day against all that is proud and lofty, haughtily lifted up and high (Isaiah 2:12), and that he dwells rather with those who are of a humble and contrite spirit (Isaiah 57:15). It is only through the Son of God that this aspect of God’s glory can be truly known and experienced. Jesus Christ is the Son of God. We have no apology to make to the Muslim world for this belief, only a message of glorious good news to proclaim. When Muslims raise the issue of his deity, look for every means you can to turn their arguments into an opportunity to testify of God’s great love for them as it is revealed in Christ. 3.2 The Son of God in a Metaphorical Sense? Muslim: Even if Jesus did call himself the Son of God, it was only in a metaphorical sense. We are all children of God and your Bible more than once calls all believers "the sons of God". You have taken this too far by making him the eternal Son of God. It is a common argument among Muslims. As Ulfat Aziz-us-Samad has said, Jesus may be called a son of God in the sense in which all righteous human beings can be called the children of God, but not in a literal or unique sense. Often scriptural passages are presented to prove the point. Biblical Usage of the Term "Sons of God" Muslims usually base their argument around the following passage, though others from the Bible are often presented as well: Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken), do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming’ because I said ‘I am the Son of God’?" John 10:34-36 The Muslims argue that, by quoting Psalms 82:6 where all believers are also called "sons of the Most High", Jesus was saying no more than that he too was one of the children of God. The important thing here is the implied admission by Muslims that Jesus did call himself the Son of God in one or other sense. When Muslims argue that he only assumed the title in a symbolic or metaphorical sense, Christians should immediately place them on terms to admit that he did use the title for himself in some form. Their argument has no substance without this admission. Thereafter the discussion can be focused on the actual sense in which he used it. The Bible says that God, speaking of Solomon, declared "I will be his father, and he will be my son" (1 Chronicles 17:13) and it also speaks of Adam as "the son of God" (Luke 3:38). All Christian believers, led by the Spirit of God, are said to be "the sons of God" (Romans 8:14). In other passages similar expressions are used. As Ahmed Deedat has often said, "According to the Bible God has sons by the tons!". It is indeed a fair and valid question on the Muslim’s part to enquire why Jesus Christ should be regarded as the Son of God in an eternal and absolute sense alone. Before answering it, however, one point needs to be made here. When Muslims argue that "we are all the children of God" they are going against the Qur’an which expressly states that Allah has "neither sons or daughters" in any form (Surah 6:100). It is only in the Christian Bible that the possibility of becoming God’s children and knowing him as Father appears. This is solely because the Son of God, Jesus Christ, has made this possible by laying down his life for our redemption. Jesus: The Eternal Son of God A Christian, in witness to Muslims, must know at least some of the main evidences that Jesus taught that he was the Son of God in a unique and absolute sense. For example, when he was brought before the Jewish Sanhedrin the night of his arrest, after the chief priests could find nothing against him, the High Priest Caiaphas stood up and emphatically asked him "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?". He replied equally unambiguously "I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven" (Mark 14:61-62). The High Priest tore his robes, charging him with blasphemy. His question was not "Are you one of the children of God?". If it was, the answer could not have occasioned a charge of blasphemy. Everyone knew exactly what the issue was – did he claim to be the Son of God, the eternal Son of the Blessed? Jesus’ answer could hardly be misrepresented – he did! There are numerous passages which make it quite plain why the High Priest believed he was claiming to be the only, eternal Son of God. The following statement is a typical proof: No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. Matthew 11:27 Likewise, when Jesus said that the Father has given all judgment to the Son so that all may honour the Son even as they honour the Father (John 5:22), it is impossible to see how such a claim to be the Son of God could have been made in a lesser or metaphorical sense. It is also very useful to quote the two occasions when God himself, speaking from heaven of Jesus, declared "This is my Beloved Son with whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:17; Matthew 17:5). Nonetheless it is in a parable of Jesus that I have found the most effective proof that he was not just a prophet like those who preceded him but was the unique Son of God. It is the Parable of the Tenants of the Vineyard (Matthew 21:33-43, Mark 12:1-12, Luke 20:9-18). A number of servants were sent by the owner of the vineyard to collect his fruits but they took one, stoned another and killed another. When he sent still more they did the same, beating some, wounding others and killing the rest. The climax is reached in these words: He had still one other, a beloved son; finally he sent him to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son’. But those tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours’. And they took him and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard. Mark 12:6-8 The interpretation of the parable is obvious – God had sent numerous servants to his people in their own promised land, namely the prophets, but they mistreated them and rejected them in various ways. As Peter said on another occasion, "Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute?" (Acts 7:52). Finally he had sent his beloved Son, Jesus Christ, whom he predicted they would kill – a clear prophecy of his coming crucifixion. The contrast between the great prophets of old as nothing more than the servants of God, and the last messenger as the unique, beloved Son, cannot be mistaken. It is the whole thrust of the parable. There are many other passages which can be used to show that Jesus Christ claimed to be the unique Son of God and never used the title for himself in a metaphorical or symbolic sense. 3.3 Biblical Limitations on the Son of God Muslim: If Jesus is the eternal Son of God, why did he so often speak of the Father as greater than he was in power, authority and knowledge? Surely, if he was divine as you claim, he should have been equally omnipotent and omniscient. Few Christians outside of Muslim evangelism have faced one of the most challenging arguments that Muslims often produce, namely that Jesus could not have been the eternal Son of God if he was limited in power and knowledge as many of his statements seem to suggest. The Knowledge and Power of Jesus Three passages are often quoted by Muslims to prove their point. They all appear to limit his authority and status and we will consider each one in turn. In each case it will be seen that a very effective witness to the glory of Jesus can be given in reply to their arguments. 1. Divine Facts not Known to Jesus Muslims reason that if Jesus, as the Son of God, was the second person of the divine Trinity, he should have known all things. If God is omniscient, he should also have had a universal knowledge. The following verse appears to undermine this assumption: But of that day and hour, no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. Matthew 24:36 How could Jesus have been omniscient if he denied knowledge of the exact hour of judgment? The important thing is to see where Jesus places himself in the categories he mentions. No man knows the hour, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. There is clearly an ascending scale. Jesus places himself exclusively above all men and angels, relating himself solely in a divine context to the Lord of all the earth, defining himself in intimate terms – the Son of the Father. All that can be concluded is that, despite such a high status, it is possible for the Father, the eternal source of all things to whom both the Son and Spirit are subject, to decree the final Day without disclosing the exact time to anyone else. The limitation on the Son of God does not undermine his deity – it is merely indicates a special definition of it. 2. An Inability to do Anything without the Father Just as Jesus does not appear to be omniscient, so there appears to be a challenge to his omnipotence in the following verses: The Son can do nothing of his own accord but only what he sees the Father doing ... I can do nothing on my own authority. John 5:19; John 5:30 Once again, as soon as one looks at the context of these statements (which seem to indicate that Jesus was powerless in himself), it becomes clear that we are only dealing with an explanation of his relationship to the Father, not of a denial of his deity. Jesus goes on to say in the first statement "For whatever he does, that the Son does likewise". It is only a question again of subjection to the Father’s authority. When it comes to the actual power to do what the Father does, Jesus claimed equal power to do whatever he does – a clear proof of his deity – and states that he only does what the Father does, a natural action when the two are one in a single Divine Being. 3. A Declaration of the Father’s Superior Greatness The third verse commonly used to prove limitations on the Son of God from his own statements is this one: If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I. John 14:28 Muslims fasten on to this statement as a proof of Jesus’ humility in acknowledging God’s superior greatness to man, a declaration one might have expected from any true prophet. The fact is – no other prophet ever made such a declaration. In fact, were any ordinary man to make it, it would be close to blasphemy. While it is a statement of limitation, it is also an awesome claim to greatness on Jesus’ part! To have to actually inform his disciples that the Father, ultimately, is indeed greater than he is a clear sign that he held a great regard for his own greatness! Once again he measures himself on a divine level alone, relating himself solely to the Father. The limitation is purely in his role as the Son of God. It is important to recognise that there is a limitation on the Son of God, one placed there in the sayings of Jesus himself. Too often Christians fall into the trap of proclaiming over-simplistic dogmatics, such as "We believe Jesus is God". Muslims will ask in return, "If Jesus is your God, will he ever forsake you?" to which the Christian might triumphantly proclaim "Never! He has promised ‘I will never leave you nor forsake you’ (Hebrews 13:5)". The Muslim will then play his trump card: "Well, it is just as well that your god Jesus will not forsake you. Unfortunately his God forsook him: ‘My God! My God! Why have you forsaken me?’ (Matthew 27:46). You pray to your god Jesus, but he prayed to his God and not very successfully. How can you expect us to believe in him?" This is what happens when Christians are not careful in witness with Muslims or make bold statements that sound convincing purely because of the ease with which they can be emphatically stated, but are not entirely true. Jesus is the Son of God, a title which immediately implies a limitation upon him. The heart of what the Bible teaches about Jesus is this, namely that while the eternal Son is a divine personality in a Triune Being, he nevertheless is subject to the Father’s authority and so, when on earth, could easily assume in human form a servant-master relationship. Son-to-Father simply became expressed as Man-to-God. In this unique person men can come to know God face-to-face for he who has seen the Son has seen the Father also (John 14:9). Yet likewise we see in Jesus a man like ourselves, able to assume our position and eventually bring us to eternal glory as the sons and daughters of God just as he is by nature the eternal Son of God. The more one understands this, the greater God’s glory in Christ is revealed. We need to focus on this glorious truth in our witness to Muslims: "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself" (2 Corinthians 5:19). 3.4 The Unique Sinlessness of Jesus Muslim: In what way was Jesus different to all the other messengers of Allah? They were all true to their task and taught their people only what Allah commanded them to say. The Qur’an does not distinguish between Jesus and the other prophets. One of the fundamental teachings of the Christian faith is the unique sinlessness of Jesus Christ. Being the eternal Son of God he had no blemishes, committed no sins, and maintained the perfect standard of divine righteousness in all he said and did. Had he been a sinner like all other men (prophets included), he could not have redeemed us from our iniquities. Very interestingly, and perhaps unintentionally, Islam’s original sources confirm this uniqueness. It is a crucial point in our witness to Jesus as the Son of God.The Blamelessness of Jesus in the Qur’an and Hadith The virgin-birth of Jesus is confirmed in the Qur’an in two narratives (Surahs 3:41-48, 19:16-34). According to the second passage, when Mary his mother was first told of her conception by the angel whom God had sent to her, she expressed surprise at the vision. The angel answered her: I am only a messenger of your Lord (announcing) the gift of a holy son. Surah 19:19 The word used for "holy" in this verse is zakiyya, a word with the root meaning "purity" (as in zak‘at, the "pure" Muslim charity). In the particular form of the word used here the meaning is blameless and it is used in the same context in the only other place where it appears in the Qur’an. The book has a story about Moses and a journey he took with a young companion said in Islamic tradition to have been Al-Khidr – "the Green One" – a mysterious figure believed to appear to prophets and Sufi masters at various times. When Al-Khidr suddenly slew a young man without apparent reason Moses exclaimed: Have you slain an innocent person who had not slain another? Surah 18:74 The companion told him to be silent about things he knew nothing about. Once again the word used for "innocent" is zakiyyah. In this passage it means someone blameless of any crime deserving death but in the case of Jesus it is a general description of his whole personality and character. It can only mean sinless and it makes Jesus the only messenger of God in the Qur’an to be expressly so described. As we have seen earlier in this book the Qur’an confirms the Biblical teaching that all the other prophets had sins and failings of their own. The Qur’anic teaching about the unique sinlessness of Jesus is supported by a remarkable tradition in one of the major works of Islamic tradition literature. It reads: The Prophet said, "No child is born but that, Satan touches it when it is born whereupon it starts crying loudly because of being touched by Satan, except Mary and her son". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 54). In this statement Muhammad clearly distinguished Jesus from all other human beings, prophets included, in being affected by Satan’s touch from the moment of his birth. It is important to know these passages from the Qur’an and Hadith as they help Christians to witness effectively to Muslims of the unique perfection of their Saviour’s character. The Sinless Perfection of Jesus in the Bible There are numerous passages in the Christian Bible which testify to the perfect sinlessness of Jesus but it is enough to know the most emphatic and prominent statements to this effect. The first is: For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 2 Corinthians 5:21 The New Testament often contrasts the perfect holiness of Jesus with our sinfulness, supplementing it with the wondrous truth that he took the consequences of our wickedness on himself so that we might share his righteousness. It is the essence and heart of the Christian Gospel, contrasting with Islam’s teaching that sin does not necessarily alienate man from God and make the intervention of a Saviour necessary. Another text which brings out this principle very plainly is: He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. 1 Peter 2:24 There are two other passages in the New Testament which state emphatically that Jesus had no sin. Each one confirms the uniqueness of his holy personality in contrast with the rest of mankind, no one excepted. The two verses are: For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Hebrews 4:15 You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 1 John 3:5 Islam has made many attempts to undermine the uniqueness of Jesus, in particular its teachings that Muhammad was also a sinless prophet and that he performed many miracles. Neither of these has any foundation in the Qur’an (in fact they are totally contrary to Qur’anic teaching – Surahs 47:19, 17:90-93), but they have become popular because of the Muslim desire to try and prove that Muhammad was at least the equal of Jesus Christ. In fact the announcement to Mary that she was to have a blameless son must be considered in its context. She had conceived a child without male intervention. Why? The angel’s answer to her is effectively this: "You have experienced a unique conception because there is something very unique about him. He is the holy Son of God and, being eternal and without blemish, it is not possible that he could have been procreated in the normal manner". The Christian faith gives a very clear explanation of both the virgin-birth and the perfect sinlessness of Jesus. Islam, with its determination to reduce Jesus to the level of common prophethood (if I may use the expression to emphasise the contrast), can offer no such explanation other than to say it was simply an expression of the will and power of Allah. 3.5 Old Testament Prophecies of his Deity Muslim: Abraham, Moses and David were all great prophets and no different to Jesus. To this day the Jews like us cannot accept the idea that God has a Son or that a man can also be God. What proof do you have for this? Contrary to what Muslims suppose, there are numerous evidences that the prophets prior to Jesus knew that a great Messiah was coming and that he would be far greater than all the messengers of God before him. Jesus and the Prophets Before Him In his own teaching Jesus Christ spoke of many of the leading patriarchs and prophets before him and confirmed that they all foresaw his coming and knew he would be greater than them. 1. Abraham who Foresaw the Day of Jesus When Jesus was debating one day with the Jewish leaders and Pharisees they made much of the fact that they were descended from the great patriarch Abraham and that he was their father (John 8:33; John 8:39). When Jesus stated that if anyone kept his word he would never see death, they responded: Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you claim to be? John 8:53 This passage is very important in the context of Muslim evangelism. The Muslims likewise believe Jesus was no greater than the other prophets but the Jews, from his own teaching, certainly got the impression that he was claiming to be superior to them all. How did Jesus respond? He said: Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day, he saw it and was glad ... Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was, I am. John 8:56; John 8:58 Jesus made it plain that he was far greater than Abraham. The patriarch died because he was no different to any other man, but because Jesus is the eternal Son of God, he pre-existed Abraham in an eternal present state which ultimately knows no past or future: "Before Abraham was, I AM!" (cf. Matthew 22:32 where Jesus said the same about God and Abraham). 2. Jacob and the Water of Eternal Life Jacob was another prophet who was held in great esteem, especially by the Samaritans who regarded him as their great patriarch. Jacob’s well was just outside the city of Sychar in Samaria and this perennial source of water in the desert was regarded as Jacob’s great legacy to them. When Jesus one day told a Samaritan woman at the well that he could give her living water, she asked him: Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, and his sons, and his cattle? John 4:12 As the Jews had asked "Are you greater than our father Abraham?" so this Samaritan asked "Are you greater than our father Jacob?" In each case the question focused on the great patriarch of their people. Again Jesus confirmed that he was purely because, being the eternal Son of God, he could give her living water from which she would never thirst, a well which would spring up within her to eternal life (John 4:14). 3. Moses who Wrote of Jesus On another occasion we read that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus because he called God his own Father, making himself equal with God (John 5:18). They had set their hope on Moses, the great lawgiver, and declared that they knew that God had spoken to Moses, but as for this man Jesus they proclaimed they had no idea where he came from (John 9:29). After a discourse in which Jesus again claimed that he was the eternal Son of God and that no one honoured the Father unless he likewise honoured the Son, he concluded with these words: If you believed Moses you would believe me, for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words? John 5:46-47 Once again Jesus claimed to be superior to Moses in a context where he contrasted his divine power and character with the limited power of the prophet who had preceded him. As Abraham had foreseen his day, so Moses had written of him. Once again the focus fell on a great Messianic figurehead to come. 4. David who Called Jesus his Lord One last prophet needs to be mentioned. In another argument with the Jews Jesus, having answered all their questions, challenged them to identify the coming Messiah – whose son was he? They responded "the son of David" to which he replied: How is it then that David, inspired by the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand till I put your enemies under your feet’? If David thus calls him Lord, how is he his son? Matthew 22:43-45 Jesus, in his revelation to John on the Isle of Patmos, gave the answer: "I am the root and the offspring of David" (Revelation 22:16). He was indeed the son of David by direct descent from him but, because he is also the eternal son of God, he was David’s root and his Lord. Thus he was also greater than David. All these passages help to show how, in the greatest of the Old Testament prophets, the deity of Jesus was foreseen and honoured. Abraham had rejoiced that he was to see his day, Moses had written of him, and David had called him his Lord. All these great men had turned solely to Jesus as the great Messiah to come, one who had pre-existed them all, who alone could give the water of eternal life, and who likewise was their Lord and Saviour. Use these great themes in answering any Muslim argument that Jesus was no more than a prophet like those who had preceded him. 3.6 "Flesh and Blood have not Revealed This" Muslim: Show me one place where Jesus said "I am God" and I will believe it. Prove to me that Jesus was the Son of God and I will accept it. All your arguments thusfar have failed to convince me. Why can you not prove this to my satisfaction? I have quoted from an actual conversation with a Muslim in Durban, South Africa, many years ago. Christians who have worked in Muslim evangelism have often been frustrated and sometimes confused at the inability of Muslims to see the light even when it shines right before their eyes. I recall another incident where two of us were in a Muslim home with about seven Muslims, engrossed in a two-hour conversation on the subject of whether Jesus was the Son of God or not. I gave every proof I knew and, when we reached our car just as we were leaving, one of the young Muslim men said to me "You know I have to agree with you. It seems Jesus really did believe and preach that he was the Son of God". I was encouraged by this testimony, only for him to add "But if he did, I think he was wrong". You just cannot win sometimes! Perceiving that Jesus is the Son of God Numerous Christians, brought up on a diet of Christian teaching through Sunday Schools and other Bible-training methods, freely believe that Jesus is the Son of God without further ado – and often without knowing why they believe it. It seems that what children are taught they easily accept. Get into conversation with a Muslim, however, who may present some of the cutting arguments we have considered against the deity of Jesus, and the Christian may soon find he cannot justify or explain what he really believes and why. For Muslims, brought up on the teachings that God has no partner, that Jesus being a man could not be the Son of God, and that the Trinity makes no sense, turning around and believing in Jesus as the second person of a Triune Being takes some doing. I learnt many years ago that you simply cannot hope to persuade Muslims to believe in the Gospel by human reasoning alone. A divinely-inspired insight is necessary and I replied as such to the Muslim who posed the above questions to me. I turned to the following question Jesus put to his disciples: Who do men say that the Son of man is? Matthew 16:13 Jesus had been with his disciples for some time, teaching the masses, healing diseases and infirmities, and doing many mighty works among them. They answered that the people believed he was John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets. The common impression was that he was a prophet – which one, they were not sure, but one of the prophets nonetheless. After all he looked very little different to the others – a man without wealth proclaiming the Word of God and proving it with attendant signs like Moses, Elijah and Elisha before him. When Jesus asked them, however, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter exclaimed "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16). What he was in effect saying is "the people say you are a prophet but I say you are more, you are the Son of God". Why did he say this? Had he, because of his closer association with Jesus, seen and heard things to guide him more perceptively to the truth? The answer of Jesus to Peter is very significant: Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. Matthew 16:17 No, Peter had not worked it out for himself. God the Father had revealed to him who Jesus really was. We must never forget that we are only witnesses to God’s truth in Muslim evangelism and that the work of enlightenment and conversion belongs to the Holy Spirit. So I told the Muslim enquirer that I could not prove that Jesus was the Son of God if he was determined not to believe this anyway. Only if he had an open mind which God could inspire would he see this truth. The Gospel – God’s Revelation of Himself Nonetheless, as Christians, we must do our part and testify to the truth. The Bible clearly states that faith only comes through hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17) and we need to proclaim it and make a defence of it whenever called upon to do so. On this subject the question is not: "How can God become man or be contained within flesh and blood?" Once we admit that anything is possible to God the relevant question becomes "What has God revealed about himself?" The question, again, is not whether God can be confined in human form, it is purely whether humanity can bear the divine image. When he was on earth Jesus Christ manifested every one of God’s perfect attributes to the full. That is why he said "He who sees me sees him who sent me" (John 12:45). In no way was God’s divine character blurred while Jesus walked among men. On the contrary the fulness of God’s love, kindness, grace and forgiveness were only finally revealed when his Son Jesus laid down his life so that we might be forgiven and live for ever. The Qur’an, speaking of the occasion when the Angel Gabriel appeared to Mary to announce to her the conception of a son without male intervention, says: Then we sent to her our spirit which appeared to her as a man in all respects. Surah 19:17 The Qur’an itself freely admits that God sends his angels, who are spirit in form (ruh), in the exact likeness of human appearance. Why then cannot the Son of God, who is likewise spirit in form, not take actual human form? There is no reasonable argument against the possibility. In another place the Qur’an says: Say, "If there were, settled on earth, angels walking about in peace and quiet, We should certainly have sent them down from the heavens an angel for an apostle". Surah 17:95 If, therefore, God would send an angelic messenger to angels on earth, would he not, if he wished personally to live among his people and redeem them from their sins, have likewise chosen to take the form of a human messenger? After all the Bible says that when God first created us he declared "Let us make man in our own image" (Genesis 1:26). If so, it must be obvious that the same human form can bear the image of God. Jesus is indeed the Son of God. We must never be reserved about this great eternal truth. On the contrary we must set it forth before the Muslim world as effectively as we can – and pray that God’s Holy Spirit will give the inner light to perceive it. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 16: 02.05. CHAPTER FOUR THE CRUCIFIXION AND THE ATONEMENT ======================================================================== Chapter Four The Crucifixion and the Atonement The Historical and Spiritual Issues 4.1 The Consequences of Man’s Fallen Nature Muslim: No one can bear the sins of another. Every man is accountable for his own life. You have to make an effort to obey the laws of Allah and trust in his mercy to forgive your failures. Sins are bad deeds that must be cancelled out by good deeds. One of the greatest differences between Islam and Christianity is the concept each has of sin and the effect it has on a man’s relationship with God. According to the New Testament, the sin of Adam was not just an offence against God’s holy laws but an act of defiance which set the whole human race in opposition to God (Romans 3:9-18), leaving all men by nature spiritually dead in their transgressions and iniquities and bound to follow the devil as sons of disobedience (Ephesians 2:1-2). Islam, however, teaches that men are neutral beings, capable of doing good or evil as they choose. While the Qur’an regularly laments the instinctive tendency of man to turn away from God and to be ungrateful to him, preferring rather to follow indulgent passions (Surah 100:6-8), it does not regard the human failure to be perfectly obedient to God as a devastating chasm, separating God and man unless and until God should intervene and bring about a work of redemption as the Bible says he has done through the crucifixion, death and resurrection of his Son Jesus Christ. Why the Atonement is Necessary The ultimate question is not whether man is by nature as bad as the Bible makes him out to be, with a heart that is "desperately corrupt, deceitful above all things" (Jeremiah 17:9), but whether God is as good as the Bible declares him to be. According to Islam Allah is the Lord of the Universe whose attributes, such as righteousness, mercy and justice, are no more than that – just attributes. The Bible teaches, however, that God is, within himself, holy and righteous and that man, in breaking his holy laws, falls short of his absolutely holy character (Romans 3:23). How does one bring this across to a Muslim when he argues that Christianity has too pessimistic a view of human nature and that God does not need to save anyone, forgiving whomever he pleases as he chooses? One of the most effective ways is not to try to prove the doctrine of atonement but just to compare two men – Adam and Jesus, beginning with this passage: For as by a man came death, by a man also has come the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 All Muslims accept that Adam and Eve were chased out of the Garden of Eden when they sinned. The consequence of their disobedience was not simply a bad deed that could have been cancelled out by a good one, nor was it simply a matter of being forgiven by God. They were never let back into the Garden, nor has any member of the human race which has descended from them. Muslims in fact believe that the Garden was in heaven itself because its name in the Qur’an, Jannatu’l ‘Adn, is also a name for heaven (Surah 9:72). In discussion with Muslims I have found they will freely agree that Adam and Eve would not have died had they stayed in the Garden and that it was only on this decaying earth to which they were sent down that death became an inevitable destiny. Muslims, therefore, should be able to see that the first sin of Adam and Eve had disastrous and ruinous consequences. I have often asked them – if Adam and Eve were forgiven, why were they not allowed back into the Garden? Why were they and all their offspring left to die on this earth? There is no answer in Islam. Yet Muslims freely believe that Jesus was taken up to heaven and is the only man alive in heaven who has never died. How did he get in there when all other men born on earth – from Adam to Muhammad and beyond – have come to nothing? It is easy from there to point out that Jesus taught he would go to heaven because he came from there in the first place. He was not just an ordinary human being and his unique birth proves this. As Jesus said: No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man. John 3:13 I came from the Father and have come into the world; again I am leaving the world and going to the Father. John 16:28 Muslims profess to prize logic, so use it with them. If we return to dust because we came from it, is it not logical to believe that Jesus went to heaven because he, too, came from there? I have found it very useful to go on to show that Jesus came down the first time to become like us, ordinary human beings, "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Romans 8:3) to die as we do and to redeem us from our sins. He will come down from heaven the second time to make us like himself, in all his resplendent glory, so that we can live forever in the kingdom of heaven where he is. Just as he, when seen as he really is, could shine with all the glory of perfection, his face shining like the sun (Matthew 17:2), so we too will "shine like the sun" in the kingdom of our Father because of our faith in him and relationship with God through him (Matthew 13:43). If Christianity indeed has the most pessimistic view of human nature as it is – that it cannot redeem or save itself by any good work – then it also has the most optimistic view of what it can become! The only way back into the Garden from which Adam and all his offspring were dismissed is through Jesus who will return from heaven to take all his followers back there with him. Without his atoning work there is no other way anyone will ever get there. The Fall of Adam in the Qur’an It is important to emphasise this by pointing out that the Qur’an supports the Bible in teaching that Adam’s transgression was not just a mistake or misdemeanour, or that he simply forgot God’s command not to eat of the forbidden fruit (as Muslims often argue), but that he fell from his high estate and was driven out from the Garden: But the Devil made them slip from it and caused them to depart from the state in which they were. And We said: Fall down from here, some enemies to the others. And on the earth there will be a dwelling and provision for a time. Surah 2:36 The key word here is ahbituu which comes from the root word habt meaning to go down an incline or to descend from a high place to a low one. "Fall down!" was the order, literally "Get out of here!". The consequences were also to be profound – enmity between men and an abode on the earth alone. It is very important to emphasise the fact that Adam and Eve were never allowed back into the Garden. Death was the ultimate consequence of their sin – hence the need of a Saviour, Jesus Christ, who rose from the dead to give us the hope of eternal life. In passing it is also important to point out to Muslims who try to minimise Adam’s offence by saying he "forgot" the Lord’s command that, not only is it highly unlikely that he would forget the only negative command God gave him (Surah 7:19), but that the Shaitaan, the Devil, actually reminded Adam of God’s command when tempting him to sin: Your Lord has only forbidden you this tree lest you become like the angels or those who live forever. Surah 7:20 Adam’s sin was an act of defiance against God. The tree stood in the middle of the Garden as a symbol of God’s authority over man and, when he ate of it, Adam defied that authority and plunged the human race into a state of perpetual rebellion against God. Only Jesus Christ can redeem us from this state. Muslims sometimes talk about the tomb they have prepared in the Masjid an-Nabi (the Prophet’s Mosque) in Madina, Arabia, where they say Jesus will be buried forty years after his return to earth. I have pointed out that I have already visited two tombs of Jesus in Jerusalem, one in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the old city and the other in the garden just below Golgotha where Jesus was crucified. It is remarkable, I have concluded, that this man has three tombs but fills none of them and never will! They are all totally empty. He dwells in everlasting life in heaven above, never to die again. Jesus’ life began uniquely, being born of a virgin woman because he came from heaven, and ended uniquely, being taken up again to heaven after his resurrection from the dead. Another point of emphasis here I have found useful is to point out to Muslims that Jesus was alive in heavenly glory before Muhammad was ever born, remained so throughout their Prophet’s life, and has remained alive in the same glory for fourteen centuries since Muhammad died and was buried in Arabian soil. 4.2 Do Christians Enjoy a License to Sin? Muslim: If Christ died for all your sins, past, present and future, then you can sin freely. Is this not why the Western world today is so corrupt? You just have to ask for forgiveness and you have it! We Muslims will never believe this – it is too easy. This is one of the commonest arguments Christians will encounter when witnessing to Muslims. To them the favour of God has to be earned through a succession of good works and religious devotions. They cannot understand how salvation can be a gift or how forgiveness of all sins can be received simply by faith in Jesus. Paul’s Teaching in Romans 6:1-23 This subject is dealt with very deliberately by the Apostle Paul in the sixth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. The argument he anticipates and answers in the first part of the chapter is slightly different to the general Muslim one, namely: "Surely, if you are forgiven purely by grace, you should sin as much as you can so that God’s grace may abound" (v.1). The second part, however, includes the classic Muslim objection: "Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace?" (Romans 6:15). His answers go right to the core of what the Christian Gospel is and whenever Muslims raise this subject Christians have a real opportunity to witness to them of the effects of God’s saving grace in Christ. 1. Being Dead to Sin and Alive to God in Christ The first response of the Apostle is to ask how believers can even contemplate the possibility of living in sin with a free conscience when the effect of their faith in Jesus is to share in his death and its victory over all the forces of darkness: How can we who died to sin still live in it? Romans 6:2 The whole thrust of Paul’s argument is that those who put their faith in Jesus become united to him in his death and resurrection. He died to conquer both the guilt and power of sin and rose again to impart his life-giving power to all who choose to follow him. In turn they identify with his death to sin and become alive to God and the whole fulness of his righteousness. No one can receive the forgiveness of God in Christ unless his desire is to repent of his sins, forsake them, and be transformed into the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. The death he died he died to sin once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. Romans 6:10-11 2. God’s Grace Delivers Believers from the Power of Sin Perhaps the most important point to emphasise here is the fact that Jesus Christ died, not only to free us from the guilt of sin but also from its power. Jesus once said that whoever commits sin becomes a slave to sin (John 8:34). So often in conversation with Muslims I have asked them, if sin is merely a choice a man makes, why they cannot simply say to God "I know you want us to follow the right path (Siratal-Mustaqim). So from this day I choose never to sin again". Invariably they have smiled bemusedly at the suggestion, freely admitting that no one can make such a decision for the rest of his life, let alone for a single day. Often they say "We do not even know sometimes when we are sinning. What often appears to be right in our eyes can be wrong before God". Many Muslims struggle with the painful awareness that the tendency to sin is a compelling force, an unfortunate reality about human nature. This where the effect of redemption comes into a Christian’s life: But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. Romans 6:17-18 Faith in Jesus not only brings us the forgiveness of our sins but also gives us the power to overcome them in our lives. As the Apostle Paul said in another epistle Jesus came not only to "redeem us from all iniquity" but also to "purify for himself a people who are zealous for good deeds" (Titus 2:14). For many Muslims the prospect of an indwelling power to conquer sin is very attractive. 3. Being Filled with the Holy Spirit Anyone who commits his life to Christ simultaneously receives the Holy Spirit. This is the third person of the Trinity who does not take control of our lives (God is too gracious to do this) but who gives us a love for God’s commandments at the root of our being and, insofar as we submit to him, will deliver us from the powerful tendencies in our souls to pursue our own, sinful desires. I have found the following incident very useful when seeking to impress this fact on Muslims: When they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. John 19:33-34 John made much of this in the next verse, saying he had definitely seen it and recounted it so that his readers might believe. Believe what? Merely that it had happened? Not likely, especially as the word "believe" is loaded with meaning throughout his Gospel. He meant so that you might live by faith in Jesus. It was the two liquids which poured from Jesus’ side which impressed him. The blood symbolised the forgiveness of sins just as the shedding of blood of bulls, lambs and goats in times past at the Temple had been the means by which God had overlooked the sins of the people. The water, however, symbolised the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the rivers of new life which believers also receive. Water is a common symbol of divine power in the soul in this Gospel (John 4:14; John 7:38). It should be obvious that this is a very useful illustration supporting Paul’s teaching in Romans 6:1-23. In conclusion it is also appropriate to challenge any Muslim who raises the argument that "if Jesus died for you, you can sin as you like" to quote from the Bible to prove exactly where he got this idea from. Alternatively you might gently suggest that, in expressing such a fallacy, the Muslim shows a painful ignorance of what the Bible really teaches and needs a brief explanation of what salvation is actually all about. 4.3 The Young Ruler and the Commandments Muslim: It is strange that you should say salvation comes through faith in Jesus. After all, Jesus himself taught that if you want to receive eternal life you must keep God’s commandments. This is precisely what Islam teaches about true religion as well. Many Muslims are familiar with the story of the rich young ruler who approached Jesus and asked him what he had to do to inherit eternal life. Jesus replied "If you would enter life, keep the commandments" (Matthew 19:17). They argue that Jesus never taught atonement but, as in this statement, called on all men to observe the commandments of God if they were to enter his kingdom. How does one answer this? No One is Good but God Alone At times Muslims will also argue that Jesus also denied, in his discussion with the young man, that he had any goodness within himself because he was just an ordinary human being like everyone else. When the ruler called him a "good teacher", Jesus responded: Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. Mark 10:17-18 Here is another excellent opportunity to turn an objection into an opportunity for witness, this time to the deity of Christ. He never denied that he was good, on the contrary he called himself the Good Shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep (John 10:11), echoing the statement of God himself at an earlier time "I myself will be the Shepherd of my sheep" (Ezekiel 34:15). There can be very little doubt that Jesus had this very statement in mind when he assumed the title Good Shepherd. What he was in fact saying was "Why do you call me good?". He was not denying goodness. The young ruler had, in the Hebrew language, called him a good rabbi (as in John 1:38). There were many such rabbis and teachers of the law in Israel at the time and, if the young man thought he was no more than any of them, he could well be asked why he had called this one "good" when God alone is good in an eternal sense. The response of Jesus is a challenge to him to declare whether he regarded Jesus as just one of the many teachers who gave their interpretations of religion as they derived them from their religious studies, or whether he saw in Jesus a divine uniqueness by which he would be able, with divine authority, to disclose the secret of eternal life. This comes out even more when one looks at the rest of the discussion between the two men. If you Would be Perfect, Follow Me When Jesus told the young man that he could enter life by keeping the commandments, he asked "Which?". Jesus then mentioned five of them, all of which dealt with a man’s relationship with his fellow man, but excluding the tenth "You shall not covet". The young ruler responded that he had kept all of them since his youth – what did he still lack? Jesus, knowing his love of riches and covetous spirit, then challenged him: If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me. Matthew 19:21 At this he went away sorrowful, unable to part with his great possessions. We see in this story, not that anyone can enter life simply by keeping the ten commandments, but rather that no one can do so perfectly as they must be kept if anyone wishes to enter life by them. God is perfect and his laws must accordingly be kept perfectly if they are to be kept at all in the true sense of the word. As another verse says: For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. James 2:10 What Jesus was telling the young man, who thought he had kept all of God’s laws from his childhood, was that he needed to keep every law of God always, perfectly, continually. That is why Jesus told him that, if he would indeed be perfect, he needed to sell all his possessions and to renounce his materialistic spirit. Relative piety is unacceptable to a "holy God who shows himself holy in righteousness" (Isaiah 5:16). Instead, therefore, of finding eternal life through keeping God’s commandments the young man discovered that those laws could only convict him of sin. As the Apostle Paul said: The very commandment which promised life proved death to me. Romans 7:10 Jesus gave the young man a clear hint as to where salvation really lies when he said "If you would be prefect, ... follow me". It is only in the atoning work of the Christ that perfection and salvation can ultimately be found. Far from being a denial of the deity of Jesus and the atonement this passage is a very definite affirmation of it. Other Proofs of the Atonement The charge that Jesus never taught atonement can be met on other grounds as well. In a number of his statements he made it plain that he had come to earth expressly to save us from our sins and you will do well to quote them in conversation with Muslims on this subject: The Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. Matthew 20:28 The bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh. John 6:51 I am the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. John 10:11 Perhaps the most obvious incident in Jesus’ life that clearly points to the atonement as God’s way of salvation is the Last Supper which he had with his disciples the last night he was with them just before his arrest, trial and crucifixion. Here he took bread, broke it and gave it to them saying "Take, eat, this is my body". Then he took the cup of wine and gave it to them to drink, saying "This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 26:26-28). It is virtually impossible to understand how anyone can suggest that Jesus never taught atonement in the face of such an event. It was the very thing he commended to his disciples on the last occasion he was with them before his death. Christians have, in response to Muslim objections such as those surrounding the story of the rich young ruler, tremendous opportunities to share the whole message of the Gospel with them at the same time as refuting their arguments. 4.4 The Substitution Theory in the Qur’an Muslim: God would never have stood by watching while his enemies crucified his Son. To us Jesus was only a great prophet, yet Allah delivered him from the Jews who wanted to kill him. He was saved from the cross while another was crucified instead. Only one verse in the whole Qur’an deals with the subject of Jesus’ crucifixion. The event is strongly denied as a calumny of the Jews against him. Their intention to kill him is not discounted, but Allah is said to have honoured his prophet by saving him from their hands while a bystander, whose appearance Allah changed so that he might look like Jesus, was crucified instead. There is no mention of the relevance of the event to the Christian faith, a surprising oversight considering the fact that the Bible teaches that Jesus laid down his life willingly for the salvation of all men and that this was the express purpose for the appearance of the Son of God in human form. Without the death and resurrection of Jesus there would have been no Christianity and the fact that it is central to our faith makes the omission of any reference to its Christian context in the Qur’an all the more remarkable. The verse is: They said: "We killed the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, messenger of Allah; but they did not kill him, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them. Those who dispute about this are full of doubts, they have no certain knowledge but follow only conjecture. Assuredly they killed him not, but Allah raised him to himself. And Allah is the Mighty, the Wise. Surah 4:157 Implications of the Substitution Theory The very interesting little expression, wa laakin shubbiha lahum – "but so it was made to appear to them", has led the Muslim world to believe that the physical features of another person were changed to look like those of Jesus and that he was substituted by God in the prophet’s place. Jesus, instead, was taken up to heaven where he remains alive until he will return to earth shortly before the end of time. The Qur’an comes tantalisingly close to admitting the Christian position – it accepts that the Jews came to arrest Jesus, that they intended to crucify him, that someone was indeed crucified, that to all intents and purposes the victim looked like Jesus, and that all who stood at the foot of the cross were persuaded that it really was him. In truth the expression "so it was made to appear to them" is somewhat vague and has led to some disputes in the Muslim world over what really happened to Jesus, but there remains a general consensus that someone else was transfigured to look like him and was accordingly crucified in his place. In addition the Qur’an offers another striking coincidence – it makes the life of Jesus on earth end the same day that the Bible says it did. This ironically gives the substitution theory its only possible credibility – it wisely concludes Jesus’ natural life the same day history draws it to a close. Yet, as we shall see, the theory has very little substance and can be ruthlessly challenged on many grounds. The important thing here is to answer Muslim denials of the crucifixion by first establishing the facts we hold in common. The only point in dispute is this – was it actually Jesus who was crucified (as the Bible teaches) or was it someone else (as the Qur’an teaches)? Once you have levelled the playing-field it becomes much easier to focus on this one supreme issue. A Critical Analysis of the Theory Not only is the Qur’anic teaching on what happened that day embarrassingly vague but the Muslim interpretation of it, the substitution theory, is extremely vulnerable on moral grounds and does not withstand the acid test of critical analysis. The following points can effectively be raised in discussion with Muslims on this subject: 1. Why Should God have Victimised an Innocent Bystander? If it was God’s intention to save Jesus alive by raising him to heaven, why should anyone have been crucified at all? It makes no sense. The very act of misrepresenting one man as another is a form of impersonation and we cannot accept that the "holy God who shows himself holy in righteousness" (Isaiah 5:16) would ever have done such a thing. Some Muslims say it was Judas Iscariot who was crucified (to remove the charge that an innocent bystander was crucified) but there is no identification of the victim in the Qur’an. The fact is, whoever was crucified was innocent of whatever wrongdoing Jesus was supposed to have done to warrant his death. The choice of Judas is simply an expedient to justify what God is supposed to have done that day. The Bible, however, records very clearly what happened to Judas – when he saw that Jesus was going to be crucified, in great remorse he went out and hanged himself (Matthew 27:5. See also Acts 1:18). 2. Did God not Consider Jesus’ Family and Disciples? The second obvious objection to the Muslim theory is the effect the crucifixion would have had on those who were gathered around the cross. His mother Mary, her sister Mary the wife of Clopas, and two of his closest disciples Mary Magdalene and John the son of Zebedee, were "standing by the cross of Jesus" (John 19:25). If the person crucified was made to look exactly like Jesus, surely they would all have presumed it really was him? Why did God put the people who were closest to Jesus through the agony of watching him die? Would God have allowed his mother, revered in Islam as Bibi Maryam and the only woman mentioned by name in the Qur’an (Surah 3:36, 19:16), to have endured such torment purely because of an illusion of his own making? It is useful, at this point, to add that Jesus actually addressed Mary and John from the cross: When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold your son!" Then he said to the disciple, "Behold your mother!" John 19:26-27 This is only one of seven sayings of Jesus from the cross and it clearly shows that the person crucified not only looked like Jesus but also talked as if it was him. Only Jesus himself could have shown such compassion for his mother. Anyone else would have spent his time crying from the cross that he had been crucified by mistake. To get to the truth Muslims only have to acknowledge one thing – that it was indeed Jesus himself who was crucified! 3. Was Christianity Founded on a Hoax of God’s Making? The third objection to the Muslim theory is that, if the man crucified was made to look like Jesus, can you blame his disciples for actually thinking it was him? They went out and preached Christ crucified, being willing to lay down their lives for the Gospel message that Jesus died to save the world from its sinfulness. Did they found the whole Christian faith on a hoax, an illusion of which God himself was the deliberate author? The substitution theory makes God out to be the source of the greatest deception in religious history. The irony is that it is this theory which is perhaps the greatest of all historical delusions, one which has bound hundreds of millions of Muslims for fourteen centuries in unbelief. Under close analysis it is found to be riddled with improbabilities. It is important in witness to Muslims to emphasise that the Bible emphatically teaches that Jesus was crucified, that he died on the cross, and that he was raised from the dead on the third day. These two declarations, proclaimed by an angel to some of Jesus’ female disciples the day of his resurrection and by the Apostle Peter to thousands of Jewish bystanders, set forth these great truths very concisely: I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here for he has risen, as he said. Come see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead. Matthew 28:5-7 This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. But God raised him up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. Acts 2:23-24 God is glorified in the Christian Gospel. The crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, his only Son, is the greatest evidence of his love for us. It is the door to eternal life. It is the source of our complete forgiveness and ultimate redemption. The Muslim theory that someone else was crucified in Jesus’ place, on the contrary, is meaningless. The event served no apparent purpose other than to victimise an innocent man, traumatise the followers of Jesus, and result in the formation of a religion based on a fallacy – all of Allah’s own scheming and devising. Highly unlikely indeed! 4.5 The Swooning Theory of Muslim Apologists Muslim: It can be shown from the Bible that, even if Jesus was put on a cross, he did not die on it, but was taken down alive though in a swoon. Afterwards he recovered and appeared to many, hence the illusion that he had been raised from the dead. The untenable nature of the substitution theory and its obvious weaknesses has led some Muslim writers to attack the Biblical records of Jesus’ crucifixion instead, attempting to prove what has become known as the alternative swooning theory. This is an old heresy, one which the Ahmadiyya branch of Islam first adopted through the teaching of its prophet, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who lived in India in the nineteenth century. It is important to know that, in 1974, followers of the Ahmadiyya Movement were declared non-Muslims in Pakistan. Their theory, however, has occasionally been taken over by mainstream Muslim authors as a convenient means of assaulting the Christian Gospel. Typical Evidences for the Ahmadiyya Theory Conveniently ignoring every statement in the Gospels to the effect that Jesus died on the cross, these writers fasten on to certain passages, distort them out of context, and then re-interpret them to suggest that Jesus survived the cross. Let us consider a few prominent examples. 1. Jesus Prayed that God would Save him from Death In the Garden of Gethsemane, shortly before being arrested, Jesus prayed "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless not as I will, but as you will" (Matthew 28:39) and in response an angel was sent to him to strengthen him (Luke 22:43). It is argued that Jesus was reluctant to die and that the angel was sent to him to comfort him that he would be saved from death. It is hard to see how Jesus could have been comforted by the knowledge that he would endure the horrors of the crucifixion right to the point of death itself and be saved only because, to all intents and purposes, he appeared to be dead when taken down from the cross. Here even the substitution theory makes more sense! Surely, if God had wished to save him from death, he would have delivered him completely from it? Why save him only after an unnecessary, tragic delay? In any event Jesus could have fled that night from Jerusalem and avoided arrest for he knew exactly what Judas Iscariot was doing in preparing his arrest (John 18:4). Jesus recoiled at the prospect of separation from his Father as he took God’s wrath against our sins on himself, a holy fear that made him sweat blood (Luke 22:44). The very prospect of being forsaken of his Father and left in the realm of sin and its consequences made Jesus momentarily withdraw in horror, yet he deferred to his Father’s will. The strength the angel gave him was to endure this ordeal, unparalleled in human history. The glorious resurrection of Jesus from the dead three days later was a much greater deliverance. 2. The Centurion Did not Ensure that Jesus was Dead Much is made of the fact that when the Roman soldiers came to break the legs of the three men crucified that day, they left Jesus alone when they saw he was already dead (John 19:33). It is argued that they relied purely on a perception and made no attempt to ensure that Jesus had actually died. On the contrary, the soldiers would never have left such a thing to chance or their impressions. Consider this passage: And Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he was already dead. And when he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph. Mark 15:44-45 The Roman governor was quite happy to accept the centurion’s confirmation because it was fatal for a Roman soldier to make a mistake in such a situation. When the Apostle Peter escaped from prison some time later in the same city, the sentries appointed to guard him were summarily executed (Acts 12:19). When a jailer supposed that Paul and Silas had also escaped from prison, "he drew his sword and was about to kill himself" (Acts 16:27). Death was the penalty for allowing prisoners to escape – what could the centurion expect if he allowed a condemned man to escape because of some careless observations? No one but he could have been such a reliable witness to Jesus’ death on the cross! In fact one of the soldiers thrust a sword right into Jesus’ side (John 19:34) to make totally sure. This act alone would have been sufficient to kill him. 3. The Jews Doubted that Jesus was Dead Another typical argument is that the Jewish leaders were concerned that Jesus was still alive after being brought down from the cross and went to Pilate to have his tomb properly sealed to ensure that he could not escape. It is based on their statement to the governor: Sir, we remember how that impostor said, while he was still alive, "After three days I will rise again". Matthew 27:63 Once again the argument conveniently ignores clear statements in the context of the incident which show that, far from thinking Jesus might recover his health, the Jews were concerned that Jesus’ disciples might come and steal his body away and that they might proclaim that he had risen from the dead (Matthew 27:64). There are two points that make it obvious what they really feared. Firstly they spoke of what Jesus had said while he was "still alive", implying that they were clearly satisfied he was now dead. Secondly they acted on a prophecy Jesus had often made, namely that after he was killed, he would rise on the third day (Luke 9:22). The swooning theory has no substance whatsoever. It relies on reading between the lines (which some Muslim proponents actually admit) rather than a careful study of the lines themselves. The theory serves only one purpose – to show how embarrassing the substitution theory is to many Muslims and to what lengths they will go to attack the Biblical records instead. 4.6 What Really was the Sign of Jonah? Muslim: Jesus spoke of the Sign of Jonah as the only sign he was prepared to give the Jews. Yet it is obvious that Jonah did not die in the stomach of the fish and Jesus did not spend three days and three nights in the tomb as he said he would. Muslims fasten on to the Sign of Jonah to further the swooning theory and to challenge the parallel Jesus brought between the time Jonah spent in the depths of the ocean and the time he would spend buried in the earth. Let us consider the two arguments they produce, especially as they are quite commonly advanced in the Muslim world. Was Jesus Dead or Alive in the Tomb? No one doubts that Jonah was alive throughout his ordeal, nor has it ever been suggested that he rose from the dead when he was released on dry land. If so, Muslims argue, Jesus also must have been in the tomb without dying until the stone was rolled away from it. Otherwise, how could Jesus use Jonah’s experience as a sign of his own resurrection from the dead? When one reads the whole statement of Jesus, however, it is obvious that the likeness was confined to the time-factor: For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Matthew 12:40 It is quite clear that the likeness is in the time each would spend hidden from public view from which a reappearance was most unlikely, Jonah in a fish and Jesus in a tomb. The issue is the time-period of three days and three nights. It cannot be stretched to include the state each was in, namely to say "if Jonah was alive, then Jesus too must have been alive." This comes clear from another similar statement of Jesus where he again, in the context of his coming crucifixion, drew a comparison between his coming death and an Old Testament incident: As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. John 3:14 Here the likeness is clearly confined to the state of being lifted up and impaled, the serpent on a pole and Jesus on a cross. The first had been publicly lifted for the healing of the Jews bitten by serpents, the second for the healing of the nations bound in sin. In this case, however, the serpent was a brass object. At no time had it ever been alive. It was dead when nailed to the pole and dead when it was taken down. If you apply the same Muslim logic here it means Jesus must have been dead before he was ever nailed to the cross! It is quite obvious that, in each case, the living state or otherwise of the objects compared to was not relevant to the point Jesus was making. The likeness was clearly confined to the actual point of similarity he mentioned – in Jonah’s case the time-period of three days and nights, and in the case of the brass serpent to the action of being lifted up.The Three Days and Three Nights It is universally agreed among Christians (with a few exceptions) that Jesus was crucified on a Friday and that he rose from the dead early on the following Sunday morning. Muslims argue that, if that was indeed the case, the Sign of Jonah has no meaning because Jonah was three days and three nights in the stomach of the fish. Jesus was, quite obviously, only two nights (Friday and Saturday) in the tomb and hardly three days as well. The time-period of three days and nights is 72 hours, but Jesus could not have been more than 33 hours in the tomb (3pm Friday to 6am Sunday). What these Muslims fail to appreciate is that there is a major difference between Hebrew speech in the first century and English speech in the twentieth century. In those days Jews counted any part of a day as a whole day when calculating consecutive periods of time. Jesus was laid in the tomb of the Friday, lay in it throughout the Saturday, and only rose sometime before dawn on the Sunday. As the Sunday actually started at sunset the previous evening according to the Jewish calendar Jesus was in the tomb for a very definite period of three days according to Jewish reckoning. The question is why there were only two nights in between. One needs to understand the Hebrew colloquialisms of the time. The expression three days and three nights is the sort of expression we never use in the spoken English language today. Its meaning must therefore be sought in the context of its first-century Hebrew use. Today we will say "I’ll be away for two weeks" or for a "fortnight", never intending this to mean a precise period of fourteen days and fourteen nights. Yet the Bible often uses this figure of speech. Moses fasted for forty days and forty nights in the wilderness (Exodus 24:18) while Job’s friends sat with him for seven days and seven nights during his illness (Job 2:13). No Jew would ever have spoken of "three days and two nights" or "seven days and six nights" even if this was the exact period he was describing. It was a general period of three days that Jesus was speaking of and, incidentally, which Jonah spent in the depth of the sea. A fine example of this is found in the Old Testament where it is said that Queen Esther commanded that no one should eat for "three days, night or day" (Esther 4:16) but on the third day, after only two nights, she went into the king’s chamber and the fast was ended. The expression three days and three nights was a Jewish colloquialism meaning any period of time covering three days. This is really obvious from how the Jews reacted to Jesus’ saying once he had been buried. When they said to Pilate that they remembered how Jesus had said he would rise again after three days, they requested him to secure the sepulchre until the third day (Matthew 27:64). It was after only one night, on the day after his crucifixion (Saturday), that they urged the governor to act immediately. In our speech today we would have taken Jesus’ statement that he would rise after three days to mean sometime on the fourth day. The Jews, however, knowing their own colloquialisms, took Jesus to mean he would rise on the third day, namely Sunday, after only two nights. This is why they were only concerned to have the tomb secured until the third day. They knew he did not mean he would be buried for an exact period of 72 hours but only for a portion of three days. The important thing is to interpret the saying in first-century terms and not according to our forms of speech today. When the disciples of Jesus boldly declared that Jesus had risen from the dead on the third day (Acts 10:40), no one ever attempted to counter this testimony by claiming they were contradicting Jesus’ statement that he would be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. In conclusion it must be said that, when Muslims raise the subject of the Sign of Jonah, they create a wonderful opportunity to witness to them of precisely what it was – a symbol of Jesus’ crucifixion, death and resurrection from the dead three days later. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 17: 02.06. CHAPTER FIVE MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE? ======================================================================== Chapter Five Muhammad in the Bible? Muslim Arguments from Biblical Texts 5.1 The Prophet Like Moses in Deuteronomy 18:1-22 Muslim: In the original Tawraat there were clear predictions of the coming of our holy Prophet. One of them survives and is found in Deuteronomy 18:18 where Moses clearly foretells the coming of another prophet who would be just like him. One of the great arguments raised by Muslims in discussion with Christians is their claim that Muhammad is foretold in the Bible. The issue derives from a passage in the Qur’an which has led Muslim scholars, from the earliest days of Islam, to search for passages in both the Old and New Testaments to prove that their Prophet’s coming was indeed prophesied by the former prophets. Some of the books Muslims have written on this subject draw numerous passages from all over the Old Testament and one or two from the New but, in general conversation with Muslims, only two prominent examples are usually put forward and it is these that we will consider in this chapter. The Qur’anic verse is: Those who follow the Apostle, the unlettered Prophet, will find him mentioned in the (books) with them, in the Tawraat and the Injil. Surah 7:157 In both cases Christians will find that there can be no doubt that the particular passages refer to Jesus and the Holy Spirit respectively. Muslim Arguments on the Prophet "Like Unto" Moses The first of the prophecies they claim foretells the advent of their Prophet is found in the following passage where God addresses Moses: I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. Deuteronomy 18:18 The first argument is that Muhammad must be the prophet foretold because he was like Moses in a way that none of the other prophets were. As Christians claim the prophecy refers to Jesus Muslims argue further that they do not have to consider any other prophets but only have to bring comparisons between Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. The arguments run generally like this: 1. Moses and Muhammad led Normal Lives in Every Way Their lives followed a perfectly normal course unlike Jesus where every feature of his life was unique or unusual. They both had a father and a mother whereas Jesus was born of a virgin-woman and had no human father. Both died normal deaths at the end of lives that went their full course whereas, according to the Bible, Jesus died tragically when he was only thirty-three. Moses and Muhammad both married but Jesus remained a bachelor all his life. So Muhammad must be the prophet who was to come like Moses. 2. Moses and Muhammad Became the Leaders of their People In the later years of their lives, after initially being rejected by the Jews and Arabs respectively, Moses and Muhammad became the political and religious leaders of their nations. They died as undisputed rulers whereas Jesus had only a few followers at the end of his life, having been rejected by the chief priests and the people. 3. Their Successors both Conquered the Land of Palestine Shortly after their deaths successors to both Moses and Muhammad led armies into the land of Palestine and conquered it. Joshua conquered the land of Canaan, as it was then known, and settled the Jews in what became the land of Israel while Umar, the second Caliph after Muhammad, conquered the same land for Islam and settled Muslim Arabs in it where they are to this day. Jesus, however, was driven out of Jerusalem and put to death by the Romans who continued to rule the land for centuries to come. Similar arguments are put forward to supposedly prove that it was Muhammad, and not Jesus, whose coming was foretold. The Key Features of the Unique Prophet to Come The Muslim arguments hardly touch on the key issue. Moses was a unique prophet who had been commissioned to introduce a covenant between God and the people of Israel. The prophet who would be like him would obviously have to have certain distinguishing features that would make him like Moses in a way no other prophet was. Christians can argue like Muslims that Moses and Jesus both left Egypt to fulfil their ministries which Muhammad never did. "By faith he forsook Egypt" the Bible says of Moses (Hebrews 11:27), and again "Out of Egypt have I called my Son" it says of Jesus (Matthew 2:15). What, however, were the unique features in Moses’ prophethood? Let us consider them. 1. Moses was the Mediator of a Covenant In the same passage as the prophecy we are reviewing God said to the people of Israel that he would indeed raise up for them a prophet like Moses, "just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly" when they had pleaded that God speak to them through a mediator only (Deuteronomy 18:16). Moses mediated a covenant between God and the people when, after the ten commandments and other laws had been delivered to them, he anointed the Book of the Law and the people with the sprinkled blood of calves and goats as well as the tabernacle and vessels used in worship, saying "This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you" (Hebrews 9:20). 2. Moses Knew God Face-to-Face Moses had a unique relationship with God. For forty years unabated God spoke to him directly in a way he never did with any prophet who preceded or followed him. The Bible says: Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. Exodus 33:11 The Qur’an confirms this unique relationship, saying "And to Moses Allah spoke directly" (Surah 4:164) in contrast with another verse where the Qur’an says "it is not fitting for a man that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration, or from behind a veil, or by the sending of a messenger" (Surah 42:51). We need, therefore, to look for a prophet who had a similar unique relationship. 3. Moses Performed Great Signs and Wonders For many years Moses performed many miracles, such as the many plagues he brought down on Egypt, the dividing of the Red Sea and the daily manna from heaven. No prophet could be said to be like Moses if he could not do the same. We have already seen that Muhammad performed no miracles during his life according to the Qur’an and the following charge against him by the pagan Arabs during the time of his own mission is very significant: Why are not (signs) sent to him, like those which were sent to Moses? Surah 28:48 Simply put, the argument is that if Muhammad was indeed the great prophet he claimed to be, why was he not like Moses in the key features of his prophethood? Muhammad mediated no covenant, did not know God face-to-face (the Qur’an, according to all Hadith records and Surah 2:97, was mediated to him solely through the Angel Jibril), and performed no miracles. So he cannot be the prophet foretold in Deuteronomy 18:18. This verse, describing Moses’ ministry at the end of his life, emphasises the uniqueness of his prophethood: And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, none like him for all the signs and wonders which the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land. Deuteronomy 34:10-11 It is clear from this passage that the prophet to come who would be like Moses would be identified at least by his close direct relationship with God and by many signs and wonders attending his ministry. That prophet could only be Jesus as we shall see in the next section. 5.2 Jesus – The Prophet Foretold by Moses Muslim: What evidences do you have for your claim that Jesus was the prophet foretold by Moses? He was a great prophet but his mission appears to have ended in failure after just a few years. He did not share the greatness of Moses and Muhammad. It is important, right at the start, to point out to Muslims that the Bible expressly applies the prophecy in Deuteronomy 18:18 to Jesus on two occasions. The Apostle Peter, claiming that God had foretold the coming of Jesus through all the prophets, quoted the text as proof that Moses had done so (Acts 3:22). Stephen, the early Christian martyr, also appealed to the same text as proof that Moses was one of those who had "announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One", Jesus, whom the Jewish leaders had now betrayed and crucified (Acts 7:37). We will proceed to see how Jesus fulfilled the three unique features we have already considered. The Mediator of the New Covenant Muslims occasionally argue that, according to Christian belief, Jesus was the Son of God and could not have been a prophet in the normal way. In reply there are numerous passages where Jesus called himself a prophet (e.g. Matthew 13:57) as well as the Son of God (John 10:36). Having taken human form to proclaim the Word of God just the previous prophets had done made him likewise a prophet in the true sense of the word. Let us now see how he was the prophet to come like Moses. 1. Jesus was also the Mediator of a Covenant At the time of Jeremiah, many centuries after Moses’ time but long before the days of Jesus, God promised that he would make a new covenant between himself and his people. As the nation of Israel had consistently rejected his laws he regarded the original covenant made with Moses obsolete, but promised that he would now enter into a special relationship with his own people by forgiving their sins and writing his laws on their hearts (Jeremiah 31:31-34). The New Testament declares that Jesus was the mediator of this covenant (Hebrews 9:15). To ratify the first covenant we read: Moses took the blood and threw it on the people, and said, "Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words". Exodus 24:8 As the first covenant had been mediated through Moses and ratified with blood it was only to be expected that the prophet to follow like Moses would do likewise. So, just before his death on the cross, Jesus said: This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this as often as you drink it in remembrance of me. 1 Corinthians 11:25 2. Jesus also Knew God Face-to-Face Just as Moses knew God directly and communicated with him personally throughout his ministry, so Jesus could say "I know him, I come from him, and he sent me" (John 7:29). On many other occasions he made it clear that he had seen God face-to-face, such as in these words "Not that anyone has ever seen the Father except him who is from God – he has seen the Father" (John 6:46). The most telling comparison at this point is found in two passages which speak of the effect of the close relationship Moses and Jesus had with God. The first tells what happened when Moses spoke with God face-to-face: Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him. Exodus 34:29-30 When the image of the invisible God was directly revealed through Jesus as God spoke of him as his own Beloved Son, we read: And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as light. Matthew 17:2 No other prophet could claim such a distinction. No one else knew God face-to-face in such a way that his face shone as he communed with him. Certainly there are no evidences anywhere in the Qur’an or any other Muslim records that Muhammad ever emulated the experience. Even the story of al-Mir’aj, his supposed ascension to heaven, do not state that his face ever shone in any way. 3. Jesus Likewise Performed Great Miracles There are numerous stories of great miracles which Jesus did during his life but once again a direct parallel with Moses will help to emphasise the likeness between them. Both of them had power to control the sea, a feat never emulated by any other prophet. Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind. Exodus 14:21 Other prophets after Moses had power over rivers (Joshua 3:13, 2 Kings 2:14) but no one could emulate Moses’ great miracle of controlling the sea until Jesus stood over the Sea of Galilee one night and, during a raging storm, calmed it with just three words "Peace – be still" (Mark 4:39). His disciples exclaimed: What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him? Matthew 8:27 One of Moses’ greatest miracles was to feed the people of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai with bread known as manna which appeared on the ground every day. When the Jews saw Jesus feed five thousand people besides women and children from only five loaves of bread and two fishes so that there was enough left over to fill twelve baskets, they immediately recalled Moses’ prophecy. When the people saw the sign which he had done, they said, "This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world." John 6:14 When they saw the sign, they declared that Jesus was the prophet, the one foretold by Moses in Deuteronomy 18:18. There can be no doubt from all these evidences that Jesus is the prophet whose coming was prophesied by Moses and not Muhammad. The evidences relating to the unique features of his life, specifically named in Deuteronomy 34:10-11 as the ones which would identify the coming prophet, prove conclusively that he was the one of whom God spoke to the people of Israel. 5.3 The Prophet From Among their Brethren Muslim: The promise was of a prophet to come from among the brethren of the Israelites. Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac, and their brethren were the Ishmaelites. Muhammad was descended from Ishmael and he is therefore the prophet. This is one of the favourite arguments of Muslims in trying to prove that the prophet foretold in Deuteronomy 18:18 was Muhammad. They emphasise the words "from among their brethren", assuming that it is the "brethren" of the Israelites as a nation that are spoken of in the prophecy. A brief survey of the context of the passage shows quite conclusively that it was not the Ishmaelites who were in mind. The Brethren of the Levites The prophecy in Deuteronomy 18:18 is set in a context of a whole discourse where God gave Moses certain directions about the future conduct of the people of Israel once they reached the promised land, especially the Levites, the priestly tribe. A look at the first two verses of the chapter will reveal very clearly who God was speaking of when he said he would raise up for them a prophet from among their brethren. The Levitical priests, that is, all the tribe of Levi, shall have no portion or inheritance with Israel ... They shall have no inheritance among their brethren. Deuteronomy 18:1-2 It is abundantly clear here that they means the Levites, and that their brethren means the other tribes of Israel. No honest method of interpretation can possibly yield any other conclusion. Therefore the correct interpretation of Deuteronomy 18:18 must be: "I will raise up for them (the Levites) a prophet like you from among their brethren (the other eleven tribes of Israel)". Therefore the passage cannot refer to the Ishmaelites and the prophecy most certainly cannot apply to Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam. It is interesting to note that, throughout the Old Testament, the expression "their brethren" often occurs and in every case it refers to one of the tribes of Israel as distinct from the one actually mentioned. A typical example is found in the following verse where there can be no doubt as to who the brethren are: But the children of Benjamin would not listen to the voice of their brethren, the children of Israel. Judges 20:13 Here "their brethren" is specifically stated to be the other members of the nation of Israel as distinct from the tribe of Benjamin. In the same way Deuteronomy 18:18 refers to the other tribes of Israel as distinct from the tribe of Levi. In another passage we read that Moses said to the people of Israel: One from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. Deuteronomy 17:15 Only one of the brethren of the Israelites could be appointed as king over the nation. They were not allowed to place a foreigner, such as an Ishmaelite, over them. Here the principle is reinforced that the prophet who was to come from among "their brethren" was to be an Israelite, only not one of the people of the tribe of Levi. In Europe for many centuries it has been customary for monarchs to come from various nations so as to maintain a close relationship between the various countries. German, British, French and Greek princes have often intermarried with princesses or other royal women from other nations. In Israel, however, there was an express command to the people that they were not to put anyone from another nation over them as king because they had been set apart as the people of God distinct from the pagan nations around them. Jesus the Prophet from Among Their Brethren Do we have any evidences, however, to prove that Jesus qualifies as the prophet foretold in this particular context? The New Testament quite clearly records that Jesus was descended from Judah through the line of David. He is expressly said to have descended from "Judah, the son of Jacob" (Luke 3:33) and in another place we read "Now it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah" (Hebrews 7:14). Jesus is therefore obviously the one who was to come from one of the other tribes of Israel. Together with the other evidences we have considered there can be no doubt that he is the prophet foretold in Deuteronomy 18:18. Muhammad meets none of the vital criterion for qualifying for this office. Other Muslim arguments in favour of Muhammad also do not stand the test of close scrutiny. God said of the prophet to come "I will put my words in his mouth" and Muslims say that, by revealing the Qur’an to Muhammad who repeated it to his followers, the prophecy was fulfilled. According to Islam, however, the Tawraat was equally so revealed to Moses, the Zabur to David, and the Injil to Jesus. So each of them had the words of God in their mouths. To Jeremiah God said "Behold I have put my words in your mouth" (Jeremiah 1:9). Likewise God went on to say to Moses "he shall speak to them all that I command him". Jesus once said to his disciples: For I have not spoken on my own authority; the Father who sent me has himself given me commandment what to say and what to speak. John 12:49 The Muslims can raise no unique evidences to prove, from the context of the prophecy, that Muhammad was the prophet foretold in Deuteronomy 18:18. Another argument centres on the questions the Jews once put to John the Baptist after he denied that he was the Christ, namely whether he was Elijah and, if not, whether he was the Prophet? (John 1:21). They argue that the Jews distinguished between Elijah, the Christ and the Prophet, and that they were, in order, John the Baptist, Jesus and Muhammad. Nothing conclusive can be drawn from the speculations of the Jews, however. Once they said of Jesus "This is indeed the prophet" (John 7:40). On another occasion they concluded he was "one of the prophets" (Matthew 16:14), on another "a prophet" (Mark 6:15), and thought of him as both Elijah (Mark 6:15) and as possibly John the Baptist himself (Matthew 16:14). Nothing conclusive can be drawn from their guesswork. There can be no doubt, from all we have considered, that it was Jesus Christ and not Muhammad whose coming was foretold by Moses in Deuteronomy 18:18. 5.4 Jesus’ Promise of the Coming Comforter Muslim: According to your Bible did not Jesus speak of another prophet to come after him whom he called the Comforter? This was obviously a prophecy of the coming of our holy prophet Muhammad. The Qur’an even confirms the prophecy. The greatest of all the Muslim claims that Muhammad is foretold in the Bible comes from the promise of Jesus to his disciples, recorded four times in John’s Gospel, that he would be followed by yet another person sent from God whom he called the Comforter, one who would guide them into all the truth. From the earliest centuries of Islam Muslim scholars have endeavoured to prove that the Comforter was Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam. Of all the challenges made to Christians in witness among Muslims, this one is undoubtedly the most frequent. Yet even here Christians have, when responding to their arguments, tremendous opportunities for witness to Muslims of who the Comforter really is – the Holy Spirit – and how he fulfils the redeeming work of Jesus. Muslim Arguments about the Comforter It is in the following texts that Muslims believe they have proof that Muhammad was duly foretold by Jesus in terms of the Qur’anic text which states that they would find his coming prophesied in the Injil as well as the Tawraat (Surah 4:157): But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. John 14:26 Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. John 16:7 Both these sayings come from a lengthy discourse of Jesus on the last night he was with his disciples before his crucifixion. On two other occasions in the same discourse he again spoke of the coming Comforter (John 14:16; John 15:26). Muslims claim that he was undoubtedly speaking of Muhammad for the following reasons: 1. Muhammad Led the World into all the Truth Muslims argue that, when Jesus said the Comforter will "teach you all things", this was fulfilled in their Prophet who, in delivering the Qur’an, taught the world all it needs to know about God, his laws, and the way of life he expects his servants to follow. So likewise, when Jesus said "he will declare to you the things that are to come" (John 16:13), Muhammad is claimed to have done exactly this as the Qur’an discourses at length on the Last Day (Yawma’l Akhir), the Resurrection, the Final Judgment, and the destiny of the human race to heaven (Jannat) or hell (Jahannam). 2. The Use of the Masculine Gender Muslims often make much of the fact that, in speaking of the coming Comforter, Jesus used the masculine gender no less than eight times. They argue that, when Jesus said "He will glorify me, he will not speak on his own authority, he will guide you into all truth", etc., he was obviously speaking of a man, a prophet, and not the Holy Spirit. A spirit it is claimed, being neither male nor female, cannot be spoken of in anything but the neutral gender but, as Jesus consistently used the word he to describe the Comforter, this must refer to a male prophet, namely Muhammad. 3. The Comforter Was to Come after Jesus The third argument commonly used by Muslims to prove their case is that, as Jesus said the Comforter would not come until he had gone away, this must mean Muhammad. Once again, they reason, it cannot refer to the Holy Spirit because, according to the Bible, the Holy Spirit had always been there. David prayed that God would not take his Spirit from him (Psalms 51:11) while John the Baptist was said to have been filled with Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb (Luke 1:15). The Christian Response to these Arguments There are simple answers to these three arguments. A careful study of the whole context of the relevant verses shows quite clearly that Jesus was speaking of the Holy Spirit who indeed came down within ten days after Jesus’ ascension as he had promised (Acts 2:1-21). Firstly, the Holy Spirit duly brought to the remembrance of Jesus’ disciples all that he had said to them. John only wrote his Gospel some sixty years after Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, yet he was able to record the whole of his last discourse to his disciples accurately in no less than four chapters (John 13:1-38; John 14:1-31; John 15:1-27; John 16:1-33). The complete teaching which followed is recorded, not in the Qur’an, but in the twenty-seven books of the New Testament. All its teaching is inspired by God through the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16) and none of it is subject to man’s interpretation, because it never came through human impulse since "men, moved by the Holy Spirit, spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:21). Secondly, throughout the Bible both God and the Holy Spirit are always referred to in the masculine gender. "He is your Praise, he is your God" (Deuteronomy 10:21) is a typical example of its constant use to describe the Divine Being even though God is not man but spirit (John 4:24). The Muslim argument can be turned on its head by referring to a passage of the Qur’an where Allah is spoken of in the masculine gender no less than seven times in quick succession (Surah 59:22-24). "He is Allah and there is no god besides whom he is" is the middle text (v. 23) and it begins and ends with the masculine huwa ("he is") and not the neutral hiya ("it is"). If Allah, who is spirit and not man, can nonetheless be spoken of in the masculine gender in the Qur’an, why can the Holy Spirit likewise not be spoken of in the same terms? There is no hint in the four sayings of Jesus about the Comforter that he would be a man or a prophet, rather he is expressly identified as the Holy Spirit (John 14:26). Thirdly, Jesus not only said he had to go away before the Comforter would come, but also promised that he would personally send him to his own disciples, to Peter, James, John and the rest. "I will send him to you" he said (John 16:7), not to Arabs in Mecca or Medina six centuries later. It could hardly have been to the disciples’ advantage if the Comforter was not to come almost immediately after Jesus left the earth. When he was about to ascend to heaven Jesus expressly told them to wait a short while in Jerusalem until they received the Holy Spirit before they went out proclaiming the Gospel (Acts 1:4-5). The Comforter had indeed been present in the world before this time but now he was to be poured out in a new way right into the hearts of all who believed in Jesus. They had experienced the ministry and presence of Jesus with them for three years but now his presence was to be known in a way even more to their advantage – by the fact of the Spirit actually living within them. 5.5 "His Name Shall be Ahmad" in the Qur’an Muslim: According to the Qur’an Jesus specifically predicted the coming of Muhammad as the "Praised One". This was his actual prophecy. You Christians have since changed the original word Periklutos ("Praised") into Paracletos ("Comforter"). Muslims particularly concentrate on Jesus’ promise of a coming Comforter because it seems to confirm a similar text in the Qur’an where he is said to have expressly predicted the coming of Muhammad: And remember Jesus, son of Mary, said "O Children of Israel! I am a messenger of Allah to you, confirming what is before me from the Tawraat, and announcing tidings of a messenger to follow me whose name shall be Ahmad". Surah 61:6 Although the prediction is not of Muhammad by his actual name, Muslim scholars point out that Ahmad comes from the same three root letters as his own name, hmd, meaning "praise". It seems Muhammad knew that Jesus had spoken of someone to follow him but had not done so by name and, for this reason, he avoided any mention of himself personally in adapting the prophecy to the Qur’an, using a title as close to his name as he could to ensure the necessary inference that it was him. Periklutos or Parakletos? The original word in John’s Gospel translated as "Comforter" is paracletos, meaning (as the English equivalent "paraclete" implies) one who clings closely as a counsellor, consoler or mentor. It never means "one who is praised". It is obvious from the sayings of Jesus that the original word is the correct one as everything he had to say about the Comforter related precisely to this concept of a close adviser. "He will take what is mine and declare it to you" is typical of the description Jesus gave to the Holy Spirit. He was to dwell in hearts of his disciples and would give them an insight and guidance into God’s ways and the power to fulfil them from within their own souls. He would come to convict the world of sin, righteousness and judgment as God’s agent speaking through the witness and proclamations of Jesus’ disciples. Nevertheless Muslims have, in their writings, argued that the Christian world has corrupted the original saying of Jesus and that it incorporated the word periklutos which means "Praised One". This roughly coincides with the title Ahmad in the Qur’an, having the same basic meaning. Is there any substance in the Muslim claim? Are there any evidences to prove it? 1. Periklutos is not a Biblical Word There is no manuscript evidence whatsoever that the original word may have been periklutos. In fact the word nowhere appears in the Greek New Testament and is accordingly not a Biblical Word. The Muslim claim is based, not on any kind of concrete, factual testimony but purely on a supposition to suit themselves. 2. The Word does not Fit into the Context As pointed out already, the definition of the coming one whom Jesus promised was primarily of a counsellor and advocate. There is nothing in all four sayings of Jesus about the Comforter to support the contention that he was to be "the Praised One". On the contrary, when Jesus said "he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak" (John 16:13) he made it clear he would specifically not draw attention to himself. "He will glorify me" Jesus went on to say (John 16:14), meaning he would give praise to Jesus through the witness of his followers rather than claim any praise for himself. 3. It is Muslims who are Changing the Bible The irony of this issue is that we have here clear evidence of a Muslim attempt to do what they have always wrongly accused the Christian world of doing, namely of trying to change the Bible to suit their own preferences! They have had to resort to a strange distortion to make the prophecy of Jesus fit Muhammad, and purely to bring into being some kind of connection with the name (or title) Ahmad in the Qur’an. It is clear they cannot prove their point directly from the Biblical texts as they stand. There is no justification for the claim that the original word used by Jesus was periklutos or any Hebrew equivalent of it. Most importantly, as we have seen, it does not linguistically fit the context of his sayings. The Title Ahmad in the Qur’an There have been a number of disputes over the years about the employment of the word Ahmad in the Qur’an. Today it is a common first name among Muslims throughout the world, but there is no evidence in Arabian records dating back to the time of Muhammad that it was ever used as a personal name in the early centuries of Islam. It almost certainly came into popular use as a result of this text of the Qur’an. It is more probable that the actual form of the word in Surah 61:6, ahmadu, was a simple adjective in the Arabic language of the time. This is supported by the fact that, in the sayings of Jesus we have considered, a proper name of the coming comforter is entirely omitted. It is also very interesting to note that in one of the early codices of the Qur’an which Uthman ordered to be burnt, namely that of the expert reciter Ubayy ibn Ka’b, Surah 61:6 read somewhat differently. He omitted the conclusion "his name will be Ahmad" (ismuhu ahmad) and in its place records Jesus as saying that he was announcing a prophet who would bear the seal of Allah from his prophets and messengers (khatumullaahu bihil-anbiyaa’ wal-rusuli). From a Christian perspective Surah 61:6 is an attempt to modify the prophecy of Jesus about the coming of the Holy Spirit to apply it instead to the Prophet of Islam. Some centuries before his time a counterfeit messiah named Mani also tried to apply the prophecy to himself and it seems that it was well known in the vicinity of Arabia during the centuries following the time of Jesus. It would only be natural for someone like Muhammad, believing he was the last of the messengers of Allah, to want to secure it in some deliberate way for himself – hence the adaptation of the title into the name Ahmad in the Qur’an. 5.6 The Holy Spirit: The Promised Comforter Muslim: You cannot deny that Jesus did speak specifically of another messenger of God to follow him. As he was only one of a long line of prophets and apostles sent by God, is it not surely logical to assume that the Comforter was to be Muhammad? In discussion with Muslims on this subject it is useful to take just one of the four sayings of Jesus about the coming Comforter, and to show from it that he could only have been speaking of the Holy Spirit. At the same time a healthy witness can be given to just how the Holy Spirit brings true believers into a relationship of personal unity with God himself. The ideal text for this purpose is this one: And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you. John 14:16-17 There are a number of reasons why this passage can only apply to the Holy Spirit and not to the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad. Another Comforter: The Spirit of Truth By applying sound principles of interpretation to this passage we will find at least seven reasons for concluding that the promised Comforter was the divine Holy Spirit who Jesus promised would come to his disciples shortly after his ascension to heaven. 1. He will give you Another Comforter Jesus specifically told his disciples that he would send the promised Comforter to them. He repeated the promise later by saying "I will send him to you" (John 16:7). Thus the coming of the Spirit of Truth, also specifically declared to be the Holy Spirit (John 14:26), was something the disciples of Jesus were to expect in their time and environment. Muhammad only appeared six centuries later. 2. He will give you Another Comforter If, as Muslims claim, the original title was periklutos, then the sentence would have read "He will give you another praised one". It not only makes no sense but is completely out of context. What Jesus is saying here is simply: "I have been your comforter, your counsellor and adviser. I have yet many things to teach you, but I will send you another counsellor and guide like me". He had come from God as a spirit from heaven and had taken human form for the duration of his short life on earth. He would send another spirit from above to fulfil his ministry to his followers. The Qur’an interestingly confirms that Jesus came from God, calling him a "spirit from him" (ruhun-minhu), a title given to no other human being in the book (Surah 58:22). In the only other instance where the Qur’an speaks of a ruhun-minhu, it speaks of a spirit whom God sends into the hearts of true believers to strengthen them – precisely who the Holy Spirit is. So the Qur’an agrees that there were only two spirits whom God has ever sent from himself into the world, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, each one a paracletos, a guide and mentor, to comfort and lead the true followers of God on earth. 3. To be With You Forever When Muhammad came to the fore as the Prophet of Islam in Arabia in the 7th century after Christ he did not stay with his companions forever but died at the age of 62 years. He was buried in Medina where his body has lain for nearly fourteen centuries. Jesus stated that the promised Comforter, however, would be with his disciples forever and the Holy Spirit has done just that, living in the hearts of all true followers of Jesus to this day. 4. The Spirit of Truth whom the World Cannot Receive The Qur’an says that Muhammad came as a universal messenger to all mankind (Surah 34:28). Muslims believe that one day the whole world will submit to Islam and become followers of their Prophet. If so Jesus could not have been speaking about him for he declared that the world as a whole cannot receive the Spirit of Truth. Only the true followers of Jesus, who turn to him as their Saviour and Lord, can be born anew of the Holy Spirit and become heirs of eternal life. 5. You Know Him It is quite obvious from this statement that Jesus’ disciples already knew the Spirit of Truth. As Muhammad was only born more than five hundred years later it could not have been him. The Comforter was a Spirit with whom the disciples were already familiar. The next clause states precisely how he was already known to them. 6. He dwells With You When Jesus first came to John the Baptist to be baptised by him at the very beginning of his ministry, the heavens were opened and John himself records what happened next: I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptise with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptises with the Holy Spirit’. John 1:32-33 The Spirit of Truth was at all times in the person of Jesus himself, and in this manner the disciples of Jesus had already come to know him. At no time could Muhammad have been said to have already been with Jesus’ disciples. 7. He Will be In You As the Spirit was already in Jesus, so it would also enter into and be forever present in the hearts of Jesus’ disciples once he had returned to heaven. This happened on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was poured out on all who heard the Word of God and the Gospel of Jesus for the first time. God’s love continues to be poured into the hearts of those who turn in faith to Jesus through the same Holy Spirit given to them (Romans 5:5). The Greek word here is en, meaning "right inside you". The promise clearly cannot refer to Muhammad who has never entered personally into the hearts of all true Christian believers. Christians can not only easily refute Muslim arguments in favour of Muhammad as the promised Comforter but, as you can surely see, have at this point an excellent base to witness effectively to Muslims. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 18: 02.07. CHAPTER SIX THE GOSPEL OF BARNABAS ======================================================================== Chapter Six The Gospel of Barnabas The Spurious Gospel in Islamic Apologetics 6.1 Muslim Interest in the Gospel of Barnabas Muslim: Why has the Christian world hidden the Gospel of Barnabas? This illuminating book proves that Jesus was a true Prophet of Islam, proving that he never claimed to be the Son of God and that he predicted the coming of our Prophet by name. In witness with Muslims a Christian evangelist will often find that they raise the subject of the Gospel of Barnabas. With great confidence they will claim that it is the only reliable record of the life of Jesus Christ and that we have deliberately concealed it because it shows Jesus to have been the prophet the Qur’an declares him to have been. If you should express surprise to hear that such a book actually exists they will press home their contentions all the more, declaring that your ignorance of the book is a sure sign that the Church has forcefully suppressed its teaching. The History of the Barnabas Gospel In his Preliminary Discourse to his translation of the Qur’an first published in 1734 AD, George Sale first drew the attention of the Christian world generally to a Gospel attributed to St. Barnabas which, he said, records the life of Jesus in a manner very different from that found in the four Biblical Gospels but corresponding to the traditions of Muhammad in the Qur’an. He mentioned a Spanish translation in the possession of the Moriscoes in Africa (which no longer exists apart from a few known extracts), and an Italian translation in the library of Prince Eugene of Savoy. From this edition Lonsdale and Laura Ragg published a translation into English which was published in 1907 with various notes, proving Sale’s contention that it is a forgery. Since the beginning of this century, when an Arabic translation became well known in the Islamic world, Muslim scholars and writers have made much of the book. In 1973 the Raggs’ English translation of the Gospel was first published in the Muslim world. Since then approximately 100 000 copies have been printed in Pakistan. It has caused considerable excitement as it appears to finally prove, from Christian origins, that Jesus was the ‘Isa of Islam and that Muhammad was indeed to be the final messenger of God to all mankind. Muslims fondly suppose that this Gospel has been denounced in the Christian world solely because of its Islamic character. It is truer to say that this is the only real reason why it has attracted so much publicity in the Muslim world. The external and internal evidences around the book give a far better reason for rejecting it. They prove conclusively that it was compiled only a few centuries ago as a deliberate forgery to impose both Qur’anic and traditional Muslim dogmas on the life of Jesus as it is described in the four genuine Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Unlike these books which are between twenty and forty pages each, the Gospel of Barnabas is 273 pages long. Much of its teaching is repetitive of Biblical teaching, though adapted to suit Islamic preferences. For example, when ten lepers were healed on one occasion by Jesus, the only one to return was a Samaritan who fell at his feet, giving him thanks (Luke 17:16). The Gospel of Barnabas conveniently states that he was an Ishmaelite! The rest of its teaching, however, consists of legendary and fanciful stories and forged teachings of Jesus of no historical value at all. Let us consider a few of its typical Islamic teachings. Islamic Teachings of the Barnabas Gospel 1. Jesus Denied that he was the Son of God The Gospel of Barnabas repeats the incident where Jesus asked his disciples, firstly, who the multitudes thought he was and, secondly, who they thought he was (Matthew 16:13-20). When Peter answered that he was the Son of God, Jesus responded that he was blessed because his Father in heaven had revealed this to him. In the Gospel of Barnabas, however, while Peter is correctly recorded as declaring that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, the answer of Jesus to him was totally different. Jesus is supposed to have declared to Peter "Begone and depart from me, because thou art the devil and seekest to cause me offence!" He then is reputed to have told all his disciples to beware because "I have won from God a great curse against those who believe this" (Gospel of Barnabas, para 70). 2. Judas was Crucified in Place of Jesus The Muslim doctrine that Jesus was taken alive from the earth just before he was due to be arrested while someone else was made to look like him and was crucified in his place is repeated in this Gospel, only it specifically makes the victim Judas Iscariot. It was only some centuries after Muhammad that the Muslim world first taught this theory, invented to justify the crucifixion of a bystander who might otherwise have seemed to be an innocent substitute. The Gospel of Barnabas teaches that when Judas arrived with soldiers to arrest Jesus, God sent four angels to take Jesus out of the world into the third heaven while Judas "was so changed in speech and in face to be like Jesus" that Barnabas and the other disciples believed him to actually be Jesus (Gospel of Barnabas, para 216). Judas was duly crucified in his place. 3. Jesus Predicted the Coming of Muhammad by Name In many places Jesus is said to have declared the coming of Muhammad by name, as in this statement made after he said he would first have to endure the infamy that he had been crucified: "But when Mohammed shall come, the sacred messenger of God, that infamy shall be taken away" (Gospel of Barnabas, para 112). These are some of the central Islamic features of the Gospel of Barnabas where its teaching contradicts the contents of the four Biblical Gospels. Numerous other Islamic influences can be found throughout the book, such as the claim that the covenantal promise to Abraham was made in Ishmael and not Isaac (para 191), explaining the Muslim conviction that this is the only true Gospel. 6.2 Medieval Origins Proving it is a Forgery Muslim: Among the books discredited by the Gelasian Decree in the sixth century after Christ was the Gospel of Barnabas. This proves that it existed at that time. It was only rejected because it told the truth about Jesus’ life and teaching. There were numerous apocryphal Gospels, Epistles and other forgeries similar in style to the authentic New Testament scriptures that were rejected by the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD and in the subsequent Decretum Gelasianum of which one was titled the Gospel of Barnabas. No historical record whatsoever exists to show what sort of book it was or what it taught. From a study of the contents of this Islamic Gospel so strongly promoted in the Muslim world, however, it soon becomes obvious that these two cannot possibly be the same works. There are many proofs that the latter is a 16th century forgery. Medieval Sources of the Gospel of Barnabas It is not hard to prove to Muslims that this Gospel was first compiled many centuries after the times of both Jesus and Muhammad. Three of examples of medieval influences will be considered here. 1. The Centenary Year of Jubilee One of the laws Moses gave to the people of Israel was that a jubilee year was to observed twice every century when slaves would be liberated and debts cancelled. God ordained it in these words: A jubilee year shall that fiftieth year be to you. Leviticus 25:11 About 1300 AD Pope Boniface the Eighth decreed that the jubilee year should be reintroduced but that it should only be held at the turn of each century, that is, once every hundred years. After his death, however, Pope Clemens the Sixth decreed that the jubilee year should revert to every fifty years following the Biblical decree and there was talk thereafter of reducing it further. In the Gospel of Barnabas this saying is attributed to Jesus: And then through all the world will God be worshipped, and mercy received, insomuch that the year of jubilee, which now cometh every hundred years, shall by the Messiah be reduced to every year in every place. Gospel of Barnabas, para 82 The anachronism is obvious – the author of the Gospel of Barnabas could only have spoken of the jubilee year coming every hundred years if he knew of the decree of Pope Boniface. Whoever wrote this Gospel makes Jesus repeat a proclamation which was only made at least thirteen centuries after his time! This proves that the Gospel is a forgery of not earlier than the 14th century AD. 2. Quotations from Dante’s Inferno Dante was an Italian who lived at about the same time as Pope Boniface. He wrote a well-known classic titled Divina Comedia – the "Divine Comedy". It was a fantasy about hell, purgatory and heaven according to the beliefs of his time. Many passages in the Gospel of Barnabas show a dependence on his work, one of which is a saying attributed to Jesus of the prophets of old: Readily and with gladness they went to their death, so as not to offend against the law of God given by Moses his servant, and go and serve false and lying gods. Gospel of Barnabas, para 23 The expression dei falsi e lugiardi (false and lying gods) is found elsewhere in the Gospel of Barnabas. Jesus is recorded as again using this phrase (para 78) while Herod is also said by the author to have "adored the false and lying gods" (para 217). The cliche is found in neither the Bible nor the Qur’an but is a direct quote from Dante! (Inferno 1.72). In its actual descriptions of heaven and hell the Gospel of Barnabas follows Dante exactly while contradicting the Qur’an. Jesus is said to have declared to Simon Peter: Know ye therefore that hell is one, yet hath seven centres one below another. Hence, even as sin is of seven kinds, for as seven gates of hell hath Satan generated it: so there are seven punishments therein. Gospel of Barnabas, para 135 Dante gives precisely this description in the fifth and sixth cantos of his Inferno. Speaking of the heavens the Gospel of Barnabas states that they are nine and that Paradise itself is greater than all of them together (para 178). This again parallels Dante who also speaks of nine heavens with an Empyrean, a tenth heaven above them all. These depictions of heaven, however, directly contradict the Qur’an which teaches that after Allah had created the earth, he fashioned paradise as seven heavens (Surah 2:29). 3. The Medieval Environment of the Gospel Other passages from the Gospel show that the author was more at home in the climate and seasons of southern Europe than in the land of Palestine. He makes Jesus speak of how beautiful the world is in summer-time when the harvest and fruit abound (para 169). This is a fair description of Italy in summer but not of Palestine where the rain falls in winter and the fields are parched in summer. Likewise the Gospel of Barnabas speaks of storing wine in wooden wine-casks (para 152), a common practice in medieval Europe but not in first-century Palestine where wine was stored in skins (Matthew 9:17). Further proof of the author’s ignorance of the geography of Palestine is found in this statement: Having arrived at the city of Nazareth the seamen spread through the city all that Jesus had wrought. Gospel of Barnabas, para 20 In this passage Nazareth is represented as a harbour on the Lake of Galilee. After this Jesus is said to have gone "up to Capernaum". Every disciple of Jesus would have known that Capernaum was the city on the shores of the lake while Nazareth is up in the hills. Jesus would have gone up from Capernaum to Nazareth, not the other way around as the Gospel of Barnabas has it. These evidences all prove that the Gospel of Barnabas is a forgery compiled in southern Europe sometime around the 16th century after Christ. Let us proceed to examine other evidences that discount the authenticity of this book that calls itself a Gospel. 6.3 Other Evidences Against its Authenticity Muslim: The Gospel of Barnabas must be the true Gospel since it teaches that Jesus was not to be the final messenger of God to mankind but that this honour would be reserved to our holy Prophet Muhammad who he said would follow after him. There are numerous other evidences against the authenticity of the Gospel of Barnabas, some of which derive from the very passages where Jesus is said to have foretold the coming of Muhammad. It is very interesting to note that this Gospel makes no mention of John the Baptist – a striking omission, considering the attention given to him as a contemporary prophet to Jesus in the Biblical Gospels. Instead sayings of John are attributed to Jesus, such as "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord’" (John 1:23) which is ascribed to Jesus in the Gospel of Barnabas together with the whole conversation that surrounds it (para 42). The author of this Gospel conveniently, but very erroneously, makes Jesus say of Muhammad what John actually said of him. The Messiah – Jesus or Muhammad? John the Baptist denied that he was the Messiah when challenged by the Jewish leaders (John 1:20). The Gospel of Barnabas makes Jesus deny the same thing in much the same words: Jesus confessed and said the truth: ‘I am not the Messiah ... I am indeed sent to the house of Israel as a prophet of salvation; but after me shall come the Messiah’. Gospel of Barnabas, paras 42, 82 Who was to be the coming Messiah, then? Elsewhere the Gospel makes Jesus say "The name of the Messiah is Admirable ... God said: Wait Mohammed; for thy sake I will to create paradise ... Mohammed is his blessed name" (para 97). Here the author of the Gospel of Barnabas completely overreaches himself for the Qur’an clearly states, no less than eleven times, that Jesus alone is the Messiah. The Bible confirms this too on many occasions (John 4:26, Matthew 16:20) and one quotation from the Qur’an will be sufficient to prove the point: O Mary! Lo! Allah gives you glad tidings of a Word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the hereafter. Surah 3:45 The title here is Al-Masih, "the Messiah", and Jesus himself is called Al-Masihu Isa, "the Messiah Jesus", elsewhere in the book (Surah 4:171). So the Gospel of Barnabas incontrovertibly contradicts the Qur’an when it declares that Muhammad was to be the Messiah. No Muslim can be true to his own holy book while at the same time trying to defend the Gospel of Barnabas as an authentic Gospel. What is very interesting here is the discovery that this Gospel not only contradicts the Qur’an but also itself. In the prologue to the book it speaks of "Jesus the Nazarene, called Christ" and states that it is the "true Gospel of Jesus, called Christ". The author does not seem to have been aware that Messiah and Christ are interchangeable terms, meaning the same thing. The latter derives from the Greek word Christos which is a translation of the original Hebrew word Mashiah. Contradictions between the Barnabas Gospel and the Qur’an There are other contradictions between the Qur’an and the Gospel of Barnabas which cannot be satisfactorily explained. One relates to the birth of Jesus as it is told in each book. The Gospel says this about the moment of his delivery: The virgin was surrounded by a light exceeding bright and brought forth her son without pain. Gospel of Barnabas, para 3 This statement has no Biblical equivalent but parallels Catholic beliefs of the Middle Ages. It is further evidence that the Gospel of Barnabas is a forgery composed up to fifteen centuries after the time of Christ. What is significant for Muslims, however, is that it totally disagrees with the Qur’an which says of Mary and the birth of Jesus: And the pangs of childbirth drove her unto the trunk of the palm tree. Surah 19:23 There is little room here for Muslims to maintain their cherished belief that they have, in the Gospel of Barnabas, an original Gospel which is consistent with the Qur’an and Islamic tradition. It is not surprising that many Muslim scholars have, in recent times, rejected the Gospel as a forgery. Nonetheless there are still many Muslim writers, often well aware of the overwhelming evidences against it, who still promote it as an authentic text. Another typical contradiction between the two books is found in the statement in the Gospel of Barnabas about the angels of God on the last days before the great Judgment: "The fifteenth day the holy angels shall die, and God alone shall remain alive" (para 53). The Qur’an knows nothing about the death of angels but states that eight of them shall bear the throne of Allah on the Last Day (Surah 69:17). Again the Gospel of Barnabas states that on the thirteenth day of the final period before the end, all mankind will die and every living thing on the earth shall perish (para 53) whereas the Qur’an states that men will be alive until the last day, the great Day of Judgment, when the trumpet shall sound and "every man will have enough concerns on that day to make him heedless of others" (Surah 80:37). In witness with Muslims it should be easy to get the Gospel of Barnabas dispensed with once these evidences are produced to them. The book is a counterfeit of no value which has been promoted by Muslims as a red herring across the path of genuine Christian-Muslim apologetics. 6.4 The Original Authorship of the Gospel Muslim: Barnabas was known to have been one of the great disciples of Jesus. How can you even contemplate trying to discredit a Gospel written by him? If he was one of the twelve, why do you Christians conveniently reject everything he wrote? One of the great questions about this Gospel is indeed its original authorship. Who wrote it? Although it is obvious that the book is a forgery of relatively recent times it is important nonetheless to prove to Muslims that Barnabas could never have been its author. Throughout the book its author is said to have been one of the twelve disciples of Jesus yet it is well known that the real Barnabas only appears on the scene after the death and resurrection of Jesus and, furthermore, that he only received his name as a result of an incident that took place much later. The evidence is found in the following passage: Thus Joseph who was surnamed by the apostles Barnabas (which means, Son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, sold a field which belonged to him, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet. Acts 4:36-37 It was only when this man Joseph encouraged the early Church by donating the proceeds of the sale of his property to the disciples of Jesus that he was given the surname bar-nabas. Thereafter he is a prominent personality in the record of the initial development of the Church and is mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament (Galatians 2:9). He was most certainly not one of the original twelve, however, whose names are all recorded in two of the Gospels (Matthew 10:2-4, Luke 6:14-16). He is not mentioned at all in the four Gospels and the composer of this forgery has, as it were, left his fingerprints on its text by including what is a glaring anachronism. Jesus is said to have called him by name on numerous occasions of which the following passage is an example: Jesus answered: ‘Be not sore grieved, Barnabas, for those whom God hath chosen before the creation of the world shall not perish’. Gospel of Barnabas, para 19 Such an address before Jesus ascended to heaven was impossible if he only received the title some time after the event. The Probable Authorship of the Barnabas Gospel There are some evidences that give rise to the probable authorship of this book. In the introduction to the Spanish version of the Gospel there was a statement that it was a translation of the Italian version done by an Arragonian Muslim named Mostafa de Aranda. Sale also adds a note that in the preface to the Italian version a certain Fra Marino, a Roman Catholic monk, is said to have heard of the existence of the Gospel of Barnabas and happened to come upon it while looking through the library of Pope Sixtus V who was conveniently asleep in his presence. The story concludes with the monk quietly removing the book and converting to Islam once he had read through it. Whoever the author was it is clear that he was very conversant with the land of Spain and its environment. He could well have been a Spanish Muslim forcibly converted to Christianity around the time of the Spanish Inquisition who took private revenge by compiling an Islamic Gospel. He might well have written it first in Italian to give it a more authentic appearance before translating it into his own language. There is clear evidence of Spanish influence in this quote attributed to Jesus: For he would get in change a piece of gold must have sixty mites. Gospel of Barnabas, para 54 The Italian version divides the golden denarius into sixty minuti. These coins were of Spanish origin dating from the pre-Islamic Visigothic period and betray a Spanish influence behind the Gospel. It is far more likely that the author was Fra Marino himself as there is also much evidence that the book was written by someone very familiar with Italy and its language. From other works it is known that the real Fra Marino was at one time a close associate of Fra Peretti who was a key figure in the Inquisition and later duly became Pope Sixtus V. As a result of certain malpractices in his administration as an inquisitor Fra Marino fell out of favour with Fra Peretti and received no further promotion. Peretti, however, went on from one distinction to the other until he obtained the papacy itself. His fate at the hand of Peretti once he became Pope may have led him to compose this Gospel as an act of private revenge against him, especially if he had subsequently converted to Islam. There is much support for this theory in the story that, while in audience with the Pope, he found the original manuscript in the papal library while the Pontiff dozed off. Conveniently it just happened to be the first book he laid hands on. Muslims today often claim, pursuant to this fictional episode, that the Popes of Rome have always deliberately concealed the Gospel of Barnabas from public knowledge in an act of calculated conspiracy against its contents. It is far more probable that Fra Marino himself, or someone familiar with these gentlemen, composed the manuscript and invented the story of its supposed "discovery". We will never know for certain who actually wrote this Gospel. What we do know is that it most certainly could not have been written by the Apostle Barnabas who was at no time one of the immediate disciples of Jesus. If the Gospel of Barnabas serves any purpose it is perhaps to prove that it is impossible to compose a life of Jesus consistent with the factual evidences of his life and teachings as found in the four true Gospels which at the same time promotes him as a prophet of Islam. The book fails dismally in its attempt to do precisely this. In conversation with Muslims it is important to dispose of this Gospel as soon as possible. It offers no useful contribution to the field of Christian-Muslim apologetics. 6.5 Paul and Barnabas in the Book of Acts Muslim: In his Gospel Barnabas expressly repudiates the teaching of Paul that Jesus is the Son of God. In fact even the New Testament records that Paul and Barnabas couldn’t agree. It was because Barnabas taught the ultimate truth about Jesus. The Gospel of Barnabas begins with a statement that "many, being deceived of Satan, under pretence of piety, are preaching most impious doctrine, calling Jesus Son of God ... among whom Paul also hath been deceived" (para 1). At the very end of the book Paul is again accused of being deceived for the same reason. Muslims latch on to a passage in the Bible where it is recorded that "there arose a sharp contention, so that they separated from each other" (Acts 15:39) to prove that Paul and Barnabas could not agree with each other and claim that this is proof that Barnabas differed with Christianity’s foremost apostle on the major points of Christian doctrine. The aim is to prove that Barnabas rejected these beliefs and wrote his Gospel to correct them. Barnabas and Paul: Two Close Companions Anyone reading through Acts 15:1-41 will discover that the only point of disagreement between these two men was on whether they should again be accompanied by John Mark on a later journey. Paul did not want him to go with as he had let them down on their first missionary journey (Acts 13:13). For this reason alone they separated. Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus while Paul chose Silas as his future companion (Acts 15:39-40). All the other evidences in the Book of Acts prove that, far from being an opponent of Paul, Barnabas consistently stood by him and backed his teaching. When Paul was converted through a dramatic vision of Jesus in the sky as he made his way to Damascus, he remained a few days in the city with the other disciples of the Lord and then finally entered the local synagogue, proclaiming Jesus and declaring "He is the Son of God" (Acts 9:20). There can be no doubt, therefore, that right from the time he first became a follower of Jesus Christ Paul declared the heart of the Christian doctrine. From here it is important to know what role Barnabas played in accompanying him on his travels. 1. Barnabas First Introduced Paul to the Other Apostles When Paul first returned to Jerusalem after his conversion the other disciples were very afraid of him, knowing his relentless persecution of the early Church. They did not believe that he was a true disciple of Jesus. It is a revelation to discover, in the light of the vehement attacks made on Paul in the Barnabas Gospel, just who it was who commended him to the disciples: But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus. Acts 9:27 From here on, until their dispute on a personal matter, Paul and Barnabas were constantly together. In fact, as we shall see, the real author of the Gospel of Barnabas could hardly have made a more inappropriate choice for the authorship of his forgery. 2. Barnabas Sought Paul to help him Teach in Antioch As soon as the Church in Jerusalem heard that the Church in Antioch was growing well, the Apostles sent Barnabas there to instruct the new disciples in the faith of Jesus. Barnabas, however, decided he could not do this alone. Who did he send for to assist him? No one else but Paul! He went all the way to Tarsus to look for him and, when he found him, he brought him to Antioch (Acts 11:25-26). What follows is significant: For a whole year they met with the church, and taught a large company of people; and in Antioch the disciples were for the first time called Christians. Acts 11:26 Under the ministry of these two men the believers were first called Christians because Paul and Barnabas taught them the basic truths of what makes Christianity the religion it is today – that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died for our sins. These are the very things that the Gospel of "Barnabas" is at such pains to deny. Throughout their travels together Paul took the initiative in preaching the Christian Gospel while Barnabas stood by him, vindicating everything he said. There can be no doubt that Barnabas was not the author of the anti-Paul Gospel attributed to him. 3. Both Barnabas and Paul Rejected Circumcision According to the Gospel of Barnabas Jesus is recorded as teaching that circumcision is one of the most important acts of religious piety. Both Judaism and Islam to this day faithfully observe the ordinance. Jesus is supposed to have said: Leave fear to him that hath not circumcised his foreskin, for he is deprived of paradise. Gospel of Barnabas, para 23 It is most ironic to find that the real Barnabas joined Paul in vehemently opposing circumcision as a necessary ritual for salvation: But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved’. And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question. Acts 15:1-2 In one of his Epistles Paul states that, when he and Barnabas went to Jerusalem, they took Titus, an uncircumcised Greek believer in Jesus, as a test case. Paul laid before the apostles the Christian Gospel he was preaching – one devoid of the legalistic rituals that characterise Judaism and Islam – to see if they disagreed with him on any point. They not only agreed that Titus should not be circumcised (Galatians 2:1-3) but "gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship" (v. 9). It does appear that no one was closer to Paul in his preaching of the Christian faith than this man Barnabas. He cannot possibly be the author of the Gospel falsely attributed to him. The Gospel of Barnabas is a book of no true historical value. Muslims should be gently persuaded to put it aside and instead take time to read the four genuine Gospels where the real truth about Jesus has been written. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 19: 02.08. BIBLIOGRAPHY ======================================================================== Bibliography 1. CHRISTIAN AND OTHER LITERATURE ON MUSLIM-CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS Adang, Camilla. Muslim Writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible. E.J. Brill, Leiden, Holland. 1996. Bevan Jones, L. Christianity Explained to Muslims. Y.M.C.A. Publishing House, Calcutta, India. 1952. Brown, David. Jesus and God in the Christian Scriptures. Christianity and Islam 1, Sheldon Press, London, United Kingdom. 1967. Brown, David. The Christian Scriptures. Christianity and Islam 2, Sheldon Press, London, United Kingdom. 1967. Brown, David. The Cross of the Messiah. Christianity and Islam 3, Sheldon Press, London, United Kingdom. 1967. Brown, David. The Divine Trinity. Christianity and Islam 4, Sheldon Press, London, United Kingdom. 1967. Burman, Thomas E. Religious Polemic and the Intellectual History of the Mozarabs, c. 1050-1200. E.J. Brill, Leiden, Holland. 1994. Geisler, N.L. and Saleeb, A. Answering Islam: The Crescent in the Light of the Cross. Baker Books, Michigan, United States of America. 1993. Goddard, Hugh. Muslim Perceptions of Christianity. Grey Seal Books, London, United Kingdom. 1996. Jeffery, Arthur. Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’an. AMS Press, New York. United States of America. 1975. Muir, Sir W. The Coran: Its Composition and Teaching. S.P.C.K, London, United Kingdom. 1903. Muir, Sir W. The Beacon of Truth. The Religious Tract Society, London, United Kingdom. 1894. Muir, Sir W. The Mohammedan Controversy. Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom. 1897. Nehls, Gerhard. Christians Ask Muslims. Life Challenge, Cape Town. Republic of South Africa. 1980. Nehls, Gerhard. Christians Answer Muslims. Life Challenge, Cape Town. Republic of South Africa. 1980. Parrinder, Geoffrey. Jesus in the Qur’an. Sheldon Press, London, United Kingdom. 1976. Pfander, C.G. Miftahu’l Asrar: The Key of Mysteries. The Christian Literature Society, Madras. India. 1912. Pfander, C.G. The Mizan ul Haqq; or Balance of Truth. Church Missionary House, London, United Kingdom. 1867. Pfander, C.G. The Mizanu’l Haqq (Balance of Truth). The Religious Tract Society, London, United Kingdom. 1910. Rice, W.A. Crusaders of the Twentieth Century: The Christian Missionary and the Muslim. Church Missionary Society, London. United Kingdom. 1910. Seale, M.S. Qur’an and Bible: Studies in Interpretation and Dialogue. Croom Helm, London, United Kingdom. 1978. Samir, K.A. and Nielsen, J.S. Christian Arabic Apologetics During the Abbasid Period. E.J. Brill, Leiden, Holland. 1994. Thomas, David. Anti-Christian Polemic in Early Islam. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 1992. Tisdall, W. St.Clair. A Manual of the Leading Muhammadan Objections to Christianity. S.P.C.K., London, United Kingdom. 1912. Wherry, Rev. E.M. The Muslim Controversy. The Christian Literature Society, Madras, India. 1905. Zwemer, S.M. Mohammed or Christ. Seeley, Service & Co. Ltd., London, United Kingdom. 1915. 2. MUSLIM BOOKS ON ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY Ajijola, AlHaj A.D. The Myth of the Cross. Islamic Publications Limited, Lahore, Pakistan. 1975. Alwi, Sumali. Divinity of Jesus: A Dialogue between B. Mudhary and A. Widuri. Pustaka Aphiya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 1987. Ansari, Muhammad F.R. Islam and Christianity in the Modern World. World Federation of Islamic Missions, Karachi, Pakistan. 1965. Assfy, Zaid H. Islam and Christianity. William Sessions Limited, York, United Kingdom. 1977. Ata-ur-Rahim, Dr. Akbar. Jesus a Prophet of Islam. MWH Publishers, London, United Kingdom. 1979. Aziz-us-Samad, Ulfat. A Comparative Study of Christianity and Islam. Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore, Pakistan. 1983. Aziz-us-Samad, Ulfat. Islam and Christianity. International Islamic Federation, Peshawar, Pakistan. 1982. Deedat, Ahmed. The Choice: The Qur’an or the Bible. Thinkers Library, Selangor. Singapore. Durrani, M.H. The Quranic Facts About Jesus. International Islamic Publishers, Karachi, Pakistan. 1983. Hamid, Abdul. Islam and Christianity. A Hearthstone Book, New York, United States of America. 1967. Imran, Maulana Muhammad. The Cross and the Crescent. Malik Sirajuddin & Sons, Lahore, Pakistan. 1979. Jameelah, Maryam. Islam Versus Ahl al Kitab, Past and Present. Mohammed Yusuf Khan, Lahore, Pakistan. 1968. Joommal, A.S.K. The Bible: Word of God or Word of Man? I.M.S. Publications, Johannesburg, South Africa. 1976. Kamal-ud-Din, Khwaja. The Sources of Christianity. Woking Muslim Mission & Literary Trust, Lahore, Pakistan. 1973. Manjoo, Muhammad E. The Cross and the Crescent. Foto-Saracen, Durban, Republic of South Africa. 1966. Muhammad Ali, Moulvi. Muhammad and Christ. Ahmadiah Anjuman-i-Ishaet-i-Islam, Lahore, India. 1921. Niazi, Kausar. The Mirror of Trinity. Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore, Pakistan. 1975. Obaray, A.H. Miraculous Conception, Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus (Nabi Isa) as Taught in the Kuran. Author-published, Kimberley, South Africa. 1962. Rahmatullah, Maulana M. The Ijaharu’l Hakk; or Truth Revealed. Publisher not named, India. 1860. Sadr-ud-Din. Fundamentals of the Christian Faith in the Light of the Gospels. Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha’at-i-Islam, Lahore, Pakistan. Shafaat, Ahmad. The Question of Authenticity and Authority of the Bible. Nur Media Services, Montreal, Canada. 1982. Tabari, Ali. The Book of Religion and Empire. Law Publishing Company, Lahore, Pakistan. Zidan, Ahmad. Christianity: Myth or Message? A.S. Noordeen, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 1995. 3. CHRISTIAN BOOKLETS ON ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY Adelphi, G. and Hahn, E. The Integrity of the Bible According to the Qur’an and Hadith. Hyderabad, India. 1977. Abd al Fadi. Sin and Atonement in Islam and Christianity. Markaz-ash-Shabiba, Beirut, Lebanon. Anderson, M. The Trinity: For Christians and Muslims. Pioneer Book Company, Caney, United States of America. 1994. Butrus, Zachariah. God is One in the Holy Trinity. Markaz-ash-Shabiba, Basel, Switzerland. 1996. Eric, Walter. Let the Bible Speak for Itself. Life Challenge Africa, Nairobi, Kenya. 1996. Jadid, Iskandar. The Cross in the Gospel and Quran. Markaz-ash-Shabiba, Beirut, Lebanon. Jadid, Iskandar. The Infallibility of the Torah and the Gospel. Centre for Young Adults, Basel, Switzerland. Khalil, Victor. The Truth of the Quran in the Light of the Bible. Author-published, Detroit, United States of America. 1981. 4. MUSLIM BOOKLETS ON ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY Abidi, Syed Azmat Ali. Discovery of the Bible. Defence Housing Society, Karachi, Pakistan. 1973. Al-Hilali, M.T. Jesus and Muhammad in Bible and Qur’an. Kazi Publications, Chicago, United States of America. al-Johani, M.H. The Truth About Jesus. World Assembly of Muslim Youth, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 1987. Bhula, Ismail. A Reply to Mr A.H. Obaray! Young Men’s Muslim Association, Johannesburg. South Africa. 1963. Deedat, Ahmed. Combat Kit Against Bible Thumpers. Islamic Propagation Centre, Durban, South Africa. 1992. Deedat, Ahmed. Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction? Islamic Propagation Centre, Durban, South Africa. 1984. Deedat, Ahmed. Is the Bible God’s Word? Islamic Propagation Centre, Durban, South Africa. 1980. Deedat, Ahmed. Resurrection or Resuscitation? Islamic Propagation Centre, Durban, South Africa. 1978. Deedat, Ahmed. Was Christ Crucified? Islamic Propagation Centre, Durban, South Africa. 1965. Deedat, Ahmed. What Was the Sign of Jonah? Islamic Propagation Centre, Durban, South Africa. 1976. Joommal, A.S.K. The Riddle of Trinity and the Sonship of Christ. Islamic Missionary Society, Johannesburg, South Africa. 1966. Muhsin, Ali. Let the Bible Speak. Author-published, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Najaar, A. Muslim Judicial Council Chairman’s Comments on Obaray’s Booklet. Islamic Publications Bureau, Cape Town, South Africa. Shabazz, Ala’uddin. The Plain Truth About the Birth of Jesus According to the Holy Bible. New Mind Productions, New Jersey, USA. 1981. 5. PROPHECIES TO MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE Anonymous. Do You Know? The Prophet Muhammad is Prophesied in the Holy Bible! Y.M.M.A., Johannesburg, South Africa. 1960. Anonymous. The Prophet Muhammad in the Bible. Jamiat Ulema Natal, Wasbank, Republic of South Africa. Badawi, J. Muhammad in the Bible. Islamic Information Foundation, Halifax, Canada. 1982. Dawud, A. Muhammad in the Bible. Angkatan Nadhatul-Islam, Bersatu, Singapore. 1978. Deedat, Ahmed. Muhammad in the Old and New Testaments. Islamic Publications Bureau, Cape Town, South Africa. Deedat, Ahmed. Muhammad Successor to Jesus Christ as Portrayed in the Old and New Testaments. Muslim Brotherhood Aid Services, Johannesburg, South Africa. Deedat, Ahmed. What the Bible Says About Muhammed. Islamic Propagation Centre, Durban, South Africa. 1976. Durrani, M.H. Muhammad the Biblical Prophet. International Islamic Publishers, Karachi, Pakistan. 1980. Hamid, S.M.A. Evidence of the Bible About Mohammad. Author-published, Karachi, Pakistan. 1973. Kaldani, D.B. Mohammad in the Bible. Abbas Manzil Library, Allahabad, Pakistan. 1952. Kassim, Hajee Mahboob. Muhammad in World Scriptures. Chishtiyya Publications, Calcutta, India. 1990. Mufassir, Sulayman Shahid. The Bible’s Preview of Muhammad. Al-Balagh Foundation, Tehran, Iran. 1986. al-Qayrawani, Faris. Is Muhammad the Promised Parakletos? Al-Nour, Colorado Springs, United States of America. 1992. Shafaat, A. Islam and its Prophet: A Fulfilment of Biblical Prophecies. Nur al-Islam Foundation, Laurent, Canada. 1984. Vidyarthy, A.H. Muhammad in World Scriptures. (3 volumes) Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat-i-Islam, Karachi, Pakistan. 1974. 6. THE GOSPEL OF BARNABAS Anonymous. The Gospel of Truth: The Barnabas Bible. Islamic Dawah Centre, Pretoria, South Africa. Begum Aisha Bawany Wakf. The Gospel of Barnabas. (3rd edition), Karachi, Pakistan. 1974. Campbell, Willam F. The Gospel of Barnabas: Its True Value. Christian Study Centre, Rawalpindi, India. 1989. Durrani, M.H. Forgotten Gospel of St. Barnabas. International Islamic Publishers, Karachi, Pakistan. 1982. Gairdner, W.H.T. & Abdul-Ahad, S. The Gospel of Barnabas: An Essay and Enquiry. Hyderabad, India. 1975. Jadeed, I. The Gospel of Barnabas: A False Testimony. The Good Way, Rikon, Switzerland. 1980. Niazi, Shaheer. Is the Gospel of Barnabas a Forgery? Siddiqi Trust, Karachi, Pakistan. Peerbhai, Adam. Missing Documents from Gospel of Barnabas. Islamic Institute, Durban, South Africa. 1967. Ragg, L & L. The Gospel of Barnabas. Clarendon Press, Oxford, United Kingdom. 1907. Rahim, M.A. The Gospel of Barnabas. Quran Council of Pakistan, Karachi, Pakistan. 1973. Slomp, J. Pseudo-Barnabas in the Context of Christian-Muslim Apologetics. Christian Study Centre, Pakistan. 1974. Slomp, J. The Gospel in Dispute. Pontificio Istituto Di Studi Arabi, Rome, Italy. 1978. Slomp, J. The Pseudo-Gospel of Barnabas. Bulletin, Secretariatis pro non Christianis, Citta del Vaticano, Italy. 1976. Sox, David. The Gospel of Barnabas. George Allen & Unwin Limited, London, United Kingdom. 1984. Wadood, A.C.A. The Holy Prophet Foretold by Jesus Christ in the Gospel of St. Barnabas. Ceylon Muslim Missionary Society, Colombo, Sri Lanka. 1973. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 20: 03.00.1. JAM' AL-QUR'AN ======================================================================== الترجمة العربية JAM’ AL-QUR’AN: THE CODIFICATION OF THE QUR’AN TEXT by John Gilchrist ======================================================================== CHAPTER 21: 03.00.2. TABLE OF CONTENTS ======================================================================== Table of Contents Introduction Sources and References 1. THE INITIAL COLLECTION OF THE QUR’AN TEXT. The Qur’an’s Development During Muhammad’s Lifetime The First Collection of the Qur’an Under Abu Bakr Perspectives on the Initial Collection of the Qur’an The Missing Verses Found with Abu Khuzaimah 2. THE UTHMANIC RECENSION OF THE QUR’AN. Did Abu Bakr’s Codex have Official Status? Uthman’s Order to Burn the Other Codices The Revision of Zaid’s Codex of the Qur’an The Qur’an Text as Standardised by Uthman 3. THE CODICES OF IBN MAS’UD AND UBAYY IBN KA’B. Abdullah ibn Mas’ud: An Authority on the Qur’an Text Ibn Mas’ud’s Reaction to Uthman’s Decree The Variant Readings in Ibn Mas’ud’s Codex Ubayy ibn Ka’b: Master of the Qur’an Reciters 4. THE MISSING PASSAGES OF THE QUR’AN. The Mushaf: An Incomplete Record of the Qur’an Text Al-Naskh wa Al-Mansukh: The Doctrine of Abrogation The Missing Verse on the Insatiable Greed of Man Umar and the Verses of Stoning for Adultery 5. SAB’AT-I-AHRUF: THE SEVEN DIFFERENT READINGS. The Sab’at-i-Ahruf in the Hadith Literature The Period of Ikhtiyar: The "Choice" of Readings Ibn Mujahid’s Final Definition of the Seven Ahruf Reflections on the Unification of the Qur’an Text 6. THE COMPILATION OF THE QUR’AN IN PERSPECTIVE. The Qur’an’s Testimony to its own Compilation A "Master Copy of the Qur’an" in the Masjid an-Nabi? A review of the History of the Qur’an Text 7. THE EARLY SURVIVING QUR’AN MANUSCRIPTS. The Initial Development of the Written Text Kufic, Mashq, and the Other Early Qur’anic Scripts A Study of the Topkapi and Samarqand Codices ======================================================================== CHAPTER 22: 03.01. INTRODUCTION ======================================================================== INTRODUCTION For many centuries Muslims have been taught to believe that the Qur’an has been preserved in its original Arabic text right from the time of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, down to this very day absolutely intact without changes, deletions or additions of any kind and with no variance in reading. At the same time they have also been taught that this suggested textual perfection of the book proves that the Qur’an must be the Word of God. No one but Allah, it is claimed, could have preserved the text so well. This sentiment has become so strongly established in the Muslim world that one will rarely find a Muslim scholar making a critical analysis of the early transmission of the text of the Qur’an and, when such analyses do appear, they are predictably unwelcome. What happens, however, when an objective assessment is made of the facts available to us in respect of the original compilation of the Qur’an? When sentiment is gently put aside in favour of a rational evaluation of the evidences a very different conclusion must be reached. As this book will show, in the only records available to us from within the heritage of Islam itself, the Qur’an once contained a number of verses and, at times, whole passages that are no longer part of its text, in addition to an astonishingly large number of different readings in the earliest collections of the book made before the Caliph Uthman summarily consigned all but one of the manuscripts then in existence to the flames and destroyed them. During 1981, in response to a Muslim publication challenging the divine authenticity of the Bible, I published a booklet titled The Textual History of the Qur’an and the Bible. Whereas the bulk of the material in this publication was devoted to a refutation of the arguments brought against the Bible, a portion of it was given to an assessment of the textual history of the Qur’an to show that the transmission of the Qur’an text was no more accurate than that of the Bible. During 1986 two articles appeared in Al-Balaagh, a local Muslim newspaper, in response to this booklet: one written by Dr. Kaukab Siddique, an American-based Muslim scholar, and the other by the South African Muslim scholar Abdus Samad Abdul Kader. I will refer in more detail to these articles shortly. In 1984, after more detailed research into the original compilation of the Qur’an, I published another booklet titled Evidences for the Collection of the Qur’an. This also solicited a Muslim response in the form of a booklet published in 1987 by the Mujlisul-Ulama of South Africa. Unfortunately the author does not name himself in this publication but I have been informed that it was written by Maulana Desai of Port Elizabeth and will refer to it as his work. This book is being written basically as a restatement of the evidences considered in my earlier publications and my conclusions therefrom, together with an assessment of the three responses from the Muslims already referred to and a refutation of their arguments. One of the difficulties faced by an author in a situation like this is the sensitiveness surrounding the subject from the Muslim side. The popular Muslim sentiment that the divine origin of the Qur’an is proved by its absolutely perfect transmission leads, perforce, to the fear that if it can be proved that the Qur’an was not so transmitted. then its supposed divine origin must immediately fall to the ground. As a result Muslim writers cannot come to this subject in a spirit of objectivity or purely factual enquiry. There is a determination, a priori, to prove the popular sentiment: the hypothesis that the text of the Qur’an has been perfectly preserved. Emotions accordingly run high and it is not surprising, therefore, to find all three writers unable to regard me in a scholarly manner or treat my writings purely at a factual level. Dr. Kaukab Siddique, right at the beginning of his article which he titles Quran is NOT Allah’s Word says Christian lay preacher (Al Balaagh, Vol. 11, No. 1, Feb./March 1986), launches into a rhetorical assault by charging: "Mr. Gilchrist tries to bring down the mighty edifice of the Qur’an by using a polemic which is pitifully inadequate to the task. The method he uses shows the poverty of his arsenal, and the brazenness of his assault shows that he is banking for survival on the possibility of a total lack of knowledge among the Muslims", while the editor of the magazine, in a heading to the article, describes me as "an avowed enemy of Islam" who "hopes to dynamite the structure of Islam". Mr. Abdus Samad Abdul Kader’s article, in the very next issue of the same magazine, was titled How the Qur’an was Compiled (Al-Balaagh, Vol. 11, No. 2, May/June 1986). At the end of the article he describes writers such as myself as "frenetic foes of the Qur’an" who are motivated solely by "jealousy, envy, enmity and venom". Maulana Desai, in the Ulama publication titled The Quraan Unimpeachable, likewise deems it necessary to revile me and supplement his arguments with much rhetorical material and numerous vilifications. He claims I have "set out to denigrate the authenticity of the Qur’aan Majeed" instead of adopting a more balanced approach which would have stated simply that I had ventured to assess the facts about the Qur’an’s compilation. He goes on to speak of my "baseless assumptions", says in one place "Gilchrist will curse himself", and elsewhere charges that I suffer from "colossal ignorance" and "bigotted thinking". Such emotional outbursts betray the Muslims’ fear of a purely historical study of the Qur’an’s compilation lest it should disprove the supposition that it was both perfectly collected and preserved. In this book I will confine myself purely to a study of the extent to which the text of the Qur’an has been accurately and/or completely transcribed. The study is purely an assessment of the facts. The issue of the alleged divine origin of the Qur’an must be determined by a study of its teaching and contents, it cannot be resolved through an analysis of the manner in which the text was originally transmitted. Here the question is purely one of analysing the extent to which the Qur’an was accurately transcribed. If Muslim writers such as those I have mentioned feel that such a study simultaneously undermines their conviction that the Qur’an is the Word of God (Desai often accuses me of seeking "to refute the authenticity of the Qur’aan Shareef"), the problem is theirs for supposing that a perfect compilation and transmission of the book would prove its divine origin. I find no need to vilify these authors in terms such as they use against me as I am free to assess this subject unemotionally and do not have a hypothesis or presupposition to maintain. Furthermore I also have no doubt that, if a book never was the Word of God in the first place, no amount of proof that it had been perfectly transcribed would make it the Word of God. That these authors are all trying to prove a supposition is obvious from a study of their approach. Each one treats the compilation of the Qur’an very differently from the others - Siddique and Desai bluntly contradict each other on numerous occasions - and yet each endeavours to come to the same conclusion, namely the Qur’an’s supposed textual perfection. Such an anomaly can only be explained in one way - each one is determined to end where he began, that is, the preconceived hypothesis above-mentioned. It will be useful to record briefly the approach each author takes. 1. Dr. Kaukab Siddique. Siddique takes the traditional Muslim approach. "One Text - No Variants", a heading of one section in his article, tells it all. The assumption is that there has always been only one text of the Qur’an and that nothing has ever been added to it or omitted from it, and that there have never been any variant readings of any of its verses. The writer has to explain the evidences in the Hadith records - the only early historical records of any kind in the heritage of Islam describing how the Qur’an was compiled - which show that the Caliph Uthman ordered all the Qur’an manuscripts of his day other than the one in Hafsah’s possession to be burnt because there were differences in the reading of the Qur’an in the various provinces. Siddique claims that the differences were purely in the recitation of the text - an argument used by many Muslims at this point. In this book we shall see how inadequate and unconvincing this argument is. Very little is said by Siddique, however, of those records showing that the Qur’an, as it is today, is somewhat incomplete. 2. Abdus Samad Abdul Kader. Abdul Kader is one of those Muslim scholars who prefers to gloss over the awkward evidences in the Hadith as if they simply did not exist. There is no mention of them in his article. Instead he seeks to prove that the Qur’an itself gives sufficient testimony to its own compilation and the perfection thereof. I will give separate attention to this argument at the end of the main section of this book as it does not much affect the general study. 3. Maulana Desai. Desai, despite his emotional outbursts against me personally, nevertheless freely admits the authenticity of virtually all the facts I have recorded. He acknowledges that there were indeed textual differences in the early codices of the Qur’an and that a number of passages once forming part of the Qur’an are no longer there. In respect of the different readings he leans exclusively on one hadith which records Muhammad as saying that the Qur’an originally came from Allah in seven different forms and he claims that all these variants, therefore, were actually authorised by Allah and make up the seven different readings. He has no difficulty in conceding that Uthman eliminated authentic copies of the Qur’an and justifies his action as in the interests of obtaining uniformity in reading. This line of reasoning exposes itself to serious considerations as we shall see. In respect of the missing passages, Desai acknowledges their existence but claims they were lawfully abrogated by Allah and correctly no longer form part of the Qur’an text. I have little doubt that this argument will be unpalatable to apologists like Siddique and Abdul Kader, as will his admission of the existence of variant readings, yet here I find myself inclined to commend the maulana as the only one of the three authors who has the sincerity to admit the authenticity of the records in the Hadith narrating how the Qur’an was originally compiled. While I do not find his arguments convincing, as I will show, I do find his frank admissions of the facts most refreshing. This book closes with a brief study of the earliest manuscripts of the Qur’an which have survived to the present day. One of the purposes of this study is to determine whether any of the Qur’ans copied out by Uthman after the destruction of the other codices still exists. Throughout this book photographs of early Qur’an manuscripts have been included and I have sought only to include those of the greatest antiquity, mostly those which survive from the second century of Islam before a refined form of Kufic script came into general use among Qur’anic calligraphers and duly became the standard form until replaced by the Naskhi script. I trust that this book will be a contribution towards a genuine assessment of the early compilation of the Qur’an from a study of the evidences at hand. I make no apology for the extent to which it discounts the popular Muslim sentiments I have mentioned and, in the hope that it will not occasion responses of an emotional nature such as those which came out in reply to my earlier publications, let me say once again that my purpose is solely to arrive at a proper and accurate factual conclusion regarding the Qur’an’s historical compilation and that I am not an "avowed enemy of Islam" possessed with a frenzied desire to denigrate the Qur’an or disprove its textual authenticity by any means as some Muslim writers choose to assume. John Gilchrist 29th January 1989 ======================================================================== CHAPTER 23: 03.02. SOURCES AND REFERENCES ======================================================================== SOURCES AND REFERENCES This book is dependent on a variety of works and it would appear appropriate to categorise them according to their particular relevance to the subject at hand, whether primary or secondary, and whether historical or of contemporary origin. Apart from the Qur’an itself, which gives some evidence as to the manner in which it was being assembled during the lifetime of Muhammad, the immediate historical sources for the collection of its text thereafter are found in the early Sirat and Hadith literature. Thereafter other works from later periods, compiled by prominent Muslim historians, give further perspectives on the compilation of the Qur’an text. The sources consulted are: 1. Sirat Literature. The very earliest works recording details of the Qur’an’s compilation are found in the following three biographies which are known as the Sirat literature: Muhammad ibn Ishaq. Sirat Rasul Allah. (translated into English by A. Guillaume), Oxford University Press, Karachi, Pakistan. 1978 (1955). Muhammad ibn Sa’d. Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir. (translated into English by S. Moinul Haq), 2 volumes, Pakistan Historical Society, Karachi, Pakistan. 1972. Muhammad ibn Umar al-Waqidi. Kitab al-Maghazi. 3 volumes, Oxford University Press, London, England. 1966. 2. Hadith Literature. The second collection of traditions and historical records of Muhammad’s life and the compilation of the Qur’an is known as the Hadith literature, and among Muslim historians these are regarded as the most reliable and second only to the Qur’an in authority. The following works have been consulted: Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Bukhari. Sahih al-Bukhari. (translated by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan), 9 volumes, Kazi Publications, Chicago, United States of America. 1979 (1976). Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj. Sahih Muslim. (translated by Abdul Hamid Siddique), 4 volumes, Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore, Pakistan. 1972. Sulaiman Abu Dawud. Sunan Abu Dawud. (translated from Kitab as-Sunan by Prof. Ahmad Hasan), 3 volumes, Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore, Pakistan. 1984. Abu Isa Muhammad at-Tirmithi. Al-Jami as-Sahih. (edited by A.M. Sakir), 5 volumes, Beirut, Lebanon, n.d. (Cairo, 1938). Malik ibn Anas. Muwatta Imam Malik. (translated from Kitab al-Muwatta by Prof. Muhammad Rahimuddin), Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore, Pakistan. 1980. Abu Bakr Ahmad al-Baihaqi. As-Sunan al-Kubra. 10 volumes, Beirut, Lebanon, n.d. (Hyderabad, 1926-1936). 3. Tafsir Literature. In the period succeeding the above-mentioned initial records a number of Tafsir works, being commentaries on the Qur’an, were written by prominent Muslim historians. The most famous was the Jami al-Bayan fii Tafsir al Qur’aan by Abu Jafar Muhammad at-Tabari. It is referred to only through references obtained from modern works. Although at-Tabari’s work was intended to be predominantly an exegesis of the Qur’an, there is much material dealing with the early compilation of the text itself. Many of the other commentaries did the same. Two further records directly consulted in the preparation of this book which are not in the Tafsir mould but which deal considerably with the collection of the Qur’an text are: Abdallah ibn Sulaiman ibn al-Ash’ath Abu Bakr ibn Abi Dawud. Kitab al-Masahif. E.J. Brill, Leiden, Holland. 1937. Jalaluddin al-Khudairi ash-Shafi’i as-Suyuti. Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur’an. Biblio Verlag, Osnabrueck, Germany. 1980. (Reprint of the Calcutta edition of 1852-1854). 2 volumes. The only manuscript of Ibn Abi Dawud’s Kitab al-Masahif known to have survived now lies in the Zahiriya Library at Damascus. From this two further manuscripts were copied from one of which Arthur Jeffery was able to reprint the full text in his Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’an (see infra) and it is this text which is referred to in this book. 4. Contemporary Books on the Qur’an. A number of modern writings have given attention to the collection of the Qur’an of which the following deal exclusively, or at least considerably, with the subject at hand: Beeston, A.F.L. & others. Arabic Literature to the End of the Umayyad Period. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. 1983. Burton, J. The Collection of the Qur’an. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. 1977. Jeffery, A. Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’an. AMS Press, New York, United States of America. 1975. (E.J. Brill, 1937). Jeffery, A. The Qur’an as Scripture. Books for Libraries, New York, USA. 1980 (1952). Nöldeke, T. Geschichte des Qorans. Georg Olms Verlag, Hildesheim, Germany. 1981 (1909). Von Denffer, A. ’Ulum al-Qur’an: An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’an. The Islamic Foundation, Leicester, England. 1983. Watt, W.M. Bell’s Introduction to the Qur’an. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, Scotland. 1970. The Geschichte des Qorans was originally published in three volumes and it is only the second and third volumes which are relevant to the actual collection of the Qur’an text. The second volume, titled Die Sammlung des Qorans and written by Noeldeke and Schwally, deals with the collection itself while the third volume, titled Die Geschichte des Korantexts, written by Bergstrasser and Pretzl, deals with the written text of the Qur’an and its variant readings. Both volumes consider at some length the famous codices of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy ibn Ka’b which were destroyed by order of the Caliph Uthman because they varied considerably with the text which he standardised as the textus receptus of the Qur’an which is that which has come down through the history of Islam to the present day. 5. Articles on the Compilation of the Qur’an. The following articles have also been consulted from The Muslim World, published by the Hartford Seminary Foundation in the United States of America. The references here are all to the reprint volumes done by the Kraus Reprint Corporation, New York, in 1966. The articles dealing with the compilation of the Qur’an and the early Qur’an manuscripts are: Caetani, L. Uthman and the Recension of the Koran. Volume 5, p.380. (1915). Jeffery, A. Abu Ubaid on Verses Missing from the Qur’an. Volume 28, p.61. (1938). Jeffery, A. Progress in the Study of the Qur’an Text. Volume 25. p.4. (1935). Margoliouth, D.S. Textual Variations of the Koran. Volume 15, p.334. (1925). Mendelsohn, I. The Columbia University Copy of the Samarqand Kufic Qur’an. Volume 30, p.375. (1940). Mingana, A. The Transmission of the Koran. Volume 7, p.223. (1917). In addition to these works reference will constantly be made to the following works published in South Africa and which are referred to in the Introduction: Abdul Kader, A.S. How the Quran was Compiled. Al-Balaagh, Vol. 11, No.2, Johannesburg, South Africa, May/June 1986. Desai, Maulana. The Quraan Unimpeachable. Mujlisul Ulama of South Africa, Port Elizabeth, South Africa. May 1987. Siddique, Dr. Kaukab. Quran is NOT Allah’s Word says Christian Lay Preacher. Al-Balaagh, Vol. 11, No. 1, Johannesburg, South Africa. February/March 1986. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 24: 03.03. CHAPTER 1: THE INITIAL COLLECTION OF THE QURAN TEXT ======================================================================== CHAPTER 1: THE INITIAL COLLECTION OF THE QUR’AN TEXT 1. THE QUR’AN’S DEVELOPMENT DURING MUHAMMAD’S LIFETIME. A study of the compilation of the Qur’an text must begin with the character of the book itself as it was handed down by Muhammad to his companions during his lifetime. It was not delivered or, as Muslims believe, revealed all at once. It came piecemeal over a period of twenty-three years from the time when Muhammad began to preach in Mecca in 610 AD until his death at Medina in 632 AD. The Qur’an itself declares that Allah said to Muhammad: "We have rehearsed it to you in slow, well-arranged stages, gradually" (Surah 25.32). Furthermore no chronological record of the sequence of passages was kept by Muhammad himself or his companions so that, as each of these began to be collected into an actual surah (a "chapter"), no thought was given as to theme, order of deliverance or chronological sequence. It is acknowledged by all Muslim writers that most of the surahs, especially the longer ones, are composite texts containing various passages not necessarily linked to each other in the sequence in which they were given. As time went on Muhammad used to say "Put this passage in the surah in which so-and-so is mentioned", or "Put it in such-and-such a place" (as -Suyuti, Al Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur’an, p.141). Thus passages were added to compilations of other passages already collected together until each of these became a distinct surah. There is evidence that a number of these surahs already had their recognised titles during Muhammad’s lifetime, as from the following hadith: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) (in fact) said: Anyone who recites the two verses at the end of Surah al-Baqara at night, they would suffice for him. ... Abu Darda reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: If anyone learns by heart the first ten verses of the Surah al-Kahf, he will be protected from the Dajal. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p.386). At the same time, however, there is also reason to believe that there were other surahs to which titles were not necessarily given by Muhammad, for example Suratul-Ikhlas (Surah 112), for although Muhammad spoke at some length about it and said its four verses were the equal of one-third of the whole Qur’an, he did not mention it by name (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p.387). As the Qur’an developed Muhammad’s immediate companions took portions of it down in writing and also committed its passages to memory. It appears that the memorisation of the text was the foremost method of recording its contents as the very word al-Qur’an means "the Recitation" and, from the very first word delivered to Muhammad when he is said to have had his initial vision of the angel Jibriil on Mount Hira, namely Iqra - "Recite!" (Surah 96.1), we can see that the verbal recitation of its passages was very highly esteemed and consistently practised. Nevertheless it is to actual written records of its text that the Qur’an itself bears witness in the following verse: It is in honoured scripts (suhufin mukarramatin), exalted, purified, by the hands of scribes noble and pious. Surah 80.13-16. There is evidence, further, that even during Muhammad’s early days in Mecca portions of the Qur’an as then delivered were being reduced to writing. When Umar was still a pagan he one day struck his sister in her house in Mecca when he heard her reading a portion of the Qur’an. Upon seeing blood on her cheek, however, he relented and said "Give me this sheet which I heard you reading just now so that I may see just what it is which Muhammad has brought" (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p.156) and, on reading the portion of Surah 20 which she had been reading, he became a Muslim. It nonetheless appears that right up to the end of Muhammad’s life the practice of memorisation predominated over the reduction of the Qur’an to writing and was regarded as more important. In the Hadith records we read that the angel Jibril is said to have checked the recitation of the Qur’an every Ramadan with Muhammad and, in his final year, checked it with him twice: Fatima said: "The Prophet (saw) told me secretly, ’Gabriel used to recite the Qur’an to me and I to him once a year, but this year he recited the whole Qur’an with me twice. I don’t think but that my death is approaching.’" (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.485). Some of Muhammad’s closest companions devoted themselves to learning the text of the Qur’an off by heart. These included the ansari Ubayy ibn Ka’b, Muadh ibn Jabal, Zaid ibn Thabit, Abu Zaid and Abu ad-Darda (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, pp. 488-489). In addition to these Mujammi ibn Jariyah is said to have collected all but a few surahs while Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, one of the muhajirun who had been with Muhammad from the beginning of his mission in Mecca, had secured more than ninety of the one hundred and fourteen surahs by himself, learning the remaining surahs from Mujammi (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab aI-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p.457). Regarding the written materials there are no records as to exactly how much of the Qur’an was reduced to writing during the lifetime of Muhammad. There is certainly no evidence to suggest that anyone had actually compiled the whole text of the Qur’an into a single manuscript, whether directly under Muhammad’s express authority or otherwise, and from the information we have about the collection of the Qur’an after his death (which we shall shortly consider), we must rather conclude that the Qur’an had never been codified or reduced to writing in a single text. Muhammad died suddenly in 632 AD after a short illness and, with his death, the Qur’an automatically became complete. There could be no further revelations once its chosen recipient had departed. While he lived, however, there was always the possibility that new passages could be added and it hardly seemed appropriate, therefore, to contemplate codifying the text into one harmonious whole. Thus it is not surprising to find that the book was widely scattered in the memories of men and on various different materials in writing at the time of Muhammad’s decease. Furthermore we shall see that the Qur’an itself makes allowance for the abrogation of its texts by Allah and, during Muhammad’s lifetime, the possibility of further abrogations (in addition to a number of verses which had already been withdrawn) would likewise preclude the contemplation of a single text. Still further, there appear to have been only a few disputes among the sahaba (Muhammad’s "companions", i.e., his immediate followers) about the text of the Qur’an while Muhammad lived, unlike those which arose soon after his demise. All these factors explain the absence of an official codified text at the time of his death. The possible abrogation of existing passages, and the probable addition of further ayat (the Qur’an nowhere declares its own completeness or that no further revelations could be expected) prevented any attempt to achieve the result desired very soon thereafter by his closest companions. It also appears that new Qur’anic passages were coming with increasing frequency to Muhammad just before that fateful day, making the collection of the Qur’an into a single text at any time all the more improbable. Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah sent down his Divine Inspiration to His Apostle (saw) continuously and abundantly during the period preceding his death till He took him unto Him. That was the period of the greatest part of revelation, and Allah’s Apostle (saw) died after that. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.474). At the end of the first phase of the Qur’an, therefore, we find that its contents were widely distributed in the memories of men and were written down piecemeal on various materials, but that no single text had been prescribed or codified for the Muslim community. As-Suyuti states that the Qur’an, as sent down from Allah in separate stages, had been completely written down and carefully preserved, but that it had not been assembled into one single location during the lifetime of Muhammad (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur’an, p.96). All of it was said to have been available in principle - Muhammad’s companions had absorbed it to one extent or another in their memories and it had been written down on separate materials - while the final order of the various verses and chapters is also presumed to have been defined by Muhammad while he was still alive. 2. THE FIRST COLLECTION OF THE QUR’AN UNDER ABU BAKR. If Muhammad had in fact bequeathed a complete, codified text of the Qur’an as is claimed by some Muslim writers (e.g. Abdul Kader - cf. Chapter 6), there would have been no need for a collection or recension of the text after his death. Yet, once the primary recipient of the Qur’an had passed away, it was only logical that a collection should be made of the whole Qur’an into a single text. The widely accepted traditional account of the initial compilation of the Qur’an ascribes the work to Zaid ibn Thabit, one of the four companions of Muhammad said to have known the text in its entirety. As we shall see, there is abundant evidence that other companions also began to transcribe their own codices of the Qur’an independently of Zaid shortly after Muhammad’s death, but the most significant undertaking was that of Zaid as it was done under the authority of Abu Bakr, the first Caliph of Islam, and it is to this compilation that the Hadith literature gives the most attention. It also became the standard text of the Qur’an during the caliphate of Uthman. Upon Muhammad’s death a number of tribes in the outer parts of the Arabian peninsula reneged from the faith they had recently adopted, whereupon Abu Bakr sent a large number of the early Muslims to subdue the revolt forcibly. This resulted in the Battle of Yamama and a number of Muhammad’s close companions, who had received the Qur’an directly from him, were killed. What followed is described in this well-known hadith: Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: Abu Bakr as-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had been killed. Then Abu Bakr said (to me): "You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah’s Apostle (saw). So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur’an and collect it (in one book)". By Allah! If they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur’an. Then I said to Abu Bakr, "How will you do something which Allah’s Apostle (saw) did not do?" Abu Bakr replied "By Allah, it is a good project". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.477). Zaid eventually expressed approval of the idea in principle after Umar and Abu Bakr had both pressed the need upon him and agreed to set about collecting the text of the Qur’an into one book. One thing is quite clear from the narrative - the collection of the Qur’an is said quite expressly to have been something which Allah’s Apostle did not do. Zaid’s hesitation about the task, partly occasioned by Muhammad’s own disinterest in codifying the text into a single unit and partly by the enormity of it, shows that it was not going to be an easy undertaking. If he was a perfect hafiz of the Qur’an and knew the whole text off by heart, nothing excepted, and if a number of the other companions were also endowed with such outstanding powers of memorisation, the collection would have been quite simple. He needed only to write it down out of his own memory and have the others check it. Desai and others claim that all the huffaz of the Qur’an among Muhammad’s companions all knew the Qur’an in its entirety to perfection, to the last word and letter, and Desai himself goes so far as to suggest that the power of thus retaining the Qur’an in the memory of those who learnt it by heart was no less than supernaturally acquired: The faculty of memory which was divinely bestowed to the Arabs, was so profound that they were able to memorize thousands of verses of poetry with relative ease. Thorough use was thus made of the faculty of memory in the preservation of the Qur’aan. (Desai, The Quraan Unimpeachable, p.25). He goes on to describe the memorising of the Qur’an as "this divine agency of Hifz" (p.26). If we are to take this assumption to its logical conclusion, we must conclude that the collection of the Qur’an would have been the easiest of tasks. If Zaid and the other qurra (memorisers) each knew, by divine assistance and purpose, the whole Qur’an to the last letter without any error or omission - this is the Muslim hypothesis - we would hardly have found him responding to the appeal to collect the Qur’an as he did. Instead of immediately turning to his memory alone he made an extensive search for the text from a variety of sources: So I started looking for the Qur’an and collecting it from (what was written on) palm-leaf stalks, thin white stones, and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last verse of Surat at-Tauba (repentance) with Abi Khuzaima al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.478). We saw earlier that the Qur’an, at the death of Muhammad, was scattered in the memories of men and on various written materials. It was to these that the young companion of Muhammad duly turned when preparing to codify the text into a single book. The two primary materials, amongst the others mentioned, were ar-riqa’a - "the parchments" - and sudur ar-rijal - "the breasts of men" (as-Suyuti, Al-ltqan fii Ulum al-Qur’an, p.137). He looked not only to human memory but also to written materials, consulting as many of the latter as he could find no matter what their origin (i.e., white stones, etc.). It was to many companions that he turned and to all kinds of material upon which fragments of the Qur’an had been written. His was not the action of a man believing he had been divinely endowed with an infallible memory upon which he could exclusively rely but rather of a careful scribe who was going to collect the Qur’an from all the possible sources where it was known to be, from scraps, fragments and portions. This was the action of a man conscious of the wide dispersal of the text who would assemble as much of it as he could to produce as complete and authentic a text as was humanly possible. The earliest traditions of Islam make it quite clear that the search was widespread, though one finds later writers claiming that all the written materials Zaid is said to have relied on - the shoulder-blades of animals, parchments, pieces of leather, etc. - were all found stored in Muhammad’s own household and that they were bound together to ensure their preservation. Al-Harith al-Muhasabi, in his book Kitab Fahm as-Sunan, said that Muhammad used to order that the Qur’an be transcribed and that, whereas it was indeed in different materials, when Abu Bakr ordered it to be collected into one text, these materials "were found in the house of the messenger of Allah (saw) in which the Qur’an was spread out" (as-Suyuti, Al-ltqan fii Ulum al-Qur’an, p.137). They were thereafter gathered together and bound so that nothing could be lost. The earliest records of Hadith literature, however, make it quite plain that Zaid conducted a wide search for the parchments and other materials upon which portions of the Qur’an had been inscribed. Desai also argues for a more limited field of research on the part of Zaid to collect the Qur’an, stating that Zaid was the only companion to be with Muhammad on the last occasion when Jibril went over the Qur’an with him (The Quraan Unimpeachable, p.18) and that he only looked for those pieces of leather and other materials already mentioned upon which the Qur’an had been written under "the direct supervision of Rasulullah (saw)" (p.27). He states that although there were other texts of the Qur’an available, these had not been written down under Muhammad’s supervision but by his companions relying on their memories. No evidences or documentation of any kind is given by Desai to show his sources for all these claims, in particular to prove that they are based on the earliest records available. In fact we have already. seen that, in respect of Muhammad’s last recitation of the Qur’an with Jibril, the fact that it was recited twice by him was a secret divulged only to his daughter Fatima (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.485). This would hardly have been a secret if Zaid had been present on that occasion. Likewise the earliest records of the collection of the Qur’an under Abu Bakr make no distinction between portions of the Qur’an written directly under Muhammad’s supervision and those that were not, nor do they suggest that Zaid relied on the former alone. As we in due course shall see, this is a relatively modern interpretation of the research done by him to maintain the hypothesis that the Qur’an was perfectly compiled, but one without foundation in the earliest records. There are traditions that show that, upon receiving a portion of the Qur’an, Muhammad would command his scribes (of whom Zaid was one) to write it down (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.481), but there is nothing in the very earliest works to support the idea that the whole Qur’an, as written under Muhammad’s supervision, was already assembled in his own home. There are a number of traditions in the Kitab al-Masahif of Ibn Abi Dawud which suggest that Abu Bakr was the first to undertake an actual codification of the text, each of which reads very similarly to the others and follows this form: It is reported ... from Ali who said: "May the mercy of Allah be upon Abu Bakr, the foremost of men to be rewarded with the collection of the manuscripts, for he was the first to collect (the text) between (two) covers". (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.5). Even here, however, we find clear evidence that there were others who preceded him in collecting the Qur’an texts into a single written codex: It is reported ... from Ibn Buraidah who said: "The first of those to collect the Qur’an into a mushaf (codex) was Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifah". (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur’an, p.135). This Salim is one of only four men whom Muhammad recommended from whom the Qur’an should be learnt (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p.96) and he was one of the qurra (reciters) killed at the Battle of Yamama. As it was only after this battle that Abu Bakr set out to collect the Qur’an into a single text as well, it goes without saying that Salim’s codification of the text must have preceded his through Zaid ibn Thabit. 3. PERSPECTIVES ON THE INITIAL COLLECTION OF THE QUR’AN. At this stage we have a clear trend emerging. Official tradition focuses on the collection of the Qur’an by Abu Bakr as the first, foremost and, at times, only compilation of the text made upon Muhammad’s death. Later writers have endeavoured to strengthen this view by suggesting that Zaid was the only man qualified for the task, that the whole Qur’an, no matter in what form, was found in Muhammad’s apartments, and that it was to written portions inscribed under Muhammad’s supervision alone that the redactor turned to compile his codex. Contemporary Muslim opinion goes even further to claim that the Qur’an, as thus compiled, is an exact record with not so much as a dot, letter or word added or lost - of the script as it was delivered to Muhammad. On the other hand an objective analysis of the initial collection of the Qur’an, based on a rational assessment of the evidences without regard to sentiment or presupposition, can only go so far as to conclude that the text as compiled by Zaid, which later became the model for Uthman’s standardised text, was simply the final product of an honest attempt to collect the Qur’an insofar as the redactor was able to do so from a wide variety of materials and sources upon which he was obliged to rely. It is the very character of these sources that we should at this stage assess and reconsider. Zaid relied on the memories of men and various written materials. No matter how much those early companions sought to memorise the text perfectly, human memory is a fallible source, and, to the extent that a book the length of the Qur’an had been committed to memory, we should expect to find a number of variant readings in the text. As we shall shortly see, this anticipation proves to be well-founded. The reliance on a host of portions of the Qur’an scattered among a number of companions must also lead to certain logical expectations. There exists a clear possibility that portions of the text may have been lost - the loose distribution of the whole text in many fragments and portions as opposed to a carefully maintained single text is adequate ground to make such an assumption and, as we shall see, the expectation again proves to be well-founded when the evidences are considered and assessed. A typical example worth quoting at this point is found in the following hadith which plainly states that portions of the Qur’an were irretrievably lost in the Battle of Yamama when many of the companions of Muhammad who had memorised the text had perished: Many (of the passages) of the Qur’an that were sent down were known by those who died on the day of Yamama ... but they were not known (by those who) survived them, nor were they written down, nor had Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman (by that time) collected the Qur’an, nor were they found with even one (person) after them. (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.23). The negative impact of this passage can hardly be missed: lam ya’alam - "not known", lam yuktab - "not written down", lam yuwjad - "not found", a threefold emphasis on the fact that these portions of the Qur’an which had gone down with the qurra who had died at Yamama had been lost forever and could not be recovered. The very fact of such a wide distribution of the Qur’an texts, however, appears to negate the possibility that anyone could have added anything to the text after Muhammad’s death. Not being collected into a single text but spread among many companions, there exists a strong possibility that some of the text may have been lost, but at the same time there appears to be no such possibility that it could have been interpolated in any way. The retention of so much of the Qur’an in the memories of Muhammad’s companions is a sure guarantee that no one could have added to it in any way and gained acceptance for his innovations. Lastly, in considering the sources, we should not be surprised to find that other codices of the Qur’an text were being compiled in addition to that being executed by Zaid. Once again we look to the evidence that a number of companions had an extensive knowledge of the Qur’an and it is only to be expected that these would soon seek to preserve, in single codices, what was at that time still fresh in their memories and loosely transcribed on a selection of different materials. Once again we shall find our expectations fulfilled and will discover that the evidences strongly support the conclusions one would draw naturally about the compilation of a book such as the Qur’an rather than the hypothesis that the book was divinely preserved, to the last dot and letter, without loss or variation. The possibility that part of the text may have been lost is strengthened by evidences in the Hadith literature which show that even Muhammad himself occasionally forgot portions of the Qur’an. One of these traditions reads as follows and is taken from one of the earliest works of Hadith: Aishah said: A man got up (for prayer) at night, he read the Qur’an and raised his voice in reading. When morning came, the Apostle of Allah (saw) said: May Allah have mercy on so-and-so! Last night he reminded me a number of verses I was about to forget. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 3, p.1114). The translator has a footnote to this tradition, stating that Muhammad had not forgotten these verses of his own accord but had been made to forget them by Allah as a teaching for the Muslims. Whatever the purpose or cause, it is quite clear that Muhammad had occasion to forget passages that had been, as he proclaimed, revealed to him. The suggestion that Muhammad’s oversight of such texts was not of his own doing but brought about through Allah’s decree is based on the following text of the Qur’an: None of our revelations (ayat) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten (nunsihaa) but We substitute something similar or better. Knowest thou not that Allah has power over all things? Surah 2.106 The word ayat is the word consistently used in the Qur’an for its own texts and the word nunsihaa comes from the root word nasiya which, wherever it appears in the Qur’an (as it does some forty-five times in its various forms), always carries the meaning "to forget". Let us conclude this section. Zaid, quite obviously one of the companions of Muhammad who had an outstanding knowledge of the Qur’an, set about collecting its text so as to produce as genuine and authentic a codex as he possibly could. His integrity in this undertaking is not to be questioned and we may accordingly deduce from all the evidences he consulted that the single Qur’an text he finally presented to Abu Bakr was a basically authentic record of the verses and suras as they were preserved in the memories of the reciters and in writing upon various materials. The evidences, however, do not support the modern hypothesis that the Qur’an, as it is today, is an exact replica of the original, nothing lost or varied. There is no evidence of any interpolation in the text and such a suggestion (occasionally made by Western writers) can be easily discounted, but there are ample evidences to indicate that the Qur’an was incomplete when it was transcribed into a single text (as we have already seen) and that many of its passages and verses were transmitted in different forms. In the course of this book we shall give more detailed consideration to these evidences and their implications. 4. THE MISSING VERSES FOUND WITH ABU KHUZAIMAH. Before closing our study on the collection of the Qur’an during the caliphate of Abu Bakr it is important to study the brief mention made by Zaid of the two verses which he said he found only with Abu Khuzaimah al-Ansari. The full text of the hadith on this subject reads as follows: I found the last verse of Surat at-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. The verse is: ’Verily there has come to you an Apostle from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty ... (till the end of Bara’a)’. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.478). Insofar as the text speaks for itself without further enquiry, we can see quite plainly that, in his search for the Qur’an, Zaid was dependent on one source alone for the last two verses of Surat at-Tauba. At face value this evidence suggests that no one else knew these verses and that, had they not been found with Abu Khuzaimah, they would have been omitted from the Qur’an text. The incident suggests immediately that, far from there being numerous huffaz who knew the whole Qur’an off by heart to the last letter, it was, in fact, so widely spread that some passages were only known to a few of the companions - in this case, only one. This ex facie interpretation of the narrative naturally undermines the popular sentiment among Muslims of later generations that the Qur’an was preserved intact because its contents were all known perfectly by all the sahaba of Muhammad who had undertaken to memorise it. A more convenient explanation for the hadith had to be found and we find it expressed in the following quotation from Desai’s booklet: The meaning of the above statement of Hadhrat Zaid should now be very clear that among those who had written the verses under the direct command and supervision of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), Khuzaimah was the only person from whom he (Zaid) found the last two verses of Surah Baraa-ah written. (Desai, The Quraan Unimpeachable, p.20). Although the hadith as recorded by al-Bukhari makes no mention of this, Desai claims that the statement that Abu Khuzaima alone had the last two verses of Surat at-Tauba (Bara’a) means that he was in fact the only one who had them in writing under Muhammad’s direct supervision. He goes on to say: It was known beyond the slightest shadow of doubt that these two verses were part of the Qur’aan. Hundreds of Sahaabah knew the verses from memory. Furthermore, those Sahaabah who had in their possession the complete recording of the Qur’aan in writing also had these particular verses in their written records. But, as far as having written them under the direct supervision of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was concerned, only Abu Khuzaimah (radhiallahu anhu) had these verses. (Desai, The Quraan Unimpeachable, p.21). The maulana gives no evidences whatsoever in support of these statements. Nowhere in the earliest records of the Hadith literature is there any suggestion that hundreds of Muhammad’s companions knew these verses and that others had them in writing, and that what Zaid intended to say was that Abu Khuzaima alone had them in writing directly from Muhammad. Desai’s omission of any documentation for his statement is, in the circumstances, most significant. Siddique, in his article in Al-Balaagh (p.2), also claims that when Zaid said "I could not find a verse" he actually meant he could not find it in writing. As said before, there is nothing in the hadith text itself to yield such an interpretation. From what source, then, do these learned authors obtain this view? It is derived from the following extract which is taken from the Fath al-Baari fii Sharh al-Bukhari of Ahmad ibn Ali ibn Muhammad al-Asqalani ibn Hajar, the translation appearing in Burton’s The Collection of the Qur’an on pages 127 and 128: It does not follow from Zaid’s saying that he had failed to find the aya from surat al Tawba in the possession of anyone else, that at that time it was not mutawatira among those who had learnt their Qur’an from the Companions, but had not heard it direct from the Prophet. What Zaid was seeking was the evidence of those who had their Qur’an texts direct from the Prophet. ... The correct interpretation of Zaid’s remark that he had failed to find the aya with anyone else is that he had failed to find it in writing, not that he had failed to find those who bore it in their memories. (Fath al-Baari, Vol. 9, p.12). The source from which Desai and Siddique derive their opinions is not from the earliest records of the compilation of the Qur’an but a much later commentary on the Sahih al-Bukhari done by the famous Muslim author al-Asqalani ibn Hajar who was born in 773 A.H. (1372 A.D.) and died in 852 A.H. The earliest source for the interpretation that Zaid was looking for the verses only in authorised written sources thus dates no less than eight centuries after Muhammad’s death by which time, as is the case to this day, it had become fashionable to hold the view that the Qur’an had been widely known to perfection by all the companions of Muhammad who had memorised it. It is, therefore, a convenient interpretation read into the text of the hadith to sustain a more recent supposition. There is nothing in the text of the hadith itself, however, to support this interpretation. The extract continues with some very interesting comments: Besides, it is probable that when Zaid found it with Abu Khuzaima the other companions recalled having heard it. Zaid himself certainly recalled that he had heard it. (Fath al-Baari, op.cit.). While Desai boldly states that it was known "beyond the slightest shadow of doubt" that the last two verses of Surat at-Tauba were part of the Qur’an and that they were known by "hundreds of Sahaabah" in their memories and by others who had recorded them in writing, his source only goes so far as to suggest that it is "probable" that when Zaid produced them from Abu Khuzaima, the other companions recalled having heard them. A cautious suggestion that the others may have recalled having heard the verses has been transformed by Desai into a bold declaration that they were known by hundreds of them without the aid of recollection "beyond the slightest shadow of doubt". Here is clear evidence that modern Muslim writers are out to establish a cherished hypothesis - the unquestionable perfection of the Qur’an text - instead of objectively assessing the factual evidences as they stand. Desai’s source is only a comparatively recent work of interpretation and yet, even here, he cannot resist the temptation to expand it into wholesale allegations of fact. Ibn Hajar goes on, on the same page, to say "al-Da’udi commented that Abu Khuzaima was not the sole witness. Zaid knew the verse. It was thus attested by two men", an indication that it was believed by other Muslim scholars that Zaid’s statement was not to be manipulated into a claim that the verses were not found in writing but should rather be given its obvious meaning, namely, that no one else knew these verses at all. What makes the convenient claims of Ibn Hajar, as repeated by Desai and Siddique, even less acceptable is the fact that there is a record in one of the very earliest works of tradition showing in greater detail what Zaid’s statement really meant. The narrative reads: Khuzaimah ibn Thabit said: "I see you have overlooked (two) verses and have not written them". They said "And which are they?" He replied "I had it directly (tilqiyya - ’automatically, spontaneously’) from the messenger of Allah (saw) (Surah 9, ayah 128): ’There has come to you a messenger from yourselves. It grieves him that you should perish, he is very concerned about you : to the believers he is kind and merciful’, to the end of the surah". Uthman said "I bear witness that these verses are from Allah". (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.11). This narrative implies that the incident took place during Uthman’s reign and not at the time of the collection of the Qur’an under Abu Bakr, but it is clearly the same event that is under consideration. (Siddique in fact states that the records showing that Zaid also missed a verse at the time of the recension of the Qur’an under Uthman actually apply to the last two verses of Surat at-Tauba. We shall say more on this when discussing Uthman’s recension shortly). The significant feature of this narrative is that Zaid and the others are said to have missed these verses completely when transcribing the Qur’an. In fact the statement that Zaid only found them with Abu Khuzaima is hare stated to mean that it was only on the latter’s initiative that the verses were recorded at all. He found it necessary to draw the compiler’s attention to them - it was not Zaid’s search for two verses he already knew that occasioned their inclusion. In fact the text goes on to say that Abu Khuzaima was asked where they should be inserted in the Qur’an and he suggested they be added to the last part of the Qur’an to be revealed, namely the close of Surat at-Tauba (Bara’a in the text). When one considers this tradition with the relevant hadith in the Sahih al-Bukhari, certain facts cannot be avoided. The verses were missed completely, they were only recalled and thereafter included upon Abu Khuzaimah’s initiative, and it was left to him to advise where they should be included. It is only by taking the word tilqiyya ("directly") to mean that he was the only companion who had these verses in writing under Muhammad’s supervision that Muslim writers have been able to sustain the hypothesis that the verses were known to many of Muhammad’s companions. It is surely quite obvious, however, that the word tilqiyya was used by Abu Khuzaima purely in the sense that he had the verses first-hand from Muhammad, thereby justifying their inclusion. What he was really saying was that he had not learnt them from a secondary source but from Muhammad himself and, therefore, they had to be included in the Qur’an. There is no warrant for the interpretation that he alone had them in writing under Muhammad’s authority. This convenient interpretation, in any event, goes right against the contents and implications of the narratives. If the verses had been well-known, Zaid would hardly have overlooked them. It was precisely because they were not known or remembered that Abu Khuzaima was obliged to point out the oversight. One cannot help asking these modern Muslim authors, on the basis of their own interpretation, whether Zaid would have included these verses in his redaction of the Qur’an if they had not been found "in writing under Muhammad’s supervision" even though they were supposedly known in the memories of hundreds of the sahaba and were recorded In writing from other sources. Our study shows that the collection of the Qur’an by Zaid under Abu Bakr was a gathering together of the texts of the Qur’an from widely divergent sources and materials where the Qur’an was scattered, so divergent that at the Battle of Yamama some passages were irretrievably lost and, in another case, only one of Muhammad’s companions was aware of the text. "I searched for the Qur’an", Zaid declared, indicating that he did not expect to find all the texts of the book in the memory of any one man or on written materials in any one place. The Qur’an thus compiled was the product of a widespread search for what was known in the memories of many men and had been inscribed upon various materials. This type of source-material hardly supports the notion and claim that the Qur’an, as eventually collected, was perfect to the last dot and letter. The Muslim hypothesis is the product of wishful sentiment, it is not based on an objective and realistic assessment of the facts contained in the earliest historical records of the initial collection of the Qur’an. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 25: 03.04. CHAPTER 2: THE UTHMANIC RECENSION OF THE QURAN ======================================================================== CHAPTER 2: THE UTHMANIC RECENSION OF THE QUR’AN 1. DID ABU BAKR’S CODEX HAVE OFFICIAL STATUS? What, ultimately, was the status of the Qur’an text codified by Zaid ibn Thabit for Abu Bakr? Was it merely a private text assembled for the convenience of the Caliph or was it intended to be an official recension for the growing Muslim community? To answer these questions one has to enquire into what happened to this manuscript after it had been compiled and the information furnished to us reads as follows: Then the complete manuscripts (copy) of the Qur’an remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with Umar, till the end of his life, and then with Hafsa, the daughter of Umar (ra). (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.478). Each one of the three possessors of this codex was a person of considerable prominence. Abu Bakr and Umar were Muhammad’s immediate successors, the first and second caliphs of the Muslim world respectively. Hafsah, likewise, was a leading figure, being specifically described in the Kitab al-Masahif of Ibn Abi Dawud as both bint Umar (the daughter of Umar, p.7) and zauj an-nabi (the wife of the Prophet, p.85). The codex was, therefore, certainly retained as the official copy of the first two Muslim rulers and was thereafter committed to an obviously distinctive caretaker of the text. It is another question, however, whether this copy became the official standardised collection of the Qur’an for the whole Muslim community. Any collection made for Abu Bakr, the first caliph of Islam, must nonetheless have had some special status especially as its nominated compiler Zaid ibn Thabit was widely regarded as one of the foremost authorities on the Qur’an text. His effort to compile as authentic a record as he could of the original Qur’an as it was handed down by Muhammad can only be highly commended and the overall authenticity of the resultant codex cannot be seriously challenged. It can fairly be concluded that Zaid’s text was one of great importance and its retention in official custody during the caliphates respectively of Abu Bakr and Umar testify to its key significance during the time of the Qur’an’s initial codification. There can be little doubt, however, that this codex was at no time publicised during those first two caliphates or declared to be the official text for the whole Muslim world. Desai argues that there was no need to "standardize and promulgate this collection as the only official text" at that time as the Qur’an was, according to him, still perfectly retained in the memories of the huffaz among the companions of Muhammad who remained alive (Desai, The Quraan Unimpeachable, p.31). We have already seen that claims for the perfect knowledge of the Qur’an in the memories of the sahaba are based on assumptions and we cannot accept that Abu Bakr’s codex was not given any public impact after its compilation because there was no need for this while Muhammad’s companions still had it in their memories. It was precisely because Abu Bakr and Umar perceived the need for a carefully codified written text of the Qur’an as against reliance on the memories of men alone that it was put together in the first place. It is more likely that Abu Bakr and Umar recognised that there were other masters of the text of the Qur’an, such as Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, Ubayy ibn Ka’b, Mu’adh ibn Jabal and others we have already mentioned alongside Zaid ibn Thabit, who were authorities of equal standing with him and who were qualified to produce authentic codices of the Qur’an in written form. The manuscript compiled by Zaid, highly prized as it was, nevertheless was not regarded with any greater authority than the others once these began to be put together and it was for this reason, therefore, that Zaid’s codex was not publicly imposed on the whole community as the officially sanctioned text of the Qur’an. Zaid’s text was, in fact, virtually concealed after its compilation. Upon the death of Umar it passed into the private keeping of Hafsah, very much a recluse after Muhammad’s death. Far from being given official publicity, it was virtually set aside and given no publicity at all. Desai suggests that it was "guarded" during those years "for future use" when the qurra among Muhammad’s companions had finally passed away (The Quraan Unimpeachable, p.31), but there is nothing in the earliest records to suggest that Zaid’s text was compiled purely through foresight as to future conditions. Rather it was a perceived immediate need for a single written text that occasioned its compilation. At the time of its codification Zaid knew that his text could not be regarded as an absolutely perfect record as some passages were acknowledged as having been lost and the redactor himself overlooked at least two verses until he was reminded of them by Abu Khuzaima. If Zaid and Abu Bakr were persuaded that his text was unquestionably authentic to the last word and letter, it would almost certainly have been given immediate public prominence. On the other hand, if Zaid knew that it was only relatively authentic and no more accurate than the many other codices simultaneously being compiled by Abdullah ibn Mas’ud and others, we can understand why it quickly disappeared into relative obscurity. By the time Uthman became caliph, although the other codices were gaining prominence in the various provinces, this codex had in fact receded into the private custody of one of the widows of the Prophet of Islam who simply kept it indefinitely in her personal care. It may have been compiled under official supervision, but it was never regarded as the actual official and solely authentic text of the Qur’an. It had become just one of many codices of equal authority that had been put together at roughly the same time. 2. UTHMAN’S ORDER TO BURN THE OTHER CODICES. About nineteen years after the death of Muhammad, when Uthman had succeeded Abu Bakr and Umar as the third Caliph of Islam, a major new development took place in the standardising of the Qur’an text. The Muslim general Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman led an expedition into northern Syria, drawing his troops partly from Syria and partly from Iraq. It was not long before disputes arose between them as to the correct reading of the Qur’an. They had come from Damascus and Hems, from Kufa and Basra, and in each centre the local Muslims had their own codex of the Qur’an. The codex of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud became the standard text for the Muslims at Kufa in Iraq while the codex of Ubayy ibn Ka’b became revered in Syria. Hudhayfah was disturbed at this and, after consulting Salid ibn al-As, he reported the matter to Uthman. What followed is described in the following hadith: Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sha’m and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur’an, so he said to Uthman, ’O Chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur’an) as Jews and the Christians did before’. So Uthman sent a message to Hafsa, saying, ’Send us the manuscripts of the Qur’an so that we may compile the Qur’anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you’. Hafsa sent It to Uthman. Uthman then ordered Zaid ibn Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa’id bin al-As, and Abdur-Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, ’In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur’an, then write it in the dialect of the Quraish as the Qur’an was revealed in their tongue’. They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.479). For the first time in the official works of the Hadith literature we read of other codices that were being compiled, in addition to the one done by Zaid for Abu Bakr, and that these were widely accepted and well-known, certainly far more so than the codex of Zaid which by this time was in the private possession of Hafsah. While some of those texts consisted only of a selection of portions, it is clearly stated that others were complete codices of the whole Qur’an. What was the motive for Uthman’s order that these other codices should be destroyed and that the codex of Zaid alone should be preserved and copied out to be sent in replacement of the other texts to the various provinces? Was it because there were serious errors in these texts and that Zaid’s alone could be considered a perfect redaction of the original text? There is nothing in the original records to suggest that this was the motive. The following tradition gives a more balanced picture of the circumstances and causes which prompted Uthman’s action and why he chose Zaid’s codex as the basis on which the Qur’an text was to be standardised for the Muslim community. Ali is reported to have said of Uthman: By Allah, he did not act or do anything in respect of the manuscripts (masahif) except in full consultation with us, for he said, ’What is your opinion in this matter of qira’at (reading)? It has been reported to me that some are saying ’My reading is superior to your reading’. That is a perversion of the truth. We asked him, ’What is your view (on this)?’ He answered, ’My view is that we should unite the people on a single text (mushaf waahid), then there will be no further division or disagreement’. We replied, ’What a wonderful idea!’ Someone from the gathering there asked, ’Whose is the purest (Arabic) among the people and whose reading (is the best)?’ They said the purest (Arabic) among the people was that of Sa’id ibn al-’As and the (best) reader among them was Zaid ibn Thabit. He (Uthman) said, ’Let the one write and the other dictate’. Thereafter they performed their task and he united the people on a (single) text. (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.22). The motive is twice stated in this extract to simply be the desire to bring consensus among the Muslims on the basis of a single Qur’an text. It was not to destroy the other manuscripts because they were considered unreliable but rather to prevent future dissension among the inhabitants of the different provinces. Desai, who agrees that these other codices were authentic texts of the Qur’an, states that they were destroyed purely to obtain uniformity in the text. He reasons that Zaid’s codex was the "official" text and that the others were unofficially transcribed, but does not regard the variant readings in them as evidence of corruption of the text but rather as illustrative of the fact that, according to a hadith text, the Qur’an was revealed in seven different ways (cf. chapter 5). He says: The simplest and safest way to ensure the prevalence of the standardized copy was to eliminate all other copies. (Desai, op.cit., p.33). It was this objective alone - the "prevalence of a standardized copy", the unity of the Muslims on the basis of a single text - that motivated Uthman’s action. After all, this was the reason why Hudhayfah had approached him the first place. "It was Hudhayfah who impressed upon Uthman (ra) the need to assemble the texts into a single text" (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.35), Thus Desai adds that "The gathering and elimination of all other copies besides the standardized text was merely to ensure uniformity" (op.cit., p.33). Just as Abu Bakr, at the time of the first recension of the Qur’an, had sought to obtain a complete record of the text from all the diverse sources whence it could be obtained, so now Uthman sought to standardise the text as against the varying codices that were gaining authority in the different centres. Why, then, did he choose Zaid’s codex as the basis for this purpose? The tradition quoted above once again underlines the authority that Zaid enjoyed in respect of the text of the Qur’an and the overall authenticity of his codex could not be disputed, It was also done, as we have seen, under official supervision but cannot be regarded as having become the official text, the other codices having been "compiled unofficially" (Desai, op.cit., p.32). Its almost immediate concealment from public view and the lack of publicity given to it are proofs that it was never intended to be regarded as the standard text of the Qur’an. Unlike the codices which were gaining fame and widespread acceptance in the provinces, Zaid’s text was conveniently close at hand and, not being known among the Muslims in those provinces, it was not regarded as a rival text. The standardising of a Medinan text at the seat of Uthman’s government also enabled him to suppress the popularity and authority of other reciters in areas where Uthman’s rule had become unpopular because he was placing members of his own family, the descendants of Umayya who had opposed Muhammad for many years, in positions of authority over and above many more well-known companions who had been faithful to him throughout his mission. Zaid’s text was, therefore, not chosen because it was believed to be superior to the others but because it conveniently suited Uthman’s purposes in standardising the text of the Qur’an. Uthman called for this text and it became promptly transformed from a private text shielded for many years in almost complete public obscurity into the official codex of the Qur’an for the whole Muslim community. It was Uthman who standardised Zaid’s codex as the official text and gave it widespread prominence, not Abu Bakr. While Zaid was clearly one of the foremost authorities on the Qur’an his text as compiled under Abu Bakr cannot be regarded as having been more authentic than the others. The "official" supervision of its compilation was only that of the elected successor to Muhammad. Had it been the Prophet of Islam himself who had authorised and supervised the codification of the text, it could well have laid claim to being the official text of the Qur’an, but it was only the product of a well-meaning successor compiled by but one of the most approved authorities on the text. (We are not dealing here with a compilation ordered and supervised by the Prophet of Islam with a divine guarantee of its absolutely perfect preservation but rather with an honest attempt by a young man, ultimately at his own discretion as to what should be included or excluded, and that only under the eye of a subsequent leader, to produce as accurate a text as he possibly could). Once again it must be borne in mind that, once compiled, Abu Bakr did not impose it upon the Muslim community as Uthman later did, so it cannot be regarded as having become the official codex of the Qur’an before Uthman’s time as Desai and others wish to believe. Uthman’s action was drastic, to say the least. Not one of the other codices was exempted from the order that they be destroyed. It can only be assumed that the differences in reading between the various texts was so vast that the Caliph saw no alternative to an order for the standardising of one of the texts and the annihilation of the rest. The fact that none of the other texts was spared shows that none of the codices, Zaid’s included, agreed with any of the others in its entirety. There must have been serious textual variants between the texts to warrant such action. One cannot assume that Zaid’s text, hidden from public view, just happened to be the perfect text and that, wherever it differed from the others, they must have been in error. Such a convenient shielding of this codex from the disputes about the reading of the Qur’an is unacceptable when the matter is considered objectively. Zaid’s text was simply one of a number of codices done by the companions of Muhammad after his death and shared in the variant readings found between them all. In its favour is the consideration that it had been compiled under Abu Bakr by one of the foremost authorities of the Qur’an. Its preference also depended, however, on the fact that, not being widely known, it had been sheltered from the disputes surrounding the others and it was, of course, conveniently close at hand. Furthermore, it was not an official text as we have seen but a compilation done by just one man, Zaid ibn Thabit, in the same way as those of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud and the others had been compiled. It was not the authorised text of Muhammad himself but simply one form of it among many then in existence and uncorroborated in every single point by the others in circulation. It was compiled under the discretion of only one man and came to official prominence purely because Uthman chose it as the appropriate one to represent the single codex he wanted to establish for the whole Muslim community. Modern Muslim writers who make bold claims for the absolute perfection of the Qur’an text as it stands today are aware that evidences of a host of different readings in the earliest manuscripts will make such claims sound hollow indeed, so they argue that the differences were not in the texts themselves but only in the pronunciation of the Qur’an as it was recited. Siddique states this argument in the following way: "’Usman was not standardising one out of several texts. There never was more than one text. ’Usman was standardizing the recitation of the Qur’an and making sure that it would remain in the dialect of the Quraish in which it was originally revealed. He was concerned at points of difference in intonation between Iraqi and Syrian troops in the Islamic army" (Al-Balaagh, op.cit., p.2). The claim is that, if there were any differences in reading, they were only in pronunciation, in "the recitation" and "intonation" of the text. This argument is based entirely on faulty premises. Pronunciation, recitation and intonation relate only to a verbal recital of the text and such differences would never have appeared in the written texts. Yet it was the destruction of these written texts that Uthman ordered. We need to consider further that, in the earliest days of the codification of the Qur’an in writing, there were no vowel points in the texts. Thus differences in recitation would never have appeared in the written codices. Why, then, did Uthman burn them? There can only be one conclusion the differences must have existed in the texts themselves and, in the following three chapters, we shall see just how extensive those differences were. Uthman was standardising one text at the expense of the others and it was not little niceties in the finer points of recitation that occasioned his extreme action against the other codices but the prevalence of a vast number of variant readings in the text itself. Muslims need to consider and ponder Uthman’s action seriously. The Qur’an was believed to be the revealed Word of God and the codices then in existence were written out by the very closest companions of Muhammad himself. What value would be placed on those Qur’an manuscripts if they were still in existence today? These were hand-written codices carefully copied out, some as complete records of the whole Qur’an text, by the most prominent of Muhammad’s companions who were regarded as authorities on the text. It was these codices that Uthman eliminated. Uthman burnt and destroyed complete manuscripts of the whole Qur’an copied out by Muhammad’s immediate companions. If there had not been serious differences between them, why would he thus have destroyed such cherished copies of what all Muslims believe to be the revealed Word of God? One cannot understand the casualness with which modern Muslim writers justify his action especially if, as Siddique claims, there had never been any differences in the texts. What would Muslims think if anyone had a ceremony today such as Uthman had then, and consigned a number of Qur’ans to the flames, especially if these were cherished hand-written texts of great antiquity? Uthman burnt such Qur’an texts and destroyed them. Only one explanation can account for this - there must have been so many serious variant readings between the texts themselves that the Caliph saw only one solution - the establishment of one of these as the official text for the whole Muslim community and the elimination of the others. While Siddique emphatically declares "One Text, No Variants" and states that "there was never more than one text" (this clause is in bold letters in his article), Desai contradicts him by admitting that there were differences in the earliest texts, such differences including "textual variation" (op.cit., p.22), and by acknowledging that other codices were not necessarily identical to the one compiled by Zaid (p.23). Desai, however, also seeks to maintain the hypothesis that the Qur’an is word-perfect to this day, so he argues that all the variants that existed were part of the divinely authorised seven different readings of the Qur’an and states that, as these readings were not known to all the Muslims, Uthman wisely decided to destroy the evidences in the interests of obtaining a single text. He says: Hadhrat Uthmaan’s measure of eliminating all other authorized and true versions of the Qur’aan Majeed was necessitated by the disputes which arose in the conquered territories - disputes among new Muslims ignorant of the other forms of authorized Qira’at. Since a particular Ustaad imparted only a specific Qira’at, they remained unaware of the other authorized versions. . . . Scrutinizing each and every copy would have proven too laborious and difficult a task. The simplest and safest way to ensure the prevalence of the standardized copy was to eliminate all other copies. (Desai, The Quraan Unimpeachable, p.32,33). So it became expedient to eliminate six authorised forms of Qira’at and retain just one and, although the most meticulous effort must have gone into writing and completing the other codices of the Qur’an, the reading of these texts would have been too much like hard work for the Caliph. One can only marvel at the manner in which such Muslims can unemotionally reason favourably about the wholesale destruction of what are said to have been authentic codices of the book they cherish so dearly. It would be interesting to see what the maulana’s reaction would be if someone today ordered a similar destruction of such highly-prized hand-written texts of the Qur’an for such expedient reasons as he gives in these quotes, or if someone decided to make a film of the events surrounding Uthman’s decree. The order to consign all but one of the Qur’ans in existence to the flames at such a crucial time cannot be explained away so lightly. Muslim writers are not seriously assessing the gravity of Uthman’s decree. As we shall see, Abdullah ibn Mas’ud reacted very strongly to Uthman’s order and we are also informed that when Uthman enquired into the grievances among the Muslims who were rising in opposition to him, one of their complaints against him was his destruction of the other Qur’an codices, that he had "obliterated the Book of Allah" (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.36). They significantly did not just say it was the masahif (manuscripts), the usual word used for the Qur’an codices compiled before Uthman’s decree, but the kitabullah, the "Scripture of Allah", to emphasise their severe antagonism to his wanton extermination of such important manuscripts of the Qur’an. In the coming chapters we shall see just how extensive the variant readings were and how strongly the texts of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, Ubayy ibn Ka’b, Zaid ibn Thabit, Abu Musa and others differed from each other. Let us here, however, briefly consider certain important developments in the standardising of Zaid’s text as the preferred text of the Qur’an. 3. THE REVISION OF ZAID’S CODEX OF THE QUR’AN. One would think, in the light of the bold claims that Zaid’s text was always absolutely perfect, that even if it could not have been written out originally without a wide search for its contents, its reproduction at this stage would have been a simple matter of copying it out just as it stood. Yet we find even here further evidence that it was not previously looked on with any special favour or regarded as the official text of the Qur’an, for Uthman immediately ordered that a recension of his codex take place and that it be corrected where necessary. The record of what duly transpired reads as follows: Narrated Anas (ra): ’Uthman called Zaid bin Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa’id bin Al-’As and ’Abdur-Rahman bin Al-Harith bin Hisham, and then they wrote the manuscripts (of the Qur’an). ’Uthman said to the three Quraishi persons, "If you differ with Zaid bin Thabit on any point of the Qur’an, then write it in the language of Quraish, as the Qur’an was revealed in their language". So they acted accordingly. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.4, p.466). We have already seen that Sa’id ibn al-As was regarded as an expert in the Arabic language and he and the other two redactors were chosen because they came from the Quraysh tribe of Mecca from which Muhammad too had come, whereas Zaid was from Medina. Uthman wanted the standardised Qur’an to be preserved in the Quraysh dialect in which Muhammad had originally delivered it. Accordingly, if these three found themselves differing with Zaid’s text at any point, it was to be corrected and rewritten in the original dialect. Once again we cannot possibly be dealing purely with fine points of recitation or pronunciation, for any differences here would not have been reflected in the written text. Uthman clearly had actual amendments to the written text in mind when he summoned the four redactors together. There is even evidence that Uthman went further than just requiring a committee of four to oversee the recension of Zaid’s codex in that he became involved in a general consultation with a number of other prominent Muslims in Medina on the recension of the Qur’an and a more general revision may well have taken place (As-Suyuti, Al-ltqan fii Ulum al-Qur’an, p.139). Not only this but we find yet again that Zaid was to recall yet another verse that had been missing from the text. The record of this incident reads: Zaid said ’I missed a verse from al-Ahzab (Surah 33) when we transcribed the mushaf (the written text of the Qur’an under Uthman’s supervision). I used to hear the messenger of Allah (saw) reciting it. We searched for it and found it with Khuzaimah ibn Thabit al-Ansari: "From among the believers are men who are faithful in their covenant with Allah" (33.23). So we inserted it in the (relevant) surah in the text. (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur’an, p.138). A similar record of the omission of what is now Surah 33.23 from the recension done under Uthman is recorded in the Sahih al-Bukhari (Vol. 6, p.479). At first sight the story is very similar to the omission of the last two verses of Surat Bara’a in the compilation of the Qur’an text done by Zaid for Abu Bakr. A recension was done, a short passage was found to be omitted, and it was discovered with Khuzaima ibn Thabit. Added to this, as we have seen (page 35), is the hadith that traces the omission of the last two verses of Surat Bara’a (9. 127-128) to the time of Uthman’s reign. Siddique, in consequence, states that the story of the missing verse from Surat al-Ahzab really refers to the verses from Surat Bara’a and that the hadith about these verses has a better authority than the tradition about the other verse (Al-Balaagh, op.cit., p.2). It is not possible at this time in history to make any conclusive deductions in this respect, save and except to say that it does appear to be strange that it was only nineteen years after Muhammad’s death that Zaid suddenly remembered, for the first time, another verse that was missing from the Qur’an and coincidentally found it with the same companion as the other two verses. We also saw that it was Khuzaimah himself who at that time brought the redactor’s attention to the omission of the two verses from Surat Bara’a and, if yet another text was also omitted and known to him alone, it needs to be explained why he remained silent about it. Desai, however, accepts the authority of the hadith at face value and explains the phenomenon by suggesting that Surah 33.23 was indeed included in Zaid’s original codex but was overlooked when the copying of the texts took place under Uthman’s recension and says, once again, that it was well known to "the numerous other Huffaaz" (The Quraan Unimpeachable, p.38). This argument just cannot stand the test of critical analysis. The mushaf from which Zaid and his assistants copied the manuscripts was not destroyed along with the other codices but was returned to Hafsah after the work was complete, so if the relevant verse had been included in it, there would hardly have been any need for a search for it till it was found with Khuzaima. Likewise one cannot believe that, if it was included in the original codex, it suddenly became overlooked every time a copy was made for one of the provinces. To the extent that the hadith reflects a true development in the text of the Qur’an, Desai’s argument about the meaning of its omission in the transcribed copies is quite simply untenable and does not hold water. At face value the hadith can only mean that it was only after Zaid’s second recension of the Qur’an text that he recalled the verse for the first time - a not too improbable occurrence if he had not been required to give detailed and exact attention to the actual authenticity of the text of the Qur’an in the years between his completion of the codex for Abu Bakr and Uthman’s order for a second redaction. Siddique argues, on the face value of the hadith, that it once again means that Zaid could not find it in writing with anyone else, implying that it was well-known in the memories of the sahaba. He argues against the translation of the hadith as we have given it in Zaid’s words, namely "I missed a verse from al-Ahzab.." and says this is "slightly inaccurate" and that it should read "I could not find a verse.." (op.cit., p.2). In other words, Zaid did not entirely overlook the verse but, being well aware of it, merely struggled to find it in writing. The key word here in the hadith is faqada which means "to have lost, to be deprived of, to have mislaid", and is used in the context of the bereavement of someone who is deceased. Clearly therefore it means, in the context of this hadith, not that Zaid was trying to find a text in writing that was already well-known to everybody, but rather that he was seeking to recover a verse which had indeed been lost entirely from the text and could only be found with Khuzaima. To the extent that this tradition is historically true it shows that even Zaid’s original attempt to produce a codex as complete as it could be was not entirely successful and it was only after the other manuscripts had been copied out that the relevant verse was hastily included. More and more the arguments for a perfect Qur’an, nothing added or lost with no variants in the text, become untenable and are shown to be the fruits of pious sentiment alone. 4. THE QUR’AN TEXT AS STANDARDISED BY UTHMAN. Uthman succeeded in his immediate objective, namely to impose a single text of the Qur’an on the Muslim world with the simultaneous destruction of all the other codices in existence. To the extent that the Muslim world today indeed has a single text of its revered scripture, it cannot be said that this text is a precise record of the Qur’an as Muhammad delivered it or that its claim to be inerrant was unchallenged by others which were brought to codification at the same time. It was not Allah who arranged the text exactly in the form in which it has come down but rather the young man Zaid and that only to the best of his ability and according to his own discretion, nor was it Muhammad who codified it for the Muslim ummah (community) but Uthman ibn Affan, and that only after a complete revision had taken place with the simultaneous destruction of the other codices which differed from it and which, nevertheless, were compiled by other companions of Muhammad whose knowledge of the Qur’an was in no degree inferior to that of Zaid ibn Thabit. Even after the final recension of the Qur’an during Uthman’s reign disputes still came to the fore in respect of the authenticity of the text. A very good example concerns a variant reading of Surah 2.238 which, in the Qur’an as standardised by Uthman, that is, the Qur’an as it stands today, reads: "Maintain your prayers, particularly the middle prayer (as-salaatil wustaa), and stand before Allah in devoutness". The variant reading of this Verse is given in this hadith: Abu Yunus, freedman of Aishah, Mother of Believers, reported: Aishah ordered me to transcribe the Holy Qur’an and asked me to let her know when I should arrive at the verse Hafidhuu alaas-salaati waas-salaatiil-wustaa wa quumuu lillaahi qaanitiin (2.238). When I arrived at the verse I informed her and she ordered: Write it in this way, Hafidhuu alaas-salaati waas-salaatiil-wustaa wa salaatiil ’asri wa quumuu lillaahi qaanitiin. She added that she had heard it so from the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him). (Muwatta Imam Malik, p.64). Aishah, a widow of the Prophet of Islam, stated that after the words wa salatil wusta ("the middle prayer") the scribe was to insert wa salatil asr ("and the afternoon prayer"), giving Muhammad himself as the direct authority for this reading. On the same page there is a very similar tradition wherein Hafsah, the daughter of Umar and another of Muhammad’s wives, likewise ordered her scribe Amr ibn Rafi to make the same amendment to her text. This could not have been the codex of Zaid in Hafsah’s possession but was most probably a text written out for her before her father Umar died, whereupon she inherited Zaid’s codex. Ibn Rafi made it plain he was writing the text at her express command and it is specifically referred to as a separate codex by Ibn Abi Dawud. Under the heading Mushaf Hafsah Zauj an-Nabi (saw) ("The Codex of Hafsah, the widow of the Prophet, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him") he gives a number of authorities for the tradition we are considering, showing that it was widely known, yet he records no other variant readings in her text. One of these traditions reads as follows: It is reported by Abdullah on the authority of Muhammad ibn Abdul Malik who reported from Yazid (etc.) ... It is written in the codex of Hafsah, the widow of the Prophet (saw): "Observe your prayers, especially the middle prayer and the afternoon prayer". (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.87). We are told that this variant, the addition of the words wa salatil asr after the words wa salatil wusta was also recorded by Ubayy ibn Ka’b as well as being found in the codex of Umm Salama, another of Muhammad’s wives who survived him (Ibn Abi Dawud, op. cit., p.87). It was also recorded by Ibn Abbas. This variant reading must have been recorded by Ubayy ibn Ka’b before the recension of the Qur’an under Uthman as his codex is definitely stated to have been one of those destroyed by Uthman and it is probable that it was so inscribed in the others as well. It did cause some discussion and concern after Uthman’s recension, however, and the knowledge of its existence could not be suppressed. Some said it was an exhortation to particularly observe the afternoon prayer in addition to the middle prayer, whereas others said it was merely an elucidation of the standard text (that is, that the salatil-wusta was in fact the salatil-asr). An example of the latter interpretation reads as follows: It is said by Abu Ubaid in his Fadhail al-Qur’an ("The Excellences of the Qur’an") that the purpose of a variant reading (al-qira’atash-shaathat) is to explain the standard reading (al-qira’atal-mash’huurat) and to illustrate its meaning, as in the (variant) reading of Aishah and Hafsah, waas-salaatiil wustaa salaatiil ’asr. (as-Suyuti, Al-ltqan fii Ulum al-Qur’an, p.193). It was the inability of Uthman to entirely suppress the evidences of such variant readings that led to the destruction of Hafsah’s codex during the time when Marwan ibn al-Hakam was governor of Medina (by which time the seat of government in the Muslim world had passed to Damascus in Syria under Mu’awiya, the son of Muhammad’s long-standing enemy Abu Sufyan who only became a Muslim upon the conquest of Mecca). While Hafsah was still alive she refused to give her codex up to him although he anxiously sought to destroy it (Ibn Abi Dawud, op.cit., p.24), and he only succeeded in obtaining it upon her death from her brother Abdullah ibn Umar, whereupon he destroyed it fearing, he said, that if it became well-known the variant readings Uthman sought to suppress would again recommence in the recitation of the Qur’an. (There are sources other than Ibn Abi Dawud which attribute other variant readings to Hafsah’s codex, for example she read fii thikrillaah with Ibn Mas’ud for fii janbilaah in Surah 39.56). The Uthmanic recension of the Qur’an may well have established only one text as the authorised text for the whole Muslim world, but it simultaneously eliminated a wealth of codices which were widely accepted in the various provinces and which had as much right as Zaid’s to be recognised as authentic copies. At-Tabari records (1.6.2952) that the people said to Uthman "The Qur’an was in many books, and you have now discredited them all but one", indicating that Zaid’s text was not considered to enjoy any preference over them in authenticity or authority. Nevertheless, even though the codices were eliminated, the variant readings between them were recorded and well-known and in the next chapter we shall consider some of these and the codices in which they appeared, in particular those of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy ibn Ka’b. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 26: 03.05. CHAPTER 3: THE CODICES OF IBN MASUD AND UBAYY IBN KAB ======================================================================== CHAPTER 3: THE CODICES OF IBN MAS’UD AND UBAYY IBN KA’B 1. ABDULLAH IBN MAS’UD: AN AUTHORITY ON THE QUR’AN TEXT. No study of the early transmission of the Qur’an would be complete without an analysis of the contribution of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, one of the most prominent of Muhammad’s companions. He was one of his earliest disciples and we are told that he was "the first man to speak the Qur’an loudly in Mecca after the apostle" (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p.141). Throughout Muhammad’s twelve years of mission at Mecca and until his death at Medina some ten years later Ibn Mas’ud applied himself very diligently to learning the Qur’an by heart. There is much evidence to show that he was regarded by Muhammad himself as one of the foremost authorities on the Qur’an, if not the foremost, as appears from the following hadith: Narrated Masruq: Abdullah bin Mas’ud was mentioned before Abdullah bin Amr who said, "That is a man I still love, as I heard the Prophet (saw) saying, ’Learn the recitation of the Qur’an from four: from Abdullah bin Mas’ud - he started with him - Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, Mu’adh bin Jabal and Ubai bin Ka’b". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p.96) The same tradition in the other great work of hadith also specifically mentions that Muhammad "started from him" (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, p.1312), showing that he was deliberately mentioned first, indicating that Muhammad regarded him as the foremost authority on the Qur’an. Among others mentioned is Ubayy ibn Ka’b who, as we have already seen, also compiled a separate codex of the Qur’an before it was destroyed by Uthman. It is significant to find no mention of Zaid ibn Thabit in this list which shows quite conclusively that Muhammad regarded Ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy ibn Ka’b as far better read in the Qur’an than him. In another hadith we find further evidence of Ibn Mas’ud’s prominence in respect of his knowledge of the Qur’an: Narrated Abdullah (bin Mas’ud) (ra): By Allah other than Whom none has the right to be worshipped! There is no Sura revealed in Allah’s Book but I know at what place it was revealed; and there is no verse revealed in Allah’s Book but I know about whom it was revealed. And if I know that there is somebody who knows Allah’s Book better than I, and he is at a place that camels can reach, I would go to him. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.488). In a similar tradition we read that he added to this that he had recited more than seventy surahs of the Qur’an in Muhammad’s presence, alleging that all Muhammad’s companions were aware that no one knew the Qur’an better than he did, to which Shaqiq, sitting by, added "I sat in the company of the Companions of Muhammad (may peace be upon him) but I did not hear anyone having rejected that (that is, his recitation) or finding fault with it" (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, p.1312). Abdullah ibn Mas’ud obviously had an exceptional knowledge of the Qur’an and, as Muhammad himself singled him out as the first person to whom anyone should go who wished to learn the Qur’an, we must accept that any codex compiled by him would have as much claim to accuracy and completeness as any other. That he was one of the companions who did in fact collect the Qur’an apart from Zaid ibn Thabit cannot be disputed. Ibn Abi Dawud devotes no less than nineteen pages of his work on the compilation of the Qur’an manuscripts to the variant readings found between his text and that of Zaid which was ultimately the one standardised by Uthman (Kitab al-Masahif, pp. 54-73). Having become a Muslim before even Umar, the second Caliph of Islam, Ibn Mas’ud had been on the hijrahs to both Abyssinia and Medina and was one of the highly regarded muhajirun who had followed Muhammad from Mecca. He participated in both the Battles of Badr and Uhud and his close association with the Prophet of Islam and prestige in the knowledge of the Qur’an resulted in his codex of the Qur’an being accepted as the standard text of the Muslims at Kufa before the recension done by Uthman. His reaction to Uthman’s order that all codices of the Qur’an other than Zaid’s should be burnt is most informative. 2. IBN MAS’UD’S REACTION TO UTHMAN’S DECREE. When Uthman sent out the order that all codices of the Qur’an other than the codex of Zaid ibn Thabit should be destroyed, Abdullah ibn Mas’ud refused to hand over his copy. Desai openly speaks of "Hadhrat Ibn Mas’ud’s initial refusal to hand over the compilation" (The Quraan Unimpeachable, p.44), but Siddique, in his article, prefers to leave the impression that no such objection from the distinguished companion of Muhammad ever took place, saying instead, "There is no indication that he ever objected to the ’text of Hafsah’ during the entire Caliphate of Umar" (Al-Balaagh, op.cit., p.1). But why should he have raised any objection to Zaid’s codex at that time? His own codex had become well-established at Kufa while Zaid’s had receded into relative obscurity, simply being retained by the Caliph without any attempt whatsoever to establish it as the standard text for the Muslim community. It was only when this codex suddenly came into prominence and was decreed to be the official text during Uthman’s reign that Ibn Mas’ud found his codex being threatened. He immediately refused to hand it over for destruction and we are told by Ibn al-Athir in his Kamil (III, 86-87) that when the copy of Zaid’s text arrived for promulgation at Kufa as the standard text, the majority of Muslims there still adhered to Ibn Mas’ud’s text. It must be quite obvious to any objective scholar that, just as Zaid had copied out a codex for Abu Bakr, so Ibn Mas’ud simultaneously compiled a similar codex and, given the latter’s exceptional knowledge of the Qur’an, his text must be considered to be as accurate and reliable as that of Zaid. The two codices were of probable equal authority and reliability. Because there are a wealth of evidences of differences between the two, however, and as it was Zaid’s text that became the standardised text after Uthman’s recension and the only one used to this day in the Muslim world, it is intriguing to find Muslim writers trying to play down and minimise the importance of Ibn Mas’ud’s codex. Desai claims that "his copy contained notes explanations as well. His copy was for his personal use, not for the use of the Ummah at large" (op.cit., p.45). No evidence is given for this claim. One of the great deficiencies in Desai’s booklet is the almost total lack of documentation in respect of the factual allegations the author makes. Virtually nowhere do we find a reference to the traditional chapter and verse. The reader is expected to presume that the facts he alleges are well-founded. Desai leaves no room in his booklet for references by which a student can check whether the contents are factually reliable. In fact it is well known that Ibn Mas’ud’s codex, far from being for his personal use only, was widely used in the region where he was based and, just as Ubayy ibn Ka’b’s codex became the standard text Syria before Uthman’s recension, so Ibn Mas’ud’s likewise became the standard text for the Muslim ummah in and around Kufa in Iraq (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab, p. 13). Ahmad Von Denffer likewise attempts to minimise the importance of the other codices, saying of Ubayy ibn Ka’b’s codex that "it was a mushaf for his own personal use, in other words, his private notebook" and goes on to say of all the other codices that these "personal notebooks became obsolete and were destroyed" (Ulum al-Qur’an, p.49). It is virtually impossible to understand how whole manuscripts of the Qur’an, carefully transcribed and widely used in the various provinces, can be reduced to the status of "personal notebooks", least of all how such codices could have become "obsolete" at any time. Muslim writers resort to such strange reasonings solely because they are determined to maintain the declared textual perfection of the Qur’an as it stands today to the last dot and letter. As this text is only a revision and reproduction of the codex of just one man, Zaid ibn Thabit, they have to circumvent the fact that other equally authoritative codices of single companions existed and that all of them, Zaid’s included, differed in many key respects. Thus the text of Zaid has become elevated to "official" status right from the time of its compilation, the other texts have been downgraded to the status of "personal notebooks", and the argument runs that they were destroyed because they differed from one another without any consideration for the fact that Zaid’s own codex likewise differed from each of them in turn. There are solid evidences to show why Abdullah ibn Mas’ud at first refused to hand over his codex for destruction. While Desai claims that it was only because he attached sentimental value to his compilation (p.45) and Siddique states that there was no difference between his text and Zaid’s, we find, in fact, that it was precisely because the great companion of Muhammad considered his own text to be superior to and more authentic than Zaid’s that he was angered at Uthman’s decree. Before Hudhayfah had ever gone to Uthman to call upon him to standardise a single text of the Qur’an, Abdullah ibn Mas’ud had some sharp words with him and reacted to his proposal that the different readings in the various provinces should be suppressed. Hudhaifah said "It is said by the people of Kufa, ’the reading of Abdullah (ibn Mas’ud)’, and it is said by the people of Basra, ’the reading of Abu Musa’. By Allah! If I come to the Commander of the Faithful (Uthman), I will demand that they be drowned". Abdullah said to him, "Do so, and by Allah you will also be drowned, but not in water". (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.13). Hudhaifah went on to say, "0 Abdullah ibn Qais, you were sent to the people of Basra as their governor (amir) and teacher and they have submitted to your rules, your idioms and your reading". He continued, "0 Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, you were sent to the people of Kufa as their teacher who have also submitted to your rules, idioms and reading". Abdullah said to him, "In that case I have not led them astray. There is no verse in the Book of Allah that I do not know where it was revealed and why it was revealed, and if I knew anyone more learned in the Book of Allah and I could be conveyed there, I would set out to him". (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.14). Modern writers such as Siddique and others maintain that the only differences between the recitations of the text and the reading of each companion (qira’at) were in pronunciations and dialectal expressions, yet it is once again obvious that what Hudhayfah had in mind was the elimination of the actual written codices being used by Abdullah ibn Mas’ud and the others - you cannot drown a verbal recitation - and it was this proposal which so angered Ibn Mas’ud and which proves that the differences in reading were in the texts themselves. In other traditions we find clear evidences that he regarded Zaid’s knowledge of the Qur’an, and therefore his written codex of the text, as inferior to his. After all, Abdullah ibn Mas’ud had become a Muslim at Mecca before Zaid was even born and he had enjoyed years of direct acquaintance with Muhammad while the early portions of the Qur’an were being delivered before Zaid ever accepted Islam. Abdullah ibn Mas’ud said, "I recited from the messenger of Allah (saw) seventy surahs which I had perfected before Zaid ibn Thabit had embraced Islam". (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.17). "I acquired directly from the messenger of Allah (saw) seventy surahs when Zaid was still a childish youth - must I now forsake what I acquired directly from the messenger of Allah?" (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.15). In another source we find that, when Uthman’s order came for the destruction of the other codices and the uniform reading of the Qur’an according to Zaid’s codex alone, Ibn Mas’ud gave a khutba (sermon) in Kufa and declared: "The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur’an. I like it better to read according to the recitation of him (Prophet) whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit. By Him besides Whom there is no god! I learnt more than seventy surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, while Zayd Ibn Thabit was a youth, having two locks and playing with the youth". (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p.444). In the light of all these traditions, which can hardly be discounted, the evasive explanations of modern Muslim writers cannot be accepted. Abdullah ibn Mas’ud clearly resisted Uthman’s order, not because of sentiment as Desai suggests, but clearly because he sincerely believed that his text of the Qur’an, gained firsthand from Muhammad himself, was more authentic than the text of Zaid. This conclusion cannot seriously be resisted by a sincere student of the history of the Qur’an text and its initial compilation. It is also quite clear that the differences in reading were not confined to forms of dialect in pronunciation but in the actual contents of the text itself. An examination of some of these textual differences will show just how extensive those variant readings really were. 3. THE VARIANT READINGS IN IBN MAS’UD’S CODEX. One of the anomalies recorded in respect of Ibn Mas’ud’s text is that it is said to have omitted the Suratul-Fatihah, the opening surah, and the mu’awwithatayni, the two short surahs with which the Qur’an ends (Surahs 113 and 114). The form of these surahs has some significance - the first is purely in the form of a prayer to Allah and the last two are "charm" surahs, being recommended incantations of refuge with Allah which Muslims should recite as protection against sinister forces and practices. One tradition states that Ubayy ibn Ka’b was at one time challenged with the suggestion that Ibn Mas’ud had made certain negative statements about these surahs and he replied that he had asked Muhammad about them and was informed that they were a part of the revelation of the Qur’an and should be recited as such (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.472). The possibility that Ibn Mas’ud may have denied that these three surahs were a part of the Qur’an vexed early Muslim historians. The well-known Iranian philosopher and historian Fakhruddin ar-Razi, who wrote a commentary on the Qur’an titled Mafatih al-Ghayb ("The Keys of the Unseen") and who lived in the sixth century of Islam (1149-1209 AD) gave some attention to this problem and sought to prove that the allegations were unfounded. Imam Fakhruddin said that the reports in some of the ancient books that Ibn Mas’ud denied that Suratul-Fatiha and the Mu’awwithatayni are part of the Qur’an are embarrassing in their implications... But the Qadi Abu Bakr said "It is not soundly reported from him that they are not part of the Qur’an and there is no record of such a statement from him. He omitted them from his manuscript as he did not approve of their being written. This does not mean he denied they were part of the Qur’an. In his view the Sunnah was that nothing should be inscribed in the text (mushaf) unless so commanded by the Prophet (saw) ... and he had not heard that it had been so commanded". (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur’an, p.186). Another Muslim historian, an-Nawawi, in his commentary on the Muhaththab said that the Fatihah and the two "charm" surahs were unanimously regarded by the Muslims as part of the Qur’an and that what had been said about Ibn Mas’ud was false and unjustified (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan, p.187). The famous dogmatic Muslim scholar Ibn Hazm likewise rejected the suggestion that Ibn Mas’ud had omitted these surahs from his codex: Ibn Hazm said in the Muhalla, "This is a lie attributed to Ibn Mas’ud. Only the reading of Asim from Zirr is authentic and in that are both the Fatiha and Mu’awwithatayni". (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur’an, p.187). The record goes on to say that Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani however, in his commentary on the Sahih of al-Bukhari (his famous Fath al-Baari), accepted these reports as sound, quoting authorities who stated that Ibn Mas’ud would not include the two "charm" surahs in his manuscript as Muhammad had, to his knowledge, only commanded that they be used as incantations against evil forces. He regarded the isnad (the chain of transmitters) for this record as totally sound and attempted to harmonise the conflicting records instead, suggesting that Ibn Mas’ud accepted the Fatiha and "charm" surahs as genuinely revealed but was reluctant to inscribe them in his written text. As Uthman ordered all the codices of the Qur’an other than Zaid’s to be destroyed and as Ibn Mas’ud was eventually compelled to hand his over for elimination, it cannot be determined whether the three relevant surahs were actually included in his codex or not. If they were omitted, the reason is either that he was unaware that Muhammad had expressly stated that they were part of the Qur’an text (as alleged by Ubayy) or, less probably, that Ibn Mas’ud had actually determined that they were not part of the actual kitabullah, the Book of Allah, and that the other companions had assumed they were because they had come to Muhammad in the same form as the other surahs of the Qur’an. When we come to the rest of the Qur’an, however, we find that there were numerous differences of reading between the texts of Zaid and Ibn Mas’ud. As mentioned already the records in Ibn Abi Dawud’s Kitab al-Masahif fill up no less than nineteen pages and, from all the sources available, one can trace no less than 101 variants in the Suratul-Baqarah alone. We shall mention just a few of the differences here in illustration of the nature of the variations between the texts. 1. Surah 2.275 begins with the words Allathiina yaakuluunar-ribaa laa yaquumuuna - "those who devour usury will not stand". Ibn Mas’ud’s text had the same introduction but after the last word there was added the expression yawmal qiyaamati, that is, they would not be able to stand on the "Day of Resurrection". The variant is mentioned in Abu Ubaid’s Kitab Fadhail al-Qur’an (cf. Nöldeke, Geschichte, 3.63; Jeffery, Materials, p.31). The variant was also recorded in the codex of Talha ibn Musarrif, a secondary codex dependent on Ibn Mas’ud’s text, Taiha likewise being based at Kufa in Iraq where Ibn Mas’ud was based as governor and where his codex was widely followed (Jeffery, p.343). 2. Surah 5.91, in the standard text, contains the exhortation fasiyaamu thalaathati ayyaamin’ - "fast for three days". Ibn Mas’ud’s text had, after the last word, the adjective mutataabi’aatin, meaning three "successive" days. The variant derives from at-Tabari (7.19.11 - cf. Nöldeke, 3.66; Jeffery, p.40) and was also mentioned by Abu Ubaid. This variant reading was, significantly, found in Ubayy ibn Ka’b’s text as well (Jeffery, p.129) and in the texts of Ibn Abbas (p.199) and Ibn Mas’ud’s pupil Ar-Rabi ibn Khuthaim (p.289). 3. Surah 6.153 begins Wa anna haathaa siraatii - "Verily this is my path". Ibn Mas’ud’s text read Wa haathaa siraatu rabbakum - "This is the path of Your Lord". The variant derives again from at-Tabari (8.60.16 - cf Nöldeke 3.66; Jeffery, p·42). Ubayy ibn Ka’b had the same reading, except that for rabbakum his text read rabbika (Jeffery, p.131). The secondary codex of Al-A’mash, mentioned by Ibn Abi Dawud in his Kitab al-Masahif (p.91), also began with the variant wa haathaa as in the texts of Ibn Mds’ud and Ubayy ibn Ka’b (Jeffery, p.318). Ibn Abi Dawud also adds a further variant, suggesting that Ibn Mas’ud read the word siraat with the Arabic letter sin rather than the standard sad (Kitab al-Masahif, p.61). 4. Surah 33.6 contains the following statement about the relationship between Muhammad’s wives and the believers: wa azwaajuhuu ummahaatuhuu - "and his wives are their mothers". Ibn-Mas’ud’s text added the words wa huwa abuu laahum - "and he is their father". The variant was also recorded by at-Tabari (21.70.8 - cf. Nöldeke 3.71; Jeffery p.75). This variant was likewise recorded in the codices of Ubayy ibn Ka’b (Jeffery, p.156) as well as those of Ibn Abbas (p.204), Ikrima (p.273) and Mujahid ibn Jabr (p.282), except that in these three cases the statement that Muhammad is the father of the believers precedes that which makes his wives their mothers. In the codex of Ar-Rabi ibn Khuthaim, however, where the variant also occurs, it is placed in the same position in the text as in the codices of Ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy (p.298). The considerable number of references for this variant reading argue strongly for its possible authenticity over and against its omission in the codex of Zaid ibn Thabit. These four examples are of texts where the variant consisted of the inclusion of extra words or clauses not found in Zaid’s codex and, in each case, the variant is supported by inclusion in other codices, notably those included in Ubayy’s text. The majority of variants, however, relate to consonantal variants in individual words or different forms of these words. In some cases whole words were omitted, such as in Surah 112.1 where Ibn Mas’ud omitted the word qul - "say" as did Ubayy ibn Ka’b (Fihrist S.26 Z.26 - cf. Nöldeke 3.77; Jeffery, pp. 113 and 180). In other cases the variant related to the form of a word which also slightly altered its meaning, as in Surah 3.127 where Ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy both read wa saabiquu ("be ahead") for wa saari’uu ("be quick") in the standard text (cf. Nöldeke, 3.64; Jeffery, pp. 34 and 125). In yet other cases one single word might be added not affecting the sense of the text, as in Surah 6.16 where once again both Ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy recorded the same variant, namely yusrifillaahu - "averted by Allah" - for the standard yusraf - "averted" (recorded from Maki’s Kitab al-Kasf, cf. Nöldeke, 3.66; Jeffery, pp. 40 and 129). These are but a small selection of the hundreds of variant readings between the texts of Ibn Mas’ud and Zaid giving a rough idea of the kind of differences that existed between their codices. They do serve, however, to show that these differences in their readings were not purely dialectal or confined to the pronunciation of the text as is conveniently suggested by writers like Siddique who are bound to the popular dogma "one text, no variants", but rather radically affected the contents of the text itself. The extent of the variant readings between all the codices in existence at the time of Uthman before he singled out that of Zaid to be the preferred text at the expense of the others is so great - they fill up no less than three hundred and fifty pages of Jeffery’s Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’an - that one can understand why the others were ordered to be destroyed. Far from the Qur’an being universally accepted in a standard form there were, on the contrary, vast differences in the texts distributed in the various provinces. Uthman’s action brought about the standardisation of a single text for the whole Muslim world - it was not a perpetuation of an already existing unity - and Zaid’s codex, which from the evidences we have considered had no greater claim to authenticity than Ibn Mas’ud’s, was simply arbitrarily chosen as the standard text because it was close at hand in Medina, had been compiled under official supervision, and had not become the accepted or rival text of any one province like some of the others before Uthman’s decree. Before closing this chapter let us give some attention to the other great compiler of the Qur’an, Ubayy ibn Ka’b. 4. UBAYY IBN KA’B - MASTER OF THE QUR’AN RECITERS. Among the authorities on the Qur’an other than Abdullah ibn Mas’ud the most well known was Ubayy ibn Ka’b. There are two very interesting hadith relating to his prominence as an expert on the Qur’an text, the first reading as follows: Affan ibn Muslim informed us ... on the authority of Anas ibn Malik, he on the authority of the Prophet, may Allah bless him; he said: The best reader (of the Qur’an) among my people is Ubayyi ibn Ka’b. (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p.441). In consequence he became known as Sayyidul-Qurra - "the Master of the Readers". Umar himself, the second Caliph of Islam, confirmed that he was in fact the best of all the Muslims in the recitation of the Qur’an (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.489). The second hadith in this respect reads as follows: Anas b. Malik reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to Ubayy b. Ka’b: I have been commanded to recite to you the Sura (al-Bayyinah), which opens with these words Lam yakunal-lathinna kafaruu. He said: Has he mentioned to you my name? He said: Yes, thereupon he shed tears of joy. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, p.1313). We are not informed as to why Muhammad considered himself especially obliged to commit parts of the Qur’an to Ubayy but these two traditions do serve to show how highly regarded he was as an authority on the Qur’an. Nonetheless his codex also contained a vast number of readings which varied from Zaid’s text and, as we have already seen, these readings often agreed with Ibn Mas’ud’s text instead. The addition of the word mutataabi’aatin in Surah 5.91, which we have already seen was recorded by at-Tabari as part of the codex of Ibn Mas’ud, was independently attributed to Ubayy as well (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.53). His order of Surahs, in some ways similar to Zaid’s, was nonetheless different at many points (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur’an, p.150). Some examples of instances where he agreed with Ibn Mas’ud and differed in turn from Zaid (there were in fact a very large number which could be mentioned) are the following: 1. For the standard reading wa yush-hidullaaha in Surah 2.204 he read wa yastash-hidullaaha (cf. Nöldeke 3.83; Jeffery, p.120). 2. He omitted the words in khiftum from Surah 4.101 (cf. Nöldeke 3.85; Jeffery, p.127). 3. He read mutathab-thibiina for muthabthabiina in Surah 4.143 (cf. Jeffery, p.127). There are a number of cases where whole clauses differed in his text. In Surah 5.48, where the standard text reads wa katabnaa ’alayhim fiiha - "and We inscribed therein for them (the Jews)" - the reading of Ubayy ibn Ka’b was wa anzalallaahu alaa banii Isra’iila fiiha - "and Allah sent down therein to the Children of Israel" (cf. Nöldeke 3.85; Jeffery, p.128). From Abu Ubaid we find that, whereas Surah 17.16 in the standard text reads amarnaa mutrafiihaa fafasaquu, Ubayy read this clause ba’athnaa akaabira mujri-miihaa fdmakaruu (cf. Nöldeke 3.88; Jeffery, p.140). One can go on and on to show how vastly Ubayy’s text, like Ibn Mas’ud’s and all the others, is said to have differed from Zaid’s text which ultimately became standardised as the official reading of the Qur’an, but these examples serve once again to show that the variant readings were in the contents of the text itself and not just in niceties of pronunciation and recitation as many modern Muslim writers choose to assume. There is a very interesting record of a whole verse which was found in Ubayy’s text and which is not found today in Zaid’s text which we shall consider in the next chapter. We cannot close on Ubayy, however, without giving some consideration to two extra surahs which we are told belonged to his codex. We are informed that, whereas Ibn Mas’ud omitted the two "charm" surahs from his codex, Ubayy included two extra surahs, al-Hafd (the Haste) and al-Khal’ (the Separation) (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan, p.152-153). The narrative continues by stating that Abu Ubaid said: "Written in the text of Ubayy ibn Ka’b were the Fatihal-kitab (the Opening Surah) and the Mu’awwi-thatayni (the Charm Surahs) and Allahumma innaa nasta’iinka (the opening words of Suratul-Khal’ meaning ’O Allah, we seek your help’) and Allahumma ayyaaka na’budu (the opening words of Suratul-Hafd meaning ’O Allah, we worship you’)". (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur’an, p.153). Suyuti goes on to give the full text of these two surahs, stating that they were also found in the codex of Ibn Abbas following the reading of both Ubayy and Abu Musa who also recorded them (Al-Itqan, p.154). Both surahs are similar to the Suratul-Fatihah, containing prayers to God for forgiveness and declarations of faith, praise, service and trust in his mercy. We are told that these are the supplications which Muhammad occasionally offered at his morning prayers after recitation of other surahs, being described as "the preserved suratal-quunut (chapters of humble obedience toward God) in the surahs respectively titled al-Khal’ and al-Hafd" (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan, p.527). It is intriguing to consider that, in their likeness to the Suratul-Fatihah (which extends to their length also - the Fatihah has seven verses while the other two have been set out in three and six verses respectively - cf. Nöldeke, Geschichte 2.35), they were regarded as of equal authority from different stand-points by Ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy respectively. The former had none of them in his codex, the latter all three! It seems that Muhammad himself used them interchangeably and that some of his companions were uncertain whether they should be recorded as part of the written kitabullah, especially as each one constitutes a prayer of supplication in the words of the believers and worshippers in contrast to the rest of the Qur’an where Allah is always made to be the speaker. We have, in this chapter, given some consideration to the codices of the two most prominent authorities on the Qur’an to show how considerably they differed from the codex of Zaid ibn Thabit and how uncertain much of the Qur’an text was when it was first compiled after the death of Muhammad. We could also go on to consider the numerous other codices that are recorded as having been transcribed before Uthman’s decree that they should be burnt, but let it suffice to say that in each of these as well there were large numbers of variant readings which have been preserved. (Uthman was able to blot out the written codices in which they were recorded, he was unable to erase them from the memories of those who had recorded them). In fact one should not speak so much of the readings in Zaid’s text as the "standard" readings and of the others as "variant" readings as though the latter were the exception. The truth is that, between all the codices that existed in the early days of Islam ibn Mas’ud’s, Zaid’s, Ubayy’s, Abu Musa’s, etc. there were a wealth of differences and Zaid’s readings qualify just as readily as the others do. In his case his qira’at became standardised as the only readings allowable in the Muslim world and copies of his codex were distributed to replace the others in popular use purely to establish a uniform reading of the Qur’an text. The Qur’an as it has come down through the centuries is not the single text without any variants that has been divinely preserved without so much as a dispute regarding even one letter as Muslim writers conveniently choose to believe. Rather it is simply but one form of it as it existed during the first two decades after Muhammad’s death, the compilation of but one man, Zaid ibn Thabit, and commissioned for the Muslim world as the only text to be accepted, not by divine decree, but by the arbitrary discretion of yet another single individual, Uthman ibn Affan. The popular sentiment of the Muslims that the Qur’an has, right from the beginning, been preserved without the slightest variation in a single text would carry weight if it could be shown that this was the only text accepted by the whole Muslim community from the time of Muhammad himself. The records of the Qur’an’s compilation in the heritage of Islam, however, show convincingly that there were a whole number of different codices in vogue during the first generation after Muhammad’s demise and that these all varied considerably from one another. The adoption of a single text came only twenty years after his death and only through the unilateral choice of one of the varying codices as the standard text at the expense of the others. The universally accepted text of the Qur’an in the Muslim world is not so much the mushaf of Muhammad but rather the mushaf of Zaid ibn Thabit, and its unchallenged authority today has come about, not through divine decree or preservation, but by the imposition of one man acting on his own initiative against the many other codices of equal authority which he summarily consigned to the flames. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 27: 03.06. CHAPTER 4: THE MISSING PASSAGES OF THE QURAN ======================================================================== CHAPTER 4: THE MISSING PASSAGES OF THE QUR’AN 1. THE MUSHAF: AN INCOMPLETE RECORD OF THE QUR’AN TEXT. We have already seen that on the Day of Yamama not long after Muhammad’s death texts of the Qur’an that were said to have been known only to those who perished in the battle were irretrievably lost. We also find many other instances in the historical record of the Qur’an text where individual verses and, at times, lengthy portions are said to have been omitted from it. There is, in fact, a virtually unanimous opinion among the early historians that the Qur’an, as it stands, is incomplete. Abdullah ibn Umar, in the earliest days of Islam, was quite emphatic about this: It is reported from Ismail ibn Ibrahim from Ayyub from Naafi from Ibn Umar who said: "Let none of you say ’I have acquired the whole of the Qur’an’. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur’an has disappeared? Rather let him say ’I have acquired what has survived.’" (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur’an, p.524). There are a number of examples that could be quoted but we shall confine ourselves to perhaps the most well-known of these to prove the point. A typical case relates to a verse which is said to have read: The religion with Allah is al-Hanifiyyah (the Upright Way) rather than that of the Jews or the Christians, and those who do good will not go unrewarded. (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur’an, p.525). According to at-Tirmithi in his Kitab al-Tafsir, one of the sections of his Jami’, his collection of hadith records which rates as one of the six major works of authentic tradition literature in Islam alongside the Sahihs of al-Bukhari and Muslim and the three sunan works of Abu Dawud, an-Nasai and Ibn Maja, this verse at one time formed part of Suratul-Bayyinah (Surah 98) in the Qur’an (Nöldeke, Geschichte, 1.242). This is quite possible as it fits well into the context of the short surah which contains, in other verses, some of the words appearing in the missing text, such as diin (religion, v.5), ’aml (to do, v.7), and hunafa (upright, v.4), and also contrasts the way of Allah with the beliefs of the Jews and the Christians. It is also significant to note here that, whereas the standard text of Surah 3.19 today reads innadiina ’indallaahil-Islaam - "the religion before Allah is al-Islam (i.e. the Submission)", Ibn Mas’ud read in place of al-Islam the title al-Hanifiyyah, i.e. "the Upright Way" (Jeffery, Materials, p.32), thus coinciding with the text said to have been part of Surah 98 by at-Tirmithi. At the beginning of Muhammad’s mission there were a number of people in Arabia who disclaimed the worship of idols and called themselves hunafa, specifically meaning those who follow the upright way and who scorn the false creeds surrounding them. It may well be that Muhammad first chose this same title al-Hanfiyyah to describe his own faith but, as his religion took on its own unique identity, he substituted al-Islam for it and called believers Muslims, signifying that they were not only followers of the right way but, at the same time, submitters to Allah who reveals that way and commands obedience to it. This would account for the lapse of the earlier title in the Qur’an and the omission of the verse we have been considering from its text. We have evidence of a whole section of the Qur’an that is now said to be missing in the as-sunan al-Kubra of al-Baihaqi, an extensive collection of hadith records not regarded as authentic as the six major works we have mentioned but nonetheless of great interest and importance. Ubayy ibn Ka’b is said to have recalled a time when Suratul-Ahzab (the thirty-third Surah) once was the same length as Suratul-Baqarah (the second Surah), which means it must have had at least two hundred verses not found in its text today (Al-Baihaqi, As-Sunan al-Kubra, Vol. 8, p.211). Significantly this missing section is said to have contained the verses commanding the death sentence for adulterers, which we shall shortly consider. There are further evidences of whole surahs said to be missing from the Qur’an as it is today. Abu Musa al-Ash’ari, one of the early authorities on the Qur’an text and a companion of Muhammad, is reported to have said to the reciters of Basra: We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara’at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: "If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust". ( Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p.501). The one verse he said he could recall is one of the well-known texts said to be missing from the Qur’an and we shall give separate attention to it shortly. Abu Musa went on to say: We used to recite a surah similar to one of the Musabbihaat, and I no longer remember it, but this much I have indeed preserved: ’O you who truly believe, why do you preach that which you do not practise?’ (and) ’that is inscribed on your necks as a witness and you will be examined about it on the Day of Resurrection’. (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur’an, p.526). The tradition as here quoted follows the record of it in the Sahih Muslim where it is recorded after the statement about the surah resembling the ninth surah and containing the verse about the son of Adam (Vol. 2, p.501). The Musabbihaat are those surahs of the Qur’an (numbers 57, 59, 61, 62 and 64) which begin with the words Sabbaha (or yusabbihu) lillaahi maa fiis-samaawati wal-ardth - "Let everything praise Allah that is in the heavens and the earth" (cf. Nöldeke, 1.245). The words of the first verse mentioned by Abu Musa are exactly the same as those found in Surah 61.2 while the second text is very similar to Surah 17.13 ("We have fastened every man’s fate on his neck and on the Day of Resurrection We shall bring out an inscription which he will see spread out") which would explain why he particularly recalled these two verses. Those Muslims who claim that the Qur’an is exactly the same today as it was when first delivered by Muhammad, nothing varied, added or omitted, have to reckon with such evidences that much is indeed missing from the standardised text. Some take the convenient and easy way out and simply declare such records to be fabricated, but others, more inclined to take them seriously, have another answer to the problem. They say such passages have been abrogated and that such abrogation was decreed by Allah himself during Muhammad’s own lifetime while the Qur’an was still being completed. Let us give some attention to this claim. 2. AL-NASKH WA AL-MANSUKH: THE DOCTRINE OF ABROGATION. This is a doctrine which is spurned by many Muslims who believe it reflects most unfavourably on the supposed textual perfection of the Qur’an, but one that is generally accepted by the more conservative Muslims and orthodox maulanas such as Desai. The doctrine is based fairly and squarely on the teaching of the Qur’an itself, in particular the following verse: None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that God hath power over all things? Surah 2.106 In the early days of Islam this text was taken to mean that parts of the Qur’an could become mansukh (abrogated) while other fresh revelations, the naskh texts, were sent down to replace them. Both the great commentators al-Baidawi and Zamakshari taught emphatically that the abrogated verses should no longer be recited and that any laws based on them were to be regarded as annulled. It was generally believed that the abrogated verses were deleted from the Qur’an by Jibril (the angel said to have transmitted the Qur’an to Muhammad - Surah 2.98), though in many cases both the original text and the one abrogating its dicta are said to have been retained and are still part of the Qur’an text. The relevant verse plainly states that Allah does indeed abrogate some of his ayat ("revelations"), a word often used for the text of the Qur’an itself as in Surah 3.7 where it is said that some of the ayat of the Scripture (al-Kitab) sent down to Muhammad are basic and whose meaning is obvious whereas others are allegorical (cf. also Surah 11.1). There can be no doubt, therefore, that the Qur’an does teach an abrogation of the ayat of Allah and, as this very word is used in the book for its own texts, the interpretation that it was actual verses of the Qur’an that were abrogated cannot be challenged on the grounds of exegetical fairness or probability. The word ayat is a very common Qur’anic word usually meaning the "signs" of Allah (that is, his supernatural or other portents for mankind), but it is quite obvious that it cannot be these that are said to have been abrogated. The text can only refer to revelations of scripture, it cannot refer to historical signs once these have occurred as a warning to the nations. Muslim scholars are well aware of this and the only question then is, which scriptures are in fact being spoken of here? Thus those modern Muslim scholars who deny that any of the verses of the Qur’an have been abrogated teach instead that this text refers to the revelations of Allah to the Jews and Christians beforehand. This interpretation is unacceptable as the Qur’an nowhere specifically uses the word ayat to describe the texts of the Tawraat (the Law, the Scripture of the Jews, said to have been given to them by Moses) and the Injil (the Gospel, the Scripture of the Christians, said to have been given to them by Jesus), nor does it suggest that these previous scriptures were ever abrogated. On the contrary the Qur’an claims to be a scripture musadiqallimaa bayna yadayhi - "confirming what went before it" (Surah 3.3), namely the Tawraat and the Injil which are specifically mentioned in the next clause. The Qur’an thus is said not to be the means of abrogating the previous revelations but rather the very opposite, namely of establishing them. Elsewhere the Jews are expressly commanded to judge by what is written in their scripture rather than come to Muhammad for judgment (Surah 5.47) and the Christians are commanded to do likewise (Surah 5.50). In addition both the Jews and the Christians are called upon to stand fast by the Tawraat and the Injil respectively and all that their Lord had revealed to them. (Surah 5.71). The abrogation of which the Qur’an speaks, therefore, cannot refer to the previous scriptures and can only refer to the texts of the Qur’an itself, the interpretation universally placed on the verse in the earliest days of Islam. The problem for modern Muslim writers is that the Qur’an claims to proceed from a "preserved tablet" (lawhim-mahfuudh - Surah 85.22) and the question obviously arises - if parts of the Qur’an have been abrogated and eliminated, were they on the original heavenly tablet or not? If they were, then the Qur’an today is not an exact replica of the text on that tablet for they could not have been removed from it, the Qur’an being regarded as Allah’s eternal speech. If they were not on the tablet, however, how did they come to be delivered to Muhammad as part of the text? We are right back at the original popular sentiment that the Qur’an has been preserved perfectly to the last dot and letter by Allah himself, nothing varied, added, omitted or, in consequence, "abrogated". To maintain this popular hypothesis modern Muslim writers thus have to resort to a clearly unacceptable interpretation of Surah 2.106, one which cannot be derived ex facie from the text, in preference over the obvious and more reasonable interpretation of the early historians of Islam, namely that parts of the Qur’an text itself have been abrogated. The doctrine is unpalatable to thinking Muslims for other reasons, for example it represents Allah as a divine author who revokes his earlier announcements as though he had cause to change his mind or had, in time, discovered a better course of action. Nonetheless the text must be taken to mean what it was originally intended to mean, not what modern Muslim writers would like to force it to mean according to their own inclinations. There are other passages in the Qur’an which clearly support the obvious interpretation, such as the following text: When We substitute one revelation for another - and God knows best what He reveals (in stages), - they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not. Surah 16.101 This verse quite clearly refers to the substitution and elimination of texts of the Qur’an itself for it does not say that Allah replaces one kitab (the Tawraat or the Injil, for example) with another, but rather that he substitutes one ayah for another ayah and, as we have seen, in the Qur’an this refers to the verses of the book itself and not to the previous revelations. It was in fact this very claim, that Allah himself had replaced some of the earlier texts of the Qur’an, that made Muhammad’s opponents accuse him of being a forger, for this appeared to be a very convenient manner of explaining away earlier texts which Muhammad had by that time forgotten or replaced. Having established that the Qur’an does teach that Allah did, in fact, abrogate and cancel earlier passages revealed to Muhammad, one would think that acceptance of this principle would suffice to prove that the Qur’an, as it is today, is incomplete. That, in fact, is just how modern Muslim writers see it and so they reject the doctrine of abrogation. Certainly the Qur’an cannot be regarded as an exact replica of all that was delivered to Muhammad, nor can it be claimed that nothing has been lost or omitted. Yet we find Desai using this very doctrine of abrogation as an argument for the perfection of the Qur’an text! He says: Abrogation of verses by Allah Ta’ala during the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) while the incidence of Wahi (Revelation) was in progress is a fact well-known to all. ... Once a verse has been abrogated on the authority of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), it cannot be included in the Qur’aanic text any longer. (Desai, The Quraan Unimpeachable, pp.48,49). The argument goes that the missing passages of the Qur’an referred to in the hadith literature cannot be adduced as evidence that the Qur’an is incomplete or imperfect. It is summarily assumed that every text of the Qur’an that could not be traced at the time of its compilation, or which was omitted for some other reason, must have duly been abrogated by Allah. Therefore nothing is actually "missing" from the text - whatever has been omitted has been expunged by divine decree so that what remains is an exact record of what Allah intended to survive. We find that even Umar, troubled by Ubayy ibn Ka’b’s excellent knowledge of the Qur’an, when confronted with texts known to the companion but not to the Caliph, likewise claimed that they must have been abrogated: Narrated Ibn Abbas: Umar said "Ubayy was the best of us in the recitation (of the Qur’an) yet we leave some of what he recites". Ubayy says, "I have taken it from the mouth of Allah’s Apostle (saw) and will not leave it for anything whatever". But Allah said: None of Our revelations do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We substitute something better or similar (2.106). (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.489). Quite obviously Ubayy was convinced that he should not forego anything he had learnt directly from Muhammad himself and the only recourse of those unfamiliar with the verses he was reciting was to regard them as passages that Allah must have abrogated. We do have one clear case where a verse not found in the Qur’an today is, in the hadith literature, indeed said to have been abrogated. While Muhammad was based in Medina some of the tribes resident near the city and who professed allegiance to him requested assistance against their enemies. Muhammad accordingly despatched seventy of the ansar who, when they reached Bi’r Ma’una (the well of Ma’una) were duly massacred by members of the tribes they had been sent down to assist. Anas ibn Malik said: We used to read a verse of the Qur’an revealed in their connection, but later the verse was cancelled. It was: "convey to our people on our behalf the information that we have met our Lord, and He is pleased with us, and has made us pleased". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p.288). The word used for "cancelled" in this hadith is rufa’a which, in its original form rafa’a, means "to take away, remove, abolish or eliminate". It is thus clearly taught in this text that a verse, clearly said to have been part of the Qur’an itself, was later abrogated. The text was widely recorded and amongst the sources for it we find Ibn Sa’d, at-Tabari, al-Waqidi and Muslim (Nöldeke, Geschichte, 1.246). Elsewhere we read that the relevant text was "sent down in a Qur’an verse until it was withdrawn" (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan, p.527), another clear proof that the verse was originally a part of the Qur’an text. The difficulty here, and with all the other passages of the Qur’an reported in the hadith literature as now omitted from the text, is that one cannot find a reason why it should have been "abrogated" or what "better or similar" verse duly came in its place. The Qur’an plainly states, in both Surahs 2.106 and 16.101, that Allah substitutes such a "better or similar" verse for the original text. Thus we are told in one place of the Qur’an that intoxicating wine has both good and bad effects (Surah 2.219) and that Muslims should not come to their prayers in a state of intoxication (Surah 4.43). Later, however, the consumption of wine was forbidden altogether (Surah 5.93-94) and the latter verses are said to have been substituted for the former verses (which nevertheless remain in the Qur’an text). This is a reasonable and consistent example of what we would expect to find when the Qur’an says that not one of Allah’s revelations are abrogated without something else coming in its place. The hadith quoted about the mutual pleasure of Allah and those slain at Bi’r Ma’una, however, does not tell us what came in place of the verse said to have been withdrawn. The same goes for all the other passages we have mentioned - what came in their place? What was the naskh that took the place of the mansukh? It is far more reasonable to conclude that most of the various passages said to have been omitted from the Qur’an were either overlooked, or not known to all the companions, or quite simply forgotten (such as the passage said by Abu Musa to have contained the verse about the insatiable greed of man - cf. Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p.501). Desai’s attempt to blanket every passage said to have been omitted from the Qur’an under the cover of the doctrine of divine abrogation appears to be an expedient means of explaining away the imperfections in the original collection of the Qur’an and the ultimate incompleteness of the text. Let us conclude with a consideration of two famous passages said to have been part of the Qur’an but eventually omitted from it. 3. THE MISSING VERSE ON THE INSATIABLE GREED OF MAN. We have already quoted from the Sahih Muslim the verse about the greed of the son of Adam who, even if he were to be given two valleys full of riches would covet yet a third and nothing would satisfy him. This tradition, to the effect that this passage once formed a part of the Qur’an text, is so widely reported that it must be authentic in its basic details. As-Suyuti’s selection of some of the other hadith records quoting this text shows just how extensive the authorities for it were, one of which reads: Abu Waqid al-Laithii said, "When the messenger of Allah (saw) received the revelation we would come to him and he would teach us what had been revealed. (I came) to him and he said ’It was suddenly communicated to me one day: Verily Allah says, We sent down wealth to maintain prayer and deeds of charity, and if the son of Adam had a valley he would leave it in search for another like it and, if he got another like it, he would press on for a third, and nothing would satisfy the stomach of the son of Adam but dust, yet Allah is relenting towards those who relent.’" (As-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur’an, p.525). This record is followed by a similar tradition, where Ubayy ibn Ka’b is said to be the original transmitter, giving the verse in much the same words, except that the companion expressly stated that Muhammad had quoted this verse as part of the Qur’an (al-Qur’an in the text) which he had been commanded to recite to them. Following this is the tradition of Abu Musa, similar to the record of it in the Sahih Muslim, which states that the verse was from a surah resembling Suratul-Bara’ah in length, except that in this case Abu Musa is not said to have forgotten it but rather that it had subsequently been withdrawn (thumma rafa’at - "then it was taken away"), the verse on the greed of the son of Adam alone being preserved (As-Suyuti, Al-Itqan, p.525). It is also said by some authorities that the verse was read by Ubayy ibn Ka’b just after Surah 10.25 in his codex (Jeffery, Materials, p.135) while other records state that it was also reported by Anas ibn Malik, Ibn Abbas, Ibn Zubair and others (Nöldeke, Geschichte, 1.234) but with none of these being sure, as Ubayy most certainly was, whether it was part of the Qur’an text or not (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p.500). The tradition was, thus, mutawatir, a well-attested hadith confirmed by a number of companions whose authority could not be questioned or challenged. This verse is expressly said to have been a part of the Qur’an text that was revealed to Muhammad in the two records of the hadith deriving from Abu Waqid and Ubayy ibn Ka’b and, in the narrative of Abu Musa recorded in as-Suyuti’s selection, it is stated to have been one of the Qur’an verses, indeed a portion of a whole surah, that was abrogated. It is also acknowledged as such in the works of commentators on the Qur’an such as Abu Ubaid in his Fadhail al-Qur’an and Muhammad ibn Hazm in his Kitab al-Nasikh wa’l Mansukh, both authors stating that it was a valid text of the Qur’an before it was withdrawn. It is thus one of many passages which, although Allah is said to have caused it to be forgotten upon its retraction, remained in the memories of the companions and has duly been preserved as one of the missing verses of the Qur’an. 4. UMAR AND THE VERSES OF STONING FOR ADULTERY. One of the most well-known passages said in hadith records to be missing from the Qur’an relates to the so-called "stoning verses" wherein Muhammad is said to have been commanded to stone to death married people who commit adultery. The records all state that the second Caliph of Islam, Umar, once brought the existence of these missing verses to the attention of the Muslim public during one of his sermons from the minbar (the pulpit) of the mosque in Medina. Umar is reported as narrating the matter as follows: Allah sent Muhammad (saw) with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of married persons, male and female, who commit adultery) and we did recite this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah’s Apostle (saw) did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him. I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, ’By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah’s Book’, and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 8, p.539). In the Qur’an as it stands today the only punishment prescribed for adulterers is a hundred stripes (Surah 24.2), no distinction being made between the married or unmarried state of each of the parties involved. Umar, however, clearly stated that Allah had originally revealed a passage prescribing rajam (stoning to death) for adulterers. From the original Arabic text of the narrative in the Sahih of Bukhari as quoted above it can be seen quite clearly that Umar was convinced that this passage was originally a part of the Qur’an text. The key words are wa anzala alayhil-kitaaba fakaana mimmaa anzalallaahu aayaatur-rajm, meaning literally, "And He sent down to him the Scripture (viz. the Qur’an), and part of what Allah sent down (therein) was the verse of stoning". In another record of this incident we find that Umar added: "Verily stoning in the book of God is a penalty laid on married men and women who commit adultery, if proof stands or pregnancy is clear or confession is made" (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p.684). Both the records of the tradition in the Sahih of Bukhari and the Sirat of Ibn Ishaq add that Umar mentioned another missing verse which was once part of the kitabullah (viz. the Qur’an) which the earliest of Muhammad’s companions used to recite, namely "O people! Do not claim to be the offspring of other than your fathers, as it is disbelief on your part to claim to be the offspring of other than your real father." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 8, p.540). In both narratives there is a prologue where we find Umar cautioning against any attempt to deny what he was saying, warning that those who could not accept what he was about to disclose were not thereby entitled to tell lies about him (that is, to say that he did not disclose it). He obviously was very serious about what he was doing and anticipated an adverse reaction from those Muslims of a later generation who were not aware of the missing verses which clearly contradicted the injunction in Surah 24.2, or that Muhammad had in fact stoned adulterers to death. That he did so is clear from the following hadith: Ibn Shihab reported that a man in the time of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) acknowledged having committed adultery and confessed it four times. The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) then ordered and he was stoned. " (Muwatta Imam Malik, p.350). There are numerous other records of instances similar to this one where Muhammad had adulterers stoned to death. What was, in fact, the "Verse of Stoning"? It is mentioned in the following tradition: Zirr ibn Hubaish reported: "Ubayy ibn Ka’b said to me, ’What is the extent of Suratul-Ahzab?’ I said, ’Seventy, or seventy-three verses’. He said, ’Yet it used to be equal to Suratul-Baqarah and in it we recited the verse of stoning’. I said, ’And what is the verse of stoning’? He replied, ’The fornicators among the married men (ash-shaikh) and married women (ash-shaikhah), stone them as an exemplary punishment from Allah, and Allah is Mighty and Wise."’ (As-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur’an, p.524). Whereas the Qur’an makes no distinction in Surah 24.2 between the married or unmarried state of those who are guilty of fornication (it simply calls them az-zaaniyatu waz-zaanii - "the female and male fornicators"), the text as given in the above tradition only states that married men and women who are caught in adultery should be stoned (the actual meaning of the word is "old" or "adult" men and women, implying married persons). This has led to much discussion in Muslim writings about the meaning of the verse. The general understanding among Muslim scholars of earlier generations was that any portion of the Qur’an totally abrogated by Allah was also caused to be entirely forgotten (on the strength of Surah 2.106: nansakh ... aw nunsihaa naati - "abrogate ... or cause to be forgotten", the two being taken together as an entity). So when a verse was found to be retained in the memory of a companion as distinguished as Umar, it was assumed that, whereas the text may indeed have been withdrawn from the Qur’an, teaching and prescription found in it nevertheless binding as part of the sunnah of the Prophet of Islam. The dilemma was generally resolved by presuming that the Qur’anic command to impose one hundred stripes on fornicators applied only to unmarried persons, whereas married persons guilty of actual adultery were to be stoned according to the sunnah. Numerous other solutions to the issue have been proposed and the subject has been exhaustively treated in the various works of historical Islamic literature. We are not here concerned with the theological or legal implications of the doctrine of abrogation, however, but only with the actual compilation of the Qur’an text itself. The question here is, was this verse once a part of the Qur’an text or not and, if it was, why is it now omitted from its pages? From the traditions quoted thus far we can see that it was clearly regarded by Umar as part of the original Qur’an text, yet in another tradition we read that Umar had some hesitancy about it: Zaid ibn Thabit and Sa’id ibn al-As were writing out the mushaf (the written codex of the Qur’an) and when they came to this verse Zaid said, "I heard the messenger of Allah (saw) say: ’The adult men and women who commit adultery, stone them as a punishment"’. Umar said, "When it was revealed I went to the Prophet (saw) and said, ’Shall I write it?’, but he seemed very reluctant". (As-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur’an, p.528). This hadith, however, irrespective of its isnad (its chain of transmitters), has some obvious contradictions in its content (its matn). It places Umar with Zaid and Sa’id ibn al-As at the time when the Qur’an was being copied out by the latter two men together and, as this is known to have occurred at Uthman’s instigation long after Umar’s death, Umar could hardly have so discoursed with them. In any event most of the other hadith records make it quite plain that Umar had no doubt that the stoning verse was originally part of the Qur’an text and it was for this reason that he was so serious about its retention. It was occasionally argued that the hadith records of the existence of the stoning verse all attribute its origin to just one man, Umar, thus making it dependent on khabar al-wahid, the report of only one witness, and therefore unreliable. The prominence of that one witness, however, just could not be summarily ignored. It was no less a personality than Umar ibn al-Khattab, one of Muhammad’s earliest and most well-known companions, who reported the existence of the verse which he claimed he received directly from Muhammad himself and, when such a report was given during his reign as Caliph over the whole Muslim community, it could not be disregarded or considered lightly. Nonetheless modern Muslim writers, determined to discount even the slightest possibility that anything originally revealed as part of the Qur’an text has now been omitted therefrom for whatever reason, seek to reject the claim that the stoning verse was ever part of the Qur’an. Siddique, for example, unable to simply brush the records aside, claims that Umar made a mistake! In the context of his comments on the stoning verse he says, "As for ’Umar (ra) we know that he was a great mujtahid, but he also made mistakes which are documented in the hadith" (Al-Balaagh, op,cit., p.2). On what grounds does a twentieth-century Muslim writer accuse the great Caliph of Islam, Umar ibn al-Khattab, of making a mistake about something he experienced directly during Muhammad’s own lifetime? On no other ground than that Umar’s disclosure undermines the popular Muslim sentiment that the Qur’an has been perfectly preserved with nothing varied or omitted. He goes on to claim, like many other scholars, that Uthman was not talking of the Qur’an when he spoke of the command to stone adulterers as being part of the "Book of Allah" (kitabullah) but rather of the Tawraat as Muhammad is said in some of the hadith records to have stoned Jews who committed adultery according to the prescribed laws of their own scripture. The hadith records quite clearly state, however, that Umar claimed that the verse had been revealed to Muhammad and that he himself would have considered writing it into Allah’s revealed scripture were it not that some people would have claimed that he was adding to it. He is recorded as saying: "See that you do not forget the verse about stoning and say: We do not find it in the Book of Allah; the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) had ordered stoning and we too have done so, after him. By the Lord Who holds possession of my life, if people should not accuse me of adding to the Book of Allah, I would have this transcribed therein: Ash-shaikhu wash-shaikhatu ithaa zanayaa faarjumuu humaa. We have read this verse". (Muwatta Imam Malik, p.352). As the verse is expressly said to have been revealed to Muhammad in the other hadith records, it is hard to see how Umar could have contemplated writing it into the Tawraat! The Caliph’s total ignorance of the Hebrew language should also be given some consideration! Desai contradicts Siddique by freely acknowledging that the stoning verse was indeed a part of the original text of the Qur’an but, as he conveniently does with all texts now said to be omitted from the Qur’an, he claims that it was subsequently abrogated (The Quraan Unimpeachable, p.48). Because its existence was preserved and as other records of Muhammad’s capital punishment upon adulterers were also handed down in the hadith texts, he states that it was one of the mansukhut tilawah, that is, texts whose recitation has been cancelled while the laws expounded in them have been retained (op.cit.). Such verses, he points out, are unlike other Qur’anic texts where the recitation has been retained but the laws contained therein (the hukm, the "effects") have been cancelled and abrogated. Writers like Siddique immediately sense the weakness of such arguments and the consequent vulnerability of the Qur’an to the charge that it was undergoing some strange mutations in respect of the development of its text and teaching during the time of its deliverance. Only credulous conservative writers like Desai can fail to see that the doctrine of abrogation, in its various forms, has a deliberate weakening effect on the overall authenticity of the Qur’an text as it stands today. In any event there is nothing in Umar’s declaration on the pulpit that day to suggest that the ayatur-rajm was ever abrogated. His bold statement that he would write it into the Qur’an himself were it not for the anticipated charge that he had tampered with the text is clear evidence that he considered it to be a valid passage whose exclusion from the Qur’an was to be regretted. Even if he had no hope of persuading the Muslim community to reinstate it in the text (particularly if it had formed a portion of a whole section that was lost), he was determined to publicise and establish its existence as part of the original Qur’an as delivered to Muhammad. The doctrine of abrogation is constantly shown up as a weak explanation of the disappearance of certain texts from the Qur’an. A good example can be found in a further hadith which was widely reported and which stated that the Qur’an originally contained a law forbidding marriage between two people who had been breastfed by the same woman. The Tradition reads as follows: A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that it had been revealed in the Qur’an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated by five sucklings and Allah’s Apostle (saw) died and before that time it was found in the Qur’an. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p.740). It is clearly stated that the Qur’an had originally contained a verse prescribing a prohibition on the marriage of two people who had been breastfed by the same woman at least ten times. This verse was then abrogated and another was substituted for it, restricting the number to five. Where is this verse in the Qur’an? It too is missing - has it also been abrogated? If so, what came in its place? It is in traditions like these that the doctrine of abrogation is shown to be extremely vulnerable on closer analysis. One verse, the naskh, is said to have replaced the abrogated verse, the mansukh. Yet in this case even the naskh has become mansukh! One must surely look for a more reasonable explanation. It appears that, during his lifetime, Muhammad did indeed proclaim that certain passages were abrogated by others, but from the examples we have studied, it appears that sometimes the original verses had quite simply dropped out of the recitation of the Qur’an for whatever reason - they were overlooked, forgotten, replaced, etc. - and after the death of Muhammad it became convenient to explain away the omission of such verses as the result of divine abrogation. In many cases, however, particularly those we have studied, there are evidences that they were omitted for other reasons and no mention of their supposed abrogation appears in the text of the relevant hadith. This chapter has illustrated quite sufficiently that the Qur’an, as it stands today, is somewhat incomplete. Numerous individual verses and, at times, whole passages, are said to have once formed part of the original text and the attempt to evade the implications by suggesting that all such passages must have been abrogated simply because of the fact of their omission from the standardised text cannot overcome the key problem facing those Muslims who claim that the Qur’an has been preserved absolutely intact to the last dot and letter, nothing added, omitted or varied, indicating a divine oversight of its transmission. The text as it stands today just cannot sincerely be regarded by the Muslims as an exact replica of the "preserved tablet" in heaven from which it was all said to have been delivered to Muhammad. While nothing can be shown to have been added to the text or interpolated into it, much of what was there in the beginning is quite obviously missing from it now and, in comparison with that supposed heavenly original, it cannot be regarded as perfect and complete. Desai uses the doctrine of abrogation to explain away the omission of certain key texts from the Qur’an and thereby he seeks to maintain the hypothesis that the Qur’an today is exactly as Allah intended it to be. How does he get around the wealth of variant readings found in all the early codices of the Qur’an before Uthman’s order that all but one of them should be destroyed? Let us in the next chapter analyse his arguments and investigate the doctrine of the seven different readings of the Qur’an. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 28: 03.07. CHAPTER 5: SABAT-I-AHRUF: THE SEVEN DIFFERENT READINGS ======================================================================== CHAPTER 5: SAB’AT-I-AHRUF: THE SEVEN DIFFERENT READINGS 1. THE SAB’AT-I-AHRUF IN THE HADITH LITERATURE. While writers like Siddique seek to gloss over the wealth of evidence in the early historical records of Islam showing how the Qur’an was eventually standardised against a background of variant readings, missing passages and texts which had been lost altogether, others like Desai duly acknowledge the evidences and admit the many differences that existed in the earliest manuscripts and codices. On the other hand we find Desai, for example, nonetheless determined to maintain the popular hypothesis that the Qur’an has been perfectly preserved and is intact to the last dot and letter. We have already seen how he overcomes the difficulty with the passages said to be missing from the Qur’an - he conveniently declares them all to have been abrogated by Allah during Muhammad’s lifetime. How does he evade the implications of the numerous variant readings in the earliest texts and codices? He claims that they resulted not from uncertainty about the text or partial confusion about the actual wording of each passage but rather that each and every variant was in fact part of the original Qur’an text as delivered by Allah to Muhammad! He says that "the ’differences’ in the recitals of various people were all official, authorized and divine forms which were taught by Rasulullah (saw) to the Sahaabah who in turn imparted their knowledge of Qira’at to their students" (The Quraan Unimpeachable, p. 13) and goes on to quote the following statement of Muhammad in support of his interpretation: The Qur’an has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it that which is easier for you. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.510). The statement concludes a tradition which informs us that Umar one day heard Hisham ibn Hakim reciting Suratul-Furqan in a way very different to that which he, Umar, had learned it. Umar struggled to control himself and intended to spring upon him but, when Hisham had finished, Umar confronted him and accused him of being a liar when he stated that he had learned it so directly from Muhammad himself. When they came before the Prophet of Islam he confirmed the readings of both companions, adding the above statement that the Qur’an had been revealed alaa sab’ati ahruf - "in seven readings". A similar tradition stating that the Qur’an originally came in seven different forms reads as follows: Ibn Abbas reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Gabriel taught me to recite in one style. I replied to him and kept asking him to give more (styles), till he reached seven modes (of recitation). Ibn Shihab said: It has reached me that these seven styles are essentially one, not differing about what is permitted and what is forbidden. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p.390). We are further informed that Ubayy ibn Ka’b recalled an occasion where Muhammad reported that Jibril had come to him one day and told him Allah had commanded that the Qur’an be recited in only one dialect, to which Muhammad replied that his people were not capable of doing this. After much going back and forth the angel finally decreed that Allah had allowed the Muslims to recite the Qur’an in seven different ways and that each recital would be correct (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p.391). Further than these records there is no evidence in the Hadith literature as to what these seven different readings were. The narrative in the Sahih of Al-Bukhari, also recorded in Vol. 6, p.481, does not tell us how Hisham’s recital of Suratul-Furqan differed from Umar’s, nor whether the differences were purely dialectal as is suggested in the traditions from the Sahih of Imam Muslim. There are no other records in the earliest works of Hadith and Sirat literature to give any indication as to what the seven different readings actually were or what form they took. Were there ultimately seven different forms in which the whole Qur’an could be recited? Or was it purely a question of different dialects in which the text could be recited? There is nothing in the earliest records giving any idea of what the sab’at-i-ahruf were or what form they took other than the clear indications in the traditions quoted from the Sahih of Muslim that they were confined to dialectal variants. No more is said than that the Qur’an had actually been revealed in seven different ways in which it could be recited. In the As-Sunanul-Kubra of Abu Dawud we find the compiler recording up to forty variant readings of the Qur’an under the heading Kitab al-Huruf wa-al Qira’at ("The Book of Dialects and Readings"). We shall mention some of them later in this chapter, but here let it suffice to say that in each one of the readings he quotes, only one variant is mentioned and in each case it is purely a variation of dialect or pronunciation that is involved. There is no suggestion that these variant readings were authorised as part of the original text or that they formed part of the seven different readings but, if they did, they were confined to dialectal variants alone. As a result of the paucity of evidence as to exactly what the sab’at-i-ahruf originally were a host of different explanations of the relevant hadith have been suggested. Some say that as the Arab tribes had divergent dialects the Qur’an came in seven different forms for their convenience while others say that the seven different readings were distinct forms conveyed to the centres of Islam by approved readers in the second century after Islam. Thus Abu ’Amr is said to have taken one of the readings to Basrah, Ibn Amir took one to Damascus, Asim and two others took theirs to Kufa, Ibn Kathir took one to Mecca and Nafi retained one in Medina (Sunan Abu Dawud, note 3365, Vol. 3, p,1113). What they were in each case is anyone’s guess. There are numerous other explanations which we need not consider here. From what we have already considered it is quite clear that nothing certain can be said about the seven different readings except that they were confined to differences in dialect and pronunciation alone. Desai constantly talks about "all the authorized ’variant readings’" which were "revealed and part of the Qur’an" and, as said already, he simply catalogues all the different readings of the Qur’an that can be found in the earliest records as part of the sab’at-i-ahruf and as therefore divinely sanctioned. The key difficulty here, however, which Desai conveniently overlooks, is that those records show that the differences between Zaid ibn Thabit’s codex and those of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, Ubayy ibn Ka’b and others relate not only to dialectal variants but also to real variations of the text itself. We have quoted numerous examples in this book of words, clauses and even whole verses that were said to have differed radically between the different codices. It has been amply proved already that these differences were not purely dialectal but at times related to the basic content of the Qur’an text itself. It must be said again that if all these differences had been purely in the pronunciation of the text according to the various dialects of the Arab tribes, they would not have appeared in the written text, especially when we remember that those early codices had only consonants and did not include the relevant vowel points upon which the different dialects invariably turned. Uthman would never have ordered the wholesale destruction of all the codices other than Zaid’s if the differences of reading were only in the verbal expression of the text. There are, as we have seen, many different explanations of the sab’at-i-ahruf, yet it is invariably claimed that these related solely (or almost exclusively) to dialectal variants. If we accept this interpretation we must at the same time conclude that these seven different readings have nothing or very little to do with the extensive textual variants which existed between the codices of Ibn Mas’ud, Zaid, Ubayy, Abu Musa and others before Uthman ordered the destruction of all but one of them. While Desai endeavours to give divine sanction and authority to all the variant readings that existed at that time, whether textual or dialectal, by claiming that they were all part of the sab’at-i-ahruf, the unanimous opinion of the early Muslim scholars was that these seven readings consisted solely of dialectal differences and the learned maulana has no justification for seeking to apply them to those instances where there were real distinctions in the actual text of the Qur’an in the various codices. We are clearly dealing with two different types of "variant" reading. On the one hand we have the substantial differences between the early codices which covered the addition of whole clauses such as wa salaatil’asr in Surah 2.238, the inclusion of expressions such as yawmal-qiyamati in Surah 2.275 in Ibn Mas’ud’s codex, the extra clause wa huwa abuu lahum in Surah 33.6 in the codices of Ibn Mas’ud, Ubayy ibn Ka’b, Ibn Abbas and others as well as the numerous other actual textual variations we have mentioned. On the other hand we have finer points of distinction in pronunciation and dialect which were not nearly as distinct in the written text as the other variants. It is only to these variants that the sab’at-i-ahruf can be applied if, as is generally held, the seven different readings related only to dialectal variants. We know that Uthman was concerned about both serious textual differences and dialectal variants. To eliminate the former he simply chose Zaid’s text in preference to the others which he ordered to be destroyed. To remove the latter we know that he was not satisfied that Zaid’s text itself adequately represented the Quraysh dialect and he therefore ordered Sa’id ibn al-As and two others from the Quraysh to amend Zaid’s text where necessary. The following impression of Uthman’s action is very informative: He transcribed the texts (suhuf) into a single codex (mushaf waahid), he arranged the suras, and he restricted the dialect to the vernacular (lugaat) of the Quraysh on the plea that it (the Qur’an) had been sent down in their tongue. (As-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur’an, p.140). Uthman was thus concerned not only to standardise the Qur’an into a single text but also to establish the Quraysh dialect as the standard medium of expression at the same time. He achieved the first objective by burning the other codices, the second by employing three of the Quraysh to revise the dialect of Zaid’s codex insofar as it affected the written text (which effect could only have been negligible as most of the dialectal variants would have been reflected solely in the use of vowel points which were not at that stage included in the transcribed text). The sab’at-i-ahruf were regarded as affecting only the second concern, that is, dialectal variants. The ahruf (readings) referred to were, therefore, only those affecting the different lugaat (dialects) of the Arab tribes. There is no suggestion anywhere in those early records that the traditions which stated that the Qur’an had been revealed in seven different readings had anything to do with the large number of substantial variant readings in the actual text that were found in the codices of Zaid-ibn-Thabit, Abdullah ibn Mas’ud and the others written out before Uthman’s action to standardise the text. Thus the sab’at-i-ahruf had nothing to do with Uthman’s first concern, namely the authorisation of a single written text at the expense of the others, and indeed there would have been no need to burn them if the differences had been purely dialectal as the seven different readings were said to be. Thus Desai is wide of the mark when he tries to explain away all the textual differences that were found in the early codices as being part of the divinely authorised seven readings. These related solely to different dialects and the maulana errs when he tries to make them cover the real textual distinctions we have mentioned in this book and in the booklet which he set out to refute. It may suit his cause considerably to claim that all those variant readings in the different codices were divinely authorised as part of the sab’at-i-ahruf, but, to reach this conclusion, he has had to blur the distinctions between the two types of variant reading we have considered - textual and dialectal - with the seven different readings applying only to the latter. It is clear that the hypothesis that the Qur’an has been perfectly preserved to the last dot and letter cannot be sustained in the light of the many textual differences that existed in the early codices. Desai could find no way of getting around this difficulty other than to take hold of just one hadith record - the statement of Muhammad about the sab’at-i-ahruf - and apply it to those differences against the clear indications that these readings were confined to dialectal variants alone. 2. THE PERIOD OF IKHTIYAR: THE "CHOICE" OF READINGS. We have shown that there were two different types of variant reading at the time of Uthman’s recension, both of which the Caliph sought to eliminate as part of the accepted text of the Qur’an. It is intriguing to discover that he succeeded in almost totally eliminating the first type - the substantial differences in the text of the Qur’an itself that were found in the various codices - but did not succeed in eliminating the second type, namely the variations in dialect and pronunciation that were widespread among the early Muslims and which continued to be read as part of the Qur’an text. This was chiefly because the codices which Uthman sent out to the various provinces had no diacritical points or vowel marks but represented only the consonantal text of the Qur’an. Unlike our alphabet which has vowels and consonants, the Arabic alphabet only has consonants and in the early days the alphabet was limited to only seventeen letters so that one consonant could reflect one of two or more letters. It was only in the later generations that vowel marks above and below the letters were introduced to give an exact representation of the vocal text and diacritical points were then also added above and below the relevant consonants to achieve the same result. It was because the dialectal variants were reflected primarily in the vowelling of the Qur’an text that Uthman’s official manuscripts, written in consonantal form alone, were unable to bring about a uniform reading of the text in the single Quraysh dialect. Thus we find that in spite of his recension variant readings of the text continued to remain widespread among the Muslims but were generally confined to differences in dialect alone. Throughout the first three centuries of Islam there was a period of ikhtiyar, a time of "choice" when Muslims were considered free to recite the Qur’an in whichever dialect they chose on the strength of the hadith text which stated that Muhammad had taught the Qur’an had been revealed in seven different ways in which it could be recited. During this period until the year 322 A.H. (934 A.D.), all the scholars of the Qur’an taught that these dialectal variations constituted the sab’at-i-ahruf of which Muhammad spoke. Thus the "seven readings" became confined to variations in dialect and pronunciation alone and were not considered to be applicable to the very real differences that occurred in the earliest days of the development of the Qur’an text, many of which we have mentioned in this book and which Uthman sought to eliminate in the interests of establishing a single text. We do have sound evidences, however, to show that, even after Uthman’s recension was complete, his text was still considered to be imperfect over and above the fact that it was largely a reproduction of Zaid ibn Thabit’s original compilation. During the caliphate of Abd al-Malik in the first century of Islam the governor of Iraq, al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, took steps to correct Uthman’s text. He is said to have made eleven direct changes to the Qur’an text as it stood in its consonantal form, all of which are reflected in the Qur’an as it stands today. Under the heading Baab: Ma Ghaira al-Hajjaaj fii Mushaf Uthman ("Chapter: What was Altered by al-Hajjaj in the Uthmanic Text") Ibn Abi Dawud lists these specific amendments and his narrative setting them out begins as follows: Altogether al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf made eleven modifications in the reading of the Uthmanic text. ... In al-Baqarah (Surah 2.259) it originally read Lam yatasanna waandhur, but it was altered to Lam yatasannah ... In al-Ma’ida (Surah 5.48) it read Shari ya’atan wa minhaajaan but it was altered to shir ’atawwa minhaajaan. (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.117). The whole section continues to name each one of the amendments made by al-Hajjaj so that the Qur’an text as we have it today is not only the Uthmanic text but also a subsequent minor recension of it by the Iraqi governor. It is interesting to find that one of the alterations mentioned by Ibn Abi Dawud was originally the reading of Ubayy ibn Ka’b as well. Surah 12.45 is said to have originally read anaa aatiikum but was amended to read anaa unabbi’ukum and we are informed that the former reading, as originally read in the Uthmanic text, was also the reading of Ubayy ibn Ka’b and al-Hasan (Jeffery, Materials, p.138). It is probable that Zaid and Ubayy agreed on the original reading but that it was widely acknowledged by the other companions after Uthman’s recension that this was a variant reading and that the correct reading was that which al-Hajjaj eventually put in its place. In addition to these eleven changes to the Qur’an text there are evidences that a few further variant readings in the actual consonantal outline of the Qur’an still remained. All but two of these related to a single letter alone but in Surah 9.100 we find that the word min ("from") was read between the words tajrii tahtihaa, and in Surah 56.24 the pronoun huwa was known to be added as an extra word. Desai, in recording some of the variant readings of the Qur’an in his booklet (p.15), acknowledges the first variant mentioned here and also points out that other variants took the form of different word placements, diacritical points, attenuations and tenses. All these, however, relate to variants still known to have been freely recognised after the recension by Uthman. Throughout his booklet, however, there is no mention of any of the substantial variants that existed in the actual text of the Qur’an which led to the other codices being destroyed. In this book and in my booklet Evidences for the Collection of the Qur’an which Desai set out to refute I have given a wealth of examples of such variant readings which went far beyond the question of dialects and pronunciation. The issue here was not one of different forms of qira’at (reading) but of the actual content of the text itself. Expressions were found in some codices that were omitted in others (such as yawmal-qiyaamati in Surah 2.275), single words were likewise confined to some codices and were not found in all of them (such as mutataabi’aatin in Surah 5.91) while whole clauses only appeared in some of the texts (such as wa huwa abuu laahum in Surah 33.6). It is hard to tell at times which variant readings Desai is in fact admitting in his booklet. He makes no specific mention of these substantial differences and all the variants he does refer to can be categorised in the sab’at-i-ahruf, the dialectal variants which survived Uthman’s recension. In my previous booklet, however, I recorded a number of the major textual variants that existed in the other codices before they were destroyed and Desai took no issue with any of them. His admission of the existence of the variant readings has to be taken against the background of his express purpose to respond solely to my booklet and it must therefore be presumed that he was acknowledging the authenticity of the early textual variants. In his response, however, he deals only with the second class of variants, the sab’at-i-ahruf, and conveniently glosses over the others. He then uses this second class alone to support his contention that all the variant readings of the Qur’an were divinely authorised and it appears that he was fully aware that he could not expressly acknowledge the authenticity of the substantial textual variants without at the same time conceding that the Qur’an had not been perfectly preserved to the last dot and letter. It became convenient, therefore, to blur the distinction between the two and make an overall admission about the variant readings of the Qur’an while citing only the dialectal differences in support of his defence that the Qur’an had been revealed in seven divinely authorised forms. One cannot help feeling that the learned maulana is guilty of a degree of casuistry in his argument. In closing let us consider some of the variants recorded by Abu Dawud in his Kitab al-Huruf wa al-Qira’at, all of which relate to dialectal distinctions alone and do not affect the consonantal record of the written text. They thus all form part of the second type of variant reading and can be regarded as part of the sab’at-i-ahruf of which Muhammad spoke. We shall mention just three of these readings that the compiler records to illustrate the point: Shahr b. Hawshab said: I asked Umm Salamah: How did the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) read this verse: "For his conduct is unrighteous" (innaha ’amalun ghairu salih)? She replied: He read it: "He acted unrighteously" (innaha ’amila ghaira salih). (Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 3, p.1116). Ibn al-Mussayab said: The Prophet (may peace be upon him), Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman used to read "maliki yawmi’l-din" (master of the Day of Judgement). The first to read maliki yawmi’l-diin was Marwan. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 3, p.1119). Shaqiq said: Ibn Mas’ud read the verse: "Now come, thou" (haita laka). Then Shaqiq said: We read it, "hi’tu laka" (I am prepared for thee). Ibn Mas’ud said: I read it as I have been taught, it is dearer to me. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 3, p.1120). In each case the variant is found solely in the vowelling of the text and would not have been reflected in the consonantal text transcribed by Uthman as the standard form of the Qur’an for the whole Muslim community. This explains why so many of these dialectal variants survived Uthman’s recension while the substantial textual variants were duly eliminated from the actual recitation of the Qur’an text. Let us press on to the time when the period of ikhtiyar, the time of "free choice", closed and the sab’at-i-ahruf, the seven readings of the Qur’an, were defined more exactly. Thereafter we shall close with a brief analysis of the actual character of these readings. 3. IBN MUJAHID’S FINAL DEFINITION OF THE SEVEN AHRUF. It was not until the fourth century of Islam that an attempt was made to actually define the seven different readings. As said earlier there is nothing in the earliest works of Sirat and Hadith literature giving any indication as to what these readings actually were except for a statement attributed to Muhammad that they were all a part of the Qur’an as revealed by Allah. By the fourth century after Muhammad’s death, therefore, the decision as to what these seven readings were was at the discretion of whoever sought to determine and define them. In 322 A.H, the well-known authority on the Qur’an at Baghdad, Ibn Mujahid, took it upon himself to resolve this issue. He had considerable influence with Ibn Isa and Ibn Muqlah, two of the wazirs in the Abbasid government of the day (the equivalent of a cabinet minister in a contemporary regime), and through them he managed to establish an official limitation on the permissible readings of the Qur’an. He wrote a book titled Al-Qira’at as-Sab’ah ("The Seven Readings") based on the hadith which stated that there were seven divinely authorised ahruf of the Qur’an and he established seven of the current readings as canonical and declared the others in use to be shadhdh ("isolated", that is, non-canonical). The seven readings established have already been mentioned in this book, namely those of Nafi (Medina), Ibn Kathir (Mecca), Ibn Amir (Damascus), Abu Amr (Basra), Asim, Hamzah and al-Kisai (Kufa). In each case there were certain recognised transmitters who had executed a recension (riwayah) of their own of each reading and two of these, namely those of Warsh (who revised the reading of Nafi) and Hafs (who revised that of Asim), eventually gained the ascendancy as the others generally fell into disuse and were no longer read in the major parts of the Muslim world. Ibn Mujahid’s determination to canonise only seven of the readings then in circulation at the expense of the others was upheld by the Abbasid judiciary of his day. Very soon after his action a scholar named Ibn Miqsam was publicly forced to renounce the widely-held opinion that any reading of the basic consonantal outline that was in accordance with Arabic grammar and made common sense was acceptable. This decision virtually validated the seven sets of readings chosen by Ibn Mujahid as the only officially acceptable qira’at. Not long after this another scholar, Ibn Shannabudh, was forced in a similar way to retract the view that it was permissible to use the readings of Ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy ibn Ka’b (meaning only those variants confined to dialectal differences which were attributed to them and not the substantial variants which Uthman had eliminated from the recitation of the Qur’an). Over the centuries most of the seven canonical readings also fell into disuse until only those of Nafi and Hafs became widely used in practice. Warsh’s riwayah of Nafi’s reading has long been used in the Maghrib (the western part of Africa under Islam’s rule, namely Morocco, Algeria, etc.), mainly because it was closely associated with the Maliki school of law, but it is the riwayah of Hafs that has gradually gained almost universal currency in the Muslim world, especially since the printing of the Qur’an came into vogue. Virtually all the lithographed editions of the Qur’an that have been printed in the last two centuries have followed the reading of Asim through Hafs. The fully vocalised printed editions of the Qur’an that are in the possession of millions of Muslims in the world today reflect the reading of Hafs and in time this version is likely to become the sole reading in use in the whole world of Islam. The period of ikhtiyar closed with Ibn Mujahid. He did to the vocalised reading of the Qur’an what Uthman had done to the consonantal text. Just as the latter had standardised a single text for the whole Muslim community by destroying the other codices that existed, so Ibn Mujahid established seven fixed canonical readings by outlawing all the others that were in current use. Just as the text standardised by Uthman cannot be regarded as a perfect reproduction of the Qur’an exactly as it was delivered by Muhammad because it did no more than establish the codex of just one man, Zaid ibn Thabit, at the Caliph’s personal discretion, so the seven readings canonised by Ibn Mujahid cannot be accepted as an exact reflection of the sab’at-i-ahruf spoken of by Muhammad, once again precisely because they were simply the readings of later reciters arbitrarily chosen by the redactor at his own personal discretion. 4. REFLECTIONS ON THE UNIFICATION OF THE QUR’AN TEXT. Thusfar we have dealt with the seven different readings as they were treated during the first centuries of Islam. The time has come, however, to consider this subject from a more critical perspective. Can we summarily accept that all the variant readings of the Qur’an, even if we consider only the dialectal variants and not the substantial textual differences, can be regarded as divinely authorised simply on the basis of the statement attributed to Muhammad that the Qur’an came originally with seven different readings? We know what those readings eventually became: three centuries after Muhammad’s death Ibn Mujahid at his own discretion simply chose seven of the many different readings that prevailed at his time and declared them to be the divinely authorised readings. No objective scholar of the Qur’an text can accept such a unilateral and arbitrary approach as even remotely authoritative, however, and Ibn Mujahid’s action can only be regarded as an ambitious attempt to make the different readings of the Qur’an in his day fit the concept of seven original readings. The action by this fourth-century redactor is something of a red herring across the path of the real issues in respect of this subject. The key question is: what actually were those seven different readings at the time of Muhammad? What were they originally supposed to have been? We have virtually given the answer already: no one can possibly say. Nothing more is indicated in the earliest hadith records mentioning these readings than that they were generally confined to variations in dialect and rarely affected the actual consonantal text. We have on the one hand a tradition about seven different readings, on the other a vast number of examples of actual variant readings which cannot be made relevant to the tradition in any definite way. Desai claims that Uthman eliminated six of the readings and retained just one in the interests of standardising a single text of the Qur’an. On whose authority he reduced the Qur’an to just one of seven different forms in which it was said to have been revealed Desai does not say, but to circumvent the obvious conclusion that six of the divine forms of the Qur’an have thereby been lost and eliminated he claims that the variant readings were nonetheless at the same time separately preserved. He says in his booklet: A separate compilation for each form of recitation not contained by the official and standard Rasmul Khat was ordered by Hadhrat Uthmaan (ra). (Desai, The Quraan Unimpeachable, p.36). As usual no documentation in support of this allegation is given and the maulana’s readers are, it appears, once again obliged to simply accept what he says without further enquiry. He tells us nothing of these so-called separate compilations nor does he give the source for his claim that Uthman ordered that they be put together. Such an action on the part of the Caliph can only be considered grossly improbable in the light of the fact that it was his express purpose to entirely eliminate the variant readings that existed in the interests of maintaining a single text. The whole argument of the maulana, however, can be shown to be extremely fragile from another consideration. If, as he claims, the other six readings were so carefully retained, what were they? Can Desai transcribe for us today seven different Qur’an texts fully vocalised, showing all the variant readings that existed at the time of Uthman’s recension which were said to have been divinely authorised and duly set them out in seven different forms? Even if he could, we would yet have to ask on what authority he would expect us to accept that his proposed seven different forms of the Qur’an as thus defined were in fact precisely what Muhammad was speaking about. A study of the earliest readings, both dialectal and substantial, will soon show that such an undertaking is an impossible task. These readings are sometimes said to have come from one companion, sometimes from another, at times from a number together. No indication of the actual division of all these variants into seven distinct forms is even hinted at in the earliest records. It is quite impossible to authoritatively define what those seven different readings were supposed to have been. Thus the hadith records about the sab’at-i-ahruf are really quite meaningless. They cannot, without a considerable degree of speculation and pure guesswork, be applied to the variant readings of the Qur’an that have been preserved through the centuries. The figure "seven" has, thus, no relevance at all to what we are considering. All that has happened is that we have, alongside the single text of the Qur’an in consonantal form that was standardised by Uthman, a vast number of passages that are said to have been lost, a host of variant readings of specific texts, together with finer distinctions in the vowelling of the text. These evidences strongly contradict the popular sentiment that the Qur’an has been perfectly preserved to the last dot and letter, nothing lost, varied or amended. The vague statement about seven different revealed forms of the Qur’an has become a convenient blanket to cover all the readings that are known to have existed so as to give them divine authorisation. This is the whole theme of Desai’s booklet - every variant that can be produced is summarily declared to have been divinely revealed as one of the seven readings even though the maulana could not possibly hope to define exactly what the seven readings were supposed to have been, to which one of the seven each respective reading belongs, least of all produce any evidences to substantiate such a definition and say on what authority he draws his conclusions. The tradition about the sab’at-i-ahruf has become an expedient licence to claim divine authority for any variant that can be produced - thus the maulana maintains the popular sentiment, the hypothesis that nothing of the Qur’an has been lost or varied by anything other than divine decree. A very good example of the confusion caused in subsequent generations about the supposed seven different readings and the total inability of the early Muslim scholars to categorise the variant readings that were all at hand into seven distinct forms is clear from the following quote: Abu al-Khair ibn al-Jazari, in the first book that he published, said "Every reading in accordance with Arabic, even if only remotely, and in accordance with one of the Uthmanic codices, and even if only probable but with an acceptable chain of authorities, is an authentic reading which may not be disregarded, nor may it be denied, but it belongs to al-ahruful-sab’at (the seven readings) in which the Qur’an was sent down, and it is obligatory upon the people to accept it, irrespective of whether it is from the seven Imams, or from the ten, or yet other approved imams, but when it is not fully supported by these three (conditions), it is to be rejected as dha’ifah (weak) or shaathah (isolated) or baatilah (false), whether it derives from the seven or from one who is older than them. (As-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur’an, p.176). This statement shows how impossible it was to define the seven different readings in terms of the recital of the Qur’an as it was actually being read in its different forms in the Muslim community and how the two could not plausibly be related to each other in any way whatsoever. Any good reading was automatically considered to be one of the seven authorised readings, not because it could be proved to belong to one of them, but because it became acceptable through other considerations - its isnad, its consistency with the single Uthmanic consonantal text, and its compliance with proper Arabic grammar. Other Muslim writers like Siddique have an easier way of getting around the problem. They simply declare that such variants never affected the written text of the Qur’an at all, notwithstanding the clear evidences to the contrary in the exhaustive summaries of the evidences for the compilation of the Qur’an in the Itqan of as-Suyuti and the Kitab al-Masahif of Ibn Abi Dawud, both of which Siddique alludes to briefly with complete approval in his article. There is a further thrust in Desai’s argument that proves defective upon closer analysis. His reasoning that Uthman’s "measure of eliminating all other authorized and true versions of the Qur’aan Majeed" (p.32) meant that only one form of qira’at was standardised to ensure uniformity at the expense of the other six goes against the whole character of what Uthman actually did. The maulana seems to overlook the fact that Uthman only standardised the consonantal text of the Qur’an and, in sending out manuscripts which did not have diacritical points or vowel marks, he hardly affected the dialectal variants of the text that were said to have made up the sab’at-i-ahruf (cf. the traditions quoted earlier on the seven readings in the Sahih of Muslim). Thus there came the period of ikhtiyar when the Qur’an was freely recited in numerous different dialects until Ibn Mujahid arbitrarily chose seven of them at his own discretion to represent the readings of which Muhammad had spoken. Uthman never had it in mind to eliminate six divinely authorised readings in the interests of standardising one of them for the purposes of uniformity as the maulana claims. He believed all along that there never was nor should have been more than one single text of the Qur’an and he viewed the evidences that the Qur’an was beginning to be divided up into all sorts of different readings with alarm, fearing that if this continued the original text might be lost altogether. He thus took the drastic step of ordering the destruction of all but one of the codices to outlaw variant readings of the Qur’an precisely because he considered such a practice to be an unauthorised deviation from the original text. Desai constantly claims that Uthman’s purpose was to establish one of the seven different forms of qira’at at the expense of the others but, as said already, he is missing the point. Uthman’s action had very little to do with qira’at, in fact it centred primarily on masahif which were restricted to representations of the consonantal text of the Qur’an alone. The vast number of distinctions in qira’at that would have been reflected solely in vowel points thus escaped his action completely. Uthman only standardised the consonantal text of the Qur’an - its basic form - and the sab’at-i-ahruf were always regarded by the early scholars of Islam to have thus survived his action and for three centuries the Qur’an was officially recited in all sorts of different dialects. In fact all that Ibn Mujahid did thereafter was to standardise seven of these as officially acceptable and they too continued to survive as part of the authorised qira’at. Thus what was eliminated by Uthman was only the class of variant readings that affected the actual written text of the Qur’an and not its many forms of qira’at that would have been reflected solely in different vowel points. The sab’at-i-ahruf, in conclusion, cannot be considered in any way relevant to the wealth of variant readings that have come down alongside the Qur’an in the heritage of Islam. There is nothing in the records of these variants or the different forms of dialect that actually existed that can be related to seven specific forms of reading as stated in the relevant tradition. Writers like Desai merely seek to force an identification between the two so as to give divine sanction to all the variants known to have existed, but no objective scholar of the history of the Qur’an text can possibly find a direct connection between the two. In the next chapter we shall give our own impressions on the real causes of the variant readings and missing passages of the Qur’an. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 29: 03.08. CHAPTER 6: THE COMPILATION OF THE QURAN IN PERSPECTIVE ======================================================================== CHAPTER 6: THE COMPILATION OF THE QUR’AN IN PERSPECTIVE 1. THE QUR’AN’S TESTIMONY TO ITS OWN COMPILATION. Notwithstanding the efforts of writers like Desai and Siddique to maintain the hypothesis of the Qur’an’s perfect compilation it must surely be obvious from all that we have considered that the Qur’an went through a number of stages during which actions were taken to limit the variations in the written text and in its verbal recitation to establish, as far as each intervener could, a single text for the whole Muslim community. A mushaf waahid was the goal of the redactors, it was not their possession by divine preserve. The Hadith records testify consistently to the imperfection of the Qur’an text and what has come down through the ages to a single text can only be regarded as relatively authentic. Some Muslim scholars are well aware that it is impossible to maintain the popular sentiment against the records in the Sirat, Hadith and Tafsir literature which testify quite unambiguously to the contrary. The shortcomings and inadequacies of the writings of apologists like Desai and Siddique are all too obvious. So these scholars take another line. By rejecting the Hadith records, they maintain that the Qur’an itself testifies to its own compilation and that this testimony is sufficient to prove that the Qur’an text, as it now stands, is absolutely authentic. This is the theme of the article by Abdus Samad Abdul Kader titled How the Quran was Compiled referred to in the Introduction and it seems appropriate, in summing up our study of this subject, to begin with a review of his argument and the verses he quotes from the Qur’an to support it. Right from the start Abdul Kader expresses the notion that indirectly underlies all Muslim studies on this subject. It is the assumption that, if the Qur’an was the Word of God revealed to Muhammad, then it must have been preserved to perfection throughout the ages since its deliverance. The fear is that, if it can be proved that the Qur’an has in any way been amended, or that passages have been lost, or that there is some confusion as to exactly what the original readings were, then the Qur’an’s divine origin and authenticity in consequence must fall to the ground and be discounted. We have already seen that this is the motivating consideration behind Desai’s booklet and Siddique’s article and it explains why their approach to the subject is so sensitive, subjective and, at times, highly irrational. Abdul Kader expresses the conviction directly when he says in his article: It was necessary that the Scripture that was to be for all mankind and for all times, should be complete, perfect and change-proof. An incomplete scripture, and one that men changed from time to time, cannot be a guide to mankind. ... A Scripture that is meant for the whole of mankind ... has to be protected from being interpolated and changed by human hands. (Al-Balaagh, Vol. 11 No.2, p.1). In these statements the author gives sufficient proof that the doctrine of the Qur’an’s perfect preservation arises not from a scholarly study of the history of the text but from a popular sentiment that is imposed upon it, a presupposition that has to be maintained at all costs. "It was necessary", he says, to preserve the text; such a scripture "should be complete, perfect"; it "has to be protected from being interpolated". This is the language of presupposition, it is the spirit of hypothesis, it indicates that, before the scholar has even come to a study of his subject, he has already decided long in advance what his findings and conclusion will be. No matter what directions the evidences may lead, the matter is predetermined. It is hardly necessary to say that such an approach is subjective in the extreme and will not yield a balanced or accurate perspective. The Muslim approach to this whole subject is hard to understand for, if a book never was the Word of God in the first place, no amount of proof that it has been absolutely and perfectly preserved will make it the Word of God. Conversely, if a book was indeed the Word of God at the time when it was first inscribed, the later existence of a few suspect passages and variant readings which do not affect the overall content of the text would not negate its original divine authenticity. Nevertheless, having thus briefly considered the emotional Muslim approach to the subject, let us return to it at a purely factual / interpretational level so that we may conclude with a balanced perspective on what the history of the Qur’an text really was and the extent to which the text, as it stands today, can be regarded as authentic. Abdul Kader quotes the following verse in proof of his contention that the Qur’an testifies to its own completion and attendant perfection: Completed is the Word of thy Sustainer, in truth and in justice; there is naught that may change his Words. Surah 6.116 Even a superficial study of the text will show that the completion spoken of is not the Qur’an as a book but rather the extent of the words of God in truth and justice. Arberry translates this verse "Perfect are the words of thy Lord in truthfulness and justice" and Yusuf Ali gives the same application: "The Word of thy Lord doth find its fulfilment in truth and in justice". The key word here is tammat, meaning "to be fulfilled", and it is clear that the subject of the perfection spoken of is the truth and justice of God’s words and not the text of the Qur’an as a book. The word appears yet again in Surah 11.119 where it is said "the Word of thy Lord shall be fulfilled (tammat): ’I will fill Hell with jinns and men all together’". The context makes it quite clear that we are dealing with a fulfilment of God’s words and not of the completion of a text. As the Qur’an was still in the process of compilation at the time when this verse (Surah 6.116) became a part of its text it is hard to see in any event how it can testify to the Qur’an’s supposed perfect compilation. The book was very much incomplete at this point and it is well-nigh impossible to see how this text can be manipulated to prove that the Qur’an was eventually perfectly compiled and preserved to the last dot and letter. Although Abdul Kader concedes that the Qur’an was being delivered piecemeal over a number of years and is aware that there were many loose parchments and other materials upon which it was being inscribed, to draw the conclusion that the Qur’an was, in fact, perfectly preserved in a single text he argues that the following text testifies to a collection of these parchments into a single book: And (by) a Book inscribed, on fine parchment, unrolled. Surah 52.2-3. The text, like the other one quoted, is very general in its description and it requires no small amount of imagination to make it testify to the perfection of the Qur’an text. Yet, when it is studied in its context, it will be seen that the kitab (translated by Abdul Kader "a Book") spoken of is not the Qur’an at all but one of the five signs of the coming Day of Judgment. The whole context reads: By the Mount (at-Tuur), by a Decree (Kitaabin) inscribed in a scroll unfolded, by the much-frequented House (al-Bait), by the Canopy (as-saqf) raised high, and by the Ocean (al-Bahr) filled with swell, verily the Doom of your Lord will come to Pass. Surah 52.1-7. Once again we see that the passage has nothing to do with the actual compilation of the text of the Qur’an at all and it soon becomes very obvious that Abdul Kader is devoid of evidences for the perfection of the Qur’an in the Hadith records and, in consequence, finds himself constrained to force texts of the Qur’an to yield meanings never intended by the author of the book to provide the required proofs. He concludes by claiming that the Qur’an, in the following verse, actually testifies to a "master copy" of its text that was being preserved: That this is indeed a Noble Qur’an, in a Book preserved. Surah 56.77-78. What is the original Arabic word in this text which Abdul Kader translates as "preserved"? It is maknuun which comes from the root word kanna, meaning "to hide". From this word come the following words used in the Qur’an: aknaan, meaning "a refuge" or hiding-place in the mountains (Surah 16.81); akkinah, meaning "veils" or coverings upon men’s hearts (Surah 6.25, etc.); and akanna, meaning "to hide" something in the heart (Surah 2.235). Thus the clear underlying meaning of any form of this word is to conceal or to hide, and Arberry translates Surah 56.78 as "a hidden Book". It would appear that what the Qur’an is really saying of itself is that it is "a concealed scripture" without explaining what this means. In any event it once again is very hard to see how this can be distorted into a testimony to the Qur’an’s textual perfection and completion at the end of Muhammad’s life. We again have a general and rather vague statement taken right out of context to support a cherished hypothesis. Ultimately it is the gradual compilation of the Qur’an during Muhammad’s lifetime that is the strongest argument against any evidence in the Qur’an (were any to exist) regarding its own completion and perfection. Surah 56.78 and Surah 80.13-16, which is also quoted by Abdul Kader and says no more than that the Qur’an texts were being written on suhuf (parchments) by pious scribes, both come from the very early Meccan period. This was at the time when the Qur’an text was only just beginning to take shape and there is no way that such passages can be adduced in support of the Qur’an’s ultimate supposed textual completion and perfection. We find it strange that it should be argued that a book which throughout Muhammad’s final years was still being supplemented by additional passages and texts can, in the middle of its course, suddenly testify to its own exactness and completeness! As long as Muhammad lived there was always a possibility that further passages might be added to the text and the Qur’an nowhere draws the curtain upon itself. There is no verse in the Qur’an stating that the text had been completed and that no further passages could be expected. As we saw early in this book, more was being added to the Qur’an just before Muhammad’s death than at any other time during his mission. It was the death of Muhammad that fixed the extent of the Qur’an text, it was this event alone that brought the compilation of the book to a sudden conclusion. Throughout Muhammad’s life the Qur’an continued to expand and we must therefore conclude that the Qur’an cannot possibly testify to its own completeness or the extent of the preservation of its text. There is only one place in the Qur’an where the word jama’ah (to compile or collect together) is used in connection with the text of the book itself, namely in Surah 75.17 where Allah is quoted as saying "It is for Us to collect it and to recite it". It is surprising that Abdul Kader overlooked this verse altogether in his article as it is the closest the Qur’an comes to saying anything significant about its own compilation. Nonetheless it makes Allah speak of collecting the Qur’an before it is recited from heaven to Muhammad, so it too cannot be adduced as evidence for the collection of the text after the time of its deliverance. It is our opinion that none of the texts quoted by Abdul Kader even remotely testify to the supposed textual perfection and completion of the Qur’an as compiled by his companions at the end of his life. As said already, a book that at all times during its composition was still being supplemented by fresh material cannot possibly give evidence as to the completeness of the final product. Abdul Kader’s whole argument centres on the compilation of the Qur’an during the lifetime of Muhammad and understandably so, for the Qur’an could not testify historically in advance to the course of the text after Muhammad’s death. Yet it is precisely this restriction to his lifetime that renders the Qur’an an incompetent witness to the state of the text at the time of its completion. That completion only came upon the death of Muhammad and it is to independent historical records of the text thereafter that we must turn for the evidences we require, namely the series of Hadith records we have already considered. 2. A "MASTER COPY OF THE QUR’AN" IN THE MASJID AN-NABI? In sharp contrast to the records we have been studying throughout this book on the development and collection of the Qur’an text we find Abdul Kader declaring that a "Master copy of the Qur’an" was kept by Muhammad and that all other texts of the Qur’an in written form were copied from this original text. He says: The Master Copy of the collection of the portions of the Quran was kept under special care in a safe in the Masjid-e-Nabawee (Mosque of the Prophet) in Madeenah. It had a special place near the column called astawaanah mus-hif (the column of the Master Copy). This Master Copy was called the Imam (leader) or Umm (source). (Al-Balaagh, Vol. 11, No.2, p.2). He goes on to allege that the copies made from this master copy were transcribed "under the personal supervision of the Prophet". These are all allegations of fact and yet the writer, like Desai, gives no documentation or authority for his claims. The Qur’an itself nowhere states that a perfect copy of its text was being kept in a safe in the masjid an-nabi of Medina near a column named after it, so Abdul Kader must have obtained this information from another source, but he neglects to substantiate his statements with disclosures of his sources and his claims therefore cannot be tested or critically analysed. We have seen already that materials upon which the Qur’an was being written were being kept in Muhammad’s house at Medina (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan, p.137) but there are express statements in the same compilation of early records of the Qur’an text which make it plain that the Qur’an had not been brought together into a single location during Muhammad’s lifetime, whether in his own home or anywhere else (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan, p.96). Abdul Kader’s statements are set right against the evidences furnished in the Hadith records and other historical sources we have mentioned and, as his claims have no factual basis in the Qur’an, it would be most interesting to know where he obtains his information. His silence on these sources would appear to us to be most significant. All that he has shown is that, if the Hadith records of the compilation of the Qur’an text are not accepted, there is really no other source to consult. The Qur’an furnishes virtually no useful information at all about its own codification and collection into a single text and, in fact, when one considers the nature of the Qur’an itself, one finds that it is a most improbable witness to the completeness or otherwise of its text. There is no chronological sequence of any kind in the Qur’an. The surahs have generally been arranged from the longest to the shortest so that the earliest passages appear at the end of the book and the later passages at the beginning. There is nothing of historical foundation in the Qur’an in that no event recorded in the book is ever dated and no regard is paid to any kind of historical sequence in the book. If the Qur’an does not serve as a good history book, then nor does it offer much of geographical value either. Only one place is mentioned by name in the Qur’an - Mecca in Surah 3.96 (where it is named Bakkah) - and nothing else is given any sort of location in the book. No one reading the Qur’an alone could place any event it records at any point in history or give a specific geographical placement to any locality it mentions or otherwise speaks about. Many of the longer surahs are made up of passages dating from both Muhammad’s mission at Mecca and at Medina and within these composite surahs we find the subject of the text varying from legal restriction to prophetic narratives, from ethical teaching to praises to God, etc., coupled with numerous catch-phrases. More often than not the different subjects of the longer surahs have no connection with each other at all. The Qur’an is, in these respects, a quite disjointed book. As it stands today it is a collection of fragmentary texts and passages compiled into an unharmonious whole without respect to sequence or theme. It is hardly the kind of book that can offer useful testimony to its own textual accuracy or completion. It has no definite beginning or conclusion and there is no way that a study of the Qur’an text alone can assist one to determine whether it has been completely preserved, nor is there anything in the book to prove that nothing has been omitted from its pages or modified in the process of compilation. It is only in the Hadith records that we find any evidence as to how the Qur’an really was originally compiled. The science of the study of the Hadith literature has often centred on the reliability or otherwise of the Hadith texts and some Muslim scholars have rejected the Hadith records of the Qur’an’s compilation as unreliable because it was well-known that, in the early days of Islam, some Hadith material was fabricated and was handed down alongside material that was authentic. Such inauthentic hadith records were usually related to opposing schools of law or political issues. The rivalry between the Umayyads and the Abbasids resulted in many records being fabricated to favour the one or the other and as the fiqh (jurisprudence) of Islam developed, so traditions were invented to provide authority for different maxims of law. Many of these can be recognised as fabrications merely through a cursory study of their contents, but to determine the reliability of the rest of the Hadith literature various means were applied to each specific tradition. How sound was its isnad (its chain of transmitters)? How many independent records of the same tradition existed - was it an isolated (ahad) record, a generally accepted text (mashur), or was it widely attested (mutawatir)? Then again, after a consideration of these issues, could it be classed as sahih (genuine), hasan (fair) or da’if (weak), or should it be discounted entirely as mardud (to be rejected)? This science of classification has rarely been applied to the traditions setting out how the Qur’an was compiled. The earliest records of the collection of the Qur’an were generally taken at face value as this subject was not one which spawned any motivation for fabrication, although John Burton argues to the contrary in his book The Collection of the Qur’an, suggesting that many of the verses said to be missing from the Qur’an were invented after Muhammad’s death to give support and authority to the legal maxims of those who made them up. He applies the same argument to some of the recorded variant readings of the Qur’an. None of the three writers who wrote articles in reply to my earlier notes on the compilation of the Qur’an text, however, raised such a possibility, nor did they make any attempt to define which traditions could be accepted and which should be rejected. There is no standard by which those early records can really be distinguished. Any scholar seeking to separate them into those which can be approved and those which cannot will have to rely almost exclusively on his own initiative and his findings will have to be purely subjective and speculative. One cannot dispense with some of the Hadith records on this subject without eventually doing away with them all as they give an overall impression of how the Qur’an was codified into a single text and, as we shall see in the last section of this chapter, they are far more consistent in giving a general picture of what actually occurred than some scholars are willing to admit. The fact is that, without these records, there is no evidence as to how the Qur’an was compiled. If they are to be rejected, then nothing authoritative whatsoever can be said about the manner in which the Qur’an was compiled into what it is today. The record of the codification of the Qur’an text as found in the early Sirat, Hadith and Tafsir literature is the only historical source in Islam to consult - without it there is only a void and nothing authoritative really can be said. No other thesis about the original collection of the Qur’an can be documented or grounded in historical evidences. Let us press on in closing to a review of the history of the text as we have thusfar set it out. 3. A REVIEW OF THE HISTORY OF THE QUR’AN TEXT. We are left with a sharp contrast between sentiment and reality in Islam on the subject of the authenticity of the Qur’an text. Popular sentiment opts for the claim that the Qur’an text has been perfectly preserved by divine authority without so much as an alteration in the text of any kind whatsoever. Reality, however, testifies to a far more mundane and predictable history of the text with much evidence as to passages that are now missing from the Qur’an, substantial variant readings that existed in the earliest codices, and other variants in dialect which have survived more than one attempt to establish a universally accepted single text. Yet another typical testimony to the loss of portions of the Qur’an in the early days can be mentioned here. In his short section on the codex of Abdullah ibn Umar, in speaking of differences in reading between Abdullah and the other companions of Muhammad, Ibn Abi Dawud quotes Abu Bakr ibn Ayyash as saying: Many of the companions of the Prophet of Allah (saw) had their own reading of the Qur’an, but they died and their readings disappeared soon afterwards. (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.83). What sort of evidence would have been required to substantiate the Muslim hypothesis of a perfect text? Firstly, there would most certainly have had to be a complete silence in the Hadith records regarding missing passages, variant readings and the like. The historical sources of Islam apart from the Qur’an itself would have had to support the theory of an absolutely perfect text instead of contradicting this theory as consistently as they do. We would have required sound evidence that the Qur’an was carefully inscribed in a single text during Muhammad’s lifetime and that this text had survived his death and been carefully looked after as the sole authority from which other copies alone could be made. This is very much what Abdul Kader alleges as the actual history of the text but his claim is directly contrary to the evidences which show that it was only after Muhammad’s death that any attempt was made to collect the Qur’an into a single text. As pointed out already, Abdul Kader furnishes no proofs, evidences or documentation for his theory and it appears that the wish has become father to the thought. He rejects the Hadith not because they are unreliable but because he finds them unacceptable in that they solidly undermine the theory he cherishes so much. Instead, being aware of the sort of evidences that would have been required, he summarily sets forth the ideal as historical fact without offering any source material that can be checked or critically reviewed. A very different history of the text of the Qur’an would have had to be recorded than the one that the heritage of Islam has preserved for us to support the case for a text absolutely free of alteration, omission or variation. We would have required very strong evidences that only one text of the Qur’an ever came down through those early years of Muslim history and these evidences would have had to show quite convincingly that the whole text, verse for verse, is precisely the same today as it was then. There would also have had to be no evidences to show that other codices, differing from the standard text, had ever existed. Such is the kind of proof we would require to entertain seriously the claim that the Qur’an text had been preserved to perfection without variations of any kind. Our study shows that such proof and the evidences required therefor quite simply do not exist. The evidences that do exist for the history of the Qur’an text on the contrary ruin the claim for the Qur’an’s textual perfection and relegate such a claim to the realms of popular sentiment and wishful thinking. These evidences, in their broad outline, give us a very reasonable picture of the development of the text and, in fact, allowing for the unusual nature of the Qur’an as a book, yield very much the kind of history that we would have been inclined to expect. Instead of a case for divine preservation we find a very mundane and predictable course. The Qur’an was compiled piecemeal, was not compiled in a single book during Muhammad’s lifetime, was recited by many companions and was read at the time by Muslims with varying Arabic dialects. The course of the text thereafter down to the present day is largely what one would have expected and is generally consistent with itself, most certainly in its broad outline. After Muhammad’s death passages of the Qur’an were lost irretrievably when a number of reciters died at the Battle of Yamama. This incident together with the Qur’an’s automatic completion as a book once its mediator had passed away inspired a number of companions to compile their own codices of the text. These were basically consistent with each other in their general content but a large number of variant readings, many seriously affecting the text, existed in all the manuscripts and no two codices were entirely the same. In addition the text was being recited in varying dialects in the different provinces of the Muslim world. During the reign of Uthman a deliberate attempt was made to standardise the Qur’an and impose a single text upon the whole community. The codex of Zaid was chosen for this purpose because it was close at hand and, having been kept in virtual seclusion for many years, had not attracted publicity as one of the varying texts as those of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy ibn Ka’b had done. The other codices were summarily destroyed and Zaid’s text became the textus receptus for the whole Islamic world as a result. Numerous records were retained, however, showing that key passages were missing from this text. It also had to be reviewed and amended to meet the Caliph’s standard for a single approved text. After Uthman’s death, however, al-Hajjaj, the governor at Kufa, made eleven distinct amendments and corrections to the text. As the early codices were only written in consonantal form, however, the varying dialects survived largely unaffected by Uthman’s action and it was only three centuries later that a scholar, Ibn Mujahid, managed to limit these to seven distinctly defined readings in accordance with a tradition which stated that the Qur’an originally came in seven different readings although the tradition itself made no attempt to define these readings. Over the succeeding centuries the Qur’an continued to be read in seven different forms until five of them largely fell into disuse. Eventually only those of Hafs and Marsh survived and, with the introduction of a printed Qur’an, the text of Hafs began to take almost universal prominence. The Qur’an text as it is read and printed throughout the Muslim world today is only Zaid’s version of it, duly corrected where necessary, later amended by al-Hajjaj, and read according to one of seven approved different readings. This is the reality - a far cry from the popular sentiment which argues for a single text right from the time of Muhammad himself. The reality, however, based on all the evidences available, shows that the single text as it stands today was only arrived at through an extended process of amendments, recensions, eliminations and an imposed standardisation of a preferred text at the initiative of a subsequent caliph and not by prophetic direction or divine decree. The Qur’an is an authentic text to the extent that it largely retains the material initially delivered by Muhammad. No evidence of any addition to the text exists and, in respect of the vast number of variant readings and missing passages that have been recorded, there does not appear to be anything actually affecting or contradicting the basic content of the book. In this respect one can freely assume a relative authenticity of the text in the sense that it adequately retains the gist and content of what was originally there. On the contrary there is no basis in history, facts or the evidences for the development of the text to support the cherished hypothesis that the Qur’an has been preserved absolutely intact to the last dot and letter. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 30: 03.09. CHAPTER 7: THE EARLY SURVIVING QURAN MANUSCRIPTS ======================================================================== CHAPTER 7: THE EARLY SURVIVING QUR’AN MANUSCRIPTS 1. THE INITIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE WRITTEN TEXT. When the Qur’an was first reduced to writing there was no attempt to distinguish the consonants in the text which used the same symbol, nor were there any vowel points to identify the correct pronunciation of each word. Only the basic seventeen consonantal letters were used and, as we have seen, this gave rise to a number of variant readings which Uthman’s decree to standardise a single text could not obviate or suppress. Some marks were used to indicate verse endings but apart from these no other qualifying marks were used. It was generally assumed, as it is today, that the Arabic language is so familiar to those who speak it as their mother tongue that the vowelling of the text is not necessary. Most Arabic books to this day are written in consonantal form only. The widespread use of variant readings in the early days of the Qur’an’s transmission, however, resulted in an attempt to define the correct reading or, where appropriate, the reader’s preference, in the written text. The introduction of red and other coloured dots followed together with short strokes to identify specific consonants or vowel points in the text and to distinguish the reading in each case from a variant known to exist. Only a very limited information is available to determine precisely how the early written text developed but, as the major portions of those initial texts were left unmarked, it appears that the dots and strokes that were introduced were included specifically to distinguish particular readings. In some quarters this practice was disapproved of as a dangerous innovation but it gradually gained widespread acceptance especially when al-Hajjaj became governor of Iraq. In time the strokes came to indicate the vowel points and the dots the diacritical marks distinguishing respective consonants. This system was gradually applied to the whole text so that eventually all the vowel points were specifically included in the text and every relevant consonant was given its particular diacritical mark. Today, almost without exception, all printed copies of the Qur’an are fully vocalised. At the same time long vowels were also distinguished where appropriate from short vowels by the use of the three weak letters (alif, wa and ya) which were otherwise considered to be actual consonants and not vowels. These modifications all helped to define the actual text of the Qur’an more accurately, a practice of obvious suitability in the light of the fact that the written Arabic text is as phonetic as it could possibly be. Also introduced in time was the marking of the hamzah, the unusual letter like a small ’ain. These developments, however, only partly assist one in determining the likely origin of any particular manuscript. The vast majority of the early manuscripts make no mention either of their date of writing or their place of origin. As a result it is impossible to accurately date any of the earliest texts surviving or to determine which is the oldest Qur’an in existence. Nothing certain can be said about them, whether they have been preserved intact as whole codices or only in fragmentary form. The use of a colophon at the end of a Qur’an, widely used in later centuries, was not considered appropriate in the early days. Qur’ans of later centuries concluded with a disclosure of the name of the calligrapher in each case and usually with the date and place of origin. What complicates matters here is that some colophons are known to have been forged in the earlier texts so that an accurate identification of age and place of origin becomes even more improbable. The development of the text in respect of the use of diacritical and vowel points is not entirely helpful in this respect either. On the one hand texts originally written without these points are known to have been supplemented with them at a later date while other texts were expressly written out without such points in later centuries as a sign of the calligrapher’s or owner’s mastery in his knowledge of the Qur’an and the lack of any need in his case to employ marks of identification to specifically record the whole text. A good example of this is the superb Qur’an manuscript written in gold script upon blue vellum which survives almost intact from Kairouan in Tunisia where it was originally inscribed in the late ninth or early tenth century (nearly three hundred years after the time of Muhammad). By this time the use of diacritical and vowel points was widespread yet this manuscript is almost entirely devoid of them both. It has been suggested that the omission of such distinguishing points in the text (they are so few in number that they distinguish only two letters) is the result of the original scribe’s intention to design his script for beauty rather than legibility as this Qur’an was intended to be presented to the Abbasid Caliph al-Ma’mun for the tomb of his father, Harun ar-Rashid, at Mashad in what is now Iran. For some reason the completed codex never left Tunis and the bulk of it is preserved in the National Library of Tunisia in the city (a number of leaves having been removed from it which are now in other public libraries and private collections). There were numerous other codices, however, often very simple in design, which also omitted the distinguishing points even though their use was almost commonplace by the time they were written. Once again nothing certain can be said in such cases and it cannot automatically be presumed that a text is of great antiquity simply because it is confined to the basic consonants without any diacritical or vowelling marks. The best clue to a manuscript’s probable origin, if it is of obvious antiquity, is its script. A number of different scripts were used in the earliest days of the Qur’an’s transmission and these went through various stages of development. As a result they assist one far more than the other factors we have mentioned to determine the likely origin of each of the early Qur’an manuscripts that survive to this day. Prior to the advent of Islam the only proper script known to exist was the Jazm script. It had a very formal and angular character, using an equal proportion in respect of its letters, and it became the standard from which the other famous early scripts developed. No Qur’an texts or fragments in this script are known with any certainty to exist though there are some very early texts which cannot be defined accurately in respect of the script employed. Apart from some fragments of obvious early origin which cannot be reliably dated, it appears that none of the early Qur’an manuscripts surviving, whether in whole codices or sizeable fragments, can be dated earlier than the late eighth century (about one hundred years after Muhammad’s death). Virtually all the relevant texts surviving were written in a developed form of Kufic script or in one of the other scripts known to have developed some time after the early codification of the Qur’an text. None of them can be reliably dated earlier than the second half of the second century of the Islamic era. We shall proceed to analyse some of these scripts. 2. KUFIC, MASHQ, AND THE OTHER EARLY QUR’ANIC SCRIPTS. Shortly after the death of Muhammad a number of written codices of the Qur’an appeared until Uthman ordered the destruction of all but one and further ordered that copies be made of this codex to be sent to the various provinces. From this text further copies were made and the written manuscripts began to increase in number. Three different forms of script developed in the Hijaz, particularly in the cities of Mecca and Medina. One of these was the al-Ma’il script, unique in the early days in that the letters were vertically inscribed and were written at a slight angle. The very word al-Ma’il means "the slanting" script. The upright character of this script gave rise to the use of a vertical format for each codex in the form that most books are published today. This script survived for about two centuries before falling into disuse and all manuscripts bearing its form are of obvious antiquity. A sign of its early origin is the fact that it employed no vowel marks or diacritical points and also had no verse counts or chapter headings. Only a very few examples of Qur’anic script in al-Ma’il survive, the most well-known being a manuscript occasionally placed on public display in the British Museum in London. The second early script originating from Medina was the Mashq, the "extended" style which continued to be used for many centuries and which went through a process of development and improvement. Unlike the al-Ma’il, the Mashq was horizontal in form and can be distinguished by its somewhat cursive and leisurely style. Gradually the developed Mashq script came to closely resemble the Kufic script, yet it always retained its particular characteristic, namely a balanced dispersal of its words and letters in varying degrees of density. It was supplemented by coloured diacritical points and vowel marks in the same way that the more predominant Kufic script was in later years. A script which also derives from the Hijaz is the Naskh, the "inscriptional" script. This took some time to come into vogue but, when it did, it largely displaced the Kufic script and became the standard for most Qur’ans from the eleventh century onwards and is the script used in virtually all printed Qur’ans today. A very good example of a complete Qur’an text in Naskh which is hardly different to contemporary Qur’ans is the manuscript done by Ibn al-Bawwab at Baghdad in 1001 AD which is now in the Chester Beatty Library at Dublin in Ireland. It differs slightly from the Naskh script of most Mamluk Qur’ans and has a more oriental character. The script that most concerns any student of the earliest Qur’an manuscripts is the Kufic script, properly known as al-Khatt al-Kufi. Its title does not hint at any particular characteristic form of its script as the others from the Hijaz do but indicates its place of origin. It derives from Kufa in Iraq where Ibn Mas’ud’s codex had been highly prized until Uthman ordered its destruction. It was only after this event that the Qur’an text as we know it came to be written in Kufic script in this region and it took some time to become predominant but, when it did, it attained a pre-eminence for three centuries as the approved script of the Qur’an until it was largely displaced by the Naskh script. It reached its perfection during the late eighth century (up to one hundred and fifty years after Muhammad’s death) and thereafter it became widely used throughout the Muslim world. Like the Mashq script it employs a largely horizontal, extended style and as a result most of the codices compiled in Kufic were oblong in format. Its letters are more rigid and austere in character than the Mashq script, however. Large numbers of manuscripts and single leaves of Qur’an texts in Kufic survive from various centres, most of which date from the late eighth century to the early eleventh century. Here too the text became supplemented with vowel marks and coloured diacritical points in time. No Kufic Qur’ans are known to have been written in Mecca and Medina in the very early days when the al-Ma’il and Mashq scripts were most regularly used and none of the surviving early Kufic texts are attributed by modern scholars to this region. In any event even the rare complete Kufic Qur’ans that have survived lack proper colophons giving the time and place of the transcribing of the text and the name of its calligrapher so that it is virtually impossible to date or locate them with any degree of certainty. The history of the written text of the Qur’an would tend to suggest, as a general principle, that all manuscripts in the al-Ma’il or Mashq scripts derive from the Hijaz, usually the second century of Islam, with the exception of the developed Mashq texts which would be of a later date and more widespread origin. Surviving Kufic Qur’ans can generally be dated from the late eighth century depending on the extent of development in the character of the script in each case, and it is grossly improbable that any of these were written in Mecca or Medina before the beginning of the ninth century. 3. A STUDY OF THE TOPKAPI AND SAMARQAND CODICES. The question, in closing, which arises is whether any of the original Qur’ans transcribed by Uthman survives to this day. We have already seen that the codex of the Qur’an said to have been the mushaf of Hafsah was destroyed by Marwan ibn al-Hakam after her death (p.58). Although this would appear to have been an independent codex of her own as distinct from Zaid’s codex which came into her possession after her father’s death, there is clear evidence to suggest that it was in fact the very codex of Zaid from which the others were transcribed. The record linking this codex with that destroyed by Marwan begins as follows: These are the leaves (as-suhuf) making up the collection of the Qur’an which were with Abu Bakr while he was alive until he returned to Allah, then they were with Umar until he returned to Allah, then they were with Hafsah, the daughter of Umar. (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.21). It is quite clear that it is Zaid’s codex which is being spoken of, yet we read very soon afterwards that it was this particular manuscript which came into the possession of Marwan after the funeral of Hafsah, having been sent to him by Abdullah ibn Umar (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.21; cf. also, p.24) and which must therefore be the codex said to have been destroyed by him immediately thereafter. If so, then there can be no doubt that the original codex of Zaid has been irretrievably lost. What then of the codices made directly from this codex at Uthman’s instigation? As virtually all the earliest Qur’an codices and fragments cannot be dated earlier than about one hundred and fifty years after the time of Muhammad it would seem most improbable that portions of the Qur’an copied out at Uthman’s direction should have survived, least of all whole codices or substantial sections thereof. Nevertheless Muslim writers often claim that Uthmanic manuscripts still exist. We have seen that the Muslim dogma that the Qur’an has been perfectly preserved by divine decree is based not on evidences or facts but purely on popular sentiment, so it should not surprise a student of the early text of the Qur’an to find that this sentiment is often buttressed by claims that proof of the perfection of the text can be found in actual Uthmanic codices still in existence. There are many references in modern Muslim writings to Qur’ans said to have belonged to Uthman, Ali or the grandsons of Muhammad which are said to have survived to this day. One cannot help wondering whether in such cases the wish is not perhaps father to the thought. Professor Bergstrasser, one of the contributors to Nöldeke’s Geschichte des Qorans, recorded up to twenty references to claims made in different parts of the Muslim world to possess not only one of the copies ordered by Uthman but even the actual codex of the Caliph himself, in each case with attendant claims that the pages which he was reading when he was murdered are to this day discoloured by his blood. We shall give two direct examples of such claims made even today for different Qur’ans towards the end of this chapter. In the Apology of the famous Christian scholar Abdul-Masih al-Kindi, who wrote a defence of Christianity against Islam during the time of the Abbasid Empire, we find it said that of the copies made under Uthman’s supervision, the one sent to Mecca was destroyed by fire while those commissioned for Medina and Kufa were lost irretrievably. Only the copy destined for Damascus was said to have survived, it being preserved at Malatja at the time (Nöldeke, Geschichte, 3.6). There are some conflicting claims about the ultimate fate of this copy but it is generally agreed that it, too, is now lost. All the references one finds in Muslim records to the destiny of those early codices are sketchy, incomplete and often contradictory. Some suggest that the Damascus manuscript is in fact the famous codex of Samarqand while others say that this codex originally came to the city from Fez in Morocco. There hardly appears to be anything like the kind of record of transmission that an objective scholar would require to give serious consideration to the claim that any of the surviving Qur’an manuscripts is Uthmanic in origin. In moderate Muslim writings today, however, we find as a rule that only two of the surviving early manuscripts of the Qur’an are said to be the actual mushaf of Uthman or one of the copies prepared under his official supervision. The one is the Samarqand codex and the other is an old Qur’an manuscript kept on public display in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul which I had the privilege of seeing during a visit to Turkey in 1981. Let us briefly consider these two manuscripts. We shall begin with the Samarqand codex. This manuscript is said to be preserved today in the Soviet State Library at Tashkent in Uzbekistan in southern Russia. It is said to have first come to Samarqand about 1485 AD and to have remained there until 1868. Thereafter it was removed to St. Petersburg (now Leningrad) and in 1905 fifty facsimile editions were prepared by one Dr. Pissaref at the instigation of Czar Nicholas II under the title Coran Coufique de Samarqand, each copy being sent to a distinguished recipient. In 1917 the original manuscript is said to have been taken to Tashkent where it now remains. A further limited edition was published by Dr. Hamidullah in the United Kingdom in 1981 from which the photographs in this book have been taken. The manuscript is considerably incomplete. It only begins in the middle of verse 7 of Suratul-Baqarah (the second surah) and from there on numerous pages are missing. In some cases only two or three leaves have been removed, in others over a hundred are omitted. The last part of the Qur’an text from Surah 43.10 onwards is altogether missing from the manuscript. Many of the pages that have survived are also somewhat mutilated and much of the text has been lost. Nonetheless a study of what remains tells us something about the manuscript. It is of obvious antiquity, being devoid of any kind of vocalisation (a point specially made in Nöldeke, Geschichte, 3.262) although in a few cases a diacritical stroke has been added to a relevant letter. It is perhaps the apparent antiquity of the manuscript that has led to the convenient claim that it is an Uthmanic original. Nevertheless it is precisely the appearance of the script itself that would seem to negate such a claim. It is clearly written in Kufic script and, as we have seen, it is asking too much of an objective scholar to believe that a Qur’an manuscript written at Medina as early as the caliphate of Uthman could ever have been written in this script. Medinan Qur’ans were written in the al-Ma’il and Mashq scripts for many decades before the Kufic script became the common denominator of all the early texts throughout the Muslim world and, in any event, Kufic only came into regular use at Kufa and elsewhere in the Iraqi province in the generations following Uthman’s demise. Furthermore the actual inscription of the text in the Samarqand codex is very irregular. Some pages are very neatly and uniformly copied out whereas others are distinctly untidy and imbalanced. Then again, whereas the text in most pages has been fairly smoothly spread out, on some pages it has been severely cramped and condensed. At times the Arabic letter kaf has been written out uniformly with the rest of the text, at other times it has been considerably extended and is the dominant letter in the text. As a result many pages of this manuscript differ so extensively from one another that one cannot help wondering whether we do not have a composite text on our hands, compiled from portions of different manuscripts. Although the text is virtually devoid of supplementary vocalisation it does occasionally employ artistic illumination between the surahs, usually a coloured band of rows of squares, and at times accompanied by varying medallions which would tend to indicate that it dates from the late eighth century. It may well be one of the oldest manuscripts of the Qur’an surviving to this day, but there appears to be no good reason to believe that it is an Uthmanic original. In an article written in a Russian Journal in 1891 the author, A.Shebunin, gives particular attention to the medallions which appear in various colours at the end of each group of approximately ten verses. Within these medallions a kufic number is written indicating the number of verses that have passed since the beginning of the relevant Surah. These medallions, usually being flower figures, were composed in four colours, red, green, blue a nd orange. One hundred and fifty-one such figures feature in the remnant of the text. Shebunin finishes his article with the conclusion that the manuscript dates from the second century of Islam and, being inscribed in Kufic script, most probably derives from Iraq. The partial illumination of the text would almost certainly compel one to give the codex a second-century origin - it is grossly unlikely that such embellishments would have accompanied the Uthmanic manuscripts sent out to the various provinces. The other manuscript said to be one of the Uthmanic codices is the one on display in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul. Once again it requires only a sight of the text to discount this possibility as we are again faced with a Kufic manuscript. Then again, like the Samarqand codex, it is written on parchment and is also largely devoid of vocalisation, both of which suggest that it, too, is one of the very earliest manuscripts of the Qur’an to survive, but those who claim that it dates back as far as Uthman himself must explain the obvious anachronism in the use of a Kufic script. This manuscript is also supplemented with ornamental medallions, indicating a later age, with occasional ornamentation between the surahs as well. One only needs to compare it with the Samarqand codex to realise that they most certainly cannot both be Uthmanic originals. The Istanbul codex has eighteen lines to the page whereas the Samarqand codex has between eight and twelve; the Istanbul codex is inscribed throughout in a very formal manner, the words and lines always being very uniformly written out, while the text of the Samarqand codex is often haphazard and considerably distorted. One cannot believe that both these manuscripts were copied out by the same scribes. (As pointed out already, it is hard to believe that even the Samarqand codex alone was not written out by a number of different scribes). An objective, factual study of the evidences shows that neither of these codices can seriously be regarded as Uthmanic, yet one finds that Muslim sentiment is so strong at this point that both of them are said to have been not only Uthmanic originals but even the actual Qur’an which Uthman was reading when he was murdered! A photograph of a page from the Samarqand codex appears as a frontispiece in a book titled Muhammad in the Quraan published in Pakistan by an author who only gives his initials (S.M.A.) and, underneath the photograph, a caption appears clearly identifying it as the Samarqand text now preserved in the Soviet State Library and alleging that "This is the same Quraan which was in the hand of the Caliph when he was murdered by the rebels and his blood is still visible on the passage ’Fasa Yakhfihum (sic) Ullah-o-Wa huwasamiul-Alim’ (Surah 2.137)". In a recent edition of the Ramadan Annual published by The Muslim Digest in Durban, South Africa, however, a photograph appears of the Topkapi Codex in Istanbul, correctly identifying it as such, but alleging that it belonged to Uthman with the comment "This Qur’an, written on deerskin, was being read by the Caliph when he was assassinated and the bloodstain marks are still seen on the pages of this copy of the Qur’an to this day" (Vol. 39, Nos. 9 & 10, p.107). It is most intriguing to find that both the manuscripts are not only attributed to Uthman but are alleged to be the very codex in his own possession which he was said to have been reading when he was assassinated. Of course each one has verifiable bloodstains of the Caliph himself to prove the point! It is contradictory statements like these, where the same fame is claimed for each of these codices, that expose the Muslim approach to this subject as one based not on a cautious historical research dependent on available evidences but on popular sentiment and wishful thinking. It would suit the Muslim world to possess an Uthmanic original, it would be convenient to have a codex of the earliest possible origin to verify the proposed textual perfection of the Qur’an, and so any manuscript of the Qur’an surviving that can be shown to be of a relatively early age is automatically claimed to be the one desired! It hardly matters that the same claim is made for more than one codex, or that in each case internal evidence (particularly the Kufic script) must lead an honest enquirer to presume on a much later date. The Samarqand and Topkapi codices are obviously two of the oldest sizeable manuscripts of the Qur’an surviving but their origin cannot be taken back earlier than the second century of Islam. It must be concluded that no such manuscripts of an earlier date have survived. The oldest manuscripts of the Qur’an still in existence date from not earlier than about one hundred years after Muhammad’s death. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 31: 04.00.1. MUHAMMAD AND THE RELIGION OF ISLAM ======================================================================== Muhammad and the Religion of Islam by John Gilchrist ======================================================================== CHAPTER 32: 04.00.2. TABLE OF CONTENTS ======================================================================== Table of Contents Preface 1. MUHAMMAD: HIS LIFE, PERSONALITY AND MINISTRY 1. AN 0UTLINE OF THE LIFE OF MUHAMMAD The Prophet of the Arabs at Mecca The Founder of Islam at Medina The Conflict with the Jews The Conquest of Mecca and the Final Triumph 2. A STUDY OF MUHAMMAD’S PERSONALITY An Assessment of his Character His Treatment of his Personal Enemies The Circumstances of his Marriages 3. THE NATURE OF MUHAMMAD’S PROPHETIC EXPERIENCE An-Nabi ul-Ummi: The Unlettered Prophet Muhammad’s Concept of Revelation Satan’s Interjection and its Implications Al-Mi’raj: The Alleged Ascent to Heaven 2. QUR’AN AND HADITH: THE SOURCES OF ISLAM 4. THE QUR’AN: THE SCRIPTURE OF ISLAM The Composition and Character of the Qur’an The Meccan and Medinan Surahs Significant Qur’anic Doctrines and Teachings 5. THE COLLECTION AND SOURCES OF THE QUR’AN Evidences for the Collection of the Qur’an Jewish Influences in the Qur’an Other Qur’anic Origins and Sources English Translations of the Qur’an 6. THE HADITH: THE TRADITIONS OF ISLAM An Introduction to the Subject of Hadith The Major Works of Hadith Literature The Authenticity of the Traditions 3. ISLAM: THE RELIGION AND ITS MOVEMENTS 7. THE PRINCIPAL DUTIES OF ISLAM Fundamental Muslim Tenets and Beliefs Sinlessness of the Prophets: The Isma Doctrine The Five Pillars of Islam The Hajj Pilgrimage to Mecca 8. THE SOCIAL LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF ISLAM Muslim Festivals and Celebrations Social and Family Laws in Islam Cultic Trends in Popular Islam The Consequences of Apostasy from Islam 9. MUSLIM MOVEMENTS AND SCHISMS Sufism in Theory and Practice The Sources and Tenets of Shi’ite Islam A Study of the Ahmadiyya Movement Other Important Sects in Muslim History Bibliography ======================================================================== CHAPTER 33: 04.00.3. PREFACE ======================================================================== Preface One of the great fruits of the Protestant Reformation has been the missionary movement that today has spread its influence to every corner of the globe. It has proved to be more successful in some areas than in others. Accordingly most of the Protestant missionary force today is involved in those fields that have proved to be more fertile and responsive than others. Only a very small proportion of missionaries is engaged in reaching Muslims for Christ. Yet the Muslim world remains Christianity’s greatest challenge for there is no other religion that has succeeded in making such inroads into traditional Christian realms as Islam and no other faith of its magnitude which has resisted the influence of the Gospel as this one has. Since the end of the Second World War there has been a phenomenon in the East that discerning Christians have identified as providential. Muslims have emigrated by hundreds of thousands from their traditional homelands into Western countries, the customary heritage of Christendom. The Church in the West has been presented with a unique opportunity to evangelise Islam right on its doorstep. A mini world of Islam has mushroomed so that there are today emigrants, migrant-workers, students and the like from just about every Muslim country in the world based in Europe, North America, and other predominantly Christian lands in the West. God has presented the evangelical Church with a new field of mission and one which can be discharged by all Christians, whether trained missionaries or not. Experience has shown that the growth of minority Muslim communities in Christian countries has opened the door for a more comprehensive form of ministry than has hitherto been possible in most Muslim lands. All over the Christian world there is a rising awareness and consciousness of Islam and the need to evangelise Muslims, especially those who are now our neighbours, fellow-citizens and close associates. It is the firm conviction of many that this is God’s day for the salvation of the Muslims and the need to equip the Church for the task it is beginning to assume is being recognised by many. I have had the privilege of witnessing to many thousands of Muslims during the past twelve years. Although I am a professional man established in business, the presence of a few hundred thousand Muslims in South Africa has given me the opportunity to become involved in a sustained ministry of evangelism among them and in recent years I have become more than ever persuaded that the future of Muslim evangelism in the West lies in the hands of those Christians who live near enough to Muslims to have regular access to them and to befriend them. I am about to prepare the manuscript of my book The Christian Witness to the Muslim which will cover the whole field of a potential ministry of comprehensive friendship evangelism among Muslims, provide effective means of communicating the Gospel to them, and supply ways of answering their usual objections to the Christian faith. This book could have been ready for publication even now, were it not for my firm belief that all Christians seeking to become involved in any form of continuing evangelism among Muslims should have a sound, basic knowledge of the religion, heritage and customs of those they hope to reach. The result of this conviction has been the preparation instead of this volume Muhammad and the Religion of Islam. I have sought and endeavoured to inform those who contemplate Muslim evangelism of the history and development of Islam from the time of Muhammad himself down to the present day as well as survey the religion from an evangelical Christian perspective. This book will be followed by the second, God-willing, before the end of 1988. I trust that they will, as companion volumes, reflect the fruits of many years of study and experience and provide in some measure the basic knowledge every Christian should have if he wishes to be effective in this field. It is being wisely said in these days that we need to "earn the right to be heard", that is, that we must be equipped with a sound knowledge of the religion, convictions, hopes and thought-patterns of those we desire to win to Jesus Christ. Nowhere is this more applicable than in the case of the Muslim. As my own personal knowledge of Islam has increased over the years I have found it easier to communicate with Muslims and to make the message of the Gospel meaningful to them. The average Muslim has not only his religious thinking but even his whole outlook on life conditioned by the mentality of Islam. One cannot speak to him as if he were just another human being. He has to be approached for what he is - a Muslim trained to think like a Muslim, and to have his ideas and beliefs fashioned in accordance with the basic Muslim world-view. It has also been my pleasant experience to find that many Muslims sincerely respect anyone who has taken the trouble to obtain an inside knowledge of their faith, even if he is, as I am, a Christian evangelist ministering under the conviction that he is called to reach Muslims for Christ. Such a Christian is far more likely to convey his message with an impact than those who know little or nothing of Islam. Indeed it is also my experience that many Muslims, confronted by Christians whose fervour to witness to them is matched only by their ignorance of Islam, are quickly comforted by the conclusion that the confidence of such men in Christianity is caused purely by their lack of knowledge of the surpassing beauties of Islam. The message is gently pushed aside as the product of "zeal which is not according to knowledge". A Christian who really knows Islam is able to present the Gospel against the Muslim’s background and is far more likely to command a responsive ear. For this reason I was persuaded that the second book would be incomplete by itself and that it needed this book as a companion volume to assist Christians to approach Muslims in a truly comprehensive way. Although the book covers four hundred pages it is purely introductory. I have supplemented it with a number of quotes which I believe enrich the text, help to document it, and often express matters in a far more effective way than I could. It is also my purpose to acquaint Christians with many of the major works on Islam. Although a number of these will be inaccessible to most of my readers, I trust that many will be encouraged to obtain and read other books on Islam. I have also had the privilege of relying first-hand on English translations of many of the major works of Hadith literature. When I began working among Muslims in 1973 only the Sirat Rasulullah of Ibn Ishaq was freely available in English. Since then a great number of works have been translated and I am indeed privileged to be able to quote directly from them in a work on the heritage of Islam. It is my sincere hope that the remaining three major works of Hadith mentioned in this book will also appear in English in the near future but we can in the meantime be grateful for the translation of the Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim and the Sunan of Abu Dawud. While on the subject of books I should perhaps mention that the date of each respective book mentioned in the bibliography at the end of this book is only the date of the copy that I have consulted. It is not nepessarily the date of publication of the original work which, where known to me, is quoted in brackets in each case. I must express my considerable debt to Hughes’ masterpiece A Dictionary of Islam. I have constantly consulted it and believe that it is by far the best resource work available. Every Christian seeking to obtain a basic knowledge of Islam should earnestly endeavour to obtain a copy of this book. Although the present work is chiefly an assessment of Islam and accordingly does not deal comprehensively with the teaching of the Qur’an about Jesus, the Trinity, etc. (these will be covered in the second book), it is written purposefully from an evangelical Christian perspective. I have at all times sought to be as fair as I can be and have endeavoured to be strictly accurate, but do not claim to have written dispassionately or purely objectively. The writer is a Christian by firm, independent conviction, and accordingly writes as such. This book, therefore, is not only informative but also approaches and evaluates Islam in the light of the Christian faith and on many occasions does so critically and finds Islam wanting. Many will be inclined to conclude that this book is not only a description of Islam but also a refutation of it. I make no apology for this. I have a healthy respect for Muhammad, his book and his religion, but sincerely believe that he does not compare with Jesus Christ and that Christianity, in its Biblical form, is far superior to Islam. I have also considered it necessary to deal with the Muslim tendency to place both Muhammad and the Qur’an in a category of perfection. Muslim writers customarily gloss over the defects of both and it is only very rarely that one finds them subduing their sentiments in the cause of presenting a truly historical picture. This has become a universal vogue in the world of Islam and, without any desire to cause offence but with the purpose of obtaining a truer perspective, I have purposefully analysed many of these sentiments in the light of Islam’s sources and historical heritage. It is also common to find Muslims charging Western writers on Islam with a prejudice against it, even when they write somewhat sympathetically. I am persuaded that such complaints are often ill-founded. Many Western scholars, having taken pains to assess Islam as objectively and sincerely as they can, are nevertheless discounted and faulted purely because they will not make any concessions to popular Muslim sentiments. I do not expect Muslim readers to review this book favourably in the circumstances, but do sincerely trust that they will acknowledge that my conclusions and opinions have been based on records drawn from within the heritage of Islam (i.e. the Qur’an, major works of Hadith literature and other Islamic sources) and that they have always been factually stated and carefully documented. Lastly a brief word should be said about the transliteration of Arabic texts from the Qur’an and other works into English. As the Arabic script is principally phonetic I have sought to reproduce it as phonetically as I can so that the form here set forth conveys as closely as possible the pronunciation of the original. To give an example, whereas some writers are inclined to write the definite article, al, as it appears in the consonantal script, I have followed the usual pronunciation, especially where the word to which the article is attached begins with one of the so-called "sun-letters" (al-hurufush-shamsiyah), for example as-Siddiq (written in the script as al-Siddiq). I have generally not indicated long vowels or the use of the three diphthong letters to elongate a vowel except in direct quotes from the Qur’an. All quotes from the Qur’an in English are from the translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali unless otherwise stated. Translations of particular verses quoted in the original language are usually my own, appearing always within the body of my own text. As is generally customary today, the feminine ta marbutah has been used in the transliteration of words employing this form by the addition of an "h" to the relevant word in each case. I have endeavoured to be as consistent as I can be in transliteration (employing an order coming into general use today), but where a widely accepted form of a word has taken root in writings on Islam, I have retained its traditional arrangement (e.g. muezzin for muadh-dhin, etc). Readers, I am sure, will recognise that there is great value in having some knowledge of Arabic and I urge those contemplating Arabic studies to pursue them. This book has been written primarily for evangelical Christians to give them a sound, basic knowledge of Islam and its heritage. It is my fervent hope that it will inspire confidence in those seeking to witness to Muslims and equip them in some measure for the task. John Gilchrist.10th July 1984 ======================================================================== CHAPTER 34: 04.01. AN OUTLINE OF THE LIFE OF MUHAMMAD ======================================================================== An Outline of the Life of Muhammad ======================================================================== CHAPTER 35: 04.02. A. THE PROPHET OF THE ARABS AT MECCA. ======================================================================== A. THE PROPHET OF THE ARABS AT MECCA. 1. Mecca at the time of Muhammad. In the sixth century after Christ, Mecca (pronounced Makkah in Arabic) was hardly known to the outside world but it was the commercial and religious centre of Arabia. Although the Arabs were a divided people, broken up into various tribes who were constantly at war with each other, the fairs at the city served to attract many of them and whatever unity existed among them was generated and expressed through these annual get-togethers. The focal point of attention was the Ka’aba (Arabic for "cube"), a shrine in the centre of the city containing over three hundred idols, chief of whom was the god Hubal (a probable derivation from the ancient high-god Ba’al, so often spoken of as the chief object of worship of the pagan nations around Israel in the Bible). The various tribes came to Mecca to worship their gods and take part in the various poetical contests that were arranged at the fairs. The composition of poetry was a favourite literary pastime of the Arabs and many shu’ara (poets, singular: sha’ir) competed at these contests. When Muhammad began to proclaim the Qur’an, a book with a very rhythmic style, the Meccans derided him as one of these poets or, worse still, as a kahin (soothsayer). Muhammad expressly repudiated the suggestion that he was either of these. Indeed the rhyme of the Qur’an is rarely symmetrical and parts of it are purely narratory. The Qur’an says of its own message which he brings: It is not the word of a poet ... nor is it the word of a soothsayer. Surah 69.41,42. There was no central government of any kind in those days in Arabia. Each tribe looked to its own interests and inter-tribal intercourse was governed by certain unwritten laws - for example, four months in the year were set apart for religious pilgrimages to Mecca and other cities containing the shrines of major idols (such as that of the goddess al-Lat at at-Ta’if near Mecca) during which warfare was forbidden. Another such law was the right of retaliation by a tribe if one of its members was injured or killed by a member of another tribe. The offended tribe could accept a ransom or exercise an eye-for-eye retaliation against any member of the other tribe. Commercial trade with the local nomadic tribes and Syrian and other merchants beyond the Arabian peninsula was the lifeblood of the people of Mecca. The Ouraysh tribe controlled the city and, from the Banu Hashim, a sub-tribe Muhammad was born. Hashim was his great-grandfather and for the first two years after his birth, Muhammad was cared for by his grandfather Abdul Muttalib as his father, Abdallah, died before he was born. A strange tale is recorded of a vow made by Abdul Muttalib which, had it been performed, would have given the Arabs a different course through history. He allegedly discovered the well of Zam-Zam next to the Ka’aba which the Muslims to this day believe is the one Hagar (Hajira) found while looking for water for her son Ishmael (Ismail). A dispute arose between Abdul Muttalib and the Quraysh over two golden gazelles and other treasures which he discovered and, supported by an only son, he vowed to Hubal that, if he was given ten sons, he would sacrifice one of them. One by one the ten sons were duly born to him and by the divination of arrows, Abdallah became the unfortunate victim. Nevertheless, as his father was about to perform his vow, he was persuaded to substitute a number of camels instead as an expiatory sacrifice on behalf of his son by his distraught tribesmen. (There is some doubt as to the truth of this story. In his Sirat Rasulullah, p. 66, Ibn Ishaq begins his narrative by saying God only knows the truth of it, his customary way of expressing his reservations about anything he recorded). 2. Muhammad’s First Forty Years. Into this environment Muhammad was born in 570 AD of his mother Amina and for a few years was entrusted to the care of Halima, a woman from the Banu Sa’d, a sub-tribe of the nomadic Hawazin tribe, of whom we will hear more later. After the death of his grandfather, he was protected by his uncle Abu Talib who had an orphan on his hands when Amina died six years after Muhammad’s birth. Little is known of his youth but Islamic history records that he journeyed with Abu Talib to Syria at the age of only twelve years and at this time he must have gained his first impressions of Judaism and Christianity, the monotheistic religions with their respective scriptures so different to the pagan idolatry of his own people. (The Qur’an constantly distinguishes Jews and Christians as Ah! at-Kitab - people of the scripture - from the pagan Arabs who are usually described as at-Mushrikin - the polytheists). At the age of twenty-five he was commissioned to attend to the mercantile affairs of a wealthy widow in Mecca named Khadija who was fifteen years older than him. Once again Muhammad set out for Syria to trade, this time with Khadija’s goods. It appears that he had a very good reputation in Mecca and was especially selected by this dignified woman in consequence. Muhammad duly justified her confidence in him and returned after successfully fulfilling his task of selling her goods and purchasing new items. Although she was a woman of noble birth and considerable charm, she resisted her suitors but was irresistibly attracted to Muhammad and sent a messenger to him with a proposal of marriage, expressing her impression of him in these words: "O son of my uncle, I like you because of our relationship and your high reputation among your people, your trustworthiness and good character and truthfulness. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 82). Muhammad duly accepted her proposal and they were soon married. Despite the years between them, the marriage was evidently a happy one. She bore him two sons (who died in infancy) and four daughters: Zaynab, Ruqaiyah, Fatima and Umm Kulthum. Although he took many wives after her death, he stayed married to her alone for the remaining twenty-five years of her life. He is alleged to have said that, in her lifetime, she was the best among women and in later years Ayishah, his youngest and favourite wife, used to say: "I did not feel jealous of any of the wives of the Prophet as much as I did of Khadija, although she died before he married me, for I often heard him mentioning her, and Allah had told him to give her the good tidings that she would have a palace of Qasab (i.e. pipes of precious stones and pearls in Paradise)". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p. 103). One last incident in his life before his claim to prophethood should be mentioned. At the age of thirty-five a violent storm shattered the Ka’aba and the Quraysh decided to rebuild it. Apart from its idols, its most important feature was a black stone, probably a meteorite, built into its east corner. The stone is there to this day and is known as al-hajaru’l-aswad (literally, "the black stone"). It was held in high esteem by the pagan Arabs and, when the time came for its reinstatement in the restored shrine, the various branches of the Quraysh tribe so vied for the right to put it back into its proper place that bloodshed threatened. In the end they agreed that the next person to enter one of the gates would have the privilege of restoring it. The first person to enter through the gate of Banu Shaybah was the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him. When they saw him they said "This is al-Amin (the Trusted). We agree to what we have decided". Then they informed him of the affair. Thereupon the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, took his mantle and spread it on the earth, then he put the black stone on it. He then said, "Let a person from every quarter of the Quraysh come ... Let every one of you hold a corner of the cloth. Then all of them raised it and the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, put it in its place with his own hand. (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 1, p. 166). One cannot help wondering to what extent this incident moulded the later conviction of Muhammad that he was chosen as a prophet of Allah. Nonetheless, in both this incident and the attitude of Khadija we can see that he was widely accepted as a thoroughly trustworthy person. Explaining the acceptance of Muhammad by all the Quraysh without dissent, one of his biographers tells us: Quraysh used to call the Apostle of God before revelation came to him "the trustworthy one". (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 86). The award of this name al-Amin to Muhammad in these early days testifies strongly to the subjective sincerity of his prophetic conviction in later years. For the next five years, however, we hear nothing more of him. 3. "Iqra" - The Call to Prophethood. Life only begins at forty, so they say, and of no man was this truer than Muhammad. At about this age he began retiring to a cave on Mount Hira just outside Mecca where he spent many days in quiet contemplation and meditation. On one of these days he returned hastily to Mecca to inform his wife Khadija that he had had a strange vision of an angelic being, with one foot on the other, calling out to him from the horizon. No matter which way he turned, there was the angel. He was much disturbed by the vision and expressed the fear that he might become a soothsayer like those that he despised. It seems clear that his first reaction was that he had been visited by an evil spirit, a Jinn (from which comes the word genie introduced into the English language chiefly through the story of Aladdin’s lamp). The Quran recognises the existence of such beings of whom we will hear more later. The following hadith (literally "a saying", generally meaning a tradition from one of the companions of Muhammad about an incident in his life) tells us what happened on the mountain as he experienced this phenomenon he reported: There came to him the angel and said: Recite, to which he replied: I am not lettered. He took hold of me (the Apostle said) and pressed me, till I was hard pressed; thereafter he let me off and said: Recite. I said, I am not lettered. He then again took hold of me and pressed me for the second time till I was hard pressed and then let me off and said: Recite, to which I replied: I am not lettered. He took hold of me and pressed me for the third time, till I was hard pressed and then let me go and said: Recite in the name of your Lord Who created, created man from a clot of blood. Recite. And your most bountiful Lord is He Who taught the use of the pen, taught man what he knew not. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 1, p. 97). The last two sentences today form the first four verses of the 96th Surah of the Qur’an. It is generally agreed by all the early biographers that this passage was the first revealed, though Bukhari states that Surah 74, verses 1 to 3, was the initial revelation: Narrated Yahya bin Abi Kathir: I asked Aba Salama bin Abdur-Rahman about the first Sura revealed of the Quran. He replied "O you, wrapped-up (i.e. Al-Muddaththir)". I said "They say it was, ’Read, in the name of your Lord Who created’ (i.e. Surat Al-Alaq, the Clot)". On that, Abu Salama said "I asked Jabir bin Abdullah about that, saying the same as you have said, whereupon he said "I will not tell you, except what Allah’s Apostle had told us. Allah’s Apostle said, ’I was in seclusion in the cave of Hira, and after I completed the limited period of my seclusion, I came down and heard a voice calling me. I looked to my right, but saw nothing. Then I looked up and saw something. So I went to Khadija and told her to wrap me up and pour cold water on me. So they wrapped me up and poured cold water on me’. Then was revealed ’O you, wrapped up! Arise and warn"’. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 417-418). The other biographers generally recognise this passage as one of the very earliest but the evidence favours the other as the first revealed. The first word used by the angel was Iq’ra! - Recite! From the same root letters the word Qur’an is derived, meaning the "Recitation". After Muhammad had reacted that he was unable to read, the angel then recited the whole verse: Iq’ra bismi rabbikallathii khalaq - "Recite, in the name of thy Lord who created". Muhammad was then led to understand that he was to repeat the words after the angel had first recited them. Khadija immediately comforted him, stating that Allah would never have allowed anything but a true revelation to come to him. When a cousin named Waraqah, who had renounced the idol-worship of his tribesmen, supported her, alleging that the al-Namus al-Akbar, the great angel, had obviously visited him, Muhammad was duly persuaded that he had been commissioned by Allah as a prophet. For some time, however, he remained in doubt: Then revelations stopped for a time so that the apostle of God was distressed and grieved. Then Gabriel brought him the Sura of the Morning, in which his Lord, who had so honoured him, swore that He had not forsaken him, and did not hate him. God said, ’By the morning and the night when it is still, thy Lord hath not forsaken thee nor hated thee’. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 111). The last sentence now forms Surah 93.1-3 in the Qur’an. (The angel Gabriel, called Jibri in the Qur’an, Surah 2.98, was believed by Muhammad to be the angel who appeared to him and who over the years revealed the whole Qur’an to him). After this the revelations came frequently. (A critical analysis of Muhammad’s prophetic experience follows in this book. For the moment it seems appropriate to outline the developing drama just as it is recorded in the traditions). He was told to call the people of Mecca to the worship of the one God Allah, to forsake idol worship, to prepare for the Day of Reckoning, to choose between heaven and hell, and to acknowledge him as a prophet. After his wife his cousin Ali, son of his protector Abu Talib, who was in his care, and his adopted son Zaid ibn Haritha became his first followers. The first noteworthy person to do so from the Quraysh was Abu Bakr, of whom we will hear more. (He was Muhammad’s successor, the first of the caliphs, after Muhammad’s death). Muhammad duly began proclaiming his message to the Meccans and the first companion to follow in doing so was one Abdullah ibn Masud. Ibn Ishaq tells us that, whe1 the Quraysh heard him, they struck him in the face, but this only increased his resolve (Sirat Rasulullah, p. 142). This incident deserves mention in the light of what we will discover in another chapter about Ibn Masud’s part in the collection of the Qur’an. 4. Persecution and Progress in Mecca. During the next ten years Muhammad’s movement slowly took root in Mecca but much opposition followed. The Quraysh took exception to Muhammad’s preaching. Was he to be their leader? Were their gods and goddesses to be dishonoured by him without a defiant response? Was Mecca to cease to be the centre of the pagan worship of Arabia? What would the effect be on their thriving commercial trade with the deputations who came to worship at the Ka’aba? The implications urged the Quraysh into a swift denunciation of Muhammad’s preaching and the Meccans soon began persecuting those followers of Muhammad who were unprotected, one of whom was Bilal, an Abyssinian slave purchased and set free by Abu Bakr, who later became the regular muazzinof the early Muslims, the one who summons them to prayer. The Meccans did not object to the proclamation that Allah was the Supreme Being but rather to the denunciation of their idols. The Qur’an does not charge the Meccans with not believing in Allah at all but rather of associating partners with him or of giving him sons and daughters. This is very strongly denounced in the Qur’an as shirk - "associating" - an unforgivable sin, from the same root letters as Mushrikin (see p.13). Three goddesses, regarded as intercessors by the Quraysh, are repudiated by name in the Qur’an: Have ye seen Lat, and Uzza, and another, the third, Manat? What! For you the male sex and for Him the female? Behold, such would be indeed a division most unfair! Surah 53.19-22. As the birth of a female was regarded as a dishonour by the Arabs, the Qur’an asks how the Quraysh could have sons and Allah only daughters! (The charge of attributing a son to Allah in the Qur’an is generally levelled against the Christians, though in Surah 9.30 the Jews are accused of making Uzazr, i.e. Ezra, a "son of Allah" - a strange charge not warranted by the records of Jewish history). The great God Allah was already regarded as Lord of the Ka’aba by the Meccans and the shrine was known as al-baitullah - the house of Allah. Apart from the repudiation of idols it appears that the Quraysh had yet other reasons for opposing Muhammad’s preaching: From some texts and traditions we should gather that the Meccan objection was not to the glorification of Allah but to the identification of their familiar deity with him whom the Jews called Rahman (the Merciful), a title applied to pagan deities also. (Margoliouth, Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, p. 143). The Quraysh apparently distinguished between Allah and ar-Rahman of the Jews but the Qur’an identifies the two as the same Lord of all: Say: "Call upon Allah, or call upon Rahman: by whatever name ye call upon Him, (it is well): for to Him belong the Most Beautiful Names". Surah 17.110 In some of the earliest Surahs we find the name ar-Rahman being used more often for God instead of the more common name Allah (e.g. Surah 43 where "ar-Rahman" appears seven times and "Allah" on only three occasions). Chief among the persecutors were Abu Lahab, an uncle of Muhammad (one of Abdul Muttalib’s ten sons) and Abu Jahl "that evil man" (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 145) who was later killed at Badr. Most of the direct opposition to Muhammad himself, protected from physical harm by Abu Talib, took the form of ridicule. Ibn Masud tells of an incident near the Ka’aba on one of those early days when Muhammad was praying with Abu Jahl and a number of his friends standing behind him: Abu Jahl said, referring to the she-camel that had been slaughtered the previous day: Who will rise to fetch the foetus of the she-camel of so and so, and place it between the shoulders of Muhammad when he goes down in prostration? The one most accursed among the people got up, brought the foetus and, when the Prophet (may peace be upon him) went down in prostration, placed it between his shoulders. Then they laughed at him and some of them leaned upon the others with laughter. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, p. 986). After his daughter Fatima had removed the foetus, Muhammad promptly invoked imprecations on them in the name of Allah and, at the battle of Badr to follow, his warriors duly despatched Abu Jahl and six of his associates. The Qur’an itself denounces Muhammad’s other great enemy, Abu Lahab, by name in Surah 111 and consigns him and his wife (who used to place thorns in Muhammad’s path) to the fires of hell. "Love your enemies" was neither believed nor practiced by Muhammad, the Arab claimant to prophethood. Persecution became so severe that Muhammad allowed a number of his followers to flee to Abyssinia. Shortly after this, however, another of his uncles, Hamza (who was only two years older than him) became one of his followers. A courageous man, he later became known as "the Lion of God". Not long after his conversion Muhammad gained a most important addition to his small band of followers in the person of Umar ibn al-Khattab who later became the second caliph. Umar had been a staunch opponent of Muhammad’s preaching and physically assaulted his own sister Fatima when he found she too had been converted. Remorse overtook him when he saw her face bleeding and he asked to hear a recitation of the Qur’n. Overwhelmed, he immediately sought out Muhammad to swear his allegiance to him. The conversion of such men as Umar and Hamza strengthened the cause of Muhammad’s companions and for a while public worship became possible. Persecution later revived, however, and a second migration to Abyssinia followed. This only increased the fury of the Quraysh and a ban was proclaimed against Abu Talib and the Banu Hashim until they should remove their protection of Muhammad and leave the rest of the Quraysh free to deal with him. The sub-tribe was shut up and besieged in Abu Talib’a quarter for three years (with the exception, naturally, of Abu Lahab) and during this period suffered greatly till the cries of the children could be heard. Many now began to feel that the boycott of their trite men had gone far enough and when it was discovered that ants had eaten the banning order placed in the Ka’aba with the exception of the words "In thy name, O Allah", the Quraysh agreed that the ban should be lifted. 5. Muhammad’s Visit to at-Ta’if. Not long after this Khadija and Abu Talib died. The loss of both his wife and protector was a severe blow and Muhammad had to reassess his position in Mecca. Despairing of any further success in the city, he left it for the first time to preach his message elsewhere and proceeded to at-Ta’if, a city in a fertile valley to the south-east of Mecca, and home of the worship of the Arab goddess al-Lat. Accompanied only by his adopted son Zaid, he was soon rejected by the inhabitants of the city and, as they were leaving, both were stoned and partially injured by the unrepentant idolaters. Taking refuge in an orchard, he was solaced and reassured himself of God’s favour on his mission. From one point of view, this moment was probably the lowest point of his ministry and the future must have appeared bleak. At the same time we must be objective and sympathise deeply with his unrelenting determination to oppose the paganism of his day in the name of the one true God. From a Christian point of view he perhaps here more than at any other time, comes out with credit. There is something lofty and heroic in this journey of Mahomet to Tayif; a solitary man, despised and rejected by his own people, going boldly forth in the name of God, like Jonah to Nineveh, and summoning an idolatrous city to repent and support his mission. It sheds a strong light on the intensity of his belief in the divine origin of his calling. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p. 109). 6. The Treaties of Aqabah and the Hijrah. Not long after his visit to at-Ta’if, all began to change for the hitherto unsuccessful claimant to prophethood. At the next annual pilgrimage to Mecca, Muhammad met six men from Yathrib, a city just over two hundred miles north of Mecca, who commended his message and said they would return home and proclaim it. The following year they returned after some measure of success and twelve men of Yathrib met him at al-Aqaba near Mecca and took an oath which became known as the first pledge of Aqaba and as the "Pledge of the Women" because they undertook to observe the ordinances laid down in the Qur’an on believing women who sought to take the oath of fealty (Surah 60.12). One of the twelve puts the oath in his own words: There were twelve of us and we pledged ourselves to the prophet after the manner of women and that was before war was enjoined, the undertaking being that we should associate nothing with God; we should not steal; we should not commit fornication; nor kill our offspring; we should not slander our neighbours; we should not disobey him in what was right; if we fulfilled this paradise would be ours; if we committed any of those sins it was for God to punish or forgive us as He pleased. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 199). Muhammad sent one of his companions, Musab, to teach them the Qur’ an and the spread of the new faith was so swift in the city that seventy men accompanied Musab the following year to Mecca and took the second pledge of Aqaba after their leader, one al-Bare, had made this declaration to Muhammad: We have listened to what you have said: Had there been some other idea in our mind we would have expressed it. We mean to fulfil (our promises) and want truth, and we are ready to sacrifice our lives for the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him. (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 1, p. 257). They undertook to protect him with their own lives and accept him as leader in Yathrib. What brought about this sudden change in fortunes? There were basically two factors which weighed in favour of success here which had not been present at Mecca or at-Ta’if. Firstly, the city was inhabited by two tribes, the Aus and Khazraj, who had been at war with each other and who now sought an independent leader to govern them. Secondly, there were many Jews in the city and their monotheistic influence had had a purifying effect on these Arabs and prepared them for such an indigenous monotheistic religion as the Arab prophet of Mecca set before them. The seventy came from both tribes and confirmed that Yathrib was willing to accept him as leader and preparations were made for Muhammad and his followers to emigrate to the city. Soon many of them quietly left Mecca though the Quraysh had already become aware that something was afoot. As soon as the Quraysh realised fully what was happen) they became alarmed. A defiant prophet in their midst was one thing - an immortal enemy governing a hostile city elsewhere was another. Plans were soon afoot to kill Muhammad and one night, with only Muhammad himself, Abu Bakr and Ali left in the city, the Quraysh sought to execute their design against him. But, leaving Ali in his bed, he escaped with Abu Bakr to a cave on Mount Thaur south of Mecca and remained there two days. A legend, widely reported, explains how Allah sent a spider to protect them while the Quraysh sought them: A spider span a cobweb, some parts of which covered others. The Quraysh made a frantic search for the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him. They even came to the entrance of the cave, but someone among them said, Verily, spiders haunt this place from before the birth of Muhammad; and they returned. (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 1, p. 265). This incident is universally believed to be true by Muslims throughout the world to this day, but it is probable that this story is adapted from a Jewish fable like many others that are found in the Qur’an, as we shall see. It is observable that the Jews have a like tradition concerning David, when he fled from Saul into the cave and the Targum paraphrases these words of the second verse of Psalm lvii, which was composed on occasion of that deliverance: "I will pray before the most high God that performeth all things for me, in this manner; I will pray before the most high God who called a spider to weave a web for my sake in the mouth of the cave" (Sale, The Preliminary Discourse to the Koran, p. 54) Another incident related of this sojourn in the cave and one of certain historical accuracy, again commends Muhammad and is one of those moments in his hard life at Mecca for which we are bound to give him credit. The Qur’an itself mentions it in these words: Allah did indeed help him when the Unbelievers drove him out: he had no more than one companion: - they two were in the Cave, and he said to his companion, "Have no fear for Allah is with us". Surah 9.40 Abu Bakr had become quite fearful when they realised the Quraysh were near and asked what the two of them could do against so many, but Muhammad comforted him by saying "We are not two but three - Allah is with us". Abu Bakr corded the poignant moment in these words: "I was in the company of the Prophet in the cave, and on seeing the traces of the pagans, I said, ’O Allah’s Apostle! If one of them should lift up his foot, he will see us’. He said, ’What do you think of two, the third of whom is Allah?’". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 148). The two finally escaped safely and Ali soon followed. Thus ended Muhammad’s years in Mecca and this migration, known as the Hijrah, became the turning point in his mission. At Yathrib, renamed al-Madina by Muhammad (literally "the city"), Islam was established as a religion and from the date of the Hijrah, 20th June 622 AD, the Muslim calendar significantly begins. Less than a hundred Meccan believers came to Medina and were given the honorary title Muhajirun, Emigrants, a word derived from the same root letters as hijrah (emigration). The Medinan converts who stood by him at al-Aqaba were likewise entitled Ansar, Helpers. From now on the Muslim ummah (community) was a unit in itself. Tribal loyalties passed away and a new universal loyalty to Allah, his apostle and the believers (mu’minin) took over. Henceforth the followers of Muhammad were proud to be called Muslims (al-Muslimin - "the Muslims") and adherents of al-Islam. Both words come from the same root letters - Islam means "submission" and a Muslim is one who submits himself to the way of Allah. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 36: 04.03. THE FOUNDER OF ISLAM AT MEDINA . ======================================================================== THE FOUNDER OF ISLAM AT MEDINA . 1. The Muslim Community at Medina. Muhammad and the early Muslims soon settled in Medina though some of the Meccan emigrants suffered fevers from the change of climate. (Mecca is a hot, dry city whereas Medina is set in a fertile valley with a more humid climate). He often praised the virtues of the city that had accepted him as its leader. He stated that Allah would punish those who harmed its inhabitants, that it has its own way of driving out evil people, and that Dajjal (the Islamic equivalent of the Antichrist) would not be able to enter it. An indication of the depth of Muhammad’s love for the city come out clearly in other proclamations he made about it, such as this one: "I have declared sacred the territory between the two lava plains of Medina, so its trees should not be cut down, or its game killed"; and he also said "Medina is best for them if they knew. No one leaves it through dislike of it without Allah putting in it someone better than he in place of him; and no one will stay there in spite of its hardships and distress without my being an intercessor or witness on behalf of him on the Day of Resurrection". (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p. 686). At the beginning of their stay in Medina, however, the early Muslims endured extreme poverty. Muhammad himself soon grew accustomed to the paucity of provisions and possessions and throughout his ten years as ruler of the city (and, in later years, of much of Arabia itself), he allowed himself on y the bare necessities of life. At Mecca he had married his second wife Sauda, shortly after Khadija’s death and now in Medina, took Ayishah, daughter of Abu Bakr, as wife. Of all his wives, Ayishah was the only one who had never been married before. Muhammad was, in fact, betrothed to her when she was only twelve years of age. He had no apartment of his own but took turns in dwelling in the simple apartments he a built for his wives. His followers also adapted to the new environment and a spirit of brotherhood soon developed between the Ansar and the Muhajirun. Up to fifty of the emigrants were taken individually as brothers by the citizens of Medina and were entitled to inherit from them. Not all the citizens of Medina welcomed Muhammad. There were three Jewish tribes who caused him much trouble in and around the city, of whose fates more will be said later. Some of the Arabs also were unwilling to acknowledge his leadership but, as the city as a whole had taken him as leader, the disaffected parties generally gave a token outward acknowledgment of his leadership and acceptance of his religion and its practices. Behind the scenes, however, discontent was rarely quiet and Muhammad was constantly aware of the rumblings going on around him. Such outward conformity, cloaking an opposition ill-concealed, was more dangerous than open animosity. The class soon became peculiarly obnoxious to Mahomet; he established through his adherents a close and searching watch over both their words and actions; and in due time followed up his espionage by acts which struck dismay into the hearts of the disaffected. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p. 176). The leader of this group was one Abdullah ibn Ubayy. He had known nothing of the pledges of Aqabah and at the time had sought to placate the Meccans who were suspicious of the developing kinship between Muhammad and the citizens of Medina who had come to the fairs. Ibn Ubayy had in fact become one of the foremost men in the city and, were it not for the arrival of the Meccan fugitive, he might well have assumed the leadership of its inhabitants instead. On more than one occasion in later years his followers plotted to replace Muhammad with their leader. At the Battle of Uhud to follow, Ibn Ubayy withdrew from the pending clash with his followers and, although he made an outward profession of Islam, Muhammad’s companions constantly sought his demise. Muhammad himself forbade it, however, and at his rival’s death even ventured to pray over his grave. Nonetheless Muhammad was quite apprehensive about this potentially dangerous group and, in the Qur’an, these professors of Islam who gave it no more than lip-service are denounced as munafiqun, "hypocrites", and are regarded as the worst of unbelievers. A Surah of the Qur’an, appropriately entitled Suratul-Munafiqun, devotes its first eight verses to a particularly vehement condemnation of these pseudo-Muslims. A few of these verses speak for themselves: When the hypocrites come to thee, they say, "We bear witness that thou art indeed the Apostle of God . Yea, God knoweth that thou art indeed His apostle, and God beareth witness that the hypocrites are indeed liars. When thou lookest at them, their exteriors please thee and when they speak, thou listenest to their words. They are as (worthless as hollow) pieces of timber propped up, (unable to stand on their own). They think that every cry is against them. They are the enemies; so beware of them. The curse of God be on them’ How are the deluded (away from the Truth). Surah 63.1,4. Muhammad built his first mosque at Quba just south of Medina but his own mosque, the masjidun-nabi (the prophet’s mosque), soon became the dominant place of worship in the city. It survives to this day, but has been greatly enlarged many times and today also encloses Muhammad’s tomb. When the Muslims first came to Medina they faced Jerusalem when praying. Not long afterwards, however, Muhammad changed this direction of prayer, the qiblah, to the Ka’aba in Mecca even though it was still an idolatrous temple. The rejection of his claim to prophethood by the Jews appears to have made him decide that Islam should be an exclusive faith separate from Judaism, and one with an Arab foundation. He had already identified himself as a prophet in the Bibilcal line, however, and to justify the change of direction from the bartul-muqaddas (the Holy House) in Jerusalem to the masjidul-haram (the Sacred Mosque) in Mecca, the Qur’an boldly declares that Abraham first built the Ka’aba with his son Ishmael as a house of worship dedicated to Allah alone! We covenanted with Abraham and Isma’il, that they should sanctify My House for those who compass it round, or use it as a retreat, or bow, or prostrate themselves (therein in prayer)..And remember Abraham and Isma’il raised the foundations of the House (with this prayer). "Our Lord! Accept (this service) from us: for Thou art the All- Hearing, the All-Knowing". Surah 2.125,127. A little further on in the same Surah comes the justification of the about-face in respect of the qiblah as well. Now shall We turn thee to a Qibla that shall please thee. Turn then thy face in the direction of the sacred Mosque: wherever ye are, turn your faces in that direction. Surah 2.144 Islam was taking root as an exclusively new faith. The time had come for a more forceful spread of its dominion and influence and a ready-made opportunity lay close at hand in the form of Meccan caravan traffic to and from Syria. 2. Raids on Caravans and the Battle of Badr. Medina lay right across the path of this caravan traffic and within a year of the hijrah, Muhammad sent out a number of raiding parties to intercept Meccan caravans but none o these was effective. The first raid to succeed took place in inopportune circumstances. During the second year of his rule in Medina Muhammad sent out Abdullah ibn Jahsh with seven others to Nakhlah, a site on the south Arabian trade route between Mecca and at-Ta’if. Two of the party turned back but the remaining six attacked a small Meccan caravan and killed one of its company, took two others prisoner, while the last man returned safely to the city. There was nothing unusual about a raid of this nature. The nomadic Arabs have been caravan-raiders for centuries and inter-tribal raiding was a fairly common practice. This raid, however, was pursued in one of the four holy months (Rajab in this case) when the caravan crews were unarmed and fighting was prohibited throughout the peninsula. Worse still, the Muslim band had posed as pilgrims by shaving their heads an fell on an unsuspecting Meccan company completely deceive by their appearance. On their return to Medina the whole city was shocked and dismayed at this flagrant breach of Arab custom. Muhammad himself refused to accept the booty at first but then, very conveniently, a "revelation" justifying the raid came from above, one which is now part of the Qur’an: They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of God to prevent access to the path of God, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque and drive out its members". Surah 2.217 Because the Meccans had not accepted Muhammad’s message and prevented the Muslims from obtaining easy access to the Ka’aba, the Qur’an states that, whereas fighting in a sacred month is indeed wrong, it is justified in the circumstances. Muhammad took one-fifth of the booty for investment in t e treasury and distribution to the needy, awarded the residue to the raiding band, and ransomed the two prisoners. From this moment the impressive image of a tolerant prophet patiently withstanding oppression degenerates into the censurable image of a ruler sanctioning robbery, murder and the like by his companions a against all opponents of Islam. In the past biographers of his life were accustomed to draw a clear distinction between the prophet of Mecca and ruler of Medina but a closer examination of the new trend shows that is was purely a logical development of Muhammad’s purpose establish Islam in the traditional way. In the meantime a general agreement of opinion has grown in modern Western biographies of Muhammad that one must speak of an unbroken unity in Muhammad’s personality (Weasels, A Modern Arabic Biography of Muhammad, p. 87). An analysis of the very next verse after the justification of the Nakhlah raid shows how consistent the outbreak of fighting in Islam was with the whole object of the hijrah: Those who believed and those who suffered exile and fought (and strove and struggled) in the path of God, - they have the hope of the Mercy of God: and God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Surah 2.218 In the original Arabic the verse up to the words "path of God" reads Innallathiina aa-manuu wallathiina haajaruu wa jaahaduu fii sabiilillah. The link between the word "haajaruu wa jaahaduu" is very significant. From the same root letters come the nouns hijrah (emigration) and jihad (warfare). Those who "suffered exile" (haajaruu) are also those who "fought" (jaahaduu) in the path of God. The hijrah was not just a flight from Mecca. It was a preparation for jihad. It o e the mainspring of the establishment of an ummah (community) that was to spread its influence through warfare. Muhammad’s objective was to create a theocratic Muslim state and community by fighting those who stood in its way and who chose to resist it. Where Islam is potentially universalized in Hijrah it is inherently politicized in Jihad. The move out of Mecca with the faith presages the move against Mecca for the faith. In that transition, not only is the Hijrah implemented in its prospective relevance, but Islam is defined in its essential character. (Cragg, The Event of the Qur’an, p. 134). Later the same year one of the most important events in the history of Islam occurred. Apart from the smaller caravans a large caravan set out annually from Mecca for Syria. Muhammad knew of its return and prepared to capture it. Its leader Abu Sufyan, the most prominent man in Mecca and a descendant of Umayya, took steps to avoid the impending crisis and hastened home by the Red Sea. He got to Mecca safely but a messenger sent by him to the city saw to it that a large Meccan army of up to a thousand men was sent out to rescue the caravan. (In later years Abu Sufyan’s son Mu’awiya took control of the caliphate and began the Umayyad dynasty which lasted nearly a hundred years. It was replaced by the Abbasid dynasty whose caliphs were descendants of Hashim, Umayya’s great rival and great-grandfather of Muhammad). Muhammad’s companions heard of the advent of the Meccan army but, encouraged by Muhammad’s declaration that Allah had promised him either the caravan or the army, the band of three hundred and fifty men marched on to Badr near the Red Sea where, in a swift engagement, the Muslims succeeded in destroying most of the Meccan leadership including Muhammad’s great enemy Abu Jahl. The Meccans fled before the Muslim offensive leaving forty-nine of their number slain on the battlefield. The Muslim losses were only fourteen. Nothing more than a skirmish, surely? Perhaps - but one of the most fateful battles ever fought in history and to this day held in awe by the Muslims as Islam’s finest hour on the battlefield. No event in the history of Islam was of more importance than this battle: the Koran rightly calls it the Day of Deliverance, the day before which the Moslems were weak, after which they were strong. Its value to Mohammed itself it is difficult to overrate; he possibly regarded it himself as a miracle, and when he declared it one, most of his neighbours accepted the statement without hesitation. (Margoliouth, Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, p. 269). Certainly the success was a tremendous tonic for the fledgling Muslim community and one which increased Muhammad’s esteem in Medina. Islam was now firmly established and was . . . gaining ground. 3. The Battles of Uhud and the Ditch. The cry for revenge, however, soon rose from the citizens of Mecca and a year later an army three thousand strong under the leadership of Abu Sufyan marched on Medina. At the plain beneath the hill of Uhud to the north of Medina they halted and plundered the fields round about. Muhammad counselled his warriors to remain in the city as it was easier to defend close in than out in the plains where the Muslims would all be exposed to the Meccan army which was vastly superior in numbers. His longstanding opponent Abdullah ibn Ubayy also pleaded with the citizens of Medina to stay behind but many of the more youthful combatants sought to go out and take the fight to the Quraysh and, as the victory of Badr was still fresh in the minds of all, their enthusiasm won the day and a thousand men ventured out to battle. The next morning Ibn Ubayy, displeased at the rejection of his advice, nonetheless treacherously deserted Muhammad with about three hundred men and returned to the city. The odds were four to one against the Muslims. Superior motivation, however, soon assisted the Muslims to once again seize the initiative and the Quraysh were forced to retreat. But the Muslims pressed their advantage too far. Archers guarding a rear flank broke their ranks against the orders of Muhammad and recklessly joined the fray thus leaving their flank exposed. Meanwhile Khalid ibn Walid a Qurayshite general who later led many successful Muslim conquests, swept his mounted force around one of the hills on the plain and surprised the Muslims from behind. Their discipline gone, they soon fell prey to the Meccan cavalry. The Quraysh wreaked havoc among them. Hamza, the "Lion of God" was slain and his body later mutilated. Even Muhammad was so badly injured that the rumour soon spread that he had been killed. His closest companions, however, shielded him carefully from any further danger. At the end of the day the Quraysh held sway but, for reasons which must remain a mystery, failed to press their advantage and withdrew from the field. The Muslims lost seventy-four men in the battle and the Quraysh twenty. Although the Muslims had not won the battle, the city of Medina remained unharmed. The outcome had serious implications, however, for Muhammad and his companions. This battle of Uhud has sometimes been presented, even in Muslim sources, as a serious defeat for Muhammad, but this - at least from the military point of view - it certainly was not. The serious aspect was the religious or spiritual one. The victory of Badr had been taken as a sign that God was supporting them, and indeed fighting for them. The loss of life at Uhud, therefore, seemed to be an indication that God had deserted them, or that they had been mistaken in the inferences they had drawn from Badr. (Watt, What is Islam?, p. 105). A revelation soon assisted Muhammad to quiet the misgivings of his companions. The Qur’an blames the warriors for disobeying orders and for seeking to share in the booty and states that God inflicted their reverses to teach them to obey orders and not to seek the rewards of this life. Behold! Ye were climbing up the high ground, without even casting a side glance at any one, and the Apostle in your rear was calling you back. There did God give you one distress after another by way of requital, to teach you not to grieve for (the booty) that had escaped you and for (the ill) that had befallen you. For God is well aware of all that ye do. Surah 3.153 After the battle Muhammad had a Qurayshite prisoner, Abu Azzah, beheaded for taking up alms on behalf of the Meccans a second time after he had been released at Badr (because he had five daughters to look after) on the condition that he refrained from joining in hostilities again. The prisoner pleaded with Muhammad to pardon him yet again but Muhammad answered him: Verily a believer is not stung twice from the same hole. You will not return to Makkah to declare, rubbing your cheeks, that you had befooled Muhammad twice. (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p. 51). The following year the Quraysh returned with ten thousand men to vanquish Muhammad once and for all but he was informed in advance of the pending onslaught and had a trench dug on the northern flank of Medina which was exposed to open attack. The "Battle of the Ditch", as it is known, was no real battle at all. The Quraysh were thoroughly frustrated by the innovation and, despite a few individual contests, were unable to make any impression on the city. After a division between "the Confederates" (the Qurayshite army had many warriors from other tribes around Mecca in their contingent) and a severe storm one evening, they decided to withdraw. The Meccan cause against Muhammad was now exhausted. Despite their efforts to gather such a large army for a final showdown, Muhammad’s growing strength remained unchallenged. The Quraysh, exasperated, gave up their designs on Medina and the initiative lost was soon seized by Muhammad. The tables were about to be turned. 4. Muhammad - the Universal Messenger of Allah. Let us pause in the narrative to consider the prestige and status of the prophet of the Arabs at this point when he finds himself able at last to take the offensive and begin preparations for a move on Mecca, already declared to be the From being purely a warner, calling the Quraysh to turn away from idols to the worship of the one true God, the Qur’an now represents Muhammad as the last and greatest of all the prophets. He has become the vicegerent of God on earth and his image develops from that of a purely prophetic character to that of messianic proportions. The Qur’an has a number of supreme accolades for him. 1. He is regarded as a universal messenger sent by God, not just to his own people as all previous prophets had been allegedly sent, but to all mankind: We have not sent thee but as a universal (Messenger) to men, giving them glad tidings, and warning them (against sin), but most men understand not. Surah 34.28 2. The Qur’an not only commands believers to send blessings upon him but claims that even God and all his angels do so in heaven above: God and His Angels send blessings on the Prophet: O ye that believe! Send ye blessings on him and salute him with all respect. Surah 33.56 3. He is given the illustrious title rahmatallil-alamin, a "mercy to the worlds", another indication of the now universal character of his ministry: We sent thee not, but as a Mercy for all creatures. Surah 21.107 4. Another exclusive title he assumes is khataman-nablygin, the seal of the prophets". As the last and greatest of God’s prophets, he cannot be superseded by another prophet: Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Apostle of God, and the Seal of the Prophets and God has full knowledge of all things. Surah 33.40 5. Obedience to Muhammad and obedience to God are by this time synonymous. Any disobedience of any command of the prophet of Islam incurs God’s wrath and acquiescence in his will incurs God’s pleasure: Verily those who plight their fealty to thee do no less than plight their fealty to God; the hand of God is over their hands: Then any one who violates his oath, does so to the harm of his own soul, and any one who fulfils what he has covenanted with God, God will soon grant him a great reward. Surah 48.10 The foundation was being laid not only for the final conquest of Mecca and Arabia but also for the conquest of the whole world till all be brought into subjection to Allah through obedience to his will as revealed through the prophet of Arabia, his universal and final messenger for all mankind. Islam was now an autonomous religion, separate from Judaism and Christianity and professedly superior to them. Its prophet had developed from being a lone human voice against Arab paganism into the voice of God calling all men everywhere to his religion, al-Islam. As we shall see in the next chapter, however, the universal nature of Islam was nonetheless simultaneously restricted by the personal failings of its prophet and its claim to supersede all other faiths was compromised by a clear deterioration in the character of its founder during his years of power as leader in Medina. He now arrived at a point where he completely diverged from the celestial spirit of the Christian doctrines, and stamped his religion with the alloy of fallible mortality. His human nature was not capable of maintaining the sublime forbearance he had hitherto inculcated. (Irving, The Life of Mahomet, p. 103). 5. The Treaty of Hudaybiyah. While gaining ground nearer home by various raids, Muhammad continued to cherish a return to Mecca and the next year led one-and-a-half-thousand pilgrims to the city for the umra, the lesser pilgrimage. He chose one of the holy months in which war was forbidden, donned the white pilgrim garments traditionally worn for the venture, took the required number of camels for sacrifice, and bade his men carry only a small sword at their sides - the usual form of protection for pilgrim travellers. Although the group was fitted out purely for pilgrimage purposes, the Quraysh were soon alarmed and at al-Hudaybiyah, just outside Mecca where the Muslims stopped, the two parties met. A small deputation came out to discover Muhammad’s intentions while the rest prepared the defence of the city. One of the leading Muslims who was later to become the third Caliph, Uthman, went back with a deputation into the city and when his return was delayed, the Muslims suspected he had been killed and prepared to defend themselves. Under a tree each one took a pledge to stand by Muhammad and Uthman, a pledge often remembered by Muhammad as one which evidenced the supreme loyalty of his companions. This devotion was not lost on the Meccan deputation who soon ensured that the Quraysh were suitably impressed by it. Uthman returned safely despite their fears and with him a leading Meccan, Suhail ibn Amr, who was given a mandate to negotiate a ten-year truce with Muhammad and advise him that he could not enter the city that year but could return the following year when the Quraysh would evacuate it for three days to allow Muhammad and his companions to perform the pilgrimage. Muhammad duly negotiated a treaty with Suhail, one which keenly upset many of his devoted followers. Umar objected to the whole proceedings on the principle that true Muslims had been called upon to fight and resist infidels and not to negotiate with them on equal terms: Umar b. Khattab came, approached the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and said: Messenger of Allah, aren’t we fighting for the truth and they for falsehood? He replied: By all means. He asked: Are not those killed from our side in Paradise and those killed from their side in the Fire? He replied: Yes. He said: Then why should we put a blot upon our religion and return, while Allah has not decided the issue between them and ourselves? He said: Son of Khattab, I am the Messenger of Allah. Allah will never ruin me. (The narrator said): Umar went away, but he could not contain himself with rage. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, p. 980). Indeed, far from concluding an equitable agreement, Muhammad appeared to have agreed to terms humiliating to the Muslims. It was stipulated that any member of the Quraysh who became a Muslim and sought to go over to the Muslims was to be returned to Mecca. If any of the Muslims wished to return to Mecca of his own accord, however, he was free to do so and was not to be returned by the Quraysh. The reaction of the party to this unfavourable provision is plainly set out in the following hadith: When Suhail bin ’Amr agreed to the treaty (of Hudaibiya), one of the things he stipulated then, was that the Prophet should return to them (i.e. the pagans) anyone coming to him from their side, even if he was a Muslim; and would not interfere between them and that person. The Muslims did not like this condition and got disgusted with it. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 3, p. 547). Muhammad incurred the further wrath of his company when he acquiesced in the demands of Suhail that the treaty should not be headed with the usual Muslim invocation Bismillahir-Rahmanir-Rahim (In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful), but rather in the words chosen by the Quraysh: Bi’ismika Allahumma (In thy Name, O Allah). The offence was compounded when Muhammad even agreed that he should be described simply as Muhammad ibn Abdullah (Muhammad son of Abdullah) and not Muhammadur-Rasulullah (Muhammad the Messenger of Allah). Another hadith tells us the whole story: Then the apostle summoned Ali and told him to write ’In the name of Allah the Compassionate, the Merciful’. Suhayl said "I do not recognise this; but write ’In thy name, O Allah"’. The apostle told him to write the latter and he did so. Then he said: "Write ’This is what Muhammad, the apostle of God has agreed with Suhayl b. Amr"’. Suhayl said, "If I witnessed that you were God’s apostle I would not have fought you. Write your own name and the name of your father". The apostle said: "Write ’This is what Muhammad b. Abdullah has agreed with Suhayl b. Amr"’ (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 504). Ali’s displeasure was soon expressed in the same way that Umar had vented his grievances. Had Muhammad not commanded an unswerving loyalty from his followers, this could have been a moment of crisis for him. He said to Ali: Write down the terms settled between us. (So Ali wrote): In the name of Allah, most Gracious, most Merciful. This is what Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, has settled (with the Meccans). The polytheists said to him: If we knew that thou art the Messenger of Allah, we would follow you. But write Muhammad b. Abdullah. So he told Ali to strike out these words. Ali said: No, by Allah, I will not strike them out. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, p. 979). Muhammad then duly struck out the words himself. But, as happened on so many similar occasions when the early Muslims were perplexed about some action or decision of their prophet, a timely revelation in the Qur’an soon settled the issue. The treaty was proclaimed as a victory, notwithstanding all appearances to the contrary. Verily we have granted thee a manifest victory. Surah 48.1 One of the most prominent Western biographers of Muhammad’s life certainly saw it as such and the events which succeeded it do lend much support to this claim. But, in truth, a great step had been gained by Mahomet. His political status, as an equal and independent Power, was acknowledged by the treaty: the ten years’ truce would afford opportunity and time for the new religion to expand, and to force its claims upon the convictions of the Coreish; while conquest, material as well as spiritual, might be pursued on every other side. The stipulation that no one under the protection of a guardian should leave the Coreish without his guardian’s consent though unpopular at Medina, was in accordance with the principles of Arabian society; and the Prophet had sufficient confidence in the loyalty of his own people and the superior attractions of Islam, to fear no ill effect from the counter clause that none should be delivered up who might desert his standard. Above all, it was a great and manifest success that free permission was conceded to visit Mecca in the following year, and for three days occupy the city undisturbed. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p. 347). One of the early successes enjoyed by Muhammad as a result of the treaty was the allegiance of the tribe of Khuza’a. Free to exploit the conclusion of further alliances and concentrate on the elimination of threats from hostile tribes nearer home, he soon set about strengthening his position. The strong Jewish fortress of Khaibar north of Medina was besieged and brought into subjection as well. A year later a much stronger Muhammad returned to Mecca to duly perform the pilgrimage. The Quraysh left the city unattended for three days as agreed and watched with mixed feelings as Muhammad, clearly enjoying the total devotion of his supporters, honoured the holy places of Mecca and paid his respects to the Ka’aba. Consciously or otherwise, Meccan resistance to Islam was steadily being worn down. The inhabitants of the city, weary of warfare with Muhammad, one of their own kinsmen, now beheld his sustained devotion to their shrine and the city of his birth. Khalid ibn Walid, the great Meccan general who turned the tide for the Quraysh at Uhud, went over to the Muslim side with a few other leading men of Mecca. The final conquest of Mecca was now becoming a vivid possibility and one enhanced by the probable defection en masse of all of its inhabitants to Islam. In the meantime Muhammad despatched an army of about three thousand men to Muta, a town on the borders of Syria. Here for the first time the Muslims met the strong Byzantine armies and, after putting up a brave but hopeless fight under Khalid’s leadership against a force vastly superior in numbers, the Muslims withdrew. Some important men were lost in the battle, however, including Muhammad’s adopted son and early convert Zaid ibn Haritha. The indecisive battle nevertheless prepared the way for the great onslaughts to follow after Muhammad’s death under the caliphates of Abu Bakr an Umar respectively. At home his dominion remained ever on the increase and the major obstacle in his path - Mecca - was ready to be tackled. The final triumph of Islam in Arabia was fast approaching and the rolling tide of success was not to be turned back. Before considering it, however, let us examine a chapter in Muhammad’s life at Medina hitherto overlooked - his relationships with the Jewish tribes in and around the city. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 37: 04.04. C. THE CONFLICT WITH THE JEWS. ======================================================================== C. THE CONFLICT WITH THE JEWS. 1. Muhammad and the Jews of Medina. A constant thorn in the flesh to Muhammad at Medina were the three Jewish tribes quartered near the city - the Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadhir and Banu Quraydhah. On his arrival at Medina he negotiated treaties with these tribes and for a short while sought their allegiance through many overtures. We have already seen that Muhammad made Jerusalem his qiblah at this time and it is noteworthy that the Jewish fast of Ashura was also observed by the Muslims from the time that they first reached Medina. (To this day the tenth of Muharram, the first month of the Islamic year, is a holy day and one on which many Muslims fast - compare Exodus 12:3 and see t e section on Muslim festivals and celebrations). The Qur’an also acknowledges the Jews as a people on whom God had bestowed peculiar favours in terms reminiscent of Paul’s summary in Romans 9:4-5 : We did aforetime grant to the Children of Israel the Book, the Power of Command, and Prophethood; We gave them, for sustenance, things good and pure; and We favoured them above the nations. Surah 45.16 It seems that Muhammad had keenly desired to win their support but was so rudely rejected that they soon became his inveterate enemies. The Jews could hardly be expected to acknowledge an Ishmaelite prophet who proclaimed Jesus as their Messiah! They irked him keenly on two counts - satirical barbs and evidences against his claim to prophethood. The second concerns us more than the first. Yet the Jews were a constant cause of trouble and anxiety. They plied him with questions of which the point was often difficult to turn aside. The very people to whose testimony he had so long appealed in the Coran proved now a stubborn and standing witness against him (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p. 179). Whereas the Meccans had simply ridiculed his message and generally resorted to sheer abuse of their kinsman, the Jews were able to trace many of these teachings to their own folklore and produce more damaging evidence against him. As Muhammad could not read their scriptures they were able to constantly provoke him with their knowledge and often frustrated him with subtle twists of phrases which he could not immediately detect but which entertained the Jewish bystanders. For example, Exodus 24:7 states that the Jews at Sinai answered Moses "All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient", but in the Qur’an we discover that the Jews, when commanded to hearken to God’s Law on the Mount, allegedly answered "We hear and we disobey" (Surah 2.93). Muhammad later discovered that his informants had subtly misled him on this point and the Qur’an duly censures them for this particular deception: Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) place and say: "We hear and we disobey". Surah 4.46 It was too late, however, to rectify the unfortunate error that they had succeeded in introducing into the text of the Qur’an. As Muir continues, "Mahomet evidently smarted at this period under the attacks of the Jews" (The Life of Mahomet, p. 179). Other authors comment in a similar vein: It was not that the Jews refused to recognise Muhammad as a prophet, nor even that they engaged in political intrigue against him, serious as such attitudes and actions were. Much more serious was the Jewish attack on the ideational basis of Muhammad’s preaching. It had been claimed that the Qur’an was a message from God and thus inerrant; and it had also been claimed that there was a large measure of identity between the Qur’anic message and what was to be found in the previous scriptures. If the Jews, then, maintained that there were errors and false statements in the Qur’an (because it disagreed with their Bible) and that therefore it could not be a message from God, they were threatening to destroy the foundations of Muhammad’s whole religious movement. (Watt, What is Islam? p. 102). Yet, doubtless, the Prophet’s ultimate determination to destroy the Jews was due to his secret recognition of their superior knowledge of matters on which he claimed (Margoliouth, Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, p. 233). The end result was as predictable as it was crucial to the success of Muhammad’s ministry - the neutralisatlon of the Jews as an effective force in Medina. This took place chiefly through the deportation of two of the tribes and the annihilation of the third, but at the same time Muhammad also sought to discredit them in other ways and "the portions of the Coran given forth at this period teem with invectives against the Israelites" (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p.180). Here are a few examples of this trend in the last Surah making up the revelation: The Jews say: "God’s hand is tied up". Be their hands tied up and be they accursed for the (blasphemy) they utter . . . Amongst them we have placed enmity and hatred till the Day of Judgment. Every time they kindle the fire of war, God cloth extinguish it; But they (ever) strive to do mischief on the earth. And God loveth not those who do mischief. Surah 5.67 Thou seest many of them turning in friendship to the unbelievers. Evil indeed are (the works) which their souls have sent forward before them (with the result) that God’s wrath is on them and in torment will they abide. Surah 5.83 The contemporary Muslim response to the state of Israel has its roots in passages like these which, allegedly being God’s own judgments, control the attitudes of the Muslims throughout the world to their Jewish co-religionists. It is not surprising, therefore, to find the Jews constantly slandered in the Hadith as well. The traditionists blacken them in many passages. For example, Ibn Ishaq assesses the relationship between them and Muhammad in these words: About this time the Jewish rabbis showed hostility to the apostle in envy, hatred and malice, because God had chosen His apostle from the Arabs. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 239). Ibn Sa’d even contains a hadith to the effect that the Jews sought to kill Muhammad in his childhood when they discovered that he might become a prophet. His wet-nurse Halima saved him only by claiming to be his actual mother. (Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 1, p. 125). The story is a pure fiction because it speaks of prophetic phenomena which his mother is supposed to have seen at his birth. Such stories are known to be later embellishments. (Muhammad himself always acknowledged that his mother died in idolatry). Nonetheless it is typical of the anti-Jewish element constantly found in early Muslim records. To this day the prejudice is sustained and this comment on a recent biography of Muhammad by a fairly well-known Egyptian author, Abdur-Rahman Ash-Sharqawi, confirms this negative trend which is unfortunately prevalent in most Muslim writings dealing with Muhammad and the Jews: The most striking facet of Ash-Sharqawi’s apology is certainly his description of the relationship of Muhammad to the Jews. It is his express purpose to dispel the image of Muhammad as an oppressor of the Jews and in its place to portray Muhammad as one who dealt with the Jews with exemplary patience. In order to reach this goal, he typifies the Jews as rich bankers, capitalists, exploiters, financiers, usurers, speculators and manufacturers of weapons. They supposedly attempt constantly to undermine the new Islamic society by economic means. Even when they are exiled, they brood on revenge. Besides this characterization of them, ash- Sharqawi harps continually on their corrupting influence on morals. Ash-Sharqawi constantly finds enmity, hate, treachery, the breaking of treaties, the lust for power, an’ feelings for revenge in the Jews. Ash-Sharqawi has established his defence of Muhammad by painting the Jews completely black, a presentation for which he does not give any historical evidence, much less "thousands". (Weasels, A Modern Arabic Biography of Muhammad, p. 23). Against this unfavourable background let us analyse the development of Muhammad’s historical dealings with the three Jewish tribes of Medina. 2. The Exile of the Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadhir. Shortly after the Battle of Badr relations between Muhammad and the Jews of Medina began to deteriorate and, suspecting treachery from them as a result of alleged breaches of their covenants with him (Surah 8.56-58), he began to move against them. A small altercation in one of the markets of Medina was the spark that set the process in motion. A Jew pinned the skirt of a kneeling Muslim woman to her upper dress so that when she stood up she was publicly embarrassed. Her companion slew the Jew in revenge and was promptly slain himself by the other Jews in the market. On hearing of it Muhammad sent his uncle Hamsa to the quarter of the Banu Qaynuqa from whom the offending Jew had come. The Jews answered that even though Muhammad had succeeded in routing the Quraysh, he would find them to be far more resolute. The quarter was besieged for fifteen days. Neither of the other two tribes nor their allies under Abdullah ibn Ubayy gave them any assistance or relief. As the siege wore on the tribe surrendered and was exiled from Medina, leaving their fields and many of their other possessions as spoils for the Muslim warriors. After the Battle of Uhud the Banu Nadhir were the next to go. Claiming that this tribe was plotting his death, Muhammad sent his men against them, this time under Ali’s command. Mindful of the fate of their kinsmen, they immediately prepared to leave but promises of support from Ibn Ubayy and others encouraged them to withstand the siege. Once again no assistance was rendered. After fifteen days Muhammad commanded his companions to cut down the palm trees in their date groves. The Jews cried out to him: "Muhammad, you have prohibited wanton destruction and blamed those guilty of it. Why then are you cutting down and burning our palm-trees?" (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 437). This charge was well-founded as Moses had, under the direct guidance of the will of God, forbidden such destruction of trees which bore food, even if they belonged to a city which waged war against God’s people: "When you besiege a city for a long time, making war against it in order to take it, you shall not destroy its trees by wielding an axe against them; for you may eat of them, but you shall not cut them down. Are the trees in the field men that they should be besieged by you?’ Deuteronomy 20:19 Muhammad was once again compelled to resort to a timely revelation to counter the Jews: Whether ye cut down (O ye Muslims!) the tender palm-trees, or ye left them standing on their roots, it was by leave of God, and in order that He might cover with shame the rebellious transgressors. Surah 59.5 Once again, as in the aftermath of the Nakhlah raid, a divine revelation was required to justify a clear breach of Arab custom, let alone a wilful disregard for the Law of God as revealed through the prophet Moses. In his commentary Yusuf Ali has this to say about the verse just quoted: The unnecessary cutting down of fruit trees or destruction of crops, or any wanton destruction whatever in war, is forbidden by the law and practice of Islam. But some destruction may be necessary for putting pressure on the enemy, and to that extent it is allowed. But as far as possible, consistently with that objective of military operations, such trees should not be cut down. Both these principles are in accordance with the Divine Will, and were followed by the Muslims in their expedition. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, p. 1522). The reasoning is the same as that in Surah 2 regarding the Nakhlah raid. Although the action was forbidden by law, it suddenly became justified because of the animosity of Muhammad’s opponents. It was allowed for "putting pressure" on the stubbornly resistant enemy. This is like saying that when a boxer cannot subdue his opponent, hitting below the belt suddenly becomes admissible to put a bit of "pressure" on him - how different the attitude of Moses who taught that laws were to be observed and ethics sustained no matter what the circumstances. Two wrongs do not make a right. The tribe, deserted by its allies, finally surrendered and was exiled. Most of its members went north to Khaibar while others joined their kinsmen in Syria. The Qur’an censures those who offered help but withdrew their support: Hast thou not observed the Hypocrites say to their misbelieving brethren among the People of the Book? - "If ye are expelled, we too will go out with you, and we will never hearken to anyone in your affair; and if ye are attacked (in fight) we will help you". But God is witness that they are indeed liars. Surah 59.11 3. The Destruction of the Banu Quraydhah. The Banu Quraydhah, quartered in a sector to the east of Medina, were the last to go but in an extreme way. During the siege of Medina by the Quraysh and the Confederates, a pact was made with them by the Banu Quraydhah which seriously exposed the eastern flank of the city. The Jews acted treasonably but, with the fate of the other two tribes fresh in the memory, their gamble was hardly surprising. Muhammad succeeded in creating distrust between the Quraysh and the Jews and, when the former withdrew, he promptly laid siege to the latter’s quarter. Twenty-five days later the tribe surrendered and sought to be exiled like the other two before them. It was agreed, however, that one of the Aus tribe, traditionally the allies of the Jews, should decide their fate. Sa’d ibn Mu’adh, one of the few Muslims injured during the siege of Medina who was shortly to succumb to his wounds, was appointed their judge. (Some say the Jews themselves requested him). What followed is recorded in a matter of-fact way by an early biographer: The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, authorised Sa’d ibn Mu’adh to give a decision about them. He passed an order: He who is subjected to razors (i.e. the male) should be killed, women and children should be enslaved and property should be distributed. Thereupon the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, said: You have decided in confirmation to the judgement of Allah, above the seven heavens. The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, returned on Thursday 7 Dhu al- Hijjah. Then he commanded them to be brought into al-Madinah where ditches were dug in the market. The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, sat with his Companions and they were brought in small groups. Their heads were struck off. They were between six hundred and seven hundred in number. (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p. 93). The ruthless execution of nearly a thousand men has been generally denounced by Western writers while Muslim writers have, as is to be expected, sought to justify the massacre. The following are typical examples of the spirit of Western criticism of the slaughter: On this occasion he (Muhammad) again revealed that lack of honesty and moral courage which was an unattractive trait in his character. (Andrae, Mohammed: The Man and his Faith, p. 155). There followed the massacre of the Banu Quraizah which marks the darkest depth of Muslim policy, a depth which the palliatives suggested by modern Muslim historians quite fail to measure. (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 87). But the indiscriminate slaughter of eight hundred men, and the subjugation of the women and children of the whole tribe to slavery, cannot be recognised other than as an act of monstrous cruelty...In short, the butchery of the Coreitza casts an indelible blot upon the life of Mahomet. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p. 312). One shudders at the recital of this horrible transaction. (Stobart, Islam and its Founder, p. 165). Muslim writers invariably claim that such authors are prejudiced against Islam but the following quote comes from a Western author who wrote a fervent apology on behalf of Muhammad and whose book has been widely acclaimed and reprinted in the Muslim world: But, judged by any but an Oriental standard of morality, and by his own conspicuous magnanimity on other occasions, his act, in all its accessories, was one of cold-blooded revenge. (Bosworth Smith, Mohammed and Mohammedanism, p. 138). In contrast let us examine a few quotes by Muslim writers in support of Muhammad’s action to see the nature of the defence that they raise on his behalf: No one can dispute the justice of the sentence on the Quraiza. People may admire the courage of the Quraiza in not accepting Islam and thus saving their lives, but no one can complain of the justice of this sentence. (Sarwar, Muhammad the Holy Prophet, p. 247). It was the Divine Will that the judgment should be left to Sa’d, and it was the Divine Will that moved Sa’d to pronounce the judgment that he did, which was in accordance with Deuteronomy 20:10-14. It was also the Divine Will that this terrible judgment, which the treachery and rebellion of Banu Quraidhah had earned, should not be pronounced by the Holy Prophet himself, but that he should be bound to carry it through to the full. (Zafrulla Khan, Muhammad: Seal of the Prophets, p. 186). A recent Muslim writer has questioned whether this whole story is historically genuine. "A detailed scrutiny indicates that the whole story of this massacre is of a very doubtful nature" (Ahmad, Muhammad and the Jews, p. 85). He argues that the narratives contain contradictions about it and that it was right out of character with Muhammad’s general magnanimity towards his defeated foes, if not always individually, at least in the main (as at the conquest of Mecca where almost the whole city was spared). There seems to be some support for the latter contention - more of his enemies were slain on that one day than in all the other battles Muhammad was engaged in during his lifetime. The contradictions between the narratives are, however, typical of those found in almost all the historical records of his life and do not affect the main story. About the primary matters, the broad outline of events, there is practically no doubt. The B. Qurayzah were besieged and eventually surrendered; their fate was decided bv Sa’d; nearly all the men were executed; Muhammad did not disapprove. About all that, there is, pace Caetani, no controversy. The Western scholar of sirah must therefore beware of paying so much attention to the debates to be traced in his sources that he forgets the solid core of undisputed fact. This solid core is probably more extensive than is usually recognized. (Watt, "The Condemnation of the Jews of Banu Qurayzah" The Muslim World, Vol. 42, p. 171.) Ahmad takes the words of Surah 33.26, "Some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners" as the foundation of his theory that, while some of the more serious offenders may have been proscribed, the bulk of the tribe was probably exiled like the others. At first sight it does seem strange that Muhammad should despatch the whole tribe while he had let the others go free, but there is concrete evidence that he had intended to execute the Banu Qaynuqa in the same way. According to Ibn Sa’d (Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p. 32-33), when the tribe surrendered, Muhammad ordered his companions to tie the men’s hands behind their backs to prepare them for beheading. It was only the remonstrances of Abdullah ibn Ubayy, then still too influential to be refused that made him abandon their execution and order their banishment instead. What is most significant about Ahmad’s assessment of the historical genuineness of the massacre is that, in querying it, he finds himself free from the need to justify Muhammad and accordingly treats it for what it really was - an unjustifiable atrocity. He says: No one could come out of such a holocaust - 600 to 900 killed in cold blood in one day - without damage to his personality. ’All and Zubayr’s holocaust legacy of massive deadness would not have left them in peace. (Ahmad, Muhammad and the Jews, p. 86). To behold the slaughter of many men in battle is indeed one thing - to unemotionally witness the execution of a whole tribe is another entirely. Ahmad continues: The very idea of such a massacre by persons who neither before nor after the killing showed any sign of a dehumanised personality is inadmissible from a psychological point of view. (Ahmad, Muhammad and the Jews, p. 87). Ahmad has challenged a story whose historical accuracy has hitherto never been questioned and, while the external evidences may weigh against him, he is to be commended for seeing the tragedy for what it truly was - in his own words, a "massacre" and a "holocaust". In their determination to exonerate Muhammad the Muslims have found themselves in an awkward situation. If they admit the story, they find themselves obliged to counter the suggestion that it had the nature of an atrocity. If, however, this is conceded, they strive to challenge the reliability of the narratives! Either way none dares admit that Muhammad was the leading figure, or at least a willing accomplice, in a "holocaust". Shortly before the conquest of Mecca Muhammad attacked the remaining Jewish fortress at Khaibar and, while not gaining an outright victory, nevertheless brought it into subjection. Here he was poisoned by a Jewish woman. Although she did not succeed in killing him, Muhammad complained to the day of his death of the effects of her act of revenge. Ibn Sa’d says she was put to death (Vol. 2, p. 249), but this is disputed by Bukhari who states that Muhammad refused to sanction her execution (Vol. 3, p. 475). Which of the two is true, "God only knows". By the end of his life Muhammad’s relationship with the Jews had deteriorated to the point of irreconcilable hostility. We have not spoken of his relationships with the Christians, which seem to have been a bit more amicable though much less frequent, but his contacts with their armies during his latter days seems to have hardened his heart against them also. The later passages of the Qur’an breathe out denunciations of both groups in vehement language. This tradition tells its own story: It has been narrated by ’Umar b. al-Khattab that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslims. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, p. 965). This same Umar, on becoming Caliph just two years after Muhammad’s death, proceeded dutifully to put this injunction into effect and by the end of his reign all the Jews in the Hijaz had duly been expelled, never to return. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 38: 04.05. D. THE CONQUEST OF MECCA AND THE FINAL TRIUMPH. ======================================================================== D. THE CONQUEST OF MECCA AND THE FINAL TRIUMPH. 1. Muhammad’s Triumph at Mecca. The Treaty of Hudaybiyah did not make Muhammad and the Quraysh allies. The conquest of Mecca was still the foremost of Muhammad’s objectives and the Quraysh, who till now had always taken the fight to him at Medina, knew full well that the Hijrah was the catalyst for an ultimate onslaught on the city. They were under no misapprehensions about this. In the old Arab law, the Hijra did not merely signify rupture with his native town, but was equivalent to a sort of declaration of war against it. (Lammens, Islam: Beliefs and Institutions, p. 27) We have already seen how closely related the Hijrah was to the active policy of jihad which immediately followed it and it comes as no surprise to find the inevitable conquest being pursued two years after the truce. A small provocation by the Banu Bakr, a tribe allied to the Quraysh, on the Banu Khaza’ah, allied to Muhammad, was all he needed to declare the treaty broken. Abu Sufyan, aware that the balances were now tilted well in Muhammad’s favour, went to Medina to restore the treaty but Muhammad refused to accommodate him and he returned to Mecca empty-handed. Assembling an army ten thousand strong, Muhammad immediately marched on Mecca. On the way he was met by his uncle al-Abbas who now gave in his allegiance and declared himself a Muslim. Muhammad camped just outside the city and encouraged his army to light as many fires as possible so as to strike dismay into the hapless Meccans. Abu Sufyan then came out to investigate reports of the advance and met al-Abbas on the way. He was escorted to Muhammad’s tent where he was challenged by his now ascendant foe to become a Muslim. "Has the time not come", Muhammad said, "to declare that there is no god but Allah and that I am his messenger?" "Of the Lordship of Allah I have no doubt", he replied, "but I am as yet hesitant about your claim to be his emissary". Al-Abbas then promptly rebuked him, telling him this was no time for hesitancy, and that he was likely to lose his head if he persisted in his unbelief while standing helpless before Muhammad. The Qurayshite leader tactfully overcame his hesitancy and declared his allegiance. Somewhat to the disgust of the Muslims from Medina who were anticipating a fruitful battle and who murmured that Muhammad had become overawed by his love for his own city, he nonetheless boldly declared: "Who enters the house of Abu Sufyan will be safe, who lays down arms will be safe, who locks his door will be safe". (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, p. 977). One cannot help wondering whether there was not some plan in this incident. Was the peaceful submission of Mecca dependent purely upon a chance meeting between Abu Sufyan and al-Abbas and the timely conversion of these two men? As Muir has observed, "there are symptoms of a previous understanding between Mahomet and Abu Sofian" (The Life of Mahomet, p. 392). It is possible that Abu Sufyan had intimated his allegiance when visiting Medina. This personal deputation by the prime enemy of Muhammad would perhaps have been an unlikely venture by one still committed to his downfall. One writer says: Opinions differ as to whether Abu Sufyan came to Muhammad’s tent by a pre-arranged plan or by accident. As the chief actors in this drama never disclosed their inner knowledge, the matter shall, for ever, remain a guess. The writer of this book agrees with those who say that Abu Sufyan had become a Muslim at heart when he came back unsuccessful from Medina on his mission to renew the treaty of Hudaibiya and that Abbas had arranged for this dramatic meeting between him and Muhammad. But God knows better. (Sarwar, Muhammad the Holy Prophet, p. 304). On the other hand there is evidence that Abu Sufyan was somewhat encouraged at the prospect of Muhammad’s defeat by the Hawazin a few weeks later and his offspring were no champions of the faith. His son Mu’awiya, the first Umayyad caliph, though always professing the faith, set himself against many of Muhammad’s kinsmen and companions and his grandson Yazid became the scourge of the Muslims and was responsible for the death of Hussain, one of Muhammad’s own grandsons. Another Muslim writer describes the Meccan leader in far less favourable terms as "the notorious Abu Sufian, the son of Harb, the father of the well-known Mu’awiyah, the Judas Iscariot of Islam" (Ali, The Spirit of Islam, p. 105). Apart from some resistance in the southern quarter of the city stimulated by some of Muhammad’s bitterest opponents among whom were Suhail and Abu Jahl’s son Ikrima, Mecca capitulated peacefully. Muhammad advanced on the Ka’aba and had its idols and paintings immediately destroyed. As soon as the shrine was purified of these excesses, Bilal, his first muazzin, called the people to prayer. A general amnesty was declared and the people soon warmed to their kinsman who had spared them and confirmed the sanctity of their shrine. For once and for all, Mecca had been won to Islam. Although Muhammad’s charitable attitude towards his own people can be contrasted with his recent destruction of the Banu Quraydhah he must be credited for his generosity at this moment in his life when those who had actively opposed him for so long were now at his mercy. At the time of the taking of Mecca, the Messenger of Allah showed a superhuman gentleness in the face of unanimous feeling to the contrary in his victorious army (Zafrulla Khan, Muhammad: Seat of the Prophets, p. 277). The magnanimity with which Mahomet treated a people who had so long hated and rejected him is worthy of all admiration. It was indeed for his own interest to forgive the past, and cast into oblivion its slights and injuries. But this did not the less require a large and generous heart. And Mahomet had his reward, for the whole population of his native city at once gave in their adhesion, and espoused his cause with alacrity and apparent devotion. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p. 398). 2. The Proscription of a few Prominent Enemies. Not everyone benefited from the amnesty. A dozen leading opponents were proscribed though only a few were eventually executed. Two were apostates from Islam, one was a poetess who had particularly irked Muhammad with her satires, and the last was one of two Meccans who had assaulted Muhammad’s daughter Zaynab as she fled Mecca for Medina. The others escaped either by hiding themselves or by seeking pardon. One case is of particular interest. One of these men was Abdullah ibn Abu al Sarh who once converted to Islam and wrote down the revelation for Muhammad, but who then apostatized, returned to Quraysh, and there spread tales about his falsification of the revelation. (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, p. 410). The alleged fabrication of the revelation centres on Surah 23.12-14. In the Tafsir-i-Husaini, Vol. 2, p. 80 (quoted in Sell, The Historical Development of the Qur’an, p. 150-151) we are told that when the description of the creation of man in these verses was ended, this same Abdullah, recording the verses as Muhammad’s amanuensis, exclaimed fatabaarakallahu-ahsanul-khaaliqlin - "Blessed be Allah, the best of Creators". Muhammad promptly told him to record his ejaculation in the passage as part of the revelation. Abdullah forsook Islam, claiming that if Muhammad was inspired, so was he! (The words are duly recorded at the end of Surah 23.14). It is hardly surprising that Muhammad sought his demise. The unfortunate renegade had one source of hope, however. He was the foster-brother of Uthman, later to become the third caliph. Uthman hid him at first and, when the atmosphere at Mecca had subsided after the conquest, brought him to Muhammad and pleaded for clemency. It was only after some time had lapsed, while all sat in tense silence, that Muhammad duly pardoned the offender. Throughout his course Muhammad was always very sensitive to anyone who challenged his claim to be receiving his revelations from above. (One of the two prisoners executed at Badr had ventured in earlier years to produce passages emulating the Qur’anic text). He was clearly unwilling to spare Abdullah and patiently waited for one of his companions to strike his neck. They obviously did not read his mind and, when they rebuked him for not giving them some sign of his intention, he gave a strange answer. When Uthman had left he said to his companions who were sitting around him, "I kept silent so that one of you might get up and strike off his head!" One of the Ansar said, "Then why didn’t you give me a sign, O Apostle of God?" He answered that a prophet does not kill by pointing. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 550). The ethics of the prophet of Islam are not always easy to evaluate. He obviously thought little of the destruction of those who irked him by undermining his claim to prophethood but deemed it highly offensive to achieve this by giving any sign of his intention! 3. From the Conquest to the Death of Muhammad. Shortly after the triumph at Mecca the surrounding Bedouin of the Hawazin tribe expressed their alarm at Muhammad’s growing influence and launched a major offensive at the valley of Hunain against his army. After initial reverses the Muslim army won the day. Virtually all the booty was awarded to Meccan warriors who had become Muslims only a few weeks earlier, and that only because of the conquest of their city. When Allah gave to his Apostle the war booty on the day of Hunain, he distributed that booty amongst those whose hearts have been (recently) reconciled (to Islam), but did not give anything to the Ansar. So they seemed to have felt angry and sad as they did not get the same as other people had got. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p. 432). Muhammad promptly asked his companions from Medina whether they would rather have him or camels and sheep. He duly placated them, promising to return with them to Medina after giving the booty as gifts to those whose hearts were but recently "reconciled to Islam". The Prophet confessed with naive frankness that these presents were meant to confirm the new converts in their faith; as we have often seen, he never troubled himself about the motives which produced conviction. (Margoliouth, Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, p. 407). One really wonders how true faith can be bred in a people firstly by force of conquest and secondly, very soon afterwards, by material inducements. Muhammad is alleged to have told his companions "I have made use of the pelf of this world to gain the love of the people that they may become Muslims" (Sarwar, Muhammad the Holy Prophet, p. 321). There is nothing wrong in principle with the generous bestowal of a gift to gain the heart of a man (Luke 16:9), but it does seem to be a very questionable way of cementing faith in God - especially when most religions teach that the desire for possessions is irreconcilable with a true desire for spiritual riches. Jesus despised any form of ulterior or double-motive in those who flocked to him and, knowing what was in the hearts of all men, would not trust himself to those whose faith could only be obtained through the bestowal of one or other form of material benefit (John 2:24-25; John 6:26). Another Muslim writer also has the prophet of Islam say: "O Ansar, are you angry because I have given away some goods to those whom I sought to win to Islam? Because I deemed their faith confirmable by material goods whereas I deemed yours to be based on solid conviction, to be candid beyond all dissuasion?" (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, p. 427). The Son of man, who constantly warned against an abundance of possessions and who told his disciples not to lay up treasures on earth, but rather to sell them and to give alms so as to provide themselves with treasures in heaven which do not pass away (Luke 12:33), would never have considered that the faith of his followers could be won in such a way. In the remaining days of Muhammad’s life deputations from all over Arabia came to declare their allegiance to him and shortly before his death almost the whole Arabian Peninsula had adopted Islam. The last stronghold of idolatry to capitulate was at-Ta’if. Home of the goddess al-Lat, the city withstood a siege by Muhammad shortly after the battle of Hunain. Soon afterwards, however, one of its inhabitants who was a Muslim, Urwa ibn Mas’ud, sought to win his kinsmen to Islam, but they murdered him and in so doing invited on themselves a final and more thorough onslaught. A deputation to Medina, expressing a willingness to capitulate if a few years grace could be given to the city, was rejected out of hand. Muhammad insisted on the destruction of the idol and the immediate observance of the daily prayers. They were spared the ignominy of destroying their idol. Muhammad wisely ordered Abu Sufyan and al-Mughira, two recent converts from Mecca who were friends of the tribe settled in the city, to raze the great image to the ground. It duly fell but not without being lamented by the women of the city. Taif was the last stronghold that held out against the authority of the Holy Prophet. It was also the only place where the fate of an idol excited the sympathy of the people. Everywhere else the idols were destroyed by the people themselves without a pang. (Zafrulla Khan, Muhammad: Seal of the Prophets, p. 246). In 632 AD a short illness ended Muhammad’s life. He was buried in the chamber of Ayishah, his favourite wife. After a short dispute concerning his successor, Abu Bakr, who had led the prayers during his illness, was elected caliph. During his short two-year reign he put down attempted revolts in the peninsula by Bedouin tribes seeking to throw off the yolk of Islam. Umar followed him and before his death Islam had spread to Iraq and Syria. Within a hundred years it had gone out as far as India in the east and Spain in the west. Today it is predominant in the Middle East, North Africa, Pakistan, Iran, Indonesia, and other parts of Asia. Its adherents number about eight hundred million throughout the world. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 39: 04.06. A STUDY OF MUHAMMAD'S PERSONALITY ======================================================================== A Study of Muhammad’s Personality ======================================================================== CHAPTER 40: 04.07. A. AN ASSESSMENT OF HIS PERSONALITY. ======================================================================== A. AN ASSESSMENT OF HIS PERSONALITY. 1. The Loyalty and Confidence of his Companions. Since the inception of Islam the Muslim world has held to the unwavering conviction that Muhammad was the last and the greatest of the prophets. The Christian world, on the other hand, has expressed varied assessments of his character, ranging from one extreme to the other. In former times it was customary to hold that Muhammad was a conscious impostor, a devil-inspired false prophet whom the; infidel Turks; or, at best, "Mahometans", worshipped as their god. In more recent times the access the West has enjoyed to the early records of his life has produced a more objective response. Many consider that he was a sincere seeker after truth who introduced noble reforms into his society and is to be honoured according to the achievements and standards of his time. Some even concede that he was a true prophet, one whom God directed as he had inspired the other prophets from of old. The evangelical church, however, steadfastly rejects this view, if for no other reason than that he denied the deity and crucifixion of Jesus Christ. These two denials, which strike at the whole foundation of the Christian faith, do seem to rule out the possibility that any Christian evaluation of his prophetic claims can produce anything other than a negative response and conclusion. Nonetheless, aware of the prejudices of our forefathers, it behooves us to assess the Prophet of Islam sincerely. A purely objective estimate of his character may not be possible, our convictions being what they are, but it is incumbent upon us to be as fair as we can be. We can safely reject the view that Muhammad was a deliberate impostor. Throughout the twenty-three year period of his assumed ministry, he held to the unflinching conviction that he was called to be a prophet and that the revelations he was receiving were coming to him from above. Mohammed never wavered in his belief in his own mission, nor, what is more extraordinary, in his belief as to its precise nature and well-defined limits. (Bosworth Smith, Mohammed and Mohammedanism, p. 148). One of the best evidences of his subjective sincerity is the almost fanatical devotion of his companions to his mission. With only a few exceptions, those nearest to him, once converted, stood with him through triumph and defeat, trial and setback, poverty and persecution. It is strongly corroborative of Mahomet’s sincerity that the earliest converts to Islam were not only of upright character, but his own bosom friends and people of his household; who, intimately acquainted with his private life, could not fail otherwise to have detected those discrepancies which ever more or less exist between the professions of the hypocritical deceiver abroad and his actions at home. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p. 54). The intense faith and conviction on the part of the immediate followers of Mohammed is the noblest testimony to his sincerity and his utter self-absorption in his appointed task. (Ali, The Spirit of Islam, p. 22). One of his earliest converts, Abu Bakr, was a leading man in Mecca and one whose devotion to Muhammad was as steadfast as it could be (as we have seen on the occasion of his concealment with Muhammad in the cave on Mount Thaur). Even when Muhammad proclaimed that he had been taken to Jerusalem and back in one night by the angel Gabriel, a claim which alienated some of his own followers, Abu Bakr’s allegiance remained unshaken. (We will shortly hear more of this phenomenon). He was duly named as-Siddiq by Muhammad, meaning "the Faithful", a title he seems to have fully deserved. A generally sincere and upright man, his unflinching loyalty to Muhammad is strong evidence of the latter’s single-mindedness of purpose. Abu Bakr was a man of the purest character. His friendship for Mahomet, and unwavering belief in his mission, are a strong testimony to the sincerity of the prophet. (Stobart, Islam and its Founder, p. 209). I agree with Sprenger in considering ’the faith of Abu Bakr the greatest guarantee of the sincerity of Mohammed in the beginning of his career’ - and, indeed, in a modified sense, throughout his life. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p. 56). Even before his claim to prophethood Muhammad was highly esteemed for his integrity and earned the title al-Amin, ’the Trustworthy’. Judged relatively by the standards of his day, he appears to emerge without reproach; and there are many in the West today who refuse to challenge the worthiness of his personality further. Is the Christian compelled to assess him in the same spirit of relative objectivity? Do we leave the judgment of history upon his character to a jury of his contemporary peers? 2. A Relative or an Absolute Standard of Judgment? We cannot judge the Prophet of Islam according to our moral standards, but only according to the standards which he himself recognized. (Andrae, Mohammed: The Man and his Faith, p. 188). It is so often said that Muhammad’s character must be appraised purely in the context of his age and environment Seventh-century Arabia was a fairly primitive country and many things we would consider reprehensible, for example, raiding for booty, polygamy, etc., were regarded by the Arabs as perfectly normal and far from immoral or unethical. What right, therefore, do we have to judge Muhammad by any other standard than the relative values of his day? Had Muhammad claimed to be nothing more than a local reformer or a prophet with a message purely for his own time and people, such a charge might be well-founded. But, by the end of his career, he had laid claim to being the greatest of all the prophets, God’s universal messenger for all mankind a messenger with the final religion which was to supersede and eventually displace every other religion on earth. Muslim writers accordingly know no limits in describing the alleged perfection of his virtues and the traditions of his life are saturated with eulogies exalting his personality to that of the greatest among men. This quote is symbolic of the claims made by almost all Muslim biographers of their prophet’s course: His life is the noblest record of a work nobly and faithfully performed . . . a life consecrated, from first to last, to the service of humanity. Is there another to be compared to his, with all its trials and temptations? Is there another which has stood the fire of the world and come out so unscathed? (Ali, The Spirit of Islam, p. 112, 17). When such claims are made, it cannot fairly be said that he is only to be judged by the standards of his day. Now Muslims claim that Muhammad is a model of conduct and character for all mankind. In so doing they invite world opinion to pass judgement upon him. (Watt, Muhammad at Medina, p. 333). The thesis that Muhammad was great by the standards of his day and race is dubious praise for one whom Tradition makes an exemplar for all time and all mankind. (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 187). It is precisely at this point that the Christian attitude to Muhammad comes to the fore. "But, summoned up inevitably by his own special claim, silently there rises beside him . . . the figure of the Son of Man". (Gairdner, The Reproach of Islam, p. 75). Men like Gautama Buddha and Confucius may fairly escape a character analysis based on absolute standards but the Prophet of Islam, who elevated himself to at least equality with (if not superiority over) the founder of Christianity, is fairly exposed to a comparison with him at every turn. Jesus Christ was a man par excellence, one not only without error or sin, but the perfect man - a man endued with every worthy attribute to the full. He was one whose righteousness, love, holiness, honesty and purity were expressed to perfection. Muhammad invites comparison with him when he claims that he is his equal. Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I am most akin to Jesus Christ among the whole of mankind, and all the Prophets are of different mothers but belong to one religion and no Prophet was raised between me and Jesus. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, p. 1260). We are therefore fully justified in assessing his character by the absolute standards so wondrously manifested in the person of our Saviour, even more so when we find Muhammad seeking to displace him at many points. Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I shall be pre-eminent among the descendants of Adam on the Day of Resurrection and I will be the first intercessor and the first whose intercession will be accepted (by Allah). (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, p. 1230). How does Muhammad compare with Jesus? In the next section we shall briefly analyse the course of his ministry and compare it with that of Jesus Christ, and in the next two chapters will assess certain facets of his life and behaviour while at Medina. These two quotes fairly anticipate the obvious and, indeed, only possible conclusion that can be drawn: The genuineness and sincerity of Mohammed’s piety, and the honesty of his belief in his religious call, are indisputable. Unfortunately it cannot be said that righteousness and straightforwardness are the most prominent traits of his character as a whole (Andrae, Mohammed: The Man and his Faith, p. 185). The domestic life of Muhammad, if the general standard of oriental rulers of his time be taken into account, is moderate in indulgence, though of course the standard of a prophet claiming to supersede Jesus Christ yields a very different result. (Stanton, The Teaching of the Qur’an, p. 27). 3. Jesus and Muhammad - The Cross and the Hijrah. It is not often realised how many similarities there are between the ministries of Jesus and Muhammad up to the point of Muhammad’s departure from Mecca for Medina. As Jerusalem was the centre of Judaism at the time of Jesus. so Mecca was the focal-point of Arab paganism during Muhammad’s life. In each city stood a cube-like structure to which the kinsmen of the founders of the world’s two greatest religions came. In Jerusalem it was the Holy of Holies in the Temple precincts in Mecca it was the Ka’aba. Just as Jews came from all over to attend their feasts in Jerusalem (e.g. the Feast of the Passover, the Feast of the Tabernacles), so Arabs flocked to Mecca for the various fairs held around the city each year (e.g. the Fair of-Ukadh, etc.). Jesus and Muhammad both rose from among their own people and yet both stood firmly against the religious practices of their kinsmen while acknowledging that the Lord of the holy sites in their chief cities respectively was the true Lord. Allah was the "Lord of the Ka’aba" but Muhammad opposed the idol-worship associated with the Arab shrine. Yahweh was indeed the true Lord of the Temple in Jerusalem but Jesus violently opposed the form of religion being practiced within its courtyards and walls. On at least two occasions he drove the moneychangers and those who sold sacrificial victims out of the Temple, accusing them of turning a place God had declared to be a "house of prayer" into a veritable "den of robbers" (Matthew 21:13). On the other occasion he accused them of making it a "house of trade" (John 2:16). In both cases the cities rose in defiance of these men who promised nothing less than hell-fire to their most distinguished inhabitants (Matthew 23:33, Surah 54.43-48). Each came to a point of crisis. When Muhammad’s covenant with the believers from the Aus and Khazraj was discovered by the Quraysh, they finally determined to make an end of him. Muhammad knew his life was no longer safe in Mecca - the point of decision had come. The Qur’an itself mentions the plot laid by the Meccans to kill him: Remember how the Unbelievers plotted against thee, to keep thee in bonds, or slay thee, or get thee out (of thy home). They plot and plan, and God too plans, but the best of planners is God. Surah 8.30 When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, the chief priests among the Jews at Jerusalem finally took counsel together and made plans to kill him (John 11:53). Like Muhammad, he was faced with a moment of destiny - should he remain in Jerusalem and endanger his life or should he move out? The analogy extends further. An unexpected way of escape from a foreign source timeously opened before both men. Rejected by his own tribesmen, the Quraysh, Muhammad was given a welcome and a new haven of security by men from other tribes to the north of his city. So Jesus too was suddenly presented with a new field of ministry and probable shelter as he entered Jerusalem for the last time, knowing the plans that were being laid against him. A number of Greeks came to him, willing to hear him (John 12:20-21). Once again a foreign people from the north promised a welcome relief from the now extreme designs of the chief priests. Even the circumstances were identical - a feast in Jerusalem, a fair in Mecca. The coincidences are striking. Thus far the analogy goes but no further. Muhammad and Jesus took contrary decisions. The former took a pledge from each man from Medina to defend and protect his life, even if he should lose his own life in doing so. The latter renewed his pledge to give up his life so that many of his followers might live. When Jesus heard that the Greeks wanted to see him, he must have felt the same sense of relief that Muhammad felt in similar circumstances. But he knew his mission and the express purpose for which he had come into the world and immediately responded by saying: "The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified. Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone, but if it dies, it bears much fruit . . . Now is my soul troubled and what shall I say? ’Father, save me from this hour’? No, for this purpose I have come to this hour". John 12:23-24; John 12:27. Jesus came not to set up an earthly kingdom but to re deem the world and prepare the way for many to become heirs of a heavenly kingdom. Muhammad left for Medina to establish the ummah of Islam (Surah 2.143), the community of true believers, a "kingdom of God" on earth. The Hijrah was, as we have seen, the pathway to jihad. Muhammad left Mecca only to take steps immediately to interrupt its trade and ultimately to conquer and subdue it. The sword was unsheathed to protect the fledgling Muslim community at Medina. As we have seen, convenient expedients were justified in the name of the establishment and progress of Islam. Rules, even God’s own laws, could be bent whenever the Muslim ummah found itself in conflict with non-Muslim opponents. After Muhammad’s death Abu Bakr, through many conflicts, re-established Islam in the Arabian peninsula and his successor, Umar, soon sent out armed forces to subdue the lands around Arabia. Very significantly the Qur’anic injunction to begin fighting (Surah 2.216) followed immediately after the Hijrah. Muhammad employed the age-old method of establishing an earthly dominion - force of arms. At Badr he despatched many of his former enemies including the notorious Abu Jahl. The Qur’an itself proclaims vengeance on his other great enemy, his uncle Abu Lahab: Perish the hands of Abu Lahab, perish he! Surah 111.1 (Arberry). The later passages of the Qur’an give Muslims the right to take up arms against all-comers who threaten the Muslim ummah and to slay them wherever they be found (Surah 2.190-191). The book even contains an open licence to make war on all who do not acknowledge Islam, including Christians, until they "feel themselves subdued" (Surah 9.29). Muhammad was a patient and tolerant preacher of monotheism and justice in Mecca but, after the Hijrah, became a ruler determined to sustain his power and the exclusive identity of his people, a theocratic community, by force of arms and by the subjugation of his enemies. For Mohammed the exodus to Medina meant a surprisingly rapid development of his position in power, which completely revolutionised conditions in Arabia, and before long was to have world-wide consequences; but in his own character it effected a decided downward move and a loss of the ideal. (Buhl, "The Character of Mohammed as a Prophet", The Muslim World, Vol. 1, p. 360). But when he was transferred into the atmosphere of Medinah, he offered very little resistance to the corrupting action of the new social position . . . The figure of Mohammed loses in beauty, but gains in power. (Caetani, "The Development of Mohammed’s Personality", The Muslim World, Vol. 4, p. 364). Not only could Jesus have found shelter among the Greeks but he could also have mustered the support of all in Galilee to establish his ministry (John 6:15). When faced with the crucial decision, however, he took the opposite one to that taken by Muhammad. The Prophet of Islam chose the Hijrah, the spring of jihad for the subjugation and, where necessary, the destruction of his enemies. Jesus chose the cross, the symbol of his love and the means of salvation for all who were by nature the enemies of God (Romans 5:10). When Pilate asked him whether he had pretensions to set himself up as a ruler of his people ("Are you the king of the Jews?" John 18:33), he gave a very important and striking answer: "My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world". John 18:36 "My servants would fight", he said, just as Muhammad’s companions did to protect and establish his earthly ummah. But Jesus came to make the kingdom of heaven accessible to men on earth and to establish a spiritual people constituting one body over all the earth, not to be gathered into an earthly community to be protected from all other tribes and nations, but to be united in one spirit, secure and prepared for a kingdom ready to be revealed in the last time. How different his attitude to that of Muhammad! Muhammad sought to conquer by force, Jesus by love. At times Muhammad wrought the destruction of his enemies. Jesus prayed that his might be forgiven and live: Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. Luke 23:34 As he hung on that cross, he was an apparent failure. It seemed his labours had been in vain. The Hijrah took Muhammad from the depths of disconsolation to the prime of success but the cross took Jesus to an early grave. The Muhammadan decision here is formative of all else in Islam. It was a decision for community, for resistance, for external victory, for pacification and rule. The decision for the cross - no less conscious, no less formative, no less inclusive - was the contrary decision. (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 93). But even as his earthly course came to its close, its eternal, immeasurable effects were being realised. A thief crucified with Jesus, one who had no other hope of salvation, turned to him humbly requesting him to "remember me when you come into your kingdom" (Luke 23:42). The answer reveals all the glorious implications of the choice Jesus made for the salvation of many rather than the establishment of his rule in an earthly form and his own personal protection: Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise. Luke 23:43 There are many Muslims who argue that their prophet’s decision was justifiable and that his enemies deserved their fate. But how does his course at Medina compare with that one supreme manifestation of love and compassion at Calvary which knows no equal? Unfavourably, to say the least. On the other hand, we can comfortably meet the Muslims on their own ground by comparing the destinies of our respective founders. The crucifixion of Jesus stands with his resurrection. The only historical record of his death on the cross testifies unambiguously to his resurrection to life after three days and his ascension to heaven forty days later. Who really succeeded in his mission - Muhammad, who lies dead and buried in Medina, or Jesus, who reigns in life in heaven above? The Hijrah led Muhammad to Medina, the seat of his earthly ummah. The cross led Jesus to resurrection and glory in the kingdom of heaven - the realm of eternal life. Muhammad chose an earthly ummah and duly went the way of all flesh as his earthly body returned to dust in a city made of dust. Jesus preferred a heavenly kingdom and duly prepared the way for many as his heavenly body returned to heaven and a city which has eternal foundations, whose builder and maker is God. (Hebrews 11:10). The image of Him whose kingdom was not of this world, who did not strive nor cry, whose servants were never to draw the sword in His defence, forces itself upon the mind, in silent and reproachful antithesis to the mixed and sullied character of the Prophet-soldier Mohammed. (Bosworth Smith, Mohammed and Mohammedanism, p. 201). 4. A Christian Evaluation of Muhammad’s Character. The awesome objective of Jesus’ ministry and the outstanding sacrifice he made to achieve it stand as high above the course of Muhammad’s ministry as the heavens are high above the earth. In no less a degree does the profound character of the Saviour of the world tower over the personality of the Prophet of Islam. A Muslim writer states: Even if Muhammad had sent ten thousand missionaries over the length and breadth of Arabia he could not have received such homage unto God as he did by means of his successful wars. (Sarwar, Muhammad: The Holy Prophet, p. 323). This statement may be entirely consistent with the Muslim mentality of outward triumph and success but it is out of character with the marvellous standards and example set by the Son of man, who has achieved more enduring results through his true messengers who have spread the effects of his salvation by word of mouth rather than by the sword of war. (We exclude ventures such as the Crusades which were the very antithesis of all that Jesus preached and stood for. The propagation of Islam by "successful wars" is, however, fundamental to Islam as Sarwar duly shows). Believers were never commanded to spread the religion of Christ by means of a holy war (Jihad), but, on the contrary, they were called to endure every kind of wrong and contumely, and did willingly suffer many and great afflictions and persecutions for proclaiming the Gospel. Most of the Apostles drank the cup of martyrdom in the cause of religion, and their oft-repeated command to all believers was, that they should bear patiently all sufferings for Christ’s sake. (Pfander, The Mizan ul Haqq; or Balance of Truth, p. 72). The fruits and successes of their labours will be known and made manifest at the only place where the value of a man s life can be truly tested - at the judgment seat of God on a Day yet to be revealed. Kenneth Cragg suggests that it may be true that "too much is made of Muhammad’s circumstances and too little of his obligations to the absolutes of every age" (The Call of the Minaret, p. 92). The question is not whether he had a generally commendable character. A Christian evaluation of his character rightly begins by asking whether his manner was exemplary in every way and at all times as Jesus’ truly was. In this respect, as will be seen all the more in the following two chapters, he fails to meet the mark. The specific character of Islam and the transcending path of salvation brought to erring sinners by Jesus Christ can be distinguished in many instances, but the following tradition offers a typical example: Narrated Jabir: A man from the tribe of Aslam came to the Prophet and confessed that he had committed an illegal intercourse . . . the Prophet ordered that he be stoned to death. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 8, p. 531). The judgment was fair on legal grounds (Leviticus 20:10), but Muhammad’s role can be compared with that assumed by Jesus when he was placed in a similar situation. When the Jewish doctors of the law produced a woman similarly self-condemned for adultery, Jesus immediately made her detractors examine themselves to see whether they were indeed worthy to stand as God’s prosecutors, judges and executioners over her. "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her" (John 8:7), he replied. As they all went out, convicted of their own sinfulness, he graciously pardoned the repentant woman in these comforting words: "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said "No one, Lord". And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again". John 8:10-11. He had come to bring salvation to all and his own death to follow shortly was the ransom by which she was delivered from her prescribed fate. Here the whole difference between Islam and Christianity is fully revealed - the law enforced compared to grace freely bestowed. The Hijrah did not release Muhammad from the law, but the cross of Christ opened the door for repentant men and woman to obtain the forgiveness of their sins and a place in the eternal kingdom of heaven. He certainly knew nothing of the real teaching of Jesus Christ. Had he known these things he would have seen how superior was the legal system he sought to supersede, how much higher the Christian morality he endeavoured to set aside. (Sell, The Historical Development of the Qur’an, p. 188). Even a fervent apologist for Muhammad was constrained to draw similar conclusions when comparing Muhammad with Jesus: The religion of Christ contains whole fields of morality and whole realms of thought which are all but outside the religion of Mohammed . . . the character of Jesus of Nazareth stands alone in its spotless purity and its unapproachable majesty. (Bosworth Smith, Mohammed and Mohammedanism, p 293, 294). Perhaps the final judgment can be made to rest on the last statements made by Jesus and Muhammad respectively before they died. We have already seen how Jesus, at the last, sought the forgiveness and salvation of the Jews who had hated, opposed and finally crucified him. How unfavourably Muhammad’s last recorded utterance compares: ’Umar b. Abd al-Aziz reported that the last statement made by the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) was: O Lord, perish the Jews and the Christians. They made churches of the graves of their Prophets. Beware, there should be no two faiths in Arabia. (Muwatta Imam Malik, p. 371). "Perish the Jews and the Christians" - famous last words indeed! A Muslim valiantly says of his prophet "As to the Christians, he nearly killed himself for their sake. He loved them as no one has ever loved them before or after" (Sarwar, Muhammad: the Holy Prophet, p. 105). There is no substance in these words. They are out of place and the Prophet of Islam unworthy of their sentiments. They seem to be far more suited to the lowly man of Nazareth, except that he really was killed for their sake. Nevertheless the Muslim effort to apply to Muhammad praises due only to Jesus Christ perhaps indicates the awareness in Islam of the surpassing worth of the Christian Saviour - he who stands alone above all men of every age as the perfect example of love, righteousness, purity and truthfulness. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 41: 04.08. B. HIS TREATMENT OF HIS PERSONAL ENEMIES. ======================================================================== B. HIS TREATMENT OF HIS PERSONAL ENEMIES. 1. Were Muhammad’s Wars Purely Defensive? We have, in the last section, seen what a great difference there was between the Prince of Peace and the Prophet of Islam. A more detailed examination of his attitudes towards his enemies, especially his personal foes, reveals a flaw in his personality not readily explained away. It is here that we find a weak point in Muhammad’s character and one which troubles Muslim apologists. To set forth this period in the Prophet’s career objectively, without offending modern Muslim susceptibilities, is difficult in the extreme. (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 84). Before passing on to individual examples, let us consider the whole question of jihad from a general standpoint. It is invariably claimed by Muslim writers today that Muhammad’s wars were purely defensive. "Islam seized the sword in self defence, and held it in self-defence, as it will ever do". (Ali, The Spirit of Islam, p. 218). In this way they endeavour to set aside the charge that Muhammad took the sword to his enemies, seeking their destruction and their possessions as booty and plunder. One writer goes so far as to say: Persia and Rome were thus the aggressors, and the Muslims, in sheer self-defence, came into conflict with those mighty empires. (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p. 463). This is extremely hard to credit from an historical perspective. There is no evidence that the Persian or Byzantine empires had any designs on the Hijaz in Arabia during Muhammad’s time, let alone the fledgling Muslim community at Medina. On the other hand, when Umar was caliph, the Muslims took the fight to Greek and Persian soil and conquered their territories. Muhammad, during his ministry, was at no time threatened by an invasion from the north. His chief concern was the Quraysh and, next to them, the hostile pagan Bedouin tribes of the Hijaz. But even in this context he is blandly portrayed as a harmless defender of the faith against relentless plots and threats from those around him. Such claims are, from an historical perspective, unjustifiable. Yet they are found in many works, of which the following statement is typical: People who accuse Muhammad of fighting the Quraish forget that the Quraish were the aggressors and that during all these years Muhammad had no option but to defend himself and his followers. (Sarwar, Muhammad: the Holy Prophet, p. 87). The claim that one is fighting purely in self-defence is one of the most elliptical ever made by men and nations throughout human history. Israel used it when conquering the Golan Heights, West Bank of the Jordan, and Sinai Desert in 1967. The conquest of these territories was, it was alleged, essential to protect the nation from the hostile Arab states round about. Hitler made a similar claim when invading Russia in 1941, alleging that he was protecting the Aryans from the Bolsheviks. Indeed the Quraysh could just as well have claimed that their expeditions to Medina were purely defensive exercises to protect their peaceful caravan trade which Muhammad was intent on disrupting. The Muslim claim that his wars were purely defensive appears to be more rhetorical than historical in substance. One writer even has the audacity to say of the Meccan caravan trade: "These caravans constituted a grave threat to the security of Medina". (Zafrulla Khan, Muhammad: Seal of the Prophets, p. 111). Some authors will go to great lengths to exonerate Muhammad and remove the stigma that the raiding parties have left on his character. These caravans were invariably lightly manned and armed. Even the large annual caravan from Mecca to Syria had to pass Medina by a special route each year to avoid capture and, when Abu Sufyan learnt that a raiding party was coming out of Medina to meet him on his return in 624 AD, he had to hasten on to protect the caravan and was compelled to call for a force from Mecca to escort him. The "grave threat" was, in truth, the other way around. Within a hundred years the Muslim hordes, by force of arms, had conquered territories from Spain in the West to India in the East. Was this all purely defensive? What threat faced the small community of Muslims in Medina from the shores of Spain and frontiers of France? The thesis that Muhammad never took the sword for aggressive purposes appears very weak in the light of this famous verse from the Qur’an, known as the ayatus-saif, the "verse of the sword": But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and Iie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war). Surah 9.5 They were only to be spared if they repented and became Muslims, the verse continues. Another wishful claim, made in bold defiance of the facts of history, is that Muhammad "never killed a single prisoner of war" (All, The Religion of Islam, p. 483). We have already seen how Muhammad had Abu Azzah executed after the Battle of Uhud. Another was an-Nadhr ibn al-Harith who was ordered to be beheaded by Muhammad after the Battle of Badr for the capital offence of challenging Muhammad’s revelations and composing surahs and stories like those in the Qur’an. (The Qur’an boldly invites all-comers to attempt to produce passages equal to its own in Surah 11.13 but Muhammad was sorely tried whenever anyone ventured to do so). Yet another victim at Badr was Uqba ibn abi Muait. The Battle of Badr has been celebrated in Islam as its first true moment of glory and yet even here we find Muhammad and his companions bent on vengeance and the destruction of those who had persecuted them. A Muslim writer gives us a useful insight into the thoughts of the Muslims as they prepared for the first battle they were to fight for Islam: Before entering battle, they resolved to direct their attention to the leaders and nobles of the Quraysh. They planned to seek them and to kill them first, remembering the persecution and travails they had suffered at their hands in Makkah, especially the blocking of the road to God and to the holy mosque. (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, p. 229). Another unedifying spectacle that greets the reader is the reaction of Muhammad when he learnt of the death, on the same battlefield, of the man who had persecuted him so much during his days in Mecca: Among the leaders of Quraish who met their death was Abu Jahal, chief of the clan of Beni Makhzoom, the Apostle’s bitterest enemy. Muhammad send 0a servant to search the field for his corpse. When he found it, he cut off his head and threw it down at the feet of the Apostle who cried ecstatically, "The head of the enemy of God Praise God, for there is no other but He!" (Glubb, The Life and Times of Muhammad, p. 186). "Beloved, never avenge yourselves" is the advice of the Apostle Paul (Romans 12:19), following the teaching and example of his Master (Luke 6:27-31). Not so the dictum of Muhammad, who constantly plotted revenge against his personal enemies and delighted in it when it was achieved. 2. The Assassination of Ka’b ibn Ashraf. Shortly after the Battle of Badr an incident occurred, widely reported in the Hadith, which Muir describes as another of those dastardly acts of cruelty which darken the pages of the Prophet’s life" (The Life of Mahomet, p. 238). It was the clandestine killing of a Jew, Ka’b ibn Ashraf, who "was at Mahomet’s instigation assassinated under circumstances of the blackest treachery" (Stobart, Islam and its Founder, p. 158). He had been one of those poets who had irritated Muhammad with his satirical verses. After Badr he mourned the leaders of the Quraysh and visited Mecca to stir up a reprisal raid against the Muslims. What ultimately transpired is described in unemotional language in the traditions: Narrated Jabir: The Prophet said, "Who is ready to kill Ka’b ibn Ashraf?". Muhammad bin Maslama replied, "Do you like me to kill him?" The Prophet replied in the affirmative. Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say what I like". The Prophet replied, "I do". (Sahih at-Bukhari, Vol. 4, p. 168). In another tradition Muhammad ibn Maslama’s statement "allow me to say what I like" is interpreted to mean that he should be allowed to say a "false" thing to deceive Ka’b. (Sahih at-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p. 248). An early biographer is quite unambiguous in his record of this commission: The apostle said "All that is incumbent upon you is that you should try". He said "O apostle of God, we shall have to tell lies". He answered "Say what you like, for you are free in the matter". (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 367). It is hardly any wonder that writers like Muir and Stobart speak so harshly of Muhammad’s conduct in this matter. This was a direct order to effect the murder of one of his opponents coupled with a licence to resort to any manner of lies to achieve it. Muhammad’s companion of the same name duly took advantage of the freedom given him to use deceitful means to dispose of the unsuspecting Jew: Muhammad b. Maslama came to Ka’b and talked to him, referred to the old friendship between them and said: This man (i.e. the Holy Prophet) has made up his mind to collect charity (from us) and this has put us to a great hardship. When he heard this, Ka’b said: By God, you will be put to more trouble by him. Muhammad b. Maslama said: no doubt, now we have become his followers and we do not like to forsake him until we see what turn his affairs will take. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, p. 991). The subtle claim that Muhammad had burdened the Medinan Muslims (Ibn Maslama was of the Aus tribe) duly persuaded Ka’b that the men with him meant him no harm. His own foster brother Abu Natilah, also among the party, was even more convincing than his companion: He said: I am Abu Na’ilah, and I have come to you to inform you that the advent of this man (the Prophet) is a calamity for us. The Arabs are fighting with us and they are shooting from one bow (i.e. they are united against us). We want to keep away from him (the Prophet). (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabeqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p. 36). Ibn Sa’d goes on to say that when these men, who claimed they had come to purchase food and dates from him, finally met Ka’b again during the evening, he talked freely with them and was "pleased with them and became intimate with them" (op. cit., p.37). Coming closer to him on the presence that they wished to smell his perfume, Ibn Maslama and the others immediately drew their swords and killed him. They returned to Muhammad uttering the takbir ("Allahu Akbar" - Allah is Most Great). When they reached the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him; he said: (Your) faces be lucky. They said: Yours too, O Apostle of Allah! They cast his head before him. He (the Prophet) praised Allah on his being slain. When it was morning, he said: Kill every Jew whom you come across. The Jews were frightened, so none of them came out, nor did they speak. They were afraid that they would be suddenly attacked as Ibn Ashraf was attacked in the night. (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p. 37). This affair discredits Muhammad’s claim to be a prophet. Who can read these sordid details without being nauseated in his spirit? Muslim biographers, as ia to be expected, have sought to exculpate their Prophet in this matter. One has very artfully rewritten history by giving no indication that Muhammad had any part in this murderous scene. Claiming that Ka’b had vexed the Muslims of Medina with false accusations against their womenfolk, he puts the responsibility for his assassination at the feet of the Muslims alone without any reference in his narrative to Muhammad’s part in it: They were so incensed and irritated by him that, after unanimously agreeing to kill him, they authorized Abu Na’ilah to seek his company and win his confidence. Abu Na’ilah said to Katb, "The advent of Muhammad was a misfortune to all of us". (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, p. 244). One can see how awkward Muhammad’s role in this matter was for the Egyptian author. Finding no way to justify him, he expediently left him out of the affair altogether. It is tendentious of Haykal not to reveal that it was not the Muslims but Muhammad himself who took the initiative in having him killed, a fact about which there is no doubt in Ibn Hisham’s account. "Who will rid me of the son of Ashraf?" (Weasels, A Modern Arabic Biography of Muhammad, p. 183). Other Muslim writers have produced a more imaginative defence of their Prophet’s action. They have given it a forensic touch by claiming that, as ruler in Medina, Muhammad had a right to order the execution of those who were guilty of high treason. One writer alleges that "Christian controversialists" have "shut their eyes to the justice of the sentence, and the necessity of a swift and secret execution (Ali, The Spirit of Islam, p. 74). Mitigation of Muhammad’s action is sought in legal terminology, viz. "sentence", "execution", etc. Another writer seeks to remove the sting in the course of this affair by the use of similar terms: When the Holy Prophet was convinced of these various offences of Kaab, he determined that Kaab had earned the ultimate penalty several times over ... He, therefore, decided that Kaab would not be executed publicly, but silently without any fuss. (Zafrulla Khan, Muhammad: Seal of the Prophets, p. 138). Muhammad at this stage was anything but the undisputed ruler of Medina and the devious methods adopted to despatch the offending Jew, when exposed to public view as they so blandly are in the traditions, still leave the firm impression that this was an act of cold-blooded murder coupled with a host of lies, both of which had the sanction of the Prophet of Islam. It is not surprising to find such incidents leading to strange teachings in Muslim writings. One writer comments on the fate due to "traitors" in these words: And a traitor guilty of high treason is an outlaw and may be killed by anyone without any special authority. May God guide us all to the Truth and spread peace and unity amongst mankind! (Sarwar, Muhammad: the Holy Prophet, p. 195). These words almost defy comment! Well does the author appeal to God for guidance into the Truth - he is much in need of it. His licence to all and sundry to take the law into their own hands by lynching those whom they consider to be "traitors" (Ka’b never espoused Muhammad’s cause) seems hardly consistent with his professed desire for peace among men. But his comment does give a truer picture of what really happened that night than the legal euphemisms of men like Syed Ameer Ali and Muhammad Zafrulla Khan. 3. The Murder of Abu Rafi. On many occasions Muhammad showed commendable magnanimity towards his enemies but every now and then we are faced with individual cases which seriously compromise his claim to be God’s final messenger to mankind. Another Jew, Abu Rafi, one of the chiefs of the Banu Nadhir exiled after the Battle of Uhud, was also murdered at his instigation. Abu Rafi’s true name was Sallam ibn abi al-Huqaiq and he lived in one of the forts at Khaibar before Muhammad’s conquest of the settlement. This tradition tells its own story: Narrated Al-Bara: Allah’s Apostle sent Abdullah bin Atik and Abdullah bin Utba with a group of men to Abu Rafi (to kill him) . . . (Abdullah said) "I called, ’O Abu Rafi!’ He replied ’Who is it?’ I proceeded towards the voice and hit him. He cried loudly but my blow was futile. Then I came to him, pretending to help him, saying with a different tone of my voice, ’What is wrong with you, O Abu Rafi?’ He said ’Are you not surprised? Woe on your mother! A man has come to me and hit me with a sword!’ So again I aimed at him and hit him, but the blow proved futile again, and on that Abu Rafi cried loudly and his wife got up. I came again and changed my voice as if I were a helper, and found Abu Rafi lying straight on his back, so I drove the sword into his belly and bent on it till I heard the sound of a bone break". (Sahih al- Bukhari, Vol. 5, pp. 253, 254). The narrative is unsavoury, to say the least, and once again we have the usual ingredients - a calculated murder accomplished through deceit and presence. Ibn Ishaq informs us that when Abu Rafi’s wife asked the group who they were they politely answered "Arabs in search of supplies" (Sirat Rasulullah, p. 483). It is no wonder that Islam does not, even to this day, reprobate every form of dishonesty. A Muslim writer unashamedly says: Falsehood is not always bad, to be sure; there are times when telling a lie is more profitable and better for the general welfare, and for the settlement of conciliation among people, than telling the truth. (Tabbarah, The Spirit of Islam, p. 255). How much more reliable are the absolute standards set out in the teaching of Jesus who warned that anyone given to even a little dishonesty in any given circumstance was dishonest through and through (Luke 16:10). Indeed in one statement made by Jesus we have a perfect analysis of the source of the motivation behind the murders of Ka’b and Abu Rafi and the lies accompanying them, and his words might just as well have been addressed to all those involved in their so-called "executions": You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. John 8:44 Furthermore we are told in the Hadith that both these murders were accomplished secretly at night. The Bible gives sound reasons why such evil deeds are performed under the cover of darkness: Men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. John 3:19-20 It is a shame even to speak of the things that they do in secret. Ephesians 5:12 4. A Christian Perspective and Conclusion. It is often claimed by Muslims that their Prophet’s actions were consistent with both the standards of his day in Arabia and with those of many of the prophets of Israel in pre-Christian times (ea. David’s scheme to kill Uriah the Hittite, etc.). Syed Ameer Ali says of the massacre of the Banu Quraydhah: "We simply look upon it as an act done in complete accordance with the laws of war as then understood by the nations of the world" (The Spirit of Islam, p. 81). This brings us back once again to relative standards - the only ones, it seems, by which Muhammad and his religion can be justified. The defence sometimes takes a different form - it is alleged that the Muslims acted according to the basic principles of human nature. Here is an example: It was not in their nature to suffer such injustices or to submit to such tyranny for long without thinking of avenging themselves. (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, p. 198). It is precisely at this point that Islam becomes something of an anachronism, an outdated form of religion which was, centuries earlier, replaced by one that was far better. When Jesus came into the world a new covenant was introduced, one far better than the one it replaced (Hebrews 8:6). One of the better essences of this new covenant is the universal pouring out of the Holy Spirit on all who truly belong to Jesus Christ so that they may no longer be bound to their ordinary natures but to the new nature within them which has Divine qualities (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:12). As Hayka’ says of Mohammad and his companions, it was "not in their nature" to suffer patiently, leaving vengeance to the Lord. But this very thing is in the nature of true Christians because they are born of the Holy Spirit and have divine power to become what God truly wants men to be. How graciously these words of a follower of Jesus compare with the spirit of the followers of Muhammad: For one is approved if, mindful of God, he endures pain while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it, if when you do wrong and are beaten for it you take it patiently? But if when you do right and suffer for it you take it patiently, you have God’s approval. For to this you have been called, for Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example that you should follow in his steps. 1 Peter 2:19-21 Jesus Christ brought a new morality into the world. He showed that earthly survival and security were not paramount objectives for men and nations but rather that men should seek to become like God in their characters. He died and rose again to make such things possible. He introduced a higher standard of righteousness, one much superior to that of Islam. For the Islam of Mohammed, coming after Christ, reverted to the lower types before him. The Prophet of Islam was in fact precisely the type of Messiah after which the Jews of Christ’s day hankered, and which Jesus Christ Himself definitely rejected, from the Mount of Temptation and from the Mount of Calvary. (Gairdner, The Reproach of Islam, p. 63). When Muhammad found that the Jews and Christians were ultimately not going to acknowledge his claims, he became very antagonistic towards them. The Qur’an says of both these groups "God’s curse be on them!" (Surah 9.30). The original words in Arabic, however, are qautalahumullaah which mean, quite literally, "Allah kill them". Jesus was also faced with a people who would not receive him. As he passed through Samaria on his way to Jerusalem, the Samaritans refused to accommodate him. Two of his disciples exclaimed "Lord, do you want us to bid fire come down from heaven and consume them?" (Luke 9:54). This is the spirit of human nature, the spirit of vengeance, the spirit of Islam. But Jesus turned and rebuked them, saying: "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of, for the Son of man came not to destroy men’s lives but to save them". Luke 9:55 The wondrous forbearing love of the Saviour of the world stands out, in all his teaching and actions, above the spirit of Islam. It was he who set the perfect example of love before the world when he prayed for the salvation of his enemies even as they crucified him, and bade his disciples do likewise: "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you" (Luke 6:27-28). Indeed when Jesus gave a parable to demonstrate what true love was just after he had been rejected by the Samaritans, he chose a Samaritan as the hero of his story (Luke 10:33). The progress of Islam begins to stand out in unenviable contrast with that of early Christianity. Converts were gained to the faith of Jesus by witnessing the constancy with which its confessors suffered death; they were gained to Islam by the spectacle of the readiness with which its adherents inflicted death. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p. 242). On the night Jesus was betrayed he called his betrayer his friend (Matthew 26:50), healed one of the soldiers who came to arrest him (Luke 22:51), and prayed for a disciple who was to desert him (Luke 22:32). The next day, when all human vindictiveness was let loose against him, he commended Pilate (John 19:11), comforted a man who but a few hours earlier had reviled him (Luke 23:43, Matthew 27:44), and sought the forgiveness of his murderers (Luke 23:34). This was the spirit of the man Jesus Christ. The same spirit has been manifested in thousands of true Christians since his ascension to heaven. Encouraged by his example and fortified by the Holy Spirit, his followers have also loved their enemies and prayed for the forgiveness of their murderers (Acts 7:60). From the moment of his ascension to the moment of his return, his perfect standard is publicly portrayed before all men. The spirit of the Christian Gospel is the heart of true religion, one which summons human character to perfection, sets an incomparable example of it (Ephesians 5:2), and provides the Spirit by which such perfection is attainable. The prophets who came before Jesus Christ looked forward earnestly to the coming of their Redeemer, the Messiah, and when he came he introduced a religion and way of life vastly superior to that which went before. If the best thing that can be said for the spirit and attitudes of Muhammad and his companions is that they were no different to those who came before Jesus Christ, then this is one of the best reasons for not accepting the religion he introduced. It may compare favourably with Judaism but is considerably inferior to the spirit of true Christianity. Although Mohammed had many noble qualities and was prophetically gifted with the inspiration of monotheism, his moral character broke down under the stress of temptation. Is it not pathetic that such a vast number of the human race is looking to him as the sole interpreter of God and as their guide for life and death? (Trowbridge, "Mohammed’s View of Religious War", The Muslim World, Vol. 3, p. 305). ======================================================================== CHAPTER 42: 04.09. C. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS MARRIAGES. ======================================================================== C. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS MARRIAGES. 1. Muhammad and his Wives. For twenty-five years Muhammad was married to only one woman, his faithful and upright wife Khadija, but after her death he took a number of wives. The exact number is not certain but it is believed that he had thirteen wives in all, nine of whom succeeded him. The polygamy he practiced, and which he allowed to Muslims in general, has often been looked upon as a further weakness in his character. A brief examination of his marriages after the death of Khadija will assist us to draw our own conclusions. Before the Hijrah Muhammad married Sauda bint Zam’ah, a widow with a son who had been among the emigrants to Abyssinia. She was over thirty years of age. At about the same time he was betrothed to Ayishah whom he married formally three years later in Medina. She was his favourite wife and a woman who played a large part in the early development of Islam. At Medina she was once left behind during a journey home and was brought back by one of Muhammad’s companions, Safwan, who had emigrated from Mecca. A scandal spread in Medina as sinister accusations were levelled against the two but, after being estranged from her for a while, Muhammad received a revelation (Surah 24.11-20) upholding her innocence and reproving those who had falsely accused her. They were subsequently beaten for their slanders. Ayishah features prominently in the Hadith. A great number of traditions are attributed to her and her opinion was widely sought in many matters as she was a woman of considerable intellect and knowledge. One of the early Muslims said of her: I have not seen any one having more knowledge of the sunnah (practice) of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, than Ayishah, nor more intelligent in opinion if her opinion was sought, or having better knowledge of the verses as to what they were revealed about, or in calculating the faratid (inheritance). (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab at-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p. 481). After Ayishah Muhammad married the daughter of Umar, Hafsah, whose husband was killed at Badr. He then married Unm Salamah and Zaynab bint Khuzaymah in quick succession. Zaynab died, however, within three months of her marriage to Muhammad. His next marriage was to a young woman named Juayriyah of the Banu Khuza’ah, defeated in an attack by Muhammad in the fifth year of the Hijrah. Her marriage became a ransom for the whole tribe who were released immediately. The young Ayishah, becoming patently jealous of the increasing number of wives being added to the household, commented: She was a most beautiful woman. She captivated every man who saw her. She came to the Apostle to ask his help in the matter. As soon as I saw her at the door of my room I took a dislike for her, for I knew that he would see her as I saw her. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 493). Ayishah wryly concluded: I do not know a woman who was a greater blessing to her people than she (op. cit.). After this Muhammad married Zaynab bint Jahsh and a Coptic slavewoman Mariyah. More will be heard of these two presently, but it is interesting to note here that, out of all his marriages at Medina, Mariyah alone bore him a child, a much-loved son named Ibrahim, who died after eighteen months. Following these two were the daughter of Abu Sufyan, Umm Habibah, who had also emigrated to Abyssinia, and a Jewess Safiyah, who lost her father Huyayy, her husband Kinanah, and both her brothers during Muhammad’s assault on the fortress at Khaibar. His last marriage was to a widow named Maymunah. The only wife left out is another Jewess named Rayhanah as there is some doubt as to whether she ever married Muhammad. She was one of the women captured after the sedge of the Banu Quraydhah, the Jewish tribe near Medina subsequently massacred for colluding with the Quraysh. A Muslim writer says The story about Raihana becoming a wife of the Prophet is a fabrication, for, after this event, she disappears from history and we hear no more of her, whilst of others we have full and circumstantial accounts (Ali, The Spirit of Islam, p. 82). The manner in which she was brought into Muhammad’s entourage is given in this brief narrative: He invited her to be his wife; but she declined and chose to remain (as indeed, having refused marriage, she had no alternative) his slave or concubine. She also declined the summons to conversion, and continued in the Jewish faith, at which the Prophet was much concerned. It is said, however, that she afterwards embraced Islam. She did not many years survive her unhappy fate. (Muir, The Life of Mohamet, p. 309). Having just witnessed the butchery of her husband and all her male relatives, it is hardly surprising to find that "She had shown repugnance towards Islam when she was captured and clung to Judaism (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 466). There are many Muslims who defend Muhammad’s polygamous marriages by saying that most of his wives were divorcees or widows. It should be remembered that the two Jewish women attached to him were only widows because Muhammad’s followers had slaughtered their husbands just before they were brought into his camp. 2. Muhammad’s Marriage to Zaynab bint Jahsh. None of Muhammad’s marriages has evoked as much comment as that with Zaynab bint Jahsh. This woman was his cousin and had been the wife of his adopted son Zaid. Muhammad had arranged the marriage but it appears that it went sour after a while. A remark by Muhammad himself one day added to the deteriorating relationship. He had occasion to visit the house of Zaid, and upon seeing Zainab’s unveiled face, had exclaimed, as a Moslem would say at the present day when admiring a beautiful picture or statue, Praise be to God, the ruler of hearts! The words, uttered in natural admiration, were often repeated by Zainab to her husband to show how even the Prophet praised her beauty, and naturally added to his displeasure. (Ali, The Spirit of Islam, p. 235). Zaid then determined to divorce her but, upon approaching Muhammad, was told to keep her as his wife. Things did not improve, however, and Zaid duly divorced her. Shortly afterwards Muhammad himself took her in marriage, giving by far the biggest wedding-feast he had given for any of his wives. A scandal soon broke out because he had married the ex- wife of his own adopted son, something frowned upon by the Arabs as tantamount to incest. A revelation in the Qur’an soon justified the marriage: Behold! Thou didst say to one who had received the grace of God and thy favour: Retain thou (in wedlock) thy wife, and fear God. But thou didst hide in thy heart that which God was about to make manifest: thou didst fear the people, but it is more fitting that thou shouldst fear God. Then when Zaid had dissolved (his marriage) with her, with the necessary (formality), We joined her in marriage to thee: in order that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the believers in (the matter of) marriage with the wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have dissolved with the necessary (formality their marriage) with them. And God’s command must be fulfilled. Surah 33.37 The biography of at-Tabari suggests that Muhammad was visibly moved by Zaynab’s beauty when he beheld her on this occasion and in many works this incident has led to a severe censure of Muhammad because it seems that he had caused the divorce between her and Zaid and had manipulated the situation so that he could marry her. This censure may well be unfounded. Zaynab was his own cousin and Muhammad had known her for many years and it is hard to believe that after all this time he was suddenly infatuated by an opportune view of her beauty. There seems to be much merit in the argument that Muhammad would have taken her in marriage himself at first rather than give her in marriage to Zayd (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, p. 295). There is therefore a strong presumption that in the case of Zaynab bint Jahsh, Muhammad was not carried away by passion . . . it is unlikely that he was swept off his feet by the physical attractiveness of Zaynab. (Watt, Muhammad at Medina, pp. 330, 331). Furthermore the marriage caused no rift between Muhammad and Zaid and he remained loyal to Muhammad until his death on the battlefield at Muta. "One of the greatest tests of the Prophet’s purity is that Zaid never swerved from his devotion to his master" (Ali, The Spirit of Islam, p. 236). It is, however, hard to find a motive for the marriage if the attractiveness of this woman for Muhammad is denied altogether and it must be presumed that he had a deep spirit of affection for her. In his favour we must also remember that he steadfastly encouraged Zaid to keep her as his wife even when Zaid expressed a desire to divorce her. On the balance of probabilities Muhammad must be acquitted of the charge that he caused the divorce and took advantage of it to satisfy his own whims and desires. As pointed out already, what shocked the Arabs was the fact that Muhammad had married within the customary prohibited degrees of relationship. One point is tolerably certain, and that is the reason for the criticism of Muhammad’s action by his contemporaries. They were not moved in the slightest by what some Europeans have regarded as the sensual and voluptuous character of his behaviour . . . in their eyes it was incestuous. (Watt, Muhammad at Medina, p. 330). A Western writer says of the Arab scruple about the marriage of a man to his adopted son’s ex-wife: This custom was such as Muhammed had every reason to abolish, and this he actually did (Roberts, The Social Laws of the Qur’an, p. 49). The Qur’an, in the verse quoted, states that God himself had ordained the marriage for the specific purpose of abolishing the Arab custom, but the writer just quoted views the matter as purely incidental to the predicament Muhammad found himself in through his marriage with Zaynab: It will thus be seen that the only reference made by the prophet to the matter of adoption is due entirely to self-interest; the desire to set himself right with his followers in the affair regarding Zainab. (Roberts, The Social Laws of the Qur’an, p. 51). It is possible that Zaynab was the real pursuer in this case as she boasted constantly to Zaid of Muhammad’s expression of favour towards her. After the marriage she continued in much the same vein as she boasted to the other wives of the prophet that her marriage alone had been ratified in heaven (Stobart, Islam and its Founder, p. 162). She was obviously very keen to marry Muhammad and found much comfort in the verse quoted where God is alleged to have arranged her marriage: "We joined her in marriage to thee". Muhammad apparently spent much time with her and it is hardly surprising to find his youngest wives, Ayishah and Hafsah, beholding the relationship between them with some jealousy (Zaynab was much older than both of them). Narrated Aisha: Allah’s Apostle used to drink honey in the house of Zainab, the daughter of Jahsh, and would stay there with her. So Hafsa and I agreed secretly that, if he come to either of us, she would say to him: It seems you have eaten Maghafir (a kind of bad-smelling resin), for I smell in you the smell of Maghafir. We did so and he replied No, but I was drinking honey in the house of Zainab, the daughter of Jahsh, and I shall never take it again. I have taken an oath as to that, and you should not tell anybody about it. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 404). Muhammad loved perfumes and sweet-smelling spices but despised garlic and the like and this charge must have been keenly felt by him. One feels inclined to treat this tradition with some caution, however, as it may well have been invented, or more probably adjusted, to fit the permission given to Muhammad in Surah 66.2 to absolve himself from an oath taken to please his wives. As we shall see in the next part of this section, the verse has generally been taken to refer to a far more serious matter relating to another wife where the same consorts Ayishah and Hafsah again teamed up against him. It is not uncommon to find traditions in Bukhari’s Sahih which are very similar in style to others in earlier Sirat literature but which neatly remove any details considered to be dishonouring to Muhammad. We will come across another in the section on Surah 53.19 to follow but at this stage, insofar as this tradition contains the germ of an incident in Muhammad’s life, it does illustrate the spirit in which his youngest wives reacted to his subsequent marriages. Muhammad’s marriage with Zaynab nevertheless exposes him to censure when it is viewed from a Christian perspective. At the same time the Qur’an also exposes itself to critical review in its sanction of the whole affair. As we have seen, Surah 33.37 states that, even while Zaid was still married to Zaynab, it was the will of Allah that Muhammad should be married to her and he is reproved for encouraging Zaid to remain married when God had something else in mind. At last Zaid divorced her. It was not Zaid who did so but it was the Will of God. God ordered Muhammad to marry her. (Sarwar, Muhammad: the Holy Prophet, p. 375). This contrasts most unfavourably with the express will of God as stated in the Bible: "For I hate divorce, says the Lord, the God of Israel" (Malachi 2:16). It is most significant that this decree is upheld in the Hadith as well: Ibn Umar reported the Prophet (may peace be upon him) as saying: Of all the lawful acts the most detestable to Allah is divorce. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 2, p. 585). One is reminded of the discussion between Jesus and the Pharisees where the latter claimed that God had made divorce lawful. Jesus answered that, from the beginning, God had made one woman for the one man, adding "What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder" (Mark 10:9). Muhammad married a woman divorced from her husband. Sarwar says that this was not just lawful in God’s eyes but was his express will. This is extremely hard to believe of the all-holy God who hates divorce. On the contrary, Muhammad’s marriage with Zaynab takes on a very different perspective and becomes exceptionally censurable when examined in the light of what Jesus said about precisely such marriages: He who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. Luke 16:18 Surah 33.37, far from revealing that God specifically wills certain divorces so that his prophets may marry the wives of other men, appears to be a thoroughly unwarranted relaxation of God’s express laws, also set forth very firmly in these verses: A married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives ... accordingly she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is still alive. Romans 7:2-3. Muhammad may not deserve the charge that he had a passionate desire for Zaynab and schemed his marriage with her, but his claim to prophethood does well appear to fall to the ground when this matter is considered in the light of the revealed law of God as found in the Christian Bible. Under that same light the Qur’an also appears to invalidate its claim to be the Word of God when it seeks to excuse the whole affair by alleging that it was all according to the predetermined will of God. 3. The Jealousy of Muhammad’s Wives. At least nine of Muhammad’s wives survived him. The Qur’an only allows Muslims up to four wives at a time (Surah 4.3), but Muhammad was entitled to as many as he chose until the Qur’an forbade him to take any more (Surah 33.52). As already mentioned, polygamy, as sanctioned and approved in the Qur’an, has been regarded in non-Muslim circles as one of the weaknesses of Islam. Sensitive to any charge against the infallibility of the teaching of their religion and the practice of their prophet, Muslim writers invariably seek to justify polygamy. The Qur’anic verse allowing up to four wives adds the condition "If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one or (a captive) that your right hands possess" (Surah 4.3), and the argument usually put forward is that polygamy is perfectly in order provided the wives are given equal treatment. As Muhammad had many wives he is often strongly defended against the allegation that he could not have treated them equally. The surest way to discover the truth of the matter is not to ask whether he himself was persuaded that they were so treated, but to enquire from his wives whether they ever felt any jealousy for one another or whether any friction was caused by their very number in the household. One writer claims: But did any one of them ever raise the least complaint about any action of the Prophet during or after his lifetime? No, never. Can there be any bigger testimony to the Prophet’s justice, equality (Masawat), love and consideration? (Zain, The Prophet of Islam: The Ideal Husband, p. 42). A study of the evidences shows that this statement is based on the author’s idealism rather than historical facts for there are many traditions recording that Muhammad’s wives were jealous of one another and not always pleased with him either. Indeed on one occasion he kept aloof from them for a while and threatened to divorce them all. We have already seen that Ayishah and Hafsah expressed some displeasure to Muhammad over the length of time he spent with Zaynab bint Jahsh. Being the youngest of his wives, it is not surprising that they were usually at the heart of Muhammad’s domestic problems. Indeed Umar, Hafsah’s father, not only found that Muhammad’s wives argued with him quite regularly but even suspected that his daughter envied Ayishah as well because Muhammad clearly regarded her as his favourite wife. He was prompted to enquire into the relationship between Hafsah and Muhammad by a sharp remark made by his own wife on one occasion to him: She said, How strange you are, O son of al-Khattab! You don’t want to be argued with whereas your daughter, Hafsa surely, argues with Allah’s Apostle so much that he remains angry for a full dayl Umar then reported how he at once put on his outer garment and went to Hafsa and said to her O my daughter! Do you argue with A1lah’s Apostle so that he remains angry the whole day? Hafsa answered By Allah, we argue with him. Umar said Know that I warn you of Allah’s punishment and the anger of Allah’s Apostle. O my daughter! Don’t be betrayed by the one who is proud of her beauty because of the love of Allah’s Apostle for her (i.e. Aisha). (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 406). It was Muhammad’s custom to spend one day at a time with his wives in order but on one occasion the irrepressible Hafsah discovered him with Mariyah in her own apartment on the day properly reserved for her alone. A Muslim writer is refreshingly frank in his narrative of this incident: As she waited for them to come out, her jealousy broke all bounds. When, finally, Mariyah left the quarters and Hafsah entered, she said to the Prophet: "I have seen who was here. By God, that was an insult to me. You would not have dared to do that if I amounted to anything at all in your eyes". At the moment Muhammad realized that such deep-lying jealousy might even move Hafsah to broadcast what she had seen among the other wives. In an attempt to please her, Muhammad promised that he would not go unto Mariyah if she would only refrain from broadcasting what she had seen. (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, p. 436). He goes on to say that Hafsah could not keep her promise as jealousy continued to affect her disposition and that she discussed the matter with Ayishah. The only thing he omits from the story is the statement made by all the commentators who record it that the promise made by Muhammad was actually in the form of an oath. They add that Muhammad was later freed from this oath by a Qur’anic revelation: O Prophet! Why holdest thou to be forbidden that which God has made lawful to thee? Thou seekest to please thy consorts. But rod is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. God has already ordained for you (O men), the dissolution of your oaths (in some cases); and God is your Protector, and He is Full of Knowledge and Wisdom. Surah 66.1-2. Bukhari and others say that this verse refers to the incident where Muhammad was told that the honey he had eaten with Zaynab smelt like a bitter herb. One must take seriously the fact that the story about Muhammad’s vow to avoid Mariyah’s company in future is not recorded in the major Hadith and Sirat literature but only in later commentaries and is therefore founded on weak historical authority. This has prompted a Muslim writer to say that the whole story of Mariyah’s intimacy with Muhammad in Hafsah’s apartment on her day is absolutely false and malicious and that it is repudiated by all the respectable commentators of the Koran (Ali, The Spirit of Islam, p. 235). On the other hand this story has come down purely through Islamic sources and could hardly have been widely accepted within the Islamic heritage if it had been invented. Unfortunately the Qur’an is somewhat vague at this point, saying only that the sanction to dissolve the oath arose out of the disclosure by one of Muhammad’s wives to another of a matter of confidence (Surah 66.3) told by him to the first. This could refer to either story and, although Bukhari confirms that the two wives spoken of were the provocative young consorts Hafsah and Ayishah (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 408), this also does not help as it was these two who were the participants in both cases. A Western writer, however, makes a very interesting observation: But the jealousy of Mary’s Sisters showed itself in a more serious way, and led to an incident in the Prophet’s life which the biographers pass over in decent silence; and I should gladly have followed their example if the Coran itself had not accredited the facts and stamped them with unavoidable notoriety. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p. 413). It is the Qur’an’s treatment of the matter that makes it probable that the incident with Mariyah is really the one referred to. Firstly, if the oath spoken of was purely that relating to honey, it is hard to believe that such an issue would have been made of it in the Qur’an. One recent Muslim commentator notes the seriousness of the matter when he says "The sacred words imply that the matter was of great importance as to the principle involved, but that the details were not of sufficient importance for permanent record" (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, p. 1569). The discreet omission of factual details in the Qur’anic passage, however, tends all the more to support the suggestion that a more sensitive matter was behind it. Secondly, Surah 66.3 adds that Muhammad confirmed a part of the allegation made by the spouse and repudiated a part. Again, details are significantly omitted, but it is probable that Muhammad confirmed that he had been with Mariyah in Hafsah’s apartment but denied having intercourse with her. It is hard to see how the confirming and repudiating of parts of the charge can be made to fit the somewhat petty story about the honey Muhammad had eaten with Zaynab. Thirdly, the same verse states plainly that a matter purely between Muhammad and one of his wives was disclosed to another. This is inconsistent with the honey story as Ayishah and Hafsah were both well aware of the matter all along, having mutually conspired to mislead Muhammad. It does indeed seem that Surah 66.1-2 was a convenient revelation to enable Muhammad to break his vow not to go to Mariyah again. A Christian commentator says "From the Christian standpoint, he appears to have been guilty of breaking a solemn vow, and that in order to gratify unholy passion" (Wherry, A Comprehensive Commentary on the Qur’an, Vol. 4, p. 158). The Bible gives a very solemn warning about the taking of oaths: When you make a vow to the Lord your God you shall not be slack to pay it; for the Lord your God will surely require it of you, and it would be sin in you. But if you refrain from vowing it shall be no sin in you. You shall be careful to perform what has passed your lips, for you have voluntarily vowed to the Lord your God what you have promised with your mouth. Deuteronomy 23:21-23. If God sanctions the breaking of a vow by one of his apostles, how can we be sure that he will be faithful to his own promises? Vows and oaths are sacred things, but Surah 66.1-2 seems to undermine the whole purpose and value of oaths. Shortly after this a timely revelation in the Qur’an gave Muhammad the right to abandon the fixed sequence he had followed with his wives up to this time: Thou mayest defer (the turn of) any of them that thou pleases, and thou mayest receive any thou pleases: and there is no blame on thee if thou invite one whose (turn) thou hadst set aside. Surah 33.51 Ayishah had openly complained of her jealousy towards those women (who are not named) who had "offered themselves to Allah’s Messenger" (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p. 748) and who gradually increased the size of the household as Muhammad under Qur’anic authority (Surah 33.50), duly took them as his wives (presumably Ayishah had at least Zaynab bint Jahsh and Juwayriyah in mind). As her own days to exclusively enjoy Muhammad s company grew further apart, her frustration naturally increased and when Muhammad claimed divine sanction to follow any sequence he chose, his young wife Ayishah, with a tongue as sharp as her wit, exclaimed: I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 295). It appears that his decision worked in her favour for the renowned commentator Zamakshari, commenting on Surah 3.49-52, says of Muhammad that he used to put off five temporarily in order to take four to himself, the four being Ayishah, Hafsah, Umm Salamah and Zaynab bint Jahsh (Gatje, The Qur an and its Exegesis, p. 91). Despite this it is clear that Ayishah possessed no small degree of envy for the other wives she had to share her husband with. Her caustic reaction to Muhammad’s marriage with Juwayriyah has already been noted and, when Mariyah at last gave Muhammad a son at Medina, Ayishah was anything but delighted. When Muhammad brought the infant Ibrahim to her and proudly boasted of the likeness between father and son, she coldly answered "I do not see it". William Muir wryly says that she "would gladly have put Mahomet out of conceit with the little Ibrahim" (The Life of Mahomet, p. 412). 4. Polygamy in Islam from a Christian Perspective. One cannot help feeling that Ayishah’s expressions of jealousy are perhaps the best judgment that can be passed on the whole defence that polygamy is justified where all the wives are treated equally. She was the only virgin Muhammad married and, although most traditions say that Muhammad married Sauda before her, she openly claimed that she was the first betrothed to him after the death of Khadija. She said of Sauda (whom she held in high esteem): "She was the first woman whom he (Allah’s Apostle) married after me". (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p. 748). If this was indeed so, then we need to appreciate the growing frustrations of a young virgin-bride seeing her husband taking other wives along with her in what must have seemed to her like an interminable procession of new weddings, apartments and the like. The Christian Scriptures plainly teach that a husband is to regard his wife as his equal (Ephesians 5:33) and Jesus himself confirmed the divine decree that a man, married to his one wife, becomes one flesh with her (Matthew 19:5). When God saw that Adam needed a helpmeet he made but one woman for him, not four (or, worse still, nine). The point is that each man is not called upon to treat his wives equally with one another but to treat his one wife as his own equal. An equal relationship between a man and a woman cannot be shared with others. The woman is called to devote herself with unreserved loyalty to her one husband (Genesis 3:16). In the same manner the husband is called to an equal spirit of undivided love and devotion towards his one wife (Ephesians 5:25-31). It surely goes without saying that the husband cannot love his wife with an equal devotion when he has to divide his affection among a host of consorts. Ayishah’s frustrations and jealousies are the best proof that Muhammad could not treat his wives equally - if for no other reason that he did not regard her with the same total, undivided affection that she regarded him. She may have been his favourite wife but her grievances clearly were motivated, perhaps only sub-consciously, by the fact that she was not his only wife. Paradoxically, the fact that Muhammad singled her out as his favourite wife is further proof that he did not treat his wives equally. There is more than enough evidence in Muhammad’s own marital affairs to prove that polygamy cannot ultimately be reconciled with God’s perfect purpose for human marriage. It is no wonder that the perfect revelation of his will through the Gospel of his Son simultaneously outlawed polygamy. Muhammad had enjoyed a twenty-five year marriage with Khadija which was, in all respects, unimpeachable. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for his many marriages at Medina and one can only sympathise with the young Ayishah who obviously regretted that she could not enjoy the same undivided devotion from her husband that she willingly offered to him. As said before, the Christian faith is the fullest revelation of God’s perfect will for all men. Included in this revelation is a rejection of polygamy. As God made man to reflect his own glory, so he made one woman for the first man to reflect the glory of that man (1 Corinthians 11:7). Muhammad did well to preach and practice monotheism but he would have done equally well to preach and practice monogamy. To this day Muslim writers are on the defensive when seeking to justify polygamy. One says: All the Prophets of the Old Testament, married more wives than one, which is proof that polygamy is not inconsistent with the highest standard of spirituality. (Zafrulla Khan, Muhammad: Seal of the Prophets, p. 61). This argument falls down for reasons already given. The highest standard of spirituality was not revealed through the prophets in old covenant times but through the revelation of the new covenant in all its perfections as introduced by one who likewise far excelled all the prophets of old, Jesus Christ himself. Another writer is not quite as subtle in his apologetic for Muhammad - he says of the Zaynab affair Muhammad’s violation was not one of a cosmic law but one of a social law, which is permissible to every great man (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, p. 288). This is indeed a peculiar line of reasoning and one which exposes the writer’s difficulty in justifying his Prophet’s actions. Jesus was the greatest man who ever lived and his greatness did not give him the privilege of breaking God’s laws but rather was proved in his perfect conformity to those laws in every aspect of his life. A more appropriate assessment of Muhammad’s actions follows: The Qur’an teaches us that in one or two matters the moral law was relaxed by God for Muhammad’s benefit as a special privilege because of his being God’s apostle and the sanctity attaching to that high office! Could the divorce between Religion and Morality be more complete? (Tisdall, The Religion of the Crescent, p. 81). Far from the marriages of Muhammad being proof that he was the ideal husband (as Zain puts it), they rather are evidence of an inherent weakness in Islamic morality. Once more the thing that disquiets is that this is the man who stands forth as the ultimate ideal of humanity, and all the unedifying matters of Zainab, Miriam, Ayesha, Rihana, and the rest are dignified as the signs of God’s special favour to His prophet. In manipulations of the marriage laws at which even sixteenth-century Popes of Rome drew the line, Allah showed the most accomodating spirit in seventh-century Arabia. (Gairdner, The Reproach of Islam, p. 67). Although monogamy has become the norm in many Muslim societies today, this trend is not to Islam’s credit but is rather a sign of the consciousness of God’s real will for men and women and the beat way in which a marriage can develop into a truly happy union. By taking to himself more than double the number of wives he allowed to his followers, Muhammad seems to have been something of a champion of polygamy rather than an advocate of monogamy and his tolerance of plural marriages, together with his schemes to rid himself of his personal enemies, negate his claim to be a true prophet of God. A Christian assessment of his character leaves him far short of the ideal - an ideal worked out to perfection in Jesus Christ - and the only conclusion to be drawn is that, despite his many qualities, he cannot be considered as the man God chose to be his best and final messenger to all mankind. That honour belongs to Jesus Christ alone. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 43: 04.10. THE NATURE OF MUHAMMAD'S PROPHETIC EXPERIENCE ======================================================================== The Nature of Muhammad’s Prophetic Experience ======================================================================== CHAPTER 44: 04.11. A. AN-NABI UL-UMMI: THE UNLETTERED PROPHET. ======================================================================== A. AN-NABI UL-UMMI: THE UNLETTERED PROPHET. 1. The Muslim Emphasis on Muhammad’s Illiteracy. An assessment of the nature of Muhammad’s prophetic experience is a far more complex task than that of his personality. Before analysing the subject generally it seems appropriate to introduce it with a brief study of an interesting description of his office in the Qur’an in these verses: Those who follow the Apostle, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures), - in the Law and the Gospel . . . so believe in God and his Apostle, the unlettered Prophet. Surah 7.157, 158. The title that concerns us is "the unlettered Prophet", which reads an-nabiyyal-ummi in the original Arabic. To better understand Muhammad’s concept of his own assumed prophethood it is clear that we need to know what he meant by this expression, particularly as it has been fairly widely interpreted. There can be no dispute about the word nabi which in both Hebrew and Arabic simply means prophet, but it is the qualifying adjective ummi that has led to such varied interpretations. In most English translations it is rendered unlettered, perhaps wisely so, because this word can also yield various meanings. Muslim writers usually allege that the word really means illiterate and that it substantiates the claim that Muhammad could neither read nor write. In a note to his translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasulullah, Guillaume says "Practically all Arab writers claim that he meant that he could not read or write" (p. 252). The English convert to Islam M. M. Pickthall, in his translation of the Qur’an, directly interprets the title and his text speaks of the Prophet who can neither read nor write. Another translator, who attempts no English rendering of the word ummi in his work but leaves it in its original form, nevertheless says in a footnote meaning one who neither writes nor reads a writing (Muhammad Ali, The Holy Qur’an, p. 351). Much the same is said by Muhammad Asad: ’unlettered’ (ummi), i.e., unable to read and write, which also appears in a footnote in his commentary (The Message of the Qur’an, p. 226). The reason for this fairly regular interpretation in Muslim writings is that Muhammad’s alleged illiteracy is considered to be substantial evidence that the Qur’an must have been revealed to him from heaven. They ask how such an outstanding book could have been composed by one who could neither read nor write. It is not surprising therefore to find that they determinedly seek to interpret this somewhat ambiguous expression the unlettered Prophet" in the way that will best suit their purposes. Like Muhammad himself they are very touchy about any critical analysis of his prophetic claims and react very unfavourably towards any non-Muslim writers who suggest an alternative interpretation. Another Muslim translator, referring to Sale and Palmer who take the expression to imply illiteracy (Sale actually renders it "the illiterate Prophet" in his translation), describes them as "Christian writers not altogether blinded by their hatred of Islam" (Daryabadi, The Holy Qur’an, p. 158). One can see how sensitive this issue has become for them as a result of their cherished presuppositions. There is no reason therefore why Mohammedans should emphasize the illiteracy of the Prophet except to bolster up their theory of the Koran as a miracle. (Zwemer, "The ’Illiterate’ Prophet" - Could Mohammed Read and Write? The Muslim World, Vol. 11, p. 362). It is by no means certain that Muhammad was illiterate but it is probable that he was and the Qur’an does say of him that he neither recited nor transcribed a book beforehand, which does seem to give support to the Muslim claim. Nevertheless, far from proving that he could not have composed the Qur’an, it paradoxically tends to strengthen the suggestion that he did! The Qur’an has a number of garbled accounts of historical events, contains many anachronisms, and often fails to distinguish between fact and myth (details will follow in the chapters on the sources of the Qur’an). These are all typical of the kind of errors we would expect to find in the oracle of a man who, being illiterate, simply relied on what he heard from others and could not correct himself by careful study of the relevant written sources. In all fairness, however, it must be said that those who interpret ummi to mean illiterate appear to be forcing a meaning into the word which it does not readily yield. It is obviously important that we should know what Muhammad’s conception of his prophetic role was and the best way to do this is to seek the best interpretation that can be gained from a study of the expression in its context rather than by reading a preconceived, preferent meaning into it. The word comes from the same root letters as ummah, a very common word in the Qur’an already considered, meaning a people, community or nation, and Arberry significantly translates the whole expression an-nabiyyal-ummi as "the Prophet of the common folk". The word ummah never simply means an illiterate community but it can well mean an uneducated community and it appears to carry this meaning on one or two occasions in the Qur’an, though in a special context as we shall see. At this stage, however, it seems that the interpretation of the word "unlettered" to mean "illiterate" stretches its meaning too far and that without reference to its context. 2. Did Muhammad Consider Himself a Gentile Prophet? A common interpretation of the expression an-nabiyyal-ummi by Western scholars is "the Gentile Prophet", meaning that Muhammad, acknowledging that the previous prophets were all Jews, made a special claim to be an exceptional, non-Jewish prophet. Rabbi Abraham Geiger, however, has clearly shown that the word rendered unlettered in this verse really means "Gentile", as opposed to Jewish. (Tisdall, The Original Sources of the Qur’an, p. 131). Another author says that ummi "is almost certainly intended to render the conception ’gentile’ (roughly as held by the Jews)" (Watt, What is Islam? p. 76). Another writer says of the title an-nabiyyal-ummi in Surah 7.157: But the manner in which this expression is thrown into this verse and the next raises the conjecture, which with us amounts to an opinion, that this appellation came originally from the Jews, who used it in expressing their contempt for the Gentile prophet, the term Ummi meaning Gentile in the technical sense. (Wherry, A Comprehensive Commentary on the Qur’an, Vol. 2, p. 237). Yet another writer says much the same thing: Postulating that prophecy was the exclusive privilege of Israel, they refused to recognise the claims of the omni, ’gentile’ prophet. (Lammens, Islam: Beliefs and Institutions, p. 28). This interpretation also does not really seem to give the meaning of the word ummi. This time it is placed against the background of the Judaeo-Christian dogma that all the true prophets were of Israel’s line (cf. Romans 9:4-5). It is extremely doubtful whether Muhammad ever saw himself in this context. On the other hand he speaks in the Qur’an of prophets sent to various tribes beforehand, such as the prophet Hud sent to the people of ’Ad (Surah 7.65) and the prophet Salih sent to the people of Thamud (Surah 7.73). In both cases the Qur’an adds that each of these prophets was akhahum, that is, a brother of the community to whom he was sent. Furthermore on more than one occasion the Qur’an says that a messenger was sent to kulli ummah, that is, "to every community" at one time or another (Surah 10.47, 16.36). One must therefore reject the suggestion that Muhammad saw himself as a unique, non-Jewish prophet. Another interesting and somewhat novel interpretation has been suggested by H. G. Reissner in an article in The Muslim World. He refers to the Talmudic distinction between true Jews, who followed Judaism wholeheartedly, and the Ben Israel who were the rural people of the nation and who were not overtly Jewish in their manners and customs. He goes on to compare this distinction to the two expressions used in the Qur’an for the Israelite nation, namely Yahudu, meaning Jews, and Banu Israil meaning the people of Israel. He suggests that, as the Qur’an often speaks unfavourably of the Yahudu but constantly refers to God’s favour on the Banu Israil, Muhammad was adopting the Talmudic categories and was relating them to his own negative experiences with the rich merchants of Mecca and the more positive responses he received from the general masses of the common people. He theorises: The ummiyyun in the Prophet’s appraisal, consequently, seem to have assumed the character rather of non-mercantile and non-intellectual people, nearer to, and better capable of, a genuine understanding of the unadulterated message of the Lord . . . Muhammad looked upon himself as the ummi or "popular" prophet in a sense somewhat similar to, but, of course, much more comprehensive in comparison with modern occidental popular movements and fronts. The ummi prophet was to be the leader of the masses against privileged minorities of wealth and sophistication. (Reissner, "The Ummi Prophet and the Banu Israil of the Qur’an", The Muslim World, Vol. 39, p. 277, 278). The interpretation is very interesting and calls to mind a suggestion once made to me personally by a Muslim school-teacher that ummi meant "universal", meaning therefore that Muhammad was a universal prophet for all peoples. Both these interpretations are consistent with the meaning of the word ummah (a people) and rightly imply that Muhammad was, in a sense, a people’s prophet. Nevertheless neither seems to be derived from a careful study of the context of the expression an-nabiyyal-ummi in the Qur’an (so likewise the meanings illiterate and Gentile). Reissner gets closer to the mark when he says: Two Medinese Surahs of the Qur’an bear out that the Prophet was fully aware of the cleavage between "those who have been given the Book and the ummiyyun (Sura 3.19)". (Reissner, "The Ummi Prophet and the Banu Israil of the Qur’an", The Muslim World, Vol. 39, p. 279). It is this very distinction between those who have a kitab, a scripture, and those who do not, the ummiyyun, which sets the context in which we must seek the real meaning of the expression and we are now in a position to discover what it really is. 3. The Prophet of the People without a Scripture. Throughout the Qur’an the Jews and Christians collectively are called Ahlal-Kitab, meaning "People of the Scripture", and a cursory study of the contrast drawn in the Qur’an between this group and the ummiyyun, the "unscriptured people", shows that the ummi prophet means the prophet of the people without a scripture, that is, one raised from among them and to give them a book with sound religious education. Noldeke shows that the word ummi is everywhere used in the Koran in apposition to Ahl ul-kitab, that is the Possessors of the Sacred Scriptures; therefore it cannot signify one who does not read and write; but (as we have seen from the Arabic authorities themselves) one who did not possess or who had no access to former revelations. (Zwemer, "The ’Illiterate’ Prophet" - Could Mohammed Read and Write? The Muslim World, Vol. 11, p. 352). One verse in the Qur’an very comprehensively shows that this is precisely the image Muhammad had of himself as the an-nabiyyal-ummi: It is He who has sent amongst the Unlettered an apostle from among themselves, to rehearse to them His Signs, to sanctify them, and to instruct them in Scripture and Wisdom, - although they had been, before, in manifest error. Surah 62.2 The unlettered Prophet clearly means one drawn from a people, hitherto uneducated in divine counsels, to give them a scripture by which they may be purified of their ignorant ways and be instructed in divine wisdom. Indeed the times before the coming of Islam among the Arabs are often referred to as Jahiliyya, that is times of ignorance reminiscent of Paul’s description of pre-Gospel times among the Gentiles (Acts 17:30). In the verse quoted above the Arabic word for the unlettered is once again al-ummiyyin and one Muslim commentator gets to the heart of the matter when he says of them in a comment: The Unlettered : as applied to a people, it refers to the Arabs, in comparison with the People of the Book. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, p. 1545). The Qur’an constantly emphasises its Arabic state (Innaa anzalnaahu Qur’aanaan arabiyyan - We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur’an - Surah 12.3) and this strengthens the view that Muhammad constantly viewed himself as drawn from the hitherto ignorant Arab peoples to be their prophet and to make them a people of the scripture as well. The emphasis can be taken as sustaining, if not indeed requiring, the conclusion that the illiterate prophet of 7.157 and 158 means in fact the unlettered prophet, in the sense of a prophet for those as yet without Scriptures. (Cragg, The Mind of the Qur’an, p. 17). Another Muslim writer likewise refers to the view that Muhammad, as the ummi prophet, saw himself as the prophet called out to raise his people to the level of those who had formerly received the Scriptures: The imam Jafer-e-Saduk reckons it a special favor of heaven that the prophet was untaught by man, and says further that he was raised up among a people, who, although they had letters, had no divine books, and were therefore called ummy. (Majlisi, The Life and Religion of Muhammad, p. 87). Another verse which brings out very clearly the deliberate distinction in the Qur’an between the Ahlal Kitab,the scriptured people, and the ummiyyun, the unscriptured people, is this one (already referred to by Reissner above): And say to the People of the Book and to those who are unlearned: Do ye (also) submit yourselves? Surah 3.20 In the original the relevant words are uwtul kitaaba wal ummiyyin, clearly the "scriptured" and the "unscriptured". In another verse we read of ummiyyuuna laa yaalamuunal kitaab, unlettered people in that they know not the Scripture (Surah 2.78). It is quite clear from a contextual study of the Qur’anic usage of the word ummi in its relevant forms that it does not mean "illiterate" or "Gentile" but rather "unscriptured". Richard Bell confirms this conclusion: If the verse is carefully read, however, without a preconceived idea of its meaning, the most natural way to take it is of people without written scriptures. (Watt, Bell’s Introduction to the Qur’an, p. 34). Although St. Clair-Tisdall, in the book already quoted, interprets ummi as Gentile, in another work he draws this same conclusion about the expression an-nabiyyal-ummi: Muslims generally render this by "the unlettered Prophet" and say he could not read or write. This, however, is hardly credible. A better rendering is "the Gentile Prophet", i. e., one who did not belong to "the People of the Book", and was unacquainted with the scriptures of the earlier prophets. (Tisdall, The Religion of the Crescent, p. 150). A well-known Orientalist seems to get right to the point when he says of the enigmatic little word ummi: The word is an adjective predicative of Muhammad’s mission rather than descriptive of his person. "The unlettered Prophet" is "the Prophet for the (as yet) unscriptured". There were antecedent Scriptures and there were peoples whom these Scriptures had "made". Arabs were not among them . . . "The Prophet of the Scriptureless" (an Arab, for Arabs, in Arabic understood) seems, then, the sense, most adequate to what the Qur’an decisively is, of the phrase an-nabi al-ummi. (Cragg, The Event of the Qur’an, p. 59). Muslims strongly claim that the title means that Muhammad was illiterate and presume that they are doing his prophetic claims a great service in doing so. As we have seen, this interpretation can be made to rebound very effectively on them. They seem to miss a similar impact clearly intended behind the correct interpretation of this expression. Muhammad’s argument is really that the Qur’an must be a revelation because it comes through an ummi prophet, one who knew not any Scripture beforehand, and from a people who were ummiyyun, uninstructed in such matters. "When Muhammad is represented here as illiterate, what is being said is that he could not have acquired knowledge from earlier revealed books" (Gatje, The Qur’an and its Exegesis, p. 270). One is reminded of an incident in Jesus’ life which seems to bring a very relevant focus on the argument implied in the title the Qur’an gives to Muhammad. When Jesus stood up at the Feast of the Tabernacles and taught with great wisdom, the learned Jews exclaimed: How is it that this man has learning when he has never studied? John 7:15 How did he "know his letters" when he was unlettered and had not been through the Jewish theological schools? In a similar way this seems to be the thrust behind Muhammad’s claim that he, likewise, was an ummi prophet. The very context of the title in the Qur’an strengthens this theory all the more. In Surah 7.157 Muhammad, claiming to be an ummi prophet, one hitherto unscriptured, yet charges that the scriptured folk will find him foretold in their own Scriptures, the Tawrat (the Law) and the Injil (the Gospel). Although not from a learned people - learned in the Scripture, that is - he is nonetheless mentioned in the Scriptures. In calling himself the ummi prophet at this very point, he obviously intends to give weight to his prophetic claims by implying that it is a marvel that a prophet should appear, delivering a Scripture with wisdom, learning and divine counsel, when he himself had never been so instructed, rising as he did from the very ummiyyun he was now leading into the knowledge of the great truths contained in all the revealed scriptures. We have now identified the concept Muhammad had of his prophetic office and are thus able to make a more balanced study of the subjective side of his prophetic experience. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 45: 04.12. B. MUHAMMAD'S CONCEPT OF REVELATION. ======================================================================== B. MUHAMMAD’S CONCEPT OF REVELATION. 1. The Early Visions and Experiences. We have already examined the historical record of the manner in which the "revelation" came to Muhammad at first and now proceed to analyse the character of Muhammad’s religious experience in greater detail. While there is something sudden and dramatic about the first revelations, it is important to consider that Muhammad was not caught in his tracks, as it were, in the way that the Apostle Paul was confronted while journeying to Damascus to oppose the early Christian Church. For some time it had been his custom to retire to a cave on Mount Hira outside Mecca for solitary contemplation of the meaning of life and the pagan practices of his kinsmen. According to the Muslim tradition, the calling occurred suddenly; however it is known that Muhammad had occupied himself with religious questions for some time previously, either consciously or unconsciously. (Gatje, The Qur’an and its Exegesis, p. 5). Muhammad was now approaching his fortieth year. Always pensive he had of late become even more thoughtful and retiring. Contemplation and reflection engaged his mind, and the moral debasement of his people pressed heavily on him. His soul was perplexed with uncertainty as to what was the right path to follow. Thus burdened, he frequently retired to seek relief in meditation amongst the solitary valleys and rocks near Mecca. (Zafrulla Khan, Muhammad: Seal of the Prophets, p. 23). Right from the beginning one discovers much that is subjective in the development of his conviction that he was called to be the messenger of his Lord. It is probable that the incident at the Ka’aba a few years earlier, when he was singled out to replace the sacred black stone in the house of Allah, had a profound effect on him and initiated the belief that he was marked out as the man to lead his people into the true worship of God. (Incidentally, when Muhammad had all the stone idols in the Ka’aba destroyed after the city had capitulated to him many years later, the black stone was spared and retained its ancient sanctity). It is hard to doubt, however, that the initial visions he received were genuine and real in one form or another. The Qur’an describes these manifestations in striking language: For he appeared (in stately form) while he was in the highest part of the horizon; then he approached and came closer, and was at a distance of but two bow-lengths or (even) nearer; So did (God) convey the inspiration to His Servant - (Conveyed) what He (meant) to convey. The (Prophet’s mind and) heart in no way falsified that which he saw. Will ye then dispute with him concerning what he saw? For indeed he saw him at a second descent, near the Lote-tree beyond which none may pass: near it is the Garden of Abode. Behold, the Lote-tree was shrouded (in mystery unspeakable!). (His) sight never swerved nor did it go wrongs! For truly did he see of the Signs of his Lord, the Greatest! Surah 53.6-18. In another passage the Qur’an again states explicitly that Muhammad had a definite vision: "And without doubt he saw him in the clear horizon" (Surah 81.23). Another verse states clearly that the vision was given by Allah himself: "We granted the Vision which we showed thee" (Surah 17.60). The confident manner in which Muhammad claimed that he had had at least two definite visions strongly suggests that he really did see a strange being on the horizon. He described the second vision in these words: "Once while I was walking, all of a sudden I heard a voice from the sky. I looked up and saw to my surprise, the same Angel as had visited me in the cave of Hira. He was sitting on a chair between the sky and the earth. I got afraid of him and came back home and said, Wrap me! Wrap me!" (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 452). One of the early biographers of his life, Waqidi, was equally emphatic about these phenomena: "The first beginnings of Mahomet’s inspiration were real visions. Every vision that he saw was clear as the morning dawn" (quoted in Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p. 49). What strengthens the suggestion that there was something very real, and not simply hallucinatory or, still less, fictitious, about these visions is not only the confident nature of Muhammad’s claim but also the fact that he carefully confined these visions to just two which he had at the beginning of his course (being the occasions when Surahs 96.1-5 and 74.1-7 were revealed). If he had been a charlatan, he would probably have regularly embellished and increased his visionary claims as he went along. He describes the incidents in a way which clearly shows that the visions were strict exceptions. (Andrae, Mohammed: The Man and his Faith, p. 50). The main point of both visions is that Muhammad has actually seen the heavenly figure from whom the "inspiration" of his religious activity came, and the word nalaz, "descent" seems to imply that the figure had come down to earth. (Bell, "Muhammad’s Visions", The Muslim World, Vol. 24, p. 150). Bell adds "The fact that he went back after all, and reasserted in Surah lxxxi that he had seen the messenger on the clear horizon, is I think an indication that something of the sort had really happened to him" (op. cit., p. 154). The second thing that tends to accredit these visions is Muhammad’s initial reaction to them. Instead of boldly asserting that he had seen an angel of God, he was considerably disturbed for some time and questioned whether the early revelations were really coming from heaven. We can only gather with certainty that there was a time (corresponding with the deductions already drawn from the Coran itself) during which the mind of Mahomet hung in suspense, and doubted the reality of a heavenly vision. (M~ir, The Life of Mahomet, p. 50). The best proof of the reality of Mohammed’s belief in the reality of the revelation, and of the completeness of his sincerity, is that he fell at the first into a state of doubt concerning it. (Gairdner, The Reproach of Islam, p. 46). This openly-expressed doubt about the source of the revelations strengthens all the more the suggestion that Muhammad really did see these two visions which took him somewhat by surprise. Nevertheless it is very interesting to find that Muhammad initially believed that these manifestations were probably demonic. A Muslim writer sets out his immediate reaction to them: Naturally he was scared, and intimated to his wife, Khadija, the fear that he might even be possessed by an evil spirit . . . Stricken with panic, Muhammad arose and asked himself, "What did I see? Did possession of the devil which I feared all along come to pass?" . . . When he calmed down, he cast toward his wife the glance of a man in need of rescue and said, "O Khadijah, what has happened to me?" He told her of his experience and intimated to her his fear that his mind had finally betrayed him, and that he was becoming a seer or a man possessed. (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, p. 73-75). He feared that he had become a kahin (soothsayer) or, worse still, that he was majnun (possessed of a jinn, the Qur’anic name for a demon. The words both come from the same root letters and do not just mean that a person is mad, as is sometimes suggested, but actually demon-possessed). That he was possessed by a Jinni - for him, with his beliefs, an evil spirit - was his first thought, and only gradually did he come to the conviction that this was divine inspiration, and not diabolical obsession. (MacDonald, The Religious Attitude and Life in Islam, p. 33). The Qur’an itself states that the Quraysh specifically charged that Muhammad was indeed majnun - "a man possessed" (Surah 44.14 - in Surah 37.36 it is sha’irimmajnun, "a poet possessed") and that a jinn had seized him (Surah 34.8). On many occasions Muhammad is consoled in the Qur’an against such charges, for example: maa anta bini ’mati rabbika bimajnun - "Thou art not, by the grace of thy Lord, mad or possessed" (Surah 68.2, cf. also Surah 81.22), and is cleared of the charge that he is seized with a jinn (Surah 7.184). These constant declarations in the Qur’an that the revelations were not from diabolical sources yield the impression that Muhammad’s fears in this respect were not confined just to the first two visions he had. From the assurances that he was not mad, nor prompted by jinn, it may perhaps be inferred that he sometimes wondered if this was the case. (Watt, Bell’s Introduction to the Qur’an, p. 23). It has been customary in some Christian circles to claim that it was Satan himself who appeared to Muhammad and that he "revealed" the whole Qur’an to him piecemeal over the last twenty-three years of his life. Muslims naturally find this explanation intolerably offensive and, in our view, it is too simplistic to be summarily accepted. Nevertheless, having conceded the reality of the visions, we are bound to ask what the real nature of the phenomenon was. Muslims dogmatically claim that it was the angel Gabriel who came to Muhammad, yet the Qur’an only once refers to Jibril as the medium of the revelation (Surah 2.97) while stating elsewhere that it came down with the Ruhul-Amin, the Faithful Spirit (Surah 26.193). The identification of Gabriel as the Qur’anic messenger is significantly only made in a very late passage of the Qur’an after Muhammad had had many dealings with Jews and Christians. The very fact that Muhammad himself initially had feared that a demonic figure had appeared to him and that he compared his experiences with those of the poets in Arabia who were also believed to be possessed by jinn nonetheless gives considerable support to the suggestion that his visions were possibly occultic. It is also noteworthy that it took his wife Khadija and cousin Waraqa to persuade him otherwise. Muhammad’s own uncertainty about the nature of his initial visions, and the fact that no later Qur’anic revelation was accompanied by such manifestations, strengthen the view that while the visions may have been real, they could well have been occultic rather than heavenly in character. No certain judgment of the nature of these visions can sincerely be made by anyone who does not accept the Muslim claim that the angel Gabriel appeared to Muhammad, and the question whether the Qur’an really had a divine origin can only be answered by a study of its contents and sources rather than the nature of Muhammad’s prophetic experiences. Our conclusion, therefore, must be left until we treat this subject later in this book. 2. The Exoteric Character of the Revelations. Although the visions ceased, it is recorded that the revelations of Qur’anic passages were invariably attested by outward, physical phenomena. Ayishah reported: Verily, al-Harith Ibn Hisham said: O Apostle of Allah! how does revelation dawn upon you? The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, said: Sometimes it dawns upon me in the form of the ringing of a bell, and that is very hard on me; (ultimately) it ceases and I remember what is said. Sometimes the angel appears to me and speaks and I recollect what he says. Ayishah said: I witnessed the revelation dawning upon him on an extremely cold day; when it ceased, I noticed that his forehead was perspiring. (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 1, p. 228). The other major traditions all say that the angel, when it appeared to Muhammad, did so in human form, though in the Qur’an we have already seen how strongly Muhammad claimed to have seen the angel only on the two specific occasions it mentions and the testimony of the Qur’an is more reliable than that of the Hadith. Another tradition says: Ubada b. Samit reported that when wahi descended upon Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him), he felt a burden on that account and the colour of his face underwent a change. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, p. 1248). In another work we read that one of Muhammad’s companions witnessed one of these occasions and reported that "The Prophet’s face was red and he kept on breathing heavily for a while and then he was relieved" (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 476). To Muslims these manifestations confirm the claim that Muhammad was receiving divine revelations, whereas many others have charged that he suffered from fits of epilepsy and that these were mistaken for prophetic phenomena. Muslim writers set out to refute this suggestion by various arguments. Under the heading "The Slander of Epilepsy", one says: To represent the phenomenon of Muhammad’s revelations in these terms is, from the standpoint of scientific research, the gravest nonsense. The fit of epilepsy leaves the patient utterly without memory of what has taken place. In fact, the patient completely forgets that period of his life and can recollect nothing that has happened to him in the meantime because the processes of sensing and thinking come to a complete stop during the fit. (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, p. lxxii). It is indeed true that epilepsy, as a simple disease, reduces the faculties of its victim and he not only forgets what happened to him but, even during the fit, does not know what he is doing. Another writer says: The question may well be asked: Has epilepsy - this sad and debilitating disease - ever enabled its victim to become a prophet or a law-giver, or rise to a position of the highest esteem and power? (Khalifa, The Sublime Qur’an and Orientalism, p. 12). Another favourite argument is that the phenomenon only occurred when Muhammad was receiving the revelations: To begin with, this condition begins only when Muhammad’s Prophetic career starts at about the age of forty, there being no trace of it in his earlier life. Secondly, tradition makes it clear that this condition recurred only with a revelatory experience and never occurred independently. (Rahman, Islam, p. 13). Rahman’s first point is not well-founded. Early biographers state that Muhammad had strange experiences while he was being cared for by his wet-nurse, Halima. On one occasion he fell down in a kind of stroke and when he finally stood up his face was quite livid. Ibn Ishaq states that two men clothed in white had seized him and opened his chest. It was probably a fit of epilepsy; but Moslem legend has invested it with so many marvellous features as makes it difficult to discover the real facts. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p. 6). The myth around the story is that two angels took out his heart, cleansed it of impurity, and replaced it in his body! It is doubtful whether the Christian Apostle had such a thing in mind when he said "purify your hearts" (James 4:8). Other traditions say the cleansing and removing of Muhammad’s heart happened just before the mi’raj. When the story is stripped of its fanciful features, one is left with a record of psychic experiences occurring during Muhammad’s youth. When approaching his fifth year, he appears to have become subject to certain epileptic fits, which alarmed his foster-parents, as such attacks were attributed to the influence of evil spirits, and made them resolve to rid themselves of their charge. (Stobart, Islam and its Founder, p. 47). That the foster-parents feared that he was possessed of a demon is confirmed in Ibn Ishaq’s narrative and the clear evidence that Muhammad was subject to such attacks even in his youth does imply that the later phenomena were not entirely unusual. Nevertheless the two main arguments that epilepsy adversely affects its victims and that Muhammad’s experiences were always accompanied by revelations do seem to refute the suggestion that his later effects were caused by natural epileptic fits (presuming, of course, that they did always coincide with the revelations. The truth may well have been adjusted to suit the theory). It is not our purpose to pass judgment on these physical phenomena, but it should be pointed out that men can be subjected to a different type of seizure which very closely resembles epilepsy. During the life of Jesus a young boy was brought to him who was "an epileptic" (Matthew 17:15) and who suffered extreme forms of epilepsy (he would suddenly fall down, be convulsed. and be unable to speak). There is no doubt, however, that this epilepsy was not naturally but demonically induced as all three records of the incident (in Matthew 17:1-27, Mark 9:1-50 and Luke 9:1-62) state that Jesus exorcised the unclean spirit in the child and healed the boy. Without passing judgment on Muhammad, let it nevertheless be said that anyone subject to occultic influences could well find that seizures similar to epileptic fits would occur at appropriate times and, instead of causing a loss of memory, would have just the opposite effect and leave firmly induced impressions on the recipient’s mind. Throughout the world missionaries have related cases of precisely this nature. To this day such phenomena are not uncommon among oriental ecstatics and mystics and they are widely reported. Once again, no judgment is offered of Muhammad’s experiences, but the point here made again tends to support Muhammad’s initial fears that he was possessed of a jinn. It should also be said that we do not believe that Muhammad was crudely demon-possessed in the form that some unfortunately are. It is nevertheless true that "even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light" (2 Corinthians 11:15) and it is our opinion, though not our judgment, that the visions and physical experiences that Muhammad had may well have been induced by occultic forces to confirm his confidence that he had been divinely commissioned, whereas the religion and book he left as a legacy to millions of men and women have jointly become remarkable stumbling-blocks to the acceptance of the one true revelation of God for this age as found in the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 3. The Esoteric Nature of Muhammad’s Experiences. Until recently Muslim writers and theologians had made no attempt to analyse the subjective side of Muhammad’s prophetic experiences. The prophet was purely passive - indeed unconscious: the Book was in no sense his, neither its thought, nor language, nor style: all was of God, and the Prophet was merely a recording pen. (Gairdner, The Reproach of Islam, p. 158). Therefore it has always been presumed that the Qur’an was mechanically dictated to him and that he was merely the instrument of the revelation. Anyone wishing to know about Muhammad’s personality should therefore look into the Hadith, the traditions of his life and teachings. Yet, while much of the Hadith sheds valuable light on Muhammad, much of it is unreliable in that it has either been marvellously embellished or quite simply invented. The Qur’an is the one sure, faithful record of Muhammad’s life, however vague it may be at times about the details of the incidents it refers to. One cannot help feeling that the Muslim world, in denying that the text of the Qur’an has anything to do with Muhammad’s own experience and the conscious development of his prophetic concept, is really missing so much of the true character of the man. The Biblical writing-prophets and apostles not only record divine truths but, in doing so, give expression to the manner in which these truths moulded and enlightened their own developing spiritual perceptiveness. In this way the realisation of the counsels of God in the human experience are best recorded for the tuition of the human race. If the Qur’an was purely a dictation, entirely independent of Muhammad’s own personal consciousness, it cannot bridge the gap between the character of the divine nature on the one hand and the human spirit and experience on the other. Yet an open reading of the book leaves one with the firm impression that it conveys as much of the growing prophetic consciousness of its mediator as of anything else. In place of a crystallised man who passes through life without suffering the least modification, Mohammed, as we conclude from the Koran, passed through innumerable metamorphoses, developing almost from day to day in view of the stern exigencies of the struggle for existence and the unforseen incidents of a highly agitated life. Mohammed passed through great moral transformations, and died, after a tempestuous career of more than a quarter of a century, a man profoundly different from the one who set out on the grand struggle. (Caetani, "The Development of Mohammed’s Personality", The Muslim World, Vol. 4, p. 354). We see the warner of the Arabs rise to the status of the universal messenger of God for all mankind, one who first considered such matters as the Day of Judgment, the worship of the one true God, and the destiny of all men to heaven or hell as of supreme importance, later considering his own domestic affairs and personal problems to be of equal weight, giving them much prominence in the later passages of the Qur’an. His position can appropriately be described as an "altered state of consciousness". (Fry and King, Islam: A Survey of the Muslim Faith, p. 62). In no way do we suggest that he consciously and deliberately composed the Qur’an - he genuinely believed that the passages were being revealed to him, yet they clearly found expression in his consciousness rather than in his ears. Therefore, while distinguishing between the thoughts of his own mind and the Qur’anic revelations, Muhammad nevertheless did personally enter into the latter and allowed them to give shape to his own developing prophetic consciousness. The common Qur’anic word for revelation is wahy and the Qur’anic revelation itself is described in these words: It is no less than an inspiration sent down to him. Surah 53.4 This translation is not strictly correct. The common word for sending down in the Qur’an is nazzala in its various forms, but in this verse the words are In huwa illa wahyuyyuwha, meaning literally, "it is nothing but an inspiration inspired", a wahy, which is awha to Muhammad (the words are from the same root letters and are simply the forms of the noun and verb respectively). The word has interesting meanings when considered in its contexts in the Qur’an. Nor does the word awha, used in v.4, necessarily imply the communication of the words of the Qur’an. The later developed Muslim dogmatic takes wahy to be the highest form of inspiration, and to consist in the communication of the actual words of the revelation to the prophet by an angel intermediary. But as used in the Qur’an itself, the words wahy, awha by no means always or even generally have that sense. Usually some such word as suggest, prompt, put into the heart of, is a better translation than reveal. (Bell, "Muhammad’s Visions", The Muslim World, Vol. 24, p. 146). Bell continues by pointing out how the word is so used in the Qur’an. In Surah 16.68 it is said "And thy Lord taught the Bee to build its cells in hills, on trees, and in (men’s) habitations". The word for "taught" is again awha, meaning that the impulse so to build is "suggested" to the instinctive tendencies of the bee. It cannot be said that God revealed this mechanically to the bee by way of direct verbal revelation. So again: Even when the agent of wahy is Allah, and the recipient a messenger or prophet, what is communicated is not the words of a revelation, but, as in most of the instances already given, a practical line of conduct, something to do, not to say. It is "suggested" to Noah to build the ark, and he is to build it under Allah’s eyes, and at His "suggestion" or "prompting", xi.39, xxiii.27. (Bell, "Muhammad’s Visions", op. cit., p. 147). Bell duly concludes "We are justified therefore in concluding that, at any rate in the early portions of the Qur’an, wahy does not mean the verbal communication of the text of a revelation, but is a "suggestion", "prompting" or "inspiration" coming into a person’s mind apparently from outside himself" (op. cit., p. 148). Another writer likewise says: The noun wahy and the verb awha occur frequently in the Qur’an in the contexts where the sense of ’reveal by direct communication’ is inappropriate. (Watt, Muhammad at Mecca, p. 55). Only in recent times have some bolder Muslims ventured into the subjective side of Muhammad’s experiences. While the following summary may not be symbolical of orthodox teaching, it appears to be a far truer assessment of Muhammad’s own concept of the revelation: The Qur’an is thus pure Divine Word, but, of course, it is equally intimately related to the inmost personality of the Prophet Muhammad whose relationship to it cannot be mechanically conceived like that of a record. The Divine Word flowed through the Prophet’s heart. (Rahman, Islam, p. 33). It therefore seems that, while Muslim dogmatics have always claimed that a mechanical dictation of the Qur’an was made to Muhammad, the truth is that the book is very much the product of the experience Muhammad himself had of his developing prophetic character and that the passages are codifications in his own words of the striking perceptions he experienced which he believed were being directly suggested to him from external sources, coupled as they were with his regular side-effects. It is not our view that God was the author of the Qur’an but at the same time we do not believe that it was fraudulently composed by Muhammad consciously as its author. A study of its sources will confirm that this statement is true in one sense: "That Mohammed was really the author and chief contriver of the Koran is beyond dispute" (Sale, The Preliminary Discourse to the Koran, p. 68). Nevertheless it is not true to say that Muhammad deliberately forged the book as a revelation and, as a pious impostor, consciously attributed it to Allah. His subjective sincerity forbids such a conclusion. The chief question for us is whether or not Muhammad believed in the message himself. All his life he maintained that he had got his message from God, and I do not think that there can be any doubt that in the beginning of his activities at any rate he believed fully and firmly in his mission. (Hammershaimb, "The Religious and Political Development of Muhammad", The Muslim World, Vol. 39, p. 196). That Mohammed acted in good faith can hardly be disputed by anyone who knows the psychology of inspiration. That the message which he proclaimed did not come from himself, from his own ideas and opinions, is not only a tenet of his faith, but also an experience whose reality he never questioned. (Andrae, Mohammed: The Man and his Faith, p. 47). These matters can only be satisfactorily explained and understood on the assumption that Muhammad was sincere, that is, that he genuinely believed that what we now know as the Qur’an was not the product of his own mind, but came to him from God and was true. (Watt, Muhammad at Medina, p. 325). There is no concession to Islam in these statements. Watt rightly adds: "To say that Muhammad was sincere does not imply acceptance of the Qur’an as a genuine revelation from God; a man may without contradiction hold that Muhammad truly believed that he was receiving revelations from God but that he was mistaken in this belief" (op. cit.). Another writer puts the matter well when he says: If we say that such ’revelations’ were believed by Mahomet sincerely to bear the divine sanction, it can only be in a modified and peculiar sense. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p. 504). We can conclude by saying that our Christian sense of honesty and fairness demands that we give credit where credit is due and that we allow Muhammad a considerable degree of personal sincerity in his subjective confidence that the Qur’an was a revelation from God himself. Nevertheless we find that the actual process of the revelation was equally subjective and characterised in good measure by Muhammad’s own personal temperament. The final form it takes tells us as much about his own personality as it does about anything else and an analysis of the development of the Qur’anic text will show ultimately just how much the finished product bears the mark of its human mediator rather than its alleged divine author. (A study of its origins and sources, which follows, will prove conclusively that Muhammad was the real author of the book, notwithstanding his sincerity). 4. The Development of the Qur’anic Revelation. Mohammed undoubtedly spoke the real truth when he stated that he had never dared to dream that such an honour would come to him. "Thou didst never expect that the Book would be given thee. Of thy Lord’s mercy only hath it been sent down" (28,86) . . . Consequently, the revelation was for him an absolute miracle, an unexpected and inexplicable act of Allah’s mercy. (Andrae, Mohammed: The Man and his Faith, p. 69). So persuaded was Muhammad that the "suggestions" he was constantly receiving were from God that he openly claimed that, although he could perform no signs and wonders as other prophets had done, the Qur’an itself was a miracle, a true mu’jizah. The word is only applied to the miracles of prophets and has the root meaning making weak, implying that such a sign weakens the opposition of the prophet’s opponents and enemies. The miracles of others, such as saints, are called karamat. Nevertheless it should be noted that neither word appears in the Qur’an which always uses the word ayat, signs, for miracles (and also speaks of the bayyinat, evidences of Jesus, in Surah 5.113). It was the one miracle claimed by Mohammed - his "standing miracle" he called it; and a miracle indeed it is. (Bosworth Smith, Mohammed and Mohammedanism, p. 343). The writer, a strong defender of Muhammad, merely echoes the conviction of the Muslims throughout the ages. A study of certain aspects of its development, however, shows not only how much the mind of Muhammad is impressed on the book, but equally how he, perhaps sub-consciously, moulded its form and content. Firstly, it happened occasionally that Muhammad’s close companion Umar would venture to give him some advice on a subject and, very soon afterwards, the same advice suddenly became part of the revelation. Ibn Merdawiyya used to say: "Umar used to have an opinion on a certain subject and lo! a Qur’anic revelation came down in accordance with the same". (Klein, The Religion of Islam, p. 17). To this day within the Ka’aba precincts there is a spot called maqami-Ibrahim, the station of Abraham, where every Muslim should pray at least once during the pilgrimage. It is said that Umar and Muhammad were walking around the Ka’aba when Muhammad suddenly stopped and said, "this is the place where Abraham prayed after building the Ka’aba". Umar then suggested, "should we not take it ourselves as a place for prayer?" Muhammad answered that nothing like this had been revealed to him but, lo and behold, that very night this verse came to him: And take ye the Station of Abraham as a place of prayer. Surah 2.125 One of the major authors of Hadith literature gives the following tradition with reference to this verse and other similar occasions where Umar’s advices promptly became part of the developing revelation: Narrated Anas: "Umar said, ’I agreed with Allah in three things’, or said, ’My Lord agreed with me in three things. I said, "O Allah’s Apostle! Would that you took the station of Abraham as a place of prayer". I also said, "O Allah’s Apostle! Good and bad persons visit you! Would that you ordered the Mothers of the believers to cover themselves with veils". So the Divine Verses of Al-Hijab (i.e. veiling of the women) were revealed. I came to know that the Prophet had blamed some of his wives so I entered upon them and said, "You should either stop (troubling the Prophet) or else Allah will give his Apostle better wives than you". When I came to one of his wives, she said to me, "O Umarl Does Allah’s Apostle not have what he could advise his wives with, that you try to advise them?" Thereupon Allah revealed: "It may be, if he divorced you (all) his Lord will give him instead of you, wives better than you muslims (who submit to Allah) . . ." (66.5)’. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 11-12). One cannot help being struck by the words "My Lord agreed with me in three things". The striking feature of all these incidents is not only the fact that Allah gave the same advice to Muhammad that Umar had given, but also that he always gave it just after Umar in each case. The coincidences are found not only in the content of the revelations but also in the timing of their disclosure! It seems that Umar’s advices struck Muhammad as particularly sound and, in his own subjective way, he allowed them to be formed in his mind in the form which all the other "revelations" were coming to him and correspondingly declared them to be such. There is yet another occasion recorded where the advice of Umar was once again promptly matched by a similar revelation containing very much the same advice that he had given: Omar records in perfectly good faith how when the Prophet went to say prayers over the dead Hypocrite Abdallah Ibn Ubayy, he remonstrated with the Prophet for paying such honours to his enemy; not without astonishment at his own boldness in thus criticising the conduct of the messenger of God. But shortly after the Prophet produced a revelation "Pray not thou over any of them who dies at any time, neither stand thou upon his grave". To Omar the coincidence did not apparently suggest the remotest suspicion; to us the revelation appears to have been nothing more than a formal adoption of a suggestion of Omar, which the Prophet supposed to represent public opinion. (Margoliouth, Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, p. 218). These incidents all very strongly support the contention that the Qur’anic text is, in so many ways, an expression of the mind of Muhammad rather than the dictated words of Allah. Secondly, Muhammad’s experiences and the concept he had of his own prophethood are remarkably paralleled in the case of Mani, the celebrated false prophet who at one time obtained so much influence in Persia (Tisdall, The Original Sources of the Qur’an, p. 184). Explicitly, however, Mani had claimed that he was the last in the succession of messengers from God, so that in the Arabic sources it is recorded that his followers called him "the Seal of the Prophets". As such Mani had issued his own Scriptures and had set forth a "new law" for his community. This is what Muhammad does. (Jeffery, The Qur’an as Scripture, p. 79). Mani also believed that someone was crucified by the Jews in place of Jesus which is also the teaching of the Qur’an (Surah 4.157). Significantly he also claimed to be the Comforter promised by Jesus - a claim made universally by Muslims today on behalf of Muhammad in pursuance of the Qur’anic claim that Muhammad’s advent was predicted by Jesus (Surah 7.157, 61.6). On the other hand, however, it is affirmed that Mani gave himself out as an apostle of Christ, of his very nature, as the Comforter, the Holy Spirit whom Jesus had promised, and as Christ himself. (Andrae, Mohommed: The Man and his Faith, p. 104). Muhammad was not the first to appeal to these verses as a prophecy of himself. It is well known that Mani, or Manes, renowned in Persian fable as a wonderful painter, made the same claim to be the "person" referred to by Christ. Only Mani distinctly claimed to be the "Paraclete", probably (like Muhammad) in order to win over ill-informed Christians to his side. (Tisdall, The Original Sources of the Qur’an, p. 191). Like Muhammad Mani also claimed that messengers had been sent to every nation. One cannot help again concluding that the claims of this man had reached Muhammad’s ears and that they too were absorbed into his own unique thought-process as applying to himself and thus soon became a part of the revelation as well. The yearly influx of pilgrims from distant parts made Mecca a receptacle for all kinds of floating knowledge, which he appears to have imbibed with eagerness and retained in a tenacious memory. (Irving, The Life of Mahomet, p. 23). The third aspect of the development of the Qur’anic revelation that strikes us is the manner in which very convenient passages were revealed to Muhammad at opportune times. We have already considered a number of these, namely the justification of his marriage with Zaynab and the freedom to absolve himself from an oath and to take whichever wife he chose at any time without following the strict order he had previously observed. The timely Qur’anic sanction of the Nakhlah raid during a month in which fighting was prohibited is another typical example. For whenever anything happened which perplexed and gravelled Mohammed, and which he could not otherwise get over, he had constant recourse to a new revelation, as an infallible expedient in all cases; and he found the success of this method answer his expectation. (Sale, The Preliminary Discourse to the Koran, p. 68). His revelations, henceforth, are so opportune and fitted to particular emergencies, that we are led to doubt his sincerity, and that he is any longer under the same delusion concerning them. (Irving, The Life of Mahomet, p. 237). We must nevertheless allow for the fact that, while the Qur’an is believed to be the uncreated Word of Allah, Muhammad did obviously believe that it was "applicable to the changing circumstances of his own situation" (Jeffery, The Qur’an as Scripture, p. 80), and that, in a very special way, the revelations were not only intended to cover the spectrum of history and destiny to come but also the developing experience of his own prophethood. So the Qur’an has many passages where deliberate guidance is given for particular events in Muhammad’s life and comments are made on battles, etc. which had just taken place. These particular passages became known as al-asbabun-nuzul, occasions of revelation, and no exception can be taken to the nature of the majority of these passages. (The prophets and apostles of old frequent! received divine guidance for immediate situations. The messages given in such specific cases were to be distinguished from more general revelations. In the New Testament, the Greek word rhema is usually used for the former and logos for the latter). On the other hand, as in the examples we have quoted, we cannot help but see how expediently Muhammad produced revelations to help him get over awkward situations whenever these arose. The tenet that appropriate revelations could come to deal with contemporary events in Muhammad’s life is fair in principle, but it gave scope for the release of convenient passages justifying his actions when these could not be excused in any other way. The doctrine offered the temptation to suit his revelations to the varying necessities of the hour. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p. 70). The study of Muhammad’s prophetic experience and his concept of prophethood is a complex one, nonetheless it consistently produces the impression that much of the Qur’anic text is a reflection of his own personality. His image is so stamped on the whole unfolding development of the revelation that we must conclude that, while he believed the book was made known to him from above, it really is an expression of his own experiences and thoughts. One writer says: On one occasion after the death of Muhammad when his favourite wife Aishah was asked what he was like, she replied: ’His nature was as the Qur’an’. This must be taken to mean that from her intense and intimate experience of the Prophet she formed the impression that he was an incarnation of the revealed Book. (Lings, What is Sufism? p. 33). The marked relationship between Muhammad and the Qur’an tends rather to suggest that the book is the product of his own contemplations and an expression of the developing perceptions of his mind. The dogma that the Qur’an was dictated to Muhammad without his personality being involved in any way far too simplistically overlooks the obvious connection between the two. It does seem to be a valid assumption that the Qur’an is, in a very real way, Muhammad’s own book and one which ultimately tells us more of his complex personality and convictions than any other record we have of his remarkable life and assumed prophetic course. At the same time it is noteworthy that the unique character of his concept of revelation is found in the style and nature of the Qur’an itself. To Muhammad, the prophet is merely an instrument to whom the revelation comes in a book form, and God himself is always the author of the book and every verse in it, even though these may finally be expressed in the prophet’s own words after he had assimilated the thrust of the messages being suggested to him. This particular attitude led perforce to the precept that all the prophets had been called and inspired in the same way. In the Qur’an we find each of them recast in the Muhammadan mould - a book is revealed to them in which God is always the author. The Injil, the Gospel, is a book revealed to Jesus in which God is the author. So likewise the Tawrat to Moses and the Zabur to David. While Muhammad ’a prophetic consciousness may possess an unusual character when viewed in the light of the Biblical concept of revelation, the Qur’an deftly removes the contrast by superimposing his concept upon the whole course of prophetic history. The striking feature of the Biblical prophetic essence that we find lacking in the Qur’an is the principle that the prophets were not only commissioned to call men to the good but also to pave the way for the coming Messiah, the Redeemer of the world, whose advent they regularly foretold. Here is the real heart of the difference between the two concepts - and one which unfortunately works to the detriment of Islam and its assessment of the prophetic office. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 46: 04.13. C. SATAN'S INTERJECTION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS. ======================================================================== C. SATAN’S INTERJECTION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS. 1. A Compromise in Muhammad’s Ministry. Widely reported in the early Sirat literature (see the section on Hadith for a discussion of the Sirat and Hadith literature) is a story of an unusual compromise made by Muhammad sometime after the first emigration to Abyssinia. One account of this compromise reads: The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, had seen his people departing from him. He was one day sitting alone when he expressed a desire: I wish, Allah had not revealed to me anything distasteful to them. Then the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, approached them (Quraysh) and got close to them, and they also came near to him. One day he was sitting in their assembly near the Katbah and he recited: "By the Star when it setteth" (Qur’an 53.1), till he reached "Have ye thought upon Al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other?" (Qur’an 53.19-20). Satan made him repeat these two phrases: These idols are high and their intercession is expected. The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, repeated them, and he went on reciting the whole surah and then fell in prostration, and the people also fell in prostration with him. Al-Walid Ibn al-Mughirah, who was an old man and could not prostrate, took a handful of dust to his forehead and prostrated on it . . . They were pleased with what the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, had uttered. They said: We know that Allah gives life and causes death. He creates and gives us provisions, but our deities will intercede with Him, and in what you have assigned to them, we are with you. These words pricked the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him. He was sitting in his house and when it was evening, Gabriel, may peace be upon him, came to him and revised the surah. Then Gabriel said: Did I bring these two phrases? The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, said: I ascribed to Allah what he had not said. (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab at-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 1, p. 237). There is no record of such a thing happening at any other time during Muhammad’s life and yet it was recorded by all four of the early biographers, namely Ibn Ishaq, Tabari, Waqidi and Ibn Sa’d. Today the only surviving edition of Ibn Ishaq’s work, the Sirat Rasulullah, which has come down in the form of a reclension by Ibn Hisham, does not include this incident. There is concrete evidence, however, that it was originally a part of the work and Tabari plainly stated that he got his record from him via Salama. An analysis of this issue will follow but at this point it will be useful to repeat the original record in Tabari’s work which has now been reinstated in Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat by the English translator of his work, Alfred Guillaume. When the apostle saw that his people turned their backs on him and he was pained by their estrangement from what he brought them from God he longed that there should come to him from God a message that would reconcile his people to him. Because of his love for his people and his anxiety over them it would delight him if the obstacle that made his task so difficult could be removed; so that he meditated on the project and longed for it and it was dear to him. Then God sent down "By the Star when it sets your comrade errs not and is not deceived, he speaks not from his own desire", and when he reached His words "Have you thought of al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat the third, the other", Satan, when he was meditating upon it, and desiring to bring it (se. reconciliation) to his people, put upon his tongue these are the exalted Gharaniq whose intercession is approved’.’ When Quraysh heard that they were delighted and greatly pressed at the way in which he spoke of their gods and they listened to him; while the believers were holding that what their prophet brought them from their Lord was true, not suspecting a mistake or a vain desire or a slip. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 165). The Arabic word gharaniq refers to certain cranes which fly at a great height. The pagan Meccans, impressed by the splendour of these birds, therefore described their goddesses by an analogous reference to them. When Muhammad quoted the very words used by the Meccans to exalt their goddesses, they said to one another "Muhammad has spoken of our gods in excellent fashion" (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 166). Then, however, the narrative also records the visit by Gabriel to Muhammad that night in which he denied revealing these words to him while he was at the Ka’aba. Then Gabriel came to the apostle and said, "What have you done, Muhammad? You have read to these people something I did not bring you from God and you have said what he did not say to you". (Ibn Ishaq, op. cit., p. 166). In both of the works quoted it is stated that it was Satan who interjected while Muhammad was reciting Surah 53 and that he had "suggested" the Meccan expression of praise to the pagan goddesses to Muhammad. Accordingly "God annulled what Satan had suggested" (op. cit., p. 166), and the following denunciation of these idols was substituted for it: Have ye seen Lat and Uzza and another, the third (goddess), Manat? What! For you the male sex, and for Him, the female? Behold, such would be indeed a division most unfair! These are nothing but names which ye have devised. Surah 53.19-23. The story is quite striking, particularly as it is out of character with the one sustained cause of conflict between Muhammad and his people, namely his otherwise unwavering proclamation of the unity of God and the rejection of their goddesses and idols. Nonetheless, whereas the story is widely discounted in Islam for obvious reasons, it is generally credited in Western writings. Its wide circulation in the early biographies and the sudden return of those who fled to Abyssinia (Ibn Sa’d states that they returned purely because they heard of the prostration of the pagan Meccans with Muhammad - Kitab at-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 1, p. 238), appear to argue strongly for its authenticity. Pious Mussulmans of after days, scandalised at the lapse of their Prophet into so flagrant a concession, would reject the whole story. But the authorities are too strong to be thus summarily dismissed. It is hardly possible to conceive how the tale, if not in some shape or other founded in truth, could ever have been invented. The stubborn fact remains, and is by all admitted, that the first refugees did return about this time from Abyssinia; and that they returned in consequence of a rumour that Mecca was converted. To this fact the narrative affords the only intelligible clue. (Muir, The life of Mahomet, p. 80). It is important to keep in mind that this story is not a calumny from without, but a report embedded in Muslim Tradition itself. Its content requires us to hold that, being so apparently compromising, it could not have been fabricated. (Cragg, The Event of the Qur’an, p. 142). The story is not found in all its details in the later Hadith collections but it does appear to be confirmed in this brief tradition in Bukhari’s Sahih, regarded universally by Muslims as the most authentic work of Hadith and as second only to the Qur’an in reliability: Narrated Ibn Abbas: The Prophet performed a prostration when he finished reciting Surat-an-Najm, and all the Muslims and pagans and Jinns and human beings prostrated along with him. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 363). "Surat-an-Najm" is the same Surah 53 which Muhammad was reciting according to the narratives we have quoted. What else could have prompted all present, both Muslims and pagans, to prostrate behind Muhammad but the concession made to the Meccan goddesses? One can understand the Muslims following any lead Muhammad gave (see the quote from Ibn Ishaq) but it is hard, if not impossible, to believe that the pagan Meccans would have joined Muhammad in worship at the end of the Surah if he had quoted it as it now stands with such a vehement denunciation of these same goddesses by name. The story does appear to have a compelling historical foundation. 2. Modern Muslim Reactions to the Story. The story itself reflects so poorly on Muhammad and strikes so deeply at the heart of Muslim sentiments about his integrity that it is not surprising to find that modern Muslim writers reject it vehemently. One gives a defence of his prophet in these words: In fact this chapter (No. liii) which describes Muhammad’s Miraj which took place about the end of the tenth year of his mission had not been revealed when the first emigrant returned from Abyssinia. For the man who had declared that he would not give up his work for any kingdom on earth to have made any concession in the conception of Godhead s an unthinkable idea and against the whole tenor of the Qur’an. (Sarwar, Muhammad the Holy Prophet, p. 99). The second argument is, we do believe, a very considerable one for the narrative indeed clashes with the otherwise uninterrupted proclamation of the unity of God and denunciation of idols by Muhammad. This is, however, an argument that rests on principles of consistency rather than historical evidences or cogent proofs. The other argument is weak in that there is no concrete proof that the first part of Surah 53 refers to the mi’raj which followed the emigration to Abyssinia. As shown already, it almost certainly refers to one of Muhammad’s initial visions, limited by the Qur’an itself to the two he had when his ministry began. Unfortunately one finds that virtually all Muslim arguments of a factual nature against this story are equally weak. Another writer credits the story but argues that one of the pagan Meccans near Muhammad made the exclamation in favour of the idols when Muhammad reached the words "Have ye seen Lat and Uzza and another, the third (goddess), Manat?" (Surah 53.19). He concludes: "This is the version given by Muslim historians and traditionists" (Ali, The Spirit of Islam, p. 34). This is a patently inaccurate statement. The quotes given from Ibn Sa’d and Ibn Ishaq clearly show that Muhammad himself spoke the words and both record how the lapse came as a result of his own desire to reconcile his message with the sentiments of his kinsmen. Another writer states: "Tabari, the most authoritative biographer of the Holy Prophet, makes no mention of the offending verses" (Zafrulla Khan, Muhammad: Seal of the Prophets, p. 45). This is an equally untrue claim as Tabari not only records the whole story but claims he obtained it from Ibn Ishaq through Salama. Contrast this statement: "Tabari, however, who mentions the Satanic verses, seems to suggest that Muhammad repented of the compromise the same day" (Glubb, The Life and Times of Muhammad, p. 128). Others allege that the "satanic verses" (the laudation of the three goddesses) do not fit in the Surah between verses 20 and 21 (so Khalifa, The Sublime Qur’an and Orientalism, p. 103). Again the argument is ill-founded for the words are said to have been replaced by the denunciation verses which are now recorded in the Surah. We must therefore assume, as the historical kernel of the tradition, that Sura 53.19 ff. once embodied a different wording, implying acceptance of the pagan conception of the gods, an implication which Mohammed subsequently felt to be incompatible with belief in the one God. (Andrae, Mohamned: The Man and his Faith, p. 21). The writer adds: "In style and rhythm the two Satanic lines fit admirably into the original Sura" (op. cit.). The evidences certainly seem to be well-founded and the arguments against them strained to the point of glaring factual inaccuracy. The rejection of the story is clearly motivated by the unpalatable nature of its contents rather than a consideration of its factual historicity. There are numerous other stories relating to Muhammad’s life of no better historical foundation than this one which are nevertheless usually admitted. Indeed in many cases incidents with a much weaker claim to authenticity are accepted as genuine. A recent apologist for Muhammad has written a biography in which he makes it plain that he has relied chiefly on the earliest biographies for his facts, in particular Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa’d and Waqidi (Lings, Muhammad, p. 349), and has unquestioningly included many stories of no greater authority than the story of Muhammad’s concession to the Meccan idolaters. This story, however, is omitted without any reference to it whatsoever. Clearly it is rejected, not because it has a poor historical foundation, but because it records a damaging lapse made by Muhammad during his ten year ministry at Mecca. But the question at issue cannot be whether or not the tradition is acceptable, but rather whether or not it is authentic. (Weasels, A Modern Arabic Biography of Muhammad, p. 75). Another argument favoured by Muslim writers is that "it is utterly inconsistent with the whole concept of Prophethood and indeed with the righteousness of the Holy Prophet, peace be on him, that he could have been influenced by any Satanic incitement at any time" (Zafrulla Khan, Muhammad: Seal of the Prophets, p. 45). Another writer makes much the same point: "It contradicts the infallibility of every prophet in conveying the message of his Lord" (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, p. 107). This argument is, however, purely subjective and one based on the presupposition that Muhammad was a true prophet. The non-Muslim cannot be persuaded by such a line of reasoning, particularly when an objective study of its historical sources tends to confirm the story. Working from the starting -point of the authenticity of the narrative rather than Muhammad’s supposed prophethood, one is inclined to conclude that the incident in some measure discredits Muhammad’s prophethood rather than the other way around. 3. Did Ibn Ishaq Record the Story of the Satanic Verses? We have already mentioned the omission of this story from Ibn Hisham’s recIension of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasulullah. As this reclension is the only record of Ibn Ishaq’s work that survives, Muslim writers immediately claim that Ibn Ishaq therefore never recorded it and seek to strengthen their claim by a quotation from another source: Ibn Ishaq, for his part, did not hesitate at all to declare it a fabrication by the zindiqs. (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, p. 107). In the year 150 after the Hijra, Ibn-Ishaq was quoted by Abu Habban in his treatise Al-Bahr Al-Mohit, to have exposed the whole story about the goddesses as an invention of al-Zanadiqah, those who do not recognise Islam while still nominally attached to it or to any other religion. (Khalifa, The Sublime Qur’an and Orientalism, p. 102). It is hard to believe that the zindiqs, the "freethinkers", not only composed the story but also succeeded in ensuring that it would be so widely accepted by the earliest biographers. Our records of the incident are found purely within the Islamic heritage and not outside it. Furthermore the claim that Ibn Ishaq rejected the story is also based on a secondary source, and then only a work by an author of no real prominence. Indeed the omission of the story in the text today is also dependent on a secondary source. It is not Ibn Ishaq but rather Ibn Hisham who has omitted this tradition in his edition. Sometimes Haykal confuses the names of Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham, which leads in the present instance to an incorrect statement. (Weasels, A Modern Arabic Biography of Muhammad, p. 59). The arguments for and against the original inclusion of the story are all based on secondary sources - Tabari, Ibn Hisham, Abu Habban - but Tabari is an author of considerable prominence and a compelling one for the claim that it was indeed a part of Ibn Ishaq’s work. The record of his reliance on Ibn Ishaq for the narrative suggests that Ibn Hisham may well have expunged it from the original text and prompts one writer to say: There is reason to suspect that Ibn Hisham was not quite so trustworthy as his great authority Ibn Ishac. Certainly there is one instance which throws suspicion upon him as a witness, disinclined at least to tell the whole truth. We find in Tabari a quotation from Ibn Ishac, in which is described the temporary lapse of Mahomet into idolatry; and the same incidents are also given by Wakidy from other original sources. But no notice whatever of the fact appears in the biography of Ibn Hisham, though it is professedly based upon the work of Ibn Ishac. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p. lxx). This suggestion is strengthened by the fact that Ibn Hisham’s edition contains no unfavourable stories about Muhammad, and yet in his introduction he openly complained of "scurrilous attacks on the prophet" (Guillaume, introduction to Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasulullah, p.xxxi) in the original work. There are many evidences in other works, which quote from the Sirat, that Ibn Hisham’s edition is incomplete and the story of the "satanic verses" was almost certainly one of those expunged from the text by him. Recently a Muslim publishing house in India has reprinted Hughes’ great work, A Dictionary of Islam, and has introduced the reprint with these words in a "Publisher’s Note": The Publisher has very meticulously gone through the pages and has expunged the remarks derogatory to Islamic faith, published in the original edition. (Hughes, A Dictionary of Islam, p. vi). This statement seems to sum up perfectly the similar action taken by Ibn Hisham against the original text of Ibn Ishaq’s work. Not long ago new evidence came to light strengthening considerably the claim that the story of Muhammad’s lapse was part of Ibn Ishaq’s original work. There is, in the Qarawiyun mosque library at Fez in Morocco, a manuscript entitled Kitab al-Maghazi (Book of the Campaigns) which, among other sources, contains a record of lectures given at one time by Ibn Ishaq on the life of Muhammad which includes the story of the concession made by Muhammad to the pagan Meccans The narrative is very similar to that in Tabari’s work except that the actual "satanic verses" are only referred to and not actually quoted in the text. The MS. agrees with Salama’s report from Ibn Ishaq that the emigrants returned from Abyssinia because they heard of the conversion of Quraysh in consequence of the concession to polytheism, but strangely enough it does not quote the offending words. (Guillaume, New Light on the Life of Muhammad, p. 38). On a balance of probabilities it does seem that the story was included in Ibn Ishaq’s original work as in the other early biographies. A point that also strengthens this conclusion is the fact of the return of the emigrant Muslims which is credited by Ibn Hisham to the Meccan conversions in his reclension of Ibn Ishaq’s original Sirat: The apostle’s companions who had gone to Abyssinia heard that the Meccans had accepted Islam and they set out for their homeland. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 167). Unless the story of the concession to their pagan goddesses was part of the original text just at this point, this remaining statement is largely unintelligible. It is highly unlikely that the rumour of such a phenomenal turn of events, that is, the conversion of all the pagan Meccans, should have been left unexplained by Ibn Ishaq. It is far more likely that Ibn Hisham expunged the story of the satanic verses from the text but unwittingly left a reference to it in his reclension. As the saying goes, his slip is showing! There can be little doubt that Ibn Hisham cut out some of the text which came to him because he gives no reason for the sudden conversion of the people of Mecca and leaves it unexplained. (Guillaume, New Light on the Life of Muhammad, p. 38). Modern Muslim writers suggest that it was the conversion of Umar that prompted the return of the emigrants (ea. Sarwar, Muhammad: the Holy Prophet, p. 95), but this does not explain why they almost immediately set out for Abyssinia again. Haykal makes the same suggestion (The Life of Muhammad, p. 105) but, before he came across the story of Muhammad’s lapse as it is recorded in William Muir’s book, he had already composed his own book in the form of published articles and, having relied almost exclusively on Ibn Ishaq’s work in the form of Ibn Hisham’s reclension, he duly made the supposed conversion of the Quraysh the reason for the return. Only when he found out why this supposed conversion took place, and that the concession had been made by Muhammad and not by the Quraysh, did he alter his work and state that the return of the emigrants was caused by Umar’s conversion. It does not argue for the objectivity of Haykal’s investigation of this tradition that before he knew Muir’s book he did indeed make the conversion of Quraysh the reason for the return of the emigrants to Mecca. (Weasels, A Modern Arabi_ Biography of Muhammad, p. 76). It is our considered opinion that the Muslims have made a sorry mess of their defence of Muhammad and their rejection of this story and it seems that they would have done better to have relied solely on the argument that it is out of character with Muhammad’s sustained rejection of idolatry. 4. Support for the Story in the Qur’an. Had there been not the slightest allusion to this story in the Qur’an, one might yet be inclined to discount it, but there are two passages in the book which uncannily coincide respectively with the suggestion that Satan interjected during Muhammad’s recitation of Surah 53 and that Muhammad was slowly becoming inclined to yield to his kinsmen in some measure to reconcile himself to them. But the Qur’an itself seems to me to bear out the fact that the suggestion was made and afterwards withdrawn. (Bell, The Origin of Islam in its Christian Environment, p. 56). Indeed the story is so strange that it must be true in its essentials. It is unthinkable that anyone should have invented such a story and persuaded the vast body of Muslims to accept it. Moreover there is a passage in the Qur’an which describes something of this kind. (Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman, p. 61). The verse referred to by Watt is the one which seems to refer quite openly to the interjection made by Satan. It is: And We have sent before thee no messenger or prophet but as he recited (a portion of Our message) Satan cast forth (suggestions) in respect of the recital. Then Allah abolishes what Satan casts forth, and Allah continues His revelations; and Allah is Knowing, Wise. Surah 22.52 (Daryabadi). The word for "revelations" in the original is ayat, often used for "signs" but also regularly used for verses of the Qur’an itself. The great Muslim commentator on the Qur’an, Zamakhshari, openly interpreted this verse as referring to the occasion when Satan substituted something in accordance with the wish which the Messenger of God had sheltered (Gatje, The Qur’an and its Exegesis, p. 54). This was hardly surprising as the narrative in Tabari’s work, which he claimed was derived from Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat, plainly states that the verse was revealed to Muhammad immediately after the lapse to relieve his grief. Zafrulla Khan, in one of his typically bold but completely inaccurate statements, says: "The Holy Quran excludes emphatically any idea of Satan being capable of influencing any righteous person, let alone a prophet or messenger" (Muhammad: Seal of the Prophets, p. 45). This claim is seriously undermined by Surah 22.52 which makes the exact point that the writer is at pains to deny. Another somewhat more credible defence is offered by a Muslim commentator on this verse: Moreover, it is absolutely inconceivable that such an important incident as the Prophet’s having accepted the intercession of idols should have been mentioned in the Qur’an eight years after it happened. The 53rd chapter, in which the change is said to have taken place, was revealed before the fifth year of the Prophet’s call, while this chapter was revealed on the eve of the Prophet’s departure from Makkah. (Ali, The Holy Qur’an, p. 658). The argument, however, does not take into account the well-established fact that most of the Surahs of the Qur’an are composite chapters of various passages dating from different periods, often made up of both Meccan and Medinan verses. In an introduction to Surah 22 in his translation of the Qur’an, Richard Bell says: The surah has in fact become quite disjointed. Vv. 51-53, addressed to the prophet personally, are quite out of connection. (Bell, The Qur’an Transtated, Vol. 1, p. 316). He goes on to give possible occasions for the inclusion of the verses mentioned and allows for an earlier date than the main body of the Surah. It is therefore quite possible that Surah 22.52 dates prior to the rest of the Surah and refers directly to the occasion of the "satanic verses". W. M. Watt, in another book, comments on the same verse: This passage is a justification for some previous alteration in the text of the Qur’an; one strand of tradition holds that it applies to verses originally proclaimed as following 53.19,20. (Watt, Companion to the Qur’an, p. 156). The strand referred to is the Ibn Ishaq/Tabari source aforementioned. We must surely conclude that Surah 22.52 is a Qur’anic reference and clue to the story of the concession to the pagan Meccans when we consider that there is no other occasion suggested in the Islamic tradition literature for the revelation of this verse. Muslim commentators who reject the link identified in the Ibn Ishaq/Tabari strand nevertheless cannot suggest an alternative incident or event which can explain the statements made in the verse. The other verse which appears to allude to the occasion of the "satanic verses" is this one which helps us in some measure to see the inner workings of Muhammad’s mind: And their purpose was to tempt thee away from that which We had revealed unto thee, to substitute in Our name something quite different: (In that case), behold! They would certainly have made thee (their) friend! And had We not given thee strength, thou wouldst nearly have inclined to them a little. Surah 17. 73-74. This verse also appears to refer to the same occasion, in particular the yearnings felt by Muhammad for a reconciliation with his kinsmen which led to the ejaculation in favour of their goddesses. Once again no reasonable alternative suggests itself. There is no other occasion in Muhammad’s life referred to in the sources to which these enlightening verses can relate. Furthermore, as with Surah 22.52, we are not proposing a convenient link between the verses and the story. Ibn Sa’d plainly states that they were revealed in consequence of Muhammad’s concession to the pagan goddesses and his subsequent reversion to his original position (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab at-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 1, p. 237). 5. The Implications of the Compromise. It is our opinion that this story is almost certainly genuine, not only because of its record in many early works, but perhaps even more because those records which seem to omit it, namely the Qur’an itself, the Sahih of Bukhari, and the present edited version of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat, contain elements obviously relative to it and otherwise unintelligible. Furthermore certain details in the story are strikingly factual, for example the note that one old man did not bow down but applied some of the dust of the ground to his forehead. This little incident is just the sort of thing an eye-witness would particularly observe, but it is hardly the sort of otherwise irrelevant evidence that a fabricator would think of or care to include. In the last chapter we analysed in some depth the subjective side of Muhammad’s prophetic experience and concluded that the Qur’anic composition had much to do with the developing prophetic consciousness of his mind. This story has important implications in this respect. To Muhammad’s positive credit there is a highly commendable consistency in his dogmatic monotheistic preaching but, as so often said before, the exception proves the rule. It is quite conceivable that in his early days he underwent a prolonged tension in his mind as he sought to reconcile himself to his people. The whole story gives an extremely interesting insight into Muhammad’s soul. (Hammershaimb, "The Religious and Political Development of Muhammad", op. cit., p. 201). It may be assumed that the lapse was no sudden event. It was not a concession won by surprise, or an error of the tongue committed unawares, and immediately withdrawn. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p. 80). The honour paid to the interceding goddesses may well have seemed an innocuous but effective means of effecting the reconciliation. This is no mere speculation. In later days a similar means suggested itself. After his gory battles with his kinsmen near Medina, Muhammad did find a very successful way of reconciling himself to them and one which again required a concession on his part, but, on this occasion, it really did prove effective without a damaging lapse on his part. I refer to the pagan pilgrimage practices around Mecca which Muhammad adopted without amending their rituals in any material way. He simply retained the outward form while amending the inward purpose of the pilgrimage. The former attempt at a reconciliation proved disastrous, however, and he obviously realised fairly quickly that he had made a concession which betrayed the heart of his ministry. While the transferring of the blame to Satan may appear to have been an easy way out, it is probable that he identified his inclination to pacify his kinsmen as one bearing all the elements of suggestion (the Qur’anic wahy) that the motivations of his heart towards the praise of Allah alone also bore. It was logical, therefore, to conclude, as in the words attributed to the angel I did not bring you this, that if the suggestion had not come from Allah, it must have come from Satan. We conclude, then, that the heart of the matter has to do with a semantic struggle to mean and convey. Tradition about an actual compromise has simply formalized or fossilized a point in that ongoing tension, while the idea of Satanic interjection has given the highly charged ambiguities of a real encounter a simplistic shape that conceals a more subtle travail. (Cragg, The Event of the Qur’an, p. 144). ======================================================================== CHAPTER 47: 04.14. C. AL-MI'RAJ: THE ALLEGED ASCENT TO HEAVEN. ======================================================================== C. AL-MI’RAJ: THE ALLEGED ASCENT TO HEAVEN. 1. The Story of the Mi’raj in the Hadith. One of the most famous Islamic monuments in the world is the Dome of the Rock which stands on the site of the original Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. It is the third-holiest in the Muslim world after the Ka’aba in Mecca and Prophet’s Mosque in Medina and commemorates the alleged occasion of Muhammad’s ascent through the seven heavens to the very presence of Allah. It stands above the rock from which Muhammad is believed to have ascended to heaven. The narrative of this as cent is recorded in all the major works of Hadith in some de tail, but there is only one verse in the Qur’an openly refer ring to the incident and in a limited context at that. The traditions basically report that Muhammad was asleep one night towards the end of his prophetic course in Mecca when he was wakened by the angel Gabriel who cleansed his heart before bidding him alight on a strange angelic beast named Buraq. Muhammad is alleged to have said: I was brought al-Burg who is an animal white and long, larger than a donkey but smaller than a mule, who would place his hoof at a distance equal to the range of vision. I mounted it and came to the Temple (Bait-ul Maqdis in Jerusalem), then tethered it to the ring used by the prophets. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 1, p. 101). Some traditions hold that the creature had a horse’s body and angel’s head and that it also had a peacock’s tail. It is thus represented in most Islamic paintings of the event. The journey from Mecca to Jerusalem is known as al-Isra, "the night journey". At Jerusalem Muhammad was tested in the following way by Gabriel (some traditions place this test during the ascent itself): Allah’s Apostle was presented with two cups, one containing wine and the other milk on the night of his night journey at Jerusalem. He looked at it and took the milk. Gabriel said, "Thanks to Allah Who guided you to the Fitra (i.e. Islam); if you had taken the wine, your followers would have gone astray". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 196). After this began al-Mi’raj, "the ascent". Muhammad passed the sea of kawthar, literally the sea of "abundance" (the word is found only once in the Qur’an in Surah 108.1), and then met various prophets, from Adam to Abraham, as well as a variety of angels as he passed through the seven heavens. After this Gabriel took him to the heavenly lote-tree on the boundary of the heavens before the throne of Allah. Then I was made to ascend to Sidrat-ul-Muntaha (i.e. the lote-tree of the utmost boundary). Behold! Its fruits were like the jars of Hajr (i.e. a place near Medina) and its leaves were as big as the ears of elephants. Gabriel said, "This is the lote-tree of the utmost boundary". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p. 147). This famous tree, as-sidratul-muntaha, is also mentioned twice in the passage in Surah 53 describing the second vision Muhammad had of Gabriel (Surah 53.14,16) where he also saw the angel ’inda sidrah, "near the lote-tree". Gabriel and Buraq could go no further but Muhammad went on to the presence of Allah where he was commanded to order the Muslims to pray fifty times a day: Then Allah enjoined fifty prayers on my followers. When I returned with this order of Allah, I passed by Moses who asked me, "What has Allah enjoined on your followers?" I replied, "He has enjoined fifty prayers on them". Moses said "Go back to your Lord (and appeal for reduction) for your followers will not be able to bear it". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 1, p. 213). Muhammad allegedly went back and forth between Allah and Moses till the prayers were reduced to five per day. Moses then told him to seek yet a further reduction but Muhammad stopped at this point and answered Moses: I replied that I had been back to my Lord and asked him to reduce the number until I was ashamed, and I would not do it again. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 187). Allah then said whoever observed the five times of prayer daily would receive the reward of fifty prayers. Muhammad then saw some of the delights of paradise as he returned to Gabriel and Buraq and then beheld the torments of the damned before going back to his bed in Mecca that same night. This, briefly, is the narrative of the ascent. 2. The Night Journey in the Qur’an. As said already, the Qur’an has only one direct reference to this whole episode and it is found in this verse: Glory to (God) Who did take His Servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque whose precincts We did bless, - in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the One Who heareth and seeth (all things). Surah 17.1 The "Sacred Mosque" (al-masjidul-haram) is interpreted to be the Ka’aba at Mecca and the "Farthest Mosque" (al-masjidul- aqsa) the Temple at Jerusalem (also referred to as al-baitul- muqaddas - the "holy house"). The great mosque which presently stands next to the Dome of the Rock is accordingly known today as the "al-Aqsa" mosque. The verse is somewhat vague as it refers only to "signs" that Allah would show him. What is important, however, is the fact that the verse refers purely to the "journey by night" (asra), from Mecca to Jerusalem, and makes no mention of the ascent through the heavens (mi’raj) at all. Indeed the Qur’an nowhere directly refers to nor outlines the supposed ascent - a striking omission if it was a genuine experience. Some Muslim commentators have sought allusions to it elsewhere in the Qur’an but the passages quoted are too weak to be relied on with any certainty. Those who know how large a part the Miraj, or miraculous journey on the Borak, bears in popular conceptions of Mohammedanism will learn with surprise, if they have not gone much into the matter, that there is only one passage in the Koran which can be tortured into an allusion to the journey to heaven. (Bosworth Smith, Mohammed and Mohammedanism, p. 186). There are some who say that the vision referred to in Surah 53.6-18 (see page 100) refers to the Mi’raj, but we have already seen that Muhammad recited this very Surah at the time of the first emigration to Abyssinia, and the passage must therefore refer to one of the very early visions as the Mi’raj is only said to have taken place some years later just before the Hijrah. Another hadith supports this conclusion by identifying this passage more clearly: Masruq reported: I said to Aisha: What about the words of Allah: Then he drew nigh and came down, so he was at a distance of two bows or closer still . . . (53.8-10)? She said: It implies Gabriel. He used to come to him in the shape of men; but he came at this time in his true form and blocked up the horizon of the sky. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 1, p. 112). The occasion Ayishah records is plainly identified as one of those where Muhammad had a vision of the approaching angel in the sky rather than a manifestation of the angel during their ascent through the heavens. If the verse had referred to the Mi’raj, Ayishah would have surely mentioned the fact, but it patently refers to an independent occasion. Furthermore the narratives in the Hadith expose a glaring anachronism. After proclaiming that he had been to Jerusalem Muhammad was allegedly asked to describe the Temple. He is said to have replied: I stood at al-Hijr, visualised Bayt al-Muqaddas and described its signs. Some of them said: How many doors are there in that mosque? I had not counted them so I began to look at it and counted them one by one and gave them information concerning them. (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 1, p. 248). Another tradition states that when the Qurayah disbelieved him, Muhammad answered "Allah lifted me before Bait-ul-Maqdis and I began to narrate to them (the Quraish of Mecca) its signs while I was in fact looking at it" (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 1, p. 109). There is a real problem here for the structure had been destroyed more than five hundred years earlier and the site at that time had become a rubbish-dump and was so discovered by Umar when he conquered Jerusalem some years later. It cannot be said that Muhammad saw a vision of the Temple as it had been before it was destroyed for the Quraysh were asking him to describe contemporary Jerusalem as he saw it that very night. How could he have counted the doors of a building that no longer existed? The whole story of the Mi’raj as found in the Hadith may well be a pure fiction, a conclusion that will be reinforced through a study of its sources shortly. Here let it be said that it is not at all certain that Muhammad ever claimed that he actually ascended to heaven. It is possible that he merely related a striking dream, which he took as a vision, in which he imagined his journey to Jerusalem. Al-Hasan reported: One of Abu Bakr’s family told me that Aisha, the Prophet’s wife, used to say: "The apostle’s body remained where it was but God removed his spirit by night". (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 183). These words clearly teach that Muhammad never left his apartment the whole night. Furthermore the Qur’an plainly restricts the journey to the Isra as we have seen. It is probable that what was originally nothing more than a dream of a journey to Jerusalem has been transformed into an actual physical event which was followed by an ascent through the heavens to the throne of Allah himself. The suggestion that even the Isra was only a dream is strengthened by the fact that the anachronism appearing in the Hadith is also found in the Qur’an for the latter also states that Muhammad was taken to the Temple in Jerusalem in Surah 17.1 quoted above. Although the Qur’an does not refer to the baitul-muqaddas but only to the masjidul-aqsa, it is clear that the same shrine is intended as the Qur’an in the same way describes the baitullah, the Ka’aba in Mecca, as the masjidul-haram. Furthermore the context establishes this interpretation for, only a few verses later, the Qur’an actually records the destruction of the second Temple in Jerusalem and here simply describes it as al-masjid (Surah 17.7 - the word today is only used of a Muslim mosque but in the Qur’an it is commonly used for any holy sanctuary). Although Muhammad obviously knew of the destruction of the second Temple, it seems he believed that it had been rebuilt like the first one. The fact that he first chose Jerusalem as his qiblah before turning to the masjidul-haram in Mecca adds considerable weight to this suggestion for he would hardly have chosen the former if he had known that no masjidul-aqsa stood on the site at that time, where the mosque of this name now stands, but only a compost heap. It seems appropriate to conclude that the experience Muhammad had was really only a dream which characterised his illusions about Jerusalem, and that the whole story of the Mi’raj is accordingly nothing more than a mythical fantasy imaginatively built upon it. 3. A Literal Event or a Mystical Experience? Orthodox Muslims hold that the Mi’raj was a literal, bodily ascent to heaven, but others have suggested that it was purely a mystical experience. The distinction goes back to the early days of Islam and is summarised in the following quote: The belief in the Ascension of the Prophet is general in Islam. Whilst the Asha’ri and the patristic sects believe that the Prophet was bodily carried up from earth to heaven, the Rationalists hold that it was a spiritual exaltation, that it represented the uplifting of the soul by stages until it was brought into absolute communion with the Universal Soul. (Ali, The Spirit of Islam, p. 447). To this day those who believe that Muhammad actually went up to heaven and back remain overwhelmingly in the majority and the event is commemorated once a year during the lailatul-mi’raj, "the night of the ascension", which falls on the 27th night of the Islamic month of Rajab. In more recent times, however, prominent Muslim authors have rejected the possibility of a physical ascent and have offered an assortment of alternative spiritual interpretations. Now, it is agreed by all that Muhammad’s Ascension was a matter of seconds or minutes instead of being days, months or years, and the words used for it by all biographers is Miraj, the same as used by God for the ascension of the angels or spirits who have no bodies . . . The Miraj is nothing but Inspiration or Revelation raised in degrees. (Sarwar, Muhammad: the Holy Prophet, pp. 119, 122). Since "faith" is an abstract concept, it is obvious that the Prophet himself regarded this prelude to the Ascension (the cleansing of his heart) - and therefore the Ascension itself and, ipso facto, the Night Journey to Jerusalem - as purely spiritual experiences. But whereas there is no cogent reason to believe in a "bodily" Night Journey and Ascension, there is, on the other hand, no reason to doubt the objective reality of this event. (Asad, The Message of the Qur’an, p. 997). Haykal has a novel view - he alleges that the discoveries of modern science, e.g. the reproduction of images on television and voices on radios, etc., proves that forces of nature can be transferred from one place to another, and so concludes: "In our modern age, science confirms the possibility of a spiritual Isra’ and Mi’raj . . . Strong and powerful spirits such as Muhammad’s are perfectly capable of being carried in one night from Makkah to Jerusalem and of being shown God’s signs" (The Life of Muhammad, p. 146). Quite what is meant by the latter statement, only the author can know. Nevertheless his interpretation is typical of modern attempts to cast the ascension into a mystical mould, reminiscent of the rationalistic interpretations of the "free-thinking" age of early Islam when similar attempts to explain the Mi’raj in rationalistic terms were made. In fact Haykal returns to the standpoint of the Mu’tazila, who also rejected the realistic understanding and denied that the ascent into heaven had occurred in the body. (Weasels, A Modern Arabic Biography of Muhammad, p. 84). The fanciful nature of the traditional story of the Mi’raj has made more educated Muslims realise that the orthodox interpretation is perhaps more consistent with the marvellous tales of the Arabian Nights than the world of reality. Even the early biographer Ibn Ishaq had his doubts about the narrative. In his introduction to the Sirat Rasulullah, Guillaume states: "In his account of the night journey to Jerusalem and the ascent into heaven he allows us to see the working of his mind. The story is everywhere hedged with reservations and terms suggesting caution to the reader" (p. xix). A famous biographer perhaps gets to the heart of the matter by suggesting that, as Muhammad was already looking northwards towards Medina for the future of his ministry and had decided to adopt Jerusalem as the qiblah, the imaginations of his mind by day probably became the fantasies of a dream by night: "The musings of the day reappeared in the slumbers of the night" (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p. 117). At this stage we are bound to ask on what authority it may be suggested that the story of the Mi’raj, as recorded in all its details in the traditions, was purely a mythical adaptation of a simple dream. Did later scribes put it all together as a pious figment of their fertile imaginations? Not at all. Another modern Muslim author gives us a clear indication as to why much of it is an acute problem to recent scholars. The doctrine of a locomotive mi’raj or ’Ascension’ developed by the orthodox (chiefly on the pattern of the Ascension of Jesus) and backed by Hadith is no more than a historical fiction whose material comea from various aourcea. (Rahman, Islam, p. 14). Let us now, in closing, examine these sources on which early traditionists relied for their details of the story. 4. The Sources of the Alleged Ascent. Stories strikingly similar to the Mi’raj are found in various religious works predating the time of Muhammad and it is virtually certain that later scribes borrowed elements from these to create the story found in the Hadith. In these later narratives of the Mi’raj we find mythology unrestrained by any regard for reason or truth. We must now inquire what was the source from which the idea of this night journey of Muhammad was derived. (Tisdall, The Original Sources of the Qur’an, p. 225). Stobart refers to Surah 17.1 as Muhammad’s "simple account of what was probably only a dream prompted by his waking thoughts" and relieves him of responsibility for the fanciful narratives found in the Hadith: For the details of this revelation, with all its later embellishment of curious and extravagant fiction, drawn from the legends of the Haggidah, and the dreams of the Midrash and the Talmud, the prophet cannot, in fairness, be made responsible. (Stobart, Islam and its Founder, p. 141). Stobart refers to Jewish works where accounts similar to that of the Mi’raj are found, but perhaps the real origins of the Islamic account of Muhammad’s ascent to heaven are those stories found in Zoroastrian works which are strikingly parallel to the Mi’raj. Tisdall states that "The story may have incorporated elements from many quarters, but it seems to have been in the main based upon the account of the ascension of Arta Viraf contained in a Pahlavi book called ’The Book of Arta Viraf"’ (The Original Sources of the Qur’an, p. 226), where we find remarkable coincidences. Arta Viraf was a saintly priest who had a mi’raj of his own some four hundred years before the Hijrah: It is related that; when this young Arta Viraf was in a trance, his spirit ascended into the heavens under the guidance of an archangel named Sarosh, and passed from one storey to another, gradually ascending until he reached the presence of Ormazd himself. When Arta Viraf had thus beheld everything in the heavens and seen the happy state of their inhabitants, Ormazd commanded him to return to the earth as His messenger and to tell the Zoroastrians what he had seen. All his visions are fully related in the book which bears his name. (Tisdall, The Original Sources of the Qur’an, p. 227). There are numerous details in the narrative which correspond to those in the Hadith. Just as Gabriel guided Muhammad through the heavens, so Sarosh, one of the great Zoroastrian archangels, guided Arta Viraf. Likewise he came into the presence of Ormazd and visited paradise and hell as well. It is unnecessary to point out how great is the resemblance between all this and the Muhammadan legend of Muhammad’s Mi’raj. (Tisdall, The Original Sources of the Qur’an, p. 229). The Zoroastrians also teach that there is, in paradise, a marvellous tree called humaya in Pahlavi which corresponds closely to the sidrah, the lote-tree of Islam. Indeed the Zoroastrians even relate that their founder also passed through the heavens and visited hell. In the fabulous Zerdashtnama there is also an account of Zoroaster having ages before ascended to the heavens, after having received permission to visit hell, where he found Ahriman (the devil). (Tisdall, The Sources of Islam, p. 80). In his other book St. Clair-Tisdall comments that Ahriman, the Satan of Zoroastrianism, "closely corresponds with the Iblis of the Qur’an" (The Original Sources of the Qur’an, p. 230). It certainly seems that the whole account of the Mi’raj is a subtle adaptation done by Muslim divines sometime after the subjugation of Zoroastrian Persia during the Arab conquests in the early days of Islam. We may conclude that tradition has nonchalantly adorned the story of Muhammad’s dream with marvellous records of an ascent through the heavens. It is highly probable that Muhammad himself declared no more than that which we find in the Qur’an - that he had a vision or a dream in which he was carried to Jerusalem and there saw various signs. The isra of the Qur’an has been transformed into the mi’rov of the Hadith. In a very subjective way the former may well have been a vision or, more probably, a strange dream, but the latter does truly seem to be no more than a pious fiction drawn from the fables of other religious records and works. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 48: 04.15. THE QU'RAN: THE SCRIPTURE OF ISLAM ======================================================================== The Qu’ran: The Scripture of Islam ======================================================================== CHAPTER 49: 04.16. A. THE COMPOSITION AND CHARACTER OF THE QUR'AN. ======================================================================== A. THE COMPOSITION AND CHARACTER OF THE QUR’AN. 1. The Nature and Form of the Qur’an. The Qur’an is almost the length of the New Testament but its structure and form is very different to it. It consists of the revelations allegedly made to Muhammad in which God is himself at all times the speaker. We can only briefly introduce the book in these pages but will give some insight into its character and form. The Qur’an has 114 surahs, or chapters, of varying length and there is no chronological sequence of these chapters in the book. The order of the surahs, excepting the Suratul-Fatihah which we will shortly outline in some detail, is generally from longest to shortest. Paradoxically most of the earlier surahs are at the end of the book and the later surahs at the beginning. Each has a title, usually taken from a word or name either at the beginning of the surah or somewhere in its text. Some introduce the major themes of the surah, e.g. Suratu-Yusuf (Surah 12) which deals solely with the story of Joseph, and Suratu-Maryam (Surah 19) which devotes much of its content to Mary, the mother of Jesus. Every surah but one (Surah 9) begins with the heading Bismillahir-Rahmanir-Rahim, meaning "In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful". These words are not only found repeatedly in the Qur’an but are a form of grace, are found as titles on letterheads, are engraved on buildings, and are commonly recited by Muslims in various situations. The expression is generally referred to in Muslim parlance as "The Bismillah". The Basmalah: "In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful", is, after the Shahadah, the most familiar epitome of Muslim devotion. It is used in the recognition of God in all the ventures and vicissitudes of life even more widely than the confession itself. (Cragg", The Call of the Minaret, p. 40). The Shahadah is the other famous testimony and creed of Islam which we will consider in a later chapter. Each surah is broken up into brief sections known as ruku’ah as Muslims deem it commendable to make a bow in reverence, a ruku, at the end of the recitation of each of these sections. They are designated in the Qur’an by the Arabic letter ’ain in the margin and are accompanied by the section number and number of verses in each case. A non-Muslim who ventures to quote, for example, "the fortieth chapter of the Qur’an" might be surprised to be told that there are only thirty chapters in the Qur’an. This is because the book is also broken up into thirty sections of roughly equal length, each of which is known as a juz (or, in Persian, a siparah). There is a specific reason for this. ’Juz’ (pl. Ajza’). Persian Siparah. Thirty divisions of the Qur’an, which have been made to enable the devout Muslim to recite the whole of the Qur’an in the thirty days of Ramazan. Muhammadans usually quote their Qur’an by the Siparah or Juz’ and not by the Surah. (Hughes, A Dictionary of Islam, p. 492). The division of each juz is not as obvious as that of each surah where the title of the surah is inserted in the text, often in distinctive script or decoration. In older, hand-written manuscripts of the Qur’an each juz is often identified by a special medallion alongside the text. At the head of some of the surahs, just after the Bismillah, are a few Arabic letters not forming a word. The purpose and significance of these letters, notwithstanding a host of suggestions, is unknown. At least six surahs begin with the letters alif, lam, mim. There are twenty-nine Surahs of the Qur’an which begin with certain letters of the alphabet. These letters, the learned say, have some profound meaning, known only to the Prophet himself, although it seems probable that they are simply marks recorded by the amanuensis. (Hughes, A Dictionary of Islam, p. 517). The very word al-Qur’an means "the Recitation", and Muslims believe that the actual ritual of regularly reciting its text in the original Arabic merits much favour with Allah. There is no merit in reciting a translation. Muslims prize their book in its original Arabic tongue and no true Muslim will refer to anything other than the Arabic text as the Qur’an itself. The Qur’an openly calls its adherents to recite its verses: wa ratiliil qur’aana tartiilaa - "and recite the Qur’an in slow, measured rhythmic tones" (Surah 73.4). The revelation thus involves a recitation or something to be recited; and this indeed is the meaning of the probably originally Aramaic word Qur’an, which came to signify the revelation in its totality as well as single parts of it. (Gatje, The Qur’an and its Exegesis, p. 5). The recitation of the Qur’an, known as tilawah, is so seriously regarded that many Muslims go to great lengths to learn the correct pronunciation of the words, a pursuit now developed into a science known as ’ilmul-tajwid, the "knowledge of pronunciation" It seems even Muhammad himself was concerned to be scrupulous in this matter: Gabriel used to recite the Qur’an before our Prophet, may Allah bless him, once every year in Ramadan. In the year in which he breathed his last he recited it twice before him. Muhammad said: I hope our style of reading conforms to the last recitation by Gabriel. (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p. 243). Before a recitation of the Qur’an a Muslim will recite the words a’uuthu billaahi minash-shaytaanir rajiim which mean "I take refuge in Allah from Satan the stoned". These words are taken almost directly from a verse in the Qur’an which encourages such action: When thou dost read the Qur’an, seek God’s protection from Satan the Rejected One. Surah 16.98 The word ar-rajim properly means "the stoned" as it is the description the Qur’an gives to the devil as a result of Abraham’s supposed act of throwing atones at him when he sought to prevent Abraham sacrificing his son. The event is commemorated in a ceremony in the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca of which more will be said in a later chapter. A Muslim who learns the Qur’an by heart is called a hafiz (a "guardian" of the text) and professional reciters of the book are known simply as qurra ("reciters"). There are numerous hadith commending the recitation of the Qur’an, too many to be recorded here, but they serve to show how important this practice is in Islam. 2. The Qur’an’s Description of Itself. The Qur’an has much to say about itself and a brief study of some of the verses relating to it will assist us to understand the conception Muhammad had of the book he believed was being revealed to him. Firstly it is taught that the original Qur’an is preserved on a tablet in heaven and that the text in use today is a copy of it: Nay, this is a Glorious Qur’an, (inscribed) in a Tablet Preserved! Surah 85.21-22. Secondly it is believed by Muslims that the text was brought down by Gabriel one night (during the month of Ramadan just before Muhammad’s call) to the first heaven from which the angel revealed its contents piecemeal to Muhammad, as occasion required, over the remaining twenty-three years of his life. This belief arises from Qur’anic verses alluding to the revelation: By the Book that makes things clear, We sent it down on a blessed night. Surah 44.2-3. Ramadhan is the (month) in which was sent down the Qur’an, as a guide to mankind. Surah 2.185 The Qur’an also emphasises its claim that God is its author and preserver. In one place it is said Ar-Rahmaanu-allamal-qur’aan - "The Compassionate has taught the Qur’an" (Surah 55. 1-2), and elsewhere the Qur’an vindicates itself again in these words: This is indeed a Qur’an most honourable, in a book well-guarded, which none ahall touch but those who are clean: a Revelation from the Lord of the Worlds. Surah 56.77-80. These regular occasions in the Qur’an, where the book seeks to defend its divine origin, stand in striking contrast to the text of the Bible where God’s Word is simply set forth as "Thus says the Lord" without any justification of the book or its declarations being deemed necessary. Other texts of this nature in the Qur’an are these: Or they may say, "He forged it". Say, "Bring ye then ten Suras forged, like unto it, and call (to your aid) whomsoever ye can, other than God! - If ye speak the truth! Surah 11.13 Do they not consider the Qur’an (with care)? Had it been from other than God, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy. Surah 4.82 In two of the verses already quoted we find the Qur’an described with an adjective, something so common in the book, that it has led to the compilation of the "Names of the Qur’an", which also include other titles given to it. In Surah 85.21 the title is Qur’aanum-Majiid, "a Glorious Qur’an", and in Surah 56.77 it is Qur’aanun-Kariim, "a Qur’an most honourable". In Surah 36.2 it is al-Qur’aanil-Hakiim, "the Qur’an full of wisdom". One finds today in most printed Qur’ans a title page with the words al-Qur’anul-Majid, "the Exalted Qur’an", or al-Qur’anul-Hakim, "the Wise Qur’an", etc. One such Qur’an is entitled "Qur’an Karim ws Furqan Adhim" (the Glorious Qur’an, the Exalted Criterion). In a glossary Kenneth Cragg explains the Qur’anic title al-Furqan (Surah 25.1): Furqan. One of the names of the Qur’an, as the criterion or that by which truth is distinguished from falsehood and right vindicated against wrong. (Cragg", The Event of the Qur’an, p. 189). A striking anomaly is the absence of the title "The Holy Qur’an" not only from the book itself, but from compilations of its names, especially as this is the most common title used for the Qur’an in English by Muslims today. One writer seeks to explain away the anomaly in these words: Although some non-Arabic speaking Muslims describe the Book as "The Holy Qur’an" the corresponding Arabic adjective muqaddas is actually never used for the simple reason that the holiness of the Book is too deeply implied and understood to need mentioning. (Khalifa, The Sublime Qur’an and Orientalism, p. 5). As the Qur’an clearly delights in describing itself with whatever titles it considers appropriate, this is a strange line of reasoning to justify the omission of the title "Holy Qur’an". Or are the wisdom, exaltation and glory of the book not so obviously "deeply implied" that they need to be pointed out to the reader? A Western writer is certainly far more to the point in this matter when he says: The Qur’an is the scripture of Islam. It is called the Noble Qur’an, the Glorious Qur’an, the Mighty Qur’an, but never the Holy Qur’an, save by modern Western-educated Muslims who are imitating the title Holy Bible. (Jeffery, Islam: Muhammad and his Religion, p. 47). One cannot help feeling that there is much significance in the omission of this title in the Qur’an. The book has many virtues indeed, but one of its obvious deficiencies, in comparison with the Bible, is its attitude to holiness. The book nowhere approaches the realms of holiness and righteousness which are the foundation of the doctrine of God in the Bible, the "holy God who shows himself holy in righteousness" (Isaiah 5:16), and the corresponding denial of any potential for true holiness in man as he is by nature until made regenerate by the Holy Spirit. 3. Important Surahs of the Qur’an. The most important Surah of the Qur’an is the first one, the Suratul-Fatihah, the "Opening Chapter". It is quite unique because it is the only place in the book where the words are solely those of worshippers addressing God, or, as it has been put, it is "the only place where the Qur’an ’prays "’ (Cragg", The Mind of the Qur’an, p. 83). A Muslim scholar, Abdul Jabir, comments in a very similar vein on the character of the Surah: "God has enunciated this chapter in the language of his servants, in order that they might thus address him" (quoted in Wherry, A Comprehensive Commentary on the Qur’an, Vol. 1, p. 288). The Surah reads: In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Praise be to God, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds; Most Gracious, Most Merciful; Master of the Day of Judgment. Thee do we worship, and Thine aid we seek. Show us the right way, the way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, Those whose (portion) is not wrath. and who go not astray.Surah 1.1-7. Muhammad himself regarded this Surah as the foremost of all the revelations he claimed to have received, saying "There has been revealed to me tonight a surah which is dearer to me than all the things of the world" (Muwatta Imam Malik, p. 97). He thereafter recited "the Fatihah" as it is now commonly called. On a later occasion he said to a companion: Shall I not teach you the most important Surah in the Qur’an? He said it is "Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 490). This surah is recited during every one of the prescribed times of prayer and is regarded as the most important part of the worship ritual: "The principal part of the service is the recitation of the opening chapter of the Quran, called the Fatiha" (Zafrulla Khan, Islam: Its Meaning for Modern Man, p. 104). Muhammad is reported to have said: He who does not recite Fatihat al-Kitab is not credited with having observed prayer. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 1, p. 214). On another occasion he declared that, at the end of the recitation of this surah by the Imam, the worshipper should conclude by saying Amin, the Arabic equivalent of our "Amen". Muhammad claimed that all the angels say the amin at the end of the surah and that every Muslim who also recites the amin and duly coincides with them will have his sins forgiven (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 1, p. 416). Much the same was taught in the Christian Church in those times as well in respect of the Lord’s Prayer. So attached has the amin become to the surah that a number of even the best Qur’anic manuscripts of earlier centuries include it as part of the actual text. The surah contains the first three of the ninety-nine names of Allah, the "Most Excellent Names" (al-asma’ul-husna) being ar-Rahman, "the Compassionate", ar-Rahim, "the Merciful", and al-Malik, "the Sovereign". It also contains a common title for the whole religion of Islam, as-Siratal- Mustaqim, "the straight path". Another verse from the Qur’an that has relevance here is: And We have bestowed on thee the Seven Oft-Repeated (Verses) and the Grand Qur’an. Surah 15.87 Muhammad stated that this verse referred to the Fatihah and that the "seven oft-repeated" (saba’ul-mathani) were the seven verses of the surah and that "the Grand Qur’an" here (al-Qur’anal-Adhim) was also a title for the surah (Muwatta Imam Malik, p. 37). Another title for the surah is Ummul-Qur’an, the "Mother of the Qur’an". Its importance to Islam can hardly be over-emphasised. The next most important surah is found just before the end of the Qur’an and is entitled the Suratul-Ikhlas, the "Chapter of Purity", which has a heavy monotheistic emphasis and contains two further titles of Allah, as-Samad, "the Eternal", and al-Ahad, "the One". It reads: Say: He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; and there is none like unto Him. Surah 112.1-4. It is reported that Muhammad said "By Him in Whose hand my life is, this Surah is equal to one-third of the Qur’an" (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 494). Not only is this chapter also held in great esteem but it has important implications for Christian contact with Muslims: The one hundred and twelfth chapter of the Koran is held in particular veneration by Mohammedans. According to a tradition of the Prophet it is equal to one-third of the whole revelation; and on another occasion he asserted that the foundation of the heavens and the earth rested on this short surah. We call attention to it for three reasons: It is the chapter most frequently quoted against Christians and best known in every part of the world of Islam as a defiant summary of Mohammed’s revelation; it is most often selected by calligraphers for the exercise of their artistic skill; and its interpretation in the doctrine of the Sufis gives new points of contact for the presentation of the Christian message. (Zwemer, "Surat al-Ikhlas", The Muslim World, Vol. 26, p. 325). Abu Hurayrah once reported "I went with the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) and he heard a man reciting Surah Ikhlas and said: He is assured. I asked, Of what, Apostle of Allah? He answered: Of Paradise" (Muwatta Imam Malik. p. 99). Little more need be said to show how important this surah too is to the Muslims. The only surah of length that holds an almost equal importance for the Muslims is the 36th Surah named Suratu-Ya-Sin after the two letters ya and sin, appearing as typical unexplained letters heading the surah. This surah is found in Muslim prayer-books, very often as a separate booklet, and its recitation is highly esteemed. Tirmithi, one of the great collectors of Hadith, records that Muhammad said: "There is certainly a heart for everything and the heart of the Qur’an is Ya Sin. Whoso reads Ya Sin, Allah writes for him in exchange of its reading the rewards of the reading of the whole Qur’an ten times" (Karim’s Mishkat-al-Masabih, Vol. 4, p. 684). Finally the last two verses of the second surah, the Suratul-Baqarah ("Chapter of the Heifer"), are also held in great esteem. It was narrated by Abu Masud that Muhammad said "If somebody recited the last two verses of Suratul Baqarah at night, that will be sufficient for him" (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 491). These verses contain a declaration of the Islamic faith together with an exhortation to pray for forgiveness and relief from the burden of sin, promising that "on no soul cloth God place a burden greater than it can bear" (Surah 2.286), reminiscent of the words of Jesus in Revelation 2:24. 4. Muslim Reverence for the Qur’an. One cannot but admire the wonderful reverence shown by the Muslims towards their holy book. It is quite true to say that they hold it in awe. Old hand-written Qur’ans are masterpieces of calligraphy and decoration. The Fatihah and, usually, the first few verses of the Suratul-Baqarah, are enclosed within a finely decorated frontispiece in each Qur’an while surah headings are usually also finely decorated. No Muslim will place or read a Qur’an on the ground. Neat hand-wrought Qur’an stands are kept in mosques and often at homes for this purpose. In each home the Qur’an should obtain the highest place and it is therefore placed on a stand above all the other features in the home, carefully wrapped in a covering. Every Muslim should perform an ablution before touching it and should kiss it once it is opened. In Surah 56.79 quoted earlier in this section the Qur’an is described as that "which none shall touch but those who are clean" and a hadith says: The book written by the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) for ’Amr b. Hazm contained this also that no man should touch the Holy Qur’an without ablution. (Muwatta Imam Malik, p. 94). A word should be said about the diction of the Qur’an in closing. Its uneven rhyme, striking character, and forceful language almost mesmerise its readers when a qira’ah takes place (a cantation of the Qur’an, in a chant, as opposed to the normal tajwid, that is, correct recitation). A Muslim writer says: "The fact is that the harmonious intermingling of sound, sense and force of the language of the Qur’an is beyond human prowess" (Sarwar, Muhammad: the Holy Prophet, p. 390). Even Christian writers have been constrained to comment on its style and one writer says: The Qur’an is regarded by the Muhammadan world in general as the great outstanding miracle of Islam. We must admit that in some passages, especially those which describe the majesty and attributes of God, its sublime language is comparable only to that used by some of the Old Testament prophets. Muhammad, when challenged by his opponents to work a miracle, referred them to the Qur’an and challenged them in return to produce even one Sura like it. (Blair, The Sources of Islam, p.15). Nonetheless the argument that the Qur’an is inimitable in its style, content and rhyme, is purely subjective in that it depends largely on the preconceived attitudes of its readers, just as it is said "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", and is limited to the Arabic language alone. Another Christian writer brings the fancies of the Muslims to the ground with a sound observation: Among learned Franks it is considered indisputable that there are books in the Greek, Latin, English, German and other languages, more admirable in style than the Koran . . . But if learned Mohammedans should say that the Koran is more eloquent than any book in any language whatever, it behoves them, before making this assertion, to have acquired a thorough knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, Latin, German, English, French, Hindu, Chinese, and all other languages of note; else they cannot sustain their position that the Koran is more noble and elegant than any book in the languages of the world. (Pfander, The Mizan ul Haqq; or Balance of Truth, p. 86, 87); The challenge to "bring ten surahs like it" is, in our view, principally fictitious because the languages of the world are so diversified and varied and because no one can act as absolute judge of the relative merits of different poetical or literary works. Certainly those who are hardly educated in the great classics of literature throughout the ages can hardly make dogmatic assumptions about their holy book with any degree of sincere conviction. In the same way we can just as easily say that any ten chapters of the Biblical writings or Psalms are the equal of the Qur’an, if not superior to it - and who is to judge between us? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 50: 04.17. B. THE MECCAN AND MEDINAN SURAHS. ======================================================================== B. THE MECCAN AND MEDINAN SURAHS. 1. The Style and Emphasis of the Meccan Surahs. One of the great difficulties confronting a reader of the Qur’an is the general lack of chronology in the sequence of its chapters. Compounding this difficulty is the fact that many of the surahs are composite chapters of passages dating from both Muhammad’s years of preaching in Mecca and his years as leader of the Muslim community in Medina. Nevertheless, as pointed out already, the shorter, more striking surahs generally date from the Meccan period and the longer, somewhat cumbersome passages of the later surahs date from the Medinan period. The early Meccan surahs are all somewhat similar and concentrate on the issues which first impressed themselves upon Muhammad, namely the waywardness of his people, the judgment to come, and the destiny of all men to heaven or to hell. Here is a typical passage: O manl What has seduced thee from thy Lord Most Beneficent? Him Who created thee, fashioned thee in due proportion, and gave thee a just bias; In whatever Form He wills, does He put them together. Nay! But ye do reject Right and Judgment! But verily over you (are appointed angels) to protect you, kind and honourable, writing down (your deeds): They know and understand all that ye do. As for the Righteous, they will be in Bliss; and the Wicked, they will be in the Fire, which they will enter on the Day of Judgment, and they will not be able to keep away therefrom. And what will explain to thee what the Day of Judgment is? Again, what will explain to thee what the Day of Judgment is? (It will be) the Day when no soul shall have power (to do) aught for another: For the Command, that Day, will be (wholly) with God. Surah 82.6-19. Throughout these early passages Muhammad stands forth purely as one sent to call his people to the good and to admonish them against the punishments awaiting evildoers. Innamaa anta munthir - "Verily you are but a warner" (Surah 79.45), is the address found in various forms in these passages (so also Surahs 74.2, 87.9). Muhammad is several times reminded, in the Meccan period, that his only task is al-balagh, communication. (Cragg, The Event of the Qur’an, p. 146). The great dispute between pagan Arab idolatry and the exclusive unity of God only comes to the fore in the later Meccan surahs. In the same way Allah, the name for God, also only begins to appear with regularity in these later Meccan surahs as well, the more impersonal ar-Rabb (the Lord) being generally preferred in the very earliest surahs. But in Mohammed’s first preaching, the announcement of the Day of Judgment is much more prominent than the unity of God, and it was against his revelations concerning Doomsday that his opponents directed their satire during the first twelve years. (Hurgronje, Mohammedanism, p. 34). The generally prophetic character of the Meccan surahs, as opposed to the legalistic form of most of the Medinan surahs, at the same time marks the earlier surahs with far more grandeur and humility before God than those to come later. One moving early surah addressed to Muhammad commends itself assuredly to any sincere reader of the Qur’an: By the Glorious Morning Light, and by the Night when it is still, Thy Guardian-Lord hath not forsaken thee, nor is He displeased. And verily the hereafter will be better for thee than the present. And soon will thy Guardian- Lord give thee (that wherewith) thou shalt be well-pleased. Did He not find thee an orphan and give thee shelter (and care)? And He found thee wandering, and He gave thee guidance. And He found thee in need, and made thee independent. Therefore, treat not the orphan with harshness, nor repulse the petitioner (unheard); but the Bounty of thy Lord - Rehearse and proclaim! Surah 93.1-11. Just as we found a sharp distinction in the biographical section at the beginning of this book between the sincere warner of Mecca and the somewhat opportunistic ruler of Medina, so it does not surprise us to find a similar contrast between the Meccan and Medinan surahs. One cannot help wondering what our final assessment of Muhammad would have been if he had been killed just before the migration to Medina. Certainly his years in Mecca, characterised by the fine spirit of the contemporary Qur’anic passages, leave a generally positive impression on the student of his life’s course. The beginning of the Moslem propaganda was the free, honest and sincere expansion of a religious mind moved by a profound conviction of the Supreme Truth, and by a sincere desire on the Prophet’s part to raise first himself, then his most intimate friends and relations, finally all his fellow Arabs from the barbaric error of idolatry in which they lay supine. (Caetani, "The Development of Mohammed’s Personality", The Muslim World, Vol. 4, p. 363). 2. The Character of the Medinan Surahs. One of the easiest ways of distinguishing between the two periods is the manner of address in the Medinan surahs. Whereas the Meccan passages usually speak to Muhammad himself or to men generally, the Medinan passages are often addressed to Muhammad’s followers with the introduction Yaa ayyuhallathiina aa’manuu - "O ye who believe!" What follows is often of a legislative nature and it is true to say that the laws of Islam (the shari’ah) are found principally in the passages dating from Muhammad’s migration to Medina. Whereas the Meccan surahs are prophetic in character and striking in style, these later surahs are generally legalistic and are more leisurely in style. Those parts of the Qur’an belonging to the Medinan years are predominantly legal and political. Their concern is with campaigns, confiscations, customs, and behavior, rather than with patriarchs and preaching. (Cragg", The Call of the Minaret, p.82). The Medinan surahs deal with the abolition of usury (Surah 2.278), the laws of inheritance (4.11-12), the prohibited degrees of relationship (4.23), the property of orphans (4.6-10), the prohibitions on wine and gambling (5.93-94), and the like. The following is but the first quarter of a long verse dealing with the need to reduce all contracts to writing and to have them witnessed: O ye who believel When ye deal with each other, in transactions involving future obligations in a fixed period of time, reduce them to writing. Let a scribe write down faithfully as between the parties: let not the scribe refuse to write: as God has taught him, so let him write. Let him who incurs the liability dictate, but let him fear his Lord God and not diminish aught of what he owes. Surah 2.282 The whole verse, one of the longest in the Qur’an, makes tedious reading and contrasts with the sharp, pithy exclamations of the earliest surahs. "The slovenliness, the trailing sentences, the mechanical rhymes of the later portions of the Qur’an, have often been remarked on" (Bell, The Origin of Islam in its Christian Environment, p. 96). Another writer makes a similar comment on the generally uninspiring character of the Medinan surahs: The sentences are long and unwieldly so that the hearer has to listen carefully or he will miss the rhyme altogether; the language has become prose with rhyming words at intervals. The subject matter is laws, comments on public events, statements of policy, rebukes to those who did not see eye to eye with the prophet, Jews especially, and references to his domestic troubles. Here imagination is weak and stock phrases are dragged in to conceal the poverty of ideas though occasionally the earlier enthusiasm bursts out. (Tritton, Islam, p. 16). One of the most significant distinctions between the two periods is the amount of attention which the Qur’an pays to Muhammad himself in the later surahs. Although the Meccan surahs are often directly addressed to him, he is very rarely the subject of the revelations, but in the Medinan surahs he comes regularly to the fore. Passages dealing with the Day of Judgment and the destiny of mankind give way to new revelations concerned much with the immediate concerns of his private life. He is given special permission to exceed the limit placed on Muslims not to take more than four wives at a time (Surah 33.50-52), believers are commanded to salute him (33.56), and are even given strict details regarding etiquette to be observed when approaching his apartments: O ye who believe! Enter not the Prophet’s houses, until leave is given you, for a meal, (and then) not (so early as) to wait for its preparation: but when ye are invited, enter; and when ye have taken your meal, disperse, without seeking familiar talk. Such (behaviour) annoys the Prophet: he is ashamed to dismiss you, but God is not ashamed (to tell you) the truth. Surah 33.53 These passages contrast sharply with the humble tone of an earlier surah where he is rebuked for alighting a blind man who came to him to enquire about his message while he was courting wealthy pagan Arab merchants: (The Prophet) frowned and turned away, because there came to him the blind man (interrupting). But what could tell thee but that perchance he might grow (in spiritual understanding)? Or that he might receive admonition, and the teaching might profit him? As to one who regards himself as self-sufficient, to him cost thou attend; though it is no blame to thee if he grow not (in spiritual understanding). But as to him who came to thee striving earnestly, and with fear (in his heart), of him west thou unmindful. Surah 80.1-10. In the biographical section of this book we have already seen how, during the Medinan period, Muhammad began to regard himself as God’s supreme apostle and final messenger to all mankind while considering himself purely a warner to the Arabs at the start of his course. The exalted image he obtains in the later passages and the attention paid to his personal affairs characterise much of the Medinan surahs: There springs into the front line the person of Mohammed with an almost shameless prominence. (Caetani, "The Development of Muhammad’s Personality", The Muslim World, Vol. 4, p. 361). At the same time the stories of the Biblical prophets are remoulded into a fairly regular form very similar to his own prophetic course and experience. Many of these stories consist of dialogues between a prophet and his kinsmen in which the former preaches monotheism and right-living to the latter who have strayed from the path (So Noah, Surah 21.76-77; Abraham, Surah 37.83-99; etc.). Indeed the conversations are even couched in precisely the same language used by Muhammad in debate with his own Meccan kinsmen. Hud, the prophet of the ’Ad people, is said to have discoursed with his countrymen in this manner (only relevant statements are here included for the sake of brevity): "O my people! Worship God! Ye have no other god but Him" . . . the leaders of the unbelievers among his people said "Ah! We see that thou art an imbecile" . . . He said "O my people! I am no imbecile, but (I am) an apostle from the Lord and Cherisher of the Worlds! . . . Do ye wonder that there hath come to you a message from your Lord through a man of your own people, to warn you?" . . . They said: "Comest thou to us, that we may worship God alone, and give up the cult of our fathers? Bring us what thou threatenest us with, if so be that thou tellest the truth!" He said . . . "Dispute ye with me over names which ye have devised - ye and your fathers - without authority from God? Then wait: I am amongst you, also waiting". Surah 7.65-71. This passage almost perfectly symbolises Muhammad’s own struggle with the pagan Meccans. He too concentrated on proclaiming the unity of God, was rejected as one possessed, and likewise defended his claims. (Hud, as in all the Qur’anic stories of the prophets it records, is made to describe Allah in typically Qur’anic terms, e.g., rabbil-’alamin - "The Lord and Cherisher of the Worlds"). Again there is the emphasis on the prophet being called from his own people who, however, preferred the cult-worship of their ancestors. Muhammad likewise threatened his people with destruction and was challenged to bring it about (Surah 8.32) and, like the supposed prophet Hud, reviled their idols as asma’ summaytumuu haa antum wa aabaa ’ukum - "names which you have devised - you and your fathers" (Surah 7.71, 53.23). Another writer says of Muhammad’s tendency to remould the stories of the former prophets to fit his own experiences: What, however, is of more interest to our present study is that the stories of the previous prophets, in whose succession he claims to stand, come to be accommodated to that same pattern. Vague and indefinite figures in the early Meccan passages, their stories gradually take form and, as they appear in his later preaching, they tend more and more to fall into a stylized pattern, viz. the pattern which he has as the background of his thought of his own mission. (Jeffery, The Qur’an as Scripture, p. 47). It has rightly been said that much of the Qur’an is a collection of stories of prophets and events culled from Jewish and other sources upon which the personality of Muhammad has indelibly been impressed. Nowhere is this truer than in the case of the very altercations recorded in the book between earlier prophets and their people, for in these cases even the personalities of those prophets have given way to that of Muhammad himself. (Hud is not a Biblical prophet but the passage quoted is perhaps the most striking example of a parallel between a Qur’anic narrative of a former prophet’s experiences and Muhammad’s own lot). One cannot help concluding that, far from being a book of divine origin, the Qur’an is really little more than the impress of Muhammad’s thoughts and perceptions upon the material he imbibed. From a careful perusal of the suras of this second period, it may safely be said that there is nothing in them which an Arab, acquainted with the general outline of the Jewish history and legend, and of the traditions of his own country, and possessed of some poetic fire and fancy, might not have written, and that the hypothesis of a divine origin is in no way required to account for them. (Stobart, Islam and its Founder, p. 107). 3. A Summary of the Contrast between the Two Periods. In conclusion it seems appropriate to quote a few authors who make their own comments upon the contrast between the Meccan and Medinan passages. Believing that the Qur’an is eternal and that it was mechanically dictated to Muhammad, Muslim writers are generally disinclined to admit the contrast. They fear to allow any idea of a development in the Qur’anic text as this seems to imply that it had much to do with Muhammad’s growing prophetic consciousness. One writer, however, who has the courage to openly admit this development (as we have seen - p. 109), accordingly has no difficulty identifying the distinction between the two periods: A voice is crying from the very depths of life and impinging forcefully on the Prophet’s mind in order to make itself explicit at the level of consciousness. This tone gradually gives way, especially in the Medina period, to a more fluent and easy style as the legal content increases for the detailed organization and direction of the nascent community-state. (Rahman, lslam, p. 30). He goes on to say: "It is interesting that all these descriptions of experiences and visions belong to the Meccan period; in the Medina era we have a progressive unfolding of the religio-moral ideal, and the foundation for the social order for the newly instituted community but hardly any allusions to inner experiences" (Rahman, Islam, p. 128). Another writer also alludes to the developing character of Muhammad’s prophetic consciousness in the contrast between the Meccan and Medinan surahs: Yet the revelations which he received, in Mecca so passionate and overwhelming, seemed in Medina to become increasingly, though perhaps unconsciously, the result of reason and thought. (Glubb, The Life and Times of Muhammad, p. 231). It is not our opinion, however, that the phenomenon is purely one of a logical development. The Medinan passages do not compare in style, diction or content with the elevated spirit of the Meccan passages and this retrogression, rather than true "development", is symbolic of the similar deterioration we find in the character of the persevering prophet of Mecca who became the autocratic and, at times, ruthless ruler of Medina. Other writers comment in a similar way on the less inspiring nature of the Medinan passages: In the earlier chapters these verses are short, just as the style is living and fiery; in the later chapters they are of lumbering length, prosaic and slow, and the rhyme comes in with often a most absurd effect. (MacDonald, The Religious Attitude and Life in Islam, p. 31). Yet the style of the Koran shows the change for the worse. As its sincerity, in the deepest sense of the word, seems to diminish, its subject-matter gets more and more mundane and prosaic; and with that the fire, the terseness, the rhymed beauty of the style gradually fades away into prolixity, tameness, obscurity, wearying repetitiousness. (Gairdner, The Reproach of Islam, p. 48). The style of the Coran, though varying greatly in force and vigour, has for the most part lost the stamp of vivid imagination and poetic fire which marks the earlier Suras. It becomes, as a rule, tame and ordinary both in thought and language. Occasionally, indeed, we still find traces of the former spirit. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p. 328). To do justice to the book, however, the passages mentioned by Muir as those manifesting the "former spirit" should be mentioned. The first is: God! There is no god but He, the Living, the Self-subsisting, the Eternal. No slumber can seize him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permitteth? He knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as) Before or After or Behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledge except as He willeth. His Throne cloth extend over the heavens and the earth, and He feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them. For He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory). Surah 2.255 This is the famous ayatul-kursi, the "Verse of the Throne", named after the throne of God described in it. The other striking passage from the Medinan period is a rare verse, of obvious beauty, which tends to move into the mystical realm in its description of God’s glory and has accordingly been highly esteemed by the Sufis, the mystics of Islam, of whom we will hear more later: God is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The parable of His Light is as if there were a Niche and within it a Lamp: the Lamp enclosed in a Glass: the glass as it were a brilliant star: lit from a blessed tree, an Olive neither of the East nor of the West, whose Oil is well-nigh luminous, though fire scarce touched it: Light upon Light! God cloth guide whom He will to His Light: God cloth set forth Parables for men: and God cloth know all things. Surah 24.35 These two passages are rightly highly esteemed by the Muslims and are typical of the constant endeavour in the Qur’an to glorify God in suitable terms. Nevertheless they do appear to be more easily related to the earlier surahs of the Meccan period than the otherwise legislative spirit of most of the Medinan passages. It is in the Meccan surahs that we find "quite a number of verses expounding this theme of God’s goodness and power. Indeed, quantitatively this is by far the most prominent aspect of the message of the early passages" (Watt, Muhammad at Mecca, p. 63). The Muslim world, nonetheless, rarely approaches the Qur’an with a desire to analyse its teaching, sources or development in a critical way, and prefers simply to dogmatically claim that it is the true and final revelation of God. Let us, then, press on to a brief examination of some of its teachings, its collection, and its sources, to see whether this claim can truly withstand the acid test of a critical analysis. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 51: 04.18. C. SIGNIFICANT QUR'ANIC DOCTRINES AND TEACHINGS . ======================================================================== C. SIGNIFICANT QUR’ANIC DOCTRINES AND TEACHINGS . 1. The Qur’anic Doctrine of Abrogation. The Qur’an is unique among sacred scriptures in teaching a doctrine of abrogation according to which later pronouncements of the Prophet abrogate, i.e., declare null and void, his earlier pronouncements. The importance of knowing which verses abrogate others has given rise to the Qur’anic science known as Nasikh wa Mansukh, i.e., the "Abrogators and the Abrogated". (Jeffery, Islam: Muhammad and his Religion, p. 66). There are a number of passages in the Qur’an which teach that Allah cancels certain revelations and teachings he has given and substitutes them with new revelations. The most prominent verse in the Qur’an which sets forth this doctrine is this one: None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that God hath power over all things? Surah 2.106 In the early days of Islam it was widely accepted that this meant that some of the earlier parts of the Qur’an were superseded by later revelations. For example, in some passages wine is regarded as having good and bad effects (Surah 2. 219) and at first the Muslims in Medina were bidden not to come to their daily prayers in a state of intoxication (Surah 4.43). Later, however, the drinking of wine was prohibited altogether (Surah 5. 93-94). Accordingly the consumption of all alcoholic beverages was henceforth forbidden in Islam. In some cases it was taught that even the sunnah (the example of Muhammad’s life as recorded in the Hadith) could abrogate the teachings of the Qur’an. The Qur’an teaches that the penalty for adultery is a hundred stripes (Surah 24.2) but it is recorded in all the works of Hadith that it was Muhammad’s practice to stone adulterers to death. To this day the sunnah prevails over the Qur’an in Arabia where those guilty of adultery are put to death. (On the other hand the second caliph, Umar, once stated that the Qur’an itself originally taught that adulterers were to be stoned - we will return to this subject in the next section). The great commentators Baidawi and Zamakshari both taught that Surah 2.106 meant that the full revelation of God’s will could be deferred and that he could make certain allowances in earlier revelations which were to be disallowed in later revelations. Baydawi’s comment on the latter verse is illuminating on the significance of the principle of "abrogation" for Islam. "The verse", he says, "is proof that abrogation and the deferring of revelation - since the original revelation is qualified by "if" - and any commands that the latter may include, are valid. The reason for it is that laws are formulated and verses revealed as they are required, to suit the good of mankind. ... This varies with the time and the individual; as, for example, the necessities of life, which may be beneficial at one time and harmful at another". (Levy, The Social Structure of Islam, p. 163). The author adds in a footnote that at an earlier point in the same passage Baidawi also said "Abrogation of a verse indicates that it has ceased to be a pious act to recite it, or that any law based upon it has ceased to be valid, or both" (op. cit.). This great Muslim commentator clearly believed that, if a verse was abrogated, both its recitation and its contents were of no effect. The other great commentator, Zamakshari, taught precisely the same thing. In his tafsir (commentary) on Surah 2.106 he says: To abrogate a verse means that God removes (azala) it by putting another in its place. To cause a verse to be abrogated means that God gives the command that it be abrogated; that is, he commands Gabriel to set forth the verse as abrogated by announcing its cancellation. (Gatje, The Qur’an and its Exegesis, p. 58). He even goes on to say that such verses even disappeared by Gabriel’s express command from the Qur’anic text. There remain clear cases, however, where the Qur’an records both the mansukh verse (the one cancelled) and the naskh verse (the new one that cancels it). Thus the command appropriate at Mecca, to spend a large part of the night in devotions was abrogated at Medina where the Muslims, especially Muhammad himself, had responsible work to do during the day; but the abrogated verses were allowed to remain in the Qur’an. (Watt, What is Islam? , p. 228). The earlier passage exhorts Muhammad to spend about half of each night in prayer and recitation (Surah 73.1,4), but in a later verse in the same surah (73.20), where it acknowledged that Muhammad and his companions spend at least a third and, at times, up to two-thirds of the night in prayer, Allah himself relaxes the commandment. He allows for the ability of the Muslims to determine precisely the hours of the night, that some are in ill-health or on various journeys, and commands them instead simply to read as much "as may be easy" for them. Another verse in the Qur’an which teaches the doctrine of abrogation is this one: By degrees shall We teach thee to declare (the Message) so thou shalt not forget, except as God wills. For he knoweth what is manifest and what is hidden. Surah 87.6-7. One highly respected Muslim commentator of the Qur’an of more recent times allows that Surah 2.106 does indeed teach clear doctrine of abrogation: What is the meaning here? If we take it in a general sense, it means that God’s Message from age to age is always the same, but that its form may differ according to the needs and exigencies of the time. That form was as different as given to Moses and then to Jesus and then to Muhammad. Some commentators apply it also to the Ayat of the Qur’an. There is nothing derogatory in this if we believe in progressive revelation (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, p. 46). On the other hand he says of the later verses (Surah 87.6-7): "There can be no question of this having any reference to the abrogation of any verses of the Qur’an" (p. 1724). He alleges that it is simply one of God’s mercies that we should innocuously forget former events and revelations "lest our minds become confused"! The great early commentators, however, settled the interpretation of these verses upon the teaching of the other verse (Surah 2.106) and their conclusion was that Allah had expressly caused Muhammad to forget the abrogated passages and had deleted them from the developing text of the Qur’an. What was eventually settled as the joint exegesis of Q 87 and Q 2 (the interpretation of each of these verses operating upon that of the other) was that there were indeed verses once revealed to Muhammad as part of the ’total Qur’an revelation’ which, however, have been omitted from the collected texts of the Qur’an, the mushaf. That had by no means occurred from Muhammad’s having merely forgotten them. Q 87 refers to God’s will and Q 2 uses the root nsy in the causative. God had caused Muhammad to forget in conformity with the mysterious divine intention as to the final contents of the Book of God. (Burton, The Collection of the Qur’an, p. 48) Whether all the abrogated verses were deleted from the Qur’an or whether some remain in the text was never determined, and still is by many fugaha (jurists) of Islam, is that the Qur’an teaches quite clearly that some of its earlier revelations can be superseded and replaced by later revelations. This doctrine has become unpalatable to many modern Muslims, however, as it tends to undermine their conviction that nothing in the Qur’an has ever been changed, neither in its text, nor in its teachings. There are yet other verses, nonetheless, supporting this doctrine of abrogation: When We substitute one revelation for another, - and God knows best what He reveals (in stages), - they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not. Surah 16.101 God doth blot out or confirm what He pleaseth: with Him is the Mother of the Book. Surah 13.39 All these verses, however, are interpreted by modern Muslims to mean that the Qur’an abrogates the previous revelations, especially the Tawrat of Moses and the Injil of Jesus. One such commentator says: That certain verses of the Qur’an are abrogated by others is now an exploded theory. The two passages on which it was supposed to rest, refer, really. to the abrogation, not of the passages of the Qur’an, but of the previous revelations whose place the Holy Book had taken. (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p. 30). Another apologist says of Surah 2.106: "If one law, namely the biblical law, is cancelled, then a better one is given to Muhammad" (Khalifa, The Sublime Qur’an and Orientalism p. 95). Surah 13.39 may well refer to the cancelling of previous books as the verse just preceding it talks of apostles sent before Muhammad and closes with the statement that each kitaba (scripture) revealed to them was only likulli ajal - "for each period" (Surah 13.38). Surah 16.101, however, speaks purely in the context of the Qur’an itself and the following verses are a defence of the book against its detractors. Furthermore it is not said in this verse that God cancels a kitab by replacing it with another, but rather that he substitutes an ayah, a word generally meaning "sign" but, in the context of scriptural revelation, referring solely to a verse of a book and not the book itself. This verse, therefore, clearly teaches that Allah substitutes one verse of the Qur’an for another, and it was this claim that made the Quraysh allege that Muhammad was "but a forger", for it appeared to be a very expedient way of explaining the anomaly of earlier verses being "substituted" or "forgotten". Yusuf Ali translates the next verse as "Say, the Holy Spirit has brought the revelation from thy Lord in Truth" (Surah 16.102) which tends to imply that the whole Qur’an is the revelation spoken of in the previous verse which replaces other, earlier revelations, such as the Tawrat and Injil. The translator has not been entirely accurate in this interpretation, however, for there is no word for "revelation" in the original text in Surah 16.102. Usually he puts explanatory clauses in parentheses, but here simply inserts the word as though it is a direct translation from the original, which it is not. The text actually reads: Qul nazzalahuu ruuhul qudusi mirrabbika bil haqq and, literally interpreted, it simply means "Say, it is sent down by the Holy Spirit from thy Lord in Truth". The word ayah does not appear in the original verse. If a noun had to be supplied, it would more properly be al-kitab or al-Qur’an. In Surah 2.106 the word for "revelations" is once again ayat, invariably used of actual verses of the Qur’an and not of the whole book or other scriptures. The Qur’anic word to expressly describe an earlier revelation in a scriptural form is always kitab and not ayah. The latter word is often used of God’s signs and communications (Jesus himself is called an ayah - Surah 19.21), but it is never used specifically of a previous scripture. Furthermore, if the Qur’an teaches that it is former scriptures that God causes to be forgotten, then Surah 87.6-7 and Surah 2.106 must be interpreted to mean that Allah had caused Muhammad to forget these rather than earlier verses he had received. "But as Muhammad had never learnt the law of Moses, he cannot be said to have forgotten it" (Sell, The Historical Development of the Qur’an, p. 37). It is surely more reasonable to conclude that the Qur’an is referring to actual revelations made to Muhammad himself which had later been substituted or "forgotten". One understands the attempts by modern Muslim writers to explain away the obvious meaning of these verses. They certainly do tend to imply that Muhammad found he was forgetting some of his earlier recitations and, as his mission developed, became aware of the need to replace or amend earlier teachings. There appears to be some substance in the conclusion of the Quraysh that Muhammad himself was artfully adapting his Qur’an to suit the needs of the moment as he went along. 2. The Stories of the Biblical and other Prophets. The Qur’an is hardly a book of history. Not only does its composition cover nothing more than a twenty-three year period early in the seventh century AD, but the book itself contains no chronology of the historical events it alludes to or otherwise records. It is remarkable that there is no definite date given to any event in the Koran. And there is also a marked absence of place-names. Only from tradition do we know anything of when or where the various chapters were revealed. (Zwemer, The Cross above the Crescent, p. 217). Not only are no details given in the Qur’an of any sequence in the contemporary events of Muhammad’s life but the book also makes virtually no reference to current events outside the Hijaz (the area of Arabia near the Red Sea where most of the action in Muhammad’s ministry took place). There is one notable exception - Surah 30 begins with a mention of a recent defeat of the Byzantines by the Sassanids of Persia, "the only instance in the Qur’an of a world-historical allusion outside Arabia" (Stanton, The Teaching of the Qur’an, p. 24). Yet even here the Byzantines are called Ar-Rum - "The Romans" (Surah 30.2), an apparent misnomer for the predominantly Greek armies of Byzantium (now Istanbul). It is probable, however, that the ruling European forces in the Middle East and North Africa were collectively called Romans after many centuries of rule by the Roman Empire in these regions. It is the stories of the Biblical prophets that particularly lack any manner of logical sequence in the Qur’an. In some places there are lists of prophets which are hardly given in any sort of order. In the following verse the early patriarchs are given in the correct sequence (though Ishmael is discounted as a prophet in the Bible), but the names of the prophets thereafter are completely mixed up: We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: We sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma’il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms. Surah 4.163 One cannot help presuming that Muhammad had a fairly sound knowledge of the history of the patriarchs from Noah to the sons of Jacob but was somewhat at sea regarding the sequence of the prophets that followed. Indeed the later prophets, from Isaiah to Malachi, with the exception of Jonah, are conspicuous purely by their absence in the Qur’an. While the patriarchs are vigorously Quranic figures, the great prophets of the Bible from the eighth century BC onwards, are entirely absent. (Cragg, The Event of the Qur’an, p. 173). There is nothing of the teaching of the writing prophets of the Old Testament, and practically nothing of the teaching of the New Testament. (Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman, p. 54). On the other hand there are numerous stories in the Qur’an relating to the earlier prophets and New Testament figureheads which are borrowed from Jewish Talmudic sources and Christian apocryphal writings respectively. Examples of these are found in the sections on Qur’anic origins and sources to follow. It seems that Muhammad’s knowledge of the Bible was limited to information from secondary sources, though this knowledge did improve as time went on. The needs of his profession do not appear to have made him actually a student - yet there is no question that as the Koran grew in bulk, its knowledge of biblical stories became somewhat more accurate: and though this greater degree of accuracy may have been at times due to the Prophet’s memory, it is more likely that he took such opportunities as offered of acquiring more information. (Margoliouth, Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, p. 106). An example of the growing accuracy of the Qur’anic records of the events in the lives of the Biblical prophets proves the point. In Surah 26.160-175 one finds a brief record of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and of a typical conversation between the prophet Lot and his unbelieving people. Lot was delivered with his family "except an old woman who lingered behind" (Surah 26.171, as also 37.135). The story is roughly repeated in Surah 27.54-58, except that in this case, as in all the other later records of this event, the woman is now positively identified as his wife (Surah 27.57). There is as yet no hint of the involvement of the angels who came as God’s messengers in human form to destroy the cities but, in later passages, they finally appear while the narratives of the whole episode are simultaneously embellished with further information. In Surah 15.51-77 there is a brief record of the visit of the angels and their mission. Furthermore Abraham is now linked to the story of the destruction of these cities (typically not mentioned by name in the Qur’an) in that the angels visit him first to announce their purpose (v.58-60) as in the Bible (Genesis 18:16-22). When they come to Lot, however, they disclose their true identities immediately as well as their design and call on him to leave by night with his household (v.63-66). Only after this do the townsmen come to Lot to demand his guests and, as in the Bible (Genesis 19:8), Lot offers them his daughters (v.71). The record is very similar to the Biblical account except that in the Bible the angels only make their true identities known after the altercation with the tribesmen (Genesis 19:11) and only then command him to prepare to leave with his family as they make their mission known to him (Genesis 19:12-13). The Qur’anic error in placing these disclosures before the visit of the townsmen leads to a somewhat irrational situation: In S. 15 apparently no sequence of the events is presented, since it is told that the conversation of Lot with the people follows after the notification of the angelic rank of the visitors. This is not logical, for in that case Lot need not have been afraid of being importuned by the people and there would have been no need of "offering" his daughters. (Baljon, Modern Muslim Koran Interpretation, p. 38). In Surah 11.74-85 Muhammad finally gets it right. Once again the angels come to Abraham and this time the Qur’an mentions the prayer he offered to deliver the cities. Furthermore the disclosure of the identities of the angelic guests and their purpose to deliver Lot and his family and destroy the cities is now rightly placed after the altercation with the townsmen (v.81-82). Now the fears of Lot about the security of his guests when the townsmen arrive makes sense. He is said to have "felt himself powerless" (v.77) to protect them and openly expresses his regret that he could not summon powerful support on their behalf (v.80). Only at this point do they disclose their true identities as angelic messengers and only now is he called to leave with his family by night. All this is consistent with the Biblical narrative but is contradictory of the account in Surah 15 where the disclosures are said to have been made before the townsmen confronted Lot. All these features strongly support the statement made by Margoliouth that, as the Qur’an developed, so its record of the events relating to the Biblical prophets became significantly more accurate. This conclusion can hardly be resisted in the circumstances: Again, in the first four of the passages just quoted nothing suggests any awareness of the connexion between Abraham and Lot, and indeed some matters suggest ignorance of it; on the other hand, in the last three passages there is explicit mention of the connexion with Abraham. If there were only one or two instances of this sort of thing they could easily be explained away; but there are a great many; and the Western critic therefore finds it difficult to resist the conclusion that Muhammad’s knowledge of these stories was growing and that therefore he was getting information from a person or persons familiar with them. (Watt, Muhammad at Mecca, p. 159). That Muhammad derived much of his knowledge of the prophets from those around him is backed up further by the fact that many of the names it gives to these prophets are not in their original form but rather in the form we find in the Greek texts of the New Testament, which is most significant because Arabic is a Semitic language in many respects closely related to Hebrew while it is considerably different to Greek. The prophets Jonah and Elijah are called Yunus and Ilyas respectively in the Qur’an, and the New Testament Greek forms of their names are likewise Yunas and Elias. The names of these prophets, therefore, as well as others (ea. Ishaq for Isaac) in the Qur’an, are given in neither their proper Hebrew nor Arabic forms but in the corresponding Greek form. But the point is most important, especially as the Quran claims to be an Arabic Quran and a revelation to the Arabs in plain unequivocal language. (Guillaume, Islam, p. 62). It seems fair to conclude that, in all these instances, the Qur’an records nothing more than information which Muhammad received respecting the Biblical prophets, not through a divine revelation from heaven, but purely through communications between himself and the Jews and other knowledgeable folk he chanced to meet. 3. Mary, the Mother of Jesus, in the Qur’an. One of the most significant features of the Qur’an is the attention it pays to Mary, the mother of Jesus. She is the only woman mentioned by name in the book and features so prominently that the 19th Surah is named after her, namely Suratu-Maryam. Yet, despite the eminent position she holds in the Qur’an, much of its teaching about her is derived from apocryphal sources and no small amount of confusion about her true role is found in the book. There are several references in the Qoran to the legends contained in the apocryphal gospels, suggesting that the Prophet’s knowledge of Christianity may have been derived from some such sources. The most commonly quoted examples of this nature are, firstly, the statement that Mary was brought up in the Temple in Jerusalem, where she was fed by angels. This tradition was to be found in the "Protevangelium of James the Less", an apocryphal work, and also in certain apocryphal gospels produced in Egypt. (Glubb, The Life and Times of Muhammad, p. 295). In the story referred to we find that the mother of Mary, a "woman of Imran" (Surah 3.35), dedicated her child while it was still in the womb to the Temple service but was surprised to find that it was a female when it was born (v.36). Nevertheless the Qur’an states that God accepted her dedication and that she was committed to the care of Zachariah, the father of John the Baptist, and remained constantly in her mihrab (v.37). The word today refers to the niche in all mosques giving the direction of Mecca but in this case refers to her "chamber" in the Temple. (The mihrab in the great mosque at Cordoba in Spain is in the form of a small chamber). That it was actually intended to be in the Temple itself is strengthened by the statement that Zachariah alone had access to her (v.37) for only the Levitical priests could venture into the inner parts of the Temple and the High Priest alone into the Holy of Holies, and that but once a year. Although Mary’s mother is not named, some of the works of Hadith say that her name was Hannah and most Qur’anic commentators thus describe her. Both ancient and modern commentaries on the Qur’an accept that this was her real name. One of the more recent commentaries says: By tradition Mary’s mother was called Hannah (in Latin, Anna, and in English, Anne), and her father was called Imran. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, p. 131). Another commentator says of the "wife of Imran" that she is "Mary’s mother, Jesus’ grandmother, known as Hannah or Anne" (Daryabadi, The Holy Qur’an, p. 52A). It is further said in this passage in the Qur’an that Zachariah was astonished to find that, although Mary was always shut up in her chamber, she was always supplied with food. When he asked where it came from, she answered huwa min ’indillah - "it is from the realm of God" (Surah 3.37). It is needless to add, surely, that all this has no equivalent in the Biblical record of the life of our Lord’s mother. Where then does it all come from? In the quote from Glubb’s biography we are given one of its origins - the heretical "Protevangelium of James the Less". We have here a relevant quote from this apocryphal work: Anna said, as the Lord my God liveth, if a child, either male or female, be born unto me, I will offer it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it will be in his service all the days of its life ... And she gave the breast to the child and called its name Mary ... And Mary remained like a dove in the Temple of the Lord, and received food at an angel’s hand. (Tisdall, The Sources of Islam, p. 53). It is quite clear where this strange story originated. One finds many things salt about Jesus in the Qur’an derived from similar apocryphal works which circulated in and around Arabia at Muhammad’s time (e.g. a claim that he spoke from the cradle, Surah 19.29-30, which is derived from the "Arabic Gospel of the Infancy", so-called because the surviving manuscripts of this work are significantly all in Arabic!). Tisdall adds that this story of Mary’s confinement and sustenance in the Temple is also found in other writings: The legend of Mary’s being brought up in the Temple is found in many other apocryphal works besides the one we have here quoted. For example, in the Coptic "History of the Virgin" we read:- ’She was nourished in the Temple like the doves, and food was brought to her from the heavens by the angels of God. And she was wont to do service in the Temple; the angels of God used to minister unto her. But they used often to bring her fruits also from the Tree of Life, that she might eat of them with joy’. (Tisdall, The Original Sources of the Qur’an, p. 159). One can hardly blame Muhammad for the composition of this strange story but, by including it in the Qur’an, he has made his book teach strange things about the mother of Jesus. In fact the whole story is a marvellous confusion of various passages in the Bible. Mary is clearly confused with Elijah, for a start, for he was the prophet confined to solitude who was fed by ravens who brought him food from above (1 Kings 17:6). Nevertheless it is the name given to Mary’s mother, namely Hannah, that really gives us the clue as to where the composers of the story obtained their material. It is striking to find that Hannah, Mary’s supposed mother, prayed for a child and promised to dedicate it to the service and worship of the House of God. Even Sunday-school children will guess that Mary has, in this case, been confused with Samuel, for it was his mother, the true Hannah. who thus prayed for a child no less than a thousand years earlier and promised to devote him to the service of God: And she vowed a vow and said, "O Lord of Hosts, if thou wilt indeed look on the affliction of thy maidservant, and remember me, and not forget thy maidservant, but wilt give to thy maidservant a son, then I will give him to the Lord all the days of his life, and no razor shall touch his head". 1 Samuel 1:11 When Samuel was born he was duly dedicated to the House of the Lord (1 Samuel 1:28) and it was he who anointed David King over Israel. One can clearly see where the confusion arose, but how did it come about? We have to go back to the time of Mary to find out. In Luke’s Gospel we find this most enlightening passage: And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher; she was of a great age, having lived with her husband seven years from her virginity, and as a widow till she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshipping with fasting and prayer night and day. And coming up at that very hour she gave thanks to God, and spoke of him to all who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem. Luke 2:36-38. One can clearly see now how the anachronism came about. Once again we have a woman whose original Hebrew name was Hannah and yet we find that it is this woman who remained in the Temple night and day, significantly worshipping and fasting for a good many years. Mary has clearly been confused, not only with Elijah and Samuel, but with Anna the prophetess as well! It is clear that the two respective Hannahs - the mother of Samuel and the daughter of Phanuel - have been confused with one another and the story in Surah 3 in the Qur’an is therefore clearly a peculiar blending of the two totally different stories in the Bible about these two women. What makes this connection even more certain is a perusal of the praises given to God by Hannah and Mary respectively after they had been blessed with the conception of their holy sons through the power of God when such conceptions were most unlikely. Part of Hannah’s prayer reads: "My heart exults in the Lord; my strength is exalted in the Lord. My mouth derides my enemies, because I rejoice in thy salvation. There is none holy like the Lord, there is none besides thee; there is no rock like our God. ... The bows of the mighty are broken, but the feeble gird on strength. Those who were full have hired themselves out for bread, but those who were hungry have ceased to hunger". 1 Samuel 2:1-2; 1 Samuel 2:4-5. Now compare her prayer with these words extracted from the famous Magnificat, the oracle of praise which Mary uttered when Jesus was conceived in her womb: "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, ... For he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name. And his mercy is on those who fear him from generation to generation. He has shown strength with his arm, he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts, He has put down the mighty from their thrones, and exalted those of low degree; He has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent empty away". Luke 1:46-47; Luke 1:49-53. The two oracles are remarkably similar and the perceiving reader will immediately see that Hannah was a type of Mary just as her son Samuel was a type of Jesus Christ and foreshadowed his coming. On the other hand, some less perceptive minds strangely confused the stories of Hannah and Mary, compounded the confusion by further mixing up the stories of the two Hannahs in the Old and New Testaments respectively, and then added a bit of flavour from the story of Elijah to the final concoction to produce the bewildering narrative found in the apocryphal writings which has even more startingly found its way into the text of the Qur’an as a story true to history and authenticated by divine revelation! As if all this were not enough, we even find Mary confused with Miriam, the sister of Aaron, in the Qur’an as well! In the Surah named after Mary we find that, when the child Jesus was born, her neighbours said to her: "O Mary! Truly an amazing thing hast thou brought! O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!" Surah 19.27-28. Some Muslims have alleged that Mary really had a brother named Aaron, but this is pure speculation and inconsistent with the fact that the only one named in the Qur’an, called Harun, is specifically called the brother of Moses (Surah 20.30). It is hard to resist the conclusion that Muhammad confounded the mother of Jesus with Miriam, the true sister of Aaron, the first high-priest of Israel. Having heard a Mary mentioned in the story of Moses and another in the story of Jesus, it did not occur to him to distinguish between them. (Margoliouth, Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, p. 61). As compared with men of book-learning, Mahomet was undoubtedly ill-informed; otherwise he could not have confused Miriam the sister of Moses with Miriam the mother of Jesus, as he is said to have done. (Irving, The Life of Mahomet, p. xii). The title "sister of Aaron" is given to Miriam in Exod. xv.20, and it must be from this passage that Muhammad borrowed the expression. The reason of the mistake which identifies the Mother of our Saviour with a woman who lived about one thousand five hundred and seventy years before His birth is evidently the fact that in Arabic both names, Mary and Miriam, are one and the same in form, Maryam. (Tisdall, The Original Sources of the Qur’an, p. 150). In this case Muhammad’s error cannot be attributed to an apocryphal writing as in the case of Hannah and Samuel. This time the confusion is entirely his own. Indeed, during his own lifetime, he was confronted by Christians with this anachronism and the answer he gave is very interesting: Mughira b. Shu’ba reported: When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read "O sister of Harun" (i.e. Hadrat Maryam) in the Qur’an, whereas Moses was born much before Jesus. When I came back to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) I asked him about that, whereupon he said: The people (of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, p. 1169). Accordingly most Muslim efforts to explain away the anomaly follow this line of reasoning. It is extremely hard to credit, however, as there is no other instance in the Qur’an where anyone else is so called. Muslim writers often claim that Christians find an anachronism here purely because they are ignorant of Arabic, yet one struggles to find another example of such a figure of speech in the Qur’an. One writer refers to the non-Biblical prophets Hud and Salih who are called brothers of their people (Surah 11.50 and 11.61 respectively) and says of those who allege that Muhammad confounded the mother of Jesus with the sister of Aaron: Clearly they were unaware that the word akha is often used in the Qur’an not to mean "blood-brother" but "related to", i.e. of the same nation or tribe. (Khalifa, The Sublime Qur’an and Orientalism, p. 72). Actually the word is only used in this context in a few passages which duplicate each other where the two prophets spoken of are so described. This is how "often" the word appears in this context in the Qur’an. In every other case it is always a blood-brother who is referred to (in fact the word is used most commonly for Aaron who is invariably described as the brother of Moses as we have seen. In the light of the subject now at hand, namely the title "sister of Aaron", this is very significant as it is hard to believe that Aaron would so often be called the brother of Moses in the direct sense if this other clause "sister of Aaron" was intended to be taken indirectly). Furthermore the prophets spoken of were not named after other figureheads but simply as brothers of their people generally - a very different use of the expression "brother" from the title "sister of Aaron". Khalifa’s defence is hardly convincing. It seems that he is hoping that all his readers are indeed as ignorant of Arabic as he supposes those Christians to be whom he sets out to refute, for he implies that the Qur’an regularly uses the word akha (brother) in the sense of "related to" which is simply not the case. Furthermore it is important to point out, on the other hand, that the Qur’an nowhere speaks of a "sister" who is "related to her people". The only word used in the Qur’an for "a sister" is ukhtun and it appears in Surah 4.12 where it obviously refers to an immediate blood-sister as the verse deals with immediate degrees of inheritance from one who has left no ascendants or descendants. Sisters are also spoken of in Surah 4.23 and 4.176 and blood-sisters are once again clearly intended. In Surah 19.28 Mary’s companions address her Yaa ukhta Haaruuna - "O sister of Aaron"! A proper exegesis of the word "sister" here consistent with the use of the word elsewhere in the Qur’an can only yield the meaning "a blood-sister of Aaron". There is no warrant whatsoever for the interpretation "one who is related to Aaron". Even if it was intended to carry this meaning we would still be faced with extreme difficulties for it leads to untenable suppositions. Another Muslim writer comments on the use of the expression in Surah 19.28: Since Mary belonged to the priestly caste, and hence descended from Aaron, the brother of Moses, she was called a "sister of Aaron" (in the same way as her cousin Elisabeth, the wife of Zachariah, is spoken of in Luke i.5 as one "of the daughters of Aaron"). (Asad, The Message of the Qur’an, p. 460). It is true that people descended from famous forefathers in the Bible are often described as such, e.g. the names given to Jesus "the son of David, the son of Abraham" (Matthew 1:1), but they are always actually descended from them as Elizabeth was from Aaron. Only the tribe of Levi could act as priests and both Aaron and Zachariah, together with his wife Elizabeth, were actually descended from Levi. Mary, on the other hand, was descended from Judah through the line of David (Luke 1:32). She was not related to Aaron in any specific way at all, other than as an Israelite, like him, descended from Abraham. She was not even of his tribe. Whatever "relationship" existed was purely national and ethnic - the remotest there could be. It is true Elizabeth is called her "kinswoman" in Luke 1:36 but, if there had been any intermarrying between their ancestors in any way, it must have been on Elizabeth’s side. One of her ancestors must have married into the tribe of Judah (which is hardly surprising as, after the exiles to Assyria and Babylon, this tribe constituted the overwhelming remnant of Israel that finally returned to the promised land). On the other hand it is expressly stated in the Bible that Jesus is an eternal high-priest after the order of Melchisedec and he, therefore, could not have been descended in any way from Levi through Aaron. Accordingly his mother Mary likewise could not have had any Levitical blood in her and so was in no way descended from or related to Aaron: Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become a priest, not according to a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. Hebrews 7:11-16 (my italics). This passage makes it quite plain that Jesus had no lineal connection with Aaron whatsoever. Furthermore, whereas it was common to call people the sons or daughters of illustrious ancestors, they were never described as their brothers or sisters. This holds true for both the Bible and the Qur’an. The attempts by Muslim commentators to explain away the strange confusion between the true sister of Aaron and the mother of Jesus are simply unconvincing. This impression does indeed seem to be very appropriate: The Commentators have in vain endeavoured to explain this marvellous confusion of time and space. (Tisdall, The Sources of Islam, p. 49). The evidence in favour of the claim that Muhammad erred at this point is, on the contrary, entirely persuasive. As pointed out already, the original name of Mary was the same as that of the actual sister of Aaron, Miriam in Hebrew and Maryam in Arabic. If there had been no real sister of Aaron by that name, the title given to Mary would still have seemed inappropriate. But, as there really was a Miriam, sister of Aaron, the anachronism so obviously presents itself. What strengthens this conclusion is the fact that Miriam is distinctly called the "sister of Aaron" in the Bible: Then Miriam, the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand. Exodus 15:20 We have seen that ukhta Harun in the Qur’an must mean the blood-sister of Aaron and this is precisely what Miriam was. Muhammad has clearly confused Maryam, the mother of Jesus, with this woman. Furthermore the evidence is strongly substantiated by the name given to Mary’s father in the Qur’an. In the Bible we read that Jochebed "bore to Amran, Aaron and Moses and Miriam their sister" (Numbers 26:59). So the father of Aaron and Miriam was a man called Amran - and yet this is the very name given to the father of Mary, the mother of Jesus, in the Qur’an’ He is called Imran, the Arabic form of Amran (as Ibrahim is the Arabic form of Abraham). Mary, accordingly, is expressly called Maryamabnata ’Imraan - "Mary, daughter of Imran" - in the Qur’an (Surah 66.12). So she is not only called the sister of Aaron but also the daughter of Imran. We therefore have a double-proof of the fact that she has been confused with Miriam, the true sister of Aaron and daughter of Amran. Lastly, it may well be asked, why is Mary called the "sister of Aaron" in the Qur’an if she is not confused with Miriam? We have shown that she was in no way descended from him and no more closely related to him than to any other patriarch or figurehead of Israel. Accordingly, what relevance is there in the appellation? Why was she called after Aaron rather than Moses, Elijah, Joseph, Solomon, or some other prophet? Not only can one find no relevance in the title, the passage quoted above from the Book of Hebrews also makes it plain that it is, on the contrary, ill-conceived and quite inappropriate. Despite the laborious attempts at explanation by Muslim commentators, it can scarcely be denied that a gross anachronism has here slipped into the Koran. (Frieling, Christianity and Islam, p. 63). Let it be said in conclusion that, whereas the Qur’an is a truly remarkable book and one of many virtues, it hardly justifies its claim to be the Word of God. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 52: 04.19. THE COLLECTION AND SOURCES OF THE QU'RAN ======================================================================== The Collection and Sources of the Qu’ran ======================================================================== CHAPTER 53: 04.20. A. EVIDENCES FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE QUR'AN. ======================================================================== A. EVIDENCES FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE QUR’AN. 1. Modern Muslim Attitudes to the Text of the Qur’an. It is universally believed throughout The Muslim World that the Qur’an in circulation today is precisely that which Allah revealed to Muhammad, that nothing whatsoever has been changed, that no passage has been omitted from the text, that no man added to it, and that, down to the last letter, it has been preserved intact by the power of God. This hypothesis is then summarily adduced as proof that the book must be the Word of God, one which the Qur’an itself sets forth: Innaa nahnu nazzalnaath-thikraa wa innaa lahuu lahaafidhuun - "Indeed We sent down the Admonition, and will verily guard it" (Surah 15.9). Muslim writers boldly allege: All the great religions of the world have their sacred books but it is the proud claim of Islam that the Qur’an is the only sacred book to have survived absolutely unchanged since it was first revealed and written down fourteen hundred years ago. (Khalifa, The Sublime Qur’an and Orientalism, p. 3). The purity of the Qur’anic text is and will forever remain the greatest miracle of all history. (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, p. xcvi). It is a truly miraculous fact that the text of the Quran has been preserved absolutely pure and entire, down to the last vowel point. (Zafrulla Khan, Islam: Its Meaning for Modern Man, p. 89). It is true that the Qur’an has been exceptionally well preserved and its text is very much that which was first compiled at the inception of Islam. Even Christian scholars have been quick to admit this fact: There is probably in the world no other work which has remained twelve centuries with so pure a text. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p. xxi). Nonetheless a study of the early collection of the book will show that the popular sentiments of the Muslims, as expressed in the quotes above, are not entirely supported by the evidences at hand. One cannot help immediately detecting, in these quotes, certain claims that suggest that the wish is father to the thought. Zafrulla Khan goes so far as to allege that even the vowel points of the Qur’an are totally unchanged to this day, and yet the history of the Qur’an text shows that diacritical points distinguishing the Arabic consonants and the relative vowel points were only introduced at least two hundred years after Muhammad’s death. The earliest Qur’ans, in kufic and other scripts, all had only seventeen consonants (whereas the Arabic letters distinguished by diacritical points, etc., today number twenty- nine) and none were accompanied by vowel points. Likewise scrupulous human preservation of the text can hardly be termed a divine miracle. No more does the preservation of the text in the memories of the qurra (Qur’an "readers") justify this claim. No amount of human effort, no matter how remarkably punctilious or scrupulous it may be, can be adduced as proof of a divine miracle. As we analyse the history of the text of the Qur’an we will find that, like the Bible, it has suffered from variant readings and other vagaries, notwithstanding the fact that it has been carefully preserved as a whole. This statement anticipates the only conclusion that can be drawn from an analysis of the evidences: It may be assumed that the Qur’an in its present form contains the greatest part of the revelations which actually occurred; on the other hand, one cannot support the claim that it includes all of the revelations. (Gatje, The Qur’an and its Exegesis, p. 23). Before proceeding, it is useful to point out at this stage that the Muslim attitude to the Qur’an does not derive from an exhaustive study of the historical evidences available but rather from preferred presuppositions. The Qur’an has never been subjected to the form of textual criticism so intensively applied to the Bible in recent times. Muslims mistake this as a sign that the Qur’an does not suffer from the minor textual defects found in the Biblical texts. Once one ventures upon such an analysis, however, one finds that the results are invariably the same, as we shall see. Is there any serious textual criticism of the Islamic Scripture? How far have Muslims gone in taking the Qur’an in proper terms of historical analysis? Are they not impossibly fundamentalist in their attitudes? When will the break come? (Cragg, The Mind of the Qur’an, p. 183). When the early Muslims began to have contact with Christian communities they discovered that the teachings of the Bible contradicted those of the Qur’an in many ways and that they were fundamentally Jewish and Christian rather than supportive of Islam as the Qur’an claims. Necessity is indeed the mother of invention and the Muslims immediately felt bound to allege that the Biblical texts must have been corrupted, and so it is to this day. The claims for the purity of the Qur’an text, allowing not the slightest "corruption", were a natural corollary to this allegation and are made, consciously or otherwise, for this very purpose to the present day. An objective study of the sources, however, will show that "the textual history of the Qur’an is very similar to that of the Bible" (Guillaume, Islam, p. 58), and that the Muslim efforts to push the transmission of the texts of the two books to opposite extremes is the product purely of wishful thinking. 2. The Qur’an at the End of Muhammad’s Life. Muhammad’s death was quite unexpected, so much so that Umar threatened to despatch to the same fate those who dared to allege that it had occurred. What was the state of the Qur’an itself at this untimely juncture? The records in the Hadith are somewhat confusing but all agree on one point - the collection of the Qur’an text into its final form only took place after Muhammad’s death. To begin with, it is quite certain that when the Prophet died there was no collected, collated, arranged body of material of his revelations. What we have is what could be gathered together somewhat later by the leaders of the community when they began to feel the need of a collection of the Prophet’s proclamations, and by that time much of it was lost, and other portions could only be recorded in fragmentary form. (Jeffery, The Qur’an as Scripture, p. 91). This is the general opinion of most Western scholars who have made a study of the compilation of the Qur’an. Jeffery was the scholar par excellence in this field among English-speaking students of the subject and in another work he again makes the same point: Nothing is more certain than that when the Prophet died there was no collected, arranged, collated body of revelations. (Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’an, p. 5). As pointed out already, the early traditions are not always clear, but we do believe that a very sound conclusion can be drawn from them and one consistent with the evidences. Nonetheless one does find some scholars seeking to discount the traditions and thereby establish favoured hypotheses. One such scholar is John Burton who, in a recent work, has sought to prove that the Qur’an text that has been handed down was in fact quite simply that which Muhammad himself actually defined, collected and arranged towards the end of his life. He is constrained to admit, however, that his thesis is ex vacuo as far as the evidences are concerned and indeed somewhat contrary to them. He duly allows that the traditions, while conflicting at times, are nevertheless unanimous in teaching that the Qur’an was not collected in its present form before Muhammad’s death: The Muslim reports are not in fact in disagreement) they are in perfect agreement, for common to all of them is the constant and unvarying allegation that, whoever may have been the first to collect the Qur’an texts, it was certainly not the Prophet to whom they had been revealed. (Burton, The Collection of the Qur’an, p. 160). It is widely stated in the works of Hadith that the first attempt to collect the Qur’an was only made during Abu Bakr’s short reign as caliph after Muhammad’s death. A widespread revolt followed his demise in Arabia and, in one of Abu Bakr’s major campaigns to quell it, at the Battle of Yamama, many of the qurra were killed. This event allegedly prompted him to endeavour to preserve the Qur’an in a written, collected form. One of the narratives reads: Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: Abu Bakr as-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had been killed ... Then Abu Bakr said (to me): ’You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah’s Apostle. So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur’an and collect it (in one book)’. By Allah! If they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur’an. Then I said to Abu Bakr, ’How will you do something which Allah’s Apostle did not do?’ Abu Bakr replied, ’By Allah, it is a good project’. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 477). Zaid is then said to have responded to the appeal and set about collecting the text of the book. One thing is clear from the narrative - the collection of the Qur’an is said to have been one thing expressly which Allah’s Apostle did not do. On the other hand it is taught elsewhere in the Hadith that at least four companions had collected the whole Qur’an during Muhammad’s lifetime, one of whom was the same Zaid: Narrated Qatada: I asked Anas bin Malik, "Who collected the Qur’an at the time of the Prophet?" He replied, "Four, all of whom were from the Ansar: Ubai bin Ka’b, Mu’adh bin Jabal, Zaid bin Thabit and Abu Zaid". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 488). Another early collector of Hadith adds that there was a fifth but that there was some dispute as to his identity. He is said to have been one Tamim al-Dari (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p. 457). One detects immediately a degree of uncertainty about the early collection of the Qur’an text. What should we do then with the other two traditions of Bukhari which are in harmony with Ibn Sa’d in assigning the collection of the Kur’an to the lifetime of the Prophet? (Mingana, "The Transmission of the Koran", The Muslim World, Vol. 7, p. 228). The other tradition from Bukhari, attested by all other major works of Hadith, makes it plain, however, that the actual collection of the Qur’an was only undertaken after Muhammad’s death. This tradition, as pointed out already, was very widely attested. Zaid clearly knew the Qur’an well but the suggestion that he knew it perfectly, and in its entirety, is contradicted by this statement attributed to him: So I started looking for the Qur’an and collecting it from (what was written on) palm-leaf stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last Verse of Surat at-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 478). It was quite obviously a widespread search that Zaid conducted and the statement that one passage (Surah 9.128-129) was found with only one man shows that no one knew the whole book by heart. He could not find another supposed hafiz who knew it. It is then stated that the completed text was kept by Abu Bakr and, after his death, by his successor Umar and, upon his demise, by his daughter Hafsah. Let it be said, in passing, that the sources relied on by Zaid - date palms, white stones, etc. - were hardly conducive to the compilation of a perfect text from which nothing was lacking. What evidence is there that he did, in fact, remarkably compose a perfect copy from such brittle resources? Indeed, if anyone had known the whole book by heart, all his efforts would have been unnecessary. Any one of the qurra could simply have dictated it to him. The steps he took, however, strongly imply that the texts of the Qur’an were loosely scattered in various places and that those he consulted generally knew and remembered different texts. Furthermore the mushaf (the written codex) that he finally compiled was, let it be noted, assembled not by the decree or direction of the Almighty but purely at his own personal discretion, no matter how careful he almost certainly was to arrange an authentic copy. 3. The Uthmanic Collection of the Qur’an. The traditions would have us believe that the first official collection of the Qur’an was therefore made by the caliph Abu Bakr and yet we find that, instead of being copied and promulgated as the standard text of the Qur’an, it was strangely preserved, if not concealed, in the private possession of the first two caliphs and thereafter under the bed, so tradition tells us, of Hafsah, very much a recluse after the death of Muhammad. Thus, if the death of so many Moslems at al-Yamamah endangered the preservation of the text, why did Abu Bakr, after making his copy, practically conceal it, entrusting it to the guardianship of a woman? (Caetani, "Uthman and the Recension of the Koran", The Muslim World, Vol. 5, p. 381). We shall return to this question to give a probable answer shortly. In the meantime, however, it is of great interest to us to find that during the reign of the third caliph Uthman this copy was brought to the fore as word was brought from the out-lying provinces that the Muslims in these areas were reciting the Qur’an in different ways. The sequel is set out in the following tradition: Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sha’m and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur’an, so he said to Uthman, ’O Chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur’ en) as Jews and the Christians did before’. So Uthman sent a message to Hafsa, saying, ’Send us the manuscripts of the Qur’an so that we may compile the Qur’anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you’. Hafsa sent it to Uthman. Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa’id bin al-As, and Abdur-Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, ’In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the - Qur’an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish as the Qur’an was revealed in their tongue’. They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 479). This tradition informs us quite clearly that other manuscripts of the Qur’an, some in sections, others complete, had been written out and that they were in use elsewhere in the conquered territories. Uthman’s order that they should be burnt indicates that there were serious textual differences between them and the manuscript in Hafsah’s possession. The traditional account of what led to the next step in the fixing of the form of the Qur’an implies that serious differences of reading existed in the copies of the Qur’an current in the various districts. (Watt, Bell’s Introduction to the Qur’an, p. 42). It is practically certain that none of the other texts was identical to that compiled by Zaid for Abu Bakr, as not one was allowed to be spared destruction. Uthman’s drastic action implies that the differences between these texts were serious textual variants and that they affected not just the manner of the recitation of the Qur’an but its actual form and content. Therefore the Qur’an text that has been handed down through the centuries is not that to which the companions of Muhammad gave their unqualified assent but purely one form of it, uncorroborated in every point by the others in circulation, which was finally established as the standard text to the exclusion of the others. Attempts have been made to avoid this conclusion by claiming that all Uthman did was to remove dialectal peculiarities that had crept into the pronunciation of the Qur’an as it was recited, and have a standardized type of text written out in the pure dialect of the Quraish. This matter of Quraish dialect is indeed mentioned in the traditions referring to this Recension, but to pretend that it was merely a matter of dialectal variations is to run counter to the whole purport of the accounts. The vast majority of dialectal variations would not have been represented in the written form at all, and so would not have necessitated a new text. (Jeffery, The Qur’an as Scripture, p. 96). Rather, his aim was to select from amid a welter of rival Qur’an texts, each claiming to be the uniquely authentic record of what had been revealed to Muhammad, a single text to be officially promulgated as the textus receptus of the Muslims. No deviation from this text would be henceforward tolerated, or indeed possible, for it is also reported that Uthman required the destruction of all other recorded Qur’an texts. (Burton, The Collection of the Qur’an, p. 138). Indeed even the commission by Uthman to Zaid and the other three redactors indicates that Hafsah’s copy of the Qur’an had hardly been regarded as an infallible text per se. The direction given that the text should be standardised in the Quraysh dialect shows that the four men were given some liberty to revise Hafsah’s manuscript where they considered this necessary to bring it into line with its original language. Indeed the reason for this is most informative: "This was because Zaid was a Madinite while his colleagues were Quraish" (Ali, The Religion of lslam, p. 26). It is to be presumed that, as Zaid was the sole compiler of Hafsah’s text, there were Medinese dialectal variants in his work which needed to be corrected by the other three. Furthermore the Hadith go on to inform us that even after this recension by the four scribes, Zaid recalled a verse which was lost: Zaid bin Thabit added, ’A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur’an and I used to hear Allah’s Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit al-Ansari’. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 479). The verse was Surah 33.23. Accordingly even this copy can hardly be regarded as a perfect collection of the Qur’an to the last word or letter, nothing added or missing from it. It is truly said that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link and, whereas the Qur’an may have been remarkably transcribed, even perhaps to the point of inerrancy, from the time of Uthman, the weak link is the first one and it is found just at this point where the evidences show that the argument for the textual perfection of the Qur’an cannot be taken back from the time of Uthman to Muhammad himself. Uthman’s commission decided what was to be included and what excluded; it fixed the number and order of the suras, and the ’outline’ of the consonantal text (that is, its shape when the dots distinguishing letters are omitted). (Watt, Bell’s Introduction to the Qur’an, p. 44). Among the other texts destroyed were two by the wellknown and highly respected qurra Abdullah bin Mas’ud and Ubayy bin Katb, the latter in fact being known as sayyidul-qurra - the "Master of the Readers". It is said of his text: We have no knowledge of when his Codex was made, but we do know that before the appearance of the Uthmanic standard text his Codex had already come into vogue in Syria . . . His Codex is definitely stated to have been among those destroyed by Uthman. (Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’an, p. 114, 115). We will have more to say about the other famous companion of Muhammad shortly. Nonetheless, even though their codices were actually destroyed, records were kept of the readings in them which differed from those in the text standardised by Uthman. Uthman’s text was intended to standardize the consonantal text, yet for long after Uthman’s time there is evidence that variant traditions as to the consonantal text survived among the learned, and we can gather a great mass of material as to the readings in the text of Ubai or Ibn Mas’ud. (Jeffery, "Progress in the Study of the Qur’an Text,’’ The MusIim World, Vol. 25, p. 8). Accordingly we must conclude that the text which was finally imposed on The Muslim World by Uthman was not one which his predecessors Abu Bakr and Umar had established as the standard text of the Qur’an but rather merely one among a whole selection of codices compiled by different qurra and other companions of Muhammad. This explains the unusual solitude which surrounds the preservation of Zaid’s text from the time of its compilation under Abu Bakr to its public exposure during Uthman’s reign. It is not that Zaid’s text was perfect and the others imperfect - Zaid’s text was simply one among many which was singled out to be the preferred text. Modern criticism is willing to accept the fact that Abu Bakr had a collection of revelation material made for him and, may be, committed the making of it to Zaid b. Thabit. It is not willing to accept, however, the claim that this was an official recension of the text. (Jeffery, The Qur’an as Scripture, p. 93). That Abu Bakr was one of those who collected revelation material was doubtless true. He may possibly have inherited material that the Prophet had stored away in preparation for the Kitab. That he ever made an official recension as the orthodox theory demands is exceedingly doubtful. His collection would have been a purely private affair, just as quite a number of other Companions of the Prophet had made personal collections as private affairs. (Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’an, p. 6). It needs to be repeated that these were actual varying written collections of the Qur’an. The suggestions by modern Muslim writers that the only differences in those days in the recitation of the Qur’an were found purely in the pronunciation of vowel points cannot be seriously sustained. It is only written texts that can be consigned to the flames, not niceties of pronunciation of vowel points that do not appear in the written text. It must be presumed that there were actual consonantal and, indeed, clausal variants in their texts. The mass of variant readings that has survived to us from the Codices of Ubai and Ibn Mas’ud, shows that they were real textual variants and not mere dialectal peculiarities. (Jeffery, The Qur’an as Scripture, p. 97). Why, then, did Uthman not order a general revision of the whole Qur’an by calling in the prominent qurra for a broadly- based convention to compile as authentic a text as possible? Why did he summarily impose Zaid’s text on the whole Muslim world, the recension of only one man uncorroborated by others, as the standard text of the Qur’an? A study of the circumstances of the time answers this question. Uthman was a most unpopular caliph, accused by some of Muhammad’s more prominent and influential companions of catering for his own household, the descendants of Umayya, who had generally opposed Islam until given no choice but to throw in their lot with Muhammad after the conquest of Mecca. Uthman was placing many of these in high positions - an act destined to rupture Islam after his death. It was through this action that irreligious men like Mu’awiya and Yazid, descendants of Muhammad’s archenemy Abu Sufyan, subsequently obtained control of the caliphate. This danger was noticed by the more loyal and religious followers of Muhammad, especially the qurra who had much influence in the empire, "a class of men who had acquired, thanks to their being continually with the Prophet, a fairly complete knowledge of the Koranic revelations and of all the customs and rules of life, culled from the reformer" (Caetani, "Uthman and the Recension of the Koran", The Muslim World, Vol. 5, p. 386). As the Qur’an remained the final authority in all matters of life and conduct in Islam, these men were a severe threat to Uthman’s untidy reign and their authority as experts in the text and teaching of the Qur’an gave them much influence over the centres beyond Uthman’s immediate control in Medina. Indeed the manuscripts compiled by these men soon became the standard texts in these cent res. The most important fact that Tradition has preserved in connection with these early Codices, however, is the fact that certain of them came to attain the position of metropolitan Codices. Thus we read that the people of Kufa came to regard the Codex of Ibn Mas’ud as in a sense their Recension of the Qur’an, the people of Baara the Codex of Abu Musa, the people of Damascus the Codex of one Miqdad b. al-Aswad, and the Syrians other than the folk of Damascus, the Codex of Ubai. (Jeffery, The Qur’an as Scripture, p. 94). Now when we come to the accounts of Uthman’s recension, it quickly becomes clear that his work was no mere matter of removing dialectal peculiarities in reading, but was a necessary stroke of policy to establish a standard text for the whole empire. Apparently there were wide divergences between the collections that had been digested into Codices in the great Metropolitan centres of Madina, Mecca, Baara, Kufa and Damascus, and for political reasons if for no other it was imperative to have one standard Codex accepted all over the empire. (Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’an, p. 8). The purpose, therefore, of Uthman’s decree was not just to standardise a text of the Qur’an for the whole Muslim world but to remove with one stroke the growing influence of the qurra and to nullify the threat that they posed. Quite clearly the caliph sought to undermine their authority in religious matters by destroying their Qur’anic esteem. It is very significant that the Qurra were violently opposed to Uthman because of this act, and there is evidence that for quite a while the Muslims in Kufa were divided into two factions, those who accepted the Uthmanic text, and those who stood by Ibn Mas’ud, who had refused to give up his Codex to be burnt. (Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’an, p. 8). We are not therefore surprised to find that this highhanded political blow aroused the anger of the qurra and other more religious factions even more against the caliph and that they succeeded in murdering him not long afterward. We may well believe that the measure taken by the third caliph, of issuing an official edition and ordering all unofficial copies to be burned, was a political necessity. That this act brought about an insurrection wherein he was murdered is the most probable explanation of the first civil war of Islam. (Margoliouth, "Textual Variations of the Koran", The Muslim World, Vol. 15, p. 336). It is most probable that this was the real reason for Uthman’s action and one which contributed to his assassination. The standardising of the Qur’an text was purely incidental to his efforts to establish control over the Muslim empire and to neutralise the potential of a revolution headed by those whose influence was assured through their knowledge of the Qur’an. Uthman ordered the compilation of a single official text of the Koran, and the violent suppression, the destruction by fire of all other copies existing in the provinces. Such an act called for considerable political courage, for it was an open challenge to the whole class of the Readers and an effectual attempt to put an end to the monopoly of the sacred text that they claimed. (Caetani, "Uthman and the Recension of the Koran", The Muslim World, Vol. 5. p. 389). It does not suit Islamic tradition to admit as much and it was certainly to its advantage to have a standard text universally accepted in the world of Islam. Later contacts with the Christian world made this eventuality all the more suitable to the Muslim cause. A single Qur’an text proved to be a healthy foundation for an attack on the supposed variations and differences in the Christian scriptures. The evidence of the manner in which that text became universalised, however, was seen to be its own Achilles Heel and therefore it became very convenient to remould it into the form in which we now have it, where the codex of Abu Bakr is not seen as a private copy in the possession of the caliph but rather as one publicly declared to be an official recension. These considerations explain the anxiety of traditionists to invent a previous compilation of the sacred text during the reign of the unimpeachable Abu Bakr, the perfect and saintly Caliph, for in this way Uthman appears only as the copier of the text left by Abu Bakr. (Caetani, "Uthman and the Recension of the Koran", The Muslim World, Vol. 5, p. 390). Uthman’s action then is not seen for what it really was - a stroke of policy against the influential qurra through the enforcement of the text of the Qur’an in his possession to the exclusion of rival texts - but rather as a pious reestablishment of the authority of a text long before publicly drafted as the standard text of the Qur’an. If nothing else, Abu Bakr’s prompt action to privately conceal and store the manuscript compiled by Zaid undermines this theory and very strongly supports the contention that it was merely a personal copy, a codex no more important or accurate than all the others simultaneously being compiled. 4. The Codex of Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud. A special degree of attention should be given to the codex of the Qur’an compiled by Abdullah ibn Mas’ud of whom we have heard already. The Hadith which refer to his exceptional knowledge of the Qur’an are well worth recording here as they undergird the conclusions already drawn about Uthman’s text. Ibn Mas’ud was a very early convert to Islam and the first to proclaim Muhammad’s message openly in Mecca. When his codex was ordered to be destroyed in favour of Zaid’s text, he said: There is no Sura revealed in Allah’s Book but I know at what place it was revealed; and there is no Verse revealed in Allah’s Book but I know about whom it was revealed. And if I know that there is somebody who knows Allah’s Book better than I, and he is at a place that camels can reach, I would go to him. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 488). He had been one of Muhammad’s closest companions and had obtained quite a reputation as a reader of the Qur’an. At Kufa his text was widely recognised as authoritative and authentic as we have already seen. When Uthman sent to Kufa the official copy of his standard text with orders that all other texts should be burned, Ibn Mas’ud refused to give up his copy, being indignant that the text established by a young upstart like Zaid b. Thabit should be given preference to his, since he had been a Muslim while Zaid was still in the loins of an unbeliever. (Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’an, p. 20). Ibn Mas’ud certainly had a head-start over Zaid who only became a Muslim after the Hijrah. In his book The Sublime Qur’an and Orientalism, Mohammad Khalifa states that this Zaid ibn Thabit was "among the first to believe in Islam" and that he was appointed as one of Muhammad’s scribes (p. 36). It seems the author is confusing him with Zaid ibn Harithah who was Muhammad’s adopted son (the husband of Zaynab who married Muhammad after her divorce from him) and who was indeed one of the first to believe his message. The compiler of Abu Bakr’s codex, however, came from Medina and only followed Islam some years later. Furthermore it is expressly stated in many works of Hadith that Ibn Mas’ud was one of the foremost authorities on the Qur’an text, if not its most prominent scholar and champion: Narrated Masruq: Abdullah bin Mas’ud was mentioned before Abdullah bin Amr who said, "That is a man I still love, as I heard the Prophet saying, ’Learn the Qur’an from four: from Abdullah bin Mas’ud - he started with him - Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, Mu’adh bin Jabal, and Ubai bin Ka’b"’. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p. 96). The same tradition in the Sahih Muslim also makes special mention of the fact that Muhammad deliberately named Ibn Mas’ud first, implying that he was the foremost authority on the Qur’an (Vol. 4, p. 1312). Zaid is not even mentioned in the list. Yet another tradition says that Ibn Mas’ud delivered a sermon in Kufa when Uthman’s order concerning the uniform reading of the Qur’an was issued. He declared: The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur’an. I like it better to read according to the recitation of him (Prophet) whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit. By Him besides Whom there is no god! I learnt more than seventy surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, while Zayd Ibn Thabit was a youth, having two locks and playing with the youth. (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p. 444). The transmitter of the tradition, Shaqiq ibn Salamah, added: "Subsequently I sat in the circles of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, and others but none contradicted his statement" (op. cit.). Another tradition from the same source says that when Abu Zabyan, an early convert to Islam, was asked which of the two readings of the Qur’an he preferred, that is, the reading of Zaid or that of Ibn Mas’ud, he replied the latter, adding that whenever Gabriel revealed or recited the Qur’an to Muhammad during Ramadan each year, Ibn Mas’ud was the first to learn of it (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p. 441). It therefore appears from the aforegoing traditions that Ibn Mas’ud was widely regarded as a far greater authority on the text of the Qur’an than Zaid and, as Muhammad specifically singled him out as the first person to whom anyone should go who wished to learn it, his codex had far better grounds for being regarded as the best text available. It ia little wonder that he sought to disobey the caliph’s order and preserve his copy. Indeed the record of the textual variants between his text and that of Zaid is very substantial. One or two will be mentioned shortly. All this proves quite conclusively that Zaid’s codex can hardly be regarded as a perfect reproduction, to the last letter and with nothing omitted, of the Qur’an as it was handed down by Muhammad to his companions. Such a conviction may appeal to the popular sentiments of the Muslims but it is seriously undermined by the wealth of evidences left to us in the Hadith - the other great historical heritage of Islam. Some Muslim writers seek to avoid the implications by alleging that the textual variants in the collections of Ibn Mas’ud and others were purely marginal glosses and notes (so Khalifa, The Sublime Qur’an and Orientalism, p. 49), just as they claim that such variants were confined to vowel points and did not affect the text of the Qur’an itself. The records thus far considered show quite plainly that the reason given by Uthman for his order against the other written manuscripts of the Qur’an text was that they contained serious textual variants and differed from his text and from one another. Little more need be said to show that such arguments of Muslim apologists today are hardly founded on an objective analysis of the evidences at hand but rather upon the desire to uphold their preferred claim that the Qur’an has not been altered in any way. If it should be alleged, as it sometimes is, that the evidences considered are based purely on the Hadith and are therefore unreliable, it must be said that there is no alternative chain of evidence anywhere in the history of Islam to tell us how the Qur’an came to be written in the form in which we now have it. There is no other source to consult. Those who claim that its present form is its own testimony must tell us who transcribed it from Muhammad, what evidence they have to prove conclusively that it is complete and always accurate, and on what authority they make these claims. In fact the Qur’an is a most unsuitable testimony to its own supposed textual perfection. It is a terribly disjointed book. Its surahs are not arranged in any sort of chronological order and the various passages in these surahs deal with all sorts of issues, more often than not having no connection with one another. A compact narrative like the Book of Esther in the Bible might well be its own testimony in this respect but the Qur’an, a collection of fragmentary texts and passages compiled into an unharmonious whole without respect to sequence or theme, is not the kind of book that can testify to its own textual accuracy. The records in the Hadith, on the other hand, are an historical heritage, indeed the historical heritage, in Islam, informing us how the Qur’an was reduced to its present form. One cannot prefer bold, wishful claims in favour of the Qur’an’s supposed perfection, unsupported by any facts or evidences, against a factual and historical record widely reported in different works to the contrary. Such evidences cannot be dismissed in favour of pure speculation. 5. The Case of the "Stoning verses". Widely reported in the Hadith is a tradition which makes Umar report that the punishment for adultery, according to the Kitab Allah, the "Book of Allah", was death by stoning, notwithstanding the verse found in the Qur’an today which prescribes a different penalty: The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Surah 24.2 The tradition referred to is found in all the recognised works of Hadith and reads as follows in one of them: God sent Muhammad and sent down the Scripture to him Part of what he sent down was the passage on stoning; we read it, we were taught it, and we heeded it. The apostle stoned and we stoned them after him. I fear that in time to come men will say that they find no mention of stoning in God’s book and thereby go astray in neglecting an ordinance which God has sent down. Verily stoning in the book of God is a penalty laid on married men and women who commit adultery. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 684). Not only did Umar make this disclosure but he also gave a fairly sensitive prologue to it to explain what he was going to say and why he was doing so. The preamble reads as follows in another record of the tradition: Umar sat on the pulpit and when the callmakers for the prayer had finished their call, Umar stood up, and having glorified and praised Allah as He deserved, he said "Now then, I am going to tell you something which (Allah) has written for me to say. I do not know; perhaps it portends my death, so whoever understands and remembers it, must narrate it to the others wherever his mount takes him, but if somebody is afraid that he does not understand it, then it is unlawful for him to tell lies about me". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 8, p. 539). In Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasulullah Umar is recorded as saying that if anyone could not receive (that is, assent to) what he was to say, he was not entitled to deny that he had said it. It is quit clear that he was very serious about what he wished to convey and anticipated a mixed reaction. It appears that the "stoning verse" (the ayatur-rajam) was, by the time he made his disclosure, not only omitted from the Qur’an but was generally unknown to the younger section of the Muslim community. He obviously expected that there would be an adverse reaction to his statement, especially as the verse he promoted was at variance with the penalty prescribed in Surah 24.2: There is concrete evidence that there was much substance in his claim, notwithstanding the fact that the verse was not known widely. Firstly, had it come from an obscure source, it might well have been discounted, but coming from one of the closest and most prominent of Muhammad ’a companions, it can hardly be summarily ignored or gainsaid. Secondly, there are many traditions which record that Muhammad did indeed pass the stoning penalty on adulterers. Here is an example: Ibn Shihab reported that a man in the time of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) acknowledged having committed adultery and confessed it four times. The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) then ordered and he was stoned. (Muwatta Imam Malik, p. 350). In the record of Umar’s speech from the pulpit in this same work of Hadith, a part of the actual verse is recorded and Umar is said to have recited it to the congregation assembled in the mosque in Medina. It reads: ash-shaykhu washshaykhatu ithaa zanayaa faarjumuu humaa - "the adult men and women who commit adultery, stone them" (Muwatta Imam Malik, p. 352). Some Muslims say it is hard to find a place in the Qur’an where these words can be interposed, yet other works state that they belonged to a much larger passage now missing from the Qur’an. Abu Ubaid’s Kitab Fada’il al-Qur’an contains a folio on verses missing from the Qur’an, which includes the "stoning verse", and gives it in its complete form: Ubai b. Ka’b said to me, "O Zirr, how many verses did you count (or how many verses did you read) in Surat al-Ahzab?" "Seventy-two or seventy-three", I answered. Said he, "Yet it used to be equal to Surat al-Baqara (ii), and we used to read in it the Verse of Stoning". Said I, "And what is the Verse of Stoning?" He said, "If a grown man and woman commit adultery, stone them without hesitation, as a warning from Allah, for Allah is mighty, wise". (Jeffery, "Abu Ubaid on Verses Missing from the Qur’an", The Muslim World, Vol. 28, p. 62). The same folio has another tradition in which Umar is said to have declared: "Some people say, ’What is this about the stoning? there is nothing in Allah’s book except scourging’, whereas the Apostle stoned and we stoned with him. By Allah, were it not that people might say that Umar had added something to Allah’s book, I would have written it in just as it was revealed,’ (op. cit., p. 63). This supports the suggestions that Umar’s apprehensions about his disclosure stemmed partly from the fact that it was contrary to the teaching of the Qur’an as it now stands in Surah 24.2. The same tradition recorded about the lengthy passage missing from Surah 33 (Suratul-Ahaab) is also recorded in the as-Sunanul-Kubra of Ahmad ibn al-Husain al- Baihaqi and is quoted on page 80 of Burton’s The Collection of the Qur’an. The writer adds that "this version of the stoning verse is a fair imitation of the Qur’an style" (op. cit.). It is also useful to point out that in another tradition regarding the punishment for stoning two men brought a case to Muhammad and expressly requested him to decide it "in accordance with the Book of Allah". The one man’s bachelor son had committed adultery with the other’s wife. Muhammad then said "I will take a decision for you both in accordance with the Book of Allah" (Muwatta Imam Malik, p. 351). The boy was to be whipped a hundred times and exiled for a year, the woman was duly stoned after admitting the adultery. The tradition makes it clear that the sentences were expressly in terms of the revealed "Book of Allah" (i.e. the Qur’an) and harmonises the apparently contradictory penalties by prescribing flogging for the unmarried and stoning for the married. This interpretation of Muhammad’s sunnah holds in many schools of Islamic jurisprudence to this day. There are some Muslims who try to find proof of stoning for adulterers in the Qur’an as it stands today, and they usually refer to a verse which states that women guilty of lewdness should be confined to their houses till death overtakes them (Surah 4.15). It takes a fertile imagination to make these somewhat vague words teach expressly that those guilty of adultery are to be stoned! In any event, if the command was retained in the Qur’an, Umar would hardly have spoken as he did, saying that it was only his fear that he would be reviled for adding to the Qur’an that restrained him from summarily inserting the missing verse. Furthermore, Umar claimed that the verse not only prescribed the supreme penalty but that it was to be expressly by stoning. That verse is now missing from the Qur’an and that is why Umar raised the issue. A better assessment of the situation is found in this quote: Thus the Qur’an not only speaks of flogging, and not death, as punishment for adultery, but it positively excludes death or stoning to death. (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p. 617). This same author, however, has an ingenious solution to the problem of the missing verses. He alleges that when Umar spoke of the Kitab Allah he was not referring to the Qur’an but to the Jewish Torah and adds: "In all likelihood Umar only spoke of rajm as the punishment for adultery in the Mosaic law and he was misunderstood" (p. 620). On top of this he has the audacity to conclude: "That the present Torah does not give stoning as the punishment for adultery is clear proof that the text has been altered" (p. 618)! Such an elliptical line of reasoning almost defies comment. On the other hand it is hardly likely that Umar would have spoken of the Torah, not by its common name, but as Kitab Allah, when he must have known that his hearers would automatically presume that he was speaking of the Qur’an. Likewise his insistence that the verse was one of those revealed to Muhammad makes it extremely unlikely that he was contemplating writing it into the Torah! It is also most improbable that he would have handled the matter as delicately and sensitively as he did had he been referring to any other book than the Qur’an itself, the sacred scripture of Islam. The widespread stoning of adulterers in Muhammad’s time does tend to imply that the verse disclosed by Umar was originally a part of the Qur’an text. If so, it is just one of those passages that is now excluded from the Qur’an (more will be mentioned shortly), proving that the Qur’an text, as we have it today, is somewhat incomplete. 6. Variant Readings in the Qur’an. A selection of the more prominent variant readings that were known to exist will serve to illustrate, in closing, what has thusfar been said. Although the early Qur’an manuscripts of Ibn Mas’ud and others were destroyed, a record was kept of the differences that existed between the various texts that had been compiled. In the fourth Islamic century there were three books written on this question of the Old Codices which had some influence on later studies. These were the works already mentioned of Ibn al-Anbari, Ibn Ashta and Ibn Abi Dawud. In each case the book was entitled Kitab al-Masahif, and in each case the work, while dealing with the Uthmanic text, its collection, orthography, and the general Massoretic details with regard to it, dealt also with what was known of the Old Codices which it had replaced. (Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’an, p. 10). In the book quoted Arthur Jeffery lists, on page 17, the thirty-one different books and records consulted which list the various different readings between the texts. Jeffery’s own list in his book is a composition of the many hundreds of variant readings recorded in these works. In many cases there is agreement between a number of the codices on readings that differ with the Uthmanic text in each case. No copies exist of any of the early codices, but the list of variant readings from the two just mentioned (i.e. Ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy) is extensive. (Watt, Bell’s Introduction to the Qur’an, p. 45). To start with, Surah 2.275 begins allathiina yaakuluunar-ribaa laa yaquumuuna - "those who devour usury will not stand . Ibn Mas’ud’s text had the same introduction, but after the last word there was added the expression yawmal qiyaamati, that is, on the "Day of Judgment" (Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’an, p. 31). Talha’s codex also recorded this variant as part of the original text (op. cit., p. 343). In the same surah we find that, whereas verse nine begins Yukhaadi’uunallaaha - "they would deceive Allah", Ibn Mas’ud’s text read Yakhda’uunallaaha - "they do deceive Allah". The compiler comments that the Uthmanic form "may be regarded as an attempt to soften the idea of deceiving Allah which is suggested by the alternative reading" (Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’an, p. 16). In many cases one finds that the variants in the extra-Uthmanic texts tend to improve or elaborate on the Uthmanic form (e.g. the gloss in Surah 2.275), whereas on other occasions, as here, the reverse is true. In the case of Surah 2.9 it appears that the Uthmanic form is an adaptation of the original which was probably regarded as too harsh and theologically questionable. Still on the same surah, Ibn Mas’ud had an interesting variant reading in the first verse. It reads in the authorised Uthmanic text Thaalikal kitaabu laa rayba fiih - "This is the Scripture of which there is no doubt" (Surah 2.1). Ibn Mas’ud’s text began Tanziilul kitaabu, making the whole verse read "It is the Scripture sent down, of which there is no doubt". The word used for sending down, tanzil, is commonly used in conjunction with the Qur’an itself elsewhere in its text (e.g. Surah 36.2-5 where al-Qur’aanul-Hakiim, "the Wise Qur’an", is described as being tanziilal-’Azitsir-Rahiim - "sent down by the Mighty, the Merciful"). Surah 5.92, in the accepted text, contains the clause fasiyaamu thalaathati ayyaam - "fast for three days". Many of the other codices supplementing the Uthmanic text but agreeing with one another, add the expression mutataabi’aat, meaning that the expiation for an unfulfilled oath was a fast on three successive days. Among those who had this reading were the famous Ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy ibn Ka-’b. It was also included in the texts of Ibn Abbas, Satid ibn Jubair and other less prominent qurra. Tabari (ob. 310 A.H.) quotes authorities for the assertion that Ubayy b. Ka’b and Abdallah b. Mas’ud added the word successive, making the penance much more severe. He adds that as the word is "not found in our copies", we cannot build anything upon it; the analogy of compensation for failure to fast in Ramadan (ii. 181) indicates that the days need not be successive, still it would be safer to make them so. Shafi’i (ob. 204 A.H.) seems to leave it to the individual Moslem to choose the reading which he prefers. It is a conceivable view that the word successive might have been added or omitted by the Prophet himself. (Margoliouth, "Textual Variations of the Koran", The Muslim World, Vol. 15, p. 335). A very famous variant reading occurs in Surah 3.19 which reads in the authorised text Innaddiina ’indallaahil Islaam - "the religion before God is Islam", i.e., the Submission. Ibn Mas’ud’s text is said to have had the word al- Hanifiyyah - "the True Way" in place of Islaam (Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’an, p. 32). This may well be an earlier title for Muhammad’s religion, especially as there were a group of monotheistic "hanifs", as they were called, in Mecca during his early days. Significantly both titles are applied to Abraham in the same surah. He is called haniifaam-muslimaan, being, "true in faith, submissive" (Surah 3.67). Later Muslim scholars always take the word in this sense, sometimes also using hanif as equivalent of ’Muslim’, and the hanifiyya as equivalent of ’Islam’. (Watt, Bell’s Introduction to the Qur’an, p. 16). Another writer also concludes that the variant reading in Ibn Mas’ud’s text suggests "that at one time Haniflyya was used to denote the doctrine preached by Mohammed and was only later replaced by Islam" (Gibb, Mohammedanism, p. 26). Yet another writer says of the word al-Hanifiyyah: This word was read instead of ’Islam’ by Ibn Mas’ud in Qur’an 3. 19/17, and was presumably the original reading. It also occurs in sayings of Muhammad to the effect that the religion he took to Medina was the Hanifiyah . . . The variant in the codex of Ibn Mas’ud, too, is a reminder that early Medinan passages of the Qur’an may have been revised to bring them into line with the later nomenclature. (Watt, Muhammad at Medina, p. 304). These readings we have considered are only a fraction of the number recorded in the works cited by Arthur Jeffery but they do serve to show to what extent the earliest codices of the Qur’an differed from one another. The codex of Abu Bakr which Uthman finally authorised at the expense of all the others was, so it appears, just one among many, varying with all of them to one degree or another. There may be one standard text of the Qur’an today, but the evidence weighs heavily against the assertion that this text, merely a reproduction of just one of the early codices, is coincidentally a perfect replica of the original Qur’an, to the very last letter, as it was delivered by Muhammad to his companions. In closing it will be useful to mention a few further passages affecting the text of the Qur’an spoken of in the major works of Hadith. Surah 2.238 urges the Muslims to observe their prayers carefully, and emphasises salaatil wusta - the "middle prayer". Ayishah is reported to have told Abu Yunus, her freedman, to add in the words wa salaatil ’asr - "and the afternoon prayer" - to the text of the Qur’an as "she had heard it so from the Apostle of Allah" (Muwatta Imam Malik, p. 64; so also Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 1, p. 108). It is also widely reported that the Qur’an originally contained a law forbidding marriage between two people who had been breast-fed by the same woman. A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur’an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur’an (and recited by the Muslims). (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p. 740). Ayishah clearly stated that the verses, one abrogating the other, were part of the Qur’an text. Today neither is found in it. In another similar tradition we read that Abu Musa al-Ashari told the qurra of Baara, an early Muslim centre in the province of Iraq: We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara’at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: "If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust". (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p. 501). In these few pages we have merely considered a selection of evidences regarding the collection of the Qur’an and its early textual history. Nevertheless the material reviewed shows quite conclusively that there is no substance in the claim that the Bible has been corrupted while the Qur’an has been preserved totally free of textual error. This is a pious sentiment and nothing more than an expedient fallacy of the Muslims. Indeed it is fair to say that the history of the Biblical text compares most favourably with that of the Qur’an. What is good for the goose here is equally good for the gander. There are a number of variant readings in the Bible and the authority of one or two short passages is uncertain, but we have seen in these pages that precisely the same legacy is found in the history of the Qur’an text. No one can summarily dismiss the evidences - they are too widespread and well-grounded in authoritative works to be casually ignored in favour of cherished presuppositions. Furthermore there is yet another consideration: It is fair to note, in this whole connection, how different any way are the textual issues in the Qur’an from those of the Biblical literature. It is confined to twenty-three years and one locale and one solitary spokesman and personality. The period between its utterance and its canon is relatively brief. (Cragg, The Mind of the Qur’an, p. 185). As the text of the Bible covers a period of nearly two thousand years and a host of different authors, and dates centuries before the Qur’an, it is quite remarkable to find that the variant readings in its text are no more prevalent or extensive than similar readings and passages affecting the Qur’an. If such variant readings are not found in the early manuscripts of the Qur’an surviving to this day, it is not because they never existed. The Christian Church has, in the interests of truth, carefully preserved the variant readings that are found in the early Biblical texts, but the Muslims at the time of Uthman deemed it more expedient to destroy the variant readings found in the Qur’an in the interests of standardising one harmonious text for posterity (even though the contents remain assembled together in an unharmonious whole). Here alone lies the difference between the textual history of the two books - and it is not one which works to the advantage of the Qur’an. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 54: 04.21. B. JEWISH INFLUENCES IN THE QUR'AN. ======================================================================== B. JEWISH INFLUENCES IN THE QUR’AN. 1. Muhammad’s Debt to Judaism. We have already seen that many of the narratives in the Qur’an and Hadith have extra-Islamic origins. In this section we shall briefly examine the substantial presence of Jewish historical and mythical material in the Qur’an. Indeed there is so much of it that whole books have been written on the subject and it is striking to find how heavily Muhammad relied on his Jewish contacts for the passages and teachings he ultimately set forth as part of the divine revelation. So much, indeed, was Muhammad indebted to the Jews for a great portion of his teaching on this and other subjects that the Qur’an has been described as a compendium of Talmudic Judaism. (Blair, The Sources of Islam, p. 55). One finds many of the Old Testament stories of the prophets reproduced in the Qur’an, sometimes in a precis form where the Qur’anic record is a faithful, though often vague, summary of the original Biblical narrative (e.g. the story of Jonah in Surah 37.139-148). On other occasions the Qur’anic narratives contain elements of Biblical truths confounded with folklore and fables extracted from the Talmud and in some cases (such as the story of Abraham and the idols which we shall presently consider) the sources are entirely Midrashic/Haggadic and are accordingly purely fictitious. This accounts for the seeming discrepancies between the stories of :he Bible and the Koranic version of the same narratives. However, in relating the Koranic version of the biblical story to the Aggadic source as indicated in our study, the discrepancies almost entirely disappear. For, astonishingly enough, the biblical narratives are reproduced in the Koran in true Aggadic cloak. (Katsh, Judaism in Islam, p. xvii). Virtually all the Qur’anic records which are reliant on Jewish sources can be traced either to the Bible or to Talmudic records such as the Midrash, Mishnah, etc. There are, however, a few occasions where one finds narratives obviously reliant on Jewish historical sources which are today unknown to us (for example the story of the sacrifice of Abraham’s son which has elements not found in the preserved works of Judaism as it is recorded in Surah 37.100-113). It seems indeed that Muhammad was reliant on Jewish materials but we must ask how he came by them in the course of his mission. Whether Muhammad was illiterate or not cannot be truly established - what is certain, however, is that he could read neither the scriptures of the Jews nor their folklore as contained in the Midrash and other Talmudic records. If he had been able to do so he would hardly have confused the two as often as he did. (Our earlier study of the expression an-nabiyyul-ummi also confirms this impression). There were, as we have seen, a host of Jewish communities settled in Medina and other parts of the Hijaz from which he almost certainly obtained his knowledge through direct conversation or from other secondary sources. For it is important to know that Mohammed was acquainted with Jewish teachings not by reading the Bible, Talmud and Midrash, but through serious conversations with the Jews. (Rosenthal, Judaism and Islam, p. 8). The many errors that occur in the Qur’an show that Muhammad received his information orally, and probably from men who had no great amount of book-learning themselves. (Tisdall, The Original Sources of the Qur’an, p. 133). The possibility of borrowing from Judaism lay for Muhammad, partly in the knowledge which might be imparted to him by word of mouth through intercourse with the Jews, and partially in personal knowledge of their Scriptures; while allowing him the first source of information, we must deny him the second. (Geiger, Judaism and Islam, p. 17). The somewhat disjointed nature of many of the Jewish narratives in the Qur’an, such as the story of Lot already considered in an earlier section, strongly supports the suggestion that much of the information that Muhammad was receiving was coming to him piecemeal. Not being able to distinguish between the assortment of materials reaching him, he allowed them indiscriminately to be formulated in his thoughts until they assumed the form of all the other "revelations" coming to him and were then duly proclaimed as such. The impression the Kuran makes on the reader is that its Jewish fibre has been spun from hearsay and scraps of information gathered from conversation with different persons. (Guillaume, "The Influence of Judaism on Islam", The Legacy of Israel, p. 134). The way that such things came to him seems to have been very much like this: He got a scrap of history; he got an allusion; he got a telling phrase; he got a hint of a character. He carried that away, and then with that as a centre and with his broad idea of the story - generally a very inaccurate idea - as material, he built up for himself again what he had heard. (MacDonald, Aspects of Islam, p. 214). Let us proceed to briefly examine a few of these stories in the Qur’an where Biblical truth has been marvellously confused with Talmudic folklore. 2. The Story of Abraham and the Idols. The Qur’an has a story about Abraham which is not found in the Bible. He is said to have challenged his father and his people about their error in worshipping the idols they had made. When they resisted his approaches, he waited until they had gone and then broke all the idols except the biggest one. Afterwards he was summoned to answer for his deed. The sequel is set out in this passage of the Qur’an: They said, "Art thou the one that did this with our gods, O Abraham?" He said: "Nay, this was done by - this is their biggest one! Ask them, if they can speak intelligently!" So they turned to themselves and said, "Surely ye are the ones in the wrong!" Then they were confounded with shame: (they said), "Thou knowest full well that these (idols) do not speak!" (Abraham) said, "Do ye then worship, besides God, things than can neither be of any good to you nor do you harm? Fie upon you, and upon the things that you worship besides God! Have ye no sense?" They said, "Burn him and protect your gods, if ye do (anything at all)1" Surah 21. 62-68 After they had thrown him into a fire, Allah is said to have spoken to it, saying: "O Fire! Be thou cool, and (a means of) safety for Abraham" (Surah 21.69) and so he was delivered unharmed from the flames. A somewhat briefer record of the whole story is found in Surah 37. 91-98 and there are many other passages in the Qur’an referring to it. Although it has no parallel in the Bible, it is a remarkable reproduction of a story found in the Midrash Rabbah, an old Jewish book containing much folklore embellishing Biblical material. The narrative in this work is quoted in full in one of St. Clair Tisdall’s books and a relevant part of it reads: Terah was a maker of idols. Once he went out somewhere, and seated Abraham as salesman in place of himself ... Once a woman came, carrying in her hand a plate of wheaten flour. She said to him, "Here! Set this before them" He arose, took a staff in his hand, and broke them all in pieces; then he gave the staff into the hand of the one that was biggest among them. When his father came, he said to him, "Who has done this unto them?" He (Abraham) said to him, "What is hidden from thee? A woman came, bringing with her a plate of wheaten flour, and said to me, ’Here! Set this before them’. I set it before them. This one said, ’I shall eat first’, and that one said, ’I shall eat first’. This one, which is the biggest among them, arose, took a staff, and broke them" He (the father) said to him, "Why cost thou tell me a fable? Do these understand?" He (Abraham) said to him, "And do not shine ears hear what thy lip speaketh?" (Tisdall, The Original Sources of the Qur’an, p. 74). It takes very little imagination to see that this fable is practically identical in both the Qur’an and the book of Jewish commentary. Comparing, now, this Jewish story with what we saw of it in the Coran, little difference will be found; and what there is no doubt arose from Mahomet hearing of it by the ear from the Jews. (Tisdall, The Sources of Islam, p. 22). In reply it is sufficient to state that only ignorant Jews now place any reliance upon such fables, since they do not rest upon anything worthy of the name of tradition. The only reliable traditions of the Jews which relate to the time of Abraham are to be found in the Pentateuch, and it is hardly necessary to say that this childish tale is not found there. (Tisdall, The Original Sources of the Qur’an, p. 78). We have deliberately chosen this story, as well as the one about the slaying of Abel by Cain which follows, because there is clear evidence to show, not only that the Qur’anic narratives have parallels in Jewish folklore, but also how the fable came about. We are able to trace the Qur’anic passages to sources which reveal how they came to be composed in the first place. The whole story of Abraham and the idols i^ founded upon a mistranslation of a Biblical verse. A Jewish scribe, Jonathan Ben Uzziel, in his Targum misquotes Genesis 15:7 which reads "I am the Lord who brought you from Ur of the Chaldees". The word Ur is a Babylonian word for the city from which Abraham came out and is again mentioned by name in Genesis 11:31. So also Jerusalem’s original name was Ur-Shalim, the "City of Peace". The scribe, however, took the word to be Or, a Hebrew word meaning "fire", and interpreted the verse to mean "I am the Lord who brought you from the fire of the Chaldees" and comments accordingly on Genesis 15:7 : Now this happened at the time when Nimrod cast Abraham into the oven of fire, because he would not worship the idols, that leave was withheld from the fire to hurt him. (Tisdall, The Sources of Islam, p. 23). It is most unlikely that this scribe invented the whole story. It is probable that he is merely repeating a tradition that had been current in Jewish folklore for some time. We can see quite clearly how it came about, nonetheless. But it is somewhat difficult to understand how a Prophet like Mahomet could have given credence to such a fable, and entered it in a revelation held to have come down from heaven. (Tisdall, The Sources of Islam, p. 24). Muslim writers most significantly generally avoid the issue of the sources of the Qur’an in their writings. Even an apologist like Khalifa, who alludes to this subject in his book The Sublime Qur’an and OrientaIism (p. 13), nevertheless leaves the evidences entirely uncontested. This is hardly surprising as they are quite clear and prove conclusively that much of the Qur’an is derived from Jewish fables. That Muhammad was in error in many instances about Jewish history is proved all the more by the name he gives to Abraham’s father in the Qur’an. His true Jewish name was Terah but in the Qur’an he is called Azar (Surah 6.74) - "evidently el-Azar, derived from the Eliezer of Genesis 15:2" (Torrey, The Jewish Foundation of Islam, p. 68). The verse tells us that Abraham had prayed for a eon lest his slave, Eliezer, be his heir. Muhammad clearly confounded the name of Abraham’s father with that of his servant! Another writer refers to an article by one S. Fraenkel in a European journal and says that "he argues convincingly that the Qur’anic form is due to a confusion on Muhammad’s part of the details of the Abraham story as it came to him, so that instead of his father Terah he has given the name of Abraham’s faithful servant Eliezer" (Jeffery, The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur’an, p. 55). The anachronism does appear to be fairly obvious. It cannot be suggested that the Jews had taken a true story from the original Torah and turned it into folklore. The Qur’an accuses them of declaring their traditional writings to be scripture revealed from God (Surah 2.79) - it nowhere charges them with turning their Holy Scripture into folklore. What we would like to know, however, is how that same folklore came to be Holy Scripture in the Qur’an - especially when, as in a case such as this, its origin can be traced to a misconception about the meaning of a word in the true Torah! 3. The Story of Cain and Abel in the Qur’an. The Qur’anic account of the murder of Abel by his unrighteous brother Cain is a typical mixture of elements from the Bible, Midrash and Mishnah. In fact the brief narrative in Surah 5.30-35 gives us a fine example of the manner in which Jewish material was reaching Muhammad. It begins with a record of the sacrifices offered by the two sons of Adam, states that one was accepted and the other rejected, and duly sets out the sequel in which Cain, in his jealousy, slew Abel. Thus far the record agrees with the story of the incident in Genesis 4:1-26 except that the Qur’an gives no indication why only one of the sacrifices was accepted. The distinction between the two was probably not known to Muhammad. Alternatively he could not perceive the significance of Abel’s sacrifice of a lamb - a symbol of atonement and self-abasement - as opposed to Cain’s offering of cakes he had made which symbolised a spirit of unwarranted self-righteousness before God. Thereafter, however, the story in the Qur’an has a sequel not found in the Biblical narrative. When Cain had killed Abel he did not know what to do with his body, but God is said to have intervened in a strange way. Then God sent a raven, who scratched the ground, to show him how to hide the shame of his brother. Surah 5.34 Once again one finds a striking parallel between the Qur’an and a Jewish book of myths and fables. The Pirke Rabbi Eliezer, a typical rabbinical writing from the Midrash, contains this story: Adam and his companion sat weeping and mourning for him (Abel) and did not know what to do with him as burial was unknown to them. Then came a raven, whose companion was dead, took its body, scratched in the earth, and hid it before their eyes; then said Adam, I shall do as this raven has done, and at once he took Abel’s corpse, dug in the earth and hid it. (Geiger, Judaism and Islam, p.80). The similarity between this story and the verse quoted from the Qur’an is as obvious as the case of Abraham and the idols already considered. A slight difference between Kuran and Midrash is that in the latter the sorrowing and perplexed parents saw the raven’s act; in the former, Cain the murderer witnessed it. But the sequel is extraordinary. (Guillaume, "The Influence of Judaism on Islam" The Legacy of Israel, p. 140). One cannot help drawing the conclusion that Muhammad had derived this story from his contacts with the Jews of the Hijaz and that the slight differences between the Jewish narrative and the form it obtains in the Qur’an are typical of those one would expect to find in the record of a man relying exclusively on hearsay and secondary sources because he could not read the books from which the Jews were quoting. "The story of the world’s first murderer affords a most informing example of the influence of a Jew behind the scenes" (Guillaume, op. cit., p. 139). In the next verse in the Qur’an we find a quote from the Mishnah, a phenomenon proving all the more that the revelations were hardly coming from above but were a strange assortment of passages culled from Biblical, Midrashic and Mishnaic sources compiled by a man who could not distinguish between them. The verse begins: On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: And if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Surah 5.35 At first sight this verse seems to have no connection with the preceding narrative. Why the life or death of one should be as the salvation or destruction of all mankind is not at all clear. When we turn to another Jewish record, however, we find the link between the story and what follows. Once again we find that it derives from a strange interpretation of a Biblical verse. We read: We find it said in the case of Cain who murdered his brother, ’The voice of thy brother’s bloods crieth’ (Genesis 4:10). It is not said here blood in the singular, but bloods in the plural, that is, his own blood and the blood of his seed. Man was created single in order to show that to him who kills a single individual it shall be reckoned that he has slain the whole race, but to him who preserves the life of a single individual it is counted that he hath preserved the whole race. (Mishnah Sanhedrin, 4.5) Once again, as in the case of the misunderstanding about the statement in Genesis 15:7 which led to the story of Abraham being brought out of "the fire" of the Chaldees, we find that the passage in the Mishnah, repeated in the Qur’an, is derived from an interpretation of a Biblical verse. Because the word for blood is in the plural in Genesis 4:10, an ingenious rabbi invented the supposition that all Abel’s offspring had been killed with him which signified that any murder or life-saving act had universal implications. Clearly Muhammad had no knowledge of the source of the theory set out in the Mishnah but, hearing it related, simply set out the rabbi’s suppositions as the eternal decree of God himself! Now if we look at the thirty-fifth verse of the text above quoted, it will be found almost exactly the same as these last words of this old Jewish commentary. But we see that only part is given in the Coran, and the other part omitted. And this omitted part is the connecting link between the two passages in the Coran, without which they are unintelligible. (Tisdall, The Sources of Islam, p. 16). The former part of the passage as it stands in the Mishnah is omitted in the Qur’an, possibly because it was not fully understood by Muhammad or his informant. But when it is supplied, the connexion between verse thirty-five and the preceding verses becomes clear. (Tisdall, The Original Sources of the Qur’an, p. 66). This brief passage in the Qur’an, when analysed in the light of parallel passages in the Bible and the Talmud, shows quite clearly to what extent Muhammad’s revelations were really nothing more than a repetition of information coming to his ears, some of it Biblical and true to history, the rest predominantly mythical and fictitious. In conclusion it needs to be pointed out once again that the parallels between the Qur’anic narratives and Jewish folklore cannot give support to the fancy that the Jewish records contain remnants of genuine historical events. As in the case of the story of Abraham and the idols, we have been able to trace the coincidental passages to an original source - once again a rabbi’s imaginative suppositions about a verse in the Bible. 4. The Qur’anic Account of the Golden Calf. Muhammad’s limited knowledge of Jewish history led him into much confusion in his thoughts, evidence of which appears again in this passage which records a statement supposedly made by God to Moses at the time of the idolatry of the Israelites in the wilderness: "We have tested thy people in thy absence: the Samiri has led them astray". Surah 20.85 A little further down (v.88) we read that "the Samiri" had brought out of the fire before the people the image of a calf which they promptly worshipped when it seemed to low like a real calf! In the same Midrashic work Pirke Rabbi Eliezer we read: There came forth this calf lowing, and the Israelites saw it. Rabbi Jehuda says that Samael entered into it and lowed in order to mislead Israel. (Geiger, Judaism and Islam, p. 132). Samael, according to Jewish tradition, is the Angel of Death. Quite clearly the Qur’anic narrative is again founded on a Jewish tradition, but one must ask why Muhammad does not mention the angel but speaks rather of one of the people, the "Samiri"? The use of the article in the ascription as-Samiri shows clearly that this was not a man’s personal name. Muslim commentators seem to be unwittingly hitting the mark when they interpret it, as they generally do, to mean the "Samaritan". The obvious problem is that the Samaritans, as a people, only arose some centuries after the exodus of the Israelites! But since the city of Samaria vas not built, or at least called by that name, until several hundred years after Moses’ death. the anachronism is at least amusing, and would be startling in any other book than the Qur’an, in which far more stupendous ones frequently occur. (Tisdall, The Original Sources of the Qur’an, p. 113). How then did Muhammad come to confuse the Samaritans with the story of the golden calf worshipped by the Israelites at the beginning of the exodus? One writer says "As the city of Samaria did not arise till some four hundred years after Moses, it is difficult to imagine how it came to be entered in this story" (Tisdall, The Sources of Islam, p. 38). Actually the difficulty can be resolved quite easily. Another writer suggests the likely origin of this anachronism: There can be no doubt that the Muslim authorities are right in saying that it means "The Samaritan". The calf worship of the Samaritans may have had something to do with the Qur’anic story. (Jeffery, The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur’an, p. 158). When Israel seceded from Judah during the reign of Rehoboam, the king they chose, Jeroboam, set up two golden calves in Samaria so as to turn the Israelites away from going up to worship at the Temple in Jerusalem (1 Kings 12:28-29). During a later period God spoke against this practice of theirs through one of his prophets: I have spurned your calf, O Samaria. My anger burns against them. How long will it be till they are pure in Israel? A workman made it, it is not God. The calf of Samaria shall be broken to pieces. Hosea 8:5-6. It is highly probable that the Jews, who revelled in making the Samaritans a scapegoat for their problems, had deliberately confused this passage with the story of the golden calf in the wilderness and had blamed them for the latter sin as well. Alternatively Muhammad had heard the passage from the Book of Hosea and had himself confused the two occasions, not knowing that the Samaritans only became a nation after the people of Israel had settled in Samaria. Either way one is still forced to conclude that this is yet another proof that the Qur’an is not a divine revelation but rather a composition of the stories Muhammad obtained from various sources during his mission. These examples of borrowed elements from Judaism in the Qur’an are merely a selection of a great number that could be given. One is dismayed, however, to find that Muhammad often does what the Jewish composers of folklore were inclined to do at times. Stories are extracted from the Bible which are embellished with marvellous fables but the moral of the story is invariably lost in the process: We have seen how the Qur’anic account of the sacrifices of Cain and Abel misses the whole ethic behind the acceptance of the one and rejection of the other. So likewise the Qur’an follows Jewish tradition in adding fabulous details to the story of the visit of the Queen of Sheba to Solomon but misses the whole thrust of the purpose of her journey - "she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon" (Luke 11:31). Of the queen’s interest in the wisdom of Solomon, which plays such a part in the Biblical narrative, and still more in the Jewish midrash, not a word is said here. This feature must have been known to Mohammed, but it did not suit his purpose. (Torrey, The Jewish Foundation of Islam, p. 115). It seems fair to conclude that much of the Qur’an conveys the imaginative fables of the Jewish rabbis of pre-Islamic times rather than the revealed will and purposes of God. Let us now press on to a very brief selection of similar teachings from non-Jewish sources. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 55: 04.22. C. OTHER QUR'ANIC ORIGINS AND SOURCES. ======================================================================== C. OTHER QUR’ANIC ORIGINS AND SOURCES. 1. The Story of the "Seven Sleepers". In a previous chapter we saw that, apart from the prevalence of Jewish materials in the Qur’an, Muhammad also made use of apocryphal Christian works as well. In this chapter we shall consider a further example of this kind and will then close with a story which appears to be a combination of various New Testament elements. The Qur’an contains a strange tale in Surah 18.9-26 to the effect that a few youths, true believers in God, took refuge in a cave where they fell asleep for a number of years. They accordingly became known as ashabal-kahf - "Companions of the Cave" (Surah 18.9) - and when they awoke, they were amazed to find that they had slept for so long. The story has many parallels in apocryphal Christian works, such as the Acta Sanctorum by the Syriac writer Jacob of Sarug compiled before his death in 521 AD. "The oldest mention of the legend in the east we find made by Dionysius of Tell Mahra in a Syrian work of the fifth century AD; in the west by Theodosius in his book on the Holy Land" (Gibb and Kramers, Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, p. 45). The story has become known as that of the "Seven Sleepers" because it is generally agreed that there were seven of them, though some say eight. The cave was allegedly in Ephesus and the story in these works states that they were Christians fleeing from persecution during the reign of Decius the Emperor who died in 251 AD. It is said that after they had hidden in the cave it was sealed, but that during the reign of Theodosius the Second nearly two hundred years later, the cave was opened and the refugees duly awoke and, when one went through the city, he was astonished to find Christianity triumphant. Then they all met the Emperor at the cave, told him God had presented them as a witness, and duly expired. If this story was in any way founded on Biblical narratives like the myths in the Midrash, it could only be from Matthew 27:52-53. No Christian ever dreamt that the tale was true; but such as the nurse.tells her children of "the cat and the mouse", etc. But the Prophet has entered it with all gravity in the Coran for the instruction of his followers. (Tisdall, The Sources of Islam, p. 48). The story in the Qur’an is clearly yet another of those pre-Islamic fables that found its way into the Qur’an alongside true Biblical narratives. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that the Qur’anic story is extremely limited and uncertain at times. There is no mention of the time or place when it occurred, nor does the Qur’an reveal that the men involved were Christians. Muhammad also did not know their number-- the Qur’an says that some say three, others five, and yet others seven, without giving its own decision on the matter (Surah 18.22) - and he likewise did not know how long it was, saying three hundred years with perhaps an additional nine (Surah 18.25). From the whole style of the passage we perceive that Muhammad had no written document and no reliable informant at hand who could give him exact particulars of the affair. . . . It is clear that to an oral form of the story he was indebted for the particulars given in the Qur’an, and not to Divine revelation, as he claimed to be. (Tisdall, The Original Sources of the Qur’an, p. 146). The ambiguity about the number of sleepers and the years they slumbered, coupled with the omission of vital details in the story, shows that the passage in Surah 28 did not come from al-’Alim, "the All-Knowing" Lord of the Universe, but was simply Muhammad’s own version of it according to the limited knowledge he possessed. 2. The Table Sent Down from Heaven. There is one story in the Qur’an which appears to have been compiled either by Muhammad himself through a misunderstanding of various New Testament narratives, or by Christians of pre-Islamic times whose record of the story has not been preserved. The story begins: Behold! The Disciples said: "O Jesus the son of Mary’ Can thy Lord send down to us a Table set (with viands) from heaven?" Said Jesus: "Fear God, if ye have faith". Surah 5.115 After Jesus had allegedly prayed that such a table might be sent down, God duly furnished one fully prepared from heaven but warned those who sat at it that no further unbelief would be tolerated (Surah 5. 116-118). A very interesting feature in this passage is the word for table - ma’idah - which is derived from a similar Ethiopian word used by the Abyssinian Christians for the "Lord’s Table", that is, the communion sacrament of the Christian Church. It is used only in verses 115 and 117 of this passage and appears nowhere else in the Qur’an. How did this strange story come about? One writer says: "Its origin is no doubt to be found in the Supper which Jesus partook of with his disciples the night before his death" (Tisdall, The Sources of Islam, p. 60). Others suggest another possible source. One says that it is "a confused echo either of the Eucharist or the feeding of the 5000 or an amalgam of both" (Stanton, The Teaching of the Qur’an, p. 44) and another comments: "It has been demonstrated several times that the passage v.112-15 is a confusion of the Gospel story of the feeding of the multitude with that of the Lord supper" (Jeffery, The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur’an, p. 178). There is yet another New Testament story from which elements may have been borrowed, namely Peter’s vision: But what doubtless led to the idea that the Table descended from heaven was the passage in the Acts of the Apostles (x. 9-16). (Tisdall, The Original Sources of the Qur’an, p. 178). It may well be that all these passages influenced the fabrication of the story in one way or another but in our view it is probably only a perversion of the story of the Last Supper and the suggestion in the Qur’an that the table came from heaven does not have its origin in the story of Peter’s vision in Acts but rather these words of the Israelites during the exodus which are remarkably similar to those attributed to Jesus’ disciples in Surah 5.115: They spoke against God, saying, "Can God spread a table in the wilderness?" Psalms 78:19 As we have already seen that the mother of Jesus was confused with Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron in the Qur’an, it is not surprising to find Jesus himself here confounded with Moses to whom the words were originally spoken. Clearly Muhammad obtained much of his material for the Qur’an from Christian sources even though these were obviously secondary and unreliable. Right from the start of his prophetic mission he had discourses with Christians. Even his first wife Khadija had a Christian cousin and we read of him: "Waraqa had been converted to Christianity in the Pre-Islamlc Period and used to write Arabic and write of the Gospel in Arabic as much as Allah wished him to write" (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 452). It is far more probable that much of what he wrote was not the New Testament but mythical records retained in apocryphal Christian works circulating throughout Arabia. Muhammad shows only too often that his materials were identical to those floating around the Arabian Peninsula at his time a coincidence which implies that the Qur’an is not a revelation from God who is omniscient but the composition of a man who was restricted to the limited sources of information available to him. And this implication can lead to only one possible conclusion: Now, if we can trace the teaching of the Coran, or any part of it, to an earthly Source, or to human systems existing previous to the Prophet’s age, then Islam at once falls to the ground. (Tisdall, The Sources of Islam, p. 2). As said already, Muslim writers generally avoid the issue of the sources of the Qur’an in their writings, apparently because the evidences are incontrovertible. One writer laments their attitude and says of the extra-Islamic sources of the Qur’an: All this information and more is quite generally available for those who desire to investigate the sources of the Koran. Serious students know that they are serving the highest religious duty when they acknowledge facts that can be verified. Whenever a previous belief or a doctrine they have accepted conflicts with the facts they have learned, they then make their belief conform to the truth. (Calverley, "Sources of the Koran", The Muslim World, Vol. 22, p. 67). In this case, however, such an acknowledgement of the true facts by the Muslims must result in a denial of their belief in Islam altogether for if the divine origin of the Qur’an is disproved, the whole carpet is pulled out from under Islam. We credit Muhammad with a degree of sincerity by allowing that he did not deliberately or consciously play the part of a forger and that he was subjectively convinced that the manner in which he reproduced his materials took the form of a divine revelation, but an objective study of the mythical Jewish and apocryphal Christian sources of the Qur’an shows convincingly that however sincere he was, he was just so much sincerely wrong. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 56: 04.23. D. ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF THE QUR'AN. ======================================================================== D. ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF THE QUR’AN. 1. The Translations of Alexander Ross and George Sale. In 1649 Alexander Ross published the first English version of the Qur’an under the title The AlCoran of Mahomet. It was not a direct translation from the original Arabic but was done from a French version published a few years earlier. Unfortunately Ross had no knowledge of Arabic and his proficiency in French left much to be desired so that the translation itself is extremely defective and at times misses the sense of the original altogether. Nevertheless it served to introduce the Scripture of Islam to the English-speaking world and for nearly a hundred years was the only translation available. This version today serves chiefly to reveal the attitudes pervading in England in those days towards Islam. Ross introduces his translation with a preface "to the Christian Reader" and in it he says of the Qur’an: Thou shalt finde it of so rude, and incongruous a composure so farced with contradictions, blasphemies, obscene speeches, and ridiculous fables, that some modest, and more rationall Mahometans have thus excused it . . . Such as it is, I present to thee, having taken the pains only to translate it out of French, not doubting, though it hath been a poyson, that hath infected a very great, but most unsound part of the universe, it may prove an Antidote, to confirm in thee the health of Christianity. (Ross, The AlCoran of Mahomet, p. A2, A3). The book ends with a brief biography of Muhammad and closes with a "Caveat" to consider "what use may be made of, or if there be any danger in reading the Alcoran" in which he is at some pains to defend the very fact of an English translation of the holy book of "the Turks" as against the presupposed criticism of those who might think that it was a way of allowing into England the "dismall night of Mahometane darkness" (op. cit., p. Ephesians 3:1-21). Describing the Qur’an elsewhere as a "gallimaufry of errors", he goes on in his caveat to say: If you will take a brief view of the Alcoran, you shall finde it a hodgepodge made up of these four ingredients: 1. Of Contradictions. 2. Of Blasphemie. 3. Of ridiculous Fables. 4. Of Lyes. (Ross, op. cit., p. Ff2). It was only in 1734 that the first genuine translation of the Qur’an into English appeared, though once again the author relied heavily on another work. George Sale published his translation under the simple title The Koran with a subtitle commonly called the Alcoran of Mohammed". As states on the title page, his translation was indeed a direct rendering from the original Arabic, but his interpretation was considerably influenced by a Latin version done by one Marracci. As Ross had done before him, Sale supplemented his translation with additional material. He prefixed his work with a fairly lengthy introduction to Islam entitled The Preliminary Discourse, printed about sixty years ago independently of the translation as a separate book, but usually found included in the earlier editions of his translation. He also complemented his work with "Explanatory Notes taken from the most approved commentators". In 1898 his translation was reprinted in four volumes which contained a greatly enlarged supplement of notes by E.M. Wherry entitled A Comprehensive Commentary on the Qur’an. Unlike the publication by Ross, Sale’s translation and Preliminary Discourse were remarkably precise and have stood the test of time. Incidentally, our examination of these extracts from Sale’s translation and the comparison of them with the Latin translation of Marracci have shown what a very careful and accurate piece of work was done more than two hundred years ago, at a time when students of the Arabic language had practically none of the equipment in the way of dictionaries and grammars which are available in the languages of Europe today. (Shellabear, "Is Sale’s Koran Reliable?", The Muslim World, Vol. 21, p. 142). Nevertheless Sale’s Koran has been vilified by Muslim writers. Some have objected, for example, to his constant interpretation of passages speaking of struggling and fighting in the way of God as meaning physical warfare, an interpretation out of favour with many modern Muslim commentators who seek to soften such passages by suggesting that only spiritual warfare in the soul is meant. This is by no means clear from the texts usually cited, however, and such interpretations only serve to expose the sentiments of those who desire to eliminate a theme considered unacceptable today but one which was regarded as perfectly consistent with true religion at the time of Muhammad. Sale usually put such interpretations in italics in his text, or commented on them in his footnotes, and they were invariably not his own preferred suppositions but simply the interpretations of the earliest commentators, in particular the highly-respected al-Baidawi, as they were recorded in Marracci’s original Latin edition. One writer says of Sale’s translation and interpretations: Sale’s translation is extremely paraphrastic, but the fact that the additional matter in italics is, in nearly every case, added from the commentary of El-Beidhawi, makes it the more valuable to the reader. (Zwemer, "Translations of the Koran", The Muslim World, Vol. 5, p. 251). It seems that the real reason for the widespread Muslim antagonism to Sale’s translation and notes is that they were the first serious assessment of the Qur’an by a Christian author and one which did not attempt to gloss over teachings and dogmas in the book which tend to reflect somewhat poorly on its claim to be of divine origin. Such a thing as a critical or objective analysis of the teaching, sources and ethics of the Qur’an is unknown in the Muslim world to this day. Indeed any Muslim writer with the courage to produce such a study would soon be vehemently denounced as a renegade. It was chiefly because Sale was willing to publish a discourse and translation that set the heritage of Islam in an objective perspective that his translation has been disapproved of by Muslim writers. 2. The First Muslim Translations of the Qur’an. It was not until 1905 that the first Muslim translation of the Qur’an into English appeared and it was only in 1920 that a widely-accepted version was finally published. This was The Holy Qur’an published by Maulvi Muhammad Ali of the moderate Lahore branch of the Ahmadiyya Movement. The translation was published as an interlinear English/Arabic text and was supplemented with copious footnotes explaining the text. It was also introduced with a fairly lengthy preface (90 pages) discussing the teachings and collection of the Qur’an. Although this translation is a fairly accurate rendering of the original Arabic, it often exposes the subjective convictions of its author in passages that appear to be a preferred interpretation rather than an objective translation of the original. The Ahmadiyya Movement denies the general Muslim belief that Jesus was raised alive to heaven without being put on the cross while another was made to look like him and was crucified in his place, and teaches instead that he came down alive from the cross and died many years later in Srinagar in India. The Qur’an has only one verse which refers to the crucifixion and, after denying that the Jews ever crucified Jesus or killed him, it says wa laakin shubbiha lahum (Surah 4.157). This means "But so it was made to appear to them", that is, that it was made to appear to the Jews they had crucified Jesus. Ali avoids this by interpreting the phrase to mean "but (the matter) was made dubious to them". He comments on the whole verse in a footnote: The word does not negative Jesus’ being nailed to the cross, but it negatives his having expired on the cross as a result of being nailed to it . . . The story that some one else was made to resemble Jesus is not borne out by the words of the Qur’an. (Ali, The Holy Qur’an, p. 241, 242). A translation entitled The Meaning of the Glorious Koran by an English convert to Islam, M. M. Pickthall, was published in 1930 and it was followed in 1934 by another done by one Abdullah Yusuf Ali entitled The Holy Qur’an. These two translations have become the most popular editions in English in the Muslim world though both have serious defects. Yusuf Ali’s translation has become the most widely approved translation of the Qur’an among the Muslims and for this reason it is the translation used throughout this book (except where indicated otherwise). This work truly deserves popularity for, although the author was a Shi’ite Muslim, it is a work that breathes out freshness and rarely shows sectarian bias such as is found in many other Muslim translations. Its principal shortcoming (which the reader will probably have noticed already) is that the translation does not flow easily at times and too much use is made of capital letters. The author is at times also too liberal in hls rendering of basic Arabic expressions, eg. "Cherisher and Sustainer" for Rabb (Surah 1.2), a word meaning simply "Lord". Yusuf Ali has based his work on Muhammad Ali’s model. He so supplemented his translation with explanatory notes numbered in sequence but, in this case, the notes are usually homiletic and display his purpose to edify his readers with a spiritual understanding of the text. A Western author comments on the book as a whole: The author is evidently a sincerely religious man, who has endeavoured to apply his religion to the problems of life as he has found them, and tells us where he has found help and inspiration for better and fuller living. The whole spirit of his work is admirable, and makes it a real document of religious worth. As it is a work laid before scholarship it will necessarily have to submit critical examination, but the critic is the first to pay homage to the evident sincerity of the author. (Jeffery, "Yusuf Ali’s Translation of the Qur’an , The Muslim World, Vol. 30, p. 55). He adds a succint observation, however: "His counselling is wise and on a high ethical plane - much higher, some will suspect, than that of the text on which he is commenting" (op. cit., p. 58). Nevertheless, like Muhammad Ali before him, much of his commentary is apologetic and at times polemical and Christian readers will find much to question, especially his use of the Bible in his notes where one cannot help agreeing that "he has not escaped a certain ingenuousness in his use of it" (Jeffery, op. cit., p. 61). That Yusuf Ali’s translation has stood the test of time and is preferred to this day above other versions in the Muslim world is perhaps the best testimony to its general reliability. It is our view, however, that it suffers from many defects, some of which have been pointed out in this book, and cannot be regarded as a classic. 3. A Selection of Later English Translations. During the latter part of the 19th century two further well-known translations were published in England. The first was The Koran by J.M. Rodwell published in 1861 which was the first attempt by any translator to put the surahs into some sort of chronological order. Ultimately this effort has detracted from the value of the books those familiar with the transmitted form of the text or brought up on the Arabic original will have difficulty locating specific passages. This problem is compounded by the author’s decision only to number the tenth consecutive verse of each surah. The translation also suffers from inaccuracies in the use of tenses and particles - but scores in its choice of words to convey the meaning of the original Arabic. It is this writer’s opinion that Rodwell’s translation is one of the best to come from an English author. Apart from its minor grammatical defects it is a fine work and a pleasure to read. The second translation was done in 1880 by E.H. Palmer and was entitled The Qur’an, translated. This version concentrates on rendering as closely as possible the sharp, almost nervous tone of the original Arabic into English. It was the first attempt to produce the spirit of Muhammad’s orations in their original lively form in a translation. Palmer’s version thus became an important contribution to this field. Although Rodwell’s version approaches nearer to the Arabic, Palmer states that in this also "there is too much assumption of the literary style". In his own translation he has attempted to render into English the rude, fierce eloquence of the Bedouin Arabs and has succeeded, I believe, almost to the same degree as Doughty in his "Arabia Deserta". Where rugged or commonplace expressions occur in the Arabic, they are rendered into similar English; sometimes the literal rendering may even shock the reader as it did those who first heard the message. (Zwemer, "Translations of the Koran", The Muslim World, Vol. 5, p. 251). In this century only two translations of note by English authors have appeared. The first was by Richard Bell entitled The Qur’an Translated. It appeared in 1937 and has met, like so many others, with a mixed reception. This translation also makes an attempt at giving some sort of chronological order to the text but, unlike Rodwell’s version, wisely retains the original sequence of the surahs. As pointed out already in this book, most of the surahs, especially the longer ones, are composite chapters of passages from different periods of Muhammad’s ministry. Bell alone has endeavoured to break the surahs up into their constituent parts. He supplemented his work with notes as well but they usually take the form of brief interpretations of specific clauses rather than commentaries on the text such as we find in most Muslim translations. The usual criticism of his work is that the divisions he proposes cannot be proved and in many cases are disputable The author himself was not unaware of this likelihood and comments in his translation: The reconstructions of passages will, no doubt, seem arbitrary, thus presented without the arguments which support them. In some cases the author would be the first to admit uncertainty, but he hopes that examination will disclose a sufficient number of certain results to justify the methods which he has adopted, and that he will be given credit in other cases for having made an honest effort to understand the passage as it stands before resorting to hazardous reconstructions. (Bell, The Qur’an Translated, Vol. 1, p. viii). His work is nevertheless an extremely important contribution to this field and serves as a most useful model of the probable divisions of the original revelations. The translation itself concentrates on textual accuracy and is therefore a valuable reference work. The other renowned translation of recent date is that by A.J. Arberry entitled The Koran Interpreted. The chief feature of this work is the endeavour of its author to make the Qur’an do in English what the original Arabic does so strikingly - and that is to impress its spirit and rhythm on the ear of the hearer. We have already seen that the Qur’an is to be recited as well as read and throughout the centuries the sonorous character of its text has had an almost mesmerising effect on many of those who hear it carefully recited in Arabic. It is this effect that Arberry has attempted to capture in his translation and with a considerable degree of success. Its only drawback is that, like Rodwell’s version, the individual division of verses is not brought out and only the fifth consecutive verse of each surah is numbered. Nevertheless it is almost certainly the best translation of the Qur’an into English available and is recommended to all who seek a version which combines textual accuracy with the spirit and thrust of the original. 4. More Recent Muslim Translations of the Qur’an. Quite a number of new translations have appeared from the Muslim world in recent years. In 1956 N.J. Dawood’s The Koran appeared, significantly first published in England. Like Rodwell’s, the surahs are not placed in their original order but in a supposed chronological form and the verses are not individually numbered. The work has a pleasing literary style but lacks the sharpness of the original. Two further translations appeared in 1971. One was the version of Maulaaa Abdul Majid Daryabadi entitled The Holy Qur’an published in two volumes in Pakistan. He followed Muhammad Ali and Yusuf Ali in adding a substantial commentary to the interlinear English/Arabic text but his work is an interesting contribution in that it is chiefly comparative and quotes extensively from the Bible. The translation itself has become a favourite with many orthodox Indian Muslims and is preferred by them to its two predecessors. Whereas the former works were somewhat interpretive, Daryabadi’s is a strict translation of the Arabic original. A one - volume publication without his commentary has this note: This English Version is a Translation of the Arabic Text not its Paraphrase or Adoptation. (Preface). This translation, however, suffers from serious English grammatical weaknesses. One can give the author a degree of the benefit of the doubt by presuming that in many cases a pleasing style has been sacrificed in the interests of an accurate rendering of the text, but it makes heavy reading for those whose home language is English. This work will remain in the shadows of Yusuf Ali’s popular version but the preference of some of the orthodox school for Daryabadi’s edition gives it a place of importance in this field of study. The other version published in 1971 was a work simply entitled The Qur’an by a follower of the Ahmadiyya Movement Pakistan’s well-known Sir Zafrulla Khan. It begins with a typical introduction of some length. The English text has a literary style common to so many translations which simultaneously lose much of the character of the original. Only Arberry has succeeded in combining both. Zafrulla Khan’s work is, on the whole, a very free interpretation of the text and suffers from a sectarian bias. One can compare his translation of Surah 4.157 with that of Muhammad Ali already quoted. It says of the Jews’ claim that they crucified Jesus: "they slew him not, nor did they compass his death upon the cross, but he was made to appear to them like one crucified to death" (Zafrulla Khan, The Qur’an, p. 96). This is hardly an objective translation or simple rendering of the original passage and is typical of the author’s penchant for reading the preferred dogmas of his sect into the text of the Qur’an. In 1980 a translation by a Jewish convert to Islam, Muhammad Asad, appeared as a complete work entitled The Message of the Qur’an. The author is one of the modern school of Islamic scholars who rationalise much of the teaching of the Qur’an and endeavour to present its teaching in the spirit of 20th century modernism and scepticism about the actual physical reality of alleged supernatural events in history. There has been a strong negative reaction to this translation in much of the Muslim world as it denies miracles cherished by the orthodox, such as the physical ascensions of Jesus and Muhammad to heaven. In traditional Muslim style the translation is produced in an interlinear form with extensive notations. Once again the author’s convictions affect his translation which so often conveys a preferred interpretation rather than an objective exposition of the original text. He holds to the school that teaches that Jesus was not raised to heaven and so translates Surah 4.158: "God exalted him to himself" rather than "God raised him to himself" found in most translations. He adds a footnote which has caused much opposition to his work from orthodox elements: Nowhere in the Qur’an is there any warrant for the popular belief that God has "taken up" Jesus bodily, in his lifetime, into heaven. (Asad, The Message of the Qur’an, p. 135). In 1979 another translation The Koran by Mufassir Mohammad Ahmad was published in London. It carries the strange claim that it is "the first Tafsir in English", presumably meaning that it is the first commentary in English. The work has no notes but the author’s interpretation is liberally written into the text itself which reads something like the Amplified Version of the Bible. Many years ago a student of Islam made an interesting observation in a lecture delivered to students of the Hartford Theological Seminary: Just as in the case of the Old Testament there is no translation at present in existence that can be called even approximately adequate, so in the case of the Qur’an there is no translation that you can trust. That work is still to be done . . . Whichever view you take, the translation of the Qur’an is still to come. (Macdonald, Aspects of Islam, p. 88). The claim about the Old Testament may no longer be true but it is this writer’s conviction that the translation of the Qur’an is yet to be published, even today. There is none that can be called a classic, though the translations of Rodwell and Arberry are excellent individual efforts. It is perhaps this very fact of individuality that explains why there is no translation of the Qur’an to compare with translations of the Bible such as the Revised Standard Version or New American Standard Version. These were done by committees of scholars and the result has been a remarkably consistent and accurate rendering of the original. Every well-known translation of the Qur’an has been the work of an individual and, to one degree or another in every case, the value of the final product is tempered by the presence of the author’s own personal convictions and interpretations. Perhaps in time a select body of Western and Muslim scholars will get together to produce a standard translation of the Qur’an. As long as Muslim suspicions about Western scholars of Islam persist, however, the desired eventuality remains unlikely. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 57: 04.24. THE HADITH: THE TRADITIONS OF ISLAM ======================================================================== The Hadith: The Traditions of Islam ======================================================================== CHAPTER 58: 04.25. A. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SUBJECT OF HADITH. ======================================================================== A. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SUBJECT OF HADITH. 1. Divisions between the Various Types of Traditions. The heritage of Islam, particularly its jurisprudence, has four sources - two founded on historical records going back to the time of Muhammad and two on the development of the science of interpretation in the early centuries of Islam The Qur’an has always been regarded as the primary legal source of Islam but, when it was found necessary to look elsewhere for guidance, the early jurists of Islam turned to the Hadith. Only when both of these failed to provide the authority sought did they resort to ijtihad (interpretation) until they reached ijma (consensus). In the very early days of Islam Muslim authorities tended to rely on their own opinions to establish their interpretation of what a prescribed law should be for any given situation not founded on the Qur’an, a practice known as ra’y. The great jurist ash-Shafi’i, however, preferred to rely solely on traditions from the prophet and thereafter on the method known as qiyas (analogy) where interpretations were to be derived from comparisons with relative subjects dealt with in the Qur’an or the traditions. Once Shafi’i’s school of law was fully established together with the other great schools founded by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Abu Hanifa and Malik, the "door" of ijtihad was closed and it was considered that ijma had been reached on all necessary points of law (though the schools differ in many matters to this day but mostly on minor points of interpretation). Accordingly Islamic jurisprudence has for centuries known no real development and is based fundamentally on the four sources mentioned. In this chapter we are concerned solely with the Hadith the record of Muhammad’s actions, decrees and sayings. These are mostly juristic in content and emphasis, though much material in the larger works of Hadith is purely historical. It is not known when the practice of reducing the traditions of Muhammad’s life to writing began. Muslim writers generally claim that all the genuine Hadith (the word means "a message or a new "communication") were written down by Muhammad s companions either during his lifetime or shortly thereafter, but Western scholars doubt whether any were so recorded and circulated before the Ummayad dynasty was overthrown by the Abbasids more than a century after Muhammad’s death. It was during the reign of the Abbasids that the practice of collecting Hadith really took root and many early Hadith scholars travelled all over the Muslim world to trace the traditions of Muhammad’s sayings and decrees. Unfortunately wholesale fabrication of Hadith during the early days made it difficult for genuine scholars to distinguish the true from the false, but eventually six major collections were recognised as authoritative works of Hadith containing, for the most part, true records. The divisions of Hadith took many forms. Where traditions were reported by a large number of companions, they became known as mutawatir, that is, "continuous", meaning that they were successively reported by many authorities. The Mutawatir are the traditions which have been transmitted throughout the first three generations of the Muslims by such a large number of transmitters as cannot be reasonably expected to agree on a falsehood. (Siddiqi, Hadith Literature, p. 193). Such traditions are "very few in number and hardly ever touch on legal matters" (Juynboll, The Authenticity of the Tradition Literature, p. 11 ). The second coming of Jesus is attested by seventy traditions from different sources and it is a typical non-juristic hadith unanimously recognised. The next form of Hadith are known as mashur. Mashur. - A tradition which in every age has been considered genuine by some learned Doctor. This is the term generally used for traditions which were at first recorded by a few individuals but afterwards became generally known. (Hughes, Notes on Muhammadanism, p. 33). Lastly, traditions transmitted by only one or two transmitters are known as ahad, that is, "isolated", from the Arabic root for "one". These divisions are broken up into many other detailed sub-divisions but all rely either on the number of authorities for the tradition or on the nature of their origin. The latter, for example, are divided into musnad, traditions traced back to Muhammad himself, mauquf, those only going back to his companions, and maqtu, those derived from his Successors. A tradition from a Successor directly traced to Muhammad is known as mursal. Naturally those going back to Muhammad himself are considered more genuine. Another form of dividing the Hadith into degrees of reliability is that which analyses defects in the reporters of traditions or in the textual content of the traditions themselves. Each tradition begins with a list of its chain of reporters, known as its isnad, its "support", and concludes with its content, its matn. There are three classes in this case as well. These three classes are: (i) the Sahih or Genuine; (ii) the Hasan or the Fair; and (iii) the Da’if or the Weak. (Siddiqi, Hadith Literature, p. 192). Once again there are a number of sub-divisions. The sahih and hasan traditions are graded as maqbul (acceptable) while the da’if are treated with reserve. Hadith known to be fabricated are known as mardud (rejected). 2. The Early Sirat Literature and the Musnads. The early records of traditions can also be divided into different categories. We begin with the Sirat literature, as it is known, which consists of early biographies of Muhammad’s life compiled between a hundred and two hundred years after his death. These contain many of the traditions found in the later major works of Hadith but are not true collections as such. They are purely biographical works in which the material is set out in a chronological form. The three major works of Sirat literature are Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasulullah (the "Life of the Messenger of Allah", the earliest and most famous biography), Waqidi’s Kitab al-Maghazi ("Book of the Campaigns"), and Ibn Sa’d’s Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir ("Book of the Major Classes"). It has become fashionable in Muslim circles today to regard these works as inferior to the later Hadith collections. One writer says: No Muslim scholar has ever attached the same value to the biographical reports as to traditions narrated in the above-mentioned collections (i.e., Sahih al-Bukhari etc.). On the other hand, all Muslim critics recognize that the biographers never made much effort to sift truth from error. (All, The Religion of Islam, p. 66). The chief reason for this attitude is really that the Sirat works contain records of Muhammad’s life which are today regarded as unpalatable, for example, Muhammad’s concession to idolatry which was recorded by all three major biographers. It is probable, however, that these works, in their own robust manner, contain a truer picture of Muhammad’s life than the later collections which, in comparison, often betray evidences of refinement to improve the image of Islam’s founder. (We have already cited two traditions from Bukhari, i.e. those relating to Muhammad’s wife Zaynab bint Jahsh and the occasion where all the Meccans bowed with Muhammad after he had recited Surah 53, which are clearly revised editions of the original records which reflected rather poorly on him). Ibn Sa’d was attached to Waqidi himself for some time and became known as Katib al-Waqidi, the "secretary of Waqidi". His biography, like Ibn Ishaq’s, has always been held in high esteem, notwithstanding the negative attitude of many Muslim writers. An author with a more positive approach says: As Prof. Sachau says, Ibn Sa’d has shown in his work impartiality and honesty, thoroughness and minuteness, and objectivity and originality. His impartiality and honesty have been generally acknowledged ... Be it as it may, the Tabaqat of Ibn Sa’d is one of the earliest extant works on Asma al-Rijal, containing biographical notices of most of the important narrators of the most important period in the history of traditions. It is a rich mine of many-sided, valuable information about the early history of Islam. (Siddiqi, Hadith Literature, p. 177, 178). Another early form of tradition literature consists of the Musnad works which can be regarded as the first attempts at a genuine collection of the Hadith. The name applied to these compositions indicates their character. The characteristic of the Musnad, the earliest type of collection, was that hadith, quite irrespective of their contents and subject-matter, were arranged under the name of the Companion on whose authority they were supported (musnad). (Guillaume, The Traditions of Islam, p. 23). The later works were usually arranged into sections where the Hadith were recorded and categorised under topical headings. These earlier works, however, were compiled according to their isnads. All traditions going back to any particular companion were simply listed under his name, irrespective of the subject-matter. The most famous Musnad was that of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, founder of one of the four major schools of law in Islam. It is an exhaustive work with a vast number of traditions. The compiler could not always sift the true from the false, however, and the collection’s chief value today is to serve as a catalogue of the traditions circulating throughout the Muslim world at the time of the rise of the Abbasids. A much larger work, containing 28,000 to 29,000 traditions is attributed to Ahmad b. Hanbal (164-241 / 780-855), one of the four doctors to whom the schools of cannon law are traced back. The work was compiled from his lectures and enlarged by his son. While it contains very many obviously far-fetched traditions, it has commonly been considered an important work. (Robson, "Tradition, the Second Foundation of Islam", The Muslim World, Vol. 41, p. 31). Like the early biographies, one cannot help feeling that there may be many traditions in this work which give a truer perspective of Muhammad’s life, despite the presence of other fabricated hadith, than the more highly-acclaimed later collections of Hadith. During the period of the Ummayad dynasty many traditions were fabricated to favour the caliphs from the descendants of Umayya, but when the descendants of Abbas, Muhammad’s uncle, overthrew the dynasty, it soon became fashionable and, indeed, expedient to quash these traditions and compose fresh ones favouring the Abbasid dynasty instead. Ibn Hanbal was an exception to this rule. The Musnad is marked by a fearless indifference to the susceptibilities of the Abbasids. Whereas the two great works of Bukhari and Muslim may be searched in vain for any generous recognition of the merits of the Ummayads, Ahmad, who forsooth had little to thank their successors for, preserves many of the traditions extolling the glories of the Banu Ummaya which must at one time have been current in Syria. (Guillaume, The Traditions of Islam, p. 24). As a result Ibn Hanbal suffered greatly under the Abbasid caliphs al-Ma’mun and his brother and successor al-Mu’tasim. He was treated in a most cruel way, not only for his fearlessness in recording unpalatable hadith, but for many other reasons as well. But from the Mo’tazili creed no divergence was tolerated; to it every Muslim must conform. Two dogmas were especially dear to the Caliph, namely, that the Kor’an was not eternal, and that by the disembodied eye in the future life, the Deity could not be seen. The severest pains and penalties, even to the death, awaited those who dared to differ. Bagdad was much disquieted by the intolerant rigour of the Caliph and his doctors; the famous Ibn Hanbal was again arrested, and being firm in the faith, was pitilessly scourged, and cast scarred and senseless into prison. (Muir, The Caliphate: Its Rise, Decline and Fall, p. 512). 3. The Distinction between the Hadith and the Sunnah. One often comes across the terms Hadith and Sunnah in the context of the record and example of Muhammad’s teachings, conduct and behaviour. At face value one can distinguish between the two and say that the Hadith are the written records, transmitted by a chain of authorities, of the sayings and actions of Muhammad, whereas the Sunnah is the actual form of behaviour or code of conduct of the prophet which has become the prescribed norm for the universal Muslim community. Moslem tradition is, however, a term which in Arabic is expressed not by one but by two words, hadith and sunna. The former denotes a communication or a tale, in our case the oral or scribal translation of the sayings or actions mentioned; the latter means "use" and "tradition", in our case the exemplar way in which Mohammed used to act and to speak. So hadith is the external, sunna the internal side of tradition; hadith is the form, sunna the matter. (Wensinck, "The Importance of Tradition for the Study of Islam", The Muslim World, Vol. 11, p. 239). Another writer sums it up very succinctly: "Tradition, as a matter of record, is called Hadith; as a matter of obligation it is called Sunnah" (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 98). In the early days of Islam, however, there was a far greater distinction between the two. During the reigns of the four immediate successors of Muhammad known as the "rightly-guided caliphs" Islam spread rapidly. For a long time there were no prescribed laws for the whole Muslim community and where a general code of legal maxims took root, these became the Sunnah, the "example" or, more properly, the norm for the community. In those days there was no need for the laws of Islam to be based directly on any prescribed, recorded practice of Muhammad. The terms sunna and hadith must be kept distinct from one another ... The difference which has to be kept in mind is this: hadith means, as has been shown, an oral communication derived from the Prophet, whereas sunna, in the usage prevailing in the old Muslim community, refers to a religious or legal point, without regard to whether or not there exists an oral tradition for it. (Goldziher, Muslim Studies, Vol. 2, p. 24). It was only during the days of the great Muslim jurist ash-Shafi’i, and as a result of his influence and leadership in this field, that the Hadith became the standard of all Muslim jurisprudence and the only true Sunnah, therefore, was the Sunnah of the Prophet as it was recorded in the transmitted traditions. Shafi’i decreed that no legal precept was binding unless it was founded on a tradition. If there was no tradition, the correct maxim was to be determined by the process of analogy (qiyas) with other traditions which contained material relative to or comparative with the matter at hand. For Shafi’i, the sunna is established only by traditions going back to the Prophet, not by practice or consensus (Tr. III, 148, p. 249). Apart from a few traces of the old idea of sunna in his earlier writings, Shafi’i recognizes the ’sunna of the Prophet’ only in so far as it is expressed in traditions going back to him. This is the idea of sunna which we find in the classical theory of Muhammadan law, and Shafi’i must be considered as its originator there. (Schacht, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, p. 77). As Schacht goes on to point out, while the terms Sunnah and Hadith are not really synonymous, Shafi’i’s practice of making the Sunnah dependent exclusively on the traditions led him, and with him the Muslim world to this day, "to identify both terms more or less completely" (Schacht, op. cit., p. 77). Some modern Muslim scholars would like to dispose of the Hadith altogether as an unreliable, outdated and inflexible rule of conduct, in favour of the Qur’an alone which, being the alleged Word of God, must contain all that is necessary for life and conduct and be relevant to every age. Yet it was precisely the limitation of the Qur’an in this respect that led to the rise of the Hadith as the major source of Muslim law and practice. The fact that the Sunnah of Muhammad has become so completely identified with the Hadith makes it impossible that the Hadith can be dismissed without the whole foundation of Islam being simultaneously fractured. Modern Islam yearns for creativity and in the interests of the new progress certain groups have arisen which, if their utterances are taken at their face value, wish to reject all Hadith and rely on the Qur’an. But in these groups there is hardly any awareness of the issues that are at stake ... But now the only tradition is the verbal one, since the living Sunna, in so far as it is there, now derives its validity from the Hadith through which lies the only avenue of our contact with the Prophet and fundamentally also with the Qur’an as it was delivered to and understood by the Community. For, if the Hadith as a whole is cast away, the basis for the historicity of the Qur’an is removed with one stroke. (Rahman, Islam, p. 66). The author goes on to comment: "For the Qur’an did not come in a vacuum. Hence the well-known paradox that even the thoroughgoing sceptics about the Hadith cannot resist supporting their views by it whenever it suits them" (Rahman, op. cit., p. 67). The Hadith, whether genuine or not, have become the real foundation of the ethics, laws and practices of Islam. There is no Sunnah now but that which is derived from the recorded traditions. While the Qur’an remains the Scripture of Islam, the Hadith have become the major source of its jurisprudence. 4. The Isnad - The Early Test of Authenticity. We have already mentioned the two major features of each tradition, its isnad and matn. Although one would think that the sensibility, historical veracity or material probability of the contents of each tradition would have been critically analysed to determine whether it was likely to be authentic or not, this has not been the case. The collectors of Hadith made very little effort to examine the internal evidences and generally confined themselves to an external test, that is, the reliability of the silsilat al-asanid, the "chain of supporting points", of each tradition. Thus the genuineness of each Hadith was determined by the identities of the personalities who were alleged to be its transmitters. For the verification of a tradition depended not primarily on the substance or matn but on the isnad or chain of attestation. The question was not so much: Could the Prophet have said this? Is it reasonable and in character? but rather: Who said that he said this? (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 99). Thus the isnad became the pivotal point on which the authority of all traditions was to be tested. The test to be applied was purely whether the chain for each tradition was founded on a sequence of approved transmitters. If the isnad to which an impossible sentence full of inner and outer contradictions is appended withstands the scrutiny of this formal criticism, if the continuity of the entirely trustworthy authors cited in them is complete and if the possibility of their personal communication is established, the tradition is accepted as worthy of credit. Nobody is allowed to say: ’because the matn contains a logical or historical absurdity I doubt the correctness of the isnad’. (Goldziher, Muslim Studies, Vol. 2, p. 140). Generally speaking one can say that isnad criticism was the only method, practiced by the traditionists, for sifting the genuine traditions from the spurious. The matn was almost never questioned; only if the content of a tradition with a sound isnad was in flagrant contradiction to the Qur’an, it was rejected; if the content could in any way be interpreted so that it harmonized with the Qur’an and other traditions, it was left uncriticized. In all cases harmonization (gam) was preferred to abrogation or rejection. (Juynboll, The Authenticity of the Tradition Literature, p. 139). To give an example of a typical isnad, a tradition regarded as sound might begin with the following chain of transmitters: "Affan ibn Muslim informed us that Hammad ibn Urwah related on the authority of Urwah that he received from Ayishah that the Apostle of Allah said..." and thereafter the content, the matn, would follow. It does seem, however, that the science of isnad-verification may only have developed sometime after the collection of Hadith had begun for one of the earliest records of Hadith does not contain complete isnads for each tradition. Malik, in his Muwatta, does not always trouble to give a complete isnad, which would suggest that by his time the method had not hardened into a strict system. (Robson, "Tradition, the Second Foundation of Islam", The Muslim World, Vol. 41, p. 27). Just as the Hadith has become the ultimate arbiter of the Sunnah, so the isnad-system has become the foundation on which the veracity of the traditions has been tested. While neither may be foolproof or even generally reliable, they have become the major source of Islamic law and practice. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 59: 04.26. B. THE MAJOR WORKS OF HADITH LITERATURE. ======================================================================== B. THE MAJOR WORKS OF HADITH LITERATURE. 1. The Six Accredited Collections and the Muwatta. After numerous collections of Hadith had been made during the third century of Islam six works became recognised as authoritative. Two of them are believed to be completely authentic, namely the Sahih al-Bukhari and the Sahih Muslim. The other four are also highly esteemed but it is allowed by the Muslims that some of the Hadith in them are suspect and may not be genuine. We shall outline these works in more detail shortly but a general reference to them will serve to show what status they enjoy in this field today. The following outline summarises the general Muslim attitude towards these six major works: It does not mean that all the ahadith recorded in these six books are authentic, it means that majority of them are authentic, with exception of the Sahih of Bukhari and that of Muslim in which all are. (Azami, Studies in Hadith Methodology and Literature, p. 105). The importance of these six major collections for the heritage of Islam can hardly be overestimated. They have become highly regarded throughout the Muslim world and are second only to the Qur’an itself as sources of authority for the laws and customs of Islam. The veneration of Muslims extends, in addition to the two Sahihs, also to the above-mentioned four Sunan books. Under the name al-kutub al-sitta, ’the six books’, they comprise the canonical hadith literature and as such form the main sources for traditional law. (Goldziber, Muslim Studies, Vol.2, p.237). There is another work, however, which should be mentioned in this context and that is the Muwatta of Imam Malik. It is a group of traditions of chiefly legal import put together by the founder of one of the four major schools of law in Islam. Because it is chiefly a corpus juris rather than a corpus traditionum, a collection of legal traditions rather than a general historical work, a veritable Hadith al-Akham (body of juristic hadith assembled as a foundation for the fiqh, the jurisprudence of Islam), it has not been as highly regarded as the two Sahihs. Its contents are also largely repeated in them and it has therefore been overlooked and is not included with the six major works. The Muwatta may be treated as a good collection of Ahadith in the sense of the legal traditions. Some Muslim authorities like ’Izz al-Din Ibn al-Athir, Ibn ’Abd al-Barr and ’Abd al-Haq of Delhi include it instead of the Sunan of Ibn Maja in the six canonical collections. Of course the majority of them do not count it as one of the six books because almost all the important traditions contained in it are included in the Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim. (Siddiqi, Hadith Literature, p.13). Furthermore this great jurist of Islam, the Imam Malik did not adopt the same dogmatic approach that his colleague Shafi’i took towards the Sunnah, declaring that the only true sunnah was found in the Hadith and not in the ijma of Muslim scholars, no matter how unanimous it might be, when it could not produce relevant traditions to support it. A Western writer comment’s on Malik’s Muwatta: Its intention is not to sift and collect the ’healthy’ elements of traditions circulating in the Islamic world but to illustrate the law, ritual and religious practice by the ijma recognised in Medinian Islam, by the sunna current in Medina, and to create a theoretical corrective, from the point of view of ijma and sunna, for things still in a state of flux. Inasmuch as the book has anything in common with a collection of traditions it lies in the sunna rather than the hadith. (Goldziher, Muslim Studies, Vol.2, p.198). He adds: "Consideration of the Medinian ijma was so much the predominating point of view for Malik that he does not even hesitate to give it preference when it is in conflict to traditions incorporated as correct in his corpus" (p.199). For Malik the value of the tradition literature lay not in supplying a foundation for the laws of Islam but rather in illustrating the application of the legal maxims obtained through the ijma of the scholars of Islam. To Shafi’i each tradition was a ratio decidendi, the root and foundation on which any question of law was to be based or decided. To Malik the illustrative use of each tradition counted more than anything else. For him each tradition took the form of an obiter dictum, a passing reference which could help to elucidate a legal principle rather than become the authority on which such principles were to be based. Nonetheless, as his Muwatta is one of the earliest collections of traditions and as most of them were approved by Bukhari and Muslim, his work has an important place in the field of Hadith literature studies even to this day. 2. The Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim. Of all the works of Hadith the Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are regarded as the most authentic and authoritative. Indeed the very word sahih means "accredited". Of these two the collection of Abu Abdallah Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Bukhari has pride of place as the most highly regarded work of Hadith literature. He devoted more than one-fourth of his life to the actual compilation of his work, and at the end produced his epoch-making book which is accepted by most of the traditionists as the most authentic work in Hadith literature, and which is considered by the Muslims in general as an authority next only to the Qur’an. (Siddiqi, Hadith Literature, p.89). Bukhari’s complete collection was only recently translated into English for the first time by one Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan of the Islamic University at Medina. His most welcome contribution has increased the English-speaking student’s access to the historical records of Islam. The whole collection has been published in an interlinear Arabic-English form in nine volumes. Although Bukhari’s work is chiefly a general compilation of all known traditions of Muhammad’s life considered to be authentic (it contains 7275 individual hadith, many of which are duplications, selected out of 600,000 allegedly known to him), he also concentrated in many cases on the juristic side of the tradition literature, except that in his case he grouped the traditions under various headings dealing with specific points of Islamic law. In his time the schools of law had been generally established and his objective was to catalogue the traditions he regarded as authentic in relation to their respective topics of jurisprudence. The final work significantly has many headings unsupported by any hadith. He either could not obtain the relevant hadith for these points or, more likely, he sought to demonstrate that there were no known traditions relating to them which he considered authentic. He clearly chose his headings first and thereafter grouped the various traditions under them. It was therefore justly said ... the fiqh of Bukhari is in his paragraph headings. This tendency of the book also explains the fact that B. occasionally gives paragraph headings without being able to provide an appropriate hadith. (Goldziher, Muslim Studies, Vol.2, p.217). The other great collector, Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, also sought not so much to complement the issues at stake in the fiqh, the lslamic jurisprudence, but rather to produce a collection of sound traditions, an authentic record, on which future studies of Hadith could be based. We may therefore deduce that Muslim was not primarily concerned with the practical application of his collection in a particular direction but intended, as he says in his preface, to purify the existing hadith material of all dross: the unreliable and untrustworthy elements which had attached themselves to this material in the course of time. (Goldziher, Muslim Studies, Vol.2, p.227). Like Bukhari he sought chiefly to provide a reference work for authoritative decisions of Muhammad rather than a direct statutory foundation. The legal emphasis and objective of these works nevertheless resulted in each one being considered one of the Musannaf, the collections in which the traditions were grouped under specific topical headings (as opposed to the Musnad works which concentrated on grouping them under their isnads going back to their earliest transmitters). Muslim records most of the hadith found in Bukhari’s collection but, whereas the former placed parallel versions of the same tradition under various headings relating to various points of law, Muslim put them all together under their own topical headings. The former made the traditions fit his subject-titles, the latter made his subject-headings fit the subject-matter of the traditions. The principal difference is the absence of the paragraph headings characteristic of Bukhari. Muslim’s work is arranged according to Fiqh, but he does not follow his plan so scrupulously: thus, while Bukhari often arranges the same tradition with a different isnad under different paragraphs when it is suitable to support more than one point of law and custom, Muslim places the parallel versions together. (Guillaume, The Traditions of Islam, p.31). While Bukhari’s compilation is considered the more reliable of the two, Muslim’s arrangement of his material has been recognised as superior, and rightly so. While Bukhari made the traditions in his collection testify to his own schedule of various points of law, Muslim left them to speak for themselves. His work has also recently been translated for the first time into English in a four-volume edition. 3. The Sunan Works of Abu Dawud and Others. The remaining four works are called sunan (the word has the meaning "path" or "way") because they concentrate on the example of Muhammad’s actions and decrees insofar as these provide the ultimate foundation of all Islamic law. The work recognised as the best of these collections is the Sunan of Abu Dawud which contains many of the hadith in the two Sahihs but which also includes traditions not found there. He likewise was a scrupulous collector and although some of his traditions are regarded as weak and suspect, he was aware of the problem and was careful to distinguish between sound and weak hadith in his work. Abu Dawud did his best to deal faithfully with the material at his disposal. Unlike al-Bukhari and Muslim, he includes material which is not very reliable, or even considered actually unsound, but he does not fall to draw attention to it. (Robson, "The Material of Tradition", The Muslim World, Vol.41, p.168). His work has also very recently been published in English (so, incidentally, has the Muwatta of Imam Malik. One can only commend and sincerely appreciate the efforts of Muslim scholars to make the great works of Hadith accessible to the English-speaking world at this time. Hopefully the remaining three Sunan works, which can very easily be published in a few volumes like the other three, will also soon be available in English). Two collections very similar to Abu Dawud’s are the Sunan works of at-Tirmithi and an-Nasai. The former is called a Jami ("collection") because it covers not only legal traditions but also, like Bukhari and Muslim, historical and other hadith as well. Nevertheless Tirmithi confined himself to traditions on which the principles of Islamic law had already been based and did not venture to record such as might lead to new interpretations. His collection is therefore primarily a reference work as well. The Sunan of an-Nasai is more comprehensive than the former two insofar as he deals with the legal material available to him. Unlike Tirmithi he did not limit himself to recording individual hadith as a resource work for issues concerning the jurists of his day but sought to catalogue all the variant editions of each hadith known to him as Muslim had done before him. His work accordingly has a place of its own in the heritage of the tradition literature. Al-Nasai’s main object was only to establish the texts of traditions and the differences between their various versions - almost all of which he quotes in extenso, instead of only referring to them as Abu Da’ud and al-Tirmidhi had done. (Siddiqi, Hadith Literature, p.113). The last work, the Sunan of Ibn Maja, is regarded as the weakest of all the six major works of Hadith literature and some traditionists prefer the Sunan of ad-Darimi to it. Nonetheless, although a great many authorities have openly declared some of the traditions found in this collection to be forged, it has established itself among the approved works. The other scholars, such as Abu Dawud and Tirmidhi also recorded weak ahadith, but they mostly noted them in their book, but Ibn Maja, even when he recorded a false hadith, went on silently. Therefore a lot of discussion has gone on among scholars about this book to the effect that some other books deserve to be mentioned in Six Principle works instead of that by Ibn Maja. (Azami, Studies in Hadith Methodology and Literature, p. 106). Doubts were maintained longest about Ibn Maja because of the many weak (da’if) traditions which he incorporated into his corpus traditionum. (Goldziher, Muslim Studies, Vol.2, p.240). In the eighth century after Muhammad’s death a fine combination of the major hadith found in all six works, the two Sahihs and the four Sunans, was put together by one Shaikh Wali ud-Din and entitled Mishkat ul-Masabih, the "niche of lights . Various editions of this collection have appeared in English and it serves as a most useful guide to practically all the truly relevant hadith preserved in the kutub as-sitta the "six books", though most of the traditions recorded in it are purely juristic. It therefore serves as the Islamic equivalent of the Rabbinical Mishnah in Talmudic Judaism. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 60: 04.27. C. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE TRADITIONS. ======================================================================== C. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE TRADITIONS. 1. Criticism of the Hadith Literature in the West. Up to this stage our study of the Hadith and comments made pertaining to the authenticity of the traditions have followed the general Muslim attitude. Western scholars have, however taken a far more sceptical approach to the subject in the last century. The whole body of Hadith literature has been called into question and it has been suggested that none of the traditions surviving can be accepted as genuine at face value. Conclusions of some of the more prominent writers to this effect read as follows: In fine, we may from all that has been said, conclude that tradition cannot be received with too much caution, or exposed to too rigorous a criticism; and that no important statement should be accepted as securely proved by tradition alone, unless there be some farther ground of probability, analogy, or collateral evidence in its favour. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p. lx). Every legal tradition from the Prophet, until the contrary is proved, must be taken not as an authentic or essentially authentic, even if slightly obscured, statement valid for his time or the time of the Companions, but as the fictitious expression of a legal doctrine formulated at a later date. (Schacht, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, p. 149). There seems to be little doubt that practically the whole body of tradition was spurious. (Robson, "Tradition: Investigation and Classification", The Muslim World, Vol 1.41, p. 101). Extensive studies into the legal character of most of the traditions have led Western scholars to the opinion that, as the laws of the widespread Muslim community developed, so traditions were forged to provide an authority for them allegedly stretching back to the time of Muhammad himself. After all, if the law was based on the decree of the founder of Islam, it could hardly be queried or rejected. For some writers the fabrication of the whole tradition literature has become such a fait accompli that every tradition is automatically treated as the product, and not the source, of the early development of Islamic law. Efforts are therefore made to place the origin of each hadith within the growing framework of Islamic law in those early days. Traditions from Companions are as little genuine as traditions from the Prophet, and must be subjected to the same scrutiny in order to ascertain their place in the development of legal doctrine. (Schacht, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, p. 150). Even Muslim scholars of Hadith freely admit that wholesale fabrication took place but argue that the major works of Hadith literature contain, on the whole, genuine traditions only and that the forgeries have largely been eliminated. Consensus has, at any rate, been reached on the following points: that many traditions were fabricated to uphold the Ummayad and Abbasid dynasties respectively, that early schools of law created traditions to support their specific points of view, and that opposing schools fabricated similar hadith to counter these. So widespread was hadith fabrication that a tradition was even invented to the effect that Muhammad anticipated the forgery of sayings attributed to him and declared that whoever alleged that he had said anything other than what he did say would be cast into hell. This must surely rank as one of the most remarkable of pious frauds! Others produced a less exclusive but nonetheless equally preemptive assessment of the practice of hadith fabrication to follow after Muhammad’s death in the following saying which has been attributed to him: "After my death sayings attributed to me will multiply just as a large number of sayings are attributed to the prophets who were before me. What is told you as a saying of mine you must compare with the Quran. What is in agreement therewith is from me whether I have actually said it or not". (Guillaume, The Traditions of Istam, p. 53). In the West, however, the prevailing distrust of the authenticity of the whole body of tradition literature has led to the general conclusion that the Hadith represent what Islam became during its development and not what it was during the formative period of Muhammad’s life and the early Caliphate. The result is that the sum of tradition represents the history of the first two centuries of Islam. (Tritton, Islam, p. 32). In the first place it has become ever more evident that the thousands of traditions about Mohammed, which, together with the Qoran, form the foundation upon which the doctrine and life of the community are based, are for the most part the conventional expression of all the opinions which prevailed among his followers during the first three centuries after the Hijrah. (Hurgronje, Mohammedanism, p. 20) As we investigate the sources of the traditions, we find that we know less about Mohammed; but we learn more about the history of Islam. (Margoliouth, "On Moslem Tradition" The Muslim World, Vol. 2, p. 121). During the middle of the last century Sir William Muir first expressed the form of scepticism which has become the norm in Western studies of the Hadith to this day and his brief study was followed up with a thorough criticism by the great Hungarian scholar Ignaz Goldziher. The latter’s thesis has become the foundation upon which all succeeding studies have been based and is found in the second volume of his Muhammedanische Studien first published in 1889 (the work quoted in this book is an English translation of his book). His most prominent successor says of his study that he "has not only voiced his ’sceptical reserve’ with regard to the traditions contained even in the classical collections, but shown positively that the great majority of traditions from the Prophet are documents not of the time to which they claim to belong, but of the successive stages of development of doctrines during the first centuries of Islam" (Schacht, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, p. 4). Even though Islamic orthodoxy has accepted almost without question the formulation of the Hadith literature in the early days (i.e. that the six major works are generally authentic, especially the two Sahihs, and that the other early collections contain many genuine traditions), Muslim scholars tended to appreciate the Western interest in this subject in the beginning. The pessimistic conclusions of the major scholars has, however, naturally made them unwilling in recent times to sustain this appreciation and, while the works of these scholars have been treated on the whole with respect, their Muslim counterparts have fallen back on the exact conclusions, based almost exclusively on the isnad-system, reached during the days of Bukhari and Muslim. Islam, rightly or wrongly, is strongly resistant to critical analyses of its heritage and finds its security in the unanimity of opinion maintained over successive centuries of its history. It fears that such an approach to its received records of Muhammad’s life might lead to an undermining of its whole legacy. Islamic orthodoxy has rigidly kept to the tenets concerning tradition once they were formulated. On the other hand, Western scholars who did research into the hadith came to entirely different conclusions, as was seen above. Their ideas about the hadith are objectionable to orthodox Muslim scholars, so that they tend no longer to recognize the achievements of Orientalists in other fields, which formerly they appreciated. (Juynboll, The Authenticity of the Tradition Literature, p. 9). 2. Modern Muslim Attitudes to the Hadith Literature. Among the orthodox the unquestioned authenticity of the two Sahihs, the general reliability of the four Sunan works, and the value of the Sirat literature and other Hadith works, remains unchallenged to this day. In some circles, however, there are more broadly-minded Muslim scholars who are willing to approach this subject from a more objective, analytical point of view and even the hitherto almost sacred works of Hadith have been tested and, at times, found wanting. One such scholar says: Despite the great care and precision of the Hadith scholars, much of what they regarded as true was later proved to be spurious. In his commentary on the collection of Muslim, al Nawawi wrote: "A number of scholars discovered many hadiths in the collections of Muslim and Bukhari which do not fulfill the conditions of verification assumed by these men". (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, p. lxxxii). It seems probable that the truth is somewhere between the two extreme opinions thus far considered. It is highly unlikely that the whole body of Hadith literature may be forged as is often advocated in Western writings. Can one sincerely believe that the early Muslims exercised extreme care in faithfully preserving the Qur’an, the book given to them by Muhammad, but that they at the same time neglected the record of his other sayings and cared nothing for a universal forgery of utterances in their place? Is it likely that the whole heritage of their prophet’s life, words and deeds, was lost and that a forged picture filled the vacuum? Surely much of the record that survives must contain elements of the truth. Can we honestly attribute to Islam what the Muslims vainly attribute to Christianity - that the religion of its founder has been so developed that it is no longer a faithful reproduction of its original state? On the other hand only traditional Muslim orthodoxy can sustain the claim that the six major works are totally authentic. No genuinely objective study can support this fancy. Western studies have shown that numerous hadith in these collections could not have been derived from Muhammad’s embryonic Muslim community at Medina but only from a strongly developed jurisprudence dating many generations after his death. Many other traditions, such as those marvellously embellishing the story of Muhammad’s night-journey vision, transforming it into an ascent through the heavens to the throne of Allah, have been proved to be dependent on Zoroastrian and other works discovered by the Muslims only after their campaigns many years after Muhammad’s death. One of the best modern scholars of Islam perhaps advocates the most appropriate approach to this subject when he says of the Hadith literature: "A healthy caution rather than outright scepticism is likely to lead to reliable and constructive results" (Rahman, Islam, p. 49). Many Western scholars have also recognised that much of the tradition literature must be genuine: But Tradition must contain a core of information coming from Companions, however difficult it is now to decide what may be genuine and what may not. (Robson, "Tradition: The Second Foundation of Islam", The Muslim World, Vol. 41, p. 25). This is not, of course, to assert that the hadith literature is destitute of any historical foundation: such a conclusion would be unwarranted. But the undoubted historical facts do demand that each individual hadith should be judged on its merits. (Guillaume, The Traditions of Islam, p. 29). The test suggested in this last quote is perhaps the best that can be applied. No general opinion of the considerably varied nature of the traditions can be offered with any certainty. Each hadith must be analysed in the light of its content, likely origins, teaching, consistency, and legal context. While we may openly question whether the isnad-system can validly serve as an infallible proof of the reliability of the traditions, it does not seem justifiable to place a question-mark over the whole heritage of Hadith literature as Western scholars have done. One needs to examine each tradition carefully to determine whether it is likely to be genuine and an example of how such a test can effectively be applied follows in the next section. 3. Selected Means of Testing the Hadith Literature. There are, as has been indicated already, a number of ways of testing the various traditions and many of them yield evidences which show that they were compiled generations after Muhammad’s death. In this section we shall consider a few examples. During the reign of the Ummayad caliph Yazid, grandson of Muhammad’s archenemy Abu Sufyan, Abdallah ibn az-Zubair, a close companion of Muhammad’s grandson Husain, revolted against the caliph and made himself ruler of Mecca and then Medina. By the time Abd al-Malik became caliph in Damascus about fifty years after the death of Muhammad, Ibn az-Zubair had such control over Arabia that the Ummayad caliph was not able to perform the pilgrimage to Mecca. Accordingly he built the Dome of the Rock between 685 and 691 AD in Jerusalem over the site of Muhammad’s alleged ascent to heaven as an alternative place of pilgrimage. (The building is designed in an octagonal form and the interior has a clear circle around the rock for circumambulation by pilgrims in imitation of the rituals around the Ka’aba). A year later, however, Abd al-Malik sent an army under al-Hajjaj, the scourge of the Iraqi Muslims, to besiege Mecca and overthrow Ibn az-Zubair which duly ended the revolt. (The usurper was killed in the fighting). In the light of such historical developments one reads the following tradition with much interest: Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported it directly from Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) that he said: Do not undertake journey but to three mosques: this mosque of mine, the Mosque of Al-Haram and the Mosque of Aqsa (Bait al-Maqdis). (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p. 699). The mosques referred to are those in Medina, Mecca and Jerusalem in that order. It is extremely doubtful whether Muhammad made this statement as no Muslim ever made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem during his lifetime and it was only during the caliphate of Umar that Jerusalem was conquered. No mosque stood in the city until Umar built a small edifice which has grown into what the Masjidul-Aqsa is today. During Muhammad’s lifetime only the Ka’aba was a place of special importance to the Muslims. His own crude structure in Medina likewise held no fascinations as such for Muslim pilgrims and it was only after his death, when he was buried within its precincts, that it became a sanctuary for pilgrims to the Hijaz. In another tradition, however, we read: Abu Hurairah reported: The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) said that one prayer said in my mosque is better than a thousand prayers said in other mosques except the Masjid al-Harem (Mecca). (Muwatta Imam Malik, p.93). It is also hard to believe that this tradition is genuine for much the same reason, yet one cannot help noticing a distinction between them. In this latter hadith no mention is made of the mosque in Jerusalem - only those in Mecca and Medina are elevated above all others. It is probable that the first tradition was invented by supporters of the Ummayads at about the same time that the Dome of the Rock was built to give it equal status with the mosques of Mecca and Medina. The second tradition, however, was probably invented by the dissenters in Medina to counter it. A similar tradition bears out this probability all the more: Abu Sa’id Khudri reported: The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Between my house and my pulpit is a garden from out of the gardens of Paradise and my pulpit is above my Fountain. (Muwatta Imam Malik, p. 93). A portion of the great mosque in Medina, with a few bushes and trees, has always been sealed off accordingly as a visible part of the "gardens of Paradise". The point of significance in this tradition, however, is the mention of Muhammad’s pulpit as part of the hallowed garden. During the reign of Mu’awiya, Abu Sufyan’s son, an attempt was made to take this pulpit to Damascus. In the 50th year of Hijra, Mu’awiya entertained the project of removing the pulpit and staff of the Prophet from Medina to Damascus, now the capital of Islam . . . Mu’awiya was dissuaded from his design by the consideration urged upon him, that where the Prophet had placed his pulpit and his staff, there they should remain. (Muir, The Caliphate: Its Rise, Decline and Fall, p. 298). The tradition was almost certainly invented post evento by the inhabitants of Medina to prevent any further efforts to remove the pulpit from their city. One cannot help seeing the marks of fabrication in these traditions, anticipating as they do later developments in Islam. One writer says of the tradition making Jerusalem as much a place of pilgrimage for Muslims as Mecca and Medina: Abdul-Malik hit upon the expedient of enjoining a pilgrimage to the mosque he built in Jerusalem instead of the orthodox journey to Mecca and Medina. All that was necessary was to declare that a circumambulation of the holy place at Jerusalem possessed the same validity as that enjoined at Mecca, and to procure for his assertion a confirmatory hadith with an isnad going back to the prophet himself. (Guillaume, The Traditions of Islam, p. 47). An Egyptian Muslim scholar, on the other hand, has questioned whether this tradition really was fabricated to support Abd al-Malik’s objectives in the light of the fact that it does not speak specifically of his structure al- qubbatassakhrah, the Dome of the Rock, but rather masjidul-aqsa: And suppose Zuhri did invent this tradition, Sibai continues, why did he not put qubbat as-sakhra instead of the Aqsa mosque? Mentioning the second only creates confusion in a situation in which the attention is especially drawn to the first. (Juynboll, The Authenticity of the Tradition Literature, p. 111 ) . Traditions, however, were never fabricated in such a way that they blatantly promoted the objects of their inventors for the forgery would then be all too apparent. The purpose was always veiled within the tradition which had to be interpreted to give the meaning in view. Furthermore as the Qur’an itself speaks of Muhammad’s journey from Mecca to Jerusalem as being from masjidul-haram to masjidul-aqsa (Surah 17.1), it is to be expected that the creator of the relevant hadith would seek to strengthen the influence of his tradition by using the same terms as are found in the Qur’an. Of course no masjidul-aqsa whatsoever existed at the time of Muhammad, but we have seen that he himself was led to believe otherwise and it is not surprising therefore to find later traditions claiming that he advocated pilgrimages to the site. These are just a few examples of traditions that can be shown by analysis to be forged some time after Muhammad’s death. Whole books could be written on the subject, but these items will have to suffice as illustrations of the point. 4. The Reported Traditions of Abu Hurairah. One can hardly consider the question of the authenticity of the Hadith literature without reference to Muhammad’s companion Abu Hurairah for, on the one hand, he is the greatest reporter of traditions, having handed down well over five thousand - more than double the number recorded by any other companion. On the other hand, he has been exposed to criticism throughout the ages, especially within the Islamic heritage. In this case the accusation has generally been that Abu Hurairah himself has been the forger of the hadith attributed to him, as opposed to the usual conviction that the traditions were composed many years later and fathered on various companions. Abu Hurairah only became a Muslim about three years before Muhammad’s death and the early Muslims wondered how someone who had known Muhammad for such a short time could learn so many hadith from him. One tradition attributed to him does tend to reflect poorly on his reliability. It is reported by the other great traditionist Abdullah ibn Umar that dogs were to be destroyed unless they were kept for one of two purposes. Narrated Abdullah bin Umar: Allah’s Apostle said, "If someone keeps a dog neither for guarding livestock, nor for hunting, his good deeds will decrease (in reward) by two Qirats a day". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 7, p. 284). Dogs, therefore, were only to be kept for watching herds or for hunting. Abu Hurairah’s tradition reads as follows: Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: He who kept a dog except one meant for watching the herd, or for hunting or for watching the fields, he lost two qirat of reward every day. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, p. 827). In this hadith we find that dogs who look after fields were to be spared in addition to those serving the other two purposes mentioned by Ibn Umar. The tradition has an interesting addendum: "Zuhri said: The words of Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) were conveyed to Ibn Umar who said: May Allah have mercy on Abu Huraira; he owned a field" (Sahih Muslim, op. cit.). Quite clearly Ibn Umar believed that Abu Hurairah had forged the permission to preserve dogs who looked after fields to protect his own vested interests. As a Western writer says, "A better illustration of the underlying motive of some hadith can hardly be found" (Guillaume, The Traditions of Islam, p.78). The orthodox scholars of Islam, who regard the six major works as authentic, naturally do not wish to query the genuineness of Abu Hurairah’s traditions, making up, as they do such a large part of the tradition literature. One writer, aware of the weaknesses attributed to him, assesses his contribution as follows: He is believed by the Muslims to have been too pious and conscientious a Muslim to put into the mouth of Muhammad any words which had not actually fallen from his lips, or to ascribe to him anything that he had not done. But he does not appear to have been endowed by nature with power of minute observation or a critical faculty strong enough to take cognizance of all the circumstances in which the Prophet uttered certain words or acted in a particular way. (Siddiqi, Hadith Literature, p. 29). One of the most significant features of his traditions is the emphasis on the esoteric side of Muhammad’s experiences. While most of the hadith are principally juristic, many relate to the subjective side of religious experience and of these Abu Hurairah is invariably the original transmitter. When the Prophet was no more, and his sayings became precious, Abu Hurairah won himself fame and importance by being ready with an inexhaustible stock of them ... Wherever a saying ascribed to Mohammed is mystical or sublime, wherever it is worthy of a mediaeval saint or ascetic, Abu Hurairah is most likely to be the authority for it. (Margoliouth, Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, p. 352). The same writer draws a poignant conclusion: "The transformation of Mohammed in men’s minds from the character of statesman and warrior to that of saint and philanthropist is due in the main to the inventions of Abu Hurairah, the first Traditionalist" (Margoliouth, op.cit., p.353). If such traditions had been fairly widespread among the earliest transmitters, one would be inclined to treat them more seriously but, coming as they do chiefly from one source, one cannot help being somewhat sceptical. Furthermore it is very significant that the author of most of the traditions should be regarded as the least reliable authority as this has serious omens for the tradition literature as a whole. If it is possible to expose just one Companion as unreliable, the firmly constructed apparatus of tradition criticism begins to shake. It certainly topples over when this Companion happens to be the one who, of all the Companions, has transmitted the greatest number of sayings on the authority of the Prophet. (Juynboll, The Authenticity of the Tradition Literature, p. 13). In some of the other collections of Hadith of far less authority it is recorded that the caliph Umar threatened to exile Abu Hurairah if he did not refrain from transmitting hadith, deliberately accusing him of telling lies in Muhammad’s name. Whether these traditions are true or not cannot be established. One thing is clear, however, and that is that the criticism of Abu Hurairah’s traditions does tend to reflect negatively on the authenticity of the Hadith literature as a whole. In conclusion it may be said that there is no certain way of testing which traditions are genuine and which are not, but from the examples given in this chapter it is quite apparent that many, even in the main works regarded as authentic by the Muslims, prove to be spurious upon critical examination. On the other hand a large proportion must be true and one is inclined to treat hadith that are principally historical in character as probably genuine to one degree or another. A question-mark must, however, hang over those that are more consistent with the developed fiqh of Islam, those that glorify Muhammad beyond the image presented in the Qur’an, and those that show evidences of being drawn from the records of other religions. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 61: 04.28. THE PRINCIPAL DUTIES OF ISLAM ======================================================================== The Principal Duties of Islam ======================================================================== CHAPTER 62: 04.29. A. FUNDAMENTAL MUSLIM TENETS AND BELIEFS ======================================================================== A. FUNDAMENTAL MUSLIM TENETS AND BELIEFS 1. Iman - The Faith of the Muslim. In every religion one finds a distinction between what he adherent believes and what he does. This division of faith and practice is especially noted in Islam, the former being termed the iman of a Muslim and the latter his din. The well-known "Five Pillars of Islam" belong principally to the practice of the religion. The faith of the Muslim has basically six articles. Five of them are named in this verse: It is righteousness to believe in God, and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers. Surah 2.177 In the original Arabic the exhortation is aamana, "to believe" (from which the noun iman comes), in Allah, the one true God; in the yawmil-akhir, the Last Day; in the malaa’-ikah, the angels, the heavenly messengers; in the kitaab, the Scripture, that is, the holy books revealed by God; and in the nabiyyin, the prophets, the earthly messengers. Added to this is belief in qadar (or taqdir), the divine "measure", that is, in effect, God’s sovereign control over all things and the irreversible destiny of the whole creation according to his express decrees. A Muslim is required to believe in these articles of faith. Denial of any of them leads to kufr the opposite of iman, namely deliberate unbelief. All these six articles constitute the basic iman o the Muslim and a fine definition of iman in Islam is found in this quote: The word iman, generally translated as faith or belief, is derived from amana (ordinarily rendered as he believed) which means, when used intransitively, he came into peace or security; and, when used transitively, he granted (him) peace or security. Hence the believer is called al-mu’min, meaning one who has come into peace or security because he has accepted the principles which bring about peace of mind or security from fear; and God is called al-Mu’min meaning the Granter of security (59.23). (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p.101). It is not enough just to believe in God or even in tawhid, the unity of God. The true Muslim must be able to identify his belief in God and therefore is required to acknowledge his express communications to mankind through his angels and prophets as well as the Scriptures he has revealed. An emphasis also falls on God’s sovereign determination of the human course and experience and, just as Islam and Muslim come from the same root letters and mean "Submission’ and "One who submits" respectively, so the true believer resigns himself to the Divine Will and does not deviate from its nature and decrees. It is not surprising therefore to find in the six articles of faith three that relate exclusively to this principle, namely God’s undivided unity, the control he exercises over all things, and the Day of Reckoning to come. At the same time one finds that such convictions of faith are to be exercised against the forces arrayed in opposition to the Divine Will. An important verse in the Qur’an to this effect is: Therefore, whoever disbelieves in the devil and believes in Allah, he has indeed laid hold on the firmest handle. Surah 2.256 (Ali). A Muslim therefore not only believes (yu’min - another derivative of iman) in Allah but also disbelieves (yakfur) in Taghut (originally the name of one of the Meccan idols but in the Qur’an used apparently as a name for the devil himself). Kufr in the Qur’an does not mean a lack of faith in the truth but implies a deliberate disbelief and we therefore find that those who willingly reject God’s messages are called Kafirun, "disbelievers" or, even more appropriately, blasphemers . So a true believer believes in God, his revelations, and his decrees, but disbelieves in the devil and his works. Despite these positive elements, the word iman does not carry quite the same meaning as "faith" in Christianity. It is related purely to the concept of Islam itself, namely a submission or simple resignation to God’s will. The act of trusting or confiding in God, the essence of Christian faith is not conveyed in the basic meaning of iman. A more detailed analysis of the distinction between these concepts and the effects they have on Christianity and Islam respectively will be found in the chapter on Abraham’s faith in the companion volume to this book. 2. The Islamic Concept of God. The heart of the doctrine of God in Islam is tawhid, the "unity" of Allah. Yet this doctrine, from a Christian point of view, proposes a bare unity, one which seems to restrict the character of the divine being to a solitary personality in many ways detached from all that he has created. The Qur’an sets him forth as entirely distinct from all that he has created and later Islamic orthodoxy followed this theme even more ardently, believing that the further God could be removed from his creation, the greater he was. Accordingly it is not surprising to find that, of all God’s attributes, it is his power that most impresses the Muslims. The essence of Allah is power which overrides all His mere attributes and enables Him to exercise them or not as He pleases. (Stanton, The Teaching of the Qur’an, p.32). Of all the Qur’anic terms, perhaps the most basic, comprehensive and revelatory at once of divine nature of the universe is the term amr which we have translated above as order, orderliness or command. To everything that is created is ipso facto communicated its amr which is its own law of being but which is also a law by which it is integrated into a system. This amr, that is order or command of God, is ceaseless. (Rahman, Islam, p.34) This awesome power that is vested in the Almighty finds expression in many forms. "God doeth what He willeth" (Surah 14.27) - no one can question his actions or decrees. He sets on a right path only those whom he pleases to guide (Surah 2.272). The theme of God’s sovereign power to direct the affairs of men, determine the future, act as he chooses, and create what he wills, is one of the commonest Qur’anic themes. Throughout the book there pervades an atmosphere of divine control and foreknowledge respecting all things that happen. This verse seems to sum it all up: For to God belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what he pleaseth. For God hath power over all things. Surah 5.19 The last sentence occurs frequently in the Qur’ an and one often finds it inscribed on plaques in Muslim homes. It reads in Arabic: Wallaahu ’alaa kulli shay’in qadiir - a phrase regularly on Muslim lips. No Christian doubts the awesome power and control that God has over everything but the Islamic emphasis on this attribute paradoxically tends to detract from his glory in many ways. One of the side-effects of the determination to distinguish the character of God from his creation is that Muslims actually learn less of what he is really like and tend to think of him in negative terms. The following quote from the creed of the great early Muslim theologian an-Nasafi well illustrates the point: The Originator of the world is God Most High, the One, the Eternal, the Decreeing, the Knowing, the Hearing, the Seeing, the Willing. He is not an attribute, nor a body, nor an essence, nor a thing formed, nor a thing bounded, nor a thing numbered, nor a thing divided, nor a thing compounded, nor a thing limited: He is not described by quiddity, Mahiyah, nor by modality, Kaifiyyah, and He does not exist in place or time. There is nothing that resembles him and nothing that is beyond His Knowledge and Power. (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p.60). While he goes on to speak of God’s attributes in positive terms this section does show why it has been suggested that Islam thrives on telling one what God is not rather than what he is. Al-Ashari, the famous Muslim theologian who deserted from the "free-thinking" Mutazilites and who was largely responsible for the demise of this rationalistic group in Islamic history, likewise gave a very negative description of Allah’s nature in his Makalat al-Islamipin, part of which reads as follows: He is no body, nor object, nor volume . . . no place encompasses Him, no time passes by Him. He cannot be described by any description which can be applied to creatures . . . Nothing of what occurs to any mind or can be conceived by phantasy resembles Him . . . Eyes do not see Him, sight does not reach Him ... no harm can touch Him, neither joy nor pleasure can reach Him, nor is He moved by hurt or pain. (Wensinck, The Muslim Creed, p.73). In fact, of the forty-eight statements made about God in the whole creed, no less than forty-three are couched purely in negative terms. As the author of the book says, "This description of the Godhead ... is chiefly negative" (op. cit., p. 74). One might well ask, just what can we truly know about (,od if there is nothing in all that we see, heal or know that can assist us to comprehend his nature? A Muslim writer has this to say: Islam is monotheistic par excellence; the unity of God it teaches is the most categorical, the clearest, the simplest, and therefore the strongest. (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, p. xli). The Christian analyst cannot help wondering whether Islam’s "simple" concept of bare unitarianism, so often defined in negative terms, does not in fact weaken itself in that while it emphasises God’s power, it does away with the complexity of his divine love and holiness as revealed in the Triune God of the Bible. The proclamation that the second person of the Divine Trinity humbled himself by taking human form that he might establish a greater relationship between God and his creation, and was thereafter "crucified in weakness" that he might reconcile men to God and give them access in one Spirit to the Father, does well appear to be the antithesis of the Islamic dogma that the further Allah can be removed and distinguished from his creation, the more he is glorified. In as far as Moslems are monotheists and in as far as Allah has many of the attributes of Jehovah we cannot put him with the false gods. But neither can there be any doubt that Mohammed’s conception of God is inadequate, incomplete, barren and grievously distorted. It is vastly inferior to the Christian idea of the Godhead and also inferior to the Old Testament idea of God. ... Instead of arriving at his theology through the mind of Christ, as revealed in the gospels and developed through the Holy Spirit’s teaching in the epistles, Mohammed went back to natural theology. He not use, or would not use, the channel of knowledge opened by the Incarnation. (Zwemer, The Moslem Doctrine of God, p. 107, 109). It is true that the Qur’an teaches that wherever men gather together in conversation, Allah is one among them (Surah 58.7) and that he is nearer to man than his jugular vein (Surah 50.16). The Qur’an likewise speaks often of the wajhullah - the Face of Allah" - which true believers seek and desire (Surah 6.52) and which no one can escape (Surah 2.115). Nevertheless there is no suggestion that men can enter into a relationship with God such as is found in the Biblical relationship between the Eternal Father and his children. The sheikhs of theology at al-Azhar today are still content with the definitions of al-Ghazzali. But the very contemplation of so barren a deity "pours an ice-floe over the tide of human trusts and causes us to feel that we are orphans in a homeless universe". Because Allah is sufficient in and of himself, because he is the Altogether Other and cannot be compared to anyone or anything, he is wholly aloof from his creatures. As Kraemer remarks, "One of the favourite expressions about God (among Moslems) which testifies to an intense religious feeling is, He whom everyone needs and who does not stand in need of anybody or anything. Fellowship does not exist between God and man. God is too exalted for that". (Zwemer, "The Allah of Islam and the God Revealed in Jesus Christ", The Muslim World, Vol. 36, p.315). The Muslim cannot know God personally - the best he can endeavour to do is to walk in the sabilillah - the "Way of Allah" (another common Qur’anic phrase). Above all the Islamic concept of God’s power as an absolute quality in itself which cannot be revealed in any form that might relate him to his creation deprives Islam of the awesome consciousness of God’s glory revealed in the revelation of himself in the man Christ Jesus. The Bible speaks of "Christ, the power of God" (1 Corinthians 1:24) - indeed a form of God’s power truly unknown to Islam. While it fears that his power will be limited if it in any way relates him to his creation, it ironically limits that power in its own way by refusing to recognise that there are other ways in which God can reveal his glory than by standing aloof from his creation as an eternal potentate. 3. God’s Love in Islam and Christianity. The prominence given to God’s autocratic powers in Islam results in a jealously preserved distinction between him and his creation as we have seen. Any suggestion that God is willing to reach down and meet man where he is and in grace express his willingness to enter a relationship with him seems, to the Muslim mind, to imply a strange deference on God’s part, a sign of weakness more than anything else. Accordingly Islam neither understands nor accepts the Christian confidence in God’s personal grace and love towards wayward sinners, summed up in the expression "God is love" (1 John 4:8). Although the Qur’an speaks of love between God and man, this love is really confined to devotion to duty on the part of man and a corresponding approval on God’s part. There is no room for sentiment, sympathy or heartfelt affection in the Qur’anic deity. The love of man for God is mentioned but is interpreted as ’veneration’. Orthodoxy with its insistence on the transcendence of God cannot use the idea of love; that was left to the mystics. (Tritton, Islam, p. 17) To Mohammed the religious motive for a type of conduct that is pleasing to Allah is primarily gratitude. The Prophet’s sense of God’s transcendence is so strong that he speaks but rarely of love toward God (76.8, 3.29). (Andrae, Mohammad: The Man and His Faith, p. 72) It would not be fair to say that the Qur’an portrays Allah as a soulless despot simply acting according to his own whims and fancies. The Muslim is promised that he is "full of kindness to those who serve him" (Surah 3.30) and the next two verses speak openly of his love for those who love him: Say: "If ye do love God, follow me: God will love you and forgive you your sins: For God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful". Say, "Obey God and His Apostle": But if they turn back, God loveth not those who reject faith. (Surah 3:31-32) Nonetheless there is nothing in the Qur’an that approaches the Biblical "We love, because he first loved us" (1 John 4:19). According to the Qur’an God only loves (that is, approves) those who obey him - he does not love those who turn their backs on him. It is only in the Bible that we find the grandest of all divine attributes - God’s self-giving love to reconcile those who hitherto were his enemies: "But God shows his love for us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ dies for us" (Romans 5:8). The Qur’anic word for love is hubbun as found in its various forms in the text. At best it corresponds to the Greek filia - a natural disposition towards that which is found appealing. The word is nowhere used in a context corresponding to the common New Testament word for God’s love, agape, implying a love which expresses itself in selfless compassion and affection not necessarily considering the worthiness of its object. The gift of God’s Son as a sacrifice for the redemption of evil, godless men whom God in love and pity chose to save is the ultimate expression of this kind of love. The Muslim concept of God’s love, as appears from Surah 3.31 quoted above, is chiefly expressed in the bestowal of rewards as a favour towards duty performed. This, however, is not identical with the New Testament conception of love as an attribute of God; it rather signifies the affection with which the master responds to the loyalty of a faithful servant. (Stanton, The Teaching of the Qur’an, p. 35) The love of God which is spoken of in the Qur’an is not what is meant in the Bible by the expression ’the love of God’. In the first place, it does not express an attribute of God Himself, but a relation which He assumes towards men conditioned by their attitude to Him . . . The expression ’the love of God’ is thus seen to mean the approbation of God. That which God approves he ’loves’. (Gardner, The Qur’anic Doctrine of God, p. 45, 46). The latter author says of the Qur’anic word for love: "Of disinterested and unselfish love there is no trace at all in the use of the word in the Qur’an" (op. cit., p. 47). As a result there is also no scope for the development of a positive, experimental relationship of mutual love between God and man. To Islam such a thing seems to detract from God’s foremost attribute, his power over and above all his creation. To Christianity there is nothing that so glorifies God as the gracious, condescending love he has shown in reconciling believers to himself through the gift of his Son and in communing with them through the Holy Spirit whom he has poured into their hearts. The Love of God in a Christian sense means either God’s love to us or our love to him. Both ideas are strange to Islam. An inter-communion of such tender regard between God and the creature is seldom or never spoken of in the Koran. (Zwemer, The Moslem Doctrine of God, p. 100). As a German theologian has put it, "The God of Mohammed is in the wind, and the earthquake, and in the fire, but not in the still small voice of love" (quoted in Zwemer, op. cit., p. 101). Muslims boldly claim that Islam has the "simplest" and "purest" monotheism. On the contrary there is nothing to compare with the Christian concept of God - a loving Father who has given the greatest display of his love that could ever have been given in the gift of his Son and who has entered into a deliberate fellowship with men through the gift of his Spirit. The trinitarian monotheism of Christianity reveals a God of outstanding grace, love and glory. In comparison the "simple" monotheism of Islam fades into a bare and somewhat deficient unitarianism. 4. Angels and Demons in the Theology of Islam. There are many similarities between the Biblical and Qur’anic concepts of the existence and character of angels and demons. The Qur’anic word for angels is mala’ikah and for demons jinn. The former were created from nur (light), the latter from nar (fire). Whereas all demons in the Bible are evil spirits, the jinn of the Qur’an consist of believing spirits as well as evil spirits (a party of them is said to have embraced Islam after Muhammad had preached to them just after his abortive visit to at-Ta’if - Surah 72.1). There are four archangels according to Islam, namely Jibril, the angel of revelation (the Biblical angel Gabriel), Mikal (the Biblical Michael), Israfil, who will sound the trumpet at the last day, and Azra’il, the angel of death described in the Qur’an as malakul-mawt, the "angel of death" (Surah 32.11). The first two are mentioned by name in Surah 2.98 whereas the names of the last two are only found in later works. The Qur’an mentions a number of other angels, either by name or according to their functions. In the Kuran are further mentioned Harut and Marut, Malik the angel of the fire and his companions the zabaniya; "Those who are near to Allah"; also writing and recording angels, messengers and guardians of the fire. (Wensinck, The Muslim Creed, p. 199). Islamic tradition states that another angel, Ridwan, guards Paradise and that the dead are visited by two further angels of hideous appearance, Munkar and Nakir who question the deceased about his beliefs, his prophet and his religion. If the dead man answers satisfactorily (i.e. that Muhammad is his prophet and that Islam is his religion), the angels depart from him, otherwise they torment him to the Last Day. The Qur’an follows the Bible in teaching that there is one great demon who was responsible for the fall of Adam and Eve and the expulsion of the human race from the Garden of Eden (Jannatul-’Adn, said to have been in Paradise and a name for heaven itself in the Qur’an - Surah 9.72). As in the Book of Genesis, Adam and Eve (Adam and Hawwa) were created perfect but were tempted to sin by the Evil One. The devil is called in the Qur’an indifferently by the Hebrew derivative Shaitan (Shatan) or the Greek Iblis (diabolos). The name Shaitan is generally used with the epithet rajim = stoned or accursed, sometimes marid or rebellious. He is one of the jinn, but he also appears as an angel cast down from Paradise for his refusal to worship Adam. (Stanton, The Teaching of the Qur’an, p. 39). The Qur’an repeats, in its own words, the story of Adam’s fall but alleges that Iblis was rejected because he refused to bow down with the other angels after God had created man and had commanded them to bow in obeisance before him: Then We bade the angels bow down to Adam, and they bowed down; not so Iblis; He refused to be of those who bow down. Surah 7.11 The Bible plainly teaches that Satan was once the highest of angels but fell through his pride in seeking to exalt himself and make himself like the Most High (Isaiah 44:12; Isaiah 44:15, Luke 10:18). Although the Qur’an gives a different reason for his abasement, it confirms that he was cast down and became the most evil of all God’s creatures (Surah 7.13). Nevertheless one finds that Muslim writers generally deny that Iblis had ever been an angel. There is a popular misconception, into which many writers of repute have fallen, that Iblis or the Devil is one of the angels. (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p. 157). A misconception held by several Orientalists is that Satan was originally an angel before being cast out of Heaven for not paying homage to Adam. The Qur’anic statement about this problem is crystal clear (18.50). Iblis was of the Jinn, although the injunction of homage was issued to him as it was to the angels. (Khalifa, The Sublime Qur’an and Orientalism, p.216). As the Qur’an states that he was minal-jinn, "from the Jinn" (Surah 18.50) and that he was created min-nar, "from fire" (Surah 7.12), Muslim commentators reject the Biblical concept that he was at first a genuine angel. On the other hand, in more than one passage it is expressly said that it was only lil-mala’ikah, "to the angels", that the command came to bow to Adam and that they all did so illa-Iblis, "except Iblis" (Surah 2.34). It appears that there may have been some confusion in Muhammad’s mind regarding the original character of Satan. He clearly taught that he was one of the jinn and made of fire, and yet included him among the number of his original state. 5. Was Muhammad able to Perform Miracles? Another feature of the six articles of faith of iman that should be considered is the teaching of the Qur’an regarding the miracles of the prophets, in particular the inability of Muhammad to emulate the ayat of the former prophets. The Qur’an is quite unambiguous in teaching that Muhammad was not endowed with the power to perform miracles: And the Unbelievers say: "Why is not a Sign sent down to him from his Lord?" But thou art truly a warner, and to every people a guide. Surah 13.7 In Surah 17.90-93 the Quraysh question why Muhammad has not been able to perform signs on earth or "cause the sky to fall in pieces". He is bidden to reply: Hal kuntu illa basharaar-rasuulaa - "Am I anything except a man, an apostle?" (Surah 17.93) Even though the Qur’an is quite clear about this matter, one finds numerous traditions ascribing miracles to Muhammad. The reason for this later development in his biography contrary to the teaching of the Qur’an is not hard to find: Controversy with Christians on the rival merits of Jesus and Muhammad may fairly be regarded as the origin of the pretended miracles, flatly contradicting the plain statement of the great Arabian and those of many of his immediate followers that he was not sent with power to work miracles. (Guillaume, The Traditions of Islam, p. 138). A wealth of stories about Muhammad’s power to make water flow from between his fingers and other fanciful elements abounds in the Hadith literature and in this case there can be no doubt that such hadith, even if found in the works of Bukhari or Muslim, are forgeries and that for a very good reason - "With respect to all such stories, it is sufficient to say that they are opposed to the clear declarations and pervading sense of the Coran" (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p. liii). Significantly, however, one finds that such miracles are not as common in the earliest works, e.g. Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasulullah. Nonetheless some writes, including the great commentator al-Baidawi, believe that the Qur’an records a miracle in one passage which has duly been attributed to Muhammad as a work which he himself performed: The Hour has drawn nigh: the moon is split. Yet if they see a sign they turn away, and they say "A continuous sorcery". Surah 54.1-2 (Arberry). Apart from all the other miracles attributed to Muhammad in the Hadith, the splitting of the moon referred to in this verse is also recorded as a sign which he performed: Narrated Anas that the Meccan people requested Allah’s Apostle to show them a miracle, and so he showed them the splitting of the moon. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, p. 533). It is highly probable, however, that this tradition was invented to make the Qur’an support the teaching of the Hadith that Muhammad could perform miracles. Nevertheless we have seen that the Qur’an expressly denies that he had such powers and declares that he was nothing more than a warner and that the Qur’an itself was his sole miracle. Many modern writers interpret the splitting of the moon referred to in Surah 54 as a sign of the end times, even though it is mentioned in the past tense in the text. Maulana Daryabadi, in his one-volume translation of the Qur’an, says: "The past tense has been used here as so often in the Qur’an, for the future" (The Holy Qur’an, p. 1454). The great Egyptian Muslim scholar Muhammad Rashid Rida also rejected the splitting of the moon as a sign performed by Muhammad: The splitting of the moon is such an unusual phenomenon, Rida stated, that it is incomprehensible why we have not been flooded with reports about it. The suggestion that it occurred at night when everybody was asleep he rejected, arguing that it is improbable that the Prophet would be abandoned by his Companions at a crucial moment such as this when the pagan Meccans challenged him. To this Rida added that no report of the Quraishites reacting to the miracle has come down to us. (Juynboll, The Authenticity of the Tradition Literature, p. 146). Another writer makes the same point: "If Mohammed had really split the moon asunder, he would most certainly have referred the Koreish and the Jews to this miracle, when they demanded that he should show them one, and so have convinced them. But the fact is, that whenever he was thus pressed, he excused himself by acknowledging that he was not able to work a miracle" (Pfander, The Mizan ul Haqq; or Balance of Truth, p. 107). It is probable that the rending asunder of the moon is simply one of many signs of the Last Hour mentioned in the Qur’an. But the most natural explanation of the passage is, that the expression refers to one of the signs of the Resurrection. (Hughes, A Dictionary of Islam, p.356). In another passage in the Qur’an it is said that the moon will be "buried in darkness" (Surah 75.8 - reminiscent of Matthew 24:29 - "the moon will not give its light") and that the sun and moon will be joined together (Surah 75.9 - so also Luke 21:25 : "there will be signs in the sun and moon and stars"). As the Qur’an disclaims Muhammad’s power to work miracles and as a very logical explanation of Surah 54.1-2 can thus be given, there does not seem to be any validity in the Muslim claim that Muhammad himself split the moon in half (and presumably put it together again!). It is refreshing to find that a number of modern Muslim writers deny that Muhammad had the power to work miracles: There is no mention in the whole Qur’an of any miracle intended to support the prophethood of Muhammad except the Qur’an, notwithstanding its acknowledgment of many of the miracles performed with God’s permission by the prophets preceding Muhammad and the description of the many other favours which God has bestowed upon him. (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, p. lxxxvii). Disclaiming every power of wonder-working, the Prophet of Islam ever rests the truth of his divine commission entirely upon his Teachings. He never resorts to the miraculous to assert his influence or to enforce his warnings. (Ali, The Spirit of Islam, p. 32). Both these writers suggest that it was not necessary for Muhammad to produce miracles to substantiate his claims. The Qur’an itself was a sufficient proof of his sincerity. It is interesting to find in these works the suggestion that Muhammad’s inability to perform signs and wonders was not a defect in his prophetic character but a testimony to his greatness which did not need evidences of this kind. It is interesting to observe that while in the past Muhammad’s inability to perform miracles was felt as a lack and caused later tradition to ascribe miracles him; in the present it is exactly this fact that he did no miracles which is viewed positively. (Weasels, A Modern Arabic Biography of Muhammad, p. 86). One wonders, however, about the appropriateness of Ali’s suggestion that Muhammad did not have to "resort to" miracles, a theme maintained by Haykal: "he never resorted to miracles as previous prophets had done, in order to prove the veracity of his revelation" (The Life of Muhammad, p. lxxvii). These words seem to imply that the former prophets exhibited a weakness in character not shown by Muhammad in that they "resorted" to external proofs of their mission. It appears that the truth is that they possessed a power which he did not enjoy and that even if he had wished to "resort to" working miracles, he would have been unable to do so. If Muhammad is to be commended in any way for not venturing to perform miracles, perhaps his sincerity in disclaiming the power to do so is the best commendation that can be given to him: "to my mind the most miraculous thing about Mohammed is, that he never claimed the power of working miracles" (Bosworth Smith, Mohammed and Mohammedanism, p.344). 6. The Doctrine of Sin and Forgiveness in Islam. There are many similarities between the Qur’anic and Biblical concepts of sin and divine forgiveness. Islam recognises that evil deeds are an affront to the Creator of all men and merit his punishment, and yet teaches that God will exercise forgiveness and remit the sins of the faithful. Wallaahu Ghafuurur-Rahiim (Surah 5.77) expresses a common Qur’anic dictum - "Allah is the Forgiving, the Merciful". Nevertheless there are major differences between the relative concepts of sin and forgiveness in the two books. Islam knows nothing of original sin - the basic disposition and tendency in all men to sin arising from the sin of the one man Adam in which the whole human race was implicated. It also knows nothing of an atonement for sin and therefore has no instrument by which a Muslim can be totally assured of the forgiveness of all his sins this side of the grave. Every Muslim hopes dearly in the forgiveness of God but most of them acknowledge that they will have to make some payment for their sins, whether through torments in the grave before the Day of Judgment, or for some period thereafter. Their hope is that God will ultimately forgive them. In considering the forgiveness of sins according to Islam, four points at least call for study: the kinds of sins, the intention of the sinner, his repentance for sins, and the intercession of someone on his behalf. (Elder, "The Development of the Muslim Doctrine of Sins and Their Forgiveness", The Muslim World, V.1.29, p.179). Regarding the "kinds of sins" in Islam it has become the norm to distinguish between great sins which merit certain punishment (and possible exclusion from Paradise) and lesser sins which can easily be forgiven to believers if they repent of them immediately. The Muhammadan doctors divide sins into two classes very much as the Roman Catholic divines do. The usual Roman designation being that of mortal and venial sin, whiIst Muhammadans use the expressions Kabira and Saghira, "Great" and "Little". (Hughes, Notes on Muhammadanism, p.95). The greatest of all sins is shirk, "associating" partners with Allah. All idolaters are guilty of this sin and the charge is regularly laid at the feet of Christians as well. This sin is unforgivable and, if not repented of, will assuredly lead the sinner to hell. Other major sins are usury adultery, cowardice before infidels in battle, disobedience to parents and false notions about God’s forgiveness (either a casual presumption of it or a despairing of his mercy). The intercession of Muhammad for his community on the Last Day is one of the greatest of all the hopes of the individual Muslim. He is alleged to have said that he will intercede for all Muslims and that even though some may be severely punished for their sins, no Muslim will remain in hell forever. Others believe that his intercession will avail to keep all Muslims out of hell and that no Muslim will be touched by the fire. The Qur’an tends to indicate that Muhammad had other ideas about the possibility of intercession on the Day of Judgment: Then guard yourselves against a day when one soul shall not avail another, nor shall intercession be accepted for her, nor shall compensation be taken from her, nor shall anyone be helped (from outside). Surah 2.48 Another verse in the same Surah states that no bargaining, friendship or intercession will avail on that Day (Surah 2.254). Intercession is the heart of the Christian hope yet it is an intercession of a different kind. It is not that of the advocate who pleads for mercy for his client, it is that of one who has already paid the penalty. Islam sees no need of an atonement because it does not recognise the Christian teaching that sin is a state of mind and heart, a disposition of rebellion against God which estranges the creature from the Creator and sets him at enmity with his Lord. Islam allows that the wicked are possessed of a proud insolence and opposition to God but it does not perceive that the sins of all men, whether great or small, stem from a universal rebellion against God’s holy law. Furthermore it stops short of declaring, as Christianity does, that God has a naturally holy and righteous character and that men who sin against him are shown to be expressly devoid of this holiness and are accordingly thoroughly unholy and unrighteous. It is a familiar notion that Islam is optimistic and sanguine in its estimate of human nature - that it is far less radical and incisive than Christianity. Man’s sin is weakness and forgetfulness, rather than defiance and rebellion. (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p.21). Sins, according to Islam, are evil deeds committed in defiance of what God prohibits which can be cancelled out by good deeds done in submission to his requirements. Evil deeds are only such because God declares them to be so, not because they are naturally evil in the face of his holy character as Christianity teaches. As a result there is no true conviction of sin in Islam. In any case, with regard to the Qur’an and its teaching, all we can say is that we see nothing in the book to justify us in believing that Muhammad himself had any deep conviction of sin or demanded that believers should experience it. His teaching is rather that sin, though a great offence against God, is not something which puts - man where he needs redemption. God does not redeem man, he simply forgives him when he repents, for God is easy and merciful to men whenever they turn towards Him. (Gardner, The Qur’anic Doctrine of Sin, p.41). There is no cry from the depth of the heart in a Muslim motivated by the influence of Islam, that compares with Paul’s "Wretched man that I am. Who will deliver me from this body of death?" (Romans 7:24). Until the Muslim recognises that all sin affects the human personality and separates man from his all-Holy Creator, he will see no need of redemption through the saving grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. 7. The Last Day and the Life Hereafter. The Qur’ an follows the Bible in teaching that a Day of Judgment is coming and that the destiny of all men is to heaven or hell. There are numerous titles in the book for this great Day, the most common being Yawmal-Qiyamah, the "Day of Resurrection", as-Sa’ah, "the Hour", Yawmal-Akbir, the "Last Day", and Yawmid-Din, the "Day of Reckoning". The earliest surahs are full of warnings about the awesome fate awaiting those who go astray which will be determined on that Day. A common expression in Surah 77 is Wayluy-yawma’ithil-lilmu-kath-thibiin - "Ah woe, that Day, to the Rejecters of the Truth". It has become common in "enlightened" Christian and Muslim circles to regard the doctrine of everlasting bliss for the righteous and everlasting torment for the wicked as a legacy of those years when the minds of men were not as refined as they are supposed to be today. There can be little doubt however, that both the Bible and the Qur’an teach that the human race will be divided on that Day and that each man’s destiny will be determined forever. In his parable about the separation of the nations to the left and the right, the former to eternal punishment and the latter to eternal life (Matthew 25:31-46), Jesus left no room for a purgatory, no possibility of a fire escape in hell. The Qur’an likewise makes the same point in saying: Nay, those who seek gain in Evil, and are girt around by their sins, - They are the Companions of the Fire: Therein shall they abide (for ever). But those who have faith and work righteousness, they are the Companions of the Garden: therein shall they abide (for ever). Surah 2.81-82. In the historical creed known as Wasiyat Abi Hanifa, in one of the articles, which has a parallel in another similar creed entitled Fiqh Akbar II, we find the eternal character of heaven and hell unambiguously taught: We confess that the inhabitants of Paradise will dwell therein forever, and that the inhabitants of hell will dwell therein forever. (Wensinck, The Muslim Creed, p.l30). The Qur’an constantly proclaims that the righteous and the wicked will remain in their places of destiny. There is no strand of teaching in the book that allows for the possibility that those sent to hell will eventually be allowed into Paradise and be declared worthy of its blessings. In all Mohammed’s warnings and descriptions about the doom of the unbelievers, there is anything but a note of respite or compromise ... Therefore, we are quite ready to conclude that the idea of an intermediate state, or a judgment and punishment, other than at the last great day - which was to be final and complete - never entered Mohammed’s mind. (Galloway, "The Resurrection and Judgment in the Koran", The Muslim World, Vol. 12, p.354). Another writer draws the same conclusion about the systematic teaching of the Qur’an on this point: "The result of the Judgment is either everlasting bliss or everlasting torment. There is no intermediate condition" (Watt, Bell’s Introduction to the Qur’an, p. 160). Some Muslim writers today, on he other hand, seem to regard the Qur’anic hell as some kind of spiritual hospital, a reformatory for sinners prior to their admission to Paradise. One says that "Hell is intended to raise up man by purifying him from the dross of evil, just as fire purifies gold of dross" (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p.256) and yet another that "Hell means a state of soul whose faculties are defective or diseased and whose reactions, consequently, are painful in contrast with the pleasant and agreeable reactions of a healthy soul" (Zafrulla Khan, Islam: Its Meaning for Modern Man, p.193). There is no suggestion here that hell is, in fact, a place of punishment, an awful place of eternal damnation. It is not surprising to find that the latter writer also denies the possibility of a literal, physical resurrection of the body at the Last Hour: "Life after death cannot and does not mean that the dead will be re-assembled and reconstituted upon the earth" (Zafrulla Khan, op. cit., p.185). This appears to be in direct contrast to the Qur’anic teaching which says: "Does man think that We cannot assemble his bones? Nay, we are able to put together in perfect order the very tips of his fingers" (Surah 75.3-4). A contrast has often been drawn between the Christian and Qur’anic concepts of Paradise and Hell. The Qur’anic title for heaven is jannat (usually followed by a descriptive epithet - for example, Jannatul-Firdaus, "Garden of Paradise") and for hell jahannam (apparently derived from the Greek form of Gehenna), The descriptions of Paradise are often somewhat sensuous in the Qur’an and tend to create the image that heaven is a realm of bliss where the believer’s comfort is derived from his circumstances rather than the peace and joy of his soul. He is promised gardens under which rivers flow, the attendance of young servants who never grow old and who constantly serve unintoxicating wine, a selection of beautiful, dark-eyed virgin consorts (huris), and an abundance of carpets, cushions and other forms of wealth and comfort. Muslim rulers like Shah Jehan and others came close to creating such harems on earth and yet were frowned upon for their gross self-indulgence! The doctrines in the Koran respecting the resurrection and final judgment were in some respects similar to those of the Christian religion, but were mixed up with wild notions derived from other sources; while the joys of the Moslem heaven, though partly spiritual, were clogged and debased by the sensualities of earth, and infinitely below the ineffable purity and spiritual blessedness of the heaven promised by our Saviour. (Irving, The Life of Mahomet, p.49). The Christian paradise, although at times described in the Bible in allegorical language, is principally spiritual. There is no distinction between male and female there for the just will be transformed into the image of the angels (Luke 20:35-36) and their joy and peace will be based fundamentally on their communion with their Lord and enjoyment of his favour and righteousness. Jesus withheld speaking of "my joy" (John 15:11) and "my peace" (John 14:27) until the last night when he was with his disciples and was all-too-conscious of the horrors that awaited him in the next twenty-four hours. He did so in order that his disciples might know that such joy and peace were not dependent on favourable circumstances but could be sustained through any form of adversity On the other hand the Qur’anic peace and joy appear to be dependent more on what a man will have around him to comfort him rather than on what he will be within himself. Muhammad perhaps understood that happiness is possible only when one’s circumstances and surroundings are consonant with one’s disposition. And because he believed that Man’s disposition, his nature as a man created by the hand of God, required sensual gratifications, the "Prophet" depicted the happiness of the Just as consisting, in the next life, of the enjoyment of savoury viands, delicious liquids, the company of celestial damsels, and other sensual pleasures. (Tisdall, The Religion of the Crescent, p.84). The Qur’an does not teach that man has a fallen nature and needs to be redeemed. It regards his present nature as the original one. Hence the lower lusts and passions of the flesh are regarded as natural desires hardly in need of renunciation. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that, while the Qur’an does speak of the approval of Allah as the supreme triumph (Surah 9.72) and of the faces of believers beaming brightly as they behold the glory of their Lord (Surah 75.22-23), its paradise in no small measure accommodates the lower desires of man’s nature which it teaches will remain part of his constitution in the age to come. The Christian, however, is exhorted: Put off your old nature which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and put on the new nature, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. Ephesians 4:22-23 While the Qur’anic paradise is principally a realm of comfort, the Biblical paradise is chiefly one of righteousness. It is indeed untrue to say that the former is purely sensual but, on the other hand, it is equally untrue to declare that the Qur’anic Jannat makes no allowances for the sensuous tendencies at work in human flesh. It teaches that there will still be male and female in heaven and in so doing it keeps the level of its paradise relative to the present order of things and hardly rises to the level of the Biblical kingdom of heaven which flesh and blood cannot inherit. 8. Qadar - The Doctrine of Predestination in Islam. The Qur’an openly declares that God has control over all things and that nothing can happen outside of his will or that can frustrate his purpose. There is a "measure - a qadar - for everything predetermined according to the foreknowledge and express will of God. (The word most commonly used by Muslims for this control over all things is taqdir though the word qadar, from the same roots, is that used in the Qur’an and Hadith). Innaa kullli shay’in khalaqnaahu biqadar - "Verily we have created all things according to a fixed measure" (Surah 54.49) - is the Qur’anic dictum. Other verses expressing this theme are: God leads astray whomsoever He will, and he guides whomsoever he will. Surah 14.4 (Arberry) No soul can believe, except by the Will of God, and He will place Doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand. Surah 10.100 The Qur’anic doctrine of God’s sovereign control over all things has been extended in the Hadith to cover everything that a man does, whether good or bad. A famous hadith to this effect reads: Umar b. al-Khattab reported: I heard that the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) was questioned and he replied: The Lord created Adam, then moved His right hand on his back and brought out issues and said: We have created them for Heaven: these will do actions befitting heavenly persons. Then He moved His left hand on his back and brought out issues and said: We have created them for Hell and these will do actions befitting Hell. (Muwatta Imam Malik, p.37 4). Another similar hadith which declares that every action of man is foreordained so that he will do neither good nor evil except as God especially decrees, is this one: Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: There was an argument between Adam and Moses. Moses said: Are you that Adam whose lapse caused you to get out of Paradise? Adam said to him: Are you that Moses whom Allah selected for His Messengership, for His conversation, and you blame me for an affair which had been ordained for me before I was created? This is how Adam came the better of Moses. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, p.1396). During the early centuries of Islam this subject was much discussed and developed to the point where a degree of fatalism began to take over the simple theology of the masses. Of this doctrine Muhammad makes great use in his Quran and all those who have had any practical acquaintance with the lives of Muhammadans, know well to what extent it influences the daily life of every Muslim. It is not only urged as a source of consolation in every trial, but as a palliation of every crime. "It was written in my taqdir," (fate) is an excuse familiar to every European who has had much intercourse with Muslim servants or soldiers. (Hughes, Notes on Muhammadanism, p.59). Ahmad ibn Hazm, a member of the Zahiri sect in Islam (an orthodox group of fundamental literalists) perhaps expressed the most extreme view of those who held dearly to the doctrine of God’s absolute control over everything. He held that Nothing is good, but Allah has made it so, and nothing is evil but by His doing. Nothing in the world, indeed, is good or bad in its own essence, but what God has called good is good, and the doer of it is virtuous; and similarly what God has called evil is evil and the doer of it is a sinner. All depends upon God’s decree, for an act that may at one time be good may be bad at another time" (Levy, The Social Structure of Islam, p.206). Christian writers have regularly taught that the Islamic doctrine of predestination is purely absolutist and fatalistic and have accordingly compared it unfavourably with the corresponding Biblical doctrine which upholds God s control over all things but balances this with a freedom on the part of man to do good or evil as he chooses, holding him responsible for his actions. Although the terms used in describing predestination by Moslems and Christians (especially Calvinists) have much similarity the result of their reasoning is far apart as the East from the West. (Zwemer, The Moslem Doctrine of God, p. 93). This may to some extent be true of the developed form of the doctrine as it appears in the Hadith and Islamic theology but it is this writer’s opinion that the charge cannot fairly be brought against the Qur’an. There is no verse in the book dealing with God’s qadar and control that is not matched by similar verses in the Bible. Surah 14.4 quoted above has an exact parallel in Romans 9:18 and Surah 10.100 is matched by John 7:44. The Bible also teaches that God has predestined some for eternal life (Romans 8:28-30) and that only those who are ordained to eternal life will believe (Acts 13:48). The Qur’an follows the Bible in also allowing that man has a degree of freedom to choose his own path and will accordingly be held responsible for his actions. There is a fine balance in both books between God’s authority and Man’s responsibility. The Bible teaches that God hardened Pharaoh s heart but also states that he hardened his own heart (Exodus 8:15). So likewise the Qur’an says: He causes many to stray and many he leads into the right path, but he causes not to stray, except those who forsake (the path). Surah 2.26 The Qur’an constantly teaches that those who seek God’s favour will be guided aright and that those who expressly choose to reject his way will be duly led astray. The Qur’an does speak of God setting seals on some hearts, but it says expressly that seals are set on the hearts of the reprobate, the hardened sinners who pay no heed to the call of the Prophet. (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p.276). Indeed one cannot help being impressed with the depth of Muhammad’s conviction that God rules over everything and yet that his control is expressed primarily in setting a proportion and measure for everything while leaving men free to choose or reject faith. One of the great works of God that i~ beyond human comprehension is his absolute control over everything, his predestination of some to eternal life, and the fixed order he has set forth which no one can frustrate or hinder; and yet at the same time the freedom he allows to men to believe in him or not to do so and the responsibility he lays on them to account for their actions. There is not much distinction between the Biblical and Qur’anic teaching on this subject and, while the Qur’an may at times not even remotely approach the Bible in the depth of its teaching and wisdom, it draws very near to it in this respect. Significantly the Qur’an does not add belief in qadar to its articles of faith in Surah 2.177. This was only done by later theologians who developed the Islamic doctrine of predestination. It does appear, however, that this was not a development in the true sense of the word but rather a retrogression, for the fatalistic spirit of much of the teaching of the Hadith on this point contrasts unfavourably with the more balanced Qur’anic assessment of God’s control and measure for all things which nonetheless allows for man’s own freedom to choose the path of faith or unbelief. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 63: 04.30. B. SINLESSNESS OF THE PROPHETS: THE ISMA DOCTRINE. ======================================================================== B. SINLESSNESS OF THE PROPHETS: THE ISMA DOCTRINE. 1. The Development of the Isma Doctrine. Throughout the Muslim world today it is generally believed that all of the prophets enjoyed an isma, a protection against sin, and that they were accordingly sinless. It is one of the anomalies of Islam that this Doctrine has been established and maintained against the plain teaching of the Qur’an and Hadith to the contrary. The orthodox belief is that the prophets do not commit sin, and are sinless (ma’sum), but this dogma contradicts various statements of the Qur’an and of Muhammad as recorded in the Traditions. (Klein, The Religion of Islam, p. 109) We shall shortly see that both the major sources of Islam teach that all the prophets, excepting Jesus, had sins of which they needed to repent and seek forgiveness. In the early centuries of Islam, however, a doctrine founded on popular sentiment and theological presuppositions arose and developed away from the teaching of the Qur’an and Hadith. It was first formulated in the creed known as the Fiqh Akbar II and it is there stated: All the Prophets are exempt from sins, both light and grave, from unbelief and sordid deeds. Yet stumbling and mistakes may happen on their part. (Wensinck, The Muslim Creed, p. 192). It was not possible to defy the written sources of Islam entirely, however, and so the records of the sins of the prophets in the Qur’an and Hadith became watered down into "mistakes". Similar euphemisms, such as "acts of forgetfulness", are constantly used by Muslim writers today to account for these misdemeanours which the Scripture and traditions of Islam record. As a rule, blameworthy behaviour of prophets is smoothed over by means of all possible acumen. (Baljon, Modern Muslim Koran Interpretation, p. 71). There are basically two reasons for the rise of this doctrine in Islam. Firstly, the early Muslims soon discovered that the Bible taught plainly that Jesus was the only sinless man that ever lived and, confronted with this evidence, deemed it necessary to invent the fiction that all the prophets - especially Muhammad - were sinless as well. A superiority of Jesus over Muhammad could not be tolerated and, just as miracles were attributed to the figurehead of Islam to give him a status at least equal to that of Jesus, so he was also held to be sinless for the same purpose. Secondly, the doctrine of revelation in Islam holds that the scriptures were dictated directly to the prophets by the intermediary angel (Gabriel) and it was therefore believed that the prophets must have possessed an impeccable character for, if they could not keep themselves from error in their personal lives, how could they be trusted to communicate God’s revelations without error? This latter presupposition led perforce to the conclusion that the prophets must have been sinless. The purpose of at-nubuwwa (the prophets) could be defeated if the people to whom they are sent thought it permissible for the prophets to commit sins and tell falsehoods, because then they would also think the same about their teachings and their commands and interdictions (Sachedina, Islamic Messianism, p. 135). Muslim orthodoxy, therefore, drew the logically correct conclusion that the prophets must be regarded as immune from serious errors (the doctrine of isma). (Rahman, Islam, p. 32). It was a conclusion, nevertheless, which was drawn from the preconceived notion that God could not ensure the perfect transmission of his revelations unless he simultaneously preserved his messengers from all possible errors of conduct and character. It was not one which arose from an objective analysis of the teaching of the Qur’an and Hadith. (According to the Bible all the prophets were sinners but the scriptures inerrantly inspired by the Holy Spirit, were written and preserved without corruption. The isma doctrine in Islam is weakened by the claim that the Qur’an has been preserved over the centuries without error. If God could entrust the perfect preservation of his revelations to sinful men, why could he not entrust the transmission of the same revelations to them as well. The doctrine is not only unsound in the light of qur’anic teaching but can also hardly be regarded as a "logically correct conclusion"). Either way it cannot be traced back to the teaching of Muhammad himself. But in the Qur’an Muhammad remains a fallible and sinful creature. The conception of him as the ideal man and prototype of humanity belongs to a later development. (Stanton, The Teaching of the Qur’an, p. 51). The acceptance of this doctrine, contradictory to the original spirit of the Qoran, had moreover a dogmatic motive. it was considered indispensable to raise the text of the Qoran above all suspicion of corruption, which suspicion would not be excluded if the organ of the Revelation were fallible. (Hurgronje, Mohammedanism, p. 68). It is important to note, before proceeding, that the "sinlessness" of the prophets in Islam implies only a protection from errors of judgment in action and character. It is to be distinguished from the Biblical doctrine which holds that true sinlessness not only means a freedom from wrong doing but an actual state of heart, soul and mind that reflects all the goodness of God’s holiness, love and righteousness. Those who have "sinned" are also those who have "fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) an not attained to his righteousness. The impeccability of Muhammad has a different basis than the sinlessness of Jesus. Muhammad’s impeccability is asserted for the purpose of establishing the validity of his revelation. Jesus’ sinlessness is the corollary of the affirmation of his divinity and also of the Christian conception of the true nature of man. Prophetic protection, or, "impeccability (’ismah), is a postulate of the reason in respect of revelation rather than a definition of the quality of Muhammad’s person. (Thomson, "Muhammad: His Life and Person", The Muslim World, Vol. 34, p. 115). The only sinlessness known to Christianity is sinless perfection and it decrees that all who do not possess the righteousness of God are automatically counted as sinners. On the contrary Islam knows only a human nature which by instinct is prone to error. It knows nothing of the fallen nature which needs to be redeemed and made regenerate. Its concept of sinlessness is therefore confined purely to a preservation from deliberate error and wrongdoing - it does not require a corresponding positive possession of the image of the holy character of God in the soul. Thus it allows for so the so-called "mistakes" and "acts of forgetfulness". This distinction should be borne in mind as we proceed to analyse Islamic doctrine. 2. Sins of the Prophets in the Qur’an and Hadith. Not only does the Bible teach that all men, excepting Jesus Christ, have sinned, but it also unreservedly sets forth the grave misdeeds of many of the prophets and records the confessions they have made of their sinfulness. After his adultery with Bathsheba and the murder of her husband Uriah, David cried out to God, "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned and done that which is evil in thy sight" (Psalms 51:4). Another prophet, beholding God’s glory, declared "I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes" (Job 42:6). Yet another confessed: "I will bear the indignation of the Lord because I have sinned against him" (Micah 7:9). It is very significant to find that the Qur’an also makes many of the prophets cry out for the forgiveness of their sins. After killing the Egyptian Moses is said to have prayed: "O my Lord! I have indeed wronged my soul! Do Thou then forgive me!" (Surah 28.16). So likewise Abraham said of the Lord of the Worlds that he was the One "who, I hope, will forgive me my faults on the Day of Judgment" (Surah 26.82). Despite these seemingly plain confessions of sin, one Muslim writer says: It is one thing to commit a mistake and quite a different thing to go against the Divine commandments, and no sensible critic could twist such words into a confession of sin. (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p. 199) The word used for "faults" in Surah 26.82, translated by Ali as "mistake", is khati’ati, one of the Qur’anic words for sin (khat’a). Ali, in typical Muslim style, softens its meaning by saying "This word too has a wide significance and covers all unintended actions and mistakes and errors of judgment. Its mention, therefore, in connection with a prophet, does not imply sinfulness" (The Religion of Islam, p. 198). This interpretation is hardly consistent with the usage of the word in the Qur’an for it appears in another passage which reads: Because of their sins they were drowned (in the flood), and were made to enter the Fire (of Punishment). Surah 71.25 The word for "sins" in this verse is khati’atihin, from the same word used in Surah 26.82. In this case it is said that the people of Noah’s time were drowned in the flood and cast into the fire for such sins. The word is therefore here used for sins which were so grave and so serious that they were led to the destruction of those who committed them and their immediate consignment to hell. Ali’s suggestion that the word is only used for "mistakes and errors of judgment" is hardly borne out by its use in a context in the Qur’an where a grossly defiant rebellion against God’s laws is under review. One has here a typical proof of the tendency of some Muslim writers to water down the plain meaning of Qur’anic words to absolve the prophets or moral blameworthiness. It is surely significant that when the Qur’an speaks of Abraham’s prayer for forgiveness of his sins it chooses the same word that it elsewhere uses to describe some of the worst sins ever committed against God. A sincere comparison of these contexts must lead to the conclusion that the Qur’an acknowledges that the prophets at times sinned directly against God’s laws and commandments. (It is interesting to note that while Ali speaks of Abraham’s "mistakes" in Surah 26.82, he translates the same word as "wrongs" in the case of Noah’s people in Surah 71.25 - a clear evidence of an inconsistent Qur’anic exegesis arising from cherished presuppositions contrary to its teachings). The Qur’an follows the Bible in relating the occasion of Adam’s disobedience in approaching the forbidden tree (Surah 2.35) and declares that the result of his action was that he was driven from the Garden (Surah 2.36). Significantly the command in this verse is in the plural and both Pickthall and Yusuf Ali, in footnotes, take this to mean that the whole of mankind was dismissed with Adam and Eve. This supports the Biblical teaching that sin came into the world through one man Adam and that all men were implicated in his transgression (Romans 5:12). Nonetheless, not only is the doctrine of Original Sin denied in Islam but, because Adam is considered to be a prophet, many Muslim writers even go so far as to boldly claim that he committed no sin at all and merely slipped through a forgetfulness of God’s command! There was no intention on the part of Adam to disobey the Divine commandment; it was simply forgetfulness that brought about the disobedience. (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p. 201). On the other hand the Qur’an teaches quite plainly that it was not a mere forgetfulness that led to Adam’s disobedience but that he fell to the temptings of Satan (Surah 20.120) and that after God had warned him that Satan was an adversary who would seek to get him out of the Garden. (Surah 20.117) Satan allegedly said to him: "O Adam! Shall I lead thee to the Tree of Eternity and to a kingdom that never decays?" Surah 20.120 Even though this was the very tree forbidden to him Adam chose to believe Satan and disobey God. If this is not sin, what is?. In another passage we find even further evidence that Adam’s transgression can hardly be excused as an act of forgetfulness. We read that Satan said to Adam and Eve: "Your Lord only forbade you this tree, lest ye should become angels or such beings as live forever". Surah 7.20 Not only did God warn them against eating of the tree but we discover that Satan even reminded them of his warning while tempting them to sin. How can one possibly sustain the argument that Adam merely forgot his Lord’s command? Satan’s reminder aside, it is surely too hard to believe that Adam could have forgotten the one and only thing prohibited to him especially when the order came directly from God himself. Furthermore, if this was only a minor "mistake", why was the penalty so severe - the permanent banishment of the couple and the whole human race with them from the Garden? Again, if Adam did not really commit a sin and was a sinless prophet, then who introduced sin into the world and what was its consequence? It is refreshing to find that not all Muslim writers endeavour to whitewash Adam’s transgression and sweep it under the carpet of their presuppositions. One says of Adam and his wife: When they were asked about their present shameless condition they confessed that they were beguiled and outwitted; turned rebellious for a moment; forgot His kind grace and commandment and broke the covenant. In other words, they had sinned. There was no sin in the state of nature. Sin came from the knowledge of it, from the fateful fruit of the tree of knowledge. When Adam hid behind the tree and hesitated to come before God in the nude, sin had been born. (Raze, Introducing the Prophets, p.5). The Qur’an also teaches that Noah and Jonah were transgressors and that they too prayed for the forgiveness of all their sins (Surah 11.47, 21.87). These words, said in another context, appear to be a fitting conclusion to our study of the Qur’anic teaching regarding the sins of the prophets: This much is true at least: The Qur’an is nearer to Christianity than the system of Islam as it has developed through the centuries. (Guillaume, Islam, p. 160). In the Sunan works of Tirmithi, Ibn Maja and ad-Darimi it is recorded that Muhammad once said: "Every son of Adam is a sinner, and the best of sinners are those who repent constantly" (quoted in Karim’s Mishkatul-Masabih, Vol. 3, p. 360). This statement clearly shows that Muhammad himself did not believe in the sinlessness of the prophets. 3. The Command to Muhammad to Ask for Forgiveness. Not only does the Qur’an teach that many of the former prophets prayed for the forgiveness of their sins but it expressly states that Muhammad himself needed forgiveness for his transgressions: Know, therefore, that there is no god but God, and ask forgiveness for thy fault, and for the men and women who believe. Surah 47.19 Verily We have granted thee a manifest victory: that God may forgive thee thy faults of the past and those to follow; fulfil His favour to thee; and guide thee on the Straight Way. Surah 48.1-2. Once again Muslim commentators find it hard to reconcile such teachings with the doctrine of the isma of the prophets and their attempts to explain away these verses are hardly successful. The words in Surah 47.19 which Yusuf Ali translates as "and ask forgiveness for thy fault" wastaghfir li-thanbik. In Surah 12.29 the same words are Zulaykah (the Muslim name for Potiphar’s wife) is commanded by her husband to repent of her desire to seduce Joseph. In this case Yusuf Ali translates the expression as "ask forgiveness for thy sin". There can be no doubt that this is the obvious meaning of the text, but the translator substitutes fault for "sin" in Surah 47.19 purely because it is Muhammad’s own misdemeanours that are spoken of in this verse. The object is to water down the meaning of the word thanb in this case to natural human weaknesses not considered to be actual sins or transgressions. What was a "sin" in Zulaykah’s case conveniently becomes a "fault" in Muhammad’s case even though the same word is used in both cases - another example of an inconsistent Qur’anic exegesis caused by the isma doctrine. Muhammad Ali says of the word thanb as used in Surah 48.2 that "there is no imputation of sin but only of human short-comings" (The Religion of Islam, p. 199), yet another typical attempt to dilute the meaning of the word so as to sustain the doctrine of Muhammad’s sinlessness. Even this same writer, however, is obliged to concede that the general meaning of the word is "sin" (op. cit., p. 197). The great commentator Baidawi, however, openly explained the words "thy faults of the past and those to follow" to mean "everything blameworthy that has proceeded from you" (Gatje, The Qur’an and its Exegesis, p. 81). A Western writer is also more to the point when he says: The doctrine is in flat contradiction of sura 48:2 where it is said ’that God may forgive thee thy early and later sins’. And, we may add, to the whole spirit and tenor of Muhammad’s words. (Guillaume, Islam, p. 119). Not only have Muslim writers had to resort to unfortunate twists of exegesis to explain away the word for "sin" in the verses quoted but they have also had to do the same with the word istaghfir which, throughout the Qur’an, means simply to "ask forgiveness". Once again Muhammad Ali concedes that the word "is generally taken as meaning asking for forgiveness of sins" (op. cit., p.196) but, in Muhammad’s case, he claims that it means to ask "protection" from sin and says: Prophet Muhammad is said by these critics of Islam to be a sinner because he is commanded to seek Divine protection (istaghfir) for his dhanb (40.55). Now to seek protection against sin does not mean that sin has been committed - he who seeks Divine protection rather guards himself against the commission of sin; and, moreover, the word used here is dhanb which means any human shortcoming. (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p. 199). Throughout the Qur’an Allah is called al-Ghafur which is always interpreted to mean "the Forgiving". A different word is used to describe him as "the Protector", however, namely al-Muhaymin (Surah 59.23). Likewise in one passage in the Qur’an the angels pray to God for the forgiveness of the faithful and their protection from the Fire, using two different words for forgiveness and protection respectively: Forgive, then, those who turn in Repentance, and follow Thy Path; and preserve them from the Penalty of the Blazing Fire! Surah 40.7 The word for "forgive" here is faghfir, the usual word from the same roots as istaghfir, whereas the word translated as "preserve" (that is, protect) is waqihim. The Qur’an clearly draws a distinction between forgiveness and protection and uses two different words accordingly. No objective interpretation of the use of the word istaghfir in the Qur’an in its various forms can yield the meaning "protection". This meaning has been casually read into the word by those who cannot accept that the Qur’an commands Muhammad to ask for the forgiveness of his sins. In Surah 5.77 it is said that Christians should turn to God and yastaghfir’unah - "seek his forgiveness" - for their grievous blasphemy (kufr) in saying that there are three gods of whom Allah is one. Once again what is taken in one case to mean an asking for forgiveness for one of the worst of sins (shirk - associating partners with God) has been watered down in Muhammad’s case to seeking "protection" from innocent shortcomings, even though the same word again is used. Some Muslim writers have another way of getting around the problem. They say Muhammad was only commanded to ask for forgiveness in a representative capacity, that is, not for any sins of his own but only for his people’s errors. This too is contradicted by Surah 47.19 where Muhammad himself is distinguished from the mu’miniina wal mu’minaat, "men and women who believe", and is commanded firstly to ask for forgiveness of his own sins and then for those of his followers. Even Muslim writers who seek to interpret the words wastaghfir lithanbik to mean asking protection from mistakes and "shortcomings" must surely admit that this is not the natural and most obvious explanation of the words, viz. "ask forgiveness of your sin", and also that their interpretation is not really an alternative one but rather an expedient calculated to dampen and soften the real meaning of the expression so as to maintain their doctrine of the isma of the prophets. One thing, however, is quite clear - this doctrine is not derived from the teaching of the Qur’an but rather from popular sentiment. It need scarcely be stated that theology had long since articulated popular feeling in recognizing the Prophet’s immunity from error and sin. (Grunebaum, Muhammadan Festivals, p. 70) . The Hadith, however, openly support the teaching of the Qur’an that Muhammad needed to ask for the forgiveness of his sins and record a prayer of Muhammad, part of which reads as follows: So please forgive the sins which I have done in the past or I will do in the future, and also those (sins) which I did in secret or in public, and that which You know better than I. None has the right to be worshiped but you. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, p. 403). It seems fair to conclude that the earliest sources of Islam do not teach that the prophets were sinless and, on the contrary, record that many of them, including Muhammad himself, sought for the forgiveness of their sins. 4. The Sinlessness of Jesus Christ in Christianity and Islam. The Bible teaches quite plainly that one man, Jesus Christ, was without sin (Hebrews 4:15, 2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 Peter 2:25, 1 John 3:5). It is most significant to find that the Qur’an gives much support to this doctrine, for, while it records the prayers of other prophets for forgiveness and even commands Muhammad himself to pray for forgiveness of his sins, it expressly declares that Jesus Christ was sinless. We read that, when the angel appeared to Mary at the time of the Annunciation, he said: "I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son". Surah 19.19 The word for "holy" in this verse is zakiyya, a word with the root meaning "purity". This form of the word principally means "blamelessness" and it is used in this context in the only other verse in the Qur’an where it appears. The Qur’an has a story about Moses in which he undertook a journey with an unnamed companion whose purpose was to guide him into deeper knowledge and understanding. (In the traditions he is named al-Khidhr - "the Green One" - a figure who is said by the Sufis to have appeared at various times to their masters). At length they met a young man and the companion slew him. Moses retorted: "Hast thou slain an innocent person who had slain none?" Surah 18.74 The companion simply told him to be patient to which Moses replied that he did not deserve his company if he ever questioned him in such a way again. The word for "innocent" is once bargain zakiyyah. In this verse it plainly implies one who was blameless of any crime deserving death. In the case of Jesus, however, the word is used by the angel to describe his whole character and it therefore clearly means one altogether blameless, that is , sinless. Thus the Qur’an does have an isma doctrine, but it is applied to no other prophet in the book than Jesus Christ. It is a remarkable fact that Jesus alone is proclaimed in the Qur’an as the sinless prophet of Islam There is no passage in the Qur’an which attributes sin to Jesus, and no shadow of a suggestion that He had, like Muhammad, to ask forgiveness for himself. (Blair, The Sources of Islam, p. 58). The Koran, while mentioning the sins of Adam, David, Solomon and other prophets, leaves no doubt as regards the purity of the character of Jesus. (Zwemer, The Moslem Christ, p. 124). This teaching is backed up by a remarkable tradition in one of the major works of Hadith literature: The Prophet said, ’No child is born but that, Satan touches it when it is born whereupon it starts crying loudly because of being touched by Satan, except Mary and her son’. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 54). Later Islamic theology, however, could not tolerate the suggestion that Jesus alone was sinless, even though both the Qur’an and Hadith clearly teach this, and so formulated the isma doctrine in defiance of their teaching. Just as the Church of Rome has sought to make Mary the equal of her Son by claiming that she too was sinless and eventually raised to heaven, so Islam has sought to raise Muhammad to the same status by teaching that he was also sinless and was at one time taken to heaven in the mi’raj. Neither of these teachings, however, has a Quranic foundation and both were apparently invented to prevent the Saviour of the Christian faith from standing head and shoulders above the Prophet of Islam in his very own religion. An unconscious tendency prevailed to draw a picture of Muhammed that should not be inferior to the Christian picture of Jesus. (Goldziher, Muslim Studies, Vol. 2, p. 346) The isma doctrine clearly arose on the one hand from theological suppositions and on the other from a determination to raise Muhammad to the level of Jesus Christ. Our study, however, shows that, apart from having no Qur’anic basis, it is actually contrary to its teaching. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 64: 04.31. C. THE FIVE PILLARS OF ISLAM. ======================================================================== C. THE FIVE PILLARS OF ISLAM. 1. The Kalimah - The Confession of Faith. As we have seen, Islam is divided into iman, the belief of a Muslim, and din, the practice of his religion. Just as there are six articles of faith, so there are five compulsory works, generally known as the "Five Pillars of Islam". Muhammad is alleged to have defined these pillars according to the following tradition: Narrated Ibn Umar: Allah’s Apostle said: Islam is based on (the following) five (principles): To testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and Muhammad is Allah’s apostle. To offer the (compulsory congregational) prayers dutifully and perfectly. To pay Zakat (i.e. obligatory charity). To perform Hajj (i.e. Pilgrimage to Mecca). To observe fast during the month of Ramadan. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 1, p. 17). It is somewhat surprising to find the first pillar among the works of Islam as it is really a testimony of faith, but the recital of this creed has become one of the deliberate acts of piety in Islam, indeed its foremost duty, and anyone wishing to become a Muslim need only recite the creed, known as the Kalimah (the "Word"), or the Shahadah (the "Testimony" of Faith), with an express intention to personally profess what he is reciting (this intention is known as the Muslim’s niyyah) to be admitted to the faith. The whole of the religion of Islam is briefly summed up in the two short sentences, La ilaha ill-Allah, i.e. there is no god but Allah, or, nothing deserves to be made an object of love and worship except Allah, and Muhammad-un Rasulullah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. It is simply by bearing witness to the truth of these two simple propositions that a man enters the fold of Islam. (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p. 110). The actual testimony is a single creed - La ilaha illullah Muhammadur-Rasulullah - and whereas the whole confession does not appear in this exact form in the Qur’an, its two constituent parts appear in Surahs 9.31 and 33.40 respectively. It can truly be said that this brief declaration is the equivalent of the Apostle’s Creed in Islam. It is written above the mihrab in many mosques or above their entrances, on letterheads, pendants and posters, and indeed can be found inscribed almost everywhere in the Muslim world. As one writer has aptly said, "On these two phrases hang all the laws and morals of Islam" (Zwemer, The Moslem Doctrine of God, p.15). As soon as a child is born into a Muslim family these words are whispered into his ears and every effort is made to get a dying Muslim to repeat the testimony. This is hardly surprising as Muhammad is said to have claimed that whoever actually professed this testimony would never be touched by the Fire of Hell, though he was apparently unwilling to publish this abroad lest his followers relied on it alone for their salvation. On a journey Muhammad conversed with his companion Mu’adh as follows: He (the Holy Prophet) observed: If anyone testifies (sincerely from his heart) that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is His bondsman and His messenger, Allah immured him from Hell. He (Mu’adh) said: Messenger of Allah, should I not then inform people of it, so that they may be of good cheer? He replied: Then they would trust in it alone. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 1, p. 25). Another tradition states that on the Judgment Day, even though ninety-nine scrolls listing a Muslim’s sins should be produced, each scroll stretching as far as the eye can see, yet even a fragment the size of an ant bearing the Kalimah, recited during his lifetime, would outweigh the scrolls and guarantee his admission to Paradise (Jeffery, Islam: Muhammad and his Religion, p. 157) - justification by faith of a very different kind to that which Christians profess! Nevertheless all these traditions and practices show how prominent the Kalimah is in the exercise of the Muslim’s faith. 2. Salaah - The Prescribed Ritual of Prayer. Five times a day a Muslim is bound to perform the Salaah, the fixed ritual of the Islamic prayer-worship. He should properly go to the nearest mosque to offer his prayers together with the whole congregation. Each of the five periods is preceded by the adhaan (or azaan as it is more commonly called). The muezzin (more correctly mu’adh-dhin) calls out on each occasion: Allaabu Akbar (four times - "Allah is Most Great").Ash’hadu an laa ilaaha illallaah (twice - "I bear witness that there is no god but Allah").Ash’hadu anna Muhammadar-rasulullaah (twice - "I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah").Haya ’alas-salaah (twice - "Come to prayer").Ilaya ’alal falaah (twice - "Come to the good;’). Allaaku Akbar (twice - "Allah is Most Great").Laa ilaaha illallaah (once - "There is no god but Allah"). After the call to the good during the Fajr prayer (just before dawn), the crier calls out twice: "Prayer is better than sleep". Then follows the actual performance of prayer itself in which anything between two or four rituals (each one known as a rak’ah - a "bowing") are performed. The worshipper begins with the qiyam, the standing posture. He raises his hands to his ears and then folds them, right over left, upon his breast. Following this is the ruku in which he bows down and places his hands on his knees, thereafter returning to the standing position. Then comes the sajdah, the prostration of the whole body on the ground. This is performed twice with a brief sitting in between. He then comes back to the sitting position, the qa’dah and passes the greeting as-salaamu alaykum wa rahmatullah - "peace on you and the mercy of Allah". It is known as the taslim and it is said that the worshipper is greeting his fellow Muslims (though some say he is greeting two angels who sit on his shoulders recording his good and bad deeds). In between these postures various expressions and passages of the Qur’an (especially the Suratul-Fatihah) are recited. These include the takbir ("Allah is Most Great"), the tahmid from the Fatihah ("Praise be to Allah"), the tahlil ( There is no god but Allah") and the tasbih ("May Allah be Glorified ). There are variations of these, for example subhaana rabbiyyal Adhiim - "Glorified be the Lord, the Most High . This fixed ritual of prayer is so rigid in Islam that there may be no departure from it and the pious Muslim will slavishly follow it day after day. It is far removed from the spirit of true Christian worship. Prayer is reduced to a gymnastic exercise and a mechanical act; any one who has lived with Moslems needs no proof for this statement. (Zwemer, The Moslem Doctrine of God, p. 100). Muslims say that the whole process is a necessary discipline to bring the remembrance of God constantly before the minds of those who otherwise would soon forget him. One such Muslim writer thus comments: The truth is that the grand idea of holding communion with God or realizing the Divine within man, which is so essential to the moral elevation of man, could not have been kept alive unless there was an outward form to which all people should try to conform. In the first place, no idea can live unless there is an institution to keep it alive. Secondly, the masses in any community, even though it may be educated, can be awakened to the recognition of a truth only through some outward form, which reminds them of the underlying idea. (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p.299). How different this is to Christian worship which stipulates no fixed form, purely because the believer, born of the Holy Spirit, has the constant witness of the Spirit of God within him to call to mind the presence of God. Many writers have seen fit to draw this distinction between the slavish ritual of the Islamic Salaah, where many non-Arabic-speaking Muslims perform their prayers not even understanding the meaning of what they are saying in Arabic, and the freedom of worship in Christianity which is in spirit and in truth. One writer says of the Salaah: It will be seen that this ritual is, in reality, almost solely a service of praise. Indeed, to use the word prayer to describe it gives most English-speaking people a wrong impression. The whole service does not contain a single petition, unless the phrase, "Guide us in the straight path", from the Fatiha be considered as such. (Glubb, The Life and Times of Muhammad, p. 134). Another writer comments: "The dominant feeling connected with the five daily prayers is probably that of a prescribed religious duty being duly performed" (MacDonald, Aspects of Islam, p.345), and yet another says: In the whole Qur’an and in all the Traditions I do not know of a single passage which teaches that prayer to be efficacious must be in spirit and in truth. (Tisdall, The Religion of the Crescent, p.80). Before going into the mosque the worshipper must perform an ablution, known as wudhu (or, in certain circumstances, a washing of the whole body known as ghusl), the ritual of which is set out in the Qur’an: When ye prepare for prayer, wash your faces, and your hands (and arms) to the elbows) rub your heads (with water), and (wash) your feet to the ankles. If ye are in a state of ceremonial impurity, bathe your whole body. Surah 5.7 Later in the same verse it is said that the worshipper may use sand or earth, a ritual known as tayammum, where water is not available. Once again the performance is purely an external act of ritual purity, an ablution which is solely a regulation for the body "which cannot perfect the conscience of the worshipper" (Hebrews 9:9). Christian writers have been constrained to comment negatively on this aspect of Islamic worship as well: If, however, we carefully compare all the passages of the Qur’an which speak of purification and purity, it becomes evident to every unprejudiced reader that in none of them is there any reference to inward moral or spiritual purity of the heart, but that what is required in them is the outward, bodily cleansing by means of ablutions and washings. (Klein, The Religion of Islam, p. 132). For by washing the body the impurity of the heart cannot be cleansed, and so it is evident that this corporeal purification was a type of the spiritual cleansing wrought by the Gospel ... Thus it will be evident to every man of spiritual discernment, that although one whose spirit is untainted by the impurities of the flesh may pay every attention to personal cleanliness, yet such cleanliness of the body has nothing to do with his salvation. (Pfander, The Mizan ul Haqq; or Balance of Truth, p. 6). On the other hand, in all fairness it must be pointed out that the Qur’an itself warns against the dangers of ritual exercises becoming an end in themselves. It says: It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces towards East or West; but it is righteousness to believe in God and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers. Surah 2.177 The great emphasis placed on the outward form in Islam however, not only tends to lull dull worshippers into a sense of complacency and reliance on the rituals themselves, but also implies that the true knowledge of God and witness of the Holy Spirit is absent in Islam for, when these are present, there is no need for a strict outward form, a regulation to compel the devotion of men who otherwise would probably go astray. In addition to the five daily prayers there are the tahajjud prayers, a late-night ritual practiced by Muhammad but not commanded by him, as well as tarawih prayers after the last prayer, salautal-isha, during the month of Ramadan. Furthermore on Fridays the great congregational prayer dust after midday, the Juma prayer, replaces the midday prayer. In all of these the ritualistic performance of raka’at continues but, apart from these prescribed prayers, Muslims also have a more extemporaneous form of prayer, the dua. This takes the form either of set Arabic phrases or of personal devotions which may also be in Arabic or in the worshipper’s language. 3. The Origins of the Five Daily Prayers. The growth of Islam as a religion of established rituals and practices did not stop at the death of Muhammad. On the contrary much development was still required before the rough edges could be smoothed out into the fixed, carefully defined system that we find today. Nowhere is this process more obvious than in the defining of the forms of prayer and their times of observance. The five-times-a-day Salaah is perhaps the fulcrum around which all else rotates in ritualistic Islam. The times are fajr, the morning prayer just before dawn; zuhr, the prayer just after midday; ’asr, the afternoon prayer; maghrib, the prayer just after sunset; and ’isha, the evening prayer. All Muslim jurists hold that the observance of these prayers is fardh, that is, compulsory. Nevertheless, while the forms of ablution are defined in the Qur’an, neither the five times of prayer nor the procedure of each rak’ah is prescribed in the book. The Qur’an does mention both the salaatal-fajr and salaatal-ishaa in Surah 24.58 by name but in this case it is improbable that these were actual titles of prescribed prayer - times. It is far more likely that the expressions simply mean the "morning prayer" and the "evening prayer" respectively. This interpretation is supported by the form of the only other prayer mentioned as such in the Qur’an, namely salaatal-wusta in Surah 2.238, which means simply the "middle prayer". Even though the Qur’an only mentions three times of prayer, Muslim writers endeavour to make the Qur’an prescribe the five fixed periods of prayer and resort to ingenious and none-too-successful methods to achieve their objective. The Qur’an does indeed urge believers to set up regular prayers at stated times (Surah 4.103), but it is quite loose in its treatment of the daily prayers. Apart from the three times it actually specifies it has a variety of exhortations regarding prayers, for example: Celebrate (constantly) the praises of thy Lord, before the rising of the sun, and before its setting; Yea, celebrate them for part of the hours of the night, and at the sides of the day: that thou mayest have (spiritual) joy. Surah 20.130 And establish regular prayer at the two ends of the day and at the approaches of the night. Surah 11.114 It is hard to define the exhortations in these two passages, let alone make them fit the five-times-a-day ritual outlined above. Muslim commentators who seek to realise this end come up with a variety of interpretations. It is agreed that "before the rising of the sun" in Surah 20.130 refers to the morning prayer, but the exhortation to pray "before its setting" is interpreted by Yusuf Ali and Muhammad Ali as the asr prayer, to which Daryabadi adds the zuhr prayer. "Part of the hours of the night" is extended by these commentators to specifically mean the maghrib and isha prayers, though Muhammad Ali adds the late-night tahajjud prayer as well. "At the sides of the day", a vague expression, is nevertheless specifically taken to mean the fajr and isha prayers by Daryabadi, zuhr by Yusuf Ali, while Muhammad Ali adds a voluntary dua to the zuhr prayer. These inconsistencies show how hard it is to read the five daily prayers into the somewhat loose Qur’anic terms found in these verses. Surah 11.114 is also interpreted in various ways by Muslim commentators. In his major work on Islam, however, Muhammad Ali openly states: The Qur’an does not explicitly state that prayer should be said at such and such times, but it does give indications of the times of prayer. (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p.334). Another writer is even more to the point and seems to have a far more balanced and objective approach to the Qur’an than those who would make it yield later developments: The fact, however, that the prayers were fundamentally three is evidenced by the fact that the Prophet is reported to have combined these four prayers into two, even without there being any reason. It was in the post Prophetic period that the number of prayers was inexorably fixed without any alternative at five, and the fact of the fundamental three prayers was submerged under the rising tide of the Hadith which was put into circulation to support the idea that prayers were five. (Rahman, Islam, p. 36). It is indeed only in the Hadith that we find the five times specifically fixed. It is said that when Muhammad came into the presence of Allah during the Mi’raj, he was commanded to pray fifty times a day. On relating this to Moses, the latter urged him to get it reduced by ten, which Allah duly allowed. The narrative continues (Muhammad speaking): Again I passed by Moses and he said the same again; and so it went on until only five prayers for the whole day and night were left. Moses again gave me the same advice. I replied that I had been back to my Lord and asked him to reduce the number until I was ashamed, and would not do it again. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 186). God is then said to have stated that those who observed the five prayers would have the value of fifty counted to them. In another work of Hadith it is said that Gabriel specifically came to Muhammad one day and performed the fajr, zuhr, asr, maghrib and isha prayers with Muhammad and told him he was ordered to demonstrate them to him so that he would know when and how to perform the prescribed prayers (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 1, p.297). We have already seen, however, that the whole story of the Mi’raj is a myth founded primarily on Zoroastrian sources and the possible genuineness of the five fixed times of prayer is hardly enhanced by the claim in the Hadith that their authority derives from this speculative tale. More than one author has suggested that the five periods themselves are of Zoroastrian origin: In the Koran itself only three daily prayers are known, and it is no doubt due to influence from the Persian side that their number in the oldest Islam is increased to five. (Buhl, "The Character of Mohammed as a Prophet", The Muslim World, Vol. 1, p.356). A reference to the Avesta will show that the Zoroastrians are instructed to observe prayer five times a day . . . . the day is divided into five periods, during which the gains, or prayers, which belong to each period should be recited. (Blair, The Sources of Islam, p. 127). We may conclude that the definition of five daily prayers in Islam is a typical example of the way in which the religion of Muhammad, still growing towards maturity at the time of his death, was rounded off in later years. 4. Zakaah and Saum - Alms and Fasting. The Qur’an constantly enjoins on believers the duty of paying Zakaah, a prescribed almsgiving. The book often links the duty of charity with the observance of Salaah (e.g. Surah 9.5) and refers to it as an act of piety to purify the believer (the word comes from the same roots as zakiyya considered in the previous section) and as an act of gratitude to God. There is no duty to which more frequent reference is made in the Qoran than that of almsgiving. In almost every Sura is this duty urged upon the believers; and in some Suras, indeed, the prophet returns again and again to this subject. (Roberts, The Social Laws of the Qoran, p.70). The fixed tithe in Islam has been established as two-and-a-half per cent but, whereas the Old Testament tithe of ten per cent was calculated simply in terms of a man’s income, zakaah is determined chiefly as a surcharge or a man’s wealth and possessions. The other form of charity in Islam, of a less obligatory nature, is known as sadaqah, a voluntary offering indicating the sincerity of a man’s disposition towards generosity (Surah 2.264). The word has the same roots as the title given to Abu Bakr, namely as-Siddiq - "the Trustworthy". There are two important words in Arabic that have to do with almsgiving. The more common of these is zakat, from a root that means "to grow" or "to be pure"; it seems to imply that the giving of alms is a means of purifying one’s soul - perhaps from the guilt that inevitably accompanies the accumulation of property. the other term is sadaqat, from a root that means "true" or "sincere"; the reference is to whatever is sanctified to God’s service. (Fry and King, Islam: A Survey of the Muslim Faith, p.78). Apart from the regular prescribed alms, there is also a special charity known as zakatal-fitr, being a donation made at the end of the fast month of Ramadan on the occasion of the festival Eid-ul-Fitr. This tithe is also known as sadaqatal-fitr as it is not necessarily an obligatory charity. With regard to ’zakat al-fitr’, alms to be distributed at the end of Ramadan, the Shafi’ites consider it as ’fard’, a rigorous duty, the Hanifites as ’wajib’, less strictly obligatory, and the Malikites as ’sunna’, custom. (Lammens, Islam: Beliefs and Institutions, p.89). Zakaah can be used for distribution to the poor, assistance towards those who have recently embraced Islam, the freeing of slaves, and fii sabiiIillaah - "in the Way of A1lah" (a common Qur’anic phrase). Fasting is also prescribed as an obligatory duty of Islam and the Muslim is obliged to fast from sunrise to sunset during the thirty days of the month of Ramadan. The command to fast is found in the Qur’an: Ramadhan is the (month) in which was sent down the Qur’an, as a guide to mankind, also clear (Signs) for guidance and judgment (between right and wrong). So every one of you who is present (at his home) during that month should spend it in fasting. But if any one is ill, or on a journey, the prescribed period (should be made up) by days later. Surah 2.185 The believer must declare his niyyah before dawn each day and must abstain from all foods, liquids and other pleasures during the day. He should partake of a proper breakfast, a sehri, before the morning prayer. At sunset he should also break his fast as soon as he can. The fast-month ends with the sighting of the new moon heralding the month of Shawwal and the Eid festival. Abd Allah b. Abbas reported that the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him), referring to Ramadan, declared: Do not begin to fast until you have seen the crescent and do not leave the fast until you see it, and if there are clouds, complete thirty days. (Muwatta Imam Malik, p. 116). Throughout the Muslim world this fast, although commanded only once in the Qur’an, is rigidly observed, even by those who are otherwise lax in religious observances. In some Muslim lands it is a criminal offence to fail to keep it. In conclusion it may be said that Salaah and the Ramadan fast have a greater effect on the Muslim’s religious consciousness than all the other prescribed duties of Islam. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 65: 04.32. D. THE HAJJ PILGRIMAGE TO MECCA. ======================================================================== D. THE HAJJ PILGRIMAGE TO MECCA. 1. The Ceremonies of the Muslim Pilgrimage. The fifth pillar of Islam is the obligatory pilgrimage which every Muslim, who is able to afford it, must make at least once in his lifetime. In the Qur’an much is said about the Hajj (literally a "setting out towards" a place, in this case Mecca) and it is made obligatory in these verses: Pilgrimage thereto is a duty men owe to God, - those who can afford the journey. Surah 3.97 And proclaim the Pilgrimage among men: they will come to thee on foot and (mounted) on every kind of camel lean on account of journeys through deep and distant mountain highways. Surah 22.27 In the Hadith the pilgrimage is also made incumbent on every Muslim "Ibn ’Abbas reported the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: Islam does not allow for failure to perform the Hajj" (Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 2, p.454). The Hajj can only properly be performed on the eighth, ninth and tenth days of Thul-Hijjah, the last month of the Muslim year. The actual pilgrimage begins just outside Mecca where there are various mawaqit ("stations" - singular, miqat) where the pilgrims must change into two strips of white cloth known as the ihram (the word means "prohibiting", indicating that the pilgrim is now on sacred service and is prohibited from various activities). This obligation applies to men only - women need merely be modestly and appropriately attired: At this point the pilgrim must recite a declaration that he about to embark on the Hajj, known as the talbiyah ("standing for orders"). He follows the words attributed to Muhammad: I respond to Your call, O Allah, I respond to Your call, and I am obedient to Your orders. You have no partner, I respond to Your call. All the praises and blessings are for You, All the sovereignty is for You, and You have no partners with You. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 2, p.361). The first part reads in Arabic Labbaika Allahumma, Labbaik - Here I come, O Allah, here I come". He then enters Mecca and performs the tawaf, a sevenfold "circling" of the Ka’aba, always going anticlockwise around it This ritual is known as tawaful-qudum (the tawaf of "arrival") and begins at the famous black stone built into the east corner of the Ka’aba, of which more will be said shortly. After this comes the sa’y, a "running" between Safa and Marwa, two small hills now enclosed within the Great Mosque precincts. This ritual commemorates Hagar’s search for water for Ishmael which supposedly took place between these hills. The well she is supposed to have found is the Zam Zam Well just to the east of the Ka’aba within the mosque precincts as well This running must also take place between the hills seven times The Qur’an has an interesting verse relating to this rite: Behold! Safa and Marwa are among the Symbols of God. So if those who visit the House in the Season or at other times should compass them round, it is no sin in them. Surah 2.158 The last sentence implies that there were Muslims who had believed that this practice was wrong. In the Hadith we are told that some of the Ansar, prior to their conversion to Islam, worshipped the idol Manat and, unlike the other pagans prior to Islam, would not run between Safa and Marwa. These men long after accepting Islam, were apparently still unwilliing to perform the ceremony until this verse recommended it (Muwatta Imam Malik, p. 171). It is hard to believe that there is any truth in this story. If the scruple was purely a sectarian bias in favour of the idol Manat, why would they maintain it long after their conversion to Islam, especially when the ceremony was practiced by the other Muslims? There is a more probable reason for the unwillingness of some of the Muslims to perform the sa’y until it was sanctioned in the Qur’an: Jalaluddin says this passage was revealed because the followers of Muhammad made a scruple of going round these mountains as the idolaters did. But the true reason of his allowing this relic of ancient superstition seems to be the difficulty he found in preventing it . . . The Tafsir-i-Raufi and Tafsir Fatah al aziz relate that in former times two pillars were erected on these two hills to commemorate the judgment of God upon two notable sinners, Asaf, a man, and Naila, a woman, who had committed adultery in the holy Kasbah. When the people fell into idolatry they worshipped these as images of God. (Wherry, A Comprehensive Commentary on the Qur’an, Vol. 1, p.347). Another writer tells it slightly differently: "Asaf and Nayelah, the former the image of a man, the latter of a woman, were also two idols brought with Hobal from Syria, and placed the one on Mount Safa, and the other on Mount Merwa" (Sale, Preliminary Discourse to the Koran, p. 22). It is far more likely that Muhammad simply retained the custom of running between the two hills as part of his overall adoption of the pagan Arab pilgrimage into the rituals of Islam. As said earlier in this book, he destroyed the idols in Mecca but retained the ceremonies of the pilgrimage. While it may have been a magnanimous gesture to the inhabitants of the city, it seems to have disturbed his older and more steadfast companions from Medina until the Qur’an assured them there was no sin in the practice. The story in the Hadith appears to be purely an attempt to explain away an awkward expression in the Qur’an ("The implication in the last part of the verse is that a pagan practice is being retained, but that its retention is approved" Levy, The Social Structure of Islam, p. 161). Nonetheless it does openly admit that the practice of running between Safa and Marwa was one of the ceremonies of the idol- worshipping Arabs prior to Islam. After this the pilgrims return to the Ka’aba to perform tawaf again and on the following day go to perform the wuquf (the standing ) at Mount Arafat, a plain ten miles east of Mecca. Here the pilgrims stand in prayer during the day and listen to the pilgrimage sermon read on a small mound on the plain known as Jabalir-Rahmah (the "Mountain of Mercy") where Muhammad himself preached to his companions during his farewell pilgrimage. At the end of the day the Muslims hasten back on the road to Mecca to "celebrate the praises of God at the mash’aril-haraam" (Surah 2.198), the "Sacred Monument" of Muzdalifah, where they spend the night. The next day, the Yawman-Nahr (the "Day of Sacrifices"), they continue back towards Mecca and at Mina perform ramial-jimar, the stoning ceremony, of which more will be said shortly. The pilgrimage officially closes at this point and is followed by the Eidul-Adha festival at Mina where animals are sacrificed (a pre-Islamic pagan custom at the end of the pilgrimage now said to be commemorative of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son, believed by the Muslims to be Ishmael), and a final circumambulation of the Ka’aba known as tawaful-wada (the tawaf of "departure"). A faithful Muslim will then make a respectful visit (a ziyarah) to Medina where Muhammad is buried in the Prophet’s Mosque alongside his successors Abu Bakr and Umar. 2. Al-Hajarul-Aswad - The Black Stone. In our study of the early period of Muhammad’s life we noted an incident which occurred some five years prior to the beginning of his mission, namely the occasion when he was requested to place the Black Stone (al-hajarul-aswad) in the Ka’aba. When all the idols of the building were destroyed at the conquest of Mecca, this stone was preserved and every pilgrim to Mecca endeavours to kiss it in emulation of his prophet’s practice. Why do they do this? One Muslim writer says of this rite: Moslems do not worship the Black Stone, but only show special reverence and veneration for its dignity and they kiss it only after the example of the Prophet and to keep their Covenant with God to obey His Will and avoid His disobedience. (Tabbarah, The Spirit of Islam, p. 173). It is believed that the stone was sent down from heaven and that it was originally crystal-clear. "Moslems agree that it was originally white, and became black by reason of men’s sins. It appeared to me a common aerolite covered with a thick slaggy coating, glossy and pitch-like, worn and polished" (Burton, Personal Narrative of a Pilgrimage to AI-Madinah and Meccah, Vol. 2, p.300). The Qur’an teaches that the Ka’aba was originally built by Abraham and Ishmael (Surah 2.125) and it is said that the stone, once embedded in the shrine, became black as it took the sins of those who kissed it. One writer says: There is not the least indication to show where this stone came from and when it was placed there, but as it was there before the advent of Islam and was even kissed, it must have been there at least from the time of Abraham, as the main features of the hajj are traceable to that patriarch. (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p.440). There is no evidence of an historical nature in pre-Islamic records to back up the suggestion in the Qur’an that the Ka’aba was built by Abraham or that he practiced its pilgrimage rites. Historically the shrine and its ceremonies can only be traced to the pagan worship of the pre-Islamic Arabs. One can only express extreme scepticism at the hypothesis that the stone "must have been there" in Abraham’s time. As the Arab idols were generally made of stone - some fashioned into various forms, others unshapen - is it not probable that the Black Stone itself was an idol worshipped by the pagan Arabs? As the custom of kissing it has been retained in Islam the suggestion naturally appalls Muslims. The Black Stone was never regarded as an idol by the pre-Islamic Arabs, nor was it ever worshipped by them like the idols of the Ka’bah . . . It, no doubt, contained idols, yet it was the idols that were worshipped, not the Ka’bah; and the same is true of the Black Stone. It was kissed but never taken for a god, though the Arabs worshipped even unhewn stones, trees and heaps of sand. (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p.440, 441). Why, then, did the pagan Arabs make a special point of kissing it as Ali himself admits? What significance did it have for them if it was not an idol? It is, perhaps, too remarkable to believe that it was not worshipped as an idol. After all, stone gods were the very thing the Arabs reverenced, whether shapen into some form or not. Another Muslim writer says: Is it not unfortunate that so many Orientalists have misinterpreted the Muslim’s veneration of the Ka’bah, the Black Stone and the pilgrimage rites as a whole, imagining them as some kind of idol worship, or dismissing the rites as silly, ridiculous or merely the relics of idolatrous superstition? Another faulty assumption is that the rites of pilgrimage were remnants of a pre-Islamic cult included by the Prophet in an attempt to reconcile the idolatrous Meccans with the faith. (Khalifa, The Sublime Qur’an and Orientalism, p. 140). One understands the Muslim determination to absolve Islam of a relic of idol-worship in its pilgrimage rites but it does seem most improbable that this stone, one of the sacred stones built into the Ka’aba by the pre-Islamic Arabs, just somehow happened to be exempted from the adoration and worship afforded to the others. This seems even more improbable when we remember that it was over this stone that they argued even before Muhammad’s mission when rebuilding the Ka’aba, finally requesting Muhammad himself to replace it. This clearly shows that they regarded it more highly than all the other idols in the shrine and it is most unlikely that it escaped the worship paid to them. It seems far more probable that it was a "fetish pure and simple" (Gairdner, The Reproach of Islam, p.156) and that it was, if anything, the chief idol in the shrine, a stone worshipped like all the others. At least one Muslim writer has admitted as much: In fact, the Arabs venerated these stones so much that not only did they worship the black stone in the Ka’bah, but they would take one of the stones of the Ka’bah as a holy object in their travels, praying to it and asking it to bless every move they made. (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, p. 30) As the Arabs worshipped all the stone idols of the Ka’aba it seems historically more probably that this worship has a legacy in the reverence paid today to the Black Stone rather than the Arab worship of stones arose out of the sanctity of the Black Stone which somehow escaped this worship and adoration. The most singular feature in this worship was the adoration paid to unshapen stones. Mussulmans hold that this practice arose out of the Kaaba rites . . . The tendency to stone-worship was undoubtedly prevalent throughout Arabia; but it is more probable that it gave rise to the superstition of the Kaaba with its Black stone, than took its rise therefrom. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p. xci) Another writer is probably close to the mark when he says that the Black Stone was "the great fetish, the principal though not the only divinity of the Quraish clan" (Lammens, Islam: Beliefs and Institutions, p. 17). In any event, there appears to be no point in kissing the stone and Muslims will be hard-pressed to find a really sound reason for the perpetuation of a practice more suited to primitive pagan idolatry than the true spirit of monotheistic worship. The kiss which the pious Muhammadan pilgrim bestows on it is a survival of the old practice, which was a form of worship in Arabia as in many other lands. (Tisdall, The Original Sources of the Qur’an, p. 43). Even one of Muhammad’s closest companions, the second caliph Umar, had his own doubts about the wisdom of this ceremony and had some interesting things to say to the Stone. It is recorded in many works of Hadith literature and reads: Urwah b. Zubair reported that Umar b. al-Khattab, when he was doing the tawaf of the House, said: Thou art but a stone. Thou canst do neither good nor harm and if I had not seen the Apostle of Allah (may peace be on him) kissing thee, I would never have kissed thee. Then he kissed it. (Muwatta Imam Malik, p. 168) Umar’s description of the stone as that which can "neither do good nor harm" is very similar to the description of pagan idols in the Qur’an ("unable to help you, and indeed to help themselves" - Surah 7.197). We have already given the most likely reason for Muhammad’s retention of this rite in Islam - the occasion when he was honoured with the task of placing it in the Ka’aba, an event which almost certainly influenced his later convictions that he had been singled out to lead his people. This incident probably led him to believe that, as he had been chosen to replace the stone, it was to be identified with his prophetic call and had a special significance apart from the place it had in the regular pagan idolatry. The tradition that the stone originally came down from heaven seems to account for its origin and eminence. Burton believed it to be an aerolite and it is highly probable that it was quite simply a meteorite which, because it had fallen out of the sky, was treated with awe by the primitive Arabs. One is reminded of the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus which was highly esteemed because it contained, "the sacred stone that fell from the sky" (Acts 19:35). The Black Stone, in all probability, was simply a meteorite reverenced as a god in the same way by the Arabs. Its retention in Islam, especially the primitive custom of kissing it, speaks volumes for the pagan character of the Hajj Pilgrimage as a whole. 3. The Stoning of the Demons at Mina. The ramial-jimar ceremony at Mina, like many other ceremonies in the Hajj, places a great emphasis on stones - further evidence of pagan Arab practices survivng to this day for the pre-Islamic idol-worshippers worshipped not only stones but had a stone-throwing ceremony in their rites. The custom of stone throwing has of old maintained itself outside the Muna Valley, where Islam has legalised the throwing on to three stone heaps. (Hurgronje, Mekka in the Latter Part of the 19th Century, p.96). At the small village of Mina each pilgrim must, on the third day of the Hajj, cast seven small pebbles at a stone pillar known as Jamratul-Aqabah as a sign of his rejection of the ways and influence of the devil. For this reason the pillar has become known as ash-Shaytanul-Kabir ("the Great Satan"). It used to be a simple pillar at ground level but, the crowds to Mecca being what they are these days, it is now a huge pillar with platforms at different levels to accommodate the hundreds of thousands of pilgrims who endeavour to pelt it. Each pilgrim must collect sixty-three small stones while at Muzdalifah for, when the final tawaf is completed, he must return to Mina to once again stone the pillar as well as two others nearby, known as Jamratul-Awla and Jamratul-Wusta respectively (though some gather only forty-nine stones and others seventy. The number must be a multiple of seven as seven pebbles are to be cast at each pillar in turn). Like many other rites in the Hajj, this one too has been dislocated from its pre-Islamic pagan status and is now said to be an act of piety which follows the example of Abraham who supposedly thrice stoned Satan as he tried to stop him sacrificing his son (believed by the Muslims to have taken place in the valley where Mina is situated) It is said that, when Abraham or Ibrahim returned from the pilgrimage to Arafat, and arrived at Wady Muna, the devil Eblys presented himself before him at the entrance of the valley, to obstruct his passage; when the angel Gabriel, who accompanied the Patriarch, advised him to throw stones at him, which he did, and after pelting him seven times, Eblys retired. When Abraham reached the middle of the valley, he again appeared before him, and, for the last time, at its western extremity, and was both times repulsed by the same number of stones. (Burckhardt, Travels in Arabia, p. 275). It is no mean feat to succeed in striking the pillars with the pebbles as each pilgrim has only a random chance of even getting near them. Over a million pilgrims today all seek to stone the great pillar, have their hair cut (a sign that the rites are officially completed), perform the Eid sacrifice, and visit Mecca once more all in a single day. Even in days when the pilgrims to Mecca were only a fraction of what they are today European travellers who succeeded in performing the Hajj had some awesome tales to tell about this rite. One relates his experience as follows: As the ceremony of "Ramy", of Lapidation, must be performed on the first day by all pilgrims between sunrise and sunset, and as the fiend was malicious enough to appear in a rugged Pass, the crowd makes the place dangerous . . . The narrow space was crowded with pilgrims, all struggling like drowning men to approach as near as possible to the Devil; it would have been easy to run over the heads of the mass . . . Scarcely had my donkey entered the crowd than he was overthrown by a dromedary, and I found myself under the stamping and roaring beast’s stomach. Avoiding being trampled on by a judicious use of the knife, I lost no time in escaping from a place so ignobly dangerous. Some Moslem travellers assert, in proof of the sanctity of the spot, that no Moslem is ever killed here: Meccans assured me that accidents are by no means rare. (Burton, Personal Narrative of a Pilgrimage to Al-Madinah and Meccah, Vol. 2, p.204). Another traveller to Mecca in later years just before the Great War (Burton went to Mecca in 1853) also tells of the hazards and mixed fortunes of those who were able to get close enough to the pillar to hit it: The first two "devils" are in the main street of Mina, the third a little way down on the right of the road going to Mecca. They consist of stone pillars, and stand in a sort of basin like the basin of a fountain. All of them, by the time we got there, were surrounded by a surging crowd topped by waving arms and obscured in a perfect haze of stones. It was long before we could get within shot at all, and in the end we had to discharge our missiles at long range with the result that most of mine, I am afraid, fell short. There is no necessity to hit the target, but if you go short or over it you are bound to hit somebody in the crowd. Enthusiasts who get too close frequently have a very bad time; a man standing close to me had his cheek laid open, and Masaudi got a cut on the ear. (Wavell, A Modern Pilgrim in Mecca, p.161). Muslim guidebooks state that it does not really matter whether the stones strike the pillars or not. As long as they fall somewhere nearby, the rite is properly executed. One can well imagine what a heap of pebbles lies about the pillars at the end of the ceremony. Tradition has it that the angels descend and remove the stones, casting them about Muzdalifah in preparation for the same rites a year later! 4. The Pagan Origins of the Hajj Rites. Throughout this section we have had occasion to point to the pagan origin of the Hajj ceremonies. It is surely significant that, as they are practiced to this day, these ceremonies are precisely the same as those practiced by the pagan Arabs. Are we to seriously entertain the suggestion that although they worshipped idols and stone images, the Arabs had somehow maintained the pilgrimage rites precisely as Abraham himself had practiced them some millennia earlier? Or is it not far more likely that Muhammad expediently retained the pagan customs, subtly giving them an Abrahamic emphasis? It seems hard to resist the conclusion that this "curious set of ceremonies of pagan Arab origin which Mohammed has incorporated into his religion" (Hurgronje, Mohammedanism, p. 160) is nothing more in Islam than "an extraneous chunk of heathenism" (Bell, The Origin of Islam in its Christian Environment, p.74). The rites of the Kaaba were retained, but stripped of all idolatrous tendency, they still hang, a strange unmeaning shroud, around the living theism of Islam. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p. xciii). Muslim scholars have also been constrained to admit that Muhammad adopted the pagan Arab pilgrimage en bloc into Islam, seeking to justify it on the historical fiction that Abraham was its originator and that later generations perverted its monotheistic origin and emphasis. The Ka’bah was then the holy of holies of paganism and securely protected against any attack against its authorities or sanctity. (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, p. 43). It is true that in the hajj many pre-Islamic practices were retained, but as has been shown above, the origin of these practices is traceable to Abraham, and every one of them carries with it a spiritual significance. (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p. 448). We cannot accept, however, the claim that the ceremonies as practiced today were first performed by Abraham. It is historically illogical to assume that they survived unchanged through centuries of pagan Arab custom while idol-worship became the order of the day. The most probable reasons for Muhammad’s acceptance of the Hajj ceremonies have already been given in this book - the honour bestowed on him before his mission when he was appointed to replace the Black Stone in the Ka’aba and his constant search for a means whereby he might reconcile himself to his pagan countrymen. It is highly significant that Meccan opposition to Muhammad’s cause collapsed immediately after he and his followers had performed the pilgrimage - the exact rites performed by the pagan Arabs, excluding the worship of their idols - a year after the Treaty of Hudaybiyah had allowed them to do so. This last was a magnificent stroke of policy, besides satisfying his own insuppressible hankering after Mecca and its fetish, for it bound the Meccans, and the Mecca-visiting Arabs to the new regime and faith as nothing else could have done. (Gairdner, The Reproach of Islam, p.71). Perhaps the greatest irony of this whole ceremony is that its origin should be attributed to Abraham, a man who, according to the Qur’an, detested idols made of stone and destroyed them (Surah 37. 91-93). For the whole emphasis of the pilgrimage falls on stones. The Muslims circumambulate the Ka’aba, an empty shrine made of stones, kiss the Black Stone built into it, and pray at the maqam-i-Ibrahim in front of which stands a small shrine containing another stone (the qadam-i-Ibrahim) on which Abraham allegedly stood while building the Ka’aba (it is supposed to bear his footprint). Arafat is a plain on which the Mount of Mercy stands - covered with stones and a stone monolith commemorating Muhammad’s farewell sermon. At Mina the pilgrims throw small stones at larger stone pillars. Surely it is almost ridiculous to believe that the great patriarch - the exemplar of true faith in those very early days - was the author of ceremonies whose rites were vested in stones, the very things from which the pagan idols were made. It is, therefore, in these absurd rites of the Hajj that Islam finds its severest condemnation, and the falsity of Muhammad’s pretended revelations is amply demonstrated. The Hajj was Muhammad’s compromise with Arabian Paganism. (Blair, The Sources of Islam, p. 162). One often sees posters of the Ka’aba in Mecca joined with Muhammad’s mosque in Medina, Islam’s two holiest shrines, in Muslim homes. A colleague of mine once coined a very apt description of the focal point of these sites, namely the Black Stone and Muhammad’s tomb respectively - a dead stone and stone-dead! We say that a thing is "stone-dead" because stones are the most lifeless objects on earth, unable even to support life like the soil. The emphasis that falls on them in the Hajj exposes the lifeless character of the pilgrimage as a whole. They contrast sharply with the rivers of life, coming from the living Christ and flowing through the indwelling Spirit in the soul of a true Christian who does not need to make a journey to one of the moat desolate places on earth to supposedly draw near to the living God. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 66: 04.33. THE SOCIAL LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF ISLAM ======================================================================== The Social Laws and Customs of Islam ======================================================================== CHAPTER 67: 04.34. A. MUSLIM FESTIVALS AND CELEBRATIONS. ======================================================================== A. MUSLIM FESTIVALS AND CELEBRATIONS. 1. The Festivals of Eid-ul-Fitr and Eid-ul-Adha. There are two great festivals in Islam, ’Idul-Fitr, which falls on the first day of Shawwal, the tenth month of the Islamic year, and ’Idul-Adha, which falls on the tenth day of Thul-Hijjah and coincides with the Yauman-Nahr, "Day of the Sacrifices" in the Hajj Pilgrimage as we have seen. The first festival, Eid-ul-Fitr (the "Festival of the Breaking of the Fast"), occurs as soon as the new moon is sighted at the end of the month of fasting, namely Ramadan. On this festival the people, having previously distributed the alms which are called the Sadaqatu’l-Fitr, assemble in the vast assembly outside the city in the Igdah, and, being led by the Imam, recite two rak’ahs of prayer. After prayers the Imam ascends the mimbar, or pulpit, and delivers the khutbah, or oration. (Hughes, A Dictionary of Islam, p. 194). The igdah is a large place especially set aside for the large congregations who will attend the special Eid prayer early in the morning and can be an open field or flat piece of ground. It is only used as such on festival days for congregational prayers, the proper place always being the mosque on other occasions. We have already mentioned the Sadaqatul-Fitr charity in another chapter but some idea of its importance and practice is found in this quote: On the first day of Shawwal, the tenth month, comes the Ramazan ki’Id, or Ramazan celebration, when every one who fasts before going to the place of prayer (igdah) should make the customary fast offering (roza ki fitrat), which consists in distributing among a few Faqirs some 5 lb. of wheat or other grain, dates and fruit. For until a man has distributed these gifts or the equivalent in money, the Almighty will keep his fasting suspended between Heaven and Earth. (Herklots, Islam in India, p. 113). The Eid prayer is not only said at an unusual place but is also conducted without the usual azaan, the call to prayer. This practice of omitting the azaan was allegedly practised by Muhammad himself and is founded on this hadith: Jabir bin Abdullah said, "The Prophet went out on the Day of ’Id-ul-Fitr and offered the prayer before delivering the Khutba". Ata told me that during the early days of Ibn-Az-Zubair, Ibn Abbas had sent a message to him telling him that the Adhan for the ’Id Prayer was never pronounced (in the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle) and the Khutba used to be delivered after the prayer. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 2, p. 41). The festival is intended to be a festive and joyous occasion. Special foods and delicacies are prepared for the day and are distributed to neighbours and friends. Despite its importance it is considered inferior to the Eid-ul-Adha and is known as the "little feast". Eid-ul-Adha (the "Feast of Sacrifice") is the great festival of Islam. It is also known as Baqri-Eid (the "Cow Festival") because its most important feature is the sacrifice of an animal (cow, goat, sheep, or other appropriate beast) in commemoration of the ram sacrificed by Abraham in place of his son. In Muhammad’s time a camel was usually the animal sacrificed. The command to perform sacrifices is given in Surah 22.36 and although no specific day is fixed in the Qur’an the sacrificing of animals was already practiced on the last day of the pilgrimage by the pre-Islamic Arabs and the institution was duly retained. A special prayer, similar to the Eid-ul-Fitr prayer, is also offered on this day before the animals are sacrificed. Narrated Al-Bara: I heard the Prophet delivering a Khutba saying, "The first thing to be done on this day (the first day of ’Id-ul-Adha) is to pray; and after returning from the prayer we slaughter our sacrifices (in the name of Allah), and whoever does so, he acted according to our Sunna (traditions) " (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 2, p. 37). Every Muslim home is obliged to offer a sacrifice on this day. The meat may be eaten by the family but a distribution of a generous share to the poor should also be made. As the two Eids are festive occasions, it is unlawful to fast on these days. Fasting on Eid-ul-Adha would, in fact, defeat the whole object of the festival for food is to be eaten on this day with a cheerful heart in remembrance of God’s bounty and provision for mankind. Umar once said: The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) prohibited fasting on these two days. As regards Id al-Adha, you eat the meat of your sacrificial animals. As for Id al-Fitr, you break (i.e. end) your fast. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 2, p. 663). The name commonly given to the Eid sacrifice, qurbani, seems to have similar origins to the Jewish "Corban", meaning something set apart for God (Mark 7:11), and is probably derived from the Jewish word. Both Eids can last for two or three days but the prescribed rituals and prayers must be performed on the first day of each festival. 2. The Three Special Nights in the Islamic Year. Islam has three holy nights each year, the most important being Laylatul-Qadr (the "Night of Power") which is traditionally believed to be the 27th night of Ramadan. It is the night on which the Qur’an was allegedly brought down to the first heaven before being revealed to Muhammad and it iS also the night on which special blessings are believed to be sent down on true worshippers from heaven: We have indeed revealed this (Message) in the Night of Power: And what will explain to thee what the Night of Power is? The Night of Power is better than a thousand Months. Therein come down the angels and the Spirit by God’s permission on every errand: Peace! ... This until the rise of Morn! Surah 97.1-5. There was much uncertainty about the actual night in the early days of Islam, however, and it was only known to be one of the last ten nights of Ramadan. Muhammad reportedly said: I had discovered the night of Qadr, but I have been made to forget. I think that I saw that I was performing sajdah on the morning of the Night of Qadr in mud and water. Seek it, therefore, in the last ten days at odd nights. (Muwatta Imam Malik, p. 128). Other traditions say it falls on one of the last seven nights of the month. The night is also called laylatim-mubaarakah in Surah 44.3 - "a blessed night". This is one night of the year when every Muslim will seek to attend the evening prayer and the usual tarawih prayers of Ramadan. The second great holy night of Islam is Laylatul-Bara’ah, the "Night of Record", which falls on the fifteenth night of Shabaan, the month before Ramadan. Once again every effort will be made to attend the mosque. On this night, Muhammad said, God registers annually all the actions of mankind which they are to perform during the year, and that all the children of men, who are to be born and to die in the year, are recorded. Muhammad enjoined his followers to keep awake the whole night, to repeat one hundred rikat prayers, and to fast the next day, but there are generally great rejoicings instead of a fast, and large sums of money are spent in fireworks. (Hughes, Notes on Muhammadanism, p. 116). The night is also commonly known as Shabi-Baraat and it is said that there is a tree in heaven which sheds a number of leaves on this night, each one containing the name of someone destined to die in the coming year. The mercy of Allah, nevertheless, also descends on this night and sinners who repent are likely to obtain forgiveness in it. There appears to be a possibility that the night’s significance may have Jewish origins. In Jewish legend the world was created on New Year’s day. No cosmological significance attaches to the First of Muharram, the official opening of the Muslim year. But the night of the Fifteenth of Sha’ban, lailat al-bara’a (behind which hitherto unexplained term the Hebrew beria, "creation", may be concealed) has preserved associations characteristic of a New Year’s festival. (Von Grunebaum, Muhammadan Festivals, p. 53). The third holy night is Laylatul-Mi’raj, the "Night of Ascension", commemorating Muhammad’s ascent to heaven. It is traditionally celebrated on the night preceding the 27th of Rajab, when the mosques and the minarets are lighted and there is much devotional reading of popular accounts of the Mi’raj. (Jeffery, Islam: Muhammad and his Religion, p. 226). This night, like the others, is also one in which much reading of the Qur’ an and reciting of prayers takes place, but little need be said of it as we have already discussed the supposed ascension in an earlier chapter and have there made reference to this night of observance. These three nights are the most important nights in the Islamic faith and are universally observed by the Muslims. 3. The Other Minor Holy Days in the Islamic Year. There are really only two other days in the Muslim year that are regarded as especially important. One is the tenth of Muharram, the first month of the Islamic year. During Muhammad’s life this day became a day of fasting in imitation of the Jewish fast of Ashura (cf. Exodus 12:1-7). This practice was soon abandoned, however, and Muhammad is reported as saying that fasting on this day is not obligatory (Muwatta Imam Malik, p.123). After the massacre of Muhammad’s grandson Husain and his band of followers at Karbala on this same day many years later, the whole of the first ten days of Muharram became a time of mourning for Shi’ite Muslims and today the day itself is observed in both Sunni and Shi’ite Islam as a remembrance of the tragedy at Karbala. More will be said of this event in the section on Shi’ite Islam. The other holy day is Maulidun-Nabi, the birthday of Muhammad, which falls on the 12th of Rabi-ul-Awwal. This festival of great feasting and many peculiar practices of un-Islamic origin is often frowned upon by the more orthodox Muslims and took some time to become widely observed. The feast of the birth of the Prophet (milad, maulud in the Maghrib) is celebrated throughout the whole Muslim world on the 10th of rabi I; it seems to date only from the 10th century and to have become official only in the 12th. (Gaudefroy-Demombynes, Muslim Institutions, p. 168). One of the intellectual ancestors of Wahhabism, Ibn Taimiyya (d.1328), in a fatwa (legal opinion) tersely condemns the introduction of new festivals such as that celebrated "during one of the nights of the First Rabi, alleged to be the night of the birth of the Prophet". The participation of women was criticized with especial vigour by his contemporary, Ibn al-Hajj (d.1336), and it still gives occasional offence to the more strict-minded and orthodox. (Von Grunebaum, Muhammadan Festivals, p. 76). Many Muslims openly concede that the practice of observing Muhammad’s birthday is an innovation in Islam, something invariably disapproved of by conservative elements, but they excuse it as a "praiseworthy" innovation, a bid’atun-hasanah. It has also become customary to hold celebrations honouring various "saints" in Islam on this day as well, a custom considered even more reprehensible by orthodox Muslims. It seems likely that the Christian festival of Christmas gave rise to this equivalent in Islam. Ironically neither the actual date on which Jesus was born nor the birthday of Muhammad is known and the dates recorded are purely speculative. Even the Muslim world is not entirely unanimous in its determination of the date of the Maulidun-Nabi but it is now generally held to be the 12th of Rabi-ul-Awwal, coinciding conveniently with the date of Muhammad’s death. An Egyptian newspaper nonetheless honours Muhammad’s birthday in these words: And if the times teach us to look about us, verily we look back to this ancient day, the twelfth Rabia’a al Awwal, in a spirit of reverence and humble submission, and if there is anything in the world that should cause the throne of God to tremble, certainly it would tremble at the remembrance of this great day, the day on which the prophet was born. (Es-Siyasa, "Mohammed’s Birthday", The Muslim World, Vol. 14, p. 155). There are many other days in popular Islam that have become widely observed in the Muslim world, especially the Urs of any particular saint (usually his birthday when various unorthodox celebrations take place), but the two Eids and the three holy nights are the great festivals of Islam and are the only ones universally observed by all Muslims without dispute as to the worthiness of the occasion. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 68: 04.35. B. SOCIAL AND FAMILY LAWS IN ISLAM. ======================================================================== B. SOCIAL AND FAMILY LAWS IN ISLAM. 1. Laws Pertaining to Marriage in Islam. Marriage in Islam is not considered as a sacrament but rather as a civil contract between a man and his wife. The Qur’an describes it as a mithaq, a "covenant" (Surah 4.21). The Muslim marriage (nikah) is performed through a ceremony at which a local judge, a qadi, officiates. In many cases only the husband is present at the ceremony with a representative of the bride’s family and, in the presence of two relevant witnesses, the parties express their consent to the marriage. The qadi then makes a formal announcement that the marriage contract is concluded. After this the husband is joined to his bride at the wedding reception (walimah) where a feast takes place. In modern times, especially in Muslim communities that are Westernised, the prospective husband may personally choose a bride of his own choice and negotiations between the two families will be conducted to arrange the marriage. The woman has the right to refuse. In other Muslim lands, however, even to this day, marriages are arranged without the husband and wife even meeting before the ceremony is concluded. A marriage broker, usually an old woman who has access to the women’s quarters, is often employed to find out what marriageable girls are available. The first steps are taken by the man’s family; it is the custom to get a friend to approach the father of the girl; if it is felt that the families are well matched socially, negotiations can begin in earnest. (Tritton, Islam, p. 131). Once again customs differ in the various parts of the Muslim world. The husband is also obliged to give his wife a dowry, a mahr, at the time of the marriage (Surah 4.4). No amount is fixed - the parties agree independently on its extent. If there should later be a divorce between the parties the man may not reclaim this dowry. But if ye decide to take one wife in place of another, even if ye had given the latter a whole treasure for dower, take not the least bit of it back: Would ye take it by slander and a manifest wrong? Surah 4.20 According to the Qur’an Muslims are free to marry fellow -Muslims but they are forbidden to marry women from idolatrous communities unless they embrace Islam (Surah 2.221). They are, however, expressly allowed to marry upright women from the uwtul-Kitab, the "people of the Book", meaning Jews and Christians and followers of any other religion recognised as adherents of a faith with a revealed scripture (Surah 5.6). Thus it will be seen that while there is a clear prohibition to marry idolaters or idolatresses, there is express permission to marry women who profess a revealed religion (Ahl al-Kitab). And, as the Qur’an states that revelation was granted to all nations of the world and that it was only the Arab idolaters who had not been warned, the conclusion is evident that it was only with the Arab idolaters that marriage relations were prohibited, and that it was lawful for a Muslim to marry a woman belonging to any other nation of the world that follows a revealed religion. (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p. 506). There is a hadith, however, which scorns the idea that a Muslim should take a Christian woman to wife where she doe not abandon her Christian faith: Narrated Nafi: Whenever Ibn Umar was asked about marrying a Christian lady or a Jewess, he would say. "Allah has made it unlawful for the believers to marry ladies who ascribe partners in worship to Allah, and I do not know of a greater thing, as regards to ascribing partners in worship, etc., to Allah, than that a lady should say that Jesus is her Lord although he is just one of Allah’s slaves". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 7, p. 155). In any event Muslim women are not allowed to marry adherents of another religion This concession is allowed to Muslim men only. If a Christian woman becomes a Muslim while her husband retains his Christian faith, she is entitled to divorce him. This is one of the few cases where a woman in Islam has the right to initiate a divorce. The Qur’an follows the Bible in also forbidding marriages between persons within very close degrees of family relationships (Surah 4.23). It also makes the husband the head of the family and requires the wife to submit to him and care for the common household: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because God has given the one more (strength) than the other and because they support them from their means. Surah 4.34 2. Mut’ah - the Law of Temporary Marriage. One of the things first allowed in Islam that causes embarrassment to Muslim apologists today is temporary marriage known as mut’ah. Indeed in Shi’ite Islam this institution has remained through the centuries though it has long been forbidden in Sunni Islam. Marriages for a limited period were sanctioned by "the Prophet", but this law is said to have been abrogated, although it is allowed by the Shiahs even in the present day. These temporary marriages are called Muta’h, and are undoubtedly the greatest blot in Muhammad s moral legislation. (Hughes, Notes on Muhammadanism, p. 119). An ancient custom allowed the man, when resident away from home, to contract a temporary marriage called enjoyment" (muta’); the Qur’an seems to authorise such an arrangement, and Muhammad makes it legal for his warriors. But it would appear that Umar called it debauchery. The Shi’ites maintained its legality (Gaudefroy-Demombynes, Muslim Institutions, p. 133). The traditions relating to this subject generally state that the Qur’anic sanction for temporary marriage is found in this exhortation: "O ye who believel Make not unlawful the good things which God hath made lawful for you, but commit no excess: for God loveth not those given to excess (Sura 5.90). This verse has no direct reference to mut’ah and its liberties could refer to anything permitted by God. The Hadith, however, quite clearly teach that Muhammad initially allowed temporary marriages: Salama b. al-Akwa and Jabir b. Abdullah reported: Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) came to us and permitted us to contract temporary marriages. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p. 706). Another tradition, apparently contradicting this one, states equally plainly that Muhammad disallowed such temporary unions: "Rabi b. Sabra reported on the authority of his father that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) prohibited the contracting of temporary marriage (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p. 707). These traditions can be reconciled quite easily through the presumption that such marriages were allowed at one time during Muhammad’s life but were later abolished by him. This seems the most likely explanation and we find that other traditions in fact teach this very thing: Sabra al-Juhanni reported on the authority of his father that while he was with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) he said: O people, I had permitted you to contract temporary marriage with women, but Allah has forbidden it (now) until the Day of Resurrection. So he who has any (woman with this type of marriage contract) he should let her off, and do not take back anything you have given to them (as dower). (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p. 707). Ali b. Ali Talib reported: The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) forbade mut’ah (temporary marriage) on the day of the Battle of Khaibar and also prohibited the eating of flesh of asses. (Muwatta Imam Malik, p. 240). It seems, therefore, that mut’ah was indeed allowed during the early days of Islam. The mention of Umar’s declaration on mut’ah in the quote from Gaudefroy-Demombynes’ book should also be considered. There is a tradition to the effect that a woman came to Umar during his caliphate and stated that a certain Rabiah had contracted a mut’ah with a foreign woman born in Arabia and that this woman was now pregnant Umar exclaimed: "This is temporary marriage. If I had forbidden it previously, I would have ordered stoning" (Muwatta Imam Malik, p. 240). This tradition has led some writers to believe that such marriages were freely allowed until Umar forbade them but this seems unlikely. In any event the other hadith teach that Muhammad did allow such marriages until he prohibited them at the time of the Battle of Khaybar near the end of his life. 3. The Law and Practice of Divorce in Islam. We have already seen, in an earlier chapter in this book that Abu Dawud recorded a tradition to the effect that of all the things made lawful to men by Allah, divorce displeased him most. Divorce, though allowed, is considered blamable (mubah) and, if possible, to be avoided. (Klein, The Religion of Islam, p. 191). The Qur’an has two sections which deal exclusively with the subject of divorce. Although the book does make divorce openly permissible, it hedges in its sanction of the practice with many safeguards. In the Suratul-Talaq (the Arabic word for divorce being talaq), it is said: O Prophet! When ye do divorce women, divorce them at their prescribed periods, and count (accurately) their prescribed periods: and fear God your Lord: and turn them not out of their houses, nor shall they (themselves) leave, except in case they are guilty of some open lewdness, those are limits set by God: and any who transgresses the limits of God, does verily wrong his (own) soul: Thou knowest not if perchance God will bring about thereafter some new situation. Surah 65.1 Divorce is thus not primarily sinful in Islam as it is in Christianity (Matthew 19:8-9), yet it has considerable restrictions. There has to be an ’iddah, a "prescribed period" of three monthly courses (Surah 2.228), before the divorce becomes final. The husband, after declaring to his wife on three occasions that he intends to divorce her (anti talaq - "you are dismissed"), must wait three months thereafter before he can finally separate from her, and the wife likewise must remain in the home during this period to see whether she is pregnant and to see whether a reconciliation can be made. Divorce is a process beginning with the cessation of marital relations and ending with the actual divorce when the ’idda has run its course. This is to be carefully reckoned and divorce is not actually to take place until it has expired. Meanwhile no overt steps are to be taken. The woman is not to leave her husband’s house, nor is he to send her away unless in the interval she has been guilty of some public scandal. Thus outwardly the spouses are to continue living together as before, in the hope that before the end of the waiting period some reconciliation may take place, or as the Qur’an expresses it, Allah may cause something to happen. (Bell, "Muhammad and Divorce in the Qur’an , The Muslim World, Vol. 29, p. 62). The Qur’an also urges husbands to be very considerate when divorcing their wives. They are to set them free on equitable terms (Surah 2.231), are not to take them back purely to spite or injure them, and are not to prevent them from being married to a former husband (Surah 2.232). Despite these detailed exhortations, the Qur’an does not stipulate that there need be any specific grounds for a divorce. There is no suggestion that desertion or adultery must first take place, or that the husband must have some valid cause before divorcing his wife. The Qur’an’s silence on this point has led some scholars to conclude that the husband may divorce his wife at will. Since no justification for divorcing his wife is demanded from the husband by the Koran, he is permitted to divorce her at his own will or caprice. But no such privilege is accorded to the wife, an inequality which has had the consequence of gravely lowering the status of women in Islam. (Levy, The Social Structure of Islam, p. 121). Muslim scholars are quick to rise to such challenges and one well-known writer states: The impression that a Muslim husband may put away his wife at a mere caprice, is a grave distortion of the Islamic institution of divorce. (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p. 551). The writer goes on to give a list of occasions where the wife has the right to divorce her husband, namely, where her husband is completely missing and cannot be found, by returning her dowry, and where she is a convert to Islam with a non-Muslim husband. An objective study of the Qur’anic teaching on divorce yields the impression that, while no particular ground for divorce is necessary, it is not to be taken lightly and to be avoided wherever possible. Nevertheless the general rule in Islam is that divorce is the husband’s right. Hanafi law is particularly dogmatic at this point: And in this matter of dissolution of marriage the accepted Hanafi rules are more rigid and retrogressive than those of any other school, for they virtually deny the wife any right of divorce whatever, judicial or otherwise, while they not only leave the power of the husband unilaterally to repudiate his wife completely unfettered, as do all the Sunni schools, but go further than any other in regarding as valid, binding and even final various expressions of divorce never really intended to have that effect. Thus the wife can never divorce her husband or divorce herself from him unless he has expressly given her this right (tafwid al-talaq), while even the offer to redeem herself for a financial consideration is absolutely dependent on his consent: nor has she any right to the judicial dissolution of her marriage, however long she has been deserted or severely she has been maltreated, or even if she finds herself unwittingly married to one afflicted with some loathsome and infectious disease. (Anderson, "Recent Developments in Shari ’a Law V", The Muslim World, Vol. 41, p. 271). Certainly the one section in the Qur’an giving the standard teaching on divorce (Surah 2. 228-232) speaks only of husbands divorcing their wives and addresses its exhortations to men only. The Qur’an has one law regarding divorce that is truly hard to commend or understand. It is found in these words: So if a husband divorces his wife (irrevocably), he cannot, after that, re-marry her until after she has married another husband and he has divorced her. Surah 2.230 In the previous verse it is said that "divorce is only permissible twice" (Surah 2.229) and Islamic jurists have concluded that a man is entitled to divorce his wife twice and duly remarry her but, after divorcing her a third time, may not remarry her until she has married another man and has become divorced from him. The object of this teaching is clearly to inhibit men from divorcing their wives frivolously or abusing divorce as a means of causing their wives constant insecurity. In the end, however, it seems to fail in its purpose by obliging the wife to enter into a second union before the first may be resumed. The Hadith, true to the letter of the law, make this teaching more absurd than ever: Narrated Aisha: A man divorced his wife thrice (by expressing his decision to divorce her thrice), then she married another man who also divorced her. The Prophet was asked if she could legally marry the first husband (or not). The Prophet replied, "No, she cannot marry the first husband unless the second husband consummates his marriage with her, just as the first husband had done". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 7, p. 136). In passing it is interesting to note that this tradition is interpreted to mean, not that three separate divorces must first take place, but that on the required threefold declaration of divorce the first time, the husband may not take his wife back before she marries again. A Western scholar interprets this subject in the same way: "An absolute divorce, or Talaq i Mutlaq, consists of the mere repetition of the words ’Thou art divorced’ three times. A woman so divorced cannot be restored to her husband until she has been married to another and again divorced" (Hughes, Notes on Muhammadanism, p. 122). Either way one cannot help being taken aback by the rigid stipulation that the second marriage must first be consummated. Here indeed the letter of the law has made no allowances for the reflections, misgivings or regrets of the parties ant appears to force on the woman what Jesus regarded adultery (Matthew 5:32), even though she is willing to return to her true husband without violating the intimate relationship she has enjoyed with him. The same tradition in the Sahih al-Bukhari is also found in the other great work of Hadith and here it is said that Muhammad’s answer was "No, until the second one has tasted her sweetness as the first one had tastes" (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p. 730), even though the second husband had already divorced her. This seems to be a gross injustice calculated to punish the first husband for being double-minded once too often about his relationship In some Muslim communities, especially in North Africa divorce is quite common and a normal event in society. Elsewhere, particularly where monogamy has become the norm, it is a rare occurrence. 4. Hudud - the Penal Laws of Islam. In recent years there have been many reports of Muslim countries applying the shari’ah in their legal systems. This means in principle that the law of the Qur’an has become the law of the la d. In practice this means that prescribed Qur’anic punishments, such as flogging for adultery and amputation for theft, have again become enforceable. One reads often of such punishments being meted out in countries like Sudan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the like. In Mauritania a thief is entitled to have his arm anaethetised before the amputation but in countries like Saudi Arabia no such mercy is shown to him. While such practices seem truly barbaric to the rest of the world, conservative Muslims, in their fanatical zeal to uphold original Islam, do all they can to enforce them. In the process Islam is discredited. One writer speaks of recent developments in Pakistan: Theft (sarqa) is now punishable by the amputation of the hand, adultery (zina), committed by Muslims, by stoning consumption of liquor by Muslims with eighty lashes and so on. The hudud punishments have been enforced in their primitive form under pressure from the ulama who refused to accept any changes whatever to bring them into line with modern conditions. (Nazir Ali, Islam: A Christian Perspective, p. 126). The Qur’an teaches quite plainly that adulterers are to be lashed a hundred times (Surah 24.2) and in pursuance of the sunnah (as we have seen) the provision is made to apply to unmarrieds committing adultery with married men or women while the later are stoned to death. In Saudi Arabia the penalty for adultery is usually beheading. Regarding the penalty for theft, the Qur’an openly sanctions amputation: As to the thief, male or female, cut off his or her of example, from God, or ends: a punishment by way of example, from God, for their crime: And God is Exalted in Power. Surah 5.41 In the Hadith this penalty is restricted and is only applicable where something of value has been stolen: Aisha reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The hand of a thief should not be cut off but for a quarter of a dinar and upwards. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, p. 907). Other traditions say that a hand is not to be cut off where plants or fruit are stolen, where slaves steal their master’s property (because the slave and all that he has remains the master’s property), or where the value of the property stolen is less than a quarter of a dinar. In any event the punishment seems to be unduly harsh and more suited to primitive customs and times. At least one tradition in the Hadith aggravates the barbaric nature of this penalty in that it humiliates the victim even further: "A thief was brought to the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) and his hand was cut off. Thereafter he commanded for it, and it was hung on his neck" (Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 3, p. 1230). For sometime he had to walk around with it - a truly revolting penalty. Over two hundred years ago a Western scholar observed: Theft is ordered to be punished by cutting off the offending part, the hand, which, at first sight, seems just enough; but the law of Justinian, forbidding a thief to be maimed, is more reasonable; because, stealing being generally the effect of indigence, to cut off a limb would be to deprive him of livelihood in an honest manner. (Sale, The Preliminary Discourse to the Koran, p. 150). It is therefore alarming to see these hudud ("limits") once again becoming effective in Muslim. One can only hope that the saner sentiments of twentieth-century civilization will prevail in years to come over the retrogressive mentality of those quarters in Islam that would turn back the clock to unhealthier times. 5. Foods and Drinks Forbidden in Islam. Most people will know that Muslims, like Jews, make distinctions between foods that are lawful and those that are prohibited. In Islam they are called respectively halaal (that which is "loosed", that is, free from restrictions) and haraam (that is, "set apart". The word can be used in a positive or negative sense, denoting that which is holy and consecrated, or that which is forbidden). There are many similarities between the Jewish and Muslim faiths in the matter of foods forbidden. The Qur’an sets these out in the following verse from which it will be seen that the prohibitions are not absolute and can be relaxed in extreme cases: He hath only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that on which any other name hath been invoked besides that of God. But if one is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, not transgressing due limits, - then he is guiltless. For God is Oft- forgiving, Most Merciful. Surah 2.173 All breeds of fish and other aquatic game are lawful to Muslims (Surah 5.99). The foods forbidden to Muslims in the verse quoted were not only forbidden to Jews but it appears that even the early Christians, notwithstanding eeter’s liberating vision (Acts 10:9-16), had similar scruples. It is curious that this list, apart from the mention of pork, should be so like that in Acts xv.18; and one wonders whether this represents a common level of observance among monotheists in the Arabian peninsula, both Jews of Arab descent and Christians. (Watt, Muhammad at Medina, p. 200). Even meats which are lawful to Muslims only become so if they have been slaughtered with the name of God pronounced over them (Surah 5.5). The tasmiyah must be invoked over the animal (that is, the bismillah, "in the name of Allah", must be recited). Nonetheless the Qur’an declares that the foods of the uwtul-Kitab, the "people of the Book" (that is, Jews and Christians), are lawful to the Muslims and it is permissible for Muslims to sit at table in Jewish and Christian homes and vice versa. It is unlikely that there would be much division between Jews and Muslims in matters relating to lawful and prohibited foods. The above quotations show us that the prophet was well acquainted with the Jewish dietary laws. And according to Muhammed these laws were imposed upon the Jews on account of their iniquity. Still he did not find it possible, even if he desired, to abolish all distinctions, and to declare that every kind of food was equally clean and lawful to eat ... For, in most cases, he declares to be unlawful those things which are also prohibited by the Jewish code, as, for instance, that which had died of itself, blood, swine’s flesh, etc. (Roberts, The Social Laws of the Qoran, p. 113). The tasmiyah is also used as a form of grace before a meal. A pious Muslim should also give praise to God after he has taken his fill of food. It is recommended that hands should be washed before the taking of food and after finishing it, and that when one begins a meal, he should do so with the pronouncement of bismillah, and that when he finishes it, he should give thanks to God or say al-hamdu li-llah. (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p. 601). The scruple about washing hands as a form of ablution before a meal would not be sanctioned by Christians, however, as it is one of those typical rituals in Islam that is but a "shadow of the good things to come" (Hebrews 10:1) and one that invariably lends itself to petty self-righteousness and a judgmental spirit (Matthew 15:2). All intoxicating drinks are forbidden to Muslims The Qur’an at first allowed that there was some good in wine, stating simply that it lent itself more to sin than to benefit (Surah 2.219). In another verse believers were bidden not to come to prayer in an intoxicated state (Surah 4.43) but later on wine was disapproved of altogether (Surah 5.93-94). The social laws of Islam have a universal, binding effect on the Muslim world and condition the way of life of every individual Muslim. While many of them are commendable, many others appear to be worthy of considerable censure. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 69: 04.36. C. CULTIC TRENDS IN POPULAR ISLAM. ======================================================================== C. CULTIC TRENDS IN POPULAR ISLAM. 1. The Veneration of Saints and Pirs in Islam. One of the great phenomena in Islam is the widespread veneration of saints and tomb-worship that for many Muslims is their religion, orthodox Islam having very much a secondary place. Conservative Muslims frown upon the plethora of rites, superstitions and practices that are found in popular Islam but for centuries it has held its own alongside orthodox Islam and is likely to sustain its influence in future. Saints’ tombs are a characteristic feature of the landscape in most Muslim countries, where, whether associated with mosques or isolated, they are popular centres of visitation. The orthodox divines have spoken frequently and vigorously against this practice of visitation, but the consensus of the community has almost everywhere proved stronger than the condemnation of the theologians and the common folk still visit the tombs of saints to pray, to leave ex-votos, to seek blessing (baraka) and the intercession of the holy persons buried there. (Jeffery, Islam: Muhammad and his Religion, p. 226). Within a few centuries of Muhammad’s death a deeply mystical worship-form took root within Islam. Persia and India’s two great religions, Zoroastrianism and Hinduism, were mystical in essence and converts to Islam found it impossible to conform solely to the rites and outward forms of their new religion. The dry legalism of Arabian Islam soon found itself challenged by a very different form of religious expression and Sufism, Islam’s mystical arm, quickly rooted itself within the Islamic realm. In its early days it was strongly ascetic and its adherents were a selection mainly of individual purists seeking to unite themselves spiritually to the Divine Being. In later centuries, however, as Sufism became more attractive to the masses, so it degenerated into a public mass-movement where "saints" (generally called pirs in Indian Islam), both dead and living, were sought out for miracles, powers and various blessings. To this day the Muslims in much of the Islamic world follow not so much Muhammad, the Qur’an and Islam, but the cult-worship of the local saint, being more concerned about obtaining his barakah ("blessing" in the form of power and miracles) than the favour of Allah. Whatever his origin, the saint has, for an essential attribute, the baraka, the sacred emanation. Through it he brings to those who worship him, prosperity, happiness, all the good things of this world; he can bestow his gifts, passing beyond the individual, upon a whole district, and even beyond the confines of this world, through his powers of intercession with Allah. (Gaudefroy-Demombynes, Muslim Institutions, p. 56). The power of a saint is called baraka, blessing, and this is imagined as almost intangible. By kissing the saint’s hand or tomb, this power passes to the worshipper who will be helped by it. (Tritton, Islam, p. 143). The cult-worship has many forms indicating Sufi origins and inclinations. Each pir has his own order and way of life (tariqah) and his followers, once inducted, must follow this way implicitly. It is only through total obedience to the pir that the murid, the disciple, will be able to obtain the power of the pir and come to the knowledge of God. Accordingly a person seeks to attach himself or herself to a spiritual guide of one of the darwesh orders called a pir, or murshid, who initiates him as a murid, or disciple, into the secrets of divine worship, to the intent that by following the special tariqa laid down for the order he may proceed by definite stages until he is blessed with divine knowledge and final absorption in the Divine Love itself. (Titus, "Mysticism and Saint Worship in India", The Muslim World, Vol. 12, p. 130). Although there are many to this day who endeavour to become genuine Sufis, the masses have simply attached themselves to pir and tomb-worship, seeking not to be admitted to a spiritual way of life, but rather to obtain whatever blessings and assistance they can through superstitions, cultic influences and animistic practices. This has led to faith in amulets and talismans, occultic experiences and other forms contrary to the spirit, not only of legalistic Islam, but also of Sufism itself. It seems appropriate, therefore, to distinguish between Sufism and popular, cultic Islam, and in this section we will consider the latter as a separate movement of the masses. All over the Muslim world one finds domed shrines and other elaborate structures covering the tomb of a departed saint. In India such a shrine is known as a mazaar. Believing that the saint’s powers can still be acquired after his death and that his spirit frequents his tomb, Muslim devotees, both men and women, flock to these shrines and express their petitions in various ways. A Christian missionary speaks of his experiences at one of these tombs: Inside I found many men praying towards the saint’s mazar. The room was filled with the heavy smoke of incense. Pilgrims were taking slips of paper, writing out their petitions on them, and then leaving the rolled-up paper either on the tomb or along the side on a railing. Well-dressed men were lost in mystical contemplation as they stood near the remains of a saint who they are convinced lives on today in spirit and in power. (Parshall, Bridges to Islam, p. 93). Some of these shrines are of great antiquity and it is not even known who is buried there. In other cases mazaars rise over the supposed tombs of departed saints and as long as reports of signs and wonders flow in, no one bothers to question further whether the saints are actually buried there or not. A well-known European scholar has given an interesting insight into the creation of the shrine of a supposed saint known as Abu Turab in Egypt: This place used to be covered by sandy hills. Once, when it was intended to build a house there, the ruins of a mosque were found. In Arab manner the people called the ruin ’Father of the sand’ (abu turab). In due course this was taken a personal name and thus sheikh Abu Turab and his grave came into being. (Goldziher, Muslim Studies, Vol. 2, p. 320). There can be little doubt that Muhammad would be displeased if he could see what passes for Islam in much of the Muslim world today. In the Musnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal there is a tradition to the effect that he warned against the veneration of his tomb (Wensinck, A Handbook of Early Muhammadan Tradition, p. 168) and in the Qur’an he expresses his distaste for those who take their ahbarahum (religious leaders) and ruhbanahum (monks and ascetics) as their lords apart from Allah (Surah 9.31). The veneration of saints and universal tomb-worship have become a subtle substitute for idolatry in Islam and have accordingly been severely condemned by scholarly Muslims. One says: The miraculous powers of the living and dead saints - of course the dead more than the living - have ruled the masses and even a large number of the ’Ulama. Tomb-worship and the ills accruing from this have rendered the Muslim masses almost incapable of understanding the Islamic teaching . . . Instead of this moral-social order it taught people certain techniques of auto-suggestion and hypnotism and an excessive indulgence in an altogether emotionalized religion which can only be described as a mass spiritual hysteria. It is this phenomenon - the total effect of superstitionism, miracle-mongering, tomb-worship, mass-hysteria and, of course, charlatanism - that we have described above as the moral and spiritual debris from which Muslim society has to be reclaimed for Islam. (Rahman, Islam, p. 246). Each saint has a festival, known as an Urs, which occurs on his birthday or, if he is deceased, on the anniversary of his death. On this occasion celebrations of various kinds take place and offerings are brought to his tomb. Naturally it is expected that greater blessings will flow to the masses of his devotees at this time: At all the important tombs there is held an annual ’Urs, which is the celebration of the anniversary of the saint’s death. ’Urs, which literally means wedding, is the term used, because the occasion is the anniversary of the wisal or union of the spirit of the saint with Allah, which occurs at death. This takes the form of a holiday celebration, and is a great event, lasting from one to several days. (Titus, "Mysticism and Saint Worship in India", The Muslim World, Vol. 12, p. 136). Usually the saint has an annual festival. In Egypt this is called mawlid, birthday, and is very popular; there may be a procession, prayers in the mosque, and a fair; all tastes are catered for and all enjoy themselves. (Tritton, Islam, p. 144). In India and Pakistan the Urs of a departed saint is widely advertised and devotees will travel great distances to participate in the festivities. 2. The Supposed MiracuIous Powers of the Saints. To the ordinary tomb-worshipper, the chief object of his devotion is the miracle-working power of the saint (generally known as a wali, meaning a kinsman or one closely-related, in this case to Allah). Throughout the animistic world there is a fear of the unknown ant a feeling that the departed, who now know it all, can give succour and strength. In Africa this takes the form of the worship of ancestral spirits, in Islam of departed saints. Popular belief has kept, through the centuries, the certainty that illness is a result of the wiles of Satan, of the jinns, of wizards and witches, and that one must cure oneself by the use of magical counter-measures. (Gaudefroy-Demombynes, Muslim Institutions, p. 170). Accordingly even those who live this side of the grave, if they can show that they have power over the occult, will soon be regarded as saints and their help will be sought in cases where men or women are troubled by evil spirits. In short, to command the attention of the demons and the Jinn is no easy matter. At the present day if any one is able to secure their obedience he is regarded as a Wali or Saint, and a worker of miracles. (Herklots, Islam in India, p. 230). Muslims nevertheless are very careful to distinguish between the miracles of the prophets and those of the saints as pointed out in an earlier chapter. Each prophet performs a mu’jizah and his miracles are known as his ayat, his "signs", whereas the miracles of the saints are known as karamat and the word hujjah is usually used to describe the saint’s "proof" of his powers. Indeed in South Africa, whereas the shrines of Indian Muslim saints are known as mazaars (there are three in Durban and one in Cape Town), the shrines of Malay saints, all of which are found in the Cape Peninsula (one is on Robben Island), are known as kramats, signifying the supposed miracle-working power of the man who is buried within the shrine. There are many other superstitions in the Muslim world relating to miraculous powers and effects. It is believed that the Qur’an itself has talismanic powers and more will be said of this shortly. At present, however, it will be useful to mention one or two ways in which it is believed that its text can be made to work miracles. A verse from the Qur’an will be written in ink or sandalwood paste on a plate or on the inside of a basin. The container will then be filled with water, which dissolves the writing. The water is poured into a glass and given to the patient to drink. Another method is to write the words of the Qur’an on a piece of paper and wash them off into a glass of water. This is then given to the sick person to drink. (Parshall, Bridges to Islam, p. 75). The shrine of the saint has arisen in Islam alongside the mosque as a symbol of popular worship. While many of the practices found at these shrines are an abomination to orthodox Islam, one cannot help feeling that the shrines themselves testify to the inability of the legalistic religion of the mosque to satisfy the inner longings and yearnings of the heart. 3. Major Superstitions in the World of Islam. Talismans, amulets and charms of every description are used throughout the Muslim world and we will only be able to speak of some of the more prominent symbols. A very common amulet in Islam is the ta’wiz, a black cord or other substance worn on the body which has a Qur’an text usually inscribed on a piece of metal sown completely into it at one point. Ta’wiz. Lit. "To flee for refuge". An amulet or charm. A gold or silver case, inclosing quotations from the Qur’an or Hadis, and worn upon the neck, arm, breast or waist. (Hughes, A Dictionary of Islam, p. 630). It is not unlike the Jewish phylactery worn around the forehead but has a somewhat different significance. The Muslim wears it to ward off evil spirits and as a healing charm against illnesses and diseases. In India a ta’wiz is often given to someone just after a spirit has been exorcised: Then they take the patient home, wash his face, hands, and feet, and either on this or on the following day an amulet (ta’wiz), of a special kind used for this purpose, is tied on his neck or arm in order that the demon may not seize him again. (Herklots, Islam in India, p. 239). A similar talisman, also sometimes sown into a ta’wiz, is the magic square. These squares have a selection of numbers placed within them which generally add up to a figure considered to be of special importance and one possessing occultic powers. Perhaps the most celebrated amulet in the world of Islam is that called Al Buduh, a magic square supposed to have been revealed to Al Ghazali and now known by his name. It has become the starting-point for a whole science of talismanic symbols. Some of the Moslem authorities say that Adam invented the square. It is so called from the four Arabic letters that are the key to the combination. To the popular mind this word buduh has become a sort of guardian angel, invoking both good and bad fortune. The square is used against stomach pains, to render one’s self invisible, to protect from the evil eye, and to open locks; but the most common use is to insure the safe arrival of letters and packages. (Zwemer, The Influence of Animism on Islam, p. 196). These squares have been widely used in India for centuries and, as usual, are believed to have wonder-working powers and effects. Magic squares of these varieties are used as love charms, to create enmity, to cause men to be silent regarding another, to prevent dreaming, and to cast out devils In northern India they are used to cure various diseases; to cause butter to increase in the churn, or milk in a woman or a cow, to remove cattle disease, to make fruit-trees give their fruit, to make a husband obey his wife. (Herklots, Islam in India, p. 254). It is believed that such charms give a person power over others and the ability to ensure that they react in ways planned by the possessor of the square. Many a young man has sought to win the affection of a woman he is infatuated with through this means! The Khoumsa, the five-fingered hand, is also a common amulet in the Muslim world and is widely known as "Fatima’s Hand". It is often hung around the necks of animals to keep them from disease. Chiefly, however, it is used as a form of magical power and, like the square, is believed to possess sinister powers to influence for good or evil. Usually the hand is made of silver though other substances may be used. In Egypt the hand is generally used as an amulet against the evil eye. It is made of silver or gold in jewelry, or made of tin in natural size, and is then suspended over the door of a house. The top of a Moslem banner is often of this shape. It is used on the harness of horses, mules, etc., and on every cart used in Alexandria we see either a brass hand or one painted in various colors. (Zwemer, The Influence of Animism on Islam, p. 85). Some say that the five fingers represent Muhammad, his daughter Fatima, her husband Ali, and their sons Hassan and Husain. In South Africa this amulet appears during the annual Ta’ziah procession commemorating the martyrdom of Husain and his followers at Karbala. Some of the ta’ziahs, floats of the tombs of the martyrs, have stars and crescents above the domes but others have cardboard symbols of the outstretched hand covered in silver foil. In other parts of the Islamic world this symbol is regularly painted on houses. It serves a multitude of purposes. The hand is often painted upon the drum used in the bori (devil) dances in Tunis. It is also held up, fingers outstretched and pointing towards the evil-wisher, and this in Egypt, North Africa and Nigeria has now become a gesture of abuse. In Egypt the outstretched hand pointed at some one is used to invoke a curse. They say yukhammisuna, or "He throws his five at us", i.e., he curses. (Zwemer, "Animism in Islam", The Muslim World, Vol. 7, p. 253). Human hair is also believed to possess strange powers in cultic Islam. Many Muslims, after having their hair cut, will be careful to remove all the hairs on the floor, take them home in a packet, and carefully conceal them. They fear that an enemy, if in possession of his hairs, will be able to use them against him in the same way that voodoo dolls are used to injure those they represent. It is remarkable that in Arabia, Egypt and North Africa everywhere this custom of stowing away clippings of hair and nails is still common among Moslems and is sanctioned by the practice of the Prophet ... In North Africa a man will not have his hair shaved in the presence of any one who owes him a grudge. After his hair has been cut, he will look around, and if there is no enemy about he will mix his cuttings with those of other men, and leave them, but if he fears some one there he will collect the cuttings, and take them secretly to some place and bury them. (Zwemer, The Influence of Animism on Islam, p. 70, 71). The reason for these scruples about hairs, which also apply to nail-clippings and the like, is that it is believed that the soul occupies every part of the body and anyone in the possession of such hairs or clippings can therefore influence the soul of the man he despises. These beliefs have, on the other hand, led to a wide pursuit after the hairs of Muhammad himself, a practice said to go back to his own lifetime. Because it is believed that his hairs actually contain part of his soul and therefore guarantee his presence and blessing, they are more sought after than any other relics from his life. I have seen one such hair said to be from Muhammad’s own beard on public display in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul. The relic most eagerly sought after is hair from the head or beard of Muhammed. Imitating the examples handed down from early times pious men have always been fond of wearing such relics as amulets or have asked for them to be put into their graves. (Goldziher, Muslim Studies, Vol. 2, p. 329). But the relic which is the object of the most energetic search is the hair of the Prophet’s head or beard. The hair was worn as an amulet, and men on their deathbed directed by will that the precious possession should go down with them and mingle with the earth. (Goldziher, "The Cult of Saints in Islam", The Muslim World, Vol. 1, p. 306). Lastly mention should be made of a common sacrifice known as the Aqiqah which Muslims perform at the birth of a child. This sacrifice is not mentioned in the Qur’an but the Hadith teach that it was practiced during the time of Muhammad and that he allowed the practice without sanctioning it (Muwatta Imam Malik, p. 225). The ceremony is set out as follows in this account: On the seventh day after the birth it is commendable to name the child, cut its hair, and offer a sacrifice, two sheep or goats for a boy, one for a girl. If not made at this time, the sacrifice can be made later, even by the child itself when grown-up. The flesh should be given to the poor. The weight of the hair in silver or gold should be distributed in alms. (Tritton, Islam, p. 135). None of the hairs of the child are cut until the seventh day when the ceremony duly takes place. It appears to have no obvious Islamic significance and is probably derived from the Jewish practice of redeeming the first-born in any Israelite family with a sacrifice (Exodus 13:11-22). One writer has pointed out that in Tirmithi’s collection of traditions there is indeed a hadith which specifically links the Muslim Aqiqah to the Jewish ceremony: If in addition to all the resemblances to the Jewish practice already noted further testimony were necessary, it would be sufficient to refer to the statement made in the commentary of Al Buchari as the key to this true Sunna of the Prophet: "For the female child one ewe - and this abrogates the saying of those who disapprove a sacrifice for a girl - as did the Jews, who only made ’aqiqa for boys." (On the authority of ’Araki in Tirmidhi - Fath-ul-Bari V. 390). (Zwemer, The Influence of Animism on Islam, p. 102). It will be useful at this stage to see what cultic influences there were during Muhammad’s own life so as to determine whether all these strange practices found their way into Islam from animistic sources or whether some are not in fact actually Islamic in origin. 4. Cultic Influences in the Life of Muhammad. There is a strange story found in the commentary of Al-Baidawi which tells of an occasion when Muhammad fell under a Jewish spell and the way in which he was delivered from it. The story, very briefly, is as follows: The Jews bribed the sorcerer Labid and his daughters to bewitch Muhammad. They got some hairs from his beard, tied eleven knots with them on a palm branch, and threw it into a well which they covered with a large atone. This caused the Prophet to lose his appetite, to pine away, and to neglect his wives. Gabriel told him the secret, the well was emptied and the knots untied, whereupon the spell was broken and the Prophet was relieved. (Herklots, Islam in India, p. 273). It is said that on this occasion the angel Gabriel revealed the last two surahs of the Qur’an to Muhammad and told him to recite these short chapters to ward off such evil designs. The Surahs read: Say: I seek refuge with the Lord of the Dawn, from the mischief of created things; from the mischief of Darkness as it overspreads; from the mischief of those who practice Secret Arts: and from the mischief of the envious one as he practices envy. Surah 113.1-5. Say: I seek refuge with the Lord and Cherisher of Mankind, the Ring (or Ruler) of Mankind, the Got (or Judge) of Mankind, from the mischief of the Whisperer (of Evil), who withdraws (after his whisper), (The same) who whispers into the hearts of Mankind, among Jinns and among Men. Surah 114.1-5. In these two surahs we find a connection between the cultic practices in the Muslim world and the practice of Muhammad himself. There is no other passage in the Qur’an quite like these two and they stand alone at the end of the book as a strange appendix. Their very nature, however, has made them very popular among the masses and they are constantly used against magical practices, spells and other evil influences. These surahs are placed last of all in the Koran. They are called "the two takings of refuge"", and are recited continually for protection against all manner of evil. (Lings, Muhammad, p. 262). Another writer refers to the incident in Muhammad’s life in which the Jew Lubaid had cast a spell on him and makes reference to these two surahs which were supposedly revealed at this time: Commentators on the Koran relate that the reason for the revelation of the chapter quoted above was that a Jew named Lobeid, had, with the assistance of his daughters, bewitched Mohammed by tying eleven knots in a cord which they hid in a well. The Prophet falling ill in consequence, this chapter and that following it were revealed; and the angel Gabriel acquainted him with the use he was to make of them, and told him where the cord was hidden. The Khalif Ali fetched the cord, and the Prophet repeated over it these two chapters; at every verse a knot was loosed till on finishing the last words, he was entirely freed from the charm. (Zwemer, The Influence of Animism on Islam, p. 171) We find therefore that even during Muhammad’s own lifetime there were practices in Islam of cultic origin and it is most significant to find the remedy written into the Qur’an text. The practice of chanting selected passages as a form of refuge from the forces of evil was allegedly resorted to even by Gabriel himself on one occasion when Muhammad fell ill. One of the early Sirat works contains this tradition which was allegedly handed down by Muhammad’s wife Ayishah: When the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, felt unwell, Gabriel enchanted on him saying: In the name of Allah, Who will cure you from every illness and will ward off the evil of every envier who envies and blemish of every evil eye. (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat aI-Kabir Vol. 2, p. 266). Muhammad is said to have recommended another prayer of refuge in cases where people fell seriously ill. It is recorded in this tradition: ’Uthman b. Abi al-As said that he went to the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) and reported that he was suffering from such acute pain as brought him near death The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Pass your right hand seven times upon the seat of pain and say: A’uwthu bi’izzatillaahi wa qudratihii min sharri maa ajid (I seek refuge in the honour and power of Allah from the evil that has come upon me). ’Uthman said: I recited accordingly and my pain vanished and that I asked my household and others always to do so. (Muwatta lmam Malik, p. 397). Another hadith on the same page states that whenever Muhammad fell ill he would recite the last three surahs of the Qur’an and blow his breath upon himself. These cultic practices perhaps became the precedents for the widespread trust in chantings, amulets and talismans in Islam as forms of protection against the powers of darkness. Certainly they are an encouragement to the Muslim masses to persist with their superstitious heritage, for if Muhammad himself did not disdain to use such means to ward off evil, why should they not do likewise? A Western writer comments on the character of the first of the two final surahs of the Qur’an: We may gather from this prayer some knowledge of the superstitious fears, and that dread of the Unseen, which formed so curious a feature in the complex character of Mahomet. (Stobart, Islam and its Founder, p. 166). On the contrary another writer says: "There is no convincing evidence that any belief in magical practices was retained in the Qur’an or by Muhammad himself. Islam certainly retained rites that had been magical in origin, but the Qur’an does not show signs of belief in their magical efficacy" (Watt, Muhammad at Medina, p. 312). The last two surahs of the Qur’an do, however, suggest that Muhammad believed strongly in the power of chanting appropriate passages to ward off the effects of magical rites and these surahs have become widely used throughout the Muslim world to this day for this very purpose. Muhammad was obviously not enslaved to such cultic forms in his own life and he seems to have had little to do with them. He would probably be dismayed to see the extent to which such cultic influences and practices have taken root in the lives of the masses in many Muslim lands today. On the other hand he did not entirely reject such practices as a means of resisting evil forces and in both the Qur’an and the Hadith we find some evidence of occasions when he resorted to them himself. 5. The Qur’an as a Talismanic Source. Not only are the last two surahs of the Qur’an recited by Muslims as a protection against evil but other passages have become means of keeping the feared, unknown powers of the occult at bay. The thirty-sixth surah, known simply as Ya Sin (to which we have referred earlier in this book) is believed to possess magical powers. The directions for using the verses of this sura alone cover all the experiences of life, from an easy birth to a painless and peaceful death, and the journey on to bliss in heaven. They provide cures for all of Man’s illnesses, such as fevers, swellings, aches, blindness and insanity. If one is suffering from toothache, verse 78 to the end of the sura is written on paper and hung over the ear on the side of the aching tooth and it will cure the pain. There are verses which protect one’s property, his household and his person, from jinn, div, and the evil-eye. (Donaldson, "The Koran as Magic" The Muslim World, Vol. 27, p. 258). Every missionary knows that the Koran itself has the power of a fetish in popular Islam ... At funerals they always read the chapter "Y.S."; and then, in fear of jinn and spirits, the chapter of the Jinn. One has only to read this last chapter with the commentaries on it to see how large a place the doctrine occupies in popular Islam. (Zwemer, The Influence of Animism on Islam, p. 22). We have already seen that appropriate Qur’anic verses sealed in a ta’wiz are believed to help the bearer and to protect him from illness and evil influences. Trust in talismans and amulets with verses of the Qur’an inscribed on them is widespread in the Muslim world. The book itself is now a charm allegedly possessing wide cultic powers and for many this serves as its chief purpose in life. To the endless subject of talismans I can make no more than an allusion. All in the East carry them, from donkey- boys - and their donkeys - to theologians, and they vary in complexity from a dirty, rolled up scrap of paper with some sacred names or Qur’an verses scrawled on it, to elaborately engraved gems. (MacDonald, Aspects of Islam, p. 342). A common cultic practice relating to the Qur’an in the Muslim world is known as istikharah (meaning "asking favours of someone). It is said that Muhammad taught that anyone desiring to know in any particular matter whether it is good or bad before God, or whether what he is about to undertake is good for his faith and life or injurious to it, he should perform two raka’at and recite a prayer for guidance, asking Allah to make the way easy if it is according to his will, or to put it away from the supplicant if it is not. This very simple and commendable injunction has, however, been perverted to superstitious uses" (Hughes, A Dictionary of Islam, p. 221). Today it has become customary to seek such guidance by simply counting through the beads of a rosary or by randomly opening the Qur’an and blindly placing a finger on any given text or passage. To use the rosary in this way the following things must be observed. The rosary must be grasped within the palms of both hands, which are then rubbed together; then the Fatiha is solemnly repeated, after which the user breathes upon the rosary with his breath in order to put the magic- power of the chapter into the beads. Then he seizes a particular bead and counts toward the ’pointer bead using the words, God, Mohammed, Abu Jahal; when the count terminates with the name of God it means that his request is favorably received, if it terminates with Abu Jahal it is bad, and if with Mohammed the reply is doubtful. (Zwemer, The Influence of Animism on Islam, p. 32). This practice of istikharah, when applied directly to the Qur’an, is known as "cutting the Qur’an" and the enquirer will seek out a-suitable mullah to perform the practice for him. After a few ritual prayers and the repetition of these words from the Qur’an: "With Him are the keys of the Unseen, the treasures that none knoweth but He. He knoweth whatever there is on the earth and in the sea" (Surah 6.59), the mullah will then give a salutation to Muhammad and his household ("Prayer and peace be unto him and his people and his family ) and will thereafter proceed as follows: He will close his eyes, turn his face upwards, and utter the name Allah, while he draws his fingers from the back of the book up among its pages. He then opens where the fingers enter and reads the first sentence or part of a sentence on the page. From the character of the words, he gives his inquirer an answer as to the outcome of the matter he is contemplating. (Donaldson, "The Koran as Magic", The Muslim World, Vol. 27, p. 256). Not only are the verses of the Qur’an believed to possess certain powers but the book itself is regarded with awe It is believed to be very dangerous to put it on the ground and it is usually read on small stands and when not in use is placed on the highest shelf in the home properly wrapped up Muslims even believe that it is very unwise to leave a Qur’an lying open by itself without reading it as the devil is then supposed to come along and read it. Far from delivering the masses from superstitious and animistic thinking, the Qur’an itself has in many ways become a victim of their cultic tendencies . 6. The Fear of Demons and the Evil-Eye. Throughout the Muslim world there is a pervading fear of the occult world and of the power of sorcerers. The existence of demons is universally admitted by Muslims and they are always referred to as the jinn, the Qur’anic name for those strange beings made of fire. According to the Qur’an jinn are very similar to men and can believe or disbelieve God’s revelations. A company of jinn is said to have been converted after listening to the Qur’an being recited by Muhammad during his journey to at-Ta’if (Surah 72.1-5). The experience of demon-possession and the widespread influence of the powers of darkness has led the masses today to generally identify the jinn as evil spirits and a fear of demons and their power exists all over the world of Islam. In Egypt as in Morocco the belief in jinn includes such things as setting aside dishes of food at dusk to propitiate them. Others keep loaves of bread under their mattresses with a similar idea; while meal and oil are thrown into the corner of new houses for the jinn. (Zwemer, The Influence of Animism on Islam, p. 136). It is lamentable to witness how powerful an ascendancy superstition sways over the minds of Asiatics generally The very wisest, most learned, most religious, even, are more or less tinctured with this weakness) and, I may add, that I have hardly met with one person entirely free from the opinion that witchcraft and evil agency are in the hands of some, and often permitted to be exercised on their neighbours. (Meer Hassan Ali, Observations on the Mussulmauns of India, Vol. 2, p. 357). Demon-possession is a common experience where superstitions and cultic practices abound. The Islamic world also has its exorcists and selective rites are conducted by them in each individual case to secure a deliverance. When persons suffer from demon possession the symptoms are: some are struck dumb, others shake their heads, some go mad and walk about naked, they feel no inclination to do their usual business, but lie down and become inactive. In such cases, if it be required to make the demoniacs speak, or to cast the devil out, various devices are employed which will now be described. (Herklots, Islam in India, p. 235). These devices include the use of magic circles, specific incantations, breathing on flowers which are then thrown at the victim, and in some cases the demoniac himself is severely beaten to drive out the demon. It is common to endeavour to get the demon to reveal and name himself as it is believed that it then becomes easier to communicate with him and so dislodge him. The following experiences make interesting reading: When the demon departs he runs with such speed and makes such a noise that people flee from him in terror. The demoniac frequently runs away with stones so large that two or three men could hardly lift them (Herklots, Islam in India, p. 238). One cannot help noticing how similar these manifestations are to those found in the Gospel records of exorcisms performed by Jesus Christ. Although Muslims are inclined to identify these spirits with the jinn of the Qur’an, it appears that they are more easily recognisable as demons pure and simple such as we find mentioned in the Bible. A famous exorcism ceremony in Islam is the zar. The exorcist must be of the same sex as the victim and begins the ceremony with music as it is believed that music has the power to expel demons. A group gathers around the victim and a sacrifice of a fowl or sheep follows while the singing and music continues together with recitations of the Fatihah. The ceremony ends when the victim, seated in the middle of the group, falls to the ground in a trance. Incense is also believed to possess exorcist powers and is burnt in the room where the ceremony takes place. In every land therefore, with variations due to local circumstances, the Zar must always be propitiated by three - incense, the Zar-dance with music and last, but not least, the sacrifice - all three of these are Pagan and repulsive to orthodox Islam and yet continue under its shadow. (Zwemer, The Influence of Animism in Islam, p. 240). There is also a general belief in the power of magic-workers and others to cause demon-possession. Particularly feared is Isabatul-’Ain, the "Evil-Bye", a searching, penetrating glance either from one of the jinn or from another human being which is capable of captivating its victim and enslaving him to the power of demons. There is a particular fear of the power of the evil-eye over children. The mother’s chief anxiety is to protect it from the evil eye: it is with a view to protecting it from the glance of an evil jinn that many well-to-do families keep the child dirty and ill clad. (Gaudefroy-Demombynes, Muslim Institutions, p. 160). Muhammad himself is said to have feared a Jewish woman who had the power of the evil-eye and in a few traditions we find him openly acknowledging its influence. One reads: Hunaid b. Qais Makki reported that two sons of Ja’far b. Abu Talib came to the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him), who, looking at them, asked their nurse as to why they were so thin. She replied: Apostle of Allah, they are easily affected by the evil eye and we did not exorcise for we did not know whether you would allow it. The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Do chant prayer for them. If anything advances in front of fate, it is the eye. (Muwatta Imam Malik, p. 395). In another tradition we find Muhammad recommending chanting of appropriate verses as a remedy for the evil-eye. It is one among many in the collection in which it appears dealing with ways of curing this problem and again confirms Muhammad’s convictions about the evil-eye: Aisha reported: Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) commanded me that I should make use of incantation for curing the influence of an evil eye. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, p. 1196). Another tradition on the same page says that Muhammad saw a small girl in the house of Umm Salama with black stains on her face and told her that it was due to the influence of the evil-eye and that it could only be cured with the help of incantations. The widespread superstitions in popular Islam, the universal reliance on charms, talismans and amulets, the regular exorcism ceremonies and the like, all testify to the universal influence and power of the forces of the occult over the Muslim masses. The need not only for the preaching of the Gospel among Muslims but also for a ministry of deliverance and healing through the power of the Spirit of Jesus Christ is altogether obvious. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 70: 04.37. D. THE CONSEQUENCES OF APOSTASY FROM ISLAM. ======================================================================== D. THE CONSEQUENCES OF APOSTASY FROM ISLAM. 1. The Penalty for Apostasy in Islamic Law and History. Any Muslim contemplating conversion from Islam to Christianity will know that the step will not be without reaction from his own community. At best he can expect to be ostracised by his people and disowned by his family. At worst he could become a martyr for the faith in a very short time. The catalogue of tortures endured because of faith in God, given in the eleventh chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews, could be paralleled in the lives of those who have suffered for Christ because they were apostates from Islam. Every one who makes the choice faces the possibilities of loneliness, disinheritance, persecution and even death. (Zwemer, The Law of Apostasy in Islam, p. 73). From early times it has been taught that the penalty for the apostasy of any individual from Islam is death. There does not seem to be any Qur’anic authority for this extreme form of punishment, one which allows a Muslim no degree of freedom to discover the true revelation of God independently for himself. The Hadith, however, openly state that Muhammad demanded the death sentence for those who turn their backs on Islam, whether for another faith or not. Zaid b. Aslam reported that the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) declared that the man who leaves the fold of Islam should be executed (Muwatta Imam Malik, p. 317). Narrated Ikrima: Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event reached Ibn Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ’Do not punish anyone with Allah’s punishment (fire)’. I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, ’Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him’". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, p. 45). Abu Musa said: Mu’adh came to me when I was in the Yemen. A man who was a Jew embraced Islam and then retreated from Islam. When Mu’adh came, he said: I will not come down from my mount until he is killed. He was then killed. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 3, p. 1213). There are evidences in Islamic history showing that this penalty has often been enforced, occasionally by public authority but usually by relatives and others taking the law of Islam into their own hands. Many of the jurists of Islam have held that the murtadd (apostate) should be given three days or three public opportunities to return to Islam and is only to be put to death if he refuses to do so. It is in agreement with the character of the Islamic state that apostasy by one who has been a believer should be regarded amongst the most heinous of crimes. The legists demand that the apostate be given three chances to repent, and he is not to be killed unless he has definitely refused. (Levy, The Social Structure of Islam, p. 351). The Qur’an, on the other hand, not only does not seem to authorise the death penalty for apostasy but also makes statements that appear to have the contrary effect. One verse has the following to say about those who forsake Islam: And if any of you turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be Companions of the Fire and will abide therein. Surah 2.217 A Muslim writer comments: "The verse clearly envisages the natural death of the renegade after apostasy . . . the implication of the verse is unmistakable that the Qur’anic Scheme visualises an apostate dying a natural death and there is no hint here that he can be killed for his defection (Rahman, Punishment of Apostasy in Islam, p. 32) Another verse in the Qur’an dealing with apostasy is this one: Any one who, after accepting Faith in God, utters Unbelief, except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from God, and theirs will be a dreadful penalty. Surah 16.106 That the penalty spoken of here is not one to be put into effect this side of the grave is clear from verse 109 where it is simply said that such men will perish in the Hereafter. No other consequence is mentioned. Yet another verse in the Qur’an implying that there is to be no death penalty for apostasy is Surah 4.137 which speaks of those who believe, then reject faith, then return to the faith, only to once again commit apostasy. It concludes that God will neither forgive them nor guide them aright. The very possibility of a sustained double-mindedness and a repeated turning from Islam implies that the ultimate penalty is not applicable to one who commits an initial act of apostasy. The verse visualises repeated apostasies and reversions to the faith, without mention of any punishment for any of these defections on this earth. The act of apostasy must, therefore, be a sin and not a crime. If he had to be killed for his very first defection, he could not possibly have a history of conversions (Rahman, Punishment of Apostasy in Islam, p. 39). If Muhammad did command the death penalty for renegades from Islam it could only have been towards the end of his life when it became expedient for many Arabian communities to profess Islam. It took very little for these groups to revert to paganism at the first opportunity and the early Muslims suffered casualties at the hands of at least one tribe near Medina who initially professed Islam and thereafter forsook it and attacked the Muslims. Shortly after Muhammad’s death a widespread defection from Islam took place and his successor Abu Bakr, faced with an imminent crisis threatening the very survival of Islam, had to resort to a number of campaigns to re-enforce Muslim rule in Arabia. It is possible that the traditions we have quoted are based on commands of Muhammad, not to put to death every individual who forsakes Islam, but rather to destroy those who, once having professed Islam turn away from it and in doing so gather together with the purpose of annihilating the Muslims. The only passage in the Qur’an which speaks of killing those who turn their backs after believing in Islam occurs in this very context: But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks; except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace) or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. Surah 4.89-90. It is significant that this passage is found in one of the last surahs to be revealed and it supports the suggestion t at the death penalty for apostasy applies only to those who become active rebels against Islam, taking up arms against it. The position that emerges, after a survey of the relevant verses of the Qur’an, may be summed up by saying that not only is there no punishment for apostasy provided in the Book but that the Word of God clearly envisages the natural death of the apostate. He will be punished only in the Hereafter. (Rahman, Punishment of Apostasy in Islam, p. 54). 2. Implications and Effects of the Law of Apostasy. There are some Muslim writers who say that the death penalty is an appropriate consequence for apostasy as the public image of Islam is allegedly shamed and weakened by such defections. "An act like this is a kind of mockery and a practice which misleads the pious" (Tabbarah, The Spirit of Islam, p. 390). As a Christian missionary once put it to Samuel Zwemer, "Yet there is always the deep-rooted idea in every one brought up in Islam that to leave Islam for another religion is an awful and unpardonable sin" (Zwemer, The Law of Apostasy in Islam, p. 26). It is, in any event, hard to see how the execution of converts from Islam restores its image. The former Chief Justice of Pakistan, however, has a far more balanced attitude in this case: Islam must stand on the excellence of its own teachings and needs no protective shield against exchange of views at the intellectual level ... The argument based on supposed indignity offered to Islam by a renegade should be set against the consideration that it would be much more undignified for the true Faith to retain adherents by coercion. (Rahman, Punishment of Apostasy in Islam, p. 126, 135). A Christian writer has also expressed similar misgivings about a religion that has to confirm and retain the allegiance of its adherents through forceful means and the threat of dire, immediate consequences for those who dare to express their disillusionment with it: The Muslim concept of toleration has been, from the beginning, that of freedom to remain what you were born or freedom to become a Muslim. It has never yet meant freedom of movement of conscience, or freedom to become . . . Islam ought to concede such freedom irrespective of any possible consequences as to its members. If it is to be a self-respecting faith it must possess its adherents in the sole strength of their freely willed conviction. (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 336, 337). Freedom of religion is Islam has, all too often, only meant the freedom to become a Muslim. No one is free to leave Islam of his own free will and choice. Even though a swift martyrdom may be less likely today than it was in earlier times, the convert, especially in solidly Muslim lands, still faces a harrowing future. Zwemer quotes from a letter written by an Egyptian convert from Islam to Christianity, one which reflects the experiences of many Christians in Muslim lands: "I am again a prisoner, unable to go out at all or even to step on the balcony, because they are so excited and watching me night and day, desiring to quench their thirst with my blood, the blood of the helpless young Christian. My brothers, according to their law, often assured me that if they murdered me they would be martyrs for doing so". (Zwemer, The Law of Apostasy in Islam, p. 22). 3. The Ahmadiyya Attitude to the Law of Apostasy. In the next chapter we will briefly outline the development and tenets of the Ahmadiyya Movement, a sect which has arisen within Islam which is denounced by the orthodox and one which, for reasons which will be given, hardly endears itself to Christianity. One must give credit where it is due, however, and the one redeeming feature of those who follow this sect is their attitude to this subject. They teach quite openly that there are to be no earthly reprisals against those who forsake Islam and base their attitude on the Qur’anic dictum Laa ikraaha fiid-diin. Qattabayyanar-rushdu minal ghayy - "There is no compulsion in religion. The right way stands out clearly from the way of error" (Surah 2.256). They claim accordingly that Islam adopts a very tolerant attitude in matters relating to the subjective faith of each individual, not seeking to compel the allegiance of those who, as we would say, have not "seen the light". One says: Islam stands emphatically for freedom of conscience. Everyone must make his choice, and accept or reject in absolute freedom whatever he chooses to believe in or to deny. (Zafrulla Khan, Islam: Its Meaning for Modern Man, p. 166). This refreshing attitude, while running contrary to the Hadith and the laws of orthodox Islam as taught and practiced by the fuqaha of Islam over the centuries, is nevertheless sound from a rational point of view and one not opposed to the teaching of the Qur’an. This approach is found in all the Ahmadiyya works and another writer from this sect says: Therefore so far as the Qur’an is concerned, there is not only no mention of a death-sentence for apostates but such a sentence is negatived by the verses speaking of apostasy as well as by that magna charta of religious freedom, the 256th verse of the second chapter, la ikraha fi-l-din, "There is no compulsion in religion". (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p. 489). The Movement’s lead has been followed by some of the more enlightened modern Muslim writers. Rahman’s book quoted in this section is a typical example of this spirit now developing even within orthodox Islam itself, but there is a long way to go. Hopefully there will be more such writers who will have the sense to distinguish between individuals who, out of freedom of conscience and personal conviction, choose to leave Islam for another religion (invariably Christianity) and whole communities who desert Islam with the treasonable intention of taking up arms against it. There surely must be a distinction between genuine religious conviction and widespread political revolution. Even though many of the teachings of the Ahmadiyya Movement are obnoxious and distasteful to Christians, its lead in this matter should be appreciated. Another Ahmadiyya writer has this to say (in a paragraph from an article written on apostasy in Islam): We Muslims do believe in freedom of conscience, and we do denounce the action of a Muslim Government even under which capital punishment is meted against apostasy. The book which says, "All Muslims, Jews, Christians and Sabians who believe in God and the last day, and do good works, shall have their reward with their Lord" (Qur’an 11.59) - such cannot allow its followers to look with hatred towards Christians and Jews, no matter if they be so by birth or are renegades from Islam. (Kamal-ud-Din, quoted in "Modern Islam and the Penalty of Apostasy", The Muslim World, Vol. 12, p. 409). In the meantime, however, every convert from Islam will continue to be faced with ostracism, rejection, various forms of persecution, and possible martyrdom. As this section has shown, such a reactionary approach toward those who leave its fold hardly commends or credits Islam. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 71: 04.38. MUSLIM MOVEMENTS AND SCHISMS ======================================================================== Muslim Movements and Schisms ======================================================================== CHAPTER 72: 04.39. A. SUFISM IN THEORY AND PRACTICE. ======================================================================== A. SUFISM IN THEORY AND PRACTICE. 1. Sufism - Islam’s Great Mystical Movement. Islam at the beginning was primarily a legalistic religion and placed before its adherents little more than a code of ethics combined with a set of rituals. The faithful observance of these was deemed sufficient to satisfy every man’s religious quest and ensure him a place in heaven. There was no demand for spiritual regeneration through a rebirth experience and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as in the Christian faith, nor for a highly spiritual form of devotion through which the worshipper could draw near to God in a personal way and discover the knowledge of his grace and favour. During the Ummayad period, after Islam had made direct contact with Eastern Christianity and other oriental religions, a deeply mystical movement arose within its realm, in many ways, perhaps, indebted to the influence of these faiths for its motivation and principles, but nonetheless an independent theosophy developing purely within the framework of the Islamic society and heritage. The movement is known as Sufism (tasawwuf) and its followers are known as Sufis (pronounced "Soofies"). The word sufi almost certainly comes from the Arabic suf, meaning "wool", and implies that the Sufi is a wearer of a woollen garment. In pre-Islamic times ascetics often dressed in wool as a symbol of their particular course of life and the early Muslims who practiced austerity were duly nicknamed "Sufis". Later on the name was adopted by those who sought to obtain knowledge of God through various stages of spiritual self-denial as asceticism in Islam gave way to mysticism. Sufism is principally a quest for a living knowledge of the Supreme Being. To the orthodox Muslim Allah ia the Lord of the Worlds, unique in his essence and attributes, ruling over all the universe and quite unlike anything in his creation. To the Sufi, on the other hand, "God is the One Real Being which underlies all phenomena" (Nicholson, The Mystics of Islam, p.80). He is everything and there is nothing but Him. Man’s purpose is to lose his natural sense of a separate identity from his Creator and to be absorbed instead into his knowledge until there remains no distinction of consciousness between him and God. Through a series of stages (maqamat) and subjective experiences (ahwal) this process of absorption develops until complete annihilation (fana) takes place and the worshipper becomes al-insanul-kamil, the "perfect man". The Sufi concept of a God who is "all in all" differs radically from the orthodox conviction that the further he is placed from his creation, the more he is glorified. Historically it is a marvel that Sufism grew out of the bedrock of Islam but its development will not surprise Christians who believe that man was made in the image of God and that his highest glory is to be conformed to the divine image and be partaker of the divine nature through the indwelling Holy Spirit. The mystical quest in Islam was perhaps to be expected for, as it has been put, there is a "God-shaped vacuum" in every human heart that no religion based purely on ethics and formal rites can ultimately fill. To become a Sufi a Muslim must attach himself to a tariqah, one of the Sufi orders, and submit himself to a pir or master as we have seen. Only when this master adorns the disciple with a khirqah, a robe inducting him into the order, does he become a recognised Sufi, and only then can he embark on a valid pilgrimage through the various stages towards his goal of union with God. Accordingly, whenever an unknown dervish comes into a convent or wishes to join a company of Sufis, they ask him "Who was the Pir that taught thee?" and "From whose hand didst thou receive the khirqa?" Sufis recognise no relationship but these two, which they regard as all-important. They do not allow anyone to associate with them, unless he can show to their satisfaction that he is lineally connected in both these ways with a fully accredited Pir. (Nicholson, Studies in Islamic Mysticism, p.23). The covenant by which the disciple is initiated into the particular order he enters is known as a bay’ah and it attaches him to his master and the silsilah (chain) from which the master himself derives his power (barakah) and authority (similar to the "apostolic authority" conferred on Roman Catholic priests through a progressive laying on of hands said to go back to Simon Peter himself). The initial Sufi experience is not, as it is for true Christians, a rebirth experience in which the man, once born of the flesh, is now born of the Spirit, has a totally new relationship to God and knowledge of him, and can through his unity with God in the Spirit develop the relationship. Rather the Sufi really seeks only "to become aware of what one has always been from eternity (azal) without one’s having realised it until the necessary transformation has come about" (Nasr, Living Sufism, p.7). The major Sufi orders are the Suhrawardiyya (founded by one as-Suhrawardi), the Qadiriyya (attributed to Sufism’s most famous personality, Abdul Qadir al-Jilani), the Chishtiyya (its master Mu’iniddin Chishti who is buried at Ajmer in India), the Shadhiliyya, the Mawlawiyya (a Turkish order founded by Jalaluddin Rumi who is buried in Konya in Turkey), and the Naqshabandiyya (which is prominent in Iran and other parts of Asia). 2. A Brief Analysis of Sufi Stages and Experiences. The goal of the Sufi is to reach a personal knowledge of his Creator until knower and known are one and there is no awareness of any distinction of personality between them. Like all orthodox Muslims Sufis reject the concept of incarnation (hulul) and do not believe that God can become man. They also resist pantheistic tendencies, carefully distinguishing between God and his servants, while nevertheless teaching that man’s aim must be to attain to such a high state of consciousness of God that his personality may no longer be distinguished from God’s essence and character. Man does not have this knowledge by nature, however, and each prospective Sufi must prepare for a course which will take him through many stages and experiences before he completes his journey. Of course the Sufis never tire of emphasizing that the end of Sufism is not to possess such and such a virtue or state as such but to reach God beyond all states and virtues. But to reach the Transcendent beyond the virtues, man must first possess the virtues; to reach the station of annihilation and subsistence in God, man must have already passed through the other stages and stations. (Nasr, Living Sufism, p.58). The Sufi who sets out to seek God calls himself a ’traveller’ (salik), he advances by slow ’stages’ (maqamat) along a path (tariqat) to the goal of union with Reality (fana fi’l-Haqq). ... The Sufi’s ’path’ is not finished until he has traversed all the ’stages’, making himself perfect in every one of them before advancing to the next, and has also experienced whatever ’states’ it pleases God to bestow upon him. (Nicholson, The Mystics of Islam, p.28, 29). The early mysticism of Islam sought only a path of self-purification, a character renewal, until the personality was conformed to the divine image. Later it was believe that such growth must be accompanied by deliberate ecstatic experiences, confirming the progress of the soul. The decline Sufism in later centuries can perhaps be attributed to the interest of the masses purely in the experimental side of Islamic mysticism and the desire for emotional excesses. The early mystics of Islam, however, devoted themselves primarily to the first of the three stages, that is, Purgation. To the mystics, at-tariq (the Pathway) was a method of self-purification acquired through the cleansing of the senses and through bodily discipline. Gradually the Sufis began to develop the second stage, the is, Illumination. Al-Muhasibi (A.D. 781-857), who pioneered with his disciples in the pathways of Purgation, was one of the first to declare that as purification brings freedom from the attachments of this world the Sufi might expect to arrive at the stage of Illumination and thence proceed to the unitive life in God. (Jurji, "Illumination - A Sufi Doctrine", The Muslim World, Vol.27, p.129). Pure Sufism, however, sincerely seeks the fulness of the knowledge of God. Nevertheless it has been universally believed for centuries that such a search must accompanied by external manifestations. The goal will be obtained when the worshipper sees God alone in all that he contemplates and at the same time feels a total and ecstatic sense of his presence. The whole of Sufism rests on the belief that when the individual self is lost, the Universal Self is found, or, in religious language, that ecstasy affords the only means by which the soul can directly communicate and become united with God. (Nicholson, The Mystics of Islam, p.59). He then can be the Perfect Man, one "who has fully realizsed his essential oneness with the Divine Being in whose likeness he is made" (Nicholson, Studies in Islamic Mysticism, p.78). On the path towarts this goal, therefore, he must no only go through the progressive stages of self-annihilation but must also have trance-like experiences in which his normal consciousness is to be lost in ecstatic contemplation of the Divine Being alone. These experiences are the ahwal (singular hal) mentioned earlier and authenticate the developing discovery of the ultimate light and truth. In the Sufism of the orders this ecstasy or trance-like ’state’ is called a hal, though in Sufism proper a hal more strictly refers to the succession of illuminations, through experiencing which the Sufi progresses a further ’stage’ (maqtam) towards the goal of spiritual perfection. (Trimingham, The Sufi Orders in Islam, p.200). Such experiences are, to the Sufis, not to be regarded as hypnotic phenomena to which the human spirit is susceptible in appropriate circumstances but rather gifts from God confirming the Sufi’s striving for his presence. Each stage reached by the disciple is the result of his own effort, each experience is a token of the divine favour upon the endeavour - "the hal is a spiritual mood depending not upon the mystic but upon God" (Arberry, Sufism: An Account of the Mystics of Islam, p.75). A Christian must surely be affected by the whole nature of Sufism. True Christianity is by nature mystical and anyone born of the Holy Spirit will not only seek to become conformed to the image of his Lord but will also surely experience many proofs of the Spirit’s presence in his soul. Indeed it is a New Testament principle that where such a relationship between man and God truly exists, the formal restraints of legal ethics and rituals have no binding effect as the believer has the motivation towards truth and right-living within him. It is hardly surprising that Sufis have often sought to break away from the dull strictures of formal Islamic law and have, in orthodox eyes, often shown scant respect for it. And so for all the actions of life: no outward law regulates the Sufi in regard to them, whether the one way or the other; only the Golden Mean and the General Happiness. (Gairdner, "The Way of a Mohammedan Mystic", The Muslim World, Vol.2, p.255). A prominent Sufi in Islamic history, Sari as-Saqati, who lived in Baghdad at the same time as Islam’s arch-conservative theologian, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and was strongly opposed by him, made a profound distinction between the legal formalism of the Muslim masses and the spiritual quest and path of the Sufi elite: "The way of the multitude is this", said Sari, "that you observe prayer five times daily behind the imam, and that you give alms - if it be in money, half a dinar out of every twenty. The way of the elect is this, that you thrust the world behind you altogether and do not concern yourself with any of its trappings; if you are offered it, you will not accept it. These are the two ways". (Arberry, Muslim Saints and Mystics, p.169). There is a remarkable similarity here between the old and new covenants, the former legalistic, the latter based on "grace and truth" which came through Jesus Christ (John 1:17). Islam can hardly be regarded as a stepping-stone to Christianity but Sufism definitely is, and it is this writer’s conviction that genuine Sufism is Islam’s only endeavour to raise itself towards the glory of the Christian revelation. The difference between the two is this - the Sufi seeks in himself to attain to the knowledge of God through a series of spiritual stages; the Christian acknowledges that his natural tendency towards sin and separation from God prevent him from ever attaining such a goal, and he submits rather to God’s redeeming grace in Jesus Christ and the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit within him to enable him to know God fully and become like him. 3. The Different Stages in the Sufi Quest. It is not easy to define the various stages of the Sufi path, especially as there is no universal consensus as to the exact identity of each stage or even of the order in which they are reached. It is generally agreed that the goal is al-Haqiqah, "the True Reality", also known as fana, self-annihilation" or absorption in God. Very prominent in the Sufi stages is ma’rifah, "knowledge" of God, or the gnosis of his essence and presence. In some cases it is set forth as one of the stages towards the goal, in others it is identified with the haqiqah as the object of the quest. These two, together with the initial tariqah, "the path", constitute the three great stages of Sufism. A Sufi must attain to these after graduating from the basic laws of Islam which are set forth, Sufis believe, as a principal code for the unenlightened Muslim masses. The foundation of the shari’ah, the law, and the three ascending Stages of Sufism towards the goal of complete union with God through a loss of self-consciousness are defined as follows: Nasut is the natural human state in which one lives following the rules of the shari’a; Malakut is the nature of angels, to reach which one treads the tariqa, the path of purification; whilst Jabarut is the nature of power, to attain which one follows the way of enlightenment, ma’rifa, until one swoons into Fana, absorption into Deity, the State of Reality (Haqiqa), often called in the order literature `Alam al-Ghaib, ’the (uncreated) world of the mystery’. (Trimingham, The Sufi Orders in Islam, p.160). Famous Sufis have individually been responsible for identifying and emphasising different stages making up this threefold gradient and we shall mention some of them and their respective contributions later in this section. In time these became integrated into the catalogue of stages in the Sufi quest and we shall speak briefly of some of them. One of the initial stages is said to be an attitude of indifference towards good or bad fortune. The Sufi believes that adversity, causing discomfort, depression or discourage is brought about through God’s deliberate "contraction" (qabdh) and that prosperity, joyful circumstances and the like, come from his "expansion" (bast). He humbly resigns himself to both, seeking not to be affected by his circumstances but to fix his devotion purely on his Lord and Master. Qur’anic sanction is found for these contrasting acts of God and the Sufi’s willingness to abide in them. The Sufi has submitted himself to God, who says "God contracts and expands" (Koran II:245). Thus, whether he gives contraction or expansion, the Sufi only desires what is desired by his Beloved. (Nurbakhsh, Sufism, p.27). One is reminded of Paul’s words in Php 4:11-13. Another typical stage is that of "gathering" (jam) in which the Sufi begins to turn away from the state of separation from God (tafriqah - "dispersion"), the distinction being between God himself and the world of everything but God. There are many different stages, too many to cover in detail here, but perhaps some attention should be given to the ultimate stage - fana - for all the intermediate stages are different forms of disassociation from all that is "under the sun", to use a Biblical expression (from Ecclesiastes), in the cause of being absorbed into the consciousness of the Supreme Being. (Alternatively, the Sufi seeks to shake off the identity of his nafs, his individual soul with all its ungodly tendencies, similar to the concept of "the flesh" as it is set forth in opposition to the way of the Spirit in the New Testament, especially the eighth chapter of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans). Fana is the ultimate goal - a dissolution of the Sufi’s consciousness of his own identity through a total absorption in the knowledge of God. "As a technical term in Sufism, the word annihilation signifies the annihilation of the attributes of human nature and their transformation into Divine Attributes. In the state of annihilation, the Sufi is completely immersed in the contemplation of the Attributes of God and oblivious to his own self" (Nurbakhsh, Sufism, p.86). It should again be emphasised that this does not lead to a pantheistic theosophy, for Sufis, true to the Muslim faith, are always careful to distinguish between God and his servants. The union comes in the realm of consciousness and spiritual perspective. The distinction is well set forth in this comment: "The mystic does not become one with God, he becomes conscious of his oneness with Him" (Tritton, Islam, p.101). It is true to say that the Sufi should never be able to proclaim that he has reached this stage for his complete absorption in God and self-annihilation, his fana fit-tawhid, fil Haqq ("Union with the Unity, the Reality"), will surely make him lose all consciousness of his own identity and personal state. The highest stage of fana is reached when even the consciousness of having attained fana disappears. This is what the Sufis call ’the passing-away of passing-away (fana al-fana). The mystic is now wrapped in contemplation of the divine essence. (Nicholson, The Mystics of Islam, p.60). Let us briefly look at one of the ways in which Sufis seek to induce a state of ecstasy. Though a means is employed to create this state, they insist that the experience itself is from God. 4. Dhikr - The Remembrance of Allah. The commonest means of inducing a state of ecstasy is the dhikr ceremony. A group of Sufis will gather together and begin a series of chantings, either of the ninety-nine names of Allah, or just simply of the name of Allah himself, until the devotees collapse in a state of trance. The famous "whirling dervishes" obtain their name and fame from this very ceremony. Today it has become customary for numerous adherents of Sufism, who know nothing of true Sufism or a deep spiritual quest coupled with acts of self-discipline to attain to a higher state of spirituality, to seek purely the supposed state of "ecstasy" that can be obtained through regular concentration on and recitation of the name and attributes of Allah. After an experience of nearly thirteen years of close contact with Egyptian Moslems, I have no hesitation in saying that, as to the bulk of the population of Egypt, their real religion is Sufism, as represented by the dhikr. They know practically nothing of the philosophic Mysticism of their books, but through tradition they know something of the spiritual achievement of their saints; and in the dhikr they attempt to realize the ultimate experience of the Sufi saint by a physically induced ecstasy, ignoring the fact that these saints only reached their experiences by a long and painful road. (Swan, "The Dhikr", The Muslim World, Vol. 2, p.381). The Qur’an commends the remembrance of Allah in these words: Wa aqimis-salaah ... wa lathikrullaahi akbar - "and establish prayer ... and the remembrance of Allah, which is greater" (Surah 29.45). Orthodox Muslims take this verse simply to mean that prayyer without a consciousness of Allah has a very limited value. Sufis interpret it to mean that the practice of dhikr through repetitions of Allah’s name and attributes is greater than the formal acts of the prescribed salaah, the basic Islamic form of worship. According to some this means the mentioning, or the remembering of God constitutes the quintessence of prayer; according to others it indicates the excellence of invocation as compared with prayer. (Burckhardt, An Introduction to Sufi Doctrine, p.101). A dhikr ceremony is something to behold, though Christian observers can be excused if they become bored after a while with a monotonous repetition of religious cliches, e.g. la ilaha illullah - "there is no God but Allah", which supposedly bring the devotee into the realm of God and a conscious awareness of his presence simply because they result in a trance-like state. In all religions there are those who seek, through various means, to enter into such trances and these means are all very similar to one another. The end result seems to be a self-induced, hypnotic state rather thhan a God-ordained experience. 5. How Sufism Relates to the Quran and Hadith. If Sufism is a later development within Islam, how does it reconcile itself with original Islam, the religion of Muhammad as set forth in the Qur’an and Hadith? The Sufi answer is that this original Islam has the germs of Sufism and that both the Qur’an and Hadith contain numerous passages indicating the deeper nature of true Islam, that which later blossomed out into its great mystical movement. Expressions such as these in the Qur’an are produced by Sufis as proof that Islam is, at heart, a spiritual religion: "To God belong the East and the West: whithersoever ye turn, there is the Presence of God. For God is All-Pervading, All-Knowing" (Surah 2.115); and "We are nearer to him (man) than his jugular vein" (Surah 50.16). Although Muhammad himself could hardly be described as a mystic, let alone a Sufi, there are verses in the Qur’an which do at least support the Sufi contention, prompting one scholar to say: "however un-favorable to mysticism the Koran as a whole may be, I cannot assent to the view that it supplies no basis for a mystical interpretation of Islam" (Nicholson, The Mystics of Islam, p.22). As the Qur’an is believed to be the uncreated Word of God it is little wonder Sufis seek to authenticate their movement with reference to its teaching and it is not surprising that they make much of these verses. "For these mystical texts are the chief encouragement and justification of the Sufi in his belief that he also may commune with God" (Arberry, Sufism: An Account of the Mystics of Islam, p.17). Another verse cherished by the Sufis is this one: "To God we belong, and to Him is our return" (Surah 2.156) as it seems to synchronise with their whole philosophy that man’s objective and duty on earth is to strive spiritually until he comes back to the knowledge of his Creator. The "return" must therefore be one in which the soul can be re-united with its Maker through a thorough spiritual devotion. The Sufis claim that the whole of Sufism is summed up in this verse, and it is often chanted at their gatherings and sometimes repeated a certain number of times on a rosary; and in fact, although every believer is necessarily ’for God’ in some degree or other, the mystic may be said to be ’for God’ in a way which the rest of the community is not. (Lings, What is Sufism?, p.28). The Hadith contain certain "hadith qudsi" (divine sayings of Allah), allegedly reported from Muhammad himself which contain mystical elements even closer to the heart of Sufism than the verses quoted from the Qur’an. A famous saying of this kind is: My slave keeps on coming closer to Me through performing Nawafil (praying or doing extra deeds besides what is obligatory) till I love him, so I become his sense of hearing with which he hears, and his sense of sight with which he sees, and his hand with which he grips, and his leg with which he walks; and if he asks Me, I will give him, and if he asks my protection (Refuge), I will protect him. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.8, p.336). One writer comments that "the whole of Sufism - its aspirations, its practice, and in a sense also even its doctrine - is summed up in this Holy Tradition, which is quoted by the Sufis perhaps more often than any other text apart from the Qur’an" (Lings, What is Sufism?, p.74). Another similar saying is: I was a hidden treasure and I desired to be known; therefore I created the creation in order that I might be known (quoted in Nicholson, The Mystics of Islam, p.80; but: fabricated?). These traditions are, for the Sufis, their motivation for earnestly desiring to know God and their belief that he does indeed desire that his servants should thus seek him. One writer says of the last saying: This is called the "self-revealing" (tajalla) of Allah and is only really intelligible through the mystical contemplation, which sees all things in God, as it sees God in all things. (MacDonald, The Religious Attitude and Life in Islam, p.170). There is, of course, the possibility that the hadith quoted are symptomatic of later developmenta in mystical Islam, just as many legislative traditions betray evidences of an advanced juristic process in Islam as we have seen. Accordingly they may well have been invented. Nevertheless, for the Sufis, they authenticate Islamic mysticism, enabling them to trace it back to statements allegedly reported on the authority of Muhammad himself. 6. Some Famous Sufis in Muslim History. There are a number of Sufis who stand out in the history of Islamic mysticism, all of whom have made their contribution in one way or another to the development of Sufism. One of the most famous of the early Sufis was Junayd, the head of a large body of disciples, who died in Baghdad in 910 AD. He "was the greatest exponent of the ’sober’ school of Sufism and elaborated a theosophical doctrine which determined the whole course of orthodox mysticism in Islam" (Arberry, Muslim Saints and Mystics, p.199). Junayd, being one of the early Sufi masters, was not given to excesses in his mystic devotions and sought chiefly through a process of self-denial to discover the way to God. The following saying, which seems to be far more Christian than Muslim in origin and emphasis, is attributed to him: "Sufism is that God makes thee die to thyself and become resurrected in Him" (quoted in Nasr, Living Sufism, p.57). It was this very principle of dying to self that later became the foundation of the Sufi concept of fana, being lost in the consciousness of God, and Junayd was one of the first to use this expression. At the other extreme we find the famous Persian Sufi master Bayazid al-Bistami, "first of the ’intoxicated’ Sufis who, transported upon the wings of mystical fervour, found God within his own soul and scandalised the orthotox by ejaculating, ’Glory to Me! How great is My Majesty’" (Arberry, Sufism: An Account of the Mystics of Islam, p.54). Sobriety was not at the heart of this man’s mystic experiences. He not only established the concept of being so united to God that the identities of the Creator and creature become one but also gave the ecstatic character of this experience its impetus. As was to be expected, he was highly unpopular with the orthodox Muslims of his day. He is credited with many bold and daring statements, of which the one quoted above is an example. Here is another: For instance, one day Bayazid was in his cell. Someone came and said, "Is Bayazid in the house?" He answered, "Is there anyone in the house but God?(Nurbakhsh, Sufism, p.53). He also greatly emphasised the ultimate state of fana but gave it a far more experimental character. He is accordingly regarded as the founder of the "drunken" school of Sufism, a description implying that a true falling away of the separate consciousness of the believer in his Lord would be manifested through a state of spiritual intoxication. From Bayazid’s example grew the interest in Sufism in outward manifestations of the inward experience. Some Muslims say that a true Muslim on pilgrimage will see the Ka’aba the first time, the Ka’aba and the Lord of the House the second, and only his Lord on the third. Bayazid went further: "The first time I entered the Holy House," stated Abu Yazid, "I saw the Holy House. The second time I entered it, I saw the Lord of the House. The third time I saw neither the House nor the Lord of the House" (Arberry, Muslim Saints and Mystics, p.121). This experience illustrates the whole meaning of the fana state - a lost consciousness even of God himself as the Sufi pilgrim becomes one with him. Another symbolising this same concept is: One day someone came to Bayazid’s door and knocked. The shaykh said, "Who are you seeking?" The man replied "Bayazid". Bayazid then answered, "Poor Bayazid! I have been seeking him for thirty years but have found no sign or trace of him". (Nurbakhsh, Sufism, p.97). Another famous mystic from the golden age of Sufism was Abu Sa’id ibn Abul-Khayr, a prominent member of the group of early masters who emphasised the doctrine of losing one’s human consciousness and subsisting in the knowledge of God alone. These men all believed that by renouncing earthly pleasures, by mystical hours of devotion, and by seeking out the higher virtues of the soul, one could walk the road towards this goal. Self-love had to be replaced by a disinterested love for God alone. Abu Sa’id followed in the footsteps of Bayazid, making many bold statements calculated to antagonise the orthodox. On one occasion he told one of the fuqaha, the Muslim jurists, that he could read his thoughts (many anecdotes have been recorded of his alleged power to discern the thoughts of men). The jurist had thought to himself that he could not find Abu Sa’id’s teaching in the seven-sevenths of the Qur’an (that is, the whole Qur an). Abu Sa’id replied that his doctrine was contained in the "eighth-seventh" of the book, meaning a special revelation given by God to his favourite servants. This concept of an independent revelation given to a Muslim after the revelation of the Qur’ an is diametrically opposed to the Muslim doctrine of the finality of prophethood. Here Abu Sa’id sets aside the partial, finite, and temporal revelation on which Islam is built, and appeals to the universal infinite, and everlasting revelation which the Sufis find in their hearts. As a rule, even the boldest Mohammedan mystics shrink from uttering such a challenge. (Nicholson, Studies in Islamic Mysticism, p.60). Among the great mystics of Islam was a woman, Rabi’a al-Adawiyya, who lived in Basra (in Iraq) in the very early days of Sufism. Her chief contribution to the growing mysticism of Islam was her insistence that God should be loved, not out of fear of wrath or for the prospect of reward, but purely for himself. One of her sayings was: "O God! If I worship Thee in fear of Hell, burn me in Hell; and if I worship Thee in hope of Paradise, exclude me from Paradise; but if I worship Thee for Thine own sake, withhold not Thine Everlasting Beauty!" (Arberry, Sufism: An Account of the Mystics of Islam, p.42). She was once seen carrying a burning torch in one hand and a bucket of water in the other. When asked why, she replied: "I am going to set fire to Paradise and quench the fires of Hell so that men may worship God for his own glory alone". Of Rabi’a her biographer wrote that she was "on fire with love to God", and she was one of the first among the Sufis to teach the doctrine of disinterested love to God. She was asked if she hated Satan, and answered "No", and when asked if she loved the Prophet, she said, "My love to God has so possessed me that no place remains for hating aught, or loving any save Him". (Smith, "Rabi’a, The Woman Saint’, The Muslim World, Vol.20, p.341). The most tragic figure in Sufi history is al-Hallaj, one of the "intoxicated" mystics who was also inclined to complete indiscretion in making bold statements which outraged the orthodox. He openly claimed ana’l Haqq - "I am the Truth", and for refusing to recant was brutally dismembered and crucified. (It is striking to find that he suffered the same fate as Jesus Christ who made exactly the same claim, albeit more worthily). Later Sufi mystics considered him a true martyr even though many at the time disowned him. They charged him with teaching hulul, i.e. incarnation, in that he suggeated that God himself joined in union with man in all his essence rather than that man attained to a state of identifying with God in his attributes and personality. The later Sufis, however, endeavoured to interpret al-Hallaj’s doctrine as distinct from the concept of hulul and "they have also done their best to clear Hallaj from the suspicion of having taught it (Nicholson, The Mystics of Islam, p.151). The general line taken was that he was right in his teaching, but that he ought not to have published abroad the secrets of Sufism, a proceeding for which he deserve to be put to death. It must be remembered that later Sufis left out many of the distinctive features of Hallaj’s doctrine. They discarded the term Hulul, and they replaced his view of the union of the human soul with God by a doctrine of monism, in which all created things including the souls of men, are merely mirrors reflecting one or other of the attributes of God. (Thompson. "Al-Hallaj, Saint and Martyr", The Muslim World, Vol.19, p.401). Although Abdul Qadir al-Jilani is held to be the founder of the Qadariyya, the greatest school in Sufism, and is so venerated that he "has very nearly displaced Muhammad himself in the eyes of the Sufi-worshipping public" (Rahman, Islam, p.153), the extent of his devotion to Sufism cannot be ascertained fully. He was a dedicated follower of the legalistic school of Ibn Hanbal and many myths surround his life. Nevertheless he is universally regarded to this day as the greatest of the early Sufi masters. After the heyday of Sufism in the early centuries of Islam the movement began to lose credibility and it took the great Islamic scholar Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali to give it a more sober image and respectability among the general public. Al-Ghazzali was a renowned orthodox theologian and, after a period of cynical agnosticism and depression, he declared himself a champion of Sufism, claiming to have found peace and purpose at last through a personal experience of refuge in God alone. His mysticism was chiefly of a less emotional kind than his predecessors, concentrating on intellectual insight and understanding, and it is therefore not surprising that "he is not regarded as being a practising Sufi by the ecstatics and gnostics" (Trimingham, The Sufi Orders in Islam, p.52). Yet it was he who reconciled Sufism with orthodox Islam and a fine example of the way he did this is found in his definition of the four stages of the knowledge of tawhid, the "unity" of God, in his greatest work: The first stage is like the outer cover of a cocoanut, the second stage is the inner cover of a cocoanut, the third is the kernel of a cocoanut, and the fourth stage the oil of the kernel. The first stage of Tauhid is to utter by tongue "There is no deity but God". The second stage is to confirm it by heart. The third stage is like kernel which can be seen by inner light or by way of Kashf. The fourth stage is like oil in kernel. He sees nothing but God. (Imam Gazzali’s Ihya Ulum-id-Din, Vol.4, p.238). Here the orthodox dogma is almost imperceptibly fused with the whole foundation of Sufism. Al-Ghazzali’s chief contribution to Sufism was to remove its stigma in the eyes of the orthodox by tempering its character and bringing it more into line with fundamental Islam. The influence of al-Ghazali in Islam is incalculable. He not only reconstituted orthodox Islam, making Sufism an integral part of it, but also was a great reformer of Sufism, purifying it of un-Islamic elements and putting it at the service of orthodox religion. (Rahman, Islam, p.140). Not only did he save Sufism from extinction by softening its dramatic character but at least one writer considers that he also delivered orthodox Islam from the dead-weight of formalism: "Had not mysticism in the course of time acquired a place in official Islam, chiefly through the influence of al-Ghazali, the Muslim religion would have become a lifeless form" (Wensinck, The Muslim Creed, p.58). Sufism is a remarkable phenomenon in Islam and Christian readers must, after reading this section, have recognised how similar it is to Christianity in so many of its facets and objectives. In many ways its spiritual character is far more consistent with Christianity than orthodox Islam. The Christian witness to Islam has here its greatest potential for making its message heard and understood. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 73: 04.40. B. THE SOURCES AND TENETS OF SHI'ITE ISLAM. ======================================================================== B. THE SOURCES AND TENETS OF SHI’ITE ISLAM. 1. Shi’ism - Its Character and History. Islam is divided into two great sects - the Sunnis and the Shi’ites. The former follow the sunnah, the "example" of Muhammad, and constitute the vast majority of the Muslims in the world. The Shi’ah (the "Party") are found mainly in Iran and its surrounding regions as well as in parts of Africa. The Sunnis believe that Muhammad’s companions Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali (in that order) were, by democratic election, the four "rightly-guided" caliphs, that is, immediate successors of Muhammad. The Shi’ah believe that Muhammad’s nephew, Ali was specifically designated as his successor and that divine guidance descended on them to guide the growing Muslim community and lead it in the path of Allah. The real disagreement is the meaning of the word mawla used by the Prophet. The Shi’a unequivocally take the word in the meaning of leader, master, and patron, and therefore the explicitly nominated successor of the Prophet. The Sunnis, on the other hand, interpret the word mawla in the meaning of a friend, or the nearest kin and confidant. (Jafri, The Origins and Early Development of Shi’a Islam, p.21). From this division regarding the lawful succession of the prophet of Islam come all the other points of separation between the Sunnis and the Shi’ah. Wherever Islam has been spoken of in this book it is always Sunni Islam that has been under consideration as the overwhelming majority of the Muslims are Sunnis. In this section we shall consider Shi’ite Islam as a separate movement within the Muslim world. A typical definition of this movement follows: Shi’ah, which means literally partisan or follower, refers to those who consider the succession to the Prophet - may God s peace and benediction be upon him - to be the special right of the family of the Prophet and who in the field of the Islamic sciences and culture follow the school of the Household of the Prophet. (Nasr, Shi’ite Islam, p.33). It is hard to tell exactly when Shi’ism began or when it can positively be distinguished as a separate sect; One has to go right back to the death of Muhammad, perhaps, to find the events that eventually gave rise to this movement which ultimately established itself as a distinct branch of Islam. Although Muhammad’s nephew Ali had been one of the first to believe in his message and was a great champion of Muhammad’s cause during his lifetime, he became a recluse after his death when Abu Bakr was nominated as Muhammad’s successor by Umar and was duly accepted by the community of Muslims at Medina. There is evidence that Ali was unwilling to accept Abu Bakr’s nomination ("he did not recognize Abu Bakr and refused to pay him homage for six months - Jafri, The Origins and Early Development of Shi’ite Islam, p.59), but on the whole it does appear that he tacitly approved of the caliphates of Abu Bakr and Umar. It was only after he was rejected in favour of the unloved Uthman that Ali became active again. When Uthman was assassinated Ali was finally appointed Caliph, but his predecessor had already placed many of his clan, the Ummayads, in leading positions in the growing Muslim empire and at least one of them, Mu’awiyah, the governor of Syria at Damascus and son of Muhammad’s long-standing enemy Abu Sufyan, considered himself powerful enough to challenge Ali for the control of the whole Muslim world. Ali found himself faced early in his caliphate with an insurrection led by a number of Muhammad’s companions including his wife Ayishah (who had proved to be Ali’s inveterate foe even during Muhammad’s lifetime) which was ostensibly started to avenge the blood of Uthman. Ali had failed to bring the former caliph’s murderers to justice and both Ayishah and Mu’awiyah used this as a cause against him and sought to displace him. Ayishah joined a force against him led by Muhammad’s companions Talha and Zubayr which was defeated by the caliph at the "Battle of the Camel (al-Jamal)", but a further battle fought at a place called Siffin in Syria, although it was a huge confrontation, ended inconclusively without victory for either Ali or Mu’awiyah. The former agreed to submit his cause to arbitration, however, and when this went against him many of his followers deserted him. The remainder, however, formed the nucleus from which the Shi’ah were to rise. The conflict at the battle of Al-Jamal brought about a serious split in the Muslim Community. ... Those who supported `Ali at the battle of Al-Jamal and later at Siffin were first called the "people of Iraq" (ahl al-`Iraq) as well as the "party of `Ali" (shi’at `Ali or al-`Alawiya). Their opponents were called shi’at `Uthman or more commonly al-`Uthmaniyya. (Jafri, The Origins and Early Development of Shi’a Islam, p.95). Ali himself was later assassinated and although Mu’awiyah was almost certainly not involved in the deed, he took the opportunity to establish himself as Caliph, a position that was to be held by his clan, the Ummayads, for nearly a hundred years. Those who were isolated in the process formed the kernel of the group of Muslims that was eventually to create the establishment of a distinctly separate movement in Islam, namely the Shi’ah. 2. Ali and the Doctrine of the Twelve Imams. The Shi’ah believe that Muhammad’s nephew Ali (really his cousin, but much younger than him), who married his daughter Fatima, was his appointed successor and the first of the imams. They cite at least four occasions where Ali was especially singled out by Muhammad to act as his viceroy, namely as the standard-bearer at the battles of Badr, Khaybar and Taluk, and as his representative at his last pilgrimage. On this latter occasion Muhammad appointed Ali to declare the provisions of Surah 9 t the multitude, in particular the command that the pagan Arabs would be barred from performing the Hajj until they embraced Islam (Surah 9.28). Ali has become, for the Shi’ah, the great pontiff of Islam, the first of their twelve great divinely-inspired leaders. The entire spiritual edifice of the Shi’a was built on the walaya (love and devotion) of `Ali, who became the first Shi`a imam. As a matter of fact, the walaya of `Ali became the sole criterion for judging true faith. (Sachedina, Islamic Messianism, p.6). Although the title Amirul-Mu’minin ("Commander of the Faithful") has been applied by the Sunnis to all the caliphs of Islam who have represented the Muslim world down the centuries, the Shi’ah apply this title to Ali alone. Although they regard the three campaigns mentioned earlier and the appointment of Ali as Muhammad’s envoy at the last pilgrimage before his death as important evidences in favour of their assertion that Ali was the real successor of the Prophet of Islam, they rely ultimately on another incident, which is said to have also occurred during the last pilgrimage, to justify their assertions with conviction. It centres on an action Muhammad allegedly took at a place called Ghadir Khumm on their way back to Medina: According to Shi’ite beliefs, on returning home from the last pilgrimage to Mecca on the way to Medina at a site called Ghadir Khumm the Prophet chose Ali as his successor before the vast crowd that was accompanying him. The Shi’ites celebrate this event to this day as a major religious feast marking the day when the right of Ali to succession was universally acclaimed. (Nasr, Shi’ite Islam, p.68). Muhammad is said to have appointed Ali to the walayati-ummah, the "general governorship" of the Muslim community, and to have designated him their new wali, that is, their guardian. Sunni Muslims naturally deny that this story has historical validity and do not believe that Muhammad ever actually appointed a successor. They do, however, point to a last illness of their prophet at Medina, when he designated Abu Bakr to lead the prayers in his place, as a sign that this man was the one really intended to be the first caliph of Islam. (Abu Bakr was duly appointed as such on the death of Muhammad a few days later and was acknowledged by the Muslims as their rightful leader). A typical perspective of the Shi’ah view of the events said to have taken place at Ghadir, however, is found in this quote from a Shi’ite author: On the historical occasion of the halt at Ghadir when the Prophet was returning from his last pilgrimage to Mecca the Master in view of his approaching end took advantage of the large following to announce formally that Ali was the leader of those whose leader was the Prophet and delivered the well-known passage in the Quran to the effect that that day the religion had been completed, clearly indicating that the Prophet had by the will of God apointed Ali to be after him the leader of the world. (Hussain, "Shiah Islam", The Muslim World, Vol.31, p.185). Unlike the Sunnis who believed that the caliph should be elected by the democratic choice of the Muslim community (Ali was duly so-elected on the death of Uthman), the Shi’ah held that the election of the leader of the Muslims (an imam rather than a khalifah) belongs to Allah alone, vests in Ali and his offspoing, and that these imams are infallible men endowed with perfect divine illumination and guidance to lead the Muslim community. The great Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun defined the appointment and character of the imam as follows: The expression, "the Shi’ahs", signifies companions or followers and its reference in legal and theological terminology, ancient and modern, is to the partisans of `Ali and his sons. They are agreed in the assertion that the Imamate is not an ordinary matter, to be left to be determined by an assembly of the people, but the Imamate is a pillar of the faith, in fact the very foundation of Islam. It is not regarded as permissible to think that the prophet could have been unmindful of it, or that he would have left it to the people to determine. It was necessary rather for him to appoint the Imam for the people, that the Imam himself should be without sin great or small, and that `Ali was indeed the one whom Mohammed designated. (Donaldson, "The Shiah Doctrine of the Imamate", The Muslim World, Vol.21, p.14). The Imam does not receive prophetic revelations, that is, he does not enjoy wahy (revelation), but is endowed with lutf (illumination) so that he can correctly interpret the revelations already given and guide the community. The Imam, like the Prophet, is blessed with special grace (lutf) from God, which renders him immune to sin (ma’sum) before God makes him His witness (shahid) to the people and His proof (hujja) for them. (Sachedina, Islamic Messianism, p.20). The Shi’ite concept of the divinely-inspired Imam deveoped to the point where it was believed that each Imam, in turn, was God’s vicegerent on earth, one endowed with a full knowledge not only of true religion but also of the true interpretation of the Qur’an. The second fundamental principle embodied in the doctrine of the Imamate as elaborated and emphasized by Ja’far was that of ’Ilm. This means that an Imam is a divinely inspired possessor of a special sum of knowedge of religion, which can only be passed on before his death to the following Imam. In this way the Imam of the time becomes the exclusively authoritative source of nowledge in religious matters, and thus without his guidance no one can keep to the right path. This special knowledge includes both the external (zahir) and the esoteric (batin) meanings of the Qur’an. (Jafri, The Origins and Early Development of Shi’a Islam, p.291). After Ali the immediate Imams, in order were his sons (and thus Muhammad’s grandsons) Hassan and Husain, and thereafter, in order of descent from Husain, Ali (generally known Zaynal-Abidin), Muhammad al-Baqir and Ja’far as-Sadiq. The last of these six leaders became the real generator of Shi’ism in the form in which it has developed during the centuries. Before him it was believed that the Imam should be both the spiritual and secular leader of the Muslim community and that he should rise in rebellion and endeavour to become the ruler of the Muslim world. The Ummayad and Abbasid caliphs naturally saw these men as serious pretenders to their thrones and sought to put them to death. Husain was killed during an insurrection against the rule of Yazid, Mu’awiyah’s son (we shall say more of his death shortly), and his immediate successors were both assassinated. It was Ja’far as-Sadiq who finally taught that church and state in Islam could be separated and that the Shi’ites could submit to their Imam as spiritual leader alone, thus solving the constant problem for the Shi’ites of submitting to an Imam who did not enjoy control over the Muslim community. All these questions were solved in accordance with Ja’far’s explanation that it is not necessary for a rightful Imam to combine the temporal power in his person or even claim the political authority - the caliphate - if the circumstances did not allow him to do so. (Jafri, The Origins and Early Development of Shi’a Islam, p.282). Nonetheless the Abbasid caliphs remained very suspicious of the Shi’ah Imams and Ja’far himself, as well as the following five Imams (Musa Kazim, ar-Rida, Muhammad Taki, Ali Naki and Hassan al-Askari), are all said to have been poisoned and thus assassinated as well. Only the twelfth Imam, Muhammad, is said to have escaped and gone into a prolonged occultation. The Shi’ah believe that he guides the world to this day and will again manifest himself in good time when circumstances will enable him to gain control of the Muslim world. With him the twelve Imams, the Ithna Ashariyya, cease. Although there have been many divisions within Shi’ite Islam (the most famous being the Zaydites, who gave their allegiance to Zayd instead of his half-brother Muhammad al-Baqir, and the Ismailis, who believe that there were only seven Imams up to Musa Kazim’s older son Ismail), the aforegoing account of the Imamate, its development as well as its doctrines, represents the mainspring of Shi’ite thought and belief. 3. The Martyrdom of Husain and the Ta’ziah. It has often been said that the ultimate figurehead of Shi’ism is not Muhammad but his grandson Husain. This is especially true in respect of the effect of Husain’s death on the growing Shi’ite branch of Islam. It was also this event that gave Shi’ism its impetus. After the death of Ali his son Hassan proclaimed himself Caliph but later agreed to abdicate in favour of the Ummayad ruler Mu’awiyah on the condition that the caliphate returned to him on Mu’awiyah’s death. Hassan predeceased Mu’awiyah, however, and the latter named his son Yazid, an irreligious young man, as his successor. Husain, the younger of the twins, was thereafter persuaded by the Muslims at Kufa in Iraq to stage an insurrection and he left Medina with a band of followers to join the nucleus of what was later to become the Shi’ite community at Kufa. The small band of just over seventy men, however, was intercepted at Karbala and mercilessly put to the sword on the 10th of Muharram, the first month of the Islamic year. The battle of Karbala is considered by Shi’i piety to be as important in the religious history of Muslims as the battle of Badr; its martyrs are as well favored by God as those of Badr. (Ayoub, Redemptive Suffering in Islam, p.124). Although the death of Husain appears to have been the natural result of an ill-advised political rebellion, Shi’ite Muslims have transformed it into an agonising martyrdom, claiming that Husain knew only too well what was to befall him but sought, through his sufferings, to set an example for his followers so that they too might become purified by enduring all manner of persecution for their faith. "The fall of Husain, a quite mediocre person, excites the Shi’as to the point of delirium". (Lammens, Islam: Beliefs and Institutions, p.144). One of the Shi’ah says: In the case of Husayn, a careful study and analysis of the events of Karbala as a whole reveals the fact that from the very beginning Husayn was planning for a complete revolution in the religious consciousness of the Muslims. All of his actions show that he was aware of the fact that a victory achieved through military strength and might is always temporal, because another stronger power can in course of time bring it down in ruins. But a victory achieved through suffering and sacrifice is everlasting and leaves permanent imprints on man’s consciousness. (Jafri, The Origins and Early Development of Shi’a Islam, p.202). Redemption through suffering has thus become one of the major tenets of Shi’ite Islam, although it is not redemption through the vicarious atonement wrought through the sufferings of another, as in Christianity. Each of the Shi’ah must redeem himself through his willingness to undergo various deprivations and sufferings in emulation of Husain who made the supreme sacrifice. The sufferings of the other Imams, whether before or after Husain, are only seen as typical of the sufferings of this one man who is at the heart of the Shi’ite worship and piety. Even the sufferings of Muhammad himself are said to be only symbolic of the sufferings of Husain. Their suffering and sorrows are in turn intensely concentrated in the sufferings of one man, ’the wronged martyr’, Imam Husayn, son of Ali Ibn Abi Talib. Indeed, all sufferings before are but a prelude to his, the final act in a long drama of tribulation. He is the seal of the martyrs and their chief. All suffering and martyrdom after him are only modes of participation in his martyrdom. (Ayoub, Redemptive Suffering in Islam, p.27). Although the Shi’ite concept of redemption through pious suffering differs in many ways from the Christian doctrine of salvation through the sufferings of Jesus Christ (the Shi’ite Muslims must imitate Husain to be redeemed, the Christian is redeemed by union with Christ in his sufferings and death), the very concept draws Shi’ite Islam towards the Gospel. This applies in particular to the Ta’ziah ("consolation") celebrations on the 10th of Muharram. The celebration culminates in the Muharram rites when the tragedy of Husain is re-enacted with intense emotion. Here, more than anywhere in Sunni Islam, the Shi’ah Muslim comes to grips with the mystery of suffering and grapples with areas of meaning the average Sunni ignores. (Cragg", The Call of the Minaret, p.132). The Ta’ziah celebrations are mainly twofold in expression; the one being the ta’ziah majlis, a "passion-play" reenacting the tragedy at Karbala, and the other being a procession of floats commemorating the tombs of the "martyrs" who died with Husain. The latter ceremony has been widely adopted by Sunni Muslims in the countries of central Asia as well. (It is also practiced by Sunni Muslims in Durban, South Africa, and remains a popular ceremony, though it is frowned upon by orthodox Muslims). For the Shi’ah, however, the Muharram celebrations are perhaps the most important in their annual religious observances. Furthermore a visit to the tomb of Husain at Karbala (such a visit is known as a ziyarah) is as important to the Shi’ah - if not superior to - a pilgrimage to Mecca. If Abdul Qadir al-Jilani has displaced Muhammad in the eyes of the "Sufi-worshipping public" as Rahman has put it, Husain has likewise become the most prominent figure in the worship and convictions of the Shi’ite Muslims. 4. Some of the Tenets of Shi’ite Islam. Apart from the major difference regarding the authority of the Caliphate/Imamate, the Shi’ah also have a number of tenets distinguishing them from the Sunnis. Like the Mu’tazilah of old (of whom we will hear more in the last section), the Shi’ah believe in a created Qur’an "and not uncreated and eternal as taught by the Asha’ira and officially accepted by Sunni Islam" (Jafri, The Origins and Early Development of Shi’a Islam, p.312). So far as human liberty is concerned, the Shi’ites, in general, came near to Mu’tazilism, and declared their belief in a created Qur’an. (Gaudefroy-Demombynes, Muslim Institutions, p.40). The Shi’ah appear to be closer to the Qur’an in teaching, however, that only three periods of prayer should be observed each day. They do not deny the need for seventeen raka’at every day but, whereas the Sunnis spread these over five periods in pursuance of the hadith we have already mentioned, the Shi’ah perform them during their morning, afternoon and evening prayers. The only singular quality of Shi’ite practice in this respect is that instead of performing the five prayers completely separately, usually Shi’ites say the noon and afternoon prayers together, as well as the evening and the night prayers. (Nasr, Shi’ite Islam, p.231). The Shi’ah also believe that many passages of the Qur’an have a hidden meaning not readily apparent to the reader. Only the twelve Imams, they say, had a perfect knowledge of the book and its esoteric (ta’wil) interpretation. Shi’ite exegesis also differs from traditional Sunnite exegesis in that it favours allegorical interpretation and finds in certain circumstances a many-faceted meaning for Qur’anic passages, with deeper and deeper significance. (Gätje, The Qur ’an and its Exegesis, p.39). A modern Shi’ah writer puts this in his own words: "The whole of the Quran possesses the sense of ta’wil, of esoteric meaning, which cannot be comprehended directly through human thought alone. Only the prophets and the pure among the saints of God who are free from the dross of human imperfection can contemplate these meanings while living on the present plane of existence" (Nasr, Shi’ite Islam, p.99). One cannot help feeling that this doctrine is an expedient developed to accomodate the Shi’ite tendency to read its tenets and beliefs in the Qur’an and to justify the many occasions where texts with a plain meaning are forced to yield obscure meanings not at all suggested by the original sense, and that purely to suit Shi’ite fancies. One writer in consequence defines the Shi’ah as "unsurpassed in Islam as falsifiers of history" (Hurgronje, Mohammedanism, p.17). Another peculiar Shi’ite concept is that of "dissimulation" (taqiyah), that is, the hiding of one’s faith in times of risk and danger. This practice was apparently first advocated by some of the Imams who had "declared it to be an incumbent act on their followers, so as not to press for the establishment of the ’Alid rule and the overthrow of the illegitimate caliphate" (Sachedina, Islamic Messianism, p.29). To the Shi’ah this was regarded as nothing more than an inoffensive and prudent concealment of one’s allegiance, but Sunni writers have understandably attacked it as hypocritical and cowardly. One finds that Shi’ah writers today strive to exonerate their religion from such charges. Two examples of such efforts follow: Some have criticized Shi’ism by saying that to employ the practice of taqiyah in religion is opposed to the virtues of courage and bravery. The least amount of thought about this accusation will bring to light its invalidity, for taqiyah must be practiced in a situation where man faces a danger which he cannot resist and against which he cannot fight. (Nasr, Shi’ite Islam, p.224). We may conclude from all these traditions that the real meaning of tagiya is not telling a lie or falsehood, as it is often understood, but the protection of the true religion and its followers from enemies through concealment in circumstances where there is fear of being killed or captured or insulted. (Jafri, The Origins and Early Development of Shi’a Islam, p.300). It is hard to avoid the conclusion that these are weak arguments employed purely as a token defence of an obviously vulnerable doctrine. Indeed the distinctive tenets of Shi’ism very often compare most unfavourably with Sunni Islam and there can be little doubt that Shi’ism is ultimately a defection from the original Islam of Muhammad, his companions, and the doctors of Sunni law. 5. The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam. The great hope of the Shi’ah is the return of Muhammad ibn al-Askari, the celebrated twelfth Imam who allegedly went into hiding and will remain concealed until the world is ripe for a revolution to instal Shi’ite Islam as the major world religion and power. It is said that Muhammad, the twelfth Imam, was sent into hiding for no less than sixty-eight years (from 874 to 941 AD) in what was known as the ghaybatul-sughra (the "Lesser Occultation") and that he was finally translated out of his natural physical existence into a complete concealment in which he will remain until he returns, known as the ghaybatul-kubra (the "Greater Occultation"). A typical way in which the Shi’ah read "esoteric" (ta’wil) meanings into the Qur’an is their interpretation of the words "that which is left you by God is best for you" (Surah 11.86), which ostensibly apply to God’s laws, to mean the hidden Imam who remains until the end of the world! This meaning seems to be wishful in the extreme as there is no evidence elsewhere in the Qur’an or in the Hadith to back up the return of the twelfth Imam. There is no reference to any such person in the Qur’an, nor is there in the earliest strata of Tradition, nor in the earliest creeds. (Jeffery, Islam: Muhammad and his Religion, p.145). Nonetheless the Shi’ah universally declare their belief in the reappearance (zuhur) and return of al-Qa’imul-Mahdi ("the one who will rise, the guided one") who, they believe will bring about peace, justice and security. Under such a rule the loyal shi’a of the twelve Imams will find their exalted position, and under the just government of al-Qa’im they will be able to share the blessings of a world free from "oppression and tyranny". The main purpose of the zuhur is to humble or destroy the evil forces of this world and establish fully just Islamic rule. (Sachedina, Islamic Messianism, p.173). During his lesser occultation the twelfth Imam is said to have communicated with the Shi’ah through four representatives, each one known as a safir. Today he guides the leaders of the Shi’ah through indirect inspiration, the now famous ayatollahs (ayat-Allah - "sign of Allah") being regarded as the chief sources of his guidance. It is true that many Sunni Muslims also believe that a mahdi will arise towards the end of time, but many discount this as there is no mention of such a person in either the Qur’an or the Sahihs of al-Bukhari and Muslim. The Shi’ah, however, all believe that the hidden Muhammad ibn al-Askari will be the Imam Mahdi. What is most significant, on the other hand, is the possibility that the eleventh Imam, al-Hassan al-Askari, actually had no son at all! According to the early Imamite sources al-Askari did not leave a publicly acknowledged son, nor did he determine upon or install his successor openly. (Hussain, The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam, p.57). There was much dispute as to whether a son had been born to al-Askari and as he could not be found it became expedient to claim that he had gone into concealment. The usual explanation of the mysterious disappearance of this unknown leader is given in this account: The circumstances which accompanied the birth of al-Askari’s son suggest that al-Askari wanted to save his successor from the restrictive policy of the Abbasids, which had been established by al-Ma’mun. Hence he did not circulate in public the news concerning the birth ot his son, but only disclosed it to a few reliable followers, such as Abu Hashim al-Ja’fari, Ahmad b. Ishaq, and Hakima and Khadija, the aunts of al-Askari. (Hussain, The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam, p.75). An investigation satisfied the Abbasid caliph at the time (al-Mutamid), however, that al-Askari had left no offspring. The doctrine of a lesser and greater ghaybah appears to have been a pious figment invented to explain the sudden and unexpected cessation of the Imamate. There does not appear to be much in Shi’ism to commend it over and against Sunni Islam. It is, nonetheless, a major branch of Islam and one which is increasingly making its presence felt. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 74: 04.41. C. A STUDY OF THE AHMADIYYA MOVEMENT. ======================================================================== C. A STUDY OF THE AHMADIYYA MOVEMENT. 1. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian. During the latter part of the last century the Muslims of the Punjab area in north-west India began to take notice of a Muslim writer from the village of Qadian named Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. This man wrote a number of treatises attacking Christianity and Hinduism and in 1880 began an extensive work entitled Barahin-i-Ahmadiyah which defended Islam from the onslaughts of Christian missionaries and the Arya Samaj, a militant Hindu organisation. At first this work, published in four volumes, was favourably received by the Muslims and it appeared that a mujaddid, a worthy defender of Islam, had risen. These sentiments, however, soon gave way to almost universal opposition as the Mirza began to make one extravagant claim after another for himself. He arrogated to himself the title of "promised Messiah", that is, one raised in the Spirit of Jesus whom the Muslims believed would return to earth but whom the Mirza said was buried at Srinagar, a town in the Punjab. He also claimed to be the Mahdi as well as a prophet of Allah and even a re-incarnation of Krishna, one of the leading Hindu idols! With the declaration that he was masih maw’ud (the Promised Messiah), mahdi of the Muslims and that he appeared in the likeness of Jesus who had died in Kashmir and was no longer in heaven, Ghulam Ahmad committed himself to a renewal of Islam by a process which most Muslims concidered heresy. (Lavan, The Ahmadiyah Movement, p.38). He said he was receiving divine revelations and by the end of his life had proclaimed that no one was a true Muslim unless he acknowledged him as the Mahdi whom Allah was to send into the world. Signs of the man’s remarkable opinion of himself appeared even in the Barahin when his mission was still in its early stages. Although the work showed no real familiarity with Christianity and very little evidence of true research he nonetheless had convinced himself that he was Islam’s answer to the missionary problem as he saw it. The reader also frequently encounters in the Mirza’s book references to his Divinely inspired revelations, in miracles and to Divine communication and prophecies, and last but not the least, his boastfulness. All this leaves an unpleasant taste in the mouth and transforms the book, which claims to embody a sober academic discussion and a dignified religious debate, into a work of personal bragging - a work in which, again and again, the author stoops to self-advertisement and self-glorification. (Nadwi, Qadianism: A Critical Study, p.29). Although he boldly claimed to be God’s man for the hour there are innumerable evidences to convict him of fraudulence both from a Christian and a Muslim perspective. We shall quote a few of his false prophecies shortly but it can be mentioned here that he at one time stated that his four-volume Barahin would in time be expanded into fifty volumes. Later, by a stroke of the devious kind of reasoning one finds in so many of his writings, he reduced this to five and claimed he would be fulfilling his promise as the only difference between five and fifty (in Arabic and Urdu) is a dot. Even then the fifth volume only appeared in 1905, no less than twentyfive years later. He had called for pre-publication subscriptions many years earlier for the volume and a number of people duly ordered it. "During this period, a large number of people who had paid in advance for all the five volumes but had received only four volumes had passed away" (Nadwi, Qadianism: A Critical Study, p. 28). Furthermore the last volume was a far cry from the earlier works. Those had been basically Islamic in teaching but the last contained a dogmatic presentation of Ghulam Ahmad’s arrogant claims for himself and much of its teaching contradicted his earlier works and, with them, orthodox Islam. In the intervening years his initial polemics, directed against Christians and Hindus, had given way to a wholesome onslaught on much of Islam itself. Henceforth, instead of debating with Christians and Arya Samajis he turned towards Muslims and began to challenge them to debate with him. (Nadwi, Qadianism: A Critical Study, p. 35). It was his claim to be a prophet, a veritable nabi, that antagonised most of his Muslim opponents. On one occasion he wrote "God had revealed to me that every one who has received my call and has not accepted it is not a Muslim" (quoted in Nadwi, op.cit., p.57) and in his work entitled Tatimmah Haqiqat ul-Wahi he made similar grandiose claims for himself. His unashamed personal bragging and boastfulness are revealed very clearly in this quote in the book mentioned: "No Prophet came into this world whose name was not given to me. In Burahin-i-Ahmadiya God has affirmed me as Adam, Noah, Ibrahim, Ishaque, Yaqub, Ismail, Moses, Dawud, Isa, son of Mary, and Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). I am the incarnation of all these Prophets". (Maududi, The Qadiani Problem, p. 119). In another work quoted on the same page he said of his generation: "In this Ummat, the distinction of being called a Prophet was bestowed upon me alone and all others are undeserving of this appellation". As all Muslims believe that Muhammad was the seal of the prophets and that there will be no prophet after him, it is hardly surprising that Ghulam Ahmad was bitterly opposed by orthodox Muslims. His son and second "Khalifah", Mirza Bashir ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, sought to justify his father’s claim in these words: But it is equally valid to say that the expression ’the last prophet’ does not prohibit the coming of prophets who imitate the life and example of the Holy Prophet, teach nothing new, and only follow him and his teaching; who are charged with the duty of spreading the Holy Prophet’s teaching, who attribute their spiritual acquisitions including prophethood to the spiritual example and influence of their preceptor and master, the Holy Prophet. (Ahmad, Invitation to Ahmadigyat, p.46). In yet another publication issued in 1901 by the Mirza to defend his position he said "... my contention is that there is nothing objectionable in my being called nabi and rasul after the Holy Prophet ..." (quoted in Lavan, The Ahmadiyah Movement, p.47). It hardly matters whether there is, as his followers claim, a distinction between his prophethood and that of Muhammad. No claimant to any kind of prophethood after Muhammad is likely to be favourably received by the Muslim world as a whole. That Mirza Ghulam Ahmad walked a fine line on the question of prophecy is clear. He claimed everything except that he was another prophet in succession of Muhammad himself. ... But, by prophesying against Muslims, and not only against Hindus and Christians, and by using the term nabi to describe himself, he did grave offence to Muslim sensibilities. (Lavan, The Ahmadiyah Movement, p.58). 2. The Ahmadiyya Movement - Its Tenets and Branches. Although the Mirza began as a polemicist within the Islamic fold his extreme claims soon ensured that his followers were alienated from the mainstream of Muslim life and it was inevitable that they should form a separate group. They are known by the title they gave themselves - Ahmadiyya - which they say refers to Muhammad’s other name and not to their founder. (Muslims generally refer to them as "Qadianis" after the small, insignificant village where he was born). Their own general antagonism towards traditional Islam finally led to the point where leading Pakistani theologians sought to have them denounced as non-Muslims. The late Maulana Abul a’la Maududi said of them: To these few examples has now been added the case of the Qadiani group concerning whom all the Ulama of Islam and the general body of the Muslims have arrived at a consensus that they should be proclaimed Heretics and that this finding of Heresy against them includes also their expulsion from the pale of Islam. In the presence of the Qadiani religion, we cannot live with them as one nation and still be Muslims and Believers. (Maududi, The Qadiani Problem, p.103). In 1974 they were duly declared a non-Muslim minority by the Government of Pakistan, the country where they have their headquarters to this day. They have also been barred at times from performing the pilgrimage to Mecca. Apart from Ghulam Ahmad’s prophetic claims they have also been denounced by Muslim writers for denying the Muslim concept of jihad as meaning holy war, claiming this refers solely to striving in the way of Allah (a commendable approach but one inconsistent with the Qur’an which plainly teaches that jihad means fighting and warfare as we have seen). There are many other issues on which they distance themselves from historical Islam. Ghulam Ahmad was also reviled for constantly praising British rule in India and for seeking the protection of the colonial regime when opposition became heated. Six years after the death of the Mirza in 1908 the Ahmadiyya Movement began to split into two groups, known today as the Ahmadis and the Lahoris. The former are based in Rabwah, Pakistan, while the latter, as their name indicates, operate from Lahore. The chief cause of this split was the determination of a group of leading Ahmadiyya intellectuals to bring the movement back towards traditional Islam and make it more acceptable to Muslims generally. The two prominent leaders of this group were Khwaja Kamal ud-Din and Muhammad Ali. The former operated in England for many years while the latter became a prominent author and the translator of the first widely-accepted Muslim translation of the Qur’an. The Lahoris have generally played down Ahmad’s prophetic claims, referring to him usually as the "promised Messiah" alone. The split between the Qadiyani Ahmadis and those from Lahore focussed primarily on personality conflicts and also on a divergent interpretation of the role of the Promised Messiah for Islam. ... The Lahore Ahmadiyas particularly were anxious to demonstrate their unity with Sunni Islam and the forward thrust of those seeking political identity for the Muslims. (Lavan, The Ahmadiyah Movement, p.122). The Lahoris have moved towards the rational approach to Islam first adopted by Syed Ahmed Khan, a nineteenth-century Muslim modernist, denying the miracles of the prophets and the like. The Ahmadis, however, who have become active throughout the world, remain true to Ghulam Ahmad’s original stand. The split led to sharp recriminations between the Mirza’s son, Mahmud Ahmad, who maintained his father’s claims to prophethood, and Muhammad Ali, who led the Lahori branch away from the extravagance of these claims towards mainstream Islam. It does appear, however, that the Ahmadis remain the true representatives of the self-styled prophet Ghulam Ahmad. It is also beyond doubt that this group faithfully represents the teachings of the Mirza, in so far as he had claimed prophethood for himself in clear and vigorous terms. But the standpoint of the Lahori branch, whose leader until a few years ago was Maulvi Muhammad Ali (d. 1952), is enigmatic to the core. (Nadwi, Qadianism: A Critical Study, p.120). The Lahore group operates today under the name of Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha’at-i-Islam and while it is not engaged in much propaganda it does publish many works. One writer defines the points of agreement and difference between this group and the Ahmadis as follows, saying of the former: The seceders admit that they regard other Mussalmans as Moslems and not "Kafirs" (unbelievers), as do the followers of Bashir Ahmad; and they repudiate the alleged superstition of the latter, but, on the other hand, they continue true to Ahmad’s unique teaching regarding the death and burial of Jesus in Kashmir, they regard Ahmad as the reformer sent for this generation, and they hold that, in time, all Mohammedans will accept those two facts and that so the breach will be healed. They do not regard as important Ahmad’s decrees, that no Ahmadi shall follow an orthodox imam in prayer or attend a non-Ahmadi’s funeral service, and that no Ahmadi shall give the hand of his daughter to a non-Ahmadi husband although his son may marry non-Ahmadi girls. They regard these prohibitions as having had only a temporary significance in the early days of the movement, and hence no longer important. (Walter, "The Ahmadiya Movement Today", The Muslim World, Vol.6, p.69). The great division between the Ahmadiyya Movement and historical Islam is, ironically, based on diverse views about the person of Jesus Christ. Ghulam Ahmad soon became convinced that traditional Muslim beliefs about Jesus leaned far too far over towards Christianity and sought to "correct" them. A brief study of his attitudes and consequential anti-Christian prejudices will help to show why this sect has been denounced by both Christians and Muslims. 3. The Ahmadiyya Attitude Towards Jesus Christ. Ghulam Ahmad taught two things about Jesus that were to become fundamental to Ahmadiyya doctrine and which stand out from traditional Muslim beliefs. On the one hand he taught that the second coming of the Son of Mary was a spiritual descension and that it had been fulfilled in him. On the other he taught that Jesus had not ascended to heaven but had survived the cross in a swoon and that he went away to Kashmir in India where he died at the age of a hundred and twenty years and was buried in Srinagar. (An ancient tomb of one "Yus Asaf" in the city conveniently became the tomb of Jesus and is so regarded by the Ahmadiyya to this day!). But the supreme claim of the Mirza of Qadian is that he is the promised Messiah. As such he signed himself in his numerous writings. What did he mean by this claim? He did not mean that he was the very person of Jesus Christ re-incarnated in India. On the contrary his conception was that, just as according to the interpretation of Jesus, John the Baptist was the Elijah which was to come (Matthew xi.14), because he came "in the spirit and power of Elijah" (Luke i.17), so he, the Mirza, is the Messiah which is to come, because he is come in the "spirit and power" of Christ. (Griswold, "The Ahmadiya Movement", The Muslim World, Vol.2, p.374). He even went so far as to claim that he was just like Jesus Christ and that his character was in every way a model replica of the Son of Mary’s holy personality. As if this was not arrogant enough he even went so far as to claim superiority to Jesus Christ! He claimed that revelation identified him with Jesus, one of his proofs being his likeness in character to Jesus, but afterwards he claimed to be superior to him. (Tritton, Islam, p.161). This claim was repeated by his son who said that it was not beyond the power of God "to raise one in our time similar to Jesus or greater than him from among Muslims" (Ahmad, Invitation to Ahmadipyat, p.26). Another Ahmadiyya writer bluntly declared "Forget then the memory of Mary’s Son; Ghulam Ahmad is better than he" (quoted in Maududi, The Qadiani Problem, p.51). One of the marvels of history has been the rise every now and again of a man who has claimed to be Jesus Christ returned to earth, particularly as these men have often been thoroughly evil, speaking and acting in an entirely antithetical manner to the true Jesus. Jim Jones, leader of the "People’s Temple" who recently led nearly a thousand gullible followers into a mass suicide pact in Jonestown, Guyana, is a typical example. The Mirza was another of these typical "false Christs". Whereas Jesus said that he had not come to judge those who rejected him but rather to save them (John 12:47), Ghulam Ahmad constantly prophesied all manner of immediate evil against those who opposed him until he was forbidden by the British rulers of India to do so. His son unashamedly declared "Whatever lie was invented against Hazrat Mirza Sahib claimed the inventor as its victim. Dreadful signs were shown by God in his support" (Ahmad, Invitation to Ahmadiyyat, p.207). We shall also see that whereas the prophecies of Jesus were fulfilled to the letter, Ghulam Ahmad had to resort to devious and contrived arguments to explain away prophecies he made which were never fulfilled. Furthermore he was a thoroughly arrogant man and one who showed none of the gentle disposition of the founder of Christianity. He was, in fact, almost the opposite of Jesus in character and temperament. He also sought relentlessly to dishonour Jesus and strip Islam of doctrines that seemed to draw it too close to Christianity. He denied the sinlessness, physical ascension and return of Jesus, thereby removing all the remaining traces of his glory in Islam and reducing him to the level of common prophethood. It is noteworthy that the polemic centres on the death and resurrection of Christ, and on His sinlessness. The method is to get behind the Gospel testimony with the help of destructive criticism by Western scholars, and so to eliminate the living message of the evangel. (Stanton, "The Ahmadiya Movement", The Muslim World, Vol.15, p.15). He considered that the Islamic doctrine of the ascension and return of Jesus went a long way towards supporting the Christian belief that Jesus was the eternal Son of God seated at the right hand of the Father and so sought relentlessly to prove that he had died and had been buried in India. In one of his works he said to the ulama "Let the God of Christians die. How long will you go on calling him the living one, the undying. Is there any limit to it?" (quoted in Nadwi, Qadianism: A Critical Study, p.47). In many other sayings and writings one finds evidence that he was grimly determined to refashion the image and life of Jesus until he appeared to be no more than a rather weak and unsuccessful prophet of Israel. One Ahmadiyya writer, following in the steps of his founder, once said "Jesus excelled in nothing except deception and fraud. It is a pity that the ignorant Christians believe such a person to be divine" (quoted in Maududi, The Qadiani Problem, p.51). Above all the Mirza sought to divide Islam as far as he could frnm Christianity. To achieve this he was prepared to jettison certain Islamic beliefs which, in his view, compromised the standing of Islam in relation to Christianity, and thus to make some sacrifice of orthodoxy in the interests of a more vigorous anti-Christianity. ... In pursuit of his resolve that Islam must be cleansed of a lingering excess of respect for Jesus, he sought to eliminate those traditional beliefs, which had come into Islam after its expansion, relating to Christ as returning from Heaven to the world in order to subdue anti-Christ and bring in a Muslim millenial state of bliss and righteousness. (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p.249, 250). His prejudiced attitude towards Christianity is reflected in the writings of his son who on one occasion had no qualms about declaring that Dajjal (the Muslim concept of the anti-Christ) and Christianity were "one and the same thing" and claimed that the appearance of Christian evangelists in India was proof that the ultimate moment of evil had arrived, saying "the appearance of the Dadjjal is the appearance of Christian propagandists" (Ahmad, Invitation to Ahmadiyyat, p.117). It is hardly surprising that the Ahmadiyya Movement has antagonised Christians and given them little sympathy for it. Traditional Islam appears mild and friendly towards Christianity in comparison! Islam itself has revolted against this movement in consequence of its abusive attitude towards orthodox Muslims (Ghulam Ahmad constantly derided them as "Jews" and regularly reviled Muslim leaders as "offsprings of harlots", prophesying all manner of vengeance and destruction against them). Bashir ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, the Mirza’s son, on many occasions bigotedly claimed that whereas Islam, because of its nebulous beliefs about Jesus, would constantly recede before Christianity, Ahmadiyyat would on the contrary destroy it. In one book he wrote entitled What is Ahmadiyyat?, in a statement reflecting both his wishful extremism and corresponding arrogant bigotry, he said "Christian missionaries and workers now hesitate to confront Ahmadiyyat. Jamaat in Africa has put an end to Christian work in that continent" (!) (quoted in Brush, "Ahmadiyyat in Pakistan", The Muslim World, Vol.45, p. 167). In his other famous work, with tongue-in-cheek, he cheerfully said of Christianity "The most powerful among the enemy religions, which was full of pride over its universal success and regarded Islam as its prey, has suffered such a blow that its votaries take to their heels as soon as they hear of the approach of an Ahmadi exponent. A Christian missionary cannot stand before an Ahmadi" (Ahmad, Invitation to Ahmadiyyat, p.132). The Mirza himself once prophesied that he would fulfil the Muslim belief that Jesus would "break the cross" on his return and that Christianity was destined to be destroyed during his lifetime - just one of those many hollow prophecies he made that has hardly borne any evidence of fulfilment. It will be useful to conclude this study of the Ahmadiyya Movement by examining a few other prophecies he made and their respective outcomes. 4. The Prophecies of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. No prophet should be without the ability to prophesy future events and Ghulam Ahmad, true to his assumed vocation, produced a wealth of such prophecies. The mark of a true prophet, however, is the fulfilment of his prophecies (Deuteronomy 18:22) and it is here that the "promised Messiah" proved himself to be a pretender for so many of his bold predictions failed to come to pass. We shall consider just a small selection of the prophecies of the founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement and the explanations given to explain away their non-fulfilment. The first concerns an elderly Muslim convert to Christianity, one Abdullah Athim, who held a series of debates with the Mirza over a period of twelve days. As these became increasingly acrimonious Ghulam Ahmad prophesied that whichever of the two of them was speaking lies would die within fifteen months and be cast into hell. This was a very subtle prediction as the Christian leader was already sixty-five years old, of poor health, and two hot summers were yet to pass before this period expired. (There appears to be little doubt that the period was shrewdly calculated and there was a strong possibility that the prophecy would be naturally fulfilled). Unfortunately for the Mirza, however, Athim proved to be in better health than he had been for a long time when the prophesied period expired. A few days thereafter a Muslim writer, whose letter is quoted in the source here referred to, said: Was this prophecy fulfilled according to Mirza Sahib’s description? No - never. Abdullah Authom is still safe and sound and he has not been punished by death to be flung into hell. I do not think it is possible to make a different interpretation of this prophecy than what it clearly means to be. (Durrani, Fallacy of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, p.36). The Mirza’s son, however, laboured to prove that this prophecy had indeed been fulfilled, even though Athim continued to live on for a long time after he was expected to die. Bashir ud-Din gave these explanations: He suffered great mental anguish, a sort of hell. ... These hallucinations constituted the mental hell into which Atham had fallen. It was the result of remorse, of feelings of guilt over his support of Christianity and hostility to Islam. ... Atham began to have doubts about Jesus’ divinity. The truth of Islam began to dawn upon his mind. On his retreat God completed the second step of this part of the prophecy. Atham was saved from death even though fear and guilt had driven him very near it. He was saved because he had retreated. (Ahmad, Invitation to Ahmadiyyah, p.250). The author gives no evidence in favour of the claim that the Christian leader began to doubt the divinity of Jesus - a claim typical of many made by the Mirza and his followers over the years which were patently untrue and conjured up to suit the Ahmadiyya cause. In any event one must surely be extremely gullible to entertain suggestions that the hell was "a sort of hell" or a "mental hell" and that God had spared the Christian leader because he allegedly no longer wrote critically against Islam! When Jesus said he would rise from the dead on the third day, it happened just as he had said. When he predicted that Jerusalem would be surrounded by armies and would be destroyed with its Temple, it happened just as he said. His prophecies were fulfilled exactly as he made them. Not so Ghulam Ahmad - when his bold claims proved to be entirely presumptuous, both he and his followers had to resort to peculiar lines of reasoning to prove they had been duly "fulfilled". The second prophecy concerns a young Muslim woman named Muhammadi Begum. The Mirza was infatuated with her and even though she was refused to him by her father he predicted again and again that he would marry her and claimed that God had wed her to him as Zaynab had been wed to Muhammad (Surah 33.37). Not long afterwards she was married to an orthodox Muslim named Sultan Muhammad. What followed has an element of tragedy about it: On the strength of prophecy Mirza Sahib wanted to marry Muhammadi Begum and to achieve his object, he used threats. In spite of that the girl was married to another person. Yet he did not lose hope because of his prophecy. In pursuance of this ambition, he disrupted his family, divorced his wife in old age, disowned his young children causing forfeiture of their rights of inheritance and estranged all the members of the family and ultimately instead of the death of Sultan Muhammad, the girl’s husband or Ahmad Baig, the girl’s father, as prophecied by him, he himself died in utter despair. (Durrani, Fallacy of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, p.28). The threats spoken of included yet another wild prophecy to the effect that Sultan Muhammad would within two-and-a-half years duly pass away. When he also outlived the measure of the days assigned to him by Ghulam Ahmad the latter, with his usual casuistry, claimed that God had "postponed" the demise of his foe. Instead the Mirza died in 1908 while the "usurper" of his God-ordained bride outlived him by many years. The Mirza, as quoted in the work here mentioned, had prophesied almost fatefully against himself when he made this significant prediction: I say again and again that the prophecy about the son-in-law of Ahmad Beg (that is, Sultan Muhammad), is assuredly predestined. Wait for it. If I am a liar, this prophecy would not be fulfilled and my death will come. (Nadwi, Qadianism: A Critical Study, p.96). He can be judged according to his own words and his own mouth condemns him. The marriage that had been made in heaven failed to take place on earth. The third and last prophecy we shall consider relates to the Mirza’s claim to be the "promised Messiah" in the light of the Muslim tradition which states that the Son of Mary will descend on a minaret known as the Isaya Minarah in Damascus when he returns to earth: Then Jesus son of Mary will descend at the white minaret to the east of Damascus. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol.3, p.1202). Naturally, as he claimed to be the fulfilment of all the prophecies relating to the second coming of Jesus, he had to somehow contrive a fulfilment of this one as well. In one work entitled Hashia Azala-i-Awham he stated that God had revealed to him that Damascus was only a synonym for his home town of Qadian and that its name appeared in the tradition because the two towns were supposedly very similar! He added that the tradition had always puzzled scholars, a claim for which he adduces no evidence. On this occasion, however, he departed from his usual practice of twisting and contriving his way through his own and other prophecies and personally had a minaret built in Qadian to complete the fulfilment of the prophetic tradition! In 1903 he laid its foundations and after his death the minaret was completed by his son Mahmud Ahmad. After all, a good prophet should always do his best to see that his prophecies are fulfilled! Our brief study of the Mirza and his prophecies shows that he very adequately fills the role of one of the false prophets and false Christs that Jesus said would appear during the new covenant age (Matthew 24:24), and it does not surprise us therefore to find that he possessed a particularly vindictive attitude towards Christianity. Although the Ahmadiyya Movement has made some progress over the years, it is still a relatively minor sect and one which orthodox Islam remains determined to exclude from the Muslim fold. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 75: 04.42. D. OTHER IMPORTANT SECTS IN MUSLIM HISTORY. ======================================================================== D. OTHER IMPORTANT SECTS IN MUSLIM HISTORY. 1. The Kharijites - the Early Seceders of Islam. The first major sect that appeared in the history of Islam was made up of the Khawarij or Kharijites as they are known to us. The word means "those who go out", that is, seceders. They appeared as a separate group after the Battle of Siffin when Ali submitted his conflict with Mu’awiyah to arbitration. Although his followers had unanimously influenced him into this course of action, a section broke away afterwards, claiming that no caliph of Allah should submit the cause of God to the discretion of man. This group thus became the nucleus of the Kharijite movement in Islam, a dogmatic and fanatical sect which plagued Iraq for many years. Those very men who had forced upon the Caliph the arbitration afterwards repudiated it, and rose in rebellion against him for consenting to their demand for arbitration. They were the original Khawarij (insurgents), who became afterwards an enormous source of evil to Islam. (Ali, The Spirit of Islam, p.298). They taught that the Qur’an was the sole authority over every Muslim and thus believed that they could revolt against any form of secular Muslim rule and indiscriminately kill all unbelievers - including Muslims generally who did not join them - and carry off their property as booty. Ali spent much of his time fighting against the Kharijites who began to terrorise much of the Muslim world during his caliphate. They also claimed that anyone guilty of a grave sin was an infidel and would automatically be excluded from Paradise for ever even though he was a professing Muslim, unless he fully repented of his sin. The man who commits a mortal sin (kabira) is treated by them as an apostate (murtadd), and consequently as an unbeliever (kafir); his person and goods are no longer protected, and he is excluded from the community. (Gaudefroy-Demombynes, Muslim Institutions, p.37). This group did not last long, however, (mercifully for the peace-loving Muslim communities in Iraq) but it did provide an example which was to be followed in later centuries by other sects, in particular the Wahbabis of whom we will hear more shortly. It also set the pace for a number of sects and divisions that were to take place in the coming eras, of which Shi’ite Islam has proved to be the most enduring. 2. The Mu’tazilah - the so-called "Free-Thinkers". Within a hundred years after the death of Muhammad a somewhat rationalistic approach to Islam, influenced by Greek Christian thinking, began to challenge the dogmatic, deterministic nature of orthodox faith. Those who taught that man had a free will as opposed to the orthodox who believed that Allah’s will was the cause and effect of all that is, were nicknamed the Qadariyah because they seemed to deny God’s fore-ordination and control over all things and taught that man possessed this qadar, this power to determine his own destiny instead. These "free-thinkers" later became known as the Mu’tazilah, a name meaning "those who have withdrawn", allegedly derived from an incident where one al-Hasan was being asked whether a grave sinner was a believer or not. According to this account someone asked al-Hasan al-Basri whether they should regard the grave sinner as a believer or an unbeliever. While al-Hasan hesitated, Wasil ibn-Ata, one of those in the circle, burst into the discussion with the assertion that the grave sinner was neither, but was in an intermediate position (manzila bayn al-manzilatayn) literally "a position between the two positions". He then withdrew to another pillar of the mosque, followed by a number of those in the circle, whereupon al-Hasan remarked "Wasil has withdrawn (i’tazala) from us". From this remark came the name Mu’tazila. (Watt, The Formative Period of Islamic Thought, p.209). The doctrine of an intermediate state in time likewise became one of the basic tenets of Mu’tazilism. Another major difference between the Mu’tazilah and orthodox Islam relates to the Qur’an, whether it is created or the uncreated Word of Allah. The Mu’tazilah taught that as God had neither place, form, body, movement or features, his speech must be considered as separate from his being and so the Qur’an must be created. During the climax of Mu’tazilite influence, when even one or two of the Abbasid caliphs supported their views, many orthodox scholars (including Ahmad ibn Hanbal) were severely treated because of their opposition to such views. The controversy about the Qur’an came to assume a central role as far as the Mu’tazila were concerned, a controversy which was ultimately responsible for their downfall. At the peak of their influence under the Abbasid Caliph al-Ma’mun, the doctrine of the eternity of the Qur’an was proscribed by decree and the holders of the conservative view were subject to flogging, imprisonment and death. But this had the effect of causing Ibn Hanbal to assume the role of martyr and of winning him and his like popular sympathy. (Scale, Muslim Theology, p.67). The Abbaside Caliph el-Mamun made an edict declaring the Qoran to be created. This edict was confirmed by his successors, Mu’tasim and Wathik, who whipped, imprisoned and put to death those who held otherwise. Mutawakhil (A.D. 847-861) revoked the edict, and put an end to the persecutions. (Roberts, The Social Laws of the Qoran, p.118). The major dispute between the two parties, however, was over the nature of God’s being and his control over every man’s destiny. An example of how both used the Qur’an appears from a debate between the prominent Qadariyah, Ghailan ibn Marwan, and the pious Ummayad Caliph Umar the Second. The former quoted the words "We showed him the Way: whether he be grateful or ungrateful (rests on his will)" (Surah 76.3) to show that man can respond to God’s guidance as he chooses, but in reply the Caliph asked him to read on to the words "Whosoever will, let him take a (straight) path to his Lord, but ye will not, except as God wills" (Surah 76. 29-30) to prove the opposite. In those early days the orthodox took expressions like the "face of Allah" (wajhullah) and other words implying that Allah creates with his hands, sees all things, and hears the prayers of the faithful, in a quite literal manner. Against such open anthropomorphism the Mu’tazilah reacted. Mu’tazilism believes in the absolute oneness of God, opposes all dualism, Manichaean or otherwise, rejects anthropomorphism and denies in God any attribute apart from his essence (dhat). (Gaudefroy-Demombynes, Muslim Institutions, p.34). The well-known Muslim scholar Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi, in his treatise on the various "philosophic" systems that developed in Islam entitled Al-Farq baynal-Firaq, defined their doctrine as "the common denial that Allah has eternal qualities; the affirmation that Allah has neither knowledge, nor power, nor life, nor hearing, nor seeing, nor any eternal attribute; together with their view that Allah never had a name or an attribute. They claim, furthermore, that it is impossible for Allah to see with his eyes. They say that he himself does not see, nor does anyone see him" (Seelye, Moslem Schisms and Sects, p.116). Of their belief that man has the power to determine his own destiny he said: They hold, on the other hand, however, that it is man who determines his own affairs, without any interference on the part of Allah, either in these affairs of men or of any of the deeds of animals. ... Furthermore, they agreed in the view that nothing in the acts of his servants, which Allah did not command or forbid, was willed by him. (Seelye, Moslem Schisms and Sects, p.117). The demise of Mu’tazilism came chiefly through the influence of one Abu’l Hasan Ali al-Ashari, for many years a zealous Mu’tazilite but later its strictest opponent. Having enjoyed a thorough grounding in the doctrines of the movement from within, he was able to use this knowledge very effectively against it in later years. Al-Ghazzali, the great Islamic theologian of the fifth century after Muhammad, also strongly opposed the "philosophic" movement in Islam and particularly attacked the Mu’tazilite belief that Allah’s will could only be discovered through reason and reflection. ’It is not so improbable’, he argues in one place, ’O you who inhabit the world of reason, that beyond reason there exists another plane in which appear things that do not appear in reason, just as it is not improbable that reason should be a plane transcending discrimination and sensation, in which strange and marvellous things are revealed that sensation and discrimination fall short of attaining’. (Arberry, Revelation and Reason in Islam, p.108). Despite such profound reasoning this great scholar’s efforts to quench "free-thinking" in Islam contributed in some measure to the formalistic stagnation in thinking that followed in the immediate history of Islam and which has yet to shed completely the grip it has on Muslim mentality to this day. In recent times only a handful of scholars have had the courage to challenge the staid convictions of the orthodox and the dawn of progressive thinking in Islam is not yet on the horizon. 3. The Wahhabis - The Fanatical Reformists of Modern Islam. During the middle of the eighteenth-century a resurgence of Kharijite thinking surfaced in the Arabian Peninsula. Known as the Wahhabi movement after its founder Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, it swept over the lands of Arabia, laying waste shrines, tombs, minarets and other edifices considered incompatible with orthodox Islam as taught by Ibn Taymiya and, before him, the arch-conservative Ahmad ibn Hanbal. In 1806 the Wahhabis conquered Mecca and soon terrorised the Muslim peoples as the Kharijites had done more than a thousand years earlier. There were few limits to their extremism. Not content with demolishing the mausoleums and the cupolas erected on the tombs, they replaced the silken veils covering the Ka’ba with common stuffs. At Medina they plundered the accumulated treasures of the tomb of Muhammad; but the local ulema had to send them fatwas justifying this audacity and alleging the use of the treasure in the interest of the Medinese population. For several years they plundered the Mekkan pilgrims and finally caused the cessation of the pilgrimage. (Lammens, Islam: Beliefs and Institutions, p.184). Although they were subdued in due course by the Turks the Wahhabis exercised a fearful influence over the Muslim world around Arabia until the end of the nineteenth-century and the effects of this influence are felt to this day in the ultra-strict formalism of Saudi-Arabian Islam. (The ruling house of Saud, descended from the great Arabian ruler Ibn Saud, is Wahhabite in doctrine and origin). During their heyday the Wahbabis emulated the Kharijites in declaring everything inconsistent with their ultra-conservative interpretation of Islam as heretical. Even the sheikhs of Mecca were forced to sign fatwas (religious decrees) admitting that they had lived as infidels prior to the Wahhabi "reforms". The exaggerated, fanatical attitude to the sunna, even in quite trivial matters, is matched by a similar fanaticism towards bid’a. Modern Wabhabism follows the pattern of earlier times in striving to brand as bid’a not only anything contrary to the spirit of the sunna but also everything that cannot be proved to be in it. (Goldziber, Muslim Studies, Vol.2, p.34). Their major tenets, as opposed to traditional Islam, are their rejection of ijma (consensus), believing that the Qur’an and Hadith are the sole sources of theology and doctrine (the Kharijites held similar views about the Qur’an - the Hadith had not yet been formulated in their time); that no prayer can be offered to any prophet or saint (thus the tomb of Muhammad in Medina is screened off to this day to prevent Muslims from praying to him - a practice Muhammad would undoubtedly have endorsed); that Muhammad will only obtain permission to intercede for the Muslims on the Last Day (the Sunnis believe he has this power already); that the mawlud (birthday) celebrations of Muhammad, the lesser festivals and all ceremonies around the tombs of the saints are abominable heresies (bid’ah - "heresy"); and that rosaries are also an innovation and should not be used to count the names of Allah. The Wahhabis were hardly a sect in Islam but rather a puritanical reformist-movement, determined to rid the faith of quasi-Islamic practices and innovations introduced over the centuries and not sanctioned by Muhammad. The excessive zeal of the movement, however, and its opposition to mainstream Islam eventually ensured that its wings would be clipped. Nevertheless its influence is felt throughout the Muslim world in many forms so this day. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 76: 04.43. BIBLIOGRAPHY ======================================================================== Bibliography This bibliography contains details of books consulted in the preparation of the text of this book and catalogues them under appropriate headings. It does not include articles from The Muslim World, published quarterly by the Hartford Seminary Foundation in the United States of America. Quotations from a number of these articles appear in the text of the book and references are there given to the volume from which each respective quotation is taken. 1. THE LIFE OF MUHAMMAD. Ahmad, Barakat. Muhammad and the Jews. Vikas Publishing House, New Delhi; India. 1979. Andrae, Tor. Mohammed: The Man and his Faith. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, USA. 1936. Anonymous. The Life of Mahomet, or, the History of that Imposture. For the Booksellers, London, UK. 1799. `Azzám, `Abd-al-Rahmán. The Eternal Message of Muhammad. Quartet Books, London, UK. 1979. Balyuzi, H. M. Muhammad and the Course of Islam. George Ronald, Oxford, UK. 1976. Bodley, R. V. C. The Messenger: The Life of Mohammed. Greenwood Press, Westport, USA. 1969 (1946). Bosworth-Smith, R. Mohammed and Mohammedanism. Smith, Elder & Co., London, UK. 1876 (1873). Boulainvilliers, Count of. The Life of Mahomet. Darf Publishers Ltd., London, UK. 1983 (1731). Cook, Michael. Muhammad. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom. 1983. Cragg, Kenneth. Muhammad and the Christian. Darton, Longman & Todd Ltd., London, UK. 1984. Dermenghem, Émile. The Life of Mahomet. George Routledge & Sons, Ltd., London, UK. 1930. Dibble, R. F. Mohammed. Hutchinson & Co. (Publishers) Ltd., London, UK. n. d. Edwardes, Michael (Ed. ). The Life of Muhammad. The Folio Society, London, UK. 1964. Gabrieli, Francesco. Muhammad and the Conquests of Islam. World University Library, London, UK. 1968. Glubb, John Bagot. The Life and Times of Muhammad. Hodder and Stoughton, London, UK. 1979 (1970). Guillaume, Alfred. New Light on the Life of Muhammad. Manchester University Press, Manchester, UK. 1960. Haykal, Muhammad Husayn. The Life of Muhammad. North American Trust Publications, USA. 1976. Irving, Washington. Lives of Mahomet and his Successors. Baudry’s European Library, Paris, France. 1850. do. The Life of Mahomet. Everyman’s Library, London, UK. 1920 (1911). Kamal-ud-Din, The Khwaja. The Ideal Prophet. The Basheer Muslim Library, Woking, UK. 1925. Khan, Syed Ahmad (Bahador). Life of Mohammed. Sh. Mubarak Ali, Lahore, Pakistan. 1979 (1870). Koelle, S. W. Mohammed and Mohammedanism Critically Considered. Rivingtons, London, UK. 1889. Lings, Martin. Muhammad. George Allen & Unwin/The Islamic Texts Society, London, UK. 1983. al-Majlisi, Alama Muhammad Baqir. The Life and Religion of Muhammad. The Zahra Trust, San Antonio, United States of America. 1982 (1850). Margoliouth, D. S. Mohammed. Blackie & Son Limited, London and Glasgow, UK. 1939. do. Mohammed and the Rise of Islam. AMS Press, New York, USA. 1978 (1905). Muir, Sir William. Mahomet and Islam. The Religious Tract Society, London, UK. 1895. do. The Life of Mahomet. Smith, Elder & Co., London, UK. 1894 (1877). do. The Life of Mohammad from Original Sources. John Grant, Edinburgh, UK. 1923 (1912). Nadwi, Abu’l Hasan Ali. Muhammad Rasulullah. Islamic Research and Publications, Lucknow, India. 1979. D’Leary, De Lacy. Arabia Before Muhammad. AMS Press, New York, USA. 1973 (1927). Prideaux, Dr. Humphrey. The True Nature of Imposture Fully Display’d in the Life of Mahomet. E. Curll Printers, London, UK. 1723 (1697). Rahman, Afzalur. Muhammad: Blessing for Mankind. The Muslim Schools Trust, London, UK. 1979. Rodinson, Maxime. Mohammed. Pelican Books, Harmondsworth, England. 1973 (1971). Sarwar, Hafiz Ghulam. Muhammad: The Holy Prophet. Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore, Pakistan. 1969. Siddiqui, Abdul Hamid. The Life of Muhammad. Islamic Publications Ltd., Lahore, Pakistan. 1975. Stobart J. W. H. Islam and its Founder. Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London, UK. 1876. Watt, W. Montgomery. Muhammad at Mecca. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. 1972 (1953). do. Muhammad at Medina. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. 1962 (1956). do. Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. 1975 (1961). Wessels, Antonie. A Modern Arabic Biography of Muhammad. E. J. Brill, Leiden, Holland. 1972. Zafrulla Khan, Muhammad. Muhammad: Seal of the Prophets. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, UK. 1980. Zain, Syed Abu Zafar. The Prophet of Islam: The Ideal Husband. Kazi Publications, Chicago, USA. 1979. 2. THE QUR’AN: THE SCRIPTURE OF ISLAM. Baljon, J. M. S. Modern Muslim Koran Interpretation. E. J. Brill, Leiden, Holland, 1968. Burton, John. The Collection of the Qur’an. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 1977. Cragg, Kenneth. The Event of the Qur’an. George Allen & Unwin, London, UK. 1971. do. The Mind of the Qur’an. George Allen & Unwin, London, UK. 1973. Flugel, Gustav. Concordance of the Koran. Rahim Brothers, Karachi, Pakistan. 1979 (1898). Gatje, Helmut. The Qur’an and its Exegesis. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, UK. 1976. Jeffery, Arthur. Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’an. AMS Press, New York, USA. 1975 (1937). do. The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur’an. Al-Biruni, Lahore, Pakistan. 1977 (1938). do. The Qur’an as Scripture. Books for Libraries, New York, USA. 1980 (1952). Kassis, Hanna E. A Concordance of the Qur’an. University of California Press, Los Angeles, USA. 1983. McClain, Ernest G. Meditations Through the Quran. Nicolas Hays Inc., York Beach, USA. 1981. Muir, Sir William. The Coran: Its Composition and Teaching and the Testimony it bears to the Holy Scriptures. Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London, UK. 1903. Penrice, John. A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran. Curzon Press, London, UK. 1979 (1873). Sale, George. Preliminary Discourse to the Koran. Frederick Warne & Co. Ltd., London, UK. n. d. do. with Wherry, E. M. A Comprehensive Commentary on the Koran. (4 Volumes). AMS Press, New York, United States of America. 1975 (1896). Seale, M. S. Qur’an and Bible: Studies in Interpretation and Dialogue. Croom Helm Ltd., London, UK. 1978. Sell, Canon. The Historical Development of the Qur’an. Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Co. Ltd., London, England. 1923. Shah, Rev. Ahmad. Miftah-ul-Qur’an (2 volumes). The Book House, Lahore, Pakistan. n. d. Stanton, H. U. Weitbrecht. The Teaching of the Qur’an. Biblo & Tannen, New York, USA. 1969 (1919). Von Denffer, Ahmad. ’Ulum al-Qur’an: An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’an. The Islamic Foundation, Leicester, UK. 1983. Wansbrough, J. Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation. O. U. Press, Oxford, UK. 1977. Watt, W. Montgomery. Bell: An Introduction to the Qur’an. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, UK. 1970. do. Companion to the Qur’an. George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, UK. 1967. Wollaston, Arthur N. The Religion of the Koran. John Murray, London, UK. 1917. 3. JEWISH AND OTHER SOURCES OF THE QUR’AN. Bell, Richard. The Origin of Islam in its Christian Environment. Frank Cass & Co. Ltd., London, UK. 1968 (1926). Blair, Rev. John C. The Sources of Islam. The Christian Literature Society for India, Madras, India. 1925. Bravmann, M. M. The Spiritual Background of Early Islam. E. J. Brill, Leiden, Holland. 1972. Danby, Herbert. The Mishnah. Oxford University Press, London, England. 1974 (1933). Geiger, Abraham. Judaism and Islam. KTAV Publishing House Incorporated, New York, USA. 1970 (1898). Guillaume, Alfred. "The Influence of Judaism on Islam", The Legacy of Israel, O. U. Press, London, UK. 1953 (1927). Katsh, Abraham I. Judaism in Islam. New York University Press New York, USA. 1954. Margoliouth, D. S. The Relations Between Arabs and Israelites Prior to the Rise of Islam. Kraus Reprint, Munich, West Germany. 1980 (1924). Rosenthal, Erwin I. J. Judaism and Islam. Thomas Yoseloff, London, UK. 1961. Tisdall, W. St. Clair. The Original Sources of the Qur’an. Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London, UK. 1905. do. The Sources of Islam. T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, Scot Torrey, Charles Cutler. The Jewish Foundation of Islam. KTAV Publishing House Inc., New York. USA. 1967 (1933). 4. ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF THE QUR’AN. Ahmad, Mufassir Mohammmad. The Koran. Emere Limited, London England. 1979. Ali, Maulvi Muhammad. The Holy Qur’an. Ahmadiyya Anjuman, IIshaat-I-Islam, Lahore, Pakistan. 1920. Arberry, A. J. The Koran Interpreted. George Allen & Unwin London, UK. 1980 (1955). Asad, Muhammad. The Message of the Qur’an. Dar Al-Andalus, Gibraltar. 1980. Bell, Richard. The Qur’an Translated. (2 volumes). T. & T Clark. Edinburgh, UK. 1960 (1937). Daryabadi, Maulana Abdul Majid. Holy Qur’an. (2 volumes). Taj Company Ltd., Karachi, Pakistan. 1970. Dawood, N. J. The Koran. Allen Lane, London, England, UK. 1978. Pickthall, Mohamed Marmaduke. The Meaning of the Glorious Koran. New American Library, New York, United States of America. n. d. (1930). Rodwell, J. M. The Koran. Everyman’s Library, London, England, UK. 1974 (1909). Ross, Alexander. The Al-Coran of Mahomet. (Publisher not named in the book), London, UK. 1649. Sale, George. The Koran. (2 volumes). Johnson, Vernor and Hood, London, UK. 1801. Yusuf Ali, Abdullah. The Holy Qur’an. Publications of Presidency of Islamic Courts and Affairs, Qatar. n. d. (1934). Zafrulla Khan, Muhammad. The Quran. Curzon Press, London, England. 1978 (1971). 5. THE HADITH: THE TRADITIONS OF ISLAM. Anees & Athar. Hadith and Sirat Literature in Western Languages. (Published by the authors), USA. 1980. Azami, M. M. Studies in Early Hadith Literature. American Trust Publications, Indianapolis, USA. 1978. do. Studies in Hadith Methodology and Literature. American Trust Publications, Indianapolis, USA. 1977. Graham, William A. Divine Word and Prophetic Word in Early Islam. Mouton Publishers, The Hague, Holland. 1977. Guillaume, Alfred. The Traditions of Islam. Universal Books, Lahore, Pakistan. 1977 (1924). Juynbol, G. H. A. The Authenticity of the Tradition Literature. E. J. Brill, Leiden, Holland. 1969. Schacht, Joseph. The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. 1975 (1950). Siddiqi, Dr. Muhammad Zubayr. Hadith Literature. The Islamic Texts Society, Cambridge, UK. 1961. Wensinck, A. J. A Handbook of Early Muhammadan Tradition. E. J. Brill. Leiden, Holland. 1971. 6. MAJOR WORKS OF HADITH LITERATURE IN ENGLISH. Guillaume, A. Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasulullah. (The Life of Muhammad). Oxford University Press, Pakistan. 1974 (1955). Haq, S. Moinul. Ibn Sa’d’s Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir. (2 volumes). Pakistan Historical Society, Pakistan. 1967. Hasan, Prof. Ahmad. Sunan Abu Dawud (3 volumes). Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore; Pakistan. 1984. Karim, Maulana Fazlul. Mishkat-ul-Masabih (Al-Hadis) (4 volumes). The Book House, Lahore, Pakistan n. d. (1938). Khan, Dri Muhammad Mubsin. Sahih al-Bukhari (9 volumes). Kazi Publications, Chicago, USA. 1979 (1976). Rahimuddin Prof. Muhammad. Muwatta Imam Malik. Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore, Pakistan, 1980. Robson, James. Mishkat al-Masabih (2 volumes). Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore, Pakistan. 1975. Siddiqui, Abdul Hameed. Mishkat-ul-Masabih (2 volumes). Islamic Publications Limited, Lahore, Pakistan. 1980 (1976). do. Sahih Muslim (4 volumes). Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore, Pakistan. 1972. 7. THE RELIGION OF ISLAM. Ahmad, Kurshid (Ed. ) Islam: Its Meaning and Message. The Islamic Foundation; Leicester, UK. 1976. Ali, Syed Ameer. The Spirit of Islam. Chatto and Windus. London, England. 1974 (1890). Ali, Maulana Muhammad. The Religion of Islam. Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat-I-Islam, Lahore, Pakistan. 1973 (1936). Arberry A. J. Revelation and Reason in Islam. George Allen & Unwin, London, UK. 1971 (1957). Arnold, T W. The Preaching of Islam. Archibald Constable & Co., London, UK. 1896. Brandel-Syrier, Mia (translator). The Religious Duties of Islam (as taught and explained by Abu Bakr Effendi) . E J. Brill, Leiden, Holland. 1971. Cook, Michael; Early Muslim Dogma. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 1981. do. & Crone, P. Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 1977. Cragg, Kenneth. The Call of the Minaret. A Galaxy Book, New York, USA. 1967 (1956). De Boer, T. J. The History of Philosophy in Islam. Dover Publications Inc., New York, USA. 1967 (1903). Frieling, Rudolf. Christianity and Islam. Floris Books, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. 1978. Fry, C. G. & King, J. R. Islam: A Survey of the Muslim Faith. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, USA. 1980. Gairdner, W. H. T. The Reproach of Islam. Young People’s Missionary Movement, London, UK. 1911. Gardner, W. R. W. The Qur’anic Doctrine of God. The Christian Literature Society for India, Madras, India. 1916. do. The Qur’anic Doctrine of Sin. The Christian Literature Society for India, Madras, India. 1914. Gaudefroy-Demombynes, Maurice. Muslim Institutions. George Allen & Unwin, London, UK. 1968 (1950). Gibb, H. A. R. Mohammedanism. Oxford University Press, London, UK. 19S3 (1949). do. Modern Trends in Islam. Octagon Books, New York, United States of America. 1978 (1947). do. Whither Islam? AMS Press, New York, United States of America. 1973 (1932). do & Kramers, J. H. Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam. E. J. Brill, Leiden, Holland. 1974 (1953). Goldziher, Ignaz. Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law. Princeton University Press, Princeton, United States of America. 1981. do. Muslim Studies (2 volumes). George Allen & Unwin, London, England. 1971. Grunebaum, G. E. Von. Muhammadan Festivals. Curzon Press, London, England. 1976 (1951). Guillaume, Alfred. Islam. Pelican Books, Harmondsworth, England. 1971 (1954). Herklots, G. A. (translator). Islam in India (Qanun-i-Islam) . Oriental Books Reprint Corp., New Delhi, India. 1972. Hughes, T P A Dictionary of Islam. W. H. Allen & Co., London, England. 1935 (1885). do. Notes on Muhammadanism. W. H. Allen & Co., London, England. 1875. Hurgronje, C. Snouck. Mohammedanism. G. P. Putnam’s Sons New York, USA. 1916. Izatsu, Toshihiko. God and Man in the Koran. Books for Libraries, New York, USA. 1980 (1964). Jeffery, Arthur; A Reader on Islam. Books for Libraries, New York, USA. 1980 (1962). do. Islam: Muhammad and his Religion. The Library of Liberal Arts, New York, USA. 1958. Karim, Al-Haj Maulana Fazul-ul, (translator). Imam Gazzali’s Ihya Ulum-id-Din (4 volumes). Sind Sagar Academy, Lahore, Pakistan. n. d. Kandblawi, Maulana Mohammad Zakariyya. Teachings of Islam. Dini Book Depot, Delhi, India. 1982. Klein, F A The Religion of Islam. Curzon Press, London, England 1979 (1906). Lammens, H. Islam: Beliefs and Institutions. Oriental Books Reprint Corporation, New Delhi, India. 1979 (1929). Levy, Reuben. The Social Structure of Islam. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 1979 (1957). Lippman, Thomas W. Understanding Islam. New American Library, New York, USA. 1982. MacDonald, Duncan Black. Aspects of Islam. Books for Libraries Press, New York, USA. 1971 (1911). do. The Development of Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence & Constitutional Theory. Darf Publishers, UK. 1985 (1902). do. The Religious Attitude and Life in Islam. AMS Press, New York, USA. 1970 (1909). Margoliouth, D. S. Mohammedanism. Thornton Butterworth Ltd., London, UK. 1928 (1911). do. The Early Development of Mohammedanism. AMS Press, New York, USA. 1979 (1914). Malik, Charles (Ed. ). God and Man in Contemporary Islamic Thought. American University of Beirut Centennial Publications, Beirut, Lebanon. 1972. Meer Hassan Ali, Mrs. Observations on the Mussulmauns of India (2 volumes), Parbury, Allen & Co., London, UK. 1832. Mills, Charles. An History of Muhammedanism. Black, Kingsbury, Parbury & Allen, London, UK. 1818. Muir Sir William. The Caliphate: Its Rise, Decline, and Fall. John Grant, Edinburgh, UK. 1924 (1883). Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Ideals and Realities of Islam. Beacon Press, Boston, USA. 1972 (1966). Nazir Ali. Islam: A Christian Perspective. Paternoster Press, Exeter, England. 1983. North, C. R. An Outline of Islam. The Epworth Press, London, England. 1934. Padwick, Constance E. Muslim Devotions. Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London, UK. 1969 (1961). Parshall, Phil. Bridges to Islam. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, USA. 1983. Parwez, G. A. Islam: A Challenge to Religion. Idara-e-Tulu-e-Islam, Lahore, Pakistan. 1968. Pfander, Rev. C. G. The Mizan ul Haqq; or, Balance of Truth. Church Missionary House, London, UK. 1867. Pitts, Joseph. A Faithful Account of the Religion and Manners of the Mahometans. Gregg Publishers, UK. 1971 (1738). Rahman, Afzalur. Islam: Ideology and the Way of Life. The Muslim Schools Trust, London, UK. 1980. Rahman, Fazlur. Islam. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA. 1979 (1966). Rahman, S. A. Punishment of Apostasy in Islam. Institute of Islamic Culture, Lahore, Pakistan. 1972. Raza, M. Shamim. Introducing the Prophets. Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore, Pakistan. 1969. Roberts, D. S. Islam. Hamlyn Paperbacks, Feltham, United Kingdom. 1981. Roberts, Robert. The Social Laws of the Qoran. Williams and Norgate Ltd., London, UK. 1925. Schacht, Joseph. An Introduction to Islamic Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford. UK. 1979 (1964). Seale, Morris S. Muslim Theology. Luzac and Company Limited, London, UK. 1964. Seelye, Kate Chambers (translator). Moslem Schisms and Sects. AMS Press, New York, USA. 1966 (1920). Smith, Wilfred Cantwell. On Understanding Islam. Mouton Publishers, The Hague, Holland. 1981. Tabbarah, Afif A. The Spirit of Islam. Librarie du Liban, Beirut, Lebanon. 1978. Tisdall, W. St. Clair. The Religion of the Crescent. Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London, United Kingdom. 1906 (1895). Tritton, A. S. Islam: Beliefs and Practices. Hutchinson University Library, London, UK. 1966 (1951). Waddy, Charis. The Muslim Mind. Longman Group Ltd., London, England. 1976. Watt, W. Montgomery. Islamic Revelation in the Modern World. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, UK. 1969. do. The Formative Period of Islamic Thought. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, UK. 1973. do. What is Islam? Librairie du Liban, Longman Group Ltd., London, UK. 1979 (1968). Wensinck, A. J. The Muslim Creed. Frank Cass & Co. Ltd., London, UK. 1965 (1932). Westermarck, Edward. Pagan Survivals in Mohammedan Civilisation. MacMillan & Co. Ltd., London, UK. . Zafrulla Khan, Muhammad. Islam: Its Meaning for Modern Man. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, UK. 1980. Zwemer S. M. The Cross Above the Crescent. Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, USA. n. d. do. The Influence of Animism on Islam. The MacMillan Company, New York, USA. 1920. do. The Law of Apostasy in Islam. Amarko Book Agency, New Delhi, India. 1975 (1924). do. The Moslem Christ. Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier, London. UK. 1912. do. The Moslem Doctrine of God. American Tract Society, New York, USA. 1905. 8. THE HAJJ PILGRIMAGE TO MECCA. Burckhardt, J. L. Travels in Arabia. Frank Cass & Co. Ltd., London, UK. 1968 (1829). Burton, Sir Richard. Personal Narrative of a Pilgrimage to al-Madinah & Meccah (2 volumes). George Bell & Sons, London, England. 1898. Doughty, Charles M. Travels in Arabia Deserts. The Heritage Press, New York, USA. 1953. Hurgronje, C. Snouck. Mekka in the Latter Part of the 19th Century. E J. Brill, Leiden, Holland. 1970 (1931). Khalifa, Saida Miller. The Fifth Pillar: The Story of a Pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina. Exposition Press, New York, USA. 1977. Niebuhr, M. Travels Through Arabia. Librarie du Liban, Beirut, Lebanon. n. d. (1792) (2 volumes). Rosenthal, Eric. From Drury Lane to Mecca. Sampson Co., Marston & Co. Ltd., London, UK. n. d. Shariati, Dr. Ali. Hajj. Free Islamic Literatures Incorporated, Bedford, USA. 1977. Long, David. The Hajj Today. State University of New York Press, New York, USA. 1979. Wallin, Georg August. Travels in Arabia. The Oleander Press New York, USA. 1979 (1848). Wavell, A. J. B. A Modern Pilgrim in Mecca. Constable & Company Ltd., London, UK. 1912. 9. SUFISM - THE ISLAMIC MYSTICISM. Arasteh, A. Reza. Rumi the Persian, the Sufi. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, UK. 1974. Arberry, A. J. Muslim Saints and Mystics. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, UK. 1976 (1966). do. Sufism: An Account of the Mystics of Islam. George Allen & Unwin, London, UK. 1979 (1950). do. The Doctrine of the Sufis. Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore, Pakistan. 1966. Archer, John Clark. Mystical Elements in Mohammed. AMS Press, New York, USA. n. d. (1924). Burckhardt, Titus. An Introduction to Sufi Doctrine. Thorsons Publishers Limited, Wellingsborough, United Kingdom. 1976. Cragg, Kenneth. The Wisdom of the Sufis. Sheldon Press, London, UK. 1976. Iqbal, Afzal. The Life and Work of Jalaluddin Rumi. The Octagon Press, London, UK. 1983 (1956). Lings, Martin. What is Sufism? George Allen & Unwin, London, England. 1975. Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Living Sufism. George Allen & Unwin, London, UK. 1980 (1972). Nicholson, Reynold A. Studies in Islamic Mysticism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, United Kingdom. 1979 (1921). do. The Idea of Personality in Sufism. Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore, Pakistan. 1970. do. The Mystics of Islam. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, UK. 1975 (1914). Nurbakhsh, Dr. Javad. Sufism. K. N. Publishers , New York, Uni ted States of America. 1982. Shah, Idries. The Way of the Sufi. Penguin Books Limited, Harmondsworth, UK. 1974 (1968). Smith, Margaret. Al-Ghazali the Mystic. Hijra International Publishers, Lahore, Pakistan. 1983. do. Rabia the Mystic. Hijra International Publishers, Lahore, Pakistan. 1983. do. The Way of the Mystics. Sheldon Press, London, UK. 1976 (1931). Schimmel, Annemarie. Mystical Dimensions of Islam. The University of North Carolina Press, United States of America. 1983 (1975). Stoddart, William. Sufism: The Mystical Doctrines and Methods of Islam. The Aquarian Press, Wellingsborough, United Kingdom. 1976. Trimingham, J. Spencer. The Sufi Orders in Islam. Oxford University Press, New York, USA. 1973 (1971). 10. SHI’ISM: ITS DOCTRINES AND TENETS. Ayoub, Mahmoud. Redemptive Suffering in Islam. Mouton Publishers, The Hague, Holland. 1978. Hussain, Jassim M. The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam. The Muhammadi Trust, London, UK. 1982. Jafri, S. H. M. The Origins and Early Development of Shi’a Islam. Longman Group Ltd., London, UK. 1979. Momen, Moojan. An Introduction to Shi’i Islam. Yale University Press, New Haven, USA. 1985. al-Mufid, Shaykh. Kitab al-Irshad: The Book of Guidance. Balaghi and Muhammadi Trust, London, UK. 1981. Nasr, S. H. (translator). Shi’ite Islam. Shia Institute of Pakistan, Karachi, Pakistan. 1979. Pelly, Col. Sir Lewis. The Miracle Play of Hasan and Husain. (2 volumes). Gregg International Publishers Ltd., London, UK. 1970 (1879). Sachedina, A. A. Islamic Messianism. State University of New York Press, New York, USA. 1981. Yusuf Ali, Abdullah. Imam Hussain and his Martyrdom. Al-Biruni, Lahore, Pakistan. 1978 (1931). 11. THE AHMADIYYA MOVEMENT. Ahmad, Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud. Invitation to Ahmadiyyat. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, UK. 1980 (1961). Burney, Prof. M. E. Qadiani Movement. Makki Publications, Durban, South Africa. 1955. Hasan, Suhaib. The Truth about Ahmadiyat. Al-Quran Society, London, UK. n. d. Iqbal, Dr. Sir Muhammad. Islam and Ahmadism. Islamic Research & Publications, Lucknow, India. 1974. Lavan, Spencer. The Ahmadiyah Movement. Manohar Book Service Delhi, India. 1974. Maududi, S. Abu A’ la. The Qadiani Problem. Islamic Publications Ltd., Lahore, Pakistan. 1979. Nadwi, Abul Hasan Ali. Qadianism: A Critical Study. Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore, Pakistan. 1974 (1965). Najaar, Shaig A. The Origin of the Ahmadiyya Movement. Islamic Publications Bureau, Cape Town, South Africa. n. d. Otten, Henry J. The Ahmadiyya Doctrine of God. Henry Martyn Institute of Islamic Studies, Hyderabad, India. 1983. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 77: 05.00.1. SHARING THE GOSPEL WITH MUSLIMS ======================================================================== Sharing the Gospel with Muslims A Handbook for Bible-based Muslim Evangelism by John Gilchrist 2003 [ Life Challenge Africa, PO Box 23273, Claremont/Cape Town 7735, Rep of South Africa ] ======================================================================== CHAPTER 78: 05.00.2. TABLE OF CONTENTS ======================================================================== Table of Contents Introduction Part One: Old Testament Personalities and Prophecies Adam: The Man of Dust, the Man from Heaven Eve: Satan’s Three Great Temptations Noah: The First Herald of Righteousness Abraham: The Gospel that was Preached to Him Isaac: The Reflection of the Father’s Love Joseph: A Symbol of the Coming Deliverer Moses: Law and Grace in Sharp Contrast David: Prophecies of Death and Resurrection Solomon: Image of the True Son of David Isaiah: Behold the Servant He has Chosen Part Two: The New Testament Lord and Saviour Jesus: Unique in the Qur’an and the Bible The Son of God: The Messiah, Spirit and Word Al-Masihu Isa: God’s Anointed Messiah The Love of God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit Nuzul-I-Isa: The Second Coming of Jesus Bibliography ======================================================================== CHAPTER 79: 05.01. INTRODUCTION ======================================================================== Introduction Using the Word of God in Muslim Evangelism Muslim evangelism is one of the toughest fields of Christian witness. During the last two centuries Christians have sought to win Muslims to Christ, only to find that it is extremely difficult to persuade the sons of Islam that Jesus Christ should be their Lord and Saviour. In recent times mission agencies and Christian evangelists have proposed numerous methods guaranteed to make Muslim evangelism work, namely, to bring about the desired results. Friendship evangelism, relational evangelism, contextualisation, felt-needs approaches – they’re all part of a catalogue of methodologies presented as the best way of effectively reaching Muslims for Christ. Planting churches among Muslims has become a subject of study, discussion and practical expression in many areas before any form of evangelism has even started. Results are the desired goal and, if possible, in sufficient numbers to establish Muslim convert churches. Different methods of evangelism are one thing, promoting these in turn as the only ways Muslims can be reached is another. On the back cover of her book Waging Peace on Islam Christine Mallouhi says, "When Muslims are sceptical of our creed, confused by our message and wounded by our warfare, the most credible witness left is our lives. Muslims need to see Jesus, and the only way most of them will see him is in us." Bill and Jane, missionaries in an Islamic environment who are not further identified, state in Phil Parshall’s book The Last Great Frontier: "If the status quo is to change, a new way must be found whereby Muslims can come to Christ in the context of their own culture and community" (p.178). The intense resistance of most Muslims to the Gospel has driven many Christians to find alternative ways of reaching them for Christ, ways that appear more likely to produce the desired results. In consequence a variety of different methods have been proposed, invariably coupled with dogmatic assertions, such as "this is the only way" or, alternatively, "we need a new way!" While the simple preaching of the Gospel has won over many millions of Hindus and other peoples to Christ, it seems to hit a brick wall with Muslims, hence the search for other methods apparently more guaranteed to bring about the desired end-result. I recently listened to a Sunday morning sermon in my home church where the preacher stated very simply, "You cannot build the kingdom of God. Only God can. You can only reflect it through your witness and life." That, to me, puts it in a nutshell. As the Psalmist put it so straightforwardly: Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labour in vain. Psalms 127:1 The field of Muslim evangelism tries and tests Christians very severely at this point. Are they going to trust God to do his own renewing work in calling out the sons of Ishmael to faith in Jesus Christ, or are they going to force the issue by finding human ways of persuading Muslims to become believers, often through methodologies which seem to dilute the costs of true discipleship? The Apostle Paul was very conscious of the fact that only God, through his Spirit, can draw anyone to himself and so he said to the believers in Corinth: I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. 1 Corinthians 3:6 Jesus Christ himself delivered a parable which makes the very same point. While surrounded by his twelve disciples and many others who listened favourably to his teachings, he said: The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed upon the ground, and should sleep and rise night and day, and the seed should sprout and grow, he knows not how. The earth produces of itself, first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear. But when the grain is ripe, at once he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come. Mark 4:26-29 God alone can give the growth. God alone can build the house. The man who plants, waters and reaps knows not how the seed sprouts and grows. God alone knows. Muslim evangelism needs a return to the simple witness of the Gospel, a one-on-one sharing of the great truths of the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ, and this book seeks to provide Christian evangelists with precisely that. It is a handbook of Biblical means of sharing the Gospel with Muslims, hence its title. It shows you how to use the Word of God to effectively communicate the great truths of our faith to willing Muslim hearers. It guarantees no results, it shows only how to witness to the grace of God in Jesus Christ from the pages of Scripture. It covers the whole Bible, from the creation of Adam to the second coming of Jesus. It leaves the results to God. Over almost twenty years, in the nineteen-seventies and eighties, I was privileged to be part of a special group of young Christians seeking to share the Gospel with Muslims in our province in South Africa, the Transvaal. The province no longer exists for the provincial maps of South Africa have dramatically changed in the past ten years, but the Transvaal was the northernmost province sandwiched between Botswana, Zimbabwe and Mozambique. About 50 000 Muslims lived within its borders and we visited them from home to home in every city and town, covering virtually every Muslim home in the province excepting Lenasia near Johannesburg, where the largest Muslim community lives, which we only partially evangelised. There were results, but they are not the theme of this book. Using the Word of God effectively in reaching Muslims for Christ is the theme, and the contents of this book record various ways we learnt over the years of witnessing to Muslims from the pages of the Bible, God’s holy Word, and the supreme source which the Spirit uses to direct all mankind to the Gospel. Its value for this purpose is summed up in this verse: For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Hebrews 4:12 We also learned, however, from the pages of Scripture itself, that the most constructive way of using the Bible in witnessing to Muslims is to base our witness on the points of belief that we share in common with them, and to build a Gospel message on these subjects of common ground. We will look at this in more detail. Paul’s Examples from the Book of Acts When Paul went into the Jewish synagogues scattered throughout Greece and Asia Minor, he was able to freely argue with all present, explaining and proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah. When he arrived at Athens, however, and looked around the city, he found himself in a very different environment. The city was full of idols and its markets were frequented regularly by Epicurean, Stoic and other philosophers. He was no longer on his own turf. How did he evangelise people from a totally different nation, culture and religious heritage? When he stood on the great Areopagus and was challenged to present his message to the locals who regarded what he had already preached as a strange new teaching, he began: Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, "To an unknown god." What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. Acts 17:22-23 There are two important lessons to be learnt from this brief passage. Firstly, Paul made himself acquainted with the beliefs of the people he sought to evangelise. The best way of getting the impact of this principle is to accentuate certain words in his first sentence: "I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription." Paul took time to familiarise himself with the background of the people he wished to reach. He perceived, as he passed by he also observed, and as he did so he found an altar. In Muslim evangelism the Christian must learn as much as he can about the beliefs and practices of those he desires to reach. It is essential to learn the Qur’an and important parts of the Hadith. Then he can communicate sensitively, effectively and intelligently with them. The second point, which arises out of the first one, is the need to seek for common ground with Muslims in their beliefs, especially those which agree with our own beliefs and scriptural teachings. Throughout this book this is the basic principle applied to using the Bible in witnessing to Muslims. Where you can establish common ground, you can gain a better hearing and present the Gospel against the background of what Muslims already believe. Paul did this and you will find much power in witnessing when you do the same. "What you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you," Paul declared. A very fine example of how Jesus himself used this approach is found in his famous conversation with the woman of Samaria. She came every day from the town of Sychar to draw water from Jacob’s well which was some distance away from it. Like the other inhabitants she had no choice. Samaria is a semi-desert region and the well was the town’s lifeblood. When Jesus spoke to her of his own life-giving powers, he said: Every one who drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst, the water that I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." John 4:13-14 Jesus spoke right into the context of her immediate presence. She had to come every day to the well to draw water (this very routine testified to the well’s limited usefulness), but Jesus could place within her a well of limitless resources which would carry her through to eternal life. Here you can see how well the Gospel can be communicated when it is presented against the background of what the Muslim already believes and the various religious contexts in which you may find him. There is also a third important lesson we can learn from Paul, this time in his arguments with the Jews in the local synagogues. He argued with them from the scriptures (Acts 17:2). He did not resort to illustrations, theological discourses or human reasoning, useful though these may be at times. He based his messages on the Word of God which, as we have already seen, is the best foundation for a positive witness. It is the sword of the Spirit, it is living and active, it penetrates the very depths of soul and spirit, and it is God’s best instrument for drawing unbelievers to the Gospel of his Son. A word in closing at this point seems appropriate. Paul placed little, if any, emphasis on creation, culture or his hearer’s sensitivities. He worked from the power of his best source, the Word of God, with the Spirit of God as his witness to confirm his message, but he did this in the way the Bible itself does it. Our holy book, as Hebrews says, pierces to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow. Primarily the Christian witness is not an attempt to persuade people to believe in the truth of the Gospel, it is, first and foremost, a call to men and women everywhere to be reconciled to God in their inner beings through faith in Jesus Christ. The Word of God x-rays the human heart, it analyses our emotions, it challenges our indulgent distractions, it reshapes our hearts and minds, and it confronts the inner man. Just as we had to confront our own sinfulness and repent of it to become true disciples of Jesus, so Muslims too must come to him in true repentance. It is not simply a shift of allegiance from Muhammad to Jesus. It is also a turning from darkness to light, from self-centredness to Christ-centredness, from spiritual death to eternal life. Ever since the fall of Adam the call of God has been to renewal, and a genuine Biblical witness will expose the Muslim heart as well as his mind and redirect him to a living hope in God’s perfect Saviour, his Son Jesus Christ. This theme is also explored consistently in this book. I trust you will find many different ways of effectively witnessing to Muslims and of using the Word of God itself as your basic witness-source in the chapters that follow. With a love for Muslims and the power of God’s Word in your hands, you too can be God’s own messenger to bring many of them to salvation, the saving grace of God which we know is found in Jesus alone. John Gilchrist Benoni, South Africa12th August 2003 ======================================================================== CHAPTER 80: 05.02. ADAM ======================================================================== Adam The Man of Dust, the Man from Heaven The Fall of Adam and Eve in the Qur’an Convincing atheists, humanists, evolutionists, naturalists and agnostics of the authenticity of the Biblical story of Adam and Eve is no easy task, but fortunately in Muslim evangelism the issue is not in dispute. The Qur’an describes both the creation of Adam and Eve as well as their transgression and fall in very similar terms to those found in the Bible and Muslims not only recognise the story but even regard Adam as one of the great prophets of God. The narrative, like so many of the brief biographical records of the Old Testament prophets and patriarchs, is very sketchy in the Qur’an and lacking in detail, but it is sufficient to establish much common ground between Christians and Muslims on the subject. Adam was created from an ‘alaq, a clot of blood (Surah 96:2), and was taught the nature of all things (Surah 2:31). Both he and his wife Eve were placed in al-Jannat, the Garden, and told to eat freely of all the bountiful fruits therein save one tree which they were not to approach lest they ran into harm and wrongdoing (Surah 7:35). When Allah commanded all the angels of heaven to bow down to Adam they did except Iblis, the Devil, who refused to do so. When challenged on his disobedience he replied that he would not bow down to a creature moulded from mud and clay (Surah 15:29-33). For this he was cast out of heaven and became ash-Shaytaan, Satan the Devil. He then appeared to them to tempt them into sin and unbelief. The narrative continues: Then Satan whispered an evil suggestion to them, to show them clearly their shame that had been hidden from them and said, "Your Lord has only forbidden you this tree lest you should become angels or such beings as live for ever." And he swore to them both: "Surely I am a sincere adviser to you." Surah 7:20-21 The Qur’an does not say how Eve was created, nor does it point out that it was Eve alone who was tempted by the devil. The story, however, compares with the Biblical record in all its essentials, especially their fall which is recorded in the following passage: Then Satan made them slip from it, and caused them to depart from the state they were in. And We said "Get Down, all of you with enmity towards each other. On the earth there will be a dwelling place for you for a time." Surah 2:36 Adam, however, relented towards his Lord who thereafter taught him words of inspiration. The command to "Get down!" is repeated in verse 38 where Allah commands "all of you," meaning the whole human race, to leave the Garden with the promise that when guidance comes from Allah, those who follow it will have nothing to fear. The Qur’an follows the Bible in declaring that Adam and Eve fell by eating of the forbidden tree. Yusuf Ali, the well-known Muslim translator of the Qur’an, says in a footnote to this passage that as the plural of the Arabic word habata, meaning to fall down, is used in the verse quoted, "evidently Adam is a type of all mankind" while Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, another Muslim translator, says the same: "Here the command is in the plural, as addressed to Adam’s race." The word for "all of you" in Surah 2:38 is jamii’aa, an Arabic word defined in Kassis’ A Concordance of the Qur’an, as "a host, a congregation, all, together, altogether" (p.595). Not only, therefore, does the Qur’an clearly teach the fall of Adam but it also, like the Bible, implicates the whole human race in his act of disobedience and its consequences. The root meaning of the word habata is to crash down, to descend, to fall, or to get down. In Surah 2:36 the form used is the imperative, ihbit (ahbituwa in the text), and means simply "Get out! Descend! Fall down!" The same word is used two verses later in the command to the whole human race to descend with them both. The traditions of Islam teach that the Garden, known in Islam as al-Jannatul-’Adn, the Garden of Eden, was in heaven and that Adam and Eve were cast out of Paradise after they had disobeyed God. Both they and their offspring, the whole human race, have since been confined to a temporal, earthly existence where they have all died and been buried. The story of Adam’s expulsion from Paradise reads as follows: Adam was externed from the Paradise between the zuhr (afternoon) and ‘asr (the declining of day) prayers. His stay in Paradise had been half the day of the next world, and the day there is equal to one thousand years based on the calculation made by the people of this world. He was cast down on a mountain in India known as Nawdh and Eve was cast at Juddah. Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol.1, p.21 Despite this similarity with the Biblical record of Adam’s sin and fall and the imputation of his transgression to the whole human race, the Qur’an does not pursue the matter further. It thereafter regards sin simply as an act of individual wrongdoing either to be forgiven by Allah or condemned at his pleasure, or to be cancelled out by a good deed. Another passage does, however, strongly emphasise not only the seriousness of the first transgression but also its wider consequences: So by deceit he caused them to fall. When they had tasted of the tree their shame was revealed to them and they began to cover themselves with leaves from the Garden. And their Lord called to them: "Did I not forbid you that tree and say to you that Satan is a sworn enemy to you?" They said, "Our Lord! We have wronged our souls. If you do not forgive us or have mercy on us, we will be of the losers." He said, "Get down – with enmity between yourselves. And you will have the earth as your abode and provision for a time." Surah 7:22-24 It should be obvious that there is tremendous material here for an effective witness to God’s saving grace in Jesus Christ, the second Adam, who voluntarily descended from heaven to become man, committed no sin, and reversed the effect of Adam’s sin. We shall see how this can be done. The Biblical account of Adam’s Sin and Fall In the Qur’an it is interesting to note that Satan calls the forbidden tree the "tree of Eternity" (Surah 20:120), another hint to the fact that by disobeying God and eating from it, Adam would implicate the whole of humanity in serious long-term consequences. It is in the Bible, especially the description it gives of the tree, that we obtain a much more comprehensive picture of why God commanded Adam and Eve to leave it alone: And the Lord God commanded the man saying, "You may eat freely of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." Genesis 2:16-17 The tree had to be avoided because it was the tree of "the knowledge of good and evil," meaning that if they ate of it, Adam and Eve would come to know what evil was and its distinction from good. In consequence of this, being partakers of evil, they would be cut off from the tree of life, lose their experience of the life of God in their hearts, and eventually die and return to the ground. Hence, when they did sin, God declared: You are dust, and to dust you shall return. Genesis 3:19 Muslims really have no knowledge or understanding of what it was about the forbidden tree that made the act of eating its fruit so terribly wrong. The Qur’an gives no explanation other than to declare the tree forbidden, but the Bible does in its description of the tree and in Satan’s temptation to Eve when he said: You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. Genesis 3:4-5 Satan and his angels had fallen because of their desire to be like God, to oppose his authority, and to set themselves up as the masters of their own destiny (Isaiah 14:12-14, 2 Peter 2:4). Now he was tempting Eve, and through her Adam, to break faith with God and do the same. It was a call to declare independence from God, to refuse to submit to his authority, and to establish their own. When God created Adam he gave him dominion over everything on the earth, in the seas, and over all living creatures (Genesis 1:26). God made man in his own image, in his likeness (Genesis 5:1), meaning that man was able to bear all the attributes of God and reflect his glory. God did not make man already perfected in righteousness but rather in an innocent state with a potential and inclination towards uprightness. "God made man upright" (Ecclesiastes 7:29) and, while putting all things under his feet, only commanded in return that man should be subject to him in his personality, dominion and character. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil symbolised this sole area where man would not have authority. By not eating of it Adam would acknowledge God’s authority over him and that he was called to be a servant of God. Satan’s temptation was to shake off God’s authority and become gods in their own right, to become "like God" and so determine their own destiny. Adam and Eve did not know that the actual result would be exactly the opposite – that they would fall from their dignity and upright state, lose their relationship with God and the spiritual life surging within them, and become evil like the devil instead. The Qur’an also makes Satan mislead them into believing they would benefit from disobeying God and obtain an exalted status of their own when he promises them they would become like angels or immortal beings (Surah 7:20). As we will see, it is important to point out to Muslims that the sin of Adam and Eve was not just a transgression. It was a deliberate act of defiance, a renunciation of authority. God’s only command was that they should, in their characters, hearts and inner beings, remain subject to him. Instead they fell for Satan’s temptation that they could become "like God" and so grasped at equality with God. This was tantamount to shirk, associating themselves as partners with God. It was to arrogate to themselves a complete likeness with him in authority and dominion. Quite simply it was an appalling blasphemy. To the unenlightened the act of eating of the forbidden fruit might seem like no more than a transgression of a simple command. It was not. The tree symbolised God’s right to complete authority over man’s obligation to be righteous, faithful, obedient, true and devoted to him. By breaking the command not to eat of its fruit, Adam and Eve thoroughly defied God at the root of their beings, disowning his lordship over their lives. The consequences for the human race have been horrendous. Did Adam Simply Forget His Lord’s Command? Muslims traditionally underrate the effect of that first transgression. They claim Adam merely slipped in a moment of temporary forgetfulness and that, once he had repented of his oversight and asked forgiveness, he was duly forgiven. It is vital to show them that the Qur’an takes a far more serious view of the matter, stating plainly that Satan brought about their fall (Surah 7:22) and that Allah deliberately chased them out of the Garden and cast them down to earth where their previous state of peacefulness and felicity would give way to malice and hatred (Surah 7:24). It goes on to appeal to the "Children of Adam" to avoid being seduced by Satan "in the same manner as he got your parents out of the Garden" (Surah 7:27). Their sin was not a single act of transgression that could easily be forgiven as a minor, isolated act of wrongdoing. It was an act of gross rebellion, a total rejection of God’s rule over the whole human race, and it had awful consequences. Sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned. Romans 5:12 We do not believe that they were cast out of Paradise as the Bible states the Garden was the source of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers on earth (Genesis 2:14). Nonetheless the Muslim belief actually helps to strengthen the effect of their sin. Ask any Muslim if Adam and Eve could have died in heaven, in Jannat al-Firdaus (the Garden of Paradise). They will invariably say "no." Also ask them if they would have been cast out of the Garden to a decaying earth if they had not sinned and again the answer will be "no." Lastly, would their offspring have perished in Paradise? Once again you’ll get the same answer. Therefore neither Adam nor Eve, nor any of their billions of offspring, would ever have died had they not broken faith with God and been cast out of Paradise. By implication, Islam supports the Biblical teaching that death was the consequence of their sin – firstly, spiritual death and separation from God in the act of rebellion, and then later physical extinction at the end of a temporal life. Can it really be argued that there was no intention on Adam’s part to disobey God and that his transgression was no more than an excusable lapse of memory? The Qur’an shows plainly that Adam and Eve succumbed to Satan’s temptation and this despite the fact that Allah had warned them that Satan was an adversary who would seek to get them out of the Garden (Surah 20:117). Adam and Eve must both have had incredibly poor memories to forget God’s one command to them and the one consequence they would have wished to have avoided. Satan words to Adam, according to the Qur’an, were: O Adam! Shall I lead you to the Tree of Eternity and to a kingdom which never decays? Surah 20:120 Adam chose to believe Satan and to disobey God. Moreover, in Surah 7:20, Satan actually reminded Adam of Allah’s command to him not to eat of the forbidden tree. How can one possibly sustain the argument that Adam merely "forgot" his Lord’s command, the only negative commandment he ever received and that from God himself? Furthermore, if this was only a minor mistake as Muslims claim, why was the penalty so severe? The whitewashing and diluting of Adam’s transgression by Muslims is usually done in the interests of maintaining the hypothesis in traditional Islam, contradicted by the Qur’an, that all the prophets were sinless. (See the companion volume to this book, Facing the Muslim Challenge, pp.46-48). If Adam was a prophet as they believe, then he too could not actually have sinned. Ask any Muslim, then, who it was who introduced sin into the world, when this happened, what the first sin was, and what the effect on the human race was. Obviously there can be no answer based on any sources. The disobedience of Adam was the great single sin that brought the human race into the decaying, sinful world it struggles with today and its ultimate consequence was the worst that could be imagined, death itself. To be delivered from this shattering consequence the world obviously needs a deliverance from both sin and death. Merely asking God for forgiveness won’t help. Even though the Qur’an teaches that Adam and Eve were forgiven (the Bible is silent on the subject), Allah never let them back into the beautiful Garden of Paradise where the Tree of Eternal Life was. Instead they struggled on with the hardships of an earthly existence and eventually died. Obviously a lot more than merely a declaration of forgiveness is needed for the human race to find its way back to Paradise and here is where the Christian witness to the Muslim comes in. Let’s see how our common ground on this vital subject can be used as a basis for effective witness to the grace of God as it has been revealed in the Lord Jesus Christ. The Second Adam: Jesus the Universal Redeemer It is not hard to show Muslims what the effect of Adam’s sin was. It had a calamitous effect on the whole human race. Both Adam and Eve were driven from the Garden in which God had placed them. God drove them out as both the Bible and the Qur’an clearly state (Genesis 3:24, Surah 20:123). The human race found itself in a world where sin and death reign (Romans 5:21). No one was allowed back into the Garden and no one became as upright as Adam and Eve had been in the beginning. Even Muhammad is recorded in the traditions of Islam as confirming that all human beings were implicated in the original sin and fall: Anas reported that it was said by the Messenger of Allah (saw): Every son of Adam is a sinner, and the best of sinners are those who repent consistently. Sunan Ibn Majah, Vol.5, p.489 Enter the man Christ Jesus. The Qur’an has an interesting statement about him, linking him to Adam and comparing the two men. It says: The likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then said to him, "Be!" – and he came to be. Surah 3:58 Muslims are familiar with the catchy Arabic phrase Kun! faya kun. The only time the Qur’an compares the two men it says the same about them. Both were created simply by the Word (kalam) and Power (‘amr) of Allah. Muslims see no distinction between them. Yet the Bible is at pains to distinguish them and in every place where they are mentioned together the book contrasts them. The difference is summed up in this verse: For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:21 The Qur’an appears to be unaware of a much needed solution to the problem caused by Adam’s transgression. Sinfulness, decay, enmity and death were the effects of the first man’s sin. "Abraham died, as did the prophets," the Jews exclaimed to Jesus (John 8:52), showing that no one had escaped the devastating consequences of the fall. Here we have a tremendous opportunity to show Muslims who Jesus really was and why he came to earth. He was not just an ordinary man, made from the dust as the Qur’an suggests. He assumed human form, he was born in the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3), but he, in his soul and spirit, had existed before the world had ever been made (John 1:1-3). He was there when Satan fell like lightning from heaven before Adam and Eve were even created (Luke 10:18). He came down from heaven (John 6:51). He was the only human being without sin (John 8:46, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15, 1 Peter 2:25). He has the power of eternal life (John 10:28). It is important to emphasise to Muslims the total contrast between Jesus and Adam. Adam and Eve had grasped at equality with God and independence from his control but, in doing so, brought themselves and the whole human race down to destruction. Jesus by nature had that equality with God as the eternal Son to the Father, but he voluntarily chose to become totally dependent on his Father as a human being, assumed the form of Adam and Eve, yet was willing to suffer and endure death and humiliation such as they would never have known had they remained faithful to God. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Php 2:5-8 Adam grasped at higher things beyond his reach. Jesus emptied himself to assume lower things. Adam disobeyed God even though he only had to remain obedient to God to live forever. Jesus obeyed God completely, yet gave up his life to become our Saviour. He became obedient to death, even to death on a cross. Here was perfect obedience. Although he was a Son, he learnt obedience through what he suffered; and being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him. Hebrews 5:8-9 Jesus was the only man who lived in absolute, perfect conformity to God’s will. He always did what was pleasing to the Father (John 8:29). He knew that, no matter how low his estate on earth, a humble man without possessions from an insignificant family in Nazareth from which no good thing could surely come (John 1:46), there was nothing more glorious than that he should be under God’s holy and gracious will. Adam and Eve returned to the dust. Jesus, however, rose from the dead. Because of his perfect love and obedience God glorified him as Lord of all. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Php 2:9-11 In witnessing to Muslims we have a wonderful opportunity to show how the whole human race is represented in two heads, Adam and Christ. The sin of the one man Adam brought the whole human race down to sin and death. The perfect obedience of Jesus, however, and his saving death and resurrection, can bring all men back to the path to eternal life. As Muslims believe that Adam and Eve were created in heaven but fell to earth when they sinned and died here, so Jesus was born on earth but rose to heaven where he stands alone at the right hand side of God. We do not believe Adam and Eve were created in heaven but the contrast between them and Jesus in Muslim belief needs to emphasised. Muslims accept that Jesus was taken to heaven. According to Islam, Jesus is the only person who is not buried on earth but is physically alive in heaven. While more than five billion people live on earth and many more billions have lived and died before us, right now just one man, only one, is alive in heaven and that is Jesus Christ. He alone has gone back into the presence of God and the realm of Paradise from which Adam and Eve were driven out. Jesus, by dying for us, reversed the effect of Adam’s sin. He has the power of eternal life and gives it to all who believe in him. Emphasise with Muslims this one great contrast: as one man brought us into sin and condemnation, so another man delivers us from it. The Bible contrasts the effect of Adam’s sin with the effect of Jesus’ deliverance from it in these words: But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift of that grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the effect of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. Romans 5:15-16 If because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Romans 5:17 We need to concentrate on this great contrast just as intensely as the Bible does. Death was the consequence of Adam’s sin. Muslims cannot deny this. There is no death in Paradise, only here on this earth to which Adam and Eve were driven and where every living thing must die eventually. Yet it was on this same earth that Jesus, laid down his life which no one could take from him (John 10:17) and, by rising from the dead, became the source of eternal life to all who follow him. Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous. Romans 5:18-19 Adam was made from the dust and returned to it. Jesus, however, came from heaven and returned to where he had come from. All who have sinned in Adam will die like Adam did. All who believe in Jesus will be raised from the dead to live for ever in the eternal heavenly kingdom to come at the end of time. As opposed to the Qur’anic claim that Adam and Jesus were exactly the same, the Bible says: Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit. But it is not the spiritual which is first but the physical, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. 1 Corinthians 15:45-49 The contrast could not be put more emphatically. Christians, in witness to Muslims, need to emphasise the seriousness of sin. Islam takes too light a view of its devastating power, hardly recognising that death is its final and complete consequence. Yet, by narrating the fall of Adam and Eve in terms similar to those we find in the Bible, the Qur’an does give us common ground, a platform with which to show Muslims what the effects of sin really are and why a Saviour from heaven was needed. Jesus rose from the dead and, through the Holy Spirit, releases into his followers a life-giving power that already has passed through the grip of death and assures us of salvation. As Adam died, so we will die. But as Jesus rose from the dead and ascended to heaven, so we will do the same. Muhammad lies dead and buried in Medina. Adam lies dead and buried somewhere. The likeness of Muhammad is the same as the likeness of Adam. He lies in the dust, unlike Jesus who lives in glory in heaven and is able to save all Muslims and fill them with his resurrection life-giving power as well. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 81: 05.03. EVE ======================================================================== Eve Satan’s Three Great Temptations Do Muslims have an Awareness of Sinfulness? The Bible does not regard wrongdoing as simply the act of committing a sin against God which can be cancelled out by a good deed, nor does it regard human beings as having the freedom, from a neutral position, to choose between good and evil. As we have seen, it regards all of humankind, since the sin of the first man Adam, as being under the power of sin and needing an act of redemption to restore its relationship with God. Original Sin is the name or title given to this definition, meaning that all the sons of Adam are in a state of sinfulness, with a tendency to evil, as slaves to sin and bound to do its bidding (John 8:34), with a deadening effect on the soul (Ephesians 2:1) resulting in the eventual death of the body. Islam does not take the effect of sin to such extremes. It regards wrongdoing as a very serious matter but does not teach that all men and women are held in sin’s destructive, deadly grip and cannot be forgiven or saved unless God himself activates a redeeming work from his side to remedy the situation. The Qur’an does teach that there is an enmity between God and man and that sin and wrongdoing have had a devastating effect on the human race. "Indeed man is in ruin," it declares (Surah 103:3) and to some extent it confirms the Biblical concept of sinfulness in this verse: I do not claim that my soul is innocent for man is prone to evil. Surah 12:53 Yet Muslims scholars have always taught that sins are no more than acts of wrongdoing, breaches of the laws of Islam, which can be remedied by good deeds, repentance and the forgiveness of Allah. Sinfulness, as a state of the soul motivating mankind instinctively towards evil, does not come into the Islamic equation. The Qur’an uses two words which are usually translated simply as "sin," namely dhanb and khati’ah, and also often uses the word dhulm meaning "wrong." To these scholars, once a man professes Islam and lives as a Muslim, all evil deeds, thoughts and words are only transgressions of the law to be punished or forgiven. Sure, the enemies of Allah are said to have a sickness in their hearts (Surah 8:49), but this is not a state of sinfulness but rather an attitude of ill-will towards Muslim believers with the intention of misleading and beguiling them away from Islam. Muslims have traditionally distinguished between two types of sin, kabirah – the "great" sins, and saghirah – the "little" sins. The first are serious misdemeanours which, if not repented of, will lead to punishment, and the second are venial errors which are common to all believers and will be forgiven more easily. The Hadith records teach that Muhammad regarded seven sins as more heinous than all others, as in this text: Abu Hurairah reported the Apostle of Allah (saw) as saying: Refrain from seven (sins) which cause destruction. He was asked, What are they, Apostle of Allah? He replied: To assign a partner to Allah, magic, to kill a soul (man) which is prohibited by Allah except for which is due, to take usury, to consume the property of an orphan, to retreat on the day of battle, and to slander chaste women, indiscreet but believing. Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol.2, p.809 Other records in the Hadith show that, in Islam, acts of wrongdoing can be compensated or expiated by acts of repentance, good deeds, righteous works and enduring the legal punishments prescribed by Islamic law. This tradition is typical of those that regard sin in Islam as no more than wilful acts of wrongdoing rather than evidences of a sinful heart in need of redemption: Narrated ‘Ubada bin As-Samit: I gave the pledge of allegiance to the Prophet (saw) with a group of people and he said, "I take your pledge that you will not worship anything besides Allah, will not steal, will not commit infanticide, will not slander others by forging false statements and spreading it, and will not disobey me in anything good. And whoever among you fulfils all these, his reward is with Allah. And whoever commits any of the above crimes and received his legal punishment in this world, that will be his expiation and purification. But if Allah screens his sin, it will be up to Allah, Who will either punish or forgive him according to his wish." Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.8, p.518 In the light of all these teachings you would not expect Muslims to have an awareness of sinfulness, yet it has been my experience that most of them do. I have often been impressed with their consciousness, which they freely express, that a tendency to sin resides deep within their souls. When challenged about their lives, they will openly admit that sin is so prevalent that at times they may not even be aware of it. "You know, there are so many times when we sin we don’t even realise we are doing it. We don’t always know what is wrong and what isn’t." How often I have heard that kind of statement. Often it runs deeper. Addiction to habits, such as smoking, swearing, abusiveness and the like, make them aware of a bondage to sin from within their beings that is not easy to overcome. When I have challenged them about their sins, they regularly reply "Oh, but we know Allah is forgiving and we pray to him and trust he will forgive us. You must just determine not to commit that sin again." I have then asked: "But all wrongdoing is sin. Why simply declare that you will not commit one specific sin again? What about all the others?" Sure, they agree, you have to repent of all sins. Then I have asked the key question: "If you know sinning is wrong and that you are disobeying the laws of God, why don’t you wake up tomorrow morning and, before doing anything else, pray to God and say you know all sins are wrong, so from this moment on you’ll never sin again in your life. You’ll obey his laws perfectly, all the time." Without exception the response has always been the same. "That’s impossible! No one can proclaim to God that he will never sin again. You can’t make a promise like that for even one day, never mind a lifetime. Often you’re sinning without even knowing it." Yes, Muslims have a very definite awareness of their own sinfulness. The reason is simple – the Biblical assessment of sin and its effect on human nature is the correct one. Whatever the Qur’an, the Hadith or Muslim scholars may teach, human sinfulness and the tendency to evil are inherently part of every man’s nature. Many a Muslim painfully knows the meaning of these words: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; who can understand it? I the Lord search the mind and try the heart, to give to every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his doings. Jeremiah 17:9-10 It has often been said that sin has created a Christ-shaped vacuum in every man’s heart. This is absolutely true and, no matter what a Muslim may be taught to believe about himself, it’s true of him too. Only Jesus Christ can fill the dark void in the depths of the heart caused by the devastating effect of human sinfulness. Only the Spirit of Christ can enliven any soul dead in its trespasses and sins. Here is an area where any Christian can witness effectively to Muslims of God’s saving grace in Jesus Christ. In the last chapter we saw how to impress on Muslims that the first transgression of Adam and Eve had devastating consequences. Here, by drawing them out on the inner motives, passions, jealousies, angers, lusts, unholy desires and evil promptings that surge from the depths of their being, a Christian can show them how God has resolved this problem and how, by believing in Jesus who died to deliver us not only from the guilt of sin but also its power, they can be reconciled to God and be given fulness of life in receiving the Holy Spirit. There is one very important comparison in the Bible that can be raised in this context and used to emphasise just who Jesus was, how he conquered the power of sin, and how he can deliver any man from its deadly effects. Eve’s Capitulation to Satan’s Threefold Temptation Only one woman is named in the Qur’an, Mary the mother of Jesus. Eve (named Hawwa in Islam) is mentioned simply as the wife of Adam (Surah 2:35, 7:19), and no mention is made of the fact that Satan first tempted her before she persuaded her husband to eat of the forbidden fruit. In the Qur’an Satan tempts them both at the same time, whispering suggestions and swearing he was their sincere adviser (Surah 7:20-21). Muslims, generally, do not object to the Biblical record of their fall, however, and it is very useful to analyse the true nature of the devil’s temptation. We read: So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desired to make one wise, she took of its food and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate. Genesis 3:6 It was not just a simple enticement to eat the fruit. It was a comprehensive temptation directed at the core of her being and, as the passage shows, had a threefold character. Firstly, Eve saw that the tree was "good for food." This meant it was obviously tasty, in good shape and would benefit her physical body if she ate of it. There was nothing wrong with the fruit itself. It had no worms! Satan succeeded in misleading her because he got her to focus on the fruit itself rather than the God who had simply forbidden her to eat of it. Muslims are aware that many temptations to sin cause them to fall simply because the action itself does not appear to carry negative consequences. The end result often appears profitable as long as the declared will of God is ignored. Pornography, drug-taking, financial corruption in business and sexual immorality can all be very appetising and seem harmless as long as no one else knows what you are doing. It’s only when they lead to rape, indecent assault, AIDS, criminal prosecution, job losses, drug addiction, venereal diseases, divorce and other unwanted consequences that the wrongdoing becomes apparent for what it really is. All these come from desires for immediate physical gratification and there is not a Muslim in the world that does not know this level of temptation. Secondly, Eve saw the food was "a delight to the eyes." God had said "do not touch it," but Eve, disregarding the commandment again, judged the fruit purely by its appearance. It looked good. There was nothing obviously wrong with it. In fact, once you looked at it closely, it appeared to be an object of great beauty. Her sin did not consist in choosing to pick and eat an object which was inedible or poisonous, it was in simply defying the will of her Creator who had commanded her not to eat it. Once again, by disrespecting his will and asserting her own, she fell. Many a Muslim knows the outcome of focusing on the beauty of something lawfully beyond his reach – another man’s wife, a luxury car he cannot afford, an X-rated TV program he shouldn’t watch – and falling for its beauty without recognising the identity of the devil persuading him to pursue it. Thirdly, Eve perceived that the food was "to be desired to make one wise." She believed Satan when he suggested that, by taking it, she would become "like God, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:5). She was fooled into thinking she would advance her status and become like the deity himself, not recognising the perfidy of the one who spoke to her. Instead she fell and became like the devil, knowing the power and presence of evil. Muslims know the meaning of the proverb "Pride comes before a fall." History, both Muslim and non-Muslim, testifies to the ultimate end of all power-mad rulers who pursue their arrogant ambitions and seek to become their own gods over the people they control. There’s a verse in the New Testament that defines this threefold temptation as emphatically and clearly as it could possibly be put. It is: For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father but of the world. 1 John 2:16 The "lust of the flesh" made Eve see that the tree was good for food, the "lust of the eye" that it was attractive to the sight, and "the pride of life" that it was to be desired to make one wise. Built into one temptation were evil characteristics that she had formerly never known or even thought possible – greed, covetousness, pride, arrogance, selfishness, shame and dishonour – and in the centuries to come these were to grow to enormous proportions in the billions of her offspring who would choose to listen to the devil rather than the God of all the Universe. One awful, comprehensive temptation fully absorbing all three of the desires John mentions, brought about the downfall of the human race. By identifying these three causes of all sinful actions, the Christian can witness very effectively to Muslims of God’s saving grace in Jesus Christ. We turn to a time when the devil, up to the same tricks, tried the same threefold temptation on him. The Obedience of the One Man Jesus Christ The Qur’an does not mention a very important promise God made shortly after Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit. He said to Satan: I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel. Genesis 3:15 He promised that one of her offspring, just one, would rise in an age to come who would not be affected by their fall, who would not be like the devil but would in fact be his sworn and mortal enemy. He would be on God’s side and, though bruised in the conflict, would conquer Satan and eventually destroy him. The man was Jesus Christ and Satan recognised him. For the first thirty years he grew up and lived an ordinary life as a carpenter’s son in Nazareth, a humble village. His neighbours, during this time, saw nothing unusual about him (Mark 6:2-3). Satan, however, marked him – especially what he particularly noticed and that was that he was the first and only man to live on earth without sin in complete obedience to God (1 Peter 2:22-23). Jesus finally came into the open when he was baptised by John and the Spirit of God descended on him in bodily form, as a dove (Matthew 3:16). Immediately afterwards, just as God had driven Adam and Eve from the Garden into a decaying world full of thorns, so Jesus was driven away from his normal countryside into the wilderness (Mark 1:12). There he fasted forty days and nights. Satan must have wondered at his purpose but, despite not being able to identify it, did perceive that, at the end of the forty days, Jesus was about as weak as a human being could be. Hunger strikers usually die after about sixty-five days and after forty days are almost at the point of no return. Satan knew his best chance of catching Jesus in a moment of complete physical weakness, when he had no natural strength to resist him, was right now. There is so much to compare between the three temptations that followed and the similar temptation to Eve. Here is a wonderful opportunity to show Muslims how Jesus resisted temptation to sin at its fullest intensity, how he conquered the power of sin, and how he can be our strength today. There are no parallels in the life of Muhammad. The first temptation of the devil went like this: If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread. Luke 4:3 There was a vast difference between this temptation and the one Eve had faced. She was in a beautiful garden, Jesus was in a barren desert. She had ample access to all the food she could possibly desire, Jesus had none and had not eaten for forty days. He was emaciated with hunger. It was as if Satan was mocking him. "You are supposed to be the Son of God, yet here you perish with hunger. Look how your Father treats you. He has made you the hungriest and weakest man on all the earth. Now, if you will just listen to me, I’ll show you how to save yourself. Turn these stones into loaves of bread." The fruit Eve ate was a delicacy, good for food and delight to the eyes. Jesus desperately needed just a piece of staple diet, a loaf of bread, to survive. Satan offered Jesus the Midas touch, as it were, yet Jesus resisted him, saying, "Man shall not live by bread alone" (Luke 4:4). He stood by his commitment to live by every word of God, no matter where it might lead him. The contrast between Eve and Jesus is striking – two extremes, to be precise. She had no need to eat but did. He desperately needed food but declined to use his powers against his Father’s will to satisfy himself. At his weakest he resisted the temptation to indulge the "lust of the flesh" at its fullest extent and intensity. So Satan tried his second temptation, showing him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, and saying: To you I will give all this authority and their glory; for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. If you, then, will worship me, it shall all be yours. Luke 4:6-7 Again Jesus resisted the temptation, saying to Satan, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve" (Luke 4:8). This time Satan attempted to make Jesus fall through the "lust of the eye," dazzling his vision with a display of all the kingdoms of the earth. Once again it was as if he was mocking Jesus, saying, "Your Father has also made you the poorest man on earth in this wilderness. You have nothing you can call your own. But if you will listen to me, I will make you the richest man on earth. I’ll show you how to use your powers to possess everything on earth for yourself. Just listen to me and, like Eve, ignore the will of your Father." Again there is a marked contrast between Eve and Jesus. She fell for a piece of fruit – Jesus resisted an offer to obtain the whole world. When Eve ate the fruit, sin and human sinfulness had only just begun to affect mankind. It had only just been conceived. In the fulness of time, however, when Jesus appeared on earth, it had reached its pitch. The Bible shows how sin grows to maturity in these words: Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death. James 1:15 By Jesus’ time the emperors of Rome, such as Julius and Augustus Caesar, were seeking to gain the whole world for themselves. Others, like Alexander the Great, had also attempted this before them. "They are only men, you are the Son of God. Use your divine powers to fulfil your own desires and you can do it," Satan was saying to Jesus. Once again sin and temptation had come a long way, from one extreme to the other. Jesus resisted the temptation to indulge the lust of his eyes to its fullest possible extent. So Satan tried his third and last temptation: If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here; for it is written, "He will give his angels charge over you to guard you," and "On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone." Luke 4:9-11 For the third time Jesus resisted, saying, "It is said, You shall not tempt the Lord your God" (Luke 4:12). This was the temptation to "the pride of life." This time Satan was saying to him, "On top of it all, your Father has made you the loneliest man on earth. No one knows where you are, no one cares. If you died, who would be concerned? You are the hungriest, poorest and loneliest man on earth, a travesty of humanity. Now, if you will only listen to me, I will show you how to become the greatest and most popular man who ever lived. I will give you the obedience of the nations." Eve fell for a temptation just to become wiser, Jesus resisted a temptation to become the greatest man on all the earth. Once again sin had been taken to its fullest extremes, and Jesus resisted it at its greatest extent. Roman rulers, not content to possess everything on earth, were also endeavouring to force their subjects to honour them as divine rulers. Sin had indeed become full-grown. The method Satan used here to tempt Jesus can be likened to the Hajj Pilgrimage in Islam. Every year hundreds of thousands of Muslim pilgrims come to Mecca from all over the world to encircle the Ka’aba seven times. In 1979 a group of rebels occupied the mosque precincts, declaring one of their number to be the long-awaited Imam Mehdi, a Messianic figure anticipated by Shiah Muslims as well as many Sunnis. The coup failed, however, and the surviving rebels were beheaded in public disgrace. If, however, the pretender had declared, "I am Imam Mehdi and to prove it I will jump off the Ka’aba and you will see God’s angels come down to protect me," and had accomplished this with a visible rescue by a host of angels from heaven, I have little doubt they would have all been persuaded! Jesus was tempted by Satan in the same way. The devil gave him a vision of monotheistic believers from all over the earth gathered to worship at God’s holy house and tempted him to win their allegiance by a public display of his divine authority. That such a temptation could come from Satan is indicative of the corrupt allegiance of the Jewish nation to the God of Israel at the time. Very significantly, when Jesus did finally come to the Temple, he did the opposite of what Satan had suggested and drove all the moneychangers and pigeon-sellers out of the Temple, making himself most unpopular in the process (John 2:15-20). The comparisons and contrasts between the three forms of temptation are obvious. What’s more, Eve faced only one temptation which embedded all three desires. Jesus faced three separate temptations, stretched to their fullest possible range and magnitude, and effectively resisted them all. In all three cases Satan tempted him as he had baited Adam and Eve – to assert himself independently of his Father’s will. He returned to his people and, having conquered the power of sin, prepared himself to conquer its guilt at the cross and so complete the work of redemption. He had bruised the head of Satan. He had "condemned sin in the flesh" (Romans 8:3), he had triumphed over it in its chosen lair, the human body, the source of all sin and wrongdoing. He had discerned the implication of Satan’s command, "Throw yourself down" (Luke 4:9). He knew this was all men would ever do by heeding his suggestions. Christians here have a powerful basis to witness to Muslims aware of their own sinfulness. Jesus said the Holy Spirit would come to convict the world of sin (John 16:8) and, by praying for Muslims and witnessing to them, Christians can depend on the Spirit working with them to open the hearts of Muslims to see the degree of their own sinfulness and their need of redemption. Jesus dealt with sin once for all in the wilderness and at the cross. He now releases the power to all his followers to overcome its force and effects as well. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death. Romans 8:3 Many Muslims, having like Pilgrim in John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, become aware of the burden of their sins and the inner controlling sinfulness of their hearts, seek more than a religion, book or way of life to deliver them. Christians, here, are well-equipped to lead them to the Saviour of the world, the Lord Jesus Christ. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 82: 05.04. NOAH ======================================================================== Noah The First Herald of Righteousness The Construction of the Ark One of the major themes of the Old Testament is the foreshadowing of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in many of the great events it records. This is one of the most impressive proofs God has given of the authenticity of the new covenant and that it is the sole means of salvation for all men in all ages. God has sealed the testimony of the Christian Gospels by giving clear indications of the coming work of Jesus in the lives and experiences of the former prophets. So many of them are types of Christ and these types can be used very effectively to show Muslims that all the promises and purposes of God were destined to find their fulfilment in him. Significantly, none of these prophets typified each other but all of them pointed to the coming of God’s Saviour and the redemption he would achieve. As the Qur’an names most of the prominent Old Testament prophets and generally repeats the stories in which the typology is found, Christians have tremendous common ground from which to show Muslims that everything that happened in those days was building towards an awesome climax in Jesus rather than a re-affirmation of it all in the prophet of Islam. Noah was the first type of Christ. You do not have to read more than three pages of the Bible before he appears. After the fall of Adam and Eve, the human race steadily fell into great wickedness and, contrary to God’s hopes and wishes, turned away from and against him. Its rejection of God was emphatic and universal and is summed up in these words: The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Genesis 6:5 The emphasis in this verse must not be lost: "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." The human race had fallen into a state of complete separation from God. Paul’s combination of quotations from the Old Testament in the following passage makes the same point: None is righteous, no, not one. No one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong. No one does good, not even one. Romans 3:10-12 Genesis goes on to say that the Lord was grieved to his heart and regretted creating man. He wasted no time in deciding to blot the human race out together with all living creatures on the surface of the earth for he was sorry that he had made them. Yet there was one ray of hope, one exception, which was to become the first symbol of God’s ultimate purpose to provide a salvation and redemption for mankind. We read: But Noah found favour in the eyes of the Lord. Genesis 6:8 This is not the first mention of the great patriarch in the narrative. When Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden they were told: Cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return. Genesis 3:17-19 Men and women lived much longer then than they do now, yet the effect of the fall and the toil and sweat they were offered (almost in Churchillian fashion: "I can offer you nothing but blood, toil, tears and sweat") was painfully felt. When Lamech reached the age of a hundred and eighty-two, he became the father of a son and called his name Noah, saying: Out of the ground which the Lord has cursed this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the toil of our hands. Genesis 5:29 The very name Noah means rest or relief and Noah’s birth symbolised a struggling world’s desperate need of a Reliever. Because of its rejection of God, however, the relief was to come to Noah’s descendants and not to the masses alive at the time. Noah became a figurehead because he was the only God-fearing man on earth and the first herald of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5). Again the Bible says: Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God. Genesis 6:9 The first sign that God’s ultimate purpose is not to save the whole human race but only those who form the household of his Saviour Jesus Christ, their figurehead, is found in God’s command to Noah. Having warned him that he was about to make an end of all flesh because the earth was filled with violence and wickedness, he commanded him to build an ark, giving him express directions how to build it, for the saving of his household. More expressly, God said to him: But I will establish my covenant with you; and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your son’s wives with you. Genesis 6:18 What happened next is important, because it typifies the saving work of Jesus Christ. God told Noah he would destroy the world through a great flood but, while he was patiently constructing the ark, not a drop of rain fell. As long as it was incomplete nothing changed. So it is with the Church today. God has warned of a second judgment to come: By the word of God ... the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist have been stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. 2 Peter 3:5-7 While Jesus is still drawing out men and women to himself, the judgment will not come. So with Noah, while he was still putting the finishing touches on the ark for the saving of his household, there was no sign of the flood to come. This was a momentous task – the ark was the size of a large building. Not only was he preserving human life but was also redeeming a host of birds, animals and reptiles. In the same way when Jesus comes he will not only raise all his own followers to glory but will also ensure that the whole creation will "be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God" (Romans 8:21). Piece by piece, nail by nail, plank by plank, the ark came together. In the same way man by man, woman by woman, believer by believer, repentant sinner by repentant sinner, the redeemed people of God in Jesus Christ are also coming together. As Noah built God’s ark, so Jesus too builds a redeemed household for God (Hebrews 3:3). The typology goes further. We do not know how the crowds reacted to Noah’s apparently senseless venture in building such a large ark high up on dry ground, but the Qur’an makes an interesting statement at this point: And he began to make the ark (fulk). And whenever the chiefs of his people passed by him, they laughed at him. Surah 11:38 This has a remarkable parallel in the life of Jesus. As he hung on the cross and completed his saving work for the household of God, just as Noah had toiled in the construction of his ark, the same thing happened: So also the chief priests, with the elders and scribes, mocked him, saying, "He saved others, he cannot save himself." Matthew 27:41-42 Although the parallel is not found in the Bible, its presence in the Qur’an can effectively be used to show how similar the works of Noah and Jesus were at this point. Noah’s building of a great ship must have seemed like an exercise in absurdity to his people and it is highly likely that they ridiculed him mercilessly. So also, when Jesus hung on the cross his dying agonies hardly seemed to indicate that the greatest success story in all human history was just moments from being accomplished. The Great Flood – Salvation for some, Judgment for the rest For forty days a relentless flood covered the whole earth and every living creature was destroyed. The highest mountains were covered by the waters and they prevailed on the earth for one hundred and fifty days. What God did is summarised in this verse: He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark. Genesis 7:23 What must not be missed is the contrast between the effect of the waters on Noah’s ark, on the one hand, and the whole earth below. They drowned and destroyed every living creature on the ground but, as the waters increased, they "bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth" (Genesis 7:17). The ark was lifted up with the waters and towered high above the land. So when Jesus returns, although the masses of unbelieving, ungodly sinners will be judged and thrown into the lake of fire, "the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord" (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17). The destruction of the world will be accompanied by the lifting up of the saved, just as it was at the time of the flood. The story of Noah and the flood is, like so many others we will consider in this book, a wonderful base for witnessing meaningfully to Muslims of God’s grace in Christ. Muslims generally love to hear stories, especially those of the ancient prophets which are set out in the Qur’an, and without having to preach at them any Christian can, through comparing the Biblical and Quranic narratives, show how the Gospel was prefigured in the events of past ages. Jesus often spoke in parables to make his points more emphatically and, in the same way, you can share the Gospel with Muslims more effectively by showing how it was prefigured in events like the great flood. He did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven other persons, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly. 2 Peter 2:5 So God will likewise not spare the wicked when Jesus returns but will raise up the followers of Jesus to be heirs of God and fellow-heirs with Christ to be glorified with him (Romans 8:17). Jesus put it in these words: When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. ... And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. Matthew 25:32-33; Matthew 25:46 Noah became a Saviour through the ark which he built with his toil and labour, so Jesus became the Saviour of the world through his death on the cross. Noah, as his name implies, gave "rest" and "relief" to his household. So Jesus gives eternal rest to all who believe in him. By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, took heed and constructed an ark for the saving of his household; by this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness which comes by faith. Hebrews 11:7 Typical Similarities between Noah and Jesus The comparisons between Jesus and Noah go much further and there are many other obvious points where the typology continues. You can use so many of them in showing how Noah was a type of Christ. Ten come to mind and they follow. 1. Noah and Jesus were rejected by their people The Qur’an states that, despite his passionate appeals to them to accept the messages God was giving him, Noah’s people flatly rejected him (Surah 10:73) and called him a liar (Surah 7:64). So also the Bible says of Jesus: He came to his own home, and his own people received him not. John 1:11 2. Both Jesus and Noah were accused of being possessed As already mentioned the Bible does not mention the reaction of the masses to Noah’s construction of a huge ark but the Qur’an does and it adds this statement: Before them the people of Noah rejected – they rejected our servant and said he was possessed, and drove him away. Surah 54:9 The word for "possessed" here is majnun, a word generally meaning crazed or mad. It was commonly used of poets in the time of Muhammad and, when he received the first portion of the Qur’an in what he said was a vision of a strange being in the sky, he came down and, sweating, cried to his wife Khadija to cover him with a mantle as he feared he too was becoming majnun like the eccentric poets around Mecca. Interestingly the Arabic word jinn, meaning a demon, comes from the same root letters. Jesus was also accused of being possessed by his opponents: Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon? John 8:48 He has a demon, and he is mad; why listen to him? John 10:20 3. They both sought the forgiveness of their opponents Once again, according to the Qur’an, Noah engaged in intense discussions and arguments with his people and called to them, saying, "Ask forgiveness of your Lord, for he is ever-forgiving" (Surah 71:10). On the cross Jesus prayed these words: Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. Luke 23:34 The Qur’an does go on to say that, when they disobeyed him and persuaded all around to hold to their idols Wadd, Suwa, Yaghuth, Ya’uq and Nasr, Noah changed and prayed to God to leave none of the unbelievers alive on earth. Instead he prayed earnestly for his own forgiveness and the forgiveness of his believing household (Surah 71:21-28). 4. Both Jesus and Noah were rejected as ordinary mortals The Qur’an has numerous passages outlining the debates between Noah and his people prior to the flood. Once again there are no parallels in the Bible but you can use these Quranic passages to show how similar Noah and Jesus were in support of proofs that Noah was a type of the coming Saviour. This passage in the Qur’an about Noah is interesting as it is very similar to a passage in the Bible about Jesus: But the chiefs of his people who disbelieved said: We see you as only a mortal like us, and we note that only the meanest of us are your followers. Nor do you appear to be superior to us in any way. We consider you all to be liars. Surah 11:27 Familiarity breeds contempt, so the saying goes, and much the same was said about Jesus’ and his family by his kinsmen in this passage: Many who heard him were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get all this? What is the wisdom given to him? What mighty works are wrought by his hands! Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him. Mark 6:2-3 5. Their works were to be a sign for all peoples Noah’s sweat and toil in building the ark, in which he was soon to be shut away until the storms had passed, and his ultimate deliverance onto a refreshed earth is a type and symbol of Jesus’ suffering on the cross, being shut away in a tomb, and resurrection from the dead three days later. Here again you can use the Qur’an to make the point. This verse is significant: So We delivered him and the inmates of the ark, and made it a sign to the nations. Surah 29:15 Jesus likewise gave the Sign of Jonah – his internment in a tomb for three days and deliverance therefrom – as a sign for his generation (Matthew 12:39). 6. They were the symbols of righteousness for their age The quotations from the Qur’an are useful to draw comparisons with Muslims between Noah and Jesus from their own text book, but the most effective parallels come from the Bible. We have already read that, in contrast to all other men on earth who were filled with wickedness and violence, Noah "was a righteous man, blameless in his generation" (Genesis 6:9). So, in contrast to the Jewish leaders whom he had all convicted of sin in the presence of an adulterous woman (John 8:7-9), Jesus could say "Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?" (John 8:46). 7. Both were given authority over all the earth When Noah and his family came down from the ark and released all the animals and birds on it to roam across the earth, God said to him: The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every bird of the air, upon everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea; into your hand they are delivered. Genesis 9:2 In this Noah symbolised the authority to be given to Jesus when, by his delivering work, he too would stand on the earth again with all authority and power over its inhabitants given to him. Jesus said: All things have been delivered to me by my father ... all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Matthew 11:27; Matthew 28:18 The same point is made in this passage: "You made him for a little while lower than the angels, you have crowned him with glory and honour, putting everything in subjection under his feet" (Hebrews 2:7-8). 8. A dove symbolised their supreme purpose on earth When the waters began to recede, Noah sent out a dove three times to see if the land had begun to reappear. The first time it simply returned to him, the second it returned with an olive leaf, and the third it disappeared for good (Genesis 8:8-12). The dove was a symbol that peace had been restored between God and man and the earth. Likewise, when Jesus was baptised, the Spirit of God descended on him in bodily form, as a dove (Matthew 3:16) and anointed him for his work which he was to accomplish in bringing complete peace and goodwill between God and men (Luke 2:14) with the hope of the redemption of the whole earth (Romans 8:19). 9. Both left a symbol as a legacy of God’s saving grace When the floods had fully receded God promised Noah that never again would the earth be devoured by such a massive flood and he added: This is the sign of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and earth. When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, I will remember my covenant which is between me and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. Genesis 9:14-15 Just as the rainbow has become the symbol of God’s promise never again to destroy the earth until the final judgment, so Jesus also left a symbol of God’s open hand of grace to all men which will never be withdrawn until the end comes: The Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 Both Noah and Jesus left a symbol of God’s covenant which was put into effect as soon as the storm had passed (in Noah’s case, the flood; in Jesus’ case, the cross). With Noah it was the rainbow, with Jesus the communion celebration of bread and wine. 10. The days of Jesus and Noah would both be the same Jesus stated plainly that, when he returns to the earth with the final judgment of God, the earth will be taken by surprise in its daily experiences of life just as it was when the flood came down at the time of Noah: As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be in the days of the Son of man. They ate, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all ... so it will be on the day when the Son of man is revealed. Luke 17:26-27; Luke 17:30 The flood came suddenly, unexpectedly, while all the earth was going about its daily business as if it were just another day. So, Jesus said, it will be when he returns. The heavens will be opened in a moment and the final judgment will come in a moment. Although he said there will be portents hinting at its imminent approach, it too will come suddenly while life continues as normal from day to day. The story of Noah, the ark and the flood, has great material for an effective Christian witness to Muslims. During a quiet evening with a Muslim family, why not share the great likenesses between Noah and Jesus and show them how Noah’s ark is a symbol of Jesus’ saving death and resurrection to newness of life? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 83: 05.05. ABRAHAM ======================================================================== Abraham The Gospel that was Preached to Him Khalilullah – The Friend of God I believe the story of Abraham and Isaac is the most powerful and effective source of witness to Muslims from the Old Testament. This is not surprising – Abraham is the great figurehead of all three monotheistic faiths: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. There is so much common ground here and the opportunities for witness abound. We’ll look at them in this and the next chapter and shall begin with a description of the patriarch which is common to all three religions – the friend of God. In the Jewish Scriptures (a useful description of the Old Testament in discussion with Muslims as opposed to the Christian Scriptures, the New Testament), the designation appears in the following two passages: Did you not, O our God, drive out the inhabitants of this land before your people Israel, and give it for ever to the descendants of Abraham your friend? 2 Chronicles 20:7 You, Israel, my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham my friend. Isaiah 41:8 Note that in the second passage God himself is recorded as calling Abraham his friend and that the title came not as a result of any writer’s impression of the relationship he had with God. When we turn to the Christian Scriptures we find the same title being applied to Abraham in the following text: Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness, and he was called the friend of God. James 2:23 It may come as a surprise to you to find that the Muslim scripture, the Qur’an, expressly calls Abraham the friend of God as well. Although the title only appears once, like the quotations given from the Bible it is clearly stated and emphasised: For Allah did take Ibrahim for a friend. Surah 4:125 The word for "a friend" in this verse is khalilaan and, as a result, Abraham is especially known in Islam as Khalilullah, the friend of Allah. Moses is called Kalimu’llah, one who conversed with Allah; David Khalifatullah, the representative of Allah; and Jesus Ruhullah, the spirit of Allah. Muhammad is known simply as Rasulullah, the messenger of Allah. The first question to ask here is obvious – why was Abraham called the Friend of God and what relationship is implied in this title? Friendships are not based on master-to-servant relationships, nor on the performance of the one party towards the other. Most importantly friendships are built on an acceptance of each other as equals, even though their statuses in life may differ. This verse from the Qur’an helps to illustrate the contrast between friendships and other relationships: No one in the heavens and the earth can come to the Compassionate but as a servant. Surah 19:93 If so, then the relationship between God and Abraham must have been unique. The title Friend of God implies that there was a deep personal relationship between them and one based on mutual trust and affection. The initiative came from God, indeed it had to for no human being could have approached him as other than a servant, and it is clear that it was God’s choice to enter into a relationship with the patriarch on equal terms. Muslims cannot easily explain why Abraham was called God’s friend as the Qur’an attempts no explanation of the description, but the Bible does and here the Christian has his first point of witness. When God first promised Abraham that he would give him a son in his old age, the Bible simply says "he believed the Lord, and he reckoned it to him as righteousness" (Genesis 15:6). This means that Abraham was accepted by God not because of any deeds done in righteousness but because of his complete faith in God. It was simply human faith responding to God’s faithfulness. On this basis God took Abraham as his friend. We shall see how this relationship, based on faith alone, leads ultimately to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and how you can witness effectively from it. The Father of All True Believers The second point of agreement between Judaism, Christianity and Islam on the person of Abraham is their joint recognition of him as the father of all the true people of God. In the Jewish Scriptures we read that God said to Abraham: I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. Genesis 17:5 As a result the Jewish nation claimed to have a special relationship with God and, when Jesus one day accused his Jewish audience of being children of the devil, they boldly declared, "Abraham is our father!" (John 8:39). The Christian Scriptures, on the other hand, teach that the true offspring of Abraham are not his physical offspring but those who share the faith of Abraham, the distinct feature that established his unique relationship with God: So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham ... So then, those who are men of faith are blessed with Abraham who had faith. Galatians 3:7; Galatians 3:9 Abraham was not approved by God because of any merit he had in himself, nor because of his genetic lineage, but because of his faith in God’s faithfulness. He is therefore the father of the faithful, all true believers who share his faith, not only from the people of Israel but also from the Gentiles, "those who share the faith of Abraham, for he is the father of us all" (Romans 4:16). Interestingly, in the Qur’an Abraham is also called the father of those who believe. These two verses make the point: I will make you a leader to the nations. Surah 2:124 Strive hard for Allah with due striving. He has chosen you and has not laid upon you any hardship in your religion, the faith of your father Ibrahim. Surah 22:78 The Qur’an follows the New Testament in declaring Abraham to be a leader and example (imam) to all mankind (linnaasi). Once again he is called the father of all true believers. Here, as in the title Friend of God, Christians have common ground with Muslims and an opportunity to share the Gospel with them. We shall go on to see just how this can be done. The Promise of a Son to Abraham Both the Bible and the Qur’an record the express promise of God to Abraham that he would have a son by his wife Sarah. By this time he was nearly a hundred years old and his wife was barren (Romans 4:19). Despite the apparent impossibility that this could happen naturally, Abraham trusted God and believed the promise would be fulfilled. It is recorded in the Bible in these words: As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. I will bless her, moreover I will give you a son by her; I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall come from her ... Sarah your wife will bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. Genesis 17:15-16; Genesis 17:19 The Qur’an confirms the promise and, even though it does not name Abraham’s wife, there can be no doubt that it was Sarah. It expressly states that the child of the promise was to be Isaac in these two passages: And his wife was standing by, and she laughed; but We gave her glad tidings of Isaac, and after him Jacob. Surah 11:71 And We gave him the good news of Isaac, a prophet of the righteous. Surah 37:112 Because Abraham trusted in God’s faithfulness, he believed the impossible would happen. Note well – it was not because he believed all things were possible to God or that he could simply do anything he wished. He believed, quite simply, that God would be true to his word. That is why "no distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised" (Romans 4:20). In witnessing to Muslims it is important to emphasise that it was his faith in God’s faithfulness that made him believe God would be faithful to his word and so his son Isaac would be born. The Command to Sacrifice His Son In the next chapter we will look at the question of whether it was Isaac or Ishmael whom God called Abraham to sacrifice. Muslims believe it was Ishmael but, as we shall see, the Qur’an does not identify the victim. At this point it is sufficient to deal solely with the subject of the intended sacrifice and you should do the same with Muslims. When Abraham’s son was still a young boy, too young to marry and have any children of his own, the command came to Abraham to sacrifice him. It is recorded in the Bible in these words: Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering. Genesis 22:2 Muslims credit Abraham for simply being willing to submit to God’s command, but here you must go further with them and challenge them to consider what the effect of this sudden demand on him must have been. There are three things the patriarch had to resolve. Muslims acknowledge the first – did he love God enough to be willing to give his son for him? That was the first trial, a test of his love for God, but there were two others where God put himself to the test before Abraham. Abraham knew God was absolutely holy and trustworthy. In this knowledge he had to resolve how God could command him to do something that was apparently morally questionable and, secondly, he had to ask how God could fulfil his promise to give him a son and, through him, descendants so many that they could not be numbered for multitude (Genesis 16:10) if his son was to be sacrificed before he could even father a child of his own. It is important to deal with these two questions as they are crucial to the purpose of the sacrifice and its foreshadowing of the sacrifice of God’s Son for the sins of the world in a time to come. We’ll deal with them in turn. During his lifetime Abraham must have witnessed with moral abhorrence and repugnance the idol-worship of his contemporaries. One of the worst practices of idolatry was the sacrifice many idolaters made of their sons to their gods. In a later age Moses himself warned the people of Israel not to enquire how the other nations served their idols that they might imitate them: You shall not do so to the Lord your God; for every abominable thing which the Lord hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods. Deuteronomy 12:31 This, to Moses, was the most abominable practice. Centuries later the evil king Ahaz, who led the nation of Judah into the worship of Baal, also "burned his sons as an offering, according to the abominable practices of the nations whom the Lord drove out before the people of Israel" (2 Chronicles 28:3). How then, Abraham must have asked, could God now command him to offer his son as a burnt offering as well? Was he no better than these detestable idols? In my experience Muslims have no answer to the second test. How could God fulfil his promise that nations would come through Isaac if he was to be sacrificed while still a youngster? The Bible shows that Abraham considered this matter very carefully and, in doing so, came to an astonishing discovery of what God was going to do for the whole human race. It also resolved the first problem, the moral issue. Trusting in God’s unflinching faithfulness, Abraham began by presuming that "Every word of God proves true" (Proverbs 30:5). What appeared to be morally reprehensible and physically impossible must in some way be morally excellent and perfectly capable of being fulfilled. Armed with this awareness, based on God’s faithfulness, he set out to find out the meaning and purpose of the command to sacrifice his son. The command to sacrifice seemed to have cut through the promise of a multitude of descendants like a sharp knife cutting a piece of string. As he contemplated first sacrificing his son and then cremating him as a burnt offering, Abraham might have imagined a gust of wind coming down and blowing the ashes away, concluding "there goes the promise of God to the wind." There were four possibilities and I’ve often canvassed them with Muslims with interesting results. They were: 1. God has forgotten his promise Fourteen years, the probable age of Abraham’s son when the command came to sacrifice him, is a long time. Perhaps God has forgotten his promise? Muslims always react negatively to this suggestion. "God knows everything and never forgets anything." So much for that one. 2. God has changed his mind Perhaps Isaac has not turned out as well as God might have wished, Abraham might have reasoned. Maybe God has had second thoughts. This one, too, gets short change from Muslims. "God knows all things in advance. He never has to change his mind about anything." This one also soon goes overboard. 3. I’ll just submit even though it makes no sense This is blind faith. Abraham could have simply concluded that he could not resolve the paradox and did not have to. Now God was calling for a sacrifice and he would simply submit to his will. How the promise would be fulfilled, or if it could be, would not be his concern. Here it’s not so easy for the Muslim. As we will see in the next chapter, this is exactly what Islam teaches about the millata-Ibrahim, the faith of Abraham (Surah 3:95). It sees his faith as an unquestioning submission to God’s will and, if Abraham was a prophet of Islam, he might well have chosen this course. 4. God will fulfil his promise! This is where the Bible’s concept of Abraham’s faith comes in. Being a faithful God he would not fail to fulfil his word. The question was only, how? When God, at another time, announced to Abraham that he intended to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham argued with him because he believed God was going against his own faithfulness. Would God destroy the righteous with the wicked? What if there were fifty righteous people in the cities – would he destroy them with the rest? Abraham cried out to God: Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? Genesis 18:25 On the same terms Abraham wrestled with the command to sacrifice his own son. He gave it serious thought. Just as he had previously considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb and had considered his own body which was as good as dead at a hundred years old when the promise first came (Romans 4:19), so now he did the same. Here is the answer he came up with through the same application of faith in God’s faithfulness: By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son, of whom it was said, "Through Isaac shall your descendants be named." He considered that God was able to raise men even from the dead, hence, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back. Hebrews 11:17-18 The only way God’s promise could be fulfilled was for Isaac to be brought back from the dead after he had been sacrificed. Abraham considered this, not because he believed God could perform any miracle, but because it was the only way God could be true to his promise. Let’s see what this conclusion led to and how you have here probably the greatest source material to witness to Muslims of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Isaac: A Type of the Son of God, Our Saviour The sun generates light, loads of it. It needs no other object in the sky to assist it to do so. At full moon our satellite reflects the sun’s light beautifully, but only marginally. Take away the sun and the moon cannot shine, but remove the moon and the sun will blaze with light undaunted. The moon simply reflects the sun’s light as Abraham’s faith was a reflection of God’s faithfulness. From this principle, and the conclusion that Isaac would rise from the dead, Abraham, the friend of God and father of all true believers, worked it all out. God is the ultimate Father. Abraham’s fatherhood, too, could only be a reflection of it. So, logically, the promised son, and the sacrifice, and his resurrection from the dead, must also be a reflection. Abraham foresaw that God would send his own Son into the world, also to be born uniquely, that he would become a sacrifice and, in rising from the dead, would bring a multitude of believers to eternal glory. He worked out the whole Christian Gospel! The New Testament confirms this: And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the Gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." Galatians 3:8 Here Abraham not only worked out how God’s promise would still be fulfilled, but saw the glory of it as well. The moral issue was immediately solved. The sacrifice would not imitate pagan degradation, it would be a sign of his love for God which would reflect God’s love for us in sending his own Son as the saviour of the world. In the end Isaac was spared and Abraham got him back, but God’s Son would not be spared. Is this all just speculation or coincidence? No, you can show Muslims very easily that it is exactly what happened. When Abraham and Isaac were going up to the chosen place of sacrifice, Isaac said to him "Behold the fire and the wood; but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?" (Genesis 22:7) Abraham’s answer is pregnant with foresight: God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son. Genesis 22:8 The original Hebrew is more emphatic, it says in effect, "God will provide the lamb from his very own being." What Abraham was actually saying was, "My son, you are to be the sacrifice, but take heart, you are only a reflection of the lamb which God will provide from himself as the true sacrifice." Burnt offerings were sin offerings, and Abraham saw that God’s own Son would die for the sins of the world. This is confirmed in the following verse where John the Baptist, seeing Jesus pass by, proclaimed: Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. John 1:29 There goes the lamb from God whom Abraham foretold! One other verse, where Jesus himself is the speaker, completes the picture. He declared to his Jewish audience: Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad. John 8:56 It is in the reassuring words of Genesis 22:8 alone, where Abraham spoke of the lamb of God yet to come, that we can see how he foresaw the day of Jesus to come and rejoiced in it. You can mention that, as Isaac was only a type of Christ and a sinner to be saved like any other human being, he could not fully represent the coming saviour. Only the ram caught in the thicket, a substitution for Isaac, could foreshadow the Son of God who would be substituted for us in enduring the wrath of God against us for all our sins. All this came from nothing more than the nature of Abraham’s faith – a response to God’s own faithfulness. Seeing his own faith only as a reflection of this, as the moon can only reflect the sun’s light, he foresaw the whole Christian Gospel. I do not know of a more effective way of using the Old Testament prophetic narratives to witness to Muslims of the reality of God’s saving grace in Jesus Christ. Once a year, at the end of the Hajj pilgrimage in the middle of the last month of the Muslim year, the whole Islamic world celebrates Eid ul-Adha, the Festival of Sacrifice, in commemoration of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son in response to God’s command. It is the greatest festival of the Muslim year, even outdoing the other great festival at the end of the Ramadan fast, Eid ul-Fitr. So often I have concluded by saying to Muslims, "Once a year you observe a man’s love for God by being willing to sacrifice his son for him. Every day of the year we commemorate God’s love for us by giving his Son as a sacrifice for our sins so that we may be totally forgiven of them and be assured of a place in his kingdom to be revealed on the Last Day." The contrast is devastating. There are very few Muslims who will fail to get the point. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 84: 05.06. ISAAC ======================================================================== Isaac The Reflection of the Father’s Love God so Loved the World Isaac is the perfect type of Christ’s first coming to earth. He was born of the Spirit in unique circumstances, thereby prefiguring the virgin-birth; was to be sacrificed as a burnt offering, foreshadowing the redeeming work Jesus was to accomplish at the cross; and was to return to life as a blessing to the nation that would come from him, symbolising the resurrection of Jesus Christ and his saving grace for all who would believe in him. Abraham rightly concluded that it was the resurrection that would qualify his son for his unique role and, in this, he foresaw the glory of the risen Saviour, the greater son of Abraham to be revealed at a time yet to come. In my experience the most effective way of communicating to Muslims exactly what this event means is to focus on the patriarch’s uncompromising love for God in being willing to sacrifice his son. Muslims always do this. When challenged as to why God would have asked such a sacrifice, they respond by saying it was test of Abraham’s love for God. He would prove it was complete if he was willing even to forego his only son. I have often asked Muslims why God did not ask for something less, such as a sacrifice of a hundred sheep, or that he should fast for forty days, or that he should give away half his wealth. They have so often answered me "You do not understand. A son is the dearest thing to a man’s heart. If a man will give his son for God, he will give anything for him." This opens the door to the heart of the Gospel. Abraham was told "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love" (Genesis 22:2 – emphasis added). God, in calling on Abraham to do this, emphasised the essential nature of the sacrifice. It was, in real terms, a straight choice between his love for God and the object of his deepest affection on earth. Surely if the patriarch would do this, it would prove he would give anything for God. No further proof would be needed. So the Bible says of God’s love for us in Christ: For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16 Abraham’s love for God in being willing to sacrifice his son for him is the perfect type of God’s love for us in giving his Son, Jesus Christ, for the redemption of our souls. Many times I have asked Muslims whether Allah really loves them and, if he does, what he has done to prove it? The answers usually follow the same pattern. They point to the very blessing of their lives, or to times when he has answered their prayers by healing them of diseases or saving them from financial crises. Others have mentioned children they did not think they could have or all their material benefits and possessions. I have always responded by saying that, without doubting that these are all expressions of his kindness and love, they all cost God nothing and do not affect him at all. What, I have concluded, has God ever done for them that compares with what Abraham was called on to do for him? Has God matched this supreme example of love – a father tearing at the depths of his heart and being willing to give his only son for him? This cost Abraham, indeed it cost him the expression of his very own being – has Allah ever done anything like this in return? The Muslim can go no further. Allah, in the Qur’an, has done nothing to give something of himself, indeed something at the depth of his very own being, to show his absolute love for the human race. The Christian, however, has the perfect answer – Jesus Christ! There was nothing greater that Abraham could sacrifice to prove his surpassing love for God than his son. He was parting with something living that had come from him, something that would cost him far more than all his material possessions put together. Here is the kernel of our witness: God only asked him to do this because he intended to give his own Son as a sacrifice for our eternal salvation. What greater sacrifice could a man make for God than to give his own son for him? What greater proof of God’s love can be found than this – that he gave his own Son to die for our sins? And God only required that Abraham should contemplate the sacrifice. God, on the other hand, actually went right through with his love for men by giving his Son Jesus to die for us so that we might live in him. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. 1 John 4:9 Just as Isaac willingly showed complacency with the will of God, so Jesus of his own free will voluntarily laid down his life for us. If God had redeemed us through anything he had created, it would have cost him nothing for he created it out of nothing. But God never asked any man to do more for him that he was willing to do in return. Isaac had come from his father’s body. So God gave his own Son for us – one who was not created but whose blessed presence the Father had enjoyed from all eternity. Notice that in this story it is the father’s love that it is emphasised in being willing to give his son. Point out to Muslims that it shows that the death of Jesus was not something that happened to him while his Father simply looked on. The Father gave his only Son – it was an awesome expression of his own love for us in being willing to sacrifice what was dearest to his own heart. There can only be a few Muslims who will not be moved by the comparison. Islam, ultimately, leaves them with an imbalance they can hardly explain. A man was commanded to show his love for Allah in a way which Allah has never matched for mankind in return. Can this really be true? Can a man’s love for God, fully expressed, surpass God’s love for mankind? Christianity has the golden answer! Abraham’s love was only a reflection, a shadow, of the supreme love God was destined to show us in the gift of his Son. Abraham’s love for God could not have been tested more deeply. Could the depth of God’s love for mankind have been proved in any way greater than this, that he sent his Son to become our Saviour? Can this be surpassed? In this is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the expiation of our sins. 1 John 4:10 The Eid-ul-Adha festival commemorates an act of love by a man for God which, in its excellence, has no parallel from heaven in return. Allah has given man things – children, health, possessions, religion – but he has given him nothing of himself. It is like a man who bestows gifts on his beloved but never gives himself to her in marriage. Ask a Muslim this simple question – if the greatest way a man could show his love for God was to be willing to sacrifice his son for him, what is the greatest way God could ever show his love for us? There can only be one answer. You can go further. God’s love for us in Christ far overshadows Abraham’s love for him. Abraham, a man of dust, was prepared to give his son, also made of dust, for the God of glory in heaven. An obligation rested on him to be obedient to God’s command. But what obligation was laid on the God of glory in heaven to give his Son, who shares his eternal glory to the full, for sinful men of dust on the surface of a minor planet? Again, God spared the son of Abraham. He did not spare his own Son. He who did not spare his own Son but gave him for us all, will he not also give us all things with him? Romans 8:32 Once a year the Muslim world remembers a man’s sacrificial love for God but every day of the year Christians celebrate God’s sacrificial love for mankind and honour his wondrous grace in securing our salvation – and that so that we could receive it as a gift! (Romans 6:23) I do not believe there is a greater contact point in the lives of the former prophets and patriarchs, where Christians have a more powerful witness resource to Muslims, than here. True Faith – Submission or a Response to God’s Faithfulness? We go back to the subject of Abraham’s faith. We saw in the last chapter that it was a response to God’s faithfulness. It is important to see how the Qur’an regards Abraham’s faith, especially as it uses the same expression found in Romans 4:16 to define it. It appears in this verse: Say: Allah has spoken the truth. Follow therefore the faith of Abraham, the upright, who was not one of the idolaters. Surah 3:95 The expression "the faith of Abraham" reads, in the original Arabic, millata-Ibrahim. The word millah appears fifteen times in the Qur’an and on seven occasions it is used directly in association with Abraham (cf. Surahs 2:130, 2:135, 6:161). At face value the Qur’an appears to be confirming what the Bible teaches about Abraham, namely that his faith is an example of the faith all believers should have in God (Galatians 3:6-9) but, on closer inspection, we get a very different picture. The following verse defines the relationship between God and Abraham: Recall when his Lord said to him: "Submit!," he replied "I submit to the Lord of the worlds". Surah 2:131 The command in the Arabic original is simply Aslim – Submit! Abraham’s reply is aslamtu – I submit. Both words come from the same root letters (sin, lam, mim) as the words Islam (Submission) and Muslim (one who submits). Abraham is said, in the Qur’an, not to have been a Jew or a Christian but a haniffaam-muslimaan, "an upright man and one who submits." Thus he is a prototype of a true Muslim. Abraham’s faith, therefore, is defined as no more than an unquestioning obedience and submission to the commands of Allah. His willingness to sacrifice his son is not seen as an act of love towards Allah, contrary to what Muslims freely assert, but solely as a submission to the inevitable. He did not question the command to sacrifice, he simply obeyed it. It appears he did not work it through on the basis that God would be true to his promises, nor did he determine his response as an act of faith in God’s faithfulness. He took the third option we mentioned earlier, namely blind faith, a simple acquiesence with the will of God irrespective of the circumstances or implications. In the story of the sacrifice in the Qur’an we get a very clear definition of his response: When they had both submitted and he had thrown him down on his forehead, We called out to him: O Abraham! You have already fulfilled the vision. Surah 37:103-105 Both Abraham and his son are marked out for their submission to Allah’s command. The words used in the original Arabic are falamma aslama – "they had both submitted," and once again the word for "submitted" comes from the same root letters as Islam and Muslim. While the Qur’an may characterise Abraham’s faith consistently with its whole concept of what Islam is, it is a poor shadow and substitute for what that faith really was. The Bible shows that he did not simply respond "I submit" as a dog unthinkingly does when you issue the command "heel!," rather it reveals how the patriarch wrestled with the command which appeared not only to be morally questionable but also seemed to cut right through the promises he had previously received. In the Bible Abraham deals with this by responding to God’s faithfulness, in the Qur’an he simply responds to his will, and there is a huge difference between the two. In the Bible Abraham considers what he knows about God, in the Qur’an he reacts to no more than what he hears from God. Unfortunately this comparison defines the whole difference between Islam and Christianity – we know the Lord, we have been saved by his grace, we are his children and we have experienced the greatest act of his love for mankind. Muslims, on the contrary, worship a God they neither know nor can truly love. Here is an open door for a witness to God’s glorious grace in his Son Jesus Christ! Ishaq or Ismail – The Muslim Dilemma Which son was saved from being sacrificed, Isaac or Ishmael? Muslims universally believe that it was Ishmael and that the event took place near Mina, a village a few miles east of Mecca. Both the Jewish and Christian Scriptures plainly state that it was Isaac (Genesis 22:2, Hebrews 11:17, James 2:21) and it is most significant to find that the Qur’an does not say which son it was. The story of the call to Abraham to sacrifice his son and what followed is recorded in Surah 37:100-113 but the Qur’an does not identify the son. This is strange, and if a Muslim challenges you and claims it was Ishmael, you can ask why the Qur’an is silent on the matter if it came to confirm the former scriptures (Surah 5:48) and was sent to clear up any differences of opinion (Surah 16:64). The argument that it was Ishmael is based on two premises. Firstly, God called Abraham to sacrifice his only son and, as Ishmael preceded Isaac, it must have been him. Secondly, just after the narrative in the Qur’an the book says: And we announced to him Isaac, a prophet of the righteous, and we blessed him and Isaac. Surah 37:112-113 It is argued that this statement follows the story of the sacrifice and therefore it must have been another son of Abraham who submitted to Allah’s command, namely Ishmael. We’ll give you the key answers to Muslims on the issues here. 1. Sarah and Hagar No Muslim doubts that Sarah was the mother of Isaac and Hagar the mother of Ishmael. Significantly, Sarah is mentioned on a few occasions in the Qur’an but Hagar never. Also, Sarah is expressly said to be the only wife of Abraham in the book, as in this verse: And his wife was standing by, wondering. Then We announced to her the good news of Isaac, and from the progeny of Isaac, Jacob. Surah 11:71 In another passage, when Allah confirms the promise of a son to Abraham, "his wife came up" and smote her face, bewailing her barrenness as an old woman (Surah 51:28-29). In both cases the singular is used for the word "wife," namely imra’ah. Not only is Hagar not mentioned in the Qur’an but the book, by implication, makes it clear she was never the wife of Abraham. A tradition in the Sirat literature confirms that Hagar was only a servant in Abraham’s household when Sarah gave her to her husband to bear him a son: Then he called Hagar who was the most trustworthy of his servants, and he bestowed her (Hagar) on her (Sarah) and gave her clothes; subsequently Sarah made a gift of her (Hagar) to Ibrahim who cohabited with her and she bore Ismail who was the eldest of his children. Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol.1, p.41 Quite clearly, Hagar was never the wife of Abraham but only the maid of his wife Sarah. Thus it was quite proper for God to speak of Isaac as Abraham’s only son, namely his only legitimate son of his wife Sarah. This is strengthened by the fact that Hagar and Ishmael had parted from Abraham many years earlier (Genesis 21:14). 2. "We blessed him and Isaac" No Muslim can dogmatically say that it was Ishmael who was to be sacrificed in the light of the Qur’an’s silence on the subject. There is a double testimony from both the previous scriptures that it was Isaac and, if the Qur’an had come to clarify any previous errors or points of dispute as it claims, it would surely have named Ishmael if he was the chosen victim. Ishmael is specifically named as the helper of Abraham when, as the Qur’an alleges, he built the Ka’aba (Surah 2:127). Significantly, early Muslim historians differed on the identity of the son while no such confusion has ever existed between Jews and Christians. Also, Surah 37 mentions many of the prophets by name (Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Moses, Aaron, Elijah, Lot and Jonah) and the omission of Ishmael is remarkable if he was the son to be offered in the only passage in the Qur’an where the event is recorded. There is a clear symmetry between these clauses: "when they had both submitted," (Surah 37:103) and, "We blessed him and Isaac" (Surah 37:113). As Abraham and Isaac had both fully submitted themselves to the will of Allah that the one should sacrifice the other, it was only reasonable that his blessings should come on both of them. Furthermore, the Qur’an confirms that the child to be sacrificed was originally promised to Abraham: "We announced to him an upright boy" (Surah 37:101). The Qur’an, on a number of occasions, confirms that Isaac was specifically promised to Abraham but nowhere says anything similar about Ishmael. If we are to believe the Qur’an when it claims to clarify everything that preceded it in the former scriptures, we must presume the son to be sacrificed was Isaac. 3. The Scripture and the Prophethood You can emphasise the special role of Isaac as the promised son by pointing out to Muslims that God’s covenant was made through his line and not Ishmael’s. This is clearly stated in the Bible: And Abraham said to God, "O that Ishmael might live in thy sight!" God said, "No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him and make him fruitful and multiply him exceedingly; he shall be the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this season next year". Genesis 17:18-21 There is another passage in the Qur’an which testifies to the preference of Allah for Isaac and his offspring as the medium of his coming salvation rather than the line of Ishmael. It is significant to find, once again, that the Qur’an takes no issue with the Bible but confirms that God’s covenant was to come through Isaac: And we granted him Isaac and Jacob and ordained through his progeny the Prophethood and the Scripture. Surah 29:27 This is an emphatic statement. The Nubuwwah (prophetic line) and Kitaab (scripture) were to come through his offspring alone. The Bible confirms this in Romans 9:4-5. So the Qur’an confirms the covenant and the superiority of Isaac over Ishmael, hence it must be concluded that as the intended sacrificial victim was announced to Abraham beforehand, it could only have been Isaac and not Ishmael. In conclusion, it is useful to point out to Muslims that as it was Isaac and not Ishmael who was expressly promised, and that the covenant of God was made through his line, including the Prophethood and Scripture, and that he was born in a unique manner as opposed to Ishmael who was born by a simple illegitimate union, Isaac is obviously the more prominent of the two men. Once it is accepted that he was the son to be sacrificed, the whole purpose of his life comes into focus. He was a type and a symbol of the Messiah to come after the line of Prophethood and the prophecies of the Scriptures would have their fulfilment. You can freely challenge Muslims to become followers of the ultimate Son of Abraham, Jesus Christ, whom God has set forth as the one and only true Saviour of the whole human race, and whom Isaac prefigured. The Apostle Paul brings out the ultimate distinction between Isaac and Ishmael very concisely in these words: Now we, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise ... we are not children of the slave but of the free woman. Galatians 4:28; Galatians 4:31 Why does the Qur’an not name the son to be offered as a sacrifice and, immediately thereafter, name Isaac twice as the promised son of Abraham? Perhaps Muhammad was uncertain about the identity of the son and, though he might have wished it was Ishmael, he may have been aware that he is an insignificant and irrelevant figure in the Bible in comparison with Isaac. Hence he left the identity an open question. If, however, Isaac is overlooked as the intended victim, the whole character of the event as a type and symbol of God’s coming salvation in his Son Jesus is missed completely and, with it for the Muslim world, the hope of eternal life. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 85: 05.07. JOSEPH ======================================================================== Joseph A Symbol of the Coming Deliverer Sons Who Became Servants The story of Joseph in the Qur’an is rather unique in that a whole chapter is given to it, Surah 12, which is appropriately titled Suratu-Yusuf, yet no mention of the patriarch appears anywhere else in the book. The Qur’an actually states that, until the story came to him in one complete narrative, Muhammad had "been among those who knew it not" (Surah 12:3). Significantly the Qur’an suggests, in the same verse, that he only heard of it because it was revealed to him by Allah. Non-Muslims will conclude that he was simply ignorant of it until he heard it retold somewhere in all its details which, like most Qur’anic stories of the prophets, are partly Biblical and partly traditional. Nonetheless its inclusion in the book creates further opportunities to show how the life and work of Jesus was foreshadowed in the lives of many of the prophets who went before him. One simple definition of the story in the same text we have referred to, however, is a tremendous platform for a witness of God’s saving grace in Jesus Christ. It is: We do relate to you the most beautiful of stories. Surah 12:3 If the story of Joseph is beautiful, how much more is the story of Jesus which it prefigures! A brief outline of their lives and achievements from the Bible can be put together to show just how similar their courses were. Joseph’s whole life is defined in this brief passage: When he summoned a famine on the land, and broke every staff of bread, he had sent a man ahead of them, Joseph, who was sold as a slave. His feet were hurt with fetters, his neck was put in a collar of iron; until what he said came to pass the word of the Lord tested him. The king sent and released him, the rulers of the people set him free; he made him lord of his house, and ruler of all his possessions, to instruct his princes at his pleasure, and to teach his elders wisdom. Psalms 105:16-22 The parallel passage to this one in the Bible, which defines the life, work and ultimate achievements of Jesus Christ, is this one: Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient to death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Php 2:5-11 The first thing to note is that both of them, after being honoured as sons in their father’s houses, became servants in another realm. Joseph "was sold as a slave" and Jesus "took the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." Before this Joseph had been the beloved son of Jacob more than any of his other children (Genesis 37:3) and he made a coat of many colours to adorn him. Jesus likewise, when praying to his Father in heaven, spoke of the "glory which I had with you before the world was made" (John 17:5). From here on Joseph becomes a type of Christ, probably the most perfect type in the whole of the Old Testament. Of all the great figureheads in the Old Testament, Joseph’s life is the only one without blemish. No major downfall or scandal is reported of him like Moses’ murder of an Egyptian, Noah’s drunkenness, David’s adultery or Solomon’s profligacy. The Qur’an goes on to say: Truly in Joseph and his brethren there are signs for seekers. Surah 12:7 Indeed! Here you, in witnessing to Muslims, can show them just what those signs are. We will look at some of the remarkable parallels between Joseph and Jesus and see how the Gospel was prefigured in Joseph’s life. Comparisons between the sufferings of Joseph and Jesus Once Joseph had been sold to the Ishmaelites by his brothers, he was taken down to Egypt. There he was sold to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh and the captain of his guard. Although this turned to his advantage for a while because of his great service and faithfulness to his master, one event soured his life yet again. Potiphar so trusted him that he had "made him overseer of his house and put him in charge of all that he had" (Genesis 39:4) but his wife "cast her eyes upon Joseph" (v.7) and tried to persuade him to lie with her. She did this for many days until one day, when she caught him by his garment, he fled, leaving it in her hands (v.12). It’s well known what happened next and from here on let’s look at the similarities between Jesus and Joseph. 1. They were both severely tempted to sin against God Joseph said to Potiphar’s wife, "How then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?" (Genesis 39:9). Jesus likewise, when he was in the wilderness, was forcefully tempted by Satan on three occasions to break faith with his Father. He said to the devil: It is written, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve". Luke 4:7 2. Both Joseph and Jesus were falsely accused Although Joseph refused to listen to Potiphar’s wife, even though she tempted him for many days, she falsely accused him to her husband in these words: The Hebrew servant, whom you have brought among us, came in to me to insult me; but as soon as I lifted up my voice and cried, he left his garment with me, and fled out of the house. Genesis 39:17-18 As a result of this false charge Joseph was thrown into prison (v.20). Jesus was also falsely accused by the chief priests before Pontius Pilate in these words: We found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king. Luke 23:2 This charge, too, was patently false as, when Jesus was asked by the Pharisees and Herodians whether it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, he replied, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s" (Matthew 22:21). In another passage we read that "many false witnesses came forward" to give false testimony against Jesus at his trial (Matthew 26:60). 3. They were both rejected by their own people When Joseph went to look for his brethren and found them at Dothan, they conspired against him, stripped him of his robe, and cast him into a pit (Genesis 37:23-24). After first agreeing to kill him, they changed their minds and decided to sell him as a slave to the Ishmaelites. Stephen, in his address to the chief priests, described the outcome in these words: And the patriarchs, jealous of Joseph, sold him into Egypt; but God was with him, and rescued him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favour and wisdom before Pharaoh, king of Egypt, who made him governor over Egypt and over all his household. Acts 7:9-10 Jesus, too, was rejected by the Israelites. "He came to his own home, and his own people received him not" (John 1:11). On one occasion they tried to throw him down headlong from the brow of the hill on which their city Nazareth was built (Luke 4:29), on another they sought to stone him to death (John 10:31). Like Joseph, Jesus was delivered up because of the envy of his own people which Pilate clearly perceived (Mark 15:10). 4. They were both sold for a price The brothers of Joseph profited from his betrayal (Genesis 37:27). The Qur’an has an interesting comment at this point: They sold him for a miserable price, a few dirhams numbered, and they were indifferent to him. Surah 12:20 Jesus, too, was sold and betrayed for "a miserable price." When Judas went to the chief priests and offered to deliver him into their hands, they paid him thirty pieces of silver (Matthew 26:14). 5. Both of them won the approval of their captors After Joseph had been thrown into prison the Lord "gave him favour in the sight of the keeper of the prison" (Genesis 39:21) who committed all the prisoners to his care and, convinced of his integrity, did not expect him to account to him (v.23). Likewise the Roman centurion, who was keeping guard over Jesus and the two thieves who were crucified with him, was also persuaded of his integrity and, as Jesus breathed his last, he cried out, "Certainly this man was innocent!" (Luke 23:47). 6. They both predicted the destiny of their fellow-prisoners Just as Joseph had been thrown into prison as a criminal with the other prisoners present, so Jesus too had been condemned to die with two other prisoners and had been crucified with them. Here comes one of the most interesting and significant parallels between them. Two of the prisoners interned with Joseph were the Pharaoh’s chief butler and chief baker. One night they both had strange dreams and Joseph encouraged them to reveal them to him (Genesis 40:8). The chief butler told Joseph that he had seen a vine and, when its branches budded and blossomed, he took the grapes, pressed them into Pharaoh’s cup, and placed the cup in Pharaoh’s hand (Genesis 40:10-12). Joseph assured him that he would be saved and delivered out of the prison within three days, adding that he would also be restored to his position as Pharaoh’s butler. When the chief baker saw the interpretation was favourable, he too told Joseph his dream. There were three cake baskets on his head with all sorts of baked food for Pharaoh, but the birds were plundering it. Joseph told him he would be condemned, that Pharaoh would hang him on a tree, and that the birds would eat his flesh (Genesis 40:19). The outcome is expressed in the Qur’an in these words: O my two fellow-prisoners! As to one of you, he will pour out wine for his lord to drink; as for the other, he will be crucified, so that the birds will eat from his head. Surah 12:41 Jesus was crucified between two thieves who had been condemned with him. Like the jailer and butler, he promised salvation to the one and left the other to go to perdition. Jesus said to the first: Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise. Luke 23:43 This is a remarkable parallel between the two stories and here we see Joseph foreshadowing the role of Jesus who is the source of salvation to all who believe in him but who will be the judge of all who don’t. 7. Both asked those around them to remember them This may be no more than a coincidence (the last illustration is definitely not!) but both Joseph and Jesus asked to be remembered. Joseph said to the chief butler: But remember me, when it is well with you, and do me the kindness, I pray you, to make mention of me to Pharaoh, and so get me out of this house. Genesis 40:14 Joseph’s request to the butler to mention him to Pharaoh is repeated in the Qur’an in Surah 12:42. Jesus also asked his disciples to bring his redeeming death to mind whenever they met together to eat bread and drink wine: Do this in remembrance of me. Luke 22:19 8. Joseph and Jesus both forgave their enemies Many years after Joseph had been released from prison and had become the most important leader in Egypt under Pharaoh, his brothers came to the land because the famine was severe in Canaan and they had heard there was grain in Egypt. After they had recognised the lord of the granaries to be Joseph, their brother, they feared he would avenge himself on them for selling him into slavery but he replied: Fear not, for am I in the place of God? As for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. So do not fear; I will provide for you and your little ones. Genesis 50:19-21 When Jesus was crucified, instead of anticipating his resurrection when he could wreak vengeance on those who had condemned him, he prayed as follows: Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. Luke 23:34 Their Eventual Glory and Honour Joseph’s ability to interpret dreams by the power of God eventually turned his life around. When Pharaoh had two similar dreams and no one could interpret them, the chief butler remembered Joseph and he was called before Pharaoh. He told him his two dreams were one. The fat stalks and cows represented seven years of plenty. The thin stalks and cows, which consumed them but remained gaunt, represented seven years of famine. Joseph advised Pharaoh to store up grain during the good years so that there would be plenty when the famine came. Pharaoh’s response to Joseph was: Since God has shown you all this, there is none so discreet and wise as you are; you shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command; only as regards the throne will I be greater than you. Genesis 41:39-40 This is a picture of all authority in heaven and on earth being given to Jesus after his resurrection and ascension to heaven with all things subject to him. As with Joseph, the only exception would be that he would remain subject to his Father. This passage brings out the parallel perfectly: But when it says, "All things are put in subjection under him," it is plain that he is excepted who put all things under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one. 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 Joseph, who had previously been condemned, was now invested with great honour over all the land of Egypt. He became its saviour, making grain available not only to the Egyptians but to the nations round about, to keep them alive until the famine had passed. So Jesus, who had also been condemned, rose to heaven where he was to receive "power and wealth and wisdom and might and honour and glory and blessing" (Revelation 5:12). Two points in the Qur’an are also worth noting at this point. Pharaoh is recorded as saying of Joseph: "Bring him to me, I will keep him about myself" (Surah 12:54), a statement reflecting the glory of Jesus who now reigns at the right hand of the Father where he will be for evermore (Acts 7:56). Joseph, also, is recorded as saying to Pharaoh "Set me over the store-houses of the land, I am a good keeper, knowledgeable" (Surah 12:55). This too parallels the following statement about Jesus in the Bible: "Christ was faithful over God’s house as a son" (Hebrews 3:6). Joseph typifies the life of Jesus in every aspect and here the Christian has a great foundation for witnessing to Muslims. A very interesting summary concludes the Qur’an’s record of the life of Joseph as recorded in its twelfth chapter: In their histories there is indeed a lesson for men of understanding. It is not a narrative which could be forged, but a verification of what is before it, and a distinct explanation of all things, and a guide and a mercy to a people who believe. Surah 12:111 You too can be a guide, and show the mercy of Jesus to Muslims, by comparing the lives of Joseph and Jesus and showing how the great patriarch foreshadowed the life, suffering and subsequent glory of the Christian Saviour. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 86: 05.08. MOSES ======================================================================== Moses Law and Grace in Sharp Contrast The Old and New Covenants Muslims often ask why Christians have an Old and New Testament in their Bible. What was wrong with the Old Testament that you had to have a New? Isn’t the new a corrupted version of the Old which was the original scripture? Why do you have to have two testaments at all? When these questions are asked Christians have a wonderful opportunity to witness to Muslims of God’s saving grace in Jesus Christ. There is a simple answer to these questions, of course. The Qur’an talks about two books in the possession of the Jews and Christians, namely at-Tawraat (the Law) and al-Injil (the Gospel) respectively (Surah 5:69, 7:157). The former is said to have been delivered to Moses, the latter to Jesus. Christians need only explain that there were two different scriptures, as the Qur’an testifies, which date from the time of two different religious leaders, Moses and Jesus. Yet the essential distinction between the two books is the foundation for a very positive witness, namely the old and new covenants. The first covenant, given to Moses, was one based on a series of laws, rituals and regulations. It placed the responsibility for observing these rules squarely on the shoulders of the Israelites who received them. These quotes help to make the point: You shall not kill. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour. Exodus 20:13-16 You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason with your neighbour, lest you bear sin because of him. You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbour as yourself. You shall keep my statutes. Leviticus 19:17-19 Throughout the books of Moses, where the original terms of the old covenant are set out, the commands are the same. "You shall, you shall not" introduces each one. It was up to the Israelites exclusively to keep these laws, either by fulfilling the acts of obedience that were commanded, or by refraining from actions that were prohibited. The important issue here is the response of the whole nation to these laws. When Moses went up Mount Sinai to receive the two tablets of the law (Exodus 24:12) and stayed there many days, the Israelites rebelled and ordered Aaron to create golden images as gods to go before them rather than the Lord. They made a golden calf and worshipped and sacrificed to it (Exodus 32:8). They indulged themselves in what we today would call an orgy (Exodus 32:6). In one fell swoop they broke virtually every one of the ten commandments they had received, especially the cardinal laws commanding them to worship God alone and not to make graven images and go after them. This expression of hostility to God’s laws characterised their relationship with him throughout the Exodus and symbolises the inner animosity in the heart of every man towards God’s holy statutes (Jeremiah 17:9). As a result of their rebellion 3000 men of Israel who had spearheaded the rebellion were put to the sword and destroyed for their transgression. God’s patience with Israel was sustained for many centuries to come but by the time of Jeremiah he concluded that they would never bow to his holy laws and would always disobey him. He told them their hurt was incurable and that there was no one who would uphold their cause (Jeremiah 30:12). He had dealt them the blow of a enemy because their guilt was great (v.14). He warned them that Jerusalem would become a heap of ruins (Jeremiah 26:18), yet in his love for them he promised he would not make a full end of them (Jeremiah 30:11). While he was satisfied that they had forsaken his covenant to the point where it had finally been abrogated, yet he would press on with them. He gave his reason in this famous passage: I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you. Again I will build you, and you shall be built, O virgin Israel! Jeremiah 31:3-4 Only a few verses later in the same chapter we read God’s promise that he would make a new covenant with them unlike the covenant he had made with their forefathers through Moses. This was the covenant he would make: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people ... I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Jeremiah 31:33-34 Note the shift in emphasis. The new covenant was not based on a "You shall, you shall not" foundation but rather on God’s promise "I will put, I will write, I will forgive." God was electing to take the responsibility for the successful outworking of the relationship between him and them on himself! He was binding himself to them in an eternal covenant, holding himself responsible for their faithfulness. By no longer writing his laws on tablets of stone but rather on human hearts, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God (2 Corinthians 3:3), he would assure their obedience. Much the same theme is found in this passage where the promised new covenant is again canvassed: I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses and from all your idols I will cleanse you. A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you. Ezekiel 37:25-26 Here is a glorious opportunity to witness to Muslims of the real reason why Jesus Christ came to earth. He came to fulfil the new covenant which, he said, would be done through the giving of his shed blood for the forgiveness of our sins (1 Corinthians 11:25). Through his death and resurrection our sins were paid for and the doors of heaven were opened for the very Spirit of God himself to enter into the heart of every true believer and unite him to God. It is not coincidental that when the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Day of Pentecost, 3000 of those who heard the word believed and were baptised (Acts 2:41). It was exactly the same number of those who had defied the Lord when the first covenant was introduced, and who perished for their rebellion. The law given through Moses brought death to 3000, the grace of God brought the Spirit and eternal life to the same number who heard’s Peter’s message of salvation in Jesus Christ. You have much material for witness here through the God "who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not in a written code, but in the Spirit, for the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Corinthians 2:6). Jesus Christ Mediates a Greater Covenant From other passages of scripture, especially the Book of Hebrews, you can strengthen the case for the new covenant, especially the fact that it is a far superior one to the old, not least because the one who mediates it is far superior to Moses. The difference is defined in this text: Jesus has been counted worthy of as much more glory than Moses as the builder of a house has more honour than the house. Hebrews 3:3 The passage goes on to explain the difference – Moses was faithful in all God’s house as a servant but Christ was faithful over God’s house as a Son (Hebrews 3:5-6). Moses was no more than the spokesman for God’s first covenant and could not cleanse the Israelites of their transgressions against it. But Jesus, through his death and resurrection, opened the way for men to be directly forgiven by God and, being both God and man, was able to reconcile man to God and unite true believers through the Holy Spirit who was now free to enter their hearts. The effect of this is summed up in these words: But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry which is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. Hebrews 8:6 The important thing is to show that we, as Christians, have a far greater hope in this awesome covenant which is far superior to the old, especially as Muslims are taught that all the prophets were the same and that Jesus and Muhammad merely confirmed the first covenant of the law which God gave to Moses. It is useful always to bear in mind that Islam views the whole religious course of history as a level playing field. The religion of Moses is said to be identical to the religion of Muhammad – a set of moral laws, ceremonial rituals and other observances. Yet our faith is based on a rising crescendo to a climax: God’s glorious revelation of himself in Jesus, his salvation through the cross, and our potential to live for ever and become the sons and daughters of God through his resurrection to life. It is also important to emphasise the futility of the partial observance of God’s laws when our sins separate us inevitably from God. All the rites and sacrifices in the world cannot remedy this malady. According to this arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot perfect the conscience of the worshipper, but deal only with food and drink and various ablutions, regulations for the body imposed until the time for reformation. Hebrews 9:9-10 This is the shortcoming of Islam also. It is filled with specific laws about fasting, the times and direction of the five daily prayers, the observance of the Hajj pilgrimage, the acceptability (halaal) or otherwise (haraam) of various foods, and the like. All these cannot redeem the seared consciences and paralysed souls of men and women who have sinned against God and live in complete separation from him. Only Jesus can do this. Only he can secure our forgiveness and impart the Spirit of God to us so that we become alive to God again in our hearts and live in eternal communion with him. Moses and Jesus in John’s Gospel There is another source for showing the superiority of Jesus over Moses and it is the Gospel of John. Here deliberate comparisons are drawn between them to bring out not only the greater glory of Jesus, the mediator of God’s greater covenant, but also the difference between the law and grace as seen in the ministries of these two men. John introduces this subject with these words: For the law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. John 1:17 1. The Brass Serpent Proving the superiority of Jesus over the former patriarchs is a favourite theme in John’s Gospel. He demonstrates the superiority of Jesus over Abraham (John 8:58), over Jacob (John 4:12-14) and over John the Baptist (John 3:28-29), but most of his attention, understandably, is given to the greatest of all the Old Testament figureheads, Moses, the mediator of the first covenant. The first example appears in this text where Jesus Christ is the speaker: And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. John 3:14-15 Jesus is referring to an incident recorded in the book of Numbers. As the people of Israel retraced their passage through the Sinai wilderness and had to go back towards the Red Sea to get around the land of Edom, they became impatient and accused Moses of bringing them out only to die in the desert for lack of water and food. Once again God’s anger was kindled against them: Then the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many of the people of Israel died. Numbers 21:6 In anguish, the people confessed their rebellion to Moses and acknowledged their guilt, pleading with Moses to beseech the Lord to remove the serpents from among them. God, however, ordered Moses to make a brass serpent and to nail it to a pole in the midst of the camp so that, whenever anyone was bitten, they could look at the brass serpent and be healed. The comparison Jesus draws between his own destiny and the serpent is a useful basis for witness by itself. Jesus too would be lifted up, publicly portrayed as crucified, and salvation is found for all who turn and believe in him. Just as the brass serpent was made in the image of the fiery serpents biting the Israelites, but did not possess the deadly venom that was killing them, so Jesus became sin for us (2 Corinthians 5:21), the deadly affliction that destroys all men, but did not have any sin of his own (2 Peter 2:22). There is a beautiful stained glass window at the west end of Norwich Cathedral in England which contains a portrayal of the brass serpent to which Moses points for the renewal of the stricken Israelites below a representation of the crucifixion of Jesus for the salvation of all mankind. The important point here, however, is the superiority of Jesus over Moses. The brass serpent served for the temporary healing of the Israelites struck down by the venom of the fiery serpents, but Jesus was to be lifted up so that all who believe in him might have eternal life. The miracle done through Moses did not stop the stricken Israelites from dying another day in the wilderness, yet the death and miraculous resurrection of Jesus would guarantee life from the dead for evermore for all who look to him. We will see this comparison in another context shortly. Another feature, which we will also see in the next example, is the fact that Moses was only the guide to the healing object, which in this case was the brass serpent. But Jesus himself is the source of salvation to all who obey him. He was the one lifted up on the cross as the healing source for all sinners bound in their transgressions. The effective instrument was the brass serpent which is a type of Christ. Moses was only God’s agent for directing the Israelites towards it. 2. The Bread of Life The next example is found in the sixth chapter of John’s Gospel. The chapter begins with the miracle of Jesus in feeding five thousand men, besides women and children, from only five barley loaves and two fish (John 6:9). The crowds were astonished and sought to make Jesus their king, but he withdrew from them (v.15). The next day they sought for Jesus and finally found him on the other side of the Sea of Galilee. Jesus was aware that they were only seeking him because of the miracle he had performed and warned them "not to labour for the food which perishes but for the food which endures to eternal life" which he, the Son of man, would give to them (v.27). They replied: Then what sign do you do, that we may see, and believe you? What work do you perform? Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. John 6:30-31 Jesus responded that it was not Moses who gives the true bread from heaven but his Father who is in heaven, bread which comes down from heaven to give life to the world. When they appealed to him to give them this bread always, he answered: I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst. John 6:35 Once again John draws out a sharp contrast between Jesus and Moses. Moses, again, was only God’s agent to bring down the manna from heaven that fed the Israelites for forty years, but Jesus himself is the true bread of life which comes down from heaven. It’s the same contrast that we saw in the comparison with the brass serpent. So also is the comparison Jesus brings between the temporal nature of Moses’ miracle and the eternal effects of his own provision of himself as the bread of life. When the Jews alluded to the miracle of Moses in the desert, what they were doing was to throw down the gauntlet to Jesus. He had fed more than five thousand of them with just a few loaves. Sure, that was an incredible miracle, but how did he compare with Moses who had done the same thing for forty years? Jesus had also had something to work with, five loaves and two fish, but Moses had brought the manna down to earth from heaven with nothing in his hands. Could Jesus perform similar miracles? The Jews appeared to have conveniently forgotten what their forefathers’ impression was of the manna. "We loathe this worthless food," they declared (Numbers 21:5). Nonetheless what Jesus proceeded to do was not to claim that his bread was of a better quality than Moses’ manna. It was the ultimate effect of them both that was the issue. He said to them: I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh. John 6:48-51 Here again we see the superiority of Jesus over Moses. He himself is the bread of life and, unlike the Israelites who perished in the wilderness despite eating the manna for forty years, whoever feeds on this bread will live for ever. These are powerful sources for witness to Muslims of the glory of Jesus over Moses and his supreme purpose for coming to earth – to bring eternal salvation to all who come to him and believe in him. 3. Healing a Man’s Whole Body The third example is found in the next chapter. The Jews in Judea had been looking for Jesus, wondering if he would come up to the feast of Tabernacles. Many opposed his teaching, especially because he had been known to heal people on the sabbath day which, to their knowledge, was a contravention of the law of Moses. So Jesus said to them: If on the sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because on the sabbath I made a man’s whole body well? John 7:23 The Jews did not believe they were breaking the sabbath when they applied the covenantal law of circumcision. Yet that is all that it was, merely a ritual to bind an Israelite male child to the national covenant God had made with them through Moses. Jesus, however, had done far more. During his previous trip to Jerusalem he had healed a man who had been lame and paralysed for thirty-eight years (John 5:9). Here, once again, we see the superiority of Jesus over Moses. Circumcision affected only an organ of the body. Jesus had made the lame man’s whole body well. 4. The Woman Caught in Adultery Our fourth example is the occasion where the Jews brought to Jesus a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery. They charged him: "Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?" (John 8:5) They aimed to catch him however he answered. If he showed his customary compassion to the woman, they would accuse him of undermining the law of Moses. If he agreed with them, however, they would have handed him a stone and told him, as the one who had pronounced judgment on her, to cast the first stone. Jesus answered them: Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her. John 8:7 They went out, one by one, till Jesus was left with the woman standing alone before him. Under the law of Moses she stood condemned as a sinner for her specific breach of the seventh commandment. Under the light of Christ, however, they all went out convicted of their sin. After pardoning the woman Jesus said to them: "I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life" (v.12). He was the true light, which enlightens every man, who had come into the world. His influence was more universal than the law of Moses. 5. The Blind Man The last example is the man who was blind from his birth whom Jesus healed on another sabbath day (John 9:14). As usual the Pharisees murmured against him because they did not believe people should be healed on the sabbath. When they challenged the man who had formerly been blind he simply recounted how Jesus had anointed his eyes with clay and, when he had washed them, received his sight. They pressed their case on him, declaring that they knew Jesus to be a sinner. He replied that he could not answer whether he was a sinner or not. Once he was blind, and now he could see. When he asked the Pharisees whether they also wanted to become disciples of Jesus, they replied: You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses. We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he comes from. John 9:28-29 The man answered that this was a marvel. Jesus had opened his eyes – no sinner could do this. He concluded with these significant words: Never since the world began has it been heard that any one opened the eyes of a man born blind. If this man were not from God, he could do nothing. John 9:32-33 Here again John points out the superiority of Jesus over Moses. No one, not even Moses, had ever given sight to a man blind from his birth. These miracles were unsurpassed in Israelite history. They pointed to Jesus as a much greater man than all the prophets who came before him. He was not just a messenger, he was the message itself – the one through whom God’s saving grace for all mankind would be achieved. Christians have important material in all these comparisons in their witness to Muslims to show that Jesus was not just an ordinary prophet. He came as the saviour, the promised Messiah, the Son of God, to complete God’s final work on earth – the reconciliation of all men, Muslims included, to God through his death and resurrection. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 87: 05.09. DAVID ======================================================================== David Prophecies of Death and Resurrection The Crucifixion of Jesus foretold in Psalms 22:1-31 One of the most remarkable, indeed overwhelming, evidences of the truth of the Christian faith is the many predictions of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ in passages of the Old Testament dating up to a thousand years before the event. There are two psalms which we will look at in this chapter where both are foretold. We will begin with those that foretell the crucifixion. Psalms 22:1-31, one of the greatest Messianic psalms, will be the first example. It begins: My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from helping me, from the words of my groaning? Psalms 22:1 The psalm is a unique one. It is one of the psalms of David, yet it touches distress, even to death, in a way the great Shepherd-King of Israel could never have personally known. The first words have an echo in the only outcry of Jesus from the cross mentioned in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. In the midst of the crucifixion, at the depth of his despair, he cried out, "Eli, Eli, lama sabach-thani," meaning the same as the first words of the psalm, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34) Jesus would have known the words of the Old Testament text, but it is hardly likely that he was merely repeating them from memory. He cried out from the depth of his eternal soul, and the cry was one which has been described as the strangest which ever went from earth to heaven. This was the only time Jesus ever prayed, "My God, my God." On all other occasions he called out, "My Father" (Matthew 26:42), or just "Father" (John 12:28), or spoke of him as the "heavenly Father" (Matthew 5:48, Luke 11:13). At this one moment, one of the holiest and most sacred in all human history, he could only cry, "My God." At no point in all history did the Son of God look less like the image of his Father in his eternal glory. More importantly, there was never a time when he felt so cut off and forcibly separated from Him, yet at no other time was the wondrous love of the Father for his followers more splendidly revealed than at this point when both Father and Son endured the anguish and intense pain of separation from each other. This first verse of Psalms 22:1-31 is holy ground and Muslims need to be brought reverently to see its implications. It sets the tone for the rest of the psalm. We will look at particular verses in it that have New Testament parallels. The next text is this one: All who see me mock at me, they make mouths at me, they wag their heads; "He committed his cause to the Lord; let him deliver him, let him rescue him, for he delights in him." Psalms 22:8 The chief priests who stood at the foot of the cross thought they had finally gained their victory over Jesus. As he hung there, helpless, they unwittingly fulfilled the words of this very text when they mocked Jesus and declared: He saved others, he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him, for he said "I am the Son of God". Matthew 27:42-43 This is just one instance where you can show Muslims that predictions about the crucifixion of Jesus were fulfilled to the letter a thousand years later. David continues with these words: I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax. It is melted within my breast; my strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue cleaves to my jaws, you lay me in the dust of death. Psalms 22:14-15 This is a perfect description of the anguish of a man being crucified, yet crucifixion was unknown during the time of David. He goes on "They have pierced my hands and feet" (v.16), another specific anticipation of the crucifixion. This psalm is not merely an expression of David’s anguish in a time of trouble, it is a remarkable anticipation of the crucifixion of the Messiah, the eternal Son of David, to follow. One verse particularly stands out in the psalm: They divide my garments among them, and for my raiment they cast lots. Psalms 22:18 It is not immediately obvious that this is a striking riddle, an exception to the usual style of Hebrew poetry. For the sake of emphasis the same point is often made in Hebrew poetical texts in different words which basically have the same meaning. For example: "Your name, O Lord, endures for ever, your renown, O Lord, throughout all ages" (Psalms 35:13). "Name" and "renown" are synonyms, as are "for ever" and "throughout all ages." The Psalms are saturated with this form of expression. Psalms 22:18, however, is a strange exception. Garments and raiment are synonyms, they are both descriptions for general clothing. Yet "divide" and "cast lots" are antonyms, opposite terms with expressly different meanings. No Hebrew could ever have worked this riddle out, especially in its unique form of speech. To divide means to separate, but to cast lots means to keep the garment together. What could this have meant? How could they cast lots for his garment, yet at the same time separate it? It seems like a contradiction. For ten centuries no Hebrew scholar could possibly have given the answer, but a simple explanation appears in this brief narrative about the way the Roman soldiers handled the clothing of Jesus at the foot of his cross: When the soldiers had crucified Jesus they took his garments and made four parts, one for each soldier; also his tunic. But the tunic was without seam, woven from top to bottom; so they said to one another, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be." John 19:23-24 Now the riddle finally makes sense. The soldiers cast lots for the tunic Jesus had worn but divided his other garments among them. John expressly says that this simple activity of the Roman soldiers was a direct fulfilment of Psalms 22:18 (John 19:24). The soldiers could hardly have been aware that they were directly fulfilling a prophecy made a thousand years earlier. We will return to the psalm, but at this point you can see how effectively you can witness to the crucifixion of Jesus through specific predictions made centuries earlier. Not just one prediction but many are made in detail in the first twenty-one verses of the psalm. It’s a tremendous source of convincing proofs of the crucifixion event. Similar Prophecies in Psalms 69:1-36 A very similar psalm of David, Psalms 69:1-36, also contains a number of specific predictions of the crucifixion, some in fine detail. It begins: I am weary with my crying; my throat is parched. My eyes grow dim with waiting for my God. More in number than the hairs of my head are those who hate me without cause. Psalms 69:3-4 The dryness in his throat is another typical experience of a man crucified. Once again we behold a victim in terrible distress as his life ebbs away. Jesus applied the following words to himself, saying: Now they have seen and hated both me and my Father. It is to fulfil the word that is written in their law, "they hated me without a cause." John 15:25 Here again you have specific material to show Muslims that the crucifixion, which the Qur’an denies (Surah 4:157), was specifically predicted in great detail in the Psalms (Zabur) of David a thousand years earlier. David proceeds, in his own anguish, to confess his folly and wrongdoings (v.5) which Jesus would take on himself on the cross, but the whole unfolding drama again takes on Messianic dimensions in these words: For it is for your sake that I have borne reproach, that shame has covered my face. Psalms 69:7 The Apostle Paul also applies these words directly to Jesus when he says: For Christ did not please himself; but, as it is written, "The reproaches of those who reproached you have fallen on me." Romans 15:3 The next text also has a direct sequel in the life of Jesus: "For zeal for your house has consumed me" (Psalms 69:9). When Jesus drove the moneychangers out of the Temple and poured out their coins, overturning their tables, and told the Jews not to make his Father’s house a house of trade, his disciples remembered that it was written "zeal for your house will consume me" (John 2:17). The psalm continues with growing cries of anguish as the victim nears his death. "I am in distress," he cries (v.17), "I am in despair. I looked for pity but there was none, and for comforters, but I found none" (v.20). Then comes another very specific statement which has a remarkable fulfilment at the foot of Jesus’ cross: They gave me poison for food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink. Psalms 69:21 When Jesus cried out from the cross, "I thirst" (John 19:28), a bowl of vinegar stood next to the cross, "so they put a sponge full of vinegar on hyssop and held it to his mouth" (v.29). It is amazing to see how many predictions of the crucifixion were fulfilled in such detail when Jesus died. Christians have emphatic proofs of the truth of the death of Jesus on the cross in these exceptional passages. Psalms 69:25 is also quoted in Acts 1:20 as a deliberate prediction of the desolate end of Judas Iscariot for betraying Jesus. It is very useful, in Muslim homes, to go slowly through both psalms (22 and 69) and to draw Muslims to the very experience of the Son of God as he hung there that fateful Friday. Both psalms bring the agony to a climax as the suffering victim finally breathes his last and expires. The first concludes the anguish in these heart-rending cries: Deliver my soul from the sword, my life from the power of the dog! Save me from the mouth of the lion, my afflicted soul from the horns of the wild oxen! Psalms 22:20-21 The second also builds up to a crescendo as the distress and suffering reach their peak. The psalmist cries out " But I am afflicted and in pain; let your salvation, O God, set me on high" (Psalms 69:29). There the anguish ends in both psalms, yet the narrative goes on. The tone changes, the confidence returns, and in perfect health the sufferer praises God for his redemption from the pit. The Resurrection of Jesus in both Psalms Not only is the crucifixion of Jesus foretold in these two psalms but we also find clear evidences of his resurrection as well. As we have seen, Jesus cried out to his Father on the cross in the exact words Psalms 22:1-31 begins with, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" The psalm then covers the anguish and pain of a man in great distress, who had committed his cause to the Lord, and who prayed to him for deliverance. The suffering part of the psalm reaches a final crescendo in the heart-rending cries, "O Lord, be not far off! Hasten to my aid! Deliver my soul from the sword. Save my afflicted soul!" (vv. 19-21) Suddenly the tone of the psalm changes: I will tell of your name to my brethren; in the midst of the congregation I will praise you. From you comes my praise in the great congregation; my vows I will pay before those who fear him. Psalms 22:22; Psalms 22:25 There is a dramatic change here, an immediate transformation. Now the psalmist speaks confidently, resolutely, triumphantly, and with complete composure. He has triumphed over his affliction. He calls on all true believers to praise God, to glorify him and stand in awe of him. For, he declares, the Lord has not hidden his face from his affliction but has heard when he cried to him! (Psalms 22:23-24) The rest of the psalm follows the same pattern – triumph, praise and complete composure. The afflicted one, whose anguish increased to the point of total desolation, is now delivered! The resurrection of Jesus is the scene foreshadowed in the second part of the psalm. No one reading the whole song can miss the sharp contrast between the victim’s growing, intensifying anguish (vv. 1-21), and the victor’s glory and triumph (vv. 22-31). It is a vivid picture of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. You can point out to Muslims that the words of Psalms 22:22 quoted above are expressly applied to Jesus in Hebrews 2:12. You may not be able to work through this line of witness with obstinate Muslims who will seek only to ridicule and refute everything you say, but with seeking Muslims whose eyes and hearts are opened, this subject is a powerful witness of the fact that Jesus Christ is the ultimate figurehead, God’s chosen Messiah, whose death and resurrection were not only prophesied but revealed in the deep, personal emotions that he was destined to experience, no less than a thousand years before these great events occurred. Psalms 69:1-36 follows the exact same pattern, not out of coincidence, but divine intention. Once again, the first part of the psalm (vv. 1-29) follows the same pattern of victimisation, leading up to a climax of suffering and anguish. The theme stands out: "Save me, O God! I am in distress. Draw near to me, redeem me. Set me free! I am afflicted and in pain. Let your salvation, O God, set me on high!" (vv. 1,17,18,29) Suddenly, as in Psalms 22:1-31, the tone and setting change dramatically. Victimisation gives way to victory. The lamb becomes the lion: I will praise the name of God with a song; I will magnify him with thanksgiving. Let heaven and earth praise him, the seas and everything that moves therein. Psalms 69:30; Psalms 69:34 Once again, it is a song of praise, in complete composure, in the dawn of victory, that characterises the remaining verses of the psalm (vv. 30-36). The suffering servant has become the risen deliverer! Anguish has given way to triumph! Jesus Christ has risen from the dead! Yet the passage in the psalms chosen by the disciples of Jesus more than any other to prove that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead was foretold a millennium earlier is this one: I keep the Lord always before me; because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. Therefore my heart is glad, and my soul rejoices; my body also dwells secure. For you do not give me up to Sheol, or let your godly one see the pit. You do show me the path of life; in your presence there is fulness of joy, in your right hand are pleasures for evermore. Psalms 16:8-11 Once again, this is a psalm of David, but the New Testament aggressively takes it away from him and applies it directly to the person of Jesus Christ. On the day of Pentecost, just after the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the disciples so that they faced the whole Jewish nation with confidence and assurance, Simon Peter declared that, even though they had crucified Jesus by the hands of lawless men, God has raised him from the dead, having loosed the pangs of death, because he could not be held by them (Acts 2:23-24). He then went on to quote this same passage from Psalms 16:1-11 and, when he had finished, he declared that everyone knew that David had died, was buried, and that the site of his tomb was well known. So he could not be speaking of himself, but, knowing that God had sworn to him with an oath that one of his descendants would sit on his throne for all eternity, "he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ," that he did not go down to Sheol, nor did his flesh see corruption (Acts 2:29-31). Peter then concluded: This Jesus God raised up, and of that we are all witnesses. Acts 2:32 Going on to quote Psalms 110:1 ("The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand till I make your enemies a stool for your feet."), he added that David had not ascended into heaven and so, in this declaration, foretold the ascension of the Christ, the same Jesus whom they had now betrayed and crucified (Acts 2:34-36). In all these passages from the Psalms, you have tremendous material to show Muslims that the crucifixion, resurrection and ascension to heaven of Jesus were foretold by David in his Psalms a thousand years before the events happened. Not only were they predicted, but they were outlined in such fine detail that the deepest emotions of the Christ were set out in such detail that you could know exactly what he was experiencing within his eternal soul. The Deity of Jesus Christ in the Psalms The fact that Jesus is the eternal Son of God is also foretold in the Psalms of David. Nothing, it appears, was overlooked. The evidences are there for all to see and are sufficient to convince any sincere seeker of the truth. There is, quite simply, no ambiguity in this declaration: I will tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to me, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession." Psalms 2:7-8 We are not speculating when we apply this passage to the Lord Jesus Christ (there hardly appears to be a contender for its application!). The Apostle Paul deliberately applied this text to Jesus in his sermon to the Jews who were gathered together in the synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia on the sabbath day (Acts 13:33). To what angel, another New Testament text enquires, did God ever say "You are my Son, today I have begotten you"? (Hebrews 1:5) The immediately succeeding verses are also applied to Jesus in Acts 4:25-26. Perhaps the most moving and descriptive passage incorporating a prediction of the deity of the son of David to come is found in another psalm. It begins with these words: Of old you spoke in a vision to your faithful one, and said: "I have set the crown upon one who is mighty, I have exalted one chosen from the people." Psalms 89:19 The next verse specifically applies this prophecy to David himself but, like the others we have considered, it soon becomes obvious that this is a double-barrelled prophecy and ultimately applies to the descendant of David to come, who would rule over the throne of God forever, and whom the Jews would subsequently call the son of David. God speaks and says of this great Messiah to come: My faithfulness and my steadfast love will be with him, and in my name shall his horn be exalted. I will set his hand on the sea and his right hand on the rivers. Psalms 89:24-25 Once again we hear words of triumph and victory as the Son of God, who became the Son of man, takes his eternal throne and establishes complete authority over all the earth. The declaration reaches its climax, and identifies the one of whom it speaks, in these words: He shall cry to me, "You are my Father, my God and the Rock of my salvation." And I will make him the first-born, the highest of the kings of earth. My steadfast love I will keep for him forever, and my covenant will stand firm for him. I will establish his line for ever and his throne as the days of the heavens. Psalms 89:25-29 The Qur’an does not say much about David. He is seen as one of the great patriarchs and prophets of old and some Biblical narratives about him are repeated in a somewhat disjointed fashion in the book. But it does say of him: We strengthened his kingdom, and gave him wisdom and sound judgment in speech and decision. Surah 38:20 These words are only a shadow of the Christ whose coming, crucifixion, death, resurrection, ascension to glory, and eternal deity David foretold. In these great predictions, hundreds of years before they came to pass, Christians have more than sufficient material to witness to Muslims of who Jesus Christ really was and why he came to earth. God has left us a persuasive record in the songs of David of the Son of God to come, who would cry to him as both his God and Father, and to whom all authority over earth and the heavens would ultimately be given. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 88: 05.10. SOLOMON ======================================================================== Solomon Image of the True Son of David The Son of David, The Son of God The Qur’an does not speak much of Solomon. It sees him as a Prophet of God who possessed great power (Surah 2:102), to whom great understanding and wisdom had been given so that he could judge righteously (Surah 21:79), for whom the wind did obeisance and a molten brass flowed (Surah 34:12), and who prayed that a kingdom which should be his eternally, should be given to him (Surah 38:35). The only lengthy passage devoted to Solomon sees him as a great ruler who had been taught the speech of birds so that he could even hold a conversation with a hoopoe, who had a host of jinns (ordinary spirits, most of whom were demons, but some believers) doing service to him. It also has a somewhat disjointed account of his meeting with the Queen of Sheba. No biography of Solomon, such as we find in the Bible, can possibly be derived from these passages and we are left with a somewhat incoherent account of his life and leadership. In witnessing to Muslims we need not compare this deficient record with the very well ordered account of his life in the Bible. We could go into some detail to show how his forty-year rule over Israel developed but we would be doing no more than to fill in the gaps. There is one supreme role that he played that we are interested in, and that we would want to commend to Muslims, and that is his foreshadowing of the eternal kingdom of the greater Son of David to come, namely Jesus Christ. The Old Testament contains one particular passage that the religious leaders and, indeed, the whole nation of Israel in coming generations, believed to be a prophecy of a great Messianic figure to come who would reign over the house of David for ever. David, the greatest of the prophet-kings of Israel, determined one day to build a majestic temple for the God of Israel, a house for his ark to dwell in, so that the nation would honour him as their sole Lord and Deliverer. God told his servant Nathan in return to remind David that he had never asked for a temple built of cedar to dwell in (1 Chronicles 17:5), but, he declared, he would build a house in return for him. This is what he specifically promised: When your days are fulfilled to go to be with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for me, and I will establish his throne for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son; I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from him who was before you, but I will confirm him in my house and in my kingdom for ever and his throne shall be established for ever. 1 Chronicles 17:11-14 For forty years after David’s death Solomon ruled over the house of Israel in peace. Israel, for this brief period, became the strongest nation in the region. Even her enemies were at peace with her. It was a time of unparalleled prosperity and the nation’s security seemed assured. God’s covenant with Israel finally seemed established. Yet, before his death, Solomon took many foreign wives and allowed the nation to become corrupted with pagan practices. On his death Israel split into two rival groups, Israel and Judah, under Jeroboam and Rehoboam respectively, who warred with each other incessantly. A succession of evil kings led the Israelites into paganism, Baal-worship and degradation until they were taken into exile in Assyria. Judah endured a mixture of righteous and evil kings but eventually, she too became corrupted and was taken into exile in Babylon. The temple of Solomon was destroyed and the land lay desolate. The nation knew that Solomon, although bearing many of the marks of the promised Son to come, could not have been the true Son of David who was promised. The nation looked to an eternal ruler still to come whom they named the Messiah, the ultimate Son of David. When Jesus began his ministry nearly a thousand years later, the nation was eagerly looking for this greater Son of David who would rule over the house of David for ever. Could Jesus be him? (John 7:26) When he entered Jerusalem for the last time before his crucifixion, Jesus engaged in a comprehensive debate with the Jews one day during which they pestered him with many questions. When they were finally exhausted, he asked them just one question in return. The narrative reads: Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, saying, "What do you think of the Christ? Whose son is he?" They said to him, "The son of David." He said to them, "How is it then that David, inspired by the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I put your enemies under your feet." If David thus calls him Lord, how is he his son?" Matthew 22:41-45 The Jews may have missed the point, but you can make it very effectively with Muslims. God had promised "I will be his Father, and he shall be my Son." Solomon was only a type of the greater Son of David to come who would also be the Son of God. This is why David called him his Lord. Here, a thousand years before he was born, you have proof that the coming Messiah would be the Son of God and that his Father would give him a kingdom and throne to last for ever. This passage strengthens the similar passage we quoted in the last chapter, namely Psalms 89:19-28, where David himself sees the coming of the same Messiah whom he foreshadowed, who would cry to God "You are my Father" and to whom a throne would be given which would last "as the days of the heavens." How could the Messiah be both the Son of David and his Lord, Jesus asked? The answer is given in these words from Jesus himself: I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star. Revelation 22:16 Here is much material for your witness to Muslims. Being descended from David, Jesus was his offspring, but being his Lord from all eternity, he was also his root. This explains the role of Solomon as a type of the Son of God. He ruled over a kingdom that was undisturbed in its peace and prosperity for forty years. In this he foreshadowed the eternal rule of the Son of God to come. Solomon was a type of the Son of God. The Second Coming: Christ in His Glory There is still more to this than first meets the eye. Solomon was not only a type of the Christ, the greater Son of David, the Son of God to come. He also prefigures the second coming of Jesus, and that in a very clearly defined context. The first verse of the New Testament reveals this context: The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Matthew 1:1 We have already seen how Isaac, the son of the great patriarch Abraham, prefigured the first coming of Jesus. His unique birth, his sacrifice, and his father’s belief that he would be raised from the ashes, foreshadowed the life of Jesus to come, in his first coming to earth. Solomon represents the second coming of Jesus, especially in his role as the undisputed king of Israel in an undisturbed period of Israel’s history, indeed its highest point. Son of the great patriarch David, he prefigures the glorious reign of Jesus to come when he will rule unchallenged over the house of God for ever. You can use the following comparisons to make the point to Muslims: 1. Solomon’s reign was one of undisturbed peace At no other time did Israel enjoy such peace and prosperity as it did in the days of Solomon. This verse emphasises this precious period in the nation’s history: And Judah and Israel dwelt in safety, from Dan even to Beersheba, every man under his vine and under his fig tree, all the days of Solomon. 1 Kings 4:25 The eternal reign of Jesus will also be one of lasting peace. "Death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away" (Revelation 21:4). 2. Even Israel’s enemies were at peace with her When Hiram, the king of Tyre, heard that Solomon reigned over the nation of Israel in place of his father David, he sent his servants to him in peace, for he had loved David. Solomon reminded him that God had promised his father David that his son would build a house for his name, so he requested Hiram to command that the choicest cedars of Lebanon should be cut down for the temple he was about to build (1 Kings 5:1-6). Hiram responded gladly and gave him all the cedar and cypress timber that he required. "And there was peace between Hiram and Solomon; and the two of them made a treaty" (1 Kings 5:12). The forty-year reign in complete peace and the building of the house of God by David’s son represents the eternal reign of peace that Jesus will bring when he, the Son of God, rules over the house of God for ever. These verses express this theme perfectly: He shall command peace to the nations; his dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth. Zechariah 9:10 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end. Isaiah 9:7 3. Solomon’s temple represents the eternal kingdom Before his throne Solomon made a molten sea. It was round and stood on twelve oxen, three facing each direction (east, west, north and south). Its thickness was a handbreadth, yet it held two thousand baths (1 Kings 7:23-26). John, in his vision of the eternal kingdom, saw a similar picture: And I saw what appeared to be a sea of glass mingled with fire, and those who had conquered the beast and its image and the number of its name, standing beside the sea of glass with the harps of God in their hands. Revelation 15:2 4. Solomon drew the worshippers toward Jerusalem When his temple was completed Solomon prayed to God that wherever his people might be, even caught in their sins and carried away captive by their enemies to a foreign land, they might turn towards the temple and be remembered by God: If they repent with all their mind and with all their heart in the land of their enemies, who carried them captive, and pray to you toward their land, which you gave to their fathers, the city which you have chosen, and the house which I have built for your name; then hear in heaven, your dwelling place, their prayer and their supplication, and maintain their cause, and forgive your people who have sinned against you. 1 Kings 8:48-50 Jesus expressed much the same longing and concern when he cried out over the same temple mount in Jerusalem, "How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate" (Matthew 23:37-38). 5. The glory of Solomon’s rule Solomon eventually excelled all the kings of the earth in riches and wisdom. "And the whole earth sought the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom which God had put into his mind. Every one of them brought his present, articles of silver and gold, garments, myrrh, spices, horses and mules, so much year by year" (1 Kings 10:23-25). Speaking of himself, Jesus said, "The queen of the south came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here" (Matthew 12:42). When he returns at his second coming he will introduce a kingdom with unparalleled splendour. "The kings of the earth shall bring their glory into it ... they shall bring into it the glory and honour of the nations" (Revelation 21:24; Revelation 21:26). The walls of the kingdom will be built of jasper while the city will be pure gold, clear as glass. Its foundations will be adorned with every jewel: jasper, sapphire, agate, emerald, onyx, carnelian, chrysolite, beryl, topaz, chrysoprase, jacinth and amethyst (Revelation 21:19-20). Solomon’s temple and kingdom were a type of the glory of Jesus to come when, at his second coming, he will introduce his eternal kingdom in all its glory and splendour, over which he will reign for ever and ever. You have much rich material here for witness to Muslims. Yet another great prophet of God, named in the Qur’an, can be called as a witness to the glory of the Christian Gospel. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 89: 05.11. ISAIAH ======================================================================== Isaiah Behold the Servant He has Chosen The Great Messianic Prophecies The Qur’an makes no mention of the prophet Isaiah, one of the greatest of the Old Testament prophets. In fact the book knows none of his generation. Ezekiel, Jeremiah and the minor prophets, together with Isaiah, were a group of great prophets of a specific age in Israel’s history when the climactic vision of God’s final purpose for his people began to unfold. The only prophet of this time mentioned in the Qur’an is Jonah, significantly the only prophet whose book is a narrative of his unique experiences, especially his three days in the stomach of a large fish. All the others follow the same pattern. They are oracles of God’s anger against an ever-rebellious nation with warnings of the judgments to come upon it, coupled with unique promises of a golden, Messianic age to come when God’s purposes would be fulfilled. Yet it is in these passages in the Bible that we find some of the best materials for witnessing to Muslims of who Jesus Christ really was and what he was sent to accomplish on earth. You have here some of the most emphatic proofs in the scriptures of his deity and redeeming work, written up to seven hundred years before the events they describe and foretell. Two verses testify to his deity, the first of which is: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14 In the Greek Septuagint the word almah in Hebrew, meaning young woman, is translated as parthenos, meaning "a virgin." The translation is obviously correct. The sign to be given to the nation is that a young virgin, too young to have married or borne children, would conceive by the power of God and bear a son. No ordinary son, mind you, but the Son of God himself. Immanuel, he would be called, meaning "God is with us." This verse is quoted in Matthew 1:23 as a deliberate proof that the unique birth of Jesus Christ, of the virgin Mary, was foretold no less than seven hundred years before it occurred. Muslims freely believe in the virgin-birth of Jesus as it is mentioned in the Qur’an in the same emphatic language as it is in the Bible (Surah 3:47-49, 19:19-22). The Qur’an, however, misses the essential point. It is because he is the Son of God that he was born of a virgin. He had existed from all eternity and could not possibly be conceived by the normal means of human procreation. This is precisely what the Angel Gabriel testified at his conception when he said to Mary his mother: The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. Luke 1:35 A similar, equally famous, passage from the book of Isaiah confirms the announcement that the great Messiah to come would not be just an ordinary human being but would have the very presence of the divine being dwelling within him. The passage reads: For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called "Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and for evermore. Isaiah 9:6-7 A son is promised – being no one less than the Son of God. The titles and description of this son make it clear that he is a divine being. His kingdom will last for eternity the paragraph testifies, once again emphasising the presence of the eternal God within the soul of this great human Deliverer to come. It is almost incredible to see the identity of the eternal Son of God, Jesus Christ, foreshadowed in these great prophecies made long before his time. In your witness to Muslims you can also impress on them the fact that Isaiah is a Jewish scripture from their holy book, which we call the Old Testament, written centuries before it came to pass. As the Jews have always disowned the possibility that God could have a Son (just as the Muslims do), it is striking to find such predictions in their own texts, where the very divinity of the eternal Son to come is undeniably prestated, in view of their denial of what they teach. This is no interpolated Christian scripture. Two scrolls of Isaiah were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls dating back to before the time of Jesus, yet they include these very same prophecies that could only have had one fulfilment. Further Messianic Prophecies from Isaiah Another well-known passage from the book of Isaiah follows. It is worth quoting the whole text because it is freely quoted in the New Testament. It reads: There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots. And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and fear of the Lord. And his delight shall be in the fear of the Lord. He shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide by what his ears hear; but with righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked. Righteousness shall be the girdle of his waist, and faithfulness the girdle of his loins. Isaiah 11:1-5 By the time of Jesus’ birth the line of Jesse through his son David had indeed become no more than a stump. The Son of God was born in humility of a family line that had all but lost its glorious past, yet the birth of this great Saviour, upon whom the Spirit of the Lord would rest (as it did at his baptism – Matthew 3:16), was the fulfilment of this great vision of one, supreme, divine Deliverer to come. This passage is a dramatic description of both the humility and the glory of the divine Messiah to come. It recognises his meekness and gentleness at his first coming, and his authority and rule to follow with his second coming thereafter. A very similar passage, promising the advent of one great servant of God yet to come, is found later in the book of Isaiah. It reads: Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him, he will bring forth justice to the nations. He will not cry or lift up his voice, or make it heard in the street; a bruised reed he will not break, and a dimly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice. Isaiah 42:1-4 Once again God speaks of his great servant to come. This passage is quoted in full in Matthew 12:18-20 and is applied directly to Jesus Christ. Christians witnessing to Muslims have, here, substantial proof of the fact that Jesus (and, by inference, not Muhammad) was the great figurehead, the final climactic Deliverer to come, whose advent was foretold on so many occasions by the great prophet Isaiah. One last passage, very similar to the two we have quoted, settles the emphasis on the great Messiah, God’s eternal Saviour, to come. It reads: The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good tidings to the afflicted, he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour. Isaiah 61:1-2 This passage is also quoted in the New Testament in full, but in a much more expressive context (Luke 4:18-19). It is not just applied to Jesus by one of the Gospel writers – Jesus applied the passage to himself one day as he read it in a synagogue in Nazareth. The very locality is significant. For thirty years the townsfolk of Nazareth had known him as one of them without ever suspecting he was the one promised in all these emphatic prophetic narratives. He was given a scroll of the book of Isaiah to read that sabbath morning and specifically looked for this passage. Once he had found it and had read it out, he closed the book, gave it to the attendant alongside him, and declared: Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing. Luke 4:21 The crowd spoke well of him and wondered at the gracious words that proceeded from his mouth, but they soon took exception to him, remembering that he was, in their view, just another ordinary member of their community. An altercation and argument followed which ended with Jesus walking away from them, but the die had been cast. This incident happened very early in his ministry and is a bold confirmation that he was the servant of God, the unique Saviour, whose coming had been prophesied in so many of the oracles of Isaiah the prophet. You can, in an evening’s discussion with receptive Muslims, show them from this passage and all the others quoted here that it was the coming of Jesus that the nation of Israel was told to anticipate, and that he was to come as their great Deliverer and Redeemer. His divinity, meekness, gentleness, and yet ultimate authority over all the earth, are clearly foretold in this vital catalogue of prophecies from the great prophet Isaiah. Isaiah 53:1-12 : The Greatest Messianic Passage None of the passages we have considered, however, matches one section from the Book of Isaiah. It is Isaiah 52:13-15; Isaiah 53:1-12, the greatest of all the prophecies in the Old Testament to the suffering, rejection and ultimate glory of the coming Messiah. It is written in, what radio operators would describe in wartime, plain language. In crucial situations radio messages would be sent directly in straightforward terms. Normally some form of coding would be used but, in vital cases, the message would be sent without consideration for security or its origin. A good example is the occasion when British naval aircraft unwittingly attacked HMS Sheffield in the Atlantic Ocean, thinking it was the Bismarck. An immediate command to call off the attack was sent in "plain language," meaning the cessation of the attack was more important than the enemy’s ability to discover what was happening. Isaiah 53:1-12 is written in such language. No allegories, symbols or other language requiring interpretation are used. The enemy can have no doubt as to what is being conveyed. Deliberate, unambiguous and straightforward language is used that defies interpretation. It is the most remarkable testimony, seven hundred years before the event, of the crucifixion of the Christ and its atoning purpose. Remember that it is part of a Jewish Scripture, belonging to a people who deny that Jesus is the Messiah, yet it confirms the death, atoning purpose, and resurrection of the great Deliverer to come. It is therefore an independent witness to our Gospel, from a source traditionally hostile to it, yet written in such forthright language, that its meaning and implications cannot be missed by anyone open to the truth. Let’s go through it as you might if sitting with Muslims who are giving you an opportunity to state your case. It contains typical Messianic terminology, such as we have already considered. It begins "Behold, my servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high" (Isaiah 52:13). The prophecy begins by predicting the eventual glory of the Messiah. Yet it suddenly changes its emphasis and projects him, firstly, as a suffering servant with no comeliness to recommend him: As many were astonished at him! His appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the sons of men. Isaiah 52:14 Having introduced him in anonymity and apparent failure, it then equally suddenly announces his ultimate triumph over all the nations of the earth, such as has never been witnessed before: So shall he startle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which has not been told them they shall see, and that which they have not heard they shall understand. Isaiah 52:15 Isaiah was astonished and somewhat bewildered at what he was seeing. Israel had long awaited its promised Messiah since he was promised to David as one of his offspring, yet here, although glory is to come, Isaiah sees that he will first appear almost in obscurity and be rejected as an impostor no different to many who had gone before him. So he asks, "Who has believed what we have heard? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" (Isaiah 53:1) He recognises that it will take a special revelation from the Lord for anyone to recognise that, at his first coming, this is indeed God’s glorious Messiah. For he will appear to be an outcast, a stranger, one from whom men instinctively turn away. He would be neither handsome, rich nor imposing: He had no form of comeliness that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. Isaiah 53:2 In hindsight it is easy to comprehend the next passage, knowing that Jesus was apprehended, spat upon, cursed and disowned; yet in Isaiah’s time, and at any other time, a suffering saviour would have been unheard of in Israel, a subject for ridicule and scorn. Yet, as he foresees the status of God’s Messiah during his first advent, Isaiah declares: He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces. He was despised, and we esteemed him not. Isaiah 53:3 As we have said, the prophet is speaking plainly and not in any figures of speech. It is as direct and intense a vision of the reception of Jesus, God’s eternal Saviour, as you could wish for. Yet the prophet is immediately given an understanding of why God’s Deliverer should be so treated. He sees, in the clearest terms possible, that this was done for our sins and iniquities that we might be redeemed. He recognises that the Saviour must first become like us in our degradation before we can become like him in his eternal glory. So he expresses this atoning purpose emphatically: Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that makes us whole, and with his stripes we are healed. Isaiah 53:4 I have deliberately emphasised the pronouns in italics to bring home the essential thrust of the prophet’s message: he will suffer in our place. Seven centuries before Jesus came into the world one of the great prophets of Israel saw it all. He was coming to be God’s Saviour by taking on himself the punishment that is due to us all. The next verse puts it in a nutshell, and you will do well to remind your Muslim hearers that you are quoting from a Jewish scripture and not a book of Christian propaganda: All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. Isaiah 53:6 This is fundamental Christian language, yet is written in the scripture of a nation that denies that Jesus is the Saviour of the world just as emphatically as Islam does. In the plainest possible language you have here a testimony to the atoning work of the Christ. The passage continues. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth to speak in his defence or avoid the false charges against him. This is just what Jesus did. "Like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth" (Isaiah 53:7). You can quote the incident in the New Testament where the Apostle Philip met an Ethiopian prince on the way back home who was reading this very passage of scripture. When the Ethiopian asked Philip of whom the prophet spoke, he told him the good news of Jesus (Acts 8:35). The New Testament confirms that Jesus was silent in answer to the false charges brought against him that led to his crucifixion (Matthew 26:63, John 19:9). Isaiah marvelled at what he was seeing. Who would imagine that God’s glorious Messiah, the supremely anointed one of Israel, greater than Abraham, Moses and David, would be cut off ignominiously from the land of the living, stricken for the transgressions of his people? (v.8) Then comes another riddle similar to the one we considered in the chapter on the Psalms of David (Psalms 22:18 read with John 19:24): And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death. Isaiah 53:9 Once again we have synonyms mixed with antonyms, in contrast to the usual Hebrew style of repeating a statement for emphasis with two synonyms. Grave and death are the synonyms, wicked and rich are the antonyms. Following the usual style of Hebrew poetry the writer might have said his grave was made with the wicked, in his death he was buried with the despised and rejected. Yet it says the opposite. He would be given the dignity of a rich man’s burial. No one, prior to the coming of Jesus, could have possibly explained this riddle. The crucifixion narrative, centuries later, gives the explanation: When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who was also a disciple of Jesus. He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. And Joseph took the body, and laid it in a clean linen shroud, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn in the rock. Matthew 27:57-60 Like any other criminal condemned to death, his body would normally have been thrown into the pit of Gehenna, but the intervention of Joseph of Arimathea ensured he was buried with full dignity in an honourable tomb. Once again, as in Psalms 22:1-31, you can show Muslims that details of the crucifixion of Jesus were spelled out in the finest possible detail, even in apparent riddles, centuries before the event of his crucifixion came to pass. Yet it is not only the crucifixion and atoning work of Jesus that are here predicted. His resurrection is too, as we see in the next verse: When he makes himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand; he shall see the fruit of the travail of his soul and be satisfied. Isaiah 53:11 His atoning work is then again emphasised: God’s servant will make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities (v.11). The Apostle Paul is the great apostle of the atoning work of Jesus by which he saves us from our sins and makes it possible for his righteousness to be imputed to us. It is the fundamental theme of his Epistle to the Romans. Yet here, centuries earlier, we find one of the great prophets of God saying the very same thing. This great, archetypical prophecy of the crucifixion, saving work and resurrection of Jesus, in the clearest possible language, concludes with these words: He poured out his soul to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession with the transgressors. Isaiah 53:12 Once again Isaiah emphasises the essence of what he is foretelling: God’s Saviour would die, be put to death with other criminals as if he were one of them (Jesus was crucified between two thieves), yet he would intercede for them all. He prayed for the forgiveness of his executioners (Luke 23:34) as well as promising one of his fellow sufferers that he would be with him in Paradise that very day (Luke 23:43). Jesus himself also said, on the very night when this whole prophecy would be fulfilled: For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, "And he was reckoned with the transgressors," for what is written about me has its fulfilment. Luke 22:37 You will find no other passage in the Old Testament where the whole Christian Gospel is foretold in such conspicuous detail, and without any possible ambiguity, as this one. It will also be useful to inform your Muslim hearers that, amongst the so-called Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran in 1948, were two almost complete manuscripts of the prophecy of Isaiah, both containing this passage (Isaiah 52:13-15; Isaiah 53:1-12) in perfect detail, written by hand at least a hundred years before Jesus was crucified. So we have tangible, hand-written evidence that this prophecy predates the unique events it describes in such graphic detail. The Bible says that the Word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, and you should use it freely in witnessing to Muslims. You do not need to give too much emphasis to the implications of passages such as this one. By simply going through them you will be able to impress the truth on Muslims as the Spirit of God empowers his Word to bring non-believers to the saving knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. There could not be a better place to bring our study of the Old Testament prophecies of the glory of Jesus to a close. We proceed to the New Testament and the greatest of all prophetic messengers, God’s own Son, Jesus Christ himself. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 90: 05.12. JESUS ======================================================================== Jesus Unique in the Qur’an and the Bible Common Features in the Two Books We have come to the New Testament and, obviously, Jesus Christ himself immediately becomes the key figure. All the Old Testament prophetic narratives that we have considered point to him, now we will consider the Christian Saviour himself and how you can use common ground between the Qur’an and the Bible to witness to Muslims of his salvation and glory. We will begin with the unique features we find in both books, where they are in complete agreement, and see how you can use them to share the Gospel in all its fullness. 1. The Virgin-Birth of Jesus The Bible records the unique conception of Jesus by a virgin woman, Mary, as a fulfilment of a prophecy, seven centuries earlier, that such an event would occur and that the son to be born would be known as Immanuel, namely "God with us" (Isaiah 7:14). The annunciation to Mary is recorded in these words: In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And he came to her and said, "Hail, O favoured one, the Lord is with you." But she was greatly troubled at the saying and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus." Luke 1:26-31 When Mary replied, "How shall this be, since I have no husband?" (v.34), the angel explained that the Holy Spirit would come upon her and that the power of the Most High would overshadow her, giving her the miracle of a virgin-birth. Matthew’s Gospel also covers this subject, though here it is Joseph’s role that is focused on after Mary had already become pregnant. When he thought she had been unfaithful to him and resolved to put her away quietly, the Angel Gabriel also appeared to him and confirmed that she had conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18-21). The Qur’an also records the vision to Mary and the virgin-birth of Jesus in two passages. The first reads as follows: When the angels said, "O Mary! Allah announces to you a Word from himself, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, and to be honoured in this world and the hereafter, and of those who draw near. He will speak to the people in his infancy and in maturity, and will be one of the righteous." She said, "How shall I bear a son when no one has touched me?" He replied, "Even so, Allah creates what he wills. When he decrees a matter, he only says to it Be! and it comes to be." Surah 3:45-47 In the second passage, the annunciation is dealt with in more detail and Mary is promised that her son will be a revelation for mankind and a mercy from Allah (Surah 19:16-22). If one had to ask why Jesus should be born in such a unique way, as no other human being has ever been so conceived, the Qur’an gives a clear answer. She was to conceive Jesus in a special way because there was to be something unique and special about her son. The virgin-birth is given constant emphasis in the Muslim scripture in the title it gives consistently to Jesus, namely ibn Maryam, the son of Mary. No other woman is named in the Qur’an. 2. The Sinlessness of Jesus According to the Bible Jesus is the only person who ever lived who was entirely without sin. The book charges all men, from Adam onwards, as being under the power of sin (Romans 3:9) and as having sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). Only Jesus is excepted. A typical passage declaring his absolute integrity reads: He committed no sin, no guile was found on his lips. 1 Peter 2:22 Other passages confirm this. God made him to be sin, who knew no sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him (2 Corinthians 5:21). We know that Jesus appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin (1 John 3:5). The Qur’an, too, declares that Jesus was without sin. When the Angel Jibril (Gabriel) appeared to Mary to announce her conception of Jesus, he said: I am only a messenger of your Lord, to announce to you a faultless son. Surah 19:19 The words used in Arabic to describe him are ghulaaman-zakiyyan, "a most-holy boy." The word zakiyya, meaning "blameless," appears only twice in the Qur’an. The other occasion is in a story about Moses in which he was on a journey with an unnamed companion who had been sent to guide him into deeper knowledge and understanding. At length they met a young man and his companion, known in Islam as al-Khidr, "the Green One," a mysterious figure who is said to appear to holy men from time to time, immediately slew him without giving any reason for doing so. Moses asked why he had slain an innocent person who had not slain anyone else? The companion ordered him to be patient, to which Moses responded that he should not have questioned him. The word for "innocent," in this context again meaning blameless, is zakiyya. Moses was only referring to the young man’s innocence of any crime deserving death, but, in Jesus’ case, the angel was describing his whole personality and character before he was even born. "Faultless," or blameless, clearly means without sin. So the Qur’an confirms the Biblical teaching that Jesus was the only sinless person who would ever live as the Qur’an nowhere describes anyone else in this way. On the contrary, the Qur’an acknowledges the sins of the other prophets and specifically refers to the sins of Adam (Surah 7:23), Abraham (26:82), Moses (28:16), Jonah (37:142) and Muhammad (47:19, 48:2). In the case of Muhammad the Qur’an expressly commands him to ask forgiveness (wastaghfir) of his sins (dhanbika). The words used are employed throughout the Qur’an in the same context and there can be no doubt about their meaning, despite the subtle attempts of many Muslim commentators to reduce them to less imposing terms (such as to ask for "protection" from his "shortcomings"). 3. The Ascension of Jesus to Heaven The New Testament teaches, again and again, that after his resurrection from the dead, Jesus ascended to heaven in bodily form. The narrative recording this event reads as follows: And when he had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by in white robes, and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven." Acts 1:9-11 In other passages the New Testament teaches that Jesus is seated at the right hand of God (Colossians 3:1), that God made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule, authority, power and dominion (Ephesians 1:21) and that he taught that he was to return to heaven whence he had originally come (John 6:62; John 16:28). The Qur’an only has one statement to confirm the ascension of Jesus but it has been enough to convince Muslims throughout the world that he is there to this day, alive in the very presence of Allah. The text reads: But Allah took him up to himself. Surah 4:158 This statement is made in contrast to the claim of the Jews that they had killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, and Muslims believe he was rescued from crucifixion and taken to heaven without dying. Despite the different circumstances, both the Qur’an and the Bible teach the ascension of Jesus, alive and in bodily form, from earth to heaven. Significantly, the only Hadith records mentioning the destiny of Jesus agree without exception that Jesus was taken to heaven. 4. The Second Coming of Jesus The last significant feature about Jesus, where the Qur’an and the Bible are in agreement, is his return to the earth from heaven at the end of time. It is one of the grandest and most extensive subjects of the prophetic texts of the New Testament as the following quotes show: Then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. Matthew 24:30 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. 1 Thessalonians 4:16 Behold he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, every one who pierced him; and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Revelation 1:7 According to the Bible Jesus will return from heaven at the end of time in his glory, with all his holy angels with him, and will bring in the Day of Judgment. All the nations will be gathered before him and he will separate them, to glory or destruction, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats (Matthew 25:32). The Qur’an, once again, only deals with this subject in one verse but it has led to a consensus throughout the Muslim world that Jesus will one day return from heaven to earth. The text reads: And he shall be a sign for the hour. Surah 43:61 The verse can be literally translated, "And there is knowledge (ilm) of the hour (saah)" and it can be argued that the return of Jesus is rather arbitrarily read into the text, yet many of the companions of Muhammad in his lifetime confirmed that he taught that there is a specific allusion to the return of Jesus shortly before the hour of judgment in this verse, including Ibn Abbas, Hasan and Qatawa. Many Hadith records confirm the return of Jesus, one of which teaches that he will institute a reign of peace (Sahih Muslim, Vol.1, p.93). Another teaches that Jesus will return to receive the homage of all the peoples: Jews, Christians and Muslims, in fulfilment of Surah 4:159 (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.4, p.137). Yet another teaches that he is alive in heaven, will return as a ruler of the whole earth, and will then die like all other living beings (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol.1, p.47). Muslims, generally, believe that he will land on a minaret of the great mosque in Damascus, that he will lead the whole world to follow Islam, will die after forty years, and will be buried next to Muhammad in his grave in Medina. There are once again differences between Christianity and Islam in their interpretations of what will happen when Jesus returns, but both believe in the second coming and base that belief on the teachings of the Bible and the Qur’an respectively. Implications of the Uniqueness of Jesus We have outlined four features in the life of Jesus which are taught in both books. What can we learn from them, and can Christians find effective points of witness here to Muslims? I personally believe that as the chapters on Abraham and Isaac earlier in this book give the best grounds for witness from the Old Testament, so this one gives the best foundation from the New Testament. These four features show, firstly, that Jesus was quite unique in the history of mankind and, secondly, that this uniqueness implies singular greatness such as no other prophet or figurehead has ever possessed. Let us look firstly at the uniqueness of Jesus in each feature and, as we proceed, at the key sources of his greatness. The virgin-birth of Jesus was unique. No one else was ever born without a father. What, we need to ask, was the reason for this exceptional birth? God, surely, does not do unusual things arbitrarily if they are unnecessary. Something must have required that Jesus be born in this way. To put it simply, there must have been something unique about Jesus himself. In both the Bible and the Qur’an Mary is described as the greatest among women: Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. Luke 1:42 And when the angels said, O Mary! Surely Allah has chosen you and purified you, and preferred you above the women of the world. Surah 3:42 Why is Mary exalted in these passages above all other women? It is because she was the mother of Jesus, because she mothered the greatest among men. There was something unique about her son that made it necessary for him to be born of a virgin woman. The reason was given by Jesus himself. He was not an ordinary man born in the normal course of procreation. He taught, he had existed in the heavens before the foundation of the universe and had witnessed the fall of Satan (Luke 10:18). He taught that he had come down from heaven (John 6:38), that he would ascend to where he was before (John 6:62), and that he came from the Father into the world and would leave the world and return to the Father (John 16:28). This is why he was born of a virgin woman. He pre-existed his earthly life, had come into the world from heaven and had assumed human form. He had, therefore, a unique beginning to his life, just as it would end in a unique way. He came from heaven and would return there. Jesus himself drew a sharp contrast between himself and all other men when he said to the Jews, "You are from below, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world" (John 8:23). Here you can show Muslims that Jesus is different from, and indeed superior to, all the prophets who went before him. In what way, however, was he greater than all other men? The Angel Gabriel gave the answer when he said to Mary: He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High ... therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. Luke 1:32; Luke 1:35 Adam was created from dust and all other men, prophets and patriarchs included, have been made from the same dust. Jesus, however, was conceived solely by the Spirit of God because he is the Son of God. Here you can show Muslims very emphatically why Jesus had to be born of a virgin woman. Muslims can give no other answer to his unique birth than to say it was by the power and the word of God (Surah 3:59). They cannot explain the reasons why Jesus, and particularly Jesus, alone should be born so uniquely. It could hardly have been no more than a manifestation of God’s power for it would have required a very limited exercise of that power and could not have been physically proved. It was a very unique event and must have had a unique cause. That cause is the fact that Jesus is the eternal Son of God, who pre-existed all men, who became the Son of man, the man Christ Jesus. He was also unique in his sinlessness. Not only does the Bible regard all other human beings who have ever existed as sinners, implicated in the sin of the first man Adam, but the Hadith records also state that Muhammad regarded all human beings as sinners other than Jesus. In the first chapter we met his statement "Every son of Adam is a sinner" (Sunan Ibn Majah, Vol.5, p.489) and here is another to the same effect: Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (saw) as saying: The satan touches every son of Adam on the day when his mother gives birth to him with the exception of Mary and her son. Sahih Muslim, Vol.4, p.1261 Why would Jesus alone be sinless among men? Again the Muslim world can give no reason for this. Muslims may respond by saying to you that all prophets had some unique features, but, in the case of Jesus, we find that his uniqueness is personal to himself, that is, that he himself is unique in his birth, sinlessness, ascension and second coming. There is no comparison here with any other prophet. All of these unique features, spanning the origin of his life, its conclusion and final destiny, are found in him alone. You need to impress Muslims with these unique distinctions. In this verse we find the cause of Jesus’ unique sinlessness: Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that the Son does likewise." John 5:19 It is because Jesus is the Son of God that he is sinless. He taught that he and the Father are one (John 10:30) and he will, therefore, always do the will of his Father. If he did anything independently of the Father, he would no longer be one with him. One who is always doing the absolute will of his Father cannot sin against him. This is why he is sinless – because, as the Son of God, he too is absolutely holy and always does what is pleasing to the Father (John 8:29). The third point of uniqueness is his ascension to heaven. The reason for this is implied in his virgin-birth and the texts we have already quoted. He ascended to heaven because he came from there in the first place. If he had returned to dust as all other men do, no Christian would believe that he was the unique Son of God. You can point out to Muslims that these unique features not only, with one accord, support his teaching that he is the Son of God, but that they are essential features if this teaching is to be proved true. If he is the Son of God he must be born uniquely of a virgin to become man. He must be sinless and he cannot return to the dust. He must return to his Father in heaven. Conversely, if he is not the Son of God as the Qur’an teaches, these unique features have no meaning or relevance. By conceding them the Qur’an is unwittingly confirming Christian belief. The Qur’an often speaks of the throne of God (Surahs 10:4; 7:54; 13:2 etc.). This expresses the royal sovereignty which God enjoys over the whole universe. The Bible makes the same point but, to emphasise the unique ascension of Jesus to heaven and his ultimate place there, it declares that he sat down at his right hand as sons of kings in those days sat at their father’s side, being the heirs to the throne. Many passages make this clear, such as the following two: God accomplished his great might in Christ when he raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places. Ephesians 1:20 Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven. Hebrews 8:1 When Stephen saw the heavens opened just before his martyrdom, he declared that he saw the Son of man standing at the right hand of God (Acts 7:56). Jesus also declared that he would grant to all who conquer the right to sit at his right hand, just as he had conquered and sat down with his Father on his throne (Revelation 3:21). The Qur’an speaks of the throne of God – the rightful place of Jesus after his ascension to heaven is at the right hand of him who sits upon it. Lastly, let us look at the uniqueness of the fourth feature, the return of Jesus to earth. Though he has been in heaven for almost two thousand years already, no Christian or Muslim expects him to return looking like an old man. He will return looking not a day older than when he left. Why will Jesus return to earth? As we have seen, Muslims expect him to establish a universal rule, become a follower of Muhammad, and be buried next to him after his death. You can well ask Muslims why Jesus should return to earth only to die and be buried. It makes no sense. Jesus will return for a far greater reason. We need again to ask why there should be this unique feature in his life and why it is Jesus who will fulfil it. It is because he is the Son of God and, having died on the cross for sinners, he will bring both the salvation and judgment of God at the end of time. By becoming man the Son of God has also become the obvious medium of the judgment of God. Firstly, he revealed God to men. The Qur’an only professes to reveal the will and attributes of God. Jesus revealed God himself to men as this passage shows: All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. Matthew 11:27 Elsewhere Jesus taught that he who sees him sees the Father who sent him (John 12:45; John 14:9) and that there was no way to the Father but by him (John 14:6). Being the Son of God in human form, he reveals the fulness of God to men. Once having lived on earth, no one can identify now with God other than through him. This is the second reason why he is the medium of the judgment of God. He has brought men face-to-face with God. This comes out very clearly in another statement he made: For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself also, and has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man. John 5:26-27 This alone explains why Jesus will return to earth. He comes to save those who have been redeemed through his blood, and he comes to judge the rest. Thus the second coming harmonises with the uniqueness of Jesus as the Son of God. In the four unique features of Jesus’ life you have tremendous evidence to witness to Muslims of who he is and why he came into the world and will return. What is fascinating, and supports your witness, is that the Qur’an and Hadith support these features and acknowledge them all! Despite denying the deity of Jesus, by admitting these features it is tacitly and unreservedly implying that he is indeed the Son of God. Even though he lived as a man on earth, everything we know about him ultimately places him on the level of deity more than that of humanity. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 91: 05.13. THE SON OF GOD ======================================================================== The Son of God The Messiah, Spirit and Word The Qur’anic Rejection of the Deity of Jesus We have looked at some of the unique features in the life of Jesus that distinguish him from all the other prophets of God and which, when considered together, show that he is far greater than all of them and is, indeed, the Son of God. We will now turn to three titles of Jesus which are found in both the Qur’an and the Bible and see how these, too, can be used in leading Muslims to the fulness of Christ. We will be considering only one text from the Qur’an simply because all three titles appear in it and in a most interesting context. In fact, from a Christian point of view, this text is pivotal when assessing just who Jesus really is in Islam, for it shows a strong contrast, even a complete contradiction, between the Muslim dogma that Jesus is not the Son of God and the implications of this text that he most certainly is! The text is: O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion and do not say anything of Allah than the truth. Verily the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, is only a messenger of Allah, and his Word which he bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit from him. So believe in Allah and his messengers. And do not say "Three"! Desist, it is better. Verily Allah is only One. Glorified be he, than that he should ever have a son. To him is everything in the heavens and on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as an overseer. Surah 4:171 There is a threefold denial of the deity of Jesus in this verse. Firstly, Christians are commanded not to believe in Jesus as one of three gods (an allusion to the Trinity). Secondly, Allah is only one God, thus Jesus cannot be another. Finally, the glory of Allah is too great for him to ever have a Son. (The Qur’an, on the few occasions it refers to the Trinity in whatever form Muhammad comprehended it, denounces it as a combination of Jesus and his mother Mary as two gods alongside Allah – cf. Surah 5:76-78; 5:110.) Other passages of the Qur’an reject the deity of Jesus and the Christian belief in him as the Son of God equally emphatically (Surahs 9:30, 19:35), but the text quoted has perhaps the most comprehensive denial of all. What more can you want than a threefold repudiation? Yet, as we shall see, when you consider the titles of Jesus in the same verse, you find a threefold confirmation that Jesus is indeed the eternal Son of God. Debating the subject purely as an either/or – he was or he wasn’t the Son of God – rarely leads to anything more than further polarisation between Christians and Muslims as they fall back on their predetermined dogmatics. Yet, when you can analyse the meanings of the unique titles given to Jesus in this text, it becomes far easier to witness to Muslims of who Jesus really is and it is this theme that we will be pursuing in this chapter. Once again, from common ground between us, you can witness to the glory of Jesus. Al-Masih: Jesus the Messiah In the next chapter we will consider this title in far more detail as it is one of the vital contact points between Christians and Muslims when we consider who Jesus really was, but here we will consider it solely in its context as it appears in Surah 4:171. Firstly, Jesus alone is called the Messiah in the Qur’an. No other prophet, patriarch or priest is given this title. In Arabic it is simply al-Masih. The Qur’an makes no attempt to define the title but it does award it to Jesus on no less than eleven occasions. Sometimes it is simply al-Masih, "the Messiah" (Surah 5:72), elsewhere it is al-Masihu Isa, "the Messiah Jesus" (Surah 4:157), while it also appears as al-Masihubnu Maryam, "the Messiah son of Mary" (Surah 5:17). It is a unique title, given to no one else, but applied to Jesus nearly a dozen times. If you were to ask a Muslim what it means, he really could not tell you other than to say, "Jesus is the Messiah." The title actually has no meaning in Islam and is not derived from any Arabic word. It is an arabised form of ha-Mashiah, the Hebrew title which does have a meaning, namely "the Anointed One." The Jews had long awaited this coming figurehead, especially after his advent had been announced through all the prophets as we have seen. It was Daniel, however, who first gave the coming Son of David the express title Messiah (Daniel 9:25). Without an explanation in Islam one has to go to the Jewish and Christian scriptures to find its meaning. Surah 4:171 says Jesus was no more than a messenger but all Jews and Christians know that this specific title, the Messiah, speaks of a man who stands out above all other men, including the other messengers of God. The Old Testament prophecies we have considered, and many more, show that he would be possessed of a regality, majesty, splendour and excellence above all other men. While denying that Jesus is the Son of God, the Qur’an, nevertheless, is giving him a title that implies that he is the ultimate man of human history and the holy one who was to be the final expression of the revelation of God to men. "God was in the Messiah, reconciling the world to himself" (2 Corinthians 5:19). The most important issue here, in considering Surah 4:171, is to show Muslims that while the Qur’an denies that Jesus is the Son of God, it is giving him a title that proves unreservedly that he is! In Biblical times the expressions Messiah and Son of God were synonymous. Let us look at some key texts you can quote to Muslims to prove the point. 1. Jewish believers in Jesus The Jewish disciples of Jesus freely used the two titles, Messiah and Son of God, interchangeably. (Although the Greek texts use the word Christos, the Greek word for Messiah meaning "Christ," we will use the original Hebrew designation as it makes the point more forcefully). Simon Peter was one of the first Jewish followers of Jesus to do so: You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God. Matthew 16:16 Nathaniel was another who simultaneously called Jesus the Son of God and the King of Israel, another synonym for Messiah (John 1:49). Martha, the sister of Lazarus and Mary, also used the two titles simultaneously in her expression of belief in Jesus: I believe you are the Messiah, the Son of God, he who is coming into the world. John 11:27 2. Caiaphas, the Jewish High Priest When Jesus was brought before Caiaphas, the High Priest of Israel, on the night of his trial, Caiaphas also used the titles synonymously when placing Jesus on oath to declare whether he was the Son of God: I adjure you, by the living God, tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God. Matthew 26:63 3. The Early Christian Gospel-Writers The closest followers of Jesus during his lifetime, and others who followed him shortly after his resurrection and ascension to heaven, also used the titles together in various contexts to declare who Jesus really was. Here are two examples: The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God. Mark 1:1 These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name. John 20:31 4. Demons who Recognised Him Even the demons who were chased out of many they had possessed knew that Jesus was both the Messiah and the Son of God. They knew him from all eternity as the eternal Son from the Father and recognised him in human form when he commanded them with authority to depart. And demons also came out of many, crying, "You are the Son of God!" But he rebuked them, and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Messiah. Luke 4:41 From all these texts we can see how unique the title Messiah is. It is no ordinary title, it is one of the highest eminence and only the Son of God in human form could claim it. This much is obvious from the texts we have quoted. Both the followers of Jesus and his enemies knew who the Messiah really would be. By admitting that Jesus is the Messiah and by confirming his own emphatic declaration to this effect (John 4:25-26), the Qur’an has duly given Jesus a title which implies that he is the very person that the Qur’an is otherwise at such pains to deny, the Son of God himself. In the next chapter we will see, in more detail, how you can witness to Muslims very effectively on the meaning and outworking of this title. Kalimatuhu – The Word of God In the same verse, Surah 4:171, Jesus is also called, "His Word." In Surah 3:45 the Qur’an states that the angels, when announcing the unique conception of Jesus to Mary, told her that Allah was giving her good tidings "of a Word from him." The expression here used, in the original Arabic, is kalimatim-minhu. Broken up, it means kalima (word), min (from), hu (him). Note this, as we will see this structure again soon. Jesus is the only human being who ever lived who is called a Word from God. The same title is applied to him in the Christian Bible: He is clad in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is the Word of God. Revelation 19:13 Once again Jesus is given a title in the Qur’an which the Bible gives him as well. Like the Messiah, this is a very distinctive and remarkable title. It is important to emphasise two specific features of this title in your witness to Muslims. Jesus himself, in his actual person, is the Word. Secondly, the source of this Word is God. Neither book says that he delivered the word of God as other prophets did, or that he was learned in it, or that he embodied and represented it. He is expressly declared to be a Word from God, or the Word of God. Other prophets received the messages of God but Jesus, in a unique way, is himself the message of God to the world. As with the title Messiah, the Qur’an attempts no explanation of the title. You may be countered with the suggestion that this is no more than a definition of how Jesus was conceived in the first place when Allah simply said, "Be, and he came to be" (Surah 3:47). According to the whole verse, however, this is how anything is created by God. The full text reads, "If he decrees a thing, he but says to it Be! and it comes to be." This response is over-simplistic, especially when we read a similar text which says: Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust and said to him: "Be!" and he came to be. Surah 3:59 So, according to the Qur’an, Jesus was created by the word of God in the same way Adam, and by implication, all men are. The title "His Word" and the similar ascription "a Word from Him" are unique, however. Adam is not called the Word of God in the Qur’an, nor are the angels, nor is any other creature. Jesus alone, as in the Bible, is called the Word of God. The title, in its context, applies to him alone. There is obviously something about the person of Jesus himself that makes him the Word of God in a way no other man has ever been or ever will be. You need to point out to Muslims that the key to understanding the title is the emphasis of deity as its source. The Word is from God. He himself is the communication and revelation of God to men. He does not merely bring the word of God, he is the Word of God. We have to turn to the Bible to find the ultimate meaning of the title in view of the fact that the Qur’an attributes it to Jesus without explanation. We go to the very beginning of John’s Gospel where this subject is treated in more detail. It commences with these words: In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. And the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him and without him was not anything made that was made. John 1:1-2 When we amplify or paraphrase these words we get a clear picture of the meaning of the title. In the beginning, before God ever began to create, the Word already existed. Far from being part of the created order, the Word was in the realm of God and indeed the very nature of the Word was God. When God first began to fashion the created order, the Word already existed in the divine order. He himself was not created but all other things were created by God through him as agent. Because he alone is the Word of God, and is therefore the ultimate means of communication between God and his creatures, nothing was created without being created by and through him. Why is he the Word of God, however? In what way was Jesus uniquely the communication of God in himself to mankind? We go a bit further down the first page of John’s Gospel and find these words: And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth. John 1:14 The title signifies two unique things about the Christian Saviour and distinguish him from all other prophets of God. They are: 1. Every Word of Jesus was the Word of God All the prophets who went before him spoke the Word of God when moved by the Holy Spirit, but in general conversation their speech was entirely their own. Muslims themselves, believing Muhammad to be the last prophet, distinguish between the Qur’an, which he received and conveyed as the word of God, and his own teachings which are recorded in the Hadith as inspirational but not divine. Jesus, however, at all times spoke the word of God, whether in public preaching or in private conversation. He confirmed this on various occasions, as in these two verses: I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has given me commandment what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has bidden me. John 12:49-50 The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. John 14:10 On other occasions Jesus referred to the word of God which he was proclaiming as his own word. Being the Word of God, there was no distinction. For example, he said that those who do not love him do not keep his words, adding that they were ultimately not his but the Father’s who sent him (John 14:24). Other examples are: "He who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life" (John 5:24); "If you continue in my word you are truly my disciples (John 8:31); and "Yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name" (Revelation 3:8). 2. Jesus himself is God’s Final Message to Mankind Being the Word of God, Jesus himself is the final and complete revelation of God to the human race. The following text expresses this perfectly: He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities – all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things and in him all things hold together. Colossians 1:15-19 Jesus himself is the Word of God. There is no independence, therefore, between God and his Word. In human form Jesus embodied the divine being. He was not a created messenger; he is, and for all eternity will be, the eternal Word of God. Surah 4:171 tells Christians not to exaggerate in their religion and to say nothing of Allah but the truth. Yet, in view of these unique titles we are considering, it is hard to see where the exaggeration is. The text has a threefold denial of the deity of Christ, yet, in the titles it applies to him, it simply affirms the very thing it is at such pains to deny! We have already seen that the titles Messiah and Son of God are synonymous. The title Word of God is also interchangeable with the title Son of God. If anything this title is more emphatic and suggestive of deity as it implies no submission on the part of the Word to God as the expression Son to Father does. The most important thing, however, is to use this title to witness to what it ultimately means in the context of God’s message to mankind. The word that we proclaim is the Gospel, the good news of God’s saving grace in Jesus Christ. The crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus is God’s message. He died to save us from our sins and rose from the dead to give us an assured hope of one day doing likewise. Instead of being raised to face the judgment, we will be glorified and will share his perfect holiness and righteousness forever. Our sins will not be counted against us. We receive this if we become committed believers in Jesus. This is where you have an open door to witness to Muslims as to why Jesus himself is the Word, God’s final message to mankind. Let us press on to the third title to see how you can communicate the fulness of Jesus to Muslims from this one text in the Qur’an that attempts, more than any other, to avoid it. Ruhullah – The Spirit of God In Islam Jesus is given the title Ruhullah, meaning "Spirit of God." It comes from the same text, Surah 4.171, where Jesus is called wa-ruhun-minhu, "a spirit from him." The same structure is used as for the Word from God: ruh (a spirit), min (from), hu (him). In this case we do find some evidence in the Qur’an that helps us to define the title. The expression occurs again in the following verse: These are those in whose hearts he has inscribed faith, and strengthened them with a spirit from himself. Surah 58:22 The same words are used as in Surah 4:171, ruhun-minhu, "a spirit from him." Nowhere else in the Qur’an does this expression occur. In his commentary on the Qur’an, Yusuf Ali says that the "phrase used is stronger" than that for the Holy Spirit (Ruhul-Quds) in the Qur’an who is identified in Islam as the Angel Gabriel. He implies that this Spirit from God is greater than the mighty angel identified and says it is, "the divine spirit which we can no more define adequately than we can define in human language the nature and attributes of God". The Muslim commentator has, unintentionally but very impressively, given a precise definition of the Holy Spirit as we known him in the Bible. He is the "divine spirit" who cannot be defined in human language with terminology other than that used for God himself. Yet the Qur’an, in the only other place where this expression occurs, applies this same divine title to Jesus. Exactly the same words are used. So you have a third title in Surah 4:171, Spirit from God, which attributes divine features to Jesus just as the titles Messiah and Word of God do. Significantly they are synonymous with titles used in the Bible for Jesus to further express his profile towards mankind as the eternal Son from the Father. The Qur’an, in the very passage which contains a threefold denial of the deity of Jesus ("Do not say Trinity! God is only one God. Far be it from his glory to have a son"), paradoxically attributes three titles to him which affirm the very same thing! He is the Anointed Son of God, the Messiah; he is the divine Word of God, and he is a Spirit coming from God. Jesus was not just another prophet called to office at an appropriate point in time. He is the message of God, he came from God, his very spirit is the Spirit of God. You have remarkable material here for a positive witness to Muslims of the fact that Jesus is the Son of God and God’s divine messenger, his last word, to the human race. Uniquely, however, you can take this last title further with Muslims. The Qur’an, in its use of the expression ruhun-minhu unwittingly affirms the Trinity! Yusuf Ali freely concedes that this is no created spirit of which the books teaches but the divine spirit, which comes from God, and must be defined in the same terms as God. Twice the Qur’an uses the expression, once for Jesus Christ, and once for the Spirit which comes from God and strengthens believers. A closer definition of the Trinity you could hardly hope to find. Surah 58:22 defines the Spirit from God in terms synonymous with those applied to the Holy Spirit in the Bible while Surah 4:171 expressly nominates Jesus in the same terms. As with the title Word of God, you have here a golden opportunity for witness. God is spirit, Jesus taught, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). The trouble with all men and women is that sin has deadened the spirit in us and a rebirth is necessary to come into a living relationship with God. Islam is, in practice, primarily a religion of forms and rituals. Not only are the five times of daily prayers prescribed but so is every detail of the prior ablutions and, thereafter, the performance of the salaat. The Hajj Pilgrimage is also prescribed down to the last detail. Once a man turns to God and believes in Jesus, the Spirit of God enters into him and unites him to God. He is now strengthened by the power of God’s Spirit to become the person God really wants him to be. He enters into a living relationship with God and comes to know him personally. This is certainly what the Bible teaches when it reveals that Jesus was a spirit from God, sent to redeem us, and that the Holy Spirit from God enters into our hearts to make us become the living children of God. In the titles which the Qur’an gives to Jesus, especially those we have considered in Surah 4:171 which are synonymous with similar titles given to Jesus in the New Testament, you have common ground with Muslims and a wonderful opportunity to witness to them of who he really is – God’s anointed deliverer, his own Word, and a spirit proceeding directly from his own being. Let us look at the title al-Masih in greater detail as there is much more material here for witness to his uniqueness and unparalleled saving grace. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 92: 05.14. AL-MASIHU ISA ======================================================================== Al-Masihu Isa God’s Anointed Messiah Ha Mashiah: The Hope of Israel For centuries, from the time of the great prophetic period, when Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and a host of other prophets had foretold the final purposes of God for the Israelite nation and the world as a whole, to the time of the Roman occupation, Israel had longed for its promised Messiah, the Son of David, who they believed would redeem them from all their troubles. The nation longed for its Deliverer and, knowing from prophecies we have already considered in this book that he would be descended from their great king David, named him the Son of David. Yet they chose a more popular title to readily define him, namely the Messiah. By the time of Pontius Pilate, Herod Antipas, and the high priests Annas and Caiaphas, Messianic fervour among the Israelites was at fever pitch. His advent seemed overdue as they yearned for a glorious king who would establish their nation as the dominant nation over the whole earth. The title Messiah comes from the Hebrew ha Mashiah, meaning "the Anointed One." Mashiah is a common Hebrew word and, in the Hebrew Old Testament, is applied to the anointed high priest (Leviticus 4:3), the nation’s king (2 Samuel 1:14), the prophets of God (Psalms 105:15) and even the Persian king Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1). All of these were anointed by God for some specific ministry or purpose, yet, from the abundance of prophecies of a supreme deliverer to come, who is called mashiah in Daniel 9:25, the people of Israel determined that a supremely anointed figure would arise whom they named the Messiah. Because the Qur’an acknowledges this title (al-Masih) and applies it exclusively to Jesus Christ eleven times, this subject is a valid and crucial one for Christian witness to Muslims. The Qur’an, as a rule, teaches that all the prophets of God were the same and that Jesus was no more than a prophet, yet here we have a title obviously derived from its Hebrew equivalent, which to the Israelite nation implied so much more. Prophets had come and gone yet one supreme ruler, who would overshadow them all, had been promised in their prophetic writings and they longed for his coming. The New Testament confirms that Jesus was indeed the Messiah and, while it generally uses the Greek title ho Christos ("the Christ") to describe him, it does on two occasions confirm that this is a translation of the word Messias, the Greek word for Messiah (John 1:41; John 4:25). Once again, therefore, we find common ground with Muslims and you have a solid foundation from which to witness to the saving grace of our Saviour Jesus Christ and just what the title Messiah means. In the chapter on the prophecies of Isaiah I quoted a number of prophetic texts you can use in witness on this subject but a few others from other Old Testament prophets are useful as well. Here is one from the prophecy of Zechariah: Behold the man whose name is the Branch; for he shall grow up in his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord. It is he who shall build the temple of the Lord, and shall bear royal honour, and shall sit and rule upon his throne. Zechariah 6:12-13 It was texts like these that made the Jews expect a glorious king who would rule over the world from Jerusalem but, as we saw in the chapter on Isaiah, prophecies of his regal glory were interwoven with prophecies of suffering, obscurity and humiliation. The Jews failed to realise that he would come in humility the first time as a suffering servant to become exactly like us and, through his death on the cross, deliver us from our sins. Only at his second coming would he come as the divine ruler of the universe to establish his eternal kingdom and raise his followers to glory, to become as he is in his perfect righteousness. The Jews thought he would deliver the nation from the Romans. Jesus, God’s Messiah, came to deliver all of us from ourselves, as well as from the powers of the world, the flesh and the devil, which seek to pull us down into a state of hostility with God. It is important, in witnessing to Muslims on the title al-Masih, to show that all the promises made by the earlier prophets had this twofold emphasis, a suffering servant and a glorious king. The people of Israel seem to have conveniently overlooked the first, yet Muslims recognise that Jesus will have two lifetimes on earth, the first when he was God’s servant, born of Mary, and the second when he will return as a ruler of all the earth for forty years. Many Christians also hold the view that Jesus will return to reign over the earth, expecting him to govern it from Jerusalem for a period of a thousand years. In my view both the Muslims and Christians who hold this belief are making the same mistake the Jews made – expecting an earthly king who would rule from an earthly throne. The Bible makes it plain he will usher in an eternal kingdom and that he will rule directly from his Father’s throne in heaven (Revelation 3:21). You need to draw this contrast, otherwise the Messiah of God looks like nothing more than another King David. The Messiah: Greater Than All the Prophets In witnessing to Muslims on the identity of the Messiah, this point is crucial before you go into the greater work he was called to perform. He was not just another prophet in a long line of earthly messengers, he was the eternal Saviour, the anointed Messiah, who came down from heaven to reconcile men to God. John the Baptist is regarded as a prophet in Islam, Yahya alayhis-salaam (John on whom be peace), just like all the other prophets. What is unique about him is that he lived at the same time as Jesus and was able to witness directly to him. This is what he said of him in his Messianic vocation: You yourselves bear me witness that I said, "I am not the Messiah but I have been sent before him" ... he must increase but I must decrease. John 3:28; John 3:30 This is he of whom I said, "After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me." John 1:30 John clearly regarded the Messiah as a representative of God far greater than himself, and in this he was only emulating all the prophets who went before him. As Jesus said, Abraham rejoiced to see his day (John 8:56), Moses foresaw his coming (John 5:46), and David called him his Lord (Matthew 22:45). John the Baptist knew that he had only been sent as a forerunner of the Messiah. As the New Testament says, "he was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light" (John 1:8). Jesus is the light of the world, as he himself said (John 8:12), and everything that was written of him in the law of Moses, the psalms of David, and the writings of the other prophets, had to be fulfilled (Luke 24:44). The Samaritan woman who met Jesus at Jacob’s well near Sychar in Samaria also knew the Messiah would be far greater than all the prophets who preceded him. She said to Jesus: I know the Messiah is coming, he who is called Christ; when he comes, he will show us all things. John 4:25 To this statement Jesus openly replied, "I who speak to you am he" (John 4:26). You can show Muslims that this question was a direct invitation to Jesus to disclose his true identity – was he just another prophet or was he the long-awaited Messiah, God’s supremely Anointed One? The key passage here is the question Jesus put to the Jewish leaders gathered before him one day in the Temple. These self-appointed masters of the nation’s religious welfare, both Pharisees and Sadducees, had plied him with many questions, vainly attempting to trap him in his answers. Now Jesus had one for them: How can they say that the Messiah is David’s son? For David himself says in the book of Psalms, "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies a stool for your feet." David thus calls him Lord; so how is he his son? Luke 20:41-44 Although Jesus was descended from David, and so was his offspring, yet he was also the coming Messiah, and so was his Lord. He was the root of David as well as his offspring (Revelation 22:16) and David knew he would reign over the kingdom of God for ever. This is the implication of the title Messiah, and it is very useful, before you cover the redeeming work of Jesus in witness to Muslims, to first establish his pre-eminence over all the other prophets of God. Then the uniqueness of his salvation through his crucifixion, death and resurrection, gains more meaning and significance. The Suffering Servant Of God The Messiah came the first time in relative obscurity. Jesus was a lowly man, living in a small village in Galilee, an insignificant district north of Judea, far from the religious heart of the nation. Most of the Jews missed their Messiah because they missed the prophecies of his first coming and focused only on those to be fulfilled at a much later date, which spoke of his eternal glory and rule. It is important, when witnessing to Muslims, to point to the original prophecy where the word mashiah is used and from which the title Messiah was derived. It contains a plain statement that he would be struck down in the middle of his course: And after sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing. Daniel 9:26 This was a direct warning that God’s mashiah would be suddenly struck down and killed – a clear reference to the crucifixion and death of Jesus which caught his disciples by surprise. Here you can quote any of the prophecies we studied of his sufferings from Psalms 22:1-31; Psalms 69:1-36 and from Isaiah 53:1-12 which we have already considered. All of these show that he came the first time to redeem us, to save us from our sins, and to find eternal peace and joy. On the last night Jesus was with his disciples, shortly before his arrest, trial and crucifixion, he spoke to them at length, knowing his ministry was ending and that the supreme purpose for his coming to earth was about to take place. He faced mocking, vicious scourging, being slapped in his face, a hostile mob, an unjust sentence, a painful crucifixion, six hours of excruciating agony on the cross, and an awful death. Yet he could say to his disciples: Peace I leave with you, my peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. John 14:27 These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full. John 15:11 Two expressions here must be noted: my peace and my joy. At no time before this do we find Jesus using either of these terms. What peace or joy could a man have as he faced such a terrible ordeal and certain death within twenty-four hours? Yet he waited specifically until this moment, when most other men would have been overcome with fear and anguish, to speak of his peace and joy – precisely because he was filled with them at a time when the opposite might have been expected. Although he was about to die, his sole pleasure was to do his Father’s will (John 14:31), and he faced the cross with peace and joy because he knew he had come for this purpose and nothing that was to happen to him could disturb his calm assurance that his Father would bring him back to life and that he would rejoice when he saw the fruit of his travail (Isaiah 53:11). It was his burning love for mankind and his determination to endure whatever it would cost to save us that made him face the cross calmly and resolutely. He knew the Messiah would be cut off at his first coming and would only be crowned with glory at his second coming. In between he offers the hope of his salvation to all men, including all Muslims, which is the only way by which anyone can be saved. It is crucial to distinguish these two facets of the Messiah’s mission – the first time in humility to save us, the second in glory to transform us. This is what is embodied in the title al-Masih, a twofold mission not just to preach the Word of God as other prophets had done before him, but also to die for our sins so that we may be freed from our bondage and be guaranteed a place in the kingdom yet to be revealed. The Glory of God’s Anointed Saviour It cannot be denied, however, that glory is the key characteristic of the Messiah that the Old Testament prophecies foresaw. To some extent this explains why the Israelites overlooked the passages clearly predicting his suffering and obscurity and focused on his glory and triumphant rule instead. Perhaps it was nothing more than the typical human instinct to be seen to be backing a winner. No one wants to be identified with a loser. This is why virtually all Jesus’ disciples and followers deserted him when he was arrested and crucified. They had a lot to learn! One of the most difficult tasks of Christian evangelism is to call on the human race to renounce its pride, triumphalism and haughtiness. Unless it does it will never come to the knowledge of truth and this includes all the Muslims of the world. Pride comes before a fall, the proverb says. So also humility comes before honour (Proverbs 15:33). Nonetheless, having first passed through the valley of Jesus’ humiliation and dishonour, we are now equipped to deal with the glory of the Messiah. It has been estimated that there are up to five hundred prophecies of the second coming of Jesus in his eternal glory. The first step was his resurrection from the dead. This sets Jesus apart from all the other prophets of God and, let it be said, the Prophet of Islam. Moses was buried by the Lord himself. Muhammad is buried in a tomb which is visited by millions of Muslims every year. The very journey is known as a ziyarah, a "visitation." As the Apostle Peter said of the great King David, "he both died, and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day" (Acts 2:29) and was, no doubt, appropriately venerated. Jesus, however, has three tombs, a unique qualification in any circumstance. If you visit Jerusalem and the Catholic Church of the Holy Sepulchre, you will be taken down to a tomb below the ground which is said to be his burial place. Just beyond the Dung Gate at the northern entrance to the old city, however, is a garden with a tomb hewn out of a rock consistent with the tomb of Jesus spoken of in the Gospels (Luke 23:53). The Protestants will tell you that this is the true tomb of Jesus. Make a pilgrimage to Mecca and a ziyarah to Medina, however, and you will be shown a tomb of Jesus next to that of Muhammad and his successors Abu Bakr and Umar, where Jesus will supposedly be buried after his return to earth. Yet he fills none of them! He is alive, in heavenly glory, having risen from the dead never to die again. You can make a huge impact on Muslims here. The prophecies of his resurrection which we considered from the Psalms and the prophecies of Isaiah, are a telling testimony to the source of his ultimate glory. He rose from the dead, inconspicuously at first, only to ascend to heaven from which he will appear in glory when he returns to earth. On the day of his resurrection he appeared to be no more than a normal traveller on the road from Emmaus to Jerusalem. Two of his disciples were walking along the road and, as he drew near to them, he seemed to be no more than an ordinary man out for an ordinary evening’s walk. They talked to him about all that had happened over that weekend, especially the fate of Jesus of Nazareth who they had hoped was the Messiah of Israel. When they finished their conversation with confusion at his demise and rumours of his resurrection, he declared: O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and enter into his glory? Luke 24:25-26 The resurrection of Jesus from the dead was the prelude of his glory, but there was to be no sign of this while he remained another forty days on earth. It was only at his ascension to heaven that the glory of what he had achieved began to be realised. We will cover this in the last chapter of this book. Here, however, you need to be content with the fact that, right now, the glory of Jesus is, to all intents and purposes, hidden from the eyes of all who do not believe in him, especially Muslims. But you can witness to it! Peter wrote to the early Christians: The prophets who prophesied of the grace that was to be yours searched and enquired about this salvation; they inquired what person or time was indicated by the Spirit of the Messiah within them when predicting the sufferings of the Messiah and the subsequent glory. 1 Peter 1:10-11 The subsequent glory! This is where you can witness to Muslims very effectively. The Messiah came the first time in obscurity and died for our salvation. He will come the second time in glory to redeem his own, to raise them from the dead in perfect glory, and take them into his eternal kingdom to be with him for ever and ever. This text foreshadows the great event: Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, every one who pierced him; and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so, Amen. Revelation 1:7 Muhammad lies dead and buried in Medina. No one saw him transfigured on a holy mountain. No one witnessed his resurrection from the dead. And no one will witness his triumphant return to earth. As Muslims believe in the return of Jesus, emphasise the wonder and awe it will occasion. He will return in glory. His face will be like the sun shining in full strength (Revelation 1:16). Islamic tradition robs Jesus of his glory, suggesting he appeared as no more than a messenger and that he will return as no more than a servant of Islam. It levels the playing field, claiming that he was no more than an ordinary prophet like all the other prophets of God. Its assessment of Jesus is purely horizontal. You need to witness to the fact that, with this man, all the issues are vertical! From the heights of heaven to the humiliation of a cross. From the depths of the grave to the throne of God in heaven. The finest passage in the New Testament that brings this remarkable distinction into focus begins: Though he was in the form of God, he did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Php 2:6-8 That’s the downward spiral which concentrates exclusively on his first coming. Unlike Adam, who sought equality with God, Jesus, who had that equality from all eternity, became a human being and was, during the first thirty years of his life, indistinguishable from other men. Yet, while nothing more was required of Adam than that he should be a humble servant of God, Jesus was required to descend to the dust, to be condemned as a criminal, and be executed in the worst of forms, reserved for the baser nations of the earth and the most heinous of crimes (no Roman citizen was allowed to be humiliated by crucifixion). This vertical descent is important in witness to Muslims. It moves away from the deliberately horizontal nature of Muslim faith and experience. Of course, if it had ended there, it would still have the appearance of nothing more than defeat. But the passage continues: Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. Php 2:9-11 This is the ascending scale! From the depths of the grave God raised him, not to a renewed, normal healthy life on earth as if nothing had happened, but to heavenly glory, above all the angels, at the very right hand of the Father, from which he will come to judge the whole human race at the end of time. Jesus Christ will not return to become a follower of Muhammad, he will return to judge Muhammad! This is the meaning of the title al-Masih, the Messiah. He was no ordinary prophet, he was the ultimate figurehead, who came from heaven, who plumbed the depths, only to rise again and scale the heights. He ascended from the earth to heaven, he is alive there to this day (as Islam admits), and he will return in heavenly glory. On that day every man, including all Muslims, will be judged by their relationship to Jesus, God’s Anointed Messiah. His complete authority over all the earth and the final destiny of all men is finely summed up in this text: God raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come; and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all. Ephesians 1:20-23 It may take time, but with receptive Muslims you have much to gain by patiently working through the prophetic history of Israel, concentrating on the great prophecies of a Deliverer to come, who would first suffer and then enter into his glory, and then climaxing with a portrayal of the ultimate glory of God’s glorious Messiah who will return to claim his own and judge the rest. Where do the Muslims wish to be on that day? On which side of Jesus will they wish to be (for, at the end of it all, that is all that will matter)? He is God’s Supremely Anointed One (as the Qur’an freely admits), he is the Great Deliverer and Saviour, and he will be the Judge on that awesome Day yet to be revealed. In the simple title al-Masih, "the Anointed One," you have a foundation for witness to Muslims, a door to a comprehensive witness of who Jesus really was – and ultimately will be. Use the common ground Islam gives to press on to an effective witness of who our Saviour and Lord really is, and how he is the only one who can redeem the world from its sin, devilishness and ultimate destruction. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 93: 05.15. THE LOVE OF GOD ======================================================================== The Love of God Father, Son and Holy Spirit The First and Great Commandment How does a Christian ever communicate the Trinity to Muslims? If you use an illustration to explain it, you may be sorely disappointed. One of the favourite representations of the Trinity is water which, though one in substance, can be threefold in its form – steam, water or ice depending on its temperature. If you use this symbolic image for the Trinity, a wise Muslim will retort: "So, when God is steaming hot, he is the Father; when he is at room temperature, he is the Son; and when he is ice cold, he is the Holy Spirit." Don’t blame the Muslim, you’ve invited this sort of ridicule. The Trinity is not a concept of God, nor can it be illustrated. It is the revelation of God at the depth of his divine being, and the common denominator is love. All Muslims will accept the suggestion that human beings are the servants of God, called to obey his commandments and do his will. But there is another dimension here which only believing Christians can know, and it is summed up in this text: What does the Lord require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Deuteronomy 10:12 The new dimension is summed up in just three words, to love him, and as we contemplate these words, we realise that our service to God is not just to be a conformity to duties, such as fixed times of prayer and a once-in-a-lifetime pilgrimage, but a much deeper devotion of the heart towards the God who loves us from the depth of his own being. Even in Old Testament times he spoke of "my eyes and my heart" (1 Kings 9:3) and in the New Testament we see this love fully expressed in Jesus Christ. Here, more than in any other witness source, we have our best opportunity to reveal to Muslims who our God and Father really is. This is the essential difference between Christianity and Islam. The Muslims strive all their lives, through good works and conformity to Islamic religious prescriptions, to gain the favour of God; yet we begin with that favour impressed upon us and are called to a lifetime of service to others with no regard for our own well-being. For we know his banner over us is love (Song of Solomon 2:4) and that nothing can separate us from his love (Romans 8:39). You have no finer point for witnessing to Muslims of the glory of the Christian faith, our knowledge of God at the depth of his love for us, than you have here. Muslims are trained to follow the precepts of their religion, believing God will accept them provided they do this in spite of their sins and personal coldness of their hearts towards him. Yet we know that a true devotion consists of a much deeper commitment which is summed up in these words: And this is love, that we follow his commandments; this is the commandment, as you have heard from the beginning, that you follow love. 2 John 1:6 As the Bible puts it so beautifully, we love, because he first loved us (1 John 4:19). We know that our sins are forgiven in Christ, that we have already become children of God, that we have received the Spirit of God, that we know God personally, and that we are the sons and daughters of his kingdom. Why? Because we know the Triune God. In Old Testament times God revealed himself purely as El-Shaddai, God Almighty. He also revealed his name, Yahweh, the God who is, apart from whom there is no god. But in the New Testament we have a much fuller revelation of God at the depth of his being, a triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who (as we shall see) is God for us, God with us, and God in us. Never mind theological differences with Muslims, here you have the best opportunity to express to Muslims who God really is and how he desires to enter into a deep personal relationship with them. The Love of God in the Qur’an Firstly, let us look at how the Qur’an sees the love of God. The book contains many exhortations to true believers to love God with the assurance that Allah approves of those who are devoted to him. A typical text expressing this equation reads: Say, if you love Allah, follow me; Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. Surah 3:31 Significantly one does not find, in this text nor in any other in the Qur’an, the command to love God with all one’s heart, soul, strength and mind. The reason is that these texts in the Qur’an are only an exhortation to obedience to Allah’s commands, and Allah’s "love" is really no more than a gesture of approval of the faithful worshipper. The basic object of this love, accordingly, is the acquittal and approval of God for the believer. A few issues here are important in our witness to Muslims: 1. No knowledge of forgiveness and acquittal The Muslim’s devotion is all directed towards one goal – gaining the approval of God when his life is over. He ends where we rejoice to begin! The Qur’an leaves the issue of God’s forgiveness undecided. While it teaches that he is al-Ghaffur, "the Forgiver," it never assures the Muslim of his total forgiveness for his sins. That remains to be seen in eternity. The Muslim can strive for Allah’s forgiveness but he can never know it. He therefore strives towards one goal, his ultimate acquittal on the Day of Judgment which he hopes to attain through his good works and religious devotions. In such circumstances he cannot love God from the depth of his heart. He cannot express such love without some prospect of acquittal and acceptance with God foremost in his soul and mind. 2. No expression of God’s love for mankind The Qur’an says very little substantially about God’s love for mankind. Invariably this is defined as no more than an approval of those who do good. This verse is a typical example of the overall teaching of the Qur’an about God’s love for mankind: Spend your wealth for the cause of Allah, and be not cast by your own hands to ruin; and do good. Lo! Allah loves the beneficent. Surah 2:195 So Allah’s love for mankind is very little different to man’s love for him. The Muslim primarily seeks approval, and the God of Islam gives that approval to those who are faithful to him. In every case where the expression "love" occurs it can be translated "approves of" rather than "loves" without any change in the meaning of the expression. The knowledge and realisation of this approval will also only be known at the Last Day. This is virtually all that the Qur’an teaches about Allah’s love for the human race. 3. The Allah of Islam has no heart According to Islamic tradition Allah has ninety-nine names. They are all Biblical enough (an equivalent for every one can be found in the Bible), yet they are not part of his essential being. According to Islam they are all no more than attributes of Allah and that he can express or withhold them at will. They are not essential to his being. Allah can choose to be faithful, loving, forgiving, accepting and so on. He can just as readily and justifiably choose to be unforgiving, rejecting, displeased and disapproving. It all depends on his own judgment. No man has any claim on him. He can express his attributes at will. No one can accuse him of unfairness for he does what he pleases. Allah has neither heart nor soul. The great Muslim scholar al-Ghazzali brought this out very clearly in his book al-Maqsad al-Husna (The Beautiful Names). He went out of his way to assert that the title al-Waddud, "the Loving One," means far less than the title may seem to indicate. Although some of the ninety-nine names of Allah appear regularly in the Qur’an (such as ar-Rahmaan, "the Compassionate" and al-Aziz, "the Mighty"), this one only appears twice and without significance to the text preceding it (Surahs 11:90, 85:14). Al-Ghazzali explains the love of Allah as consisting solely of objective acts of kindness and expressions of approval. He denied that Allah feels any love for mankind in his heart, stating that he remains above the feeling of love. Quite what that means he does not say, nor does he explain how any being can be a better person by being devoid of heartfelt affection towards other beings, but his interpretation of Allah as the Loving One is quite clear. He added that love and mercy are desired in respect of their objects only for the sake of their fruit and benefit and not because of empathy or feeling. This explains why the Qur’an omits the Biblical command to love God with all our hearts, souls and minds. Why should we if he doesn’t feel the same way towards us in return? Essentially there is nothing in the Allah of Islam that can awaken the response of dedicated affection from mankind in return. We have to go back to the Bible to discover this very God, the Triune God who allows us to come behind the inner curtain and experience the fulness of his love for us as revealed in the Father who loves us, the Son who died for us, and the Holy Spirit who activates the love of God in our hearts. God The Father: God for Us I have already dealt with this subject in Facing the Muslim Challenge (pages 83-86) but it is essential to this book and will cover it again, though from a different perspective. There is no better way of making the God of the Bible attractive to Muslims than the revelation of his love for us in the New Testament knowledge of his Triune being. We shall begin with the Father. "The Father himself loves you," Jesus told his disciples (John 16:27), and this love is expressed in the form human beings know best, from a parent to a child. If God is our Father, then we are his children, and the relationship we share with him immediately becomes far deeper than anything any other religion can project. According to Islam a believer can never be greater than a servant of God (Surah 19:93), but children have an authority and closeness to their Father that no servant can hope to attain. It is summed up in these words of Jesus: "What do you think Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their sons or from others?" And when he said "From others," Jesus said to him, "then the sons are free." Matthew 17:25-26 Because the Christian believer is a child of God, he is already a lawful member of the household of God (Ephesians 2:19). He does not have to earn his place there, nor can he ever be dismissed from God’s kingdom. The children of God are free to enjoy all that their heavenly Father calls his own. They are his heirs along with the supreme heir to the Father’s throne, Jesus Christ. A point made to me by a Muslim once, and my reply to it, brings this out very clearly and you should use it in your witness to Muslims. The Muslim said to me, "You Christians reduce the glory of God, you call him your Father and therefore make him out to be little more than yourselves." He continued: "Your Lord’s Prayer opens with just two words, Our Father, which shows just how little you honour him." He then quoted the first verses of the Qur’an: All praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, the Compassionate, the Merciful, Master of the Day of Reckoning. Surah 1:2-4 "See how we glorify Allah," he proclaimed, "see how great is our praise to him! How different to your simple introduction, Our Father." I replied that he had quite rightly discerned one aspect of Christian belief about God, but had completely missed another. "You are quite right when you say our God is not much higher than we are, that the gap between us is very small" I continued, "but you’re missing the point. It’s not down at our level that the gap is narrow, it’s up at his!" I finished by saying that we never made God our Father at any time, rather he made us his children when his own Son died and rose again for our salvation and redemption. We have been raised right up to his level and are declared to be little lower than himself (Psalms 8:4-6). There is no other religion in the world that relates to God even remotely as close as ours does. We are his heirs! You will know the saying, "Like father, like son," and nowhere is this more true than in the person of Jesus Christ who is the exact image of the living God (Colossians 1:15). Yet we too have become the sons and daughters of God and are not just his servants but are constantly being renewed and conformed to his likeness. Another well known expression also applies here: "One day my son this will all be yours." Once again this is perfectly true of the heavenly Father’s commitment to his own Son, but because we share in the inheritance of Jesus, his kingdom will one day also be ours as well. It is his good pleasure to give it to us (Luke 12:32). We are not religious people, reciting scriptural texts, performing pilgrimages, going through ritualistic practices, conforming to a pattern of life as Muslims are. We are a redeemed people of God, we have been set free from dead works and pointless repetitive ceremonies. We know God personally, we have entered into his very presence, we have an assured hope, and we can bask in the knowledge of his absolute love for us. We do not hope for forgiveness, we have it. Bilquis Sheikh titled her testimony of conversion to Christ I Dared to Call Him Father. It is because of this intensely close relationship that we know that God is for us, he has predetermined our destiny. Knowing God as Father is one of the finest ways you can convey the love of God and our experience of his glory to Muslims. Ours is not a concept of God, it is a living knowledge of his eternal being. We do not simply believe in God, he believes in us! God the Son: God with Us Jesus Christ was not just the final messenger of God, he is also God’s final message to mankind! John’s Gospel more than any of the other three, focuses on the unique revelation of the Triune God in the knowledge of Jesus Christ. John concentrates on teachings of Jesus about God as Father, himself as his Son, and the Holy Spirit. He knew that Jesus had come to open the door, to make God known, and to express his very presence with us on earth. The Word was in the beginning. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:1; John 1:14). "God has visited his people!" the Jews declared as Jesus walked among them (Luke 7:16). Indeed he had. Jesus among us was God with us. The most famous verse in the New Testament defines just what this means. One little word, which I shall emphasise, brings this out very emphatically: For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16 Here you have, once again, the heart of the Christian Gospel, the essential basis of all our witness to Muslims. The Qur’an has very little to say about the love of God other than to use the word as an expression of approval, and it is little wonder when it denies the fact that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died for our sins. It has denied the greatest manifestation of God’s love that could ever have been given to mankind. As Jesus said: Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13 This is the greatest and most abiding form of love, love that is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6) and cannot be overcome by it. Such love was revealed at its fullest extent when Jesus willingly laid down his life: When Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of the world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. John 13:1 So we see the love of the Father for us in being willing to make us children and the love of the Son by laying down his life so that we might receive the full forgiveness of our sins and so become the sons and daughters of God. Let us see, in closing, how God applies this love to us by the Holy Spirit who enters into our very own beings. God the Spirit: God in Us This is where we actually experience the love of God towards us. This is where it becomes real to us. In a nutshell the following passage defines this principle: But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" Galatians 4:4-6 This is, perhaps, the most remarkable evidence of God’s love towards us. Christians actually know God, his Spirit lives within them. This activates a personal awareness of the love of God in Christ towards us and makes us experience a living relationship with God. Ultimately the difference between those who are approved by God and those who are not is not just a matter of conviction and belief. It is a difference of mega proportions. God actually dwells in believers as opposed to unbelievers who are contaminated by their sins. It is not a certificate of assurance that we have informing us that our sins are forgiven. We are united to God. His Spirit dwells in the depths of our being. We are joined to God in a relationship that can never be broken. Much the same is taught in the following verse where the presence of the indwelling Spirit makes us conscious of our relationship with God: When we cry, "Abba! Father!" it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. Romans 8:15-17 The issues between Muslims and Christians do not focus on the identity of God. Our message to the Muslims is not that they worship a false god and that they must now come and worship the true God. Not at all. It’s a question of the depth of the revelation of God’s love towards us. In Christ we have gained an access to God which brings us into the very depth of his divine presence and here we discover the Triune nature of God and its essential basis – his everlasting love for us. When we witness to Muslims we are calling them away from the mechanics of lip service to God. We are encouraging them to abandon the repetitive rituals they slavishly follow day after day, such as the monotonous salaat which is little more than an exercise of physical devotions, mundanely performed with the same endless routines. We are encouraging them to come into a living relationship with God where they can experience his forgiveness and divine presence in their hearts, challenging them daily to forsake all sinfulness, opportunism, selfishness and deceit; so that they may become like God in his perfect purity and righteousness and be prepared for a kingdom of perfect holiness. Our message to the Muslims is this: we have come to know God, we have been forgiven by God, we have been adopted as the eternal children of God, we have received the Spirit of God, we are heirs of the kingdom of God. This is what the Gospel really is, not a presentation of correct beliefs or a formula to draw near to God, but a deep call to a living knowledge of God and the assurance of a place in his eternal kingdom when it will be revealed at the end of time. The Holy Spirit within us is the "guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory" (Ephesians 1:14). This is why Christians can afford to be humble rather than arrogant. This is why we can be satisfied with our worship without having to prove anything to ourselves. The seal of God is upon us. We have nothing to prove. We are God’s children now. We have the deep assurance of his love towards us. This is not something we one day hope will work our way. The indwelling Spirit has given us the definite knowledge that we are God’s children now and that our place in his eternal kingdom is an absolute certainty. We do not hope for God’s approval on the Day of Judgment, we know that that day will be the moment of our glorification as we are joined with Jesus Christ to reign over his kingdom for all eternity. This certainty is beautifully emphasised in these two texts: Hope does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us. Romans 5:5 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit. Ephesians 2:19-22 Muslims often think the Trinity is a self-evident fallacy, the great weakness of the Christian faith. On the contrary it is our greatest strength. It reveals the depth of God’s love towards us and our opportunity to know him personally. The Father opens the door for us to draw closer to God than the adherents of any other religion could ever have imagined, the Son through his redeeming death and resurrection has made it possible for us to be forgiven of all our sins right now, and the Spirit has entered our hearts to join us even now to God in an absolute oneness of being. The Muslim hopes to be forgiven on the Day of Judgment and directs all his devotion and service towards this end; the Christian knows he is forgiven and lives out his life in heartfelt service to God, seeking no favours for himself but the welfare of others. We begin where Muslims hope to end! ======================================================================== CHAPTER 94: 05.16. NUZUL-I-ISA ======================================================================== Nuzul-I-Isa The Second Coming of Jesus Implications of the Return of Jesus to Earth One of the great beliefs Christians and Muslims hold in common is the eventual return of Jesus Christ to earth. Although we may differ in our understanding of the events that led up to his ascension to heaven, we both agree that he was taken up alive at the end of his earthly life and will return from heaven at the end of this age. Here, again, there are differences in our convictions about how he will appear and what he will come to accomplish, but the very fact of his return is a crucial meeting-point between Christians and Muslims and one we can build on in our witness to them. On the last night that he was with his disciples, during the famous Last Supper just before his crucifixion, Jesus had a very intimate conversation with them. He revealed to them deeper truths than he had done at any other time during his ministry. The whole text of this dialogue is found in the thirteenth to the sixteenth chapters of John’s Gospel and many of his statements touched on his ultimate return to earth. He began: In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And when I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. John 14:2-3 "I will come again" was his promise, one he repeated again and again that evening. "I will not leave you desolate, I will come to you," he added (John 14:18). "So you have sorrow now, but I will see you again and your hearts will rejoice; and no one will take your joy from you" – another statement that he would return (John 16:22). Later the same evening, when he stood before the Jewish High Priest Caiaphas, he testified: But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven. Matthew 26:64 He kept emphasising this theme as a comfort to his followers and a warning to his foes. He taught plainly that his return would herald the Day of Judgment and that all mankind would be separated into two camps, some for glory, others for damnation. Their attitude to him would determine their destiny. His followers would join him in the kingdom of heaven, the rest would be cast into eternal darkness. He summed this up in these words: When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, and the goats at the left. Matthew 25:31-32 The Qur’an does not teach the second coming of Jesus in such emphatic language but as we have seen the Muslim world has long held that the following verse, which we considered in an earlier chapter, specifically refers to the return of Jesus to the earth: And there is knowledge of the hour. Surah 43:61 This is the literal translation of the text, though Muslim scholars state that, as the immediately preceding texts cover the subject of Jesus, this text is a conclusion to the narrative, and Yusuf Ali, filling in the gaps in brackets, translates it: "And (Jesus) shall be a Sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgment)". A record from the Hadith gives the Muslim position on the purpose of his return: Abu Huraira reported that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said: By Him in Whose hand is my life, the son of Mary (pbuh) will soon descend among you as a just judge. He will break crosses, kill swine and abolish Jizya, and wealth will pour forth to such an extent that no one will accept it. Sahih Muslim, Vol.1, p.92 Muslims believe Jesus will return to destroy the Antichrist and his hosts, that he will turn all men and women on earth into followers of Islam, and that he will usher in an age of unprecedented prosperity. We do not agree with this expectation, but the important point in witness to Muslims is the mere fact of his return, and here Christians have tremendous material for witness of his glory and eternal purposes. The idea that a human being ascended alive to heaven two thousand years ago, has lived there in perfect health ever since, and will one day come back to earth, begs further scrutiny. The event will be totally unique and its climactic character begs the conclusion that there must be something very special about the man Jesus Christ. During their lifetimes all the prophets only influenced their immediate environment and age, yet Jesus will return to transform the earth and radically affect all the nations scattered across it. What is it about him that will result in such an awesome event at the end of time? Perhaps the answer lies in the expression used by many Muslim commentators on the Qur’an, such as Yusuf Ali and Maulana Daryabadi. They speak of the second coming of Jesus, a common Christian expression to describe his return. We use the expression "second coming" because we believe he came from heaven the first time as well. If there is to be a second coming, there must have been a first coming. If Muslims tell you they believe in the second coming, challenge them about the implications of this description. Jesus himself is the source of our conviction that he came from heaven the first time as well. He is recorded as saying: For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. John 6:38 In response to this the Jews asked: "How does he now say, I have come down from heaven?" (John 6:42) When even some of his own followers began to murmur at his teaching he said to them: Do you take offence at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? John 6:61-62 He regularly stated that he was no ordinary human being but had come down from heaven. "I am from above ... I am not of this world" (John 8:23). This is why he returned to heaven at the end of his earthly life – because he had come from there in the first place! He summed it all up in one emphatic statement: I came from the Father and have come into the world; again, I am leaving the world and going to the Father. John 16:28 All other men, both small and great, including Enoch and Elijah, have returned whence they came. "No one has ascended into heaven, but he who descended from heaven," Jesus proclaimed (John 3:13). Moses was buried by the Lord, David lies buried in Jerusalem, and even Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, whom Muslims believe to be the last and greatest of God’s messengers, lies buried in Medina. None of them lived beyond a normal lifespan, nor did Abraham, Joseph or any others of the great prophets of old. Why, then, did this one man ascend to heaven to remain alive there, the only living man among myriads of angels, until he returns to earth at the end of time? There can only be one logical conclusion. He returned to heaven because he came from there in the first place. Muslims speak of the nuzul-i-Isa, the "descension of Jesus," to describe his second coming. What the Bible shows is that it will be very similar to his first nuzul, his first descension to earth when he became the man Jesus of Nazareth. We do not have to rely on speculations here because, as we have seen, he himself taught that he was in heaven before the world began. A passage of scripture says, "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together" (Colossians 1:17). Jesus confirmed this when he said: I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. Luke 10:18 According to the Bible, the fall of Satan took place when he attempted to usurp the throne of God in heaven and make himself like the Most High (Isaiah 14:14). This took place before the creation of Adam and Eve, which is obvious because, when he tempted them, he had already become the greatest of all devils. The Qur’an places the fall of the great Shaytaan, whom it names Iblis (which is derived from the original Greek word which gives us our word "diabolical"), at the beginning of creation, saying that he refused to bow to Adam at God’s command (Surah 2:34), complaining that Adam had only been made of dust while he had been made of fire (Surah 7:18). Nonetheless both books place Satan’s fall at a very early age and Jesus emphatically stated, "I was there, I saw it happen." On another occasion, Jesus declared that he had shared his Father’s glory "before the world was made" (John 17:5), another statement confirming that he had been in heaven for ages before he came to earth. From these statements we can explain to Muslims why he is going to return to earth and, once the uniqueness of his two comings is fully appreciated, you can move on to reveal to them precisely who Jesus really is and why he will one day come back to call the whole earth, both the dead and the living, to the day of destiny and the separation of all men to eternal life or everlasting condemnation. An important point here is how Jesus will appear when he returns, and we will proceed to examine this question first before moving on to the full implications of his second coming. How Jesus will be Identified on His Return Muslims believe Jesus will return to the great mosque of Damascus in Syria and that he will land on one of its minarets before coming down to earth. I have often asked Muslims how Jesus could be identified on his return if he was to return as no more than an ordinary man. If someone was to appear in Syria and be interviewed one day on TV, claiming, "I am Isa. I returned from heaven earlier today. No one saw me but here I am," how would anyone know it really was him? Some Muslims, aware of the need to be able to positively identify him, believe he will have a bone missing in one of his fingers. This is no more than a typical myth but it does show the problem of identifying any ordinary, bearded man dressed in white, as Jesus if he claims to be him. Significantly, there is a tradition in Islam telling Muslims how to recognise him. Muhammad is recorded as saying: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (pbuh). He will descend (to the earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish hair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol.3, p.1203 A Muslim friend of mine once said to me, "When Jesus comes I believe he will come from heaven shining like a light." I replied, "Why do you say this? This is what Christians believe." He answered, "Look where he is coming from. You cannot come from heaven looking like this," pointing to himself. He made a crucial point. The issue is not whether Jesus will return to Damascus, Mecca or Jerusalem, the question is where he is coming from. He will be coming from heaven. Having been alive there for thousands of years it is highly unlikely that he will come back in an ordinary, earthly form. Coming from heaven, he will surely bear the glory of heaven. Jesus himself confirmed that he will return in heavenly splendour in these words: Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heaven will be shaken; then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory; and he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Matthew 24:29-31 When even the sun casts a shadow a new brightness will appear. All the earth will see the glory and power of Jesus as the heavens are opened and his presence fills the skies. His light will be so splendid that even the stars and galaxies will recede before him. This is one of the greatest facts about the second coming of Jesus that you need to emphasise with Muslims and you have the testimony of Jesus himself to support it. This will not be something entirely new. When the Apostle Paul saw Jesus in a heavenly vision on the road to Damascus, a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shone around him and those who were with him (Acts 26:13). When the Apostle John had a vision of the glorified Christ on the island of Patmos, "his face was like the sun shining in full strength" (Revelation 1:16). Even while he was on earth he gave three of his disciples, Peter, James and John, a vision of his heavenly glory as he was transfigured before them. "His face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as light." (Matthew 17:2) We have no doubt therefore how he will be recognised when he returns. No one will fail to recognise him. He will not descend as a man of flesh and blood, he will be revealed from heaven in all his splendour. Another key text can be quoted here: Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, every one who pierced him; and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so, Amen. Revelation 1:7 More than five billion people currently populate the earth. Billions of others have been buried in previous generations. Prophets and saints, kings and tyrants, small and great, have all alike perished and gone back to the dust from whence they came. But right now one man is alive in heaven where he ascended and from where he will return. He has been there almost two thousand years whereas very few other men ever reach a hundred years. It is surely absurd to believe that he is, to this day, nothing more than an ordinary human being. As I have already mentioned, I have often chatted with Muslims about the fact that Jesus is the only person who ever lived who has three tombs on earth (two in Jerusalem and one in Medina). Three tombs for one man! Yet Jesus fills none of them and never will. They can dig a thousand graves for Jesus and will be wasting useful energy. For we know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. Romans 6:9 If Jesus had not died but had simply been raptured alive to heaven as Muslims believe, there would have been no point keeping him there once those who sought his life had passed away. He should have been sent back to earth to complete his mission. This is exactly what happened when Herod sought to kill him when he was only two years old. When Herod died, however, Jesus and his family returned from Egypt to Galilee in Israel (Matthew 2:21). The ascension of Jesus to heaven after his death and resurrection, however, makes much more sense and it explains why he has been alive in heaven, in perfect health, ever since. He is glorified in heaven, and it is from the same heaven, with the same glory, that he will return. Impress this glorious truth on Muslims. The First and Second Comings of Jesus I believe, however, that the most effective Christian witness at this point to Muslims centres on the two advents of Jesus on earth taken together. One needs to look at the second coming in context with his first coming. We have already seen that Jesus plainly taught that he came from heaven in the first place. He consistently also taught that he would return to heaven, a fact which is not only confirmed in the Bible but is believed universally by Muslims. He will return from heaven to earth at the end of time. The key question here for Muslims is why Jesus dwelt on the earth for such a short period of only thirty-three years when he had spent millennia in heaven before this and has done so ever since. There must have been a special purpose for his coming to earth the first time. You can give the Muslims two fundamental reasons for his appearance on earth as an ordinary human being two millennia ago. Firstly, he came to bridge the gap between heaven and earth, between the God of holiness and sinful men. No one has beaten death and ascended to heaven to live there for ever (John 3:13). All men die and wither as their bodies decay in the ground. A chasm exists between heaven and earth for this reason: Behold, the Lord’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save, or his ear dull, that it cannot hear; but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, so that he does not hear. Isaiah 59:1-2 The God of heaven dwells in unapproachable light with his holy angels. Sinful men and women on earth cannot enter the portals of the Most High. Muslims believe that, when Adam and Eve were driven from the Garden of Eden for their transgression, they were subsequently forgiven, but they were never let back into the Garden. They died and perished like all their descendants do. Jesus came from heaven to close the gap which we could not bridge from earth. He did this by bringing something of heaven into this world, namely himself. The divine spirit of the second person of the Triune God took human form and, by uniting man to God and God to man, brought the presence of God in human form to all humans who walk the face of this lonely planet. Secondly, he bridged the gap between earth and heaven by dying for our sins as an ordinary human being. On the cross, he endured the wrath of God against universal human sin so that we could be forgiven, be born of the Spirit of God, and eventually be transformed ourselves into heavenly beings who will ascend likewise to the eternal heavenly realm where we too will live for ever! To do this Jesus had to become like us. Because we are only flesh and blood, "he himself likewise partook of the same nature" (Hebrews 2:14). He came, "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Romans 8:3) to redeem it. He has become the mediator between man and God and, by his death and resurrection, has become the door through which we can walk into the highest heavens where our God and Father dwells. Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people. Hebrews 2:17 Jesus did not come like some alien Superman who can fly through the skies at his own discretion, exercise awesome physical power to achieve his purposes, and be immune to all diseases, bullets and bombs. He became like us in every respect. He assumed the very weaknesses of our human nature, and ultimately he died as we will die. He bridged the gap between God and men from both sides – from heaven to earth by becoming a human being, and from earth to heaven by conquering sin and death on the cross. Muslims believe Jesus did not complete his earthly mission and must return to do so. In denying his crucifixion, death and resurrection, it is no wonder Islam misses the accomplishment of his task. Reveal to Muslims how this was the supreme work for which Jesus came and was the greatest victory any human being has ever achieved on earth – to conquer death. As he approached his crucifixion he asked: And what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour? No, for this purpose I have come to this hour. John 12:27 As he died he cried out: Accomplished! (John 19:30) Most translations mitigate the force of the single Greek word (usually in this form: "It is finished!"). No, in a remarkable way, one his disciples could not possibly have discerned at the time, his sudden, unexpected, humiliating death was itself the victory to surpass all others and would be confirmed three days later when he rose from the dead. Jesus came to earth the first time to become just like us in every respect to save us from our sins. Yet, when he returns the second time in all his heavenly glory, he will come to make us like himself. We have seen how many texts speak of Jesus shining like the sun in full strength in his heavenly splendour. This is precisely what he says will happen to us when he returns to earth: Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Matthew 13:43 He came the first time in all humility in ordinary human form to redeem us from our sins. He will return the second time in all his glory so that we might share it with him. He brought himself down the first time to earth. He will take us to himself in the heavenly realms when he returns the second time. In your witness to Muslims emphasise the fact of the second coming and how it inevitably links to his first coming. Show Muslims how they too can become partakers of the divine nature and receive the forgiveness of their sins by becoming disciples of Jesus now, and how they can be transformed when he returns and be raised with the same glory he presently radiates. The nuzul-i-Isa in Islam, his second coming to earth, is a tremendous point of common ground for a very effective witness to Muslims. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 95: 05.17. BIBLIOGRAPHY ======================================================================== Bibliography 1. Christian Books on Muslim Evangelism Abdul-Haqq, Abdiyah Akbar. Sharing your Faith with a Muslim. Bethany Fellowship Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America. 1980 Abd al-Masih. The Main Challenges for Committed Christians in Serving Muslims. Light of Life, Villach, Austria. 1996 Addison, James Thayer. The Christian Approach to the Moslem. AMS Press Inc., New York, United States of America. 1966 Anonymous. Christian Witness Among Muslims. Africa Christian Press, Accra, Ghana, 1971 Bevan Jones, L. Christianity Explained to Muslims. YMCA Publishing House, Calcutta, India. 1952 Challen, Ed. To Love a Muslim! Grace Publications, London, England. 1988 Christensen, Jens. The Practical Approach to Muslims. North Africa Mission, Marseille, France. 1977 Crossley, John. Explaining the Gospel to Muslims. United Society for Christian Literature, London, United Kingdom. 1971 Dennett, Bill. Sharing the Good News with Muslims. Anzea Publishers, Homebush West, Australia. 1992 Dretke, Jim. A Christian Approach to Muslims. William Carey Library, Pasadena, California, United States of America. 1979 Elder, J. The Biblical Approach to the Muslim. Leadership Instruction and Training International, Houston, Texas, United States of America. Foreign Missions Conference of N. America. Christian Literature in Moslem Lands. George H. Doran Company, New York, United States of America. 1923 Gilchrist, John. The Christian Witness to the Muslim. Jesus to the Muslims, Benoni, South Africa. 1988 Goldsmith, Martin. Islam and Christian Witness. Hodder and Stoughton, STL Books, Bromley, Kent, United Kingdom. 1982 Haddad, Yvonne Yazbeck and Wadi Z. Christian-Muslim Encounters. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America. 1995 Haines, John. Good News for Muslims. Middle East Resources, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America. 1998 Harris, George K. How to Lead Moslems to Christ. China Inland Mission, Philadelphia, United States of America. 1957 Madany, Bassam M. The Bible and Islam: Sharing God’s Word with a Muslim. The Back to God Hour, Palos Heights, Illinois, United States of America. 1981 Mallouhi, Christine A. Waging Peace on Islam. Monarch Books, London, United Kingdom. 2000 Marsh, C.R. Share your Faith with a Muslim. Moody Press, Chicago, United States of America. 1975 Miller, William M. A Christian’s Response to Islam. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Nutley, New Jersey, United States of America. 1976 Muller, Roland. Tools for Muslim Evangelism. Essence Publishing, Belleville, Ontario, Canada. 2000 Nickel, Gordon D. Peaceable Witness Among Muslims. Herald Press, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. 1999 Nehls, Gerhard. And What About the Muslim? Evangelical Mission Press, Bellville, South Africa. Nehls, Gerhard. Premises and Principles of Muslim Evangelism. Life Challenge, Bombay, India. 1991 Nehls, Gerhard. The Great Commission, You and the Muslims. Life Challenge, Cape Town, South Africa. Oksnevad, Roy and Welliver, Dotsey. The Gospel for Islam. Evangelism and Missions Information Service, Wheaton, Illinois, United States of America. 2001 Parshall, Phil. The Last Great Frontier: Essays on Muslim Evangelism. Open Doors with Brother Andrew, Quezon City, Philippines. 2000 Powell, Avril Ann. Muslims & Missionaries in Pre-Mutiny India. Curzon Press Ltd., Richmond, Surrey, United Kinmgdom. 1993 Register, Ray G. Dialogue and Interfaith Witness with Muslims. Moody Books Inc., Kingsport, Tennessee, United States of America. 1979 Saal, William J. Reaching Muslims for Christ. Moody Press, Chicago, United States of America. 1993 Tanagho, Samy. Glad News! God Loves You, My Muslim Friend. Calvary Chapel, Santa Ana, California, United States of America. 1999 Vander Werff, Lyle. Christian Mission to Muslims. William Carey Library, Pasadena, California, United States of America. 1977 2. Testimonies and Biographies of Muslim Converts Alam, Christopher. Through the Blood and the Fire: From Muslim to Born Again Christian. New Wine Press, Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom. 1994 Esther, Gulshan. The Torn Veil. Marshall, Morgan & Scott, Basingstoke, United Kingdom. 1984 Esther, Gulshan. Beyond the Veil. Marshall Pickering, Hammersmith, London, United Kingdom. 1992 Farnham, Dr. Bruce. My Big Father. STL Books, Bromley, Kent, United Kingdom. 1986 Gaudeul, Jean-Marie. Called from Islam to Christ. Monarch Books, Crowborough, East Sussex, United Kingdom. 1999 Hanna, Mark. The True Path: Seven Muslims Make Their Greatest Discovery. International Doorways Publications, Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States of America. 1975 Hirji-Walji, Hass (and Jaryl Strong). Escape from Islam. Kingsway Publications, Eastbourne, United Kingdom. 1981 Lotfi, Nasser. Iranian Christian. Word Books, Waco, Texas, United States of America. 1980 Masood, Steven. Into the Light. STL Books, Bromley, Kent, United Kingdom. 1986 Miller, William McElwee. Ten Muslims Meet Christ. William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, United States of America. 1976 Rasooli, Jay M., and Allen, Cady H. Dr. Sa’eed of Iran. William Carey Library, Pasadena, California, United States of America. 1983 Sabri, Reza (with Timothy Sheaff). Reza: A Moslem Sees Christ. IMF Publication, Denton, Texas, United States of America. 1991 Safa, Reza F. Blood of the Sword, Blood of the Cross: A Fanatical Muslim Tells His Story. STL Books, Bromley, Kent, United Kingdom. Sheikh, Bilquis. I Dared to Call Him Father. Chosen Books, Waco, Texas, United States of America. 1978 Wootton, R.W.F. Jesus: More than a Prophet. STL Books, Bromley, Kent, United Kingdom. 1982 3. Christian Booklets on Muslim Evangelism Abd al-Masih. Why is it Difficult for a Muslim to Become a Christian? Ev. Light of Life, Villach, Austria Akbar Haqq, Dr. A. Sharing the Lord Jesus Christ with Muslim Neighbours. Publisher not named. 1978 Anonymous. Reaching Muslims Today. North Africa Mission, Upper Darby, Pennsylvania, United States of America. 1976 Hahn, Ernest. How to Respond to Muslims. Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, United States of America. 1995 Hosmon, Sarah L. Presenting Jesus Christ the Son of God to Moslems. The India Bible Christian Council, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India. 1956 Jadeed, Iskander. How to Share the Gospel with our Muslim Brothers. Light of Life, Villach, Austria. Kingsriter, Del. Sharing your Faith with Muslims. Centre for Ministry to Muslims, Minneapolis, United States of America. Marrison, G.E. The Christian Approach to the Muslim. Lutterworth Press, London, United Kingdom. 1971 Stacey, Vivienne. Practical Lessons for Evangelism among Muslims. Orientdienst eV., Wiesbaden, Germany. 4. Booklets of Testimonies of Muslim Converts Alavi, K.K. In Search of Assurance. The Good Way, Rikon, Switzerland. Ambrie, Hamran. God has Chosen for me Everlasting Life. The Good Way, Rikon, Switzerland. El-Ilodigwe, Nasir Suleiman. From Muslim Scholar to Evangelist. Fireliners International, Ibadan, Nigeria. 1991 Hakkeem, A. Abdul. On the Way of the Cross. Nur ul Alam, Kerala, Manjeri, India.1986 Jan, Tamur. Ex Muslims for Christ. The Crossbearers, Birmingham, United Kingdom. 1980 Naaman, Ghulam Masih. My Grace is Sufficient for You. The Good Way, Rikon, Switzerland. Paul, Sultan Muhammed. Why I Became a Christian. The Good Way, Rikon, Switzerland. Subhan, J.A. How a Sufi Found his Lord. Lucknow Publishing House, Lucknow, India. 1952 ======================================================================== CHAPTER 96: 06.00.1. THE CHRISTIAN WITNESS TO THE MUSLIM ======================================================================== The Christian Witness to the Muslim by John Gilchrist ======================================================================== CHAPTER 97: 06.00.2. TABLE OF CONTENTS ======================================================================== Table of Contents Preface 1. THE WESTERNIZED MUSLIM: CHRISTIANITY’S NEW CHALLENGE 1. THE OPPORTUNITIES FACING THE CHURCH TODAY Emigration of Muslims to the West Samuel Zwemer’s Vision for South Africa Broken Barriers and Wide-Open Doors Muslims in a Christian Environment 2. FRIENDSHIP EVANGELISM AMONG WESTERNIZED MUSLIMS The Development of Personal Relationships "You are the Light of the World" Practical Care for Muslim Problems The Gifts and Power of the Holy Spirit 3. COMMUNICATING THE GOSPEL TO MUSLIMS Basic Principles for Muslim Evangelism The Biblical Approach to Muslims An All-Round Comprehensive Ministry Caring for the Muslim Convert 2. EFFECTIVE METHODS OF WITNESSING TO MUSLIMS 4. ABRAHAM IN THE QUR’AN AND THE BIBLE Khalilullah: The Friend of God Millat-a-Ibrahim: The Faith of Abraham Eid-ul-Adha: The Festival of Sacrifice Ishaq or Ismail: The Muslim Dilemma 5. THE UNIQUENESS AND TITLES OF JESUS IN ISLAM Jesus’ Birth, Ascension and Second Coming Al-Masihu Isa: God’s Anointed Messiah The Titles Word and Spirit of God Jesus the Resurrection and the Life 6. COMPARING BIBLICAL AND QUR’ANIC TENETS The Love of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit The Fall of Adam and the Cross of Christ The Crucifixion in Islam and Christianity 3. MUSLIM OBJECTIONS TO THE CHRISTIAN GOSPEL 7. OBJECTIONS TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE BIBLE The Authenticity of the Christian Bible Typical Muslim Objections to the Scriptures The Testimony of the Qur’an to the Bible 8. OBJECTIONS TO FUNDAMENTAL CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity Jesus the Son of the Living God The Atoning Work of the Christ 9. MISCELLANEOUS MUSLIM OBJECTIONS TO THE GOSPEL The "Pagan Origins" of Christianity Prophecies to Muhammad in the Bible The Gospel of Barnabas The Numerous Christian Churches Bibliography ======================================================================== CHAPTER 98: 06.00.3. PREFACE ======================================================================== Preface Throughout the traditional world of Christendom, today more commonly termed "the West", Muslim communities have become a permanent feature of the environment. Since the end of the last world war, countless thousands have emigrated from their homelands to settle in Europe and North America. Others have emigrated to Australia and other countries generally associated with the Western world while in my home country, South Africa, Muslims from the Asian sub-continent have long been resident in sizeable communities throughout the land. The Church has a situation it has never seen before - whole world of Islam in miniature at its traditional doorstep. It has an opportunity to reach Muslims with the Gospel such as it has never enjoyed before. It possesses a number of advantages in the circumstances which it has not seen in its efforts to reach Muslims within the traditional world of Islam, namely North Africa, the Middle East, the Indo-Pakistani region, and South-East Asia. This is one of the major reasons for the publication of this book. It is the conviction of many that the emigration of so many Muslims to the West, which has created such a new field of witness for the Church, can only be explained by the hand of providence. The potential for a broadly-based witness and thrust among the Muslims in our midst and, through them, to the Muslim communities of the world must surely be identified and acted upon. Christians and churches generally can now become directly involved in evangelism among Muslims and an open door has been set before us which we can only ascribe to the express will of God that we should seize the opportunities he has given us. It is my persuasion that the work cannot be embarked upon without a conscious awareness of the issues involved and an adequate preparation for the task. If we are to realise it, we must identify the opportunities we have, be instructed in the whole subject of Muslim evangelism and effective methods of reaching Muslims with the Gospel, and finally know how to handle the usual Muslim objections to the Christian faith, its scripture, doctrines and beliefs. We also need to be conversant with Islam, its beliefs and practices, its heritage, its founder and its scripture. For this reason I first wrote the companion volume to this book, Muhammad and the Religion of Islam, and published it in 1986. The present volume, The Christian Witness to the Muslim, seeks to canvass the field covered in the previous paragraph. I have begun by outlining the whole fact of the Muslim presence in our midst with its attendant opportunities and, in the second chapter, have set forth what I believe is the most effective practical method of reaching Muslims with the Gospel as evident in our lives and service. In the third chapter I have covered the whole subject of Muslim evangelism, the perspective we need on it, and what I believe is the Biblical model of cross-cultural and cross-religious witness. As the mushrooming of Muslim communities in our home countries has been taking place, so the traditional Church has considerably receded and even within its realm voices have come forth seeking to turn away the Church from its Christ-appointed commission to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19). The Church today, in particular the living eternal Church of Jesus Christ born of the Holy Spirit and - united in one body to the Father, dare not despise or overlook the opportunity and commission God has given us. With a bold sense of vocation and purpose we must penetrate the Muslim communities in our midst and bring them the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 8:12). A Christian mission that renounces the making of Christians has forsaken both its genius and its duty. Christ did not serve the world with good advice and no more shall we. (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 355). The Muslims themselves have seen their presence in the traditional Christian world as a similar opportunity to Islamise those around them and they are going ahead quite vigorously with their own perceived task of winning the West to Islam. In the process they are equipping themselves for the battle and are acquainting themselves more than ever with the Christian faith and seeking means to contradict and refute it. A perceived threat to their identity as minority Muslim communities, scattered thinly among predominantly Christian societies, has also spurred them on to become more invulnerable than ever to Christian influence. We must not underestimate the task, nor must we avoid it. Never before has the Church enjoyed such an immense opportunity to reach Muslims with the Gospel as it enjoys now. We must press on so that the light may shine in Muslim hearts and so that many may become children of God and followers of his Son Jesus Christ, ready for a kingdom to be revealed in the last time. The second major section of this book has been devoted to the whole subject of reaching Muslims with the Gospel and practical examples of how this can be done most effectively. All three chapters in this section have been given to ways and means of putting the Biblical approach to Muslims, discussed in principle in the third chapter, into effect. Many books have been written on the subject of explaining the Gospel to Muslims and of Christian witness among them. It is a bold statement, but nonetheless a true one, that there has never yet been a book which informs Christians how to actually preach the Gospel in an Islamic context. All the books written thusfar on the subject since the inception of Christian missions among Muslims dating back to the beginning of the last century, notwithstanding their titles, do not actually tell one how to positively relate the whole substance of the Gospel to Muslims against the background of their own beliefs. On the contrary most of them deal principally with explaining Christian beliefs and doctrines to Muslims or cover the field of handling Muslim objections to the Gospel (so Bevan-Jones, Christianity Explained to Muslims). Others cover the subjects of points to be stressed and pitfalls to be avoided (so Harris, How to Lead Moslems to Christ), while yet others deal primarily with our attitudes and the spirit of our approach (so Dretke, A Christian Approach to Muslims). Some cover all these issues briefly but comprehensively (so Miller, A Christian’s Response to Islam). Not for a minute would I suggest that these works have missed the point or failed to deal adequately with their subjects. Some are excellent treasures in the library of any Christian seeking to know how to handle Muslims and their arguments. I stand by my statement, however, that there is no book which specifically shows the Christian how to witness effectively to Muslims by making the Gospel especially relevant to them as Paul made it to the Jews and Gentiles during his travels through Thessalonica, Athens and Corinth. I have endeavoured to do this in the second major section of this book, using Paul’s approach as an example. The whole of the fourth chapter is given to an analysis of the common ground between Christians and Muslims on the personality, faith and life of the great patriarch Abraham with the purpose of showing how effectively Christians can relate the whole of the Gospel to the principles we have in common and show how, by implication and by fact in Abraham’s experience’ these lead perforce to the Gospel. While addressing Christians at various meetings on the subject I have occasionally been asked to present my points in as simple a l point-for-point form as possible to enable the average Christian to understand and present them more easily. I have deliberately avoided doing this in this book. While not against the suggestion in principle, it is my belief that Christians should make a real effort to come to grips with all that was really involved in the development of Abraham’s faith and how this led ultimately to an anticipation of the Gospel, for then they will be best-equipped to effectively discuss the subject with Muslims. The whole chapter, therefore, has been given to canvassing the issue as a whole in the hope that Christians will be able to absorb its essence and thereafter be able to put its message into their own words and, where necessary, simplify it. The last section of the fourth chapter has been given to a study of the common Muslim belief that the son who was to be sacrificed by Abraham was not Isaac but Ishmael. Although this belief is universal in the Muslim world today, there are evidences that early Muslim commentators were persuaded that it was Isaac and, although the Qur’an does not say which son it was, the study proceeds to show that the evidences that do exist in the early Islamic sources really favour Isaac. This brings me to the fifth chapter where once again I have avoided setting forth a prescribed point-for-point method of witness. In this chapter I have covered the common ground between Christians and Muslims on the subject of Jesus himself, in particular those points of agreement between Christianity and Islam on the person and life of Jesus which, when analysed, can only lead to the conclusion that he was quite unique and far more than a prophet. The whole chapter is thus given to the uniqueness of Jesus as it appears in both the Qur’an and the Bible where these two books are in agreement. Once again the purpose of the chapter is to show how effectively Christians can preach the Gospel to Muslims against the whole background of their own beliefs. This is a good place to say something in passing about the Jesus of the Qur’an. Christians, and very often Muslims, are more familiar with the denials in the Qur’an than its admissions regarding his person and work. Its two great denials affect his deity and crucifixion. In both cases the Qur’an flatly denies the fact and in doing so cuts right at the root of Christian belief, denying Jesus as both Lord and Saviour. This has led one author (Kenneth Robertson) to recently title his book on the subject Jesus or Isa as though the two personalities are radically different. I believe this to be a mistake. There is only one Jesus and it is clearly the Qur’an’s intention to speak of the same person in whom Christians believe. When the Qur’an acknowledges his virgin-birth, sinlessness, miracle-working power, ascension to heaven and second coming, when it gives him the titles Messiah, Word and Spirit of God, and attributes to him the power to raise the dead to life which it otherwise attributes to God alone, there can be no doubt that we are discussing the same Jesus. The Christian must seek to lead the Muslims on to a full knowledge of Jesus, without which they cannot be saved. The Isa of the Qur’an is not a false Jesus but an incomplete Jesus. If the Qur’an had set him forth purely as an ordinary prophet and had had nothing more to say of him I could have agreed with the distinction drawn in the title of Robertson’s book. But the Qur’an does not restrict itself to this portrayal. It acknowledges numerous unique features in the life of Jesus which Christians can use very profitably to lead Muslims on from their inadequate and incomplete concept of his personality and work to a fuller and more complete knowledge of the salvation God has vested in him. Consider the Quranic Jesus alongside the New Testament. How sadly attenuated is this Christian prophet as Islam knows Him! Where are the stirring words, the deep insights, the gracious deeds, the compelling qualities of Him who was called the Master? . . . In sum, must not the emasculated Jesus of the Qur’an be rescued from misconception and disclosed in all His relevance, in words, deeds and sorrows, to the whole plight and aspiration of men? (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, pp. 261, 262). It is true that Islamic dogma has reduced Jesus to the level of common prophethood and, in its blunt rejection of his deity and saving work, refuses to give him any further consideration It is also true that this dogma is based on the Qur’an and that the declaration that Jesus was illa rasulun - "nothing but a messenger" (Surah 5.78) - is intended likewise to be the Qur’an’s full sum and appreciation of his office. Nevertheless this is not the full picture of Jesus in the Qur’an. It seems that Muhammad himself was prepared to accept any teaching about the life of Jesus and any title which the Christians might apply to him where these did not appear to conflict with his general supposition that he was only a prophet. For example, he was quite willing to accept Jesus as the Messiah and quite openly gives him this title (Al-Masih) no less than eleven times in the Qur’an. The lack of any attempt to explain the title in the book, however, shows that Muhammad was unaware of its meaning and blissfully ignorant of the fact that it testifies to both the deity of Jesus and his saving work he had come to perform. Seeing no reason to reject it, however, in his ignorance he willingly admitted the title. In so doing he did the Christian evangelist to Muslims an enormous favour and it is perhaps in just this one word, found on so many occasions in the Qur’an, that we have the finest common ground against which to present the message of the Christian Gospel. The same can be said for all the other unique features and titles the Qur’an gives Jesus and in the fifth chapter of this book I have endeavoured to show just what a wealth of material Christians have for witness in these admissions and in the Qur’an’s positive teaching about Jesus. This is why I object to the distinction between the Jesus of the Bible and the Isa of the Qur’an because the Jesus of the Qur’an is often more Christian than Muslim in the uniqueness the book allows to him. The declaration that he was only a prophet and a messenger like those who went before him is contradicted again and again by the unique features the Qur’an attributes to him. The Jesus of the Qur’an, whose life began and ended on earth in unique circumstances, who today dwells in heaven, who alone is declared to be sinless among the prophets, who alone has God’s power to give life to the dead, who alone is the Messiah and a Word and Spirit from God, is the Christian Jesus and we must be thankful that whereas the Qur’an denies the fact of his deity and crucifixion, it has absorbed enough Biblical material to provide a forthright testimony to these two all-important features. The sixth chapter pursues the common theme, giving further examples of how a comparison between beliefs held commonly by Christians and Muslims can lead by implication to the Gospel, and it finishes with a brief assessment of the Qur’anic denial of the crucifixion and inherent weaknesses in the Qur’anic alternative. The first two sections of this chapter analyse the love of God as it is set forth in both the Qur’an and the Bible and the distinction between Adam and Christ, in particular how the latter superseded the former and brought relief from the effect of that one man’s sin. The third major section of this book deals with Muslim objections to the Gospel, in particular those objections that Christians are most likely to encounter in their witness to Muslims. I regret that I have only been able to cover the subject briefly in this book but do trust that the examples given and the answers offered will assist Christians in some measure to handle the usual obstacles that will be placed in their way. In time I will perhaps be able to write a comprehensive work on this subject alone and cover all the Muslim objections to the Bible and the Christian faith that we find in the writings of Muslim polemicists, but for the moment the limited treatment of the subject in this book will have to suffice as an example of the whole. I can safely say from personal knowledge and experience that there is no objection to Christianity which cannot be satisfactorily and adequately answered and the Bible itself I have always found to be the strongest resource we have to seek and find the answers to the questions that will invariably be put to us. God has anticipated beforehand and given an answer in His Holy Word to almost every Moslem difficulty, objection and genuine doubt. (Harris, How to Lead Moslems to Christ, p. 84). In the third chapter of this book I have dealt with the need to answer Muslim objections and why we should never avoid or evade them. Very often these are raised as a test of the Christian’s credibility - does he really believe what he is saying and can he justify it? Evasion at this point will be fatal to the Christian’s witness and the effect he desires to achieve. No matter what reasoning we may use, the Muslim will take any avoidance of argument on the merits and credibility of our faith as a sign that we cannot really back up and vindicate what we are saying. The Christian should avoid controversy wherever possible, but he must never leave the impression that Muslim arguments against the Christian faith are conclusive and irrefutable. He must be prepared to face them and reply in love. (Marsh, Share Your Faith with a Muslim, p. 82). There is one principle at this point that I believe must be established. When argument about the merits of our beliefs degenerates into pure controversy or a quarrel the object of such argument will surely be lost. We need to see argument and debate about our respective beliefs as a supplementary means to the desired end - a witness to the Muslims of God’s saving grace in his Son Jesus Christ. In other words we must use every occasion for argument as an opportunity to speak further on behalf of the Gospel and turn such occasions into a chance to witness yet more deeply to Muslims. In the seventh and particularly the eighth chapters of this book I have given a number of practical examples to show how one can use Muslim objections as a springboard for a further witness to them of the essence of the Gospel itself. Our objective must never be just to make a defence of our faith, it must be to pursue the claims of God on the souls of the Muslims and of his reconciling grace in Jesus Christ. Islam is particularly calculated to put the Christian interpreter on his mettle since it forces him to a radical and patient expression of his faith. By the very vigor and cruciality of its objections, Islam compels the Christian to delineate Christ more deeply. The grounds of misunderstanding must be made the theme of more patient exposition. Every difficulty must be made an opportunity. (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 274). The Christian evangelist to Muslims must also learn to be wise in his assessment of Muslim objections and to distinguish between those that are raised in a spirit of enquiry apd those that are purely expressions of antagonism. Many Muslims are deeply prejudiced against Christianity for whatever reason and Christian love and charity do not demand that we pretend that many of the assaults we commonly experience against the Gospel are occasioned by anything other than the hardness of the human heart against God’s revealed truth. Pilate rightly discerned that "it was out of envy" that Jesus was delivered up to him (Mark 15:10) and we do our cause no great service if we suppose that many of the attacks that are levelled by Muslim writers against Christianity are motivated by anything other than pure prejudice against the Gospel. One must likewise be wary of Muslim attempts to reinterpret the Bible according to their own convictions and suppositions (and, I might add in all fairness, the similar efforts on the part of some Christian writers to reinterpret the Qur’an so as to make it teach the basic doctrines of our faith, such as the deity and crucifixion of Christ, even though these are flatly denied in the book). Christians who believe the Bible to be the Word of God are far more likely to seek and find its true meanings than those Muslims whose minds are made up before they even read the book and whose only interest, so it appears, is to force the book to yield their preferred interpretations. Having already decided in advance what they believe the Bible should say, they endeavour to make its teachings correspond to their presuppositions as Syed Ameer Ali does when he flatly denies that Jesus ever taught that he was the Son of God in an absolute and eternal sense: That Jesus ever maintained he was the Son of God, in the sense in which it has been construed by Christian divines and apologists, we totally deny. (Ali, The Spirit of Islam, p. 141). No objective analysis of the words of Jesus in this respect as set forth throughout the Gospels and the first three chapters of Revelation can possibly yield any other interpretation than that which the learned Muslim author is at such pains to deny. Another typical example of how the same author seeks to reinterpret the teachings of Jesus to suit his own Muslim presuppositions and thereby make them say what he feels they ought to say, rather than the real meaning they convey, is set out on the following page of his book: His conception of the "Fatherhood" of God embraced all humanity. All mankind were the children of God, and he was their teacher sent by the Eternal Father. (Ali, The Spirit of Islam, p. 142). Once again we have an interpretation totally inconsistent with the original intended meaning of Jesus’ words. The idea that Jesus taught that "all mankind were the children of God" runs contrary to his express declarations that it was only his own followers, a "little flock", who belonged to the eternal Father as his children and to whom alone the kingdom would be given (Luke 12:32) and that those who refused to heed his words were, in fact, not the children of God at all but of the devil (John 8:44). Such a line of reasoning against Muslim polemicists may seem harsh to some, but one only has to read through a selection of Muslim works on Christianity, such as those recorded in the bibliography to this book, to get the point. They simply testify to a fundamental reality: Islam and Christianity are incompatible; they are different in ethos, in aim, in scope, in sympathy. (Gairdner, The Reproach of Islam, p. 171). We should not therefore expect Muslims to write sympathetically about Christianity, still less to take any attitude other than that of opposition to our faith. Likewise we must be ready to face objections to the Gospel, to give a sound defence of the faith, and seek to use such objections as opportunities to present the Gospel to its detractors even yet more effectively. A word or two about the bibliography at the end of this book. I have listed only those publications which relate to the subject of Christian-Muslim interaction. Virtually all the works on Islam itself that are quoted in this book are listed in the bibliography at the end of the companion volume to this book, Muhammad and the Religion of Islam. Once again all quotations in this volume from the Bible are from the Revised Standard Version and all those from the Qur’an, except where otherwise stated, are from Yusuf Ali’s translation. Although this translation is considerably defective and one which I cannot personally prefer over other far better works, I have nevertheless continued to use it as it is the translation with which Muslims in the West are most familiar. I have been faced with a criticism of the companion volume that I should perhaps mention here as I anticipate it again in reaction to this second volume. I have been criticised for quoting certain authors with approval where it is known that I do not agree entirely (or at all) with their general standpoints and theology. Despite such differences I nevertheless endeavour to appreciate any expression of wisdom in the writings of those who assess Islam and the subject of Christian witness to Muslims and believe in giving credit where it is due. Perhaps it would be wise to say at the outset, nonetheless, that the quotation of any author with approval should not be taken as a sign that I side with the author’s general position on Islam and the subject of Christian evangelism among Muslims. My own position in this respect is, I do believe, abundantly clear ex facie the general contents of these two volumes. Once again the date of each book in the bibliography is the date of the edition I have consulted. Where the date of original publication differs, and is known to me, this follows in brackets in each case. We are aware that the paperback editions of this volume and its companion are not strictly suitable for study purposes. We have no objection to the re-binding of these editions in hard cover to make them more durable and serviceable. Let me again say that this book has been written chiefly for Christians in the West who come into contact with Muslims, either through direct evangelistic efforts or through casual personal contacts. I have deliberately refrained from dealing with subjects like contextualisation and other issues which, so it seems to me, are not strictly relevant to the situation in the West where we have minority Muslim communities living among predominantly Christian majorities. Apart from the occasional reference to such subjects, I have endeavoured to keep away from them and confine myself to the issue which is immediately at hand, namely the evangelism of the Westernised Muslims in our midst. A special word of thanks to those who have "laboured side by side with me in the Gospel" (Php 4:3) over many years, whose presence and fellowship have contributed substantially towards the knowledge I have gained by experience in this field, much of which I trust has been reproduced in the pages of this book. An ounce of experience is worth a pound of knowledge, the true proverb says, and this is especially so in the field of Muslim evangelism. This is one of the reasons why I have refrained from prescribing point-by-point methods of witnessing to Muslims, for each man’s effectiveness will depend largely on his own experiences as he becomes more and more involved in reaching Muslims with the Gospel. I trust that this book will be a useful contribution towards the whole subject of Christian witness among Muslims, especially those who are now resident in the West, and that it will in some measure equip those who labour among them for the task. There are many who believe this is God’s day for the Muslims and, as more and more of them come out to confess the faith of Christ, let us be encouraged to persevere in our witness and fulfil the commission of Jesus to take the Gospel to all nations and seek to make disciples of them. John Gilchrist.4th June 1987 ======================================================================== CHAPTER 99: 06.01. THE OPPORTUNITIES FACING THE CHURCH TODAY ======================================================================== The Opportunities Facing the Church Today ======================================================================== CHAPTER 100: 06.02. A. EMIGRATION OF MUSLIMS TO THE WEST. ======================================================================== A. EMIGRATION OF MUSLIMS TO THE WEST. 1. The Muslim Communities in the West. Nothing happens by chance in this world. The hand of providence guides the affairs of men and the plans of the nations are subject to the control and foreknowledge of God. He accomplishes all things according to the purpose of his will and, while the migrations of men on earth can usually be attributed to natural causes, yet there always remain superior purposes in such activities which have their origins in the counsels of heaven. Jesus Christ was crucified by men who wrongly condemned him for blasphemy and treason, yet it was "according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God" (Acts 2:23), who purposed that this event should become the means of salvation for all who believe in him. Joseph’s brothers sold him into Egypt with evil intent, but God overruled their designs for good (Genesis 45:5-8). They chose certain means to destroy his life, but God intervened and used those very means to preserve the lives of many. It has rightly been said that all history is purely "His story". There are many natural ways of explaining the recent migration of hundreds of thousands of Muslims to the West over the past forty years. Most of them have either sought a better life in a world more developed and advanced than their own, or they have been lured to the West to fill the desperate need for manpower which arose from the last great war. Today over five million Muslim emigrants live in central Europe while at least a further three million have now settled in the Americas. Until the last war no Muslim communities of any real significance existed in Britain, France, Holland or West Germany. For the first time, however, sizeable communities of emigrants and migrant workers now inhabit these lands. It is reckoned that there are now (1983) nearly seven million Muslims in Western Europe, and there are also oeveral millions in North America. Western statesmen have to sit around a table with Muslim statesmen, Western factory-workers find Muslims on the same assembly line, and Western school-children find Muslims among their classmates. This is the contemporary meeting of Islam and Christianity. (Watt, Islam and Christianity Today, p. 4). Christians should immediately seek the superior designs of providence in such phenomena. We cannot ascribe such a comprehensive migration of so many followers of another major world religion purely to natural causes. The Lord’s own hand in this is clearly visible to those who have eyes to see. Until recently the Christian and Muslim worlds remained largely oblivious of one another. We speak of the iron curtain and bamboo curtain today, but history surely shows that another veil has separated the nations of east and west for centuries and that veil has been drawn roughly over the Mediterranean Sea, separating the Christian and Muslim worlds in a remarkable way. For ages these two worlds have lived in almost complete isolation from one another, divided purely by an expanse of water that is too small to be called an ocean. It is a small world we live in, however, and, as people say, it is becoming smaller and smaller through technological and other developments so that today the veil has, to a large extent, been pulled aside. And through the gap thousands of Muslims have travelled to settle in foreign lands that until recently were largely closed to them. But now the circumstances are taking a favourable turn. Muslims are migrating to America in a steady stream from different lands and for different reasons. There is no Islamic country whose finest young men are not found here. Lastly, a large number of enterprising people are also coming to it from the country where the Ka’ba is situated. (Nadwi, Muslims in the West, p. 89). 2. A Mission Field on the Church’s Doorstep. Many minds are trying to fathom the implications and portents of this new situation. Anxious souls in the West are predicting that the rising power of Islam will present a greater threat in the future than the forces of communism, while equally anxious Muslims are expressing the fear that the fledgling Islamic communities in the West will lose their identities unless radical steps are taken to strengthen those who presently are beyond the pale of dar al-Islam and its unifying power. We who have the mind of Christ, however, see the whole matter in a different light. To us the world of Islam has, in a very important way, been brought to the doorstep of the Christian world. For the first time Muslims in considerable numbers have become neighbours, friends, co-workers and fellow- citizens with their national Western Christian counterparts. Not only so but, what is of supreme significance (for reasons which will follow later in this chapter), they have to a large extent foregone their Oriental culture and way of life and have, in a very short time, become thoroughly Westernised. Today we have a new kind of Muslim we never knew before - the Westernised Muslim. By the hand of God a new door has been flung wide open at the feet of the Christian Church in the West. Never before has such an opportunity for extensive, Church-based evangelism among Muslims presented itself to the established Christian world. Muslims are travelling to the west for work and study. They are curious about the prosperity and influence of the many churches they see. Americans are finding that the "mission field" has moved into their neighbourhood. They are finding unexpected opportunities for dialogue and inter faith witness with Muslims in their own hometown. (Register, Dialogue and Interfaith Witness with Muslims, p. 62). Out of every nation they have come. Two million Muslims now live in France - two for every Protestant. Most of them are Algerians and Moroccans though many others have emigrated from other Francophone states in Africa to the land of their former colonial masters. In the United Kingdom the same pattern has appeared. As the British left India in 1947 a similar migration of Muslims took place as that from Algeria when France conceded independence to the country in 1961. Up to a million Muslims originally from India and what is now Pakistan have settled in Britain. Over a million migrant workers from Turkey inhabit West Germany. Thousands of Indonesians have moved to Holland. In addition to these major shifts, thousands of others have moved to Europe as well. Arabs from every state in the Middle East now live, work or study in Europe. Iranians likewise inhabit most European countries as well as the United States. Malays, East Africans, Nigerians - we could go on and on - are now to be found in significant numbers in Europe. How different this is to the situation in Europe fifty years ago when Islam’s presence was negligible. That situation has changed dramatically since the end of World War II. Islam has made a resurgence primarily in Western Europe. In part this is because of immigration, the importation of Turkish guest-workers to West Germany, the migration of North Africans seeking employment in France, and the immigration of Pakistanis, Indians and other Commonwealth citizens to Great Britain. As these Muslim citizens have put down roots and begun to feel at home in Europe, Islam has become the second largest religion of France (after Roman Catholicism); in West Germany it ranks third after Protestantism and Catholicism; there are more Muslims than Methodists in Great Britain. In 1978 there were 5,000,000 Muslims in Western Europe. (Fry and King, Islam: A Survey of the Muslim Faith, p. 33). A world of Islam in miniature has sprung up in the West and a Muslim writer has observed that "the Muslims came to Europe by the hand of destiny" (Darsh, Muslims in Europe, p. 50). We cannot help but conclude, however, they were led unawares by a divine hand for a far greater purpose and reason. As one of the great prophets of old has said: "I know, O Lord, that the way of man is not in himsel that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps" Jeremiah 10:23 The Christian Church today has a far greater opportunity to evangelise this branch of Islam than it has to take on the whole tree. Many Muslim lands are deliberately closed to the Gospel while others are so far from predominant Christian influence that widespread effective evangelism is inconceivable. Yet here in the West God has provided a new door to the Muslim world. Here Christians by the thousands and whole churches can become involved in a ministry that, for nearly fourteen hundred years since Islam began, has largely been impossible. An opportunity has been laid right at the feet of the Church which hitherto could not be conceived. The very uniqueness of this new situation compels us to see God’s hand and will behind it. Surely, as so many believe who are involved in Muslim evangelism, this is God’s day for the Muslims. Muslims from every Islamic land in the East have come to the West and the time is obviously ripe for a new form of ministry among them and a sustained witness from the whole Christian Church. With the presence of so many Muslims in our midst in Europe, God has granted to us a new opening for Christian mission which can reach to areas of the world which might otherwise be closed to the messengers of Jesus Christ. (Goldsmith, Islam and Christian Witness, p. 152). The scope for large numbers of conversions from Islam has clearly been created in the West and, not only does the Church now have a broadly-based opportunity to involve itself among Muslims, but it also has the chance to train converts from Muslim nations in its own environment and is able to send them back where Western missionaries often cannot go. In the next few sections we shall examine these opportunities in some detail, but before doing so, I wish to turn to my own country, South Africa, where a remarkable prototype of the present Western situation was created many years ago. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 101: 06.03. B. SAMUEL ZWEMER'S VISION FOR SOUTH AFRICA. ======================================================================== B. SAMUEL ZWEMER’S VISION FOR SOUTH AFRICA. 1. The Advent of Islam in South Africa. During the seventeenth century the Dutch won control of what is now Indonesia as well as other parts of the East and some coastal ports of India. At the same time they established a small settlement at the Cape chiefly as a refreshment station for their ships sailing to the East. As the community expanded a number of Muslims were brought from Indonesia and those other parts to the Cape as slaves. Included among them were a number of political figures who were causing trouble in the Dutch colonies and who were accordingly banished to the Cape. Some fifty Muslim men of prominence were brought to the Cape in the ship "Voetboog" in 1694. Among them was an exile, Shaykh Yusuf, who had been stirring up much opposition to Dutch rule in the East Indies. This group immediately set about establishing Islam in the colony and during the eighteenth century, as more slaves were brought from the East, Islam settled and became a prominent feature of local life in the Cape Peninsula. Today there are some two hundred thousand Muslims in the Western Cape, known commonly as "Cape Malays", who are descended from those early expatriates. They have adopted the Western culture and speak English and Afrikaans as home languages, having lost virtually all contact with their original homelands and languages. The Indian Muslims, who today number close on two hundred thousand as well, came to South Africa in similar circumstances. During the eighteenth century the British began to gain control of much of India and in the nineteenth century conquered the Cape Colony and Natal. Just as the Dutch had brought Muslim slaves to the Cape from their colonies in the East, so the British brought Indian labourers from India to work on the Natal canefields. Most of these followed Hinduism though a number were Muslims and Christians. Samuel Zwemer describes how these early labourers came to the province in those days: In Natal, Islam entered from India about 1860, when large numbers of Indians, Hindu and Moslem, were imported as indentured labourers for the sugar plantati’ons. Although at first they came for the sugar industry, their skill and enterprise opened up other avenues of employment. At present less than one-fourth are on sugar estates. Many are engaged in general farming work, on the railways, on tea estates, in coal mines or as domestic servants. They have their chief mosques and settlements in Durban (six to eight thousand), Pietermaritzburg, Dundee, Newcastle, Umzinto, Stanger, and Port Shepstone. (Zwemer, Across the World of Islam, p. 246). Shortly afterwards a number of Muslims, chiefly from northern India, emigrated independently to South Africa and settled as traders in the country. Their descendants today are distributed throughout the Transvaal and Natal as well as parts of the Cape. They too have adopted the Western culture and generally speak English as a home language, though many, particularly among the older generation, still speak Urdu and Gujerati fluently. Today the Muslims number just over one per cent of the peoples of South Africa. For up to two hundred years they have been settled in the country and many are now from the fourth and fifth generation of those who first came here. Most of them have become thoroughly Westernised and communicate freely with their compatriots. Thus there has been, for nearly two centuries in South Africa, a phenomenon which in the last forty years has become commonplace throughout the West. Significant Muslim minorities live in the midst of a predominantly Christian society. In most cases in the West the societies concerned have large Protestant majorities where the evangelical Church has been strongly established for a long time. In Europe and North America, for the first time, Muslim communities live within the traditional strongholds of the Christian Church and are at its doorstep. In South Africa, however, a prototype of this worldwide phenomenon first came into being nearly two hundred years ago so that the Westernising process has been complete for many generations. What significance does this hold for the Church in this age? We need to briefly examine certain statements made by Samuel Zwemer many years ago and events in his life pertaining to the South African situation to get a hint at the immense opportunities that this type of situation presents to the Church. 2. Zwemer’s Visit to South Africa and its Effects. Samuel Zwemer was one of the greatest missionaries ever to serve in the Muslim world. He was an American of Dutch descent and rightly became known as the "Apostle to Islam". Born in 1867, he was blessed with a long life great endeavours, and died in April, 1952. He worked as a missionary in Arabia for sixteen years. He ventured all over the Middle East, speaking to Muslims of Jesus Christ, and distributing the Word of God to them. He visited Yemen, Iraq, India, Persia and Indonesia amongst others. He travelled all over North Africa. His vision for the Muslim world knew no bounds. He sought to discover, as far as possible, the spread of Islam throughout the world and the prospects of Christian missionary work in Muslim lands. The whole world of Islam was truly his parish. He also wrote many books, conducted numerous campaigns all over Europe and North America to awaken concern in the Church for the evangelising of the Muslim world, founded the quarterly journal The Moslem World in 1911 and the Fellowship of Faith for the Muslims in 1915. There have been few missionaries in the world who have possessed his vision, zeal, faith and, above all, his love and concern for the people to whom God had sent him. Most maps showing the spread of Islam in the world ignore South Africa altogether. This is hardly surprising for, as we have already pointed out, only one in about seventy-five South Africans is a Muslim and only one in every two thousand Muslims in the world lives in this country. They appear to be a negligible minority. Yet, when Zwemer wrote his book Mohammed or Christ in 1916, he devoted a whole chapter to Islam in South Africa. In 1929, when he wrote his book Across the World of Islam, he devoted another whole chapter to the same subject. One of the chapters in this book was simply titled Islam in North Africa and the next Islam in South Africa. This seems logical enough until one considers that the Muslims of North Africa outnumber those in the country of South Africa nearly eight hundred to one. Zwemer obviously had a very special interest in the Muslims of this country and clearly saw good reason to devote more attention to them than their numbers would seem to justify. He also wrote a few articles in The Moslem World on the Muslims of South Africa. In one of his books he says: This southernmost corner of the world of Islam is not without its own importance. (Zwemer, Across the World of Islam, p. 243). His concern for South Africa, so obviously out of all proportion to the relatively small number of Muslims in this country, is proved all the more by the fact that when he came here in 1925 at the request of the major Protestant churches to address the many evangelical conferences held that year on mission work among Muslims, he did not allow himself a pleasant holiday in this country but travelled some six thousand miles throughout the sub-continent to discover the spread and numbers of Muslims in it. We know that Zwemer’s vision was spread broadly over the whole Muslim world. Why, then, did he devote so much time and attention to the Muslims of South Africa? Even after returning to Europe and North America he continued to give much attention to the situation here. In a brief biography on his remarkable life we read: One of the chief results of Zwemer’s visit was to awaken the churches of Europe and America to the extent of the Muslim problem in Southern Africa. The Apostle to Islam had travelled 6,245 miles during the campaign, and by census figures and careful estimates nearly three hundred thousand Muslims had been counted in the countries he visited. (Christy Wilson, Flaming Prophet: The Story of Samuel Zwemer, p. 71). We believe that Zwemer found opportunities in South Africa that he discovered nowhere else in the Muslim world. Here alone he found Muslims scattered freely in a predominantly Protestant society, speaking the languages of the Christians, and adopting their culture. He saw great opportunities for developing sound friendships between Christians and Muslims in such circumstances and expresses his impressions very forcibly in these words: The Moslems of South Africa are accessible and live in the midst of Christian communities. They are approachable and responsive to kindness in a remarkable degree. Many of them are strangers in a strange land and hungry for friendship. (Zwemer, Across the World of Islam, p. 255). He devoted so much time and attention to South Africa because he saw circumstances in this land favourable to the cause of evangelism among Muslims such as he saw nowhere else in the world. Yet another of the phenomena which he noticed relative to the Muslims of South Africa, now settled in a Western environment, was the extent of their education and the opportunities which this likewise presented. In one of his articles he says: A larger percentage of the people are literate than perhaps in any other section of the Moslem world. (Zwemer, "Two Moslem Catechisms (Published at Cape Town)", The Muslim World, Vol. 15, p. 349). He was clearly impressed by the character of the Muslim community he discovered in South Africa and its remarkable accessibility in contrast with many of the closed Muslim societies in the traditional world of Islam. He did not specifically define his vision for this country but obviously saw tremendous opportunities for an effective form of evangelism among Muslims which he saw nowhere else. Today the South African situation has become even more settled in its unique form and the Muslims of this country are more approachable today than they were in his time. This situation, however, has mushroomed all over the Western world and a universal opportunity to evangelise Muslims in a way hitherto impossible (and for over thirteen centuries at that) has been laid at the feet of the traditional Christian Church During the North American Conference on Muslim Evangelization at Glen Eyrie in Colorado Springs in 1978 Dr. Max Kershaw delivered a paper entitled The Comparative Status of Christianity and Islam in the West. He outlined briefly the distribution of Muslims in Europe and North America and analysed its character. A summary of the responses of the participants at this conference is most informing: Many readers were surprised by this paper. They found it "astonishing", "unbelievable" and "disturbing". "Here", our readers said, "is a group of Muslims at our doorstep a group in transition, away from the pressures for Islamic conformity of their home cultures--a group, in short that we must not ignore". The facts presented, "must be viewed as both an opportunity and a major responsibility" (McCurry, ed., The Gospel and Islam, p. 235). There is indeed a wide open door before the Church in the West the likes of which it has not known during thirteen centuries of Christian-Muslim inter-communication. In the next section we shall briefly consider five of the advantages which this phenomenon affords to the Church and in the last section of this chapter shall analyse the opportunity thus presented to Christians as a whole in the West to become involved in effective evangelism among the Muslim communities in our midst. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 102: 06.04. C. BROKEN BARRIERS AND WIDE-OPEN DOORS. ======================================================================== C. BROKEN BARRIERS AND WIDE-OPEN DOORS. 1. The Adoption by Muslims of the Western Culture. In our view the existence of Muslim communities in the West has provided the Church with a hitherto unparalleled Opportunity to engage freely in evangelising Muslims, and in this brief section we shall consider five considerable advantages which it now enjoys. Firstly, Muslims in the West are gradually adopting the Western culture. Ever since the Industrial Revolution Western civilization has progressed so rapidly that, whereas it once struggled behind Islamic civilization in the days when Muslim culture reached its zenith, it has since outstripped it and left it far behind. An unfortunate side-effect of this progress has been the growth of so-called "permissiveness" and secularism so that the Christian Church has suffered in its wake. Nevertheless the rise of Western civilization has been set against the traditional heritage of Christendom and it has been the chief cause of the decline of Islamic culture in recent centuries. Despite its secularistic tendencies Western civilization and its attendant political and military power removed in a short time the threat that Islam had posed to central Europe for nearly a thousand years. It is surely apparent to all that our Western era has also passed its zenith and Muslim countries, which have only recently regained their independence from European colonial powers, are seeking once again to flex their muscles and re-assert themselves. The enormous strides in the West in the last two hundred years, however, have probably ensured that the Islamic world will never again attain to the pre-eminence it once enjoyed, and no matter how far Western civilization recedes from its peak it has bequeathed to the world remarkable benefits, both in terms of material progress and the exercise of individual liberties. The Muslim world can only ultimately profit from an adaptation of these benefits into its own culture and as long as fundamentalism seeks to re-establish itself in the world of Islam, it can only struggle in the shade of Western progress. Muslims in the West, keenly sensitive to the adverse effects of personal freedom in our society, in particular sexual licence, personal indulgence and irreligious materialism, publicly distance themselves from our culture. In private, however, they are, perhaps even subconsciously at times, adopting with open arms all the benefits that our culture has to offer. Millions have emigrated to the West in an unashamed quest for a "better life". A Muslim writer, seeking to warn Muslims in the West against the inherent dangers (in his view) of a non-Muslim environment, nevertheless concedes: Now the West is in a position openly to enforce its view point - a unique event in world history made possible by the phenomenal resources, military and economic, the West can dispose for the imposition of its culture on the rest of the world. An unparalleled achievement - even the most culturally and intellectually gifted peoples of past history could not establish such total and universal ascendancy. (Nadwi, Muslims in the West, p. 187). In South Africa the Muslims have become thoroughly Westernised. Despite the very limited opportunities afforded to them under this country’s unpopular political system they have made great efforts to find their place in a land of great wealth and resources, and they have succeeded in an impressive way. Their standard of living is the equal of that of any other people in this country and it is not an exaggeration to say that they have reaped the benefits of Western civilization with an undisguised relish. The Muslims of North India and Pakistan would be astonished if they could see how the descendants of their former countrymen have prospered in this land, despite the limitations unfortunately forced on them even to this day. In the process, however, they have become fully Westernised and have adopted the Western culture. Few Muslim homes are without a television set which uninterruptedly beams programs produced in the West. Most of the Muslim men wear Western suits and casual dress. Shopping is done in Western supermarkets, houses are built and furnished in the Western style, and education is completely Western in its character and intensity. While this obviously benefits Muslims we must, as Christians, identify the advantages we have in this situation. The Western culture has grown out of a traditional realm fully Christian in origin and much of its heritage is Christian at heart. Amongst other things this includes individual rights, personal freedom and open democracy. Despite its advanced secularism much of Western culture can be identified with Christianity and the Church maintains its unopposed domination within its realm. To use a sporting term, the Muslims here are meeting us on our home ground and we have what is traditionally called "home-ground advantage". The culture of the West is still set against a Christian heritage and Muslims in our midst are exposed to a way of life which breaks down traditional barriers. In Muslim lands, for example, it is often very difficult for Christian men to witness to Muslim women. Often they are secluded by the veil and other privations from public society and women alone can reach them. One missionary speaks thus of his experiences in Bangladesh: I have never witnessed directly to a Muslim lady. My wife has never shared Christ with a Muslim man. Our honoring the dictates of Muslim culture that one must communicate only with members of the same sex has been appreciated. (Parshall, New Paths in Muslim Evangelism, p. 117). In South Africa, however, such restrictions hardly exist. Christian men may freely witness to Muslim women, whether married or single, and it is our experience that most Muslim men have no objection to this once they realise the Christian has no other motive or objective than the propagation of his faith. Christian missionaries to Muslim lands often have to prepare for the proverbial "culture-shock" and many have been limited in their effectiveness, either through failing to adopt the culture of those they seek to reach, or through unwittingly endeavouring to Westernise converts as though Christianity and the Western culture were synonymous. In the West, however, such problems dissipate almost entirely and as Muslims become Westernised, so the culture barrier breaks down and Christians discover immense advantages in being able to freely evangelise Muslims through methods and forms of witness developed and strengthened against the background of the Western culture. 2. Other Great Advantages Before the Church in the West. Potential missionaries in Muslim lands not only have to prepare for a radical cross-cultural ministry but often have to spend many years learning a foreign language before they can seriously begin to witness to the Muslims to whom they have been sent. Even then it takes to time to really learn the vernacular through constant conversation in the language. In the West, however, this barrier is likewise breaking down. In South Africa most Muslims speak either English or Afrikaans, the home languages of those who first brought the Gospel to this country. Throughout the West the minority Muslim communities will likewise have to adopt the languages of their predominantly Christian societies and this also becomes an immense advantage to us, for we can converse freely with them in consequence without having to struggle in a foreign language. Furthermore we once again have "home-ground advantage" as it is our languages that they are learning - French, Dutch, English, German and the like - languages which have been the medium for the expression of great Christian works and writings and the definition of the basic doctrines of the faith since the Reformation. Christians can thus witness freely to Muslims, not only in languages they are most familiar with, but also in tongue through which the finest development and growth of Christian faith and doctrine has come to be expressed. As said already, the emigration of Muslims to the West must be regarded as providential and as we behold the growing number of advantages this phenomenon presents to the Church and the breaking down of traditional cultural, linguistic an other barriers, we need to heed the words of our Saviour: "Behold, I have set before you an open door, which no on is able to shut". Revelation 3:8 Since the process of decolonisation which followed the Second World War many Muslim lands, hitherto open to the Gospel, have become wholly or partly closed to it. In some countries the open preaching of the Gospel is a public offence punishable by law. To this day the clouds continue to darken and the ministry of the Gospel in Muslim lands is becoming more and more difficult. In the West, however, the situation has been reversed. The sun shines uninterruptedly as the Church finds itself pre sensed with hitherto unknown opportunities to reach Muslims, and that right at its doorstep. The third great advantage it has is the one Zwemer thus noticed particularly in South Africa, namely the accessibility of the Muslim communities in our midst. In past generation anyone wishing to evangelise Muslims had to prepare to travel to foreign lands where he would be far away from his home culture and environment. This still holds for all missionaries who prepare for service in Muslim lands. In the West, however, the Christian evangelist can pursue his normal employment during the day, come home to his family for dinner, then venture out for a few hours ministry among Muslims in the evening, before retiring to his home and family that night. There need be no disruption of his normal daily routine. The Muslims are within range of a home-based ministry and, because they form part of the Western environment, they are freely accessible. In comparison with many countries in the traditionally Islamic world, Muslims in the West can even be said to be vulnerable to an open Christian ministry. This leads to the fourth great advantage we have, namely that Muslim opposition to the ministry of the Gospel is severely restricted in its potential in the West. Some countries, like Pakistan and Indonesia, have no official restrictions on Christian witness and yet even here social pressures and other forms of Muslim opposition limit considerably the ministry of the Gospel. In other lands opponents can rely on official support for their efforts to withstand Muslim evangelism, or at least be reasonably sure that the authorities will not interfere in such activity. In the West, however, Christians are not only freed from any danger of official restrictions but in most countries can be sure of official protection. The preaching of the Gospel is generally regarded as one of the inalienable personal rights of Christians in the West and a feature of the principle of freedom of religion which holds in all predominantly Protestant countries. This is one of our cherished Christian heritages in our Western culture and one which the Muslims in our midst cannot interfere with (especially as they enjoy much the same privileges). The doors are wide open, the call is to boldness, and the defences of those who would oppose us are accordingly considerably limited. The fifth great advantage we enjoy is the potential for the Muslim convert to become fully settled in his Christian environment. In predominantly Muslim countries a convert to Christianity can find himself completely ostracised from his community. His opportunities for marriage and employment can be often blotted out once it is known he has become a Christian. This is the price converts from Islam have to pay in Muslim lands for their faith in Jesus Christ. To some extent the rejection of the convert can also be severe in the West. He may well be excluded from his family and his community and, no matter how much he may be able to adapt to his Christian environment, he will always feel the effects of being ostracised from his own community. Naturally therefore, one should seek to minimise this traumatic experience as much as possible to help the convert to remain acceptable to his own people. Nevertheless, on becoming a Christian, he at the same time becomes more integrated with his overall environment. ! Christian marriage is open to him and employment facilities are undiminished. He can - as many have done - settle down thoroughly as a Christian in a predominantly Christian environment and society. The doors are wide open, the barriers are being broken down, and the Church in the West has been presented with a golden opportunity to evangelise the Muslims in its midst. In our view, however, there remains one last advantage and, as it is the supreme one, we shall devote a whole section to it, in particular as it tends by its very character to suggest the most effective form of ministry which can be conducted among the Muslims in the West. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 103: 06.05. D. MUSLIMS IN A CHRISTIAN ENVIRONMENT. ======================================================================== D. MUSLIMS IN A CHRISTIAN ENVIRONMENT. 1. An Opportunity for the Whole Church to Become Involved. Until the emigration of Muslims to the West it was necessary to train and prepare individual missionaries for full -time service among Muslims in foreign lands. Efforts have been made to spread Christian influence through "tent- making" ministries where doctors, nurses, construction- workers and others in normal secular employment in Muslim countries become involved in evangelising Muslims they chance to meet in their labours. To this day, however, it is still the general rule that missionaries have to be sent out, one by one, into full-time service in Muslim countries. It would obviously be preferable to have the whole Church involved in such a ministry. It is extremely difficult for a handful of missionaries to make a serious impact on Muslim communities numbering hundreds of thousands. After surveying the extent of Christian missions throughout the Muslim world a Christian writer was led to conclude: The command of Christ which summons us to be His fellow workers in seeking to win for Him the community of Islam is a call to the whole Church. The task is too arduous and immense to be left to the valiant efforts of little half-neglected groups representing but a fraction of the mighty Christian forces potentially available. (Addison, The Christian Approach to the Moslem, p. 311). This perspective was written in 1942 shortly before the exodus of Muslims to the West. Despite its ideals, however, Christians generally can only pray for those working in Muslim lands and do all they can financially to support them. Further than this there is little more they can do to fulfil the call Addison makes to the whole Church. Now, however, this very vision which he expressed has become a real possibility throughout the West. The whole might of the Christian Church can be marshalled behind a broadly-based outreach to the Muslims in our midst. It is quite unnecessary, indeed it would be shortsighted, to leave the evangelisation of Westernised Muslims to a few specially- trained missionaries. An opportunity has arisen for Christians generally - even if they are only ordinary, average church members - to assume the burden of reaching Muslims for Christ. A time has come when large numbers of Christians can engage in direct witness to Muslim men and women. It has become possible for thousands of Christians to witness to Muslims, to establish contacts, and to pursue them over a long period of time. No lengthy period of training is required to send out a strong lay-force among the Muslims who have become our neighbours. We do need to say that a reasonably sound knowledge of Islam will be required by anyone seeking to venture out among Muslims anywhere in the world as well as some training in communicating the Gospel effectively to them and an ability to answer their common objections. To that end this book and its companion volume Muhammad and the Religion of Islam have been written. Nevertheless no extended formal training is required for large numbers of Christians to reach Muslims in the West. The door is open for a widespread, sustained effort on the part of the whole Church to reach Muslims for Christ. An experienced missionary among Muslims wisely observes: A laity highly motivated and enthusiastic about their faith in Jesus Christ will be the key to effective outreach among Muslims. Resources should be directed toward the establishment of such a lay movement. (Parshall, New Paths in Muslim Evangelism, p. 174). What has hitherto seemed impossible has, in a generation, become an obvious possibility - I venture to say timely necessity - namely, the evangelisation of Muslims by Christians generally in a broadly-based movement. Christians today are meeting Muslims in all walks of life. Some play in the same teams on the sports field. Others work side by side in offices and factories. Yet others have Muslim patients in hospitals. Many have Muslim neighbours. After speaking at a church recently on the opportunities which we have in consequence to reach Muslims in a way till now virtually impossible, one of the congregation told me that he had been commissioned as an architect to design a local madressa and that he had been invited to lunch with the local imams. On another occasion a Muslim contact was referred to me by a Christian who had become involved in religious conversation with him during an overnight flight from Europe to South Africa. People everywhere tell of one or other form of contact with Muslims and express their awareness of the remarkable opportunities before us at this time to reach the Muslims of the West who now live in a predominantly Christian environment. I go further to declare that it is not only possible for Christians generally to become involved in this work but that I believe they have better prospects of success than missionaries who work full-time reaching a large number of Muslims with the Gospel. We believe that the effective evangelisation of the Muslims in our midst is chiefly reserved to the average Christian who, apart from being instructed in the basic tenets of Muslim doctrine and inter- faith Christian evangelism, need not be extensively trained for such a task. The key lies in the kind of ministry we envisage which I shall treat here briefly and expand in more detail in the following chapter. 2. Friendship Evangelism among Muslims in the West. Most converts from Islam to Christianity in South Africa tell of individual Christians who led them to Christ through various forms of love and personal interest in and concern for their welfare. One told me of a Christian woman she had stayed with for some time who looked after her, befriended her, and did everything she could to help her. At the end of her stay the young Muslim woman left the house declaring she hated her and was tired of hearing about Jesus Christ and his love for men and women. "I could not forget her compassion and sincere concern for me", she later testified however, and it was not long before she too became a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ. A Christian she has been for many years now, but she always attributes the chief influence in her conversion experience to the friendship, love and acceptance she enjoyed from that one simple Christian woman. That woman had never studied at a bible college and probably had only an elementary knowledge of both Islam and her own Christian faith. Yet she was able to lead a Muslim to Christ through her love, companionship and patience with her. We believe that the door has been flung wide open for thousands of Christians to do likewise. Friendship evangelism is an all-embracing form of witness in which Christians are able to express their testimony in a comprehensive way. Not only can they spread the "good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 8:12) over a sustained period of time to Muslims who become their friends but they can also share in their needs, fears, hopes, joys and sorrows and contribute to their welfare. It is our conviction and experience that it is through such caring and compassion that many Muslims are led to become partakers of the same grace they behold in these Christians who are ready to go out of their way to befriend them and meet them in their needs. There are many times when Muslims, as a small minority in a Christian environment, will need the special kind of help that Christians, as members of the dominant society, alone can give. There will be numerous opportunities in the coming years in the West for Christians to establish friendships with Muslims and reveal to them the fulness of God’s love in Christ. Christianity is not just the proclamation of the Gospel, though we freely acknowledge that this is the foremost expression of Christian witness and service. Christianity is also the expression of social care, love and concern towards a needy world. Jesus not only went about "teaching in their synagogues and preaching the Gospel of the kingdom" but he also spent much time "healing every disease and every infirmity" (Matthew 9:35). We advocate friendship evangelism as the ideal form of ministry to Muslims in the West. It takes in the whole man, both in his spiritual and in his material needs. It enables Christians not only to proclaim their faith but also to manifest it. It is a ministry in which all Christians can share and we are persuaded that the effective evangelisation of the Muslims in our midst rests in the hands, not of individual missionaries endeavouring to reach thousands of people in a constant battle against seemingly insurmountable odds, but of Christians generally, even though they may only reach one or two Muslims over a long period of time. This in our view is the supreme opportunity that has been laid before the Church at this time. Language barriers are breaking down, cultural gaps are being bridged, Muslims are becoming our neighbours, and the doors are being thrust open for us to reach them in a way until recently thought to be most improbable. Large numbers of Christians can now become involved in reaching Muslims for Christ and circumstances have made it possible for a highly comprehensive ministry to be exercised among them. If the’ Church is willing to recognise the opportunity God has graciously bestowed on it and if Christians will assume the burden of befriending and evangelising the Muslims they are now beginning to meet in all walks of life in the West, we will perhaps see a work of the Holy Spirit in Muslim hearts and a turning to faith in Jesus Christ such as, till now, was hardly thought possible. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 104: 06.06. FRIENDSHIP EVANGELISM AMONG WESTERNISED MUSLIMS ======================================================================== Friendship Evangelism among Westernised Muslims ======================================================================== CHAPTER 105: 06.07. A. THE DEVELOPMENT OF PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS. ======================================================================== A. THE DEVELOPMENT OF PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS. 1 The Need to Establish Personal Contacts. Muslims are unlikely to become your brethren until they first become your friends. True friendship is one of the strongest bonds in this world and where Christians are able to build and develop such friendships with Muslims, they simultaneously lay the strongest possible foundation for an effective witness to God’s grace in Jesus Christ. This means that it is imperative that we should seek to establish personal contacts with Muslims, praying to God to create opportunities, and to cultivate these until solid personal relationships grow between us and them. In recent years the need for a sustained ministry of friendship evangelism among Muslims has been noted by missionaries who have had many years of experience in reaching Muslims with the Gospel. One comments: The influence of a close friend can be very significant. Peer pressure is a powerful stimulant to change. Frequently friendship is the first step toward winning someone to Christ. The Muslim becomes attracted to Christianity through the life and witness of a person who is willing to take the time and effort to cultivate friendships. (Parshall, The Fortress and the Fire, p. 104). Professor George W. Peters made a similar observation when presenting a paper entitled "An Overview of Missions to Muslims" at the North American Conference for Muslim Evangelization in 1978. Speaking of well-known missionaries like French, Goodsell and Zwemer, he said: They were masters in developing personal friendships and in personal dialogue lovingly and tactfully presented the gospel of Jesus Christ to individuals or small groups. (McCurry, The Gospel and Islam, p. 393). Doors are opening all around us in the West to make contact with Muslims and develop these into lasting friendships. I have often been made acutely aware of the host of opportunities that do exist when I have spoken to Christian groups on this subject. Again and again, either during a short question time directly after my talk or during a period of informal discussion over a cup of tea afterwards, Christian folk have mentioned the contacts that they have made without even intending to specifically reach Muslims with the Gospel. I have already mentioned a few of these but can go much further. Some Christian women regularly shop for materials at Muslim shopping centres and get to know the Muslim women employed there. Others find themselves working side-by-side with Muslims in banks, offices and stores. Many have Muslim landlords or tenants. These social contacts provide God-given opportunities to develop friendships and relationships, not just casual acquaintances, but real, genuine friendships where Christians can show their true character and the meaning of the knowledge of Jesus Christ in their lives. In this way the Christian gets to know the Muslim as a person and with this knowledge will come an appreciation of the Muslim’s problems, hopes, frustrations, interests, joys and sorrows. When this experience develops into a sympathetic attitude towards the Muslim’s needs, a willingness to share his fears and expectations, and an open desire to rejoice with him in his joys and feel with him when he suffers, the Muslim will begin to know what true Christianity is and what really motivates the Christian believer. It need hardly be added that this is one of the most important steps on the road to leading him to the knowledge of the source of genuine Christian love - the Lord Jesus Christ himself. First of all, to influence Muslims one must know them. If we are in personal touch with them, we must remember that they are people like us, with their joys and sorrows, their burdens and anxieties, their fears and their hopes, their failures and their sins. We should seek to know them so well that they will trust us, and will open their hearts and tell us their deepest needs. (Miller, A Christian’s Response to Islam, p. 131). The way to the soul of a man is through his heart. Kindness, care, interest in the person as an individual opens his or her heart. Then, when a genuine confidence has been built up, getting across eternal thoughts becomes natural. Therefore the best way of reaching the Muslim is the same as reaching any other man: through personal contact. (Nehls, The Great Commission, You and the Muslim, p. 25). These two quotations, which both express very positively the need for the development of personal relationships with Muslims, also allude to another of the great reasons why we need to emphasize friendship evangelism as the ideal form of reaching the adherents of Islam with the Gospel. The establishment of mutual trust and confidence between Christians and Muslims is one of the vital factors affecting this field of evangelism. A brief survey of the history of Christian Muslim relationships over the centuries will soon reveal why this is so. 2. Building Confidence in Muslim Hearts. The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and the almost total colonisation of the Muslim world in later centuries, have all left their mark on Muslim attitudes towards Christianity. The recent revolution in Iran was a reminder of how deep Muslim suspicions about the Christian world are to this day. Rightly or wrongly, the "Christian" West is perceived as bent on exploiting the "oppressed" Muslim countries of the world. Whatever the West does is automatically identified as the action of the Christian world. It does not occur to the Muslim to distinguish between the Christian Church and the Western world. Because the countries of North Africa, the Middle East and the western parts of Asia are almost exclusively Islamic, the Muslims view these regions as dar-al-Islam, the world of Islam. The European and American nations are, accordingly, in turn identified as the "Christian" world, simply because these regions have always been dominated by the Christian faith and represent the heritage of Christendom. Needless to say, gross misunderstandings arise in the minds of the Muslims as a result of such an over-simplistic world view. The simple fact is that a bitterness grew up between Christians and Muslims, which as we have seen, persists even to the present time in many quarters. It has nurtured hatred and strife. It has created mistrust and suspicion. It has built walls of misunderstanding. (Dretke, A Christian Approach to Muslims, p. 43). It does not help to moralise about this matter, nor to point to the equally censurable ills in the Islamic world, both historical and present. It is not our duty to prove points, justify Christian history, or defend our heritage. Our real duty is to win Muslims to the love of God and the grace that has been revealed to us in Jesus Christ. "What matters is not that men have thought ill of Christianity but that they have forfeited the Christ" (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 248). It is therefore incumbent on us to do all we can to remove the barriers between us. We must begin with a desire to overcome the prejudices that are rooted in centuries of misunderstanding. Until the great missionary movement stretched its hand out towards the Muslim world in love in the last century, it was customary for Christians and Muslims only to meet on the battlefield. A more inappropriate setting for a Christian meeting with me of other faiths can hardly be imagined. In patience and understanding the proper objective and purpose of the Christian approach to Islam can only be the expression of the benefits we have received through our faith in Jesus Christ so that Muslims, too, may become "partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the Gospel" (Ephesians 3:6). Your motive as a Christian witness of the grace of God as it is revealed in his Son must be "that the sharing of your faith may promote the knowledge of all the good that is ours in Christ" (Philemon 1:6). No Christian thought about Islam, then, can properly start with a querulous complaining over suspicion and ill-will. It must resolve to surmount prejudice wherever found and brace itself to correct error, restrain bitterness, and dissipate antagonism. (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 188). This requires much patience and longsuffering but, as these are two of the positive fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22), we can expect them to produce results. What is needed, primarily, is a desire to win Muslim confidence - to build up a spirit of mutual trust and a bond of true friendship. This is why it is so important that we endeavour to build lasting relationships with Muslims we hope to win to Jesus Christ. It matters not whether their prejudices are warranted or not, what does matter is that we remove them by giving proof that our real motive is to build others up and benefit them, not to exploit or to dominate. Once Muslim confidence is earned and established, the Christian will find it much easier to share the truths of the Gospel. There is no more appropriate background against which to declare the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ than genuine love and trust. It is not hard to enter into dialogue with a Muslim. Once he places his trust in you, you may find him to be a very expressive person for whom talking and debating comes easily. (Register, Dialogue and Interfaith Witness with Muslims, p. 17). Friendship evangelism among Muslims is, on reflection, surely the most suitable form of ministry we can pursue and the one most likely to be effective. It takes in the whole man and meets him in all his needs. It should be added that friendships must be aimed at purely for their own sake and to benefit our Muslim contacts. It is not imperative that we should always be witnessing and it is quite wrong to make the pursuit of such friendships conditional upon conversion. We need to aim at pure friendships, based solely on a desire to express the love of Jesus as we have come to experience it. Just as it is paradoxically true that it is only he who is prepared to lose his life who will find it (Luke 9:24), so it is also true that confidence and trust, which often lead to conversion, are most likely to arise when we are motivated by nothing else than a desire to do good and show sincere, uninhibited affection towards the Muslims we meet. Muhammad himself was not unaware of the likelihood that Christian-Muslim friendships might lead to conversions to Christianity and he, most unfortunately in our view, warned against this very thing in the Qur’an, saying: O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God guideth not a people unjust. Surah 5.54 The caution against developing friendships with Christians is also attributed to Muhammad in another source: "The Muslim is warned in a tradition from the Prophet, which all, I believe, accept as genuine, not to be on terms of friendship with any unbeliever" (MacDonald, Aspects of Islam, p. 273). Christians must therefore expect to find official opposition and efforts to dissuade responsive Muslims from becoming too closely involved in friendships with Christians. In turn, however, the Christian may well appeal to the Qur’an itself in another verse from the very same Surah which says: And nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": Because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant. Surah 5.85 I have often found that Muslims, who speak against the development of friendships with Christians, have no answer to make and are compelled to reflect when a Christian replies that it is strange that the Qur’an should, in one place, commend Christians as those most likely to warm towards Muslims in love and friendship, while in another place it forbids Muslims to do likewise. In any event many Muslims are only too willing to establish close friendships with Christians they feel they can trust. It is also important to consider seriously the whole foundation of the kind of Christian love that Muhammad speaks of in the Qur’an and which he must have experienced. Christians should indeed be "nearest in love" to all men because they have an example that transcends all others - God’s unsearchable love in giving his Son that we may be redeemed. "By this", Jesus said, "all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35). When Muslims experience such love they will be all the more willing to share their lives with us and grow in confidence and trust towards us. Some years ago a close Muslim friend of mine knocked or my door one evening. He had come for help because his marriage was coming unstuck. Although there are many thousands of Muslims in my home town he said "I have come to you because you are the only person I know who can help me". I was deeply encouraged by this gesture of confidence and trust. When we learn to so love Muslims that they sense there is a greater depth of compassion and sincerity in us than in all other men (solely because "God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us" - Romans 5:5), we will begin to communicate. A local Muslim magazine once commented that when you see Christians visiting the sick, consoling them, praying with them, and caring for their needs, then know that they are getting through to the people! We need to seek every possible opportunity to express genuine Christian love towards the Muslims we meet. There is a deep need to overcome the instinctive suspiciousness that characterises Muslim attitudes towards Christians: By sincerely pursuing friendships and establishing relationships this barrier can be overcome. Muslim confidence and trust will be won and our witness for Jesus will carry more weight. 3. Practical Methods of Developing Personal Relationships. One or two practical hints and suggestions, in conclusion, appear to be appropriate. The need for developing open family friendships has been recognised by virtually all who work among Muslims. The family unit is one of the most cherished values in the Muslim world and, wherever possible, Christians should seek to befriend whole families and involve their own spouses and children in the family-to-family friendship. In such a way lasting relationships develop where true friendships are best established. Hospitality is, likewise, a most important factor here. Muslims are given to hospitality and Christians should welcome invitations to share meals with them. There need also be no scruples on the part of Christians in sitting at table with Muslims. I have often been approached by Christians who believe we should object to halaal symbols appearing on poultry, margarine, etc., in our supermarkets, fearing lest we be in some way affected by Muslim practices. I believe there is no need for such reactions. We are a free people, delivered from scruples about food and drink (Colossians 2:20-22), and have clear exhortations in the Word of God to be quite open in this matter. Jesus Christ himself encouraged his disciples, whenever they were well received, to "eat what is set before you" (Luke 10:8) and the Apostle Paul directed: If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 1 Corinthians 10:27 Christians likewise must be willing to invite Muslims to their homes in return. Few Muslims will object when a Christian says grace before a meal begins as this is common in Islam as well. Likewise, when Christians are careful to find out in advance which foods are acceptable to Muslims and which are not, and make it clear they wish to respect Muslim scruples, Muslims are soon put at ease. "Make a point of learning the acceptable social norms of the Muslim lest he or she misunderstand your intentions" (Register, Dialogue and Interfaith Witness with Muslims, p. 23). Christian liberty is so extensive that we are not only free to eat and drink whatever we choose, but also to refrain from eating in circumstances where we might injure others who still have scruples about foods, even though such things neither commend men to God nor condemn them (Romans 14:20-21, 1 Corinthians 8:8-9). The Qur’an plainly states that the food of the Christians is acceptable to Muslims: The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. Surah 5.6 In the Qur’an Christians and Jews are commonly called "the People of the Book" (Ahlal-Kitab or, as here and elsewhere, allathiina uwtul Kitab - "those given the Scripture") and the text quoted opens the door for Christians to show open hospitality to Muslims. Indeed we cannot but emphasize yet again our conviction that Muslims are most likely to be won to Jesus Christ, discover eternal life, and reap the benefits of all the blessings God would bestow on them, when they are befriended by Christians and experience true Christianity in action. Not a few Muslims have more readily discovered Christ in the home and family, even on the tennis court and wayside, than beside the pulpit or the platform. How important it is to invite the Muslim as such with no reservations into some active piece of Christian enterprise, some co-operative scheme of rural welfare or human service in which he may discover the impulse of the love of Christ. (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 330). Muslims need to experience the warmth of true Christian friendship and fellowship. The development of personal relationships will soon be found to be one of the vital ingredients in effective evangelism among the sons of Islam This is a way that hardly requires the expertise of the trained missionary - it is laid open before all Christians of whatever standing who come to know Muslims and discover opportunities to establish contacts and long-lasting friendships The Church has yet to see what can be achieved when Christians go out of their way to share the love of Jesus Christ with others on a friend-to-friend basis. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 106: 06.08. B. "YOU ARE THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD". ======================================================================== B. "YOU ARE THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD". 1. The Biblical Importance of Bearing the Image of Jesus. Muslims often say that the first thing God created was the nur-i-Muhammadi, the "light of Muhammad", and that he set it in the celestial places. There is no Qur’anic foundation for this belief and it is typical of those embellishments around the personality of Muhammad with which later Islam abounds and by which the image of the Prophet of Islam has been transformed and exalted into an ideal out of all proportion to the original. Jesus Christ, however, right from the beginning, revealed himself as the Lord of all glory and it appears impossible to bestow on him more honour than is his by right. On numerous occasions he assumed titles which typified his glorious person and work, and on one such occasion he said: "I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life". John 8:12 Anaa huwa nuurul aalam - "I am the Light of the World" - are the words of Jesus as translated into Arabic. He alone is the Nur of the whole universe, the "true light that enlightens every man" who came into the world (John l.9). The duty of every true Christian is to make this light known, to manifest the fulness of his brightness before all men so that they might behold his glory and believe in him for eternal life. If this was all there was to a Christian’s testimony, the matter could be left there, but it is abundantly clear from the Scriptures that there is more to a Christian’s witness than just the proclamation of the Gospel by word of mouth. In his great Sermon on the Mount Jesus declared to all his disciples: "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven". Matthew 5:14-16. "You are the light of the world - let your light shine", Jesus proclaimed. Every true Christian is called not only to speak of the wondrous saving work of Jesus Christ but also to manifest the fruit of that salvation in his own life. If Muslims are to become believers in Jesus Christ as the Saviour of the world, they must see in us a degree of honesty, purity love, patience and goodness far surpassing that which they see among themselves. The Christian’s character must so reveal the image of the holy personality of Jesus Christ that Muslims are compelled to behold its beauties and to reconsider. The Apostle Paul urged much the same thing upon all true Christians as well: For once you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. Ephesians 5:8-10. In many other New Testament books one finds similar exhortations: "Only let your manner of life be worthy of the Gospel of Christ" is the appeal of the apostle in another epistle (Php 1:27), and he goes on to say: Do all things without grumbling or questioning, that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world. Php 2:14-15. There is no religion in the world which sets before its followers such a high standard of holiness and true godliness as Christianity does, and the manifestation of this reflection of the image of Jesus who was "designated Son of God in power by the spirit of holiness" (Romans 1:4) is an integral part of effective Christian witness. Only those who are born of the Holy Spirit can truly reveal the holy character of God in their lives. Et is encouraging to note that in the New Testament virtually all ritual, ceremony and form is stripped from the Christian faith. No form of dress is laid down to identify a true Christian, no rites and ceremonies are prescribed for worship, and no daily exercises and formal routines of personal pietism are prescribed. All these have been pushed aside in the pursuit of a far greater goal - the possession of the Spirit of Christ and the attendant manifestation of that Spirit in the holy, loving, patient and pure character of the believer. Recently we used to see an advertisement on television in this country where a certain television set was being promoted, the key feature being the employment of a microchip computer in place of the old assortment of valves, wires, etc. A whole batch of these lay upon the table in front of the speaker who, holding the microchip in his hand, said "This (the microchip) does away with all this (the valves, etc.)", at the same time brushing them all casually off the table. Every time I saw that advertisement I thought of Jesus Christ and his perfect character. It is so equally true to say that "this" (that is, the possession, development and manifestation of all his holy attributes) does away with all "this" (that is, rites, ceremonies, pilgrimages, prescribed times and forms of prayer, identifying dress, beards trimmed to proper length, headdress, ablutions, pietistic routines and the like). The revelation of Jesus Christ, who is the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15), and the experience of his grace and holy attributes, is set forth in the New Testament as the sole means by which a true Christian should be identified. It is evidently true to say that if adherents of other religions and even members of our own traditional churches had such a consciousness of the revealed glory of God as we have in Jesus Christ, they too would abandon all other religious rites and forms in pursuit of the ideal. When once the "pearl of great price" is discovered, all else should surely be forsaken to obtain it (Matthew 13:46). True Christians, born of the Holy Spirit, are the light of the world. The finest documentation behind the Christian’s testimony is the development of the virtues and beauties of the character of the Son of God in his soul. "Let the beauty of Jesus be seen in me, all his wondrous compassion and purity", is the key verse of a well-known chorus and one which well expresses the ideal. When others can see the excellences of his character being revealed in our souls and lives, they will begin to be attracted to the one of whom we speak. 2. The Life Testimony in Christian Witness to Muslims. The need of a consistent life witness has been noted by many who have worked among Muslims. One says: The Muslim will be impressed with your words only if he experiences your genuine friendship and sees you living a consistent moral life. Your Christian testimony must be matched by your lifestyle. (Register, Dialogue and Interfaith Witness with Muslims, p. 21). It is the common experience of all missionaries in this field that theological discussions and debate cannot, by themselves, bring persuasion to Muslim hearts. Indeed an approach which seeks purely to convince Muslims of the truth of Christianity by a process of reasoning and, at times, argument, is likely to be fruitless. There must be a witness, both by expression and by a lifestyle experience behind it, to the living efficacy of the Gospel and the transforming power that Jesus Christ brings to Christian lives. It is not my intention to disregard discussion and debate - I believe they have a vital function in Christian witness to Muslims and will say more of their purpose later. At this stage, however, it is my intention to emphasize that such methods, by themselves, without the living power of Christ being manifested in our lives and witness, cannot avail to persuade Muslims to become followers of Jesus Christ. Another writer, speaking from experience makes the same point: The Muslim will not often be converted through anything except the attractive perfection and love of the person of Jesus Christ. In our witness with Muslims we must talk much of Jesus, resisting all pressures to engage i mere theological debate . . . He alone saves, redeems and gives new life. In him alone are to be found all the glories of the Christian life and faith. He alone will satisfy the heartaches of mankind and in our evangelism we shall find that only he can attract-men like a magnet with the sheer beauty of his person and utter holiness of his nature. (Goldsmith, Islam and Christian Witness, p. 85). We need to seek a happy balance at this point, for it is equally true to say that a purely subjective approach will prove equally inadequate to bring about a real work of regeneration among Muslims. If we endeavour to avoid all theological discussion, apologetics and the like, and hope to influence purely through testimonies of what Jesus means to us, we will, in the long term, find ourselves brushed aside as religious enthusiasts with much emotional fervour, but little else. There is a fundamental need for a well-balanced witness which shines brightly, with the experience of Jesus Christ in our lives, which is grounded in sound theology, and which can defend itself and withstand all critical analyses of its heritage. A comprehensive witness is thus needed. In this section, however, I am concerned to strongly underline the need of a genuine Christian experience in our lives, a consistent daily walk, and a convincing testimony to the transforming effect of the power of our Saviour in our hearts and lives. Muslims will always listen to a testimony of God’s dealings with an individual. It is something they cannot contest or refute, especially when it is backed up by a pure, consistent life. (Marsh, Share your Faith with a Muslim, p. 17). The same author makes this whole point very concisely and succinctly when he goes on to say: "Christianity is not merely a religious message which they must believe, but a life to be received in the person of the Lord Jesus" (Marsh, Share your Faith with a Muslim, p. 72). We advocate friendship evangelism as the ideal form of evangelism among Westernised Muslims because it comprehensively takes in all these factors. We have already discussed the need of establishing personal relationships and of developing confidence in the hearts of Muslims towards us. We have also shown that a regular witness to the living power of the Gospel life, backed by a consistent manifestation in our daily Christian walk, is another vital factor in the successful prosecution of this chosen method of evangelism. But there is still more. There is one major facet of true Christian faith that must be added to the factors we have considered, and it is the outward expression of selfless love towards Muslims. This is ultimately the greatest of all Christian virtues and the one most likely to make a lasting impact on Muslims. Let us proceed to briefly examine how our whole witness, in the context of friendship evangelism, can and must be strengthened by a readiness to offer whatever help we can to assist Muslims in their needs, fears and moments of trial and suffering. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 107: 06.09. C. PRACTICAL CARE FOR MUSLIM PROBLEMS. ======================================================================== C. PRACTICAL CARE FOR MUSLIM PROBLEMS. 1. The Example of the Lord Jesus Christ. Nothing gains the heart and confidence of a Muslim like true love put into practice. Among the many things that make up true friendship evangelism, none is more vital or important than selfless love from the heart. If we are to truly give Muslims a foretaste of the kingdom of God, we must act towards them charitably, unselfishly, and with a caring spirit. We have an excellent example of precisely what such a ministry of love and care entails in these words from a well-known prophetic text: The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good tidings to the afflicted; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn; to grant to those who mourn in Zion, to give them a garland instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, the mantle of praise instead of a faint spirit; that they may be called oaks of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that he may be glorified. Isaiah 61:1-3. Right at the very beginning of his course Jesus Christ, given the opportunity to read from the scriptures one sabbath day, deliberately found the place where these words were written and, after reading the first few lines, declared "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing" (Luke 4:21). He had come, anointed by the Spirit of God, to perform the very mercies spoken of in the heart-warming words he had just read. His purpose was not only to preach and teach, it was also to liberate and set free those who were in bondage to heal the sick, to comfort the downcast, to uplift the depressed, and to give hope of the coming day of redemption. "He went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil" (Acts 10:38) is a definition of his purpose and work that perfectly describes his course. The Christian’s first objective must be "to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge" (Ephesians 3:19), and to share that love in practice so that others might be built up and delivered and be drawn to the source of their eternal salvation. Nowhere is this principle more relevant to Christian ministry than in personal evangelism among Muslims. Charles Marsh was a missionary among Muslims in Algeria for many decades and his whole life was devoted to caring for the sick, helping the poor, lifting up the oppressed, and declaring God’s grace in Jesus Christ. He speaks from rich personal experience when he says: The next most important point to keep in mind is that the Muslim responds to love. He must feel that we really care for him as a man, that we love him and have a genuine concern for him, and not only for his soul. In nearly every case of conversion of a Muslim, he has first been influenced by genuine love. (Marsh, Share your Faith with a Muslim, p. 13). By that same experience he could also say of Muslims: "They respond to love, real unaffected love. They know at once those who are transparently sincere in their love for God and for them" (Marsh, Share your Faith with a Muslim, p. 80). It has often been said that Satan can imitate anything in the Christian faith except heartfelt, selfless love. As the Christian alone can believe that all his sins are already forgiven and that no self-righteousness of his own can ever merit favour with God, he is free to selflessly give himself over to showing the love of Christ in his life by helping others wherever he can. He does not have to find approval with God - he has it from the day he first truly became a follower of Jesus - and so he alone can devote himself to a life of service to others with no other motive than expressing the greatest of all virtues - genuine love from the heart. A brief perusal of a number of passages in Matthew’s Gospel will show just how deeply this principle was worked out to the full in Jesus’ own ministry. We begin with the following description of his service to mankind: And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease and every infirmity. Matthew 9:35 Jesus thus not only went about proclaiming the kingdom of God but also set about healing diseases. He complemented his preaching ministry with a sustained exercise of renewing love towards all that he met who suffered any kind of weakness or defect. It was thus a twofold ministry - "preaching the gospel" and "healing every disease and every infirmity". No form of Christian evangelism can therefore be truly comprehensive unless it includes both these services. The witness of the Gospel must be accompanied by dedicated, selfless acts of love towards those we seek to win to Jesus Christ. Just as he showed love towards all he met without distinction, so we must be willing to act in love towards all Muslims, rich or poor, pleasant or overbearing, friendly or arrogant, amenable or antagonistic. Such genuine love, when it shows itself in a kindly disposition in the Christian or in his willingness to help the Muslim whatever his need, can only make an impact. When converts are asked what first drew them to Christ it often appears that the means most used of God has been the Christlike love of Christians. This love is not an emotional attraction, for the people we are to love often are, but may not always be, lovable. It is the kind of love described in the thirteenth chapter of First Corinthians, the kind of love revealed in Christ on the cross. It is love that is ready to give life not only for friends but also for enemies. (Miller, A Christian’s Response to Islam, p. 134) Perhaps our greatest need is to pray that the Holy Spirit will give us his gift of love for our Muslim neighbours. Love will always find a way to express itself. Real love is wonderfully attractive and the Muslim will be touched by it. (Goldsmith, Islam and Christian Witness, p. 112). Jesus himself gave a further typical summary of the character of his ministry when disciples of John the Baptist came to enquire whether he really was the Messiah. He said: "Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them. And blessed is he who takes no offence at me". Matthew 11:4-6. Once again he defined the two fundamental characteristics of his ministry - the preaching of the Gospel and a practical ministry aimed at building up those who were needy and meeting them directly in their needs. This is what true friendship evangelism among Muslims really means. We cannot hope to rely solely on the witness we give, we must back it up and endorse it through acts of love in caring for Muslim problems and needs. A very beautiful passage in the Gospel we are quoting from shows yet again just how deeply the practical ministry of Jesus in meeting people in their needs had the effect of bringing them to an acknowledgement of the divine origin of his ministry: And Jesus went on from there and passed along the Sea of Galilee. And he went up on the mountain, and sat down there. And great crowds came to him, bringing with them the lame, the maimed, the blind, the dumb, and many others, and they put them at his feet, and he healed them, so that the throng wondered, when they saw the dumb speaking, the maimed whole, the lame walking, and the blind seeing; and they glorified the God of Israel. Matthew 15:29-31. God was glorified when the people saw the gracious preaching of Jesus put into effect. He showed that he had come to bind up the brokenhearted, to preach good news to the poor, to recover the sight of the blind, and to heal all who were oppressed. His true followers must likewise follow in his steps and actively show love towards all that they meet. On the Day of Judgment Jesus said that he would say certain things to those who were truly his disciples by which the genuineness of their devotion to him would be recognised. He stated that he would know his own by this test: "I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me". Matthew 25:35-36. He did not say he would identify any of his followers by any of the following means: "I taught in your streets, you cast out demons in my name, you prophesied in my name, you adhered to the Christian faith, you were regular in church attendance", etc. He said he would know his own by this one identifying characteristic alone - their acts of love and care towards the needy. This is why he said that the only way his disciples would be recognised was by their love for one another (John 13:35). Our brief study of these select passages from Matthew’s Gospel shows quite clearly that the preaching and teaching ministry of Jesus was at all times undergirded and marked by his love and service towards those he met who were suffering or in need. He truly practiced what he preached and showed that regular attention and care towards those who were enduring any kind of privation is an essential part of true Christian evangelism. His whole ministry was one supreme act of devotion towards all who came to him who saw in him the answer to their problems. Jesus Himself taught as He healed, healed as He taught. Though He decisively refused the temptation to be only and perpetually bread-maker, He did not commit Himself to saying that man shall not live by bread at all. (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 212). Genuine friendship evangelism thus has two major foundations - the witness to the grace of God in Jesus Christ and the manifestation of that grace in acts of love and charity. Let us examine some practical ways in which such love can be made effective among Muslims. 2. Practical Ways of Showing Love Towards Muslims. Effective witness must identify itself with the needs of the people. (Van der Werff, Christian Mission to Muslims, p. 166). We have been surveying the prospects of an effective form of evangelism among Muslims in the West and have suggested that friendship evangelism is the ideal method. The key element in this type of ministry is the scope we have to identify with Muslim needs and to meet these in whatever way we can. We need to be constantly on the lookout for ways and means of helping Muslims with their social and personal problems and should pray that God will create opportunities to discover Muslim needs and give us all the resources we shall require to meet them. If we regard the Muslim not as an enemy to be conquered, but as a friend to be won, the logical place to begin is at some point of need. Christianity is not primarily a way of talking, but a way of living. The most convincing demonstration of the Christian faith is a life motivated by visible love and service. (Elder, The Biblical Approach to the Muslim, p. 5). Christians must share Christ with Muslims, but what is shared must not simply be information; they must share what the sick woman who touched the hem of Christ’s garment experienced - compassion, love, healing, integration, a sense of meaning; the Christ, who is a living person. (Fry and King, Islam: A Survey of the Muslim Faith, p. 133). This is surely the heart of true Christian witness to all men, but especially to Muslims. They need to experience the love of Christ, they need to see his grace at work in our lives, and they need to be encouraged by our example to turn to the source of our love for them. As another writer says, "As Christians we should be in the forefront of all activities aimed at meeting the personal and social needs of men and women" (Goldsmith, Islam and Christian Witness, p. 105). Some years ago one of my close friends and I were visiting a Muslim home in our own town where two brothers were always willing to engage in discussion and debate with us. As these get-togethers went on the atmosphere became increasingly tense and one evening we spent some hours warding off many arguments one of them was levelling at Christianity. Instead of being caused to reflect by the defences we raised, he became increasingly aggressive until we left for home, persuaded that any further visits to this family would prove fruitless. I did not expect to see the young man or hear from him again. Only three weeks later, however, my receptionist told me that he wished to see me. He was in a very different frame of mind and was quite subdued and friendly. He showed me an assessment the local Receiver of Revenue had sent him (the South African name for the taxman), demanding payment of over R400,00 in taxes. He assured me he had been unemployed for some time and I offered to pay the Revenue office a visit to see if I could resolve the issue. One of the staff there told me that they had no proof he had been unemployed, so they summarily assessed him for taxes on the strength of his previous income. We soon managed to get the necessary proof and I took it back to the Revenue office and was told a new assessment would be sent to him. On my next visit he joyfully told me he had first received a letter advising him to ignore the original assessment, and thereafter received a new assessment together with a refund cheque for over R350,00! I am sure you can imagine the change that came over his attitude towards us. From that day onward his home was wide open and we were welcomed every time we called. We found we had new opportunities and could present the Gospel more positively, and were met with a willing ear in place of the former aggressiveness. I am convinced that if we will only take time to identify the needs of Muslims and uninhibitedly endeavour to help them, our witness will become far more effective. The scope and potential is profound. Nurses in hospitals can go just that little bit further than the normal call of duty to personally identify with the needs of their patients) those who Work with Muslims can go out of their way to genuinely befriend them; those who have Muslim neighbours can make an effort to get to know them and assist them with their problems These are but a short selection of the possibilities that are before us. When Christians make it their aim to not only share the good news of the Gospel with Muslims but also to serve them in love and compassion, the beauty of Jesus will become the more apparent before their eyes. Medical missions among Muslims in India helped create a new public spirit of compassion for the sick and afflicted as well as drawing many into the sphere where the Gospel could be heard. Serious minded medical workers considered their work as a living demonstration of the nature of the kingdom of God and the redemptive power of Christ. (Van der Werff, Christian Mission to Muslims, p. 80). This is how all Christians should view their contacts with Muslims - as opportunities to manifest the Spirit of Jesus Christ in active forms of love and service. Christians should also seek wherever possible to pray with Muslims for their needs - it is our experience that most Muslims will welcome such prayers and, when these are answered, the impact of the Gospel always increases. If you know a Muslim well enough, ask if you can pray with him, and offer a prayer to God about any special needs you or he may have. (Chapman, You Go and Do the Same, p. 13). Let me conclude by repeating for the sake of emphasis m earlier appeal for a willingness to love for love’s sake alone, to help Muslims in their needs with no other motive but to reveal the love of Christ for the world. Let the Spirit of Christ make his own impact on the Muslims we care for, and where this impact is resisted or rejected, let us not hold back or be grudging in our ministry. Hass Hirji Walji, in his book Escape from Islam, speaks of this very kind of single-hearted expression of love in his description of one of his first experiences on arriving in the United States of America as a refugee from Idi Amin’s government in Uganda some fifteen years ago. The Lutheran Church in New York had decided to do whatever it could to enable the Ugandan refugees to feel immediately at home in America and the young man was astounded, upon arrival, to find that a whole apartment had been arranged for him and that it had been fully furnished to help him settle down as comfortably as possible. He could not understand how such people who were hitherto unknown to him could show such kindness when they could expect no payment or outward expression of gratitude in return. Hass had heard all sorts of negative things about Americans and was told they were only allowing refugees into the United States so that they could immediately send them as conscripts to Vietnam! He was amazed to find exactly the opposite - that instead of exploiting him they sought only to assist him to find his feet in his new home. There was no other motive in the hearts of those Christians. Their generosity sprang from nothing more than a heartfelt desire to help others just as Jesus, their Lord, had helped others, seeking nothing in return. Hass was not converted through this demonstration of love, nor was it the intention of his benefactors that he should be. But his first impressions of Christian love in America, in stark contrast to the rough-handed treatment he had experienced from the new Muslim ruler of Uganda, were never lost on him and were one of many experiences that led him to eventually desire to become a true Christian himself. God grant that we may be inspired to act charitably towards Muslims so that they may know that there is a degree of compassion and care in true Christians that can be found in no other people on earth, simply because they are born of the Spirit of Jesus who loves all men with an everlasting love and who considered no sacrifice too great to manifest that love to needy men everywhere. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 108: 06.10. D. THE GIFTS AND POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. ======================================================================== D. THE GIFTS AND POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 1. The Ministry of Healing and Renewal. We have considered the opportunities that exist in the West for an effective ministry of friendship evangelism among Westernised Muslims. We have covered the need for the development of personal relationships with Muslims, the importance of a lifestyle witness, and the exercise of love and compassion towards Muslims in their problems and needs. In conclusion we shall briefly review the potential for the work of the Holy Spirit through his gifts in renewing Muslims and giving them a living experience of God’s power in their lives. Far too often the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit has been overlooked as an essential and valuable complement to the preaching of the Gospel, though it is encouraging to see a greater emphasis these days being placed on the gifts of the Spirit in evangelism. Jesus conducted an all-round ministry during his life on earth and we have already seen how he not only went about "teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom" but also "healing every disease and every infirmity among the people" (Matthew 4:23). This healing work was invariably supernatural and caused the masses constantly to glorify God and declare that he was present in the ministry of Jesus (Luke 7:16, John 3:2). In the same way we read often of great wonders and signs being done among the people by the hands of the apostles in the earliest days of the Church (for example, Acts 2:43; Acts 5:12; Acts 6:8). Indeed we read elsewhere that the salvation of God was not only declared and attested by Jesus and his disciples, but that "God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his own will" (Hebrews 2:4). We must therefore regard the special work of the Holy Spirit in the gifts of healing,’ miracles and the like, as one of the vital accompanying proofs of the truth of the Gospel. Our ministry can only be enhanced and become more effective when we seek the manifestation of the power of God through the gifts of the Holy Spirit in our contacts with Muslims. This theme is so common in the New Testament that we cannot help quoting yet another text where the ministry of the Gospel is shown to be by the preaching of the Word together with healings and other experiences of a similar nature. The work of the apostles Paul and Barnabas at Iconium is described in the Scriptures in these words: So they remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands. Acts 14:3 We must not only proclaim the Gospel, we must also have faith that God will honour his Word and give supernatural evidences of its truth and character. The Apostle Paul was well aware of the need of such a comprehensive ministry and he was able to describe the whole of his course in these words: In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God. For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has wrought through me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word and deed, by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Holy Spirit, so that from Jerusalem and as far round as Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. Romans 15:17-19. Jesus Christ worked through Paul, not only by word and deed, but also by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Holy Spirit. In so doing he "fully preached" the Gospel of Christ. It is surely obvious, therefore, that no ministry among Muslims is likely to be effective as long as it consists of preaching alone. We must look to God to manifest his grace by healing the sick, cleansing those possessed of evil spirits, and annulling diseases and infirmities. There are many occasions in the Scriptures where people were converted precisely because they saw the power of God accompanying the preaching of the Gospel. Sergius Paulus, the Roman proconsul at Paphos on the island of Cyprus, was converted when Paul caused the hand of the Lord to come upon one of his magicians in temporary blindness. Paulus "believed, when he saw what had occurred, for he was astonished at the teaching of the Lord" (Acts 13:12). Perhaps the most dramatic example of a man being persuaded through a work of healing was the blind man whom Jesus cured at Jerusalem. When he was healed the man simply testified: "He put clay on my eyes, and I washed, and I see" (John 9:15). This man, as a result of his infirmity, had not been educated in the great doctrines and laws of Judaism. His defect was taken as a sign that he was born in "utter sin" (John 9:34) and, when he was healed, he could not engage the Pharisees in theological debate. When confronted with the charge that Jesus had broken the laws of the sabbath by healing him on the sabbath day, he could not argue in reply on the merits of Jesus’ act according to their law, nor could he theologically refute the charge. He could only reply: "Whether he is a sinner, I do not know; one thing I know, I that though I was blind, now I see". John 9:25 What a telling answer this was, so beautiful in its simplicity. He could not answer their charge that Jesus was a sinner according to the law, such knowledge was beyond him. He had never been able to refine his own doctrine or faith according to the orthodox truths of his religion. There was only one thing he knew - he had been blind, and now he could see! This was quite sufficient to convince him of the worthiness of Jesus’ ministry and he lacked no courage in speaking boldly in defence of him as a man obviously sent from God (John 9:30-33). Nicodemus was yet another of those who became convinced that God was with Jesus when he saw the signs that he did (John 3:2). In the same way we must expect that many Muslims will be come converted through experiencing the healing power of God in their lives, even though they may not fully comprehend the basic doctrines of the faith. It is always wise-to guard against attempting to catechise or doctrinise people into the Kingdom of God by believing that a testimony to the basic truths of the Gospel is sufficient evidence of a true conversion. The rebirth through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit is a real, vibrant experience and we must not be surprised to often find people being drawn to Christ through experiencing his active grace and love in their lives, even if they do not; immediately assent to or understand the basic tenets of the Gospel. Salvation comes by faith, not by knowledge, and it is very possible that true love for Jesus and real faith can come antecedent to an assent to the finer truths of the Christian Gospel, whereas it is equally possible for people to be grounded in the knowledge of these truths without ever truly experiencing a living work of the Holy Spirit in their lives. Because the process of conversion is highly experimental, I do not hesitate to allow a wide latitude for the power of signs and wonders to bring about a true and complete persuasion in the hearts of those who experience them, alongside the preaching of the Gospel. As Jesus once said, "No one who does a mighty work in my name will soon after be able to speak evil of me" (Mark 9:39), and it is equally true to say that no one who similarly experiences a mighty work in his name will soon thereafter be anything less than favourably impressed. The power of the Spirit in signs and wonders that accompany the preaching of the Gospel is a great asset that God has granted to his Church - let us not fail to use it. There is no mission field where this is more applicable than the field of Muslim evangelism. If the Christian is to be involved in witness among Muslims he will be wise to pray and think deeply about the New Testament teaching on the victory of Jesus Christ over all spirit powers. (Goldsmith, Islam and Christian Witness, p. 54). Many Muslims are "oppressed by the devil" (Acts 10:38) and suffer from physical defects and demon-possession. Many are the missionaries who have witnessed the grace of God in action in delivering them from such handicaps. Let us then press on to see just how vital the supernatural works of the Holy Spirit are in the field of Christian witness to Muslims. 2. The Power of the Holy Spirit in Muslim Evangelism. Some years ago a young Muslim woman in South Africa suffered a series of miscarriages. Despairing of ever having a child of her own, she turned to God and prayed that he would be gracious to her and give her a child. One night, as she slept, she had a strange dream. Someone dressed in glistening white came to her, holding a baby in his arms. He laid it in her lap and went away. Soon afterwards she conceived again and this time all went well and a healthy son was born. She turned to thank God for his grace and kindness, and this same vision came to her again, a man dressed in glistening white. "I wanted to believe that it was the Prophet Muhammad", she later testified, "but somehow I knew it was Jesus Christ. I cannot say how I knew it was him, but there was no doubt. It was Jesus". It was some time before she became a Christian but the experience left a decided impression on her and contributed towards her eventual conversion. Today she is a bright and lively witness to the Lord and Saviour she loves very dearly. Not only must we expect to see God work in supernatural ways through visions, healings and the like, but it seems that he purposefully grants such persuasive proofs especially to Muslims who might otherwise not perceive the word of truth. Paul was a rigid persecutor of the Church and it is hardly surprising that it took a momentous revelation of Jesus Christ to convert him. Christians should be especially sensitive towards Muslims who relate strange dreams they have had, particularly where the person of Jesus himself appears. An amazing number of Muslims have come to Christ as they experienced dreams of a supernatural dimension. William Miller writes of one Muslim who in a dream saw a huge palace with a cross on its roof. A voice told him the palace belonged to Jesus Christ and only He could open the gets. Sometime later, the Muslim was reading Pilgrim’s Progress and was startled to see on one of the pages a picture that was identical to his dream. This experience led to his conversion. (Parshall, New Paths in Muslim Evangelism, p. 152). Many missionaries among Muslims have commented on the effect of deep religious experiences upon Muslims, whether from the Christian who relates experiences of his own, or in cases where the Muslim himself is involved. One such missionary said that it was often his experience that "truth about God is accepted by Muslims more readily through the relating of personal experiences than through the use of theological formulae" (Register, Dialogue and Interfaith Witness with Muslims, p. 77). Yet another makes the very same point: "Many Muslims have come to faith in Christ largely through experiencing his power in some dramatic way in their lives" (Chapman, You Go and Do the Same, p. 73). Bilquis Sheikh, author of the well-known best-seller I Dared to Call Him Father, was likewise brought to Christ through a series of supernatural experiences. Many are the Muslims who have become followers of Jesus through a direct intervention of the power of the Spirit in their lives. The Holy Spirit is an ever-present witness with us to the glory of Christ and it is his express purpose to pursue this witness (John 16:14). We must expect and indeed pray that he will reveal Jesus Christ to Muslims in a dramatic way if the, will not heed the preaching of the Gospel. We must also pray constantly that he will pour forth the grace of God in works of healing and mercy. The following passage expresses the general consensus of a number of participants at the 1978 North American Conference for Muslim Evangelisation on this subject: We need to consider whether a more charismatic approach and ministry may not be needed, an approach which depends in a greater measure on the Spirit’s work in the individual, prayer for healing for deliverance from demon possession and other specific needs. (McCurry, ed., The Gospel and Islam, p. 223). After all that has been said in this chapter it may appear to some that we are not giving sufficient attention to or placing proper emphasis upon the actual preaching of the Gospel. Please do not be surprised if I say that I remain convinced that the actual preaching of the Word of God does indeed remain the paramount feature of Muslim evangelism. What we are advocating is friendship evangelism, and I have no doubt that there is no substitute for the actual work of witnessing to God’s grace in Jesus Christ. It is my view, however, that the one cannot do without the other. We need to teach and preach as Jesus did, but also to do good and to heal infirmities. The beauty of friendship evangelism is that it absorbs all these needs and opens the door for a fully comprehensive and all-round ministry to Muslims. I have, in this chapter, set forth what I believe are ancillary works to the preaching of the Gospel and, indeed, vital ones. Without them our preaching will lose its impact. Yet there is no substitute for the ministry of preaching and teaching. Jesus sent forth his disciples to "preach the Gospel to the whole creation" (Mark 16:15) and to "make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19). From here on, therefore, I shall concentrate on what will always be the supreme work of the missionary or Christian witness to Muslims - the preaching of "the glorious gospel of the blessed God" (1 Timothy 1:11) with which we have been entrusted. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 109: 06.11. COMMUNICATING THE GOSPEL TO MUSLIMS ======================================================================== Communicating the Gospel to Muslims ======================================================================== CHAPTER 110: 06.12. A. BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR MUSLIM EVANGELISM. ======================================================================== A. BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR MUSLIM EVANGELISM. 1. Our Attitude and the Spirit of our Approach to Muslims. Before exploring the actual subject of witnessing to Muslims and the most effective methods of communicating the Gospel to them, it is my intention to say a few things about our whole attitude and approach, in other words, the spiritin which we must conduct our witness. In any field of evangelism our manner of approach is very important, but especially in the field of Muslim evangelism. The impact of our message will soon be tempered if we do not present it in a tactful and charitable way. Let me begin by saying that the fundamental principle to be observed, and the one that is the foundation of all the points I will raise in this section, is that we are dealing with people and not with robots, objects or insensitive creatures. Our witness must at all times have a thoroughly personal flavour with a keen sensitivity towards the needs, fears, attitudes and, at times, prejudices of those we intend to evangelise. Our object must not be to score points or to win arguments but to win Muslim people to God’s Anointed Saviour, Jesus Christ. The first thing we need is a right approach. We must see our witness in a person-to-person context and endeavour to establish a relaxed atmosphere of conversation and dialogue. A spirit of mutual inter-communication is vital if we are to effectively convey the Gospel to Muslims. We need to be open to discussion and allow the Muslim complete freedom to join in so that he can state his needs, fears, beliefs and misgivings as well. Above all he must feel completely free to express himself and not feel threatened in any way. If we show Muslims that we care for them as people and that our witness is intended purely to benefit them and that it comes without obligation or strings attached, we are far more likely to win their confidence and gain willing ears. Later on in this chapter I will show why it is, therefore, essential that we study Islam and know the beliefs of the Muslims so that we can engage in profitable dialogue, but let me say here that it is at least essential that we be willing to listen as well as talk. When Muslims find that they are free to express their own feelings and beliefs, and when they realise that the Christian is not just interested in seeing them baptised at the first opportunity, they become more willing themselves to hear what the Christian has to say. Take every opportunity of being friendly with Muslim neighbours, shopkeepers and others. Show them that you love them in practical ways. Do not try to preach at them. Be a good listener. This is where we are failing today in every land. We must listen to the other man sympathetically and patiently. Then we shall understand his point of view, his difficulties, and where he has misunderstood Christianity. (Marsh, Share Your Faith with a Muslim, p. 61). Some years ago I saw a cartoon which showed a typical householder opening the door to a stranger who was obviously representing some religious cult or sect. "I have come to convert you", he said to the bemused and somewhat affronted owner of the house. While we may immediately disown such brashness, there are many more subtle ways in which I believe Christians are falling into this very trap, where the expression of Christian witness takes the form of a monologue with the only object being the earliest possible persuasion of the hearer to become a Christian. It is for this reason that I am very wary of certain modern methods of evangelism. One takes the form of an impersonal approach where the Christian sets out, step-by-step, a presentation of the Gospel according to a prescribed formula he has learnt from someone else. These package presentations probably do make witnessing easy for those who distrust their ability to present the Gospel effectively in their own words, but they are so stereotyped and formal that they inhibit inter-communication and a genuine person-to-person approach and take the form of a pure monologue instead. Worse still, they invariably encourage the Christian to attempt to get the hearer to pray a prescribed prayer at the end of the one-two-three, step-by-step presentation, to receive Christ as Saviour. The object of the exercise is obvious - obtain a formal commitment before the end of your first and only appointment with the object of your witness. The Muslim must feel free to introduce subjects he wishes to discuss and will soon feel threatened if he senses that the Christian motive is to get a conversion commitment at the first possible opportunity. We need to be extremely patient with Muslims and it is only rarely that Muslims come to Jesus Christ without much time, heart-searching, learning and reflection first taking place. This leads to the second thing we need and that is a keen sensitivity towards Muslims. It is a very subtle form of pride that makes Christians want to chalk up as many convert as they can in the shortest possible time. The same malady accounts for the spirit of triumphalism we see in so many of our churches today. Short-cut methods to elicit an early response or force a formal decision can do untold injury and harm to Muslims. Just as an untimely birth will damage or destroy a child, so a premature commitment will injure a Muslim and many have, in fact, turned against the Gospel permanently as the result of such hasty, insensitive approaches. The Apostle Paul taught that, on the Day when our works will finally be tested by God’s refining fire, the wood, hay and stubble will be consumed and only the gold, silver and precious stones will remain (1 Corinthians 3:12-15). We must seek to work as closely as possible with the Holy Spirit and ensure that the outward effects of our ministries correspond to the real inward work the Holy Spirit is doing. No Muslim should be pressed into a premature commitment. Let the Spirit of God give the growth while we plant and water and only when the Muslim himself shows a genuine desire to become a true Christian should he be persuaded to do so. Too often today Christians appear to be interested only in boasting about the numbers of converts they are seeing, as though head-counting is a proof of the Holy Spirit’s work and presence. Such Christians often fall very quickly into a temptation that we should all avoid - the making of converts through "easy believism". Jesus cautioned again and again against such an approach, with warnings such as this one: "Not every one who says to me, ’Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven". Matthew 7:21 When a scribe made a formal commitment, saying "I will follow you wherever you go" (Matthew 8:19), Jesus replied: "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head". Matthew 8:20 He called on the man to count the cost of conversion be fore he made such declarations and we must do likewise. The cost of discipleship is great for all men, but especially for Muslims who will invariably suffer much persecution and rejection for their faith. The temptation today is to obtain formal commitments at minimum cost. This may give the appearance of power, progress and the work of the Holy Spirit, but it is both illusory and insensitive. How many Christians today would not have joyfully counted that scribe among the followers of Jesus upon such a declaration without further reflection? On more than one occasion Jesus was surrounded by people who appeared to be only too willing to believe in him. On one of these we read that "as he spoke thus, many believed in him" (John 8:30). We would probably have enrolled them in our churches immediately, but Jesus tested the sincerity of their faith and thoroughly examined their motives until, finally, they accused him of being possessed of a demon (John 8:48) and sought to stone him (John 8:59). After he had fed five thousand men besides women and children with bread, they flocked after him but, by the time he had finished with them, not even his regular disciples were keen to continue with him (John 6:66). A fine summary of the whole problem and Jesus’ acute awareness of it is found in these words: Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs which he did; but Jesus did not trust himself to them, because he knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man; for he himself knew what was in man. John 2:23-25. We too need to be sensitive, not only towards Muslims as people with needs and misgivings, but also towards the Spirit of God who alone can convert people, who "blows where he wills" (John 8:3), and who is not impatient. We must be discerning, as Jesus was, and discover patiently those with whom the Holy Spirit is really working and not seek to prematurely reap the fruit before it is fully ripe or, worse still, mistake leaves for fruit by enticing Muslims to make commitments who are nowhere near genuine conversion. Even before the wood is thrown into the fire, five ounces of gold are of greater value than five hundred pounds of wood. The third thing we need to be is charitable in our witness, to speak graciously and courteously, and to be truly Christian in all our ways when discussing with Muslims. One of the things about the Scriptures that always appeals to me is the sense of balance that is so often advocated insofar as our attitudes and manners are concerned. It is always tempting to go to extremes, but the Bible constantly calls on us to be balanced in our approach. A good example of this is found in the fourth chapter of Paul’s letter to the Christians of Colossae. He begins by saying: Pray for us also, that God may open to us a door for the word, to declare the mystery of Christ, on account of which I am in prison, that I may make it clear, as I ought to speak. Colossians 4:3-4. In his letter to the Ephesians he shows that his desire to make the Gospel "clear" means a willingness to speak with authority and he thus requests prayer that "utterance may be given me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains; that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak" (Ephesians 6:19-20). Twice in that passage he speaks of the need to boldly declare the mystery of the Gospel, yet in the very next breath in his letter to the Colossians he says: Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt so that you may know how you ought to answer every one. Colossians 4:6 Note, therefore, the beautiful balance he maintains in his exhortation - be bold, but at the same time be gracious. On the one hand he cautions against a spirit of timidity and appeasement (so also 2 Timothy 1:7), but on the other he likewise warns against a spirit of arrogance and offensiveness. How well this applies to Muslim evangelism. A so-called "loving" approach that makes no allowance for argument, challenge, apologetic or debate, is no more tolerable or spiritual than a triumphalistic approach that is purely confrontational, dogmatic and overbearing. The Muslim has a keen perceptive mind and quickly detects any attempt to mask the truth or to compromise. Dr. Zwemer once said that you can say anything to a Muslim provided you say it in love and with a smile. They respect the man who, alone in the midst of a crowd of Muslim opponents, has the courage of his convictions and does not hesitate to speak the whole truth. (Marsh, Share Your Faith with a Muslim, p. 11). We need to develop a spirit of gentle aggressiveness, to "show perfect courtesy toward all men" (Titus 3:2), and yet to speak with such boldness and confidence that those who dispute with us will not be able, as the Jews were with Stephen, to . "withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke" (Acts 6:10). Stephen had the right approach - he was "full of grace and power" (Acts 6:8) - and we need to be likewise in Our approach to Muslims. In passing let me add that we must also remember precisely who we are. We are already children of God, heirs of a kingdom certain to be revealed at the last time. Nothing in all creation can disturb our assured hope. Thus all true Christians are for God and live on behalf of every man in every nation. In truth and love, therefore, we are for all Muslims everywhere, wishing they could be as we are this day, redeemed from mankind as first fruits for God and his kingdom. We must, therefore, never see ourselves as a militant people, an earthly community whose identity must be preserved at all costs. We are not against the world, nor are we at war with Islam. Our aim, therefore, must not be to defeat Islam or to seek its demise, but to win Muslims for Christ. We must not see ourselves, as I am afraid many Christians do, as a community opposed to Islam and its community with a duty to fight against every form of Muslim influence in society. In the same way Christians must avoid taking sides against Islam, especially in the Middle East context. There are some Christians who believe that God still has a place for the nation of Israel in his plans for the future and that the State of Israel, as we know it, is directly relevant to his purposes. The temptation, accordingly, is to side with Israel against the Muslim world. Ali Muhsin, a Muslim scholar, recently cited Muslim grievances in this respect, saying at the Chambesy Dialogue Consultation in 1976: Another factor in the East African experience is that some of the Christian missionaries have allowed themselves to become advocates of the political cause of Zionism, and some of their literature provides clear evidence for this. In my view the most imperialistic radio station in the world is the Voice of the Gospel. It has a long history of pro-Zionism and has only moderated its views in light of recent political events in Africa. (Christian Mission and Islamic Da’wah, p. 85). A common Christian car-sticker nowadays reads "Christians for Israel". This can only mean, to the Muslims of the world, "Christians against Islam". We need to develop a spirit of love towards all men and to avoid taking sides in political disputes. Love must be the supreme motivating factor in our relationships with Muslims. Their confidence in us will soon evaporate if they sense in any way at all that we secretly harbour militant attitudes towards them. Lastly let me say we need to maintain at all times a spirit of fairness. Christians, in imitation of Jesus Christ, must be thoroughly sincere, always composed, trusting quietly and patiently in the truth and in their own integrity. It is impossible to pay too much attention to fairness and courtesy in your arguments. If you are polite and kind in your words and manner, your opponent will generally, even against his will, be forced to observe the rules of courtesy. Regard him as a brother for whom Christ died, and to whom you are sent with the message of reconciliation. You can generally repress any rudeness on his part, without offending him, by showing courtesy to him and making it clear, by your manner, that you expect the same conduct from him. Never let an argument degenerate into a quarrel. (Tisdall, Muhammadan Objections to Christianity, p. 14). Christians must endeavour at all times to be gracious in their conversations with Muslims. Never become flustered or lose your temper - you are seeking to win Muslims to Christ, not an argument for Christianity. Muslims are people for whom Christ died, not opponents to be silenced and downgraded by all means. Never become angry when Muslims debate relentlessly with you. Argue on behalf of the truth by all means, but do it charitably and tactfully and, above all, avoid sheer confrontation and quarreling. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence; and keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. 1 Peter 3:15-16. When the occasion arises where you are obliged to expose some of the weaknesses of Islam, never be directly critical or judgmental but speak sensitively and purposefully. We do not mean you should consider all Muslims as opponents! But no doubt some will oppose your witness and show their misunderstanding of the Gospel. Then you have to correct them, but with patience and gentleness. (Christian Witness Among Muslims, p. 23). A Christian who can "keep his head when all around are losing theirs" will give a salutary witness to the quietness of his confidence in Christ as well as the fact that love for all men is the real motive behind his message. A Christian writer wisely counsels that a sense of humour and patience are prime virtues for you to acquire in dialogue with a Muslim" (Register, Dialogue and Interfaith Witness with Muslims, p. 17). Remember at all times that you are dealing with people and that genuine love is the only proper motive in evangelism. There is a story that the sun and the wind were one day having an argument. "You have no power", said the wind, "you are just stuck up there in the sky, bound by the forces of gravity, impotent and immobile". Just then a man with a coat walked past. The sun said to the wind, "If you are so strong and mobile, see if you can blow the coat off the man’s back". The wind blew furiously, but the man just pulled the coat all the more tightly around himself. "Stand back", said the sun, "and let me see what I can do". The sun poured out its warm rays upon the man who soon became uncomfortable and duly removed his coat. If we desire to see Muslims remove their opposition to the Gospel and shed their beliefs for the faith of Christ, we too will only succeed when they feel the warm rays of Christian love and compassion rather than the cold winds of arrogance and point-seeking confrontation. 2. The Christian’s Attitude to Muhammad and Islam. Just as Christians will want to speak of Jesus to Muslims, so Muslims will soon seek to introduce Muhammad into the conversation. Very often the Christian will be faced with a simple question - "What do you think of Muhammad?". On many occasions, where relationships are amicable, this question will be purely one of inquiry. The Muslim is just interested to know what the Christian’s assessment of Muhammad really is. On other occasions, in the company of Muslims who are heated and provocative, the question will come like bait attached to a hook. The Muslim, spoiling for a good reason to vilify the Christian, will seize on anything that sounds like disrespect for his prophet to give him a solid mouthful. Christians must be sensitive to Muslims, irrespective of the atmosphere, and handle the question as fairly and as objectively as they can. Those who seek favour with Muslims by lavishing praise on Muhammad will only discredit their own witness, while those who are immediately forcefully critical of him are likely to alienate their hearers and injure their feelings. Once again there is a deep need for a sense of balance in our attitudes and perhaps the best approach is neither to praise nor to bury him. If Islam is criticized by the Christian, unnecessary opposition may be aroused. If Islam is commended, the impression will be made that the Christian is really a Muslim at heart. The Christian teacher or preacher must know what the Muslim believes, and must try to state the full Christian message in the way least offensive to him. (Miller, A Christian’s Response to Islam, p. 149). We should avoid trying to prove that Islam is false and that Christianity is true. It is far better to show that Christianity is superior to Islam and that the absolute perfection of its founder and the standards set by him are far higher than the character of Muhammad and the laws he sanctioned. Above all, Muhammad should never be stigmatized by the Christian as a false prophet. To call Muhammad a "false prophet" is to offend the deepest convictions of a Muslim inquirer. Any attack on the character of Muhammad, justified as it may seem from the record in the Quran will probably offend and alienate the inquirer. (Elder, The Biblical Approach to the Muslim, p. 4). In the companion volume to this book I have shown that Muhammad certainly was not a deliberate impostor and that he sincerely believed he was a true prophet. A tactful and objective presentation of some of the shortcomings we observe in his conduct, such as those discussed in the first volume, is perfectly acceptable, but we must avoid becoming judgmental or derogatory. Rather, we can comfortably give "respect to whom respect is due" (Romans 13:7) and have nothing to lose by commending him sincerely in whatever way we can. Christianity does not need to discredit Islam to vindicate itself, it stands firm and sure on its own foundations. There is much in Thomas Carlyle’s attitude towards Muhammad that Christians can freely take to heart: Farther, as there is no danger of our becoming, any of us, Mahometans, I mean to say all the good of him I justly can. It is the way to get at his secret: let us try to understand what he meant with the world; what the world meant and means with him, will then be a more answerable question. Our current hypothesis about Mahomet, that he was a scheming Impostor, a Falsehood incarnate, that his religion is a mere mass of quackery and fatuity. begins really to be now untenable to any one. (Carlyle, Muhammad: The Hero as Prophet, p. 5). Muhammad grew up among a people steeped in idolatry and it took great courage and a sustained sense of vocation to confront them with the error of their ways. He delivered the Arabs from idolatry and certainly raised their lifestyle to a more dignified level. I hesitate to call him a "reformer" as he himself certainly never had such a relative view of his mission, but a Christian can, without conceding anything to Islam, openly commend him for the extent to which he civilised and transformed Arabian society. This exhortation does appear to be appropriate: If you have to make any comment on Muhammad, let it be a favourable one, e.g. how he converted an idolatrous people to worship one God, or how he established unity and order among warring tribes. (Christian Witness Among Muslims, p. 42). On the other hand I find myself unable to agree with another sentiment expressed on the same page, and one often found in Christian writings, that the Christian should never compare Muhammad with Jesus. In the companion volume to this book I have shown why the Christian has every right to do so in the light of the common Muslim claim that Muhammad was the greatest of all the prophets and at least the equal of Jesus, if not superior to him. Such comparisons can hardly be avoided, especially as the final object of Muslim evangelism is simply this: from Muhammad to Jesus. Once again a sense of balance is needed. Those who suggest that a Christian should never be critical of Muhammad or Islam do no more service to the ministry of the Gospel than those who seek to discredit them both by every possible means. We must give credit to Muhammad where this is due and in the first volume I have endeavoured to do this, but an integral part of Christian witness to Muslims is to expose the defects and shortcomings of the whole of Islam when compared with the Gospel of Jesus Christ as it is set forth in the Bible. The important thing is to be objective and charitable and to avoid giving unnecessary offence wherever we can. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 111: 06.13. B. THE BIBLICAL APPROACH TO MUSLIMS. ======================================================================== B. THE BIBLICAL APPROACH TO MUSLIMS. 1. Islam’s Rejection of the Christian Gospel. An eager young Christian, full of joy and the Spirit of God, sets out to make his first contact with a Muslim. He knocks at the door of a Muslim home and when the owner opens the door and enquires about the purpose of his visit, the young man replies: "I have come to tell you the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for you and died for your sins. Now if you will repent and accept him a your Lord and Saviour, you will be saved and go to heaven". What does the eager young evangelist expect? That the Muslim will immediately respond, "This is the most wonderful thing have ever heard in my life. Where can I be baptised?" If he does, he is in for a surprise. The Muslim will probably say to him, "How can you ask to believe that God let his Son die on a cross? If you have a son and see someone trying to kill him, will you stand by idly and let it happen?" When the young man feels obliged to concede that he would, of course, step in to save his son, the Muslim replies: "Then you must not ask us to believe that God just stood aloof watching his Son die. We Muslims believe Jesus was only a prophet, albeit a very great one, and because God loved his prophet so much he raised him to heaven and saved him from crucifixion. But you want us to believe he was even closer to God, that he was the Son of God, and yet God did nothing to save him? Sorry, I think you should go and talk to someone else". The young man leaves the home deflated somewhat stunned, and very much perplexed. Where did the young man go wrong? His error was to use a direct line of approach that might work with some people but one that can only fail with Muslims. The Qur’an distances itself from Christianity by denying two things about Jesus Christ. Firstly, it denies that he is the Son of God in emphatic language: The Jews call ’Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the Son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (In this) they but imitate what the Unbelievers of old used to say. God’s curse be on them : how they are deluded away from the Truth! Surah 9.30 They say, "God hath begotten a son!" - Glory be to Him! He is Self-Sufficient! His are all things in the heaven and on earth! No warrant have ye for this! Surah 10.68 In Muhammad’s time the Arabs worshipped idols and these were often female deities whom the Arabs considered to be intercessors with Allah. (Three are mentioned by name in Surah 53.19, namely Al-Lat, Al-Ulla, and Manat). When Muhammad denounced the polytheism of his countrymen and called on them to believe in Allah alone, they responded that they did indeed consider Allah to be the Supreme Being, but that these deities were the daughters of Allah" whose intercession with Allah was to be invoked. Muhammad rightly rejected this as idolatry and from the start called on his people to worship Allah alone. His message, as recorded in his exhortation to his nephew Ali at the time he was contemplating converting to Muhammad’s cause, was simply: "Bear witness that there is no god but Allah alone without associate, and disavow al-Lat and al-’Ulla, and renounce rivals". (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 115). This became the theme of his whole mission (though it is recorded that he at one time made a concession to the pagan Arabs and honoured their deities - see pp. 117-129 in the companion volume to this book), and it is summed up in one of the most well-known Surahs of the Qur’an: Say: He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, the Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten) and there is none like unto Him. Surah 112.1-4. When Muhammad met Christians who claimed that they, too, believed in God as the Supreme Being but that they believed that Jesus was the Son of God and that he was the "one mediator between God and men" (1 Timothy 2:5), Muhammad was unable to distinguish between their beliefs and those of the pagan Arabs and concluded that Christian belief in Jesus as the Son of God was as much shirk ("associating" partners with God) as the Arab belief that Al-Lat and others were daughters of God. To this day this misunderstanding causes Muslims to vehemently reject belief in Jesus as the Son of God. The other great truth that the Qur’an denies about Jesus s his crucifixion. It is equally emphatically rejected, through in only one verse in the whole book which reads: That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of God"i - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them . . . for a surety they killed him not. Surah 4.157 There is no hint at any point in the Qur’an that Muhammad ever knew that the crucifixion of Jesus was relative to Christian beliefs and it is denied simply as an unfounded calumny of the Jews. Certainly there is nothing to suggest that he had any knowledge of the whole atoning purpose of the event. Nevertheless, for reasons best-known to Muhammad, he denied the crucifixion as a fact of history. As a result of these two denials Islam and Christianity are, in a sense, as far from one another as the east is from the west. Muhammad denied the two pillars on which the whole of Christianity is founded - the deity and crucifixion of Jesus. The New Testament well defines him as "our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 2:20), and although Muhammad spoke highly of Jesus in other ways, his attitude at this point was quite dogmatic - neither Lord nor Saviour. It is probably for this reason more than any other that Muslims are the hardest people on earth to reach with the Gospel. Islam is the only religion which, by definition in its own Scriptures, denies the deity and crucifixion of Jesus This explains why the young man, who approached the first Muslim he met with a typically traditional evangelical approach, was so thoroughly rebuffed. Ever since mission work among Muslims began in earnest in the last century Christian missionaries have sought effective methods of evangelising Muslims. All over the world Muslims are deliberately programmed against the fundamental doctrines of Christianity and no direct method of evangelism is ever likely to prove successful among them. A number of alternative methods have been suggested, many of which seem to create more problems than they purport to solve. Our attitude is that the Bible, being God’s complete and final code of conduct for life and authority for all things secular and religious, must assuredly set out a methodology for reaching people in a cross- cultural and, especially as here, a cross-religious context. We will be on safe ground, surely, if we can find such a model in the Scriptures and be careful to apply the Biblical method of evangelising people from another religious background. I have no doubt that the Bible does indeed set forth clearly the method we should use and will therefore proceed to analyse what the Biblical approach to Muslims should be. We shall turn to the Book of Acts and the very beginning of Christian mission in the world to see how the Gospel was first preached in alien environments. 2. Paul’s Approach to the Jews at Thessalonica. The Apostle Paul was the early church’s great missionary to the world and he came into contact with men of many nations and different cultural and religious backgrounds. I believe we can learn much from the following passage which briefly describes the method of approach he used among the Jews of Thessalonica: And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ". Acts 17:2-3. There are three points that are mentioned in this passage that are of considerable relevance to our subject and we shall examine them briefly in order. Firstly, we read that for three weeks he argued with them. He entered freely into debate and discussion with them on the whole subject of his message, being quite willing to put its veracity to the test of scrutiny and critical analysis. This was nothing exceptional, in fact it was the rule in his contacts with the Jews, and there is clear evidence that he took the initiative in creating debate and dialogue with them. At Ephesus he entered the synagogue "and for three months spoke boldly, arguing and pleading about the kingdom of God" (Acts 19:8) and, when the Jews opposed him, he went to the Gentiles and "argued daily in the hall of Tyrannus" (Acts 19:9). There is, therefore, obviously nothing wrong with argument and debate and, in fact, we have a clear Biblical sanction for it. Unfortunately there are many today who are strongly against any form of argument in the preaching of the Gospel. We are constantly being told that the spirit of debate and argument among Muslims belonged to the "confrontation-method" of men like Pfander and St. Clair-Tisdall of a past generation and that we need, in this age, a "constructive" and a more "loving" approach. A good example of this attitude is to be found in the following exhortation to missionaries among Muslims: Avoid argument with individual professed fanatics. Little if any good is accomplished by meeting them. Seldom answer or discuss questions that are asked while preaching. . . . I know a missionary, who in some respects is a very able man. His favorite method of preaching the Gospel to Moslems is by controversial argument. When one of his meetings was finished, the Moslems went away very angry, and one of them was heard to say, "That man has the religion of a beast". I have never heard of that missionary as being the instrument of leading one Moslem to Christ. (Esselstyn, "What to Preach to Moslems" The Muslim World, Vol. 12, p. 67). It has become fashionable to label any form of argument with Muslims as uncharitable and to suggest that a genuinely Christlike approach must disdain debate on theological matters. No allowance is made for a form of argument that can be highly spiritual and profitable. Is it a new, a modern idea forsooth that missionaries must go in the spirit of love to win the Moslems? God forbid. It is as old as the first missionary, and the spirit of love will ever be the only spirit in which an lasting work will be done for the Master. (Logan, "Our Approach to Moslems" The Muslim World, Vol. 13, p. 390). A healthy argument to establish the validity of the Gospel message has sound Biblical authority and it is my personal experience that many Muslims will consider the message of the Gospel more seriously when they hear a sound argument to vindicate the foundation on which it is laid. In fact, when Christians deliberately avoid any discussion on the credibility of their message and on the justification they might have for their convictions, Muslims invariably conclude that they cannot vindicate their faith. The message is gently disregarded as the product of Christian fervour and emotion. "The weak and flabby attitude towards Islam taken up by some today in the name of Christian love and sympathy can only breed contempt from the Moslem’s standpoint" (Logan, "Our Approach to Moslems", The Muslim World, Vol. 13, p. 391). Christians must not only know what they believe, they must also be able to explain why they believe it. Arguments that become quarrels and wrangles are obviously to be avoided, but so much can be gained for the glory of God by a Christian who can patiently, charitably and steadfastly give a thorough justification for the message he proclaims. The following passage states this whole principle very finely: Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence; and keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behaviour in Christ may be put to shame. 1 Peter 3:15-16. The Apostle Paul likewise declared that no man should be admitted as an elder unless he could not only ’give instruction in sound doctrine" but also be able "to confute those who contradict it" (Titus 1:9). God is glorified when Christian men effectively defend the truth of the Gospel, unbelieving Muslims are often persuaded by such proofs (viz. the well-known Maulana Imad-ud-Din who became a Christian after hearing Pfander’s messages), and Muslim converts yearn for such proofs and are greatly strengthened in the faith when they are supplied. The second thing we learn from Paul’s approach to the Jews at Thessalonica is that he argued with them from the Scriptures. He did not rely on smooth talk, empty cliches, theological dogmas, doctrinal assertions or sparkling new methods. He reasoned at all times from the Word of God and it is my own experience that a defence of the Gospel is never more powerfully based than when it is founded on the Scriptures. Muslims may not accept the Bible as the Word of God but that is no reason to avoid using it in preference for rational doctrinal arguments calculated to persuade his intellect. The Bible is the Word of God, "living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword" (Hebrews 4:12), and when a Christian, who is well-read in it, can use it with confidence and conviction, Muslims will always be brought face-to-face with its truths. The well-known Christian scholar of Islam, Dr. Kraemer, once declared that "especially in the world of Islam to present Christianity as a set of doctrines is the most awkward way conceivable . . . Islam itself is creedal and doctrinal to the core. To present Christianity as a set of doctrines is to arouse the militantly intellectualist spirit of Islam" (Addison, The Christian Approach to the Moslem, p. 294). Christians must endeavour to be Biblical in their witness rather than doctrinal or rational in their approach. The third thing we learn from the passage under consideration is that Paul argued from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that Jesus was the Christ. We are once again back at the question of debate and discussion. Paul was so sure of his message that he had more than sufficient courage to put it to the acid test of critical analysis. Indeed, as we have seen’ he keenly entered into debate with the Jews, persuaded that his message would have far more impact if he could ground it firmly on sound evidences. Not only, therefore, should we not avoid debate and controversy, but in the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15-16 should willingly engage in it. As one Christian with experience among Muslims has put it, Too many people jump to the conclusion that controversy in every sense is harmful" (Christensen, The Practical Approach to Muslims, p. 39). He goes on to say: But you may be sure of one thing; if you open your mouth in an effort to get your message across, you are implicitly engaging in controversy. When dealing with Muslims you are up against an either-or; either contra-version, or you keep quiet. The reason for this is obvious. He already has a "version" which is contrary to the "version" you want him to accept. It is puerile to say, "Don’t indulge in controversy but try to win men to Christ". He already has a ’version’ of Christ; your version is contrary to his, and he has a perfect right to want to argue about it. (Christensen, The Practical Approach to Muslims, p. 40). The writer concludes by saying that from Christ’s own "method of approach you can see that controversy is unavoidable if you want to get your message across" (op. cit., p. 42). Both Jesus and Paul regularly engaged in debate, proving the truth of their message and reproving those who opposed it. I doubt whether the one was crucified and the other beheaded for "lovingly" abstaining from all forms of controversy with their opponents - and there cannot be two finer examples for correct methods of evangelical witness than Jesus and Paul. In the Synoptical Gospels Jesus is repeatedly seen in controversy with Pharisees and Sadducees alike, and at the bar of the high priest the supreme controversy as to His divine sonship is pressed to the point of death. In St. John’s Gospel, still more, He is engaged in longdrawn controversy with "the Jews". St. Paul at Athens "reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and in the market-place every day with them that met with him". (Weitbrecht Stanton, "Christ and Controversy", The Muslim World, Vol. 12, p. 116). The writer adds that "he will be a unique missionary to Moslems in the twentieth century who can escape discussion with them on the doctrines and practices which they have inherited from the Jew" (op. cit., p. 116). Continuing his study he comes to a very different conclusion from that of Essetstyn quoted earlier, and speaking of Pfander’s classical work Mizan ul Haqq: The Balance of Truth, he says: I can remember no conversion of a thoughtful Moslem in which this book has not played some part. Recently, we hear, it is being eagerly read in Palestine. As a matter of experience, no less than of reason, controversy of the right kind has had, and is likely to retain, an essential place in missionary work among Moslems, as among other religions also. (Weitbrecht Stanton, "Christ and Controversy", The Muslim World, Vol. 12, p. 118). I have never ceased to be somewhat amazed and bemused at the suggestion that Christians should never indulge in argument with Muslims, for the Muslims themselves love argument and many of them are only too willing to enter into a charitable and friendly debate on the whole foundations of Christianity and Islam. The Christian who shirks the challenge not only misses a golden opportunity to give a thorough vindication of his beliefs but is also likely to appear to the Muslims to be evading the issues, an impression that can only have severe implications for the ultimate effect of his witness among them. 3. Paul’s Preaching at Athens and Corinth. We have analysed the first basic principle of Biblical witness to Muslims, namely a willingness to make a good defence to those who, let it be said, rightly call us to account for the hope that is in us. As we follow Paul from Thessalonica to Athens and Corinth we shall discover the second great principle of witnessing across cultural and religious barriers and it is here, I believe, that we will find the one great method that Paul adopted in these circumstances and that applies so appropriately to Muslim evangelism. When Paul came to Athens he was met by a number of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers who brought him to the Areopagus and called on him to declare his message. Paul began: "Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ’To an unknown god’. What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you". Acts 17:22-23. After speaking briefly of God’s universal rule over all the earth and his desire that all men should seek after him with all their hearts, Paul added: "Yet he is not far from each one of us, for ’In him we , live and move and have our being’; as even some of your poets have said, ’For we are indeed his offspring’. Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, a representation by the art and imagination of man". Acts 17:27-29 This brief record of Paul’s address gives vital clues as to how to properly approach people from another background. Paul was speaking to Gentiles, in particular to Greeks who, on the one hand, worshipped a host of deities and, on the other, were nonetheless highly philosophical about life. Two things, I believe, should particularly be noted. Firstly, Paul found common ground with his hearers. He sought a point of contact through which he could communicate his message and found it in the inscription "to an unknown God". He did not hesitate to relate his message directly to this inscription. "What you worship as unknown", said Paul, "this I declare to you". In so doing he very effectively set his Gospel against the background of their beliefs. Paul was not seeking to call the Athenians to a "foreign divinity" as they supposed (Acts 17:18), but rather to come to the full knowledge of the one true God who, by their own admission, was unknown to them. As Kenneth Cragg has put it (in his paper at the North American Conference referred to earlier in this book): St. Paul brings to the people of the altar in Athens the news of the God of the gospel. But he says he is the God they "ignorantly worship". He does not ask them to deny the intention of their worship but to find it informed into the truth of God in Christ. (McCurry, ed., The Gospel and Islam, p. 198). Secondly, Paul did not disdain to quote their own poets to validate his message. The quotations in Acts 17:28 are both from Greek sources. The first ("In him we live and move and have our being") comes from a poem attributed to Epimenides the Cretan, and the second ("For we are indeed his offspring") is part of the fifth line of the Phainomena of Aratus the Cilician. It is very significant that the only texts quoted by Paul to establish his message come, not from the Old Testament, but from the writings of Greek poets, and we shall have more to say about this shortly. At this point however, it is important to note the principle that the Gospel can be vindicated from non-Biblical sources. When Paul came down to Corinth after his sojourn at Athens, he was ’occupied with preaching, testifying to the Jews that the Christ was Jesus" (Acts 18:5). He was now among his own people, fellow-Jews, and we mark a very obvious difference in his theme, though not in his approach. Once again he finds common ground, though this time it is in the hope of the Israelites in the coming Messiah. On this occasion any documentary evidence to attest his message would almost certainly have come from the Old Testament predictions of the coming Messiah. My point will best be made if I look at Paul’s approach from the opposite angle. Let us imagine that, as he stood on the Areopagus, he began "Men of Greece and Athens, I am a Hebrew, born of Hebrews; with respect to the hope of Israel, in the coming Messiah of our people, I stand before you this day. The Messiah of Israel is Jesus of Nazareth and I can prove it by quoting from the writings of the Jewish prophets of old". The Athenians would have been justified in being perplexed and bemused and saying to one another, "he is indeed a preacher of foreign divinities". Disappointed at the lack of relevance in his message, let us imagine him in the synagogue of Corinth, determined to relate his preaching more effectively to the Gentile environment of Greece and Europe. He begins: "O Jews of Corinth, as I passed by and observed the objects of worship in your city, I found an inscription, to an unknown God’. What you inhabitants of Corinth worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. You know, even Greek poets have said some things that I can use to prove my point . I need hardly comment further! Once again he would have been dismissed. The reply would have been: "Our God is the God of Israel, he is anything but unknown to us. And as for Greek poets, who needs their wisdom when we have the Word of God himself in the writings of our prophets"? Paul adapted his message to the environment he found himself in and always sought to set it against the background of the beliefs and convictions of the people he was addressing, even to the point of quoting their own records and proverbs in support of his proclamation. I believe we have here the Biblical model and method of reaching people of a different culture or religion with the Gospel. Notice how impressively Paul related his Gospel to both Jews and Greeks. At Thessalonica, while he was arguing in the local synagogue, he declared to the Jews present there: "This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ". Acts 17:3 And at Athens, when he was among the Greek philosophers and free-thinkers, he declared: "What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you". Acts 17:23 On both occasions Paul used the words this I proclaim to you. To the Jews this Jesus was proclaimed as their long-awaited Messiah. To the Greeks this God, who raised Jesus from the dead (Acts 17:31), was proclaimed as the one whom they worshipped as unknown, of whom even some of their poets had spoken in their writings. If this is, therefore, the Biblical method of approaching men of other creeds and cultures with the Gospel, how does it work in practice in Muslim evangelism? I believe the whole foundation of our approach must be to find common ground with Muslims, which is easy enough, because so much of the religious history of the Qur’an synchronises with Biblical history. In my view the very best ways of doing this are by relating the Gospel to the prophetic history preceding Jesus Christ and to the Qur’an’s own teaching about Jesus. I will give detailed examples of how this can be done in practice in the coming chapters, but let me here establish the principle. Other Christian writers with experience among Muslims have also advocated this form of approach. One says: In summary, it can be said that the common ground of the Quran and Old Testament in regard to the prophets should be thoroughly explored. This may well eventuate in the Muslim’s giving serious consideration to the message that leads on from prophecy to prophetic fulfillment. (Parshall, New Paths in Muslim Evangelism, p. 136). Another who makes the same point is G. M. Grant in his book Religions of the World in Relation to Christianity. An annotated bibliography of sources dealing with the Jesus of Islam sums up Grant’s method, saying: The author goes on to suggest that by following the lines of least resistance - common doctrines on the New Testament, Old Testament, and Jesus, for example - the Christian will cause the Muslim to feel a compelling attraction toward Christianity. (Wismer, The Islamic Jesus, p. 103). When Christians take a traditional evangelical line of approach, simply setting Jesus forth as the Lord and Saviour of all men, Muslims find security in dismissing the message as simply an exposition of Christian doctrine and belief, and they comfort themselves by resting in the doctrines and tenets of Islam instead. We need to penetrate, we need to challenge the Muslims where they are and stimulate a process of reflection by presenting the Gospel against their own background, against the Muslims’ own views of Jesus and the prophetic history leading up to him. Not only so but, as we have seen in the example of Paul, we have a clear Biblical sanction for quoting their own scriptures to make our message relevant. Paul did this with telling effect in Athens by quoting Greek poets and it is quite amazing to behold how, by quoting passages from the Qur’an as well as the Bible, a Christian can make the Gospel message thoroughly relevant to a Muslim. I intend to give numerous practical examples later in this book, but let it suffice for the moment to say that we have, here, a clear Biblical authority for this method. We need to meet the Muslim where he is and make our message relevant to his own background and beliefs. By so doing Muslims will be obliged to examine more seriously the claims of the Gospel upon their souls and lives. I am reminded at this point of an incident in Jesus’ own ministry which also establishes this point very emphatically. As he sat beside the well at Sychar in Samaria on his way to Galilee, a Samaritan woman came to draw water (John 4:7). No doubt she came every day from the city to draw water from this, the only well in the region, and one of great sanctity in the eyes of the Samaritans because of its association with Jacob and his twelve sons (John 4:12). The journey was a significant reminder, day after day, of the need of water to sustain life on earth and the well itself became a symbol of life in a barren environment. Jesus related his message of life and hope directly to the well when he said to the woman: "Every one who drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst; the water that I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life". John 4:13-14. How effectively he related the Gospel to the woman’s own environment! His message was not a dry theological or doctrinal treatise, it was a living proclamation of the hope of eternal life. What better way to present it than by comparing it with the well that claimed the woman’s attention every day, especially as the very need of a daily journey to the well testified to its limited usefulness. If we are ever to make a real impact on the Muslims we must discover how to relate the message and claims of the Gospel to the beliefs of the Muslims themselves. The Apostle Paul himself shows, in one of his letters, that his method was not an incidental one but one which he had carefully de fined in his mind and deliberately applied. Let us proceed o examine just how he described his approach to people from backgrounds different to his own. 4. Becoming a Muslim to the Muslims. The Apostle Paul allows us insight into his mind, insofar as his approach to people of another cultural or religious background is concerned, in the ninth chapter of his ii First Epistle to the Corinthians. He writes: For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law - though not being myself under the law - that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside ’ the law - not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ - that I might win those outside the law.; To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I’ have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. In these words we find the whole basis of his approach to the Greeks at Athens and the Jews at Corinth and Thessalonica. He would briefly examine his situation, assess the beliefs, heritage and background of his hearers, and connect the Gospel to these features. The Greeks worshipped an "unknown God" - he immediately related his gospel to this worship, even quoting from their own works where he found their teachings relevant to his message. Among Jews, however, he ~ became as one of them, boldly proclaiming that Israel’s long-awaited Messiah was Jesus of Nazareth. "To the Jews I became as a Jew" means, simply, that whenever he was among Jews he became like them, setting the whole of his Gospel against the background of the prophetic and ecclesiastical history of Israel, just as the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews so effectively does throughout his exposition of the Gospel. St. Paul feels himself compelled to make himself familiar with the conditions of others in the "natural order" so as rightly to be able to touch them with the Evangel. Instead of trying to change the natural order, he submits himself to their circumstances to give them the Evangel just where they are. (Christensen, The Practical Approach to Muslims, p. 187). In the same way, as soon as he was among Gentiles, he presented Christ, not as the Messiah of the Jews, but as the fulfilment of all the philosophical strivings of the Greeks and as the revelation of a deity who appeared to be inevitably elusive and unknowable. What difference did this make to the way he sought to communicate the Gospel? It meant that he was willing to rethink his message and present it in ways which Gentiles would understand. (Chapman, You Go and Do the Same, p. 51). What, then, is the Biblical approach to Muslims in the light of this method into which the great apostle allows us to enter? It is simply this - in the same way that he became as a Jew to the Jews, so each of us must become as a Muslim to the Muslims. We must discover the beliefs of the Muslims, their view of prophetic history, their assessment of Jesus Christ, and their overall religious perception of life, and present the Gospel against that background. Samuel Zwemer, one of the most famous missionaries to Muslims, sums this up perfectly in saying: We must become Moslems to the Moslem if we would gain them for Christ. We must do this in the Pauline sense, without compromise, but with self-sacrificing sympathy and unselfish love. The Christian missionary should first of all thoroughly know the religion of the people among whom he labours; ignorance of the Koran, the traditions, the life of Mohammed, the Moslem conception of Christ, social beliefs and prejudices of Mohammedans, which are the result of their religion, - ignorance of these is the chief difficulty in work for Moslems. (Zwemer, The Moslem Christ, p. 183). We should follow Paul’s fundamental method of achieving this goal, that is we should seek common ground with Muslims by establishing points of doctrine or belief which we hold in common with them, and then press on to show how the Gospel relates to them. Alternatively, as I intend to show in many practical ways shortly in this book, we must show that such common beliefs lead, of necessity and by implication, to the Gospel of God as it is fully revealed in Jesus Christ. Zwemer goes on to emphasize this deep need of beginning with common ground by saying of each Christian who seeks to witness to a Muslim, "He should cultivate sympathy to the highest degree and an appreciation of all the great fundamental truths which we hold in common with Moslems" (Zwemer, The Moslem Christ, p. 183). This makes it so essential to know how Muslims think, what they believe, and to become fully acquainted with their attitudes, convictions and religious perceptions. Another Christian writer gives a similar overview of the proper Christian approach to Muslims in the light of Paul’s varying’ approach to the Jews and Gentiles he met: The apostle was, at such a time, patiently and sympathetically, to lead them to a fuller conception of the truth. To the Jew he became as a Jew, to the Greek, he became as a Greek. Had Mohammedans existed, to them, he would have become as a Mohammedan. The missionary to Moslems will therefore do well to ask himself this question, Have I become as a Mohammedan to lead these Mohammedans to Christ? Have I absorbed their ideas? Have I acquainted myself with their way of thinking? And, looking at things from their point of view, can I make the truth acceptable to them? (Purdon, "Our Angle of Approach" The Muslim World, Vol. 14, p. 140). The same writer also does not fail to observe that the foundation on which this whole form of evangelism is based is the establishment of common ground. He says of Paul: He preached to them Jesus and the resurrection, but when they "encountered" him, he immediately seized upon a common ground from which to lead them to a higher platform of truth. (Purdon, "Our Angle of Approach", The Muslim World Vol. 14, p. 141). In my view, as stated already, there are two great themes in the Qur’an, where Christians can find such common ground with Muslims, that should be extensively explored in our witness. The first is in the prophetic histories of the Qur’an and the Bible insofar as these coincide, and the second is in the Qur’an’s teaching about our Lord Jesus Christ to the extent that the Qur’an agrees with the Bible. The coming chapters, on Abraham in the Qur’an and the Bible and the uniqueness of Jesus in both books, to some extent cover these two themes respectively. The chapter following these two goes on to give even further examples. When I first read through the Qur’an I was struck by the two great denials the book contains about Jesus Christ, namely his deity and his crucifixion. I have already pointed out that in these denials the whole foundation of Christianity is summarily disregarded, and I was soon led to conclude that the Qur’an stood as an antithesis and stumbling-block to the Gospel. In later years, however, I set out to examine and compare more carefully those teachings in the Bible about Jesus Christ with which the Qur’an agrees and, to my great delight, I realised that, even though the religion of Islam itself is hardly a stepping-stone to Christianity, the Qur’an’s positive teaching about Jesus Christ most certainly is. There are numerous places in the book where the Qur’an acknowledges Biblical truths about Jesus Christ and, by analysing these in conversation with Muslims, a Christian well-instructed in both the Qur’an and the Bible can show very comprehensively that Jesus Christ was far more than just a prophet. In my chapter on the uniqueness of Jesus I trust I will leave no stone unturned in showing just how extensive the evidences are for this approach. This is what it means "to become as a Muslim to the Muslims". By examining the Qur’an’s teaching about Jesus, to the extent that it agrees with the Bible and provides common ground between us, a Christian can show quite convincingly that Jesus was far more than a prophet and he can use this as a platform from which to lead to the fulness of the Gospel as the only possible explanation for the unique features of his life and the mission he came to accomplish. To become then "as a Mohammedan" means - to know and utilize divine truth in the Islamic faith, and from these seek to lead the devotees of Mohammed to seize the only truth that can really satisfy their soul. (Purdon, "Our Angle of Approach", The Muslim World, Vol. 14, p. 141). Before launching into a study of practical examples, however, I believe there are still a few things that need to be said about the whole subject of witnessing to Muslims as Well as our handling of Muslim converts and we shall proceed to examine these in the meantime. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 112: 06.14. C. AN ALL-ROUND COMPREHENSIVE MINISTRY. ======================================================================== C. AN ALL-ROUND COMPREHENSIVE MINISTRY. 1. The Importance of Sound Apologetics. We have, in recent sections, canvassed methods and maxims of Muslim evangelism and in this section I wish to give some emphasis to points that have already been stated in principle. The need to be willing to engage in argument and controversy in a charitable manner has been noted as well as the need to show respect towards Muhammad and Islam. The purpose of saying a few further things on these two themes is to establish the need of a genuinely comprehensive ministry to Muslims, an all-round approach which I believe alone will lead to a truly effective witness. Let us begin with the importance of sound apologetics. Many books have been written in the Muslim world challenging the whole authenticity of Christianity. No stone has been left unturned. The Bible, the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, the state of the Christian Church, have all been called into question in Muslim writings. Many Muslims are well-trained in arguments against Christianity and, with the breaking-down of language, geographical, cultural and other barriers together with a perceived threat to their identity in what is assumed to be a Christian environment, Muslims in the West are particularly well-schooled in objections and arguments against the doctrines of our faith. Christians who , intend to evangelise Muslims will not be able to avoid the introduction by Muslims of questions calculated to put the Christian on the defensive and undermine his message. Can these simply be tactfully avoided by the Christian who would prefer to speak only of the grace of God in the Gospel without becoming embroiled in controversy? George Harris, a missionary with many years experience among Muslims in China, says of such attempts to avoid or evade argument on the validity of the Christian faith: Moslems are quick to note any such tendency, on the part of the Christian, and usually will despise him accordingly. (Harris, How to Lead Moslems to Christ, p. 45). Alternatively, can the Christian not pre-empt such opposition by avoiding discussing subjects that are likely to create antagonism? Can he not rather seek only to befriend the Muslim and witness by his life and love alone without challenging him directly with the claims of the Gospel upon his soul? George Harris once again completely discounts any approach which seeks to dilute the essence of the Gospel in the interests of avoiding debate on its validity: Moslems, quite generally, know that Christians should stress the deity of Christ, his actual crucifixion on the Cross, and many other teachings contrary to the teachings they hold. Understatement in any of these may cause them to pity and despise us. They will doubtless assume that we are cowardly and afraid to stand for the whole of our teaching. (Harris, How to Lead Moslems to Christ, p. 56). We are called to be peace-makers, not peace-lovers. We have been commissioned to bring people back to God and to make their peace with him. This is, paradoxically, a violent process as Jesus himself testified: From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and men of violence take it by force. Matthew 11:12 No man peacefully submits himself to God’s rule in his life and it is only those who are prepared to violate their love of this world, their own devices, and all the things that appeal to them, that will ever enter the kingdom of God It is thus only too true that the process is a "violent" one and we cannot expect the Gospel to be cheerfully received wherever we preach it. Christians can never adopt a "live and let live" attitude with the world for the whole world lies in the power of the evil one (1 John 5:19, Revelation 13:3), and no one will enter the kingdom unless he is prepared to violate the fashions of the present order, both secular and religious, and cross over against the tide of the world. The Christian Gospel comes as an affront to the whole world, not least of all to the adherents of Islam. We must be prepared for our witness to be challenged, opposed, undermined and at times simply reviled. There is, then, a deep need to be prepared to make "a defence and confirmation of the Gospel" (Php 1:7) and, to do this, Christians must be willing to learn and become fully instructed, both in the teachings of the Scriptures and in the knowledge of means to overcome obstructive arguments. Martin Goldsmith speaks of this very need when speaking of students in university Christian unions who express their sense of inadequacy in witnessing to Muslims: Sadly they seem to know little about Islam; the speakers they invite to their meetings rarely relate Christian | doctrine to Islamic beliefs. The students therefore have no idea how to share their Christian understanding of God, salvation or revelation with a Muslim. And when a Muslim student attacks them on the doctrine of the Trinity and denies that Jesus is the Son of God, they have little ability to defend their beliefs. (Goldsmith, Islam and Christian Witness, p. 11). The Christian, if he is ever to witness effectively, must make a deliberate effort to know the Bible and the basic teachings of Christianity well so that he can speak with authority and justify his message when called upon to do so. The missionary will not be a controversialist, although he must know controversy and be able with dialectic to give a reason for the faith that is in him. (MacDonald, Aspects of Islam, p. 13). Muslims have been trained to think positively about Islam and to believe that Christianity is founded on very fragile pillars. The doctrine of the Trinity seems to them to be, by its very nature, illogical and obscure; the belief that Jesus is the Son of God a self-evident falsehood; and the atonement, at best, a licence for free-living and, at worst, a grossly crude form of redemption. The Bible, likewise, appears to the Muslim to be so obviously the word of man rather than the Word of God, and he has been furnished with a number of arguments against it which he cheerfully believes prove it has been altered. It helps not that he is suffering under all sorts of illusions and misunderstandings about Christianity. It is the Christian’s duty to overcome these obstacles and, the Muslim attitude being what it is, any timidity, uncertainty or shallow reasoning on the part of the Christian will soon persuade him that Christianity is indeed an indefensible religion. Muslims are confident about Islam and have a sense of assurance about their religion, whether we believe it is well- founded or not. Christians, therefore, must be able to present the Gospel and make a defence of it confidently and convincingly if they are to command the respect of Muslims for the message they proclaim. Any attempt to evade the issues will soon be read as a proof that the Christian does not really believe what he professes but simply goes along with it because he has been brought up as a Christian and has too much to lose by going against his heritage. Many Christians have been somewhat embarrassed in dialogues with Muslims, because they find that their Muslim friends are confident of their faith while the Christians are only willing to speak tentatively. (Goldsmith, Islam and Christian Witness, p. 119). This makes it essential for Christians to be well-instructed in the Word of God, to be soundly taught in basic apologetics’ and to be assured of the truth of their faith. I would go so far as to say you should never attempt to witness to a Muslim unless you believe unflinchingly in the authenticity of the Bible and the divine authority of its teachings. We need a comprehensive witness to Muslims and one of the essential ingredients of this is a sound knowledge of the doctrines and teachings of the Scriptures and an ability to graciously, but nevertheless convincingly, defend them. Muslims in the West are becoming well-educated and live in our own environment. We are able, in consequence, to approach them both boldly and in depth with the Gospel. Let us press on to another similar depth of instruction we need in pursuit of our goal of an all-round ministry. 2. Developing a Right Attitude Towards Islam. Having already said that every aspiring witness to Muslims should acquire a sound knowledge of the Bible and the tenets of the Christian faith and be able to give a good defence "of the hope that is in him", let me go on to say that the Christian also needs to know the Qur’an and the basic teachings of Islam. Without this knowledge the Christian will soon find it hard to communicate effectively with Muslims. Many Christian writers with experience among Muslims have commented on this aspect of Muslim evangelism as well. One begins his whole discourse on the Christian approach to Islam by saying: Every national Christian and every foreign missionary needs to study the history and facts of Islam. Without a good general knowledge of the religion of the Muslims you will get nowhere with them. (Christensen, The Practical Approach to Muslims, p. 1). It is futile to attempt to witness to Muslims on a purely Christian level by confining yourself to traditional Christian approaches to religion, the Bible, and the major doctrines of our faith. Muslims do not think as Christians do. hey have their whole world-view fashioned from childhood by the Qur’an, the Hadith, and the tenets of Islam. The Gospel has to be set against the background of Muslim beliefs and convictions, as we have seen, and no one can do this effectively without a sound knowledge of the faith of Islam. Another Christian writer experienced in evangelism among Muslims makes the same point: Before entering into dialogue about spiritual matters you have an obligation to learn as much as possible about the Quran, the history of Islam, and what the Muslims believe about Christianity. (Register, Dialogue and Interfaith Witness with Muslims, p. 18). No Christian should ever venture into discussion with a Muslim or set out to evangelise Muslims if he intends to ignore Islam and adopt an exclusively Christian approach alone. A recent review of Christian witness to Muslims suggested that Muslims are to be viewed purely as sinners like all others in need of the grace of God and that the proper Christian approach should be to treat them purely as lost sinners rather than as Muslims. I believe such an approach is not only shortsighted but considerably un-Biblical, particularly in the light of Paul’s varying approach to Jews and Gentiles which we have already analysed. On the contrary, Muslims must be approached for what they are - sons of Islam conditioned by the doctrines and tenets of a religion that embraces almost every aspect of their lives. To use a popular and very appropriate expression, we need to earn the right to be heard. We shall only be able to converse meaningfully with Muslims if we first acquaint ourselves with their beliefs, hopes, misgivings, fears and cherished convictions. In other words, we must know where the Muslim is coming from and meet him where he is. No religion ’ in the world is more capable of adapting itself to the cultures of the nations and of setting itself against the backgrounds of the faiths of other men than Christianity. The Biblical Christian faith is almost exclusively free of rites and prescribed forms of worship. Being God’s universal way of salvation it is remarkably capable of expressing itself in any environment, and the Christian who goes out of his way to become reasonably acquainted with the whole background of Islam will find himself far better equipped to relate the Gospel to the Muslim’s faith and heritage. Also the Christian should become well acquainted’ with the history and doctrines and practices of Islam. Only when he knows Islam well will he be able to present Christian truth in a way that will be intelligible and attractive to Muslims, and be able to avoid misunderstandings. (Miller, A Christian’s Response to Islam, p. 132). It is for this reason that I first wrote the companion volume to this book, entitled Muhammad and the Religion of Islam. I believe this present work would be incomplete without its sister-volume. It was my intention, on the one hand, to inform Christians about Islam so that they could talk intelligently to Muslims. The more I learn about Islam, the more I find Muslims willing to converse with me and show a greater respect for Christianity. It was also my aim to enable Christians to witness sensitively to Muslims and to be aware of attitudes and methods of approach that would have a reactionary effect and cause unnecessary offence. Many Christians have also commented on the value of knowing Islam in this context as well. One says: The readiness with which a Muslim listens to our message may quite conceivably be determined in part by reactions to what attitudes we reflect towards Muhammad and the Quran. (Dretke, A Christian Approach to Muslims, p.182). Another comments in a similar vein on the need to know Islam to anticipate Muslim reactions and possible problem areas in our approach: It is therefore very important that the Christian preparing himself for outreach obtains for himself, besides a sound Bible knowledge, a deep insight into the Muslim way of thinking. He must be able to understand the faith of the Muslim without ridiculing it; must have a reasonable grasp of Islam as a religion; and know how a Muslim is likely to react to certain points. (Nehls, The Great Commission: You and the Muslim, p. 28). We have to "earn the right to be heard", and for this reason I believe no Christian should rely on a book of this nature alone without its companion volume. There is, paradoxically and on the other hand, another reason for writing the first book (which might superficially appear to be contrary to the intention first expressed) and that is the need to not only know Islam but also be able to refute it. Just as the Christian must not only know what he believes but also be able to say why he believes it, so he must be able to state what he disbelieves in Islam and why he does so. Knowledge of Islam to a Christian is like a two-sided coin. On the one side it will enable him to avoid unnecessary offence and rash statements, on the other it will equip him to make really effective critical analyses of Islam and its origins which are far better calculated to challenge the Muslim to reflect on from the validity of what he has been brought up and trained childhood to believe. When I wrote the first volume I realised it contained wealth of factual information thoroughly undermining Islam’s claim to be the true and final religion and to this day I fear lest some insensitive folk might simply make use of the facts there presented as barbs with which to strike at Islam. If so, then that facet of the first volume would indeed appear to negate my professed intention to lead Christians to a more sensitive and better-informed approach, but I do believe the book has more than enough information together with positive comments and perspectives to withstand the charge that it has been written purely as a critique of Islam. There is a very definite place for a Christian refutation of Islam, in fact a vital one, provided it is conducted sensitively and with a view to stimulate a healthy and more open re-assessment of the Muslim’s faith as a stepping-stone to the light and truth of the Gospel. It is also essential that it be well-informed. The most successful and effective witness among Muslims is likely to come from those who know the Christian faith well and who are also well- instructed in Islam so as to be appreciative of Muslim feelings and sensitivities and yet be able to tactfully cause the Muslim to rethink his standpoint. The spirit of Oliver Cromwell’s approach to his opponents, charitable and yet forthright, applies so well here in Christian witness to Muslims: "For God’s sake, I pray you, bethink you, you may be mistaken" (quoted in Cragg, Sandals at the Mosque, p. 88). John of Damascus, the Christian Church’s first real theologian to assess Islam, was a master of his subject particularly because he was learned in both Christianity and Islam. The following extract describes both his approach and confidence in tackling Islam from a Christian standpoint: Throughout all his controversial work John of Damascus displays a thorough knowledge of Islam. Fully at home in the Arabic tongue, he often cites the Koran word for word and shows his familiarity with the Hadith, or traditions. He not only enjoys a complete mastery of Christian theology, but has a keen eye for the weak points of his adversary. It is characteristic, in fact, of all the earlier polemic, during the age when Islam and Christendom were in close touch. that the Christian advocate is in full control of his material, and knows at first hand what he is talking against. (Addison, The Christian Approach to the Moslem, p. 27). The important thing to remember here is to maintain a balance, not only to be willing to enter into discussion on the validity of our respective religions, but also to heed the apostle’s exhortation to do so "with gentleness and reverence" (1 Peter 3:15). Christians who are willing to become grounded in both the Bible and the Qur’an, both in the doctrines and heritages of Christianity and Islam, will be able to conduct an all-round, comprehensive ministry to Muslims. The effort is well worth the reward when the Christian finds himself able to truly penetrate the Muslim’s armour and, like Jesus, to leave no man entirely at ease after he has met with him. There is yet a third form of knowledge that the Christian will profit by acquiring and we shall close this section by analysing it briefly. 3. The Value of Obtaining a Knowledge of Arabic. Although the majority of the Muslims of the world do not speak Arabic as their mother-tongue, Arabic has become the religious language of Islam. Almost all its tenets and practices are universally described in Arabic terms. The chief reason for this is that the original language of the Qur’an is Arabic and, furthermore, the Qur’an itself on more than one occasion describes itself specifically as Qur’aanan-Arabiyyan - "an Arabic Qur’an" (Surah 12.2). It seems that the original purpose of declaring that the revelation of the Qur’an was in Arabic was so that the Arabs would recognise that it was specifically sent as a message to them. The Jews and the Christians had their Scriptures, but no prophet had come to the Arabs. Muhammad therefore sought to strengthen his claim that he was specifically sent, first and foremost, as a prophet to the hitherto unscriptured Arabs by emphasizing the fact that the Scripture he was receiving, the Qur’an, was in Arabic. This appears to be the thrust behind the following passage where the Arabic character of the book is deliberately set in a local context: Thus We have sent by inspiration to thee an Arabic Qur’an: that thou mayest warn the Mother of Cities and all around her, - and warn (them) of the Day of Assembly, of which there is no doubt: (when) some will be in the Garden, and some in the Blazing Fire. Surah 42.7 Yusuf Ali comments that this "is undoubtedly a Meccan verse" and that the "Mother of Cities" is obviously Mecca (The Holy Qur’an, p. 1307). The implication appears to be clearly that the wahy, the revelation, has been sent down in Arabic so that Muhammad could warn the Arabs of Mecca and its surrounding cities. In Surah 41.2-3 it is again said that the kitab, the Scripture, has been sent down (tanzil) from the "Most Gracious, Most Merciful" as an Arabic Qur’an "for people who understand". It would not be possible for the Arabs to understand it if it were in a foreign tongue (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:11). The Arabic medium of the Qur’an is therefore advanced purely as an argument that it has come in the language of Muhammad’s contemporaries and should therefore be heeded by them and revered as their own Scripture. The declaration that this Scripture is an Arabic Qur’an, however, has led to the widespread belief today that Arabic must be the language of heaven, where it is believed an original Qur’an has been preserved. At any rate, the Arabic medium of the Qur’an has accordingly obtained great sanctity in the eyes of the Muslims so that no translation of the book is ever regarded as a true Qur’an, some even holding that it should never be translated into another language. As a result all Muslims, no matter what their home language may be, must learn at least to read the Qur’an in its original Arabic tongue, even though they may not understand it. This has led to the anomalous situation where many Muslims (particularly in South Africa) can read the Qur’an freely in Arabic without knowing or understanding what they are reading. I say anomalous because it appears that the real thrust of Muhammad’s claim that the Qur’an was especially revealed to him in Arabic was precisely so that his people, the Arabs, might indeed understand its message. Nevertheless the order of the day must be taken into consideration and any Christian who works among Muslims will soon discover how highly the Arabic language is regarded and how its expressions, titles, and the script of the Qur’an have a major place in Islamic terminology. The Christian, then, who takes the trouble to obtain some knowledge of Arabic will find his ability to communicate with Muslims very much increased. There is no doubt that a good knowledge of the vernacular and of Arabic, at least enough Arabic to know the religious terms important to Muslims, even when Arabic is not their mother tongue, is of primary importance in reaching Muslims abroad. They have their own religious vocabulary, and the Christian missionary must know and use it. (Marsh, Share Your Faith with a Muslim, p. 7). Another writer makes much the same point to emphasise the need of acquainting ourselves with the Arabic language so that we may relate more meaningfully to Muslims: Arabic can be called most exactly the Latin of all Muslim countries. Without a knowledge of it, Muslim theology, philosophy and the literature of thought in general are either inaccessible or incomprehensible . . . a man who knows Arabic, has read Arabic theology and is interested in those things, will find that they are in themselves a passport with Muslims. (MacDonald, Aspects of Islam, p. 9). Not only does a knowledge of Arabic help a Christian to penetrate even more deeply into Muslim thought and theology but it also causes Muslims to have more respect for him. He is no longer identified as a typical Christian enthusiast but as a scholar who, knowing the background of Islam, is more likely to speak with authority and understanding. The result is that the Christian will probably find it much easier to command a hearing. Another of the values of having some knowledge of Arabic is that a Christian can often communicate more effectively with Muslims when he is able to relate the Gospel to Islamic tenets and practices which are identified by Muslims in terms of their Arabic titles. Some time ago I saw the immense value of this in practice. A Sufi-minded Muslim was outlining the basic principles of Sufism. Most of the Muslims, he said, only follow the shari’ah, the law of Islam as it is laid down in the Qur’an and the Hadith. They only know how to observe the prescribed rituals of prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, etc. Only a few, he said, ever really seek out the knowledge of God and he outlined the basic threefold path of Sufism. "Firstly", he said, "you must attain to the state of tariqah, the ’path’, that is, you must follow the way of the prophet and become like him in his personality and character. It is not enough to just conform outwardly to prescribed forms of religion. Secondly, you must progress to the state of haqiqah, the ’reality’ or the ’truth’. This means you not only emulate the prophet but come to the actual knowledge and conscious realisation of God’s truth. Ultimately", he said, "you must also be absorbed in the life of God. You must not only perceive his truth with your mind but your heart must become united to him in his living reality". I suggested that the Arabic word hayah would be appropriate to describe this form of "life", to which he replied "Yes, you could use hayah, but the usual term we use is ma’rifah, that is, a ’spiritual knowledge’ of God". By attaining to the three goals, he said, a man becomes united to God. I had deliberately chosen the word hayah. As soon as he had finished, I responded that his description of the stages of Sufism in the quest for God were precisely what the Christian already has as an eternal possession in Jesus Christ. To make my point I quoted John 14:6 as it appears in the Arabic Bible - Ana huwat-Tariiqu wal Haqqu waZ Hayyaah. The Muslim was quite stunned! If I had simply said "Oh yes, Jesus said something like this about himself, that is, ’I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life"’, I doubt whether the impact would have been made. But by quoting the verse in Arabic I was able to relate this comprehensive claim to the Muslim’s own views of the way to God and the use of the Arabic terminology made a great impression on him. "You are seeking the path, the truth, and the knowledge of God’s living reality", I said, "but here we find Jesus saying that he himself is the Tariq, the Haqq, and the Hayah - the Way, the Truth, and the Life". The ability to relate this verse as it is translated into Arabic to the Muslim’s own descriptions of his quest for the supreme knowledge of God gave the point of Christ’s all-sufficiency as the way to God far more power and impact. Some time later another Sufi-minded Muslim discussed the same theme with me, only he had the boldness to state that Muhammad had only brought the shari’ah to the Muslims and that the prophets had only been sent to give the basic laws of religion to the masses. He said that it was only in later times that-great Sufi masters like Junayd, al-Bistami and Jalaluddin Rumi, had discovered the threefold path to God. When I quoted John 14:6 to him in Arabic as well, he too was somewhat taken aback. "You regard the prophets purely as messengers sent with the law of God for the masses", I said, "and believe that it is only a few truly spiritually-minded people who can attain to the tariqah, the haqiqah and the ma’rifah, yet it is precisely here that Jesus meets you in all these quests as the supreme object of your goal. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life; he, in his own person, symbolises the Sufi quest for the path, the truth, and the living knowledge of God". I continued in much the following vein: ’’If you are truly seeking God with all your heart you will not find him by being absorbed (fana) in his essence or by theosophical exercises, you will find him by becoming united to Jesus Christ. All three of the basic Sufi stages find their ’yes’ in him". He responded by saying he could accept that Jesus Christ might have said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life", but that this did not make him exclusive, as any true worshipper of God, on completing the stages and being united to him, could make the same claim. The well-known Sufi al-Hallaj had once also claimed ana’l Haqq - "I am the Truth". In a letter afterwards I pointed out that the first words of Jesus’ saying in Greek are ego eimi, meaning, "I, I am" or, properly interpreted, "I, I myself am the Way, the Truth and the Life". The use of the personal pronoun ego together with the verb in the first person singular (into which the pronoun is incorporated), eimi, is a way of emphasizing the uniqueness of Jesus’ claim. It makes the whole sentence mean "I, I myself alone am the Way, the Truth, and the Life - no one else is!" This is why he added "no one comes to the Father but by me" (John 14:6). This verse, when quoted and explained in its Arabic form, is a very useful means of conveying to mystically- minded Muslims that Jesus is the only, and yet the perfect and complete, way to the supreme knowledge of God. I believe we need to aspire to an all-round form of ministry to Muslims, a comprehensive approach that takes in the ability to handle Muslim objections to the Bible and to relate the Gospel effectively to Muslims against the background of their own beliefs. I urge all who contemplate Muslim evangelism to make a sincere effort to get to know the Bible and their own religion well, and to likewise strive to obtain a sound knowledge of Islam including a degree of knowledge of the Arabic language. Once these are obtained, the Christian will be surprised to discover how much more effective he can be in his witness to Muslims. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 113: 06.15. D. CARING FOR THE MUSLIM CONVERT. ======================================================================== D. CARING FOR THE MUSLIM CONVERT. 1. Should Muslims Break Completely from Islam? It is with some trepidation and reserve that I tackle the subject of the place of the convert from Islam in the Christian Church. This is because there are so many problems facing those who have been grounded in Islam, both religiously and culturally, and there are very few Christian missionaries among Muslims who have not experienced considerable ~’ difficulties in helping Muslim converts adapt to their new-found faith and the Christian Church. To those working among Moslems there is perhaps no more baffling unsolved problem than the care of the new convert. (Heinrich, "’Shell-Shocked’ Converts", The Muslim World, Vol. 18, p. 246). The problems take many forms. On the one hand the convert, particularly in predominantly Muslim countries, faces rejection from his family, is likely to be ostracised from his community and pushed on to the fringe of his society, may well lose his employment opportunities, and even suffer the ultimate penalty for conversion from Islam, namely death itself. (I have covered the whole subject of the consequences of apostasy from Islam in the companion volume to this book, to which readers are referred, and shall not repeat myself here). On the other hand the convert is invariably steeped in Islamic culture and on becoming a Christian does not necessarily wish or intend to forsake his heritage. Christianity was always intended to be a universal faith which could express itself in any culture, but unfortunately it has become so synonymous with Western civilisation and culture that, to this day, conversion to Christianity seems to so many to involve an adoption of the Western way of life. This only exacerbates the problem, as does the fact that in Islam religion and culture are so intertwined that it is difficult at times to distinguish between them. There is a general consensus among those working among Muslims today that every effort must be made to avoid wrenching Muslim converts out of their culture and to guard against attempts to Westernise them. In recent decades, however, this commendable objective has led to a widespread conviction that Muslim converts should be allowed to remain wholly within their societies and communities and keep their place in the universal Muslim ummah. It has even been suggested that they should not be called Christians at all but rather "Jesus Muslims" or "followers of Isa", and that they should exercise their faith in Jesus in an Islamic context, either by forming separate groups who nonetheless worship according to traditional Islamic forms, or by remaining in their own mosques and societies, expressing their faith in Jesus in more direct Islamic forms. If anything, these ideas help to identify the problem - how to bring a Muslim to Christ without completely disorientating him culturally at the same time. From the outset I must confess to being able to offer no easy solutions to this problem and have much sympathy with those who are struggling to resolve these issues. It is with some reserve and caution, therefore, that I proceed. I do believe, however, that the Bible lays down certain guidelines that should be followed and that there are grave dangers of compromise in many of the theories being propagated these days which seem to take us from one extreme to the other. I will begin by stating what I believe must be the only safe and correct standpoint that we can take, but will then endeavour to analyse the difficulties that we experience in practice and offer some suggestions and comments. I remain persuaded that Muslims who believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour and look to him for eternal life must break from Islam and become united as Christians to Christ’s universal Church. This is an ideal that I do not believe we are entitled to compromise in any way. The great apostle to Islam, Samuel Zwemer, even in his day when suggestions very similar to those I have mentioned were first being put forward, stood his ground rigidly against them. He quotes an American professor who defined this new form of approach: "This approach would not require the Moslem inquirer to forsake his Moslem communal relations, but would rather urge that, continuing to live in the Moslem community, the young convert would follow the Jesus-way in that world ... Thus, it is argued, we will have a truly indigenous Moslem Christian theology, and a truly indigenous form of organized Moslem Christianity". (Zwemer, "The Dynamic of Evangelism" The Muslim World, Vol. 31, p. 110,111). Zwemer summed up his immediate reaction to this idea in just one word - "No". He expressed himself against any form of evangelism that must inevitably lead to syncretism and at the same time reminded his readers that Jesus called on his followers to become fishers of men, saying: We will not progress far by forsaking the use of all hooks and nets in order to feed the hungry fish in their own environment . . . Unless we ask the Moslem enquirer to make a clear-cut decision, to break with his past to accept a new way of life in Christ, we are really doing him an injustice. The easy way is not the way of the Gospel. (Zwemer, "The Dynamic of Evangelism", The Muslim World, Vol. 31, p. 111,112). It is in that last brief sentence that I believe we have at least the foundation on which our whole approach to this subject must be based. To what extent are we really trying to avoid disturbing the Muslim convert’s culture and heritage, and to what are we actually trying to smoothen a path that Jesus said would ever be hard and stony (Matthew 7:14)? In the latter part of the twentieth century we, in the West, are reaping the fullest benefits of two centuries of progressive industrial revolution and civilisation. The one thing they have brought us is comfort on a hitherto unprecedented scale. Not only so but it is deceptively easy and comfortable to be a Christian in the West. The vast majority of Christians in Europe, North America and other parts of the Western/Christian world live in unbelievable comfort. The advent of heaters, electric blankets, motor cars, widespread wealth, solar heating, air conditioners, medical expertise and its ready availability, boreholes, sophisticated sanitation, processed foods, insurance, refrigeration, television, electric stoves, the airplane - we could go on and on - have all ensured that we are cushioned in on all sides against almost every form of adversity and the elements. It is not only in our homes that these things abound. They are also prevalent in those fine structures we erect "to the glory of God", at great cost, which we like to call churches. The concepts of suffering, persecution, deprivation, rejection, exposure, hunger and the like are almost completely antithetical to and seem remote from the life of comfort and ease we have been so busy establishing for ourselves this century. The result is that it has become fashionable today even to preach that God wills these things for us - health, wealth and prosperity - and that it is almost a sin or a sign of God’s displeasure to be sick or suffering. The remarkable thing is not that such preaching arises but that it goes so widely uncontested. Therein lies the evidence of our malady - we have all become soft and in our love of comfort shun all persecution, suffering and hardship for the Gospel. We have lost sight of our calling and are simultaneously losing sight of the implications of conversion from Islam. The New Testament summons plainly involves the possibility of family antagonism and personal persecution. "A man’s foes shall be they of his own household". "If any man will come after Me, let him take up his cross and follow Me". We cannot seek either for ourselves or for others to facilitate the Christian life so as to be disloyal to its nature. The Church of the Apostolic generation became a church of the Catacombs. Costliness has always been a characteristic ingredient of Christian discipleship. (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 345). Muslims will always have to pay a price for their faith in Jesus and their conversion may prove equally costly for those who seek to bring them to Christ. Yet we have a perfect example in Jesus himself who suffered and died that we may live. The apostle who could say so confidently of himself, "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ" (1 Corinthians 11:1), spoke often of his hardships for the Gospel. "To the present hour we hunger and thirst, we are ill-clad and buffeted and homeless" he wrote to the Christians at Corinth (1 Corinthians 4:11), adding in a second letter that he was regularly "in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure" (2 Corinthians 11:27). Just as Jesus himself suffered not for his own sake but that others might be saved, so Paul spoke of his sufferings in the same way: Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which in Christ Jesus goes with eternal glory. 2 Timothy 2:10 We must be prepared to endure much that Muslims may come to Christ and set them an example in our conduct, patience and perseverance. Likewise we must encourage them to make a complete commitment to Christ and come out from Islam, boldly declaring allegiance to him and his Church. If this involves much loss, hardship and suffering, so be it. Such must always be the course of those who would truly follow Jesus. For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, engaged in the same conflict which you saw and now hear to be mine. Php 1:29-30. "What has a believer in common with an unbeliever"? asks the Church’s greatest-ever missionary to the world (2 Corinthians 6:15). Many who have had the privilege of evangelising Muslims have spoken with one voice of the need of Muslim converts to break from Islam and join the Christian Church. One speaks from experience and says: It is interesting to note that many of those who accepted the Christian faith at first made an earnest effort to live with their own families and in their Moslem environment. In every case I have noted this was not possible. Either the person was forced to compromise his Christian conduct and profession or he was forced to leave his family and the Mohammedan environment. The decision is fraught with suffering and torment of soul, but it seems that only through such travail can the new man in Christ be born out of Islam and the foundation stones of the church laid in Moslem lands. (Christy Wilson, "Moslem Converts", The Muslim World, Vol. 34, p. 175). Another begins his reflection on the question of whether Muslim converts to Christianity can remain within Islam or fellowship outside the universal Christian Church by stating the issue plainly: If Christianity were a plan of life evolved by man, then there might be some real reason for propounding the question, "Should Moslem converts be persuaded to unite with the church?" On the other hand, if Christianity has its source in God as revealed in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, then to ask the question is to answer it. (Phillips, "Should Moslem Converts Unite with the Church?", The Muslim World, Vol. 26, p. 120). Proceeding from the principle itself to the subjective side, namely practice and experience, he comes automatically to the same conclusion: Let us ask, then, can the Moslem who is intellectually persuaded of the truth of the Gospel be kept alive spiritually, growing in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, if he refuses to break with Islam by receiving baptism and openly associating himself with the visible church? It never has been done, and in the light of universal missionary experience in our own day and from the beginning it is safe to assert, without fear of successful contradiction, that it cannot be done. (Phillips, op. cit., p. 125). As said already, I have great sympathy with those who work in predominantly Muslim societies and cultures and who grapple earnestly with the problem and seek to resolve the issue of leading Muslims to Christ without disrupting their lives and cultural heritage. This book, however, is being written primarily for those living in the West who have minority Muslim communities in their midst and I have already outlined some of the remarkable opportunities and advantages we have in this situation, in particular the fact that the Muslims among us have already adopted the Western culture to some extent and live in our own environment. Muslims who become Christians in the West can very much more easily identify with the Christian Church without foregoing their heritage. Churches predominate over mosques, employment opportunities are in no way affected by conversion, and the convert will find himself perhaps even identifying more meaningfully with the prevailing society rather than being ostracised onto its fringe as is the case in the overall Muslim world. It is my own personal experience, too, that Muslims who become Christians and yet refuse to break with Islam and its practices and join a Christian church are invariably tempted after a while to revert to Islam, at least in form, and backslide and so lose their "first love" (Revelation 2:4). The joy of salvation evaporates, the scope for growth becomes stunted, and the convert often becomes unhappy, critical and envious of those who are well settled in the Church. We must at least be clear in our minds about the need to call Muslims out of Islam to Christ and his Church and cannot afford to compromise this principle. 2. Problems Encountered in Conversion from Islam. What, then, of the Muslim who is willing to profess faith in Jesus Christ but who, notwithstanding counselling, expresses himself unwilling either to be baptised or to join a Christian church? On the question of baptism we must once again take a stand. The command to believers to be baptised as an outward sign of their unity with Jesus Christ in his death and resurrection is set forth quite clearly in the New Testament. Jesus sent his disciples out to make further disciples of all nations with this command: "baptising them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19, so also Mark 16:16), and on the Day of Pentecost Peter declared that those present should repent and "be baptised every one of you" (Acts 2:38). The convert from Islam must therefore be encouraged to submit himself to baptism. In fact it is often true that when Muslims advise their families that they wish to become Christians the reaction is that, if they wish to believe in Jesus Christ, let them do so, but let them avoid baptism or church membership. As there is so much emphasis on ritual and form in Islam it appears that many Muslims feel that as long as the would-be-believer in Jesus has hitherto followed all the forms of Islam, he is still really a Muslim at heart. As long as he does not submit to baptism, the obvious initiatory rite of the Christian faith, he has not really become a Christian. Baptism is, therefore, the symbol of a Muslim’s final break with Islam and his adoption of Christianity. Baptism is generally regarded by Muslims as the decisive break with Islam because it constitutes an open profession of faith in Christ. (Marsh, Share your Faith with a Muslim, p. 88). Experience in all countries where Christianity is not the accepted religion goes to show that people seem to be aware of the fact that it is baptism that-makes the real difference to a man’s standing in the community. (Christensen, The Practical Approach to Muslims, p. 153). Converts from Islam must therefore be encouraged to be baptised in obedience to our Lord’s command. This is not a matter of personal choice, it is one of open acknowledgement of the Gospel of Christ. When the first Gentiles became believers and received the Holy Spirit, Peter immediately "commanded them to be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 10:48). Baptism is not an optional extra, it is an obligatory confession of faith and one which will greatly strengthen all who submit to it. Those first evangelists believed that Jesus meant just what He said when He told them to go into all the world to preach, and to teach, and to baptize. If the missionary forces of our generation were as abundantly filled with the Holy Spirit as were the first missionaries of the church, the question regarding the advisability of baptizing Moslem converts would never be raised. (Phillips, "Should Moslem Converts Unite with the Church?", The Muslim World, Vol. 26, p. 123). We still have to reckon, however, with those who are prepared to become open believers but who do not wish to be baptised or join a local church. Do we reject them? By no means - we accept that salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ alone and if anyone displays such faith we must accept them as brethren. We must care for them as much as for any other convert and seek to build them up in whatever way we can and fellowship with them as often as possible. Nevertheless it should be made plain that the convert is not being true to Christ and is likely to suffer from a "maimed and halting religious experience if there is not complete association in these family and community affairs with the environment which has its source in Christ" (quoted from a 1938 "Report by the Inquiry on the Evangelization of Moslems" in Addison, The Christian Approach to the Moslem, p. 306). Our approach can only be to exhort, encourage and uphold those who are weak in the faith, always remembering that each is a "brother for whom Christ died" (1 Corinthians 8:11) and that he is greatly beloved of God. All are agreed that unbaptized followers of Jesus exist in considerable numbers, a few of whom are ready to testify to their belief. All are likewise agreed in rejoicing at this fact and in recognizing that this degree of discipleship is vastly better than no discipleship at all, and that it constitutes a hopeful stage in Christian growth. (Addison, The Christian Approach to the Moslem, p. 307). Perhaps the greatest temptation of all to hold back on complete commitment to Christ will come from the convert’s own family. Here we need to be particularly sensitive, as very few of us have had to make family sacrifices in pursuit of our faith in Jesus Christ. Indeed it is my conviction that converts should be encouraged to maintain good family relationships as far as they can and, where we feel they are of their own choice leaning too far towards their families and thus compromising their faith, we must nonetheless avoid being judgmental and endeavour to be as sympathetic and as understanding as we can be, even if they refuse to heed admonition. One writer comments on the fact that some will even face the supreme penalty for their testimony more readily than a complete break from their families: For the most part they declare themselves willing to face death for their faith if that should be necessary. Far stronger as a deterring factor in their open declaration of their faith is the fact that it will break the bonds of family life and will bring aspersion and persecution not only upon themselves but upon members of their own household whom they love. . . . the social ostracism of the convert and even his whole family is a very real fact. (Christy Wilson, "Moslem Converts", The Muslim World, Vol. 34, p. 172). Blood is thicker than water, the true proverb says. So often, on becoming a Christian, a convert from Islam is immediately rejected by his family, disowned and cast out. At the same time he faces the consequence with great fortitude. The bonds of family ties, however, often lead the family to relinquish their hostility and even welcome him back as a member of the household, provided he does not endeavour to convert them to Christianity as well. It is here that Satan will find his "opportune time" (Luke 4:13) and the convert will find that his own reciprocal love for his family will possibly become a severe temptation to make appropriate compromises. We need to be both sensitive and watchful at such times and "to keep Satan from gaining the advantage over us, for we are not ignorant of his devices" (2 Corinthians 2:11). I think of another convert from a strict Moslem family. When his father learned of his apostasy, he treated him with absolute aloofness, and would not even speak to him. His mother reproached him with tears. Think how hard the temptation he was in. He loved his parents as we love ours. The sight of their sufferings was painful to him. Had he the right to make them suffer so? How could he ever hope to lead them to his new faith, if he started out by thus offending them? He wisely left his home to live by himself awhile, till his mother begged him to return: thus did he conquer the temptation. But the pull is strong, as strong as the bonds of family affection or a congenial relationship. (A Missionary in Persia, "The Temptations of Moslem Converts", The Muslim World, Vol. 23, p. 350). It seems that the correct approach will always be to make plain to the hesitant convert that allegiance to Christ must be unflinching as his love for us duly was, but to be as gentle, compassionate and tolerant as we can be when our exhortations do not have the desired effect, remembering that we also have our own shortcomings and that we probably have not faced the same consequences for our faith in Christ. Knowing their own failures as disciples under conditions far less severe, they are not prepared to judge the secret believer. Rather they are ready to welcome any sign in him of an awakening response to the power of the living Christ. Nor would they willingly force the pace of his Christian growth. But such sympathy and understanding are consistent with the firmest resolution not to sanction as complete any form of Christian discipleship which falls short of surrender to Christ without qualification . . . To be grafted into the body of Christ is to draw upon resources divine and human, in sacrament and fellowship, without which the Christian can never grow to full stature. (Addison, The Christian Approach to the Moslem, p. 308). 3. The Receptiveness of the Christian Church. Having said a few things about the possibility that a Muslim convert to Christianity might not be entirely faithful to his Lord, I cannot conclude without expressing a few gross misgivings in turn about the present state of the Church and the possibility that it may likewise fail in its duty to Christ by refusing to welcome the convert and care sufficiently for him. Very often local Christian churches, especially in a predominantly or even partly Muslim environment, are unwilling to receive Muslim converts for fear of the consequences and the possible wrath of the Muslim community upon themselves. I believe such cowardliness and faithlessness are completely inexcusable. Muslims who become Christians will always have to pay a considerable price for their faith - shall we give them a cold shoulder because our own comfort and complacency may be simultaneously threatened? Unfortunately this is often the case in practice and many new Christians from Islam can tell of cases where they have been received unsympathetically by the Church. I cannot conceive of any justifiable circumstance where a local church could refuse the warm hand of fellowship to a brother from Islam and I have little doubt that wherever this does occur, it will be nothing less than the church’s concern about its own vested interests that will be the root cause of it. It is especially important that converts from Islam, cut off as they probably will be from their families and their Islamic community, be received as beloved members of a Christian church. (Miller, A Christian’s Response to Islam, p. 141). Another writer expresses the seriousness with which we must consider our willingness to receive those who have been willing to forsake family and heritage for Christ by saying that "there is urgent need that the church make the convert feel at home" (Christy Wilson, "Moslem Converts", The Muslim World, Vol. 34, p. 176). If the Church is the Body of Christ, it cannot refuse fellowship to any who are united to him and to all true believers in the one Spirit. I fear that the Church lives in such untroubled comfort I in the West today that it will immediately shun any threat, not to its identity, but to its state of ease and self-sufficiency. In the New Testament we read often of sufferings, deprivations and persecutions, but of no such thing as a church building. In Western societies today we have a plethora of fine church buildings, cushioned pews and every form of modern luxury, but suffer no deprivation or persecution. The four walls of our hallowed structures both isolate and insulate us very effectively from the outside world which should be hostile but for obvious reasons is not. "Live and let live" is our policy, whether we care to admit it or not. We do not trouble the world and as long as our faith is expressed unnoticed within our four walls, the world will not trouble us. The circumstances are very unfavourable for promoting Muslim evangelism in the West and creating a beneficial climate for Muslim converts. Things will not be different here to the predominantly Muslim world. Conversions from Islam are going to involve troublesome consequences for us as well as the converts and we must face them. Do we have any idea of what conversion may mean for a Muslim? Do we realize the possible cost for any Muslim who wants to become a disciple of Jesus? Do we realize the possible cost for ourselves? (Chapman, You Go and Do the Same, p. 55). This subject really requires a whole book on the need for the Church in the West to rise from its slumbers, to "sell its possessions and give alms" (Luke 12:33), to forego its comforts, to involve itself deeply in the world as the early Church did, and to prepare for the inevitable hostile consequences. At this point we can only survey the need for the Church to be willing to receive converts from Islam with open arms and to share in their trials. More than one writer with experience among Muslims has commented on the need to actually conduct programs among the churches to make them aware of Islam and receptive to those who are willing to join its fold. If any church desires to be a spiritual home for those who come to Christ from Islam, a brotherhood, a spiritual garden, then it must have a very definite and well thought-out plan for teaching and training them in the Christian faith; and it must also, having determined its responsibility with regard to their human needs, be ready to shoulder the same. A church that makes this preparation in a spirit of thoughtful love, is already more than half-way to the ideal of being a home. A church that makes no such preparation, or whose preparation is ill thought-out, is making it that much harder for itself to be a home, indeed has not declared unmistakably that it thinks of itself as such. (Gairdner, "The Christian Church as a Home for Christ’s Converts from Islam", The Muslim World Vol. 14, p. 241). Only a Church that has a program leading to the winning of converts will ever develop an atmosphere warm enough to care for them. Has the time not come for a change of emphasis in the work of Moslem evangelism? (Heinrich, "’Shell-Shocked’ Converts", The Muslim World, Vol. 18, p. 249). This section has, I trust, to some measure identified the problems involved in acclimatising converts from Islam to their new-found faith and place in the Christian Church. They cannot, even if they remain unsolved inhibit the work of evangelism among Muslims and we must press on, both in hope and in confidence, with our eyes raised to the ultimate home in heaven of all who belong to Christ where the problems we canvass below will fade and pass like the morning mist. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 114: 06.16. ABRAHAM IN THE QUR'AN AND THE BIBLE ======================================================================== Abraham in the Qur’an and the Bible ======================================================================== CHAPTER 115: 06.17. A. KHALILULLAH: THE FRIEND OF GOD. ======================================================================== A. KHALILULLAH: THE FRIEND OF GOD. 1. "And Allah Took Ibrahim for a Friend". In the last chapter we analysed the Biblical method of approaching people of another culture or religion and saw that the correct way to do this is to find common ground between us and lead from there to the message of the Gospel. In this second major part of this book, in the following three chapters, we shall give a selection of practical examples to show how this method can be put into effect. One of the great figureheads of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is the patriarch Abraham, named in the Qur’an Ibrahim. It is quite remarkable to see how much each of these faiths has in common with the other two in respect of this great prophet, not only regarding some of the narratives of his life, but also in its assessment of his relationship with God and the character of his faith. In this section we shall see that all three believe that he was "the Friend of God" and that he was made a leader for all mankind and, in the next section, we shall see further how each looks upon him as an example of a true believer. By thereafter examining the implications of these points of agreement and contact we shall discover an outstanding way of reaching Muslims with the Gospel. Let us begin with the title "the Friend of God". In the Jewish Scriptures, known to Christians as the Old Testament, it is plainly taught that God called Abraham this friend. The designation appears twice and it is found in the following two verses: "Didst not thou, O our God, drive out the inhabitants of this land before thy people Israel, and give it for ever to the descendants of Abraham thy friend?" 2 Chronicles 20:7 "You, Israel, my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, my friend". lsaiah 41.8 It is important to note in the latter verse that God himself is recorded as calling Abraham his friend and that the title came not as a result of any human belief that he should be so regarded but through God’s own express declaration to this effect. When we turn to the New Testament, the Christian Scriptures, we find the same title being applied to the patriarch in the following text: "Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness," and he was called the friend of God. James 2:23 It will probably come as a surprise to many Christians to discover that the Muslim Scripture, the Qur’an, expressly calls Abraham the friend of God as well. As with the New Testament the title occurs in only one verse in the entire book, yet it is just as clearly stated and emphasised: For God did take Abraham for a friend. Surah 4.125 The word for a friend in this verse is khaliilaan and, in consequence thereof, the deliberate title given to Abraham in Islam is Khalilullah, the Friend of God. Moses is called Kalimatullah (the Word of God), David Khalifatullah (the Representative of God), Jesus Ruhullah (the Spirit of God), and Muhammad is named Rasulullah (the Messenger of God). Other similar titles are given to the other prophets. Because of the description given to Abraham in Surah 4.125, that God took him for a khalil, a friend, he is thus called Khalilullah in Islam. Here we have our first point of contact with Islam regarding the person of Abraham. The next thing to do is to examine the implication of the title - why was Abraham called the Friend of God and what relationship between them is implied in the description? A Muslim translator of the Qur’an gives a fine definition of the meaning of the title. He says: But the English word ’friend’ does scant justice to the idea of khalil which, in Arabic, denotes the dearest or most sincere friend who has no rival in the love and reliance placed upon him. (Daryabadi, The Holy Qur’an, Vol. 1, p. 91A). It is quite clear that Abraham’s relationship with God was not based on his own good works or self-righteousness. The title "Friend of God" obviously implies that there was a deep personal relationship between him and God and one based on mutual trust and affection. A very important verse in the Bible tells us what happened after God had promised to Abraham that he was to have a son in his old age and that through this son he would have descendants as many as the stars of heaven. We read: And he believed the Lord; and he reckoned it to him as righteousness. Genesis 15:6 Abraham had righteousness reckoned to him, not because of any deeds done by him in righteousness, but because of his complete faith and trust in God. Because of his unswerving loyalty, God took him as his friend, implying that he was prepared to confide intimately in him. Abraham’s willingness to trust God made God willing to trust him as well and it was on this basis of mutual confidence that the relationship of friendship was built. Clearly it came through Abraham’s faith and not his works. It was through this perception that the Apostle Paul was able to define the character of true faith. After meeting with Jesus on the way to Damascus, he perceived in Abraham an exemplar who was justified by faith, justified by trust and surrender alone without recourse to the Law, because the law did not yet exist . . . For St. Paul, therefore, Abraham was justified not by keeping a set of commandments, but rather by having a trusting heart, cleansed and attuned to God. (Scale, Qur’an and Bible, p. 118). Another Christian writer points out that Abraham’s way was a way of friendship and loving submission to God rather than a mere submission due to fear of punishment or hope of reward under the law (Abdul-Haqq, Sharing Your Faith with a Muslim, p. 111). The friendship between him and God was clearly based not on any merits attaching to the prophet but chiefly on his implicit trust in the merits of God, namely his faithfulness to his own promises. The title Friend of God, therefore, is a title which tells us as much about Abraham’s God as about Abraham himself (Scale, Qur’an and Bible, p. 119). It is important to discuss the whole meaning of this title with Muslims as it helps to prepare the ground for what is to follow and sets the theme of the whole subject of Abraham’s faith and how it leads ultimately to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The character of his whole relationship with the one and only God, based not on works of righteousness but on trust and faith, shows why Abraham became the Friend of God and has great implications for further discussion between Christians and Muslims on the nature of true faith and the true religion. The monotheism of Abraham, for example, was not a matter of formal confession and theological reflection alone. It was, for him, a living experience of the living God. Having received the privilege of an intimate faith contact with God, Abraham did not have to be content merely with a repetition of a given formula of the unity of God. He lived by faith, day by day, in the living God and walked with Him. (Abdul-Haqq, Sharing Your Faith with a Muslim, p. 147). 2. Abraham the Father of all True Believers. The second point of agreement between Judaism, Christianity and Islam on the person of Abraham is their joint recognition of him as the father of all the true people of God. In the Jewish Scriptures we find that God promised Abraham that he would make a great nation of his offspring: "And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing". Genesis 15:2 "I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth; so that if one can count the dust of the earth, your descendants also can be counted". Genesis 13:16 In another passage we find that God also said, "I have made you the father of a multitude of nations" (Genesis 17:5). As the nation of Israel was descended from Abraham through his son Isaac and as God had specifically promised that he would fulfil his promise and covenant through the line of Isaac (Genesis 17:19), the Jews looked on themselves as the people of God and upon Abraham as the first true Israelite, the first real Jew and the father of their nation. "We have Abraham as our father", was their confidence before God (Luke 3:8). "We are descendants of Abraham", they boasted before Jesus (John 8:33) and, when challenged about their relationship with God, they boldly exclaimed, "Abraham is our father" (John 8:39). In the Christian Scriptures we find it taught that the true offspring of Abraham are not his physical descendants, those who are "as many as the dust of the earth" and just like it, but rather those who share his faith, who are as many "as the stars of the sky" and who share Abraham’s intimate relationship with the God who lives in celestial glory. Not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants; but "Through Isaac shall your descendants be named". This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants. Romans 9:7-8. So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham . . . So then, those who are men of faith are blessed with Abraham who had faith. Galatians 3:7; Galatians 3:9. We have seen that Abraham was accepted by God, not because of any merit in himself, but because of his faith in God’s faithfulness. He is therefore the father of the faithful, all true believers who share his faith, not only from among the people of Israel, but also from the Gentiles, all "those who share the faith of Abraham, for he is the father of us all" (Romans 4:16). Therefore, just as the Jews regarded Abraham as the first real Jew, so we believe he was really a Christian at heart because he had that faith of which all true Christians are made, not a self-righteous piety obtained through works and devotional exercises, but a God-given righteousness which comes only by faith in God’s own faithfulness and righteousness. In Islam, too, Abraham is marked out as a leader of all true believers. In the Qur’an God is recorded as saying to the patriarch: I will make thee an Imam to the nations. Surah 2.124 He is described as imaamaan, "a leader", and his leadership is extended linnaasi - "to all men". As in Christianity, therefore, so in Islam Abraham is looked upon as the head and example of all true believers. In his commentary Yusuf Ali states that the meaning of Imam in this verse is a "leader in religion" and a "model, pattern, example" (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, p. 52). In practice, however (as we shall see), whereas Christians mark Abraham out for his implicit faith in God’s faithfulness and regard this alone as his ground of justification before God, in Islam it is his belief in the oneness of God and his submission to the will of God that credit him. Both themes are found in many passages in the Qur’an but the following verse includes them both and perhaps best defines Islam’s reason for looking on him as a leader for mankind: Abraham was indeed a model, devoutly obedient to God, (and) true in faith, and he joined not gods with God. Surah 16.120 Thus in Islam Abraham is regarded, not as a Jew or a Christian, but as a Muslim and in the following verse, which likewise identifies his monotheism and submission to God as the hallmarks of his greatness before God, this distinction is plainly stated: Abraham was not a Jew nor yet a Christian; but he was true in Faith, and bowed his will to God’s, (which is Islam), and he joined not gods with God. Surah 3.67 He was not Yahuudiyyaun, "a Jew", nor Nasraaniyyaan, "a Christian", but rather Haniifaam-Muslimaan, "an upright" man and a submitter, namely, a Muslim. Whereas Christianity looks on him as a man justified purely by his faith and takes that faith to be a trust in the faithfulness of God, Islam gives him credit for a true faith that is seen to be principally a submission to the will of God and that without any partners being associated with him. It is useful to not only note our common ground here - Our joint belief in Abraham as the father and leader of all true believers - but also our differences and the grounds on which Christians and Muslims claim him as their own. They have vital implications as well for what is to follow in the next section where we shall examine the whole nature and character of Abraham’s faith as a further prelude to the subject of reaching Muslims with the Gospel against the background of beliefs we have in common with them respecting this great prophet of God. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 116: 06.18. B. MILLAT-A-IBRAHIM: THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM. ======================================================================== B. MILLAT-A-IBRAHIM: THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM. 1. The Nature of Abraham’s Faith in the Qur’an. We have already seen that there are two great points of agreement between Islam and Christianity respecting the patriarch Abraham, namely that he was called the Friend of God and appointed the head of all true believers. We come now to the third great feature that Christianity has in common with Islam, and that is the teaching in both the Bible and the Qur’an that it was by faith alone that Abraham found approval with God. Indeed the Qur’an teaches that Islam is not a new religion but claims that it is this very thing of which we are speaking, namely the faith of Abraham. The following is but one of many passages which make this claim: Say thou, Allah has spoken the truth; follow therefore the faith of Ibrahim, the upright; and he was not of the polytheists. Surah 3.95 (Daryabadi). In this verse the faith of Ibrahim in the original Arabic reads millata-Ibraahiim. The word millah appears fifteen times in the Qur’an and on seven of these occasions it is used in direct association with Abraham (see, for example, Surahs 2.130, 2.135, 6.161). On one occasion it is significantly said that God has laid on the Muslims the millata-abiikum-Ibraahiim - "the faith of your father Abraham" (Surah 22.78). The word millah is taken to mean "religion, faith, creed" (Kassis, A Concordance of the Qur’an, p. 768) and it is clear, therefore, that Islam takes the faith of Abraham, the father of the faithful, as its model. We must enquire, however, as to what the millata-Ibrahim is held to mean in practice. In the last section we saw, from various passages in the Qur’an, that Abraham’s greatness before God arose out of his belief in the oneness of God and his willing submission to him. Another passage helps us to understand further what the Qur’an has in mind when it speaks of the faith of Abraham. It reads: Recall when his Lord said unto him: ’submit’, he said: ’I submit to the Lord of the worlds’. Surah 2.131 (Daryabadi). The command in the Arabic original is simply Aslim - "Submit!" Abraham’s reply aslamtu - "I submit". Both words come from the same root letters (sin, lam and mim) as the words Islam (Submission) and Muslim (one who submits). Here we see how the Qur’an regards Abraham’s faith and why it speaks of him as a Muslim and the father of those who believe. It sees Abraham’s faith, as in the other passages, as an unquestioning obedience to the commands of God. Surah 2.130 Speaks of the millata-Ibrahim as the true faith from which only fools turn away and the declaration of submission to God in Surah 2.131 quoted above does indeed appear to be a commentary on and explanation of the nature of Abraham’s faith. All this plainly shows that the submission was originally associated in Mohammed’s mind with Abraham; it was from his action, or attitude, that the religion received its name. He obeyed the commands with which Allah tested him (53.38 and 2.118). (Torrey, The Jewish Foundation of Islam, p. 103). We are compelled to enquire whether the Qur’an has an adequate conception of what this faith really was. Our study of the title Friend of God disclosed that there was a very close relationship between Abraham and his Lord and that it was based on a spirit of mutual trust, in particular Abraham’s faith in God’s own faithfulness. This aspect of his faith has been overlooked in the Qur’an which sees his faith purely as conformity to God’s commands. If it was nothing more than this, an unquestioning submission, it does not qualify as faith in the Biblical sense. It is simply a blind resignation to the will of God. A Christian writer in consequence says, "Islam is submission to the inevitable" (Christensen, The Practical Approach to Muslims, p. 382). In much of the Muslim world a sense of fatalism prevails, an attitude that what will be will be, and that no one can change God’s decrees. Still less should anyone ever seek to question them. A dog can soon be taught to submit to its master and when he commands "Heel!" and the dog responds appropriately, we shall not say that the dog has faith in its master but rather that it has been taught to implicitly obey whatever the master says. Such obedience is indeed commendable, but it cannot qualify as faith. No more does the response aslamtu, "I submit", constitute a response of faith to the command Aslim - "Submit!" We shall see later what the implications of this are when the command comes to Abraham to sacrifice his son. 2. The Faith of Abraham in the Christian Bible. As in Islam, so in Christianity we find Abraham marked for his faith in God and here too it is a model and example for all true Christians. The following verses set out comprehensively the relationship between Abraham’s faith and true Christian faith: Thus Abraham "believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness". So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham . . . So then, those who are men of faith are blessed with Abraham who had faith. Galatians 3:6-7; Galatians 3:9. In this case, however, the faith spoken of has a very different nature to the faith of Abraham in the Qur’an. It is faith in the faithfulness of God. God promised to bless Abraham and give him a son and, because Abraham believed that God would be true to his word, he responded in faith. It was this implicit trust in God, not an unquestioning submission to his commands, that commended him to God and as a result his faitb was reckoned to him as righteousness. This verse very succinctly describes the character of his faith. He believed: Every word of God is true. Proverbs 30:5 An illustration helps to identify the nature of Abraham’s faith as it is set forth in the Bible. The sun and the moon are the two most obvious celestial bodies and each has its place. The sun gives light by day and the full moon light by night. Yet there is a vast difference between them. The sun generates light and its brilliance is unrivalled in the sky. At best the moon can but feebly reflect the sun’s light. Without the sun the moon cannot shine at all, yet the sun will shine on untroubled if the moon should be removed. The moon simply reflects the sun’s light. So it was between God and Abraham. God’s glory is unrivalled in the heavens. He generates holiness, righteousness and faithfulness. At best man can only reflect his glory for no man has power to generate any righteousness of his own (John 3:27). In this way, therefore, Abraham’s faith was a reflection of God’s faithfulness. No man will have faith in someone he considers untrustworthy. Abraham had faith in God because he knew that "God is faithful" (1 Corinthians 10:13, 2 Thessalonians 3:3). His faith was a response to God’s faithfulness. This is why his faith was "reckoned to him as righteousness" (Genesis 15:6). God generates both faithfulness and righteousness and as Abraham laid hold on the former by faith, so the latter was counted to him as well. His righteousness’ was not a self-righteousness obtained through good deeds, etc., but a God-given righteousness, a righteousness that was reckoned and imputed to him, a reflection of God’s own righteousness and faithfulness. 2. The Promise of a Son to Abraham. We have been analysing points of agreement between Islam and Christianity regarding the great patriarch Abraham. As we proceed to analyse succeeding events in his life we shall see what tremendous material we have here for an effective witness to Muslims of God’s grace in Jesus Christ. We begin with the promise to Abraham that he would have a son. This promise is recorded in both the Bible and the Qur’an and in both books it is expressly stated that the promised son was Isaac, the first-born son of Abraham’s wife Sarah. The promise is recorded as follows in the Bible: "As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. I will bless her, and moreover I will give you a son by her; I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall come from her . . . Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him". Genesis 17:15-16; Genesis 17:19. In the Qur’an we likewise find passages plainly stating that God promised Abraham that he would bear a son, Isaac, through his wife Sarah: And his wife was standing (there), and she laughed: But We gave her glad tidings of Isaac, and after him, of Jacob. Surah 11.71 And We gave him the good news of Isaac - a prophet - one of the Righteous. Surah 37.112 What was Abraham’s response to this promise? No mention is made of it in the Qur’an but, as we have seen, the Bible States that he "believed the Lord" and that this response of faith had momentous consequences for "he reckoned it to him as righteousness" (Genesis 15:6). Never had it ever been heard that an old woman of ninety could bear a son, especially when the woman herself had hitherto been unable to bear children. What made Abraham believe God - did he just simply believe that God could do anything he wished? Not at all. He believed God because he trusted in God’s faithfulness. He knew he would be true to his word. This is indeed the true millata-Ibrahim, "the faith of Abraham". He believed that, once God had made a promise, he would certainly fulfil it. It was as a result of this conviction that he concluded that God could bring about the birth of a son when it seemed to be naturally impossible. The following passage outlines perfectly the process of faith that enabled Abraham to believe that the promise would be fulfilled: In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations; as he had been told, "So shall your descendants be". He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead because he was about a hundred years old, or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb. No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do as he had promised. Romans 4:18-21. He did not blindly resign himself to what he had heard. Twice we read that he gave the promise much thought and reflection: "he considered his own body . . . he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb". He took full stock of the situation. Nothing in the circumstances around him would give credence to the promise. To all intents and purposes both he and his wife were well "over the hill" and her barrenness only served to increase the unlikelihood that she would bear a son. But in hope he "believed against hope" because he knew God would fulfil his word. "No distrust made him waver" - a vital clue to the character of his faith - but he "grew strong in his faith" as he gave glory to the God whom he considered faithful to his word. Thus he became, by a studied process of reasoning based on the assurance that "every word of God proves true" (Proverbs 30:5), thoroughly persuaded that the promise would be fulfilled, "fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised". The passage concludes: "That is why his faith was reckoned to him as righteousness" (Romans 4:22). On the basis that God would surely fulfil his promise Abraham was led to believe that the son would be born and this led him to discern that God is he "who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist" (Romans 4:17). He believed that God would give life to his body, though it was as good as dead, and that he would call into being something that otherwise could not exist. We also read that his wife Sarah likewise shared this very faith in God’s faithfulness to his own word: By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised. Hebrews 11:11 She followed the example of her husband and did not just blindly believe what she heard. She too considered just as he had done, not so much that God had the power to fulfil his promise, but rather believed "him faithful who had promised". Abraham did not just believe God would fulfil his promise but considered as to how it could be fulfilled. Because of this exercise of faith, because he reasoned carefully about it, he came to understand how his son would come into being and so gained a greater understanding of the mind and will of God. He came to understand the promise and so gained knowledge of the ways of God. He was thus able to believe with sound reason (and not blind resignation) and so became fully convinced that God would do as he had promised. Abraham received a promise that he would bear a son and that his name would be Isaac. Some years later God spoke to him again about this very same son Isaac, issuing a command that seemed to shatter the promise in pieces. We shall proceed to see how the great prophet, maintaining the same faith that had enabled him to respond to the promise, was able to reconcile the two apparently contradictory messages that came from heaven. More importantly, we shall see how this led Abraham on to perceive from afar the coming of God’s redemption through his Son Jesus Christ. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 117: 06.19. C. EID-UL-ADHA : THE FESTIVAL OF SACRIFICE. ======================================================================== C. EID-UL-ADHA : THE FESTIVAL OF SACRIFICE. 1. The Command to Abraham to Sacrifice his Son. If you were to ask the average Muslim to tell you which of the festivals in the Islamic year he regards as the greatest he would almost certainly answer ’Idul-Adha - the "Festival of Sacrifice". There are two great Eid festivals in Islam, the other being ’Idul-Fitr - the "Festival of Breaking the Fast", which occurs on the first day of the month of Shawwal after the Fast of Ramadan is past. The Festival of Sacrifice, however, also known commonly as Baqri-Eid (the Cow Festival), is regarded as the ’Idul-Kabir, the "Great Festival", while the other is known as ’Idus-Saghir, the "Lesser Festival" (Hughes, A Dictionary of Islam, p. 192). The great festival Eid-ul-Adha occurs on the tenth day of the last month of the Muslim year, namely Thul-Hijjah, and coincides with the last day of the Hajj pilgrimage (see the companion volume to this book, Muhammad and the Religion of Islam, pp. 305-307, for further details regarding this festival). On this day the pilgrims to Mecca are required to sacrifice a cow, sheep, goat, camel or other appropriate animal in commemoration of the occasion when Abraham was willing to offer his son as a sacrifice to God and was told to offer a ram in his place. The festival of sacrifice is also held throughout the Muslim world and the duty to make an offering on this day is laid on every Muslim household. We shall proceed to see what tremendous potential there is to present the Gospel to Muslims against the background of this festival, especially as it is the most important in their calendar. This festival is an excellent opportunity for presenting the Gospel by means of the story of Genesis 22:1-13. (Marsh, Share Your Faith with a Muslim, p. 28). We have considered God’s promise to Abraham that he would have a son, Isaac, as well as Abraham’s contemplation of the promise. We come now to the command which subsequently came to him to sacrifice his son. We do not know how old Isaac was when the incident took place but we know that he was still a young boy ("a lad" - Genesis 22:5). The command came to him in these words: "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you". Genesis 22:2 The Qur’an also records this incident but suggests that the call to sacrifice came not by a direct command of God from heaven but through a vision. Abraham is recorded as saying to his son: O my son! I see in a vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view! Surah 37.102 The son replied: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: Thou wilt find me, if God so wills one practicing Patience and Constancy" (Surah 37.102). Both the Bible and the Qur’an relate that as he was about to perform the sacrifice God called out to him to stay his hand as he had already given sufficient proof of his love and devotion to God (Genesis 22:12, Surah 37.105). Abraham must have been struck with bewilderment when he first heard the command to sacrifice his son. We would dishonour Abraham as a real man of God if we were to suggest that he received this order without any emotional shock or immediate repulsion in his heart over what he was commanded to do. We cannot believe that such a father who loved his son so much could respond to the command with unaffected resignation or a straightforward complacency with the divine will. The very wording of the command shows that God did not expect it to be received without heart-rending astonishment but rather that he intended that Abraham should be shocked to the core of his great human soul. God deliberately placed emphasis on the nature of the price Abraham was to pay to fulfil this demand and quite clearly determined to test him to the extreme of his affections and love for his son and for his God: "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering. Genesis 22:2 What a tremendous trial of faith this was for Abraham. God put him to a severe threefold test - firstly to show his overriding love for God by giving that which was dearest to his heart and which could not be replaced, even his only son; secondly to maintain his trust in the absolute moral holiness and trustworthiness of God who he had hitherto believed would never will something that was evil or morally questionable; and thirdly to persevere in his faith in the steadfast faithfulness of God to his own promise that he would yet give him descendants through this son as many as the stars in the sky. For some real faith implies an unquestioning resignation to what appears to be the will of God, no matter how improbable or morally suspect the exercise of that will may appear to be. Abraham was not such a man. He could not summarily abandon himself to the command to sacrifice his son without considerable reflection on its implications and circumstances. God confronted him with this awful test of faith because God knew that this man would never go through with the command unless, as in the case of the birth of Isaac, he was fully convinced both of the moral excellence of the order and its thorough consistency with the promise that God would give him descendants as many as the stars in the sky. The greatness of this man’s faith is found in his refusal to believe anything unless it was credible - no matter who commanded it - and his determination to understand and recognise the credibility of that which appeared to be overpoweringly incredible - when the One who gave the command was the God in whose absolute holiness and faithfulness he had always trusted, the "Holy God who shows himself holy in righteousness" (Isaiah 5:16). God would have been most unimpressed with Abraham’s attitude if he had simply resigned himself to the divine will that his son should be sacrificed without any serious consideration of what was involved in the matter. God wanted him to explore at length the conciliation between the apparent horror of the command and the transparent eternal trustworthiness of the God who gave it - because through this he intended to reveal to him the glory of his salvation for all mankind which flesh and blood could never show him. 2. Abraham’s Contemplation of the Command. Abraham had reasoned very carefully about the promise that his wife would bear him a son. With this same inspired reasoning this man, who sought earnestly to gain as much understanding and knowledge as he could of the God he loved, through the commands and promises he was given, thought through the command to sacrifice his son according to the test God had set in a threefold form before him. The average Christian or Muslim is well aware of the nature of the first test. It was a test of Abraham’s love for God. He was called on to prove that his love for God was unsurpassed by his love for anything else by giving up that which was dearest to his heart, even his own son. God did not want his goods, possessions or material wealth, he required that which Abraham could neither replace nor substitute, something of his very own being, his son. Every Muslim will agree that God called for the sacrifice of his son because there was nothing more precious that he could forsake to prove his love for God. If there was, God would surely have asked it. Many are the Muslims who have said to me, "if a man will give his son for God, he will give anything for God". Because of his unfailing love for God Abraham duly stood the test and resolved to obey God and sacrifice his son. At this point, however, we come to the vital issue of the nature of Abraham’s response to the command insofar as Abraham’s faith is concerned. Up till now we have seen that this great prophet is marked in the Bible and the Qur’an, not so much as a man exemplified by his love for God (unparalleled as this is among ordinary mortals), but rather by his faith in God’s faithfulness. How does this relate to the command to sacrifice his son? We have already mentioned that God put Abraham through a threefold test. The first put the prophet on trial before God - did he love God above all else? The other two, however, put the faithfulness of God himself on trial before Abraham. The first related only to the nature of Abraham’s love for God. The other two related to the nature of God himself. The one was simply this - was the command to sacrifice morally justifiable and consistent with God’s own holiness? The other was how God’s promise to him that he would have descendants as many as the stars of the sky could be fulfilled. Let us proceed to consider each in turn. During his lifetime Abraham witnessed with moral abhorrence and repulsion the manner of the idol-worship of his contemporaries. To him the worship of idols was really offered to demons and the formalities of this worship confirmed his misgivings. The worst idolaters offered their sons up as sacrifices to idols and to Abraham this was the last word in human degradation and wickedness. In a later age Moses himself warned the people of Israel not to enquire how the other nations served their idols that they might imitate them: You shall not do so to the Lord your God; for every abominable thing which the Lord hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods. Deuteronomy 12:31 To him the worst abomination of the idolaters was their Custom of human sacrifice. Ahaz is recorded in the Bible as one of the worst kings of Judah and the one who led his own people into the worship of Baal, the great pagan idol of his time, even though his forefathers had resisted the temptation which had long overcome the kings of Israel. This indictment against him in Scripture includes the charge that he "burned incense in the valley of the son of Hinnom, and burned his sons as an offering, according to the abominable practices of the nations whom the Lord drove out before the people of Israel" (2 Chronicles 28:3). Now Abraham was confronted with a similar order to sacrifice his own son to the God he worshipped in spirit and in truth. How could he reconcile this command with his belief that God was absolutely moral and holy? Abraham did not have the low concept of God that some men have. To these God’s omnipotence allows him to do anything he pleases, no matter how arbitrary it may appear to be. To them any suggestion that God can do only what is morally and properly right is a restriction on his power to do anything he chooses. To Abraham such arbitrary acts, far from being proof of God’s power, would be evidence of a lamentable weakness in his character. How does the Muslim answer this question? How could God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice his son be consistent with his moral holiness and not be an imitation of the worst pagan excesses? As we have seen the Qur’an simply says that God commanded him Aslim - "Submit". Abraham’s reply was aslamtu - "I submit" (Surah 2.131). Did Abraham immediately come to heel out of an unquestioning obedience to the command? We regret to say that there is nothing in the Qur’an to suggest otherwise. All that the Qur’an says is that he put the command to his son to see if he was willing to go through with the ordeal. In the Qur’an it is significantly said that, after his son had given an indication of his acceptance of the command, they both submitted their wills (to God) (Surah 37.103). The word used for submitted is once again from the same three root letters (sin, lam and mim) as Islam and Muslim, namely aslamaa. This seems to be the sum of the Qur’an’s treatment of Abraham’s response to the command - an unquestioning resignation to the will of God. He did not enquire how the command could be reconciled with God’s holiness or what purpose it served, nor how the promise could yet be fulfilled. He simply took the command as it came and resolved to obey it, irrespective of the implications. A Western writer perhaps gets right to the root of the matter when he defines the character of Abraham’s faith in the Qur’an in the following words: The typical act of islam or ’resigning oneself to God’ was that of Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son in obedience to God though the act had no obvious utility. (Watt, Muhammad at Medina, p. 314). In the Christian Bible we find, on the other hand, that Abraham was a man who never simply submitted to God’s commands without enquiring in deep faith how these revealed or could be reconciled with his faithfulness. On a similar occasion, when God told him he was about to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham did not automatically submit in unthinking obedience to God’s word. Instead he reacted immediately against the word of God because it seemed to conflict with God’s faithfulness and righteousness. He replied: "Wilt thou indeed destroy the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; wilt thou then destroy the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked. Far be that from thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? Genesis 18:23-25. In a similar way Moses too reacted when God told him to let him consume the nation of Israel and let his wrath burn hot against it because of the golden calf the people had made and worshipped (Exodus 32:1-35). Moses responded: "O Lord, why does thy wrath burn hot against thy people, whom thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? Why should the Egyptians say, ’With evil intent did he bring them forth, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth’?" Exodus 31:11-12. Abraham and Moses were not the kind of men who believed that true submission to God consists in an unquestioning obedience to his will. God tested both of them with his intention to destroy the peoples of Sodom and Gomorrah and the nation of Israel respectively so that he could bring out of them a response of true, deep faith in his own faithfulness. Both men called on God to be true to his own righteous nature and how this exercise of faith must have delighted the Lord! He responded positively to both, promising Abraham that he would not destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah if he could find ten righteous men in them, and turning from the wrath he intended to pour upon those who had worshipped the golden calf. Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? - this was the hallmark of the character of Abraham’s faith in God and when he heard the command to sacrifice his son he did not simply obey unquestioningly. He had a high concept of God and believed that God was absolutely holy and righteous and that he bound himself accordingly to do only that which was morally right and proper at all times. In the circumstances he was constrained to reconcile in his mind the moral holiness of God and the apparent contradiction of it that confronted him in tie command to sacrifice his son. This brings us to the second test of his faith. He had to consider this command in the light of God’s promise that he would have descendants as many as the stars in the sky. How could God fulfil his promise if his son was to die and be cremated before he could bear any offspring and descendants? Abraham was confronted with a command which at face value was morally questionable and which made the earlier promise apparently devoid of any possibility now of fulfilment. But as he set about considering all this, he was destined to resolve this whole matter in such a way that he was to find the significance of the sacrifice far more astonishing than its immediate implications. He began by presuming that "Every word of God proves true" (Proverbs 30:5). Therefore that which appeared to be morally questionable must in some way be morally excellent - and he was determined to find out what that excellence was. Secondly that which now appeared to be beyond the possibility of fulfilment must in the providence of God yet be fulfilled - and with these reasonings Abraham sought out the meaning of the command he had been given. God at first had promised him a son through whom he was to have innumerable descendants. The promise consisted of two extremes - the birth of Isaac by God’s intervention at the beginning, and the countless descendants by his will and power at the end. In between these two suddenly came the command to sacrifice. Abraham could not believe that it was contrary to or destructive of the earlier promise he had received. God gave the promise - the same God gave the command to sacrifice. Because of his knowledge of God’s total consistency in his acts, Abraham believed that the command to sacrifice, rather than violating the promise, was inseparably linked to it. He concluded that the miraculous birth, the sacrifice and the descendants were all linked together and that somehow the promise of descendants was dependent upon and was to be fulfilled through the sacrifice of his son Isaac. The command to sacrifice seemed to come like a pair of scissors cutting the string that connected the promise of a son to the many descendants which were to follow. By exercising his faith in God he was to see, rather, that the command to sacrifice was really the two hands that joined the pieces of string together and gave meaning to the promises of a son and the blessing upon a multitude of descendants to come through him. When the command came to Abraham to offer his son up as a burnt offering he could well have pictured the smouldering ashes on the altar and a gust of wind coming down upon them, scattering them into the air. He might well have said to himself, "there goes the promise of God to the wind". At face value the pending sacrifice seemed to render the promise null and void. Yet it is here that Abraham’s developing process of faith was to come to a wondrous climax. Abraham could have reacted to God’s command in any one of four ways. He could have said to himself, "It seems God has forgotten his promise. Well, fourteen years is a long time and anyone can forget something in that time". Or he could have thought, "God has changed his mind. After all, he is God and can do what he likes. Perhaps my son has not come up to expectations and God has decided not to fulfil his promise". Virtually any Muslim will agree that Abraham, a man of faith, would never have believed such things. God neither forgets, nor does he fail to fulfil his promises (Joshua 21:45). The third reaction open to him was simply to say, "I do not know or understand how God can fulfil his promises if I must sacrifice my son, but if he so commands, I will simply obey". In this case, however, we have very much the Qur’an’s limited assessment of Abraham’s faith. Aslamyu - "I submit" - is the sole reaction of Abraham to God’s decree (Surah 2.131) - an uncomprehending submission, an unquestioning resignation. This is nothing more than what many call blind faith and we cannot accept that this was the full character of his faith, especially as it is set forth as a model for all believers. There remains a fourth possible reaction, and this is the one we eventually find in the great prophet, namely the one set out above. God, in his faithfulness, must yet fulfil his promise. His word must yet prove true. Although his son was to be sacrificed and reduced to ashes, somehow the promise that he was to have offspring as many as the stars of the sky must yet come to pass. Abraham was left, through his implicit faith in God’s faithfulness, that which alone is true faith, to contemplate, consider and work out just how the promise could yet be fulfilled. He therefore set about considering the possible ways in which he could yet have the descendants God had promised him. There was only one way that Isaac could beget offspring after he was sacrificed - by God raising him from the dead. Abraham had realised earlier that Isaac could only be born through the power of God who could cause things to exist that do not exist. Therefore he concluded that if God could create him out of nothing, he could also raise him from the ashes after he was sacrificed as a burnt offering. As Paul said of Abraham, he believed in God who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist (Romans 4:17). If God could give life to a body that was as good as dead because it was about a hundred years old, then he could also give life to the dead remains of his son Isaac. This is no speculation for the Bible expressly tells us that Abraham believed that his son would be raised from the dead: By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son, of whom it was said, ’Through Isaac shall your descendants be named’. He considered that God was able to raise men even from the dead; hence, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back. Hebrews 11:17-19. Although the Qur’an shows no appreciation of the deep character of Abraham’s implicit trust in God’s trustworthiness and his corresponding inclination to test all that God said to him against his assurance that the Judge of all the earth would always do what is right and that every word of his will always prove true, it paradoxically does confirm Abraham’s belief that God could raise the dead: Behold! Abraham said: My Lord! Show me how thou givest life to the dead. Surah 2.260 Abraham believed that God would raise Isaac from the dead. This resolved the apparent impossibility of the fulfilment of the promise. It also led to Abraham resolving the moral issue as well. Abraham considered that the Isaac who was to beget all these descendants was to be a risen Isaac - one who could, in a resurrected body, fulfil the promise of God. When Abraham reasoned that the remarkable promise of descendants was dependent upon the renewed, remarkable condition of the son who was to beget them, he saw at last the moral excellence of the command. Somehow, only through a resurrection and a body which had overcome death, could the promise be fulfilled. Abraham rejoiced before God as, in a wondrous triumph of faith, he resolved in his mind the moral excellence and consistent nature of the command he had received - and the God who had given it. He saw how the command he had received was inseparably linked to the promise rather than contrary to it as it at first had appeared. He used the same process of faith to discern that the hope of a multitude of descendants upon whom the blessing of God would rest was dependent upon his immediate offspring, the progenitor of his descendants, conquering death. When he originally received the promise, he considered his own body which was as good as dead . . . he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb (Romans 4:19), and now we read "he considered that God was able to raise men even from the dead" (Hebrews 11:19), and by this same process of reflection and contemplation against the assurance of God’s absolute faithfulness, he not only saw how the command could be reconciled with the promise but even how it in fact gave it its meaning and impetus. He saw how it was, in fact, the two hands that tied the two pieces together - the promise of a son and the ultimate blessing upon a multitude of descendants. 3. The Significance of the Sacrifice. This leads us to the climax of Abraham’s faith. We have already seen that he was designated the Friend of God because of his faith in God’s faithfulness and that he was made the father of many nations. We have also seen that, just as the moon at best can only partly reflect the sun’s light, so Abraham’s faith in God was only a limited reflection of God’s own faithfulness. Finally we have also seen that Abraham was a man who gave much consideration to whatever God told him. He therefore would have given much thought to this declaration: I have made you the father of many nations. Romans 4:17 Why, he reasoned, should he be made the father of the faithful and a leader for mankind as the Bible and the Qur’an jointly testify? There could only be one logical answer. God is the true Father of the faithful and Abraham’s high status could therefore only be seen as a reflection of God’s great glory in heaven. Abraham’s faith was a reflection of God’s faithfulness and the righteousness imputed to him was thus also only a reflection of God’s own righteousness. So likewise his position as a father of many nations could only be a reflection of God’s own honour as the Father of all true believers. By thus reasoning Abraham could draw only one further conclusion - everything proceeding from him was therefore also only a type and reflection of something greater yet to proceed from God himself. Thus his son, the unusual birth, the sacrifice, his son’s resurrection and the promise of a blessing through him upon a multitude of descendants were only a reflection of a greater reality yet to come. Abraham put it all together. The father was to have a son in this world born wonderfully of a woman by the Spirit and this son was to be a decidedly spiritual man all his days Before he could have any descendants he was to be sacrificed as an offering to God, struck down by the hand of his own father. But he would rise from the dead and the risen son would beget descendants of great number through whom the nations of the world would be blessed. By searching out the meaning of all this as he moved away from the reflection to the reality, Abraham was able to outline in his mind a glorious process of salvation that was to fill him with unspeakable joy. God, the true Father, was to send his own Son into the world, born miraculously of a woman by the power of the Holy Spirit, to be a man who would live solely by the Spirit he was to be born by - a man who would spiritually be the image of his eternal Father in every way. By his own eternally spiritual nature, he would transform men of all ages and in all nations from sinners of mere flesh and blood into saints of true spiritual dignity and would ultimately bring these offspring of the Spirit to eternal glory in the kingdom of God he had come to make available to them. But first he was to be sacrificed as an offering for sin. He was to burn within as he endured the wrath of God on behalf of sinners of every nation and in every age. He was to be struck down, not only physically at the hand of man, but spiritually by the hand of his own Father as he endured his wrath against the sins of men so that he might make a full atonement for them. The Son of God was to rise from the dead, however, and the risen Son was to make available to men of true faith the Spirit of God so that they might become not only children of Abraham through the manner of their faith but spiritually children of God through the saving reality of that faith. To put it in a nutshell, Abraham saw the whoIe of the Christian Gospel. By a faithful consideration of nothing more than two apparently contradictory divine statements, by exercising faith in "the unchangeable character of his purpose" (Hebrews 6:17), he worked out the whole plan of God’s salvation. This is no mere speculation. As Abraham and Isaac were walking to the place of sacrifice his son said to him: "Behold, the fire and the wood; but where is the lamb for a burnt offering"? Genesis 22:7 Abraham at last had to explain to Isaac that he was to be the sacrifice, but when he told him he added an assurance that shows he had perceived all that God was doing in this traumatic experience: God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son. Genesis 22:8 "My son, you are to be the sacrifice, you are to be the lamb we will offer up to God", Abraham was saying to him, "but take heart, all this is only a reflection. God will yet give of himself a lamb for an offering, a sacrifice for us". Abraham had perceived that all he was commanded to go through was simply a reflection of God’s coming salvation and that in the sacrifice of Isaac God was revealing to him and all his descendants that he was to send his own Son to die for the sins of the world. Through the experience of Abraham as a loving but suffering father, God sought to reveal a deep secret about himself and His beloved Son - His Word. In order to ransom the world from thraldom to sin, God had to pay the greatest price ever. It was the sacrificial and atoning death of his only Begotten Son who became flesh. The suffering of Abraham in connection with the expected sacrifice of his son was a mere shadowy and symbolic indication of the awesome mystery of the suffering of God due to human sin. (Abdul Haqq, Sharing your Faith with a Muslim, p. 148). Centuries later another prophet, fully conscious that he had been raised especially to reveal the Son of God to the world, when he saw Jesus coming towards him, cried out: "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" John 1:29 "God himself will provide the lamb for an offering", Abraham had declared, and when John beheld Jesus, he proclaimed "There is the Lamb of God who comes as an offering for the sins of the world" (cf. Isaiah 53:10). Abraham thus foresaw that the sacrifice of his son Isaac was only to be a type of the sacrifice of the Son of God who would likewise be offered so that a blessing could come upon his true offspring: Jesus carried the Cross as Isaac carried the wood up the holy mountain. Jesus was bound even as Isaac was bound before he was laid on the altar. (Zwemer, The Glory of the Cross, p. 47). To confirm finally that all we have been considering is not a speculation about what Abraham perceived through the command to sacrifice his son, let us hear Jesus himself in argument with the Jews about Abraham. When they declared that Abraham was their great forefather but that they did not know where he came from, Jesus replied: "Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad". John 8:56 "You do not know me, yet your father Abraham knew me", he declared, "and when he saw my day he was delighted". It is only in the reassuring words of Genesis 22:8, "God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son", that we can see how Abraham foresaw the coming of Jesus Christ as the Saviour of the world. Yet, as Abraham was about to slay his son in the hope that he would rise from the dead to typify the resurrection of the Son of God from the dead in an eternal victory over sin and death, a voice came from heaven, telling him to withhold his hand. As Isaac was one of those who was to become one of the objects of the atoning work of the Son of God, he could not ultimately be slain as his type. God only wanted a full shadow and reflection of the work of his Son to be formed in Abraham’s mind. But for the perfection of the type, it was necessary that something figuring the work of the Son of God should be sacrificed instead of (and indeed in place of) Isaac. So a lamb without blemish, caught in the thicket, was slain instead as God stopped the human sacrifice and deeply commended Abraham for his steadfast love and trust (Genesis 22:11-13). For the Lamb of God was to be caught in the thicket of sin as he died as a sufficient offering once for all for the sins of God’s true people. But, while he beheld by the eye of faith the redeeming work of the Son of God through whom all the nations would be blessed, Abraham once again was reminded of the great blessings God had promised to his descendants. When the sacrifice of the lamb was finally over, God said to him: "Because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies, and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves because you have obeyed my voice". Genesis 22:16-18. Abraham realised that those who were to be redeemed by the work of the Son of God were in some way to be his descendants as well. Abraham was promised that all the nations would be blessed through his son - and, although he had seen that Isaac was only a physical type of the true Saviour, yet he knew that the real, effective outworking of the promise had been made to his descendants through his son. Abraham realised that the Son of God according to the Spirit was to become his son according to the flesh - and that his real descendants were to be those who would obtain the blessings promised through faith in his greater son yet to be born. Abraham saw that his true offspring were not to be his sons by the flesh but his students by faith: It is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants. Romans 9:8 God had promised Abraham descendants "as many as the stars of heaven and as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore" (Hebrews 11:12). Were the latter not surely a reflection of the former? Both appear to be tiny specks to the human eye and both are too many to number. So the true children of God appear to be of the same stature today as the natural children of men and both are a great multitude. But what a vast difference there ultimately is between a grain of sand and a star. The first is really only a speck of dust on the earth, the second is a heavenly giant of unimaginable glory and splendour. Grains of sand are only feeble types of the splendid stars that shine in the heavens. So Abraham realised that his earthly descendants through his promised son Isaac, namely the Hebrew people, would only be an earthly shadow of the true children of God who would one day "shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father" (Matthew 13:43). He realised that he would have physical offspring through Isaac but that he would also have spiritual offspring through the one Isaac was representing and that they would have the same faith that had commended him to God. Abraham looked forward to the coming of Jesus, his greater son, to redeem the world from sin. It is for this reason that one of the first titles Jesus is given in the Gospels is "the son of Abraham" (Matthew 1:1). He is the ultimate Redeemer - the one who was to really bring about that which was prefigured in the sacrifice of Isaac many centuries earlier. Both Jesus and Isaac were properly descended from Abraham according to the promise but as Isaac was really only the son of Abraham, the reflection, so Jesus is ultimately the Son of God, the true Father of the faithful, the reality. 4. The Gospel that was Preached to Abraham. Abraham, who exercised his faith and reasoned deeply in his heart about the command to sacrifice his son, saw the salvation of God in one glorious comprehension of the significance of the sacrifice. He foresaw the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and knew that it was to be the Son of God who was to be made a sacrifice for sin so that the blessings promised to Abraham and his descendants might become real to men in all nations who would turn to faith in Jesus: That in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Galatians 3:14 God revealed to Abraham that he was to send his own Son Jesus Christ into the world, born of Abraham’s seed as his greater son, so that the blessings he had promised to all nations might take real effect through the saving death of his Son on the cross and his subsequent resurrection to glory and honour at the right hand of God. Let us, in conclusion, analyse how all we have considered can be turned into an effective witness to Muslims. We have stated that the best way to reach Muslims with the Gospel is to set it against the background of Muslims beliefs which we hold in common with them. Both Islam and Christianity hold that Abraham was "the Friend of God", that he was appointed a leader for mankind and the father of the faithful, and that his faith, his millah, is an example of true faith in all ages. Against that background Christians can show Muslims precisely what Abraham’s faith really was and how this led in time to a full appreciation of God’s coming salvation in Jesus Christ. The Eid-ul-Adha festival, commemorating as it does the sacrifice of Abraham’s son, is likewise a further point of contact where Christians can show Muslims just what was really happening when this great prophet prepared himself to lay his hand against his own son. The Eid sacrifice is an uncanny testimony in Islam to the ultimate truth of the Gospel. It is a notable fact and an enigma that while Mohammed professed to abrogate the Jewish ritual and ignored the doctrine of an atonement, even denying the fact of our Saviour’s crucifixion, he yet made the Day of Sacrifice the great central festival of his religion. (Zwemer, Islam: A Challenge to Faith, p. 114). Muhammad has thus become a witness to the doctrine of the Christian faith that "without shedding of blood, there is no remission". (Hughes, A Dictionary of Islam, p. 193). It is important at this point also to consider why the Qur’an claims that Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian (as we have seen in our study of Surah 3.67). The argument runs as follows: Ye People of the Book! Why dispute ye about Abraham, when the Law and the Gospel were not revealed till after him? Have ye no understanding? Surah 3.65 How could Abraham be a Jew when at-Tawraat, "the Law", was only revealed to Moses long after him? And how could he be a Christian when al-Injiil, "the Gospel", was only revealed at the time of Jesus yet many centuries later? Muhammad’s attitude was that the Kitab, the "Scripture", of each of the ahlal-Kitab, the "People of the Book", only came after Abraham and he could therefore not have been a Jew or a Christian. Nay, says the Qur’an, he was muslimean - "a Muslim" (Surah 3.67). The reasoning is extremely hard to follow. If Abraham could not have been a Jew or a Christian because the Tawraat and Injil were only revealed later, how could he have been a Muslim when the Qur’an, the Scripture of the Muslims, came yet later still? The great commentator Baidawi was not unaware of this obvious anachronism in Surah 3.65-67 and tried to get around it by commenting: Abraham in truth was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but a hanif, one who had kept away from false doctrine, surrendered to God (muslim), one who was led by God. This does not mean that Abraham belonged to the creed (milla) of Islam. If this were the claim, then the same refutation would apply. (Gatje, The Qur’an and its Exegesis, p. 100). The only way he could avoid the obvious refutation was to suggest that Abraham did not belong to the millah of Islam. In fact this is just what we have been saying. His millah, his faith and creed, were based on certain premises that led perforce to an anticipation of the whole Christian Gospel. But can we refute the claim that he could not have been a Christian if the Gospel only came later? Indeed we can, for it is written: And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed". Galatians 3:8 The Apostle Paul hits the nail on the head. The Gospel was preached beforehand to Abraham. To put it in Qur’anic terms, the Kitab preached the Injil beforehand to him in the promise that he would have so many descendants for, when this promise was linked to the command to sacrifice by Abraham, he was able by the eye of faith to perceive the whole of the Christian Gospel. Abraham’s faith was a reflection of true Christian faith. As he put his faith in God’s faithfulness and so foresaw the Gospel, so we too do not rely on our own works but trust in the faithfulness of God who sent his Son to save us from our sins. Just as Abraham’s faith was "counted to him as righteousness", so our faith in Jesus will be reckoned to us as righteousness as well. But the words, it was reckoned to him, were written not for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification. Romans 4:23-25. Just as Abraham became the Friend of God, so we too have been assured by Jesus that we are no longer called servants, "but I have called you friends" (John 15:15). True Christians are the true children of Abraham. But there remains one more thing to consider. God said to Abraham, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love" (Genesis 22:2). This called for the greatest manifestation of the love of Abraham for God - there was nothing greater that he could sacrifice to prove his surpassing love for God in heaven. He had to sacrifice something living that had come from him - something that would cost him far more than all his material possessions put together. There is ultimately only one reason for this - God did not ask him to sacrifice his son just to test his love for him - rather it was through this that God desired to impress on Abraham how great his love was for him and all mankind. He was to send his only Son into the world to become a sacrifice for Abraham and all mankind as a glorious manifestation of his infinite, undying love for wayward sinners. For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16 What greater sacrifice could a man make for God than to give his own son for him? What greater proof of God’s love for man can be found than this - that he gave his only Son to die for our sins? And God only required that Abraham should contemplate the sacrifice. But God himself actually went right through with his love for men by giving his Son to die for our sins so that we may obtain the opportunity to possess eternal life through faith in him. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. 1 John 4:9 (my emphasis). Just as Isaac willingly showed complacency with the will of God, so Jesus willingly of his own free will laid down his life for us. If God had redeemed us through anything he had created, it would have cost him nothing for he created it out of nothing. But God never asked any man to do more for him than he was prepared to do for men. He commanded Abraham to give up his own son who came from his own body. So God gave his own Son for us - one who was not created but whose blessed presence the Father had enjoyed from all eternity. What a wondrous proof of God’s love we have in this - that he gave his own Son to die for our sins. Abraham’s exercise of love for God through the sacrifice of his only son was a magnificent shadow of God’s love for us being made manifest through the sacrifice of his only Son. Could God have tested Abraham’s love for him any more deeply than he did by commanding him to give his son as a proof of his love? Could the deep love of God for us be proved in any way greater than this - that he gave his Son to save us from our sins? The command to sacrifice was merely a token and foreshadowing of God’s perfect love yet to be revealed through the gift of his Son Jesus Christ for us. In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the expiation of our sins. 1 John 4:10 I have often asked Muslims one simple question - what has God done to show his love for you? The answer is usually that he has given them children, good health, wealth, Islam, the Qur’an and the like. I have then asked if he has ever given them anything of himself by which he has paid a price to show his love for them. Has he ever done anything for the human race to-emulate Abraham’s supreme act of love and self-sacrifice in being willing to sacrifice his own son for God? Here the Muslim must fall silent. One of the great anomalies of the Eid-ul-Adha festival is that it commemorates an act of love by a man for God which, in its excellence, has no parallel from heaven in return. God has given man things - children, health, possessions, religion - but he has given him nothing of himself. It is like a man who bestows gifts upon his beloved but never gives himself to her in marriage. In the Eid sacrifice we see a man showing more love for God than God has ever shown for man. Not so in Christianity. The sacrifice of Abraham’s son was only a foreshadowing of the supreme manifestation of God’s love yet to come when he gave his Son as a sacrifice for us. Ask a Muslim this simple question - if the greatest way a man could show his love for God was to be willing to sacrifice his son for God, what is the greatest way God could ever show his love for us? There can only be one answer. Still it does not end there. God’s love for us in his Son Jesus Christ far outshadows Abraham’s love for him. On the one hand Abraham, a man of dust, was willing to give his son, also made of dust, for the God of glory in heaven. An obligation rested upon him to be obedient to God’s command. But what obligation was laid on the God of all glory in heaven to give his Son, who shares his glory to the full, for sinful men of flesh and blood on earth? On the other hand we must remember yet again that God spared the son of Abraham when the time finally came for him to be sacrificed. He did not spare his Son. He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him? Romans 8:32 Once a year the Muslim world remembers a man’s love for God in being willing to sacrifice his son for God - but every day of the year all true Christians honour God’s incomparable love in actually giving his Son for us. What a price God paid to secure our salvation - and that so that we could receive it as a gift! (Romans 6:23). In the Qur’an’s teaching about Abraham - that he was taken by God as a friend, that he was appointed both leader and father of the faithful, that his millah was an example of true faith, and that he was willing to offer his son as a sacrifice to God - Christians have tremendous material upon which to build the message of the Gospel. Here we have a glorious opportunity to show Muslims that Abraham was, at heart, a true Christian and that God’s love for the human race was fully revealed when he sent his Son Jesus Christ into the world to die for our sins. Here too we have many ways by which we can show Muslims wherein true faith consists - not in a blind, somewhat fatalistic resignation to God’s will, but in an enquiring spirit which seeks out the mind and will of God against the background of the assurance that God is absolutely faithful and that he will always do that which is right and true. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 118: 06.20. D. ISHAQ OR ISMAIL: THE MUSLIM DILEMMA. ======================================================================== D. ISHAQ OR ISMAIL: THE MUSLIM DILEMMA. 1. Ishmael: The Sacrificial Son in Islam. It is most unlikely that a Christian will be able to speak to Muslims directly of Isaac as the son whom God called on Abraham to sacrifice without some reaction from them. Virtually every Muslim will interject that it was Ishmael and that the attempted sacrifice took place at Mina a few miles north-east of Mecca. It is universally believed in the Muslim world today that when Abraham had a vision in which he saw himself sacrificing his son, that son was Ishmael, the son of his slave-woman Hagar. The whole story of Abraham and the sacrifice appears in just one passage in the Qur’an and we shall quote it in full. It begins with Abraham speaking: "O my Lord! grant me a righteous (son)!" So we gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear. Then, when (the son) reached (the age of serious) work with him, he said: "O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou wilt find me, if God so wills one practicing Patience and Constancy!" So when they had both submitted their wills (to God), and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice), We called out to him, "O Abraham! Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!" - thus indeed do We reward those who do right. For this was obviously a trial - and We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice: and We left (this blessing) for him among generations (to come) in later times: "Peace and salutation to Abraham!" Thus indeed do We reward those who do right. For he was one of Our believing Servants. And We gave him the good news of Isaac - a prophet, - one of the Righteous. We blessed him and Isaac: but of their progeny are (some) that do right, and (some) that obviously do wrong, to their own souls. Surah 37.100-113 . The argument from this passage that it was Ishmael (Ismail in Arabic) and not Isaac (Ishaq) rests principally on two premises, both of which are mentioned in this commentary on the passage which appears in a footnote in one of the very earliest English translations of the Qur’an: It is the most received opinion among the Mohammedans, that the son whom Abraham offered was Ismael and not Isaac; Ismael being his only son at that time; for the promise of Isaac’s birth is mentioned lower, as subsequent in time to this transaction. (Sale, The AlCoran of Mohammed, Vol. 2. p. 312). The first argument is that, as Ishmael was born before Isaac, Isaac could not be the son spoken of since God is recorded as commanding Abraham to sacrifice his "only son" (Genesis 22:2; Genesis 22:12), and this could only have been Ishmael at a time before Isaac was born as the latter could never have been called Abraham’s only son. The positive identification of the son as "your only son Isaac" in Genesis 22:2 is summarily brushed aside as a supposed Jewish corruption of the original command. The Muslim argument is typically set out in this comment: The Jewish tradition, in order to glorify the younger branch of the family, descended from Isaac, ancestor of the Jews, as against the elder branch, descended from Ismail, ancestor of the Arabs, refers this sacrifice to Isaac (Genesis 22:1-18). Now Isaac was born when Abraham was 100 years old (Genesis 21:5) while Ismail was born to Abraham when Abraham was 86 years old (Genesis 16:16). Ismail was therefore 14 years older than Isaac. During his first 14 years Ismail was the only son of Abraham; at no time was Isaac the only son of Abraham. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, p. 1205). The Bible shows quite plainly, however, that Hagar (Hajira in Islam), the mother of Ishmael, never was the wife of Abraham but only his slave-woman. It was only because Sarah herself could not bear children that she "took Hagar the Egyptian, her maid, and gave her to Abram her husband as a wife" (Genesis 16:3). The expression clearly means that she gave Hagar to her husband to cohabit with him and not as a second wife as Muslims often claim the verse implies. Rather, in all that is said before and after this text, Hagar is regarded as nothing more than the mistress of Sarah. "Go into my maid", Sarah urged (Genesis 16:2). When Hagar conceived and looked in contempt upon Sarah, Abraham responded, "Behold, your maid is in your power; do to her as you please" (Genesis 16:6). When Hagar was in the wilderness and an angel appeared to her, he called her "Hager, maid of Sarai" (Genesis 16:7) and told her "Return to your mistress and submit to her" (Genesis 16:9). A Muslim tradition confirms that Hagar was only a servant in Abraham’s household whom Sarah gave to him solely to bear him a son: Then he called Hajar who was the most trustworthy of his servants and he bestowed her (Hajar) on her (Sarah) and gave her clothes; subsequently Sarah made a gift of her (Hajar) to Ibrahim who cohabited with her and she bore Ismail who was the eldest of his children. (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 1, p. 41). Quite clearly Hagar never was regarded as the wife of Abraham but only as the maid of his wife Sarah. Thus it was quite proper for God to speak of Isaac as Abraham’s only son, namely his only legitimate son of his wife Sarah, more particularly as Ishmael had many years parted from him (Genesis 21:14) with his mother Hagar. It is ironic to find Muslims endeavouring to fault the plain Biblical declaration that the son to be sacrificed was Isaac in the light of the very important fact that the Qur’an does not say which son was to be sacrificed. Every Muslim reader of the Qur’an will search in vain for the name of Ishmael in the passage quoted (Surah 37.100-113) where the story of the sacrifice is told. No Muslim can sincerely make a dogmatic statement that it was Ishmael in the light of the Qur’an’s complete silence on the actual identity of the son. The Jewish Scriptures make it quite plain that it was Isaac. God said to Abraham: "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you. Genesis 22:2 In the same way the Christian Scriptures also positively identify the son whom Abraham was commanded to sacrifice as Isaac. The following two passages prove the point: By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son, of whom it was said, "Through Isaac shall your descendants be named". Hebrews 11:17-18. Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? James 2:21 In all these passages it is quite plainly stated that Abraham offered up Isaac on the altar, yet in the only passage in the Qur’an where the sacrifice is covered, there is no mention of the identity of the son. Thus there is a double testimony in the Bible, both from the Jewish and Christian Scriptures that the son to be sacrificed was Isaac, whereas there is no such testimony in the Qur’an that it was Ishmael. This led to wide disagreement among the early Muslim commentators as to the identity of the son. Although for purposes of expediency today the Muslim world unanimously acknowledges Ishmael as the sacrificial son, there was much dispute in the early days of Islam on the subject with many renowned commentators accepting that it was Isaac. A Muslim writer candidly admits: The Qur’an did not mention the name of the sacrificial son, and hence Muslim historians disagree in this regard. (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, p. 25). No such disagreement has ever existed in Judaism and Christianity. It is universally believed without dissent that it was Isaac. It is only in Islamic history that one finds confusion regarding the identity of the son who was commanded to be sacrificed. The omission of the name of the son in the Qur’an is a strange anomaly if it was supposed to be Ishmael. If Allah is the author of the Qur’an as Muslims claim, surely he must have known that it was emphatically taught in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures and universally believed that it was Isaac. Surely he would have corrected the error with an equally emphatic statement in the Qur’an that it was Ishmael. In the light of the prevailing belief that it was Isaac, the vagueness in the Qur’an regarding the identity of the son is inexplicable if it was Ishmael. After all, Ishmael is named directly as Allah’s helper in the building of the Ka’aba in the Qur’an (Surah 2.127). Is not the omission of his name in Surah 37 all the more significant, especially as the Surah covers a number of the stories of the prophets who are all mentioned by name? Of even further significance is the complete absence of any mention of Hagar in the Qur’an, even of the slightest allusion to her. One writer states: It is strange that the name of Hagar should not be mentioned in the Qur’an. (Stanton, The Teaching of the Qur’an, p. 46). In actual fact, the Qur’an has no reference to her whatsoever, let alone by name. In this section we shall shortly see that the Qur’an speaks plainly of Isaac’s mother as the wife of Abraham, the only wife of the prophet to whom there is any reference. Is not the complete silence in the Qur’an about Hagar, the mother of Ishmael, a testimony to the fact that Sarah alone was the wife of Abraham and that Hagar was merely her mistress? The Muslim argument that Ishmael was the sacrificial son quite clearly has no solid evidence to substantiate it. The plain statements in the Bible that it was Isaac must obviously be preferred to the Qur’an’s nebulous and at times confusing treatment of the identity of the son whom Abraham was commanded to sacrifice. The second argument is that the story of the proposed sacrifice precedes the statement, "And we gave him the good news of Isaac - a prophet, - one of the Righteous. We blessed him and Isaac" (Surah 37.112-113). It is argued that the preceding narrative must therefore refer to another son of Abraham, obviously Ishmael. On the other hand the very mention of Isaac at this crucial point by name throws all the more confusion on the section that precedes it. It is hard to believe that it refers to Ishmael when Isaac is promptly mentioned twice by name in the very next verses that follow it. In fact there are remarkable similarities between the passage on the command to sacrifice and the mention of Isaac by name in the following verses. Firstly we read that the son to be sacrificed was promised to Abraham: Fabash-sharnaahu bighulaamin haliim - We announced to him an upright boy (Surah 37.101); and we read further that Isaac was specifically promised to him by name: Fabash-sharnuahu bi-Ishaaq - We announced to him Isaac (Surah 37.112). Nowhere in the Qur’an is it ever similarly stated that Ishmael was promised to Abraham. Secondly there is a clear symmetry between these words: Falammaa aslamaa - when they had both submitted (Surah 37.103), and Wa baaraknaa alayhi wa alaa Ishaaq - And we blessed him and Isaac (Surah 37.113). As Abraham and Isaac had both fully submitted themselves to God’s will that the one should sacrifice the other, it was only reasonable that God’s blessing should come upon them both. It is significant that there is no word in the text, such as thumma ("then"), between the story of the sacrifice and the mention of Isaac to distinguish the two or give them a different time period. The Muslim argument that Ishmael must have been the sacrificial son because the story of the sacrifice precedes the mention of Isaac is shown to be highly vulnerable upon closer analysis. Certainly the complete omission of Ishmael’s name in the passage considerably undermines the dogmatic contemporary Muslim claim that he was the son who was commanded to be sacrificed. 2. The Promise of a Son to Abraham in the Qur’an. Earlier in this chapter we quoted Surah 11.71 which states that God gave to Abraham’s wife glad tidings of Isaac, and after him, of Jacob. As the son is specifically named as Isaac there can be little doubt as to the identity of his mother. Yusuf Ali has no difficulty identifying her as Sarah (The Holy Qur’an, p. 533), and Muhammad Asad likewise, in his commentary’ names the wife spoken of as Sarah (The Holy Qur’an, p. 326). The whole text reads, in Arabic, Wamra’atuhuu qua ’imatun fadhahikat, fabash-sharnaahaa bi-Ishaaq - And his wife was standing there and laughed, but we announced to her Isaac (Surah 11.71). The word for wife in this text, imra’ah, is in the singular. Now if Hagar had also been one of Abraham’s wives, surely the text would have said "one of his wives", or it would positively have identified her as "his wife Sarah". When it purely speaks of Abraham’s wife in the singular, however, without any form of identification, it is quite clearly implied that Abraham had only one wife and that his wife was Sarah. When the promise of Isaac came to Abraham and Sarah, Ishmael had already been born, and the mention of Sarah at this point as Abraham’s only wife is a clear testimony that Hagar was not one of his wives. We also note once again that there is no mention of Hagar in the Qur’an whatsoever, a strange omission if she also was a wife of Abraham. In fact no one reading through the Qur’an without reference to any other work could possibly guess that there was another woman in Abraham’s life. The only such woman mentioned is described as the single wife of Abraham and she is expressly described as the mother of Isaac. If, therefore, Sarah is mentioned in the Qur’an alone as the wife of Abraham and is also so described in the Bible, can there be any further objection to the description of Isaac as "your only son" in Genesis 22:2 when the command comes to Abraham to sacrifice him? If Sarah is the only legitimate wife of Abraham, is it not perfectly in order to describe her son Isaac as Abraham’s only son as well? This matter begs further scrutiny. We must bear in mind that a promise was made to Abraham that he would bear a son through his wife. In the Bible the promise comes directly by the Word of God to Abraham (Genesis 17:19), whereas in the Qur’an it comes through the heavenly messengers who have come to destroy the people of Lot (Surah 11.70). In both cases, however, it is the express promise of God that a son would be born to Abraham and that the son would be Isaac. In Surah 15. 53 the narrative is repeated and the promise of a son again appears, though this time Isaac is not mentioned by name. The same goes for Surah 51.28-29 where once again the promise of a son to Abraham’s only wife (again imra ’ah in the singular) is repeated. Once again Yusuf Ali, in a footnote, takes it to be Sarah (The Holy Qur’an, p. 1424). Finally, as we have seen, the promise of a son to Abraham appears again at the introduction of the story of the sacrifice (Surah 37.101) and a little lower down the promised son is again specifically named Isaac (Surah 37.112). There can be no doubt that Isaac is the only son promised to Abraham in the Qur’an and he must therefore be identified as the intended sacrificial son. Ishmael is nowhere mentioned as the child of promise. (Wherry, A Comprehensive Commentary on the Qur’an, Vol. 2, p. 360). As Sarah alone is mentioned in the Qur’an and as the single wife of Abraham, it is surely too hard to believe that God would announce to him the birth of a ghulamin halimin, a righteous boy (Surah 37.101), by an illegitimate union with a slave woman, especially as no mention whatsoever of this woman appears in the Qur’an. The only son promised to Abraham in the Qur’an is Isaac and, as Surah 37.102 makes it quite plain that it was this very same promised son who was to be sacrificed, the only reasonable conclusion we can draw is that the Qur’an takes no issue with the Bible on the specific identification of the sacrificial son as Isaac. It is only the popular sentiment of the Muslims that it was Ishmael and that for obvious reasons. We have shown just how the promise of a son to Abraham was inextricably linked to the subsequent command to sacrifice him and how Abraham, through a deliberate consideration of all that was involved against the background of God’s unchanging faithfulness, foresaw the coming of the Son of God into the world together with his sacrificial death and subsequent resurrection. The Arab nation to this day proudly claims to be Ishmael’s race, Abraham’s descendants according to the flesh, followers of Ishmael’s physical offspring Muhammad. May God grant us so to witness to them that many may yet become Abraham’s true descendants according to the promise, spiritual offspring of his son Isaac who was born of the Spirit and through whom alone God made his covenant (Genesis 17:21). May they thus become followers of the true Son of Abraham, Jesus Christ, whom God has set forth as the one and only true Saviour of all men, and whom Isaac prefigured. "Now we, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise ... we are not children of the slave but of the free woman" (Galatians 4:28; Galatians 4:31). 3. Isaac: The True Child of the Promise. Many writers have concluded from the passage in the Qur’an outlining the command to sacrifice (Surah 37.100-113) that the son spoken of can only be Isaac. A well-known student of Islam declares that "from the text there would seem little doubt but that Isaac was intended" (Hughes, A Dictionary of Islam, p. 216), and another says that Abraham "is granted a son and is ready to sacrifice him as in the biblical story, and this child is to all appearance Isaac, the righteous son wonderfully born to him" (Stanton, The Teaching of the Qur’an, p. 46). As pointed out already, a number of the earliest Muslim traditions likewise duly make Isaac the sacrificial son. As the Kur’an verse above quoted does not state which son was to have been sacrificed, many Muslim theologians refer the intended sacrifice to Isma`il ... But it may be said that the oldest tradition - al-Tha`labi expressly emphasises the ashab and tabi`un, i.e. the Companions of the Prophet and their successors from `Umar b. al-Khattab to Ka`b al-Ahbar - did not differ from the Bible on this question. (Gibb and Kramers, A Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, p. 175). Although the great scholar al-Baidawi is recorded in Islamic history as one of those preferring Ishmael, he states in his commentary (tafsir) on the story of Joseph in the Qur’an (Surah 12), while commenting on the passage which says that God will perfect his favour on Joseph "even as he perfected it to thy fathers Abraham and Isaac aforetime!" (Surah 12.6), that God thus perfected it on Abraham by taking him as a ’friend’ (khalil) and by delivering him from the fire (Surah 37.97-98), and that he perfected it on Isaac by delivering him from the Sacrifice and by ransoming him with a great victim (Gatje, The Qur’an and its Exegesis, p. 107). Thus even the great commentator al-Baidawi taught quite explicitly that the intended son was Isaac. When God originally promised a son to Abraham, that son was Isaac. Abraham acted foolishly in taking his slave-woman and in bearing a son, Ishmael, through her. Nothing could frustrate the purposes of God, however, and in due course God renewed the promise, stating specifically that the son would be born of his wife Sarah. When Abraham pleaded that Ishmael might find favour before him, God deliberately refused as he had not been conceived according to the promise but only according to the flesh. God said to Abraham: "No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him and make him fruitful and multiply him exceedingly; he shall be the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this season next year". Genesis 17:19-21. Isaac was thus the true child of the promise. One often finds in Muslim writings a reference to the passage above in which Ishmael is yet promised a blessing, that he would multiply, and that he would become a great nation. Invariably this promise is taken to be a hint of the coming of Muhammad and the greatness of Islam but, in every case, the succeeding words, but I will establish my covenant with Isaac, are subtly omitted (so Tabari, The Book of Religion and Empire, p. 78). This qualifying clause shows plainly that Ishmael was only promised earthly blessings in this world as long as it shall last, but that God’s eternal covenant would be fulfilled through Isaac. No, said God to Abraham when the latter pleaded for Ishmael. God purposed to fulfil his word through Isaac for it was to be Abraham’s greater son, Jesus Christ, who was to come through Isaac’s line, that would bring the fulness of God’s salvation into the world, and not Muhammad, descended from the son of Abraham’s slave-woman, Ishmael. All of God’s eternal favours, therefore, every one of them, were to come through Isaac’s line and it is therefore not surprising to find that virtually all the prophets came from his offspring until, finally, the Son of God himself came to fulfil God’s promises to Abraham. It is well known that the long line of prophets referred to in the Qur’an were mostly descended from Isaac and not from Ishmael, and the reason is not far to seek, for Isaac, according to both Bible and Qur’an, was the ’Son of Promise’, a ’Gift’ from God. Ishmael, on the other hand, as we learn from the Tourat, was the son of the bond-maid Hagar and is, consequently, nowhere in the Qur’an spoken of as a ’Gift’ from God. (Goldsack, Christ in Islam, p. 4). There is yet another text in the Qur’an which testifies to the preference of God for Isaac and his offspring as the medium of his coming salvation rather than Ishmael’s line. It is most significant to find the Qur’an once again taking no issue with the Bible and we read: And We gave (Abraham) Isaac and Jacob, and ordained among his progeny Prophethood and Revelation, and we granted him his reward in this life: and he was in the Hereafter (of the company) of the Righteous. Surah 29.27 Yusuf Ali’s translation is not strictly correct. The text says that God placed the Nubuwwah and the Kitaab, the Prophethood and the Scripture, into Isaac’s line, and in another place the Qur’an says that al-Nubuwwah, the Prophethood, was expressly given to the Children of Israel (Surah 45.16). As Goldsack goes on to say: Where, we would ask our Muslim friends, is it stated either in the Qur’an or the Bible in connection with Ishmael that God would place in the descendants of Abraham the gift of prophecy? Does not the verse of the Qur’an quoted above show at the very outset of our study that it is in the Bani Israel, that is, the line of Isaac, that the world would be blessed, and is it not abundantly clear that Jesus Christ, Son of Mary, was born in that line? (Goldsack, Christ in Islam, p. 5). The Qur’an’s own teaching to a large extent underlines the superiority of Isaac over Ishmael and God’s choice of his line for the fulfilment of his eternal promises. This leads perforce to the conclusion that it was Isaac who was commanded to be sacrificed as a sign of the coming sacrifice of Abraham’s greater son, Jesus Christ, who would thereby open the doors of God’s salvation to the world. As Isaac was preferred over Ishmael, so till the end of time Jesus Christ must be preferred over Muhammad. The Qur’anic passage covering the command to Abraham to sacrifice his son remains enigmatic to any genuine analysis of its contents. The son to be sacrificed is not named, yet Isaac is promptly named twice in the immediately succeeding verses. What really is behind the somewhat vague and unspecific nature of this passage? One writer has a very interesting perspective on it. He begins by asking: Why does he not name the elder son? The answer is plain. Mohammed was perfectly aware, even before he began preaching in public, that Abraham’s first-born son, Ishmael, was the father of the Arabs. (Torrey, The Jewish Foundation of Islam, p. 90). He goes on to say that Muhammad may well have been aware that Ishmael is an "utterly insignificant figure, an unworthy son" of Abraham in the Jewish Scriptures. He may thus have wished to suggest that the intended sacrificial son was Ishmael and so placed the narrative before his mention of Isaac by name, leaving the impression that another son was intended. Yet, probably being aware further that Isaac is specifically stated to be the intended son in both the Jewish and the Christian Scriptures, Muhammad was careful to avoid naming the son in the Qur’an and left the whole matter purposefully ambiguous. Torrey adds: He leaves out the name, but this is not all. The mention of Isaac is introduced after the concluding formula (vss. 109-111) which runs through the chapter, and without any adverb of time (such as thumma); and thus he completely avoids unnecessary trouble either with the Jews who were his instructors or with his own few followers. The whole passage is a monument to his shrewd foresight, a quality which we are liable constantly to underestimate in studying his method of dealing with the biblical narratives (Torrey, The Jewish Foundation of Islam, p. 90). There appears to be much food for thought in this argument and it perhaps explains the ambiguity in the Qur’an regarding the identity of the son who was to be sacrificed. In any event the somewhat confusing and vague treatment of the subject in the Qur’an compares most unfavourably with the express and clear statements in the Bible that it was Isaac, and the many evidences we have considered show that this is, in fact, the only reasonable conclusion one can draw. Not only so, but if Isaac is overlooked as the intended son, the whole character of the event as a type and symbol of the coming work of God’s own Son is missed completely and, with it, the hope of eternal life. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 119: 06.21. THE UNIQUENESS AND TITLES OF JESUS IN ISLAM ======================================================================== The Uniqueness and Titles of Jesus in Islam ======================================================================== CHAPTER 120: 06.22. A. JESUS' BIRTH, ASCENSION AND SECOND COMING. ======================================================================== A. JESUS’ BIRTH, ASCENSION AND SECOND COMING. 1. The Uniqueness of Jesus in the Qur’an. In an earlier chapter we considered the two great denials in the Qur’an regarding the person of Jesus Christ, namely his deity and his crucifixion, and suggested that in one sense Islam and Christianity are as far apart from each other as the east is from the west. To the extent that the Qur’an bluntly denies that Jesus is the Lord and Saviour of all men it most assuredly sets Islam in direct opposition to Christianity and makes the Muslims perhaps the hardest people on earth to reach with the Gospel. For Islam is the only major world religion which embodies within its own sacred writ a defiant rejection of the Gospel’s two major pillars. When I first read the Qur’an many years ago I was struck by these two denials very forcibly as I am sure any Christian would be on reading the book for the first time. It seemed to stand as an uncompromising, unhelpful barrier in the way of the Gospel. In later years, however, as I studied the Qur’an more comprehensively, I began to realise that there was in fact a tremendous amount of material in its teaching about Jesus that could assist Christians to witness effectively to Muslims. The only two negative aspects of this teaching are the two denials we have already considered. The rest is all positive and much vital Biblical teaching about Jesus is repeated in the Qur’an. The virgin-birth, sinlessness, ascension and second coming of Jesus are all mentioned in the book and are basic Islamic doctrines There are other teachings which, together with a series of very meaningful titles given to Jesus, make the final image of the man far superior to the dogma that he was nothing more than a prophet. Even a cursory analysis of the whole perspective of Jesus in the Qur’an must lead to the conclusion that he was far greater than the other prophets and that he was unique among men. We shall see just how effectively these teachings can be used in Christian witness to Muslims. Even as the Muslim concedes the miraculous birth, the fact of Jesus’ sinless nature, his great miracles, his ascent to and residence in heaven, and his impending return, he says that Jesus is nothing but a prophet! (Robertson, Jesus or Isa, p. 8). Whereas the Qur’an dogmatically states Maal Masiihubnu Maryama illa rasuul - "Verily the Messiah, son of Mary, was nothing more than a messenger" (Surah 5.78), it nevertheless concedes so much to the Biblical Jesus that one can only conclude that the real Jesus was far more than just a prophet. Incontestably the Christology of the Qoran accords to Jesus a place apart amongst all the prophets. It only avoids with more solicitude, however, everything which would place Him above humanity to the detriment of monotheistic dogma. (Lammens, Islam: Beliefs and Institutions, p. 52). The end result in the Qur’an, however, is that its image of Jesus does not coincide with its dogma. It denies his deity and crucifixion clearly enough yet, in its acceptance of Jesus’ unique birth, ascension and second coming and in some of the exclusive titles it attributes to him, it most certainly contradicts itself. These features and titles lose their meaning when Jesus is no longer acknowledged as the Lord and Saviour of the world. They seem to have no real significance and one finds Muslim writers more eager to explain them away than to truly understand their implications. When the engine is removed from a motor car the steering mechanism, brakes, wheels and other working parts lose their meaning and purpose. We shall see that, once Jesus is no longer believed to be the Son of God and the Saviour of the world, all the attendant unique features of his life become enigmatic and meaningless as well. And yet there seems to be something lacking in the portrait of Jesus which emerges from the Qur’an. As one puts together the disparate elements spread over several Suras, the picture seems shadowy and incomplete: we are left with a Christ who is enigmatic and puzzling. It is as if there were a missing chapter in the account. (Scale, Qur’an and Bible, p. 112). Nevertheless the Qur’an imposes on the adherents of Is lam the duty to believe in many of the unique features of his life. It is at times quite ironic to find Muslim publications vigorously defending the virgin-birth, ascension and second coming of Jesus Christ as Qur’anic facts which no pious Muslim should dare challenge, when there is clearly no real understanding of the meaning and implications of these unique features. The facts are simply vindicated while they must surely remain a mystery to those who defend them. If one sought a single justification for the Christian mission to Islam one might well be content to find it in the Quranic picture of Jesus of Nazareth. It is not sim ply what the picture fails to tell, vast as that is, but also what it disallows. Worse than the silence are the vetoes. A partial portrait can be filled out. But what if it has negated in advance its own completion? For love of Christ retrieval must be made. (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 261). We need not lament, however, the apparent meaninglessness of the Qur’an’s teaching about the unique features of Jesus’ life and the exclusive titles it gives him, nor should we despair at its blunt denials of the two most important tenets of the Christian faith. In the section in which we analysed Paul’s approach to the Athenian Gentiles we saw that he did not hesitate to use the proverbs of their own poets to strengthen his own message, and there is perhaps no more opportune example of how this approach can be applied to Muslim evangelism than the Qur’an’s positive teaching about Jesus. We need to perceive the uniqueness and titles of Jesus in the Qur’an as stepping-stones to the Gospel. Here we have a golden opportunity to set the truth of the Gospel against the background of the Muslim’s own beliefs about him. By analysing the implications and significance of the unique features of his life and the titles applied to him, we can lead the Muslim on to see the fuller truth and light of the Gospel There is no better way of preaching Christ to Moslems than by beginning with the testimony of the Koran to Jesus. (Zwemer, The Moslem Christ, p. 122). Even in the early days of Islam Christian theologians saw the advantages present in the teachings of the Qur’an about Jesus which coincided in principle with relevant Biblical teachings. Pere Nau, a French Jesuit based for many years in Syria, saw the Qur’an not as a thoroughly hostile barrier to the Gospel but as a potential instrument to verify much of its essence. He manifested a genuine concern for the Muslims although he lived in times when current opinion was generally hostile towards Islam (the seventeenth century), and stated that he believed that those who were willing to deal with Muslims in a spirit of humility and gentleness would find that it was invariably possible to engage in useful debate and discussion with them. In the same spirit he saw the Qur’an: His treatment of the Qur’anic text is relatively sympathetic; his is the theme first enunciated by St. John Damascene, that Christian truth lies implicit in the Qur’an, waiting only to be drawn out of it; and he draws it, sometimes, with delicacy. (Daniel, Islam and the West, p. 285). In this whole chapter we shall endeavour to comprehensively cover this subject and in this first section shall look primarily at the unique features surrounding the beginning and end of Jesus’ first sojourn on earth and those attending his second advent. Although the exclusive sinlessness of Jesus Christ is also relevant to this subject, it has already been dealt with on pages 273-283 of the companion volume to this book, Muhammad and the Religion of Islam, to which readers are referred. 2. The Virgin-Birth of Jesus Christ. One of the most important points of agreement between Islam and Christianity concerns the conception of Jesus. Both the Qur’an and the Bible teach that he was conceived of a woman only, his mother Mary, before she had known any man. The virgin-birth of Jesus, taught so plainly in the Bible, is no less clearly taught in the Qur’an. In his Gospel Matthew (1.18-25) states that he was conceived in Mary of the Holy Spirit in fulfilment of a prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 ("a virgin shall conceive and bear a son"), while Luke also records the unusual conception, stating unambiguously that Mary was a virgin whom no man had touched when Jesus was conceived in her by the power of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:26-35). In the Qur’an likewise we find much the same teaching. In one passage we read: Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to God; He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous". She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: God createth what He willeth: when He hath decreed a Plan, He but saith to it, ’Be’, and it is!" Surah 3.45-47. Another passage also records the visitation of an angel to Mary and the response which she gave him when he announced to her the conception of Jesus: Then We sent to her Our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects. She said: "I seek refuge from thee to (God) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou cost fear God". He said: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son". She said: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?" He said: "So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, ’That is easy for Me : and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us’: it is a matter (so) decreed". Surah 19.17-21. In both the Christian and Muslim worlds there have been attempts to explain away the plain teachings of the Bible and the Qur’an regarding the virginal-conception of Jesus - invariably on rationalistic grounds only - but the overwhelming majority in both religions to this day acknowledge the phenomenon. A well-read Turkish Muslim writer once said: There has never been a Moslem sect which doubted the fatherless birth of Jesus. All sects, persons, doctors, commentators, orthodox and heretic, have been unanimous in accepting the miraculous birth of Jesus. (Effendi in "The Problem of the Birth of Jesus", The Muslim World, Vol. 15, p. 230). Opponents of the doctrine of the virgin-birth of Jesus in Islam have always been rigidly withstood by Muslim scholars of the orthodox school. Even though Indian and Pakistani scholars like Ghulam Parwez and Ahmad Khan denied the virgin birth, others were quick to rally to its defence, one of whom was the great scholar Abul-Kalam Azad. Azad shows that nowhere in the Koran the doctrine of the Virgin Birth is contested. Of course, so he continues, it is possible "to claim the opposite by tearing verses out of their context", as Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Dr. Tawfiq Sidqi and others tried, but if one bears the context in mind, "one must acknowledge without hesitation that the Koran accepts the dogma". (Baljon, Modern Muslim Koran Interpretation, p. 70). It is certainly difficult to see how the response of Mary to the angel’s announcement, "how can I have a son when no man has touched me?" (Surah 3.47, 19.20), can be fairly interpreted in any other way than the obvious one - that she was still a virgin. Indeed, if Mary had conceived by another man, it would hardly have been necessary for an angel to appear to her to explain the conception she was about to experience! The regular occurrence of the title "son of Mary" in the Qur’an (Surah 3.45, etc.) also strongly supports the conclusion that she conceived Jesus without the agency of a human father for men were almost always named after their fathers in historical times. Yet another passage in the Qur’an emphasises this fact equally forcefully: And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our Spirit, and We made her and her son a Sign for all peoples. Surah 21.91 The emphasis on "her and her son", who was brought into being within her by the inbreathing of God’s Spirit in a miraculous way, without any reference to a human father, cannot be easily avoided. It is also most significant to find that Mary is the only woman mentioned by name in the whole of the Qur’an and on so many occasions that a whole Surah (the nineteenth) is named after her, being entitled Suratu-Maryam. In the Qur’an the names of woman are otherwise conspicuous only by their absence. It seems logical to conclude that the mother of Jesus is mentioned by name so regularly chiefly because of her significant place in human history as the only woman to bear a son while still a virgin. It is another mystery of the Qur’an that no woman has been named in that sacred Book except Mary. God created the first woman in the world through the rib of Adam but even the name of this mother of mankind is not mentioned in the Qur’an. She is merely termed as ’wife of Adam’ while Mary has been so much venerated and respected that even Chapter XIX of the Qur’an has been entitled after her name. (Deshmukh, The Gospel and Islam, p. 187). Nonetheless, although this phenomenon is so emphatically admitted in the Qur’an, the book attempts no real explanation of it. The Qur’an merely states that it came about through God’s decree, Kun fayakuun - "’Be’, and it comes to be" (Surah 3.47). Muslims generally take it to be nothing more than a somewhat arbitrary manifestation of God’s power for which no reason can or should be sought. The Qur’an itself seems to be more concerned about explaining away any unique meaning behind the virgin-birth rather than revealing wherein its uniqueness consists when it says: The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be", and he was. Surah 3.59 In consequence Muslims argue that if the creation of Jesus without a father is a unique phenomenon, then the creation of Adam without a father or a mother must surely be regarded as even more unique. Sayyid Effendi, quoted earlier, says on this point: Because of this strange fact the Christians have thought of Him to be the Son of God. Yet He cannot necessarily be so. He can only be like Adam. Adam also was created of dust by the word of God. Moreover Adam had no mother also, and therefore he is still more wonderful than Jesus. As Adam cannot be called the Son of God because of his having been created without a father or mother, likewise Jesus also, who was only without a father cannot be called the Son of God. (Effendi in "The Problem of the Birth of Jesus", The Muslim World, Vol. 15, p. 228). A Christian can readily agree that the virgin-birth, as an expression of God’s power, is indeed no more wonderful than the creation of Adam. It can even be said that it required a negligible exercise of this power in comparison with the creation of Adam, but this tends to suggest all the more that there was some other specific reason for it. Adam was created without father or mother as the first man on earth and so could not have had earthly parents. Someone had to be created first. On the contrary Jesus was born without a father when God’s natural process of procreation had long been in existence. What reason was there for this unique conception? The comparison with Adam does not answer this question at all. No other prophet has been thus miraculously born into the world. Adam, it is true, was created without father or mother. Such an act of creation was necessary in the beginning of the world; but here we see (in the case of Jesus) God interrupting the course of nature, and overriding the very laws of procreation which He had Himself established, in order that Christ might thus have a virgin birth. Surely such an act could not have been meaningless: rather we know that it points to the great fact that Jesus Christ held a special relationship to the Deity which is shared by no other prophet. (Goldsack, Christ in Islam, p. 7). In the same way the argument that Jesus was conceived of a mother only purely as a demonstration of God’s power fails to provide any hint as to the real meaning and purpose behind the event. Unlike other signs which were so manifest that those who beheld them could not deny them, such as the raising of Lazarus (John 11:47) and the healing of the lame man outside the Temple (Acts 4:16), there was no visible proof or evidence to substantiate the virgin-birth. Unmarried women throughout history have become mothers - what proof could Mary give in the miracle itself to show that she had in fact maintained her purity and innocence? (The Qur’an itself appears to be totally aware of this and vindicates Mary purely by another miracle - the voice of the baby child Jesus speaking ii her defence from his cradle - Surah 19.27-30). A Christian writer hints at the real meaning of this unique event when he says: The birth of Jesus Christ was not a sporadic manifestation of God’s creative power as it might appear from the passing reference, in the Koran, to His likeness to Adam. It was the very heart of God’s plan to redeem fallen humanity and a creation subjected to vanity (Romans 8:20). (Abdul-Haqq, Sharing Your Faith with a Muslim, p. 76). Another writer makes much the same point, contrasting the unexplained mystery of the virgin-birth in the Qur’an with its vital place in the Biblical revelation of God’s saving grace as manifested in all that Jesus was and did: The Virgin Birth is a dogma which is repeatedly upheld in the Qur’an. And yet we find there is no explanation for the miraculous birth: we are assured that it took place, but we are not told why. In the gospel, however, the birth is seen as a vital link in ’salvation history’, or heilsgeschichte, and is represented as the fulfilment of an ancient prophecy regarding the birth of Emmanuel - ’God is with us’. The idea was that this birth, so different from others, has as its object bringing God to man and man to God. (Scale, Qur’an and Bible, p. 114). A Muslim writer, speaking in another context, reinforces the obvious argument that all that God does must have a specific meaning in saying: "Indeed, to imagine that God does anything without a purpose, in effect amounts to a denial of God (38.28)" (Zafrulla Khan, Islam: Its Meaning for Modern Man, p. 96). It is the very absence of such a clearly defined purpose in the unique conception of Jesus that strikes the reader as he peruses Qur’anic teaching on this subject. Being born of a virgin-woman, Jesus had an exceptional and unique beginning to his life. As he was the only man in all human history to come into the world in this unusual way, surely we cannot be satisfied with the Qur’an’s summary declaration that it was no more than an exercise of God’s power. But does not the miraculous birth of Christ as recorded in the Qur’an suggest the existence of some special relation between Christ and God the Father such as can be predicted of no other? (Goldsack, Christ in Islam, p. 10). Thus the virgin birth of Jesus, in Christian orthodoxy, has always been within the larger, deeper, surer faith of the Incarnation. The latter can subsist without the former. For, otherwise, the former would have no raison d’etre, either in fact or faith. (Cragg, Jesus and the Muslim, p. 66). There are, nonetheless, hints in the Qur’an to the real meaning behind the phenomenon, one of which is found in the exclamation of the angels as they announced the conception of the child Jesus to Mary: Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! God hath chosen thee and purified thee - chosen thee above the women of all nations". Surah 3.42 The thing that strikes us is the whole pre-eminence of the woman - chosen above all the women of the nations. This preference is repeated in the words of Elizabeth to her cousin as recorded in the Bible, but here a further exclamation follows which gives the real meaning behind the greatness of Mary and her superiority over all other women: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!" Luke 1:42 Mary, in both the Qur’anic and Biblical passages quoted, is declared to be the greatest among women, but now we discover why - because she mothered the greatest among men, because she was the virgin-mother of Jesus. A Christian writer says of the Qur’anic verse quoted above: "Does this passage not clearly signify that her son Jesus was to be the greatest prophet?" (Goldsack, Christ in Islam, p. 5). It is to the son of Mary that we must surely look to find the meaning of her greatness. According to the Qur’an when the angel came to Mary he said to her: "I am only a messenger from your Lord (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son" (Surah 19.19). The word for "holy" in this verse, zakiyya, is applied to no other prophet in the book. The angel announces to Mary that she is to conceive a uniquely holy child - does this not hint at the real meaning of the unique manner of his birth? Here is the closest the Qur’an comes to revealing the real purpose and significance of this unique experience. The angel came not only to set her mind at rest about the pregnancy she was about to experience but to explain that this unique event was simply the effect of God’s plan to make her son a revelation for mankind. She was to conceive Jesus in a special way for only one reason - because there was something special about her son. Muslims need to appreciate that Jesus was born in a supernatural way, and that solely because there was something supernatural about the man himself. He was no mere mortal, he pre-existed his earthly life and was born of a virgin-woman because there was no other way he could be born. The doctrine of the virgin-birth is crucial to the Christian belief that Jesus is the Son of God, for if he had been procreated at a point in time by ordinary means, there would have been little to argue for his supernatural pre-existence. But the very uniqueness of his birth is vital to our belief in him as God’s incarnate Son, and begins in consequence to argue very strongly for it. Once the Qur’an denies the fact that Jesus is the Son of God, it can find no meaning for this phenomenon. The Bible, on the contrary, gives an absolutely necessary purpose for it - being the Son of God there was no other way he could have been conceived. It is this very supernatural character of the virgin-birth that hints at its real significance and meaning. The creation of Adam was in this respect similar to the creation of the world, plants, and the lower animals; whereas the Qur’an itself says that Christ’s supernatural birth took place through God’s purpose to give men a sign, and this is not said of any other prophet’s birth. . . . The Qur’an therefore represents Christ’s birth as without a parallel. (Tisdall, Muhammadan Objections to Christianity, p. 131). The most important similarity is seen in the fact that Mohammed believed in the virgin birth or at least in a "supernatural birth’’ of Jesus. (Robertson, Jesus or Isa, p. 29). It is behind the fact of the virgin-birth that we find its true meaning and it is very interesting to see how the Qur’an unwittingly goes a long way towards hinting at this meaning, only ultimately to stumble at it through its denial Of Jesus as the Son of God. Of no other Prophet does the Qur’an tell us that his birth took place through God’s Spirit (Surah xxi.91) and that he was "a sign to all creatures" (ibidem), and was "a Spirit from Him", i.e. from God (Surah iv.169). (Pfander, The Mizanu’l Haqq (Balance of Truth), p. 288). A tradition reported widely in the major works of Hadith likewise reinforces the unique character of Jesus’ birth and also gives an allusion to its significance and meaning: Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The satan touches every son of Adam on the day when his mother gives birth to him with the exception of Mary and her son. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, p. 1261). It is surely logical to conclude that the birth of Jesus was the only birth that Satan could not interfere with because the object of that birth was no ordinary mortal but one who is far greater than the devil (1 John 4:4), one who was no less than the Son of God himself. Some Muslims believe that because Jesus was born without a father, we Christians automatically conclude that God was his Father and that the doctrine of Jesus as the Son of God arose from this assumption. Christians must be quick to point out that it is really the other way around - because he always was the Son of God it was not possible that he could be born in any other way. It is clear from the New Testament that the virginal conception played no part at all in the earliest Christian preaching. It is described in the infancy narratives in the First and Third Gospels, but is not referred to in the sermons in the Acts of the Apostles nor in the Epistles of Saint Paul nor elsewhere in the New Testament. It is a story which came to be meaningful for Christians after they had come to believe in the divinity of Jesus on other grounds. (Watt, Islam and Christianity Today, p. 102). Jesus had a unique beginning to his life on earth solely because he himself is unique in that he is the only Son of God. This is, according to the Bible, precisely what the angel said to Mary when he originally came to her to explain the miraculous conception: "He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High . . . therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God". Luke 1:32; Luke 1:35. This is why God has caused all other men to come into the world by natural means (including Adam who was created out of the natural realm he found himself in) but was especially involved in the birth of Jesus. All other men are made out of the same dust Adam was created out of, but Jesus was conceived solely by the Spirit of God because he is the Son of God. This is why he had this unique beginning to his life on earth - because he himself is unique in that he is the Son of God. Right from the start, therefore, Christians can show, once again from the Muslim’s own Scripture, that Jesus is all we claim him to be. His unique birth can so easily be shown to be devoid of meaning if we do not acknowledge the glorious identity of its subject. We shall press on to see that if the life of Jesus began in unique circumstances, it ended in equally unique circumstances, and we shall see further how Christians can use the whole subject of the uniqueness of Jesus in the Qur’an and the Bible to communicate the Gospel effectively to Muslims. 3. The Ascension of Jesus to Heaven. It is the fundamental belief of the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the world that Jesus was raised to heaven at the end of his life without dying. After denying that Jesus was crucified by the Jews, the Qur’an says: For of a surety they killed him not:- Nay, God raised him up unto Himself; and God is Exalted in Power, Wise. Surah 4.157-158. The words barrafa’ahullaahu ilayh, "Nay, God raised him up unto Himself", have been taken to mean that at the point when the Jews wanted to crucify Jesus, God raised him to heaven and transformed the likeness of a bystander into that of Jesus who became crucified in his place. Although Christians will differ with Muslims on the circumstances of the ascension of Jesus to heaven, the fact is nevertheless common ground between us and one of great importance and significance. It is noteworthy that the Qur’an states that Jesus was raised, not to the second or third heaven as some Muslims suppose, but to the very presence of God himself. In the same way the Bible teaches that Jesus is "he who also ascended far above all the heavens" (Ephesians 4:9), indeed to the very throne of God himself (Revelation 3:21). This means that just as the life of Jesus began in miraculous and unique circumstances, it ended in the same way as well. Jesus himself taught that "no one has ascended into heaven" (John 3:13), and no one has done so since so as to remain there alive for centuries upon centuries as Jesus has done. He alone truly ascended into heaven. Jesus is indeed unique in the Quran. Encourage your Muslim friend to believe all that the Quran says about Jesus - how he was born of a virgin, how he healed the sick, raised the dead, and how God gave him honour above all the prophets. Jesus alone, according to Muslim tradition, is "alive in heaven" (hayy flissama. . . . Some Muslims come to the conclusion that Jesus was truly unique on the basis of a study of the Quran. (Register, Dialogue and Interfaith Witness With Muslims, p. 42). A Muslim writer passes a very pertinent comment about the implications of the unique manner in which Jesus’ life both began and ended on earth: The end of his life is as much involved in mystery as his birth, and indeed the great part of his private life except the three main years of his Ministry. (Raza, Introducing the Prophets, p. 102). Once again, however, the unique character of the event loses its meaning if it is denied that Jesus is the Son of God who came into the world to save us from our sins. Yet again the Qur’an can give no real significance or purpose to explain the phenomenon. The only reason it gives is that God took him to heaven to save him from the murderous intentions of the Jews. But this hardly explains why God has elected to enjoy the presence of Jesus in heaven for nearly twenty centuries. If the sole purpose was to save him from the Jews, why did he not send him back when those who sought his life were dead? Surely God could have found more mundane ways of delivering Jesus if he was just a messenger like those who went before him. This was surely a most extraordinary and drastic way of saving him from the Jews. We have concrete support for this argument from the Bible for shortly after Jesus was born Herod, the King of Judea, sought his life when word came to him that the long-awaited Messiah had been born in Bethlehem. Immediately an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying: "Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child to destroy him". Matthew 2:13 Joseph and Mary duly left for Egypt by night with the chili. But when Herod died shortly afterwards, the angel came again to Joseph, saying: "Rise, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the child’s life are dead". Matthew 2:20 Surely God could have adopted a similar procedure the second time if he intended to rescue Jesus from the Jews. We must reject the theory that Jesus was taken to heaven solely as an escape-route from the hands of the Jews. Those who sought his life perished nineteen centuries ago, but God remains pleased to keep Jesus in his presence in heaven and has done so over all these generations since he first ascended from the earth. The Qur’an cannot explain why God willed that Jesus should abide with him in heaven as the only man to ascend there, from the time he left the earth until the time when will return at the end of the age. While billions of men and women have lived and died on earth over the centuries, Jesus has been alive in heaven, the only man to be raised off the earth into the very presence of God himself, and that for close on two thousand years. Shamim Raza used a very interesting word to describe the circumstances surrounding the beginning and end of Jesus’ life on earth. He stated that they were involved in mystery, and so they must ever be to any Muslim who seeks, within the heritage of Islam, to find a real meaning for the virginbirth and ascension. Insofar as the Qur’an concedes the uniqueness of these events, it hints at a deep significance behind them, but as it denies the two most important features of Jesus’ personality and life, namely his deity and crucifixion, it cannot unravel the mystery. In Islam there is clearly a mystery about Jesus. It was accepted generally that his birth was unusual, comparable only with that of Adam. On the common interpretation of sura 4,156/157 Jesus would be the only man in history who had not died. But if it felt after the mystery, this interpretation did not grasp it. (Parrinder, Jesus in the Qur’an, p. 173). It is tragic that Muhammad acquired only such an obscure conception of the Jesus-Christ phenomenon, one that bypasses the real mystery, and that the decisive point necessarily eluded him. (Frieling, Christianity and Islam, p. 68). The mystery is resolved when one considers what Jesus had to say about where he had come from in the first place. On numerous occasions he stated that he had come down from heaven, as in the following verse: "For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me". John 6:38 Jesus once spoke plainly of himself as "he who descended from heaven" (John 3:13) and on another occasion spoke equally unambiguously of "ascending where he was before" (John 6:62). On yet another occasion, while he was debating with the Jews, he said: "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world". John 8:23 "I am from above - I am not of this world", he boldly declared. It is a true maxim that man returns whence he came. We all return to the earth because we come from it. "You are dust, and to dust you shall return" (Genesis 3:19). Jesus, however, was from above and this gives the real reason why he ascended to heaven - because he came from heaven in the first place. He could not have put it more plainly than he did when he said: "I came from the Father and have come into the world; again, I am leaving the world and going to the Father". John 16:28 Why should just one man be raised above the clouds, indeed right out of this universe, into the very presence of the eternal Father where he has been for nearly two thousand years? There can only be one logical reason. He must likewise have been in heaven for thousands of years before he ever came into the world. He returned whence he had come, he ascended whence he had originally descended. Indeed, if Jesus had died a natural death and been buried like all other men without his resurrection from the dead, and if his body had returned to the dust and not gone to heaven, Christians would have had endless difficulty justifying their belief that he is the Son of God. If he is indeed the Son of God, however, it is essential that he return to the throne of heaven from which he must have come. Once again, therefore, we find that the Qur’an concedes a unique feature in Jesus’ life that only has meaning if one accepts that he is the Son of God. As with the virgin-birth the Qur’an tnwittingly admits one of the essential aspects of his life that both endorses and implies the very fact that the Qur’an is at pains to deny - the deity of Jesus Christ. Here too Christians can lead Muslims to see the uniqueness of Jesus and the implications of this uniqueness. Once again we can use the Muslim’s own sources to prove the point and present the Gospel against the background of his own beliefs and points of common ground between us. Let us finish by looking at the second coming of Jesus to see how all three of these unique features can be used as highly effective stepping-stones to the Gospel. 4. The Return of Jesus in the Qur’an and the Hadith. It must come as something of a surprise to Christians to hear that the return of Jesus to earth is as much a basic belief of the Muslims as it is ours. Once again the vast majority of the Muslims of the world hold to this belief. As with the ascension the Qur’an does not treat the subject at any length and, as with so much of its teaching about Jesus, it is somewhat ambiguous. The one passage invariably brought forth to justify the doctrine is this one: And (Jesus) shall be a Sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgment): Therefore have no doubt about the (Hour), but follow ye Me: this is a Straight Way. Surah 43.61 The key words in the original Arabic are Wa innahuu la’ilmil-lissaa’ati which, literally interpreted, mean only "And there is knowledge (ilm) of the Hour (sa’ah)". Arberry thus translates it, viz. "It is knowledge of the Hour", as does Pickthall: "Verily there is knowledge of the Hour". At first sight Yusuf Ali’s interpretation in the quote above, to the effect that Jesus himself is the sign of the Hour of Judgment to come, appears to be broadly read into the text which would not otherwise yield it. A well-known Christian writer, however, summarily discounts any possibility that the text might refer to the second coming of Jesus at the end of the age. He says on this point: No eschatological interpretation could possibly have been current in Arabia in reference to Jesus. The Medinan verse 43:61: "And it/he will be a sign of the Hour" may be translated: "Verily there is knowledge of the Hour". Any idea of Jesus’ future coming derives from subsequent interpretation. (Trimingham, Christianity Among the Arabs in Pre-Islamic Times, p. 267). Another writer, however, accepts that if the pronoun built into the word innahuu refers to Jesus, then it may well be that this text is intended to allude to his return to the earth towards the end of time. It is also significant that Christ is spoken of as a sign of the "Hour" (Sure xliii.61) which would appear to be a reference to His second advent (in which Muslims believe) if the pronoun refers back to Christ. (Sweetman, Islam and Christian Theology, Part One, Vol. 1, p. 34). Commenting on the same verse a Muslim writer seeks support for the interpretation in favour of the return of Jesus to earth in some of the expressed views of some of Muhammad’s own followers as they have been recorded in the traditions: Distinguished Companions of the Holy Prophet Sallallaho alaihe wasallam, such as Hazrat Ibne-Abbas, Hazrat Hasan and Hazrat Qatawa have opined that there is a specific allusion in the abovequoted wordings to the appearance of Jesus Christ before the Last Day. (Alam, Nuzul-e-Esa: Descension of Jesus Christ, p. 28). In another place, referring to the opinions of the early Muslim interpreters of the Qur’an, he says: Another commentator, Ibne-Atya, goes on to state that Moslem theologians are unanimous in holding that Jesus Christ is physically alive at present in Heavens and is destined to return to this world in the same condition towards the approach of the Last Day. (Alam, Nuzul-e-Esa: Descension of Jesus Christ, p. 37). When the text is placed in its context in the Surah there does appear to be much to support the argument that it is Jesus himself who is spoken of as the knowledge or sign of the Hour. The passage begins by saying that Muhammad’s people ridicule him when he seeks to hold up the son of Mary as an example (Surah 43.57), goes on to quote their objection that their gods are better than he (v.58), and asserts In huwa illa abdun - "He was no more than a servant" - who was made an example to the Children of Israel (v.59). Thereafter Jesus himself is quoted (w .63-64) and, analysing the key verse in this context, it is hard to see what else could be the "knowledge" or sign of the Hour of Judgment if it is not Jesus himself, the subject of the whole passage. Yusuf Ali has the following comment appended to the text: This is understood to refer to the second coming of Jesus in the Last Days just before the Resurrection, when he will destroy the false doctrines that pass under his name, and prepare the way for the universal acceptance of Islam, the Gospel of Unity and Peace, the Straight Way of the Qur’an. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, p. 1337). Another Muslim translator of the Qur’an has a similar comment on this verse: "The reference is to the second advent of Jesus" (Daryabadi, The Holy Qur’an, Vol. 2, p. 493B). Going on from the Qur’an to the Hadith we find that there are a wealth of traditions in support of the doctrine of the return of Jesus to earth. There are no less than seventy in fact and they are regarded as mutawatir, "universally attested" traditions of unquestioned reliability. One reads: Abu Huraira reported that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: By Him in Whose hand is my life, the son of Mary (may peace be upon him) will soon descend among you as a just judge. He will break crosses kill swine and abolish Jizya, and the wealth will pour forth to such an extent that no one will accept it. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 1, p. 92). Another tradition states that "spite, mutual hatred and jealousy against one another will certainly disappear" during his reign when he returns (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 1, p. 93) and in yet another tradition we read that Surah 4.159, which teaches that "there is none of the People of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) but must believe in him before his death", is also a proof that Jesus will return to earth to receive the homage of all to whom the Scriptures have been given (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, p. 437). Throughout the various works in the Sirat and Hadith literature we find similar traditions suppor tiny the return of Jesus, another of which reads: When Christ was raised (to the heavens), he was thirty-two years and six months old. The period of his prophethood lasted for thirty months. Allah raised him to heaven with his body; he is still alive and will return to this world and he will be a king of the whole earth and then he will die like other living beings. (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 1, p. 47). It is immediately apparent that there are key differences between Christian and Muslim beliefs regarding the return of Jesus but what is of great significance is the very admission of this climactic event to come at the end of time. It goes without saying that in this Jesus is absolutely unique as well and there are obvious implications here too which lead perforce to the Gospel and we shall proceed to examine them. Before doing so, however, it will be useful to sum up Muslim beliefs about the return of Jesus and see to what extent they can assist us. Jesus (Isa), descended from heaven, will appear in the mosque at Damascus, at the hour of the midday Prayer, in the angle nearest to the eastern minaret; the imam will give up his place to him and he will lead the Prayer. Then he will slay Dajjal at the gates of Lydda, and he will obtain from God the destruction of Gog and Magog. He will marry, have children, and will reign on the earth for forty years, where he will cause peace to prevail among men and beasts. (Gaudefroy-Demombynes, Muslim Institutions, p. 52). He will die at the end of the forty years and will be buried next to Muhammad in the Masjid an-Nabi in Medina. Most of this is untenable, in particular the purely earthly character of the work he will supposedly perform. We cannot accept that he will come to live again as an ordinary human being on earth, least of all that he will die and be buried. He has been alive in the glory of heaven for nearly two thousand years and we find it very hard to seriously consider the suggestion that he must return to complete a life that was interrupted on earth at the age of thirty-three and live out a further forty years before dying and being buried like any other man. It is our firm belief that he is already alive for ever more in the glory of the kingdom of God and that an earthly demise at a time yet to come would be an unfortunate anti-climax and a strange anachronism. Nevertheless there are principles in the Muslim beliefs about his earthly reign that Christians can accept as to some extent symbolic of his heavenly rule yet to be revealed. Islam teaches that he will return from heaven, that he will destroy the Antichrist and all his host, that he will lead all true believers into an era of unprecedented bliss and prosperity, that he will rule over all the earth, and that he will establish a universal faith in God during his reign. To the extent that these beliefs can be transferred to a heavenly rule in an eternal kingdom, Christians can agree with Muslims. 5. The implications of the Second Coming. The return of Jesus to earth at the end of time is yet another of those unique features that implies that Jesus was far greater than the other prophets. Christians and Muslims may differ in what they expect Jesus to accomplish on his return but both expect him in any event to take control of all the earth with himself as Judge of all. This alone puts him head and shoulders above all other men in accomplishment and again makes him unique among men - a uniqueness which is vested in heavenly majesty and glory. Of no other man in history can we read of such a phenomenal beginning and end to his life on earth. No one else compares with him. In his birth, ascension and second coming, in his character, destiny and ultimate glory, he stands high above all other men who have ever lived on earth. Let us see just how his second coming can also be used as a means to lead Muslims to see the fulness of his glory and the truth of the Christian Gospel. In their comments on Surah 43.61 we found both Yusuf Ali and Maulana Daryabadi speaking of the "second coming" and "second advent" of Jesus respectively. Some years ago Adam Peerbhai, a South African Muslim author, wrote a booklet canvassing the various traditions referring to the return of Jesus to earth and titled it Hadis Text on the Second Coming of Jesus. A key to the implications of this anticipated phenomenon is found in just one word used by all three authors without much reflection on its immediate implications - the word second. Each speaks of the second coming of Jesus. The implication is this - if there is to be a second coming, there must have been a first coming. Christians have become accustomed to using the expression "second coming" simply because they believe that Jesus came from heaven the first time. Muslims have some dispute among themselves as to where he will land on his return to earth. Most believe he will descend to the eastern minaret of the Umayyad mosque in Damascus, some believe he will descend upon the Dome of the Rock or the Mount of Olives, while yet others that he will land in Mecca or Medina. None of these beliefs is important the important thing is where he is coming from. He is coming from heaven. I have often suggested to Muslims that if they can believe that Jesus will return from heaven when he comes to earth the second time, it should not be too hard for them to believe that he might have come from heaven the first time. There is much to be gained at this point by quoting the words of Jesus himself to this effect and I have already given a selection of quotations from the Gospels in which he made it plain that he had in fact come down from heaven. Another quote that I have found very useful in this respect is the statement of Jesus, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven" (Luke 10:18). Muslims believe, following the Qur’an (Surah 7.8), that Satan was cast down in disgrace right at the beginning of creation. When Jesus said that he saw him fall, it was his way of saying "I was there, I saw it happen" - a telling testimony to his presence in heaven even from the beginning of the world. Another useful text emphasizing the presence of Jesus in heaven centuries before his first coming to earth is this one where Jesus prayed: "And now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made". John 17:5 As the Muslims concede that he has been in heaven for nearly twenty centuries since his first sojourn on earth, notwithstanding their prejudices against the Gospel I have found them quite open at this point and willing to consider that he could just as logically have been there at least twenty centuries before he came into the world. Our witness at this point must lead to two thrusts - the purpose of his first coming to earth and the real meaning of his second coming. Let us consider them in order. If Jesus was alive in heaven for centuries before he came into the world and has been so ever since, then the key question is why he ever descended to earth to live among us for thirty-three years of which only the last three had any real public significance. In the context of all we have said thus far I do believe there are two points that should be made. The first that we shall consider is that Jesus came to bridge the gap between heaven and earth, the chasm that exists by nature between the Holy God and sinful men. In conversation with Muslims I have often said that most fairy stories begin "Once upon a time. . . " and end ". . . and they all lived happily ever after". Not so the reality of life. It might begin the same way but the ultimate truth about all men is that none lives happily ever after but all come to disaster. We all die like moths and come to nothing. "No one has ascended into heaven", Jesus said (John 3:13), for there is a gaping chasm between God and men, between heaven and earth, for which the prophet Isaiah gives the reason: Behold, the Lord’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save, or his ear dull, that it cannot hear; but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you so that he does not hear. Isaiah 59:1-2. No one from earth can bridge the gap. Sinful men are, by nature, incapable of rising above the realm of the world in which they were made. They are nothing more than mortal flesh and blood and "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable" (1 Corinthians 15:50). This explains why Jesus came into the world from heaven the first time. He bridged the gap by bringing something of heaven into the world - his very own self. He assumed an earthly body and lived as an ordinary man, but within him dwelt a divine spirit which had come down from heaven. He not only closed the gap between heaven and earth but bridged the gap the other way as well. When he came to the earth he came, as the Qur’an rightly puts it, as a ruhun minhu - a spirit from him (i.e. God). But when he returned to heaven he returned as an insaan, a human being. His divine spirit returned to its heavenly abode but he took something of earth to heaven with him - he took the human nature he had assumed when he first came into the world. He came then purely as a spirit, but he returned as a man, as a human being. He thus fully bridged the gap between heaven and earth and his living presence in heaven as a human being is our pledge and assurance that we too, though mortal men of flesh and blood, can one day be in heaven with him in eternal glory and bliss. The second point, and perhaps the greatest reason for the first coming of Jesus into the world, was to become like us in every respect so that he might save us from our sins. Because we are only flesh and blood, "he himself likewise partook of the same nature" (Hebrews 2:14) so that he might deliver us from the power of Satan, from our natural enslavement to sin, and redeem us to God. "He had to be made like his brethren in every respect" (Hebrews 2:17), he had to assume a body of flesh and blood, so that he might conquer both the power and penalty of sin in the very realm where for so long it had maintained its domain - the human body. When God wanted to send prophets to the world, he simply chose out ordinary men who were born naturally and who were destined to die naturally, to do his work. If Jesus came from heaven and returned there, surely there must have been another reason for his advent. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ, so complacently overlooked in Islam as an unsuccessful plot of the Jews, alone explains why Jesus came from heaven the first time and why he will return again. He came not to be a mere prophet, he came as God’s chosen Deliverer and Redeemer to save millions of men and women by dying for them on the cross, where he endured what was due to all of them for their sins, so that they might receive the hope of eternal life by following him as their Lord and Saviour. He did not come like the Superman of the American comics, a man who can fly through the skies at his own discretion and from whose body bullets simply bounce off. He came like us in every respect and at no time did he use his divine powers to give himself any advantage over us. Be came as a normal human being and he suffered, died and was buried so that he might bridge the gap between heaven and earth completely - not only between God and men but to the very extreme of sinful man’s separation from the Lord of heaven - between God and sinful men who lie hopelessly dead and buried in the dust of earth. It is against the background of Jesus’ unique beginning and end to his life - a virgin-birth made necessary because of his heavenly origin and his ultimate ascension to heaven - that Christians can really show Muslims why Jesus came into the world the first time. What of the second coming? Let us first consider how Jesus shall appear before we decide how to relate this to the Gospel in our witness to Muslims. Jesus himself gave a number of illustrations to show how he shall be when he returns to earth of which we shall consider just two which fully describe the impact that there will be when he is revealed: "For as the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the Son of man be in his day". Luke 17:24 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken; then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the eatth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory; and he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other". Matthew 24:29-31. In these words we have a far clearer picture of how Jesus will return. The sun will be darkened, the moon will lose its light, the stars of the sky will fall, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken, and then, in their place, a new brightness will appear. The whole earth will see Jesus appear in a cloud with heavenly power and glory as he calls out all those who are his own. The contrast between the present order and the new order he will bring in is finely described in the second quote. The glory, brightness and power of the present order will recede before the revelation of his majesty and power when he returns from heaven. The point Jesus was making was this: when he appears even the sun will cast a shadow and be darkened. Before his glory not only the sun but all the stars will fade and recede. All the energies and powers in the universe will be shaken. His light will be so splendid that even the sun’s light will not compare with it. When the Apostle Paul had his great vision of the glory of Jesus on the way to Damascus he said that he saw "a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining round me and those who journeyed with me" (Acts 26:13). The Apostle John likewise had a vision of Jesus in heaven after his ascension and testified that "his face was like the sun shining in full strength" (Revelation 1:16). The issue is how this will affect us. He came into the world the first time as an ordinary man so that he might be made like us in every way. He will come a second time, as he really is, so that he might make those who believe in him just like himself. All his followers will be transformed into his image to share his glory for ever and ever. Jesus himself stated it plainly: "Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father" (Matthew 13:43). In another passage of Scripture we have a similar promise: Beloved, we are God’s children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. 1 John 3:2 He will return shining with all the brightness of his heavenly glory, and then those who are his will be transformed into the same image to share his glory. Those who have died in ordinary human bodies, who nevertheless followed him as their Lord and Saviour will, on that glorious Day, be raised from the dead and taken up to be with him in heavenly glory for all eternity. Their present bodies are perishable, but they will be raised imperishable. They are mortal now, but then they will be raised immortal. They share now the ordinary human body of flesh that Adam, their first father, shared, but on that Day they will inherit the same resplendent, heavenly body of spirit and life that Jesus Christ, their eternal Saviour and Lord, already shares. As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. 1 Corinthians 15:48-49. Here the Christian has, in my view, an ideal way of explaining the three unique features we have considered, namely the virgin-birth, ascension and second coming of Jesus. By setting each against the background of the heavenly realm to which Jesus by nature belongs, from which he came, to which he returned and whence he will come again, we can very effectively communicate the Gospel to Muslims. The essence of our witness in this context should always be twofold - the first coming, in which Jesus became like us to redeem us from sin, and the second coming, by which we shall become like him to share his glory for ever and ever. We need to show Muslims that the unique circumstances we have considered, which they readily admit, imply that Jesus was far more than a prophet, that he was in fact the Son of God who came into the world to save us from our sins. Each one loses its meaning in the Qur’an when this is denied. It is only in the Bible, where we behold a Divine Saviour who came to redeem men from their sins, that these unique features take on meaning and have any real significance. It is that ’more’ upon which the whole New Testament proceeds - the ’more’ of Messianic action to redeem, the ’more’ of God’s loving engagement with the sequel to rejected ’education’ of the world, the ’more’ of a divine expressing of the Word, hitherto only spoken, but now in flesh and personality, in suffering and salvation. (Cragg, Muhammad and the Christian, p. 126). Having considered three unique features in the life of Jesus which the Qur’an openly concedes, let us, in the next two sections, consider three unique titles that are applied to Jesus in the Qur’an as well and see how these too can be used as a background against which the Gospel can equally ======================================================================== CHAPTER 121: 06.23. B. AL-MASIHU ISA: GOD'S ANOINTED MESSIAH. ======================================================================== B. AL-MASIHU ISA: GOD’S ANOINTED MESSIAH. 1. Al-Masih: The Messiah in the Qur’an. We have already examined three of the unique features in Jesus’ life which, by implication, place him far above all the prophets. In the following two sections we shall in the same manner consider three titles applied to him in the Qur’an which also make him unique among the prophets and in this section shall examine perhaps the most significant of these titles, namely the Messiah. Muslims often confront Christians with the suggestion that it is only in Islam that Jesus obtains proper reverence, as no true Muslim will mention his name without some qualification of respect, whereas Christians are charged with a far too-easy familiarity with him, speaking of him simply as Jesus. "We do not speak simply of Isa", a Muslim will say, "we will always give him a title of respect, such as Hazrat Isa (His Eminence, Jesus), or Isa alayhis-salaam (Jesus, on whom be peace). Why do you Christians always speak of him only as Jesus without showing him some measure of respect?" In reply I always say that we appreciate the gestures of respect that accompany the name of Jesus in Islam, except to add that we cannot find any of them in the Qur’an. "What is the full Qur’anic name for Jesus?", I respond, or alternatively, "What is the one title of respect given to Jesus in the Qur’an?" The Muslims do not often provide the obvious answer, probably because the meaning of the title is almost completely glossed over in Islam. The answer is simply this: the full Qur’anic name for Jesus is Al-Masihu Isa - "the Messiah Jesus" (cf. Surah 4.157, 4.171). Jesus is nowhere called Hazrat Isa or Isa alayhis-salaam in the Qur’an. These qualifying titles of respect have been applied to him in Muslim tradition. The only Qur’anic name for Jesus that embodies a respectful title is Al-Masihu Isa - "the Messiah Jesus". In fact we even read that when the angels first appeared to Mary they said of the holy child they had been sent to announce: Ismuhul Masihu Isabnu Maryam - "his name shall be the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary" (Surah 3.45). Even before the conception of Jesus, therefore, the angels gave him the one title that is applied to him on no less than eleven occasions in the Qur’an, namely Al-Masih - "the Messiah". The strange thing is that, whereas the Qur’an unflinchingly attributes to Jesus the one title claimed for him by the Christians and rejected by the Jews, it attempts no explanation of it. The following quote hints at the three anomalies surrounding the use of this title in the book: Jesus receives the title Messiah (Christ) eleven times in the Qur’an, all in Medinan suras . . . While no explanation is offered of the title Messiah, and it is applied to Jesus at all periods of his life from birth to exaltation, yet it appears to have a particular sense. (Parrinder, Jesus in the Qur’an, p. 30). The first of the three intriguing features that strikes us is that Jesus only receives this title after Muhammad had completed his twelve years of preaching at Mecca and had migrated to Medina. In none of the Meccan surahs is the name of Jesus qualified by the title Al-Masih. A Christian writer advances the probable reason for this phenomenon in saying: It is important to mention that the title "Al-Masih" only occurs in the late chapters of the Koran at a time when the prophet’s knowledge about the people of the Book was much advanced. (Abdul-Haqq, Sharing Your Faith with a Muslim, p. 82). The most plausible explanation is that Muhammad was unaware of the title until he moved to Medina and, as his contacts with Christians and Jews increased, so he came to learn of the unique appellation given to Jesus and, being unaware of its meaning but seeing no reason to reject it, simply adopted it himself and included it in the Qur’an without any further ado. It was very well known that the Christians worshipped al-Masih. This name is attested in Arabia before Mohammed’s time, all the way from Nejran in the south to Ghassan in the north (Horovitz, pp. 129f.); and he eventually employs it frequently in the Koran. (Torrey, The Jewish Foundation of Islam, p. 76). The second feature that draws our attention is the lack of any explanation of its meaning in the Qur’an. Islam only accepts Jesus as a prophet like all the other prophets. In one passage he is joined with Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and Moses as simply one of the prophets (an-nabiyyin) between whom no distinction of any kind is made (Surah 2.136). In another verse he is said to have been no more than a servant (abd - Surah 43.59) and in yet another as nothing more than a messenger (rasul - Surah 5.78). One would therefore expect to find the Qur’an denying that Jesus was the Messiah, especially as the Jews and Christians have always regarded the title as signifying more than prophethood. When Jesus on one Occasion asked his disciples who the people thought he was, they answered that it was generally believed that he was one of the prophets (Mark 8:28). But when he asked them the same question, Peter replied: "You are the Messiah" (Mark 8:29). His answer was clearly intended to be in contrast with the general opinion that Jesus was just one of the prophets. The Qur’an’s acknowledgement that Jesus was indeed the Messiah comes, therefore, as something of a surprise. He is not only called Al-Masihu Isa but on some occasions the title Al-Masih appears by itself (Surah 4.172), and on others he is called Al-Masibuhnu Maryam - "the Messiah, son of Mary" (Surah 9.31). What is most significant is that the title is applied solely to Jesus in the Qur’an and that its definitive quality is carefully defined by the use of the article - Al-Masih, namely, the Messiah. Indeed the title is never used in the Qur’an without the definite article. This rules out any possibility that the title can be applied to anyone else. No one else in the Qur’an is, or accordingly possibly could be, the Messiah. Jesus is not a messiah or one of the messiahs, he is Al-Masih - the Messiah. This leads to the third feature that must occupy the attention of all who seriously consider the use of this title in the Qur’an, namely that it is obviously used, as Parrinder says, "in a particular sense". We shall have to examine this subject in the light of Jewish and Christian expectations and proclamations respectively to discover what that sense is, but in the meantime can take note of its use in an exclusive context in the Qur’an. Nevertheless, as said before, the Qur’an’s acknowledgement that Jesus was indeed the Messiah comes as a surprise, for it denies that Jesus was anything more than a prophet, whereas the promises of God about the coming Messiah had made it plain that he would be far greater than just a prophet. The Christian confession that Jesus is the Lord and Saviour of all men is thus consistent with the teachings of the former prophets that the coming Messiah would be the supreme man of history, far above all the prophets (2 Samuel 7:12-14). The Qur’an, on the other hand, declares Maal Masihubnu Maryama illa rasul - "The Messiah, son of Mary, was no more than an apostle" - like the other apostles who had passed away before him (Surah 5.78). Why, then, does the Qur’an also acknowledge that Jesus was the Messiah if it denies that he was anything more than a prophet’ It seems hard to avoid the conclusion that the Qur’an is contradicting itself here, especially when it offers no alternative explanation of the title. The Biblical title of ’Messiah’ (masih) is accepted and applied to Jesus, but there appears to be little realization of its original significance. (Watt, Bell’s Introduction to the Qur’an, p. 158). The Qur’an again and again speaks of Jesus as the ’Messiah’, and thus tacitly admits his superiority over all other prophets. It gives him the title, but fails to give any reason for the honour thus put upon Jesus; but in thee Bible we learn more fully who this great one was who was thus honoured by God. (Goldsack, Christ in Islam, p. 12). Furthermore one struggles to find in Arabic any roots for the title which might give some indication of its meaning. It is true that its three consonants, mim, sin and hah, are also the root letters of the word masaha meaning "to rub, wipe or stroke", which appears four times in the Qur’an. There is no hint, however, that the title as applied to Jesus carries any meaning remotely connected with this word which appears only as a verb in the Qur’an. Some Muslim authorities have even sought other words with similar roots (not identical, as in masaha) to explain its meaning, yet we find that the greatest Muslim scholars, such as Zamakhshari and Baidawi, "rejected these theories and admitted that it was a borrowed word" (Jeffery, The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur’an, p. 265). The average Muslim will be hard-pressed to venture a plausible explanation of this supreme title given to Jesus, Al-Masih, based on the use of the word in the Qur’an, and consistent with the claim that he was in no way different to the other prophets who went before him. We are bound to conclude that the Qur’an unwittingly gives Jesus a title which has momentous implications when studied in the light of its use in both the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, but which otherwise has no meaning when considered solely in the light of its use in the book. As we press on to study the third feature we have mentioned, namely the "particular sense" in which the title is used in the Bible, we shall see what a wonderful opportunity we have to present the Gospel to Muslims through this title against the background of its unexplained use in the Qur’an. 2. The Biblical Concept of the Messiah. The common word used for Messiah in the Christian Scriptures, in the original Greek texts, is ho Christos. Twice it is said to be a translation of the word Messias (John 1:41; John 4:25) and, as in the Qur’an, no attempt is made to define or explain the meaning of the title. Nevertheless, just as the Qur’an uses the definite article al to apply the title to Jesus alone, so in the Christian Scriptures he is constantly called ho Christos, that is, the Messiah. (We shall use the word ’Messiah" here in our quotes from the Christian Scriptures rather than "Christ" as the title corresponds more readily to the Qur’anic Al-Masih). We have to turn to the Jewish Scriptures to find the real meaning of the title. It derives chiefly from the following prophecy: "Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing; and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary". Daniel 9:25-26. Twice in this passage we read of a mashiah, "an anointed one", a prince who would appear, but who would suddenly be cut off. Right throughout the prophetic writings of the Old Testament one finds predictions of a coming one, a supreme deliverer, God’s chosen servant, who would rule over his kingdom for ever. The use of the word mashiah in Daniel 9:25-26 led the Jews to coin a title for the coming Prince - ha Mashiah, "the Anointed One", the Messiah. A typical prophecy of his greatness and the extent of his dominion is found in this passage: There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots. And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord. And his delight shall be in the fear of the Lord. Be shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide by what his ears hear; but with righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked. Righteousness shall be the girdle of his waist, and faithfulness the girdle of his loins. Isaiah 11:1-5. The prophet Isaiah went on to say of him: "In that day the root of Jesse shall stand as an ensign to the peoples; him shall the nations seek, and his dwellings shall be glorious" (Isaiah 11:10). The prophecy clearly could not be applied to any of the prophets who were appearing at times among the people. It spoke of one man alone who would rule the whole earth and who, by the breath of his mouth alone, would slay the wicked. In another passage of the same prophecy we read that God himself said of this coming ruler: "Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him, he will bring forth justice to the nations". Isaiah 42:1 One after the other the prophets of Israel foretold the coming of this supreme representative of God on earth who would bring the justice of God to the whole world and rule over it. Through another prophet God also spoke of the coming Anointed One and described his glory in these words: "Behold the man whose name is the Branch: for he shall grow up in his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord. It is he who shall build the temple of the Lord, and shall bear royal honour, and shall sit and rule upon his throne". Zechariah 6:12-13. The Jews began to realise that, whereas prophets arose at fairly regular intervals to declare the will of God, one great figure was to follow them all who would be far above all the prophets of God in honour and majesty. This supreme ruler was destined to be God’s own chosen representative who would establish his kingdom and rule upon his throne. Through yet another prophet God foretold where he would be born: But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days. Micah 5:2 As the predictions increased, so the outstanding features of the coming chosen one of God became more apparent. In this prophecy it was plainly stated that the coming ruler, although yet to be born, had in fact existed in the heavens from the beginning of time. Daniel the prophet gave a climactic review of his coming glory and authority when he described a vision he had seen during his time of exile in Babylon. As he gazed into heaven and saw millions of people gathered before the throne of God, he exclaimed: "Behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed". Daniel 7:13-14. It was little wonder that the Jews concluded that the Ruler of God’s own kingdom, whose origin was from of old, and whose dominion would last for ever, was to be far greater than a prophet. When Daniel spoke of him as God’s "Anointed One" (Daniel 9:25), the title Mashiah stuck and became the common title to describe him. "The Messiah" became their long-awaited Deliverer and Ruler. We see therefore that the title "the Messiah" clearly means, not just a prophet among many prophets, but God’s Supremely Anointed One, whose origin was from of old and whose rule over the whole universe would last for ever. It was an apocalyptic figure they awaited, the climax of God’s revelations to the world. Ha Mashiah he was called - the one and only supremely anointed, chosen one of God to rule over all his dominions. This brief survey of the real meaning of the title Al-Masih, that is, "the Supremely Anointed One", shows how inappropriate the Qur’anic statement Maal-Masihubnu Maryama illa rasul - "the Messiah, son of Mary, was no more than an apostle" (Surah 5.78) - really is. The whole meaning of the title Al-Masih, as considered in its original Hebrew context, totally negates the suggestion that the one bearing this title was, after all, only an apostle like others who had gone before him. One can only presume that Muhammad did not know the meaning of the title Al-Masih and, hearing it freely applied to Jesus by the Christians, unquestioningly adopted it without realising that it completely undermined his belief that Jesus was only one of a long line of prophets. We see ultimately that the coming Messiah was to tower over all the prophets and, by comparing the teachings of the Jewish Scriptures regarding his glory with the admission in the Qur’an that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, Christians have a golden opportunity to witness meaningfully to Muslims. The Qur’an attempts no explanation of the title, yet its very inclusion in the book, the sacred Scripture of Islam, opens a wide door for effective witness. The common testimony of both the Christian and the Muslim Scriptures to Jesus as the long awaited Supremely Anointed One provides a platform on which Christians can build the message of the Gospel and show Muslims the real meaning and implications of the title. We shall close this section by seeing just how this can be done. 3. Jesus of Nazareth : God’s Anointed Messiah. There are two supreme implications behind the title Messiah - the identity of its subject and the work he was to perform. He was to be far greater than the prophets who had preceded him and accordingly was sent to the earth for a more profound purpose. He did not come purely to prophesy and to draw his people back to God, he came to redeem the world and prepare the way for the coming kingdom of God. The Scriptures show quite plainly wherein the greater character of the Messiah consisted - he was the Son of God - and also set forth, both prophetically by way of anticipation and thereafter historically through a factual record, the exalted nature of the work he was sent to do - to save men from their sins by dying on the cross and rising from the dead on the third day. We shall consider these two great themes in order and shall begin by considering the revelations in the Jewish Scriptures that he was to be the Son of God who would establish and rule over God’s eternal kingdom. Among the many predictions of his coming, many of which foretold that he would come from David’s line (Jeremiah 23:5, Ezekiel 34:24), was this direct prophecy to David himself when God spoke through the prophet Nathan at the time when David sought to build a house for the ark of the covenant, a temple to God’s glory. After stopping him from doing so God declared: "Moreover I declare to you that the Lord will build you a house. When your days are fulfilled to go to be with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for me, and I will establish his throne for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son; I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from him who was before you, but I will confirm him in my house and in my kingdom for ever and his throne shall be established for ever. 1 Chronicles 17:10-14. When Solomon, David’s son, duly built a great temple for God (known in Islam as baitul-muqaddas, "the Holy House", and spoken of in Surah 17.7 as al-masjid - "the Temple"), it seemed that the prophecy had been fulfilled. Nevertheless, not long after Solomon’s death the kingdom of Israel was split in two and within three hundred years fell away completely, Solomon’s temple being destroyed in the process. The Jews then realised that God had, in fact, been speaking ultimately of the Messiah as the prophecy had been couched in eternal language - "I will establish his throne for ever . . . I will confirm him in my house and in my kingdom for ever and his throne shall be established for ever" (1 Chronicles 17:12; 1 Chronicles 17:14). God had clearly spoken of his Supremely Anointed One who would establish his kingdom and rule it for ever. Solomon and his temple were clearly only shadows and types of the Messiah and his kingdom to come. "One of your own sons", therefore, was to be applied ultimately to David’s "greater son" yet to come, the Messiah, who would be descended from David’s line. As a result the Jews coined the expression "Son of David" as a title for their coming Messiah and often used it of him to identify the line of offspring from which he would rise. "Has not the scripture said that the Messiah is descended from David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?" (John 7:42), was the constant belief of the Jews, a belief Jesus duly fulfilled when he was born of David’s line in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1). It is recorded in the Gospel of Matthew that about two days before his crucifixion, Jesus engaged in lengthy debate with the Jewish leaders. Firstly the Pharisees and then the Sadduccees tried by every verbal twist and trick to trap him in his talk. At the end of the day, when their efforts were exhausted and they were all standing before him, he finally put a question to them. It was to be the last time he would engage in debate with them. He said to the Pharisees: "What do you think of the Messiah? Whose son is he?" Matthew 22:42 They promptly answered: "the Son of David", in accordance with the prophecies in their holy scriptures. Jesus replied to them in these words: "How is it then that David, inspired by the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, ’The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I put thy enemies under thy feet’? If David thus calls him Lord, how is he his son?" Matthew 22:43-45 David, said Jesus, called the Messiah his Lord and Master, how then could he be David’s son? What man looks on his son as his lord and master? We read that "no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did any one dare to ask him any more questions" (Matthew 22:46). This momentous question ended all debate between Jesus and the Jews. Any Jew in the crowd who had been awake, however, could have given a very complete answer to the question. Let us go back to the prophecy Nathan gave David that one of his sons would establish his throne for ever and ever. We have read it already, but now let us repeat the key words of God to David. He said of the Messiah who would be descended from him: "I will be his father, and he shall be my son" 1 Chronicles 17:13 I will be his Father and he shall be my Son, God said to David - a prophecy contained to this day in the Jewish Scriptures, those of a people who no more believe that Jesus is the Son of God than Muslims do. Yet there it is, right in their Scripture. Any discerning Jew, in answer to Jesus’ question, "What do you think of the Messiah, whose son is he?", could have replied, "he is the Son of God", for so God had spoken to David. This is why David called the Messiah his Lord, for he knew that although he would be descended from him, God would be his true Father and he would be God’s Son. He might well have said, as John did, "After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me" (John 1:30). David knew that the Messiah would be the Son of God and therefore openly called him his Lord and Master. "The Lord says to my Lord" to David meant simply "The Father says to his Son, sit at my right hand till I put thy enemies under thy feet". In another of the prophetic passages in the Psalms God spoke of the coming glory of the Son of David at his second advent at the end of time: "He shall cry to me, ’Thou art my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation’. And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth. My steadfast love I will keep for him for ever, and my covenant will stand firm for him. I will establish his line for ever and his throne as the days of the heavens . . . Once for all I have sworn by my holiness; I will not lie to David. His line shall endure for ever, his throne as long as the sun before me". Psalms 89:26-29; Psalms 89:35-36. No one but the Son of God could so boldly address the Lord of heaven and earth. Bedded into the glorious predictions of the coming Messiah, who would rule over the kingdom of God for ever and ever, are clear statements that he would be God’s own Son. The promises to this effect came directly from God himself. The Messiah, God’s Supremely Anointed One, would far surpass the prophets in glory and majesty because he would be no less than the Son of God himself. Jesus himself gave the answer to his own question how the Messiah could be both the Lord and the son of David at one and the same time. He declared: "I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star". Revelation 22:16 Because he was David’s offspring he could indeed be called his son, but he was also his root as "the world was made through him" (John 1:10) and was therefore rightly called his Lord. "All things were created through him and for him", the Scripture continues (Colossians 1:16), and he could accordingly truly be said to be the Root of David (Revelation 5:5), his ultimate Lord and Master. "What do you think of the Messiah, whose son is he?", was the climactic charge Jesus set before the Jews as his long public confrontation with them finally came to an end. It is the very charge that Christians must set before the Muslims they meet - "What do you think of Al-Masih, whose son was he really?" It is useful both to note and to point out to Muslims that the titles Messiah and Son of God are used interchangeably in the Christian Scriptures. Jewish believers in Jesus used both titles for him simultaneously, Simon Peter being the first to do so when he declared to Jesus: "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God". Matthew 16:16 When Martha was challenged about the death of her brother Lazarus and was asked by Jesus whether she believed that he was the Resurrection and the Life, she replied: "I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, he who is coming into the world". John 11:27 The High Priest Caiaphas used the titles simultaneously when putting Jesus on oath to declare who he really was: "I adjure you, by the living God, tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God". Matthew 26:63 Mark began his Gospel by describing it as the gospel of "Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God" (Mark 1:1) and John, in like manner, summed up all that he had written in his Gospel as having been set down so that his readers might believe "that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God" (John 20:31). Even the demons regarded the two titles as synonymous with each other: And demons also came out of many, crying, "You are the Son of God!" But he rebuked them, and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Messiah. Luke 4:41 In the title Al-Masih, "the Messiah" as it appears in the Qur’an, being freely applied to Jesus exclusively without any explanation of its meaning, we find a tremendous channel by which to show Muslims who Jesus really was. He was not just one of the prophets, he was the Supremely Anointed One, with whom no one else could compare, the eternal Son of the living God. This brings us in closing to the work the Messiah was to perform. Although he was plainly identified as a figure of great glory and although many of the predictions of his coming heralded his ultimate glory, it was clearly foretold that he would come the first time in relative obscurity and would be a man of sorrows and great suffering. Indeed, in the very prophecy in which he is called mashiah, from which the title "Messiah" came, there is a plain statement that he would be struck down in the middle of his course: And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing. Daniel 9:26 The prediction was quite clear: "mashiah shall be cut off, and shall have nothing". This was a direct warning that the Anointed One of God would suddenly be struck down and killed - a clear reference to the death of Jesus the Messiah on the cross which came quite unexpectedly on his disciples. There are numerous passages in the Old Testament foreshadowing the sufferings of the Messiah and his subsequent glory, such as Psalms 22:1-31; Psalms 69:1-36, but perhaps the most significant is found in the prophecy of Isaiah which begins: Behold my servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high. As many were astonished at him - his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the sons of men - so shall he startle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which has not been told them they shall see, and that which they have not heard they shall understand. Isaiah 52:13-15. The text contains clear predictions of the coming glory of the Messiah at his second advent, but in between these promises of his ultimate exaltation comes a clear warning of his rejection and suffering at his first advent - "his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance". The prophecy contains an unambiguous declaration that he would have no apparent honour at his first coming and would generally be overlooked and rejected by his people: He had no form or comeliness that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. Isaiah 53:2-3. Almost immediately after this, however, comes a clear prediction of the atoning character of his sufferings. In this Jewish scripture written some six centuries before the coming of Jesus we find his crucifixion foreshadowed, not as a defeat, but as the means by which many would be saved: Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. Isaiah 53:4-6. These words clearly show that the great servant of God, the long-awaited Messiah, would have the sins of the world placed on him in his hour of trial and that he would die that others might live. "Stricken for the transgression of my people" (Isaiah 53:8) he would be, dying for the sins of those he was suffering to save. Furthermore we not only find the sufferings of the Messiah foretold but also the attendant events which were fulfilled to the letter. The prophecy is remarkable for its plain and unambiguous details and the degree to which it foreshadows the cross. The next verse reads: And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death. Isaiah 53:9 Here we have what appears to be a riddle - how could a man be buried with honour among the wealthy if his grave was prepared among the wicked? In the crucifixion of Jesus we have a perfect answer. All Jews put to death by crucifixion were, upon their demise, cast into a large pit reserved only for criminals. But when Jesus died, a rich man named Joseph of Arimathea came and took the body of Jesus and buried it in his own tomb which he had hewn out of a rock (Matthew 27:60). The prophecy continues with a similar detail: "he poured out his sout to death and was numbered with the transgressors" (Isaiah 53:12). Jesus directly applied this prediction (and thus the whole prophecy) to himself the night before he was crucified, saying to his disciples: "For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ’And he was reckoned with transgressors’; for what is written about me has its fulfilment". Luke 22:37 Once again the prophecy was fulfilled. We read that when Jesus was taken out to be crucified, "Two others also, who were criminals, were led away to be put to death with him" (Luke 23:32). When Jesus was duly crucified between these two men who were both thieves the prophecy had once again been fulfilled even in its finest details, for he was duly put to death with them and was thus "numbered with the transgressors". We see yet again how detailed the predictions of the suffering of the Messiah were in the writings of the prophets who preceded him. By quoting such passages Christians can show Muslims that the suffering of the Messiah was foretold centuries before it happened, and that the travail predicted was quite plainly nothing other than the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Indeed no Christian witness should ever stop at the death of Jesus after his sufferings but should press on immediately to show that the resurrection was foretold as well. The prophecy we have been considering from Isaiah contains obvious prophecies of the resurrection of the Messiah after his death through which he wrought salvation for all those who were to become his own by faith in him. The prophecy contains this wonderful promise that his lonely death would not be in vain: When he makes himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand; he shall see the fruit of the travail of his soul and be satisfied. Isaiah 53:10-11. Although he would die for the sins of the world, he would yet see the heirs of his salvation, he would yet look in triumph on the immense benefits of his redeeming work, and the fulness of God’s saving grace would yet be brought to light in his own hands. "He poured out his soul to death", the prophecy continues (Isaiah 53:12), yet the Lord God of heaven himself left him with the assurance that he would still, in good time, obtain the fruits of his victory. Thus we find the whole crucifixion scene, with the subsequent resurrection of the Messiah, foretold in this prophecy. We have only briefly treated the subject of Jesus as the long-awaited Messiah of Israel, yet I am sure all Christians can see just how effectively this title can be used as a means to preach the Gospel to Muslims. The Qur’an, in frankly acknowledging Jesus as Al-Masih, yet without any attempt to explain the title, opens the way for Christians to witness of his glorious identity and the sufferings he was first to endure before receiving eternal glory. By presenting Jesus as God’s Anointed Saviour and Deliverer whose coming was foretold by the prophets, Christians can once again set the Gospel right against the background of the Muslims’ own beliefs about him and very meaningfully outline the implications behind this title. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 122: 06.24. C. THE TITLES WORD AND SPIRIT OF GOD. ======================================================================== C. THE TITLES WORD AND SPIRIT OF GOD. 1. Jesus as the Word of God in the Qur’an. The Qur’an has much to say about the Christian faith, speaking at times favourably and at others unfavourably, but perhaps the most interesting verse of all on the whole subject of Christians and their beliefs is this one: O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God, and His Word, which he bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from him: so believe in God and His apostles. Say not "Trinity": desist: it will be better for you: for God is One God: Glory be to Him: (Far exalted is He) above having a son. To him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs. Surah 4.171 The passage contains typical Qur’anic dogmas in opposition to Christianity and we find here the divinity of Jesus as emphatically rejected as anywhere else in the book. The dogmas are these: Jesus was only a messenger, God is not Triune, he is only one God and has no son. A Muslim seeking proof texts in the Qur’an to confront Christians with a denial of their belief in Jesus as the Son of God will not have to venture beyond this verse. The fascinating feature of this verse, however, is its attribution of three titles to Jesus, each one of which strongly implies that he was far more than a prophet and seems to be more consistent with Christian belief in him as Lord and Saviour of all men than the Muslim belief that he was no different to the other messengers God had sent. The key words containing all three titles are Innamaal-Masiihu Iisaabnu Maryama rasuulullaahi wa kalimatuhuu al-qaahaa ilaa Maryama wa ruuhum-minhu. We have already considered the first at some length, namely Al-Masih, "the Messiah", and saw that no attempt is made in the Qur’an to explain the title. The other two that : appear in the text we shall consider in this section, namely Kalimah, meaning "Word", and Ruh, meaning "Spirit". Let us begin with the first as it is written in the verse, namely kalimatuhuu - "His Word". The construction makes it plain that Jesus is, in some unique way, God’s own Word. The title; appears in two other places in the Qur’an in much the same context. In Surah 3.39 an angel announces to Zachariah that his son John (Yahya) will witness to a kalimatim-minallaah, "a Word from God", and in Surah 3.45 the angels, in announcing the conception of Jesus to Mary, speak of him as a kalimatim-minhu, "a Word from Him". The title, thus applied on no less than three occasions to Jesus, is not applied to anyone else in the Qur’an yet, as with the title Messiah, no attempt is made to explain it. As usual Muslim writers are at pains to explain away yet another unique title applied to Jesus in the Qur’an without seriously attempting to consider its implications. Yusuf Ali, commenting on Surah 3.39, says: Notice: "a Word from God", not "the Word of God", the epithet that mystical Christianity uses for Jesus. As stated in iii.59 below, Jesus was created by a miracle, by God’s word "Be", and he was. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, p. 132). Many Muslim writers follow the same pattern, arguing that Jesus is called a Word from God solely because he was created by the Word of God, kun - "be", just as Adam was created (Surah 3.59). "Thus Imam Razi, followed by some modern writers, would have us believe that the term ’Word of God’ means no more than that, ’Jesus was created by the command or word of God"’ (Goldsack, Christ in Islam, p. 14). Another argument occasionally used to explain away the title, is that the words of God were revealed to Jesus and that in this sense alone he can be called a Word from God. An Ahmadlyya writer uses this line: Speaking of Mary the Book says that "she accepted the truth of the words of her Lord". Thus Mary is here the verifier and not Jesus. The only meaning that can be given to the word Kalimah in the verse is the prophetic words of her Lord, i.e., the divine inspiration which she received from God relating to the birth of Jesus. It is noteworthy that the inspiration is breathed into him, i.e., Jesus. (Ahmad, Jesus in Heaven on Earth, p. 164). The common argument, however, is the first one, namely that Jesus was created in an unusual way simply by divine command just as Adam was created. This argument, with all the others, falls to the ground on closer analysis. A Christian writer assesses it in the following quote and in doing so gives a clear hint as to why it can only be regarded as an inadequate explanation of the unique title given to Jesus we are here considering, namely a Word from God. Al Baidhawi says that the expression "Word from God" refers to Jesus Christ who is so called because He was conceived by the word of the command of God, without a father (Sale, Koran, p. 48, n.4). Using this interesting logic, Adam too should be called "the Word from God" because he also was created out of dust by a word of the command of God (see Sura 3.59). But nowhere does the Qur’an mention him by that designation. It is an expression uniquely used of Jesus Christ. (Abdul-Haqq, Sharing Your Faith with a Muslim, p. 84). There are two key factors that the Muslims are only too inclined to overlook - the application of the title to Jesus alone and the fact that he is clearly described in Surah 4.171 as "His Word", meaning not a Word from God alone but the Word of God. Abdul-Haqq states the first factor quite plainly - the title is "an expression uniquely used of Jesus Christ". The Qur’an, in Surah 3.59, states that "the likeness of Jesus with God is as the likeness of Adam" and promptly defines that likeness. God simply said "Be", and he came to be (kun fayakuun), implying that both were made by the single word of God in the same way. If Jesus is called the Word of God purely as a result of the manner of his conception, then Adam too must be the Word of God for according to the Qur’an they were both created in the same manner. Now a real difficulty arises because Adam is not called the Word of God in the Qur’an. Nor are the angels, nor is any other creature so called in the Qur’an. Jesus alone is called the Word of God. The very uniqueness of the title in the Qur’an as applied to Jesus begs the suggestion that there must be something about the person of Jesus himself that makes him the Word of God in a way that no other man has ever been or ever will be. We must surely seek for some other meaning and significance behind the title, especially when we consider that the Bible also applies the title uniquely to Jesus - "the name by which he is called is The Word of God" (Revelation 19:13). It is perhaps in consideration of the second factor that we will find the real implications of the title. In Surah 4.171 Jesus is called God’s Word, not just a Word from God as in the two passages we quoted from the third Surah. This clearly implies, not that the Word was revealed to Jesus or that he was created by the Word, but rather that he himself is the Word of God. The title relates to his person and not to any feature or circumstance of his life. A Christian writer, speaking of Surah 3.45, makes the same point about the form of the words in the text: Further, in the verse from the Qur’an which we have quoted, Christ is called ’His Word’, that is, ’God’s Word’. The Arabic shows that it means ’The Word of God’, not merely ’a Word of God’. (Kalimatullaah, not kalimatimmin kalimaatullaah). Thus we see that Jesus is the word or expression of God, so that by Him alone can we understand the mind and will of God. No other prophet has been given this title, because none other is, in this sense, the special revelation of God’s mind and will. (Goldsack, Christ in Islam, p. 15). The clear implication is that Jesus is, himself, in a unique way the revelation of God himself to men, the communication of God to his creation. The Word did not come to Jesus from above, rather he himself is that very Word which came from heaven to earth. Jesus is the word of God, not (as Muslims generally teach) in the sense that he was created by divine fiat, by the word of God, but in the sense that he is the one who expresses the mind and will of God most fully to men. Through Jesus, God has spoken and acted in a unique way. (Chapman, You Go and Do the Same, p. 81). If Christ were a Word of God, it would be clear that He was only one expression of God’s will; but since God Himself calls Him "the Word of God", it is clear that He must be the one and only perfect expression of God’s will, and the only perfect manifestation of God. (Zwemer, The Muslim Christ, p. 37). The Qur’an says no more of Adam than that "he learnt from his Lord words of inspiration" (Surah 2.37), that is, the kalimaat were sent down mir-rabbihi, "from his Lord", but in the case of Jesus it is said that he himself is the kalimatullah, the "Word of God". As there is, nonetheless, no explanation of the title in the Qur’an, we shall have to turn, as we did with the title Al-Masih, to the Christian Bible to find its real meaning and see how it can be used as a typical point of agreement between Christians and Muslims upon which a Gospel witness can be based. 2. The Implications of Jesus’ Deity in the Title. We have already seen that the title Word implies that Jesus himself is the communication and revelation, in his own person, of God to men. The second thing to consider is that the Word is from God. He is one who is actively the real manifestation of God to men. To know him is to know God. In the prologue to John’s Gospel we have the meanings implied in the title brought to the fore: In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. And the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him and without him was not anything made that was made. John 1:1-2. We see here that Jesus existed as the Word of God before God ever began to create and that he is therefore not of the created order by nature but enjoys the fulness of deity. It was this Word himself which took human form - the Word did not come to him as a man: And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth. John 1:14 The Qur’an plainly calls Jesus God’s Word and a Word from God, and in the emphasis on the divine origin of the Word is it not logical to see the spirit of divinity in the person of the Word himself? It is hardly surprising that even from early times Christians saw in this unique title of Jesus in the Qur’an a clear hint to his deity. In the opinion of several Christian writers who have commented on Mohammed’s use of "word" to indicate Christ, the Prophet, indeliberately perhaps, but implicitly, admits our Saviour’s divinity. (O’Shaughnessy, The Koranic Concept of the Word of God, p. 56). One writer perhaps sums it up when he says: "The fact is that this title of the Lord Jesus can only be understood by a reference to the Gospel wherein it is clearly stated that Jesus the Word of God is divine, and existed with God before His birth into the world" (Goldsack, Christ in Islam, p. 14), and even a Muslim writer is constrained to admit that the title carries a heavenly character with it: Naturally one who bore the title of Ruhullah (Spirit of Allah) and Kalimatullah (Allah’s Word) and was created from the puffing (sic) of Hazrat Gibriel was attracted towards the heavens and the other who was called abdullah (Allah’s bondman) was inclined to stay within the earthly domain. (slam, Nuxul-e-Esa: Descension of Jesus Christ, p. 86). The writer draws a remarkable comparison between Jesus as the Word of God and Spirit of God, and Muhammad who is only called the servant of God in the Qur’an. He clearly acknowledges that the unique titles given to Jesus lift him into a heavenly realm and give some idea why he was taken up there, while Muhammad’s ordinary status as nothing more than a servant of God explains why he returned to dust whence he had come. (A Muslim cannot suggest that Muhammad enjoyed a uniqueness as God’s servant in comparison with Jesus’ uniqueness as God’s Word and Spirit - Jesus himself is called abdullah, "servant of God", in the Qur’an in Surah 19.30. On the contrary Muhammad is nowhere called a Word or Spirit from God in the book). Christians need to emphasize the unique character of this title Word of God. Muslims need to realise that Jesus alone bears the honour in the Qur’an and the Bible. One Christian writer, while tending to the Muslim idea that the title only relates to the creative word of God in bringing Jesus into being of a mother only, nonetheless gets to the heart of the matter when he says it celebrates "a unique status belonging to Jesus - albeit for the purposes of prophecy - which gives him a significance altogether his own as ’God’s Word"’ (Cragg, Jesus and the Muslim, p. 32). The other aspect requiring emphasis is the divine implication in the title. Short of acknowledging that Jesus is the Son of God one will struggle to truly interpret this title and realise the full implications behind the fact that the origin of its bearer is none other than God himself. Another Christian writer, commenting on Surah 3.45, says the form of the title in that verse "necessitates the meaning that this is the soul of the Word, uncreated and eternally, in the mind of God, and one with the essence of God" (Harris, How to Lead Moslems to Christ, p. 74). Another writer likewise brings out the obvious meaning of the title and its relevance to Jesus as the Son of God when he says: Both titles, "The Word of God" and "The Son of God", are used in the New Testament with the same meaning; i.e. they express the fact of Christ’s essential Deity, His oneness with the Father (John x.30). (Pfander, The Mizanu’l Haqq (Balance of Truth), p. 165). The title Son of God at least implies some limitation and submission on the part of its bearer - a son is subject to his father - but the title Word of God implies no such limitation. By itself it clearly implies that its bearer is the express image of the invisible God and only the latter title Son of God implies some submission on his part to the Father. The Qur’an denounces Christians for believing that Jesus is the Son of God and yet, in the very same breath, gives him the title Word of God which is as indicative of deity as the title Son of God. There is really no meaningful difference between the titles. There is no doubt as to the identity of the Word from God whom John came to announce to Israel. In the expression "Word from Him", the participle (from) "min" signifies a generic relationship between the noun and pronou linked together by it. Therefore it means that "the Word" is of the same divine essence as Him (hu) - God. (Abdul-Haqq, Sharing Your Faith with a Muslim, p. 68). Quite where we Christians are exaggerating in our religion, as the Qur’an suggests in Surah 4.171, is not at all clear to us. Our study of the first two titles in that verse that are applied uniquely to Jesus, namely "the Messiah" and "the Word of God", has led to the inevitable conclusion that Jesus must be far more than a prophet, indeed nothing less than the divine Son of God. In both titles Christians have tremendous scope for witness to Muslims. Once again, from the Muslim’s own background, from the teaching of his own Scripture, Christians can lead to an effective witness to the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Does the Muslim designation of Jesus as the Word of God help us bridge the gap which exists between the Muslim and Christian understanding of Jesus’ Person and his relation to God? Can Christians at least help Muslims better understand the Christian understanding of Jesus through this designation? There is no doubt that Christians, in the past and present, have found this designation more helpful than some other exclusively Christian titles of Jesus (such as Son of God, Lamb of God, etc.) to introduce the New Testament picture of Jesus to the Muslim. (Hahn, Jesus in Islam, p. 36). Let us close by considering the third unique title given to Jesus in Surah 4.171, namely a Spirit from God. 3. Ruhullah - Jesus the Spirit of God. This third title is very little different to the second one for once again the title belongs to Jesus alone and God again is the source of the Spirit as he was the source of the Word. In Surah 3.45 we read that Jesus was a kalimatim-minhu, "a Word from him". Now we read in Surah 4.171 that he was also a ruhun minhu, "a Spirit from him". On both occasions it is clearly stated that the source of the man who bears these titles is God himself. Jesus is his Word and his Spirit. Once again no attempt is made to explain the title in the Qur’an, yet it frankly supports the Christian belief that Jesus was not a creature made out of dust but an eternal spirit who took on human form. It is the closest the Qur’an comes to admitting the pre-existence of Jesus before his conception on earth. The lack of any explanation of its meaning, however, or why it should be applied uniquely to Jesus just as the other two titles are, suggests that Muhammad once again heard and adopted Christian teachings and titles applying to Jesus without understanding them or seeing their ominous implications for his dogma that Jesus was only a prophet like all the other prophets. Precisely in the passage already mentioned, where Muhammad uses the epithets ’Logos’ and ’Spirit’ with reference to Jesus and seems to approach the concept of trinity, it can be clearly understood that Muhammad did not realise the implication of these Christian expressions which he had acquired from hearsay. (Frieling, Christianity and Islam, p. 71). In this case, however, we do find some evidence in the Qur’an that helps us to identify the meaning of this title. Elsewhere in the Qur’an we read of the "Holy Spirit" (Rubul-Quds - cf. Surahs 2.85, 2.253, 16.103) and it is presumed that the Holy Spirit is the angel Gabriel. Whoever it is, it is generally agreed that the Holy Spirit is greater than man and comes from heaven and is purely a spirit. Jesus, however, is now called "a Spirit from him" (ruhun minhu) from which he has received the title in Islamic traditions, "Spirit of God". Whereas David is called Khalifatullah ("Vicegerent of God") and Abraham Khalilullah ("Friend of God") as we have already seen, so now we find that the express title for Jesus in Islam is Ruhullah ("Spirit of God"). Throughout the works of Hadith where purported sayings and anecdotes relating to Jesus are recorded, we find him always being addressed Ya Ruhullah (’’O Spirit of Allah"). It is a very common title in many works. In one place his disciples are found saying to him: "O Spirit of God, describe to us the friends of God (Exalted is He!) upon whom there is no fear, and who do not grieve". (Robson, Christ in Islam, p. 86). Indeed, when one examines the other titles applied to the other prophets, one finds them all typical of the kind of status that ordinary human messengers might enjoy before God. In fact the title applied especially to Muhammad, Rasulullah ("Messenger of God"), carries with it no uniqueness at all for all the prophets are called rusulih in the verse under consideration (Surah 4.171) and indeed, in this very verse, Jesus himself is called a rasulullah. The title "Spirit of God", however, carries with it divine implications. The titles given to other prophets, such as ’Friend of God’, ’Chosen of God’, ’Prophet of God’ may be applied to frail beings like ourselves, but the name ’Spirit of God’ given to Christ by Muslims clearly hints at a higher station and a nobler dignity, and witnesses with no uncertain sound to His superiority over all other prophets. Such a person may well be called the ’Son of God’, and Christians often wonder why their Muhammadan brethren so object to the latter title, when they themselves have given Jesus a title not less high. (Goldsack, Christ in Islam, p. 21). The author, quoting such distinguished commentators as Imam Razi and Baidawi, continues: "Candid Muhammadan writers freely admit that this title ’Spirit of God’ carries with it some speciality such as can be predicated of no other prophet" (Goldsack, Christ in Islam, p. 21). It is very interesting to note that the very expression applied to Jesus in Surah 4.171, ruhun minhu, appears in exactly the same form in Surah 58.22 where we read that God strengthens true believers with "a spirit from him". The Muslim translator Yusuf Ali appends the following comment to this verse: Here we learn that all good and righteous men are strengthened by God with the holy spirit. If anything the phrase used here is stronger, "a spirit from Himself". Whenever anyone offers his heart in faith and purity to God, God accepts it, engraves that Faith on the seeker’s heart, and further fortifies him with the divine spirit which we can no more define adequately than we can define in human language the nature and attributes of God. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, p. 1518). This is a remarkable comment which clearly contains a veiled implication that the ruhun minhu is the very Spirit of the living God, uncreated and eternal in essence. Yusuf Ali says it is "the divine spirit" and that it is as incomprehensible as God himself. The language he uses is unambiguous - the Spirit from God is clearly believed by him to be from the realm of deity and not from the created order. He is, according to this interpretation, practically synonymous with the Holy Spirit in the Christian Bible. Now this is the very title that the Qur’an gives to Jesus in Surah 4.171. The exact same words are used - he is the ruhun minhu, "a Spirit from God". If we merely apply Yusuf Ali’s interpretation of the expression in Surah 58.22 to the very same expression given as a title to Jesus in Surah 4.171, we can only conclude that Jesus is the "divine spirit", which we can no more adequately define than we can define in human language "the nature and attributes of God". He is, therefore, God in essence and nature. Because of the simultaneous denial in Surah 4.171 that Jesus is the Son of God, Yusuf Ali is constrained to deny that the title ruhun minhu when applied to Jesus implies deity, but he is hardly consistent in his exposition of the Qur’an when he teaches in another place that ruhun minhu is indeed a divine spirit possessing the nature and attributes of God and is as incomprehensible as God as well. Once again we find the dogmas of the Qur’an somewhat contradicted by its own teachings regarding the uniqueness of Jesus over all the other prophets. For our part we believe that, as with the titles Messiah and Word of God, this title Spirit of God also strongly supports the Christian belief that Jesus is indeed the Son of God and that, not in any metaphorical sense, but in an eternal one which is based on the fact that he is very deity himself. The only way Yusuf Ali could avoid this admission when commenting on Surah 4.171 was to frankly contradict what he said in his commentary on Surah 58.22.(In his comments on Surah 4.171 he denies the divinity of Jesus, his sonship, and his unity with the Father). There can be little doubt that the title here applied to Jesus, like the titles Messiah and Word of God, contains a special meaning not immediately apparent in the Qur’an which fails to attempt any explanation of it, but which nevertheless must place him above the prophets. Ultimately all three titles are only consistent with Christian belief in him as the Son of God and this title "Spirit of God" therefore also gives Christians an open door in their witness to Muslims. As Goldsack says in his excellent booklet on Jesus in Islam, "When we see that to Jesus alone Muslims give this high title ’Spirit of God’, then it is evident that he is the Spirit of God in a special sense, and it is only a step from this to the fuller teaching of the Injil that He is the eternal Son of God" (Goldsack, Christ in Islam, p. 23). The same author fitly concludes: "Thus we re-affirm that the term ’Spirit of God’, applied to Christ by Muslims, places Him high above all other prophets, and hints at the great doctrine of His divinity which is so clearly taught in the Injil" (Goldsack, Christ in Islam, p. 24). Another writer also does not hesitate to see in this title clear evidence that Jesus was unique among men and above them all, and not merely one of the prophets of God: Apart from this, moreover, it is a most significant fact that Jesus is so intimately connected with the Spirit in the Qur’an. This one fact puts Christ above the level of all other prophets and brings us very near to the Christian conception about the nature of Christ. (Mylrea, The Holy Spirit in Qur’an and Bible, p. 6). We have now considered three unique titles that are applied to Jesus in the Qur’an and, along with the three unique features of his life that we considered in the first section, we have found an abundance of material in the Qur’an itself that Christians can use to show Muslims that only the Bible reveals the true Jesus - the Son of God who came to save us from our sins. It is quite remarkable to find all three titles in just one verse which also contains a threefold denial of Jesus’ deity! The very titles Messiah, Word and Spirit of God, when analysed against the background of the implications as to their meanings and the Qur’anic silence in this respect, can only lead to the very conclusion that the Qur’an is at pains to pre-empt - that Jesus is the Son of God. Thus the Qur’an gives precious glimpses of the Messiah’s greatness, but stops short of unveiling his glorious perfections and divine majesty. It leads to the portal, but fails to open the door : it kindles the flame, but leaves it in the heart a longing and unsatisfied desire. (Goldsack, Christ in Islam, p. 42). In closing let us consider yet one more feature in the life of Jesus which the Qur’an applies to him as uniquely as it does the others we have considered, namely the power and authority to give life to the dead, and see how this too can be used as a very effective bridge for the communication of the Gospel to Muslims against the background of their own beliefs. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 123: 06.25. D. JESUS THE RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE. ======================================================================== D. JESUS THE RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE. 1. The Power to Give Life to the Dead in the Qur’an. The Qur’an freely acknowledges that Jesus was a great worker of miracles, saying Wa aataynaa Iisaabna Maryamal-bayyinaat - "And We gave Jesus son of Mary clear signs" (Surah 2.87, so also Surah 43.63). A number of these are recorded in the book, some of which have apocryphal origins, but others are entirely Biblical, such as those in this brief extract where Jesus is recorded as saying: "And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I quicken the dead, by God’s leave". Surah 3.49 In a similar passage describing the many signs he was sent to work among the people of Israel we find God himself mentioning the same three miracles, saying to Jesus: "And thou healest those born blind, and the lepers, by my leave. And behold! Thou bringest forth the dead by my leave". Surah 5.113 Jesus himself spoke of each one of these three miracles, namely the healing of the blind and the lepers and the raising of the dead, when he sent the messengers of John the Baptist away, saying: "Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them". Luke 7:22 It is well-known and widely accepted among Muslims that Muhammad performed no miracles, notwithstanding fanciful records to the contrary in the Hadith. The Qur’an plainly teaches that he came with no signs and wonders (see the companion volume to this book, Muhammad and the Religion of Islam, pp. 260-263) and many Muslims, conscious of an apparent advantage that Jesus enjoys over Muhammad, are quick to emphasize the words found in both our quotations from the Qur’an, namely bi-ithnillaah - "by God’s permission" (or leave). Thus they seek to draw attention away from the powers Jesus had to God himself as the author and source of these powers. In so doing they endeavour to show that there was nothing extraordinary in what Jesus could do as he gained his authority to perform miracles from God alone. We accordingly find Yusuf Ali commenting on Surah 5.113 as follows: Note how the words "by My leave" are repeated with each miracle to emphasize the fact that they arose, not out of the power or will of Jesus, but by the leave and will and power of God, who is supreme over Jesus as He is over all other mortals. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, p. 278). A Christian commentator, however, takes the expression to be an intended denial of the deity of Christ which is otherwise plainly implied in the powers attributed to him: Blind . . . leper . . . dead from their graves. Three classes of miracles referred to here, all of which testified to the divinity Muhammad is here so careful to deny. The constant use of the phrase "By my permission" seems to indicate clearly one of two things: either a deliberate effort to combat the Christian doctrine of the divinity of Christ, or to apologise for the absence of similar miracles in his own case. Of the two, the first is most probable, for at this late day there was no occasion to vindicate his own apostleship from charges of this kind. The signs of the Qur’an and the successes of Islam were now considered sufficient proof of his apostleship. (Wherry, A Comprehensive Commentary on the Qur’an, Vol. 2, p. 154). The power to perform miracles is, in our view, not a per se proof of divinity, for many of the prophets before Jesus performed miracles. Elijah raised the son of the woman of Zarephath to life (1 Kings 17:22) while Elisha not only did the same when he raised the Shunammite woman’s son from the dead (2 Kings 4:34-36) but also cleansed Naaman the Syrian of leprosy (2 Kings 5:14). It does appear, however, that Jesus was the first to give sight to the blind (John 9:32). Nonetheless the mere power to perform miracles is not of itself proof of divinity, though in old covenant times it was a sure sign of prophethood (yet even here we find that a true prophet need not perform miracles - John 10:41). In the passages quoted from the Qur’an, however, we find yet another golden opportunity for a Christian witness against the background of the uniqueness of Jesus in the Qur’an. Not long ago I was discussing Surah 3.49 with a Muslim who promptly interjected while I was describing the signs performed by Jesus: "Yet, but notice one thing he says - ’by God’s permission"’. He was quite surprised when I replied that this addendum should not trouble a Christian for the Bible also states that it was only by the Father’s authority that he performed signs. On one occasion Jesus spoke of "the works which the Father has granted me to accomplish" (John 5:36 - see also John 14:10) and, when he raised Lazarus from the dead, made it plain he had prayed for the power to do so (John 11:41). The Muslim replied that most Christians he knew would usually say emphatically that as Jesus is God, he needed no one’s permission or authority to do miracles, to which I responded that, in their zeal to glorify Jesus, some Christians occasionally become dogmatic and say things that are beyond the teaching of our Scriptures. This gave me an open door, however, for I promptly said I believed the Muslims were doing the very same thing. They dogmatically claim that Jesus was only a prophet like the other prophets, yet in this very same verse (Surah 3.49) we find a power attributed to him which is given to no other man in the Qur’an - the power to raise the dead to life. The key words are wa uhyil mawtaa - "and I give life to the dead". There is a beautiful contrast between hayah (life) and mawtah (death). I suggested that, just as Christians should not attempt to exaggerate the glory of Jesus against Biblical evidences which it make it plain he needed the Father’s authority to perform signs, so Muslims should not minimise that glory against Qur’anic evidences of his complete uniqueness, as in this case where he is the only man said to have the power to raise the dead to life. The expression "to give life to the dead", as found in its various forms in the Qur’an (uhyil mawtaa - Surah 2.260, 22.6, 36.12; hayya minal mayyit - "to bring life from the dead" - Surah 30.19, etc.), is found twenty-one times in the book. On all but two of these occasions the power is ascribed to God alone. He is constantly spoken of as the one who brings the dead to life. It is thus a common statement of his renewing power. Yet we find that on the only two occasions that the Qur’an applies this power to someone else, it applies it to Jesus. In Surah 3.49 it is Jesus who speaks of his power to raise the dead to life and in Surah 5.113 it is God who speaks to Jesus of this power he has given him. Yet throughout the Qur’an we do not find that the power to raise the dead has been given to anyone else. It therefore belongs exclusively to God and it has been given to Jesus alone. Here we have yet another example of how unique Jesus is in the Qur’an and it is not surprising to find a Muslim identifying his power to raise the dead to life as the most remarkable feature of his life on earth during his first coming. While he seeks to establish the humanity of Jesus according to Muslim belief, he is nevertheless constrained to admit: At the first stage the outstanding miracle performed by him is the bringing back of the dead to life while during his second one his chief accomplishment will be the slaying of Dajjal. (Alam, Nuzul-e-Esa: The Descension of Jesus Christ, p. 30). Let us press on to see the context in which this same power, in a very special way, is vested in Jesus alone in the Bible and how it simultaneously testifies to his deity and superiority over all the prophets who preceded him. 2. The Resurrection and the Life in the Bible. Whereas prophets like Elijah and Elisha were also given the power to restore men to their normal lives on earth, we find that Jesus enjoyed this power in a unique way. It has rightly been said of him that he upset every funeral that he attended! He raised the son of the widow of Nain (Luke 7:54,55) and the daughter of Jairus (Luke 8:54-55), but the incident that must concern us is the raising of Lazarus who had been dead already four days. When Jesus heard that he was ill, he "stayed two days longer in the place where he was" (John 11:6) and deliberately let him die. I do not believe it is necessary to recount the whole story to my Christian readers but there are a few things in it which make the scene one of contrasting elements and give it considerable drama, and by outlining these to Muslims I know Christians will grip their attention and make the point more emphatically. John’s Gospel is full of irony and there is much of it here. The pall of death hangs over this chapter. Firstly, Lazarus dies (v.14). Then, when Jesus speaks of going to Judea again, his disciples have an immediate foreboding of his own death (v.8) until Thomas suggests that they should all go and die with him! (v.16). When they arrive at Bethany a multitude wails and laments the death of Lazarus (w . 19,33). Both Mary and Martha, the sisters of the dead man, suggest to Jesus that if he had only come in time their brother could have been kept alive and would not have died (w . 21,32). In the same vein the Jews suggest that, having cured a blind man the last time he was there, he could surely "have kept this man from dying" (v.37). When Jesus commands them to remove the stone, Martha thinks only of the odour of death (v.39) which seems to hang irreversibly over the whole scene. Against this setting comes one of the most outstanding declarations ever made by Jesus Christ during his life on earth: "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die". John 11:25-26. To the crowd Jesus seemed to be a faith healer who could heal sick people while they were still alive provided he was, as we say, "in the right place at the right time". When Jesus spoke to Martha and told her that Lazarus would rise again (v.23), she took this to be an allusion to the Day of Judgement, the Last Day (v.24). She found little comfort in contemplating the purpose of a God who seemed so far off to raise the dead on a coming day that seemed equally remote. Jesus therefore immediately made his famous declaration, "I am the Resurrection and the Life". In other words Martha should not think so remotely of the resurrection. The God who seemed so far off was standing right in front of her in the person of his Son, and the Day was not in the distant future but had arrived in a very special way already. Lazarus was duly raised there and then as a sign that Jesus had not come ultimately to prolong life on earth while he could postpone the day of death through his healing powers, but to conquer death itself and bring eternal life to the world. Through his crucifixion not long afterwards and his immediate resurrection to life he made it possible for men to be raised to newness of life in this world right now (Romans 6:4) and to enjoy the sure hope of eternal life when the Last Day comes (John 6:40). In this story we see precisely how Jesus enjoys a unique power to raise the dead to life. He is the Resurrection - though a man die, yet by faith in him he shall be raised alive. He is also the Life - those who have faith in him will indeed never even really die. Christians have a tremendous amount of material here for an effective witness to Muslims of Christ’s ultimate life-giving power. But wherein does this unique power consist? In what way can we capitalise on the teaching of the Qur’an that God’s power to raise the dead to life has been given to Jesus alone and show just why it is Jesus who should rightly enjoy it? The answer lies in Jesus’ own words: "For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will . . . For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted to the Son also to have life in himself, and has given him authority to execute judgment". John 5:21; John 5:26. It is because Jesus is the divine, eternal Son of God that he alone possesses this unique authority. The power to give life, to actually impart eternal life, is surely a divine power that cannot be given to any mere creature. Jesus said that his Father had given him "power over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom thou hast given him" (John 17:2). No one else in all history has spoken thus. It is only because he is the eternal Son of the Father that he can have life in himself and give it to whom he will. Christians have here, therefore, not only a testimony to Christ’s life-giving power but also to his deity. The Qur’an contains just a passing hint, a germ of the truth, when it speaks of Jesus as he alone who can give life to the dead with divine authority from above. We see this power unfold in all its fulness in the Bible and discover who Jesus really is and why he enjoys this unique authority. There is, therefore, in the Qur’an, a passing testimony to one of the glorious powers that he, as the Lord of all glory, enjoys over all the earth. It is just another of those unique features in the book which Christians can use to show Muslims that Jesus was not just a prophet but God’s own Son who came into the world to bring life to the dead. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 124: 06.26. COMPARING BIBLICAL AND QUR'ANIC TENETS ======================================================================== Comparing Biblical and Qur’anic Tenets ======================================================================== CHAPTER 125: 06.27. A. THE LOVE OF THE FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPIRIT. ======================================================================== A. THE LOVE OF THE FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPIRIT. 1. The Love of God in the Qur’an. In the last chapter we considered the uniqueness of Jesus, not only in the Bible, but also in the Qur’an, as a very useful platform on which to build an effective witness to Muslims. In this chapter we shall consider a few remaining points of contact between the Qur’an and the Bible, where to some extent we find common ground, which Christians can also use profitably as a means of communicating the Gospel to Muslims. We shall begin with a comparative study of the love of God as it is set forth in the Qur’an and the Bible. The Qur’an appears to say much of God’s love for men and the need on the believer’s part to love him in return. A typical Qur’anic text which speaks on the one hand of the love of God and on the other exhorts Muslims to respond to him in love in return reads: Say: "If ye do love God, follow me: God will love you and forgive you your sins: For God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful". Surah 3.31 Indeed there are a host of passages in the Qur’an which teach that God loves those who earnestly seek to do good. Innallaaha yuhibbul muhsiniin - "For God loveth those who do good" (Surah 2.195) - is the sort of definition we find on many occasions in the book of the terms and circumstances which bring forth the love of God for men. In Surah 2.222 we read that "He loves those who keep themselves pure and clean", in Surah 3.76 that "God loves those who act aright", and in Surah 5.45 that "God loveth those who judge in equity". In each passage the word used for "love" is yuhibbu from the basic Arabic word meaning to love, namely ahabba. On no less than twenty-one occasions in the Qur’an we find similar texts, speaking of God’s love for the godfearing, the patient, etc. On the other hand the Qur’an speaks equally often of those whom God does not love and in each case the negative simply precedes the same Arabic word, namely laa yuhibbu. He does not love transgressors (Surah 7.55), the treacherous (Surah 8.58), arrogant boasters (Surah 31.18), ungrateful traitors (Surah 22.38) and the like. A similar word conveying much the same sentiment in the Qur’an is radiya which also occurs in its particular forms fairly regularly in the book to describe God’s pleasure and love on those who are faithful to him, as in Surah 5.122: "God is well-pleased with them". The only other word used in the Qur’an to speak of God’s love is twice applied to him directly as one of his attributes, namely Al-Waduud, "the Loving One" (Surah 85.14, so also Surah 11.90). A Muslim writer, summarising some of the texts of the Qur’an which speak of God’s love, says: God’s love, as explained in the Qur’an, is boundless, even guiding man to love Him and showing man the way. (Khalifa, The Sublime Qur’an and Orientalism, p. 126). Nevertheless one will search in vain through the Qur’an to find any text which defines God’s love for mankind as something which rises from deep within his own heart, which contains any degree of sympathy or paternal affection, or ultimately which leads him to actually give of himself to show and make his love for men effective. There is nothing of God’s love for his enemies, nothing of his willingness to enter into a personal relationship with men based on an expression of mutual love, and nothing of a deliberate manifestation of his love for men to redeem them from their sins. In every one of the quotes that one finds speaking of God’s love one can comfortably substitute the word "approves" for "loves" without any change whatsoever in the meaning of the whole clause. God approves of the just, he approves of those who do good, and so disapproves of transgressors, arrogant boasters and the like. In what sense, asks a recently published Mohammedan text-book, is it right to say that Allah has the characteristic Loving - that He loves? The answer is that love must be understood as Allah’s favour bestowed on a favoured individual, and that similarly His Wrath is the negation of that favour. (Gairdner, The Reproach of Islam, p. 133). God thus does not feel any degree of affection, sympathy or charity for men, he only approves of those who keep his commandments, and the knowledge and realisation of this approval will also only be known at the Last Day. It is not something a believer can personally experience here and now. Perhaps this is why the Qur’an rarely calls God Al-Waduud, "the Loving One", as we have seen. It is not one of his fore most attributes. A Christian writer emphasizes its infrequently use when he says that the title "occurs only twice in the Koran" (Zwemer, The Moslem Doctrine of God, p. 41), whereas many of the other titles occur dozens of times. One of the great Muslim theologians of history, Al Ghazzali, in his study of the attributes of God entitled Al Maqsad Al-Asna, was quite open in his approach to the teaching of the Qur’an about God’s love, saying that "He remains above the feeling of love", while going on to say that such "love and mercy are desired in respect of their objects only for the sake of their fruit and benefit and not because of empathy or feeling" (Stade, Ninety-Nine Names of God in Islam, p. 91). The love of God for man therefore, as Al-Ghazzali says, is only vested in his interest that they should benefit from his bounties. It is not something which issues out of his heart, particularly as a sentiment that may go contrary to those who benefit from his love. God, it seems from the Qur’an, cannot love those who are opposed to him and despise him. Al-Ghazzali explains this love as consisting solely of objective acts of kindness and expressions of approval. He denies that there is any subjectivity in the love of God, that is, that God feels any love in his own heart towards mankind. Men therefore cannot have the greatest of privileges - the actual personal knowledge of God’s very own love. They can receive things from God as tokens of kindness and approval but God himself cannot be known. There is no possibility of a mutual expression of love between God and men which can develop and grow into a wondrous communion and fellowship between him and the believer. Just as a young man may bestow gifts on a woman he courts yet withhold an offer of marriage, so God only bestows fruits and benefits on those who please him but will in no way commit himself to them. Whatever Mohammed taught concerning God’s mercy, loving kindness or goodness has reference only and wholly to what God is external to himself. (Zwemer, The Moslem Doctrine of God, p. 110). There will always remain, therefore, a gulf between him and men. He cannot be known personally, indeed it appears from Muslim theology that the further God exalts himself above his creation and holds himself aloof from it, the more he considers himself glorified - unlike the God of the Bible who rejoices to draw near to his creation in love (see pp. 255-258 of the companion volume to this book, Muhammad and the Religion of Islam). In a real sense the Muslim awareness of God is an awareness of the unknown. The revelation communicated God’s Law. It does not reveal God Himself. He remains inscrutable and inaccessible to knowledge. (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 55). The only relationship therefore that can exist between God and men is that of master and servant. The former may express his approval of the latter’s good service through increased wages, better facilities and other rewards, while the latter remains obliged at all times nonetheless to render faithful service and obey his commands. The Qur’an makes no allowance for any other kind of relationship between God and men, saying quite emphatically: Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth but must come to (God) Most Gracious as a servant. Surah 19.93 An abd (servant) is all a believer can be towards his master, Al-Malik ("the Sovereign"). Just as a servant will generally reside outside the home, be obliged to work for his wages, fear dismissal if he is refractory, and enjoy no direct relationship with his master, so a true believer in the Qur’an cannot come to know God personally, must work for his approval, and will fear rejection if he stumbles so as to fall. A Muslim writer puts it plainly: We need, however, to remember that God is Master, we are His creatures and servants. (Zafrulla Khan, Islam: Its Meaning for Modern Man, p. 101). Muslims, nevertheless, are not idolaters, pagans or worshippers of heathen gods. They offer their worship to the same God as we do and we can note with pleasure the very fact of the Qur’an’s teaching that God does love true believers. For here we have yet another point of common ground which can be used as a means to an effective Christian witness, in this case of the surpassing fulness of God’s love as it is revealed to us in the Bible. Against the background of the Qur’an’s limited concept of the love of God towards mankind, let us consider how to lead Muslims to the complete knowledge of God’s love as it is revealed to us in our Scriptures. 2. The Fatherhood of God in the Bible. We have seen that although the Qur’an has a very limited sense of God’s love it does nevertheless call him Al- Waduud - "the Loving One". This is just one of many names or attributes given to God in the Qur’an. In fact Islam has defined ninety-nine names of God, known as al-asma’ul- husna - "the beautiful names", and in many printed Arabic Qur’ans today one finds these names listed in order at the introduction to the book. The first thirteen occur in order in Surah 59.22-24, such as Ar-Rahman, "the Compassionate"; Ar-Rahim, "the Merciful"; Al-Malik, "the Sovereign"; Al-Quddus, "the Holy", and so on. It is said in the Hadith that Muhammad himself specifically stated that the names of God duly numbered ninety-nine: Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) as saying: Verily, there are ninety-nine names of Allah, i.e. hundred excepting one. He who enumerates them would get into Paradise. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, p. 1410). In the early days of Sufism it was claimed by the recognised Sufi masters that there were actually one hundred names of God and that they alone knew the hundredth name and were not permitted to disclose it. It was regarded as the supreme name of God. One is reminded of Jesus’ parable: "What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost, until he finds it? And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing". Luke 15:4-5. The one sheep which was missing was sought out eagerly until it was found. It is our view that the Muslims are indeed missing the one supreme name of God and will do well to leave his ninety-nine attributes "in the wilderness", as it were, and not be satisfied until they find the one that is above all others. I have often suggested to Muslims that it is not the hundredth name they are missing. If, according to them, Allah has one hundred names, ninety-nine of which have been publicly recorded, is it not possible that the one they lack is not the last name, the hundredth. Is it not rather the first name that is being overlooked in Islam? The ninety-nine names they extol are surely, in Islam, only the remaining attributes of God. The great name is missing, the supreme name, and accordingly the first and foremost attribute of God, the name which appears more commonly in the New Testament for God than any other, so often in fact that it is the proper New Testament name for God, and that name is the Father. A Christian writer duly makes the point in saying: Among the ninety-nine Titles or Names of God repeated by Muslims when they tell their beads, the name of Father does not occur. (Tisdall, The Religion of the Crescent, p. 54). It is remarkable that the commonest title for God in the Christian Scriptures, that is the Father, is completely lacking in the Qur’an. This is little wonder, however, as we have already seen that the closest relationship that the Qur’an allows between God and men is that of master to servant. There is no capacity in the Qur’an for men to become children of God - indeed the Qur’an states plainly that God has no children: "And they falsely, having no knowledge, attribute to him sons and daughters" (Surah 6.100). In another passage Jews and Christians are berated for saying "we are the sons of God" (Surah 5.20). The Qur’an nowhere allows the least possibility that God can have children and so it accordingly nowhere speaks of him as Father. "Muslims do not call God Father. They say that God has no sons, and men are only His slaves or servants" (Christian Witness Among Muslims, p. 18). Yet, in contrast, this is the commonest and most prominent name of God in the Christian Scriptures. It may be a coincidence but the Gospel according to St. Luke records that the first and last sentences that Jesus uttered in this world contained the word Father (Luke 2:49; Luke 23:46). (Deshmukh, The Gospel and Islam, p. 168). The omission of this name in the Qur’an has long been a cause of offence to Muslim writers. They make various attempts to explain away the complete oversight in the Qur’an regarding the title Father. A Muslim writer gives two of the commonest arguments raised in defence of this omission. On the one hand he says of Jesus: His conception of the "Fatherhood" of God embraced all humanity. All mankind were the children of God, and he was their Teacher sent by their Eternal Father. (Ali, The Spirit of Islam, p. 142). This interpretation of Jesus’ use of the name Father for God is completely erroneous. Under no circumstances did he teach that all men are children of God or that God’s Fatherhood "embraced all humanity". He once plainly told the Jews that their Father was not God but the devil (John 8:44) and it was always only to his own disciples that Jesus spoke of God as their Father (Luke 12:32, Matthew 6:14-15). As the apostle John put it, "But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God" (John 1:12). Throughout the New Testament one finds that it is only those who follow Jesus as Lord and Saviour who become the children of God. No one is naturally a child of God. Even all true Christians, before becoming true believers, "were by nature children of wrath like the rest of mankind" (Ephesians 2:3). It is nonsense to say that Jesus taught that all men are children of God. In the Qur’an no one is or ever can be a child of God. In the Bible likewise no one is a child of God by nature, but all who turn to the Father by faith in his Son Jesus Christ can become children of God. In a footnote the same Muslim writer offers a second argument to explain the Qur’anic silence about God as Father: The use of the word "Father" in relation to God was cut out from Islam owing to the perversion of the idea among the then Christians. (Ali, The Spirit of Islam, p. 142). No documentation or authority is given for this statement which is grossly speculative. The fact is that the Qur’an nowhere even hints that the name Father was "cut out from Islam" for any reason. On the contrary the insistence in the Qur’an that Allah has neither sons or daughters makes the inclusion of such a name in the book an impossibility. The real reason why the Qur’an does not use this title for God is that Muhammad was unaware that God had long beforehand chosen to enter into a far more intimate and personal relationship with men than that of master to servant. The key issue here is the love of God. We have seen how limited the Qur’an’s concept of this love is and the reason for this is quite plain - it denies that true believers can enter into such a close relationship as that between a father and his children which is based on a degree of love not known in other similar relationships. In fact, of all the names, ’Heavenly Father’ is the most meaningful one, which enables us to understand the wonderful relationship which God wants to establish with us. (Deshmukh, The Gospel and Islam, p. 166). From an objective point of view the Qur’an’s disallowance of a relationship between God and men such as that between a father and his children also prevents any real knowledge of God’s deep personality as well. His followers may know much about him, but they cannot know him. Revelation is not a personal self-disclosure of the Divine. It is for this reason, apart from its fear also of compromising unity, that the Qur’an does not use the term "Father" of God nor "son" of the believer. It allows only Rabb and ’abd. In either case, the terms require each other. If God is not addressed as Father, neither is it as sons that men come to Him. There remains beyond the revelation the impenetrable mystery of the Divine. (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 47). It is in love that God has been pleased to become our Father, indeed we here discover the whole fulness of that love that we do not find in the Qur’an. Masters may approve of faithful servants, but what child is there whom the father does not love deeply in his heart? As John put it: See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. 1 John 3:1 This means that Cod is prepared to draw so near to us in love that the intimate communion which will result from this love between him and true believers can only be compared to that which exists between a loving father and his children. A brief comparison between the status of a child and a servant in a household will bring this out all the more. The child belongs in the house, the servant has his own quarters outside. A child can depend implicitly on the father’s love for him, for he will always be his child. A servant, however, can be dismissed at the discretion of his master. Children belong automatically in the home, it is their right, but servants must work to earn their place and do not enjoy the absolute freedom of the household that the children enjoy. Most of all, the child bears his father’s image and so must be the permanent object of the father’s affection, and he becomes the heir to all things in his father’s house. "Like father, like son", a typical proverb, defines the first feature perfectly, while another typical proverb, "One day my son this will all be yours", symbolising the inheritance the son has to all that the father has established, equally well defines the second. Jesus made this very point when he said to his disciples: "Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom" (Luke 12:32). It is only from servants that masters demand a degree of effort and service before they receive their wage. Children enjoy their portion of food, however, as an inborn right in their father’s house. The following brief conversation between Jesus and Peter at Capernaum after the collectors of the half shekel tax had enquired if Jesus paid taxes, brings this fact out very clearly: "What do you think Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their sons or from others?" And when he said "From others", Jesus said to him "Then the sons are free". Matthew 17:25-26. A father always loves his own children in a very special way and no matter how well-disposed he may be towards children generally, he will always have a deeper affection for his own children than for others. The reason is simply that he sees something of himself in his own children that he does not see in others. Even though he may have sons very different to each other in looks and temperament, he will in so many ways, as he looks at them both, be able to say, "that is me". So also, if God becomes our Father, we may know that he has a special affection for us, that in some unique way he sees something of himself in us, and for this reason will assuredly never disown us. Children also love their fathers. There must be few young men who will declare a greater love for any other man than their own fathers. So, if God becomes our Father, it is only natural that we will look on him with the deepest possible affection. There can be no more intimate and personal relationship between God and men. Contrast the first words of the great Muslim prayer, the Fatihah, with those of the Lord’s Prayer. The Muslim prays: "Praise be to God, the Lord of the Worlds, the Compassionate, the Merciful, Master of the Day of Reckoning" (Surah 1.2-4), while Jesus taught the Christian to say quite simply, "Our Father" (Matthew 6:9). The latter title, so simple, is yet so much more profound than all those in the Fatihah put together. It tells far more about God and the believer’s relationship with him and access to him than all the lofty invocations of the Muslim prayer. Some Muslims argue that the title Father is too familiar and, by itself, lacks any sense of God’s supreme glory. We are accused of bringing him down to our level and making him little more than ourselves. In reply to such arguments I always commend the speaker for discerning that there is not much between God and the true Christian. On the other hand I suggest that he has missed the real point - we do not negate God’s glory and majesty, rather we have been raised as children of God to his level. We have, by his grace, become "little less" than him (Psalms 8:5). The gap has been narrowed at his level, not ours. We have not brought him down, he has elevated us to be "children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ" (Romans 8:17). It is only by knowing God as Father that the fulness of his love can truly be discovered. Here Christians have yet another wonderful means of communicating the Gospel to Muslims against the background of their own beliefs, in this case their inadequate experience of his love. Let us press to see how that love has been manifested to us and how we c experience it within our very own hearts. 3. The Revelation of God’s Love in Jesus Christ. It is meaningless to speak of God’s love for us and of our relationship with him as children of the heavenly Father unless we can show how that love has been manifested to us. Indeed whenever a Muslim is put on terms to declare what God has done to show his love for him he will immediately reply that God has given him health, possessions, children and the like or that he has answered his prayers. A Muslim can never go so far, however, as to show how God has shown his love for him in a deeply personal way. He especially cannot show how God has in any way given of himself to reveal his love. Al-Ghazzali, speaking of the love of God, said it was only a removing of the veil over the hearts of men so that he should be known to them, nothing more. He declared: "There is no reaching out on the part of God" (MacDonald, Aspects of Islam, p. 201). He makes his point quite plainly. This is perhaps the most important point where a Christian can make contact with a Muslim. For, by way of contrast, it can so easily be shown that the love of God in the Bible is the greatest there could be. It is summed up perfectly in the following passage: Beloved, let us love one another; for love is of God, and he who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No man has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us. So we know and believe the love God has for us. 1 John 4:7-11; 1 John 4:16. The striking feature of this passage is the frequent recurrence of the words "God" and "love". The writer is so persuaded of the inseparable link between the two that he sums it up in these words: God is love (1 John 4:8). This means that right in the very heart of God’s own personal interest in men rests the deepest possible affection and concern for them. The love of God in this case is clearly not to be found solely outside of himself in "fruit and benefit" as Al-Ghazzali suggests. On the contrary it is that love which exists within the very nature of God and it is the love of God himself that is revealed to men in the Gospel. One can safely say that more is said of God’s love in this one short passage in the Bible than in the whole of the Qur’an. What was it that persuaded the Apostle John of the intensity of God’s love for mankind? To what does he appeal to prove this magnificent love of God towards men of which he speaks? What has God ever done to manifest his love in such a way that he could be spoken of as the epitome of love itself? It is quite simply this: In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins. 1 John 4:10 Herein lies the proof of the depth of God’s love towards us. He has done the greatest thing he possibly could do to reveal his love for us - he gave willingly his very own Son Jesus Christ to die on a cross for our sins to redeem us to himself. No greater proof of God’s love can be given to mankind than this. It is no wonder that John does not appeal to anything further to make his point. He has given the very best possible proof of God’s love towards men. It is through God’s action in Jesus the Messiah that the Christian Church recognizes in a special and marvellous way the astonishing affirmation that God loves people. That affirmation is the centre of all that Christians believe and witness concerning God. (Shenk, Islam and Christianity, p. 85). At this point perhaps the most effective way of showing just how deep this love is is to compare it with the great love of the prophet Abraham when he was willing to give his Son Isaac up as a sacrifice to God. We have already dealt with this at some length in the fourth chapter of this book and need not repeat what has already been said. All we need add here is the fact that in Jesus Christ God has both expressed and shown how deep his love is for us. By the gift of his Son he has made it possible for us to become his children and through the death of his Son he has reconciled us fully to himself. Two of the great early Christian apostles stated the wonder of the expression of God’s love for us in the gift of his Son Jesus Christ in these words: God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Romans 5:8 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world that we might live through him. 1 John 4:9 It is hardly surprising that the Qur’an has so little to say about the love of God when it denies that God gave his Son to redeem us from our sins. It has denied the greatest manifestation of this love that could ever have been given by God to men. As Jesus said: "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends". John 15:13 This is the greatest and most abiding form of love - love that is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6) and cannot be overcome by it. Such love was revealed in the Lord Jesus Christ when he willingly laid down his life: When Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. John 13:1 Here we have proof, not only of God’s inestimable love, but also of the fact that we can depend on it forever. The true Christian will never know a whit of God’s wrath for he is the eternal object of his immeasurable love. The willing gift of his own Son was perfect proof of the truth of this wonderful promise: "I have loved you with an everlasting love". Jeremiah 31:3 The cross of Jesus Christ was a magnificent proof of the eternal love of both the Father and the Son for mankind. Each was prepared to endure the loss of the other’s presence - a circumstance which we cannot possibly estimate in our minds so that we might never be lost. Not only so, but it is little wonder that after the death of Jesus and his resurrection to life again three days later God is only known as Father in the Holy Scriptures. This inexpressible gift shows us more than anything else ever could that God is indeed willing to become our Father. Through the cross he has redeemed all true believers in his Son to himself and has made possible even now the forgiveness of all our offences so that we might be transformed from children of wrath, which we are by nature, into children of God. All Christians know the parable of the prodigal son. When he left his father’s household he squandered his father’s wealth in riotous and loose living but, when a famine came upon the land and he began to be in want, he came to his senses and decided to return to his father, content simply to be one of his servants. The father’s reaction to him, however, is very significant: But while he was yet at a distance, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. Luke 15:20 Even after the prodigal son had said his piece and declared his willingness simply to be one of his servants, his father immediately called for a feast, put his best robe on him, and put shoes on his feet and a ring on his hand. The interpretation of the parable is obvious - the God of the Bible loves wayward sinners so much that he will willingly receive them if they will turn to faith in him. The gift of God’s Son Jesus Christ, his atoning death on the cross and his resurrection from the dead, assure him of a complete acceptance in the warm, loving arms of the eternal Father. The Qur’an, on the contrary, boldly declares "God loves not the prodigal" (Surah 6.141, so also Surah 7.31. The word musrifiin, translated by Arberry as "the prodigal", is translated by Yusuf Ali "the wasters"). It is only as we see God’s gracious love for all men manifested for us in Jesus Christ that we can see that God will not only welcome the prodigal but will do so with open arms if he will but come to him in faith through his Son Jesus Christ who died that wayward sinners might live. In the gift of his Son Christians can show Muslims how greatly God has shown and manifested his love for us and how by this means we too can become the children of God. Let us press on in closing to see how we can actually experience the revelation of that love through the wonderful gift of the Holy Spirit. 4. Experiencing God’s Love Through the Holy Spirit. We have seen that we can actually know God’s love for us through the relationship he has been willing to enter into with us, he as our Father and we as his children. We have also seen that God’s love has been manifested through the gift of his Son Jesus Christ. Let us conclude by discovering how we can show Muslims that God’s love can also be felt and experienced through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us. It has been well put by the Apostle Paul: Hope does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us. Romans 5:5 What a wonderful statement this is. God’s love has actually been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which is given to every one at that moment that he turns and puts his faith in Jesus, seeking salvation in him alone. Not only do we behold God’s love, therefore, for us in the gift of his Son but we can actually experience it within our own souls through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. This principle of our adoption as children of God through Jesus Christ and our living experience of this relationship in the Holy Spirit was summed up by Paul in these words: But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying ’Abba! Father!’ Galatians 4:4-6. Here we have the climax of the revelation of God’s love towards us. We have become children of God through the work of Jesus Christ whom God sent into the world to save us from our sins. But now, by sending the Spirit of his Son right into our hearts, he has made us conscious within our own beings of our status before him. Not only are we children of God therefore, we know we are children of God. We have been brought into the very same eternal, intimate communion with the Father that the Son of God himself has shared with him from all eternity. Just as Jesus was able to call on his Father in heaven with an expression of intense intimacy, namely Abba, Father (Mark 14:36), so we have now been brought, by the mercies of God, into this same intimate relationship. The Apostle Paul, in another epistle, once again puts it perfectly when he says: When we cry, ’Abba! Father!’, it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God. Romans 8:15-16. The Holy Spirit within us has made us particularly aware of the fact that God is now our Father and we, therefore, call on him as such out of the deep knowledge of the love that he has for us. He is our Father in the very closest manner that he could be and through his Spirit he has impressed this fact very surely on us. All this has been done through the redemption which he set forth and accomplished through his Son Jesus Christ. By dying for our sins to cleanse us from all evil Jesus has made it possible for us to fully enjoy this new relationship. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. Ephesians 2:16 It is through the gift of the Holy Spirit that the fulness of God’s love towards us is finally sealed in all its perfection. The God of the Christian Bible is accessible to all who truly turn to him in faith through his Son Jesus Christ. He can be known, experienced and enjoyed. Once the Holy Spirit enters a man he enters into a new, living relationship with God. He no longer worships a divine being who can only be approached as a Master, he shares the love of a Father who is willing to receive him into his own kingdom and presence. How different this is from the concept of the Holy Spirit in Islam. Islamic tradition interprets the "Holy Spirit" as another title for the angel Gabriel. In effect this reduces the term Holy Spirit to just another name, depriving the followers of Mohammed of all that He, the Holy Spirit, has to offer. (Robertson, Jesus or Isa, p. 24). The subject of God’s love for men is one of the most fruitful and effective fields of the Christian witness toward Islam. Muslims speak highly of their prophet, glory in the supposed beauties of Islam, but cannot say much about God’s love for men. A Christian witness based on the intense personal and living knowledge that we can have of God and his love through the revelation of his Son Jesus Christ and the communion of the Holy Spirit can only impress and move those whose hearts yearn for a genuine relationship with him. A Christian writer neatly sums up the whole meaning of the Christian’s relationship with the God of the Bible: In the character of the Christian God supreme moral goodness is dominant. At the heart of His nature are holiness and love. He is a Father whose seeking and saving energy wins us to fellowship with Him. (Addison, The Christian Approach to the Moslem, p. 296). In closing let me say that I trust my readers have grasped the great underlying theme of this section and that is the contrast between the unitarian God of Islam whose love for man springs not from his heart but is chiefly an expression of approval of those who serve him well, and the trinitarian God of Christianity whose very nature is love - a Father who loves his children, who manifested that love for them to perfection in the gift of his Son, and who has poured that love right into their hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to them. There is no better way to explain the Trinity to a Muslim than to explain this threefold revelation of God’s love for us, a revelation that stops not a cubit short of perfection itself. A thorough analysis of his love will soon show that it is only in the Triune God of the Bible that it could ever be, and has ever been, shown in all its fulness. In accepting God as your Father you have implicitly accepted the doctrine of the Holy Trinity; for it is a doctrine or teaching which tells about a great fact, and in that fact of God as Love all our life is bound up, both for body and soul. (Weitbricht, "The Moslem and the Fatherhood of God", The Muslim World, Vol. 7, p. 72). The same writer is likewise persuaded that it is only in the Triune God that all true seekers will ever find the goal of their search for his love, for there are so many signs, he concludes, that show that "the heart of man responds to the revelation of the Father which was brought by the Son and is witnessed by the Spirit" (Weitbricht, op. cit., p. 74). The only true God is the Triune God of the Bible - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - and his creatures will never discover the perfection and fulness of the greatest of all virtues until they find it in him. In fact the more Christians witness to Muslims, the more they become aware of this great fact. The doctrine of the Trinity is not an indefensible dogma which cannot be reconciled with true monotheism, it is the only doctrine which reveals that very monotheism in all its wondrous perfection. The God whom men know outside of Jesus Christ and apart from the Holy Spirit is a nebulous thing; an idea and not a reality. The doctrine of the Trinity is not only fundamental but essential to Christianity. (Zwemer, "The Allah of Islam and the God Revealed in Jesus Christ", The Muslim World, Vol. 36, p. 316). It is not only essential to Christianity but there can be no perfect revelation of his love other than that which is found in this one true world religion. A faithful testimony of the knowledge of God as Father, of the perfect revelation of his love in his Son, and of the personal experience of that love in the Holy Spirit, is one of the most effective instruments of witness Christians can have in their discourses with Muslims. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 126: 06.28. B. THE FALL OF ADAM AND THE CROSS OF CHRIST. ======================================================================== B. THE FALL OF ADAM AND THE CROSS OF CHRIST. 1. The Fall of Adam and Eve in the Qur’an. We come to another of the great points of common ground between Islam and Christianity that Christians can use as a very effective bridge towards communicating the Gospel meaningfully to Muslims. In this section we shall briefly study the fall of Adam and Eve as it is described in the Qur’an and the Bible before pressing on to see how we can relate to Muslims by comparing this fall with God’s redeeming work in his Son Jesus Christ. The Qur’an describes the fall in very similar terms to those we find in the Bible. Adam and Eve were created in a beautiful garden and were allowed to eat of all the bountiful fruits in the garden with the exception of one tree which they were not allowed to approach lest they might fall into transgression (Surah 2.35). What follows is very significant: Then did Satan make them slip from the (Garden), and get them out of the state (of felicity) in which they had been. We said "Get ye down, all (ye people), with enmity between yourselves. On earth will be your dwelling-place and your means of livelihood - for a time". Surah 2.36 The Qur’an thus follows the Bible in declaring that Adam and Eve fell by eating of the forbidden fruit. We are particularly interested in the words "Get ye down", translated by Pickthall as "Fall down". In his commentary on this verse the widely-accepted translator Yusuf Ali points out that the command to "fall down" (in Arabic habata) is used in the plural in this verse and comments "Evidently Adam is the type of all mankind" (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, p. 26), while Pickthall says much the same: "Here the command is in the plural, as addressed to Adam’s race" (Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran, p. 47). Not only, therefore, does the Qur’an plainly teach the fall of Adam but it also implicates the whole human race in his fall. The root meaning of the word habata is to crash down, to descend, to fall, or to get down. In Surah 2.36 quoted above the form used is the imperative, ihbit (ahbitnu in the text), and is taken to mean "get down, descend, crash down" (Kassis, A Concordance of the Qur’an, p. 483). In Surah 2.38 the same command to Adam and Eve together with all their offspring appears: "Go down, all of you, from hence". The same word is used here as in the previous verse. Islam in fact teaches that Adam and Eve were created, not in a garden on earth, but in heaven itself and Jannatul-’and (the "Garden of Eden") is in fact a name for Paradise itself. The implication and general belief of the Muslims is that they were cast out of heaven after they had disobeyed God. Both they and their offspring, as a result, have since been confined to this earthly realm in which they have all died and been buried. Finally there is a tradition to the effect that Muhammad once said "Every son of Adam is a sinner" (Karim, Mishkatul-Masabih, Vol. 3, p. 760), the tradition appearing in at least two of the six major works of Hadith (those of Ibn Maja and Tirmithi). There is, thus, much evidence in both the Qur’an and the Hadith to show that when Adam and Eve sinned their sin affected the whole human race. The sin of one became the sin of all and the consequence of that sin duly affected all his offspring. Despite this similarity with the Biblical record of the sin of Adam and Eve and its consequences, the Qur’an does not pursue the matter further but seems to regard sin purely as an evil deed which can be repented of or, alternatively, cancelled out by a good deed. It does not perceive that the primary consequence of that first sin was that human nature fell, became instrinsically corrupt, and is unable to really purify itself. Thus we read a lot in the Koran about guidance and instruction but very little about regeneration. Salvation is a release in the hereafter from the punishment of sin and not a present freedom from its hold upon the mind and heart of a believer. (Abdul-Haqq, Sharing Your Faith with a Muslim, p. 162). Nevertheless the Qur’anic treatment of the fall of Adam and Eve provides a useful point of common ground between us and a platform upon which to build a very effective and relevant witness to Muslims of God’s saving grace in Jesus Christ. We shall proceed to see how this can be done in practice. 2. The Biblical Account of the Sin of Adam and Eve. The Qur’an states that if Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden tree they would fall "into transgression and harm (Surah 2.35), making Satan call the tree "the Tree of Eternity" (Surah 20.120). The Bible, however, contains another description of the tree which shows very clearly why God commended Adam and Eve to stay away from it. The title given to the tree in the Bible discloses precisely wherein their folly would lie if they partook of its fruit. And the Lord God commanded the man saying, "You may eat freely of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die". Genesis 2:16-17. The tree had to be avoided because it was the tree of "the knowledge of good and evil", meaning that by disobeying God and by eating of it, Adam and Eve would come to know what evil was and, in consequence, would be cut off from the tree of life and lose their experience of the life of God in their souls and eventually die and return to the dust. "God made man upright" (Ecclesiastes 7:29) and it was his desire that he should remain so. When God made man he put all things under his feet, giving him dominion over all his creation, the earth, the sea, and all living creatures (Genesis 1:26). God made man in his own image, in his own likeness (Genesis 5:1), meaning that he so created man that he was able to bear all the holy attributes of God himself. "You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy" (Leviticus 19:2) was his command. As God is perfectly righteous, honest, faithful, loving, forgiving, caring and good, so man was made with the capacity to bear all these attributes as well. Nothing else in all creation can reflect the glory of God or bear his image. Only man has the capacity to distinguish good from evil and to become like God in his holy character. Although God put all things under Adam he intended that man should nevertheless be under his command and authority and exercise his dominion over creation according to God’s holy will. That is why he placed that one tree in the middle of the garden, so that man would always be reminded that he must be obedient to God and submit to his authority. Satan came to Eve, however, and tempted her to eat of the fruit of the tree. After first asking her if God had indeed forbidden them to eat of it, he then proceeded to deceive her, saying to her: "You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil". Genesis 3:4-5. The Qur’an also quotes Satan’s words when he came to tempt Adam and Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit and it makes him say to them: "Your Lord only forbade you this tree lest ye should become angels or such beings as live for ever". Surah 7.20 It is in the Biblical quote, however, that we find the real essence of his temptation. "You will be like God", he said, thus inciting them to grasp at equality with God. He tempted them to break loose from God’s authority, to assert themselves instead, to declare independence from God, to assume their own control over creation, and to act and live according to their own desires. God had wanted Adam and Eve to obey him, to be under him, because God is perfectly good and it would have been better for man to have remained under his authority and so develop God’s creation rather than spoil it. But Adam and Eve chose to disobey God in an act of momentous defiance. It is quite common to find Muslims suggesting that Adam merely "forgot" his Lord’s command and that after he had repented and asked forgiveness, he was duly forgiven (see the companion volume to this book, Muhammad and the Religion of Islam, p. 277). The Qur’an takes a far more serious view of the matter, however, stating plainly that Satan brought about their fall (Surah 7.22) and that God deliberately shut them out of the Garden, where they had enjoyed peace and felicity, and cast them down to earth "with enmity between yourselves" (Surah 7.24) as we have already seen. It goes on to appeal to the "Children of Adam" to avoid being seduced by Satan "in the same manner as he got your parents out of the Garden" (Surah 7.27). Their sin was not a single act of transgression that could easily be forgiven as an isolated act of wrongdoing, it was an awful act of gross rebellion, a total rejection of God’s rule over the human race, and it had awesome consequences. Sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned. Romans 5:12 The angels were created individually and each individual angel who sinned fell through his own wrongdoing while the elect angels kept their proper dwelling. Yet in the case of man God made one man and one woman as representatives of the whole human race and the sin of the one became the sin of all (Romans 5:18-19). Even Muslims must surely admit that sin duly comes to one and all in this world. Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins. Ecclesiastes 7:20 The sin of Adam and Eve, their complete rebellion and defiance of God’s holy will, had a devastating effect on the whole human race. The Bible and the Qur’an both state quite plainly what the immediate consequence of their sin was - their banishment from the Garden in which God had placed them. Both books show that God drove them out (Genesis 3:24, Surah 20.123). As the whole human race was at that moment in their loins, the effect of their sin became universal. All humanity was chased out of the Garden, all were sent to a world where sin and death reign (Romans 5:21), no one was allowed back into the Garden and no one became completely upright as Adam and Eve had been in the beginning. As we have seen, the Qur’an plainly states that all men were affected by their fall. There can be no doubt that the command to get out of the Garden was addressed to the whole human race. It reads: Qulnaahbituu minhaa jamii’aa - "Get ye all down from here" (Surah 2.38). The word jami, as used in this verse, is taken to cover a "host, congregation, all, together, altogether" (Kassis, A Concordance of the Qur’an, p. 595). It is obvious that the order to depart from the Garden was intended to cover all mankind. The disobedience of Adam and Eve was in no way a small thing, it was a comprehensive rejection of God’s sovereignty. Man elected to be his own god over the creation at his feet. This was a total act of rebellion with lasting fatal consequences. Men have not been re-admitted to the Garden nor have they become upright - all sin and all die for their sin. Adam and Eve tried to exalt themselves to God’s level by seeking to become masters of their own destiny. Instead, by heeding the temptations of Satan, they fell to his level and became subject to his influences. There could be no excuse, it was a calculated act of disobedience. Though they had been made in the form of servants, they attempted to assume the form of God by taking control of their own lives and destiny and so, as it were, grasped at equality with God. Man duly became independent of God. The highest achievement man can attain to is to be completely under God, to reflect his image and glory. When man, in pride, seeks to exalt himself instead, paradoxically he falls. Jesus said, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven" (Luke 10:18) and, in the same way, Adam and Eve fell like lightning from God’s grace and their high status before him when they sinned. Before proceeding let us briefly consider in more detail how Satan caused Eve to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The Bible tells us how Eve contemplated the fruit before she partook of it: So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate. Genesis 3:6 The temptation had a threefold character. Firstly, she saw that the tree was "good for food", that is, that the fruit was obviously tasty and could benefit her physically if she ate of it. Secondly, she saw that it was "a delight to the eyes", that is, it appealed readily to her sight. Lastly, it "was to be desired to make one wise". It could increase one’s knowledge and extend it to realms hitherto reserved to the knowledge of God alone. It could improve one’s own self-esteem and personal perspective on one’s existence. The Apostle John summed up this threefold nature of all temptation in saying: For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father but is of the world. 1 John 2:16 The "lust of the flesh" made Eve see that the tree was good for food, the "lust of the eye" that it was attractive to the sight, and "the pride of life" that it was to be desired to make one wise. One awful, comprehensive temptation fully absorbing all three of these characteristics brought about the downfall of the human race. The Bible has a much fuller account of the nature of the first sin and the implications behind it than the Qur’an has, yet up to this point the Qur’an hardly takes issue with it. Thus far Christians have common ground with Muslims. Let us press on, however, to see how the Bible alone supplies the answer to this universal dilemma and how Christians can use the sin or Adam and Eve as a bridge to an effective witness Of God saving grace in Jesus Christ. 3. The Obedience of the One Man Jesus Christ. The Qur’an completely overlooks a very important promise God made shortly after Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit. God gave to the whole human race a wonderful promise that he would yet redeem men and win them back to himself even though mankind was now sinful and principally evil like the angels who sinned and fell. God said to Satan: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel". Genesis 3:15 He promised that someone would rise from the seed of the woman who would not be like the devil at all but would in fact be his sworn enemy, God’s ally, and that he would conquer him. That man, we learn from the Scriptures, was Jesus Christ. It is very significant to find that Jesus underwent similar temptations to those which Eve had experienced when she was in the Garden of Eden. Almost immediately after Jesus was baptised, just as God had driven Adam and Eve from the Garden, so we read that "the Spirit immediately drove him into the wilderness" (Mark 1:12). After he had fasted forty days and forty nights, Satan came to him and tempted him three times. Let us consider them in order as they appear in Luke’s Gospel. The first temptation went like this: "If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread". Luke 4:3 There was a vast difference between this temptation and the one which Eve had faced. She was in a beautiful garden where she had ample access to all the food she could possibly desire. Jesus was emaciated with hunger in the desert where there was nothing to eat at all. It was as if Satan was mocking him, saying "You are supposed to be the Son of God, the greatest of all men who will ever live on the earth, yet look how your Father treats you. He has made you the hungriest man in all the earth. No one could possibly be weaker than you are. Now, if you will just listen to me I will show you how to become the greatest man on earth. I will show you how to use your powers to satisfy all your desires, unlike your Father who stops you from using your powers to benefit yourself". He promised to give him the Midas touch, as it were, yet Jesus resisted the temptation, saying to him "It is written, ’Man shall not live by bread alone"’ (Luke 4:4). By relying purely on God’s Word as set out in the Scriptures he rejected the subtle suggestions of the devil. Eve fell for the temptation to eat of the fruit of the tree when she had no physical need of it at all, yet Jesus resisted a similar temptation to eat when he most needed to do so. His human strength was at its weakest, yet he resisted the temptation to its fullest extent, unlike Eve who fell for it at its least compulsion. In this first temptation we see clearly the "lust of the flesh", as John called it, endured and resisted to the full by Jesus Christ. The second temptation Satan set before him was to take him up and show him all the glory of the kingdoms of the earth in a moment of time, saying to him: "To you I will give all this authority and their glory; for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. If you, then, will worship me, it shall all be yours". Luke 4:6-7. Once again Jesus resisted the temptation, saying "You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve" (Luke 4:8). This time Satan attempted to make Jesus fall through "the lust of the eye", dazzling his vision with a revelation of all the kingdoms of earth. Once again it is as if he was mocking him, saying "Your Father has made you the poorest man on earth in this wilderness. Now if you will listen to me I will make you the richest man in all the world. Just follow my suggestions and ignore your Father’s will". Once again there is a marked contrast between the temptations of Eve and Jesus. She fell for a piece of fruit, but Jesus resisted an appeal to use his divine powers to obtain the whole world for himself. When Eve took the fruit forbidden to her sin had only just begun to affect mankind. It had only just been conceived. In the fulness of time, however, when Jesus appeared, it had reached its pitch. James gives some idea of how sin grows to maturity in these words: Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death. James 1:15 Eve sought only to taste of a fruit from a tree, but by Jesus’ time the emperors of Rome and others before them (like Alexander the Great) were seeking to gain the whole world for themselves. "They are only men - you are the Son of God, you can use your divine powers and do it", Satan was saying to him. Jesus resisted this temptation, like the first one, at its full extent. The third temptation was very similar. This time Satan took him in a vision to Jerusalem, set him on the pinnacle of the Temple, and said to him: "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here; for it is written, ’He will give his angels charge over you to guard you’, and ’On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone"’. Luke 4:9-11. For the third time Jesus resisted, saying "It is said, ’You shall not tempt the Lord your God"’ (Luke 4:12). This was, as in the case of Eve, a temptation to "the pride of life". Once again it is as if Satan was saying, "Your Father has made you the loneliest man on earth. No one knows you are here, no one even cares. If you died, who would be concerned? You are not only the poorest and hungriest man on earth but also the loneliest, a travesty of humanity. There is no more insignificant man on earth than you. Now, if you will only listen to me, I will show you how to become the greatest and most popular man who ever lived. I will give you the obedience of the nations". Once again the contrast between the temptations of Eve and Jesus is obvious - she fell for a suggestion that she might become wiser if she ate of the tree, but Jesus resisted a temptation to become the ruler of the nations of earth. By his time the Roman Emperors were not only endeavouring to conquer the whole world but also sought to make all their subjects honour them as divine rulers. They sought to be the gods of the whole earth. Sin had indeed become full-grown. "You", said Satan to Jesus, "you can do it. You do have a divine nature. You can sway the hearts of all men on earth". The method he used can very effectively be likened to the Hajj pilgrimage in Islam. Every year hundreds of thousands come to Mecca from many different nations to gather around the Ka’aba. In 1979 a group of rebels occupied the mosque precincts, declaring one of their number to be the long- awaited Imam Mehdi (a Messianic figure looked for mainly by the Shiahs but also by the Sunnis). Eventually the attempted coup had to be aborted and the surviving rebels were all executed in public disgrace. If, however, the pretender had said to the people gathered in the mosque, "I am Imam Mehdi and to prove it I will jump off the Ka’aba and you will see God’s angels come down to protect me" and had duly proceeded to do just this with an accompanying rescue from heaven, I have little doubt they would have been readily persuaded! This is how Satan tempted Jesus. He gave him a vision of monotheistic believers from all the earth gathered to worship at God’s holy house and tempted him to win their allegiance by a public display of his divine authority. (That such a temptation could come from Satan was indicative of the corrupt allegiance of the Jewish nation to the God of Israel. Very significantly, when Jesus did finally come to the Temple, he did the opposite of what Satan had suggested and he drove out all who were in the Temple and made himself most unpopular with them all - John 2:15-20). In all three cases Satan tempted Jesus as he had tempted Adam and Eve - to assert himself independently of his Father’s will. Adam and Eve were tempted to become masters of their own destiny, Jesus to become the ruler of all the earth at Satan’s command. Unlike our first fathers Jesus resisted to the full, leaving the wilderness in complete obscurity, unknown and unheralded, to begin the work of man’s redemption on earth. Yet in those awful hours he had become the first and only man who would ever be able to completely conquer the devil’s temptations to sin. He was obedient to the full. The seed of the woman, God’s ally among men and Satan’s mortal foe, had come and had succeeded. He had "condemned sin in the flesh" (Romans 8:3), he had triumphed over it in its chosen lair, the human body. He had detected the full implications behind Satan’s command, "Throw yourself down" (Luke 4:9), he had realised that this was all men could ever do by heeding Satan’s suggestions. As Adam and Eve had been cast out, so he too could only have thrown himself down from his glorious divine office if he had listened to the devil. It is very useful to compare the temptations of Eve and Jesus with Muslims for they provide a very useful platform on which to build the message of the Gospel as we shall see in our conclusion to this section. 4. The Reconciliation of Man to God in Jesus Christ. Adam and Eve had grasped at equality with God and independence from his control. Jesus by nature had that equality but he chose to become totally dependent on his Father and bow to his control when he assumed human form and appeared among men. Paul sums it up: Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Php 2:5-8. Adam and Eve, as servants, wished to become like God, but Jesus, though he was in the form of God, humbled himself and took on the form of a servant. He came as a lowly man of a relatively insignificant family in Nazareth out of which no "good thing" could surely come (John 1:46). He went further than Adam and Eve who were only required to obey God’s will that they might live. Jesus became "obedient unto death, even death on a cross" (Php 2:8). Here was indeed perfect obedience. Although he was a Son, he learnt obedience through what he suffered; and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him. Hebrews 5:8-9. Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said . "Lo, I have come to do thy will, O God". Hebrews 10:5; Hebrews 10:7. The whole life of Jesus was one of perfect conformity to God’s will. "I always do what is pleasing to him" (John 8:29), "I do as the Father has commanded me" (John 14:31), he could say with full conviction. He knew that there was nothing worse than man let loose by himself, nothing more glorious than that he should be under God’s holy and gracious will, and he reaped the full benefit of this conviction. The Apostle Paul goes on to say: Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Php 2:9-11. We have comprehensively contrasted the fall of Adam and Eve with the full obedience of Jesus Christ until it reached its zenith in his obedience to death itself, even death on a cross. Let us see how beautifully the effects of these two history-determining events are contrasted in the Scriptures. The whole human race, according to the Bible, is represented in two heads, Adam and Christ. The fall of Adam implicated the whole human race. All have sinned, all come under condemnation, all come to the grave. No matter how pious some of the prophets may have been, they too all died eventually. "Abraham died, as did the prophets", the Scripture duly testifies (John 8:52). Muslims need to recognise the universal consequence of sin. None of the prophets was re- admitted into Paradise, none of them ascended into heaven (John 3:13). No one lives for ever, all die and come to nothing. This begs the suggestion that what we need is not just g succession of prophets to exhort us to follow God’s way, we need a Saviour, someone who can reverse the effect of Adam’s sin, someone who can conquer death. Here the cross of Christ becomes the revealed means of our salvation. Just as Jesus conquered the power of sin in resisting the devil in the wilderness, so he conquered its guilt and penalty when he died for our sins. By rising from the dead he broke the power of death and opened the way for all men to follow him beyond the grave into eternal life. Paul puts it perfectly: For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:22 Muslims believe that Adam and Eve were cast out of Paradise itself. Let them contemplate seriously the fact that even according to Islam Jesus is the only man who is not buried on the earth but is physically alive in heaven. While nearly five billion men and women live on earth, right now one man is alive in heaven, only one, Jesus Christ. According to Islam Jesus is the only man to regain lasting entry into the kingdom of heaven from which Adam and Eve were dismissed for their sin. This contrast can only be explained in one way - he has become the Saviour of the world, he has reversed the effect of Adam’s sin. Let Muslims dwell on this obvious comparison - one man brought us into sin and condemnation, one man delivers us from it. The Apostle Paul sets it all out in these words: But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the effect of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. Romans 5:15-16. He concludes his comparison of the effect of justification on the effect of sin in these words: If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Romans 5:17 Death was the consequence of Adam’s sin. There is no death in Paradise, only here on this earth where every living thing must die eventually. So the consequence of Jesus’ great act of laying down his life for us after being the only man to live a perfect life without ever sinning, and thereafter rising from the dead, becomes the source of eternal life to all who~follow him. Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous. Romans 5:18-19. As Adam’s sin became the sin of all and was reckoned and imputed to all his offspring together with its consequences, so the righteousness of Jesus Christ, that righteousness he worked out to perfection in his holy, sinless life, is reckoned and imputed to his true followers together with its consequence as well - eternal life. Paul, in another epistle, sets out the contrast again, this time between those who are represented in Adam and those who belong to Christ: Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit. But it is not the spiritual which is first but the physical, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. 1 Corinthians 15:45-49. It is only in Jesus that mortal men of dust can become immortal men who bear the image of the Son of God who lives for ever. Adam was made of dust and returned to it, Jesus came from heaven and likewise returned whence he came. He is in heaven, he went where Adam and his offspring otherwise could not go. All who die in Adam will perish for ever, all who die in Christ will live for ever and be raised to eternal life. Adam grasped at equality with God though he was only a servant - Jesus, who had that equality with the eternal Father by nature, put it off and took the form of a servant. Adam fell and came to nothing, Jesus rose again and ascended to heaven from which he will come to reign for ever. Good works, a measure of self-righteousness, pious observances and the like, can never compensate for the dominion of sin in all men or become a means of conquering death. What we need is not a final prophet to set a way of life before us, we need a Saviour to deliver us from the "endlessly regressive character of human sinfulness" (Cragg, Sandals at the Mosque, p. 135). Islam takes too light a view of the devastating power and effect of sin on the human race and it hardly begins to recognise that death is its consequence, yet it sets forth the very foundation of these facts in its own scripture, the Qur’an, by narrating there the fall of Adam and Eve in terms similar to those in the Bible. As with the uniqueness of Jesus and many other similar issues, although Muhammad completely overlooked the implications of the Biblical facts he repeated in the Qur’an, we can be thankful that he did at least record them and provide a useful basis for an effective witness to his followers. In the story of Adam and Eve Christians have much material with which to communicate to Muslims the whole universal rule and dominion of sin and our need of salvation, even though the Qur’an fails to recognise the need of a positive solution to the problem. Sin and salvation are more profoundly related to each other than is realized in Islam. There can be no salvation in the comprehensive sense of the word without an effective solution of the problem of sin as it concerns both man and God. (Abdul-Haqq, Sharing Your Faith with a Muslim, p. 173). We have in this section assumed the crucifixion of Jesus Christ to be a fact of history even though this is denied in the Qur’an. Let us conclude our study on how to relate the Gospel to Muslims by briefly considering how to handle the whole subject of the historical authenticity of the crucifixion itself. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 127: 06.29. C. THE CRUCIFIXION IN ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY. ======================================================================== C. THE CRUCIFIXION IN ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY. 1. The Denial of the Crucifixion in the Qur’an. For nearly twenty centuries the Christian Church has held a unanimous opinion on the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and to this day there is no dispute among Christians as to what happened to him. We all believe he was crucified for our sins and raised for our justification (Romans 4:25). This consensus has resulted from the unambiguous testimony of the Bible to these facts. Certainly the fact not only of Jesus’ crucifixion but also his death on the cross cannot genuinely be questioned on Biblical grounds. This applies to his resurrection as well. On one occasion Peter addressed the Jews with a straightforward testimony to all three events, saying: "By the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead". Acts 4:10 Paul once spoke of Jesus’ obedience "unto death, even death on a cross" (Php 2:8), while one of the angels who spoke to the women who had come to the tomb on the first day of the week after Jesus had been crucified declared: "I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here for he has risen, as he said. Come see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead". Matthew 28:5-7. Peter summed it up on the Day of Pentecost when he incontrovertibly testified to both the crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ in these words, charging those standing before him in the crowd: "This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men". Acts 2:23 No one can seriously question or doubt that the Bible testifies to the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is the record it has left to the Christian Church and its testimony has been accepted without dispute in all quarters of the Church throughout its history. We shall return to this universal consensus in Christianity about these three facts at the end of this section and will show how remarkably consistent the Bible is in respect of what happened to Jesus but, in contrast therewith, shall examine in the meantime the Qur’an’s ambiguity about the crucifixion and the confusion it has led to among Muslim commentators, a confusion as pronounced today as it has ever been in Muslim history. The only consistent thing the Qur’an teaches on the subject is that Jesus was neither crucified nor killed. We have already seen that it denies bluntly that Jesus was ever put on the cross, saying of him: "But they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them" (Surah 4.157), the Arabic original reading Wa maa qataluhuu wa maa salabuhuu wa laakin shubbiha lahum. The confusion arises over what actually happened to Jesus if he was not crucified. On this point the Qur’an is embarrassingly vague as we shall see, so vague that many Muslim theories nonetheless take in the actual crucifixion as a means to explaining the whole matter while denying his actual death on the cross. No matter how elliptically Muslims may argue around the event they nonetheless always fall back somehow on the only Qur’anic text dealing with the subject and will hold the actual Christian belief in the crucifixion and resurrection to be untenable. The event which is the very fount and heart of Christianity is held by Muslims to be unhistorical and incredible. (Cragg, Jesus and the Muslim, p. 166). Some Christian writers have occasionally also sought to sidestep the apparent blunt denial of the fact of the crucifixion and death of Jesus in the Qur’an by endeavouring to restrict this denial, for example, by suggesting that it is only denied that the Jews crucified Jesus. The aim is to preempt the issue the Qur’an takes with the Bible on the subject and so make it easier for Muslims to accept the crucifixion as an historical fact, a stepping-stone towards accepting the whole atoning emphasis behind it. One says: In the first place, it does not say that Jesus was not killed, nor was He crucified. It merely states that they (the Jews) did not kill Him or crucify Him. This is true historically, although the responsibility was theirs, the Roman soldiers actually did the work. (Elder, "The Crucifixion in the Koran", The Muslim World, Vol. 13, p. 256). Elder’s line of reasoning is quoted with apparent approval in another Christian work (Parrinder, Jesus in the Qur’an, pp. 119-121), though a well-known writer also from the Christian side dismisses the argument completely: Since the hidden pronoun could, remotely, be some other agent, it has been suggested that the intention is to indicate a non-Jewish subject of the verb, probably ’the Romans’ or, as just noted above, even ’God Himself’. This makes havoc both of the Arabic construction and of the evident sense. If the context intended to substitute ’the Romans’ it would surely have to say ’It was not they, the Jews, who killed him: it was the Romans’. There is no such construction here, nor could it tally, if there were, with the rest of the passage. We have no option but to read for ’they’ ’the Jews’. We cannot esoape the negation of crucifying by confusion as to the agent. (Cragg, Jesus and the Muslim, p. 170). There is only one verse in the whole Qur’an addressing the subject of the crucifixion and it denies it as an historical fact in such emphatic terms that one must surely believe that this is the book’s express intention. The text has to be somewhat tortured to make it yield an alternative interpretation, especially where this turns out to be a hidden meaning completely contrary to its obvious teaching. The contrast between Acts 2:23 ("This Jesus . . . you crucified and killed") and Surah 4.157 ("They neither crucified nor killed him") can lead to only one safe conclusion - the Qur’an’s intention to specifically deny both the crucifixion of Jesus and his death on the cross. One finds thus that the foundation of orthodox opinion in Islam on the fate of Jesus has always been that the Qur’an teaches that he was never put on the cross. The Qur’an and the Bible, therefore, must be taken to contradict each other in no uncertain terms on this issue. 2. Shubbiha Lahum - "So it was Made to Appear to Them". If Jesus was not crucified, then what happened to him? If the Qur’an had simply denied this event as a fact of history without further comment the Muslim world might not have needed to trouble itself further on the matter. A brief clause following the denial in the Qur’an, however, has led to intense confusion and debate about what happened to Jesus in many Muslim quarters to this day, the clause being very briefly wa laakin shubbiha lahum - "and so it was made to appear to them". In these few words the Qur’an has come tantalisingly close to admitting the very fact it emphatically purports to deny. Whatever they mean, vague as they clearly are without the slightest hint to their factual implications, they do teach one thing - it was somehow made to appear to the Jews that they had actually crucified Jesus. The Muslim world has, thus, generally held that as Jesus was about to be arrested and crucified, someone else was suddenly made to look exactly like him and was crucified in his place. Whether it was Judas Iscariot, Simon of Cyrene, one of his disciples or one of the Roman soldiers (all these have been suggested in different Muslim writings as possible victims of the transformation), no one knows. The famous commentator at-Tabari recorded a number of traditions offering different suggestions but wisely made no contribution of his own. Tabari, although he treats the subject very fully and gives a great number of traditions, does not seem to have known the story of a Jew who was crucified. As to Judas, he states that some of the Christians assert that he was the one made in the likeness of ’Isa and crucified. Tabari realizes constantly the confusion in the different contradicting statements current even in his time, and after venturing the above remark, says that Allah knows best how it was. (Elder, "The Crucifixion in the Koran", The Muslim World, Vol. 13, p. 246). The Qur’an is thus taken to admit at least that the Jews plotted to crucify Jesus, that Jesus lived on earth up to the point of the crucifixion, that the Jews actually came to arrest Jesus, that someone was indeed crucified, and that that person was made so to resemble Jesus that the Jews thought it was indeed him. The Muslim world thus acknowledges that a man to all intents and purposes looking exactly like Jesus was in fact crucified that day. How much closer can you get? As I have said to so many Muslims, if you can accept all this, why can you not finally accept what is surely so much more probable and logical, that it was Jesus himself who was crucified? The Qur’an offers yet another striking coincidence - it makes the life of Jesus on earth duly end on the very same day that the Bible says it did. It goes on to say: Wa maa qataluhuu yaqinaam barrafa’ahullaahu ilayh - "For of a surety they killed him not:- Nay, God raised him up to himself" (Surah 4.157-158). This is, in consequence of general belief in the theory that Jesus was substituted, taken to mean that at the very moment that someone else was made to look like him, God took him up off the earth to himself. This strange coincidence (namely the Qur’an’s agreement with the Bible that Jesus’ ministry and life actually ended on the same day) ironically gives the substitution theory its only possible credibility and one which makes other Islamic theories even more untenable. It wisely ends the life of Jesus on the same day that history itself duly ends it. Apart from Jesus’ forty days on earth after his resurrection (when he appeared only to his disciples), there is no evidence that his life ever continued on earth over the succeeding years. It is too hard to believe that such a prominent personality could suddenly disappear from the pages of history without further trace if he continued to preach and heal as he had done before. As his ministry was first and foremost to the sons of Israel as he openly testified (Matthew 15:24, supported by Surah 61.6), it is grossly unlikely that he could have been hidden while a major new world religion sprung up in his name, based on his resurrection and ascension to heaven shortly afterwards. It is not surprising, therefore, to find the majority of Muslims believing in the substitution theory, an improbable theory but not quite as implausible as others we shall mention. Yet, regardless of those varying interpretations the vast majority of Muslims continue to agree that Jesus escaped crucifixion and death on the cross, that he was soon taken alive in his body to heaven and that he will return to earth in the future. (Hahn, Jesus in Islam, p. 22). The substitution theory leaves us with a very significant admission. "At least we all start from the fact of an intention to crucify . . . We cannot here isolate the historian and the theologian from each other, and both - whether Christian or Muslim - begin from the undoubted fact that there was an intention to crucify" (Cragg, Jesus and the Muslim, pp. 166,167). The same writer makes much the same point in another book: "The Qur’an does not dispute that the Jews desired to crucify Jesus" (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 294). Having come so far towards the Biblical record of the crucifixion it is to be deeply regretted that the Qur’an slips at the last hurdle and leaves the followers of Islam in no small confusion about what really happened that day. One Muslim writer comments on Surah 4.157: After this, God, Who can do any and everything He wills, raised Jesus to Himself and rescued him from crucifixion and the one who was crucified afterwards was somehow or other taken for Christ. (Maududi, The Meaning of the Qur’an, p. 390). Immediately we can detect some uncertainty on the part of the commentator who says that someone else was "somehow or other" taken for Jesus. A similar sense of ambiguity is unmistakable in this comment as well: It was not Jesus who was executed but another, who was miraculously substituted (how and in what way is another question, and is not touched upon in the Quran) for him. (Daryabadi, The Holy Qur’an, Vol. 1, p. 96-A). Yet another Muslim commentator betrays the same element of dubiousness in Surah 4.157 about what actually happened that day when he says: The Qur’anic teaching is that Christ was not crucified nor killed by the Jews, notwithstanding certain apparent circumstances which produced that illusion in the minds of some of his enemies. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, p. 230). All these authors speak vaguely about what really took place that day. The reason is that the expression "so it was made to appear to them" is extremely ambiguous and none of these commentators is therefore able to make dogmatic statements about its interpretation. Before examining the substitution theory itself on its own merits, let us conclude here by analysing this little expression, wa laakin shubbiha lahum, a bit more closely from a Christian perspective. There are some who suggest that Muhammad was aware of the Nestorian/Monophysite controversy of his time which centred on the actual nature of Christ’s personality. The Monophysites argued for a single divine character, the Nestorians for a double nature, one human and the other divine. From these disputes it is supposed that Muhammad may have derived the idea that Jesus came only in a human semblance, or that it was only such a semblance that appeared to them when he was crucified. This was indeed very much the belief of the early Gnostics and one writer argues: But in teaching his followers that Christ was not really crucified by the Jews but miraculously delivered from their hands, some one being substituted in His stead, Muhammad was merely following in the footsteps of Basilides, the Valentinians, the Manicheans and other heretics of early times. (Tisdall, The Religion of the Crescent, p. 168). The same writer, in another book, continues in this vein, suggesting that when Muhammad claimed that it was only made to appear to the Jews that they had crucified Jesus, he was following quite firmly in the footsteps of the Basilidean heresy before him: Irenaeus tells us with reference to the teaching of the Gnostic heretic Basilides, who flourished about A.D.120, that, in speaking of Jesus, he taught his deluded followers "That He had not suffered; and that a certain Simon of Cyrene had been compelled to carry His cross for Him; and that this man was crucified through ignorance and error, having been changed in form by Him, so that it should be thought that he was Jesus Himself". This language coincides very closely with that of the Qur’an in this matter. (Tisdall, The Original Sources of the Qur’an, p. 183). It does seem that Muhammad may well have adopted this theory to some extent as one must surely look somewhere into pre-Islamic sources for his strange denial of the fact of the crucifixion, especially as he assumes the supposition that it was only a semblance of Jesus that was crucified. As he believed Jesus to be a prophet, however, it is grossly unlikely that he would have been influenced by the basic principles of Gnostic belief (as Tisdall goes on to point out), but the fact of an apparent crucifixion, so remarkably similar in both sources, argues strongly for the probability that Muhammad derived his conviction that Jesus was not crucified from the apocryphal sources mentioned. Other Christian writers have supposed that the expression shubbiha lahum is to some extent derived from Romans 8:3 where it is said that God sent his own Son "in the likeness of sinful flesh", as well as Hebrews 2:17, where it is said he was "made like his brethren in every respect", and Php 2:6 where it says he was "born in the likeness of men". One of these writers suggests that by using these texts Christians can show Muslims in what way a "likeness" of men was really crucified that day (Register, Dialogue and Interfaith Witness with Muslims, p. 46). Speaking of the expression "likeness of men" (shibbin-nass in the Arabic Bible) in Php 2:6 he says: Here again we see that Jesus’ likeness or appearance (shibh) was that of a man, the servant of God, bearing the sins of humanity. (Register, Dialogue and Interfaith Witness with Muslims, p. 49). Much the same argument is advanced by another writer who says "The Koranic expression ’shubbiha lahum’ (4:157) is very close to the Biblical statement, ’the likeness of sinful flesh and the likeness of men"’ (Abdul-Haqq, Sharing Your Faith with a Muslim, p. 138), while yet another writer says of the same three Biblical quotes given in the above paragraph: The fact that the Arabic New Testament did not become the possession of the Church till after the rise of Islam should not alter the main argument here that it was texts like these in Romans, Philippians and Hebrews, familiar from liturgical use, that were the cherished property of Christians, and were among the "spot" passages used in those Christological controversies which raised burning issues in the centuries immediately prior to the era of Muhammad. (Bishop, "Shubbiha Lahum: A Suggestion from the New Testament", The Muslim World, Vol. 30, p. 72). Just as we found that the suggestion that the Qur’an does not really deny the crucifixion of Christ was strained against the whole patent intention of Surah 4.157, so here too it appears to require a wide stretch of the imagination to read into the same text that it was in fact Jesus who was crucified and that the expression "so it was made to appear to them" can be reconciled on Biblical grounds which were almost certainly unknown to Muhammad. Another Christian writer, while acknowledging the complete vagueness of the words shubbiha lahum and the silence of the Qur’an about the identity of the one crucified in the place of Jesus, nevertheless contends that it cannot be Jesus himself: Now the words "shubbiha lahum" which are translated by Rodwell, "They had only his likeness" and which Palmer renders, "But a similitude was made for them", are very ambiguous. On this vague phrase is built the mass of Moslem tradition dealing with a person who looked like Jesus and who was crucified in his stead. The expression "shubbiha lahum" is rare indeed. The literal meaning i6, "He (or it) was made a resemblance to them". The Moslems often say the subject of the verb, - the na’ib al-fa’il - is the person crucified in Jesus’ stead. But there is no mention of him here, or anywhere else in the Koran. It seems obvious that it cannot refer to Jesus. (Elder, "The Crucifixion in the Koran", The Muslim World, Vol. 13, p. 257). Another suggestion is that Muhammad was perplexed by the claim of the Jews on the one hand that Jesus had been crucified and the claim of the Christians on the other that he had been raised to heaven, especially when the latter acknowledged that he had indeed been put on the cross. The resurrection would appear to be the obvious answer to the dilemma but there is no hint in the Qur’an that he ever knew that Christians believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead. Muhammad sought thus somehow to "raise" and "exalt" Jesus in harmony with the Christian belief in his glorification. Add to this that he had learned that Christians believed in a living Christ exalted at the right hand of God, and that before the end all God’s people would be brought to know him. (Bell, The Origin of Islam in its Christian Environment, p. 154). Another writer we have already quoted sums up the apparent connection between the ascension of Jesus in the Bible and his deliverance and exaltation in the Qur’an by saying: Muhammad had his reasons for the denial of the crucifixion; it does not matter much what they were, but what does matter is that in this denial of his, this travesty of Christian history and Christian experience, there is somehow intertwined the deep connection between the cross and the exaltation of the Christ. (Bishop, "Shubbiha Lahum: A Suggestion from the New Testament", The Muslim World, Vol. 30, p. 73). From both the Christian and the Muslim sides there have come a number of proposed explanations of the strange expression "so it was made to appear to them". One thing is quite apparent - the very ambiguous nature of its content has given rise to these varying interpretations and there are clear admissions in Muslim writings that the meaning of this passage is anything but clear. Then there is the phrase shubbiha lahum, ’it was made to appear to them’, which can be interpreted in many different ways, not all of them contrary to Christian teaching. Some Muslims are coming to realize that there is a problem here with which they will have to grapple sooner or later. (Watt, Islam and Christianity in the Modern World, p. 144). We would close by commending to our readers a brief reflection on the contrast between the crucifixion narratives in the Bible and the Qur’an. The Biblical records not only state emphatically what happened but do so in the finest detail, even to the hour of Jesus’ death, the apportionment of his garments, his sayings from the cross, etc. The Qur’an, however, while denying the crucifixion as a fact of history, is so elusive and vague on the whole subject that any final Muslim interpretation of the events of that day must largely be based on pure guesswork. 3. A Critical Analysis of the Substitution Theory. Islam hardly offers a rational alternative to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Not only is the Qur’an’s brief treatment of the subject embarrassingly vague but the substitution theory, which has become the most widely- accepted explanation of the Qur’an’s teaching in Surah 4.157, is itself extremely vulnerable on moral grounds and will not withstand the acid test of critical analysis. It is extremely difficult to see why God should transform the appearance of a bystander to make him look like Jesus so that the Jews and Romans could crucify him instead. The very act of misrepresenting one man as another is surely a form of impersonation and we cannot expect to find the "Holy God who shows himself holy in righteousness" (Isaiah 5:16) doing such a thing. Furthermore, if it was God’s intention to deliver and save Jesus, why should anyone be crucified at all, particularly an innocent bystander (that is, one innocent of any supposed crime for which the Jews sought to crucify Jesus). Muslim writers attempt to circumvent this difficulty by proposing Judas Iscariot as the victim as his crucifixion would supposedly be a fitting consequence of his wish to betray Jesus into the same form of execution. There is no hint in the Qur’an, however, as to the identity of the victim substituted for Jesus and the choice of Judas is an obvious expedient designed to remove a troublesome objection. What are we to say of the nature of a God Who behaves in this way or of the character of a Christ Who permits another - even if a Judas - to suffer the consequences of an antagonism His own teaching has aroused against Himself? Is this kind of victory the worthiest in prophets of God? (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 296). I have found it very useful to point out to Muslims that the Bible records seven sayings of Jesus on the cross and that these show quite plainly that it could only have been Jesus who was crucified. One saying in particular has much relevance here and it is contained in the following passage: When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold your son!" Then he said to the disciple, "Behold your mother!" John 19:25-27. The compassion with which Jesus commended his mother to his beloved disciple John cannot be explained if it is suggested that someone else was crucified. What particularly affects Muslims, however, is a consideration of the identities of those at the foot of the cross. Among them were his beloved mother Mary, highly esteemed in Islam as Bibi Maryam, his closest male disciple John, and his closest female disciple Mary Magdalene. Would God have left these people to behold the agony Jesus was enduring if it was merely someone made to look like him? They would surely have thought it really was him. Would God have allowed his mother to endure such torment all because of an illusion of his own making? This leads to another reason why no one can seriously believe in the substitution theory if he believes that God acts nobly and consistently at all times. If the man crucified was made to appear to be Jesus himself, is it then surprising that his disciples and followers really believed it was him and so founded the whole Christian faith on a hoax, an illusion of which God himself was the deliberate author? Many of Jesus’ disciples laid down their lives preaching Christ crucified - all for nothing, all because they were deceived by the God of a prophet for whom they had left everything to be his followers (Mark 10:28)? The substitution theory implies that God is the author of the greatest fraud in history. Even as it is unbelievable for a Muslim to accept the death of Jesus, it is equally unbelievable that the people who witnessed the event were fooled. Islam theology would have us believe that the crucifixion was the greatest act of deception in history. (Robertson, Jesus or Isa, p. 50). The teaching of the Koran that Jesus Christ did not die upon the cross implies that the entire Christian movement is based on a unique deception in history. (Abdul-Haqq, Sharing Your Faith with a Muslim, p. 133). In our view what really is one of the greatest deceptions in history is the denial of the crucifixion of Jesus in the Qur’an, only this time God cannot be held to be the author of such a delusion. Hundreds of millions of Muslims are brought up believing blindly in the substitution theory which, when anyone thinks seriously about it, is riddled with improbabilities and unacceptable implications. If this is in fact the teaching of Surah 4.157, then the Qur’an cannot validly be held to be the Word of God. God miraculously put a "double" in his place. Because of this interpretation, all Christian apologists were firm in concluding that the Koran could not possibly be of divine origin. This error was too blatant. (Basetti-Sani, The Koran in the Light of Christ, p. 163). 4. Muslim Confusion About the Fate of Jesus. A number of Muslims have become acutely conscious of the shortcomings of the substitution theory but, being unwilling to accept the logical alternative because it will oblige them to forsake Islam and become Christians, they have proposed other theories, all of which appear to be even more improbable than the generally-accepted theory. Each one has to extend the life of Jesus beyond AD 29. As we have seen this renders such theories untenable right from the start. Some say Jesus lived on and died a natural death later in life. No one can say where he lived, what he did, when he died, or where he is buried. There is nothing in all history to give credence to such a theory. The Ahmadiyya Movement teaches that Jesus was indeed crucified but that he survived the cross, was taken down in a swoon and presumed to be dead, recovered and went to India, lived there and preached till he was a hundred and twenty years old, and died in Srinagar where he is buried. The tomb of an obscure ascetic, one Yus Asaf, has very conveniently become the tomb of Jesus! The theory that Jesus survived the cross is even put forward by some Muslims today in writings calculated to undermine the Gospel. Invariably these publications (for example Deedat, Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction? ; Sheard, The Myth of the Crucified Saviour) make no attempt to reconcile this theory, commonly known as the "swooning" theory, with the substitution theory. Most significantly they do not propose their theory as a dogma of Islam but seek solely to undermine the crucifixion narratives in the Bible. At least Ahmadiyya writers are being true to their own beliefs, but these Muslim writers appear to be guilty of a two- faced approach in their writings. They propose a theory but refuse to own it and one can only presume that they are motivated purely by an awareness of the weakness of the Muslim Substitution theory and believe the best way to handle the subject of the crucifixion of Jesus is to attack the Biblical records instead. I have dealt at some length with the swooning theory in The Islam Debate (co-authored with Josh McDowell, pp. 111-127) and have offered an extensive refutation of its arguments in the book and will therefore not repeat myself here. Nonetheless there is one thing about the Ahmadiyya admission that Jesus was indeed put on the cross that I believe should be mentioned here and it is found in this quote from a typical Ahmadiyya book about Jesus Christ: It does not seem legitimate to doubt the historicity of the fact that Jesus was put on the cross, but exception can be taken to the details in the Gospel account and it can be established that he did not die on the cross. (Ahmad, Jesus in Heaven on Earth, p. 185). If we can be grateful to Ahmadiyya writers for anything it is this belated admission in Islam of what must surely be obvious to all who know how to assess the facts of history objectively - the actual crucifixion of Jesus. It does not seen legitimate to us, either, to doubt it. We take our own exception, however, to the writer’s suggestion that he did not die on the cross which is equally historically certain. This leads us, however, to a further point of confusion about Jesus in Islam and that is the Qur’anic teaching about his eventual death. There are not a few passages in the Qur’an which speak of Jesus’ death. In one place we find him speaking from the cradle to his mother and those about him, saying: "So Peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)!" Surah 19.33 Very much the same thing is said of John the Baptist in Surah 19.15 and there can be no doubt that John died and was buried like all other men and that the reference to being raised in his case refers to the Day of Resurrection. The logical interpretation of the words of Jesus as recorded in the verse quoted is that he would die a natural death and be raised to life on the Last Day. Yusuf Ali has a very interesting comment on this verse, saying: Christ was not crucified (iv.157). But those who believe that he never died should ponder over this verse. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, p. 774). Another Muslim writer, commenting on the same verses in the nineteenth Surah, draws what appears to be the most reasonable conclusion regarding their interpretation when he says: No Muslim will shift the death of John (Yah Yah) to the future. All know that John died. . . . Since no one can now shift the death of John to the future, therefore no one can now shift the death of Jesus to the future. In fact there is not even one single passage throughout the Kuran showing that Jesus will return to die. The parallel statement with regard to John who died, clearly shows that Jesus also died. (Obaray, Miraculous Conception, Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus (Nabi-Isa) as Taught in the Kuran, p. 45). He says elsewhere in his booklet on Jesus: "Please note that he does not follow birth with ascension to heaven. He clearly says the next event concerning himself is death" (op. cit., p. 40). He notes Yusuf Ali’s uncertainty about what really happened to Jesus, pointing out that in all his other footnotes to his translation he clearly "shared the orthodox teachings that Jesus ascended to heaven without having died" (op. cit., p. 44). He takes him to task, however, for making an obvious allowance in his commentary on Surah 19.33 for the death of Jesus during his first sojourn on earth. A Christian writer also notes Yusuf Ali’s uncertainty about the fate of Jesus in reviewing another comment of his relating to the death of Jesus: Mr. Yusuf Ali would seem to be an illustration of the truth to which a leading Indian Muslim educationalist once gave expression in the hearing of the present writer: "Many a devout and thoughtful Muslim simply is not sure, on the basis of the Qur’an, whether Jesus really died on the cross or not". (Bevan Jones, Christianity Explained to Muslims, p. 81). There is a clear degree ;of confusion among Muslims as to whether Jesus died on earth or was raised alive to heaven. Most believe that he will come back to earth to die, but Obaray’s comments on Surah 19.33 show how unlikely it is that Jesus’ words in the Qur’an were intended to be a reference to his death after being raised alive to heaven for many centuries. Modern Muslim writers who hold to the substitution theory declare with one voice that Jesus did not die on earth, but earlier commentators struggled with passages that spoke of Jesus’ apparent natural death at the end of his life and expressed no certain opinion on the matter, leaving it open in their writings. "Moslem commentaries are by no means as sure of the idea that He did not die, as are the present- day interpreters’’ (Elder, "The Crucifixion in the Koran", The Muslim World, Vol. 13, p. 243). Another passage which causes much confusion among Muslim commentators on the subject of the death of Jesus is this One where God addresses him, saying: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection". Surah 3.55 The words "I will take thee", in the original Arabic, are innii mutawaffiika which, according to the common meaning of the words, can only mean "I will cause you to die" (so Muhammed Asad, The Message of the Qur’an, p. 75). It is only after this that God says wa rafi’uka ilayya - "and I will raise you to myself". The same word is used here as in Surah 4.158 where it is said that God raised Jesus to himself after the denial that the Jews had succeeded in crucifying and killing him. It is upon that text that the doctrine of the raising o Jesus to heaven without his prior death upon the earth is built, yet in Surah 3.55 the raising is clearly spoken of as following his death. Once again Muslim writers attempt to postpone the death of Jesus to the future, saying that the death referred to is yet to come but, if it is, "then the Raising of Jesus to Allah must also be future" (Obaray, Miraculous Conception, Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus (Nabi-Isa) as Taught in the Kuran, p. 29). It is well-nigh impossible to see how any Muslim writer, who approaches all the passages we have mentioned objectively, can possibly reconcile them. Well does a Christian writer say: The Qur’an is quite ambiguous on the subject of the death of Jesus Christ. (Abdul-Haqq, Christ in the New Testament and the Qur’an, p. 18). This also explains why there are so many conflicting opinions in Islam about what really happened to Jesus at the end of his earthly life, prompting another Christian writer to comment: "There is no doubt that this variety of versions resulted from the lack of clear wording in the Qur’an with regard to the last days of Christ’s human life on earth" (Jadid, The Cross in the Gospel and the Qur’an, p. 11 ) . Another verse which helps to compound the confusion is this one where Jesus is quoted as speaking to God of his disciples, saying to him of his time on earth: "Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, ’Worship God, my Lord and your Lord’; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up Thou west the Watcher over them, and Thou art a witness to all things". Surah 5.120 Once again the words for "when Thou didst take me up" are not the only possible translation of the original words falammaa tawaffiitanii. They are just as reasonably translated in the alternative by Muhammad Asad as "since Thou hast caused me to die" (Asad, The Message of the Qur’an, p. 169) and by Muhammad Ali as "when Thou didst cause me to die" (Ali, The Holy Qur’an, p. 276), for the word tawaffa, meaning "to gather to oneself", can quite properly be taken as a reference to death as the manner in which a man’s soul is taken back to God. If this is the intended meaning of the words in Surah 5.120, it can only refer to the death of Jesus at the end of his life on earth when God continued to watch over his disciples. There can be little doubt that the Qur’an is quite vague and at times contradictory on the subject of the death of Jesus and, indeed, on what really happened to him that fateful Friday when the Bible states quite emphatically that he was crucified, died and was buried, only to rise on the third day. The Qur’an presents no reasonable alternative to this clear sequence of events. The great commentator ar-Razi was constrained to make the following comment on the Qur’anic teaching about the destiny of Jesus: What Mohammed here tells us in the heaven-inspired Qur’an, we must simply accept as the word of God, surrounded as it is with difficulties, and it is the Lord alone that can give thee true direction. (Quoted in Abdul-Haqq, Christ in the New Testament and the Qur’an, p. 19). It is surely far more sensible to conclude that the difficulties here spoken of militate against the alleged divine inspiration of the Qur’an and that the confusion in The Muslim World has been caused by an inexplicable denial in the Qur’an of a fact positively true to history - the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. A modern Muslim writer is also obliged to Concede his inability to define clearly what happened to Jesus when he says of Surah 4.157 in a book he has written on the whole subject of Jesus’ crucifixion: The idea of a substitute for Christ is a very crude way of explaining the Qur’anic text ... The text is taken to mean that the Jews thought that they killed Christ but God raised him unto Him in a way we can leave unexplained among the several mysteries which we have taken for granted on faith alone. (Hussein, The City of Wrong, p. 222). In the light of the Qur’anic denial of the crucifixion Hussein considers that the whole question of the destiny of Jesus is an unexplained mystery. On the contrary a very clear explanation is found in the Bible and in the Christian doctrine of the Atonement. The Bible alone has the truth about Jesus and, in our view, the confusion surrounding the Qur’anic alternative arises not from a mystery but from a myth - that Jesus was neither crucified nor killed. A Christian writer puts the whole matter in a nutshell when he says: The fact remains that the death of Jesus Christ is an enigma in the Koran, which Muslim ingenuity, expressed in the numerous commentaries and traditions, has not been able to resolve. The Koran teaches that Jesus Christ, like all mortals, is to taste of death. But it denies that Re died upon the cross. It says that at that point God raised Him up to himself. The question left unresolved is, when did He die? At this point the Koran is silent, giving rise to free speculation on the part of Muslim divines. (Abdul-Haqq, Sharing Your Faith with a Muslim, p. 131). Without seeking to cause offence Christians should be quite open in pointing out to Muslims how inconsistent the Qur’an appears to be in its treatment of this subject and how it has caused Muslims to be at variance with each other in their interpretation of its teaching. Its unwarranted charge against Christians regarding the crucifixion, "Those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow" (Surah 4.157), has rebounded against its own followers and it is they alone who are left holding much dispute among themselves as they conjecture about the ultimate fate of Jesus. Let us close by seeing how clear the Bible is, in contrast, on this subject. 5. The Crucifixion as a Fact of History in Christianity. Hussein spoke of accepting the Qur’anic teaching on the crucifixion as a mystery which should be taken for granted on faith alone. Fortunately no such purely subjective approach is required when one comes to the Bible for it has universally been accepted that "By the standards of modern historiography the crucifixion of Jesus is one of the most certain events in past history" (Watt, Islam and Christianity Today, p. 144). In fact even non-Christians who query such phenomena as the virgin-birth, miracles and resurrection of Jesus, nonetheless acknowledge the crucifixion to be one of the certain historical facts of his life. No serious modern historian doubts that Jesus was a historical figure and that he was crucified, whatever he may think of the faith in the resurrection. (Parrinder, Jesus in the Qur’an, p. 116). Unlike the Qur’an, which creates much confusion among its commentators regarding the ultimate death of Jesus, the Bible is quite consistent with itself and the historical narratives of the crucifixion in the Gospels define the sequence of events in fine detail as we have seen. But there are the gospels, our earliest and only historical documents on the subject - why not be guided by these? With one voice these proclaim that Jesus of Nazareth was put to death on the cross, by the orders of Pontius Pilate, at the instigation of the Jews. In those records there is not the remotest suggestion either of confusion of identity, or of substitution, nor yet the slightest doubt but that Jesus actually died on the cross. (Bevan Jones, Christianity Explained to Muslims, p. 82). Not a single writer in the New Testament but tells of the actual death of Jesus; not a single voice is heard in all the record of the Book of Acts raising any doubt that Jesus was crucified. Not until the lapse of centuries had men the audacity to doubt this historic fact and teach their cunningly devised fables. (Zwemer, The Glory of the Cross, p. 27). The ironical thing about the Qur’an is that it teaches that the deliverance of Jesus from crucifixion was part of a superior plan of God to save him from the designs of the Jews. They plotted against Jesus, but "God too planned, and the best of planners is God" (Surah 3.54). The irony is found in the fact that the Bible teaches that the crucifixion of Jesus, a fact of history, was in fact the very means by which God accomplished his superior plan. On the Day of Pentecost Peter declared that the Jews did indeed crucify and kill Jesus Christ, but this did not defeat God’s purposes for it was according to his "definite plan and foreknowledge" (Acts 2:23). Through it he brought about the salvation of all who truly turn to him in faith, and by means of its sequel (the resurrection) he brought about the assured hope of eternal life in all who are raised to newness of life with Jesus (Romans 6:4). A Muslim writer is bold enough to see this very thing when he says that whereas the death of Jesus fulfilled the plan of the Jews, "the resurrection fulfils the better plan of Allah" (Obaray, Miraculous Conception, Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus (Nabi Isa) as Taught in the Kuran, p. 39), and he goes on to conclude: The mere saving of Jesus from being killed would not make Allah the best of planners, for any person could save Jesus from being killed ... In keeping with His being the best of planners, a resurrection is what Allah planned. Plainly then, the Jews accomplished their plan and killed Jesus, but Allah accomplished his best plan by raising Jesus to life again and unto Himself. (Obaray, Miraculous Conception, Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus (Nabi Isa) as Taught in the Kuran, p. 39). In a similar vein a Christian writer points out that the cross was not an untimely end to Jesus’ ministry which destroyed his plans and caught him unawares, but was the very purpose for which he came into the world that he might bring about the salvation of God: "The Cross was no afterthought, n sudden tragedy. It was the conscious choice of Christ" (Cragg The Call of the Minaret, p. 300). The same writer perhaps gets right to the heart of the matter when he shows that the victory came not through a last-gasp deliverance by which God snatched his helpless prophet away from his enemies, but rather through the climax of God’s love as it was revealed in all its perfection when he willingly gave his Son that we might be forgiven and become heirs of the hope of eternal life in the everlasting kingdom of God: Was it rescue and rapture into heaven and God’s vindication thereby? Or was it the Cross and the triumph of a love that truly suffered, the ’power and wisdom of God’, reconciling the world? (Cragg, Jesus and the Muslim, p. 166). Elsewhere he points out that it is enigmatic to find that the Qur’an declares, just after its proclamation that God raised Jesus to heaven without being crucified, that God is "Mighty, Wise" (Surah 4.158). For in 1 Corinthians 1:23-24 the Apostle Paul teaches precisely the opposite, namely that it is in Christ crucified alone that we discover "the power of God and the wisdom of God". The Qur’an sees God’s hand of deliverance as a physical demonstration of God’s power and wisdom, whereas in the Bible it is in God’s grace in allowing his Son to be crucified and in using this as his foreordained means of our salvation that we truly see God’s power and wisdom manifested. These, power and wisdom, interestingly, are just the very descriptives Paul uses, in a quite contrary sense, in reference to the Cross of Christ as being the ’power and wisdom of God’. (Cragg, Muhammad and the Christian, p. 103). In closing we can only recommend that Christians seeking to witness to Muslims should always maintain this theme - the cross of Christ not only as a proven fact of history but also as the revelation of God’s love and righteousness for all men until the end of time. We have every right, as I have done here, to emphasize the factual truth of the crucifixion, but must do so purely as a means to an end, namely to enable Muslims to discover all the glory of its meaning and purpose. Until the cross of Christ has personal meaning for all Moslems and these innumerable non-Moslems, Jesus Christ will not have the devotion and loyalty that his death and resurrection deserve to produce ... It is therefore the duty and privilege of Christians to commend the desire of the Moslems to honor Christ, and then to show them that Jesus himself endured the cross as his own utmost service of love, and that thus he transformed a mark of shame into a sign of glory. (Calverley, "The Cross and Islam", The Muslim World, Vol. 27, p. 108). I have purposefully left the whole subject of the crucifixion as a fact of history until the end of these three chapters on the most effective means of communicating the Gospel to Muslims so that it may obtain its proper place - a supporting proof for the message of the Gospel upon which it is based. The one cannot do without the other. Jesus called on all true believers to worship God in spirit and in truth (John 4:24) and no Christian witness will ultimately be effective unless it can combine these two essential ingredients - the spirit of the message of the Gospel and the factual truths on which it is based. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 128: 06.30. OBJECTIONS TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE BIBLE ======================================================================== Objections to the Integrity of the Bible ======================================================================== CHAPTER 129: 06.31. A. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE. ======================================================================== A. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE. 1. Principles Underlying the Integrity of the Bible. Some years ago a young Muslim woman asked me, "Has the Bible ever been changed?" When I answered that it had not, she went on, "But does the Bible not teach that Jesus is the Son of God?" I replied that indeed it does, to which she responded, "Then it must have been changed". In that conclusion we find the sole reason for the Muslim unwillingness to accept the integrity of the Bible. Because it contradicts the Qur’an by teaching consistently that Jesus is the Son of God and that he was crucified and rose from the dead on the third day, Muslims cannot approach it objectively and presuppose that it has been altered. "It must have been changed" is their assumption and, proceeding upon it, they seek evidences to justify their stand. The Qur’an teaches that the Scriptures of the Jews and the Christians were intact and authentic at the time of Muhammad and there was no suggestion during his lifetime that these texts had been altered. It was only in the succeeding generation, when the Muslims ventured into neighbouring Christian lands, that they found that the Bible itself was the authority for Christian beliefs about Jesus and not that these beliefs had risen contrary to its teaching as Muhammad had supposed. There were only two possible responses to this discovery - they either had to accept that their prophet had erred or to work on the presupposition that the text itself had been changed and interpolated. Unfortunately they chose the latter course. The Muslim position thus begins with a hypothesis which is beyond proof or disproof, a hypothesis which ends where it begins. The Qur’an is the infallible Book. All other true Scriptures agree with it. The Biblical Scriptures, as they are, do not agree. Therefore these are corrupted. (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 282). His way out of a hopeless position is to assert that one of the Books must have been corrupted and is, therefore, now untrustworthy. This, he argues, cannot be the Qur’an for it belongs (so he persuades himself) to an altogether superior category; therefore it must be the Bible; accordingly, he accuses the Christians with having corrupted it. (Bevan-Jones, Christianity Explained to Muslims, p. 15). In the early days of my ministry among Muslims, when I first came across some of their publications challenging the integrity of the Bible, I was surprised to find that the evidences offered in these works were extremely weak and unconvincing and, on many occasions, irrelevant. I shall give some examples later in this chapter to show why I could draw only one possible conclusion - the Muslims do not believe the Bible has been changed because they have found adequate evidence to warrant such a belief, they believe it has been altered because they have to in order to maintain the conviction that the Qur’an is the Word of God. If the Bible is the unchanged Word of God, the Qur’an automatically falls to the ground because it contradicts it on its key issues. Muslims thus base their attitudes on a presupposition and evidences are sought to justify it. Before a Muslim ever picks up a Bible he is led to believe it is no longer an authentic book. How many there are who, when they obtain a copy, do not read it to discover and understand its teaching but only to find fault. That their attitude is purely presumptuous can be seen from a study of the evidences themselves for, when these are honestly and objectively considered, the only conclusion that can be reached is that the Bible is a remarkably intact book and one of certain authenticity. We shall begin by considering some of the basic principles underlying its integrity and shall then press on to a brief study of the evidences that exist for its textual history in the oldest manuscripts available to us. We shall see just how strong the evidences are in favour of its authenticity. One of the great themes of the New Testament is that the covenant recorded in its pages which came through the revelation of Jesus Christ was foreshadowed in the Old Testament, the Scripture of the Jewish peoples which was completed at least four centuries before Jesus was born. The teaching of the New Testament that Jesus is the Son of God, for example, is constantly justified by quotes from the Old Testament. In Psalms 2:7 God speaks of his coming anointed one and says, "Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee" and, in 2 Samuel 7:14, when telling David that this same anointed one would be one of his own offspring, God said "I will be his father and he shall be my son". Both these texts are quoted in Hebrews 1:5 to show that the coming of the Son of God as God’s anointed ruler and deliverer among men was foretold in the earlier scriptures. There are numerous other examples in the New Testament but let these suffice to prove the point. To this day the relevant texts remain in the Old Testament, the cherished Scripture of the Jews, a people who no more believe that God has a Son than the Muslims do. The doctrine of Jesus as the Son of God is as vehemently rejected by the Jews as it is by the Muslims, even more so by the Jews as they do not believe in Jesus at all, whereas the Muslims at least acknowledge that he was a true prophet. Yet the very texts foretelling the coming of God’s Son into the world remain intact in the Jewish Scriptures. Could the Christians have written these prophecies into the Jewish Scriptures? Have the Jews expunged them to suit their purposes? Even if either group sought to do such things the circumstances would render the attempt impossible. It only remains to point out that it would have been utterly impossible for the Jews and the Christians to have effected this kind of textual corruption at or about the time of Muhammad, for the following very good reasons: By that period they were spread over the whole of the known world and could not have met together to agree to do this thing. . . . Then, too, the Jews and the Christians were, unfortunately, mutually hostile; so that the one party would have promptly exposed any alterations or perversions by the other. (Bevan-Jones, Christianity Explained to Muslims, p. 19). Furthermore the Old Testament has been in the hands of both the Jews and the Christians throughout the world ever since the time of Christ. A falsification of any portion of the text would only have been possible if the two groups had come together and mutually conspired to alter it. As their basic beliefs are so different the suggestion is hardly worthy of serious consideration. Is it ever possible that all Christians and all Jews of the entire world would come together and conspire jointly to corrupt their own Scriptures for a little monetary gain? (Deshmukh, The Gospel and Islam, p. 139). The Old Testament, written originally in Hebrew (with a portion of Daniel in Aramaic), was translated into Greek about two hundred years before the time of Christ. The Septuagint (as this translation came to be known) was likewise widely disseminated. Its complete consistency with the Massoretic text of the Old Testament, right down to this day, testifies to the authenticity of the Old Testament centuries before the times of both Jesus and Muhammad. It is this same Old Testament that predicted the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ in such fine detail (Isaiah 53:1-12, Psalms 22:1-31; Psalms 69:1-36 in particular), as well as the fact that he would be the Son of God. In principle alone the suggestion that the Scripture of the Jews, the Old Testament, could ever have been corrupted cannot be sustained. In the same way, as the Christian Church has, from early times, had its divisions, is it likely that its leaders ever came together to agree on a falsification of the New Testament text and, if so, for what purpose? Mediaeval Christian writers constantly levelled the practical impossibility of such falsifications against Muslim objectors. Peter of Poitiers was one such writer: Neither Jews nor Christians could have falsified their Scriptures, he noted down: in many languages over all the world one and the same Gospel had been preserved. It was impossible that so many men of different languages and nations, especially the learned, could have concealed a falsification, or allowed themselves to be deceived, or mistaken false things for true. (Daniel, Islam and the West, p. 48). Ricoldo, a famous Christian author who defended the faith vigorously against the Muslim charges of his day, was another who used this same argument. He asked how the various Christian groupings of his day, such as the Roman Church, the Nestorians, the Byzantine Orthodox Church and others, could at any time in history have congregated together with the express purpose of manipulating the Scriptures to produce a new text acceptable to them all. The usual point, that there could never have been agreement throughout the world to suppress the supposed original Gospel, took with him a form which reflected conditions that he had personally known. How could Jews and Christians ’between whom there is so ancient a hatred’ agree to corrupt a text? (Daniel, Islam and the West, p. 49). To this day the Muslims have never been able to bring forward any evidences to show at what point in history the alleged corruptions of the text of the Bible took place and by whom the changes were made. Peter the Venerable, another strong defender of the Bible against Muslim claims that it had been altered, took up the same theme. The Christian Scriptures were very widely diffused. How could any alteration have taken place without it being at once remarked? How do the Saracens come to be better instructed about the alleged facts of this than the Christians who had such a vital interest in the matter? (Sweetman, Islam and Christian Theology, Part 2, Vol. 1, p. 81). No Muslim has ever been able to uncover factual evidences to show how the Bible came to be changed, precisely when these changes were made, exactly who made them, and what the changes were. Their attitude is occasioned purely by a necessary presupposition to maintain the validity of their own Scripture, the Qur’an. It is not the result of a scholarly assessment of the evidences. Let us press on to see what the evidences are for the actual text of the Bible as they exist today to see whether there is any support here for their charges against it. 2. The Earliest Surviving Manuscripts of the Scriptures. We have already mentioned some of the authorities we have for the text of the Old Testament. The oldest Hebrew manuscripts of the whole book are the Massoretic texts dating back to the tenth century A. D., but the evidences for the authenticity of the text can be traced right back to pre-Christian times. The Dead Sea Scrolls, dating back to the first century before Christ, yielded two copies of the Book of Isaiah together with numerous other fragments of other Old Testament books. The Septuagint Greek translation, dating back to about two centuries before Christ, likewise proves the existence of the Old Testament in its original form at that time. There are more than four thousand New Testament manuscripts, either of the whole book or of specific books in the New Testament or fragments thereof, dating no later than the fourth century A. D. Indeed we have three complete manuscripts of the whole Bible in Greek (namely the Septuagint of the Old Testament coupled with the original Greek texts of the New Testament) going back to some centuries before Islam. The Codex Alexandrinus is in the British Museum in London and dates from the fifth century after Christ - two centuries before the advent of Islam. The Codex Sinaiticus now also rests in the British Museum. This manuscript was purchased from Russia in 1933 for 100,000 and dates a hundred years before the first-mentioned codex. It was accordingly transcribed nearly three centuries before the rise of Islam. The third complete text is the Codex Vaticanus, now in the Vatican Library, which dates from the fourth century A. D. as well and was written at about the same time as the Codex Sinaiticus. We actually possess today ancient Greek manuscripts of the whole Bible which were copied long before the time of Muhammad, by scribes, from still older MSS. It is from these that our modern scholars supply the world with the printed Greek text of the Old and New Testaments. (Bevan-Jones, Christianity Explained to Muslims, p. 20). All three of the codices we have mentioned were written on vellum, a durable skin material, and there is no dispute among the experts as to their antiquity. In addition to the Septuagint we also possess other translations of the Bible, such as the Latin Vulgate, which were done long before the time of Muhammad. There are also numerous quotations from the Scriptures in the very earliest Christian writings, dating back as far as the second century A. D. All our modern translations are based on the oldest texts available and as these date from before the time of Islam, no one can honestly suggest that the Bible has been changed in the intervening centuries. The evidences thus show that the Bible as it now exists is precisely that which the Christians of early times had in their possession. In recent years several astonishing discoveries of ancient manuscripts have greatly enhanced textual studies. For example, the 1947 discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran near the Dead Sea has given scholars access to manuscripts of the Old Testament which date from the second century B. C. Likewise, New Testament studies have been helped by several discoveries of ancient manuscripts, one of which takes us to within one hundred years of the crucifixion of Jesus. There are now at least 5000 ancient New Testament manuscripts available for scholarly analysis. These studies of ancient texts have greatly increased confidence in the accuracy of the Bible as we have it today. (Kateregga and Shenk, Islam and Christianity, p. 116). Are there any variations in the texts of the Old and New Testaments that have been preserved over so many centuries? There are, but they are so few and their influence so negligible on the text itself that the authenticity of the Bible as a whole cannot be seriously questioned. Most of these variations are only found in individual texts. There are only two passages comprising a number of verses about which there is any doubt regarding their authenticity. The last twelve verses of Mark’s Gospel (Mark 16:9-20) appear in many of the old manuscripts but are absent from the very earliest manuscripts, while the story of the woman caught in adultery which appears in most manuscripts as John 8:1-11 is also absent from some of the earliest texts and appears in others either as an appendix to the Gospel or after Luke 21:38. Apart from these two passages, which make up not more than half-a-page of the Bible (the full length of which exceeds one thousand, two hundred and fifty pages), there is no other passage of the Old or New Testament Scriptures for which there is any textual evidence to suggest suspicion as to its authenticity. Let us briefly consider the two passages we have mentioned to see whether their questioned authenticity affects the Bible as a whole. The passage at the end of Mark’s Gospel records the appearances of Jesus after his resurrection. Verses 9-11 record that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene which is confirmed in John 20:16. Verses 12-13 record an appearance to two of Jesus’ disciples as they were walking into the country, a brief reference which is confirmed by a full narrative of the event in Luke 24:13-35. Verses 14-18 record Jesus’ subsequent appearance to all his disciples (the sequence being confirmed in Luke 24:36-43 including the reproach they received from Jesus) and his commission to preach the Gospel to the whole creation, confirmed in Matthew 28:19 (including the command to baptise those who believed). The signs referred to in Mark 16:17-18 are all mentioned elsewhere in the Scriptures, while the ascension mentioned in verse 19 is confirmed in Acts 1:9. Verse 20 concludes the passage by mentioning the fact that the disciples went out and preached everywhere while the Lord confirmed the message by the signs that attended it. This twofold ministry is expressly recorded in Acts 14:3 where we read that Paul and Barnabas remained at Iconium, "speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands". There is nothing in Mark 16:9-20 that does not appear elsewhere in the New Testament, so there can be no suggestion here that any suspicion regarding the authenticity of this passage affects the New Testament as a whole. There are solid evidences that the story of the woman caught in adultery belongs just where it is found in most of the early manuscripts, namely at the beginning of John 8:1-59. The narrative briefly records how the scribes and Pharisees brought a woman to Jesus who had been caught in the act of adultery. Charging that Moses had ordered such people to be stoned, they commanded Jesus to pass his own judgment on her. He replied: "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her". John 8:7 They all went out, one by one, until Jesus was left alone with the woman. When she testified that no one had condemned her, Jesus said that he too would not condemn her, commanding her not to commit the same sin again. There are five compelling reasons to support the contention that this passage belongs at the beginning of John 8:1-59. Firstly, the author shows throughout his Gospel that there is a sharp contrast between the limited effect of the ministry of Moses and the pre-eminent and greater glory of the ministry of Jesus. This story fits very neatly into this theme. The law of Moses could only convict the adulterous woman of sin, but Jesus convicted every single man in his presence of sin. Secondly, when all the leaders of the Jews had gone out, Jesus said to the woman "Woman, where are they?" (John 8:10). This introduction of the vocative "woman" is found in this Gospel alone (cf. John 2:4; John 4:21; John 20:15). It was a mark of respect that it is found in this narrative argues strongly for its inclusion in the Gospel of John. Thirdly, in this passage we find the Pharisees coming face-to-face with Jesus for the first time in this Gospel. The author slowly brings them into the narrative of his Gospel but at no time before John 8:1-59 are they found in the presence of Jesus. Nevertheless in the debate immediately following this passage they are suddenly found in open argument with him (John 8:13). Without this passage the careful development in the Gospel of John regarding the gradual clash between Jesus and these leaders loses its consistency. Fourthly, the heated debate between Jesus and these leaders which follows throughout the chapter is obviously the consequence of the incident outlined in this passage. Throughout this Gospel the author records incidents in the life of Jesus which gave rise to discourses and debates with the Jews and this narrative and the subsequent debate clearly fit this pattern. Without this passage this trend is unjustifiably broken in the eighth chapter of the Gospel. Fifthly, in the ensuing debate Jesus said to the Jews "Which of you convicts me of sin?" (John 8:46). This statement would be rather isolated without the passage under review but it is obviously linked with his earlier statement "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a I stone at her". He had convicted them all of sin - which one of them could do the same to him? There is, therefore, substantial evidence to show that John 8:1-11 is a genuine passage and that it almost certainly appeared in the original texts of John’s Gospel at this very point. Thus there is no factual or textual evidence of any nature to show that the Bible as a whole has ever been changed. The only two brief passages about which there can be any dispute are remarkably consistent with the text of the book as a whole. 3. Variant Readings in the Early Manuscripts. It is quite remarkable to find that in a book the length of the Bible, which consists of sixty-six separate works of great antiquity by a variety of authors, there are only a negligible number of variant readings. In most modern translations these are noted in footnotes and a brief perusal of the New Testament (where these variants generally occur) will soon reveal how few and far between they are, and will also show how authentic the text generally is. It has been calculated that significant variations amount to about one-thousandth part of the whole, or twenty lines of the entire New Testament. (Cragg, Jesus and the Muslim, p. 119). Not only are these variant readings very few in number - only a handful, to be exact - but they do not affect the teaching of the New Testament as a whole. Invariably their contents are found repeated elsewhere in the New Testament text. For example Mark 15:28, a variant reading found only in a few ancient manuscripts, reads: "And the scripture was fulfilled which says ’He was reckoned with the transgressors "’. In Luke 22:37, however, a text found in all the ancient manuscripts of Luke’s Gospel without variants of any kind, we read that Jesus said "For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ’And he was reckoned with the transgressors for what is written about me has its fulfilment". Another typical example is the variant reading found in the parable of the tenants of the vineyard in Matthew’s Gospel where Jesus is recorded as saying: "And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but when it falls on any one, it will crush him". Matthew 21:44 This text appears likewise only in a few of the ancient manuscripts of Matthew’s Gospel, yet it is also found in every manuscript of Luke’s Gospel as Luke 20:18. In the same way the woe pronounced on the Pharisees for devouring widows’ houses found as variant in Matthew 23:14 appears in every ancient manuscript of Mark’s Gospel as Mark 12:40. The mention of a guard who pierced Jesus’ side with a spear so that water and blood came out, found as a variant in Matthew 27:49, appears without any variants in John 19:34. There is, even in the other variants, not a single detail which conflicts with the teaching of the New Testament as a whole. For example, scholars assure us that the possibility of any variation from the original New Testament text is now only one to a thousand! And none of the 00.1% possible variations is of any significance in terms of the message which the Bible conveys! (Kateregga and Shenk, Islam and Christianity, p. 116). There are as in almost all books copied by hand a very few variant readings. These variations of text are entirely questions of detail, not of essential substance, as competent scholars bear witness. (Harris, How to Lead Moslems to Christ, p. 21) The one verse we should perhaps consider in closing is 1 John 5:7 which reads in the King James Version, an English translation of the seventeenth century: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one". This text is not even mentioned as a possible variant in more recent translations as it does not appear in any of the early Greek manuscripts and first made its appearance in the Latin Vulgate translation some centuries after 1 John was written. It is probable that it was a marginal gloss of a scribe who noted a comparison between the three witnesses of heaven and the three on earth, the spirit, the water and the blood, mentioned in the next verse (1 John 5:8). This text has been pounced on by Muslim writers who claim that it is the only reference, or at least the most obvious reference, to the Trinity in the New Testament. Once again the addition is not insignificant, for the passage represents the nearest thing to the Christian trinity in the whole of the Bible. (Shafaat, The Question of Authenticity and Authority of the Bible, p. 16). It is argued that by deleting 1 John 5:7 from modern translations the doctrine of the Trinity has been summarily expunged from the New Testament. This is a typical example of the tendency of Muslim writers to make mountains out of molehills in their endeavours to discredit the Bible. The doctrine of the Trinity has been formulated from the teaching of the New Testament as a whole and was defined before 1 John 5:7 ever appeared in the Vulgate. That verse is a reflection of a teaching already derived from the rest of the New Testament as a whole, it is not the basis for the doctrine. There are specific references to the Triune God in Matthew 28:19 (where we read of "the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit", the singular implying a clear unity of essence and nature), Ephesians 2:18 (where it is said that we have access to the Father through the Son in the Spirit) and 2 Corinthians 13:14 (which speaks of the grace of the Son, the love of the Father, and the fellowship of the Spirit in one breath), to name but a few examples. The textual evidences testify to the authenticity of the Christian Bible. The book has over one thousand, two hundred pages, yet the only passages and variant readings found in it, when put together, hardly fill a page! No one can honestly question the integrity of the Bible on the grounds of the manuscript records which have been preserved through many centuries without alteration or corruption. 4. The Muslim Failure to Rise to the Challenge. When I first read Muslim publications against the Bible, as I have pointed out, I very soon realised that their authors were trying to prove a hypothesis and that their approach to the subject was purely subjective. Working from the presupposition that the Bible must have been changed, they sought evidences to justify their presumptions. As we have seen, the textual records preserved to us in the most ancient manuscripts do not even begin to provide them with the kind of evidences they require. To prove that the Bible has been changed they will have to produce proof that wholesale corruptions of the text took place, for the Christian character of the scriptures of both the Old and New Testaments pervades every page of the text. The foundation of all New Testament teaching is the fact that Jesus Christ is "our Lord and Saviour", the Son of God who became our Redeemer by being crucified for our sins and rising from the dead on the third day. The Muslims have not even begun to tackle this issue, and it will only be through the presentation of substantial proofs that the whole Bible has been changed that their case will stand. Reliance on a negligible number of variant readings which in no way affect the teaching of the whole cannot suffice to prove the point. The Muslim dilemma is aggravated further by the teaching of the Qur’an about the previous Scriptures. As we shall see it confirms that those Scriptures which were in the possession of the Jews and Christians at the time of Muhammad were the unchanged Word of God, but it speaks of the Jewish Scriptures purely as at-Tawroat, "the Law", which was but one single book revealed to Moses. In the same way it regards the whole Christian Scripture as al-Injil, "the Gospel", which was also a book given to Jesus. It appears that Muhammad was considerably ignorant of the character of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures (the Old and New Testaments respectively) and believed that his concept of revelation applied to them as well. Just as al-Qur’an, "the Recitation", was being revealed to him, so he presumed that the previous scriptures had been revealed to the former prophets in the same way. The Qur’an says to Muhammad, Nazzala alaykal-kitaaba bil-haqq . . . we anzalat-Tawraata wal-Injiil - "(He) sent down to you the Scripture in truth . . . and (He) sent down the Torah and the Gospel" (Surah 3.3). He thus presumed that the form of the previous scriptures was the same as that of the Qur’an- in each case a book "sent down" to the relevant prophet. Elsewhere the Qur’an says "We sent down the Torah" (Surah 5.47) and, going on to speak of Jesus, it says "We sent him the Gospel" (Surah 5.49). According to the Qur’an the former Scriptures were books sent down to Moses and Jesus. Now any Muslim reading the Bible for the first time will not fail to notice immediately that the Jewish and Christian Scriptures do not take this form at all but, in both cases, the Scripture takes the form of a series of books written by a variety of authors as their own works. The concept of inspiration in both the Old and New Testaments is the same - "All scripture is inspired by God" (2 Timothy 3:16), and "no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:21) - but it is vastly different to the Qur’anic concept which sees the revelation of scripture as coming purely from God alone to his prophets and imposes this concept on the former revelations. Here there is a real problem for the Muslims. What they really have to do is to prove that the Old and New Testament Scriptures have replaced the original Tawraat and Injil of which the Qur’an speaks. The problem is that there is not a shred of evidence to prove such a hypothesis. Not only do no such "Torah" and "Gospel" exist in any form whatsoever (that is, whole books revealed to Moses and Jesus through the medium of the angel Gabriel, Jibril), but there is no record in history to support the contention that such books ever existed. Can we seriously consider the testimony of one man, Muhammad, against the total silence of history? The problem is compounded by the fact that the Qur’an plainly states that the Tawraat and Injil were those very scriptures in the hands of the Jews and Christians at the time of Muhammad as we shall see shortly, whereas the only scriptures ever known to these two faiths are the books of the Old and New Testaments respectively. Muslims claim that God has preserved the Qur’an without so much as a change to a letter or dot - how then could that same God have failed to preserve so much as a record in history that his former revelations ever existed, let alone preserve the actual books themselves? How do the Muslim circumvent these problems which they cannot solve? The general practice is to avoid them, to ignore the key issues completely, and rely on irrelevancies instead. They start with the presumption that the Qur’an has been completely unchanged and therefore, if they can find so much as one or two variant readings or uncertain passages in the Bible, even though these may not fill a page, they persuade themselves that they have adequate proof that the Bible has been changed. The irony of all this is that the Qur’an itself has likewise suffered from variant readings - far more in fact than the Bible has - and I have given substantial evidence of this in the companion volume to this book (Muhammad and the Religion of Islam, pp. 176-199). Why then are these variants not found in the Qur’an text today? The answer is that the Caliph Uthman, to eliminate them, ordered all other copies of the Qur’an in existence at his time, even those of the most prominent qurra (readers) and companions of Muhammad, to be burnt and at the same time he standardised the text compiled by Zaid-ibn-Thabit in his own possession as the official text. The only difference between the texts of the Bible and the Qur’an as they exist today is not that one is free from variant readings and the other not, it is that those readings once found in the Qur’an were suppressed in the interests of standardising one harmonious text while those found in the Bible were preserved in the interests of maintaining the whole record. If our leading men had burnt all the ancient MSS. of the Bible and compelled all copies to be made from one which they had caused to be written, we too should have but few varied readings in our Bible, but all men of learning would feel that no reliance whatever was to be placed upon the text thus produced. (Tisdall, Muhammadan Objections to Christianity, p. 62). As Jimmy Swaggart, a leading American Christian evangelist, said in a recent debate with Ahmed Deedat on the integrity of the Bible, the only people who have ever burnt the Bible were its sworn enemies. The companions of Muhammad who were best-read in the Qur’an, such as Abdullah-ibn-Mas’ud and Ubayy-ibn-Ka’b, must have recoiled at the command to burn the cherished texts of the Qur’an in their possession, especially when the command came from a fellow-companion far- less instructed in the text than themselves. If something similar had been done to all the books of the New Testament at the end of the first century, there would evidently be no way of proving that the new edition had not been corrupted by addition or omission. It would not be possible for a scholar to rely with perfect certainty on a single verse in the whole volume. But this did not happen to the Bible, thanks be to the Most Merciful God. We Christians have never had an Uthman. (Pfander, The Mizanu’l Haqq (Balance of Truth), p. 111). The shortage of space here prevents us from refuting all the charges brought against the Bible in various Muslim publications, not on the grounds of its textual evidences but of its teachings, but in the next section I will mention a few to show how equally unconvincing they are. I have never yet heard an argument from a Muslim against the Bible to which no satisfactory answer can be given. For the present, however, a mere handful of examples will have to suffice. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 130: 06.32. B. TYPICAL MUSLIM OBJECTIONS TO THE SCRIPTURES. ======================================================================== B. TYPICAL MUSLIM OBJECTIONS TO THE SCRIPTURES. 1. Apparent Contradictions in Biblical Numerics. Very few Muslim critics of the Bible fail to mention a few cases in the Old Testament where there are numerical discrepancies in the narratives of events recorded in different books. For example 2 Kings 24:8 states that Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, whereas 2 Chronicles 36:9 says that he was only eight years old when he became king of Judah. In the same way 2 Kings 8:26 says that Ahaziah was twenty-two years old and 2 Chronicles 22:2 that he was forty-two years old when he began to reign. Again 2 Samuel 10:18 says that David slew seven hundred charioteers among the Syrians whereas 1 Chronicles 19:18 says that the number was seven thousand. Then we find further that 1 Kings 4:26 says that Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses while 2 Chronicles 9:25 says he only had four thousand. One Muslim writer says of this last example: Our Question is - Who was the real author of this staggering discrepancy of 36000? Was it God or man? (Deedat, Is the Bible God’s Word?, p. 44). Such publications as the one quoted level charges that the Bible is thus full of contradictions which must be the mistakes of the authors of the relevant books, and accordingly conclude that it cannot be the Word of God. There is no reason to suppose that the differences we have mentioned were caused by anything other than copyist errors. It is probable that ancient scribes, and not the original authors of the books, made copyist errors when transcribing the relevant texts. It required little more than the erroneous rendering of a single letter to cause the apparent contradiction in each case and the error - only obvious because the number wrongly transcribed in one book appears in sharp contrast with the one correctly transcribed in the other - is of such a minor nature that it has no effect on the teaching of the Bible as a whole. There is a big difference between a copyist error and a deliberate interpolation intended to corrupt the text or a contradiction caused by the author’s own mistakes. It is said that people in glass houses should not throw stones. Here, as in so many similar cases, the Muslims are arguing against themselves for their objections can be turned with equal force against the Qur’an. We read in one verse that the time period of the great Day of God to come will be "a thousand years of your reckoning" (Surah 32.5) whereas in another place it says it will be fifty thousand years (Surah 70.4). Deedat speaks of "a staggering discrepancy (sic) of 36000" in the case of Solomon’s stalls - what then can one make here of an equally obvious discrepancy of 49000 years in the Qur’an? In the original Arabic Surah 32.5 speaks of alfa sanatin ("a thousand years") whereas Surah 70.4 speaks of khamsiina alfa sanatin ("fifty thousand years"). In the Biblical quotes referred to it is invariably only a letter that differs in the variant numbers, yet here it is a whole word, khamsun, that distinguishes the two time periods. Muslim writers have advanced a host of different arguments to resolve the apparent contradiction. As to the length of the day of judgement the Koran in one place tells us that it will last 1,000 years, and in another 50,000. To reconcile this apparent contradiction, the commentators use several shifts: some saying they know not what measure of time God intends in those passages; others, that these forms of speaking are figurative and not to be strictly taken, and were designed only to express the terribleness of that day, it being usual for the Arabs to describe what they dislike as of long continuance, and what they like, as the contrary; and others suppose them spoken only in reference to the difficulty of the business of the day, which, if God should commit to any of his creatures, they would not be able to go through it in so many thousand years; to omit some other opinions which we may take notice of elsewhere. (Sale, The Preliminary Discourse to the Koran, p. 90). After his recent debate with Jimmy Swaggart on the Bible in which the Christian evangelist raised these two Qur’anic texts and the contradiction between them, Ahmed Deedat edited Swaggart’s comments by inserting his own explanation in the video-tape of the debate, saying that the Qur’an was using "allegorical, cosmic, divine language". This appears to be a somewhat flowery way of circumventing an obvious textual contradiction, especially as the Qur’an itself states that it is not speaking in allegorical, cosmic terms at all but rather of a thousand years "of your reckoning", and there is no way that we, in our earthly assessment of the time-periods we are bound by, can make one thousand years and fifty thousand years become one and the same thing. The proposed solutions to the problem put forward by the Muslims should be weighed against this comment by a Muslim critic on a selection of supposed contradictions in the Bible including some of the numerical differences in the texts we have already quoted: Whatever interpretations one may place upon these Biblical verses, with whatever flowery language one may clothe their import, the fact remains that one cannot conceal the truth. One cannot pretend that the glaring contradictory verses have mystical significances. (Joommal, The Bible: Word of God or Word of Man?, p. 37). Yet, when it comes to similar contradictions in the Qur’an, Muslim writers immediately resort to this very same defence, claiming that the verses have "mystical significances". Yusuf Ali, commenting on Surah 32.5, speaks of "the immense mystery of Time . . . Our Day may be a thousand or fifty thousand years, and our years in proportion" (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, p. 1093), while Deedat, as we have seen, speaks likewise of "cosmic" language. We do not deny that a reasonable explanation can be given of the apparent contradiction in the Qur’an, nor do we suggest that Christians should quote such passages in a tit-for-tat response to Muslim objections. Rather they should be mentioned solely to check Muslim criticisms by showing that they cannot validly be made against the Bible without equally validly coming back on the Qur’an as well, and that just as Muslim authors have endeavoured to produce plausible explanations of such contradictions (another appears in Surah 50.38 which says God created the heavens, the earth, and all that is between them in six days, whereas Surah 41.9-12 says that the earth was made in two days, the heavens in two days, and the earth’s sustenance between them in four days, a total of eight days), so it is just as easy for Christians to supply adequate explanations of such contradictions in the Bible, 2. The Authorship of Matthew’s Gospel. During a recent discussion in a Muslim home, in which the conversation was constantly directed by the Muslims present towards the integrity of the Bible, one of them suddenly said to me, "What about Matthew 9:9?" As I considered the text, I wondered just how he proposed to use it in evidence against the Bible. It reads simply: As Jesus passed on from there he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax office; and he said to him, "Follow me". And he rose and followed him. Matthew 9:9 After reading it out the Muslim enquired, "Who wrote this Gospel?", to which I replied that the early Christian records testify unanimously to the authorship of the Apostle Matthew. "That is not possible", he said, "how can he speak of himself in the third person?" This argument appears in various Muslim publications written to undermine the authenticity of the Bible, for example: Clearly, Matthew would not describe his own choice as a disciple in this way in the third person. Someone else has either composed this description or copied it from a source not written by Matthew. . . . Surely the Apostle Matthew was present when Jesus chose him as a disciple and we should expect a first-person account of at least this one incident instead of a copy of the account given by another author whose own knowledge of the event was secondhand. (Shafaat, The Question of Authenticity and Authority of the Bible, pp. 22, 23). Another Muslim writer uses much the same argument, seeking solely by the description of the Apostle Matthew in the third person to discredit the whole of the Gospel bearing his name. He says: Even the internal evidence proves that Matthew was not the author of the first Gospel which bears his name. .. If we cannot even attribute this "book of dreams" (as the first Gospel is also described) to the disciple Matthew, how can we accept it as the Word of God? (Deedat, Is the Bible God’s Word?, p. 26). It is arguments like these that persuade me that the Muslim rejection of the Bible comes not from a scholarly analysis of its contents but from prejudices for which they will seek any kind of support. The argument here is really threadbare and flimsy. I replied to the Muslim who raised this issue, "Who is the author of the Qur’an?" He promptly answered "Allah". I then responded, "How is it then that Allah likewise constantly refers to himself in the third person in the Qur’an, as in the following verse: Huwallaahullathii la ilaha illahuwa - ’He is Allah, there is no god except Him’ (Surah 59.22)?" The verse begins and ends with a pronoun in the third person singular. Deedat comments in his booklet that the use of the third person in words like "he" and "him" in Matthew 9:9 and John 19:35 respectively proves that these Gospels could not have been written by the Apostles Matthew and John. If the same logic and reasoning is applied to the Qur’an, surely the use of the very same pronouns "he" and "him" for Allah in Surah 59.22 would be similar proof that he was not the author of the book? There is quite simply no difference between these two uses of the third person singular in the Bible and the Qur’an. When Muslims have to resort to arguments like these to create a case against the integrity of the Bible one can see that, firstly, they are hard-pressed to find real evidences against it and, secondly, that their arguments arise from a desire to prove a hypothesis and a presupposition and not from an objective study of the teaching and contents of the book or its textual history. Deedat goes on to query the authorship of Matthew’s Gospel on other grounds and quotes the introduction to the J. B. Phillips translation of this Gospel which reads: Early tradition ascribed this Gospel to the apostle Matthew, but scholars nowadays almost all reject this view. The author, whom we can still conveniently call Matthew, has plainly drawn on the mysterious "Q", which may have been a collection of oral traditions. (Deedat, Is the Bible God’s Word?, p. 28). Deedat’s response to this quotation is quite simply: "In other words, St. Matthew did not write the Gospel bearing his name" (p. 26). One only needs to give thoughtful consideration to the following facts. Firstly, early Christian tradition unanimously ascribed this Gospel to Matthew. The subjective beliefs of some "modern scholars" cannot seriously be weighed against the objective testimony of those who lived at the time when this Gospel was first copied and distributed. In any event we question very seriously the charge that almost all scholars reject the authorship of Matthew for this Gospel. It is only a particular school of scholars which does this - those who do not believe in the story of creation, who write off the story of Noah and the flood as a myth, and who scoff at the idea that Jonah ever spent three days in the stomach of a fish. On the contrary those scholars who accept that these stories are historically true practically without exception also accept that Matthew was the author of this Gospel. Secondly, Phillips says that the author can still conveniently be called Matthew purely because there is no reasonable alternative to his authorship, nor has the history of the early Church ever suggested another author. Thirdly, it appears to us that the mysterious "Q" is only mysterious because it is the figment of the imagination of modern "scholars". It is not a mystery - it is a myth. There is no evidence of an historical nature whatsoever that such a collection of oral traditions ever existed. Muslim objections to the authorship of Matthew’s Gospel are typical of the kind of arguments that appear regularly in their publications against the Bible - they are shallow, often based on pure guesswork and speculation, can be applied with equal force to the Qur’an, and can be refuted by Christians with considerable ease. 3. Playing on Words in English Translations. On page 14 of his booklet Is the Bible God’s Word? Ahmed Deedat claims that there are some fifty thousand errors in the Bible (that would be more than forty on each and every page!) and, saying that he "does not have the time and space" to go into these "tens of thousands" of defects, he quotes just four examples to prove the point. It is to be presumed that anyone who has such a wealth of errors at his disposal, fifty thousand no less, would, when choosing just a few, pick some of the best examples. Let us consider just the first two he proposes. He begins with Isaiah 7:14 which, in the King James Version, a seventeenth-century English translation, states that a virgin will conceive and bear a son, whereas the Revised Standard Version states that it would be a young woman. Now the original Hebrew word in every text of Isaiah that survives in its original language is almah, a word commonly meaning "a young woman" but which is correctly interpreted, in the light of the sign of which the text speaks, to be a virgin in the King James Version and other similar translations. There is therefore no question whatsoever of a change in the Bible at this point. Any so-called "changes" in the Bible text must surely be proved to exist in the manuscripts of the texts available to us in the original languages in which they were written. Because Muslim writers cannot find such changes they play on words instead, seeking to make some capital out of interpretations of the original words in English translations. We find exactly the same thing with the second "error" he sets forth, claiming that John 3:16 has been changed because the King James Version says that God gave "his only begotten Son" whereas the Revised Standard Version simply says "his only Son". The omission of the word "begotten" in the later translation leads this Muslim critic to say: But this fabrication - "Begotten" - has now been unceremoniously excised by the Bible Revisers, without a word of excuse. . . . This blasphemous word "Begotten" was another of the many such interpolations in the "Holy Bible". God Almighty condemned this blasphemy in the strongest terms soon after its innovation. He did not wait for 2000 years for Bible scholars to reveal the fraud. (Deedat, Is the Bible God’s Word?, p. 15). The writer endeavours to cover up the weakness of his case by using brash language and an air of super-confidence to make his point. Once again it is purely a matter of interpretation. In every single manuscript of John’s Gospel in the original Greek the word used is monogenae, meaning "the one" (mono) "coming from" (genae) the Father. It would be quite correct to translate this word as "only", "only begotten" or "unique". Where, then, is the "change" in the Bible? Where is the "fraud"? If these are the two foremost errors out of a supposed stock of no less than fifty thousand, well, we do not think any Christian should fear losing any sleep over the rest! Deedat’s arguments are quite irrelevant. We need evidences that the original texts have been changed but, because he cannot find such evidences, he tries to make something of what are otherwise perfectly fair differences in interpretation, such as one can find in all Muslim translations of the Qur’an as well. Arguments such as these can only lead to the conclusion that such Muslims who seek to discredit the Bible do so solely to further their own prejudices, especially when they have to resort to such feeble "proofs" to make their points. 4. The Genealogy of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. Another favourite object of criticism in Muslim writings is the genealogy of Jesus Christ as it is found in Matthew 1:2-16 and Luke 3:23-38. From Abraham to David there is no division between the two but, whereas Matthew then traces the genealogy of Jesus through David’s son Solomon, Luke takes it through his son Nathan. From here on the two genealogies are totally different. This leads Muslim writers to conclude without further reflection that there is a contradiction between the two records. To begin with it goes without saying that every man has two genealogies, one through his father and one through his mother. The one obvious thing that appears from an analysis of the two respective genealogies is that both are traced back to one common source, David, and from there consistently to Abraham. Surely no one can deny the possibility that Joseph, the legal guardian of Jesus and his putative father, was descended from David through Solomon while Mary, his mother, was descended from David through Nathan. Every man has two genealogies, one on his father’s side, the other on his mother’s. Hence we may infer that one of the two genealogies of Christ is probably that of Joseph, His putative father, the other that of the Virgin Mary, His mother. St. Matthew gives the former, St. Luke the latter. (Tisdall, Muhammadan Objections to Christianity, p. 72). Matthew makes it plain that he is recording the genealogy of Joseph (Matthew 1:16) and throughout the narratives relating the appearances of the Angel Gabriel and the birth of Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel we find Joseph taking the part of the central character. In Luke’s Gospel, however, the narratives of the same events set forth Mary as the primary figure and Luke himself states specifically, at the beginning of his genealogy, that Jesus was the son, "as was supposed", of Joseph (Luke 3:23). Here, in this one word "supposed", lies the key to the genealogy of Jesus in Luke’s Gospel. Throughout the list of ancestors he names we find no mention of a woman. Although he concentrates on Mary’s role in the birth of Jesus, when he comes to her genealogy he does not describe Jesus as the son of Mary but as the supposed son of Joseph, meaning that, for the sake of sustaining a masculine genealogy, Joseph was being named in her place. Luke has very carefully included the word "supposed" in his genealogy so that there could be no confusion about it and so that his readers would know that it was not the actual genealogy of Joseph that was being recorded. This very simple explanation does away immediately with alleged contradictions or problems. It only requires a measure of objective sincerity to get the point. Even though the true facts have been explained for centuries, men blinded by prejudice continue to make this puerile charge for contradiction against the writers Matthew and Luke. (Finley, Face the Facts, p. 102). In the introduction to this book I have suggested that Muslim objections to the Bible and Christian doctrines should never be seen purely as points that have to be refuted but rather as opportunities for witness. In the Muslim objections to the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel we have a golden opportunity to transform our answers into an avenue for effective witness. Deedat states that in the genealogy we find a number of "adulterers and offsprings of incest" and he concludes that Jesus therefore has an "ignoble ancestry" (Is the Bible God’s Word?, p. 52). Four women are named in the genealogy of Jesus in this Gospel. They are Tamar, who committed incest with Judah; Rahab, who was a prostitute and a Gentile; Ruth, who was also a Gentile; and Bathsheba, who was an adulteress. Very significantly Matthew has named the four women in the ancestry of Jesus who had moral or ethnic defects. He has obviously done so deliberately and clearly did not think he was dishonouring Jesus by naming such women. If there was any stigma attached to such an ancestry he would surely have named some of the more holy women he was descended from, like Sarah and Rebecca. Why did he specifically name the very four women who disturbed the "purity" of his ancestry? Matthew very quickly gives us his own answer. When the angel came to Joseph he said of the child to be born: "You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins". Matthew 1:21 It was precisely for such people as Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba that Jesus came into the world. He came to save such people from their sins and to make his salvation available to all men, both Jew and Gentile alike. "I came not to call the righteous but sinners" (Matthew 9:13), Jesus said, showing that he had come for the very purpose of redeeming people from their sins and moral defects. Here we can see how effectively a Christian can turn a Muslim objection into an opportunity for witness. An argument against the Bible can become a medium for a testimony to God’s saving grace in his Son Jesus Christ. Christians will at times become exasperated with weak and irrelevant arguments against the Scriptures but they must never lose hope that truth and reason will prevail. By patiently refuting such arguments and by seeking to use them as avenues for positive witness, Christians can give profitable effect to such times of discussion with Muslims. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 131: 06.33. C. THE TESTIMONY OF THE QUR'AN TO THE BIBLE. ======================================================================== C. THE TESTIMONY OF THE QUR’AN TO THE BIBLE. 1. The Qur’anic Witness to the Christian Bible. No one can read through the Qur’an without being struck by the attention it pays to the scriptures that preceded it. The Jews and the Christians are constantly described as Ahlal -Kitab ("People of the Book") and their scriptures are called the Tawruat and Injil respectively. Although the Qur’an speaks of the Zabur of David (presumably the Psalms, though once again said to be a book revealed to the prophet - Surah 17.55) so that Muslims generally believe that there were four major books (the Tawraat, Zabur, Injil and Qur’an), nevertheless the Jewish Scripture is universally described in the Qur’an as the Tawraat and the Christian Scripture as the Injil. Throughout the book the two former scriptures are always very highly regarded. The highest value is attributed by the Coran to the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. They are always spoken of with veneration. There is not a single expression regarding them throughout the Coran, but what is dictated by profound respect and reverence. (Muir, The Coran: Its Composition and Teaching, p. 222). We have already seen that no other scriptures existed at that time except the Old and New Testaments respectively and that these were spread universally throughout the known world When the Qur’an speaks of the scriptures of the Jews and the Christians there can be little doubt that it is actually the Old and New Testaments that are being spoken of, even if the Qur’an shows that Muhammad believed that these books had a different form and were scriptures directly revealed by Allah to Moses and Jesus respectively. The Old and New Testaments are everywhere in the Coran referred to as extant and in common use; Jews and Christians are exhorted to follow the precepts of their respective Scriptures; and from first to last both portions of the Bible are spoken of in terms of reverence and homage consistent only with a sincere belief in their genuineness and authenticity. (Muir, The Coran: Its Composition and Teaching, p. 67) . Let us consider some of the verses of the Qur’an that speak of the former scriptures to see just how valid Muir’s assessment of its teaching in this respect is. We begin with the following text which speaks of the Jews and says: Yet how will they make thee their judge seeing they have the Torah, wherein is God’s judgment, then thereafter turn their backs? Surah 5.47 (Arberry). This passage teaches quite plainly that the Jews (named in Surah 5.44) "have the Torah" (inda hum - "with them"), a statement which can yield only one possible interpretation - the book was in their possession at the time of Muhammad and, as the verse also states that it was these same Jews who were coming to Muhammad for judgment, it is clear that it speaks of the Jews who lived in the environment of Medina. This means that the scripture of the Jews of Medina, which they had in their possession at the time of Muhammad, was the true Torah and the same as that which was possessed by all the Jews of the world. Now throughout their history the Jews have known only one Scripture - the books of the Old Testament as we know them today. From centuries before the time of Jesus Christ, when the Septuagint translation was done, down to this very day (and therefore right throughout the lifetime of Muhammad), the Kitab of the Jews has always been nothing other than the Old Testament as we know it. The Qur’an nowhere suggests that the Torah is any book other than that which the Jews themselves accept as the Torah and, although Muhammad obviously assumed that the Jewish Scripture had the form of a book revealed to Moses by God, he nonetheless confirmed that this Scripture was indeed that which the Jews themselves regarded as the Torah. The Qur’an thus, perhaps unintentionally but nevertheless quite specifically, confirms that the Old Testament is the genuine Word of God and the authentic scripture of the Jews. A Syrian Christian convert from Islam, in his excellent work Minarul Haqq, says of Surah 5.47 quoted above: Consider this: the Tourat, in which are the commands of God, is here affirmed to be in use by the Jews; the Scripture which, as shown above, is genuine and free from touch. Let the candid believer lay it to heart. (Muir, The Beacon of Truth, p. 92). The same principles apply to the New Testament. In this case the Qur’an describes the Christian Scriptures as the Injil, meaning the Gospel. Once again it has used a title which the possessors of that scripture also use for it. The Christian world knows the whole of the New Testament and the sum of its teaching as the Gospel (Mark 1:1, Romans 1:1). The Qur’an also admits that the Injil was in the possession of the Christians at the time of Muhammad: Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. Surah 5.50 The Ahlul-Injil are obviously intended to be the Christians who are here commanded, like the Jews, to decide matters according to what Allah has revealed in their scriptures, As this passage is likewise clearly addressed to Muhammad’s Christian contemporaries, its teaching begs the question: how could the Christians be expected to judge by the Injil unless they had it in their possession? Once again, as with the Jewish Scripture, the Christian world has known only one scripture from centuries before Muhammad down to this very day. The Kitab of the Christian Church throughout its history has also been only one book - the New Testament as we know it. By admitting that the revealed Gospel (the Injil) is in the possession of the Christians and that it is the book which the Christians themselves accept as the Gospel (for the Qur’an again nowhere suggests that the Injil is any other scripture than the one in the custody of the Christians at Muhammad’s time), the Qur’an is giving frank witness to the New Testament as the revealed Word of God. The author of the famous sixteenth-century apologetic, Quadruplex Reprobatio, said to be John of Wales but more probably a Spaniard, quoting the previous verse which states that the Gospel by which the Christians were to judge contained hudaan and nuurun - "a guidance and light" (Surah 5.49), also reasoned that the I scripture of the Christians in their possession at the time of Muhammad must have been the authentic Word of God. But God, he argued, could not have said that there was guidance and light in the Gospel if it were corrupt. (Daniel, Islam and the West, p. 50). Yet another verse from the same Surah appeals to both the Jews and the Christians to observe the Tawraat and Injil, an exhortation that would be meaningless if they did not possess these two books in their original form respectively: Say: "O People of the Book! Ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law and the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord". Surah 5.71 We have seen earlier in this chapter that the Old and New Testaments both date back to centuries before Muhammad and that there is no historical evidence of any kind to support the claim that they have been changed, or that the original scriptures of the Jews and the Christians were something else. As the Qur’an clearly regards the scriptures of these two groups as they existed in Muhammad’s time to be the exact revelations of God, it therefore testifies not only to the authenticity of the Old and New Testaments but also to their divine origin. The Qur’an thus incontrovertibly testifies to the whole Bible as the unchanged Word of God. In another similar verse the Qur’an says that the Jews and the Christians will find Muhammad mentioned in the Torah and the Gospel which, it again says, are inda hum - "amongst them" (Surah 7.157). How could such a mention in any event be found if such scriptures no longer existed? Once again the Qur’an testifies to the authenticity of the scriptures of the Jews and the Christians which they had in their possession at the time, and such scriptures could only be the Old and New Testaments as we know them. It clearly intimates that the Pentateuch and the Gospel were current amongst the Jews and Christians of Mahomet’s time, "by" or "amongst them" . . . It is therefore clear that the Sacred Scriptures, as possessed by the Jews and Christians generally in the 7th century were, according to the teaching of the Coran, authentic, genuine, and free from corruption. (Muir, The Coran: Its Composition and Teaching, p. 128). Another writer likewise concludes that the Qur’an "seems to assume that the real Torah and the real Evangel were in the hands of contemporary Jews and Christians" (Jeffery, Islam: Muhammad and his Religion, p. 122). In another place the Qur’an plainly says of the Jews that they "study the Scripture" (Surah 2.44) and in the same Surah the Qur’an itself is said to be the Truth "confirming what is with them" (Surah 2. 91). The only scripture which the Jews were studying, which was in their possession, and which the Qur’an here plainly professes to confirm, was the Old Testament just as we know it today. An even more striking text says to Muhammad: If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the book before thee. Surah 10.94 Not only does this text yet again confirm that the Jews and the Christians of Muhammad’s time were indeed reading the true Scripture but it even commands Muhammad to consult them if he was in any doubt about what was coming to him in the Qur’an. If the original Torah and Gospel had been corrupted or replaced, would the Qur’an direct Muhammad to consult the readers of these Scriptures? There can be only one possible conclusion from a study of all the texts we have quoted. Even though Muhammad may have believed that the Torah and the Gospel were books revealed to Moses and Jesus respectively, by confirming that the Torah and the Gospel were the scriptures in the possession of their followers at that time and were duly read and studied by them, the Qur’an has given an unequivocal testimony to the Old and New Testaments as the genuine Word of God. This is the indisputable witness of the Qur’an to the Bible. It is, in the circumstances, of no small interest to find that the Qur’an always speaks of the earlier books with respect - in such terms, indeed, as to leave the very definite impression that Muhammad, at any rate, believed in their divine origin and genuineness. (Bevan-Jones, Christianity Explained to Muslims, p. 3). To sum up the evidence presented above, the Koran clearly implies the existence and currency of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures in the time of the prophet of Islam. It attests their authenticity and inspired character. They are appealed to by the prophet and their observance inculcated. (Abdul-Haqq, Sharing Your Faith with a Muslim, p. 25). 2. Tahrif - The Charge of Distorting the Scriptures. The result of these positive testimonies to the earlier scriptures in the Qur’an was that the early Muslims did not query the authenticity of the text of the Bible. The differences between them and the Jews and the Christians were ascribed to a perversion of the meaning of the scriptures by the latter but not of the text itself. This became known as tahri fi-manawi, a "corruption of the meaning" of the words. It was only much later that the doctrine of tahrifi-lafzi, "corruption of the text", developed. In the early days, however, it was presumed that the Jews and Christians were only guilty of misrepresenting the meaning of their scriptures. The early commentators of the Koran and doctors of Islam who did not have a firsthand knowledge of the Bible believed in "Tahrif-I-Manawi" only. (Abdul-Haqq, Sharing Your Faith with a Muslim, p. 38). Imam Muhammad Ismail Bokhari writes in his book that "the word Tahrif (corruption) signifies to change a~ thing from its original nature; and that there is no man who could corrupt a single word from what proceeded from God, so that the Jews and Christians could corrupt only by misrepresenting the meaning of the words of God". (Hughes, Notes on Muhammadanism, p. 198). The Muslims of those early days were only following the Qur’an which, as we have seen, testifies to the authenticity of the Bible and which only accuses the Jews on a few occasions of distorting the meaning of words and of concealing truths contained in their scripture. It was only much later that Muslim writers claimed that the Qur’an teaches that the Bible itself has been corrupted, but such claims were rarely made by Muhammad’s immediate successors. It was argued that tahrif meant to change a thing from its original nature, but no man could possibly corrupt words that came from God. So at the most Christians could only corrupt by misrepresenting the meaning of the word of God. (Parrinder, Jesus in the Qur’an, p. 146). Let us consider briefly some of the passages of the Qur’an which speak on this subject and see whether they teach that the scriptures themselves have been changed or corrupted in any way. A typical text is this one: Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) places, and say: "We hear and we disobey"; and "Hear what is not heard"; and Ra’ina; with a twist of their tongues and a slander to Faith. Surah 4.46 On two occasions in this verse we read that the Jews had the habit of changing the true meaning of words. The inclusion of the Arabic word ra’inaa, upon which the Jews of Medina played to mislead the Muslims (it means in principle "please assist us" but, by a subtle twist, it can be turned into an insult), shows that the only Jews being spoken of here were Muhammad’s contemporaries in his own environment. The text clearly refers to nothing more than the manners of those Jews with whom Muhammad had some contact and cannot be made to apply to all Jews throughout history, least of all can it be used to support an argument that the Jews had corrupted their scriptures. They "displace words" and use a "twist of their tongues" and the Qur’an shows how they did this. There is not even a hint here of an alteration of their scriptures. The charge against the Jews of "changing words from their places" and of misrepresenting their context appears again in Surah 5.14 and Surah 5.44. The latter verse makes it plain that the Qur’an is speaking purely of Muhammad’s experiences with the Jews of his day in the environment of Medina for it bids him not to grieve over them and the next verse tells him what to do if they should come to him. It is evident therefore, that the perversion of the Scripture by the Jews had to do only with their mischief in tongue-twisting as they quoted verses. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the corruption of the original text of the Bible with them. (Abdul-Haqq, Sharing Your Faith with a Muslim, p. 34). A noteworthy fact at this point is the identification of the Jews alone as the culprits who twisted the meaning of words out of their context. Nowhere in these passages is such a charge laid against the Christians. A Christian writer observes that "the accusation is addressed to the Jews of Medina alone. Whatever else may be its scope, it does not extend beyond them. For instance, no such imputation is, in any verse of the Coran, ever hinted against the Christians, or their Scriptures" (Muir, The Coran: Its Composition and Teaching, p. 144). Another passage sometimes quoted to support the charge that the Bible has been changed is this one: Ye People of the Book! Why do ye clothe Truth with falsehood and conceal the Truth while ye have knowledge? Surah 3.71 The charge of concealing the truth and covering it with falsehood led early Muslim writers to the conclusion that the Jews and Christians were misrepresenting or suppressing what was written in their scriptures. They did not claim that this verse taught that the scriptures themselves had been changed. No such specific charge appears in it, only a somewhat general claim that the truth was being concealed and suppressed. A Western scholar, speaking of the later Muslim claim that the tahrif has occurred in the scriptures themselves, says that it "is allegedly based on some verses of the Qur’an; but on examination these prove to deal with minor matters, or else to be altogether vague" (Watt, Islam and Christianity Today, p. 2), and it is out of this vagueness that Muslim writers today attempt to formulate a charge that the Qur’an teaches that the Bible itself has been changed. The text says no such thing, however, not even mentioning the Scriptures. Another verse often appealed to by those who wish to discredit the Bible as it exists today is this one: Can ye (o ye men of Faith) entertain the hope that they will believe in you? - seeing that a party of them heard the Word of God and perverted it knowingly after they understood it. Surah 2.75 The charge that the Word of God had been knowingly perverted appears to modern Muslim writers to be just the sort of evidence they are looking for to create a case against the authenticity of the Bible based on the Qur’an. One says that "the Qur’an charges the people of the book of habitual tahrif in the pre-Islamic past and is not merely talking of the generation of Jews and Christians contemporary with the Prophet misinterpreting the existing Bible" (Shafaat, The Question of Authenticity and Authority of the Bible, p. 35), and goes on to claim that the verse teaches that "the people of the book used to listen to the word of God and then pervert it" and he concludes that such tahrif "took place during the making of the Bible" (op. cit., p. 36). Here one gets a good example of how Muslim writers of the present day endeavour to apply Qur’anic verses with a limited and, at times, vague import to their cherished supposition that the Bible has been altered. Such was not the attitude of the great early Muslim commentators. It is only necessary here to note that both Beidhawi and Razi agree as to tahrif in this verse meaning not change in the text, but corrupt interpretation and concealment. (Muir, The Beacon of Truth, p. 80). Furthermore the charge is once again only levelled at the Jews, is clearly limited to "a party of them", and speaks only of the kalaamallaah, the spoken Word of God which they "heard" as the verse states. There is no suggestion here whatsoever that the Scripture, the kitaabullaah, has been altered. There is also nothing to support Shafaat’s statement that this verse teaches that it was a habitual corruption that was taking place, or that it refers to pre-Islamic times. Such claims are purely presumptuous. He is reading his own preferred interpretation into the text to force it to yield the meaning he would like to obtain from it. There is not even a hint in this passage that the Bible is being referred to and the very next verse shows quite plainly that it was a party of the Jews at the time of Muhammad that was being spoken of, for it calls on Muhammad to understand their aim when they engage in argument with him. The obvious interpretation of the passage is that a group of Jews in Medina were hearing the Qur’an recited verbally, distorted its meaning consciously after understanding it, and thereafter sought to argue with Muhammad about it. It takes a very fertile imagination to make the text teach that the Bible was being changed in pre-Islamic times! These charges are mostly levelled against the Jews. They are implicated more for distortion in the meaning and interpretation rather than for direct alteration in the text. The charges of distortion of meaning and reciting with twisted tongue pertain more to the Qur’anic verses than those of Previous Scriptures. (Deshmukh, The Gospel and Islam, p. 136). Another text quoted by Muslims as an alleged proof that the Qur’an charges the People of the Book with having changed their scripture reads as follows: There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (as they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from God", but it is not from God: It l is they who tell a lie against God and (well) they know it! Surah 3.78 Once again, however, the charge is clearly of distorting with their tongues, it is laid only against a group of the People of the Book, and obviously refers to the manner of those with whom Muhammad had come into direct contact. There is no verse in the Qur’an that specifically teaches that the Jews and the Christians throughout the whole world (and not just a group contemporary with Muhammad) have actually falsified their scriptures. Furthermore, as Watt says, such verses as those quoted by the Muslims are considerably vague. Nowhere does the Qur’an state specifically what was being changed, precisely who was changing it, or exactly when such changes were taking place. The Syrian Christian referred to earlier says of the above verse: This is a text which is so clear as hardly to need comment. It resembles those preceding it, and shows clearly what the perversion (tahrif) of the Tourat charged against the Jews really was, that is, reciting passages in such a way as to give them a wrong meaning. They "knew that they were speaking a lie against God", i.e. something opposed to the text of their Tourat, - a clear proof that they dare not tamper with the text itself. (Muir, The Beacon of Truth, p. 85). The last verse generally quoted by modern Muslim writers in this connection which we shall consider reads: Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say: "This is from God", to traffic with it for a miserable price! - Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby. Surah 2.79 Yet again there is no hint that the scriptures of the Jews and the Christians are under consideration. The text speaks purely of a group who write something out and claim it is from God. Once again the vagueness of the text precludes any certainty as to its application. The verse makes no mention of what was actually being written as scripture, precisely who was writing it, or when it was taking place. The great Muslim commentator Al-Baidawi, quoted in the following book, says of this text: And perhaps there is meant that which the Jews wrote out of commentaries (or interpretations) about the punishment of the adulteress. (Muir, The Coran: Its Composition and Teaching, p. 142). Note the speculative nature of his interpretation, introduced with the word "perhaps". Furthermore he clearly did not regard this as a corruption of the actual scriptures. It is also pure speculation that makes any Muslim writer seek to turn this text, so obviously lacking in detail, into one which supposedly shows how "the Holy Qur’an has repeatedly exposed the corruption of the Biblical texts" (Ahmad, Jesus in Heaven on Earth, p. 21). It clearly refers, on the contrary, to other writings which some Jews were producing during Muhammad’s time and which they were selling as if they were a revelation from God. If they were actually corrupting the Tawraat itself, the Qur’an would have said so. It is, therefore, a gratuitous assumption that, because the Jews made copies of what were merely human compositions, and then produced them before Muhammad as having a divine authority, they in any way tampered with the sacred Scripture. (Muir, The Coran: Its Composition and Teaching, p. 143). The verses we have considered are all considerably vague and lacking in detail, refer invariably only to parties and groups with whom Muhammad came into contact, and, with the exception of the last verse, speak purely of a distortion of the meaning of words in verbal discussion and conversation. Modern Muslim writers would like to find texts in the Qur’an which plainly state that the Jews and Christians throughout their histories have actually falsified their scriptures but, failing in the search, have been obliged to quote these texts instead, placing on them imagined interpretations out of all proportion to their original import. There is no verse in the Qur’an, however, which specifically charges the Jews and the Christians with actually perverting their scriptures, let alone one which sets out to show what has been distorted, by whom it was actually done, and at what time in history it supposedly took place. It must be said emphatically that in none of the texts of the Qur’an do we find that the charge of the corruption of the text of the former Scriptures can be justified. (Sweetman, Islam and Christian Theology, Part 1, Vol. 2, p. 140). 3. The Genuineness of the Old and New Testaments. Let us summarise the teaching of the Qur’an insofar as it relates to the Bible. We have seen that it confirms that the Tawraat and Injil, which it describes as the scriptures of the Jews and Christians respectively, are the genuine Word of God. It collectively describes these two religious groups as the ahlal-Kitab - "People of the Scripture" - and it states on more than one occasion that the Tawraat and Injil are with them and that they should judge by them. There is no suggestion whatsoever that these Scriptures have ever been corrupted, altered or replaced. On a very few occasions, as we have also seen, the Qur’an takes a party of the Jews of Muhammad’s time and environment to task for distorting the meaning of their scriptures as well as the Qur’an itself, "twisting with their tongues" to mislead him and his followers. On just one occasion it vaguely speaks of some Jews who were writing something out as the supposed Word of God and selling it as such. Apart from these personal experiences which Muhammad had of some of the Jews in and around Medina, nothing else is said on the subject. There is nothing to justify the attempts of modern Muslim writers to take these few passages wholly out of context and make them teach that the actual scriptures of the Jews and Christians, spread as they were throughout the world over many centuries, had ever been corrupted or falsified. Not only so but, as we have seen, such was never the attitude of the early commentators to the former scriptures. It is also true that to deduce from these expressions of the Koran that the Sacred Scriptures, both the Old and the New Testament, as found in the Christian churches, are textually corrupt is to go beyond the meaning of the Koran and to lack all critical spirit. (Basetti-Sani, The Koran in the Light of Christ, p. 122). Even the polemicist Ali Tabari, who wrote a semi-official defence of Islam against the Jews and the Christians while he was at Baghdad during the reign of the Abbasid Caliph Mutawakkil (AD 847-861), at no time charged them with corrupting their scriptures. Instead he says that the first religious book in history to name "and the first one which came into existence, is the Torah, which is in the hands of the People of the Book" (Tabari, The Book of Religion and Empire, p. 51). He goes on to say "As to the Gospel which is in the hands of the Christians, the greater part of it is the history of the Christ, His birth and His life" (op. cit.). He thus openly acknowledged that the authentic Torah and Gospel remained in the hands of the Jews and the Christians and, in going on to speak of their contents, he outlined the contents of the Old and New Testaments respectively. His only charge against them was that they did not always understand or accept the true meaning of their teachings and often appealed to the Old and New Testaments to make his point. But when such charges were levelled, they seldom meant that the actual text of the Scripture was altered. The impossibility of this taking place over the whole range of the Church throughout all the sects and among heretics who possessed copies seems to be fairly obvious. (Sweetman, Islam and Christian Theology, Part 1, Vol. 2, p. 140). It should be borne in mind that Ali Tabari wrote his defence in the capital of the Muslim world of his time and at the direction of the reigning caliph himself, and that it was written more than two hundred years after the death of Muhammad. During those early centuries Muslim commentators remained faithful to the teaching of the Qur’an that the authentic Torah and Gospel were still in the hands of the Jews and Christians and were, in fact, those Scriptures which these two groups respectively regarded as their scriptures, namely the Old and New Testaments. The Mussulmans of Mahomet’s time, and the succeeding generation, would have laughed to scorn the miserable subterfuge set up by some Mahometans of the present day, who pretend that it was not the Pentateuch and Gospel in universal use among the Jews and Christians, but some different Scripture, that Mahomet alluded to. Such a supposition is perfectly gratuitous, and runs counter to the whole tenor of the Coran. (Muir, The Coran: Its Composition and Teaching, p. 125). Al-Ghazzali, one of the greatest Muslim theologians in the history of Islam who lived even later than Ali Tabari, also never doubted the integrity of the Bible. Al-Ghazali, for example (d. 1111), wrote a treatise on the Trinity in which he quoted many passages from the Bible, without ever questioning the trustworthiness of the text. (Chapman, You Go and Do the Same, p. 53). Speaking of a leading French scholar’s essay on the works of Al-Ghazzali in his annotated bibliography, Wismer says: "Massignon points out that Al-Ghazali did not accuse the Christians of altering their texts, but rather of misinterpreting them" (The Islamic Jesus, p. 165). By his time some commentators, such as the radical Ibn Hasm, had begun to argue against the authenticity of the Bible but when Al-Ghazzali himself endeavoured to prove Islam against the two former religions, he never questioned the genuineness of their respective Scriptures. His creed is that it is impossible that there should be a union of divinity and humanity in Christ, and the method of interpretation he has adopted must lead to this result. So in spite of the appearance of fairness which we have here, it must be admitted that Al Ghazzali’s argument is to support a foregone conclusion. It is, however, very interesting to find that he is prepared to argue the case on the assumption that the Gospels are genuine, and this is in marked contrast to what we have seen in the case of Ibn Hasm’s attack. (Sweetman, Islam and Christian Theology, Part 2, Vol. 1, p. 267). Even as late as the sixth century after Muhammad leading commentators still accepted the integrity of the Old and New Testaments on the basis of the Qur’an’s teaching about the former Scriptures. Fakhruddin Razi, who died in AD 1209, "besides affirming categorically that the Biblical text has not been changed, says that the narratives of the Koran concerning Biblical events are in perfect harmony with those of the Bible" (Ananikian, "Tahrif or the Alteration of the Bible According to the Moslems", The Muslim World, Vol. 14, p. 77). About a century ago a leading maulana in India, Moulvie Safdar Ali, became a Christian and wrote a series of letters to his Muslim relatives explaining why he had abandoned Islam and become a Christian. These letters were later published in a volume titled Niaz Namah and in them he gave attention to the claims of his contemporaries that the Bible has been corrupted and changed. He bases his argument upon the Qur’an, showing (1) That the Qur’an declares the Jewish and Christian Scriptures to be the Word of God and "a Guide to Believers"; (2) Muslims are obliged to confess their faith in all the Books of the Former Scriptures; (3) These books were extant in Muhammad’s time; (4) The Qur’an nowhere says these Scriptures were corrupted; (5) Passages are quoted in proof from the Qur’an and the Traditions. (Wherry, The Muslim Controversy, p. 96) It is only because modern Muslim writers are so conversant with the Bible and realise its teaching is fundamentally Christian and cannot be reconciled with the Qur’an that they claim it has been corrupted. There can be no doubt, however, that the Qur’an confirms the Old and New Testaments as the genuine, unaltered Word of God and the only explanation there can be for the Qur’an’s open witness to the integrity of the former Scriptures which contradict it on such vital matters as the crucifixion and deity of Jesus Christ is that Muhammad was ignorant of the contents of the Bible and presumed they agreed with his teaching in the Qur’an. As a matter of fact, even after taking all the similarities between the Bible and the Qur’an into account, the Qur’an manifests a clearly inadequate and incomplete knowledge of the contents of the Bible. (Sweetman, Islam and Christian Theology, Part 1, Vol. 2, p. 139). Ultimately, however, the Qur’an’s testimony to the authenticity of the former Scriptures, being precisely those that were in the possession of the Jews and Christians at Muhammad’s time, must stand by itself. The Qur’an will ever remain a striking witness to the integrity of the Christian Bible as it has been preserved down to this very day. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 132: 06.34. OBJECTIONS TO FUNDAMENTAL CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES ======================================================================== Objections to Fundamental Christian Doctrines ======================================================================== CHAPTER 133: 06.35. A. THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. ======================================================================== A. THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 1. The Scriptural Origin of the Doctrine Many Muslims believe the doctrine of the Trinity to be the great weakness of the Christian faith and a self-evident falsehood, a concept contrary to true monotheism. Objections to it take many forms and we shall consider the more common ones in this section while briefly analysing the whole nature of the doctrine. One of the favourite arguments found in Muslim writings on the Trinity is that the doctrine has no Biblical foundation. Although some writers charge Paul with being the founder of the doctrine, for example: "Paul was clever enough not to give any definite direction regarding Trinity but he opened the way that led towards it" (Rahim, Unitarianism in Christianity, p. 13), others say he knew nothing about it at all. One says that "Even St. Paul, who had imported many foreign ideas into Christianity, knew nothing of the Triune God" (Aziz-us-Samad, A Comparative Study of Christianity and Islam, p. 71). Because the New Testament scriptures constantly declare the oneness of God, quoting both Jesus ("the Lord is one" - Mark 12:29) and Paul ("God is one" - Romans 3:30, Galatians 3:20) to this effect, and because the word "Trinity" is not found anywhere in the Bible and was only first used by the great North African theologian Tertullian in the third century after Christ, it is automatically presumed that the doctrine has no Biblical basis. However, the word ’Trinity’ though accepted by the , Church, could not find its way into the New Testament by any means; thus we can safely affirm that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not aware of this word or its connotation: nay, we still go further and say that even Jesus himself did not believe in this doctrine. (Chishti, What is Christianity?, p. 25). Sometimes it is suggested that the only text upon which the doctrine can be based is 1 John 5:7 and, because this text is known to be a later addition, it is claimed that there is no other evidence for the doctrine in the Scriptures. We have already shown (on page 276) that 1 John 5:7 is only a description of a doctrine already formulated by the time it found its way into the Latin Vulgate and that there are numerous other texts which plainly teach the fact of the Triune God (Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14, etc.). This is not the place to give a lengthy proof of the doctrine from the Bible, save and except to say that it is unanimously received and accepted by all the major churches of the Christian faith. There is no distinction between the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Protestant movements on this subject, a unanimity which begs the conclusion that the doctrine must be based on the one source common to all three, namely the Bible. It is significant that when Martin Luther broke from the Roman Catholic Church and denounced every practice and belief of that Church which could not be vindicated from the Bible, he at no time questioned the doctrine of the Trinity. It is true that the New Testament writers made no attempt to explain or define the Trinity, yet this is the only doctrine of God that can be derived from its teaching about the divinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit respectively and the unity that exists between them. While no clear mention is made of the dogma of the Holy Trinity in the New Testament, either in the sections ad dressed to the Church, or in those written for Jews and pagans, yet all that we know about the Holy Trinity we know from the Church’s understanding of the Bible. This is a statement of fact. It emphasizes, first of all, that the Bible itself has forced us to face the question of the mystery of the Holy Trinity. There is nothing in man, in nature, in the skies above us, or in the earth below us, which obliges us to think of a triune God. If the question had not come through the Bible it simply would not exist. (Christensen, The Practical Approach to Muslims, p. 384). The New Testament writers were more concerned to emphasize the effect of the relationship between the Triune God and his people and the salvation he has wrought for them rather than give a credal definition of his character. I have said before that every Muslim objection to Christianity should be seen as an opportunity for witness and this subject is no exception. When the question of God’s triune nature is raised, the Christian has a golden opportunity to witness to just what this means to him in practice - how he has come to know the Father personally, how he has been redeemed through the work of his Son who died for our sins and rose for our justification (Romans 4:25), and how he has come to experience the love of God in his heart through the Holy Spirit which has been given to him (Romans 5:5). The earlier section in this book on the love of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit gives a fuller presentation of how the doctrine of the Trinity can be used as a most effective ground for witness. There is no formal explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity to be found in the Bible, but it does record the gracious redemptive activity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Biblical message of grace reveals the Triune God meeting the actual situation of man. (Spencer, Islam and the Gospel of God, p. 93). In other words, your first question should not be how you can present the dogma of the Holy Trinity: it should be either whether you yourself are just wanting to defend an old teaching of the Church, or whether you want to know how best to witness to a faith which genuinely conditions your own life. (Christensen, The Practical Approach to Muslims, p. 417). The Allah of Islam, as shown in the companion volume to this book (pp. 252-255), appears to be glorified chiefly in his detachment from his creatures. His unitarian transcendence above his creation is essential to his honour and majesty. It is only in the Triune God of the Bible that we find the glory of God most fully revealed in his gracious work of salvation through which he sent his Son - "God with us" (Isaiah 7:14) - to save us from our sins, and thereafter sent his Spirit right into our hearts so that we might be able to call on him as our own Father (Galatians 4:6). The Triune God of the Bible does not need to be detached from his creatures to maintain his transcendence. While the Father remained in heavenly glory, he nevertheless drew near to us in the person of his Son and his presence in human form on earth. His transcendence was maintained even in his immanence and direct presence among us. It remains so to this day through the Holy Spirit who lives within our hearts while the Father reigns from the throne of heaven with his Son at his right-hand side. When we say that we believe in the triune God, we indicate thereby that we believe in a God who is separated from His creatures, having placed His majesty above the heavens, and who is near them in His Son, who was willing to be His servant, and assumed our nature in order to be obedient unto death. Our God is the living and true God, because there is a divine movement in the eternal interrelation between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Steffens, "Modern Anti-Trinitarianism and Islam" The Muslim World, Vol. 2, p. 160). All Muslim objections to the Trinity founded on the suggestion that the doctrine has no Biblical basis should first be met with a proof to the contrary through suitable texts and thereafter be accompanied by a witness to the wonder of the Triune God - the Father transcendent above us, the Son with us, and the Holy Spirit in us - in comparison with the unknowable Allah of Islam. 2. The Incomprehensible Nature of the Triune God. "Why is it thought incredible by any of you that God raises the dead?" the Apostle Paul asked King Agrippa and all those gathered about him at his trial (Acts 26:8), and we might just as well ask the Muslims, "Why is it thought incredible by any of you that the God who rules this universe is incomprehensible in his infinite and eternal nature?" Another favourite argument against the Trinity found in Muslim writings is that it appears ultimately to be incomprehensible and is therefore "opposed to reason" (Mohammed Sadiq, quoted in "A Moslem on the Trinity", The Muslim World, Vol. 10, p. 410). The Christian defence that the doctrine is vested in a mystery appears to be a clear proof of its untenable nature. Not so at all. The doctrine is not contrary to reason, it is simply above the realms of finite human reasoning. A Muslim writer wisely says: Almighty God is much dissimilar to His creatures, and Deity is much more sublime than simple minds can imagine. (Tabbarah, The Spirit of Islam, p. 71). If so, why should the incomprehensible nature and mystery of the Triune God be seen as an argument against its reality? Once it is conceded that God’s character and nature are above human understanding, surely one should expect to find that the full revelation of his being and personality will baffle the power of the human intellect to comprehend him. Islam’s argument that its concept of God’s unity must be preferred over ours because it is simpler and more amenable to human understanding seems to us to be a very good reason to reject it’ The issue is not whether a doctrine can be reduced to terms relative to human understanding before it can be accepted, it is simply whether it is true or not. If the Bible, or any other book which professes to come from God, gave us such an account of Him as to make everyone able to understand in its entirety the Divine Mode of Being as therein stated, that fact would at once prove the falsity of that book’s claim to be from the Infinite God. (Pfander, The Mizanu’l Haqq (Balance of Truth), p. 137). God is who he is, the extent to which he can be comprehended within the limits of the finite human mind has nothing to do with whatever doctrine we should accept. What the demand for simplicity in these realms is in danger of becoming, perhaps, unwittingly, is a demand for abeyance or, worse, disavowal of thought. This should be resisted at all costs. Even a little reflection surely makes it clear that doctrines of God are no commendable merely by their ability to go on a postage stamp. Definitions are not quantitatively evaluated. (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 306). Another Muslim argument against the Trinity, namely the it was only defined at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, can also be brought in here as it will suggest an illustration t make our response clear. The argument sometimes goes that Go was a unitarian God until the Christian Church turned him in to a Trinity in the fourth century after Christ. Before that date no one believed him to be triune. Up till the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries it was universally believed that the world was flat. When Galileo and other astronomers proclaimed that it was round and that the earth was revolving around the sun and not the other way around, they were widely denounced. Yet today everyone believes the earth is round - photographs taken from the moon, voyages around the world both on the seas and in space and the like, must surely convince even the most sceptical that it is so. What happened? Was the world flat until Galileo and others made it round in the seventeenth century? No more did the Council of Nicaea turn a unitarian God into a Trinity. A Muslim writer charges: This excerpt is sufficient to prove that ideas such as that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and that the three are one and one is three were not heavenly ideas but the creation of the human mind which were approved of by a council held three centuries after Christ. (Niazi, Mirror of Trinity, p. 92). Not at all. They were not the creation but the perception of the men who gathered at that famous conference. It took a considerable degree of enlightenment on the part of the astronomers of earlier centuries to discern that the earth was a globe revolving around the sun and rotating on its own axis. The appearances were all to the contrary. After all, good human common sense told the masses that the world was flat, immovable, and that the whole universe was revolving around it. Things are not always what they appear to be to the limited perceptiveness of the human mind. So it is with the doctrine of the Trinity - the Church did not create it, it discerned that God was a Triune Being, a threefold personality within a single essence and being, and it obtained this discernment purely through a study of the revelation of God in the Scriptures. God did not become a Trinity, he has been Triune from all eternity. It was only in the fourth century after Christ that the Church was finally able to define this eternal truth. Our reason is finite as well as created: it cannot comprehend to the full the nature of its infinite Creator. The doctrine of the Trinity is above Reason, not contrary to it. (Tisdall, Muhammadan Objections to Christianity, p. 155). It cannot be insisted on too often that the limited reason of man cannot comprehend the nature of the Divine Being, for in this world there is no similitude which can adequately represent Him to us. (Pfander, The Mizan ul Haqq; or Balance of Truth, p. 53). Before summarily concluding that a concept cannot be true simply because it cannot be readily understood, we should consider that the problem may lie with our lack of understanding, not with the concept. This especially applies to the character of the eternal God of the universe. "Can you find out the deep things of God? Can you find out the limit of the Almighty? It is higher than heaven - what can you do? Deeper than Sheol - what can you know?" Job 11:7-8. We stand untroubled on our testimony that the doctrine of the Trinity ultimately reveals to us an incomprehensible God - yet it at the same time paradoxically presents a knowable God. The Allah of Islam, in his austere unity, can easily be comprehended within the finite limits of the human mind, yet he cannot be personally known. The Triune God of the Christian faith, mysterious and incomprehensible in his transcendent and eternal nature, is nonetheless immanent and can be known right within the human heart. And this is where the key issue lies - it is not for man to discern the nature of God in his. finite intellect, it is for him to become conformed to the divine image through the knowledge of God in his heart. Once again the Christian has an opportunity for witness in answering such objections, both to the exalted character of the Triune God and how he has made himself known to us through the salvation he has wrought through his Son Jesus ~ Christ. As the apostle says, we have come to know God, "or rather to be known by God" (Galatians 4:9) through the full revelation of his Triune character in sending his Son to make us his children and thereafter his Spirit to give us a living experience of our filial relationship to him (Galatians 4:4-6). 3. Unity - The Basis of the Trinitarian Doctrine. The first thing to be said, and said emphatically, is that we, no less than Muslims, believe in the Unity of God; in fact, no matter however varying may be the definition of the Trinity among Christians, it is held at all only as subject to the Doctrine of Unity. (Bevan Jones, Christianity Explained to Muslims, p. 67). It is always intriguing to find Muslims attacking the doctrine of the Trinity as an innovation of the Church in contrast with the oft-repeated teaching of the Scriptures that God is one. The assumption immediately is that the very existence of three distinct persons does away with any possibility of an absolute unity between them. One writer says: In scores of places in the Bible we read how emphatically Christ asserted the unity, the oneness of God . . . The New Testament is no less emphatic on the indivisibility and absolute oneness of the Lord Almighty. (Joommal, The Riddle of Trinity, pp. 7,9). This obvious oneness is automatically raised as an argument per se against the Trinity. We need to emphasize again and again that we do not believe in three gods but in a Triune God, a tri-unity, a threefold oneness. There are numerous scriptures which testify to the absolute unity of the Father and the Son (for example, "I and the Father are one" - John 10:30) and of these two persons with the Holy Spirit in a single entity (Matthew 28:19), and indeed throughout the Church the testimony has always been "I believe in one God". The distinction between Islam and Christianity lies purely in the extent of that oneness - a simple unity against a more complex one - but not in the oneness itself. But it must be seen that what is agreed categorically is God as One. About him the question is in no way ’whether’; it is only ’how’. (Cragg, Jesus and the Muslim, p. 288). We are back at the question of finite and infinite. We live in a created universe where everything must be defined in finite terms, but its Creator is an infinite being, and it is therefore incumbent on all men not to judge his nature by finite standards. Muslim arguments against the Trinity are invariably based on a faulty premise - that because three people on earth cannot be absolutely one in essence and nature, therefore there cannot be a similar unity in heaven. The infinite God is judged by finite standards. Once it is admitted that he is infinite and cannot be defined in terms relative to the finite order, it must also be considered that his unity may have a different character to that which we would otherwise expect according to all that we see here below. No amount of human common sense or wisdom can define or limit the extent of God’s eternal oneness, no finite illustration in all the universe can discount the possibility of a threefold unity in his infinite being. If our aim is to help interpret that faith to Muslims we must begin with this plea that the Muslim estimate and ponder the Christian Trinity, not as a violation of Unity, but as a form of its expression. We cannot proceed except on the understanding that we are both firmly and equally believers that God is One. (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 308). This brings us to a typical line of reasoning found in Muslim writings, namely that the Trinity cannot be mathematically defined. Joommal argues: "By all rules of Mathematics, three times one equals to three (3 x 1 = 3). But in Christian arithmetic, three times one equals to one! (3 x 1 = 1 )" (The Riddle of Trinity, p. 6). It does not cross the writer’s mind that even in mathematics three can be made to be equal to one (1 x 1 x 1 = 1), but we would not seek to endeavour to refute an argument according to its own irrelevant premises. Mathematics has always to do with finite numerals and objects only - it cannot define, multiply, add or subtract to or from infinity. It can only represent infinity by a symbol altogether foreign to its own numerals and one which cannot be divided, multiplied, etc. The mathematical argument is thus a completely inappropriate one. "The Trinity is debated like a metaphysical puzzle and not in its divine significance for our salvation" (Sweetman, Islam and Christian Theology, Part 1, Vol. 1, p. 77). We must lead Muslims away from technical arguments about the possibility of a threefold unity in the Divine Being to a consideration of what is involved in the revelation of that Triune God who has revealed himself to us as Father, Son and Holy Spirit - God transcendent, immanent and present within the hearts of those who love him. On whatever other grounds Muslims feel disposed to disagree with the Christian understanding of God, it cannot validly be on the ground that it is not a doctrine of Unity. For the only sense in which it can be thought not to be so is the one completely inappropriate, namely the mathematical. (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 317) The issue comes back as always to the question of revelation. It is sometimes argued that if Christians can believe that there are three persons in the divine unity, why can there not be four or five? The answer must be that God has revealed himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, a threefold unity. The possibility of further personalities is irrelevant so likewise a demand for proof of his threefold unity on any ground other than that of precisely what God has revealed himself to be. Different subjects require different kinds of proof. Were I to demand from you chemical proof of Alexander the Great’s existence, or historical proof of the composition of water, or mathematical proof of the resurrection of the dead, you would justly declare the demand absurd. (Tisdall, Muhammadan Objections to Christianity, p. 161). In conclusion let me come back to the question of God’s eternal nature. If he is indeed infinite in contrast with the finiteness of all he has created, should we not expect to find the character of his unity to be different to and perhaps more complex than our finite minds would otherwise anticipate? It can well be said that if any religion’s concept of God’s unity can be readily comprehended within the human mind, it could well have been conceived there in the first place. Islam’s claim to a belief in God’s oneness that is both easy to define and comprehend appears to be an argument against its sufficiency and raises the probability that its origin is in human perceptiveness rather than divine revelation. But you would not say that "simple arithmetic" gives you a means of knowing more, say, than "higher mathematics" does - although the former is simple and the latter complicated. So in the matter of ultimate truth about God - the simpler the statement the less adequate it must be. (Bevan Jones, Christianity Explained to Muslims, p. 171). Christians should not fear to declare their belief in a revealed tri-unity which, to the extent that it may not be easy to comprehend or understand in finite terms, can be explained as the product of divine revelation, one not contrary to human reason but at times beyond its scope and realm. 4. Does the Doctrine have Pagan Origins? Another favourite argument against the doctrine of the Trinity is that it is based upon polytheistic pagan beliefs. Two Muslim writers charge that it is related to Egyptian mythology and other pagan origins: The Greeks worshipped Zeus, Demeter and Apollo or Dionysus; the Egyptians, Osiris, Isis and Horus; the trinitarian belief was common to both. (Ali, The Spirit of Islam, p. xl). We find that in the Egypt of old, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost were Osiris, Isis and Horus whom the Egyptians worshipped long, long before the advent of Christianity. (Joommal, The Riddle of Trinity, p. 5). I cannot find in either source, or in any other Muslim writing making similar charges, any documentary proof of the argument, least of all any evidence that any of these pagan triads approached anything like a "trinitarian belief" - a threefold unity of persons in one Supreme Being. Another Muslim writer makes a similar claim that the Trinity is based upon Egyptian mythology: Subsequent to the Greek conquest of Egypt, when Alexandria became the centre of the religious life for the whole Hellenic world, a kind of trinity of gods was worshipped: Serapis, Isis and Horus. (Khalifa, The Sublime Qur’an and Orientalism, p. 117). What the author means or understands by the expression "a kind of trinity of gods", only he can know. A threefold plurality of gods is a tritheism; the word "trinity", embodying an essential unity, can only refer to one God. You either have three persons in one God (Trinity) or three gods (tritheism). You cannot have a "trinity of gods"! The very word "trinity" means "tri-unity" and anyone who speaks of a "trinity of gods" shows that he has no basic understanding of the trinitarian concept. The attempt to relate the Christian Trinity to the Egyptian myths about Osiris, Isis and Horus must flounder on closer analysis. Firstly, the Egyptians worshipped many gods - Nun, Atum, Ra, Khefri, Shu, Tefnut, Anhur, Osiris, Geb, Nut, Isis, Set, Horus, etc., and there were many different Horuses, namely Horus the elder, Horus of Edfu, Horus son of Isis, etc. The mythological family of Osiris, Isis and Horus consisted in a father, mother, son relationship - as far from the Trinity as you can get. It is only wishful thinking that makes anyone attempt to force a comparison between the two. The Egyptians were not trinitarians believing as Christians do in one Supreme Being who is triune in nature and personality. They believed in a host of pagan gods of whom Osiris, Isis and Horus were only a selection, and they certainly did not believe that these three shared an absolute unity. It has been discovered that, though in many religions, groups of three supreme deities are mentioned, generally consisting of father, mother and child, yet nowhere but in the holy Scriptures is it taught that God is one, and yet that in the divine unity there are three Hypostases, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. (Pfander, Miftah ul Asrar: The Key of Mysteries, p. 165). As we shall see, such family triads are more closely related to the Qur’anic misconception of the Trinity rather than the original Biblical doctrine. Joommal goes on to suggest that "Trinity is also to be found in the Hindu religion of India. The three persons of the Hindu Trinity are Brahma, Vishnu and Siva" (The Riddle of Trinity, p. 5) and in another place he alleges that the Hindus believe that their "saviour-god died for the sins of the believers" (The Bible: Word of God or Word of Man?, p. 104). We are constrained to ask - which of the Hindu deities died for the sins of the Hindus, which one of Brahma, Vishnu or Siva, the Hindu "trinity", laid down his life for the believers and rose again on the third day? The Hindu doctors of religion will surely raise their eyebrows at such strange suggestions, just as we do toowhen the unique Biblical concept of the Triune God is fathered on all sorts of pagan triads and myths. Even a superficial study of these triads show that a triad is only what the word actually says: a group of three. The relationship between them is the figure 3; i.e. the grouping together of three rather than, say, five or ten. On the other hand in Christian theology, the word trinity means tri-une. Triplicity in unity. This language, unique in the Christian Church, has been forced upon it by the Bible. (Christensen, The Practical Approach to Muslims, p. 384). An historical analysis of the Hindu Brahma-Vishnu-Siva triad shows that it cannot possibly be the basis of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The Upanishads, Vedas and other early Hindu scriptures taught no such thing as a threefold unity between Brahma, Vishnu and Siva. The Vedas recognised at least thirty-three different gods and the three mentioned were quite simply separate gods and in great measure opposed to one another. The relationship between them just cannot be made analogous to the doctrine of the Trinity: Each of the three, moreover, especially the two last (for Brahma seems hardly ever to have been worshipped to any extent, and has now only two temples in India), represents a large number of different deities, some of evil character, and all accompanied by at least one wife. The group of three deities is called the Trimurti (three-formed), a name found only in late Sanskrit. (Pfander, Miftah ul Asrar: The Key of Mysteries, p. 165). The Trimurti doctrine, in any event, cannot be dated earlier than the fifth century after Christ and one cannot see, therefore, how the doctrine of the Trinity could have been dependent on it. Those who assert that our doctrine has pagan origins will have to give far better proofs and actual chains of evidences to prove such dependence than the kind of vague and faint similarities we invariably find in their writings. The doctrine of the Trinity is quite unique - one which no man could have invented and one which no one would ever have discovered if it had not been revealed to us in the pages of the Bible. None of the pagan triads referred to has anything like the monotheistic foundation that the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity has. It is noteworthy too that the doctrine of the Triune nature of the Godhead and the Deity of Jesus Christ originated, historically speaking, in Palestine and among the Jews, who were then as ardent asserters of the Unity of God as Muhammadans now are. (Tisdall, Muhammadan Objections to Christianity, p. 145). It is also significant that it is only opponents of the Biblical doctrine who use the term "trinity" to define pagan triads, for no objective scholar of the histories of such mythological deities has ever done so. 5. The Misconception of the Doctrine in the Qur’an. At the heart of all Muslim misunderstandings of the Trinity is the Qur’anic misrepresentation of it as a triad of deities, being Jesus the Messiah, his mother Mary, and Allah - in that order. The word "Trinity" nowhere appears in the Qur’an either but it is clear that the book sets out to oppose Christian belief in a divine threesome, no matter what that belief ultimately may be. In three places we find this belief attacked. The first reads Wa laa taquuluu thalaathah - "And say not ’three"’ (Surah 4.171), an exhortation to Christians not to exaggerate in their beliefs. The word thalauthah is a common Qur’anic word appearing some nineteen times in the book and it always means, quite simply, the number three. The only other place where the Qur’an speaks of Christian belief in a divine threesome is: They are unbelievers who say ’God is the Third of Three’. No god is there but the One God. Surah 5.76 (Arberry). I have deliberately quoted Professor Arberry’s translation here rather than Yusuf Ali’s for the latter appears to have purposefully mistranslated the text. His rendering of the first part reads "They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity". It is in this conscious mistranslation that the author seeks to hide the Qur’anic misconception of the Trinity. The Arabic reads that the unbelievers say innallaaha thaalithu thalaathah which, correctly translated, can only mean what Arberry takes it to mean, namely that Allah is the third (thaalithu) of three (thalaathah), that is, that he is considered to be the third god in a tritheism. Hence the rebuke in the next sentence, "No god is there but the One God!" Who, then, are the other two gods? Two verses further down we find them named: Christ the son of Mary was no more than an Apostle; many were the apostles that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They both had to eat their (daily) food. See how God cloth make his Signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth! Surah 5.78 The argument just cannot be missed or mistaken. The Messiah was only an apostle, his mother was only a chaste woman, and they both had to eat food to sustain themselves - how then can they be considered as two gods alongside Allah? The Qur’an, therefore, quite obviously takes the Christian belief in a divine threesome to be a tritheistic belief, an adoration of three gods being Jesus, Mary and God, and in that order, God clearly being said to be only the third of the three. How far the Qur’an is from the true Christian belief in the one true God who is triune, the personalities in order being the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is evident that Muhammad was mistaken in his opinion of the doctrine of the Trinity held by Christians, which he represents as God, Jesus and the Virgin Mary and confounded it with Tritheism. (Klein, The Religion of Islam, p. 52). Muhammad certainly misunderstood the doctrine and regarded it as tritheistic. (Bell, The Origin of Islam in its Christian Environment, p. 7). The third passage of the Qur’an and the only other one which touches on Christian belief in this connection reads: And behold! God will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, ’Worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of God’?" Surah 5.119 Once again we find the same thing - Jesus and Mary as gods alongside Allah. The verses following make it quite plain that it is the Christians, the followers of Jesus, who are charged with holding such a belief in three gods. Today Muslim writers resort to all sorts of expedients to get around the plain declaration of the Qur’an that Christians believe in a tritheism of Jesus, Mary and Allah. Yusuf Ali’s mistranslation of Surah 5.76 is a good example where he takes the simple words thaalithu thalaathah to mean "one of three in a Trinity" instead of what they can only mean, namely "the third of three". The great Muslim commentators of earlier centuries, however, were in no doubt as to what was being opposed in the Qur’an in the verses we have quoted. They were quite convinced that Surah 5.78 and Surah 5.119 represented Jesus, Mary and Allah as the Christian threesome. These verses are explained by the commentators Jalalu’ddin and Yahya as being the answer to the statement which Muhammad heard certain Christians make that there are three Gods, that is to say God the Father, Mary, and Jesus. (Tisdall, The Original Sources of the Qur’an, p. 180). God, Mary and Jesus - these are quite obviously the persons Muhammad understood as forming the threesome of which he had obviously vaguely heard and could not fully understand. It is most significant that all three verses occur in some of the very last surahs of the Qur’an to be "revealed", indicating that it was only late in his mission that he first heard of Christian belief in a divine threesome. Another great and famous commentator, Zamakhshari, says on the word thalaathah in Surah 4.171: According to the evidence of the Qur’an, the Christians maintain that God, Christ, and Mary are three gods, and that Christ is the child of God by Mary, as God says (in the Qur’an): ’O Jesus son of Mary, didst thou say unto men: "Take me and my mother as gods, apart from God"?’ (Surah 5.116), or: ’The Christians say: "The Messiah is the Son of God"’ (Surah 9.30). (Gatje, The Qur’an and its Exegesis, p. 126). The learned Muslim scholar was in no doubt that the Qur’an was attacking a tritheism of Jesus, Mary and Allah - a concept indeed far closer to the pagan triads of old than the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity. The obvious question arises - where did Muhammad get the idea that Mary was believed to be one of the three persons the Christians held to be divine? The answer is most probably that the excessive veneration given to her by the erring sects of his day in and around Arabia led him to believe that she was also held to be divine and associated with Jesus and God. From the above verses it appears that Muhammad thought the Holy Trinity of the Christians consisted of the Father, the Son, and the Virgin; and historians tell us that there existed in Arabia a sect called Collyridians, who considered the Virgin Mary a divine person, and offered in worship to her a cake called Collyris; it is, therefore, not improbable that Muhammad obtained his perverted notion of the Holy Trinity from the existence of this sect. From the expression "they both ate food", we must conclude that Muhammad had but a sensuous idea of the Trinity in Unity, and had never been instructed in the orthodox faith with reference to this dogma. (Hughes, Notes on Muhammadanism, p. 195). There are many writers who question whether it was one of the sects of the eastern Christian world that gave rise to this error in the Qur’an and it is suggested that it was the general contemporary belief of the Roman Catholic and Byzantine Orthodox Churches that Mary was theotokos ("mother of God") together with the universal homage paid to her at the time that caused Muhammad to take her as one of the three divine personalities. One such writer says: Instead of making a scapegoat of some obscure heretical sect, it may be recognized that the widely popular form of the religion which Harnack called Christianity of the second rank is the most probable source of the tritheistic tendency condemned in the Koran. As it has been shown, this degenerated type of Christianity exalted the Virgin Mary to a divine status, though the official doctrine of the Church did not support it. (Abdul-Haqq, Sharing Your Faith with a Muslim, p. 187). Either way it was obviously the popular veneration of Mary in contradiction of the teaching of the Scriptures that she was only, as the Qur’an well puts it, "a woman of truth" (Surah 5.78), that led Muhammad to misconceive the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The prominence of Mary in the worship and icons (images or pictures) of the Byzantine Church may have led to the assumption that she was on equal basis with Jesus and being worshipped as a god with him. (Register, Dialogue and Interfaith Witness with Muslims, p. 38). When all is said and done, however, we are left with a patent error in the Qur’an. Whatever Muslim apologists may say in their attempts to circumvent this error, it does not appear to us that an objective study of the three verses quoted can lead to any other conclusion than that Muhammad had a limited and defective knowledge of the doctrine of the Trinity and mistook it as a tritheism of Jesus, Mary and Allah. It is clear from these passages that the whole argument of Muhammad was against a system of tritheism which he believed to be held by the Christian Church of his day. He nowhere says a word which leads us to suppose that he had ever heard of a Trinity of Persons in the Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. His whole attack on the Christian position was based on the supposition that the Church taught that God had entered into physical relations with Mary, and that the man Jesus and his mother were therefore associated with God in worship and adoration. (Gardner, The Qur’anic Doctrine of God, p. 11 ) . Nothing but the most profound ignorance of the Bible and of the true nature of Christianity can account for the fact that Muhammad evidently believed the Virgin to be one, of the Persons in the Holy Trinity. (Tisdall, The Religion of the Crescent, p. 169). From this misconception come all the Muslim arguments against the Trinity. I have yet to find a Muslim writing on the subject that allows the possibility that the doctrine is consistent with monotheism. Such an allowance would be perfectly consistent with the doctrine as it is set forth in the Bible, but would be inconsistent with the Qur’an’s insistence that the Christian belief is tritheistic rather than trinitarian, hence the allowance dare not be made. There is ample evidence to show that the true doctrine was known in Arabia and that Muhammad could have ascertained its real nature. The Christian King of Yemen, Abraha, who lived and reigned shortly before the time of Muhammad, wrote an inscription at Marib describing certain events relating to his conquests in the region. The inscription began with a tribute to the Trinity. Arabia was full of heresies, and yet we have epigraphic evidence that the real doctrine of the Trinity obtained in Arabia, instead of that which Mohammed asserts the Christians hold. In 1888 Edward Glaser, the explorer, brought from Mareb, the Sabean capital, a copy of an inscription, telling of the suppression of a revolt against the Ethiopic rule then established in Yemen. This inscription, which dates from 542 A. D., opens with the words: "In the Power of the All-Merciful, and his Messia and the Holy Ghost". (Zwemer, Islam: A Challenge to Faith, p. 21). The actual tribute, recorded in basic Arabic consonants only, reads Rhmnn w mshh w rh qds (Trimingham, Christianity Among the Arabs in Pre-Islamic Times, p. 301) which clearly means that it was in the power of the "Merciful One" (ar-Rahmann) and his "Messiah" (wal-Mashih) and the "Holy Spirit" (war-Ruhul-Qudus). Thus there is clear evidence that the true doctrine of the Trinity was known in the Arabian Peninsula. There is no evidence that any Christian sect actually believed that the Trinity consisted of God, Jesus and Mary, least of all that God was the third of these three, although there were a number of sects which venerated Mary almost to the point of deifying her, such as the Collyridians. The Nestorians, however, widely distributed in the regions of western Asia, believed that Mary was indeed no more than a woman "and that it was an abomination to style her, as was the custom of the church, the Mother of God" (Irving, The Life of Mahomet, p. 51). Whatever confusion existed about her status among Christians only seems to have been compounded rather than corrected in the Qur’an. No Christian should fear making a defence of the doctrine of the Trinity to Muslims and should always use the opportunity to witness to the manner in which God has redeemed us through the work of his Son and the presence of his Spirit in our lives. In fact, once a Muslim is himself put on to the defensive to explain the Qur’anic teaching on this subject, the Christian evangelist will find that the doctrine itself can be far more easily justified than the Qur’anic misconception of it. Our doctrine is the true doctrine, the true God is indeed the Triune God of the Bible - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - and we need never fear standing on the rock of this revealed eternal truth. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 134: 06.36. B. JESUS THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD. ======================================================================== B. JESUS THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD. 1. The Qur’anic Rejection of the Deity of Jesus Christ. The Qur’an shows no awareness that Christians believe in a Triune God being Father, Son and Holy Spirit. While it does on a few occasions show a consciousness that there is some- I thing threefold about the Christian belief, it misinterprets this to be a tritheism of Jesus, Mary and Allah. Declaring yet again that "there is no god but Allah", it dismisses the I Christian belief in the deity of Jesus Christ. It is not surprising therefore to find that it likewise rejects Christian I belief that he is the Son of God. This rejection appears in a number of passages, such as the following: They say: "God hath begotten a son": Glory be to Him. Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth: everything renders worship to Him. Surah 2.115 To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth. How can He have a son when He hath no consort? Surah 6.101 In another piece the charge is specifically levelled against Christians: "The Christians say the Messiah is the Son of God, that is a saying from their mouths" (Surah 19.30) The Qur’an’s intention to deny the Trinity may be considerable garbled but its denial that Jesus is the Son of God is quite specific. Nonetheless there is once again nothing like a treatment of the doctrine as it appears in the Bible and we find Muhammad labouring under serious misconceptions about it. His approach to the whole subject is entirely carnal. Be cause men on earth cannot have sons unless they cohabit with their wives, so the Qur’an supposes that God, too, cannot have a son unless he has a wife. This is the argument in Surah 6.101 quoted above. It appears again in Surah 72.3 where certain of the Jinn are made to say: "And exalted is the Majesty of our Lord; He has taken neither wife nor a son". No allowance is made for God’s infinite, spiritual nature as against the finite order he has created, and no possibility was considered by Muhammad that Jesus could be the Son of God in any sense other than that which he beheld among the sons of men on earth. He stuck to his charge throughout the many years of h mission, though one is inclined to question whether it could not have crossed his mind at some time or the other that the belief was not the gross, carnal concept that he took it to but possibly something far higher and more majestic. But Mohammad could not admit that He was anything more than other men. He understood the doctrine of His Sonship in a carnal sense, and therefore he very naturally denied it vigorously. (Robson, Christ in Islam, p. 8). He was aware that the Jews and Christians likewise claimed to be the sons of God themselves purely in the sense that they were especially favoured by him (Surah 5.20), yet he did not consider the possibility that Christian belief in Jesus as the Son of God might likewise be in a special sense only. A Christian writer, speaking on Surah 5.20, says: Muhammad himself knew that, yet the fact remains - he seems to have been incapable of attaching any other than a carnal signification to this name by which Christians speak of Christ. (Bevan Jones, Christianity Explained to Muslims, p. 48). He was also aware that the expression "son of" could be used metaphorically for in the Qur’an itself he speaks of wabnis-sabil - "and the son of the road" (Surah 4.36) so that, although he makes no allowance for anything but a literal, physical "offspring" of God, he nonetheless shows that he is conscious of some of the different ways in which the term can be used. It is a great pity that he did not endeavour to find out precisely what Christians believed about Jesus as the Son of God, in particular the Biblical teaching in this respect. Muhammad, therefore, hearing Christians say "God has a son", did not know how it could be possible for there to be a son without a woman, and so he advanced no argument except that it was not possible for God to have a son because He had no wife. . . . And yet it was allowable for Muhammad to believe that Mary had a son without a husband, so why could he not consider it fitting that God might have a son without a woman? (Sweetman, Islam and Christian Theology, Part 2, Vol. 1, pp. 151,152). Christians will find that Muhammad’s carnal approach to this subject is invariably that taken by Muslims to this day. "It is hard to understand how Muslims can still hold that Christians believe God had a son by physical conception, but this misunderstanding persists" (Elder, The Biblical Approach to the Muslim, p. 27). It is with much patience that they will have to explain that the relationship is a spiritual one and that the sonship has a very special character as I will very shortly show. There are a number of retorts at the very Muslim level of understanding at this point which have been suggested by Christian writers and although I prefer to raise the level of discussion on any subject such as this one to a consideration of what is really involved in it, nonetheless heartily approve of and recommend the rebuke of the great scholar of earlier centuries, Ricoldo, who "said that to assert that God has no Son because He has no wife is.like saying that He is not living because He does not draw breath" (Daniel, Islam and the West, p. 182). Muslims do indeed need to be prompted into realising the somewhat feeble nature of - the Qur’an’s argument that God cannot have a Son when he has taken no wife to himself. We also need to emphasize that the very concept of God taking to himself a consort to beget offspring, or the charge of associating partners with God, is as reprehensible to us as it is to Muslims. They need to know that the Qur’an rejects its own misconception of the doctrine of Jesus as the Son of God rather than the true nature of that doctrine, and that we likewise will disown it. We reject the idea of Jesus being the son of God in any physical sense as strongly as the Muslim does. The idea of Jesus being born of a union between God and the Virgin Mary is utterly abhorrent to us as Christians. If this is what Muhammad understood by the term, it is as blasphemous to us as it is to the Muslim. (Chapman, You Go and Do the Same, p. 78). We believe that the eternal Son of God, one with the Father from all eternity, united to him in one Spirit, "became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14), and took "the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men" (Php 2:7). We do not believe that God took to himself offspring and that he sired a son, another god, when Jesus was born. We believe in the incarnation of the Son of God, we do not believe in adoptionism, a one-time Christian heresy which is, in fact what the Qur’an is actually opposing. What Christians mean by ’God in Christ’ is not adoptionism. This, as earlier noted, was a misreading which the early Church itself resisted and rejected. But it is a way of thinking which, in rebuking Christians, the Qur’an itself has frequently in view. (Cragg, Jesus and the Muslim, p. 203). As the learned author says in a footnote, "It is clear that, though the Qur’an may intend to exclude ’Incarnation’, what it actually excludes is adoptionism" (Cragg, Jesus and the Muslim, p. 209). The problem arises from the environment Muhammad found himself in. The pagan Arabs of his day worshipped female idols such as Al-lat, Al-Uzza and Manat and considered them to be the "daughters of Allah". As the Arabs themselves considered the news of the birth of a daughter to be a cause of grief and shame (Surah 16.58-59), Muhammad was wont to retort: What! Has He taken daughters out of what He Himself creates, and granted to you sons for choice? Surah 43.16 Muhammad seemed to be unable to distinguish between Christian belief in Jesus as the Son of God and pagan Arab belief in their goddesses as daughters of God. He automatically took them to be identical in character without realising that the teaching of the Bible about the incarnation of the eternally-existent Son of God was totally different to the Arab concept. In abolishing the daughters and sons of Mecca’s Allah, Muhammad failed to distinguish the wholly different meaning of the Christian Sonship. To this day the Muslim principle of Unity stubbornly refuses to accept any understanding of unity which it thinks at error by the criteria needed to purge Mecca of multiplied divinities. It has not distinguished between pagan men alienating God’s prerogatives and God in His own undivided glory working according to them. (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 38). Another writer suggests, however, that the Christian Arab belief in Jesus was in fact similar to that of the pagan Arab belief in the daughters of Allah and says "But nomad Arabs adopted Christianity, not as allegiance to a Saviour Jesus Christ whom Christians claimed to be one with God, but on the same level as they recognized and used the gods of Arabian life" (Trimingham, Christianity Among the Arabs in Pre-Islamic Times, p. 310). He gives no authority for this claim, unfortunately, and I know of no evidence for it. Such a practice, if it existed at all, could not have been widespread and certainly was not the norm. Muhammad’s misconception of the true Christian and Biblical doctrine of Jesus as the Son of God argues strongly against his claim that the Qur’an was being revealed to him. Once again the book shows itself to be a victim of the limited knowledge of its prophet. If God was the author of the Qur’an he would have known what the universal belief of the Christians really was and would not have taken a heresy (adoptionism) as the belief of the whole Church (which is in the incarnation of the Son in human form). Muhammad was obviously ignorant of the true Christian doctrine and, seeing only the pagan Arab belief in the generation of daughters of Allah before him, mistook the Christian belief to be one and the same thing. Here, too, as with the Trinity, we see the limitations of Muhammad’s knowledge coupled with his contemporary environmental situation dictating the tenor and teaching of the Qur’an rather than the absolute knowledge of the All-Knowing God of the universe. It is not a unique revelation that we find at this point in the Qur’an but an easily explained series of misconceptions, not a universal knowledge but an ignorance conditioned by Muhammad’s limited environment. Christians nonetheless have to be extremely patient at this point for it is the ultimate point at issue between Islam and Christianity. What makes Muslims the hardest people on earth to reach with the Gospel and the most resistant to conversion - is it the cultural differences between them and us as many claim today? Is it the awful consequences of apostasy as Zwemer suggested in his book The Law of Apostasy in Islam (p. 17)? While these are undoubtedly contributory causes, I do believe that the ultimate cause for the relative paucity of conversions from Islam is the Qur’an’s vehement rejection of the Christian belief that Jesus is the Son of God such as we find in the following verse: They say, "God hath begotten a son!" - Glory be to Him! He is Self-Sufficient! His are all things in the heavens and on earth! No warrant have ye for this! Say ye about God what ye know not? Surah 10.68 The Qur’an states that there is only one sin that God will not forgive, namely the associating of a partner with God. From this comes the belief that shirk, "associating", is the only unforgivable sin in Islam: God forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with God is to devise a sin most heinous indeed. Surah 4.48 I believe that this verse is probably the greatest barrier in the way of conversion from Islam to Christianity. The very word "partner" comes from the same root letters as the word shirk, namely yushraku, and in Surah 10.66 we read likewise of shurakaa, "partners", who are worshipped other than God. As it is only two verses lower down that we find the rejection of a son to God in such vehement language (Surah 10.68 quoted above), it is to be presumed that the Christian belief in Jesus as the Son of God is one of the express acts of shirk that the Qur’an sets out to denounce as the greatest of all sins. In Surah 2.105 the Qur’an expressly speaks of mushrikiin (associaters) among the Ahlal-Kitaab (People of the Book), a common title for Jews and Christians, and in Surah 9.31 both groups, especially the Christians who take the Messiah to be ibnullaah (the Son of God) and their rabb (Lord), are said to be those above whom Allah is glorified from their yushriknun - what they "associate" with him. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Qur’an teaches that among the acts of shirk, the unforgivable sin, is the belief that Jesus is the Son of God. What to the Christian is the only possible step towards the eternal favour and knowledge of God is to the Muslim the one step down the road of irretrievable distance from him. The key step for salvation to us is, to them, the step off the edge of the precipice towards a sin that cannot be forgiven. Consciously or subconsciously, it is this fear more than any other that keeps Muslims from coming to Christ. The Apostle John once said "I write this to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life" (1 John 5:13), yet to the Muslim such a belief is the one thing that could keep salvation from him. This is the ultimate tragedy of Islam and the chief reason why so many hundreds of millions of Muslims are deluded away from the truth of the Gospel. We dare not avoid this issue with Muslims and I have no sympathy with Christians who believe the subject should be skirted and that we should avoid discussion on Jesus as the Son of God or the use of the title in our witness. It is going to be the key, thorny issue in the Muslim’s ultimate contemplation of the implications of conversion. We must expose the Qur’an’s errors at this point, not only in its treatment of the doctrine as adoptionism, but also in its unwillingness to concede the very possibility that God might indeed have a Son. Kenneth Cragg says: Are we right in forbidding anything to God which He does not forbid Himself? If God is truly greater than all, will there be things He will not do which we can identify and against which we can insist? May we perhaps be in the position of prescribing limitations to God, or of defending His sovereignty in ways He does not approve? May we be limiting God’s sovereignty in the very act of, supposedlv, defending it? (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 292). It is interesting to note that the Qur’an does not appear to say absolutely that it is impossible for God to actually have a son but rather that "it is not befitting" to him to do so (Surah 19.35). Once a Muslim concedes the possibility that it is not beyond God’s power to have a son, then the only question is whether in fact he does have a son. We shall consider two of the usual Muslim arguments against the doctrine as it appears in the Bible before considering the issue more fully at the end of this section. 2. The Biblical Limitations upon the Son of God. A common objection found in Muslim writings is based on numerous statements made by Jesus in which he placed limits upon himself, both in respect of knowledge and power, so that it is queried how he could be a divine personality. For example, it is suggested that he could hardly be omniscient when he disclaimed knowledge of the hour of judgment, known to God alone, in the following saying: "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only" Matthew 24:36 It is likewise claimed that he also disowned omnipotence and indeed the power to do anything at all by himself when he said on another occasion: "The Son can do nothing of his own accord but only what he sees the Father doing . . . I can do nothing on my own authority". John 5:19; John 5:30. Yet another saying raised to discredit the deity of Jesus Christ is this one: "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). How can anyone believe in his deity if he himself had to acknowledge that there was One greater than he and that there were things he barely knew or could do? So the argument goes, one commonly found in Muslim writings against the Christian faith and doctrine. A Muslim writer states the charge in the following comment on Matthew 24:36 quoted above: It is moreover inconceivable that the Son of God should declare his absolute ignorance and lack of knowledge of the day of judgment. Is such ignorance or lack of knowledge compatible with Divinity? (Manjoo, The Cross and the Crescent, p. 44). Whenever such objections are raised I welcome them without reserve for they create an opportunity to witness to just who Jesus really is and to explain what the title Son of God really means. The very title "Son" immediately suggests a limitation - a son is always subject to his father - and it is precisely in this issue of authority that we discover what the title Son of God actually means as it is set forth in the pages of the Christian Bible. It is perhaps at this point that many Christians get themselves into trouble. Boldly declaring to Muslims that "Jesus is God", they find themselves unable to counter objections such as these. In fact evangelical witness these days has become so simplistic and charged with so many dogmatic cliches that it makes itself a prey to thoughtful arguments which it cannot refute. So widespread is this tendency that a Muslim writer was prompted to suggest in a recent periodical that, whereas the traditional orthodox churches have always held fast to the doctrine of the Trinity, evangelical Christians today claim that "there is indeed only one God and he is called Jesus" (Siddiqi, "Islam and Missions: Mohammed or Christ", Islamic World Review, p. 31). While the author’s perception can obviously be questioned, one can understand his dilemma. If you boldly declare "Jesus is God" instead of reasoning carefully with a Muslim about what we mean when we call him the Son of God, you cannot hope to counter the objections we have already mentioned, nor others like them such as "If Jesus is God, to whom was he praying when he said ’My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ (Matthew 27:46)" The expression "Son of God" is principally analogical. It indicates the relationship between the first two persons of the Triune God. They are equal in essence, indeed of one essence, yet one is subject to the other’s authority. The human analogy goes no further than this - an earthly father and his son are both human to the full, yet the second must bow to the authority of the first. Muhammad erred when he supposed the likeness to extend to such issues as the taking of offspring, a consort, etc., but we too will err if we do not make it very clear that no matter what we believe about Jesus, he is subject to the Father’s authority. When he came to this earth he came as the Father’s ambassador to redeem men from sin and, being found in human form, took his subjection to the Father’s authority to the point of a servant-to-Master relationship. That "God was in Christ" rather than that "Jesus was God" is the classic expression of this truth. (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 315). Even though all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to the Son (Matthew 11:27; Matthew 28:18), yet when all things are finally subjected to him, "then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one" (1 Corinthians 15:28). The subjection to the Father’s authority will continue through all eternity. Some say we should refrain from talking about Jesus as the Son of God while others say we should boldly declare that he is God and Lord of all. I disagree with both extremes. We should concentrate on his Sonship, on the one hand because it ensures that we will properly speak of who he really is, and on the other because it will enable us to circumvent objections levelled against his declared limitations. The great advantage such objections unintentionally give us is the opportunity to explain who Jesus really is - the divine second person of the Trinity but, as the Son, subject completely to the authority of the first person, the eternal Father who is the source of all things. In my view the ideal passage to use as a basis for handling this subject is Php 2:5-11. Although he was "in the form of God", he took the "form of a servant . . . human form" and became obedient, not only as the eternal Son to the Father, but as a man towards God, obedient "unto death, even death on a cross", an obedience he would never have experienced had he not come in our likeness. It is his very subject status that enabled him to assume this relationship. Although he is divine, yet because he is, I say it reverently, only the Son, the knowledge of the hour, determined by the Father, could be kept from him. This also explains why he said he could do nothing on his own authority. Here we have a golden opportunity to explain to a Muslim just what the title Son of God, when applied to Jesus, really means. Let me close, however, by taking this subject back to the level of the Muslim’s own arguments. All the objections-I have mentioned can be turned to specific advantage in discussion with those who raise them. In Matthew 24:36 Jesus claimed he did not know the hour and Muslims say he thus placed himself among all the other creatures of God who do not know it in contrast with God himself to whom alone it is known. Challenge such an argument with an appeal to examine the text more closely. What, exactly, is Jesus saying? "No one knows" the hour, no man that is, in fact "not even the angels of heaven", nor the Son but the Father only. Where does Jesus place himself in this ascending scale of category of persons? He puts himself above men and angels, describing himself purely in relation to God alone - as the Son of the eternal Father. It is the very title Son here that identifies him - related to the Father alone but subject to him and thus kept unaware of the hour. He does not place himself at the level of God’s created beings but on a divine level alone - the very title Son relating him solely to the Father. The arguments based on John 5:19 and John 5:30 can be turned on their heels in the same manner. Any Muslim who raises them must be made to read the full text of John 5:19 : "The Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that the Son does likewise". Once again the meaning of the title Son of God is so harmoniously brought out in the statement - as the Son he is limited to the Father’s authority and so does nothing of his own accord, but as the divine Son of God he does exactly what the Father does. Far from being a denial of omnipotence, the whole statement is an emphatic declaration of it. As one writer puts it: A careful study of the passage will show that in it He claimed to do all that God did. How then can he be less than God? (Tisdall, Muhammadan Objections to Christianity, p. 120). A third saying we mentioned, namely "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28), likewise begs further scrutiny. If this is indeed a declaration of limitation, it is at the same time an awesome claim to greatness. Coming from anyone else the statement would have sounded dreadfully presumptuous - "this sentence would have a touch of blasphemy were it not for the fact that it is spoken by a being existing on a level comparable to that of God the Father, who must necessarily also himself be of divine rank" (Frieling, Christianity and Islam, p. 121). Jesus must have considered himself to possess an eternal greatness to deem it necessary to inform his disciples that God the Father was, in fact, actually greater than he. Once again he measures himself on a divine level alone, relating himself solely to the Father, and expresses a limitation found solely in the fact that he is the Son of God. It is in answer to these objections that we can show Muslims just what the title Son of God really means, not that God took a wife and obtained offspring through her, but that the second person of the Trinity possesses the same essence as the first, yet is subject to him in authority as the sons of men are to their fathers, and voluntarily became the man Christ Jesus so that he might reconcile us in one Spirit to the Father. 3. Was Jesus the Son of God in a Metaphorical Sense? We come to another common argument found in Muslim writings. The Qur’an teaches that it is only the followers of Jesus who have made him the Son of God but, when Muslims authors discover that in the New Testament who claims this title, they suggest that this claim in a limited sense, namely in sense in which all true believers can be God. The following quotations are typical of the argument as it appears in Muslim writings: That Jesus ever maintained he was the Son of God, in the sense in which it has been construed by Christian divines and apologists, we totally deny. (Ali, The Spirit of Islam, p. 141). The Quran not only excludes all idea of any equal or partner with Allah, it specifically excludes all idea of His having a son except in the purely metaphorical sense in which all mankind are his children, and in which the peacemakers are spoken of, in the Bible as "the children of God" (Matthew 5:9). (Zafrulla Khan’ Islam: Its Meaning for Modern Man, p. 93). Islam also rejects the Divine sonship of Jesus. He may be called a son of God in the sense in which all righteous human beings may be called the children of God, but not in a literal or unique sense. (Aziz-us-Samad, A Comparative Study of Christianity and Islam, p. 66) In each case there is an implied admission that Jesus could be regarded as one of the sons of God in the way in which all believers can be called children of God, but the possibility that he could be the unique eternal Son of God expressly denied. The Qur’an, on the other hand, disallows the possibility that anybody could be regarded as a child of God in any sense whatsoever (God is nowhere called "Father" in the book, the expression "children of God" likewise nowhere appears, and it is expressly stated in Surah 6.100 that he has neither sons nor daughters), yet once Muslims discover that Jesus, as quoted in the Gospels, regularly called himself the Son of God, they feel constrained to admit that he applied the title to himself in some sense. Whenever a Muslim argues that Jesus never claimed to be the absolute Son of God but only took the title in an allegorical or metaphorical sense, the Christian should immediately place him on terms to admit that Jesus did in fact claim to be the Son of God in some form. The Muslim argument has no force unless this admission is made. The issue then is purely to determine in what sense the title was used. Very often the argument is based on the following text: Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, ’I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken), do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ’You are blaspheming’ because I said ’I am the Son of God’?" John 10:34-36. It is suggested that, by quoting Psalms 82:6 where all true believers are called sons of the Most High God, Jesus was only saying that he was likewise simply one of the children of God when he said "I am the Son of God". The following quotation, based on the above passage, typifies the Muslim conclusion at this point: It is thus clear that even in the mouth of Jesus the term "son of God" was a metaphorical expression, and by taking it literally the Church has destroyed the very foundations of religion. (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p. 40). The important thing here is the admission that Jesus did call himself the Son of God in one or other sense. The issue then is purely to establish the sense in which the claim was made. The Church has never held that it should be taken literally as the writer claims (a typical Muslim error based on the Qur’an’s misconception of the title as it is used by all true Christians). Rather, as already stated, we believe it was made analogically. It defines the status of Jesus in relation to the Father - absolutely one with him in essence and form (John 10:30) but subject to him in authority (John 5:30). Which, then, is the correct interpretation - was it made analogically in the sense that he is the absolute, unique, divine Son of God, or was it made metaphorically in the sense in which all true believers can be called the sons of God? There can be no doubt that the first interpretation is the only possible one that can be made from an objective study of the Scriptures. When the Jews said to Pilate "We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he has made himself the Son of God" (John 19:7), it was in consequence of their conviction that he had spoken blasphemy when he acknowledged before Caiaphas that he was indeed the Son of God (Mark 14:61-62). If he had only claimed to be one of the children of God in a metaphorical sense he would never have been brought to trial on such a charge. There are a number of sayings of Jesus that make it quite plain that he claimed to be the Son of God in an absolute, eternal sense, for example: "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him". Matthew 11:27 Likewise, when Jesus has given all judgment to said "The Father judges no one, but the Son, that all may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He who does not honour the Son does not honour the Father who sent him" (John 5:22-23), it is well nigh impossible to see how such a claim to be the Son of God could have been made in a metaphorical sense. The statement that all should honour the Son even as they honour the Father cannot be watered down into a suggestion that he was anything less than the eternal, absolute Son of God. One could fill a book with similar quotations but to conclude here let me cite what I believe is the most effective way of handling this objection. Whenever confronted by the argument that Jesus only claimed to be the Son of God in a lesser sense I immediately turn to the parable of the tenants of the vineyard recorded in Matthew 21:33-43 and also in Mark 12:1-12 and Luke 20:9-18. Jesus spoke of a number of servants who were sent to the tenants of the vineyard to obtain some of the fruit of the vineyard, but they took them and beat them, wounded yet others and killed them, "so with many others, some they beat and some they killed" (Mark 12:5). The parable builds up to a climax which we find in the following verse which is also the key one for our purposes: "He had still one other, a beloved son; finally he sent him to them, saying, ’They will respect my son’. But those tenants said to one another, ’This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours’. And they took him and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard". Mark 12:6-8. The sequence shows quite plainly the interpretation of the parable. God sent numerous prophets to the people of Israel to call them to produce the fruits of righteousness, but they mistreated them all, killing some and wounding others. ("Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute?" - Acts 7:52). No Muslim will deny that the prophets are the highest of God’s chosen faithful on earth, yet in this parable they are all regarded as nothing more than servants. When they had all been sent the owner of the vineyard had still one other - a beloved son - and he sent him, only to see him killed by the tenants as well - a clear prediction of the pending crucifixion of Jesus himself. In this parable Jesus clearly distinguished himself as the beloved Son of God in contrast with the prophets who were only his servants. It is in this distinction that Christians can show Muslims just how Jesus claimed to be the unique, eternal Son of God, and never used the title in the sense in which all true believers can be called the sons of God. "This is my beloved Son", the voice said from heaven when Jesus was transfigured (Matthew 17:5). "God so loved the world that he sent his only Son", the Scripture further testifies (John 3:16), and in another place calls him "the only Son who is in the bosom of the Father" (John 1:18). There can be no doubt that Jesus always used the title for himself in a unique, divine sense and never used it metaphorically as Muslims claim. Christians have a wealth of evidence here to show Muslims just who Jesus really claimed to be and who he truly was - the eternal Son of God. 4. "Flesh and Blood has not Revealed this to You . . ." We come back to the question of whether God does indeed have a Son and whether that Son became the man Christ Jesus. We have already considered some Muslim arguments discounting the possibility and shall conclude this section by analysing one other, namely that it is not possible for God to be manifest in human flesh, before finishing with a brief assessment of the real issue here - what has ultimately been revealed by God concerning this subject. Very often one finds Muslims arguing that Jesus could not be the eternal, divine Son of God since he was a human being and, as such, needed to sleep (Mark 4:38), became hungry (Luke 4:2) and thirsty (John 19:28), and so on. Because he needed to eat, drink and sleep like all other men it is claimed he could not have been divine for God is self-subsistent and depends on nothing. The following quote, speaking of Surah 5.114 in the Qur’an but perhaps equally applicable to the Biblical verses quoted, states the argument in a nutshell: This verse also proves that Jesus was not the Son of God’ or an incarnation of God, for he felt the necessity of asking for food for his very subsistence. (Ahmad, Jesus in Heaven on Earth, p. 143). Another similar quotation, but one which within itself tends to expose the weakness of the argument, reads: He ate, drank and acted in a human way. He walked through the market, rode animals, slept at night and so on. God does not have to do any of these human things or even be associated in any way with man. (Assfy, Islam and Christianity, p. 6). The weak link is found in the words "God does not have to do any of these human things". We might just as well say that God did not have to create man, did not have to create woman from man, did not have to do anything at all. The point is God chose to do these things and, in Php 2:5-8 we find likewise that the eternal Son, who was in "the form of God" which, in the original Greek, means he was divine through and through, chose to empty himself of his glory and voluntarily assumed human form. So likewise no one could take his life from him and he did not have to lay it down, but he willingly laid it down of his own accord (John 10:18). A king does not have to take on the clothes of a servant in his kingdom and submit himself to another master, but what if he chooses to do so for a time to discover the needs of the servants in his kingdom and feel with them in their hopes and sufferings that he might alleviate them? What Muslim is there that would place limitations upon God’s power and will by suggesting that God, likewise, cannot choose of his own accord to act in this way? Assfy adds that he does not have to be "associated in any way with man". It is here that we come to the heart of the matter. What if he chose to meet man at his own level and in grace associate very closely with him? The Qur’an says in one place: Say, "If there were settled, on earth, angels walking about in peace and quiet, We should certainly have sent them down from the heavens an angel for an apostle". Surah 17.95 If, therefore, God wished to relate to man himself from heaven, how would he come to earth? Even the Qur’an expressly admits that angels appear in human form when they come to men with messages from God ("We sent to her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects" - Surah 19.17). Is it too hard to accept that the Father would send his own Son in human form if he desired, of his own accord, to relate directly to men on earth? There is nothing to stop him voluntarily assuming human limitations and being subject to our natural dependences while on earth. The issue is not whether men have to eat and drink, etc., it is purely this - can the human form bear the divine image? If anyone was to suggest that God had become incarnate in a plant, insect or animal, we would reject the idea immediately. None of these creatures can be holy, honest, righteous, just or forgiving, and therefore cannot possibly bear his image. But the Bible says that at the beginning of creation God decreed "Let us make man in our image" (Genesis 1:26) and thus he created him. Only to man can it be said "You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy" (Leviticus 19:2), "You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matthew 5:48). Man was so made that he could possess and manifest all God’s characteristic attributes - holiness, love, purity, justice, righteousness, compassion, etc. There is nothing in the moral character of God’s holiness that cannot be manifested in human form. Man created in the image of God does not mean that God looks like man or that man looks like God. But it does mean that man has profound God-like qualities. (Kateregga and Shenk, Islam and Christianity, p. 19). The question is not whether God can be confined in human form, it is purely whether humanity can bear the divine image. The answer is an unqualified yes. Jesus Christ manifested every one of God’s perfect attributes to the full when he lived on earth as a man. There is no reason why the Son of God could not become the Son of man. In no way was his divine character blurred while he walked among us. On the contrary God’s love, grace, forgiveness and compassion were all revealed to the full when he laid down his life to redeem us from all iniquity and prepare us for a heavenly dwelling. The final issue, then, is simply this - was Jesus revealed to be the Son of God while he was on earth? He constantly claimed to be nothing less than the eternal Son from the Father and it was for this reason that he was crucified and killed (John 19:7). Yet when he was "raised from the dead by the glory of the Father" (Romans 6:4) he was "designated Son of God in power" (Romans 1:4). All his claims proved to be true. We cannot get around the fact that Jesus himself claimed to be the Son of God. ("He has made himself the Son of God" - John 19:7) and the events following endorsed this claim completely. If Jesus did not take this honour upon himself, let Muslims explain why we duly agree with them that all God’s messengers who went before him were nothing more than prophets and hold this man alone to be the Divine Saviour from heaven. It must be made clear that the Christian doctrine about Jesus is not an imposition upon the facts but rather a conclusion from the facts. (Cragg. The Call of the Minaret, p. 288). The heart of the matter, perhaps, is found in the occasion when Jesus asked his disciples as they were gathered together away from the crowds, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?" (Matthew 16:13). The answer was that he was generally considered to be one of the prophets - John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah perhaps - but nothing more than a prophet. Thusfar the perceptiveness of the Jewish crowds, thusfar the perceptiveness of the Muslim masses. Jesus went on, however: "But who do you say that I am?" (Matthew 16:15). Peter’s answer was: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16), that is to say, "The people say you are a prophet but I say you are far more than a prophet, you are the Son of God". The response of Jesus has acute relevance to the very subject we are discussing: "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven". Matthew 16:17 "My Father has revealed this to you", was his reply. The realisation that he was the Son of God came not through ordinary "flesh and blood", that is, human wisdom and perceptiveness, but by a direct revelation from heaven. It was also a proof that Jesus was not one of the children of God in a metaphorical sense but the Divine Son who could only be known by a revelation from the Father himself. Where, we ask, would be the point of Christ’s reply if He were the son only in the sense in which all believers are sons of God? (Goldsack, Christ in Islam, p. 9). There is no reason why God cannot have a Son, why he could not be manifested in human form, and why he could not redeem us by voluntarily laying down his life and taking it again. The only reason the Qur’an denies that Jesus was the Son of God is that Muhammad had no more perceptiveness than the Jews who concluded that Jesus was simply one of the prophets. The teaching of Jesus himself that it requires a revelation from the Father himself before any man can see with the eye of faith that he is truly the eternal Son of God must make us deeply sympathetic towards Muslims in their inability to perceive his true greatness and we need to pray fervently that, while the Prophet of Islam may not have discerned his glory, his followers might yet do so. Muslims have trod the via negativa to the bitter end and even their acceptance of a doctrine of revelation is limited by the acceptance that here is only a revelation from God and not a revelation primarily of Himself; the Christian comes along the same road as we have seen, but at the end he reaches out with a new confidence because of the Incarnation, to an ultimate and firm persuasion that God has spoken from the midst of human experience, and that He speaks and speaks of Himself, revealing not only His will but Himself, in such a way that man can throw himself with confidence on God. (Sweetman, Islam and Christian Theology, Part 2, Vol. 2, p. 327). ======================================================================== CHAPTER 135: 06.37. C. THE ATONING WORK OF THE CHRIST. ======================================================================== C. THE ATONING WORK OF THE CHRIST. 1. Man’s Fallen Nature and the Need of an Atonement. What makes a man acceptable to God? Is it a measure of self-righteousness obtained through an observance of fixed rituals plus a belief in true doctrines of faith, coupled with an attempt to keep God’s moral laws to the best of a man’s ability? Or is it the redeeming grace of God in sending his own Son in human form to become an atoning sacrifice so that fallen men might be forgiven of their sins and receive the Holy Spirit by which they might become heirs of the hope of eternal life? Islam advocates the former, Christianity declares the latter. The concepts are so far apart that it is not surprising to find Muslims levelling all kinds of arguments against the Christian position. We shall consider the subject in principle before pressing on to assess two of the typical kinds of arguments Christians are likely to across in Muslim writings. In the last section we considered the Biblical teaching that God originally made man in his own image. When Adam and Eve sinned this image was defaced and they were chased from the Garden and away from the presence of the Lord. In their sinful state they could no longer commune and fellowship with the All-holy God. Right here, at the very beginning, Islam and Christianity part ways though both acknowledge the event that led to our first parents being expelled from the Garden. Islam teaches that no man is sinful by nature and that all Adam and Eve had to do was repent and ask forgiveness. Accordingly man’s duty is to strive towards a relative degree of self- righteousness by developing his personality according to God’s revealed laws and by trusting God to forgive the rest. Christianity, however, declares that the only righteousness acceptable to God is his own perfect righteousness and that when men sin they immediately fail to attain the mark - not a relative degree of self-righteousness but the absolute standard of God’s own righteousness. "Since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23) is the Christian concept of the effect of sin and one which creates the need of an initiative from God to reconcile men to himself through an atoning sacrifice. Islam fails to see the full extent of sin - that it is not only a punishable offence but a separating influence that destroys a man’s relationship with God - and it accordingly asks why God cannot just forgive men as he pleases. Why can he not just say "Be" (kun) and accomplish whatever he purposes as he wills? In reply we must first point out that the question arises from a total misunderstanding of man’s nature, condition, and spiritual needs, and also from failing to comprehend the great fact that God is Holy. Sin is not only in itself contrary to and hateful to the Divine Nature, but it is also ruinous and destructive to the true, original, spiritual nature of man made in God’s likeness. (Pfander, The Mizanu’l Haqq (Balance of Truth), p. 168). For what purpose was man created? It seems highly improbable that he was made for his own destiny and that he was set a course of attaining a relative standard of righteousness (like a 51% pass-mark in an examination) before being rewarded with the pleasures of a material paradise. It seems far more likely that if God chose to make man at all, he made him for his own glory. It is self-evident that man was made in the image of God as we saw in the last section and he was therefore obviously created to reflect the glory of God and work out his attributes to perfection. One act of defiance against God, just one declaration of independence from him, was enough to spoil the image completely. Adam and Eve fell when they sinned, something to which the Qur’an willingly testifies ("We said: Fall down, one of you a foe to the other" - Surah 2.36). Man therefore possesses a fallen nature from which he needs to be delivered. It was necessary that another man, Jesus the Son of God, should restore that divine image in human form and work out the righteousness of God to perfection in his life so that the rest of men could be born of the Holy Spirit and thereby receive a new nature which is being "renewed in the knowledge after the image of its creator" (Colossians 3:10). God who has created all things made man different from the rest of creation, for man is a reasoning being who can know God. In making man this way God must have had a purpose; and if we hold that God loves, we must believe that God had the purpose of admitting man to His love so that He and man might live together in the unity of love. The relation between God and man is a relationship of persons, but unfortunately this relationship has been broken by man’s sin and must somehow be put right. Something must be done to change man’s nature, and clearly man cannot do this himself; so God must take the initiative. (Robson, "Vicarious Sacrifice: The Christian View", The Muslim World, Vol. 38, p. 158). For this reason the Bible makes no attempt to cover up the sins of the prophets and other men but exposes them all to condemnation before God. Although the Qur’an likewise records the sins of some of the prophets, Islam’s concept of an attainable human self-righteousness and its refusal to recognise that all men are held down by a fallen nature has led to the doctrine of the sinlessness of the prophets. In our view it is concerned more to vindicate man than it is to glorify God. The Bible, however, being God’s Word, is concerned with man’s redemption, not his vindication, and can accordingly afford to be far more realistic in its assessment of what man is by nature. It must suffice to add one further point about the nature of Biblical revelation - its honest realism in describing man. Whether it be the story of Abraham or David or the portrait of the disciples, they are there, as Cromwell might have said, "warts and all". No attempt is made to hide their shortcomings or minimize their frailty. In this, they are a measure of the humanity that God would redeem. (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 280). Christianity seeks therefore to restore human nature to its original intended greatness. Another man came, one who is by nature "the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15), and lifted humanity out of its degradation and gave it a dignity it otherwise could not have deemed possible. As one Moslem writer in Cairo put it, speaking more truly than he knew, "Christianity opposes, Islam follows, the current of human nature". (Gairdner, The Reproach of Islam, p. 318). There is possibly no other religion which has such a pessimistic view of man as he is by nature as ours has. No other tells him that he cannot save himself, that he has fallen effectively from what he was intended to be, and that his sins have made a separation between him and his Creator (Isaiah 59:2). There is no merit in Islam’s intended purpose to give man a better view of himself and its suggestion that he can become acceptable to God by following its tenets to a reasonable degree. The issue is truth and reality and Christianity’s assessment of man as principally sinful makes it the only religion which has the courage to make man face himself as he really is and its concept is therefore the true one. On the other hand no religion has such an optimistic view of what man can become by the grace of God. By sending his Son in human form he printed for all eternity the divine image upon the human and made it possible for us to "become partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4) and "heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ" (Romans 8:17). In the coming age we shall bear the image of him who is the image of God. We shall partake of his character to the full and enjoy within our own beings the fulness of all his attributes. No other religion sets such a hope before its adherents. It becomes possible, not through a process over a period of time by which each man endeavours to obtain the mark of righteousness but by a once-for-all act of God which ensures that God’s righteousness is reckoned to men as a gift and as their permanent possession. It comes through the wondrous grace of God in sending his own Son in human form as the man Christ Jesus to lay down his life for us in a single offering to ensure our eternal salvation. It was duly prophesied many centuries before it came to pass: Behold, I will bring my servant the Branch ... I will remove the guilt of this land in a single day. Zeahariah 3.8,9. When Peter attempted to turn Jesus away from the cross he responded "Get behind me Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men" (Matthew 16:23). So likewise today Islam seeks to keep Jesus off the cross and imagines it honours him by denying his crucifixion, but only so that it may maintain its own decree that man is not so bad that he cannot justify himself and not so far from God that he needs to be redeemed. In its call to a standard - a relative, imperfect standard of human righteousness - it too is not on the side of God but of men. It refuses to acknowledge God’s transcendent holiness (which automatically relegates sinful man to a fallen state) and, while it recognises that no man can be perfect, declares that imperfection in the human soul will nevertheless be acceptable to God provided it is compensated by a belief in its tenets, an adherence to its rites, and a hope in God’s forgiveness. To what extent do a man’s eyes have to be opened before he sees the hopelessly inadequate nature of such a path towards the favour of God whose holiness and glory are so transcendent that even the perfect angels of heaven can hardly bear the sight? Behold, God puts no trust in his holy ones, and the heavens are not clean in his sight; how much less one who is abominable and corrupt, a man who drinks iniquity like water! Job 15:15-16. The atoning work of God’s Anointed Saviour, Jesus Christ, is the revealed way by which God has bridged a chasm from his side which could never have been bridged from ours. All men have sinned and are imperfect in his sight and no one will be accepted by covering a part of that imperfection with a devotion to rites and duties. It is only by believing in the one man who bore the image perfectly and laid down his life that we might be redeemed from our sinful imperfection and obtain his perfect righteousness that we can be saved. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 2 Corinthians 5:21 2. Does the Atonement Give us a Licence to Sin Freely? A very common objection from the Muslim world at this point is found in the suggestion that "If Christ paid the penalty, all men may sin a they like without fear" (Tisdall, Muhammadan Objections to Christianity, p. 177). Or, as it is actually stated in a Muslim writing: Or does it mean that the price of their sins having been paid in advance, the Christians will not be punished for their transgressions and are free to commit sins with impunity? (Aziz-us-Samad, A Comparative Study of Christianity and Islam, p. 102). The Muslim objector once again opens the door for a thorough Christian witness and we should openly welcome arguments like these as they present us with very useful opportunities to discuss precisely what the atonement means to us. I often find it very helpful to meet such objections with a retort at their own level before pressing on to a witness on a higher plane, and here I would suggest that the Christian immediately challenge the objector to quote from the Bible to show where he gets such an idea. Alternatively the Christian should graciously suggest that the Muslim is exposing a considerable ignorance of what the crucifixion of Jesus really means when viewed in respect of its atoning purpose. The key Biblical passage on this very subject is Romans 6:1-23, though there are numerous texts which can be recommended to a Muslim by which he "will perceive how high and holy a Way has been appointed for Christians to walk in" (Pfander, The Mizanu’l Haqq (Balance of Truth), p. 147). Let us consider, however, some of the verses in Romans 6:1-23 to see how the apostle handles this subject. He begins: How can we who died to sin still live in it? Romans 6:2 Nobody obtains forgiveness of sins just by believing that Jesus died for him. His death was not just a cancellation of the penalty of sin, it was also a triumph over its power. In the section earlier in this book on the Fall of Adam and the Cross of Christ we saw how Jesus overcame the fullest power of Satan’s temptations in the wilderness and thereby triumphed over the dominion of sin in its traditional realm, the human body itself. At the cross he paid the penalty for our sins so that we might share the fruits of his own victory over it. Whoever truly believes in Jesus must turn to him in repentance, desiring to receive strength from him through the Holy Spirit to overcome the natural tendency to fall prey to temptation’s guilt and power. As Paul goes on to say, "The death he died, he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God" (Romans 6:10). So we too, if we are to have any share in Christ at all, must die to sin and live to righteousness. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. Romans 6:11 There will be few Muslims who will easily understand the meaning of Paul’s words "We know that our old self was crucified with him" (Romans 6:6), but we can state plainly the fact that it is only those who are willing to renounce the power of sin in their lives and live in newness of life who have any interest in Christ’s death and resurrection. The atonement does not give a licence to sin freely, it gives us resources with which to overcome sin in our lives and be set free from its bondage and vice-like grip. As another apostle has put it: He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. 1 Peter 2:24 I have often suggested to Muslims that if they know sin is wrong they should immediately promise God they will never sin again. I have yet to meet one who is foolish enough to believe he could achieve that for just one day. All men sin freely whether they believe they have a licence to do so or not. "Every one who commits sin is a slave to sin", Jesus said (John 8:34), and he came to earth to fight against its dominating influence among all men and triumph over it. All who believe in him for redemption and salvation receive the Holy Spirit of God and it is by the new controlling influence of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus that we are set free from the controlling influence of sin (Romans 8:2). Jesus came not only to "redeem us from all iniquity" but also to "purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds" (Titus 2:14). He came like us not so that we might become worse and worse, but so that we might become like him in all his perfect holy attributes. 3. The Story of the Rich Young Ruler. Another typical objection at this point centres on a story found in all three synoptic Gospels which records a conversation between Jesus and a rich young man who enquired what he had to do to obtain eternal life. Jesus answered "If you would enter life, keep the commandments" (Matthew 19:17). The argument is that Jesus never taught atonement but called on all men to observe the commandments of God if they would enter his kingdom. We should perhaps briefly consider another argument at this point first. When the young man said to Jesus, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?", Jesus answered him "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone" (Mark 10:17-18). It is suggested that Jesus not only did not teach atonement in this incident but also denied divinity and any measure of personal goodness, declaring that God alone is good. On the contrary we find that Jesus openly declared that he was sinless and held himself up as the one in whom all men had to believe if they would obtain eternal life (John 3:15). Throughout the gospels Jesus presents Himself to us as an infallible guide, teacher and pattern. There is the challenge always present, if not expressed - "Which of you convicteth me of sin?" John 8:46. (Bevan Jones, Christianity Explained to Muslims, p. 150). He certainly never denied that he was good and in fact boldly declared "I am the Good Shepherd" (John 10:11) - a claim not only to goodness but also to deity (cf. Ezekiel 34:15 where God said "I myself will be the Shepherd of my sheep". There can be little doubt that it was this very promise that Jesus had in mind when he claimed that he himself was the Good Shepherd). A comparison of the two texts (Mark 10:18 and John 10:.11) endorses this interpretation all the more. He who said: that God alone was good would hardly have called himself the Good Shepherd if he did not believe in his own divinity The Muslims misinterpret the question "Why do you call me good?" as a denial of goodness because they fail to perceive where the emphasis really lies. The young ruler had called him a "good teacher". The Hebrew word for teacher is "rabbi" (John 1:38) and as there were many rabbis in Israel at the time it appears he was approaching Jesus merely as one of these teachers, albeit a good one. The emphasis in Jesus’ reply is meant to be on the first word: "Why do you call me good?" as the Bishop of Lahore pointed out many years ago (Tisdall, Muhammadan Objections to Christianity, p. 113). Jesus disowned any kind of relative goodness as a teacher, pointing out that God alone was absolutely good. The young man could not hope to find the path to eternal life from a relatively good teacher, but if he was prepared to acknowledge that Jesus was absolutely good (and therefore divine), he could expect to receive the required answer. It is in the question of absoluteness that this incident finds its true meaning and through which we shall see that it is in no way inconsistent with the doctrine of atonement. For the Bible says: For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. James 2:10 No one can hope to commend himself to God by a partial observance of his laws. When Jesus told the young man to keep the commandments he was clearly telling him to keep every commandment of God always perfectly continually. God’s favour cannot be obtained by the observance of only certain parts of His Law. He who desires to please Him, and by his own acts to be justified in God’s sight, must strictly and without a single failure or omission keep the whole of God’s law. (Pfander, The Mizanu’l Haqq (Balance of Truth), p. 149). This comes out very clearly in the sequel to the meeting between Jesus and the young ruler. After being commanded to observe God’s laws he boldly declared he had done so from his youth (Luke 18:21). Jesus then told him he still had a great lack and said to him that there was something he would yet have to do if he wished to commend himself to God: "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me". Matthew 19:21 Here is the heart of the matter. "If you would be perfect" he began, as anyone must be if he is to commend himself to God by an observance of his laws. Relative piety mixed with a degree of sinfulness is unacceptable to the "holy God who shows himself holy in righteousness" (Isaiah 5:16). Accordingly he commanded him to "sell all that you have" (Luke 18:22) to shake off the covetous tendency that had made him rich and far from the kingdom of God. At this, however, the young man’s "countenance fell, and he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions" (Mark 10:22). To the standard of perfection the young man could not come. Instead of finding that he could enter life by keeping God’s laws, he discovered that those very laws could only ultimately convict him of sin and destroy his self-righteousness. "The very commandment which promised life proved to be death to me" (Romans 7:10) soon proved to be his experience as well. Jesus, however, gave a hint as to where real salvation lies when he said "If you would be perfect . . . follow me". Here lies the path to salvation. It is only in the atoning work of the Christ that anyone can be made perfect. Far from being a denial both of the atonement and the deity of Christ, the passage ultimately reaffirms them both. The charge that "Jesus himself never taught atonement" can be met on other grounds very adequately as well. When he said that he was the Good Shepherd he promptly added "The Good Shepherd lays down his life for the sheep" (John 10:11) - a clear reference to his coming crucifixion and atoning death. The following sayings of Jesus also prove very clearly that he taught he had come to redeem men to God by laying down his life for others: "The bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh". John 6:51 "The Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many". Matthew 20:28 The one obvious incident that Christians should quote and explain in answer to this question of whether Jesus himself taught atonement is the occasion of the Last Supper. It is recorded in all three of the synoptic Gospels and is one of the climactic events of his life, one obviously full of meaning and significance for his followers. It reads as follows in Matthew’s Gospel: Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body". And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins". Matthew 26:26-28. It is indeed well nigh impossible to understand how anyone can suggest that Jesus never taught atonement in the face of such a passage. It was the very thing he commended to his disciples the last night he was with them. By human works of law no one shall be saved ("With men this is impossible" - Matthew 19:26), but through the outpouring of the blood of Jesus who laid down his life to atone for the sins of the world, all men may find salvation. In conclusion let me emphasize once again the need of turning Muslim objections into opportunities for witness. Throughout this chapter on the key doctrines of the Christian faith we have seen that such arguments not only need to be countered but also used as springboards for a witness to God’s grace in his Son Jesus Christ. In the final chapter we shall give consideration to a few other typical Muslim objections that Christians are likely to come across in their witness to the adherents of Islam. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 136: 06.38. MISCELLANEOUS MUSLIM OBJECTIONS TO THE GOSPEL ======================================================================== Miscellaneous Muslim Objections to the Gospel ======================================================================== CHAPTER 137: 06.39. A. THE "PAGAN ORIGINS" OF CHRISTIANITY. ======================================================================== A. THE "PAGAN ORIGINS" OF CHRISTIANITY. 1. Muslim Attempts to Link Christianity to Paganism. In the section on the doctrine of the Trinity we dealt) in some measure with charges in Muslim writings that the dot trine has pagan origins. In this section we shall briefly consider a few other similar attempts to link Christianity to paganism, in particular to show how easily these can be made to rebound on Islam. The argument is invariably based on a comparison between certain basic Christian beliefs about Jesus Christ and myths surrounding pagan deities. The conclusion perforce is that the very existence such similarities proves that Christianity is founded on paganism. One Muslim writer, speaking of pagan gods such as Apollo of the Greeks, Hercules of the Romans, Mithra of the Persians Horus of the Egyptians and Baal of the Babylonians, says that they were all sun-gods upon which the Christian belief in Jesus is based. Quoting a Western writer Edward Carpenter with approval, he claims that all these gods were born on or near Christmas Day of virgin mothers in a cave or underground chamber, that they were called saviours or deliverers, that they were vanquished by the powers of darkness but rose agai from the dead to found communions of saints into which disci pies were received by baptism, and that they were commemorated by eucharistic meals (Kamal-ud-Din, The Sources of Christianity, p. 29). Any scholar of pagan deities will marvel to be hold all these various idols of different ages and nations totally recast in the mould of the course of the Christian saviour Jesus Christ! If the Christian teaching about Jesus Christ had thus been so obviously founded on a host of pagan myths it would have presented its detractors in its early days with a simple task, yet we never find the opponents of the Gospel charging that it had pagan origins. They never considered the possibility that it had been based on pagan myths. But several facts rule out such a possibility, (a) the early Church consistently refused to come to terms wit the syncretistic religions, (b) it was precisely this refusal that led to the great persecutions, and (c) what impressed the pagan world in the new religion was, not the familiarity, but the difference. (Bevan Jones, Christianity Explained to Muslims, p. 119). One only has to peruse briefly a general encyclopaedia of pagan mythologies to find that the stories of the lives of the idols mentioned by name by Kamal-ud-Din not only do not compare with that of Jesus Christ but in fact have very little in common with one another as well. All that has happened is that each one has been recast in the Christian mould. Another Muslim writer has unwittingly exposed this very clearly in presenting a series of similarities between Horus and Muhammad in an attempt to prove that the former foretold and foreshadowed the latter. He begins by saying of Horus: He is the Sun and he is the man indicate that he is the man who took colour from Allah, by worshipping Him most ardently. As the sun is the mirror, so was he coloured with the attributes of God to the greatest human extent. Therefore in the whole kingdom of God there is only one Prophet that has been addressed by God Himself as the sun: "O Prophet, We have sent thee as a witness and a bringer of good tidings and a warner and as an invitor unto Allah by His permission as a light-giving sun". (Abdul Haque, Muhammad in World Scriptures, Vol. 1, p. 395). The verses quoted from the Qur’an are found in Surah 33.45-46. Proceeding from this likeness in which both Horus and Muhammad are addressed as being like the sun, he argues that this description fits no other prophet and that Horus was therefore a type of Muhammad. He then goes on in the following pages to list no less than sixty further likenesses between them and says of Horus as the sun: So there are sixty attributes of that sun which is prophesied in ’The Book of the Dead’, which clearly indicates the coming of the Prophet of Islam. (Abdul Haque, Muhammad in World Scriptures, Vol. 1, p. 400). At the same time he boldly declares that the description of Horus as the sun of the universe cannot be made to refer to Jesus (op. cit., p. 396). Therefore, while we find that one Muslim writer endeavours to prove that the story of Horus is an exact reflection of the story of Jesus in the Bible and that he is one of the "sun-gods" upon which Christian belief in Jesus is supposedly based, we simultaneously find another Muslim writer trying to prove the exact opposite, claiming that Horus as the sun of the universe does not represent Jesus but rather Muhammad in no less than sixty likenesses! We saw earlier that other Muslim writers have tried to prove that the Egyptian mythical triad of Osiris, Isis and Horus is the basis of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. When Maulana Abdul Haque comes to what he calls the "Horus of the triangle", however (op. cit., p. 423), he does not for a minute see any likeness to the Trinity at all but argues that this triad actually represents the Allah of Islam. He refers specifically to three attributes of God set out in the Suratul-Fatihah, namely Rabb ("the Evolver"), ar-Rahman ("the Beneficent") and ar-Rahim ("the Merciful", and concludes: "these three attributes are the sole cause/of creation" (Abdul Haque, Muhammad in World Scriptures, Vol., p. 423). So, if any religion shows a likeness to the Egyptian pagan religion of old, it is Islam and therefore if there is any dependence on the religion of Horus, it is to be found in Islam and not Christianity. This Maulana cannot see for a minute that there is any likeness between Horus and Christian belief about Jesus Christ. Elsewhere he speaks of Horus being described as the "pole-star" and states: The pole-star is a symbol of ’Horus’ or our Holy Prophet. (Abdul Haque, Muhammad in World Scriptures, Vol. 1, p. 418). So Egyptian mythology about Horus does not relate to Christian beliefs about Jesus but to Muslim beliefs about Muhammad! The Maulana has very effectively refuted Kamal-ud-Din’s contention that Christianity is dependent on pagan mythologies, such as the one about Horus, altogether. Furthermore he makes many statements about Horus that ridicule the suggestion that Christian Christology is dependent on him. He points out that Horus had two births (op. cit., p. 409) and that there were actually two Horuses, one elder and one younger. In all the sixty points he argues at length against the suggestion that there is any likeness between Horus and Christ and debates instead at great length in favour of the argument that all the mythological anecdotes about Horus and other allied facts find their fulfilment in Muhammad in a remarkable way! How is it possible that one writer can claim that the life of Jesus as recorded in the Christian Bible is an exactreplica of that of Horus while another cannot see even one point of similarity between them, arguing that he represents Muhammad instead? The answer is simply that each is trying to force a comparison to suit his purpose. As Kamal-ud-Din tries to force the pagan glove to fit the Christian hand against all evidences to the contrary, so Abdul Haque attempts to make it fit the Muslim hand. The exercise serves one useful purpose, however - it shows how unjustified Muslim attempts are to make the Christian story of Jesus depend on pagan myths and the unacceptable methods they adopt to further their own purposes. We have another good example of this in the attempts found in Muslim writings to make Christian beliefs about Jesus dependent upon early pagan Mexican beliefs about Quetzalcoatl, a local idol. One Muslim author claims that this Mexican "Saviour" was born of a virgin, Chimalman, who received an annunciation of his conception just as Mary did of Jesus. (In passing it must be said that it is indeed strange to find Muslims attempting to prove that Christianity has pagan origins on such grounds when we remember that this is precisely what the Qur’an itself teaches about Mary in Surah 19.17-21). The Mexican idol, he goes on to say, also fasted forty days and was tempted by Satan. He expressly states that Quetzalcoatl was "crucified" but that the Mexicans looked forward to his "second coming" (Joommal, The Bible: Word of God or Word of Man?, p. 145). No references of any documentary value are given for these suggestions. (The same claims appear on page 40 of Kamal-ud-Din’s The Sources of Christianity as well, once again without documentation). An excellent basic documentary record of pagan myths is Larousse’s Hew Encyclopaedia of Mythology published by Hamlyn in London. In this great reference book, as in others documenting pagan myths, we find that Quetzalcoatl was actually one of a number of Mexican deities, that he was generally represented as a snake-bird or as a plumed serpent, and that in human form he appeared as a white-haired old man with a black body and red face-mask. Far from being in any way like Jesus, the image is in fact in marked contrast. There is no evidence that he was "crucified" but, in the Mexican legend, he is believed to have sailed away with a promise that he would return to his people. Here we find yet again a classical example of an attempt to Christianize a central figure in a pagan religion. Muslim writers like Kamal-ud-Din and Joommal are not showing that Christianity is derived from pagan myths, rather they are endeavouring to give a Christian flavour to these myths and to force similarities by resorting to Christian terms such as "crucified" and "second coming". The Mexican anticipation of Quetzalcoatl’s return from an earthly journey across the seas has been transformed into a "second coming" after a crucifixion! Such is the Muslim method of supposedly proving Christian dependence on pagan myths. What is really happening is that these myths are being given a different face and are being couched in Christian terms to suit the purposes of the authors we have mentioned. It also remains to be proved how a religion which is nearly two thousand years old can be made to be dependent upon another which only came/to Christian knowledge a few centuries ago when Mexico, was first discovered by Spanish explorers. This brief analysis serves to show just how Muslims try to force similarities between Christianity and paganism and how thoroughly unjustified their attempts are. 2. Does Christianity Have Buddhist Sources? The Muslim writer Kamal-ud-Din, in addition to attempting to trace Christianity to general pagan origins, also endeavours to link it to Buddhism as well. He adduces no less than forty-eight supposed points of likeness between Jesus and Buddha (The Sources of Christianity, pp. 62-70) and by way of introduction says: It should not be forgotten that not only does there exist remarkable similarity in the teachings of the two, but some of the parables and precepts that we find in the Gospels had been given, word for word by Buddha, some five hundred years before Jesus. (Kamal-ud-Din, The Sources of Christianity, p. 61). He presents no documented evidences to substantiate these comparisons but relies exclusively on points set out in Doane’s Bible Myths which he accepts without any research of his own or critical reflection. Joommal follows him in likewise simply listing many of the same comparisons without any documentation at all (The Bible: Word of God or Word of Man?, pp. 151-159). Among the points listed we find it claimed that Buddha was born of a virgin on Christmas Day, that wise men came to visit him with costly presents, that he was baptised and that the Holy Spirit came upon him, that he was transfigured on a mountain, that he rose from the dead and will return to earth, that he prayed that all of the sins of the world might come on him, and that he was Alpha and Omega! Once again we have an exhaustive effort to Christianize the central figure of another religion. As Christianity and Buddhism are poles apart in dogma and practice, it is most surprising to find it suggested that Buddha was, in every material aspect of his life and mission, a carbon-copy of the Jesus of the Bible. We could give consideration to one or two points of likeness between Jesus and Buddha to discover whether Christian belief in the former was in any way dependent upon the latter, but it is impossible to seriously believe that the whole life of Jesus, in every respect as recorded in the Bible, is borrowed from the life of Buddha. Why is it that only Muslims bring such a charge forward and that Buddhists themselves do not do so? The extensive efforts to relate every event in Jesus’ life to Buddhist origins expose the whole argument to absurdity. The same Muslim author who denied that the life and doctrine of Jesus in any way related to the Egyptian god Horus significantly does the same thing with Buddha, once again claiming that the likenesses are really between him and Muhammad. He says: The Buddha had foretold the advent of a Buddha like him, it has, therefore, been deemed fit to show some similarities between the Buddha and the Prophet Muhammad. (Abdul Haque, Muhammad in World Scriptures, Vol. 3, p. 1019). For nearly sixty pages the Maulana provides example after example to show that Muhammad was the Buddha to come who would be the express image of the original Buddha, and not Jesus Christ. He concludes: As regards the claim of our Christian friends, it will be noted that the attributes of Maitreya could not be found in the person of Christ. (Abdul Haque, Muhammad in World Scriptures, Vol. 3, p. 1069). It is truly most striking to find one Muslim author going to great lengths attempting to prove likenesses between Buddha and Jesus and another equally exhaustively endeavouring to do the very opposite. The contrast does serve to show once again, however, that Muslim attempts to prove Christian dependence on paganism derive from the wishful thinking of their authors rather than a consideration of the facts. One likeness drawn by Kamal-ud-Din between Jesus and Buddha, however, demands further scrutiny. He states that when Buddha was an infant just born, he said to his mother "I am the greatest among men" and alongside this he states that when Jesus was an infant in his cradle he spoke to his mother and said "I am Jesus the Son of God" (Kamal-ud-Din, The Sources of Christianity, p. 63). There is no record in the Bible that any such thing ever happened in the life of Jesus and no Christians anywhere hold to such a belief. In this case, however, the attempt to trace Christian beliefs to Buddhism must rebound against Islam. In the Qur’an we read that/when Jesus was born Mary’s kinsmen accused her of unchastity but she pointed to the child in the cradle who forthwith declined that he was a servant of God and a prophet (Surah 19.27-30). According to Kamal-ud-Din any teaching about Jesus which says he spoke from the cradle must have been borrowed from Buddhism. In this very incident we have a definite likeness between Islam and Buddhism and one which therefore, by the standards of the author referred to, makes it possible to trace Qur’anic teaching to pagan origins. The story that Jesus spoke from the cradle appeared first in the Injilut-Tufuliyyah, known today as the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy, a late apocryphal work most significantly preserved in Arabic alone. The only difference between the record in this apocryphal work and the Qur’an is that Jesus is recorded in the former as saying annaa huwa Yasuu ibnullaah ("I am Jesus the Son of God") and in the latter simply as saying innii abdullaah ("I am the servant of God" - Surah 19.30). The reason for the difference is not hard to find. Of course Muhammad could not represent Christ as using the words which this apocryphal Gospel attributes to Him, for in the Qur’an the Divine Sonship of Christ is everywhere denied. Therefore, while believing and stating that Jesus spoke when an infant in the cradle, Muhammad in his account has put into His mouth words which seemed to him more suitable and more consonant with Islam. (Tisdall, The Original Sources of the Qur’an, p. 170). It is possible that Mariyah, Muhammad’s Christian wife from Egypt (where the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy was known to have originated), related the story to Muhammad and that he believed it to be principally true. There is no substance in Muslim claims that Christianity l has pagan origins. On the contrary we find that it is Islam that at times has embarrassing parallels in the various pagan religions that preceded it. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 138: 06.40. B. PROPHECIES TO MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE. ======================================================================== B. PROPHECIES TO MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE. 1. The Prophet Like Unto Moses. It will come as something of a surprise to any Christian the first time he hears suggested by a Muslim that Muhammad is foretold in the Bible. It will not be long before he hears it, however, once he begins to witness to Muslims of God’s saving grace in Jesus Christ. All Muslims have been taught from childhood that the Bible is replete with prophecies of the coming of Muhammad. The Prophet of Islam was obviously himself persuaded that such predictions existed and the claim that he was foretold in the former scriptures appears in this verse in the Qur’an: Those who follow the Apostle, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures), in the Law and the Gospel. Surah 7.157 Although Muhammad himself could not read the Tawraat (Law) and Injil (Gospel), his early followers soon sought for such prophecies once they obtained ready access to the relevant scriptures among the Jews and the Christians. In this short section we shall only be able to give attention to the two most prominent passages, one in each of the testaments, which Muslims rely on to substantiate their claims. The first prophecy was made by Moses, the second by Jesus, and it takes little imagination to appreciate why Muslims would like to pin prophecies to Muhammad on these great founders of the world’s original monotheistic religions. The prophecy of Moses is found in the following words where God addressed the great leader of the Israelites: "I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him". Deuteronomy 18:18 The claim that this prophecy relates to Muhammad is based on three arguments: firstly, that Muhammad was like Moses in a way that no other prophet was; secondly, that he came from the "brethren" of the Israelites, that is, the Ishmaelites; and thirdly, that the words "I will put my words in his mouth" were fulfilled when the Angel Gabriel delivered the Qur’an to Muhammad and made him recite it. We shall consider these claims in order and offer a refutation of each to show that there can be no reasonable doubt that it was actually Jesus Christ of whom God spoke when he made the promise of a coming prophet who would be like Moses. Ignoring obvious likenesses between Jesus and Moses, Muslim writers seek to find whatever differences they can between them to make it appear that it was not Jesus who was duly foretold. At the same time they produce likenesses between Moses and Muhammad, such as we find in the following quotations from their writings on the subject: Moses had a father and a mother. Muhummed also had father and a mother. But Jesus had only a mother, and no human father. (Deedat, What the Bible Says About Muhummed, p. 7). Moses and Muhammad (S.A.W.) married but Jesus remained a bachelor due to certain circumstances. (Durrani, Muhammad: The Biblical Prophet, p. 23). Both Moses and Muhammad were not only prophets and spiritual teachers in the usual sense, but they were also "heads of states" whose mission included the establishment of a "state" founded on the teachings of their faith. No such opportunity presented itself to Prophet Jesus. (Badawi, Muhammad in the Bible, p. 41). Yet other likenesses are put forward, namely that successors to Moses and Muhammad (Joshua and Umar respectively) invaded and conquered the promised land whereas Jesus commanded his followers to be prepared to leave it after he had gone. Another typical comparison centres on the acceptance Moses and Muhammad eventually obtained from their own people in contrast with Jesus whose rejection by his own nation reached a pitch at his crucifixion. These arguments may sound impressive to the unlearned but it takes little effort to show that they are principally superficial. God said that he would raise up a prophet like unto Moses and as there were many prophets who succeeded him (one of them, Joshua, being his lifetime companion), it must be presumed that there was something unique about his prophethood that would be emulated in the prophet to come. All men have normal fathers and mothers and most of them get married. David and Solomon were also rulers of a state based on j the teaching of their faith and David in particular likewise ~ also eventually obtained the allegiance of his whole nation. In what way was Muhammad uniquely like Moses? Furthermore we can also draw likenesses between Moses and Jesus where Muhammad can be made to contrast with them. A typical selection of such likenesses would be: 1. Moses and Jesus both left Egypt to perform God’s work - Muhammad was never in Egypt. Of Moses we read: "By faith he forsook Egypt" (Hebrews 11:27) and of Jesus we similarly read: "Out of Egypt have I called my Son" (Matthew 2:15). 2. Moses and Jesus forsook great wealth to share the poverty of their people which Muhammad did not. Of Moses we read: "He considered abuse suffered for the Christ greater wealth than all the treasures of Egypt" (Hebrews 11:25-26) and of Jesus we read: "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich" (2 Corinthians 8:9). We have to discover something unique and exceptional in the whole character of Moses’ prophethood which marked him out from the other prophets and which would be fulfilled in the prophet to come. In fact we find it in the context of the very prophecy we are analysing for we find it said by Moses just a few verses earlier: "The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren - him shall you heed - just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ’Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die"’. Deuteronomy 18:15-16. On the day of the assembly referred to God had made a covenant with the people of Israel and raised up Moses as the mediator of this covenant. The first thing we have to find, therefore, is the mediator of a new covenant between God and his people Israel. Secondly we read that a very special relationship existed between God and Moses which we do not find in the case of the other prophets who succeeded him: Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. Exodus 33:11 The Qur’an confirms this unique feature in Moses’ relationship with God, saying of him "And to Moses God spoke directly" (Surah 4.164). A Christian writer observes the unusual character of this face-to-face communication between God and Moses in the light of the teaching in Surah 42.51 that "it is not fitting for a man that God should speak to him except by inspiration, or from behind a veil, or by the sending of a messenger" (that is, an angel, more specifically the Angel Gabriel - Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, p. 1321): Despite this expressed unsuitability of God speaking directly to man, the Koran makes an exception in the case of Moses. (Abdul Haqq, Sharing Your Faith With a Muslim, p. 57). We must therefore also look for a prophet who knew God face-to-face. Finally we also need to consider the great signs and wonders Moses performed over a period of forty years in Egypt, the Red Sea, and in the wilderness (Acts 7:36). No prophet could be the prophet like unto Moses if he could not emulate the miracles he performed. We must, therefore, look for a prophet who performed great signs and wonders to confirm his mediatorial work just as Moses had done before him. That these are the real distinguishing features that we need to discover in the prophet foretold we find proved by the following comment in the very book that contains the prophecy we are considering: And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, none like him for all the signs and wonders which the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land, and for all the mighty power and all the great and terrible deeds which Moses wrought in the sight of all Israel. Deuteronomy 34:10-11. (my italics). The three distinguishing features are all clearly mentioned: a mediator between God and the people of Israel, who knew God face-to-face, and who did great signs and wonders. Did Muhammad possess any of these unique characteristics? Firstly, Muhammad at no time claimed that he had been sent to mediate a new covenant with the people of Israel. Secondly, he himself declared that the Qur’an came to him at all times through the medium of an angel and that God at no time communicated it to him face-to-face. Finally, Muhammad performed no miracles as we have shown in the companion volume to this book (Muhammad and the Religion of Islam, pp. 260-263). A very significant charge by Muhammad’s adversaries is recorded in the Qur’an in these words: "Why are not (signs) sent to him, like those which were sent to Moses?" Surah 28.48 As we have seen the power to perform signs and wonders was one of the key, exceptional characteristics of Moses’ prophetic/office and Muhammad’s inability to discount the charge by duly emulating these signs tells against him as the prophet: foretold by Moses. A Muslim writer argues: To establish identity between Moses and Jesus by simply |alleging that both fasted for forty days and performed miracles is a spurious task. (Abdul Haque, Muhammad in World Scriptures, Vol. 2, p. 499). Far from being "spurious" as the author would wish, the power to perform miracles is clearly set out in Deuteronomy 34:10 as one of the key features in Moses’ ministry that was to be looked for in the prophet to come. The conclusion is well stated in this quotation: As for a likeness to Moses, we learn from Deut. xxxiv.10-12, that the two points in which the Israelites expected the coming prophet to resemble Moses were: (1) personal knowledge of God, and (2) mighty works. (Pfander, The Mizanu’l Haqq (Balance of Truth), p. 231). The inability of the Muslims to relate any of the three really important features we have considered to their prophet and their reliance on a host of irrelevant likenesses rules out the possibility that Muhammad was the prophet whose coming was foretold in Deuteronomy 18:18. 2. Jesus the Prophet Like Unto Moses. It is very interesting to find that the very Bible that contains the prophecy of a prophet to come like Moses quite clearly confirms that it was Jesus Christ. The Apostle Peter, claiming that God had foretold the coming of Jesus Christ through all the prophets, appealed specifically to Deuteronomy 18:18 as proof that Moses had done so (Acts 3:22). Likewise the great early Christian martyr Stephen appealed to the same text as proof that Moses was one of those who had "announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One", Jesus, whom the Jews had now betrayed and crucified (Acts 7:37). Let us briefly reconsider the three conspicuous features of Moses’ prophethood and see to what extent Jesus emulated them and proved to be the prophet whose coming was foretold. We begin with the covenant God mediated through Moses and, as the coming prophet was to be like him, we must look for the mediation of a new covenant. This very thing was promised by God through the prophet Jeremiah: "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each man teach his neighbour and each his brother, saying ’Know the Lord’, for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more". Jeremiah 31:31-34. The promised new covenant was directly compared with the covenant God had made with Moses. The covenant would be different to that given through Moses but the prophet who would mediate it would be like him. It is therefore quite obvious that the prophet whose coming was foretold in Deuteronomy 18:18 would be the one to mediate this new covenant between God and his people. And we read: "Therefore Jesus is the mediator of a new covenant" (Hebrews 9:15). To ratify the first covenant we read that: Moses took the blood and threw it upon the people, and said, ’Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words’. Exodus 24:8 Just as the first covenant had therefore been ratified with blood through a sacrificial offering, so the prophet to follow Moses would be like him and would also ratify God’s new covenant with blood. Jesus therefore said: "This cup is the new covenant in my blood". 1 Corinthians 11:25 Jesus is therefore the promised prophet like Moses for he mediated the new covenant between God and his people. Like Moses (and in a way in which no other prophet could compare), he also knew God face-to-face and became a direct mediator between God and men. "I know him, I come from him, and he sent me", Jesus said (John 7:29). Again he proclaimed: "No one knows the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him" (Matthew 11:27). And yet again Jesus said: "Not that anyone has ever seen the Father except him who is from God - he has seen the Father" (John 6:46). When he spoke to God face-to-face, "Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him" (Exodus 34:29-30). When the image of the invisible God was directly revealed through the transfigured face of Jesus Christ, "his face did shine as the sun" (Matthew 17:2). No other prophet could claim such a distinction - no one else knew God face-to-face in such a way that his face shone while he communed with him. Not only was the new covenant mediated through Jesus who knew God face-to-face as Moses had done, but he too performed great signs and wonders to confirm his mediatorial work. One of the greatest signs that Moses did was to control the sea: "Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind" (Exodus 14:21). Although other prophets had power over rivers (Joshua 3:13, 2 Kings 2:14), no other prophet emulated him in controlling the sea until Jesus came and we read that his disciples exclaimed "What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him?" (Matthew 8:27). He caused a raging storm on the Sea of Galilee to cease with just three words: "Peace - be still" (Mark 4:39). Another of the great signs that Moses did was to feed the Israelites with bread from heaven. When the Israelites at the time of Jesus saw him perform a similar miracle by feeding no less than five thousand people with just a few loaves of bread they were convinced he was the promised prophet. When the people saw the sign which he had done, they said, ’This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world’. John 6:14 When they saw the sign, they said "This is the prophet". They knew well enough that the promised prophet would be recognised among other things by the performance of signs similar to those which Moses had done. When Jesus gave no indication of repeating the sign, the Israelites recalled that Moses had performed his feat for forty years unabated. So they said to Jesus, "What sign do you do so that we may see and believe you?" (John 6:30), appealing to Moses’ act of sustaining the Israelites in the wilderness. Jesus replied: "I am the Bread of Life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I will give for the life of this world is my flesh". John 6:48-51. In every way he gave proof that he was the prophet who was to come - one to mediate a covenant like that mediated through Moses at Horeb, one who would know God face-to-face, and one who would perform signs just as Moses had done. We thus see that Jesus was the prophet whose coming was foretold in Deuteronomy 18:18. The only likenesses which can properly be considered are those which relate to the unique character of Moses’ prophetic office and it is only in these that we can truly find the identity of the coming mediator of a new covenant whose coming was announced by God at the end of Moses’ life. There can be no doubt that ir was the advent of Jesus Christ that was intended in Deuteronomy 18:18. Christians only need to keep on the track of the truly relevant likenesses to discount Muslim attempts to make the prophecy apply to Muhammad. 3. A Prophet From Among Their Brethren. The promise to Moses that God would raise up a prophet "from among their brethren" has led Muslims quickly to conclude that they have a definite proof that it was Muhammad who was foretold because, so they argue, the "brethren" of the Israelites were the Ishmaelites, their forefathers Isaac and Ishmael respectively being the two prominent sons of Abraham. The argument is typically presented in this quote: Search as you may, there has not been another prophet like Moses except Muhammad and he was from ’among the brethren’ of the two sons of Abraham, the Jews are the descendants of Isaac, and their brethren, the Arabs, the descendants of Ismail. So Muhammad was also from among their brethren. (Deedat, Muhammad in the Old and the New Testaments, p. 19). A consideration of the expression "from their brethren" in its context, however, completely negates the possibility that Muhammad could be the prophet foretold in Deuteronomy 18:18. God said "I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren". Of whom is God speaking when he speaks of "them" and "their"? When we go back to the first two verses of Deuteronomy 18:1-22 we find the answer: "The Levitical priests, that is, all the tribe of Levi shall have no portion or inheritance with Israel . . . They shall have no inheritance among their brethren" Deuteronomy 18:1-2. It is abundantly clear from these two verses that "they" refers to the tribe of Levi and that "their brethren" refers to the remaining eleven tribes of Israel. This is an inescapable fact. No honest method of interpretation or consistent method of exposition can possibly allow that Deuteronomy 18:18 refers to anyone else than the tribe of Levi and the remaining eleven tribes of Israel. Let us briefly examine the only possible exposition of the prophecy that can lead to a correct interpretation and identification of "their brethren". We need only to accentuate in italics the relevant words from Deuteronomy 18:1-2 to discover the only possible conclusion that can be drawn. The text reads: "The tribe of Levi shall have no inheritance with Israel. They shall have no inheritance among their brethren". Therefore the only logical interpretation of Deuteronomy 18:18 can be: "I will raise up for them (that is, the tribe of Levi) a prophet like you from among their brethren (that is, one of the other tribes of Israel)". Indeed throughout the Old Testament one often finds the expression "their brethren" meaning the remaining tribes of Israel as distinct from the tribe specifically referred to. Let us consider this verse as an example: But the children of Benjamin would not hearken to the voice of their brethren, the children of Israel. Judges 20:13 Here "their brethren" is specifically stated to be the other tribes of Israel as distinct from the tribe of Benjamin. In Deuteronomy 18:18, therefore, "their brethren" clearly means the brethren in Israel of the tribe of Levi. In Deuteronomy 17:5 we read that Moses on one occasion said to the Israelites "One from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother". Only an Israelite could be appointed king of Israel - "one from among your brethren" - no foreigner could become king, whether Ishmaelite or Edomite or of any other nation, because he was not one of "their brethren", that is, a member of one of the tribes of Israel. A Muslim writer on this subject has the grace to admit that the prophet to come could well have arisen from the Israelites "which", he says, "is a possible interpretation in view of Biblical usage" (Shafaat, Islam and its Prophet: A Fulfilment of Biblical Prophecies, p. 79). A Christian writer defines the issue clearly when he says: Israelites are called one another’s brethren in this very book of Deuteronomy . . . In ch. xvii.15 we have an exactly parallel passage in reference to the appointment of a king: "one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee". Most, if not all, the kingdoms of Europe are ruled by kings who belong to families which are or were originally foreign : but in all history we never hear of the Israelites appointing over themselves a foreigner as king. (Pfander, The Mizanu’l Haqq (Balance of Truth), p. 230). It is quite clear from a study of the prophecy in its context that the prophet was to arise from one of the tribes of Israel other than the tribe of Levi. "Now it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah", the Christian Scripture declares (Hebrews 7:14), and Jesus Christ is therefore ably qualified to be the prophet foretold. If Muhammad was indeed a descendant of Ishmael as claimed by the Muslims, however, this very lineage will rule out the possibility that he was the coming prophet. 4. The Word of God in the Prophet’s Mouth. We have already considered the Muslim claim that the Word of God was put in Muhammad’s mouth when the Qur’an was revealed to him. We do not believe that the Qur’an is the Word of God but, supposing for argument’s sake that it is, this still would not help to identify Muhammad as the promised prophet. For it can be said of every true prophet that God has put his words in his mouth. God said to Jeremiah: "Behold I have put my words in your mouth". Jeremiah 1:9 Furthermore we also read in Deuteronomy 18:18 that the prophet to follow Moses "shall speak to them all that I command him". Now we read that Jesus once said to his disciples "For I have not spoken on my own authority; the Father who sent me has himself given me commandment what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has bidden me". John 12:49-50. In no way, therefore, can the identity of the prophet in the text of Deuteronomy 18:18 be established from the fact that God would put his words in his mouth. Let us close our consideration of Deuteronomy 18:18 by analysing another general Muslim argument that Jesus could not be the coming prophet. It is based on the questions put by the Jews to John the Baptist as recorded in John 1:19-21, namely whether he was Elijah, the prophet, or the Christ. A Muslim writer many years ago in a Cairo newspaper presented the typical Muslim standpoint, his reasoning being recorded in the following quotation: Moses had promised another prophet like unto himself, (cf. Deuteronomy 18:15) so Elijah, the Messiah and this prophet were expected. The people thought John the Baptist must be one of the three, but he denied this. He was mistaken, however, for Jesus said that John came in the spirit of Elijah. So John was Elijah, Jesus was the Messiah; it remains to decide who was "the prophet". . . . He was the prophet of whom Moses spoke, and no one fits this description but Mohammed. (Robson, "Does the Bible Speak of Mohammed?", The Muslim World, Vol. 25, p. 21). So John the Baptist was Elijah, Jesus was the Messiah, and Muhammad was the prophet. Once again the argument appears to be very plausible at first sight but yet again it falls to the ground on closer analysis. It is based purely on a speculation of the Jews and when we consider their musings on this very subject as set out elsewhere in the Gospels we see that nothing conclusive can be construed from these speculations. They once said of Jesus: "This is indeed the prophet" (John 7:40). On another occasion they said he was "one of the prophets" (Matthew 16:14), on another "a prophet" (Mark 6:15) and worse still thought of him as both Elijah (Mark 6:15) and John the Baptist himself (Matthew 16:14). It needs to be pointed out that the Bible does not teach that Elijah, the Christ, and the prophet were to come in that order. The questions put by the Jews to John, whether he was Elijah, the Christ, or the prophet, merely expressed their own hopes and expectations of figureheads to come. In the light of their confusion, however, we can see that no serious consideration can be given to the distinctions they made between Christ and the prophet to come. It is also important to note that the predictions of the prophet, etc., were made in the reverse order in the Old Testament (the prophet was promised by Moses, most of the prophecies of the coming Christ were set out in the writings of the later prophets, and the promise of the coming of Elijah only appears at the end of the book in Malachi 4:5). Furthermore no deliberate distinction between the prophet and the Christ was ever drawn in these prophecies and it is not surprising to find the Jews in one breath proclaiming that Jesus was indeed both the prophet and the Christ (John 7:40-41). The one very significant factor that we discover in all the speculations of the Jews about the coming prophet was their expectation that he would arise in Israel. They would never have asked John if he was "the prophet" or declared that Jesus must be the one foretold if they had understood the expression "from among their brethren" to mean that the prophet would arise from among the Ishmaelites. It was within the nation of Israel and from among the descendants of Isaac that the prophet was expected - a final proof that the prophet could not possibly have been Muhammad. 5. The Promise of a Comforter in the New Testament. We come to Muslim attempts to find prophecies to Muhammad in the New Testament, in particular in the words of Jesus Christ where he predicted the coming of the Holy Spirit and spoke of him as "the Comforter". (Whereas the Revised Standard Version uses the word "Counsellor" rather than "Comforter", we shall use the word "Comforter" throughout this section because it is more familiar to the Muslims). Two of the texts where the Comforter was promised by Jesus are: "But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, send in my name, he will teach you to your remembrance all that I have whom the Father will all things, and bring said to you". John 14:26 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you". John 16:7 The only other two texts containing the promise of the coming Comforter by this title are John 14:16 and John 15:26. Whenever Muslims seek for prophecies to Muhammad in the New Testament they immediately appeal to these texts. They argue that Muhammad brought the final revelation of God and reminded the world of all that Jesus had actually taught while he was on earth. Thus John 15:26 is said to have been fulfilled in the Prophet of Islam. When Jesus said of the Comforter "He will declare to you the things that are to come" (John 16:13), Muslims claim that Muhammad did precisely this. One says: This the Comforter Hadhrat Mohammad (sm) has done beyond our expectations. He did inform the world what will happen to a soul after death, in the grave, on the Day of Resurrection and after the final Judgement, in the Heavens and the Paradise as well as in the Hells. He also spoke what will happen before the Total Destruction of the Universes. (Hamid, Evidence of the Bible About Mohammad, p. 16). Yet another typical argument centres on the constant use by Jesus of the masculine gender for the Holy Spirit. By constantly speaking in such terms, viz. "He will glorify me", "he will not speak on his own authority", "he will guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13-14), it is argued that Jesus was not speaking of a spirit but of a man, namely Muhammad. The argument usually follows this line: The Holy Ghost as you know is a Spirit, and it ill deserves so many he’s. Belonging to the neuter gender, the pronoun "it" would have been quite appropriate. All this emphasis does indicate that the Comforter of this prophecy was to be a man and not a spirit. (Deedat, Muhammad in the Old and New Testaments, p. 12). It hardly seems to cross the author’s mind that, whereas Allah himself, like the Holy Spirit in the Bible, is neither male nor female, yet the Qur’an always speaks of him in the masculine gender, viz. Huwallaahullathtii la ilaha illahuwa - "He is Allah and there is no God besides Him" (Surah 59.23). Twice in this text we find the masculine huwa in place of the neutral hiya, and if it is appropriate to speak of God in the Qur’an in masculine terms we do not see why the author deems it fit to object to the use of the same gender for the Spirit of God in the Bible. In fact there is no suggestion in the prophecies of Jesus that the Comforter would be a man and not the Holy Spirit. At the end of this section adequate proof will be given that his prophecies can only be taken to refer to the Holy Spirit. Another typical argument is based on Jesus’ words "If I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you" (John 16:7). It is claimed that this could not refer to the Holy Spirit as the Bible shows that the Spirit was already present among men (Psalms 51:11, Luke 1:15). On the contrary the New Testament clearly shows what Jesus meant, namely that he had to depart and return to heaven before the Holy Spirit could be poured out upon all believers indiscriminately, from the least to the greatest, in a way in which he had never come before (Acts 2:17). 6. "His Name Shall be Ahmad". The Muslim tendency to concentrate on Jesus’ promise of a coming Comforter arises from an apparently similar promise in the Qur’an where Jesus is recorded as predicting the coming of a prophet after him to be named Ahmad: And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel! I am the apostle of God (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving glad tidings of an Apostle to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad". Surah 61.6 An immediate difficulty presents itself here to the Muslims. The prophet to come is named Ahmad, not Muhammad, and although the two names come from the same root letters (hmd) and therefore have the same basic meaning ("one who is praised"), they are not ultimately the same. The actual difficulty is well defined in this quote: Whenever Allah has addressed Muhammad in the Qur’an, his proper name has always been clearly specified. He was never called by any other name. Certainly never by the name Ahmed. (Deshmukh, The Gospel and Islam, p. 217). Another writer makes the same point, stating that Surah 61.6 appears to be a faint allusion to the promise of a Comforter in John’s Gospel: But why does he name that Messenger to come, Ahmad? That was not Muhammad’s name. Apart from this passage there is no tradition that this was ever his name. (MacDonald, Aspects of Islam, p. 215). Before returning to John’s Gospel let us briefly consider this issue. Muslim writers on this subject customarily gloss over the distinction (e.g. Durrani, Muhammad the Biblical Prophet, p. 39), but it has led to some analysis in Western writings. Much of this has centred on the following three traditions attributed to different Muslim sources: Verily there was a Christian of Maris who recited the Gospel; he said that the description of the Prophet in the Gospel purported to mean that he would be in the progeny of Ismail and his name would be Ahmad . . . Aminah was commanded (by God) during her pregnancy with the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, to give him the name Ahmad . . . The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, said: I have been named Ahmad. (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 1, p. 113-114). A well-known scholar suggests that the very nature of these traditions leads to the possibility that the prophecy in Surah 61.6 was not originally taken to be a direct prophecy to Muhammad by name: The fact that Ibn Sa’d thinks it worth including three traditions to the effect that the Prophet’s name was Ahmad is an indication that this had not always been obvious; there are no similar traditions about his name being Muhammad. (Watt, "His Name is Ahmad", The Muslim World, Vol. 43, p. 112). It is highly questionable whether Muhammad was ever called Ahmad. The tradition that his mother was actually commanded to give him this name has a forced element about it, for traditions about annunciations of his birth and manifestations on the occasion are generally regarded as spurious and as inventions by later traditionists who sought to create a nativity narrative around Muhammad similar to those about Jesus in the New Testament. There is a very good reason to doubt whether Muhammad was ever given the name Ahmad: As soon as one starts to inquire into the use of the name "Ahmad" in the early centuries of Islam, a striking fact emerges. Muslim children were practically never called Ahmad before about the year 125 A. H. Indeed, the point may be put even more strongly: it is impossible to prove that any Muslim child was called Ahmad after the Prophet before about the year 125. On the other hand, there are many instances prior to this date of boys called Muhammad after the Prophet; some of these had apparently received that name during the Prophet’s lifetime. ... Biographical dictionaries such as the Tabaqat of Ibn Sa’d contain many Muhammads who died before 200 A. H. but hardly any Ahmads. (Watt, "His Name Shall be Ahmad", op. cit., p. 110). This anomaly has led some writers to suggest that the name Ahmad, or indeed the whole prophecy in Surah 61.6, is a later interpolation, though this is unlikely for the reason given in the following quotation: On the other hand some western commentators have suggested that the words ’whose name is Ahmad’ (ismu-hu ahmadu) were interpolated into the Qur’an to prove that Jesus prophesied the coming of Muhammad by name. But if this were so it would be difficult to understand why the name Muhammad had not been interpolated, since it was much more obvious. (Parrinder, Jesus in the Qur’an, p. 98). Another Christian writer, however, states that there is some reason to believe it may have been an interpolation: "This appears plausible in view of Ubayy b. Kab’s different version of 61.6 and the silence of Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham as to the word ’Ahmad’" (Abdul Haqq, Sharing Your Faith with a Muslim, p. 51). Instead of a prophecy to Ahmad by name Ubayy b. Kab’s variant reading of Surah 61.6 makes Jesus announce a prophet who would be the seal from among the prophets and messengers of Allah (Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’an, p. 170). It seems likely, however, that the word ahmadu in Surah 61.6 "could perhaps be secured by a simpler supposition, namely, that for the first century or so of Islam the word ahmadu was regarded not as a proper name but as a simple adjective" (Watt, "His Name Shall be Ahmad, The Muslim World, Vol. 43, p. 113). It indeed appears probable that Muhammad heard, perhaps only from secondary sources, that Jesus had foretold the coming of someone else after him to complete his message and took this to be a reference to himself. Guarding against the unlikelihood that Jesus had predicted his coming by name, he chose a title as close to his name as possible to fix the prophecy on himself. A Muslim writer significantly discounts the Gospel of Barnabas (which we shall analyse in the next section) precisely because it contains a prophecy by Jesus to Muhammad by name, "an all too obvious and tactless allusion to the Prophet by name" (Shafaet, Islam and its Prophet: A Fulfilment of Biblical Prophecies, p. 73). Muhammad himself, more wisely and discreetly, resisted the temptation. Let us press on to see how Muslim writers, faced with a name meaning "one who is praised" in the Qur’an (Ahmad), attempt to relate it to the promise Jesus made of the coming Comforter as recorded in the Gospel of John. 7. Paracletos or Periklutos - The Muslim Dilemma. The word for Comforter in the original Greek texts of John’s Gospel is paracletos. The word can yield many similar meanings (Counsellor, Advocate, for example) but nothing remotely near "one who is praised". There is a similar Greek word, however, found nowhere in the New Testament, periklutos, which does have this very meaning. Muslims, accordingly, jump to the conclusion that this was the original word and that it was changed by the early Christians to paracletos. One writer argues: What word or name was it that Jesus in his native language expressed which the Fourth Gospel translated as "the Paraclete" and has been converted into "comforter" in all versions of that Gospel? . . . I shall clearly show that it is not "Paraclete" but "Periclyte" which precisely signifies "Ahamad" in the sense "the most Illustrious, Praised and Celebrated". (Durrani, Muhammad the Biblical Prophet, pp. 35,39). There is no evidence whatsoever in all the manuscripts of John’s Gospel coming down to us in the original Greek text to suggest that the original word may have been periklutos and not paracletos. Once again Muslims accuse Christians of tampering with the Bible and changing its teaching yet, as so often occurs, it is plain that it is really the Muslims who are changing it without warrant, and that purely to further their own presuppositions. That this is their aim is clear from the following quote: The noun, which I write in English characters Periqleitos or Periqlytos, means precisely what Ahmad means in Arabic, namely the most illustrious, glorious and renowned. (Dawud, Muhammad in the Bible, p. 215). The Muslims have to resort to strange distortions to make the prophecies of Jesus of a coming Comforter fit Muhammad. The original Biblical title has to be replaced by another and then only to bring a relationship in meaning to the name Ahmad in the Qur’an which, as we have seen, was not Muhammad’s name anyway. Did Muhammad himself perhaps hear of the likenesses between the Greek and Arabic words meaning "praised" and thus insert the name Ahmad in the Qur’an as a direct allusion to himself? One writer suggests this possibility: He may have heard in one way or other about the words of Jesus referring to the Paraclete, and some one may have been ingenious enough to suggest, as do the commentators, that Paracletos is corrupted from Periclutos, illustrious, of which Ahmad might be considered a translation. (Smith, "Did Jesus Foretell Ahmed?", The Muslim World, Vol. 12, p. 71). It seems highly unlikely that Muhammad ever had knowledge of the differences in meaning in the Greek words - such knowledge would have been too technical for a man who sincerely declared that he was "unlettered". Whether the Muslim charge that the Christians altered the original word dates back to Muhammad’s time or not does not really concern us - what is of importance is that it has no factual basis. This charge and the Muslim alteration have no basis exegetically. Nor does the sense of the passage bear the Muslim rendering. But it is well to remember that the interpretation arises, in the end, not from exegesis but from presupposition. (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 285). There is, however, no textual evidence in any way sustaining such variant reading, and the manuscript texts of St. John go back to the second century. Moreover, the two Greek words are themselves compounds and the prefixes and root verbs are both different. Suspicions of textual corruption here would be completely unfounded, on documentary, grammatical and exegetical grounds. (Cragg, Jesus and the Muslim, p. 266). There is quite simply no factual evidence to support the Muslim claim that Muhammad is foretold in the prophecies of Jesus of a coming Comforter in the New Testament. The very fact that Muslim writers have to distort the actual words of Jesus and replace them with others to suit their purpose proves that the point cannot be made from an objective analysis of the texts themselves. Let us conclude by analysing a few proofs that it was definitely the Holy Spirit of whom Jesus spoke and not Muhammad. 8. The Promise of the Coming of the Holy Spirit. We only need to briefly analyse just one of Jesus’ prophecies of the coming Comforter to see that he spoke clearly of the Holy Spirit whom his disciples received just ten days after Jesus ascended to heaven (Acts 2:1-4). The text reads: "And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you". John 14:16-17. The first thing that strikes us is the promise of another Comforter. He obviously meant that he had himself been their first paracletos and, just as he had been close to his disciples as an assuring proof of God’s comforting presence and favour upon them, so he would send another divine Comforter to give them the same assurance. It is quite clear that he spoke of the divine Holy Spirit. It should also be remembered that though the word "paraclete" has become a proper name for the Holy Spirit in Christian usage, it is actually an attributive and not a proper name, and is used as such not only for the Holy Spirit, but also for Jesus Christ Himself, in 1 John ii.1. (Sweetman, Islam and Christian Theology, Part 1, Vol. 1, p. 33). Just as Jesus had come from heaven as the divine Son of God to become God’s saving presence among men, so he now promised that the Holy Spirit would come after his departure as a permanent assurance of that abiding presence. This word ’another’ in John 14:16 clearly implies that Jesus was the first ’Comforter’. . . . The meaning is that the Paraclete is to be perenially to the Church what Jesus had been historically to the disciples. ’He will abide with you for ever’ (14.16). The New Testament understands this as ensuring to the Church in sustained immediacy what Jesus had been historically to the disciples. There is no idea here of a successor, still less of a replacement. (Cragg, Jesus and the Muslim, p. 264). The second thing that cannot, surely, be overlooked in the passage under consideration is the promise of Jesus that the Comforter would come to his immediate disciples. " You know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you". We find this emphasis in the other texts as well, for example: "I will send him to you" (John 16:7). These are the promises Jesus made and the object of these promises of the Comforter is quite obvious - the immediate disciples of Jesus. It is also clear that Jesus actually identified the Comforter as the Holy Spirit (John 14:26) and his command to his disciples to wait in Jerusalem until they had received the promised Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5, Luke 24:49) must be taken into serious consideration at this point. If, as Mohammedans say, Mohammed was the promised Paraclete, it follows that the Apostles, in conformity with the command of Christ, should not have departed from Jerusalem until that Advocate had come; and consequently should have been living and waiting in Jerusalem until the appearing of Mohammed; that is to say, for 600 years. (Pfander, The Mizan ul Haqq; or Balance of Truth, p. 82). The Muslim argument is exposed to absurdity when compared with the actual words of Jesus and the imminent advent of the Comforter whom he promised. His sayings were clearly directed to his disciples sitting with him at that very last supper and to all his own disciples in the age to follow. Those sayings in no way relate to a purely prophetic spokesman whose coming, six centuries after, would in no sense be relevant to Jesus’ disciples in their immediate first-century situation. His promise was to them and to their posterity in unbroken sequence. (Cragg, Jesus and the Muslim, p. 266). The third thing that must impress anyone who reads the relevant prophecies objectively is the fact that Jesus clearly spoke of a spirit who was to follow him whom he called both the Holy Spirit (John 14:26) and the Spirit of Truth (John 15:26). In the text we are analysing we find Jesus saying of the Comforter, "he will be in you". How could a prophet be in his disciples if he was no more than a mere man? These words are clearly spoken of a spirit who would be right inside (the actual meaning of the Greek word en) his followers. Was Muhammad an invisible Spirit? Was Muhammad dwelling in the hearts of Jesus’ disciples (about 550 years before he was born!)? (Crossley, Explaining the Gospel to Muslims, p. 22). A typical Muslim objection at this point is aimed at the humanity of Jesus and the promise of another Comforter like himself. If Jesus was a man then, it is argued, the Comforter too must be a man and an apostle like himself. The argument i’ presented in the following quotation from a Christian writer’ paraphrase of a Muslim’s points on this very theme where he argues that the Comforter could not have been purely a spirit if Jesus was a human being: So we must conclude that the Father alone is God, and that Christ and the Comforter, called the Holy Spirit, are apostles. As Christ is a human being, the Comforter must be similar. (Robson, "Does the Bible Speak of Mohammed?", The Muslim World, Vol. 25, p. 23). The Christian answer must be that Jesus came himself as a spirit from heaven into the world and became a man, so likewise the Spirit comes into the world and enters the hearts of men. We have at this point clear support from the Qur’an itself in refutation of the Muslim argument. As we have seen already (p. 206), the Qur’an calls Jesus a ruhun minhu, "a spirit from him (God)" (Surah 4.171) and, as we have also seen, the only other occasion where the Qur’an speaks of a ruhun minhu is in the following text: For such he has written Faith in their hearts, and strengthened them with a spirit from Himself. Surah 58.22 We must refer once again to the statement of a Muslim commentator that the words "a spirit from him" (ruhun minhu) refer to "the divine spirit, which we can no more define adequately than we can define in human language the nature and attributes of God" (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, p. 1518). A finer definition of the Christian doctrine of the Holy Spirit can hardly be found! In the Qur’an, thus, we read of only two spirits from God in the words ruhun minhu, namely Jesus himself and another spirit who fortifies believers. We have here a significant parallel to the promise of Jesus to send "another Comforter", that is, another spirit from God like himself, namely the Holy Spirit who enters the hearts of all the true believers in him. In the two prophecies we have considered in this chapter and section, one from Moses in the Old Testament and one from Jesus in the New, we find no reference to Muhammad. The Muslim attempts to apply them to their own prophet arise not from a sincere or objective study of their contents but from their determination to father the Qur’anic predictions of the coming of Muhammad on the Christian Bible. We have a wealth of evidences to discount these attempts completely and Christians should be willing to patiently refute them so that Muslims may be made more aware of Jesus and the Holy Spirit to whom these prophecies ultimately refer. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 139: 06.41. C. THE GOSPEL OF BARNABAS. ======================================================================== C. THE GOSPEL OF BARNABAS. 1. Muslim Interest in the So-Called Gospel of Barnabas. A Christian will be surprised to hear for the first time that there are supposed prophecies to Muhammad in the Bible. It will not be long, however, before he also hears that such prophecies are also found in a Gospel which the Popes are said to have suppressed in the Vatican Library. The Muslim will politely ask why the Gospel of Barnabas has not been included in the Christian Bible and it will not help to express surprise at the fact that such a Gospel is even said to exist. First published in English in 1907, this Gospel has now become widespread in the Muslim world and since 1973, when it was reprinted for the first time in Pakistan, tens of thousands of copies have been published and distributed. A perusal of its contents will show that it denies that Jesus is the Son of God and that he was crucified. It teaches that Judas was crucified in his place and that Jesus ascended to heaven without dying. On a number of occasions Jesus is recorded as prophesying the coming of Muhammad by name and throughout the book one finds a typical Islamic spirit as the Saviour of the Christians reappears as a model prophet of Islam. The omission of this Gospel from the New Testament has thus led to a Muslim charge that the Christian world has suppressed it because it states that Jesus was not the Son of God. One writer says: But the reason for this rejection of this Gospel is not far to seek. Nay, it is very obvious. It is the presence in it of this prophecy of Jesus Christ about our Holy Prophet, and of the rigid monotheism taught by him in direct contrast to the Trinitarian Doctrine foisted on him by St. Paul with the zeal of a new convert, in order, it is said, to compromise with the various pagan cults which engulfed Christianity in its infancy, and threatened it with extinction. (Wadood, The Holy Prophet Foretold by Jesus Christ in the Gospel of St. Barnabas, p. 18). Muslims fondly imagine that this Gospel has been denounced by Christians solely because of its Islamic flavour. It would be far truer, however, to say that this is the only reason why it has obtained favour in the Muslim world, for all the external and internal evidences relating to the book give a far better reason for rejecting it - the Gospel is nothing but a forgery compiled for the first time in Europe during the late Middle Ages, possibly as late as the sixteenth century after Christ. Another Muslim writer says: This text was discovered in Europe during the seventeenth century and examined carefully thereafter. The authorities classified it as spurious apocrypha, because it denies the divinity of Jesus and resembles the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad and his advent is foretold. Islam feels that this particular Gospel is the most authentic, though not the work of God or Jesus, and it does contain important truths and Divine laws. (Assfy, Islam and Christianity, p. 59). The conclusion that the Gospel of Barnabas is the "most authentic" of the Gospels in existence cannot possibly derive from an objective study of the facts. Islam "feels" it is the most authentic, says the author, and perhaps his choice of verb exposes the only reason for Muslim attempts to vindicate what turns out to be a clear forgery, namely popular Muslim sentiment. A far better assessment of the Gospel of Barnabas appears in this quote: The Gospel of Barnabas was evidently written by a Christian renegade in the Middle Ages, and has for its special object the advancement of Islam, the author desiring to foist upon the world a forgery which would strengthen the claims of Mohammed and prove that Jesus Christ had foretold his coming. (Zwemer, The Muslim Christ, p. 169). We shall proceed to analyse some of the internal evidences which expose the Gospel of Barnabas as a forgery before closing with a brief analysis of the external evidences surrounding its origin. We have already seen in the last section that the Muslim author Shafaat rejects the Gospel as a contemporary record of the life of Jesus Christ and there are many others like him who do not believe that Islam needs the testimony of a false witness to maintain itself. Christian works discrediting the Gospel of Barnabas have also gone a long way towards defusing Muslim enthusiasm about it, nevertheless there are still vast numbers of uninformed Muslims who will raise the subject in argument with a Christian and claim that it is the only authentic Gospel. This section will furnish the Christian with some of the most telling points against this supposition. We shall begin with a study of the evidences that place the authorship of the Gospel in the Middle Ages. 2. The Mediaeval Origins of the Gospel of Barnabas. All the internal evidences of the book date it to about the late Middle Ages, certainly not earlier than the midfourteenth century after Christ. We shall begin with one particular passage which helps to date this book quite easily. In the time of Moses God ordained that the Jews were to observe a jubilee year twice a century: A jubilee year shall that fiftieth year be to you. Leviticus 25:11 Throughout the centuries this command was observed and the Roman Catholic Church eventually took it over into the Christian faith. Near 1300 AD Pope Boniface the Eighth gave a decree that the jubilee should be observed once every hundred years. This is the only occasion in all history that the jubilee year was made to be only once every hundred years. After the death of Boniface, however; Pope Clemens the Sixth decreed in 1343 AD that the jubilee year should revert to once every fifty years as it was observed by the Jews after the time of Moses. Now we find in the Gospel of Barnabas that Jesus is alleged to have said: "And then through all the world will God be worshipped, and mercy received, insomuch that the year of jubilee, which now cometh every hundred years, shall by the Messiah be reduced to every year in every place".(The Gospel of Barnabas, p. 104). Only one solution can account for this remarkable coincidence. The author of the Gospel of Barnabas could only have quoted Jesus as speaking of the year of jubilee as coming "every hundred years" if he knew of the decree of Pope Boniface. But how could he have known of this decree unless he lived at the same time as the Pope or sometime afterwards? This is a clear anachronism which compels us to conclude that the Gospel of Barnabas could not have been written earlier than the fourteenth century after Christ. The author of the Italian Barnabas knew about the hundred years jubilee and mistakingly thought it had been instituted by Christ rather than by his vicar, Boniface. So now we know for sure that the text on which our Italian manuscript is based cannot be dated earlier than 1300 A. D. The year 1300 A. D. is the terminus post quem. (Slomp, Pseudo-Barnabas in the Context of Muslim-Christian Apologetics, p. 117). There is only one Muslim writer who has written on the Gospel of Barnabas, and in support of it, that I know of who has had the courage to face this problem and propose an explanation, a none-too-successful one, however. He argues that the setting of the jubilee once every hundred years in the Gospel of Barnabas is "an error" and reasons: It may, therefore, be considered that the error was made by the transcriber who read ’hundred’ and wrote it by mistake while transcribing from yet another book, as the spelling of hundred and fifty is so striking similar that one may easily make a mistake in reading. (Durrani, Forgotten Gospel of St. Barnabas, p. 27). A weaker defence can hardly be imagined. Firstly, the author conveniently does not tell us in which language the spelling of a hundred and fifty is so similar. Secondly, there is no textual evidence whatsoever to suppose that the scribe made an error in transcribing the text. On the contrary we find that Durrani evades the issue to a large extent, for it is quite clear that the writer of the Gospel deliberately intended to speak of a hundred years. He makes Jesus speak of the jubilee which "now cometh every hundred years". The use of the word now proves the point - the jubilee year had always come every fifty years and the writer of the Gospel would not so speak of the contemporary period in such an exceptional way if he had originally intended to also speak of fifty years. The very institution of a jubilee once every hundred years by Pope Boniface also undermines the evasive defence that a scribal error has occurred at this point. Indeed the give-away use of the present tense precludes any suggestion that the Gospel of Barnabas could have been written before the fourteenth century after Christ. A Western writer places the error where it belongs - not with a scribe but with the original author: A decisive point in placing the manuscript in the Middle Ages is a tell-tale error the writer made concerning the Jewish Year of Jubilee, which was celebrated every fifty years in biblical times. It was a year when Jewish slaves regained their freedom and land reverted to its former owners (Leviticus 25:1-55). Barnabas makes the celebration a centenary event, and the mistake seemed to reveal an interesting possibility. (Sox, The Gospel of Barnabas, p. 28). The possibility spoken of is the actual dating of the manuscript to the very time of the centenary jubilee, though studies of the external evidences relating to the Gospel have led to the probability that it was originally written as late as the sixteenth century after Christ. The time from 1300 to 1350 then is the only one during which even a renegade Christian could have understood the jubilee in the sense used by Barnabas. All other internal evidence accumulated by Ragg points to a sixteenth century date. (Cannon, "The Gospel of Barnabas", The Muslim World, Vol. 32, p. 173). A brief consideration of some other passages in the Gospel of Barnabas shows that the original author was well acquainted with Dante’s Divina Comedia, a well-known fantasy about hell, purgatory and paradise dating about the same time, Many of these passages reveal a direct dependence on Dante’s work. A typical example is found in the following text where Jesus is recorded as saying of the prophets of old: ’Readily and with gladness they went to their death, so as not to offend against the law of God given by Moses his servant, and go and serve false and lying gods’. (The Gospel of Barnabas, p. 27). The expression "false and lying gods" (dei falsi e bugiardi) is found elsewhere in the Gospel of Barnabas as well. On one occasion it is Jesus again who supposedly uses these words (p. 99) and on another it is the author himself who describes Herod as serving "false and lying gods" (p. 267). Nevertheless this expression is found in neither the Bible nor the Qur’an. What is interesting, however, is that it is a direct quote from Dante! Now there is certainly one striking - though perhaps not conclusive - verbal coincidence, in the recurring phrase ’dei falsi e bugiardi’, which reproduces a cadence of the first cante of the Inferno; not to mention the ’rabbiosa fame’ of the same canto, which is possibly too little distinctive to count. (Rag", The Gospel of Barnabas, p. xl). Another typical example of dependence on Dante, and one which is of great importance as the Gospel of Barnabas in this case agrees with the great Italian author while contradicting the Qur’an, appears in the Gospel’s reckoning of the number of the heavens. We read in the Qur’an that God "turned to the heaven, and fashioned it as seven heavens" (Surah 2.29) On the contrary we read in the Gospel of Barnabas that there are nine heavens and that Paradise - like Dante’s Empyrean - is the tenth heaven above all the other nine. The author of the Gospel of Barnabas makes Jesus say: ’Paradise is so great that no man can measure it. Verily I say unto thee that the heavens are nine . . . I say to thee that paradise is greater than all the earth and all the heavens together’. (The Gospel of Barnabas, p. 223). There are numerous other evidences that betray the original author’s reliance on Dante’s work. The book makes Jesus inform Peter that hell has seven centres, one below another, since there are seven kinds of sins and seven kinds of punishments (p. 171). This is precisely what Dante says in the fifth and sixth cantos of his Inferno. Other parallels in the book are described in the following quote: The description of human sins and their returning at the end like a river to Satan, who is their source, is another indirect quotation from Dante’s description of the rivers of hell. Similarly, the passage about the believers going to hell, not to be tortured but to see the unbelievers in their torments, recalls to us Dante’s picture of the same. (Gairdner, The Gospel of Barnabas: An Essay and Inquiry, p. 20). The only Muslim voice on the Gospel of Barnabas to tackle these compelling evidences against its authenticity once again has to resort to pure conjecture to offer any kind of defence at all. Twice he claims that the similarities between Dante and the Gospel are based on "mere coincidences" (Durrani, Forgotten Gospel of St. Barnabas, p. 23). A single such comparison might possibly be coincidental, but not a whole series of likenesses where the consensus reaches even to the finest details (sometimes even to the exact choice of words). In another place in the Gospel we read that Jesus is supposed to have said that the soul and sense are one thing and that men divide it into "the sensitive, vegetative and intellectual soul" (The Gospel of Barnabas, p. 134). This is very much a definition of the soul which was popular in the Middle Ages and derives from Aristotle: The human soul, following a conception derived indirectly from Aristotle, and which has persisted in the minds of all Arab philosophers, is made up of a soul of desire, inferior and vegetative (nabatiya), a soul of anger (ghadabiya) which is animal, and a "soul of reason" (natiqa) which is divine. So that the soul shall purify itself, it is necessary that this last should direct the second, and permit the soul, after it has passed through other beings, to return to its first purity. (Gaudefroy-Demombynes, Muslim Institutions, p. 206). There is every good reason to conclude from an analysis of the internal evidences of the Gospel of Barnabas that the book dates from the Middle Ages, certainly not earlier than the fourteenth century after Christ. Let us proceed to examine other internal evidences which rule out the possibility that this book is a genuine and authentic Gospel. 3. Other Evidences Against Its Authenticity. There are numerous other passages in the Gospel of Barnabas that serve to identify its mediaeval character and rule out the possibility that it was written in the first century in Palestine. The author in fact betrays a considerable ignorance of the geography of the country, such as we find in the following quote attributed to Jesus: ’Behold then how beautiful is the world in summer-time, when all things bear fruit. The very peasant, intoxicated with gladness by reason of the harvest that is come, maketh the valleys and mountains resound with his singing, for that he loveth his labours supremely’. (The Gospel of Barnabas, p. 217). This is a fair description of Italy in summer but most certainly not of Palestine where the rain falls in winter and where the fields are parched in summer. In any event PaIestine has always been a part of the world where cultivation of the land has required much effort and where much of the countryside is barren and grassless. Another typical example of a geographical error in the Gospel of Barnabas appears in the following quote: Having arrived at the city of Nazareth the seamen spread through the city all that Jesus had wrought. (The Gospel of Barnabas, p. 23). In this passage Nazareth is represented as a coastal city, a harbour on the lake of Galilee. After this we read that Jesus "went up to Capernaum" (p. 23) from Nazareth, as though Capernaum was in the hillside near the sea of Galilee. Here the author really has his facts incorrect, for Capernaum was the coastal city and Nazareth was up in the hills (where it is to this day). Jesus would have gone up from Capernaum to Nazareth, not the other way around as the author of the Gospel of Barnabas has it. These glaring discrepancies rule out the possibility that the Gospel of Barnabas could have been written by anyone who had travelled around Palestine as one of the followers of Jesus. Such evidences suggest all the more that the author of this book was far more at home in mediaeval Europe than in first-century Palestine. Further evidence for accepting the gospel as a medieval creation is the sometimes incredible ignorance it shows of first-century Palestine: no gospel writer of the first centuries would make those mistakes. (Sox, The Gospel of Barnabas, p. 30). And indeed the mistakes are even more ridiculous, because Palestine is a very much smaller country than England, and an inhabitant who, as the apostles did, wandered about it from north to south and from east to west, could not possibly have imagined that anyone could arrive at Nazareth by ship. But a careless Italian, who had never visited Palestine, writing in the Middle Ages, and not taking the trouble even to forge well, remembering that Jesus Christ and His disciples did often travel by boat, might easily tumble into such a ridiculous error. ("The Gospel of Barnabas", The Muslim World, Vol. 13, p. 278). In the face of such obvious geographical fallacies one wonders why Muslims continue to publicise this Gospel, let alone claim that it is the only true one. It can only be presumed that Muslims believe it would be greatly to their advantage to find an early Gospel setting Jesus forth as a typical prophet of Islam consistent with the teaching of the Qur’an, in particular its denial of his divinity and crucifixion, but it requires a tremendous degree of confidence in sentiment rather than the facts to maintain that the Gospel of Barnabas fulfils this role. One such Muslim writer, despite the evidences set out in this section of which he must have been aware, nevertheless boldly declares that it cannot be denied that the Gospel of Barnabas "gives more accurate, easy and comprehensible account of the Bible land than either of the four Gospels" (Durrani, Forgotten Gospel of St. Barnabas, p. 105). Such are the lengths to which some writers will go in defiance of the truth to maintain their own wishful sentiments. One also finds it hard to understand how Muslims can continue to promote this so-called Gospel when it quite obviously contradicts the Qur’an in a number of places. A good example is found in this text on the birth of Jesus: The virgin was surrounded by a light exceeding bright and brought forth her son without pain. (The Gospel of Barnabas, p. 5). This is a clear repetition of Roman Catholic beliefs of the Middle Ages. The bright light and the painless birth find parallels in the beliefs of the churches of Europe in mediaeval times. No such details are found in the Biblical account of the birth of Jesus but the Qur’an directly contradicts the Gospel of Barnabas when it says: And the pangs of childbirth drove her unto the trunk of the palm tree. - Surah 19.23 Perhaps the most significant point at which the Gospel of Barnabas contradicts the Qur’an, particularly as it does so on numerous occasions, is in its teaching that Jesus did not regard himself as the Messiah but declared that Muhammad would be the Messiah. Every reader of the Koran knows that Jesus Christ is spoken of consistently in that book as the Messiah, yet, strange to say, this Gospel of Barnabas again and again gives Mohammed that title, while Jesus is made his forerunner, as John the Baptist was to Christ in the canonical Gospels. (Zwemer, The Moslem Christ, p. 169). In the section on the Messiah in this book (pp. 183-197) we saw constantly that Jesus is called Al-Masihu Isa in the Qur’an (as in Surah 3.45), meaning quite simply "the Messiah Jesus". On no less than eleven occasions in the Qur’an we find Jesus spoken of by this title and in the New Testament we likewise find that he confirmed that this title belonged to him alone (Matthew 16:20, John 4:26). One finds, however, statements such as the following in the Gospel of Barnabas: Jesus confessed and said the truth: ’I am not the Messiah . . . I am indeed sent to the house of Israel as a prophet of salvation; but after me shall come the Messiah’. (The Gospel of Barnabas, pp. 54,104). It is clearly one of the express purposes of the Gospel of Barnabas to establish Muhammad as the Messiah and to subject Jesus to him in dignity and authority. Here, however, the author has overreached himself in his zeal for the cause of Islam. Muhammad freely acknowledged that Jesus was indeed the Messiah and never applied this title to himself. As one writer observes, the author of the Gospel of Barnabas has "the enthusiasm of a ’convert’ which sometimes makes Barnabas more Muslim than the Koran" (Sox, The Gospel of Barnabas, p. 50). Once again we find Muslim writers in considerable difficulty seeking defences to what to us truly appears to be indefensible. Let us hear Dr. Durrani again: Did Jesus ascribe any of the Messianic Prophecies to himself or did he ever claim to be the Messiah? . . . Now how can Barnabas be found as guilty if he does not recognise him as the Messiah? (Durrani, Forgotten Gospel of St. Barnabas, p. 61) Once again the author seems to be unacquainted with the facts and misses the point in the second quote completely. Jesus ascribed numerous Messianic prophecies to himself. He applied Isaiah 53:12 ("And he was reckoned with transgressors"), and thus the whole Messianic prophecy in Isaiah 53:1-12, to himself in Luke 23:37 ("This scripture must be fulfilled in me"). He likewise applied Psalms 22:1 and with it, therefore, the whole Messianic Psalm to himself in Mark 15:34. When a Samaritan woman spoke of the Christ who was coming, he who is called Messiah, Jesus directly replied: "I who speak to you am he" (John 4:26). Regarding the second quote, which tends to suggest that Barnabas himself made an error in failing to recognise Jesus as the Messiah, we once again find the author deliberately avoiding the issue. The Gospel of Barnabas makes Jesus himself deny that he was the Messiah, a denial attributed to him in plain contradiction of both the teaching of the Qur’an and the Bible at this point. Durrani’s book serves only to show how indefensible Muslim confidence in the Gospel of Barnabas ultimately is. A final point proving quite clearly that it was the real author of this spurious Gospel (most certainly not the Apostle Barnabas!) who was in confusion about the identity of the Messiah is the fact that, while he denies that it was Jesus, he nevertheless calls Jesus the Christ! His prologue begins: True Gospel of Jesus, called Christ, a new prophet sent by God to the world, according to the description of Barnabas his Apostle. (The Gospel of Barnabas, p. 2). The very next two verses again make Jesus the Christ, one of them calling him quite simply Jesus Christ. We therefore find the author in considerable confusion about the title Messiah. He uses the title "chrissto" two times in his introduction for Jesus, but denies that Jesus is the Messiah, not knowing it means the same as Christ. (Slomp, Pseudo-Barnabas in the Context of Muslim Christian Apologetics, p. 119). It seems that the author’s difficulty arose from some degree of ignorance of the different languages he was faced with regarding this title. It does not occur to the writer that the appellation ’Christ’ is the Greek word for ’Messiah’, and he seems equally unaware that in the Qur’an Jesus is ’al Masih’ (Messiah). (Sox, The Gospel of Barnabas, p. 30). All these evidences, and many others we have not been able to mention, expose the Gospel of Barnabas as a patent forgery and a poor one at that. The author has been none too successful in covering the tracks of his limited knowledge of the different languages he was obliged to handle and of the geography of Palestine. It is hard to understand why Muslims like Durrani still, to this day, try to vindicate this forgery and it appears that they would do well to follow others like Shafaat who wisely recognise this so-called Gospel as an embarrassing testimony to the Qur’an. Is there, in fact, a worse forged testimony against the Gospel and the Kuran than this testimony? Is there a Muslim who believes this fabrication that "the Messiah" is Muhammad son of Abdallah and not Jesus son of Mary? (Jadeed, The Gospel of Barnabas: "A False Testimony", p. 22). 4. The Original Authorship of the Gospel of Barnabas. The internal evidences show quite conclusively that the Gospel of Barnabas is a forgery dating back to not earlier than the fourteenth century after Christ. Let us now briefly consider the external evidences and see whether its probable authorship can be determined. The first public mention of this book in history appears in the lengthy introduction George Sale wrote to his translation of the Qur’an which was first published early in the eighteenth century: The Mohammedans have also a Gospel in Arabic, attributed to St. Barnabas, wherein the history of Jesus Christ is related in a manner very different from what we find in the true Gospels, and correspondent to those traditions which Mohammed has followed in his Koran. Of this Gospel the Moriscoes in Africa have a translation in Spanish; and there is in the library of Prince Eugene of Savoy, a manuscript of some antiquity, containing an Italian translation of the same Gospel, made, it is to be supposed, for the use of renegades. (Sale, The Preliminary Discourse to the Koran, p. 79). There appears to be no record of the Arabic edition of which Sale speaks and there are only fragments remaining of the Spanish edition. The full text of the Italian edition, however, remains in the same library to this day. It was from this manuscript that Lonsdale and Laura Ragg produced the first English translation in 1907. The manuscript used by Ragg has been in the Hofbibliothek at Vienna since 1738. It came to that library along with the rest of the literary possessions of Prince Eugene of Savoy. It was presented to the Prince in 1713 by John Frederick Cramer. Jean Toland had borrowed it from Cramer in 1709. This seems to be all that is known about this Italian version. (Cannon, "The Gospel of Barnabas", The Muslim World, Vol. 32, p. 171). The first record of the Italian Gospel thus goes back not earlier than the year 1709. The Spanish version was also known to be in existence in complete form at this time: The Spanish MS. was lent to Sale by Dr. Holme, Rector of Hedley, in Hampshire. It passed subsequently into the hands of Dr. Thomas Monkhouse, Fellow of Queen’s College, Oxford, by whom both the text and a translation were communicated to Dr. White, Bampton Lecturer in 1784. (Rag", The Gospel of Barnabas, p. xi). What, then, of its authorship? In an introduction to the Spanish version there was a statement that it was a translation of the Italian version done by an Arragonian Muslim named Mostafa de Aranda. Further information gleaned from a preface to a later edition of Sale’s translation of the Qur’an is given in the following passage: There is a preface prefixed to it, wherein the discoverer of the original MS. who was a Christian monk, called Fra Marino, tells us, that having accidentally met with a writing of Irenaeus, (among others,) wherein he speaks against S. Paul, alleging, for his authority, the Gospel of S. Barnabas, he became exceeding desirous to find this Gospel; and that God, of his mercy, having made him very intimate with pope Sixtus V. one day, as they were together in that pope’s library, his holiness fell asleep, and he, to employ himself, reaching down a book to read, the first he laid his hand on proved to be the very gospel he wanted. Overjoyed at the discovery, he scrupled not to hide his prize in his sleeve; and, on the pope’s awaking, took leave of him, carrying with him that celestial treasure, by reading of which he became a convert to Mohammedanism. (Sale, The AlCoran of Mohammed, Vol. 1, p. xiii). Internal evidence suggests that the Gospel of Barnabas was originally written in Europe and speculations have thus arisen as to its likely authorship. A general supposition is that "the forger was probably a renegade Italian monk" ("The Gospel of Barnabas", The Muslim World, Vol. 13, p. 280). Studies in more recent years have suggested that the Gospel was indeed originally written in the Italian language but that it should be noted that the author was very conversant with the land and environment of Spain as the book often discloses a Spanish background. He could, therefore, have been a Spanish convert from Islam forcibly converted at the time of the Inquisition who took private revenge on his persecutors by forging an "Islamic" Gospel. There is clear evidence of Spanish influence in the following quote: "For he who would get in change a piece of gold must have sixty mites". (The Gospel of Barnabas, p. 71). The Italian version divides the golden "denarius" into sixty "minuti". These coins were actually of Spanish origin during the pre-Islamic Visigothic period and openly betray a Spanish influence behind the Gospel of Barnabas. A recent book, however, gives a thoroughly researched presentation of the history of the text of the Gospel of Barnabas in comparison with certain developments in the Roman Catholic Church at the time of Pope Sixtus V and suggests the possibility (already suggested by others) that Fra Marino, the supposed discoverer of the Gospel in the Pope’s library, was himself the author of the book. The writer begins by saying "there is considerable evidence that we are dealing with an Italian author" (Sox, The Gospel of Barnabas, p. 65), and he goes on to outline the actual history of the real Fra Marino who at one time had close contact with Fra Peretti (who later became Pope Sixtus V) and was a key figure in the Inquisition. He simultaneously quotes a strikingly coincidental note in the preface to the Spanish version of the Gospel not quoted by Sale where the Fra Marino who "discovered" the Gospel was said to be "in the office of defining papal cases and had a hand in the inquisition" (op. cit., p. 65). The real Fra Marino, although a companion of Peretti during his pre-papal days, fell into disfavour with him as a result of certain questionable practices in his administration as an inquisitor. As a result, although Peretti went on from one post to another until he obtained the papacy, Marino was deprived of further advancement. His fate at Peretti’s hand may have led him to compose the Gospel of Barnabas as an act of jealousy with the purpose of undermining his integrity particularly if, as is possible (although there is no evidence of this), he himself converted to Islam. The introductory statement that he had found the original Gospel of Barnabas concealed in the Pope’s library strengthens this possibility considerably. Almost every analyst of Barnabas has noted the motive of revenge against Sixtus V in the writing of the gospel. There are many portions of the work which can be read as slaps at the hierarchy. The author speaks of ’True Pharisees’ in opposition to the false ones which read like assaults on his contemporaries. (Sox, The Gospel of Barnabas, p. 68). The author himself comes to no definite conclusion regarding the authorship of the Gospel but his research suggests very strongly that Fra Marino was somehow involved in its authorship. It does seem that Sox’s work has probably pinpointed the likely environment of the origin of the Gospel of Barnabas (Catholic Italy) and the time of its compilation (the sixteenth century). We will probably never know precisely what the origin of the Gospel really was but there is abundant evidence to show what it most certainly is not - an authentic contemporary record of the life of Jesus Christ compiled by the Apostle Barnabas. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 140: 06.42. D. THE NUMEROUS CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. ======================================================================== D. THE NUMEROUS CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 1. The Divisions Within the Christian and Muslim Worlds. We shall close with a common objection raised by Muslims, namely the wide divisions among Christians and the large number of different denominations. This is not an easy subject, particularly as the real divisions today are not along denominational lines but in respect of movements crossing all Protestant denominations, dividing Christians into nominal adherents, evangelical believers, charismatics and the like. Muslims traditionally parade the unity of the Islamic world before Christians as a preferable religious organism to the multitudinous churches and sects of Christendom. Actually this unity is really only on the surface and deep divisions lie beneath. Just as the Christian world has three major groupings, namely the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant, so Islam is divided into the Sunni and Shitite groups, the latter numbering about fifteen per cent of the world Muslim population with the Sunnis making up the rest. Within both of these groupings within Islam there are a host of divisions. The truth is that Islam is more broken into sects than even Christendom. (MacDonald, Aspects of Islam, p. 90). In the companion volume to this book we mentioned a few of these movements (such as the Sufis, found amongst both Sunnis and Shi’ites) and it would not be possible to canvass all the divisions that exist among Muslims. Even in South Africa, with less than four hundred thousand Muslims, divisions are so deep that opposing groups sometimes even come physically to blows. Only a few months prior to the time of writing this section a Muslim from my own home town was murdered by fellow Muslims on religious grounds alone. The Church of Mohammed, like the Church of Christ, has been rent by intestine divisions and strifes. Difference of opinion on abstract subjects, about which there cannot be any certitude in a finite existence, has always given rise to greater bitterness and a fiercer hostility than ordinary differences on matters within the range of human cognition. (Ali, The Spirit of Islam, p. 292). It would be truer to say that the apparent unity of the Muslim world is really a regulated uniformity, a strict outward compliance to prescribed rules and religious forms. Every Muslim, when attending mosque, even if he does so faithfully five times a day, follows the exact same pattern of worship that he has been taught to practice every time he performs salaah. Every other Muslim who will pray alongside him will do precisely the same as he does. The imposition of a strictly defined practice of religion - the daily salaah with its ablutions and rites, the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca, the annual Ramadan fast, etc. - will, without difficulty, create a rigid uniformity that may well have the appearance of unity. Such apparent unity is visible in the parade marches of military battalions, the particular dress of any school, and the like. Under the surface, however, there may well be, and invariably is, a deep-rooted disunity. Once the rigid patterns of outward religion are removed and adherents are called upon to establish a unity of faith and spirit based on love and corporate growth (as in Christianity - see Ephesians 4:15-16), the outward unity will disappear as natural human divisions are given opportunity to express themselves. The imposed rites of Islam merely suppress the inherent disunity in the Muslim world which expresses itself in so many other ways outside the mosque. 2. The Essential Unity of the Spirit in Christianity. Christians should freely acknowledge the divisions within the Christian Church worldwide and simultaneously lament them as being far short of the declared vision of the Lord Jesus Christ for his Church (John 17:20-23). A brief explanation of Church history and the cause of its divisions will often assist to give a Muslim a more balanced perspective of the true state of affairs. It will also be essential to distinguish between nominal Christians and true born-again believers who make up the true church of Jesus Christ. Likewise we need to point out that Jesus himself never anticipated that whole nations would become part of his Church on earth. The "Christendom" concept, an historical "dar-ul" Christianity as it were, was not in his mind when he said "Go and make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19). He always foresaw his Church as constituting a fraction of believers out of every nation (Matthew 13:47-48), something that in this age is being more and more realised as the Christian faith loses its traditional national grip in the West but is spreading widely in the hitherto non-Christian world. The Church is conceived in the New Testament as a society within a society. It is never properly thought of as coterminous, within history, with the whole of human society. "Christendom", though the term has validity, is not finally a Christian concept. (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 323). The very concept in Islam of a theocratic ummah makes the religion essentially political as well as religious. Church and State are intentionally intertwined and a title such as the current "Islamic Republic of Iran" expresses the ideal, but it would be entirely inappropriate for Christianity. As Cragg goes on to say, "Christianity, then, is not a political expression" (op. cit., p. 325). We need to patiently expound the Christian ideal to Muslims - a spiritual ekklesia within the world but not of it, a body of true believers taken out of every nation as a glory and praise to God through Jesus Christ. We accept that God demands control of all human affairs and that nothing in the political world is irrelevant to Christian faith and practice, all believers being called to render due service to both Church and State (Luke 20:25). We do not believe, however, that they "can be met in a religio-political order externally established" (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 327). It is also very important to emphasize the basic unity of all Christian Churches on all principal matters of doctrine and faith. It is only one Bible that is acknowledged throughout all branches of the Church and there is no division, even across the major Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant traditions, on issues such as the doctrine of the Trinity, the atoning work of Jesus Christ, his royal control of all the universe as the eternal Son of God, and the fundamental need of faith in him. When discussing the Church with a Muslim it is best to emphasize the basic unity of all Christians in matters of faith and doctrine. The average Muslim sees the Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox and Protestants as one community. (Register, Dialogue and Interfaith Witness with Muslims, p. 52). A Christian minister with experience among Muslims, Samuel Knowles, in his booklet Aina-i-Islam ("The Mirror of Islam"), began with this very subject and observed that Muslims err when they suppose that the different movements and denominations within the Christian Church arise from disputes concerning the basic doctrines of the Christian faith. Another writer, giving a brief review of his booklet, expresses his response to this error in his book on Christian writings relative to Islam in India: On the contrary, nothing is clearer than the essential agreement of Christian Denominations as to the great doctrines relating to the Godhead, man’s sinful condition, and the need of faith in the atoning work of the Son of God in order to be saved. (Wherry, The Muslim Controversy, p. 103). Another Christian writer also notes this essential unity among all Christians, notwithstanding differences of opinion on matters not necessarily relevant to the fundamentals of the Christian faith: As in the case of other communities of the World, the Christian community too has, unfortunately, drifted into different groups or denominations. This division is based only on the differences of opinion in the interpretation of certain principles and rituals but the Basic Doctrine of faith of All Christians remains the same. (Deshmukh, The Gospel and Islam, p. 65). The very existence of such divisions in contrast with the express prayer of Jesus that we should become "perfectly one" (John 17:23) is a genuine cause of offence to many Muslims and a sincere enquirer will often be sorely confused with the selection of denominations and varying emphases that he will soon discover in the Church. The call here is to a genuine love and spirit of patience and tolerance between believers of different persuasions, remembering the words of our Lord Jesus when he said: "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another". John 13:35 What a great blessing and step forward in faith it will be when Christians learn to love and accept one another as brethren in Christ and devote their energies away from disputes within the Church to the winning of the Muslim peoples of the world to the saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 141: 06.43. BIBLIOGRAPHY ======================================================================== Bibliography This bibliography contains details of books consulted in the preparation of the text of this book and catalogues them under appropriate headings. It does not include articles from The Muslim World, published quarterly by the Hartford Seminary Foundation in the United States of America. Quotations from a number of these articles appear in the text of the book and references are there given to the volume from which each respective quotation is taken. 1. CHRISTIAN EVANGELISM AMONG MUSLIMS. Abdul-Haqq, Abdiyah Akbar. Sharing Your Faith With a Muslim. Bethany Fellowship, Minneapolis, USA. 1980. Addison, James Thayer. The Christian Approach to the Moslem. AMS Press, New York, USA. 1966 (1942). Anonymous. Christian Witness Among Muslims. Africa Christian Press, Accra, Ghana. 1971. Bevan Jones, L. Christianity Explained to Muslims. Y. M. C. A. Publishing House, Calcutta, India. 1952 (1937). Budd, Jack. How to Witness to Muslims. Red Sea Mission, London, United Kingdom. n. d. Chapman, Colin. You Go and Do the Same: Studies in Relating to Muslims. CMS, London, United Kingdom. 1983. Christensen, Jens. The Practical Approach to Muslims. North Africa Mission, Leicester, UK. 1977. Crossley, John. Explaining the Gospel to Muslims. United Society for Christian Literature, London, UK. 1971 (1960). Dretke, James P. A Christian Approach to Muslims. William Carey Library, Pasadena, USA. 1979. Elder, J. The Biblical Approach to the Muslim. Christian Communications Limited, Hong Kong. n. d. Goldsmith, Martin. Islam and Christian Witness. Hodder Christian Paperbacks, London, UK. 1982. Harris, George K. How to Lead Moslems to Christ. China Inland Mission, Philadelphia, USA. 1957. Madany, Bassam M. The Bible and Islam: Sharing God’s Word With a Muslim. The Back to God Hour, Palos Heights, United States of America. 1981. Marrison, G. E. The Christian Approach to the Muslim. Lutterworth Press, London, UK. 1971 (1959). Marsh, Charles. Share Your Faith With a Muslim. Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, USA. 1975. Massey, Kundan L. Tide of the Supernatural. Here’s Life Publishers, San Bernadino, USA. 1980. McCurry, Don M. (editor). Sharing the Gospel with Iranians. Samuel Zwemer Institute, Altadena, USA. 1982. do. The Gospel and Islam. Marc, Monrovia, United States of America. 1978. McDowell, Josh and Gilchrist, John. The Islam Debate. Here’s Life Publishers, San Bernadino, USA. 1983. Miller, William M. A Christian’s Response to Islam. Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co., Nutley, USA. 1976. Nehls, Gerhard. And What About the Muslim? Life Challenge, Cape Town, South Africa. 1979. do. Christians Ask Muslims. Life Challenge, Cape Town, Republic of South Africa. 1980. do. Christians Answer Muslims. Life Challenge, Cape Town, Republic of South Africa. 1980. do. The Great Commission: You and the Muslim. Life Challenge, Cape Town, South Africa. 1980. Parshall, Phil. New Paths in Muslim Evangelism. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, USA. 1980. Register, Ray G. Dialogue and Interfaith Witness with Muslims Moody Books Inc., Kingsport, USA. 1979. Vander Werff, Lyle L. Christian Mission to Muslims. William Carey Library, Pasadena, USA. 1977. 2. CHRISTIAN BOOKS ON ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY. Anonymous. Guidelines for a Dialogue Between Muslims and Christians. Secretariatus Pro Non-Christianis. Edizion Ancora, Rome, Italy. 1971 (1969). Bell, Richard. The Origin of Islam in its Christian Environment. Frank Cass, London, UK. 1968 (1926). Bevan Jones, L. The People of the Mosque. Baptist Mission Press, Calcutta, India. 1959 (1932). Brown, David. A New Threshold: Guidelines for the Churches in their Relations with Muslim Communities. The British Council of Churches, London, UK. 1976. do. Jesus and God in the Christian Scriptures. Christianity and Islam 1, Sheldon Press, London, UK. 1967. do. The Christian Scriptures. Christianity and Islam 2, Sheldon Press, London, UK. 1967. do. The Cross of the Messiah. Christianity and Islam 3, Sheldon Press, London, UK. 1967. do. The Divine Trinity. Christianity and Islam 4, Sheldon Press, London, United Kingdom. 1967. Cash, W. W. Christendom and Islam. Student Christian Movement Press, London, England. 1937. Cooper, Anne. Ishmael my Brother. Marc, Send the Light Books, Bromley, Kent, UK. 1985. Cracknell, Kenneth. Christians and Muslims Talking Together. The British Council of Churches, London, UK. 1984. Cragg, Kenneth. Alive to God. Oxford University Press, London, United Kingdom. 1970. do. Muhammad and the Christian. Darton, Longman and Todd, London, United Kingdom. 1984. do. Sandals at the Mosque: Christian Presence amid Islam. SCM Press Ltd., London, United Kingdom. 1959. Daniel, Norman. Islam and the West. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. 1980 (1960). Deshmukh, Dr. Ibrahimkhan O. The Gospel and Islam. Gospel Literature Service, Bombay, India. 1982. Finlay, M. H. Face the Facts. Gospel Literature Service, Bombay, India. 1968 (1964). Freeman-Grenville, G. S. P. The Muslim and Christian Calendars. Rex Collings Limited, London, UK. 1977 (1963). Frieling, Rudolf. Christianity and Islam. Floris Books, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. 1978. Gilchrist, John. A Reply to A. S. K. Joommal’s ’The Bible: Word of God or Word of Man?’. Jesus to the Muslims, Benoni, Republic of South Africa. 1980. Huelin, Gordon. The Church and the Churches. Christianity and Islam 5, Sheldon Press, London, UK. 1967. Joseph, S. and Pillsbury Barbara L. K. Muslim-Christian Conflicts. Westview Press, Boulder. USA. 1978. Kateregga B.D. and Shenk, David. Islam and Christianity. Uzima Press Limited, Nairobi, Kenya. 1980. Moon, James S. Sweetman’s Islam and Christian Theology. Selly Oak Colleges, Birmingham, United Kingdom. n. d. Muir, Sir William. The Coran: Its Composition and Teaching. S. P. C. K., London, United Kingdom. 1903 (1878). do. The Beacon of Truth. The Religious Tract Society, London, United Kingdom. 1894. do. The Mohammedan Controversy. Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom, 1897. Mylrea, Rev. C.G. The Holy Spirit in Qur’an and Bible. The Christian Literature Society, Madras, India. n. d. Parshall, Phil. Beyond the Mosque: Christians Within Muslim Community. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, USA. 1985. do. Bridges to Islam. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, United States of America. 1983. do. The Fortress and the Fire. Gospel Literature Service, Bombay, India. 1975. Pfander, C.G. Miftahu’l Asrar: The Key of Mysteries. The Christian Literature Society, Madras, India. 1912. do. The Mizan ul Haqq; or Balance of Truth. Church Missionary House, London, UK. 1867. do. The Mizanu’l Haqq (Balance of Truth). The Religious Tract Society, London, UK. 1910. Samartha S.J. and Taylor, J.B. Christian-Muslim Dialogue. The World Council of Churches, Geneva, Switzerland. 1972. Sahas, Daniel J. John of Damascus on Islam. E. J. Brill, Leiden, Holland. 1972. Seale, M.S. Qur’an and Bible: Studies in Interpretation and Dialogue. Croom Helm, London, UK. 1978. Schimmel, Annemarie and Falaturi, Abdoldjavad. We Believe in One God: The Experience of God in Christianity and Islam. Burns and Oates, London, UK. 1979. Schlink, Basilea. Allah or the God of the Bible - What is the Truth? Lakeland, Basingstoke, UK. 1984. O’Shaughnessy, Thomas. The Koranic Concept of the Word of God. Pontificio Istituto Biblico, Rome, Italy. 1948. Smith, Margaret. The Way of the Mystics: The Early Christian Mystics and the Rise of the Sufis. Sheldon, UK. 1976. Spencer, H. Islam and the Gospel of God. Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, Delhi, India. 1956. Stade, Robert. Ninety-Nine Names of God in Islam. Daystar Press, Ibadan, Nigeria. 1970. Sweetman, J. Windrow. Islam and Christian Theology. Part One, Volume 1. Lutterworth Press, London, UK. 1945. do. Islam and Christian Theology. Part One, Volume 2. Lutterworth Press, London, UK. 1947 do. Islam and Christian Theology. Part Two, Volume 1. Lutterworth Press, London, UK. 1955. do. Islam and Christian Theology. Part Two, Volume 2. Lutterworth Press, London, UK. 1967. Tisdall, W.St.Clair. A Manual of the Leading Muhammadan Objections to Christianity. S. P. C. K., London, UK. 1912. Trimingham, J. Spencer. Christianity Among the Arabs in Pre-Islamic Times. Longman Group Ltd., London, UK. 1979. Watson, Charles R. What is this Moslem World? Friendship Press, New York, USA. 1937. Watt, W. Montgomery. Islam and Christianity Today. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, United Kingdom. 1983. Wherry, Rev. E. M. The Muslim Controversy. The Christian Literature Society, Madras, India. 1905. Wright, Thomas. Early Christianity in Arabia. Bernard Quaritch, London, United Kingdom. 1855. Zwemer, Samuel M. Across the World of Islam. Fleming H. Revell Company, New York, USA. 1929. do. Islam: A Challenge to Faith. Marshall Brothers Ltd., London, United Kingdom. 1909 (1907). do. Mohammed or Christ. Seeley, Service & Co. Limited, London, United Kingdom. 1915. do. The Cross Above the Crescent. Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, USA. n. d. do. The Glory of the Cross. Baker Book House, Michigan, United States of America. 1982 (1935). do. The Moslem Christ. Oliphant, Anderson and Ferrier, London, United Kingdom. 1912 do. The Moslem Doctrine of God. Oliphant, Anderson and Ferrier, London, United Kingdom. 1905. 3. MUSLIM BOOKS ON ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY. Ajijola, AlHaj Adeleke Dirisu, The Myth of the Cross. Akhlaq Hussein, Director, Islamic Publications Limited, Lahore, Pakistan. 1975. Alam, Maulana Syed Mohammad Badre. Nuzul-e-Isa: Descension of Jesus Christ. Dini Book Depot, Urdu Balaar, Delhi. India. 1974. Al-Hindi, Mawlana Rahmat Ullah. The Ijaharul Hakk; or Truth Revealed. Publisher not named, India. 1860. Anonymous. Christian Mission and Islamic Da’wah. The Islamic Foundation, Leicester, UK. 1982. Ansari, Muhammad F.R. Islam and Christianity in the Modern World. World Federation of Islamic Missions, Karachi, Pakistan. 1965 (1940). Assfy, Zaid H. Islam and Christianity. William Sessions Ltd., York, United Kingdom. 1977. Azhar, Ahmad D. Christianity in History. Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore, Pakistan. 1968. Aliz-us-Samad, Ulfat. A Comparative Study of Christianity and Islam. Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore, Pakistan. 1983 (1970). do. Islam and Christianity. International Islamic Federation, Peshawar, Pakistan. 1982. Bucaille, Maurice. The Bible, The Qur’an and Science. North American Trust Publications, Indianapolis, USA. 1978. Chishti, Yousuf Saleem. What is Christianity? World Federation of Islamic Missions, Karachi, Pakistan. 1970. Darsh, Dr. S. M. Muslims in Europe. Ta-Ha Publishers, London, United Kingdom. 1980. Deedat, Ahmed. The Choice: The Qur’an or the Bible. Thinkers Library, Selangor, Singapore. n. d. Hamid, Abdul. Islam and Christianity. A Hearthstone Book, New York, United States of America. 1967. Hussein, M. K. City of Wrong: A Friday in Jerusalem. Geoffrey Bles, London, United Kingdom. 1959. Imran, Maulana Muhammad. The Cross and the Crescent. Malik Sirajuddin & Sons, Lahore, Pakistan. 1979. Jameelah, Maryam. Islam Versus Ahl al Kitab, Past and Present. Mohammad Yusuf Khan, Lahore, Pakistan. 1968. Joommal, A. S. K. The Bible: Word of God or Word of Man? I. M. S. Publications, Johannesburg, South Africa. 1976. Kamal-ud-Din, Khwaja. The Sources of Christianity. Woking Muslim Mission & Literary Trust, Lahore, Pakistan. 1973. Manjoo, Muhammad E. The Cross and the Crescent. Foto-Saracen, Durban, South Africa. 1966. Nadwi, Syed Abul Hasan Ali. Muslims in the West. The Islamic Foundation, Leicester, United Kingdom. 1983. Niali, Kausar. The Mirror of Trinity. Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore, Pakistan. 1975. Sandeela, F.M. Islam, Christianity and Hinduism. Taj Company, Delhi, India. 1983. Shafaat, Ahmad. The Gospel According to Islam. Vantage Press Inc., New York, USA. 1979. Tabari, Ali. The Book of Religion and Empire. Law Publishing Company, Lahore, Pakistan. n. d. Von Denffer, Ahmad. Christians in the Qur’an and Sunna. The Islamic Foundation, Leicester, UK. 1979. do. Dialogue Between Christians and Muslims (3 parts). The Islamic Foundation, Leicester, UK. 1980. do. Some Reflections on Dialogue Between Christians and Muslims. The Islamic Foundation, Leicester, UK. 1980. 4. JESUS IN THE QUR’AN AND THE BIBLE. Abdul-Haqq, Dr. Akbar. Christ in the New Testament and the Qur’an. Author-published, Evanston, USA. 1975. Ahmad, Al-Haj Khwaja Nalir. Jesus in Heaven on Earth. Woking Muslim Mission and Literary Trust, Azeez Manzil, Lahore, Pakistan. 1972 (1952). Ata ur-Rahim, Muhammad. Jesus a Prophet of Islam. MWH Publ., London, United Kingdom. 1979 (1977). Basetti-Sani, Giulio. The Koran in the Light of Christ (A Christian Interpretation of the Sacred Book of Islam), Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago, USA. 1977. Cragg, Kenneth. Jesus and the Muslim. George Allen & Unwin, London, United Kingdom. 1985. Durrani, Dr. M. H. The Quranic Facts about Jesus. International Islamic Publishers, Karachi, Pakistan. 1983. Goldsack, Rev. W. Christ in Islam. The Christian Literature Society, Madras, India. 1905. Hahn, Rev. Ernest. Jesus in Islam: A Christian View. I. E. L. C. Board for Literature, Vaniyambi, India. 1975. Imran, Maulana Muhammad. The Teachings of Jesus in the Light of Al-Qur’an. Malik Sirajuddin and Sons, Kashmiri Balar, Lahore, Pakistan. 1980. Jenkins, Orville Boyd. The Path of Love: Jesus in Mystical Islam. Communication Press, Nairobi, Kenya. 1984. Muhammad Ali, Moulvi. Muhammad and Christ. Ahmadiah AnjumanI- Ishaet-I-Islam, Lahore, India. 1921. Nurbakhsh, Dr. Javad. Jesus in the Eyes of the Sufis. Khaniqahi-Nimatullahi Publications, London, UK. 1983. Obaray, A.H. Miraculous Conception, Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus (Nabi Isa) as Taught in the Kuran. Published by the author, Kimberley, South Africa. 1962. Parrinder, Geoffrey. Jesus in the Qur’an. Sheldon Press, London, United Kingdom. 1976 (1965). Robertson, Kenneth G. Jesus or Isa. Vantage Press, New York, United States of America. 1983. Robson, Rev. James. Christ in Islam. John Murray, London, United Kingdom. 1929. Wismer, Don. The Islamic Jesus: An Annotated Bibliography. Garland Publishing Inc., New York, USA. 1977. 5. CHRISTIAN BOOKLETS ON ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY. Abdul-Haqq, Dr. Akbar. Sharing the Lord Jesus Christ with Muslim Neighbours. Published by the Author, USA. 1978. Abd ul-Masih. Islam and Christianity: Ninety Questions and Answers. Daystar Press, Ibadan, Nigeria. 1973 (1967). Adelphi G. and Hahn E. The Integrity of the Bible According to the Qur’an and Hadith. Hyderabad, India. 1977. Abd al Fadi. Sin and Atonement in Islam and Christianity. Markaz-ash-Shabiba, Beirut, Lebanon. n. d. do. The Person of Christ in the Gospel and the Quran. Markaz-ash-Shabiba, Beirut, Lebanon. n. d. Abd-ul-Masih. What Do You Think About Christ? The Good Way, Rikon, Switzerland. n. d. do. Why is it Difficult for a Muslim to Become a Christian? Ev. Karmel Mission, Schorndorf, W. Germany. n. d. Anonymous. Christian Witness Among Muslims: A Study Guide. (2 parts). Assembly of God Lit. Centre, Accra, Ghana. 1977. do. Christian Witness to Muslims: Lausanne Occasional Papers. Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, Wheaton, Illinois, United States of America. 1980. do. Islam: Christianity’s Greatest Challenge. Missionary Crusader, Lubcock, USA. n. d. do. Light on Islam. Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship, Leicester, UK. 1981. do. Reaching Muslims Today. North Africa Mission, Leicester, United Kingdom. 1976. do. The Muslim Challenge to the Christian Church. Fellowship of Faith for Muslims, Woking, UK. 1980. Brutus, Zachariah. God is One in the Holy Trinity. Markaz- alShabiba, Basel, Switzerland. n. d. Foster, Dave. Forgiveness According to the Torah, Injil and Qur’an. Africa Evangelical Fellowship, Canada. n. d. Hahn, Ernest. Understanding Some Muslim Misunderstandings. The Fellowship of Faith, Toronto, Canada. n. d. Hosmon, Sarah L. Presenting Jesus Christ the Son of God to Moslems. India Bible Christian Council, India. 1956. Jadid, Iskandar. Did God Appear in the Flesh. Centre for Young Adults, Basel, Switzerland. n. d. do. God and Christ. Markaz al-Shabiba (Centre for Young Adults), Basel, Switzerland. n. d. Jadid, Iskandar. The Cross in the Gospel and Quran. Markaz-ash-Shabiba, Beirut, Lebanon. n. d. do. The Infallibility of the Torah and the Gospel. Centre for Young Adults, Basel, Switzerland. n. d. do. What Must I Do to be Saved? Centre for Young Adults, Basel, Switzerland. n. d. Kershaw, R. Max. How to Share the Good News With Your Muslim Friend. International Students Inc., Colorado Springs, United States of America. 1978. Khalil, Rev. Victor. The Truth of the Quran in the Light of the Bible. Published by the Author, Detroit, USA. 1981. Lochhaas, Philip H. How to Respond to Islam. Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, USA. 1981. Masood, Steven. Jesus and Ahmadiyyat. Jesus to the Muslims, Benoni, Republic of South Africa. 1988. Miller, William M. Beliefs and Practices of Christians. Masi-hi Isha’at Khana, Lahore, Pakistan. 1973. Nehls, Gerhard. Al-Kitab: A Bible Correspondence Course for Muslims. Life Challenge, Cape Town, South Africa. 1985. do. Christ Put it in Our Hand - A Key to Muslim Evangelism. Life Challenge, Cape Town, South Africa. 1985. Nel, Fred. A Qur’anic Truth Unveiled. Eternal Life Outreach, Pretoria, South Africa. 1987. Schlorff, S. P. Discipleship in Islamic Society. North Africa Mission, Leicester, UK. 1981. Shenk, David W. The Holy Book of God: An Introduction. Africa Christian Press, Achimota, Ghana. 1981. Stacey, Vivienne. Practical Lessons for Evangelism Among Muslims. Orientdienst eV., Wiesbaden, W. Germany. n. d. Subhan, Bishop John A. God in Islam and Christianity. Concordia Theological Seminary, Nagercoil, India. 1960. Tingle, Donald S. Islam and Christianity. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, United States of America. 1985. 6. MUSLIM BOOKLETS ON ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY. Abidi, Syed Almat Ali. Discovery of the Bible. Defence Housing Society, Karachi, Pakistan. 1973. Ahmad, Halrat Mirza Ghulam. Three Questions by a Christian Answered. A Tabshir Publication, Rabwah, Pakistan. 1972. Al-Hilali, Dr. M. T. Jesus and Muhammad in Bible and Qur’an. Kali Publications, Chicago, USA. n. d. al-Johani, Dr. Maneh Hammad. The Truth About Jesus. World Assembly of Muslim Youth, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 1987. Anonymous. Food for Thought for Christians. Darut Tabligh-e-Islami, Ghum, Iran. n. d. do. Islam and Christianism. A. E. I. F. Publication, Hyderabad, India. 1978. do. The Truth About Jesus the Son of Mary. Young Men’s Muslim Association, Johannesburg, South Africa. 1961. Bhula, Ismail. A Reply to Mr. A. H. Obaray! Young Men’s Muslim Association, Johannesburg. 1963. Deedat, Ahmed. Christ in Islam. Islamic Propagation Centre, Durban, South Africa. 1983. do. Is the Bible God’s Word? Islamic Propagation Centre, Durban, South Africa. 1980. do. Resurrection or Resuscitation? Islamic Propagation Centre, Durban, South Africa. 1978. do. Was Christ Crucified? The Young Men’s Muslim Association, Benoni South/Islamic Propagation Centre, Durban, South Africa. 1965. do. What Was the Sign of Jonah? Islamic Propagation Centre, Durban, Republic of South Africa. 1976. do. Who Moved the Stone? Islamic Propagation Centre, Durban, South Africa. 1977. Joommal, A. S. K. The Riddle of Trinity and the Sonship of Christ. Islamic Missionary Society, Vrededorp, Johannesburg, Republic of South Africa. 1966. Khan, Nawab Sir Mohammad Yamin. Christ and Mary in the Holy Quran. The Book House, Lahore, Pakistan. n. d. Miller, Gary. Missionary Christianity: A Muslim’s Analysis. Islamic Propagation Centre, Birmingham, UK. n. d. Mufassir, Sulaiman Shahid. Jesus, a Prophet of Islam. Muslim Student’s Association, Plainfield, USA. 1980. do. Jesus in the Qur’an. The Muslim Student’s Association, Plainfield, USA. 1972. Muhsin, Ali. Let the Bible Speak. Author-published, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. n. d. Najaar, Sheikh A. Muslim Judicial Council Chairman’s Comments on Obaray’s Booklet. Islamic Publications Bureau, Athlone, Cape Town, South Africa. n. d. do. The Church Thrust Against Muslims. An Al-Khaleel Publication, Cape Town, South Africa. 1983. Peerbhai, Adam. Arabic Text on Jesus. Islamic Institute, Durban, South Africa. 1976. do. Glory of Jesus in the Koran. Islamic Institute, Durban, South Africa. 1963. do. Hadis Text: The Second Coming of Jesus. Islamic Institute, Durban, South Africa. 1979. Rahim, Lt. Col. M. A. Unitarianism in Christianity. Motamar Alam-i-Islami), Karachi, Pakistan. n. d. Rosenberg, Muhammad Faizul. Crucifixion. Mafeking Muslim Welfare Association, Mafeking, South Africa. 1958. Saifuddin. Christianity or Islam? Islamic Foundation, Karachi, Pakistan. 1969. Seepye, M. O. Crucifixion of Christ. Crescent Islamic Defence and Dissemination Service (1), Maritzburg, S. Africa. n. d. do. Is the Crucifiction a Fact or Fiction? Crescent Islamic Defence etc., (2), Maritzburg, South Africa. n. d. do. Heaven and Hell. Crescent Islamic Defence and Dissemination Service (3), Maritzburg, South Africa. n. d. Seepye, M. O. The God That Never Was. The Islamic Propagation Centre, Durban, South Africa. 1983. Shabalz, Imam Ala’uddin. The Plain Truth About the Birth of Jesus According to the Holy Bible. New Mind Productions, Jersey City, USA. 1981. Shafaat, Ahmad. Concept of God. Nur Al-Islam Foundation, Ville St. Laurent, Canada. 1984. do. The Question of Authenticity and Authority of the Bible. Nur Media Services, Montreal, Canada. 1982. Sharfi, M. Zakiuddin. Did the Prophet Muhammad Predict the Second Coming of Jesus and World War III? Saut-ul- Islam, New York, United States of America. 1983. Sheard, W. J. The Myth of the Crucified Saviour. World Federation of Islamic Missions, Karachi, Pakistan. 1967. do. Who Founded Christianity: Jesus or Jewry? World Federation of Islamic Missions, Karachi, Pakistan. 1967. Von Denffer A. and Siddiqui, A. Christian Literature for Muslims. The Islamic Fdundation, Leicester, UK. 1985 (1979). Wadood, A. C. A. Who is the Saviour? "He is Muhammad Messenger of God" Says Jesus Christ. C.M.M.S, Sri Lanka. 1973. 7. PROPHECIES TO MUHAMMAD IN THF BIBLE. Anonymous. Do you Know? The Prophet Muhammad is Prophesied in the Holy Bible! Y. M. M. A, Johannesburg, South Africa. 1960. do. The Prophet Like Unto Moses. Scripture Gift Mission, London, United Kingdom. 1951. do. The Prophet Muhammad in the Bible. Jamiat Ulema Natal, Wasbank, South Africa. n. d. Badawi, Dr. J. Muhammad in the Bible. Islamic Information Foundation, Halifax, Canada. 1982. Dawud, Prof. A. Muhammad in the Bible. Angkatan Nadhatul-Islam, Bersatu, Singapore. 1978. Deedat, Ahmed. Muhammad in the Old and the New Testaments. Islamic Publications Bureau, Cape Town, S.Africa. n. d. Deedat, Ahmed. Muhammad Successor to Jesus Christ as Portrayed in the Old and New Testaments. Muslim Brotherhood Aid Services, Johannesburg, S.Africa. n. d. do. What the Bible Says about Muhummed. Islamic Propagation Centre, Durban, South Africa. 1976. Durrani, Dr. M. H. Muhammad the Biblical Prophet. International Islamic Publishers, Karachi, Pakistan. 1980. Hamid, S. M. A. Evidence of the Bible About Mohammad. Author published, Karachi, Pakistan. 1973. Kaldani, D. B. Mohammad in the Bible. Abbas Manzil Library, Allahabad, Pakistan. 1952. Lee, F. N. Muhammad in the Bible? Unpublished M. Th. thesis, Stellenbosch, South Africa. 1964. Shafaat, Dr. A. Islam and its Prophet: A Fulfilment of Biblical Prophecies. Nur Al-Islam Foundation, Ville St. Laurent, Canada. 1984. Vidyarthy, Abdul Haque. Muhammad in World Scriptures. (3 Volumes), Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat-i-Islam, Pakistan. 1968. 8. THE GOSPEL OF BARNABAS. Begum Aisha Bawany Wakf. The Gospel of Barnabas. (3rd edition with introduction), Karachi, Pakistan. 1974. do. The Gospel of Barnabas. (6th edition with appendix), Karachi, Pakistan. 1977. Durrani, Dr. M. H. Forgotten Gospel of St. Barnabas. International Islamic Publishers, Karachi, Pakistan. 1982. Gairdner W. H. T. & Abdul-Ahad S. The Gospel of Barnabas: An Essay and Enquiry. Hyderabad, India. 1975. Jadeed, I. The Gospel of Barnabas: A False Testimony. The Good Way, Rikon, Switzerland. 1980. Peerbhai, Adam. Missing Documents from Gospel of Barnabas. Islamic Institute, Durban, South Africa. 1967. do. World Seminar on the Gospel of Barnabas. Al-Jihaad Int. Islamic Movement, Cape Town, South Africa. 1975. Ragg, L. and L. The Gospel of Barnabas. Clarendon Press, Oxford, United Kingdom. 1907. Rahim, M. A. The Gospel of Barnabas. Quran Council of Pakistan, Karachi, Pakistan. 1973. Slomp, J. Pseudo-Barnabas in the Context of Christian-Muslim Apologetics. Christian Study Centre, Pakistan. 1974. do. The Gospel in Dispute. Pontificio Istituto Di Studi Arabi, Rome, Italy. 1978. do. The Pseudo-Gospel of Barnabas. Bulletin, Secretariatis pro non Christianis, Citta del Vaticano, Italy. 1976. Sox, David. The Gospel of Barnabas. George Allen and Unwin Limited, London, United Kingdom. 1984. Wadood, A. C. A. The Holy Prophet Foretold by Jesus Christ in the Gospel of St. Barnabas. Ceylon Muslim Missionary Society, Colombo, Sri Lanka. 1973. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 142: 07.0.1. THE QUR'AN AND THE BIBLE SERIES ======================================================================== The Qur’an and the Bible Series by John Gilchrist ======================================================================== CHAPTER 143: 07.0.2. TABLE OF CONTENTS ======================================================================== Table of Contents Origins and Sources of the Gospel of Barnabas CHRIST IN ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY The Crucifixion of Christ:A Fact, not Fiction What Indeed Was the Sign of Jonah? Is Muhammad Foretold in the Bible? THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF THE QUR’AN AND THE BIBLE ======================================================================== CHAPTER 144: 07.1. AN ANALYSIS OF THE GOSPEL OF BARNABAS ======================================================================== An Analysis of the Gospel of Barnabas Introduction 1. Was Barnabas really its author? 2. Evidence of its Medieval Origin 3. Other Evidences against its Authenticity 4. Who Really Composed this Forgery? Bibliography INTRODUCTION Although the Gospel of Barnabas has in recent years been distributed fairly widely throughout the Muslim world in many languages, most Muslims have not as yet seen a copy of this book. Nevertheless the knowledge of its existence is fairly widespread in the Muslim community. Since 1973 the English translation of the Gospel of Barnabas by Lonsdale and Laura Ragg has been reprinted in large numbers by the Begum Aisha Bawany Wakf in Pakistan and a number of these reprints have come into worldwide circulation. The general position, however, is that most Muslims remain largely ignorant of the book and its contents as a whole. It has been a blissful ignorance. For too long many Muslims have been persuaded that this book tells the ultimate truth about the life and teaching of Jesus Christ. It alleges that Jesus was not the Son of God, that he was not crucified, and that he foretold the coming of Muhammad. As a result some Muslims believe that this is the true Injil that was given to Jesus. The Gospel of Barnabas, however, does not claim to be the Injil but actually distinguishes itself from the book allegedly given to Jesus. In the following passage we find this distinction very clearly brought out: The angel Gabriel presented to him as it were a shining mirror, a book, which descended into the heart of Jesus, in which he had knowledge of what God hath done and what he hath said, and what God willeth insomuch that everything was laid bare and open to him; as he said unto me: ’Believe, Barnabas, that I know every prophet with every prophecy, insomuch that whatever I say the whole hath come forth from that book’. (The Gospel of Barnabas, p.9). Other Muslims believe that the Gospel of Barnabas is the "original testament" and that the Christians have substituted it with the "New Testament". Such an attitude betrays a woeful ignorance, not only of the Gospel of Barnabas, but also of the structure of the Christian Bible as a whole. Because we are persuaded, however, that ignorance is a great evil - no matter how blissful it may be - and because ignorance is the handmaid of error, we deem it necessary to set out the true facts about the Gospel of Barnabas so that it may be clear to Muslim peoples everywhere that this book is a patent forgery of the Middle Ages and that the Muslims will be doing the cause of truth a great service by admitting once and for all that the Gospel of Barnabas is of no historical value at all and that it is to be rejected as a genuine account of the life and teaching of Jesus Christ. This booklet does not purport to be a contribution to the ongoing scholarly study that is being conducted in the Christian world into the background and origins of the Gospel of Barnabas. For this we are chiefly indebted to the Raggs, who first translated the Gospel into English, and to men like Gairdner, Jomier and Slomp who have gone to great lengths in the cause of truth to provide substantial evidence of the falsehood of the Gospel of Barnabas. Rather we have endeavoured to produce here in summary form some of the clear proofs which have come from these studies so that our Muslim friends may see that the Gospel of Barnabas is a forgery which has become a lamentable red-herring across the trail of Christian-Muslim apologetics in the modern world. It has been our purpose in some small measure to convey to the Muslim community worldwide some of the fruits of these studies. We have done this purely because we believe that it is deeply regrettable that men should believe that this book is a true account of the life of Jesus Christ. Because we believe that no lover of truth will wish to be deluded by a counterfeit for long, we have elected to reveal briefly to our Muslim readers some of the origins and sources of the Gospel of Barnabas. We trust that our readers will peruse this booklet with a genuine desire to know where the Gospel of Barnabas really came from and when it was really written - and that they will draw a fair conclusion from the evidence set forth in the following pages of this booklet. 1. Was Barnabas really its author? This book professes to be a Gospel and alleges that its author was the Apostle Barnabas. We must therefore begin by enquiring who the man Barnabas really was and at the same time must decide whether he is the author of the book we are considering in this booklet. To do this we must make some comparisons between the knowledge that we have of the real Apostle Barnabas in the Bible and the professed author of the Gospel of Barnabas. At the beginning and end of this book two comments appear which immediately assist us in our quest. They are these: Many, being deceived of Satan, under pretence of piety, are preaching most impious doctrine, calling Jesus son of God, repudiating the circumcision ordained of God for ever, and permitting every unclean meat: among whom Paul also hath been deceived. (The Gospel of Barnabas, p.2). Others preached that he really died, but rose again. Others preached, and yet preach, that Jesus is the son of God, among whom is Paul deceived. (The Gospel of Barnabas, p.273). The author of this book uses strong language to denounce the teaching of Paul in particular, especially regarding circumcision; the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus; and the Christian belief that Jesus is the Son of God. The whole book abounds in discourses levelled against those things which the author particularly takes Paul to task for, and there can be no doubt that the author of this book is poles apart from Paul and his doctrine and is diametrically opposed to his preaching and teaching. This is the first of many evidences against the authenticity of this book for whoever wrote it expediently appended the name "Barnabas" to it as its author, whereas only a brief reflection on the actual profile of the real Apostle Barnabas will show that he cannot possibly be the author of this book. Let us briefly go through the history of Barnabas in the Bible. He only appears among the apostles after the ascension of Jesus to heaven when the early Christian Church was taking root in the land of Palestine. As a gesture of faith and love towards his brethren, he sold a field he owned and gave the proceeds to the apostles for distribution at their discretion to those who were in need among the brethren. This gesture of kindness was a great source of encouragement to the believers and the apostles accordingly named him "Bar-nabas", which means "Son of encouragement". Before this he had been known only by his common name Joseph (Acts 4:36). Here the author of the Gospel of Barnabas makes his first serious blunder for he suggests throughout his book, not only that Barnabas was actually one of the twelve disciples of Jesus during his ministry on earth, but also that he was known by this name "Barnabas" throughout that period of ministry. On more than one occasion in the book we find that Jesus allegedly addressed him by name and the first occasion, which comes particularly early in the book, is this one: Jesus answered: ’Be not sore grieved, Barnabas; for those whom God hath chosen before the creation of the world shall not perish’ (The Gospel of Barnabas, p.21). Now we have here a patent anachronism which destroys the possibility that this book was really written by the Apostle Barnabas. The apostles only gave him the name "Barnabas" (Son of encouragement) after the ascension of Jesus because of the generous act he had done which had heartened the spirits of the early Christians. But the Gospel of Barnabas makes Jesus call him by this name some three years before he ascended to heaven. This is a serious - in our view fatal - objection to the claim that this book was written by the Apostle Barnabas. As we press on in our study of the life of Barnabas, however, we find further proofs that destroy the claim that this book was really written by him. The next time he appears in the early events of the Church was on the occasion of Paul’s first visit to all the apostles in Jerusalem. Because the apostles knew that Paul had in previous years been a relentless persecutor of the early Christians (primarily because they believed that Jesus was the Son of God!), the apostles and other Christians in Jerusalem doubted whether he really was now converted to their faith. It is indeed a revelation to discover, in the light of the vehement attacks made on Paul in the Gospel of Barnabas, just who it was who went to great pains to assure the brethren in Jerusalem that Paul was really a disciple: But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus. Acts 9:27 We are now confronted with a second serious chain of evidence against the suggestion that Barnabas was the author of the "Gospel" attributed to him. Only seven verses earlier we read that when Paul engaged in public preaching in the synagogue of Damascus, "immediately he proclaimed Jesus, saying, ’He is the Son of God’." (Acts 9:20). When this same Paul came to Jerusalem, it was Barnabas who vigorously defended him as a true disciple of Jesus. What a contrast we have here with the book we are considering where the author, supposedly Barnabas, takes Paul to task for the very fact that he was proclaiming that Jesus was the Son of God. The true Barnabas was the right-hand man of this very Paul who publicly taught that Jesus was indeed the Son of God. It is this same Barnabas who represented him at Jerusalem and who spared no effort in persuading the disciples there that Paul really was a disciple of Jesus. Later on in this booklet we shall show that the Gospel of Barnabas was first written not earlier than fourteen centuries after Christ and that the author, whoever he was, simply chose to make Barnabas the alleged author of his obnoxious forgery. The men we referred to earlier, who have made much in-depth study into the origins and sources of the Gospel of Barnabas, have also tried to ascertain why the real author of this book chose to make Barnabas its supposed author. One or two plausible theories have been suggested, but to this day we have not been able to discover why he did this. But one thing we do know - the actual author of the Gospel of Barnabas could not have made a worse choice for the "authorship" of his book than Barnabas. He has written this book ostensibly as a defence against "Pauline Christianity" (as some put it) and yet he has, probably without serious reflection, chosen as his author the one man we always find at the side of Paul - recommending him at all times as a true disciple of Jesus and endorsing his preaching wherever he went. To put it plainly, the author of the Gospel of Barnabas has chosen as the alleged author of the book he has composed against the teaching of Paul the very man who supported that teaching more actively than anyone else during his ministry. Barnabas was the spiritual blood-brother of Paul. Our real author has, in a second awful manner, made another calamitous blunder by suggesting that the Apostle Barnabas - of all people! - was the author of the fraudulent "Gospel" he has composed. As we go further into the life of Barnabas this fact comes out even more clearly. When the church in Jerusalem heard that the church in Antioch was growing well, the apostles decided to send Barnabas there to take over the teaching and instruction of the new believers. But Barnabas, of his own volition, decided that he could not handle this by himself, and decided to obtain the assistance of another fellow-believer well-grounded in the faith for this work. Without hesitation Barnabas went all the way to Tarsus in Asia Minor to find Paul and immediately he brought him to Antioch to assist him in the instruction of the church in the city. We read the following of their ministry: For a whole year they met with the church, and taught a large company of people; and in Antioch the disciples were for the first time called Christians. Acts 11:26 Under the joint ministry of Paul and Barnabas, the disciples were first called Christians - because Barnabas was a true champion of the very "Pauline Christianity" that the Gospel of Barnabas sets out to refute. After this Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem with aid for the brethren because of a famine that was taking place in the days of the Roman emperor Claudius (Acts 11:28-30). After this Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch (Acts 12:25). They continued to lead the church there and were subsequently sent out by the church to preach the Gospel in the provinces of Galatia (in what is part of Turkey as we know it today). Wherever they went Paul and Barnabas preached that Jesus was the Son of God and that God had raised him from the dead (cf. Acts 13:33). And yet, the author of the Gospel of Barnabas would have us believe that Barnabas was an archenemy of Paul on these matters! We even find them both proclaiming that the restrictive ordinances of Judaism (e.g. circumcision) should not be forced upon the Gentiles and that they were unnecessary for salvation. A very interesting event in their joint ministry is recorded in these words: But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, ’Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved’. And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question. Acts 15:1-2 Certain Judaisers had come among the early Christians stating that circumcision was necessary for salvation. Who do we find debating hotly with them on this point? None other than Paul and Barnabas! And yet, in the Gospel of Barnabas, we read that one of the "impious doctrines" that Paul was holding to was repudiation of circumcision. That he repudiated it as an essential element of salvation we will readily concede (Galatians 5:2-6) - but his chief partner in this repudiation is none other than Barnabas! Once again the author has blundered in making Barnabas the author of his deplorable forgery. Indeed, according to the Gospel of Barnabas, Jesus is alleged to have said to his disciples: ’Leave fear to him that hath not circumcised his foreskin, for he is deprived of paradise’ (The Gospel of Barnabas, p.26). Thus circumcision is an essential element and a prerequisite of salvation in the Gospel of Barnabas and the author obviously assents to this doctrine. But of the real Barnabas we read that he joined with Paul in furiously debating against the doctrine of the Judaisers that circumcision was necessary for salvation. It is quite clear that the real Barnabas was not the author of the book that bears his name and that someone else not only forged this book but misrepresented the name of its author as well. The current publishers of the Gospel of Barnabas (Begum Aisha Bawany Wakf) are well aware that the major objective of the Gospel of Barnabas is to counteract "Pauline Christianity". In an appendix entitled "Life and Message of Barnabas" they allege that the passage about the debate on the issue of circumcision reveals a growing rift between Paul and Barnabas. They quote Acts 15:2 (quoted above) and shamelessly comment: "After this rift, there was a parting of the ways" between Paul and Barnabas (The Gospel of Barnabas, p.279). But it is quite obvious that the rift was not between Paul and Barnabas on the issue but between the men from Judea on the one hand who were glorifying circumcision and Paul and Barnabas on the other who were furiously against perverting the freedom of the religion of Jesus with legalistic traditions and restrictions that could save nobody. Because this appendix appears in all editions of the Gospel of Barnabas published today we must say that the whole article is a brazen misrepresentation of the true relationship between Paul and Barnabas. The writer of the article has had to disown conscience in trying to force the theory of the Gospel of Barnabas that Paul and Barnabas disagreed on doctrinal matters. At no stage is there any evidence that Paul and Barnabas ever disagreed on a matter of doctrine. They once had a minor personal dispute when Paul did not wish to take John Mark on a missionary journey, as he had fallen back on a previous one, to the provinces of Galatia (Acts 15:38-40). This, however, was purely a personal matter which was clearly resolved as we see in other passages of Scripture (Colossians 4:10 and 2 Timothy 4:11). On one other occasion Barnabas was guilty of some religious discrimination with other Jewish Christians in Antioch when they would not eat with the Gentile Christians (Galatians 2:13). Paul censured this strongly but this was also not about a doctrinal matter but one of common fellowship between all Christians no matter what their background. None of these minor disputes had anything to do with the fundamental doctrines Paul and Barnabas so rigidly promoted - the repudiation of circumcision as necessary for salvation, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the basic doctrine that Jesus is the Son of God. Rather we have extensive evidence that Barnabas was the prime vindicator of all these doctrines that Paul taught. Paul’s later letter to the Christians of Galatia helps us even more to perceive the truth of this fact. In the second chapter we read that Paul went up to Jerusalem - with Barnabas of course - taking Titus, an uncircumcised Greek, with him as a test case against the necessity of circumcision (Galatians 2:1). But Titus, however, was not compelled to be circumcised - obviously as a result of the persuasive arguments of Paul and Barnabas against circumcision as an essential element of salvation. Not only did the apostles at Jerusalem agree with Paul and Barnabas that circumcision was unnecessary but, as Paul said, they "gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship" (Galatians 2:9). Once again the sympathy and unity of Barnabas with Paul is plainly revealed and it is obvious that in the early church, whenever the Christians at Jerusalem thought of Barnabas, they must have immediately associated him with Paul. In the third chapter of Galatians we have further evidence that Barnabas was a Christian in every way and not one who was opposed to Christianity as the author of the Gospel of Barnabas is. Paul, aggrieved that the Galatians were considering such a trivial matter as circumcision as essential for salvation, openly censured them for losing sight of the wondrous and all-sufficient work of Jesus who alone made salvation a reality for men through his atoning death on the cross. He rebuked them in the following words which show quite plainly what the heart of his message to them was: O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? Galatians 3:1 We must ask: by whom was Jesus Christ "publicly portrayed as crucified" before the eyes of the Galatians? Who first preached to them the Gospel of Jesus? No one else but Paul and Barnabas! So from this letter we have further concrete evidence that Barnabas was a champion of the Gospel which Paul preached. Certainly he was not only an apostle of true Christian persuasion, but in his quest for Christian fellowship chose Paul as his closest companion. Of all people the Apostle Barnabas could not be the author of the Gospel attributed to him! The transparent unity in the mission and purpose of Paul and Barnabas is finally made even yet clearer by this brief summary of their activities together: "Devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who spoke to them and urged them to continue in the grace of God (Acts 13:43) ... Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly (13.46) ... the Jews stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas (13.50) ... Paul went on with Barnabas to Derbe (14. 20) ... Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them (15.2) ... and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles (15.12) ... then it seemed good to the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas (15.22) ... our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ (15.26) ... Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord (15.35)" There is such a contrast between the real Barnabas who through all these events chooses Paul as his companion, and the pseudo-author of the Gospel of Barnabas, who has a positive antagonism to Paul and his teaching, that we cannot help but conclude that the Gospel of Barnabas is a forgery. It was not written by Barnabas but by someone else who made a major tactical blunder in choosing a close companion of Paul as the author of this book. Two points from within the Gospel of Barnabas also show that the author could not be the real Apostle Barnabas. Firstly, this book makes Jesus constantly deny that he is the Messiah (further treatment of this subject follows later in this booklet) and yet the same book calls Jesus himself the "Christ" (p.2). Now any man with a basic knowledge of Greek knows that "Christos" is the Greek translation of Messiah (a Hebrew word) and that "Jesus Christ" is an anglicised form of the Greek "Iesous Christos", meaning "Jesus the Messiah". The very real contradiction that exists here in the Gospel of Barnabas is further evidence that the author was not Barnabas himself. He came from Cyprus, an island where Greek was the common tongue, and Greek would have been his home language. The real Barnabas would never have made such a mistake as to call Jesus the Christ and deny that he was the Messiah! Secondly, the author of the Gospel of Barnabas has chosen to know nothing of the ministry of John the Baptist in his book but has deviously taken the testimony of John to Jesus in the Bible and changed it into a supposed testimony of Jesus to Muhammad. Whether Jesus ever predicted the coming of Muhammad or not is not at issue here (see Is Muhammad Foretold in the Bible?, No.5 in this series, for a treatment of that subject). What is obvious, however, to anyone who has read the life of Jesus in the Bible, is that the author of the Gospel of Barnabas has tried to make Jesus a herald of the coming of Muhammad in the very mould of John the Baptist who was a herald of the coming of Jesus, and to achieve this he has put Jesus in the shoes of John and has made him say of Muhammad what John really said of him! Accordingly the author of the Gospel of Barnabas has had to omit the person and ministry of John from his book altogether. But the clear and consistent account of John’s ministry in the Bible (see particularly Matthew chapter 3, John chapters 1 and 3) and the plain endorsement in the Qur’an of the ministry of John the Baptist as a herald of Jesus (Surah 3.39) both expose the deceitfulness of the author of the Gospel of Barnabas. It is certain that the real Barnabas, who was a "good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith" (Acts 11:24), would never have resorted to such falsehood in the cause of truth to which he was so dedicated throughout his life. We conclude that there is overwhelming evidence that the real Barnabas was most certainly not the author of the book being circulated today in the Muslim world which purports to be written by him. But now let us press on to a brief examination of the internal evidence of the Gospel of Barnabas to see whether it has any credibility at all, or whether it is not really a "bare-faced forgery", as George Sale put it, that has been unwittingly distributed throughout the Islamic world in the service of Satan and his causes alone. 2. Evidence of its Medieval Origin We find much evidence in the Gospel of Barnabas that it was first written in the Middle Ages - many centuries after the times of Jesus and Muhammad. a). The Centenary Jubilee. In the time of Moses God ordained that the Jews were to observe a jubilee year twice a century: A jubilee shall that fiftieth year be to you. Leviticus 25:11 Throughout the centuries this command was observed and the Roman Catholic Church eventually took it over into the Christian faith. About 1300 AD Pope Boniface the Eighth gave a decree that the jubilee should be observed once every hundred years. This is the only occasion in all history that the jubilee year was made to be only once every hundred years. After the death of Boniface, however, Pope Clemens the Sixth decreed in 1343 AD that the jubilee year should revert to once every fifty years as it was observed by the Jews after the time of Moses. Now we find in the Gospel of Barnabas that Jesus is alleged to have said: ’And then through all the world will God be worshipped, and mercy received, insomuch that the year of jubilee, which now cometh every hundred years, shall by the Messiah be reduced to every year in every place.’ (The Gospel of Barnabas, p.104). Only one solution can account for this remarkable coincidence. The author of the Gospel of Barnabas could only have quoted Jesus as speaking of the year of jubilee as coming "every hundred years" if he knew of the decree of Pope Boniface. But how could he know of this decree unless he lived at the same time as the Pope or sometime afterwards? This is a clear anachronism which compels us to conclude that the Gospel of Barnabas could not have been written earlier than the fourteenth century AD. This also means that the Gospel of Barnabas dates at least seven hundred years after the time of Muhammad and it is in the circumstances of no historical value at all. Although it often makes Jesus predict the coming of Muhammad by name (which is why it is a best-seller in the world of Islam today), as it was written after the death of Muhammad, these "prophecies" are of no interest or value at all. Indeed the Gospel of Barnabas contains many discourses and practices fully synonymous with the basic teachings of Islam - but these too are of no value because the book was written at least seven hundred years after the advent of Islam. Prophecies that are first composed centuries after the event they foretell has come to pass are of no more interest or value than yesterday’s weather forecast. We conclude, from the striking quote about the jubilee year, that the author of the Gospel of Barnabas wrote his book not earlier than the fourteenth century after Christ. Let us press on to examine further evidence of mediaeval features. b). Quotations from Dante. Dante was an Italian who, significantly, also lived about the time of Pope Boniface and wrote his famous "Divina Comedia" in the fourteenth century. This was basically a fantasy about hell, purgatory and paradise according to the Roman Catholic beliefs of his times. Now in the Gospel of Barnabas we read that Jesus allegedly said of the prophets of old: ’Readily and with gladness they went to their death, so as not to offend against the law of God given by Moses his servant, and go and serve false and lying gods’. (Gospel of Barnabas, p.27). The expression "false and lying gods" (dei falsi e lugiardi) is found elsewhere in the Gospel of Barnabas as well. On one occasion it is Jesus again who supposedly uses these words (p.99) and on another it is the author himself who describes Herod as serving "false and lying gods" (p.267). Nevertheless this expression is found in neither the Bible nor the Qur’an. What is interesting, however, is that it is a direct quote from Dante! (Inferno 1.72). Many of the descriptions of hell in the Gospel of Barnabas (pp. 76-77) are reminiscent of those in the third canto of Dante’s Inferno as well. Likewise the expression "raging hunger" (rabbiosa fame) is also reminiscent of the first canto of Dante’s Inferno. Both speak of the "circles of hell" and the author of the Gospel of Barnabas also makes Jesus say to Peter: ’Know ye therefore that hell is one, yet hath seven centres one below another. Hence, even as sin is of seven kinds, for as seven gates of hell hath Satan generated it: so there are seven punishments therein’. (The Gospel of Barnabas, p.171). This is precisely Dante’s description found in the fifth and sixth cantos of his Inferno. We could go on and quote many more examples but space here demands that we press on to other evidences that the Gospel of Barnabas was written in the Middle Ages. One striking quote must be mentioned, however, because in this case the Gospel of Barnabas agrees with Dante while contradicting the Qur’an. We read in the Qur’an that there are seven heavens: He it is who created for you all that is in the earth. Then turned He to the heaven, and fashioned it as seven heavens. Surah 2.29 On the contrary we read in the Gospel of Barnabas that there are nine heavens and that Paradise like Dante’s Empyrean - is the tenth heaven above all the other nine. The author of the Gospel of Barnabas makes Jesus say: ’Paradise is so great that no man can measure it. Verily I say unto thee that the heavens are nine ... I say to thee that paradise is greater than all the earth and all the heavens together’. (The Gospel of Barnabas, p.223). Clearly the author of the Gospel of Barnabas knew Dante’s work and had no scruples to quote from it. Accordingly we have further evidence that the Gospel of Barnabas could not have been written earlier than the fourteenth century - hundreds of years after the times of Jesus and Muhammad. It is accordingly a worthless forgery which should be disowned as such by every Muslim who believes in his heart that no lie can be of the truth. c). The Mediaeval Environment of the Gospel. The author of the Gospel of Barnabas claims to have been with Jesus throughout his ministry and accordingly must have walked with him throughout the land of Palestine during those three years that Jesus served the people of Israel. In the circumstances we would expect to find a first-century, Palestinian environment in his book - such as we find in the four true Gospels of the Christian Bible. But we are astonished to find many incidents which betray a mediaeval, western-European background in the Gospel of Barnabas. Firstly we read: ’Behold then how beautiful is the world in summer-time, when all things bear fruit. The very peasant, intoxicated with gladness by reason of the harvest that is come, maketh the valleys and mountains resound with his singing, for that he loveth his labours supremely’. (The Gospel of Barnabas, p.217). This is a fair description of Spain or Italy in summer but most certainly not of Palestine where the rain falls in winter and where the fields are parched in summer. In any event Palestine has always been a part of the world where cultivation of the land has required much effort and where much of the countryside is barren and grassless. We find it surprising that this land should be appealed to as one which in summer-time is a good example of the delightful environment of Paradise. Indeed Jesus is alleged to have delivered this discourse to his disciples in the wilderness beyond the Jordan (p.211) where they were hardly likely to have any evidence of the glories of the lush gardens of Paradise. Again we read in the Gospel of Barnabas that Martha, her sister Mary, and her brother Lazarus were the overlords of two towns, Magdala and Bethany (p.242). This proprietorship of villages and towns belongs to the Middle Ages when the system of feudalism was rooted in European society. Certainly no such practice was known at the time of Jesus when the occupying Roman forces controlled most of the land of Palestine. These anachronisms rule out any possibility that the Gospel of Barnabas is genuinely what it claims to be. It does well appear to be a forgery of the Middle Ages written by a Muslim who, probably frustrated at being unable to prove that the true Gospels in the Bible are corrupted, wrote a false Gospel and proclaimed that his corruption was the truth! A similar example of the mediaeval environment of this Gospel is the reference in it to wine casks (p.196), for wine was stored in skins in Palestine (Matthew 9:17) while wooden casks were used in Europe in the Middle Ages. In conclusion, however, it must be pointed out that whereas the author of the Gospel of Barnabas reveals in his book that he has an accurate knowledge of the structure of mediaeval society, he simultaneously exposes his ignorance of the land of Palestine which he is supposed to have traversed as a disciple of Jesus for at least three years! He says: Having arrived at the city of Nazareth the sea-men spread through the city all that Jesus had wrought. (The Gospel of Barnabas, p.23). In this passage Nazareth is represented as a coastal city, a harbour on the lake of Galilee. After this we read that Jesus "went up to Capernaum" (p.23) from Nazareth, as though Capernaum was in the hillside near the sea of Galilee. Here the author really has his facts incorrect, for Capernaum was the coastal city and Nazareth was up in the hills (where it is to this day). Jesus would have gone up from Capernaum to Nazareth, not the other way around as the author of the Gospel of Barnabas has it. This evidence also shows that the author of the Gospel of Barnabas lived in Europe in the Middle Ages rather than in Palestine at the time of Jesus. 3. Other Evidences against its Authenticity Before concluding this booklet let us briefly consider some of the other evidences that prove that the Gospel of Barnabas is a forgery. Firstly, this book makes Jesus often state that he is not the Messiah but that Muhammad would be the Messiah. It is a constant, recurring theme in the Gospel of Barnabas. Two quotes show, not only that Jesus did not consider himself the Messiah, but preached that Muhammad was to be the Messiah: Jesus confessed and said the truth: ’I am not the Messiah ... I am indeed sent to the house of Israel as a prophet of salvation; but after me shall come the Messiah’. (The Gospel of Barnabas, pp.54, 104). Other passages in the Gospel of Barnabas contain similar denials by Jesus that he was the Messiah. It is clearly one of the express purposes of this book to establish Muhammad as the Messiah and to subject Jesus to him in dignity and authority. Here, however, the author of this book has overreached himself in his zeal for the cause of Islam. For the Qur’an plainly admits that Jesus is the Messiah on numerous occasions and in doing so it confirms the teaching of Jesus himself that he was indeed the Messiah (John 4:26, Matthew 16:20). One quote from the Qur’an will suffice to prove this: ’O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter’. Surah 3.45 The Gospel of Barnabas was obviously written as an ideal "Islamic" Gospel, setting forth a life of Christ in which he is made to be the Isa of the Qur’an rather than the Lord Jesus Christ of the Christian Gospels. But as it so hopelessly contradicts both the Qur’an and the Bible on the fact that Jesus was the Messiah and does this so often and so consistently, it must be rejected as a forgery by Christian and Muslim alike. There is no room here for apologetics or efforts to reconcile this book with the Qur’an or the Bible. It is a counterfeit. Secondly, it is alleged that the Romans stirred up the Jews to such an extent about the real nature of Jesus that "all Judea was in arms" (p.115), ready to fight for or against the various beliefs being spread among them about him. As a result six hundred thousand gathered for battle - two hundred thousand each for the beliefs that he was God, that he was the Son of God, and that he was only a prophet; all of them being prepared for a three-cornered contest where each side took on the other two at one and the same time! The story betrays itself as a phenomenal myth and fantasy by its hopeless overstatement of the number of men gathered for battle. (The author often resorts to wild exaggerations of facts and numbers in his book in an apparent attempt to create a wondrous impact on his readers). Where did the Jews suddenly find six hundred thousand swords at a time when the Romans not only suppressed but also prevented the manufacture of military hardware by this nation? Rather than fight one another, this whole army could with ease have driven the Romans right out of Palestine for the Roman army throughout the world numbered less than half this figure. Only a small garrison controlled Judea and secular history knows of no such monumental preparation for a three-cornered contest of such gigantic proportions! The Gospel of Barnabas furthermore suggests that Pilate, Herod and Caiaphas went to great pains to prevent the pending holocaust. We find this hard to believe. If indeed the Jews were six hundred thousand strong, Pilate would have been only too delighted to see them decimate one another in a three-cornered contest! The Gospel of Barnabas also clearly contradicts the Qur’an about the birth of Jesus when it says: The virgin was surrounded by a light exceeding bright and brought forth her son without pain. (The Gospel of Barnabas, p.5). This is a clear repetition of Roman Catholic beliefs of the Middle Ages. The bright light and the painless birth find parallels in the beliefs about the Virgin Mary in the churches of Europe in Mediaeval times. No such details are found in the Biblical account of the birth of Jesus but the Qur’an directly contradicts the Gospel of Barnabas when it says: And the pangs of childbirth drove her unto the trunk of the palm tree. Surah 19.23 Because the Gospel of Barnabas purports to be an account of the life of Jesus written by one of his disciples, and further because it has been clearly composed to synchronise with the Qur’an in its concept of Jesus as a prophet of Islam, the Muslim world has not hesitated to foist this book on the Christian world as the "true Gospel". But we are constrained to ask how this book can be true in Muslim eyes if it contradicts the Qur’an which the Muslims believe to be the Word of God. In the Gospel of Barnabas we read that Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea both at the time of the birth of Jesus (p.4) and during the time of his ministry thirty years later. Palestine was a particularly difficult trouble-spot for the Romans and no governor was sent there for long - let alone thirty years. We know from history in any event that Pilate was only appointed governor in 27 AD - more than a generation after the birth of Jesus. This is another faux pas - one of many in the pages of this Gospel. Another contradiction between the Gospel of Barnabas and the Qur’an is found in their respective accounts of the end times. According to the Gospel of Barnabas, on the thirteenth day of a fifteen day climax leading to the end of all things, "the heaven shall be rolled up like a book, and it shall rain fire, so that every living thing shall die" (p.70). The Qur’an, however, says of the Last Day: But when the shout cometh on the day when a man fleeth from his brother and his mother and his father and his wife and his children, every man will have that day concern enough to make him heedless of others. Surah 80.33-37 There is a clear contradiction here. The Gospel of Barnabas states that two days before the end all shall perish but the Qur’an states that men will still be alive until the last day when the trumpet shall sound from heaven. The Muslim world must choose between the Qur’an and the Gospel of Barnabas - no man can sincerely believe that the latter book is a true account of the life of Jesus Christ if he still believes that the Qur’an is the Word of God. Furthermore according to the Gospel of Barnabas all angels shall die on the last day (p.70) but the Qur’an knows nothing of the death of angels but states that eight of them will bear the Lord’s throne on the last day (Surah 69.17). Any Muslim who believes that the Qur’an is the Word of God and any Christian who believes that the Bible is the Word of God must reject the Gospel of Barnabas as a hybrid composition of no literary or religious value at all. We could go on and produce even further proofs that this book is truly a "bare-faced forgery" as George Sale so succinctly put it but the evidence given in this booklet should be sufficient to convince any reasonable Muslim that, while he might feel it would be very useful for a Gospel to be discovered wherein Jesus foretells the coming of Muhammad, the Gospel of Barnabas just does not provide him with the honest evidence he needs. Muslim interest in this book is understandable but, in the name of truth and honesty, the Muslims of the world should admit that it is not a book contemporary with the life of Jesus, which proves that he really was the Isa of the Qur’an, but rather a lamentable forgery which, far from promoting the cause of Islam, must ultimately damage it if foolish men continue to propagate it as a true account of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. We shall conclude with a brief study of the likely origin and author of the Gospel of Barnabas from the evidence we possess at the present time. 4. Who Really Composed this Forgery? There are only two known manuscripts of the Gospel of Barnabas which existed before any copies were made from the texts available to us. The Italian version is in a library today in Vienna whereas only fragments remain of the Spanish version. George Sale, in his comments on the Gospel of Barnabas in his "Preliminary Discourse to the Koran" and a further short preface in his book, speaks of a complete Spanish version in his lifetime which he saw for himself. It appears that the Spanish version may well have been the original one. In the introduction to this version it is claimed that it is a translation of the Italian version but numerous spelling errors in the Italian version - typical of an author using Italian as a second language - certainly show at least that the author was more at home in Spain than Italy. Nevertheless this does not prevent the possibility that someone from Spain tried his hand at composing an original in Italian. This possibility is made all the more real by two considerations. Firstly, as the author often quotes the Vulgate (the Latin translation of the Bible) and has borrowed many of his stories from the Scriptures, he might well have found it more convenient to use the Italian language medium for his own contrived composition. Secondly, he might have thought that his book would look far more authentic if it was written in Italian. It would serve to substantiate the introduction of the Spanish version where it was alleged that the Gospel of Barnabas was originally hidden in the Pope’s library before it was discovered in rather questionable circumstances by a certain Fra Marine who allegedly became a Muslim after reading it. The Italian text may have been written to give some credence to this story - if the Gospel was to appear in Spain first of all, it would be far more suitable to have it written in the foreign tongue in the land of its alleged origin, rather than in the local dialect. This latter alternative might have cast immediate suspicion on its real origin - especially if an Italian version could not be produced to verify the claim that the original came from Italy. Certain features, however, substantiate the suggestion that this book was first written in Spain by a Spaniard, no matter what language he originally wrote it in. The Gospel of Barnabas makes Jesus say: ’For he who would get in change a piece of gold must have sixty mites’. (The Gospel of Barnabas, p.71). The Italian version divides the golden "denarius" into sixty "minuti". These coins were actually of Spanish origin during the pre-Islamic Visigothic period and openly betray a Spanish background to the original Gospel of Barnabas. No one knows who actually wrote the Gospel of Barnabas but what is known, without shadow of doubt, is that whoever it was, it most certainly was not the Apostle Barnabas. It was most probably a Muslim in Spain who, possibly the victim of the reconquest of his country, decided to take private revenge by composing a false Gospel under the assumed name of Barnabas to give his obnoxious forgery some measure of apparent authenticity. He probably first composed the Italian script to maintain this appearance of genuineness but simultaneously composed (or arranged for such a translation) a Spanish version for distribution in his own country. He may well have been the notorious Fra Marine or he may have been the translator Mustafa de Aranda, or indeed he may well have been both - using the two names for the same expedient ends as those he sought to achieve through using the name of Barnabas as the author of his book. He most certainly was someone far more at home in Spain in the Middle Ages rather than in Palestine at the time of Jesus Christ. Whatever the Gospel of Barnabas may claim to be, whatever it may appear to be, whatever the Muslim world would like it to be, a general study of its contents and authorship shows that it is a poor attempt to forge a life of Jesus consonant with the profile of Jesus in the Qur’an and Islamic tradition. The Muslim world will do well to reject this book as a clear forgery - for that is what it unmistakably proves to be. BIBLIOGRAPHY -- BOOKS AND ARTICLES: Begum Aisha Bawany Wakf - The Gospel of Barnabas. (3rd Edition, with introduction). (Begum Aisha Bawany Wakf, Karachi, Pakistan, 1974). Begum Aisha Bawany Wakf - The Gospel of Barnabas. (6th Edition, with appendix). (Bawany Islamic Literature Trust Ltd., Karachi, Pakistan, 1977). Durrani, M H - Forgotten Gospel of St Barnabas. (International Islamic Publishers, Karachi, Pakistan. 1982). Durrani, M H - In Defence of Gospel of St Barnabas. (Muslim Digest, April 1975, Durban, South Africa). Gairdner, W H T and Abdul-Ahad, S - The Gospel of Barnabas - An Essay and Enquiry. (Henry Martyn Institute of Islamic Studies, Hyderabad, India, 1975). Gilchrist, J D - The Gospel of Barnabas - Is this "The Amazing Truth’’? Or is it a "Bare-faced Forgery"? (Jesus to the Muslims, Benoni, South Africa, 1976). Jadeed, I - The Gospel of Barnabas: A False Testimony. (The Good Way, Rikon, Switzerland. 1980). Kritzinger, J N J - A Critical Study of the Gospel of Barnabas. (Benoni, South Africa, 1979). Kritzinger, J N J - The Gospel of Barnabas Carefully Examined. (Pretoria, South Africa, 1975). Peerbhai, A - Missing Documents from Gospel of Barnabas. (Islamic Institute, Durban, South Africa, 1967). Peerbhai, A - World Seminar on the Gospel of Barnabas. (Al-Jihaad International Islamic Movement. Cape Town, South Africa, 1975). Ragg, L and L - The Gospel of Barnabas. (Clarendon Press, Oxford, England, 1907). Rahim, M A - The Gospel of Barnabas. (Qur’an Council of Pakistan, Karachi, Pakistan, 1973). Slomp, J - Pseudo-Barnabas in the Context of Muslim-Christian Apologetics. (Christian Study Centre, Rawalpindi, Pakistan, 1974). Slomp, J - The Gospel in Dispute. (Pontifico Institute Di Studi Arabi, Rome, Italy, 1978). Slomp, J - The Pseudo-Gospel of Barnabas. (Bulletin, Secretariatus pro non Christianis. Citta del Vaticano, 1976). Sox, D - The Gospel of Barnabas. (George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London. England. 1984). Wadood, A C A - The Holy Prophet Foretold by Jesus Christ in the Gospel of St Barnabas. (Ceylon Muslim Missionary Society, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 1973). ======================================================================== CHAPTER 145: 07.2. CHRIST IN ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY ======================================================================== CHRIST IN ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY A comparative study of the Christian and Muslim attitudes to the person of Jesus Christ Christ in Islam and Christianity 1. Mary in the Qur’an and the Bible 2. The Exclusive Title given to Jesus 3. A Consideration of the Birth of Jesus 4. Melchizedek - A Type of the Christ to Come 5. Jesus - the Eternal Son of the Living God The God who "Never Was"? CHRIST IN ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY During 1983 Ahmed Deedat published a booklet entitled Christ in Islam. Although the title presupposes that the author’s intent was to produce a general survey of the Islamic concept of Jesus, it is not surprising to find that much of the booklet is a polemic against Christianity. Like most of his publications, Deedat’s new booklet appears to be primarily an argument against the Christian faith. We deem it appropriate, in the circumstances, to analyse the issues raised in the booklet and to offer a solid refutation of his arguments. It is not our aim to consider the booklet generally but rather to deal solely with those issues that relate directly to Christian beliefs about Jesus Christ. We do not hesitate, from the outset, to say that insofar as Deedat has endeavoured to discredit the Biblical accounts of Jesus’ life and personality he has failed dismally. A good example appears as early as page 6 of his booklet where he claims that the original name of Jesus was "Isa" (as it is the name given to him in the Qur’an) and that it derives from the Hebrew "Esau". He suggests that Esau is a "very common Jewish name" and that it is "used more than sixty times" in the first book of the Bible, namely Genesis (Christ in Islam, p.6). Deedat’s overall ignorance of the Bible and Jewish history thus appears early in his booklet, for there is only one Esau mentioned in Genesis and he is the brother of Jacob, the true father of the Israelite nation. On every one of those more than sixty occasions it is this Esau alone who is spoken of, and there is no mention anywhere in the Bible of any descendant of Israel being called Esau. The Jews just simply did not call their children by this name. Jacob and Esau were enemies for most of their lives and their descendants, the Israelites and the Edomites, were often at war with each other. No Jewish children were ever named after the brother of Jacob, the father of the Israelites, for he stood against Jacob and was rejected by God (Hebrews 12:17). It is thus a fallacy to suggest that the original name of Jesus was Esau. An obvious historical blunder thus appears very early in Deedat’s booklet, though the error is not entirely his own. Christian Arabs have always called Jesus Yasu after the Aramaic Yashua from which comes the Greek "Iesous" and the English Jesus. For reasons that have never been apparent Muhammad chose to call him Isa. Deedat’s interpretation of this name as "Esau" tends to lend support to the suggestion made by some that the Jews in Arabic cunningly misled Muhammad by subtly perverting the true name of Jesus into the name of their forefather’s irreligious brother. If Deedat’s conclusion is correct, it militates heavily against the supposed divine origin of the Qur’an. There can be no doubt, however, that Esau is no nearer to the original and true name of Jesus than Muhammad’s Isa. This fundamental error sets the tone for the whole of Deedat’s treatment of the contrast between Christ in Islam and Christianity and it is hard to resist the conclusion that the Jesus of the Bible, rather than the Isa of the Qur’an, is the true Jesus. We shall proceed to analyse other subjects in Deedat’s treatise which relate the Isa of the Qur’an to the true Jesus of Christianity. 1. MARY IN THE QUR’AN AND THE BIBLE Deedat has much to say, not only about the Qur’anic teaching about Jesus, but also its teaching about his mother Mary. Under the heading "Mary’s birth" he says: The story is that the maternal grandmother of Jesus, Hannah, had hitherto been barren. She poured out her heart to God: if only God will grant her a child, she would surely dedicate such a child for the service of God in the temple. (Deedat, Christ in Islam, p.9) Every Christian child who has attended Sunday school knows about the story of Hannah and how she prayed earnestly to God for a son and promised to deliver him to the service of the Lord all his days if her prayer was answered. The only problem is that the child that was born to her was Samuel who became a prophet and anointed David to be king over Israel about a thousand years before the time of Mary and Jesus! Her prayer is recorded in 1 Samuel 1:11 and later in the same chapter we read: In due time Hannah conceived and bore a son, and she called his name Samuel, for she said, "I have asked him of the Lord." (1 Samuel 1:20) How, then, did Mr. Deedat, a supposed "Muslim scholar of the Bible" as he describes himself, come to make such a blunder as to confuse the mother of Samuel with the mother of Mary? The reason is that the Qur’an itself confuses the two women and, although it does not name Hannah, nevertheless records the anachronism which confounds the two women (Sura Al Imran 3:35-36). (Some of the works of Hadith openly say that the name of Mary’s mother was indeed Hannah and both ancient and modern commentators of the Qur’an accept that this was her real name.) On the next page of his booklet Deedat says, "This was the story. But where did Muhammad (pbuh) get this knowledge from? He was an Ummi (unlettered). He did not know how to read or write" (Christ in Islam, p.10). As an obvious mistake has been made this is a very good question indeed! Deedat refers to the fact that Muhammad was unlettered as a back-up to the claim that the Qur’an is the Word of God. But, as he has clearly mixed up the two women, surely it is obvious that the fact that Muhammad was unlettered is all the more proof that he was the real composer of the book. If he had been well-read in the Jewish Scriptures he would never have made such mistakes. In fact the whole story of Mary’s birth and dedication in the Qur’an is a strange confusion of various passages of the Bible. Mary herself is clearly confused with Elijah, for a start, for he was the prophet confined to solitude who was fed by ravens that brought him food from above (1 Kings 17:6 - the Qur’an states that Mary, too, was fed from heaven in Sura Al Imran 3:37). Nevertheless it is the name given to Mary’s mother, namely Hannah, that really gives us the clue as to where the composers of this story obtained their material. We should perhaps at this stage mention that the original story is first found in an apocryphal work entitled "Proto-evangelium of James the Less" and that it was simply taken over by Muhammad into the Qur’an without him being aware of its mystical origin. The story arises from a confusion between the record of Hannah’s prayer for a son and this passage in the Gospel of Luke: And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher; she was of a great age, having lived with her husband seven years from her virginity, and as a widow till she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshipping with fasting and prayer night and day. And coming up at that very hour she gave thanks to God, and spoke of him to all who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem. Luke 2:36-38 One can clearly see how the anachronism came about. Once again we have a woman whose original Hebrew name was Hannah and yet we find that it is this woman who remained in the Temple night and day, significantly worshipping and fasting for a good many years. Mary has clearly been confused, not only with Elijah and Samuel, but with Anna the prophetess as well! It is clear that the two respective Hannahs - the mother of Samuel and the daughter of Phanuel - have been confused with one another and the story in Sura Al Imran 3 in the Qur’an is therefore clearly a peculiar blending of the two totally different stories in the Bible about these two women. Clearly, therefore, Deedat has committed a major blunder by mixing up the mother of Mary with a woman who lived ten centuries before her. But as if this were not enough he quotes another verse from the Qur’an in his booklet that confuses Mary herself with another woman who lived nearly twenty centuries before her. On page 15 of his Christ in Islam he quotes these words which are addressed to Mary by her neighbours: Yaa ukhta Haaruuna - "O Sister of Aaron". Sura Maryam 19:28 On the next page he quotes Ali’s commentary on this title, "Sister of Aaron", where the translator says, "Mary is reminded of her high lineage and the unexceptionable morals of her father and mother." The problem here is that the only Harun mentioned in the Qur’an (Aaron in English) is the Levitical priest who was the brother of Moses and who lived nearly two thousand years before Jesus! Moses is expressly quoted as speaking of Haaruuna akhi - "Aaron my brother" - in the Qur’an (Sura Ta Ha 20:30). How therefore could Mary, the mother of Jesus, be the sister of Aaron and Moses as well In this case Muhammad’s error cannot be attributed to an apocryphal writing as in the case of Hannah and Samuel. This time the confusion is entirely his own. During his own lifetime he was confronted by Christians with this anachronism and his answer was that the people of old used to give names to their compatriots after the names of apostles and pious persons who had gone before them (Sahih Muslim, Vol.3, p.1169). It is extremely hard to credit this line of reasoning, however, as there is no other instance in the Qur’an where anyone else is so called. Indeed it is also most unlikely that Aaron would be called the brother (akha) of Moses in the Qur’an, as often as he is, in the direct sense if Mary was only called his sister (ukhta) in a figurative sense. Elsewhere in the Qur’an the word ukhtun (a sister) is always applied to an immediate sister (as in Sura al-Nisa 4:12,23,176) and the use of the word in Mary’s case can only mean a "blood-sister of Aaron". It cannot sincerely by explained away as meaning one simply named after her ancestor Aaron as Muhammad is said to have suggested. Even if it was intended to carry this meaning we would still be faced with extreme difficulties, for it leads to untenable suppositions. In those days people were only named as sons or daughters (never brothers or sisters, incidentally) of people from whom they directly descended (e.g. Matthew 1:1 where Jesus is called the "the son of David, the son of Abraham", and Luke 1:5 where Elizabeth is called one of the "daughters of Aaron"). The problem is that Mary was never descended from Aaron at all! Aaron was a Levitical priest, descended with his brother Moses from Levi, one of the sons of Jacob. On the other hand Mary was descended from Judah, one of Jacob’s other sons, through the line of David (Luke 1:32). She was not even of the same tribe as Aaron. The only relationship between them was purely national and ethnic, the remotest there could be. It is true Elizabeth is called her "kinswoman" in Luke 1:36, but if there had been any intermarrying between their ancestors in any way, it must have been on Elizabeth’s side. One of her ancestors must have married into the tribe of Judah (which is hardly surprising as, after the exiles to Assyria and Babylon, this tribe constituted the overwhelming remnant of Israel that finally returned to the promised land). On the other hand it is expressly stated in the Bible that Jesus is an eternal high priest after the order of Melchizedek, and he, therefore, could not have been descended in any way from Levi through Aaron. Accordingly his mother Mary could likewise not have had any Levitical blood in her and so was in no way descended from or related to Aaron: Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become a priest, not according to a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. Hebrews 7:11-16 (my italics) It is therefore only too obvious that Mary had no connection with Aaron at all and the title given to her in the Qur’an does indeed appear to be entirely inappropriate. How then did this error arise? We have to turn to the Bible and here we read: Then Miriam, the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand. Exodus 15:20 The woman spoken of here was the real sister of Aaron, who lived centuries before the mother of Jesus, and the confusion has arisen because the names of the two women are the same in Hebrew, namely Miriam (as they are in Arabic, viz. Maryam). We have seen that ukhta Harun in the Qur’an must mean the blood-sister of Aaron and this is precisely what Miriam was. Muhammad clearly confused Maryam, the mother of Jesus, with this woman. Furthermore the evidence is strongly substantiated by the name given to Mary’s father in the Qur’an. In the Bible we read that Jochebed "bore to Amram, Aaron and Moses and Miriam their sister" (Numbers 26:59). So the father of Aaron and Miriam was a man named Amram - and yet this is the very name given to the father of Mary, the mother of Jesus, in the Qur’an! He is called Imran, the Arabic form of Amram (as Ibrahim is the Arabic form of Abraham). Mary, accordingly, is expressly called Maryamabnata Imran - "Mary, daughter of Imran" - in the Qur’an (Sura al-Tahrim 66:12). So she is not only called the sister of Aaron but also the daughter of Imran. We therefore have a double-proof of the fact that she has been confused with Miriam, the true sister of Aaron and daughter of Amram. Furthermore it may well be asked why Mary is called the "sister of Aaron" in the Qur’an if she is not confused with Miriam. We have shown that she was in no way descended from him and no more closely related to him than to any other patriarch or figurehead of Israel. Accordingly, what relevance is there in the appellation? Why was she called after Aaron rather than Moses, Elijah, Solomon, Joseph or some other prophet? Not only can we find no relevance in the title, the passage quoted above from the Book of Hebrews also makes it plain that it is, on the contrary, all-conceived and quite inappropriate. Not only, therefore, does the Qur’an confuse the two Hannahs but also the Marys as well. Deedat is at pains in his booklet to try to show that the Qur’anic account of Mary’s life is superior to that of the Bible, but when it patently contains such anachronisms as those we have considered, surely it is obvious that the Biblical account is the true one. Three more points made by Deedat about Mary should be treated briefly in conclusion. On one page he quotes Sura Al Imran 3:42 where angels are quoted as saying to Mary that God had "chosen thee above the women of all nations" and comments: Such an honour is not to be found given to Mary even in the Christian Bible! (Deedat, Christ in Islam, p.8) This charge is completely unfounded for the Bible makes exactly the same point as that made in the verse quoted from the Qur’an when it quotes Elizabeth as saying to Mary: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb." Luke 1:42 In fact it is in this verse that we find out why Mary was preferred above all women of all nations. The statement that she was chosen as such, in both the Qur’an and the Bible, appears solely in the context of the promise that she was to bear a son, the holy child Jesus, the Messiah so long awaited (Sura Al Imran 3:45; Luke 1:31-33). "Blessed is the fruit of your womb," Elizabeth so rightly said. Mary was only the greatest among women, chosen above the women of all nations, because she gave birth to the greatest among men, chosen above the men of all nations as the Saviour of the world, even Jesus Christ. The second point made by Deedat worth considering is that there is a whole chapter in the Qur’an, Sura Maryam (Sura 19), "named in honour of Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ (pbuh)" (Christ in Islam, p.11). He would have done even better to disclose that Mary is the only woman expressly mentioned by name in the Qur’an, and that on many occasions. No other woman is so named. Muhammad did well to give such prominence to her, but surely it is clear that Mary was only worthy of such honour because she was the mother of the most prominent man who ever lived, namely Jesus Christ. Lastly Deedat, always seeking occasion to find fault with the Bible, criticises the title "woman" used by Jesus when addressing his mother in John 2:4, alleging that Jesus "behaved insolently towards his mother" (Christ in Islam, p.19). He suggests that it would have been more appropriate to have simply called her "mother". Once again Deedat exposes his ignorance of the Bible and the times in which it was written, for the title "woman" was an endearing title of respect and was so used by Jesus whenever he addressed women. In one passage we read that the Jewish leaders sought to stone a woman caught in adultery and asked Jesus for his verdict in the matter. He replied: "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her" (John 8:7). When they had all walked away he gently said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" (John 8:10). When she said, "No one, Lord", he said "Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again" (John 8:11). While compassionately extending to her the hand of mercy he called her "woman". Was this "insolent behaviour"? The title was purely one of honour and respect, like "Madame" in French or "Dame" in Afrikaans. Jesus also used the title when comforting the woman of Samaria (John 4:21) and once again addressed his mother in this way as he was dying on the cross, and saw her and his beloved disciple John standing next to her. He said to her: "Woman, behold your son." John 19:26 He then said to John, "behold your mother" and from that hour "the disciple took her into his own home" (John 19:27). Even though he was enduring all the horrors of the cross, he did not forget his mother and tenderly committed her to his closest disciple among the men who followed him. After his resurrection he again used the title "woman" when speaking to Mary Magdalene, his closest disciple among the women who followed him (John 20:15). No one sincerely reading these narratives can possibly draw the conclusion that the title "woman" was anything but a gentle title of respect. In conclusion we can only say that Deedat has made a sorry mess of his treatment of Mary’s life and the titles given to her in the Qur’an and the Bible. There can be little doubt that the Biblical record of Mary’s honour, lineage and life is the true one. 2. THE EXCLUSIVE TITLE GIVEN TO JESUS Not only does Deedat show in his statements about the mother of Jesus that he has very little real knowledge of the Bible but this ignorance is once again apparent in his brief consideration of the title given to Jesus in the Bible, namely the Christ. He points out that the original Hebrew word masaha (from which comes mashiah, i.e. the Messiah, or the Christ) was a general word denoting any kind of anointing and that it was used of priests, pillars, tabernacles, etc., which were set apart for worship and duly consecrated for this purpose. His argument then runs that, whereas Jesus is called the Messiah in the Bible or, as it is in the Greek, Christos, this does not make him unique in any way as "every prophet of God is so anointed or appointed" (Christ in Islam, p.13). He goes on to state that in Islam certain titles are given to certain prophets which, in a general sense, apply to all prophets. He says that whereas Muhammad is called rasulullah (messenger of Allah) and Moses kalimullah (word of Allah), these titles apply to all prophets, for each was a messenger of God with whom God spoke regularly. His conclusion, therefore, is that the title Christos is in no way unique and that Jesus was accordingly no different to the other messengers of God. Once again his ignorance is exposed, for the title given to Jesus in the Bible is actually (in the original Greek) ho Christos, that is, "the Christ". The use of the definite article renders the title exclusive in a very real sense and reveals that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, God’s Anointed One, in a way that none of the other prophets were. Indeed the same construction appears in the Qur’an where Jesus is called al-Masih, that is, the only one to whom this title applies. Indeed in the Qur’an Jesus is also called a rasul on at least ten occasions (see, for example, Sura al-Nisa 4:171 where he is expressly called a rasulullah) and in Sura Al Imran 3:45 is called a kalimatim-minhu, that is, a "Word from Him". But the title al-Masih, the Messiah, is applied to Jesus alone in the Qur’an and in the Bible the same title ho Christos likewise can be applied to no one else. Jesus was in a very unique way the Messiah and the title is his alone. Deedat, of course, aims at reducing Jesus to the level of ordinary prophethood and thus finds this exclusive title the Messiah, (or the Christ), very awkward and a cause of offence. His argument, however, is based entirely on the false presumption that the title was never applied to Jesus in a very unique sense. The Qur’an, while fittingly calling Jesus al-Masih, makes no attempt to explain the title. What, then, was its true meaning? One needs no Christian efforts here to transmute "baser metals into shining gold" (Christ in Islam, p.13), as Deedat wishfully imagines, to exalt the statues of Messiah above that of ordinary prophethood. For it was the Jews who spoke of a coming climactic figure whom they named the Messiah after an express use of this title in their Scriptures to so describe him (Daniel 9:26). Throughout the Scriptures of the earlier prophets they rightly found constant predictions of the coming of God’s Anointed, one who would not be an ordinary prophet but the ultimate Saviour of the whole world. (Examples are Isaiah 7:14; Isaiah 9:6-7; Isaiah 42:1-4; Jeremiah 23:5-6; Micah 5:2-4; and Zechariah 6:12-13). He would establish the kingdom of God forever in justice and righteousness and would rule over the nations. He would at first be humbled (Isaiah 53:1-12) and cut off from the land of the living (Daniel 9:26), but at his return at the end of time he would bring the salvation and judgement of God, ruling in justice and glory over his righteous subjects while bringing his enemies from all over the world into submission at his feet (Psalms 110:1). The Jews knew that this exalted figure, the Messiah, was coming and when Jesus came they openly speculated whether it might be him (John 7:31; John 7:41-43; John 10:24; Matthew 26:63). On a number of occasions he openly confirmed that he was indeed the Messiah (John 4:26; Matthew 16:17; Mark 14:62) and told the Jews that he would return in a cloud with power and great glory and that they would see him seated at the right hand of God (Matthew 26:64). It requires no supposed Christian "juggling of words" (Christ in Islam, p.13) to exalt Jesus to the status of God’s eternal Saviour and Messiah. The Jews themselves knew that the Messiah would not be made of "baser metals" like the other prophets but would, in comparison, indeed be "shining gold" which Jesus surely was! The Jews tragically rejected their Messiah, the fulfilment of their hopes, and so were cut off very shortly afterwards (AD 70), and to this day their religion has lost all its original meaning and glory. A more ironical tragedy is the attitude of the Muslim world, which in one breath acknowledges that Jesus was indeed the Messiah but in another claims that he was only a prophet. The whole meaning of the title is missed completely in Islam. Jesus Christ is the exclusive Saviour of the world, the unique Messiah whom God sent for the healing of the nations. The title is his alone and exalts him to the status he alone enjoys among the sons of men - the King of Glory who will rule throughout eternity. 3. A CONSIDERATION OF THE BIRTH OF JESUS Deedat’s prejudices against the Christian Bible find further expression in his treatment of the conception and birth of Jesus. He quotes Luke 1:35 which records the words of the angel Gabriel to Mary to the effect that the Holy Spirit would "come upon" her and that the power of the Most High would "overshadow" her. He comments on these words: The language used here is distasteful - gutter language - you agree!? (Deedat, Christ in Islam, p.24) In his booklet the words "gutter language" are emphasised in bold print. Someone has said, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." It seems the converse is equally true. Deedat implies that there is something immoral about the Biblical account of the conception of Jesus. He very significantly omits the rest of the verse: "therefore the child to be born of you will be called holy, the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). The whole verse is set in an awesome context of holiness. Because this child was to be conceived, not by the medium of impure flesh, but by the power of the Holy Spirit, therefore the child would not be impure and sinful like all other men, but would be holy, even the Son of God. How anyone can see anything distasteful in this is beyond understanding. The Qur’an itself teaches that the reason for the conception of Jesus by divine power alone was his unique holiness (Sura Maryam 19:19). These words apply: To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving, nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted. Titus 1:15 In Luke’s Gospel one often reads of their Holy Spirit coming upon people and in every case the expression implies an anointing of his holy influence. Simeon was a man "righteous and devout" and the "Holy Spirit was upon him" (Luke 2:25) and when Jesus was baptised and was praying, the "Holy Spirit descended upon him" (Luke 3:22). Likewise we read that when the glory of God appeared above Jesus when he was transfigured, "a cloud came and overshadowed them" (Luke 9:34). How can anyone say, when similar expressions are used of the conception of Jesus (i.e. that the Holy Spirit "came upon" Mary and that the power of God "overshadowed" her), that this is "distasteful - gutter language"? It is quite clear that the words used to describe the manner in which the Christ-child would be conceived are generally used in the Bible to describe any occasion where a very real anointing of the power and holiness of God might come upon a person. We really cannot see what the basis of Deedat’s argument is and are once again led to the impression that he must be prejudiced against the Christian faith to make such unwarranted charges against it. His efforts to compare the Biblical version of the birth of Jesus unfavourably with the Qur’anic version of the same event prove to be equally futile when he says: For God to create a Jesus, without a human father, He merely has to will it. If he wants to create a million Jesus’ without fathers or mothers, He merely has to will them into existence. (Deedat, Christ in Islam, p.24) This begs the obvious question - why did God not create a "million Jesus’ without fathers or mothers"? Surely the fact that only one man was conceived in this way shows that it was not the will of God that many should thus be conceived without fathers. On the contrary, it was clearly his express will that only one unique personality was destined to be born in this way. This also demands the probability that there was something very unique about the man Jesus for him to be conceived in this way. All ordinary men have natural fathers and mothers - prophets included. There can be only one reason why Jesus had no human father. Being the Son of the eternal Father it was absolutely essential that he be conceived in human form in an unusual way, without human intervention and by the power of the Spirit of God alone. This is surely quite obvious. It also does not help Deedat to quote from Yusuf Ali’s translation and commentary on the Qur’an in respect of Sura Al Imran 3:59 where the commentator points to the fact that Adam had neither father nor mother and so has a greater right (as Deedat suggests on page 26 of his booklet) to be called the Son of God. Adam was created in a full adult state when it was not possible he be born of human parents. Someone had be created first. But Jesus was born of a woman alone when God’s natural order of procreation had been in effect for centuries. It is obvious why Adam had no father or mother. But what was the reason why God should interrupt the natural order of procreation so that Jesus could be born of a mother only? There is no reasonable alternative to the following explanation given in the Bible which thoroughly contrasts Jesus and Adam: The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 1 Corinthians 15:47 Adam was just an ordinary, natural man into whom God breathed the breath of life. Jesus, however, was an eternal personality, a life-giving spirit, who came from heaven and whose conception, therefore, had to involve an interruption of the natural, earthly course of the human race. He was the breath of life and those who believe in him receive eternal life and shall be transformed into his heavenly likeness in the course of time. 4. MELCHIZEDEK - A TYPE OF THE CHRIST TO COME We proceed to consider Deedat’s manner of dealing with the resemblance between Jesus and his forerunner, Melchizedek. He says of the latter that he is "another person greater than Jesus" (Christ in Islam, p.26) and quotes Hebrews 7:3, which says that Melchizedek was without father, mother or descent, and had neither beginning of days nor end of life. After this description three innocuous-looking dots follow in Deedat’s booklet (p.26). This is not unusual - the phenomenon occurs in other booklets Deedat has written (see No.1 in this series, The Crucifixion of Christ: A Fact, not Fiction) and in pamphlets published by his Islamic Propagation Centre. These three dots invariably stand for certain words that have been discreetly omitted from the text by Deedat because they refute the very point he is trying to make. A remarkable phenomenon indeed! We shall quote the whole passage from Hebrew, placing in italics the words of the text casually suppressed by Deedat and replaced by three little dots: For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him; and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. He is without father or mother or genealogy, and has neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest for ever. Hebrews 7:1-3 The closing words in italics openly refute the point Deedat is labouring to make, that is, that Melchizedek was "greater than Jesus" for they show plainly that he only resembles the Son of God. He was thus only a forerunner, a type, a shadow and limited example of the eternal High Priest to come. The point made in the passage quoted Hebrews is that the Scriptures do not contain a genealogy of Melchizedek, not that he actually had no genealogy. They simply do not mention his father, mother or genealogy, nor do they tell us when he was born or when he died. He appears in a brief passage in Genesis 14:1-24 where he is described as the king of Salem who met Abraham returning from a slaughter of the people who captured his nephew Lot. He is openly described as a "priest of God Most High" (Genesis 14:18) but apart from these notes, no other mention is made of him. The argument set forth in the Epistle to the Hebrews is that Jesus was not a Levitical priest after the order of Aaron but an eternal high priest after the order of Melchizedek. This means that as the latter’s beginning and end are not specifically mentioned in the Bible, so in this respect he prefigures Jesus who was actually from heaven, an eternal being who really has no beginning or end in an absolute sense. Melchizedek only resembled him - the point Deedat subtly obscures - and the brief description of his character as a priest of God to whom Abraham paid tithes serves as an example of the ultimate, true minister of God to come, Jesus Christ. 5. JESUS - THE ETERNAL SON OF THE LIVING GOD The latter part of Deedat’s booklet contains a relentless and at times uncouth attack on the Christian doctrine and Biblical teaching that Jesus is the Son of God. Nevertheless he is obliged to concede that from at least one point of view, "he is pre-eminently the Son of God" (Christ in Islam, p.29). On page 28 he quotes a number of texts to show that the expression "son of God" is found often in the Bible in contexts where people are being described generally as children of God. He then concludes that when Jesus claimed to be the Son of God he was also only speaking in a metaphorical sense and that Christians err when they say that he was the eternal Son of God. No one can possibly draw such a conclusion without overlooking a wealth of evidence in the Bible that shows that Jesus was the Son of God in a unique and absolute sense. On numerous occasions he made statements that make this point very clearly. Consider this verse: "All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, or who the Father is except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." Luke 10:22 As the Jews once testified, "so man ever spoke like this man" (John 7:46). No other prophet used such language to identify himself. All things, said Jesus, had been delivered to him and no one could know the Father unless the Son actually revealed him. Here is a similar quotation which shows that Jesus considered himself the Son of God in an absolute sense, a quote which, like many others, is expediently ignored in Deedat’s booklet: "The Father judges no none but has given all judgement to the Son, that all may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He who does not honour the Son does not honour the Father who sent him." John 5:22-23 If we are all children of God, as Deedat imagines (p.29), why did Jesus say that all men should honour him as the Son of God even as they honour the Father? Indeed throughout the Gospels we find teachings that show that Jesus regarded himself as the unique, eternal Son of God. On one occasion he told a parable about a householder who planted a vineyard and let it out to tenants. When the season for fruit came the owner sent his servants to the tenants to get his fruit, but one by one they maltreated them and sent them away empty-handed, beating one and wounding another. The owner of the vineyard then said to himself: "What shall I do? I will send my beloved son; it may be they will respect him." Luke 20:13 But when the tenants saw him, they promptly rejected him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him. Jesus then concluded that the owner would destroy those tenants and let the vineyard out to others. Immediately the Jews "perceived that he had told this parable against them" (Luke 20:19). The perception was well-founded and the interpretation of the parable is obvious. God had allowed the Jews to live in a land he had given them as an inheritance, yet they constantly rebelled against him. He sent his servants the prophets but these too they rejected and often maltreated. Eventually after they had cast Jesus out of their midst and killed him, God brought destruction upon them and they were uprooted from the land of Palestine while Jerusalem became a heap of ruins (this was forty years after Jesus had ascended to heaven and occurred under the onslaught of the Roman tribune Titus). The vital point in the parable is the identification of the last messenger to the tenants as the beloved son of the owner, as distinct from the former messengers who were only servants. Jesus clearly distinguished himself from the former prophets in this parable, showing that whereas they were only God’s servants, he was his beloved Son. This was confirmed on at least two occasions when God himself spoke from heaven and said of Jesus: "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." Matthew 3:17 On another occasion Jesus asked his disciples who the people thought he was. They answered that it was generally believed that he was one of the prophets. So he asked them who they thought he was and Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16) to which Jesus answered that he was especially blessed for he had not perceived this through human wisdom but through a revelation from above. It is not possible to honestly conclude, from a genuine study of his teaching, that Jesus ever regarded himself as anything less than the eternal, unique Son of God. These words sum up his teaching: For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him may not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16 God sent his only Son, a teaching found constantly in the Bible. (For a treatment of the use of the word "begotten" in the King James Version and Deedat’s arguments about it, see Nr.3 in this series, The Textual History of the Qur’an and the Bible). Those who are God’s children on earth, his sons and daughters in a lesser sense, are so because God has become their Father and has chosen to treat them as his children. But Jesus was his eternal Son, who came from him into the world so that others might become children of God. The whole distinction between Jesus as the absolute, eternal Son of God, and Christians who have become the sons of God is put exceptionally well in these words: But when the time had fully come God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might attain adoption as sons. Galatians 4:4 God sent forth his Son so that many others might attain adoption as sons. Jesus taught this quite plainly as well, saying "I proceeded and came forth from God" (John 8:42). Yet another verse makes this abundantly clear: For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. John 3:17 Jesus was the only Son from the Father (John 1:18) and he regarded himself as such in all his teaching. He never claimed to be the son of God in the sense that all true believers are children of God. Speaking of the day of his return he said that no one knows the day, "not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only" (Matthew 24:36). Here there is a clear progression of authority, viz. men - angels - the Son - the Father. Quite clearly Jesus spoke of himself in only one ultimate context - above the angels as the only Son of the eternal Father. He describes his status in terms that relate to the Divine Being alone. Deedat goes on to deal with the statement of Jesus, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30), saying that its context shows that this does not mean that Jesus was one with his Father in omniscience, nature or omnipotence, but only "one in purpose" (Christ in Islam, p.37). To set the quotation in its context he quotes verses 27-29 before it and says: How can anyone be so blind as not to see the exactness of the ending of the last two verses. But spiritual blinkers are more impervious than physical defects. (Christ in Islam, p.37) One wonders where the blindness really is and who it is whose spiritual eyes are restricted by blinkers, for Deedat casually glosses over a remarkable statement made by Jesus in one of the very verses he is referring to, where Jesus says of those who are his true followers: "I give unto them eternal life." John 10:28 Who but God alone can give not only life but eternal life? One has to read such statements, not only in their immediate context, but in the whole context of Jesus’ overall teaching about himself. At another time he said: "For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so the Son gives life to whom he will." John 5:21 This statement shows that the Son indeed possesses the same omnipotence as the Father. At the end of his earthly course Jesus again spoke of the Father giving him "power over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom thou hast given him" (John 17:2). The statement "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) made by Jesus, is one which he made no attempt to qualify, and it does not behove any interpreter to restrict its meaning to "one in purpose". At face value it clearly means "one in all things" and Jesus would hardly have made such a striking claim without qualifying it if he had not intended to convey the impression that there was an absolute oneness between the Father and the Son and that he therefore possessed deity. It is no wonder the Jews so understood his claim (John 10:33). Furthermore it is intriguing to find that Deedat has placed certain words in capitals in the verses referred to earlier, namely the statement of Jesus that no one could pluck his followers from his hand, nor from his Father’s hand. How could Jesus make such a claim unless he possessed the same power to preserve his followers that his Father possessed? It is surely clear to those whose eyes are not blinded by their presuppositions against the teaching of Jesus in the Bible, that Jesus did not claim that he was one with his Father in purpose alone but also in the possession of the absolute, eternal power required to execute that purpose to complete effect. The whole problem with Deedat is that, being a Muslim, he approaches the Bible with the presumption that Jesus is not the eternal Son of God and so could never have claimed to be such. He therefore cannot read the Bible with an open mind and interpret it consistently. When he is met with plain statements that show that Jesus again and again claimed to be the Son of God, he cannot simply accept them. His presumptions oblige him to either overlook and ignore them when he cannot counter them, or misinterpret and pervert them whenever he thinks he can. Towards the close of his booklet he mentions two incidents in the life of Jesus which prove this point very adequately. He finds an occasion where Jesus taught that to enter life, one must keep the commandments of God (Matthew 19:17) and makes much of this because such teaching seems to coincide with Islamic dogma. Here, however, he falls into the very trap he cautions against elsewhere in his booklet by wrenching this statement out of its context. What follows does not suit his argument so he ignores it. Jesus went on to show the young man he was addressing that no one can keep God’s laws perfectly and so enter life in this way. The young man was very rich and Jesus said to him: "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." Matthew 19:21 It may be true today that "no one is perfect" but God surely is and he will judge us by his own standards of perfection. A limited attempt to keep his laws is not acceptable to him, and who keeps them perfectly? When Jesus made this young man realise that he could not do so, he showed him another way to life: If you would be perfect...follow me. The second incident concerns the raising of Lazarus from dead. Because Jesus was moved in his spirit and prayed to his Father about the matter Deedat concludes that he could not have been the eternal Son of God. Once again, however, he casually ignores the context of this prayer and expediently overlooks an outstanding claim made by Jesus at the very time this wonderful miracle was performed: "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall be live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die." John 11:25 The words in the original Greek introducing this statement are emphatic, meaning, "I, I am the resurrection and the life," or, "I myself am the resurrection and the life." This means that Jesus himself, in a unique and absolute sense, is the resurrection and the life. It is little wonder that he is called the "Author of life" (Acts 3:15) elsewhere in the Bible. No one who did not have an eternal nature could ever have made such a claim. Such words can be spoken by one whose nature is deity alone. The great mistake that Deedat makes when he reads the Bible is that he does not objectively seek to discover what it says, but approaches it with presumptions about what it should say. Christians read the Bible earnestly desiring to know what Jesus said about himself and throughout history they have universally drawn the conclusion that he taught that he was the eternal Son of God who came in human form to redeem the world. It is a conclusion they draw from an open assessment of the contents of the books they read. But men like Deedat have decided in advance, before they even pick up a Bible, what it should say about Jesus. Because he believes that Jesus was only a prophet and not the Son of God, he approaches the Bible with the presumption that it should support this belief and wherever he can he attempts to pervert or distort its teaching to yield this presumption. Deedat is thus totally unqualified and unfit to interpret the Bible. How is it that the Christian Church has universally held that Jesus is the eternal Son of God if the Bible does not teach this? Deedat’s attempts to disprove this do not arise from a sincere assessment of Biblical teaching but from a presumption that it should not yield such a doctrine. It is quite clear who is reading the book with "blinkers". It is the Islamic propagandist whose ability to read the Bible sincerely and objectively is blinkered by his dogmatic presumption that it should not teach that Jesus is the Son of God. In conclusion we can only say that he exposes himself in no uncertain terms when he attempts to treat John 1:1 in a supposedly scholarly way on pages 40-41 of his booklet. The whole verse reads: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 He says that the Greek word for God in the clause "and the Word was with God" is hotheos and that in the latter clause "and the Word was God" the word is tontheos. He relates a discussion between himself and a Reverend Morris in which his apparently exceptional knowledge of Greek allegedly enabled him to confound and silence the reverend completely. We stand absolutely amazed, for the supposed "Muslim scholar of the Bible" has done nothing but expose an appalling ignorance of the Greek text. It is in the first clause that the word is tontheos and in the second it is simply theos, that is, God. On this palpable error Deedat builds an apparently convincing argument in his booklet! He says, therefore, that tontheos means "a god" and that John 1:1 therefore teaches that "the Word was a god". This supposedly disproves the deity of Jesus Christ. Yet the original Greek reads that ho logos, that is, "the Word", was theos, that is "God". The verse thus correctly reads "The Word was God", a statement comprehensively endorsing the deity of Christ. Thus Deedat’s arguments slide completely to the ground through a shocking error of his own making, caused by his ignorance of the Bible. His booklets against the Christian faith constantly reveal two extremes - a bold confidence in his points on the one hand matched only by an obvious lack of substance in them on the other! Surely little further evidence is needed to show that Deedat has little qualification of pose as a "Muslim scholar of the Bible". His arguments and confident manner might lead unwary Muslims who are ignorant of the Bible into thinking he is a great critic of the book but, as Jesus said, it is wrong and foolish to judge purely by appearances (John 7:24). As this reply to his Christ in Islam shows, a Christian with a sound knowledge of the Bible can disprove his arguments without much difficulty and at times with contemptuous ease. The glaring mistakes he makes and the perversion of Biblical teaching that he practises show conclusively that hi crusade against Christianity is thoroughly unwarranted and that, in his attempts to expose the Bible, he really only succeeds in exposing himself. THE GOD THAT "NEVER WAS"? During 1983 the Islamic Propagation Centre published a booklet entitled The God that Never Was, which had first been published as an article in a local Muslim newspaper Al-Balaagh in 1980, as a response to a reply I had written to certain lectures against the Christian faith by Ahmed Deedat on cassette tapes. The booklet contains a large number of quotations from the Bible, chiefly from the four Gospels, which all relate to the earthly life Jesus lived for thirty-three years in human form. Each one of these quotes is headed by a title in which the name of Jesus is substituted by "God", and comments are made about his humanity which appear to ridicule the Christian belief in his deity. The author of the booklet sets out his purpose in these words: In our headings and subheadings we have referred to Jesus as "God" in inverted commas in order to show the ABSURDITY of the claim of this man that Jesus is God! (The God that Never Was, pp. 2-3) A brief selection of passages from the Gospels quoted in the booklet and the headings above them illustrate the manner in which the author has set out to ridicule the deity of Christ: The Ancestors of "God": "The generations of Jesus Christ, the son for David, the son of Abraham" (Matthew 1:1). (p.3) "God" was Twelve Years Old when His Parents Took Him to Jerusalem: "Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast" (Luke 2:41-42). (p.6) "God" Was a Tribal Jew: "The Lion of the Tribe of Judah" (Revelation 5:5). (p.9) As any reader of the booklet can see, the scriptures quoted relate primarily to the humanity of Jesus and his brief life on earth. The thrust of the essay is that Jesus could not have been God because he was a man and was subject to all the natural limitations of the human race (i.e. ancestry, nationality, human emotion, physical weakness, etc.). The author of this essay, unnamed in the booklet but said to be one Mohammed Seepye in the issue of Al-Balaagh in which it occurs, has casually glossed over and paid no attention to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, but has instead set forth Christian belief in Jesus as God absolutely (that is, to the exclusion of the Father and the Holy Spirit and without reference to the office of Jesus as the Son of God). He knew that when Christians say that Jesus is God this means that he shares the divine nature of the Father (a point carefully made by me in the very quotations the article contains from my reply to Deedat’s tapes) with the Holy Spirit in a threefold Trinity. But he has subtly reversed this by misrepresenting the Christian doctrine, setting it forth as a belief that God, the subject, is Jesus, and has based his whole argument on this premise. Muslims rightly claim that Islam is often misunderstood and misrepresented in the West. That is true, but it is equally true to say that Muslims do the same thing with Christian beliefs about Jesus Christ. They either just do not understand of the deity of Christ or consciously misrepresent it to suit their purposes. It is a fundamental Christian doctrine that Jesus is the Son of man as well as the Son of God. There is no validity in any argument against the deity of Jesus which is based exclusively on the human limitations he deliberately assumed during his brief course on earth. It will be a welcome change to discover in Jesus as the Son of God based sincerely on that doctrine exactly as it is set forth in the Bible, and not on a misrepresentation of it such as we find in Seepye’s article. There is one passage in the Bible that answers the whole theme of this article very comprehensively: Have this mind among yourselves, which you have in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Php 2:5-8 The Greek word for "form" used in this passage carries the meaning "essence" or "nature". An appropriate illustration of this meaning is our cliché "an apple to the core", meaning that it is an apple through and through. This is what the word used here for "form" means. The passage thus teaches that the original nature and essence of Jesus was that of deity alone and that, reverently speaking, "through and through". Nevertheless, unlike Adam, the first man, who sought to be like God by eating of the tree of good and evil, Jesus, though he was divine by nature and enjoyed the very same essence as the eternal Father in heaven, did not consider it essential to his glory to hold on to that status in heaven. Instead, in perfect humility, he condescended to become a man and was thus found in human "form" (that is, he became man through and through). As men are by nature servants of God he thus also took the "form" of a servant he was not a servant of God by nature. The point is that he voluntarily put off his divine glory for a season and took human form so that he might redeem men and women and thus bridge the gap between God and man that sin had created. This was the fundamental purpose of his coming to earth in human form. His perfect humility and condescending grace led him even further than Adam, as a natural servant of God, had ever been required to go. He became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. From the throne of heaven he descended to the lowest places on earth. This, however, was done that sinful men might be raised to the high status of children of God through his redeeming work. In consequence of his plunge to the depths of human wretchedness God has raised him above the heights of the heavens: Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to glory of God the Father. Php 2:9-11 Before him, in ages to come, in his eternal glory which he has now resumed, all man and all angels shall bow and acknowledge him, whether in praise or in belated deference to his true status. In the light of the fact that he took human nature and voluntarily chose to subject himself to all the limitations and weaknesses of that nature, one can surely see that no case against his deity based on him humanity (including the ancestry he elected to share, the nationality he assumed, and the human course he adopted) has any substance. In virtually every case where the expression "God" appears in the headings in Seepye’s article one can comfortable substitute the expression the Son of man without any inverted commas, and the titles make good sense. (I say in virtually every case deliberately, as some of the headings also misrepresent the meaning of the texts quoted underneath). Christians do not say that "Allah is Christ, the son of Mary" as the Qur’an alleges they do (innallaaha huwal Masiihubnu Maryam - Sura al-Ma’ida 5:72), that is, that God is Jesus. We believe that God is a Supreme Being in a threefold unity of persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and that the Son alone took human form as the man Christ Jesus. We do believe that the Son is subject to the authority of the Father (the very titles imply an equality in essence and nature between them on the one hand and the subjection of one to the other on the other hand). We do also believe that the Son was sent into the world according to the Father’s purpose and will, as Jesus himself said: "I came not of my own accord but he sent me" (John 8:42). Likewise we accept that he does nothing of his own accord but only what the Father wills and does and, because he is the eternal Son of God, has omnipotent power to put this divine will and activity into effect (John 5:19). These are basic Christian teachings. The fundamental difference between the Christian and Muslim concepts of Christ is not in their understanding of his subjection to a higher authority, nor in their common conviction that he was a human being in every respect while on earth. With Muslims, we accept that he spoke only as he was commanded to speak (John 12:49) and that there is one greater than he (John 14:28). We differ primarily in our beliefs about his nature for Islam allows him no more than humanity and prophethood, whereas Christianity teaches that God spoke through him, not as a prophet, but as a Son through whom he made all things, who reflects his glory, and who "bears the very stamp of his nature" (Hebrews 1:3). Booklets like The God that Never Was which represent Jesus in Christian doctrine as God absolutely, with no reference to the Father and the Holy Spirit or to his subjection to the former in authority, misrepresent Christianity altogether. Such publications accordingly serve no useful purpose. If Muslims would only assess this doctrine for what it really is, they would find it not as for removed from their own as they generally suppose, and would perhaps come to a truer and closer knowledge of who Jesus really is - not a "god" who "never was" but the eternal Son from heaven who truly remains the "same yesterday, today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8). ======================================================================== CHAPTER 146: 07.3. THE CRUCIFIXION OF CHRIST:A FACT, NOT FICTION ======================================================================== The Crucifixion of Christ:A Fact, not Fiction THE CRUCIFIXION: FACT, NOT FICTION 1. Did Jesus Plan an Attempted Coup? 2. The Image of Jesus in Deedat’s Booklets 3. Did Jesus Defend Himself at His Trial? 4. The Theory that Jesus Survived the Cross 5. Wild Statements in Deedat’s Booklet 6. Gospel Truths Deliberately Suppressed by Deedat The Crucifixion: Fact, not Fiction The Bible is an anvil on which many hammers have been broken, yet its enemies never tire of attempting to make some impression on it. Ahmed Deedat of the Islamic Propagation Centre in Durban made little headway with his booklet "Was Christ Crucified?" even though over a hundred thousand copies were eventually distributed, but instead of abandoning his project he has published a new attack on the Christian faith in the form of his booklet "Crucifixion or Cruci-fiction?" The whole theme of this publication is that Jesus was a man of weak temperament and character who plotted an unsuccessful coup in Jerusalem and who fortuitously survived the cross. This theory has no Biblical foundation and is contradicted by the Qur’an which teaches that Jesus was never put on a cross (Surah 4.157). It is promoted only by the Ahmadiyya cult of Pakistan which has been declared a non-Muslim minority sect. Only Deedat knows why he continues to espouse the cause of a discredited cult and why he advocates a theory that is anathema to true Christians and Muslims alike. In this booklet we shall set forth a refutation of Deedat’s publication, concentrating solely on the subject at hand without dealing with many issues in his treatise where he goes off at a tangent or writes purely rhetorically. 1. DID JESUS PLAN AN ATTEMPTED COUP? Deedat constantly employs a theme in the early part of his booklet to the effect that Jesus planned a coup during his last week in Jerusalem which eventually had to be aborted. Under the heading ’An Aborted Coup’ he says "... his high hopes did not materialise. The whole performance fizzled out like a damp squib..." (Deedat, Crucifixion or Cruci-fiction?, p. 10). It must come as a surprise to all Christians and Muslims to hear a new argument, first conceived nearly twenty centuries after the event, that Jesus was planning a political coup. For the one thing Jesus constantly avoided was any involvement in the politics of his day. He refused to be drawn into debates on the merits of paying taxes to the Roman oppressor (Luke 20:19-26), withdrew from the crowds when they wanted to make him a political leader (John 6:15), and regularly taught his disciples not to be like those who sought political power (Luke 22:25-27). The Jews did everything they could to convince Pilate, the Roman governor, that Jesus was advocating a revolt against Caesar (Luke 23:2) and yet even Deedat, in an unguarded moment, is constrained to admit that this charge "was absolutely false" (p.27). It is thus of great significance to find that even Deedat acknowledges that Jesus "did not look like a Zealot, a political agitator, a subversive person, a terrorist!" (p.27) and goes on to say in his booklet: His was a spiritual kingdom, a ruler to rescue his nation from sin and formalism. (Deedat, Crucifixion or Cruci-fiction?, p.27). It is therefore all the more remarkable to find him attempting to prove elsewhere in his booklet that Jesus was indeed plotting a political coup to deliver the Jews from their overlords. His comments on page 27 of his booklet unwittingly pull the carpet right out from underneath his own thesis! He admits that Jesus was not planning a revolution. The theory is in any event absurd as appears from an analysis of some of Deedat’s arguments in its favour and we shall briefly consider these to prove the point. We begin with his treatment of Jesus’ statement just before his arrest that those of his disciples who had no sword should sell their garments and buy one (Luke 22:36). He interprets this to mean that Jesus was calling them to arms and to prepare for a jihad a "holy" war, whatever that might be. What followed on this statement of Jesus is of great significance. His disciples said: "Look, Lord, here are two swords". And he said to them, "It is enough". Luke 22:38 Two swords would hardly be "enough" to stage a revolution and it is obvious that Jesus meant "enough of that", that is, your misunderstanding of what I am saying. Nevertheless, because he is trying to convince his readers that Jesus was planning a coup, he is at pains to argue that two swords would have been enough to overthrow the whole Jewish hierarchy in Israel and immediately thereafter their Roman overlords! As is to be expected, his argument is hardly persuasive. He resorts to further flights of fancy in suggesting that Jesus’ disciples were "armed with sticks and stones" (p.13) like some riotous mob. There is not a shred of evidence in the Bible to support this claim, raised by Deedat purely to try and mitigate the strange anomaly that Jesus would consider two swords sufficient to stage a major revolt! At another place Deedat says: The disciples of Jesus always misunderstood him. (Deedat, Crucifixion or Cruci-fiction?, p.23). The word "always" is in bold print in this quote in his booklet. Once again Deedat has unwittingly contradicted himself for, if Jesus intended that his disciples should arm themselves to the hilt as Deedat suggests, then his disciples understood him perfectly, for this is precisely what they took his statement to mean. But he is right in saying that the disciples regularly misunderstood him - here as much as at any other time. We need to consider what Jesus said just after saying that they should purchase swords to get a better understanding of this matter. He said: "For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ’And he was reckoned with transgressors’; for what is written about me has its fulfillment". Luke 22:37 The scripture he quotes is from Isaiah 53:1-12, a prophetic chapter written about seven hundred years beforehand in which the prophet Isaiah foresaw the suffering of the Messiah on behalf of his people in which he would make himself an offering for sin (Isaiah 53:10). The whole verse from which Jesus quoted reads as follows: Therefore I will divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. Isaiah 53:12 Jesus plainly stated that this prophecy was about to be fulfilled in him and its meaning is abundantly clear. He would "pour out his soul to death" the following day on the cross and would be "numbered with the transgressors" (he was duly crucified between two thieves - Luke 23:33). Yet he would "bear the sin of many" as he atoned for the sins of the world on the cross and would "make intercession for the transgressors" (he prayed for his murderers from the cross - Luke 23:34). Because of this gracious work God would grant him to "see the fruit of the travail of his soul and be satisfied" (Isaiah 53:11) and would give him "the spoil" of his victory - a clear prediction of his resurrection. Deedat ignores the full statement of Jesus because it contradicts his purpose, but it is surely clear that Jesus was anticipating his crucifixion, death and resurrection as the Saviour of the world and was not planning a coup as if he were a common upstart. The imminent events would take Jesus away from his disciples, and his exhortations to buy purses, bags and swords was a colloquial way of advising them to prepare to earn their own living once he had gone. Central to Deedat’s theme of an abortive coup is the argument that the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem a week earlier among a crowd of disciples hailing him as the Messiah was a march on Jerusalem. He uses these exact words when he says: The march on Jerusalem had fizzled out. (Deedat, Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction?, p.21). Under the heading ’March into Jerusalem’ Deedat acknowledges that Jesus expressly rode into the city seated on a donkey. Surely this was a most unlikely vehicle of conveyance for a coup Jesus clearly chose it because donkeys symbolise peace and docility, and he wished to show Jerusalem that he was coming in peace and was fulfilling this promise of God recorded in another prophecy centuries earlier: Rejoice, greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on an ass. Zechariah 9:9 He came in humility and peace on a beast which symbolised his purpose. "He shall command peace to the nations", the prophecy continues (Zechariah 9:10). It is grossly absurd to suggest that Jesus was heading a "march" or that he was instigating a violent "armed struggle" as people would say today. Deedat conveniently overlooks the fact that just as Jesus was about to be arrested the same night his disciples cried out, "Lord, shall we strike with the sword?" (Luke 22:49). One of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear, but Jesus immediately rebuked him and healed the man who had been injured. All the evidence shows that he was not planning a destructive coup at all but was preparing for the supreme gesture of love he was to exhibit to the world in his pending suffering and death on the cross for the sins of men. In the same book quoted above we read that God once promised: "I will remove the guilt of this land in a single day". Zechariah 3:9 That day had just arrived, and Jesus was making himself ready to "secure an eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:12) by taking away the sins of the world on that fateful Friday for which he had come. The theory that Jesus was planning an abortive coup is a gross injury to his gracious dignity and a shocking caricature which one does not expect from a man who is supposed to believe that Jesus was one of the greatest men who ever lived. Deedat has never done military training and his ignorance in this field is exposed on page 14 of his booklet where he suggests that Jesus took Peter, James and John with him into the Garden of Gethsemane as an inner line of defence with eight more guarding the gate. He boldly suggests that this was a masterly tactic "that would bring credit to any officer out of ’Sandhurst’", a "leading military academy in England" (p.14). A former officer in the British Army once commented on this claim by saying to me ’that he had never heard such things taught at Sandhurst! Deedat says of the eight disciples that Jesus left at the gate: He positions them strategically at the entrance to the courtyard; armed to the hilt, as the circumstances would allow. (Deedat, Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction?, p.14). He goes on to say that he took Peter, James and John, "these zealous Zealots (the fighting Irishmen of their day)" (p.14), to prepare his inner defense. This argument flounders on closer analysis. Peter, James and John were peaceable fishermen from Galilee (Jesus had only one Zealot among his disciples and 5 it was none of these three - Luke 6:15) and they were his closer circle of disciples throughout his Ministry. On the occasion of his transfiguration these same disciples alone went up the mountain with him while the rest mingled with the crowds below (Matthew 17:1; Matthew 17:14-16). Likewise, when he raised the daughter of Jairus from the dead, he again took the same three disciples with him into the house (Luke 8:51). He often took these three disciples, Peter, James and John, into his closest confidence on appropriate occasions and this shows clearly that Jesus was not planning a masterly defence in Gethsemane when he took them with him into the inner part of the garden. Rather, he was once again seeking their close fellowship on yet another of those important occasions when he desired only the intimate companionship of his closest disciples. All this shows quite conclusively that there is no substance in the argument that Jesus was planning a coup. 2. THE IMAGE OF JESUS IN DEEDAT’S BOOKLET. One of the strangest things about Deedat’s booklet is the caricature he presents of the person of Jesus Christ. Strange, indeed, because Muslims are supposed to honour Jesus as the Messiah and as one of the greatest of God’s prophets. One or two statements in his booklet are considerably offensive to Christians and must surely injure sincere Muslims who have learnt to respect Jesus as a man of honour and dignity. It is hardly surprising that Deedat’s booklet was at one time declared "undesirable" by the Director of Publications in South Africa (early in 1985). In one place he says: Jesus had failed to heed the warning of the Pharisees to curb the over exuberance of his disciples (Luke 19:39). He had miscalculated. Now he must pay the price of failure. (Deedat, Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction?,p.10). On another page he says that "Jesus had doubly miscalculated" (p.19) in that he thought he could rely on his disciples to defend him and that he would only have to deal with Jews. As if such allegations were not sufficient to defame Jesus, he goes on to speak of the "hot and cold blowings of Jesus" and fills up the measure of his slanders in saying: It can be claimed with justification that Jesus Christ (pbuh) was the "Most unfortunate of all God’s Messengers". (Deedat, Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction?, p.23). We are sure that even Muslims must find such statements extremely offensive. Christians do not hesitate to regard them as blasphemous. Nevertheless it is not our desire to express emotional indignation but to show how fatuous Deedat’s claims are. It requires only a cursory analysis of those last hours in the life of Jesus before his crucifixion to see that there can be no substance at all in the claim that Jesus had "miscalculated" or ever blew "hot and cold". For the one thing that characterises everything Jesus said on the last night he was with his disciples was a total awareness of all that was to befall him and his willingness to undergo it. He knew that Judas Iscariot would betray him (Mark 14:18 - he had known this for a long time in fact as appears from John 6:64) and that Peter would deny him three times (Matthew 26:34). He predicted that he would be apprehended and that all his disciples would desert him (Mark 14:27). We just cannot find any ground at all for Deedat’s claim that Jesus hoped his disciples would fight for him and that he had "miscalculated". For these passages show quite plainly that Jesus had calculated exactly what was going to happen, for his disciples all did precisely what he said they would do. He constantly told them that last fateful night that he was about to be parted from them (John 13:33; John 14:3; John 14:28; John 16:5) and that they should not lose heart for his sufferings would be entirely in accordance with all that had been predicted in the prophecies of the former prophets (Luke 22:22). When the Jews finally came to arrest him, far from preparing any kind of defence, he walked straight into their hands. We read: Then Jesus, knowing all that was to befall him, came forward and said to them, "Whom do you seek?" They answered him, "Jesus of Nazareth". Jesus said to them, "I am he". Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them. John 18:4-5 Jesus came forward, knowing all that was to befall him. He knew that he was about to be crucified and killed, but that he would rise on the third day, as he had so often predicted in plain language (Matthew 17:22-23; Matthew 20:19, Luke 9:22; Luke 18:31-33). In fact there was no need of a showdown with the Jews at all. If Jesus had wanted to avoid arrest, all he needed to do was to leave Jerusalem. Instead he went to the very place where he knew that Judas Iscariot would lead the Jews to look for him (John 18:2) and when they came, he voluntarily gave himself over to them. Furthermore he hardly needed the valiant efforts of eleven disciples to defend him for he plainly testified that he could have called on twelve legions of angels to help him if he had so wished (Matthew 26:53). Just one angel had the power to destroy whole cities and armies (2 Samuel 24:16, 2 Kings 19:35) and one shudders to think what twelve legions of angels could have done to protect him. There is just simply no substance in Deedat’s claim that Jesus was plotting and scheming and became a failure through his miscalculations. On the contrary it is quite remarkable to see how he knew precisely what was to happen to him. Far from being a "failure", he became the most successful man who ever lived the only man who has ever raised himself from the dead to eternal life and glory. Muhammad failed to conquer death and it brought his life to nothing in Medina in 632 AD and holds him to this day in its grip. Jesus, however, succeeded where Muhammad had failed. He is "our Saviour Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel" (2 Timothy 1:10). He triumphed over death and ascended into heaven where he ever lives and reigns. So much for Deedat’s insult that he was supposed to be the "most unfortunate" of all God’s messengers. The truth is that he was the greatest man who ever lived. It has became apparent, and will become more so as we proceed, that Deedat’s booklet is nothing but a distortion of the Scriptures. He perverts the meaning of texts which he feels can be tortured into serving his purpose and simply suppresses others which refute his theories completely. 3. DID JESUS DEFEND HIMSELF AT HIS TRIAL? On page 28 of his booklet Deedat attempts to discredit the Gospel records of Jesus’ crucifixion further by contesting a prophecy in Isaiah 53:7 which predicted that he would not open his mouth in his defence at his trial but would be led to the cross "as a sheep before its shearers is dumb". It is quite clear from the prophecy that this did not mean that Jesus would say nothing at all once he was arrested but rather that he would not venture to defend himself before his accusers. Deedat’s whole argument depends on certain statements made by Jesus which he attempts to draw out as defences made against his accusers. He attempts to ridicule Jesus by asking whether he spoke "with his mouth closed" when he told Pilate that his kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36), when he called on one of the officers of the High Priest to testify of anything he had said wrongly (John 18:23), and when he prayed to God that, if possible, the cup of suffering he faced might be taken away from him (Matthew 26:39). It needs to be pointed out that NONE of these statements was made by Jesus during his public trials before the Sanhedrin in the house of Caiaphas the high priest, or before the Roman governor Pontius Pilate. The first statement was made to Pilate during private conversation in the praetorium; the second was made during Jesus’ appearance before Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, which was not during his trial before the Sanhedrin as Deedat wrongly suggests (p.28) - the trial only took place after this event in the house of Caiaphas as the Gospels clearly show (John 18:24, Matthew 26:57); and the third was made in the Garden of Gethsemane before Jesus was even arrested. The evidence brought forth by Deedat is therefore totally irrelevant to the point and he proves nothing at all. What does concern us is whether Jesus defended himself either before the Sanhedrin in Caiaphas’ house or during his public trial before Pilate. It does not surprise us to find that Deedat overlooks what the Gospels plainly have to say about these two official trials. After hearing the evidence against Jesus before the Sanhedrin, Caiaphas put Jesus on terms to answer his accusers and what transpired is of great importance: And the high priest stood up and said, "Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?" But Jesus was silent. Matthew 26:62-63 Instead of defending himself he promptly testified, in answer to the next question, that he was indeed the Son of God - a testimony that prompted the Sanhedrin to sentence him to death. The important point is that, in answer to his accusers, we read plainly that Jesus was silent. Likewise we read that when Pilate put much the same question to him the same thing transpired. He did not open his mouth to say anything in his own defence. But when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he made no answer. Then Pilate said to him, "Do you not hear how many things they testify against you?" But he gave him no answer, not even to a single charge, so that the governor wondered greatly. Matthew 27:12-14 Deedat subtly conceals these incidents which tell us plainly that Jesus was silent before the Sanhedrin when accused by the false witnesses that had been put forward, and that he made no answer not even to a single charge - when accused before Pilate. In his traditional fashion Deedat suppresses the evidences that relate directly to the subject at hand and instead tries to draw arguments from other occasions not relevant to the issues. It is also interesting to find that exactly the same thing happened when Jesus appeared before Herod, the Jewish king, before being sent back to Pilate. When Herod saw Jesus, he was very glad, for he had long desired to see him, because he had heard about him, ant he was hoping to see some sign done by him. So he questioned him at some length, but he made no answer. The chief priests and the scribes stood by, vehemently accusing him. Luke 23:8-10 Once again, when Jesus was accused, he made no answer. On every occasion when he was actually on trial before the Sanhedrin, Herod or Pilate, he said absolutely nothing in his own defence and so fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah that he would not defend himself at his trial by opening his mouth to speak on his own behalf. None of the statements quoted by Deedat was made while Jesus was actually on trial and so yet another of his arguments falls entirely to the ground. 4. THE THEORY THAT JESUS SURVIVED THE CROSS. We have never ceased to wonder why Ahmed Deedat continues to promote the theory that Jesus was indeed crucified but came down alive from the cross. Our amazement arises from two considerations. On the one hand, this idea is held to only by the heretical Ahmadiyya sect in Islam and is denounced by all true Christians and Muslims. On the other hand, this theory has been refuted time and again and, whereas Deedat continues to promote it, he can offer no reply to the arguments produced against it. For example, on page 36 of his new booklet, he claims that when the centurion watching over Jesus on the cross "saw that he was dead already" (John 19:33), this means purely that he "surmised" that Jesus had died and that there was nothing to verify his death. In a reply to his earlier booklet ’Was Christ Crucified?’, I showed quite plainly that the centurion’s observation was the best possible evidence that Jesus was already dead. The centurion had to confirm before the Roman governor that the crucified man was already dead and, if he was wrong, his own life was likely to be forfeited. We read: And Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he was already dead. And when he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph. Mark 15:44-45. The Roman governor Pilate knew that if the centurion confirmed his death, then it was sure, for in those days any soldier who allowed a prisoner to escape would lose his own life in consequence. When the Apostle Peter escaped from prison some time later in the city, the sentries appointed to guard him were summarily executed (Acts 12:19). Again, when another jailer supposed that Paul and Silas had escaped from prison as well, "he drew his sword and was about to kill himself" (Acts 16:27), until he discovered they had not. He preferred to die by suicide than by execution. Death was the penalty for allowing prisoners to escape - what then could the centurion expect if a man condemned to death had escaped because he had made some careless and negligent observations? No one but the centurion could have been such a reliable witness to the death of Jesus on the cross! Although an emphatic refutation of Deedat’s assumption that the soldiers only "surmised" that Jesus was dead has thus been given, Deedat continues to promote the same old argument. He casually overlooks the conclusive evidence against his theory and just simply reproduces it. It is a poor advocate who can only repeat his original arguments once these have been thoroughly disproved by his opponent. Not only did the centurion observe very conclusively that Jesus was dead but one of the soldiers thrust a spear into his side - an act calculated to ensure his death. One of the common Roman methods of killing people was to "put them to the sword", that is, to thrust them through. This is precisely what the soldier did to Jesus and, even if he had been in perfect health, he could never have survived such a blow. Yet Deedat ridiculously suggests that this death-dealing blow "came to the rescue" of Jesus and helped to revive him by stirring up his blood so that "the circulation could regain its rhythm" (p. 39). Surely not even the most gullible of his readers will believe such absolute nonsense - that a death-blow, a spear-thrust through his body, could help to revive him! When one has to resort to such absurdities, it is clear that there is no merit in the argument. A similar absurdity is set before the reader a few pages on in Deedat’s booklet where he is discussing the occasion when Mary Magdalene came to anoint the body of Jesus shortly after his crucifixion: In 3 days time, the body would be fermenting from within - the body cells would be breaking up and decomposing. If anybody rubs such a decaying body, it will fall to pieces. (Deedat, Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction?, p.44). This, too, is sheer scientific nonsense. Jesus had died late on the Friday afternoon and it was only a day and two nights later, as Deedat admits on the same page, that Mary Magdalene came to anoint his body. No body will "fall to pieces" within such a short period. In bold letters Deedat adds that Mary came alone to the tomb to supposedly help Jesus recover, yet in Matthew 28:1 and Luke 24:10 we discover that she was accompanied by at least two other women, Joanna and Mary the mother of James, and that only to bring spices which they had prepared according to the burial custom of the Jews. There is just no substance in Deedat’s arguments. The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus are facts of history - the only fiction is his theory that Jesus supposedly survived the cross and recovered. We do not propose to go into the moving of the stone, whether Jesus tried to show his disciples that he was not yet dead, or the subject of the Sign of Jonah. Although all these subjects are treated in Deedat’s booklet, we have given a thorough answer to them in the second booklet in this series entitled "What Indeed was the Sign of Jonah?" which readers may obtain from our Fellowship free of charge. Another argument once again repeated by Deedat that has often been refuted is his suggestion that Jesus was reluctant to die. In refutations of his previous booklet on the subject of the crucifixion I have shown clearly that Jesus was only reluctant to be forsaken by his Father and be abandoned to the realm of sin and the wickedness of sinful men. This fear reached its pitch in the Garden the night before Jesus was crucified when the hour had come for him to be handed over to sinful men (Matthew 26:45). Had he been reluctant to die, this fear would only have reached its climax as he faced the cross the next day but, after he had been strengthened the night before by an angel who ministered to him (Luke 22:43), he faced death with remarkable fortitude. He calmly walked forward, knowing all that was to befall him, as we have seen. He walked right into a course that he knew must lead to his crucifixion and death. He calmly took all the injuries heaped on him the following day and without any sign of fear or protest give himself over to be crucified. As he was taken out of Jerusalem he showed more concern for the women of the city and their children than for himself (Luke 23:28) and on the cross cared only for those around him and not for himself (John 19:26-27). Indeed, instead of finding that he was reluctant to die, we discover in the Gospel narratives that he set his face towards the cross and, although he had many opportunities to avoid it, he did not seize them but went on, determined to redeem men from their sins. Yet another of Deedat’s arguments thus comes to nothing. We find him in considerable confusion in another place when he says: For God Almighty will never allow His truly "anointed one" (Christ) to be killed - (Deuteronomy 18:20). (Deedat, Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction?, p. 15). There is no substance in the suggestion that God would not allow his anointed one to be killed for there was a specific prediction in the prophecy of the great prophet Daniel that the "anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing" (Daniel 9:26). It is in fact from the very use of the word messiah in this text that the Jews came to call the awaited Saviour of the world the "Messiah", and yet it is right in this text that we read that this very Messiah would be cut off - a clear prediction of the crucifixion and death of Jesus. We are particularly intrigued to find that Deedat quotes Deuteronomy 18:20 as a reference to the coming "anointed one", the "Christ", the Messiah, namely Jesus. In his booklet "What the Bible Says About Mohammed" he labours to prove that the prophecy of a coming prophet in Deuteronomy 18:1-22 is a reference to Muhammad, even though we have proved again and again that it was an anticipation of the coming of the Messiah, namely Jesus. (The Qur’an confirms that the only Messiah, the only "anointed one", al-Masih, was Jesus - Surah 3.45). It is therefore most significant to find Deedat making one of his occasional slips and conceding in the above quote from his booklet that the prophecy relates to Jesus, the Messiah, and not to Muhammad. Perhaps the most absurd argument in the whole of Deedat’s booklet is his suggestion that God, in hearing Jesus’ prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, sent his angel to strengthen him "in the hope that God will save him" (p.35). He goes on to argue that God especially put it into the minds of the soldiers that Jesus was already dead on the cross and says this was "another step in God’s plan of rescue" (p.36). The argument, thus, is that after hours of scourging, beating, having thorns pressed into his head, being forced to carry his cross, being crucified, succumbing into unconsciousness in exhaustion at the point of death after hours of indescribable agony, and enduring an awful sword thrust, God wonderfully stepped in to "save" him by fooling everybody into thinking that Jesus was already dead when he was really only at the point of death. One struggles to find any logical progression of thought in this line of reasoning. If it was God’s intention to "save" Jesus, surely he would have taken him away immediately, as the overwhelming majority of Muslims believe. What sort of "comfort" or "strengthening" could the angel have given if God’s hand was only to be revealed after hours of indescribable agony and torture to the point of death on the cross? Firstly, such pain and suffering would have been unnecessary and God’s deliverance brought about only after a tragic delay. Secondly, it could have been no comfort to Jesus to know that he faced the horrors of crucifixion only to be delivered at the point of death. Furthermore, if Jesus was taken down alive from the cross purely because he was so close to death that all thought he was already dead, we cannot see how God "saved" him or even where he intervened. This would have been nothing more than an accident caused by an illusion. The whole argument is obviously strained against the logical progression of the events in the Gospels. The truth of the whole matter is that Jesus was physically at the breaking point in contemplating suffering for sin. He had just told his disciples that he was "exceedingly sorrowful - even unto death" (Mark 14:34). God heard the prayer of Jesus and the angel gave him strength to proceed and endure the cross and death and so fulfil his mission to redeem sinners from sin, death and hell. To save Jesus from dying while at the point of death after hours of agony on the cross would have been an untimely and senselessly delayed delivers accompanied by a lengthy period of painful recovery from the horrific ordeal. To save him from death by raising him in glory and perfect health is sensible, logical, and is in fact the genuine Biblical accent of the crucifixion. We press on to Deedat’s argument that Jesus disguised himself after surviving the cross so that no one would recognize him, calling this "a perfect masquerade!" (p 49). He suggests that when Jesus met two disciples on the road to Emmaus the day he walked out of the tomb alive (Luke 24:15) he conceiled his identity until he revealed it in breaking bread before them, and then went away This is nothing bat an attempt to water down the incident in the Bible which has a far more dramatic element. It will be useful to quote exactly what happened: When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. And their eyes were opened and they recognised him; and he vanished out of their sight. They said to each other, "Did not our hearts burn within us as he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?" Luke 24:30-32. The drama here unfolds rapidly. Suddenly their eyes are opened and he vanishes out of their sight! If we look carefully at this passage we can see what really happened when they recognised Jesus. The Bible states that after his resurrection his body bore the nature that all the righteous will bear in heaven He was able to transcend all earthly limitations and could appear or vanish at will. He could suddenly appear in a locked room (John 20:19) and could conceal or reveal himself at will. So here, it was not Jesus who removed a "disguise". The text plainly says "THEIR eyes were opened" Suddenly THEY were able to perceive who he was. So likewise we read that the risen Jesus, in his eternal body, was not only able to open men’s eyes to perceive his true identity but could even open their minds to perceive the meaning of God’s revealed Word (Luke 24:45). Just as he suddenly appeared in the room (Luke 24:36), so he equally suddenly vanished out of their sight. The dramatic character of the narratives in Luke 24:1-53 cannot be explained away in rationalistic terms. The thrust of this whole chapter is the resurrection of Jesus fromn the dead (cf 24.46) and it was this remarkable event that led to such dramatic incidents The whole theme of the narratives in the Gospels is the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus. It requires a good deal of word-twisting to argue otherwise. An example is Deedat’s suggestion that Jesus was laid in a "big, roomy chamber" (p.79) All the Gospels teach plainly that this was nothing but a tomb which had been especially hewn out of a rock by Joseph of Arimathea as his own burialplace. In Matthew 27:60 we read that Joseph took Jesus’ body and "laid it in his own new tomb" (so also Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53). In John 19:41-42 it is twice said Jesus was laid in a TOMB and bound according to the BURIAL-CUSTOM of the Jews Deedat’s attempts to torture these accounts of a funeral into his own speculation that Jesus was placed in a "big roomy camber" so that he might "recover" are a self evident proof that there is no substance in his argument at all. Lastly we shall consider his four statements on page 50 of his booklet where he points out that many people testified on the day of resurrection that he was ALIVE. The word is placed in capital letters, is underlined, and is accompanied by an exclamation mark in each case. This purports to be an argument favouring his theory that Jesus had not died on the cross but was still alive. We marvel at such reasoning for the whole point of the resurrection from the dead, as set out in the Gospels, is this very fact - that Jesus was raised ALIVE from the dead. What, then, is Deedat trying to prove? The testimonies that Jesus was alive are central to the whole ~ Christian belief that Jesus had risen from the dead after being killed on the cross. In his quote from Luke 24:4-5, Deedat only quotes the words of the angels to Mary and the other women, "Why do you seek the living among the dead?" He significantly omits these words which follow: "Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise". Like 24.6-7. In these words we clearly find the angels speaking of Jesus being CRUCIFIED and RISING ON THE THIRD DAY. Clearly they proclaimed that he was alive because he had duly RISEN FROM THE DEAD. Much the same was said by the brethren at Jerusalem to the disciples from Emmaus: "The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to of Simon". Luke 24:34 The united testimony of all was that Jesus was alive because he was RISEN INDEED. "He has risen" (Mark 16:6) was the universal testimony that day. He had come alive from the dead and had conquered all the power of death. He had made it possible for men to be raised with him to newness of life (Romans 6:4) and to rise with him to eternal life in victory over death and sin (1 Corinthians 15:55-57). He had fulfilled his own declaration: "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die". John 11:25 Deedat’s whole argument is a pitiful caricature of the glorious event described in the Gospels. Our brief treatment of his argument that Jesus came down alive from the cross and somehow recovered proves conclusively that there is nothing at all in what he says. The misleading arguments he presents lead us to conclude that he fails to prove his cruci-"fiction" theory because he comes from an "improper"-gation Centre! 5. WILD STATEMENTS IN DEEDAT’S BOOKLET One of the things that struck me again and again as I read through Deedat’s booklets was his unrestrained tendency to make wild statements devoid of good sense and authority. It seems he trades on Muslim ignorance of the Bible and simply hopes his readers will accept without question whatever he says. He surely cannot be endeavouring to convince Christian readers who know their Bible well and who can only marvel at his presumptuousness. To begin with, he says in his booklet: From the "call to arms" in the upper-room, and the masterful deployment of forces at Gethsemane and the blood-sweating prayer to the God of Mercy for help, it appears that Jesus knew nothing about the contract for his crucifixion. (Deedat, Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction?, p.16) The last statement, to the effect that Jesus knew nothing about his crucifuxion is a fallacy set forth in bare defiance of overwhelming facts to the contrary. Time and again Jesus told his disciples that he would be crucified, killed, and rise again on the third day in statements like these: "The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised". Luke 9:22 "Behold we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and deliver him to the Gentiles to be mocked and scourged and crucified, and he will be raised on the third day". Matthew 20:18-19 When he was duly raised from the dead he rebuked his disciples for not believing all that he had told them as well as the prophecies of the former prophets that he would be killed and rise on the third day (Luke 24:25-26; Luke 24:46). On numerous other occasions he made it plain that this was the whole purpose of his coming to earth. He told them he had come to lay down his life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28), that his body would be broken and his blood shed for the forgiveness of their sins (Matthew 26:26-28), that he would give up his life that the world might live (John 6:51), and that he had power to lay down his life and power to take it again (John 10:18). It is surely absurd to suggest that Jesus knew nothing about his pending crucifixion. On the contrary, as he faced this climactic moment on his life when, as the Saviour of the world, he would redeem mankind and pave the way for many to enter eternal life, he proclaimed "I have come for this hour" (John 12:27). So aware was he of the fateful climax that awaited him that he constantly referred to it as "my hour" (John 2:4) and "my time" (John 7:6). Of no other man was it more truly said, "cometh the hour, cometh the man". The hour for the salvation of the world had come, and God had sent the only man who could achieve it, Jesus Christ. Deedat makes a similar loose statement when he says that the title "Son of God" in the Bible "is also another harmless expression in Jewish theology" (p.25). On the contrary, just as Muslims hold to an austere unitarianism which does not allow that it is possible for God to have a Son, so the Jews of that time and to this day reject the concept completely. When the high priest asked Jesus if he was the Son of God, as he had been reported as making such a claim, Jesus answered, "I am" (Mark 14:62). If this was a "harmless expression" as Deedat claims, the high priest would hardly have taken exception to it, but he immediately cried out "he has uttered blasphemy" (Matthew 26:65). When Jesus appeared before Pilate, the Jews cried out: "We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he has made himself the Son of God". John 19:7 Muslims to this day attempt to avoid this issue and allege that Christians have turned the prophet Jesus into the Son of God. But the Jews could hardly foist this claim on his followers when Jesus himself made this very confession before them. "He has made himself the Son of God", they cried, and this was why they condemned Jesus for blasphemy. Through his resurrection, however, God gave assurance to all men that Jesus was indeed his own beloved Son just as he had claimed (Romans 1:4). Deedat makes a similar outlandish claim when he says that "any Christian scholar will confirm" that the Gospels were only written anything up to a number of centuries after the time of Jesus. It has been generally accepted among all good Biblical scholars that the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) were all written about 55-60 AD (less than thirty years after Jesus’ resurrection) and the Gospel of John up to 70 AD. Only the most prejudiced "scholars" could suggest otherwise, and even hostile Critics have accepted these dates. How could the Gospels have been written centuries later when manuscript fragments dating as early as 120 AD still exist and quotes from the Gospels are found in the writings of the early Christians in the generation immediately succeeding the apostolic age? Deedat makes a most unfortunate statement when he says in another place "Salvation is cheap in Christianity" (p.61). We doubt whether Muslims will consider Abraham’s willingness to offer his son to God a "cheap" sacrifice. Surely, then, there can be nothing cheap in the willingness of God to give his own Son as a sacrifice for our sins. The Bible tells Christians plainly, "you were bought with a price" Corinthians 6.20) - what a price! - and the apostle can only speak in consequence of God’s "inexpressible gift" (2 Corinthians 9:15). There is no way to possibly evaluate the price that was paid to save men from sin, death and hell. Salvation in Christianity is the most expensive thing this world has ever seen - the life of the only Son of the eternal God. In the same way no man can obtain this salvation unless he commits his whole life to God through faith in his Son, and surrenders his whole personality and character to his will. Lastly, in one of his typically inaccurate charges, Deedat claims that the story of the appearance of Jesus to his doubting disciple Thomas, as recorded in John 20:24-29, is a "flagrant ’gospel fabrication’" (p.31), and has the temerity to claim further: Biblical scholars are coming to the conclusion that the "doubting Thomas" episode is of the same variety as that of the woman "caught in the act" - (John 8:1-11), i.e., it is a fabrication! (Deedat, Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction?, p.76). Most significantly Deedat does not tell us who these so-called "Biblical scholars" are. There is not a shred of evidence anywhere to back up the claim that the story of Thomas’s unwillingness to believe in the risen Christ until he had seen him and his declaration on duly seeing him that he was his Lord and his God, is a "fabrication". The story is found extant in all the earliest manuscripts available to us without any variance in reading, and the evidences therefore are unanimously in favour of its authenticity. There is no support whatsoever for the speculation that this story may have been invented. Deedat seems to base his claim on the assumption that Jesus was not nailed to the cross but only tied with ropes. He makes another really wild statement when he says "contrary to common belief, Jesus was not nailed to the cross" (p.31). Archaeological discoveries in the land of Palestine have confirmed that Romans crucified victims by nailing them to their crosses (a skeleton was found with a nail through both feet in recent years). Furthermore it is the universal testimony of the prophecies to and historical records of Jesus’ crucifixion that he was nailed to his cross (Psalms 22:16, John 20:25, Colossians 2:14). Deedat’s argument is not only "contrary to common belief" as he admits, but, like so many of his points, is also contrary to the Scriptures, contrary to reliable historical records, contrary to archaeological discoveries, contrary to the evidences, and, as all too often, contrary to good sense. He cannot produce even an iota or a shred of evidence to support his claim that Jesus was fastened to the cross with ropes and, instead, has to resort to an unwarranted and thoroughly presumptuous attack on the sound historical record that Jesus was nailed to the cross, once again without any evidence whatsoever that this record is a "fabrication". If there had been any merit at all in Deedat’s attack on the Biblical record of the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, he would hardly have had to resort to such ridiculous claims as those we have considered. They indicate a fair measure of desperation in the critic as he battles against the odds to prove an untenable thesis. 6. GOSPEL TRUTHS DELIBERATELY SUPPRESSED BY DEEDAT. After all that has gone before it will not surprise our readers to find Deedat deliberately expunging words from the Bible that do not suit his purpose. On the day after Jesus’ crucifixion the chief priests came to Pilate and in Matthew 27:62-64 we find a request made by them that the tomb should be sealed. It appears in Deedat’s booklet as follows: "Sir, we remember that that deceiver said ... Command, therefore, that the sepulchre be made secure until the third day, lest ... the LAST error shall be worse than the FIRST (error)". (Deedat, Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction?, p.42). Twice in the quotation one finds three innocuous-looking dots as though something has been omitted because it is unimportant or irrelevant to the issues. Deedat’s argument is that the Jews had suddenly realised that Jesus might still be alive and that they might have been "cheated" (p.42). They supposedly went to Pilate to get him to seal the sepulchre so that he could not escape and recover. Nevertheless, says Deedat, they were a day too late and their "last" error was to allow some of Jesus’ disciples an opportunity "to render help to the wounded man" (p.43). All that has happened here is that Deedat has had so forcibly expunge two clauses in the quotation referred to, not because they are considered unimportant, but because they refute his arguments completely and oblige the reader to discover a totally different picture of what was really transpiring. We shall record the whole quotation as it appears in a modern translation and shall place in capital letters the words wrenched out by Deedat and replaced with dots. The passage reads: "Sir, we remember how that impostor said, WHILE HE WAS STILL ALIVE, ’AFTER THREE DAYS I WILL RISE AGAIN’. Therefore order the sepulchre to be made secure until the third day, lest HIS DISCIPLES GO AND STEAL HIM AWAY, AND TELL THE PEOPLE, ’HE HAS RISEN FROM THE DEAD’, and the last fraud will be worse than the first". Matthew 27:62-64. We see immediately that the Jews did not for one minute believe that Jesus had come down alive from the cross. They went to Pilate, speaking of something Jesus had said WHILE HE WAS STILL ALIVE. These words can only be interpreted to mean that in their view Jesus WAS NO LONGER ALIVE. And they asked Pilate to seal the tomb, not because they feared a wounded man might recover, but because they feared his disciples would steal his body and proclaim that he HAD RISEN FROM THE DEAD. This is the obvious and plain meaning of the passage. It is quite clear why Deedat omitted the clauses in italics. They disprove his theory completely. In fact we have found him regularly using this devious tactic in his booklets against Christianity. He distorts the Scriptures by wrenching some texts out of context which he feels can be tortured and perverted into serving his ends, and then casually ignores others completely which thoroughly discount his theories. Only in this case he has done this with just one passage, twisting some of its words to try and prove that the Jews thought Jesus was still alive, and expunging others which immediately show that this was not what was in their minds at all. Surely any sincere Muslim can see that the whole theme of his booklet on the crucifixion is a contortion of the truth and that he has constantly warped the clear statements in the Gospels which testify unambiguously to the fact of the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We might add that this is not the first time that we have come across publications published by Deedat’s Centre where quotations from other writings are so mistreated. We would advise all readers to treat such quotations, where words are deleted and are simply replaced by three dots, with extreme caution. Invariably what is left has been twisted into yielding an interpretation that the whole quotation could not possibly yield. The Jews had remembered Jesus’ oft-repeated prophecy that he would rise from the dead after three days and they wanted to prevent any possible fulfilment of this prophecy - whether actual through his resurrection or contrived through the actions of his disciples. There is no warrant for Deedat’s claim that the "Jews doubted his death" and that they "suspected that he had escaped death on the cross" (p. 79). The words omitted by him in the quotation on page 42 of his booklet show quite plainly that they were satisfied that he was indeed dead, but that they did not want his disciples to claim that he had been raised to life again. Christians do not object to sincere critical analyses of their scriptures and convictions. In fact we welcome them in a way because they challenge us to be sure of what we believe and no true Christian would want to believe things that could not withstand critical analysis. We do sincerely take offence, however, at publications like Deedat’s "Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction?" which do nothing but pervert and distort the evidences for our faith and which are calculated to injure our feelings. We are persuaded that most Muslims would feel the same way about any Christian publication that distorted Islam the way Deedat degrades Christianity. We are comforted to find that there are many Muslims in South Africa who have expressed their keen disapproval of such publications. A local Muslim magazine recently had this to say of Deedat’s methods: It is a well known fact throughout South Africa, even among Christian evangelical circles, that in so far as Mr. Ahmed Deedat in particular is concerned, the Muslim community of South Africa as a whole is not in total agreement with his method of propagating Islam. The Muslim Digest itself provides ample testimony for having been reluctantly compelled over the years to condemn in no uncertain terms the method of Mr. Deedat’s propagation of Islam, especially amongst Christians. No less has Mr. Deedat been condemned by responsible Muslim religious bodies and individuals for the manner in which he propagates Islam that results in ill-will being generated against Muslims. (the Muslim Digest, Jul/Aug/Sept, 1984) We shall close with a brief consideration of Deedat’s argument that, if it can be proved that Jesus did not die on the cross, this proves he was not crucified at all. We have, in earlier publications, shown that such an obtruse argument arises from a predicament Deedat inflicts on himself with his theory that Jesus survived the cross For the Qur’an plainly states that Jesus was "neither crucified nor killed" (Surah 4.157) and the overwhelming majority of Muslims throughout the world take this (obviously, in our view) to mean that Jesus was never put on the cross at all. I held a symposium with Deedat in Benoni on the subject "Was Christ Crucified?" in 1975 and the local newspaper thereafter summed up his argument perfectly by saying, "He was crucified, but did not die, he argued" As there are a number of discerning Muslims who have seen that his whole theory debases not only what the Bible says but also what the Qur’an says about the crucifixion, he is now trying to extricate himself from this predicament in which he has placed himself. He therefore argues that "to crucify" means to "kill on a cross" and says that if a man survived the cross, this means he was never crucified. He shows that in English "to electrocute" means to kill by an electric bolt and that "to hang" means to kill by hanging. Therefore he says that in English "to crucify" must also mean to "kill on a cross" and claims that he cannot be held responsible for a deficiency in the English language which does not have alternative words for an attempted crucifixion, electrocution or hanging. In saying this be misses the point completely. The narratives of the crucifixion in the Bible were originally written in Greek and more than a thousand years were to pass before they would ever be translated into English. The important point is not what "to crucify" might mean in Deedat’s understanding of English but what it meant in Greek when the Gospels were first written. One quotation will suffice to show that "to crucify" in Biblical times meant simply "to impale on a cross". The Apostle Peter once declared to a Jewish multitude: "This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men" Acts 2:23 The verse clearly reads you crucified and killed, meaning obviously, "you impaled him on a cross and you killed him there" Therefore it is absurd to suggest that if a man was not actually killed on cross, this means he was never crucified. If "to crucify" only eant to kill on a cross, Peter would just have said "you crucified him", but by adding "and killed", he shows plainly that "to crucify" meant simply to impale on a cross. Deedat remains in th predicament of advocating that Jesus was indeed crucified but did not die - a theory repugnant to true Christians and Muslims alike. One struggles to follow the reasoning behind Deedat’s line of approach. He seems to think that if he can prove that Jesus did not die on the cross, this proves that the Qur’an is true when it says he was not killed by the Jews. But how can the point possibly stand when the whole argument of necessity concedes the other thing the Qur’an denies - the actual crucifixion of Jesus? There just does not seem to be any logic in his argument at all. AHMED DEEDAT’S CRUCIFIXION THEORY A Muslim Perspective from MOHAMMED BANA For many years Ahmed Deedat has been promoting a theory that Jesus Christ was indeed crucified but was taken down alive from the cross. This theory was first promoted in his booklet "Was Christ Crucified?" and has recently been perpetuated in his new booklet "Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction?" We have often remarked that Mr. Deedat has been promoting a Qadiani theory, approved only by the Ahmadiyya Movement which has been declared a non-Muslim minority sect in Pakistan. His theory must be deplored by true Christians and Muslims alike. Readers will be interested to know that the same opinion has been expressed by MOHAMMED BANA of Durban. He says of Deedats theory: Mr. Deedat is fond of making lectures about other denominations but very seldom on Islam. He seems to have a fixed notion about Prophet Jesus’ Crucifixion Theory. In his lectures he hardly gave the Islamic viewpoint or seldom the Christian viewpoint, thus confusing his audience. I believe he likes to make the Qadiyanis of this country very happy by mostly giving their viewpoint that Jesus after being put on the cross, swooned. Now why should Mr Deedat tell his audience that Jesus was put on the cross and he swooned because nowhere the Qur’an speaks that Jesus was put on the cross and he swooned. Mr. Deedat is the only person who can tell us whether he is preachhig either the Christian doctrine, the Muslim doctrine or the Qadiani doctrine?" [MOHAMMED BANA, "Allegations Confirmed", p. 3] Mohammed Bana has rightly endorsed our complaint that the crucifixion booklets published by Mr. Deedat are contrary to the teaching of both the Bible and the Qur’an and should be rejected by Christians and Muslims alike. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 147: 07.4. WHAT INDEED WAS THE SIGN OF JONAH? ======================================================================== What Indeed Was the Sign of Jonah? THE SIGN OF JONAH 1 Was Jesus Dead or Alive in the Tomb? 2 Three Days and Three Nights 3 Jonah a Sign to the Men of Nineveh 4 No Sign but the Sign of Jonah 5 "Destroy this Temple and in Three Days" 6 The Ultimate Significance of the Sign of Jonah THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS WHO MOVED THE STONE? THE SIGN OF JONAH According to both the Bible and the Qur’an, Jesus Christ performed many mighty miracles during his brief three-year ministry in the land of Israel. Many of the Jews were led to believe in him when they saw such signs and wonders being performed. The Jewish leaders, however, refused to believe in him and although his miracles were widely known they often pressed him hard to perform signs or, indeed, even give them a sign from heaven (Matthew 16:1). On one occasion Jesus answered them by saying that he would give them only one sign: "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth". Matthew 12:39-40. Jonah was one of the great prophets of Israel and he had been called out by God to preach to an Assyrian city named Nineveh and to proclaim its pending doom. Jonah fled on a ship to Tarshish, however, and when a great storm began to rock the boat he was thrown overboard and swallowed by a large fish. After three days in the fish, however, he was brought up alive and duly went into the city. Jesus spoke of this three-day internment in the stomach of the fish as "the sign of Jonah" and said that it was the only sign he was prepared to give to the unbelieving Jews. During 1976 Ahmed Deedat of the Islamic Propagation Centre in Durban published a booklet entitled Chat was the Sign of Jonah?, a title which leads the reader to expect a studied exposition of the subject. Instead one finds that Deedat does not answer his own question at all but ventures into an attack on the statement made by Jesus and endeavours to refute it. His arguments are based entirely on two suppositions, namely that if Jonah had been alive throughout his sojourn in the fish, then Jesus must have been alive in the tomb after being taken down from the cross; and if Jesus was crucified on a Friday and rose on the following Sunday morning, then he could not have been three days and three nights in the tomb. We shall consider these two objections in order and will thereafter proceed to analyse the whole subject to see what the Sign of Jonah really was. 1. WAS JESUS ALIVE OR DEAD IN THE TOMB? It is an accepted fact in Christian commentaries on the book of Jonah in the Bible that Jonah was kept miraculously alive during the time that he was in the stomach of the fish in the sea. At no time throughout his ordeal did he die in the fish by and so came ashore as much alive as he was when he was first thrown into the sea. In his booklet Deedat takes some of the words in the text quoted above out of their context and makes the statement read "As Jonah was ... so shall the Son of man be" and concludes: If Jonah was alive for three days and three nights, then Jesus also ought to have been alive in the tomb as he himself had foretold! (Deedat, Chat was the Sign of Jonah?, p.6). Although Jesus had only said that the likeness between him and Jonah would be in the period of time they were each to undergo an internment - Jonah in a fish, Jesus in the heart of the earth - Deedat omits this qualifying reference and claims that Jesus must have been like Jonah in other ways as well, extending the likeness to include the living state of Jonah inside the fish. When Jesus’ statement is read as a whole, however, it is quite clear that the likeness is confined to the time factor. As Jonah was three days and three nights in the stomach of the fish, so Jesus would be a similar period in the heart of the earth. One cannot stretch this further, as Deedat does, to say that as Jonah was ALIVE in the fish, so Jesus would be alive in the tomb. Jesus did not say this and such an interpretation does not arise from his saying but is read into it. Furthermore, in speaking of his coming crucifixion, Jesus on another occasion used a similar saying which proves the point quite adequately: "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up". John 3:14 Here the likeness is clearly in being "lifted up". As Moses LIFTED UP the serpent, so would the Son of man be LIFTED UP, the one for the healing of the Jews, the other for the healing of the nations. In this case the brass serpent Moses made never was alive and if Deedat’s logic is applied to this verse we must presume that it means that Jesus must have been dead before he was lifted up, dead on the cross, and dead when taken down from it. Not only is this illogical, the contradiction between the states of Jonah and the brass serpent (the one was always alive through his ordeal, the other was always dead when used as a symbol on a pole) shows that Jesus was only drawing a likeness between himself and Jonah and the brass serpent respectively in the matters he expressly mentions - the THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS and the LIFTING UP on a pole. It does not matter whether Jonah was alive or not - this has nothing to do with the comparison Jesus was making. By omitting the qualifying reference to the time period in Jonah’s case, Deedat makes the saying of Jesus read "As Jonah was ... so shall the Son of man be" and it is from this unrestricted likeness that he seeks to extend the comparison to the state of the prophet in the fish. But if we follow the same method with the other verse quoted, we come to the exact opposite conclusion. In this case the statement would read: "As the serpent ... so shall the Son of man be" and the state of the serpent was always a dead one. This shows quite plainly that in each case Jesus was not intending to extend the likeness between himself and the prophet or object he mentions to the question of life or death but solely to the very comparisons he expressly sets forth. So we see that Deedat’s first objection falls entirely to the ground. A contradictory conclusion automatically results from his line of reasoning and no objection or argument which negates itself can ever be considered with any degree of seriousness. 2. THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS. It is universally agreed among Christians, with a few exceptions, that Jesus was crucified on a Friday and that he rose from the dead on the Sunday immediately following. Deedat accordingly argues that there was only one day on which Jesus was in the tomb, namely Saturday, and that this period covered only two nights, namely Friday night and Saturday night. He thus endeavours to disprove the Sign of Jonah in respect of the time factor that Jesus mentions as well and so concludes: Secondly, we also discover that he failed to fulfil the time factor as well. The greatest mathematician in Christendom will fail to obtain the desired result - three days and three nights. (Deedat, Shat was the Sign of Jonah, p.10). Unfortunately Deedat here overlooks the fact that there was a big difference between Hebrew speech in the first century and English speech in the twentieth century. We have found him inclined to this error again and again when he sets out to analyse Biblical subjects. He fails to make allowance for the fact that in those times, nearly two thousand years ago, the Jews counted any part of a day as a whole day when computing any consecutive periods of time. As Jesus was laid in the tomb on the Friday afternoon, was there throughout the Saturday, and only rose sometime before dawn on the Sunday (the Sunday having officially started at sunset on the Saturday according to the Jewish calendar), there can be no doubt that he was in the tomb for a period of three days. Deedat’s ignorance of the Jewish method of computing periods of days and nights and their contemporary colloquialisms leads him to make a serious mistake about Jesus’ statement and he proceeds to make much the same mistake about his prophecy that he would be three nights in the tomb as well. The expression three days and three nights is the sort of expression that we never, speaking English in the twentieth century, use today. We must obviously therefore seek its meaning according to its use as a Hebrew colloquialism in the first century and are very likely to err if we judge or interpret it according to the language structure or figures of speech in a very different language in a much later age. We never, speaking English in the twentieth century, speak in terms of days and nights. If any one decides to go away for, let us say, about two weeks, he will say he is going for a fortnight, or for two weeks, or for fourteen days. I have never yet met anyone speaking the English language say he will be away fourteen days and fourteen nights. This was a figure of speech in the Hebrew of old. Therefore right from the start one must exercise caution for, if we do not use such figures of speech, we cannot presume that they had, in those times, the meanings that we would naturally assign to them today. We must seek out the meaning of the prophecy Jesus made in the context of the times in which it was given. Furthermore we must also note that the figure of speech, as used in Hebrew, always had the same number of days and nights. Moses fasted forty days and forty nights (Exodus 24:18). Jonah was in the whale three days and three nights (Jonah 1:17). Job’s friends sat with him seven days and seven nights (Job 2:13). We can see that no Jew would have spoken of "seven days and six nights" or "three days and two nights", even if this was the period he was describing. The colloquialism always spoke of an equal number of days and nights and, if a Jew wished to speak of a period of three days which covered only two nights, he would have to speak of three days and three nights. A fine example of this is found in the Book of Esther where the queen said that no one was to eat or drink for three days, night or day (Esther 4:16), but on the third day, when only two nights had passed, she went into the king’s chamber and the fast was ended. So we see quite plainly that "three days and three nights", in Jewish terminology, did not necessarily imply a full period of three actual days and three actual nights but was simply a colloquialism used to cover any part of the first and third days. The important thing to note is that an equal number of days and nights were always spoken of, even if the actual nights were one less than the days referred to. As we do not use such figures of speech today we cannot pass hasty judgments on their meaning, nor can we force them to yield the natural interpretations that we would place on them. There is conclusive proof in the Bible that when Jesus told the Jews he would be three days and three nights in the earth, they took this to mean that the fulfilment of the prophecy could be expected after only two nights. On the day after his crucifixion, that is, after only one night, they went to Pilate and said: Sir, we remember how that impostor said, while he was still alive, ’After three days I will rise again’. Therefore order the sepulchre to be made secure until the third day. Matthew 27:63-64. We would understand the expression "after three days" to mean anytime on the fourth day but, according to the colloquialism, the Jews knew this referred to the third day and were not concerned to keep the tomb secured through three full nights but only until the third day after just too nights. Clearly, therefore, the expressions "three days and three nights" and "after three days" did not mean a full period of seventy-two hours as we would understand them, but any period of time covering a period of up to three days. If someone told anyone of us on a Friday afternoon in these days that he would return to us after three days we would probably not expect him back before the following Tuesday at the earliest. The Jews, however, anxious to prevent any fulfilment of Jesus’ prophecy (whether actual or contrived), were only concerned to have the tomb secured until the third day, that is, the Sunday, because they knew that the expressions "after three days" and "three days and three nights" were not to be taken literally but according to the figures of speech that they used in their times. The important question is, not how we read such colloquialisms which have no place in our figures of speech today, but how the Jews read them according to the terminology of their times. It is very significant to note that when the disciples boldly claimed that Jesus had risen from the dead on the third day, that is, on the Sunday after only two nights had passed (e.g. Acts 10:40), no one ever attempted to counter this testimony as Deedat does by claiming that three nights would have to pass before the prophecy could be deemed to be fulfilled. The Jews of those times knew their language well and it is only because Deedat is ignorant of their manners of speech that he presumptuously attacks the prophecy Jesus made, simply because he was not in the tomb for an actual three-day and three-night period of seventy-two hours. (This means that Jonah’s sojourn in the fish also only covered a partial period of three days and was not necessarily three actual days and nights either). Having therefore adequately disposed of Deedat’s weak arguments against the sign Jesus offered to the Jews we can now proceed to find out exactly what the Sign of Jonah really was. 3. JONAH A SIGN TO THE MEN OF NINEVEH. Two momentous events occurred when God sent Jonah to Nineveh to warn the people of that city that God was about to destroy it for its wickedness. The first we have already briefly considered, namely the casting of the prophet into the sea and his sojourn in the stomach of the fish over a period of three days. It will be useful at this stage, however, to record the story as it is found in the Qur’an and to compare it with the story as it appears in the Bible to see to what extent the stories coincide. The narrative in the Qur’an reads: And lo! Jonah verily was of those sent (to warn). When he fled unto the laden ship, and then drew lots and was of those rejected; and the fish swallowed him while he was blameworthy; And had he not been one of those who glorify (Allah), He would have tarried in its belly till the day when they are raised. Then We cast him on a desert shore while he was sick; and We caused a tree of gourd to grow above him; and We sent him to a hundred thousand (folk) or more. And they believed, therefore We gave them comfort for a while. Surah 37.239-148. The story is rather disjointed in this passage as there is no sequence of events showing how each incident leads on to the next one. It is in the Book of Jonah in the Bible, however, that one finds the whole narrative properly knit together. Jonah agreed to join in the throwing of lots with the other soldiers on the boat to discover who was the cause of the storm which threatened to drown them all. The lot fell on him and so he was thrown into the sea where he was duly swallowed up by a large fish. After three days the fish coughed him up on dry land and he duly went to Nineveh, proclaiming that the city would be overthrown in forty days. The other great event was the total repentance of the whole city, from its king to all its slaves, when they heard the ominous warning. Jonah, surprisingly, was angry when he saw the people turn from their sins for he knew that God was merciful and would probably spare the city. As a patriotic Hebrew he had hoped for its overthrow for it was the main city of Assyria and a constant threat to the people of Israel. In the heat of the day he went up a mound hoping to see its demise, and God caused a gourd (a large plant) to grow up and give him shelter. The next day, however, God appointed a worm to consume its stem and thus cause it to wither. Jonah was very upset about this but God said to him: "You pity the plant, for which you did not labor, nor did you make it grow, which came into being in a night, and perished in a night. And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?" Jonah 4:10-11. The second great event in this story, that is, the repentance of the whole city of Nineveh, was all the more remarkable when one considers that the Assyrians neither knew nor feared God and had no obvious reason why they should heed the word and warning which Jonah brought. There was no sign that the city would be destroyed in forty days as Jonah warned as life was just going on normally from day to day without any suggestion from the weather or the elements that any danger was near. No thunderclouds formed over the city as had happened at the time of Noah when the great flood burst on the earth. Nineveh was a mighty city and was in no way under any military threat. All that the city heard was the solitary voice of a Jewish prophet who came proclaiming: "Yet forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown" (Jonah 3:4). We often see cartoons of bearded old men carrying placards "the world ends tonight" and such men are always a source of amusement when they appear on the streets with such messages. Indeed the Ninevites might have considered that Jonah was just one of these religious freaks and while being amused at his apparent earnestness, they might have become somewhat indignant at the content of his warning. When the Apostle Paul went to the city of Athens he was met with such a reception. In response to his preaching some said "What would this babbler say"? (Acts 17:18). The people of Nineveh listening to the Hebrew prophet Jonah might well have mused as the Athenians did about the Apostle Paul, "He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities" (Acts 17:18). We discover, however, that: The people of Nineveh believed God; they proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them to the least of them. Jonah 3:5 >From the throne of the king down to the least of the common folk the hundreds of thousands of Ninevites took Jonah in all seriousness, repented in great earnest, and desperately sought to remove the imminent judgment from their city. Jonah in no way endeavoured to persuade them of the truth of his short, simple warning - he just proclaimed it as a matter of fact. He also gave them no assurance that God would spare the city if they repented. It was, on the contrary, his wish and expectation that the city would be destroyed in terms of God’s warning whether the Ninevites took him seriously or not. Why then did the whole city repent and do so in the hope that God would not cause them to perish? (Jonah 3:9). Jewish historians were fascinated by this story and concluded that the only possible explanation was that the Ninevites knew that Jonah had been swallowed up by a fish as God’s judgment on his disobedience, and also knew that while he would normally die in such circumstances, God in mercy kept him alive and delivered him from the stomach of the fish on the third day. This alone could explain the seriousness with which they listened to Jonah and their hope of mercy if they repented. The Jewish historians concluded that the Ninevites reasoned that if God treats his beloved prophets so severely when they disobey him, what could they expect when the city was in the gall of bitterness against him and in the bond of iniquity and sin? The reasoning of the Jews was correct. Jesus confirmed that Nineveh’s repentance came about as a result of their full knowledge of Jonah’s ordeal of the preceding days. He made this quite plain when he said: "Jonah became a sign to the men of Nineveh". Luke 11:30 In saying this Jesus put the seal of authenticity on the story of Jonah’s ordeal and Nineveh’s repentance and confirmed that it was historically true. At the same time he also gave credence to the theory that the people of Nineveh had heard of Jonah’s ordeal and remarkable deliverance and as a result of this took his message in all seriousness, hoping for a similar deliverance in turning from their wickedness in repentance before God. By saying that Jonah had become a sign to the men of Nineveh he made it plain that the city knew of the recent history of God’s dealing with the rebellious Jewish prophet. This explained the earnestness with which the Ninevites repented before God. It was not Jesus’ intention merely to confirm Jewish speculations, however. He wished to show that what had happened at the time of Jonah and its sequel was applicable to the people of Israel in his own generation and that a similar sign was about to be given which would likewise lead to the redemption of those who received it and the destruction of all those who did not. 4. NO SIGN BUT THE SIGN OF JONAH. According to both the Qur’an and the Bible, Jesus performed many signs and wonders among the people of Israel (Surah 5.110, Acts 2:22). Even though they could not deny these works (John 11:47), they nevertheless refused to believe in him and that right to the very end of his course. As he was completing his ministry we read of their response to all that he had done among them: Though he had done so many signs before them, yet they did not believe in him. John 12:37 Time and again we read that the Jews came to him seeking signs (Matthew 12:38) and on one occasion they expressly asked him to actually show them a sign from heaven itself (Matthew 16:1). On other occasions they taxed him with questions like these: "What sign have you to show us for doing this?" John 2:18 "What sign do you do, that we may see, and believe you?" John 6:30 While the Greeks of that age were primarily philosophers, the Jews wanted every claim proved by the ability to do and perform signs. As the Apostle Paul rightly said in one of his letters: For the Jews demand signs and the Greeks seek wisdom. 1 Corinthians 1:22 The Jews knew full well that Jesus was, in his own way, claiming to be the Messiah. If so, they reasoned, he must do signs to prove his claim. A1though he had already done many great signs, they still were not satisfied. They had seen him feed up to five thousand men with only five barley loaves and two fishes (Luke 9:10-17) but they reasoned that Moses had done similar miracles (John 6:31). In what way could he prove that he really was the chosen Messiah, they reasoned? What sign could he do to show them that he was greater than Moses? In those days people were not readily persuaded by great signs. When Moses turned his rod into a serpent, Pharaoh’s magicians did likewise. They also emulated his feat of turning water into blood and bringing swarms of frogs from the Nile. It was only when Moses brought out thousands of gnats from the dust that the magicians conceded: "This is the finger of God" (Exodus 8:19), for they were finally unable to do likewise. So also the Jews were only prepared to consider Jesus’ claims when he could outdo the signs of the prophets of old. They saw him feed five thousand men and heal lepers and men born blind; raise up paralytics, cast out demons; and ultimately raise a man from the dead even though the man had already been dead for four days. They conceded these miracles. All this did not satisfy them, however, for other prophets had performed similar miracles. What sign did Jesus have for them which outweighed them all? Surely if he was the Messiah he could do greater things than these? Why, Moses gave their forefathers bread from heaven to eat. As it was predicted of the Messiah that he would do similar signs (Deuteronomy 18:18; Deuteronomy 34:10-11), they therefore came to Jesus eventually and "asked him to show them a sign from heaven" (Matthew 16:1). Jesus absorbed their earnest quests for signs and said to them: "This generation is an evil generation: it seeks a sign, but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah. For as Jonah became a sign to the men of Nineveh, so will the Son of man be to this generation". Luke 11:29-30. They wanted a sign that would prove beyond all shadow of doubt that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, the Saviour of the world. Here Jesus gave them a clear answer and set before them just one sign by which they could be assured of his claims, namely, the Sign of Jonah. Although we have mentioned it already, it will be useful at this point to refer to it once again: "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth". Matthew 12:40 Here Jesus quite plainly outlined the proof of his claims. Jonah had been three days and three nights in the stomach of the fish. Not only was this a sign to Nineveh, it also prefigured the sign Jesus was to be for his people and not for them alone but for all people in all ages. He would be in the "heart of the earth" for a similar period. What did this mean? Would he be dead? Why would he be there three days? Assuredly the Jews must have been very perplexed about this claim but every time they asked Jesus for a sign, he promised them no other sign but the Sign of Jonah. During one incident with them he plainly told them its meaning. 5. "DESTROY THIS TEMPLE AND IN THREE DAYS ..." When Jesus saw that the Jews were transforming the Temple (the great place of worship where God’s glory was in the centre of Jerusalem, known in Islam as the Baitul-Muqaddas) from a house of prayer into a place of trade, he drove out the moneychangers and those who sold sheep, oxen and pigeons. The Jewsthen said to him: "What sign have you to show us for doing this?" John 2:18 In other words, by what authority do you, a man, enter the Temple of the living God and act as if you are the Lord of it? Once again they requested a sign and again the same sign was promised by Jesus: "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up". John 2:19 Once again Jesus gave them the Sign of Jonah. Again there came the period of three days but now something more is added. He challenges the Jews to destroy the temple and whereas he earlier spoke of being himself in the heart of the earth for three days, now he speaks of the temple of God being destroyed for three days and thereafter being restored. So the Jews said to him: "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple and will you raise it up in three days?" John 2:20 Now that was a silly question. They asked for a sign of supernatural source to validate the action Jesus had taken. If he had said "Destroy this temple and in forty-six years I will build another", what sort of sign would that be? But he said he would do it in only three days. That would assuredly be a sign for them to see and behold, proving that he was indeed all that he claimed to be. This was one of the most momentous statements Jesus ever made and if ever there was a remark of his that made an indelible impression on the minds of the Jews, it was this one. When Jesus was brought to trial years later, the two witnesses brought to testify against him both mentioned this remarkable claim. One said, "This fellow said, ’I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days"’ (Matthew 26:61). Another said, "We heard him say, ’I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another not made with hands"’ (Mark 14:58). Both of these men twisted his statement primarily through a total misunderstanding and inability to perceive the meaning of it. But that it was a claim of great import they realised! Indeed even when Jesus was nailed to the cross some of the Jewish priests mocked him, saying, "You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself!" (Matthew 27:40). Even some time after Jesus had ascended to heaven the Jews were still talking about his challenge and imagined that it was Christian belief that Jesus would yet come to destroy their holy place (Acts 6:14). The tremendous attention paid by the Jews to this statement, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up" shows how important it was. Even as these Jews mocked him, however, they were unaware that they themselves were doing just that they were destroying it by putting Jesus on the cross; and on the third day thereafter they would know that he had risen again. When Jesus said "Destroy this temple" he was not referring to the great building in the city but to his own body. In his Gospel John comments on the reply of the Jews about the number of years it took to build the Temple, "But he spoke of the temple of his body" (John 2:21). Jesus said that it was he, the Son of man, who was to be in the heart of the earth for three days and when he addressed the Jews he spoke obviously not of the Temple in Jerusalem which he had just purified but of himself. But why did he refer to himself as the temple? It requires only a little perspective on his ministry and identity to obtain the answer. The Jews wanted him to prove that he was the Messiah and to do this they expected him to show by signs that he was greater than all the other prophets. In his answer Jesus set out to show them that he was no ordinary prophet. The Temple in Jerusalem contained only the presence of a manifestation of the glory of God, but of Jesus we are told: In him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell. He is the image of the invisible God. For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily. Colossians 1:19; Colossians 1:15; Colossians 2:9 What Jesus was saying then was this: Destroy me, in whom the whole fulness of God dwells bodily, put me to death, and by raising myself from the dead three days later I will give you all the proof you will ever require that I am the Lord of this Temple, the house of God. 6. THE ULTIMATE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SIGN OF JONAH. Now it becomes clear why Jesus gave the Jews this one sign, the Sign of the prophet Jonah. His death, burial and resurrection from the dead would surely prove to them that he was the Messiah. We have seen already that the Jews sought a sign from heaven, a greater feat than that performed by any other prophet in history to prove his claims; and as one looks at the miracles of the former prophets one sees all the more the significance of the Sign of Jonah. As mentioned earlier, prior to the e trial and arrest of Jesus his greatest sign was to raise Lazarus from the dead after he had been dead for four days. But this did not persuade the Jews (John 12:9; John 12:11). Such things had been done during the time of the prophet Elisha. But what greater feat can a man perform than to raise a dead man to life again? Only one possibly greater sign can be done. If that man after dying is able to raise himself from the dead and live again, this will surely be a greater sign and this sign was performed by no prophet before Jesus. Living prophets had raised the dead but the sign Jesus was promising them was that the Messiah would raise himself from the dead. This is the Sign of Jonah. The Jews had stood at the foot of the cross mocking Jesus, "You who would destroy the Temple of God in three days", but they did not know that, after expiring a few hours later, Jesus would t raise himself from the dead on the third day in overwhelming proof that he was indeed the Messiah and the ultimate temple of God, the one in whom the living God of all creation fully dwelt. As Jonah had come back from the stomach of a fish in the very depths of the sea to yet live on the earth, so Jesus was to die, be buried, only to raise himself to life on the third day. On one occasion Jesus made this quite plain to the Jews, saying: "For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father". John 10:17-18. Not only did Jesus make it plain that he would raise himself from the dead on the third day but he also often showed that he was greater than all the prophets who had gone before him. When the Jews asked him "Are you greater than our father Abraham?" (John 8:53), Jesus made it plain that he was, saying that Abraham had looked forward to his day (John 8:56) and added, "Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58). In the same way a Samaritan woman said to him: "Are you greater than our father Jacob?" (John 4:12) to which Jesus replied that, whereas Jacob had left a well in the land of Samaria from which people could drink, only to thirst again, he could put within people a well of living water from which no one would ever thirst (John 4:14). He showed that he was greater than Moses, for Moses had written of him (John 5:46). He was greater than David, for David, he said, "inspired by the Spirit, calls the Messiah Lord" (Matthew 22:43). He openly stated that he was greater than the prophets Solomon and Jonah (Luke 11:31-32) and that he was even greater than the very Temple of God (Matthew 12:6), for the Temple contained only a manifestation of God’s presence but in him the whole fulness of God dwelt bodily. No man had ever had greater wisdom than Solomon but Jesus is the very wisdom of God (1 Corinthians 1:24). Jonah became a source of reprieve for the people of Nineveh but Jesus is the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him (Hebrews 5:9). Although there had been many prophets, there was to be only one Messiah. And whereas the prophets had performed many signs, the Messiah reserved to himself the greatest sign of all. As Jonah’s ordeal in the stomach of the fish in many ways foreshadowed this sign, namely the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, Jesus therefore set forth this sign alone as a proof that he was indeed the Messiah. This leads us to consider in closing another statement made by Deedat in another booklet he once wrote, to the effect that there is no clearer statement of Jesus throughout the Gospels about his pending crucifixion than the Sign of Jonah (Deedat, ’Was Christ Crucified?’, p. 33). He made this remark during an attempt, similar to the one we have already considered in his booklet ’What was the Sign of Jonah?’, to prove that Jesus came down alive from the cross, recuperated in his tomb, and somehow or other recovered his health. Now if Jesus was taken down from the cross alive and survived only because he was so close to death that the Roman soldiers presumed he was dead, and managed through clandestine meetings with his disciples and various disguises to gradually recover (as Deedat claims), we may indeed ask, what sort of sign is this? If we are to take Deedat’s contentions seriously, we must conclude that Jesus escaped death entirely by chance and recovered according to a natural process. This would not have been a miracle at all, let alone a sign greater than all the signs done by the prophets before him. Deedat’s analysis of the Sign of Jonah thus leaves us without a sign at all! On the other hand, if we take the narratives of the crucifixion in the Bible at face value and accept that Jesus died on the cross, only to raise himself from the dead on the third day, then we have indeed a sure sign and manifest proof that all his claims were true. Other living prophets had raised dead men to life but Jesus alone raised himself from the dead, and that to eternal life, for he ascended to heaven and has been there for nearly twenty centuries. It is in this alone that we find the true meaning of the Sign of Jonah and are able to perceive why Jesus singled it out as the only sign he was prepared to give to the Jews. We see, therefore, that Deedat’s final argument in favour of the theory that Jesus survived the cross is actually the very strongest evidence one can find against it. Although his booklets are thus easy to refute, the matter cannot be left here for the sign Jesus gave has implications for all men in all ages. As Jonah’s sojourn in the stomach of a fish in the depths of the sea for three days authenticated his word to Nineveh, so the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ put the stamp of authenticity on his mission of salvation to all men in all ages. If you miss the import of this sign, Jesus gives you no other. No further proof that he is the Saviour of all men need be given to those who refuse to believe in him as their Lord and Saviour. Nevertheless we have a wonderful assurance for those who perceive the meaning of this sign and who are prepared to believe in Jesus and follow him all their days as Saviour and Lord: just as no soul in repenting Nineveh perished, so neither will yours if you will commit your whole life to Jesus who died for you and rose from the dead on the third day that you too might live with him forever in the kingdom of heaven to be revealed when he returns to earth. THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS During 1978 Deedat published another booklet entitled ’Resurrection or Resuscitation?’ which, like his booklet on the Sign of Jonah, attempts to prove that Jesus came down alive from the cross - a theory with no foundation in either the Bible or the Qur’an, one disowned by Christians and Muslims, and held to only by the Ahmadiyya sect which has been denounced as a non-Muslim cult in Pakistan. Early on in this booklet, as in others he has written, Deedat promotes arguments which are based on nothing but his own ignorance of the Bible and to some extent of the English language. He speaks of a conversation he once had with a "reverend" and boldly says of Luke 3:23 : I explained that in the "most ancient" manuscripts of Luke, the words ’(as was supposed)’ are not there. (Deedat, Resurrection or Resuscitation?, p.7). Very significantly he gives no authority for this statement and we are amazed at it for it is absolutely false. This man seems to think he can say what he likes about the Bible, no matter how factually absurd his statements are. Every manuscript of Luke’s Gospel, including all the most ancient manuscripts, begins the genealogy of Jesus by saying that he was the son, as was supposed, of Joseph (meaning that he was not his actual son, having been born of his mother Mary alone). There is just simply no evidence for Deedat’s fatuous claim. So much for his self-acclaimed knowledge of the Bible! We are sure discerning Muslims will have seen by now that this man is no true scholar of the Christian Scriptures. He Appears to believe that the words quoted are missing from the oldest texts because they appear in brackets in some English translations. But any scholar will know that the use of brackets is a common form in the English language by which passing comments and personal notations are characterised. There are no such brackets in the Greek text but as the words in Luke 3:23 are clearly a comment, some translations place them in brackets. In the Revised Standard Version this form appears often where brackets are used for passages where no such brackets are used. in the original Greek simply because, like the Arabic of the Qur’an, such forms are not used in Greek to identify comments or personal remarks. (The same goes for inverted commas to identify a quotation. Inverted commas were used in neither classical Greek nor in classical Arabic). Examples are Acts 1:18-19, Romans 3:5, Galatians 1:20 and 2 Peter 2:8. Deedat’s argument is based entirely on false premises and erroneous suppositions. His attempts to prove that Luke 24:36-43 shows that Jesus must have come down alive from the cross are equally unfounded. He bases his whole argument on a complete misconception of Biblical teaching about the resurrection. It is widely accepted that every man has a body and a spirit. At death the body dies and the spirit leaves the body. The Bible teaches plainly that the body and spirit will again be united at the resurrection but that the bodies of true believers will be changed and that they will be raised in spiritual bodies (1 Corinthians 15:51-53). This means that the spirit will be clothed with a body that will reveal the true character of the spirit and will be eternal. Deedat, however, completely misunderstands this and erroneously takes "spiritualized" to mean that the body itself will not be raised from the dead and transformed but that the spirit alone will be "raised". When Jesus appeared to his disciples after coming out of the tomb they were "startled and frightened and supposed that they saw a spirit" (Luke 24:37). Deedat argues that this means that they had believed that Jesus was dead and so thought it must be his ghost, but the Bible makes it plain why they were so amazed. The doors had been locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews and yet Jesus suddenly stood among them (John 20:19). Having been raised from the dead in a spiritualised body he could appear and disappear at will and was no longer bound by physical limitations (cf. also Luke 24:31, John 20:26). Nevertheless, because Jesus called on the disciples to handle him and because he ate a piece of a fish before them (Luke 24:39-43), Deedat suggests that this shows that Jesus had not risen from the Is dead. He bases this argument on the assumption that a spiritualised body cannot be material in any way but must only be a spirit. He argues that Jesus was trying to show his disciples that he had therefore not risen from the dead and says: He is telling them in the clearest language humanly possible that he is not what they were thinking. They were thinking that he was a spirit, a resurrected body, one having been brought back from the dead. He is most emphatic that he is not! (Deedat, Resurreetion or Resuscitation?, p. 11). So, according to Deedat, Jesus is stating in the "clearest language humanly possible" that he had not been raised from the dead. Yet, in the very next thing that Jesus said to his disciples, we find him stating quite plainly that this was in fact precisely what had happened - that he had indeed been raised from the dead. He said to them: "Thus it is written that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations". Luke 24:46-47. In the "clearest language humanly possible", therefore, we find that Jesus told his disciples immediately after eating before them that he had just fulfilled the prophecies of the former prophets that he should rise from the dead on the third day. So once again we find Deedat’s argument falling to the ground and that purely because he is not a genuine scholar of the Bible and has no reasonable grasp of Biblical theology. The Bible plainly teaches that it is the body itself - a material substance - that will be raised at the resurrection (see Jesus’ own teaching in John 5:28-29), but that it will be transformed. Today two men can be ploughing the same field. If they are identical twins it will be almost impossible to tell them apart. Yet the one may be righteous and the other wicked (Matthew 24:40). The difference is not outwardly apparent but it will be in the resurrection. A spiritualised body means that the condition of the body will be determined by the state of the spirit. If the man is righteous, his body will shine like the sun (Matthew 13:43); if he is wicked he will not be able to hide his rottenness as he can do now, but it will be exposed in all its misery in the state of his body. This is what we mean when we say people will have "spiritualised bodies" in the resurrection. Note clearly that the resurrection thus leads to a spiritualised body and not just to a risen spirit. The Bible puts it like this: So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. 1 Corinthians 15:42-44. It is the body itself that is buried in a perishable state and it is the same body that is raised imperishable. This passage shows quite plainly that it is the same physical body, buried as a seed - is sown into the ground, which will be raised as a spiritual body. This is plain Biblical teaching which Deedat so obviously misrepresents. In 2 Corinthians 5:1-4 the Bible again makes it clear that it is not the wish of true believers to become exposed spirits without bodies. Rather they long for their mortal bodies to be replaced by spiritual bodies which are immortal. Once again we find that Deedat’s efforts to discredit Christianity come purely from suppositions based on his own inadequate knowledge of the Bible, and he appears to be one of those who are guilty of "reviling in matters of which they are ignorant" (2 Peter 2:12). Jesus’ own statement that he had appeared in fulfilment of the prophecies that the Messiah would rise from the dead on the third day shows quite plainly that there is no foundation whatsoever for Deedat’s attempts to prove that Jesus had come down alive from the cross. Jesus Christ rose from the dead on the third day and in his own body ascended to heaven not long thereafter. He has gone to prepare a place for those who love him and who will follow him all their days as Lord and Saviour of their lives. When he returns he will raise them too from the dead and will clothe them with immortal bodies, granting them access to his eternal kingdom which he waits to reveal at the last time. True Christians can confidently say: But our commonwealth is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power which enables him even to subject all things to himself. Php 3:20-21. WHO MOVED THE STONE? During 1977 Deedat also published a small booklet which plagiarised the title of a book written by Frank Morison entitled ’Who Moved the Stone?’ Much of this booklet attempts once again to prove the theory that Jesus came down alive from the cross, and as we have already seen that this theory has no substance, it does not seem necessary to deal at any length with the points Deedat raises to promote it. We need only show, yet again, that he has had to resort to obvious absurdities to try and make his theory stick. For example, he endeavours to prove that Mary Magdalene must have been looking for a live Jesus when she came to anoint his body. Although anointing a body was part of the normal burial custom of the Jews, he cannot accept this as it refutes his argument, so he suggests that the body of Jesus would have already been rotting within if he had died on the cross, saying "if we massage a rotting body, it will fall to pieces" (Deedat, Who Moved the Stone?, p.3), even though Mary came to the tomb only some thirty-nine hours after Jesus had died. It is absolute scientific nonsense to say that a body will fall to pieces within forty-eight hours of a man’s decease! If there was any merit in his argument, Deedat would hardly have found it necessary to resort to such a ridiculous statement. He likewise has to overlook obvious probabilities when he says that, when Mary Magdalene sought to take away the body of Jesus (John 20:15), she could only have been thinking of helping him to walk away and could not have intended to carry away a corpse. He claims that she was a "frail Jewess" who could not carry "a corpse of at least a hundred and sixty pounds, wrapped with another ’hundred pounds weight of aloes and myrrh’ (John 19:39) making a neat bundle of 260 pounds" (Deedat, Who Moved the Stone?, p.8). There is a far more probable explanation for Mary’s statement that she would carry away the body of Jesus. There is nothing to say that she intended to carry it away all by herself. When she first found the body removed from the tomb she rushed to Jesus’ disciples Peter and John and told them: "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb and we do not know where they have laid him". John 20:2 The other Gospels make it plain that Mary was not alone when she first went to the tomb that Sunday morning and that among the women who accompanied her were Joanna and Mary the mother of James (Luke 24:10). This is why she said "WE do not know where they have laid him". As it was only after Peter and John had gone to the tomb that she first saw Jesus there is no reason to suppose that she did not intend to enlist the help of these two disciples or of the other women to help her carry the body away. In any event there is concrete evidence in the Bible that Mary Magdalene believed that Jesus had risen from the dead and this brings us to the whole theme of Deedat’s booklet, namely "who moved the stone?". His conclusion is that it was removed by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, two of Jesus’ disciples who belonged to the party of the Pharisees. He says in his booklet: It was Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, the two stalwarts who did not leave the Master in the lurch when he was most in need. These two had given to Jesus a Jewish burial (?) bath, and wound the sheets with the ’aloes and myrrh’, and temporarily moved the stone into place, if at all; they were the same two real friends who removed the stone, and took their shocked Master soon after dark, that same Friday night to a more congenial place in the immediate vicinity for treatment. (Deedat, Who Moved the Stone?, p.12). He begins his booklet with an expression of hope that he would be able to give "a satisfactory answer to this problem" (p.1) and the cover of his booklet carries a comment by Dr. G.M. Karim which describes the moving of the stone as a "problem besetting the minds of all thinking Christians". The impression is thus given that the Bible is silent on this subject and that Christians are beset with a problem and have to speculate as to who moved the stone. This is sheer nonsense for the Bible plainly says (to use Deedat’s words, in the "clearest language humanly possible"): An angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone, and sat upon it. Matthew 28:2 Can there really be any "problem" about this matter? Is it too hard to believe that an angel from heaven could roll back the stone? According to the Bible it took just two angels to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:13) and it took only one angel to wipe out Sennacherib’s whole army of a hundred and eighty-five thousand soldiers (2 Kings 19:35). On another occasion a single angel stretched forth his hand to destroy the whole city of Jerusalem before the Lord called on him to stay his hand (2 Samuel 24:16). So it should surprise no one to read that it was an angel who moved the stone. The Qur’an plainly states that all faithful Muslims must not only believe in Allah but also in the mala’ikah, the angels (Surah 2.285), and one of the six major tenets of a Muslim’s iman is belief in angels. Not only so, but the Qur’an agrees that the angels who came to Abraham and Lot, told them that they had come to destroy the city where Lot dwelt (Surah 29.31-34), named as Sodom in the Bible. The Qur’an therefore imposes on Muslims not only belief in angels but also in their awesome power over the affairs of men and the substance of the earth. No Muslim can therefore sincerely object to the statement in the Bible that it was an angel who moved the stone. Why then does Deedat overlook this plain statement in the Bible and falsely suggest that the identity of the person who moved the stone is a "problem"? Why is there no mention in his booklet of the verse which plainly states that it was an angel who moved the stone? The reason is that his theory that Jesus was taken down alive from the cross and that Mary was looking for a live Jesus is flatly contradicted by what this same angel immediately said to Mary: "Do not be afraid; for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. Lo, I have told you". Matthew 28:5-7. The angel plainly told Mary and the other women to tell the disciples that Jesus, who had been crucified, had also now risen from the dead. They immediately fled from the tomb with "trembling and astonishment" (Mark 16:8). If they had thought that Jesus had survived the cross they would have been anything but surprised to find him gone from the tomb. But they had come to find a dead body and were absolutely amazed to find an angel telling them in the "clearest language humanly possible" that Jesus had risen from the dead. So we find that Deedat not only has to promote absurdities to support his arguments but also has to suppress plain statements in the Bible which refute them completely. We urge all Muslims to read the Bible itself and to discover its wonderful truths instead of reading Deedat’s booklets which so obviously pervert its teaching and promote alternatives that are full of absurdities as this booklet has constantly shown. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 148: 07.5. IS MUHAMMAD FORETOLD IN THE BIBLE? ======================================================================== Is Muhammad Foretold in the Bible? Contents: MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE? MOSES AND THE PROPHET 1. The Word of God in the Prophet’s mouth 2. A prophet from among their Brethren 3. A Prophet like unto Moses 4. Jesus - the Prophet like unto Moses JESUS AND THE COMFORTER BIBLIOGRAPHY MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE? During 1975 Ahmed Deedat held a series of lectures at the Durban City Hall, two of which set out to prove that Muhammad is foretold in the Bible. The first lecture, entitled "What the Bible Says About Muhammad", dealt with the prophecy in Deuteronomy 18:18 in the Old Testament, and in it Mr. Deedat sought to show that Moses was predicting the coming of Muhammad when speaking of a prophet to follow him who would be like him. During 1976 Mr. Deedat published this lecture in booklet form under the same title. In his second lecture in 1975 he spoke on "Muhammad the Natural Successor to Christ" and here he endeavoured to prove that Jesus was foretelling the coming of Muhammad when he exhorted his disciples to wait for the coming of the one he called the Comforter who, he said, would follow him. Deedat’s lectures were typical of numerous similar attempts that have been made by Muslim writers over the years to make these two particular prophecies fit Muhammad. The effort has generally arisen from a verse in the Qur’an which states that the coming of Muhammad was foretold in the Jewish and the Christian Scriptures. It reads: Those who follow the Apostle, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures) - in the Law and the Gospel. Surah 7.157 It is not surprising, therefore, to find that Muslims have searched exhaustively through the "Law and the Gospel" (the Tawrat and the Injil, the Old and New Testaments respectively) for proof that these two books indeed contain prophecies of the coming of Muhammad. The Qur’an seems to suggest that these prophecies would be found in the Torah and the Gospel without much difficulty, but when Muslims have applied themselves to finding these alleged predictions, they have been unpleasantly surprised to discover that in these two books it is Jesus who is the subject of the many prophecies in them and not Muhammad. The birth of Jesus, his ministry, parables, miracles, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, second coming, deity, glory and honour are the concerns of the prophetic texts of the Torah and the Gospel, and so extensively do these prophecies herald his advent as the ultimate climax of God’s revealed truth and love towards men that one cannot help but be struck by the fact that the Bible makes no allowance for the anti-climax of a "prophet" to follow him. Such prophecies are conspicuous only by their absence. Nevertheless, spurred on by the assurance in the Qur’an that the Bible indeed foretells the coming of Muhammad, Muslims have made every effort to find these prophecies. The obvious dearth of material in support of their quest has led most of them to wisely rely solely on the two prophecies we have already mentioned - one in each of the Testaments -, to prove their claim. Others, like Kaldani and Vidyarthy, have unwisely tried to apply every major prophecy in the Bible to Muhammad (including striking predictions of the crucifixion, atoning work and resurrection of Jesus Christ in Isaiah 53:1-12 for example!), but the shameless twists of interpretation that they have been compelled to resort to together with an abdication of all reason in their efforts to prove their points has fortunately restrained other Muslims from following in their steps and they have accordingly relied solely on the two prophecies we have mentioned, one by Moses and one by Jesus respectively. We are in the circumstances entitled to presume that these two prophecies are believed by the Muslims to be the strongest in support of their claims. Accordingly, if it can be proved that these texts do not in any way refer to Muhammad, or anticipate his advent or prophethood, then the whole theory that Muhammad is foretold in the Bible must simultaneously fall to the ground. We shall therefore in this booklet generously consider the strongest evidence of the Muslims that Muhammad is foretold in these two passages and will, in the light of the context of each passage, and of other factors crucial to a proper determination of the matter, decide whether the evidence is sufficient to prove the point or whether the case must ultimately be found to go against them. It is universally accepted in all civilised communities that if a matter is to be determined properly, all the relevant evidence must be weighed together and all irrelevant evidence must be ignored accordingly. No matter how great the temptation may be to ignore the relevant facts while giving undue weight to the irrelevant ones if this is the only way a matter can be decided in one’s favour, the man who really loves the truth and seeks for it will resist the temptation. It is our sincere hope that the Muslims who read this document will do likewise. MOSES AND THE PROPHET "I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him". Deuteronomy 18:18 Whenever Muslims seek to establish that Muhammad is foretold in the Torah, the Old Testament, they invariably refer to this verse as the one obvious prophecy in support of their claim. They argue that the prophet who was promised by God to Moses was Muhammad because: 1. The Qur’an is allegedly the Word of God and therefore, as Muhammad recited each passage that was delivered to him, he had the words of God put into his mouth in accordance with the words of this prophecy; 2. The prophet to come would be from among the brethren of the Israelites, hence the Ishmaelites, because Israel (Jacob) and Ishmael were both descended from Abraham, and the tribes who descended from the twelve sons of Ishmael are therefore "brethren" of the tribes who descended from the twelve sons of Israel. As Muhammad was the only Ishmaelite to claim prophethood in the line of the Old Testament prophets, they aver that the prophecy can only refer to him; 3. Muhammad was like Moses in so many ways that the prophecy can only refer to him. We shall consider these claims briefly and will do so in the light of the context of the prophecy, for this is the only way that a correct interpretation of the text can be obtained. Every intelligent expositor of scripture knows that no passage can be fairly interpreted if it is isolated from its context. Therefore it is essential to quote from the whole passage in which the prophecy is found and the following two extracts are of great importance: The Levitical priests, that is, all the tribe of Levi, shall have no portion or inheritance with Israel; they shall eat the offerings by fire to the Lord, and his rightful dues. They shall have no inheritance among their brethren; the Lord is their inheritance as he promised them. Deuteronomy 18:1-2. The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren - him shall you heed - just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ’Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, or see this great fire any more, lest I die’. And the Lord said to me, ’They have rightly said all that they have spoken. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him. And whoever will not give heed to my words which he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him. But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die’. Deuteronomy 18:15-20. We shall proceed to briefly consider the three points that supposedly prove that Muhammad is the prophet referred to in the text and thereafter will, in the light of the context of the passage, discover precisely which prophet is referred to in the prophecy contained in Deuteronomy 18:18. 1. THE WORD OF GOD IN THE PROPHET’S MOUTH. Christians do not believe that the Qur’an is the Word of God but, purely for the sake of argument, we shall proceed as if God did indeed put his words in Muhammad’s mouth to discover whether this might prove that Muhammad is the prophet referred to in Deuteronomy 18:18. In our view the statement "I will put my words in his mouth" does not help to identify the prophet referred to at all. It is true of every prophet that God has put his words in his mouth. For God said to Jeremiah: "Behold I have put my words in your mouth". Jeremiah 1:9 Furthermore we also read in Deuteronomy 18:18 that the prophet to follow Moses "shall speak to them all that I command him". Now we read that Jesus once said to his disciples: "For I have not spoken on my own authority; the Father who sent me has himself given me commandment what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has bidden me". John 12:49-50. A similar text which illustrates this point is found in the great prayer which Jesus prayed on the last night that he was with his disciples. He said: "I have given them the words which thou gavest me".John 17:8 In no way, therefore, can the identity of the prophet in the text of Deuteronomy 18:18 be established from the fact that God would put his words in his mouth. With every prophet who is true this is the case and the great prophet referred to in the text, who would be uniquely like Moses in a way that none of the other prophets were, must accordingly be identified from other sources. 2. A PROPHET FROM AMONG THEIR BRETHREN. Muslims allege that the expression "their brethren" in Deuteronomy 18:18 means the brethren of the Israelites, hence the Ishmaelites. In this case, however, if we are truly to discover the real identity of the prophet who would be like Moses, we must consider the expression in its context. God said, "I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren." Of whom is God speaking when he speaks of "them" and "their"? When we go back to the first two verses of Deuteronomy 18:1-22 we find the answer: "The Levitical priests, that is, all the tribe of Levi, shall have no portion or inheritance with Israel ... they shall have no inheritance among their brethren". Deuteronomy 18:1-2. It is abundantly clear from these two verses that "they" refers to the tribe of Levi and that "their brethren" refers to the remaining eleven tribes of Israel. This is an inescapable fact. No honest method of interpretation or consistent method of exposition can possibly allow that Deuteronomy 18:18 refers to anyone else than the tribe of Levi and the remaining tribes of Israel. Let us briefly examine the only possible exposition of the prophecy that can lead to a correct interpretation and identification of "their brethren". We need only accentuate the relevant words from Deuteronomy 18:1-2 to discover the only possible conclusion that can be drawn. The text reads: "The tribe of Levi shall have no inheritance with ISRAEL. They shall have no inheritance among THEIR BRETHEREN". Therefore the only logical interpretation of Deuteronomy 18:18 can be: "I will raise up for them (that is, the tribe of Levi) a prophet like you from among their brethren (that is, one of the other tribes of Israel)". Indeed throughout the Old Testament one often finds the expression "their brethren" meaning the remaining tribes of Israel as distinct from the tribe specifically referred to. Let us consider this verse as an example: But the children of Benjamin would not listen to the voice of their brethren, the children of Israel.Judges 20:13 Here "their brethren" is specifically stated to be the other tribes of Israel as distinct from the tribe of Benjamin. In Deuteronomy 18:18, therefore, "their brethren" clearly means the brethren in Israel of the tribe of Levi. Again in Numbers 8:26 the tribe of Levi is commanded to minister to "their brethren", that is, the remaining tribes of Israel. In 2 Kings 24:12 the tribe of Judah is distinguished from "their brethren", once again the remaining tribes of Israel. (Further scriptures proving the point are Judges 21:22, 2 Samuel 2:26, 2 Kings 23:9, 1 Chronicles 12:32, 2 Chronicles 28:15, Nehemiah 5:1 and others). Indeed in Deuteronomy 17:15 we read that Moses on one occasion said to the Israelites "One from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother". Only an Israelite could be appointed king of Israel - "one from among your brethren" - no foreigner, be he Ishmaelite, Edomite or whoever he may be, could be made King of Israel because he was not one of "their brethren", that is, a member of one of the tribes of Israel. At this stage, therefore, we have a fatal objection to the theory that Muhammad is foretold in Deuteronomy 18:18. He was an Ishmaelite and accordingly is automatically disqualified from being the prophet whose coming was foretold in that verse. The prophet was obviously to come from one of the tribes of Israel other than the tribe of Levi. God said he would raise up a prophet for the Levites like Moses from among "their brethren", that is, from one of the other tribes of Israel. As we intend to prove that Jesus was the prophet whose coming was foretold it will be appropriate to mention at this stage that he was descended from the tribe of Judah (Matthew 1:2, Hebrews 7:14). He is therefore ably qualified to be the prophet who would be raised up from among the brethren of the Levites. 3. A PROPHET LIKE UNTO MOSES. The Islamic publications listed in the Bibliography to this booklet are full of comparisons between Moses and Muhammad where evidence is brought forward of certain likenesses between them. These publications also produce many differences between Jesus and Moses as the authors try to disprove that Jesus is the prophet whose coming was foretold in Deuteronomy 18:18. In his booklet "What the Bible Says About Muhummed" Mr. Deedat produces a number of similarities between Moses and Muhammad which he claims do not exist between Moses and Jesus. Most of these are meaningless, however, and only serve to show the supreme uniqueness of Jesus over against the whole human race. For example, Deedat argues that Moses and Muhammad were both born naturally of human parents and are buried on earth, whereas Jesus was born of a virgin-woman, had no earthly father, and ascended to heaven (Deedat, What the Bible Says About Muhummed", p. 7, 12). It is obvious that all men have natural parents and go back to the dust, and all Mr. Deedat is doing is to reveal certain ways in which Jesus was absolutely unique among men. This does not help to identify the prophet predicted by Moses, however. In the publications referred to we do find occasionally more prominent likenesses between Moses and Muhammad which do need to be analysed more carefully. Three such comparisons are: 1. Moses and Muhammad became the lawgivers, military leaders, and spiritual guides of their peoples and nations; 2. Moses and Muhammad were at first rejected by their own people, fled into exile, but returned some years later to become the religious and secular leaders of their nations; 3. Moses and Muhammad made possible the immediate and successful conquests of the land of Palestine after their deaths by their followers, Joshua and Umar respectively. At the same time it is alleged in these publications that Jesus and Moses were so different, according to Christian belief, that Jesus cannot be the prophet referred to. Such differences are these: 1. Moses was only a prophet but, according to Christian belief, Jesus is the Son of God; 2. Moses died naturally but Jesus died violently; 3. Moses was the national ruler of Israel which Jesus was not at any time during his ministry here on earth. We are constrained to ask: do these similarities and contrasts in any way prove that Muhammad is the prophet like Moses whose coming was foretold in Deuteronomy 18:18? It is the easiest of matters to show that this sort of reasoning will in no way assist us to discover the real identity of the prophet. Firstly, none of the alleged differences between Moses and Jesus are of any importance. The Bible often calls Jesus a prophet as well as the Son of God (see, for example, Matthew 13:57; Matthew 21:11, and John 4:44) and the fact that Jesus died violently is hardly relevant to the issues at stake. Many prophets were killed by the Jews for their testimonies, a fact to which both the Bible and the Qur’an bear witness, (cf. Matthew 23:31, Surah 2.91). Furthermore the Bible teaches that the Christian Church as a whole has replaced the nation of Israel in this age as the collective object of God’s special favours. Likewise, whereas Moses led that nation during his life on earth, so Jesus today heads the Church of God from his throne in heaven above. In this respect, therefore, he is really like Moses. Secondly, if we reverse the process we can show many similarities between Moses and Jesus where Muhammad at the same time can be contrasted with them. Some of these are: 1. Moses and Jesus were Israelites - Muhammad was an Ishmaelite. (This is, as we have seen, a crucial factor in really determining the identity of the prophet who was to follow Moses). 2. Moses and Jesus both left Egypt to perform God’s work - Muhammad was never in Egypt. Of Moses we read: "By faith he forsook Egypt" (Hebrews 11:27). Of Jesus we read: "Out of Egypt have I called my Son" (Matthew 2:15). 3. Moses and Jesus forsook great wealth to share the poverty of their people which Muhammad did not. Of Moses we read: "He considered abuse suffered for the Christ greater wealth than all the treasures of Egypt" and that he chose "to share ill-treatment with the people of God" (Hebrews 11:25-26). Of Jesus we read: "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich" (2 Corinthians 8:9). So we have similarities between Moses and Jesus where Muhammad can be contrasted with them. This shows how weak the Muslim method of comparing Moses with Muhammad (while contrasting them with Jesus) is, for it works both ways. How then can we truly identify the prophet who was to be like Moses? As there were numerous prophets down the ages, it is logical to assume that this prophet would be uniquely like Moses in a way that none of the other prophets were. Clearly the prophet to come would emulate him in the exceptional and unique characteristics of his prophethood. Indeed we would expect that God would give some indication in the prophecy of the distinguishing features of this prophet who was to be like Moses. We only have to refer to the context of the prophecy to find this striking verse which very clearly gives us an indication of the nature of the prophet to follow: "The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren - him you shall heed - just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ’Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die’ ". Deuteronomy 18:15-16. The prophet would be raised up just as God had raised Moses up as the mediator of the covenant which he gave at Horeb. The Israelites pleaded with Moses to become a mediator between them and God because they did not wish to hear God’s voice face to face, and God said "They have rightly said all that they have spoken" (Deuteronomy 18:17). God henceforth raised Moses up as the mediator of the covenant between himself and Israel. We need also to consider that God spoke to Moses in a very special way as well and in the Bible we read: Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. Exodus 33:11 The Qur’an also teaches that God spoke directly to Moses in a way in which he did not speak to other prophets (Surah 4.164). Furthermore, to confirm the great mediatorial work which Moses was to perform, God did great signs and miracles through him in the presence of all Israel. Now as God had promised that the prophet to come would be like him in this mediatorial work, we must conclude that the distinguishing features of the prophet would be these: 1. He would be the direct mediator of a covenant between God and his people; 2. He would know God face to face; 3. His office would be confirmed by great signs and wonders which he would do by the power of God in the sight of all the nation of Israel. This conclusion is in fact clearly established by these last words in the Book of Deuteronomy: And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, none like him for all the signs and wonders which the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land, and for all the mighty power and all the great and terrible deeds which Moses performed in the sight of all Israel. Deuteronomy 34:10-12. The three distinguishing features of Moses as a prophet are clearly mentioned: he was the mediator between God and Israel, he knew the Lord face to face, and he did great signs and wonders. The prophet like him would obviously have to emulate these unique features of his prophethood. Did Muhammad possess these exceptional characteristics by which the prophet was to be recognised? Firstly, whereas God spoke directly to Moses, so that he was a direct mediator between God and the people of Israel, the Qur’an is alleged to have come at all times from the Angel Gabriel to Muhammad and at no time did God directly communicate it to him face to face, as the Muslims themselves admit. He also did not mediate a covenant between God and the people of Israel. Secondly, Muhammad performed no signs and wonders. Although the Hadith record some fanciful miracles, these are purely mythical, for the Qur’an very clearly says of Muhammad that he performed no signs. In Surah 6.37, when Muhammad’s adversaries say "Why has no sign been sent down to him from his Lord?", Muhammad is bidden to reply merely that God could send one if he wanted to but had not done so. In the same Surah we read that Muhammad said, "I have not that for which you are impatient" (Surah 6.57), meaning signs and wonders such as Moses had. He goes on to say that if he had had them, the dispute between him and them would have been decided long ago. Again in the same Surah Muhammad’s adversaries say they will believe if signs come from God, but he only replies that God has reserved them because they would still disbelieve anyway (as indeed the Jews did with Jesus - John 12:37). Furthermore the Qur’an also says that Muhammad’s adversaries in Mecca also once said to him: "Why are not (signs) sent to him, like those which were sent to Moses?" Surah 28.48 The answer the Qur’an gives is much the same - they rejected the signs of Moses anyway, so why do they now expect Muhammad to perform signs? Nevertheless, in terms of the prophecy in Deuteronomy 18:18, this was a very poignant and significant observation for it plainly distinguishes between Moses and Muhammad in the very important matter of performing signs and wonders. How indeed could Muhammad possibly be the prophet whose coming was foretold in Deuteronomy 18:18 if he was not granted the power to perform the kind of signs and wonders performed by Moses? In this case, therefore, he was definitely not like Moses in one of the vital, distinguishing characteristics of his prophethood. The Qur’an has its own testimony to this effect. So we find that Muhammad was not a direct mediator between God and man, nor could he do any signs and wonders to confirm his office. Deuteronomy 34:11 makes it essential that the prophet like Moses would do similar signs and wonders to those which Moses did, and as Muhammad did not, we have a second fatal objection against the theory that he is the prophet foretold in Deuteronomy 18:18. We can conclude by saying that whatever evidence the Muslims may produce in favour of their assertion, the really relevant and crucial evidence needed to prove the point is not only unfavourable in his case but in fact fatally rules out the possibility that he might indeed be the prophet of whom Moses spoke. 4. JESUS - THE PROPHET LIKE UNTO MOSES. Considering now whether Jesus is the prophet referred to, let us begin by answering a few typical objections raised by the Muslims. Firstly, if he was the Christ, they say he could not be the prophet to follow Moses, because the Jews distinguished between Elijah, the Christ, and the prophet (John 1:19-21). The argument goes that John the Baptist is believed by the Christians to have come in the spirit of Elijah, Jesus was the Christ, and Muhammad, therefore, must have been the prophet. We have already shown, however, that it is impossible for Muhammad to be the prophet. In any even nothing conclusive can be construed from the speculations of the Jews. They once said of Jesus: "This is indeed the prophet" (John 7:40). On another occasion they said he was "one of the prophets" (Matthew 16:14), on another "a prophet" (Mark 6:15) and worse still thought of him as both Elijah (Mark 6:15) and John the Baptist himself (Matthew 16:14). It needs to be pointed out that the Bible does not teach that Elijah, the Christ, and the prophet were to come in that order. The questions put by the Jews to John, whether he was Elijah, the Christ, or the prophet, merely expressed their own hopes and expectations of figureheads to come. In the light of their confusion, however, we can see that no serious consideration can be given to the distinctions they made between the Christ and the prophet. It is also important to note that the predictions of the prophet, etc., were made in the reverse order in the Old Testament (the prophet was promised by Moses, most of the prophecies of the coming Christ were set out in the writings of the later prophets, and the promise of the coming of Elijah only appears at the end of the book in Malachi 4:5). Furthermore no deliberate distinction between the prophet and the Christ was ever drawn in these prophecies and it is not surprising to find the Jews in one breath proclaiming that Jesus was indeed both the prophet and the Christ (John 7:40-41). Another favourite objection is that Jesus died at the hands of the Jews and God said, in Deuteronomy 18:20, that only the self-styled prophets would die. Every prophet, however, died - many violently as the Qur’an and the Bible jointly testify - and the mere physical death of a prophet was certainly no evidence against his divine mission. God obviously did not mean that every true prophet would not die! What he meant was that a false prophet was to be put to death and would perish eternally - and all his prophecies with him. Only Judgment Day will reveal all the false prophets of the ages. What we are ultimately concerned about is this - God gave a definite promise that a prophet would arise like Moses who would mediate another covenant and that signs would accompany this covenant to confirm its heavenly origin. The very Bible that contains the prophecy of the prophet to come confirms quite clearly that that prophet was Jesus Christ. The Apostle Peter, claiming that God had foretold the coming of Jesus Christ through all the prophets, appealed specifically to Deuteronomy 18:18 as proof that Moses had done so (Acts 3:22). Jesus himself said, "Moses wrote of me" (John 5:46) and it is difficult to find elsewhere in the five books of Moses such a direct prophecy of his advent. Peter chose Deuteronomy 18:18 as the one distinctive prophecy in all the writings of Moses of the coming of Jesus Christ into the world. Likewise in Acts 7:37 Stephen appealed to Deuteronomy 18:18 as proof that Moses was one of those who had "announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One", Jesus, the one whom the Jews had recently betrayed and crucified. After witnessing all the signs that Jesus had done and after taking part in the New Covenant which he had mediated face-to-face between God and his people, the early Christians knew that Jesus was the prophet whose coming was foretold in Deuteronomy 18:18. They also knew that the prophecy of a prophet to come like Moses had been supplemented by God’s promise to the prophet Jeremiah that he would mediate a new covenant in the days to come between himself and his people. For in speaking of this new covenant God clearly distinguished between it and the old covenant he had made with Moses and it was therefore obvious that the one who would mediate it would be the prophet whose coming Moses had foretold. God said: "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each man teach his neighbour and each his brother, saying ’Know the Lord’, for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more". Jeremiah 31:31-34. "I will make a new covenant", God said, thereby confirming the promise in Deuteronomy 18:1-22 that a prophet would come to mediate between God and his people in the likeness of Moses. The promised new covenant was directly compared with the covenant God had made with Moses. The covenant would be different to that given through Moses but the prophet who would mediate it would be like him. It is therefore quite obvious that the prophet whose coming was foretold in Deuteronomy 18:18 would be the one to mediate this new covenant between God and his people. And we read: "Therefore Jesus is the mediator of a new covenant" (Hebrews 9:15). To ratify the first covenant we read that: Moses took the blood and threw it upon the people, and said, ’Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words’. Exodus 24:8 Just as the first covenant had therefore been ratified by the blood of a sacrificial offering, so the prophet to follow Moses would be like him and would also ratify God’s new covenant with blood. And Jesus therefore said: "This cup is the new covenant in my blood". 1 Corinthians 11:25 God’s promise of the coming of a prophet like Moses who would mediate a new covenant was one of the great blessings in the days preceding the advent of Jesus Christ. Although God mediated the old covenant through Moses, the blazing fire the Israelites saw together with the tempests and other portents made them "entreat that no further messages be spoken to them. For they could not endure the order that was given" (Hebrews 12:19-20). They all broke the covenant (Jeremiah 31:31) and died in the wilderness like flies (1 Corinthians 10:5). They failed to receive the life that was promised to those who abided by the old covenant. Therefore God promised to their descendants that he would raise up another prophet like Moses and would mediate a new covenant through him which God’s people would both give heed to and obtain the promised blessings accompanying it - true knowledge of God, forgiveness of sins, power to keep God’s law, and the public favour of God (Jeremiah 31:33-34). This new covenant Jesus brought in in due time. Unlike the Israelites under the old covenant who fell by the wayside, the people of God through this new covenant have come "to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel" (Hebrews 12:23-24). This is the covenant which Jesus brought in. Jesus therefore is the promised prophet like Moses for he mediated the new covenant between God and his people. Like Moses (and in a way in which no other prophet could compare), he also knew God face-to-face and became a direct mediator between God and men. "I know him, I come from him, and he sent me", Jesus said (John 7:29). Again he proclaimed: "No one knows the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him" (Matthew 11:27). And yet again Jesus said: "Not that anyone has ever seen the Father except him who is from God - he has seen the Father" (John 6:46). And what further evidence do we need that Jesus knew God face-to-face and is the direct mediator between him and men than these two verses: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by me ... Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:6; John 14:9). When he spoke to God face-to-face, "Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him" (Exodus 34:29-30). When the image of the invisible God was directly revealed through the transfigured face of Jesus Christ, "his face did shine as the sun" (Matthew 17:2). No other prophet could claim such a distinction - no one else knew God face-to-face in such a way that his face shone while he communed with him. Not only was the new covenant mediated through Jesus who knew God face-to-face as Moses had done, but he too performed great signs and wonders to confirm his mediatorial work. One of the greatest signs that Moses did was to control the sea: "Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind" (Exodus 14:21). Although other prophets had power over rivers (Joshua 3:13, 2 Kings 2:14), no other prophet emulated him in controlling the sea until Jesus came and we read that his disciples exclaimed "What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him?" (Matthew 8:27). He caused a raging storm on the Sea of Galilee to cease with just three words: "Peace - be still" (Mark 4:39). Another of the great signs that Moses did was the feeding of the Israelites with bread from heaven. When the Israelites at the time of Jesus saw him perform a similar miracle by feeding no less than five thousand people with just a few loaves of bread they were convinced that he was the promised prophet. When the people saw the sign which he had done, they said, ’This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world’. John 6:14 When they saw the sign, they said "This is the prophet". They knew well enough that the promised prophet would be recognised among other things by the performance of signs similar to those which Moses had done. When Jesus gave no indication of repeating the sign, the Israelites recalled that Moses had performed his feat for forty years unabated. So they said to Jesus, "What sign do you do that we may see and believe you?" (John 6:30), appealing to Moses’ act of sustaining the lives of their forefathers in the wilderness. Jesus replied: "I am the Bread of Life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh". John 6:48-51. In every way he gave proof that he was the prophet who was to come - one to mediate a covenant like that mediated through Moses at Horeb - one who would know God face-to-face - one who would perform great signs and wonders as Moses had done. In every way the Jews were right on this one point when they said "This is really the prophet" (John 7:40). So it is proved that Muhammad is not foretold in Deuteronomy 18:18 but rather that the prophet whose coming was foretold in that verse was Jesus Christ. We shall go on to see that if Muhammad is not foretold on the Old Testament, neither is he foretold in the New Testament. We shall again see that Jesus Christ is the climax of all prophecy in all the revealed scriptures of God. For all the promises, revelations and blessings of God are vested in him - the fountainhead of the love and favour of God towards men. For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why we utter the Amen through him, to the glory of God. 2 Corinthians 1:20 We shall also see, even more clearly, that in the Torah and the Gospel there is only one Saviour, one man alone through whom the favour of God can be obtained. While there were many prophets in ages past - both true and false - yet for us there is only one Lord and one Saviour - Jesus Christ. Again it will be seen how deeply God wishes to impress this truth upon all men that they may believe in and follow Jesus Christ into the Kingdom of Heaven. For all who do not heed his words or believe in him with all their hearts, there remains only a "fearful prospect of judgment" (Hebrews 10:27) when God will fulfill his warning in Deuteronomy 18:19 by requiring of them their unbelief in the Saviour he sent and he will surely dismiss them, one and all, from his presence for ever and ever. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your household. Acts 16:31 JESUS AND THE COMFORTER Whenever Muslims seek to prove that Muhammad is foretold in the New Testament, they immediately appeal to the promise of Jesus that the "Comforter" would follow him and claim that this Comforter was Muhammad (particularly as in the Qur’an, Jesus is alleged to have foretold the coming of Muhammad in Surah 61.6 in similar language). Whereas the Revised Standard Version uses the word "Counsellor" rather than "Comforter", we shall use the word "Comforter" throughout this chapter because it is more familiar to the Muslims. The texts where the Comforter is mentioned by Jesus are: "And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you". John 14:16-17. "But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you". John 14:26 "But when the Comforter comes, whom I shall send you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me". John 15:26 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you". John 16:7 It is generally alleged by Muslims that the Greek word "paracletos" (meaning Comforter, Counsellor, Advocate, etc., in effect, one who unites men to God) is not the original word but that Jesus in fact foretold the coming of Muhammad by name and that the translation of his name into Greek (or at least the meaning of his name in Greek) is "periklutos", that is, the "praised one". There is not a shred of evidence in favour of the assertion that the original word was "periklutos". We have thousands of New Testament manuscripts pre-dating Islam and not one of these contains the word "periklutos". In view of the fact that Muslims are prone to levelling false allegations that Christians are regularly changing the Bible, it is rather intriguing to find that they have no scruples about doing this themselves when it suits them to do so. In any event a cursory reading of the texts where the word "paracletos" appears will show that this is the only word that suits the context as I will show in one instance later on in this chapter. Some wiser Muslims admit that "paracletos" is correct, but they claim in any event that Muhammad was the Comforter whom Jesus was referring to. Let us briefly examine some of the texts in a truly exegetical manner to discover whether Muhammad is indeed the Comforter whose coming Jesus foretold. It is quite obvious from the four texts quoted that Comforter, Holy Spirit, and Spirit of Truth are interchangeable terms and that Jesus is speaking of the same person in each instance. The one obvious fact that emerges is that the Comforter is a spirit. (The fact that Jesus always speaks of the Spirit in the masculine gender in no way suggests that the Comforter must be a man as some of the publications in the Bibliography suggest. God himself is always spoken of in both the Bible and the Qur’an in the masculine gender and God is spirit - John 4:24. In the same way Jesus always speaks of the Comforter as a spirit and not as a man). If we apply sound exegesis to John 14:16-17 we shall discover no less than eight reasons why the Comforter cannot possibly be Muhammad. 1. "He will give YOU another Comforter". Jesus promised his disciples that God would send the Comforter to them. He would send the Spirit of Truth to Peter, and to John, and to the rest of the disciples - not to Meccans. Medinans or Arabians. 2. "He will give you ANOTHER Comforter". If, as Muslims allege, the original word was periklutos and that Christians changed it into paracletos, then the sentence would have read, "He will give you another praised one". This statement is both out of place in its context and devoid of support elsewhere in the Bible. Jesus is never called the "periklutos" in the Bible (the word appears nowhere in the Bible) so it is grossly unlikely that he would have said "He will give you another praised one" when he never used that title for himself. Worse still, as the Muslims allege that he actually foretold the coming of Muhammad by mentioning his name, the sentence in that case would have read "He will give you another Muhammad". The further the Muslims try to press the point, the more absurd it tends to become. John 16:12-13 makes it clear that the word "paracletos" is obviously the correct one. The text reads: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth". In other words, I have been your Comforter, your paracletos, and have many things to tell you, but I send the Spirit of Truth to you, another Comforter, another paracletos. In 1 John 2:1 we read that Christians have an "advocate" with the Father, "Jesus Christ the Righteous", and the word translated "advocate" is paracletos in the Greek. So Jesus is our paracletos, our Comforter and advocate with the Father, and he promised to give his disciples another Comforter. It is therefore logical to find that Jesus promised another paracletos when he himself was described as the paracletos of his followers, but it is illogical to suggest that he would speak of "another periklutos" when the word was never used to describe him in the first place. 3. "To be with you FOREVER". When Muhammad came he did not stay with his people forever but died in 632 AD and his tomb is in Medina where his body has lain for over 1300 years. Nevertheless Jesus said that the Comforter, once he had come, would never leave his disciples, but would be with them forever. 4. "The Spirit of Truth whom the world CANNOT receive". The Qur’an says that Muhammad came as a universal messenger to men (Surah 34.28). If so, Jesus was not referring to Muhammad for he said that the world cannot receive the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth. 5. "You KNOW him". It is quite obvious from this statement that the disciples knew the Spirit of Truth. As Muhammad was only born more than five hundred years later, it certainly could not be him. The next clause brings out just how the disciples knew him. At this stage we can see quite clearly that the Comforter is a spirit who was in the disciples’ presence already. 6. "He dwells WITH you". Where did the Comforter dwell with them? From various verses, especially John 1:32, we can see that the Spirit was in Jesus himself and so was with the disciples. 7. "He will be IN you". Here the death-blow is dealt to the theory that Muhammad is the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth. As the Spirit was in Jesus, so he would be in the disciples as well. The Greek word here is "en" and this means "right inside". So Jesus was in fact saying "he will be right inside you". 8. The last reason is really a re-emphasis of the first one. Do you notice how often Jesus addresses his own disciples when he speaks of the sphere of influence of the Comforter? "You know him ... he dwells with you ... he will be in you". Quite clearly the disciples were to anticipate the coming of the Comforter as a spirit who would come to them just after Jesus had left them. No other interpretation can possibly be drawn from this text. Only wishful thinking makes the Muslims allege that Muhammad was foretold by Jesus, but a practical interpretation of the texts destroys this possibility. Let us read how the Spirit came to Jesus: "The Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove" (Luke 3:22). We read that the Spirit, the Comforter, came to the disciples in a similar way just after the ascension of Jesus (as Jesus told them he would): "And there appeared to them tongues as of fire, distributed and resting on them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:3-4). He was with the disciples in the person of Jesus while he was still with them, and he was in the disciples from the day of Pentecost. We thus see the prediction Jesus made in John 14:17 duly fulfilled in the coming of the Holy Spirit. Within only ten days after the ascension of Jesus, the disciples duly received the Comforter as he was promised to them by Jesus. He had told them to wait in Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, should come (Acts 1:4-8) as indeed he did while they were all together praying for his advent in the city. Muhammad is right out of this picture. Moving on now to John 16:7 (quoted earlier), the whole meaning of this verse also becomes clear from the statement of Jesus, "I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now" (John 16:12). Jesus also said: "It is to your advantage that I go away" (John 16:7). The disciples could not bear his teaching now because they were ordinary men devoid of power to comprehend or apply what he said. The Spirit of Truth was indeed in Jesus, but was not yet in his disciples, so they were unable to follow the spiritual elements in his teaching. But after the ascension they received the Spirit and could now communicate and understand his teaching because the Spirit of Truth was in them as well. That is why Jesus said "it is to your advantage that I go away". This is made equally clear elsewhere in the Bible: What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him, God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For what person knows a man’s thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. 1 Corinthians 2:9-13. Paul makes it plain that the Spirit had already been given and if it had not, it could not have been to any advantage to the disciples to be without Jesus once he had ascended to heaven. So it is abundantly proved that Muhammad is not the Spirit of Truth, the Comforter, whose coming Jesus foretold. Who is the Comforter then? He is the very Spirit of the living God as can be seen from some of the quotations already given. On the day when the Comforter duly came upon the disciples, his coming was accompanied by a tremendous sound, "like the rush of a mighty wind" (Acts 2:2). When the Jews heard this, they rushed together to see what was happening. Peter declared to them all: "This is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: ’And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh’ ". Acts 2:16-17. The Comforter, the Spirit of God, had come down on the disciples as Jesus had promised and was to be given to believing Christian men and women from every nation under the sun. But notice how Peter linked the coming of the Spirit with the ascension of Christ: "This Jesus God raised up and of that we are all witnesses. Being therefore exacted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear". Acts 2:32-33. Clearly the coming of the Comforter was inseparably linked to the risen, ascended glory of Jesus in the highest place that heaven affords. The Comforter is also called "the Spirit of Christ" (Romans 8:9) and the reason is plain from what Jesus said: 1. "He will glorify me" (John 16:14). 2. "He will bear witness to me" (John 15:26). 3. "He will convince the world concerning sin because they do not believe in me" (John 16:8-9). 4. "He will take what is mine and declare it to you" (John 16:14). 5. "He will bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you" (John 14:26). Quite obviously the great work of the Comforter is to bring people to Jesus, to make them see him as Saviour and Lord, and to draw them to him. The Comforter was given so that the glory of Jesus might be revealed to men and in men. A beautiful example of this is given by the Apostle John: His disciples did not understand this at first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that this had been written of him and done to him. John 12:16 Without the Spirit, they had no understanding, but when they received the Spirit after Jesus was glorified, then they remembered as Jesus said they would. John illustrates this in this passage as well: On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and proclaimed, ’If any one thirst, let him come to me and drink. He who believes in me, as the scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water’. Now this he said about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive; for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. John 7:37-39. As soon as Jesus was glorified the Spirit was given so that the glory of Jesus in heaven might become real to men here on earth. As Peter said (Acts 2:33), once Jesus was exalted at the right hand of God, the Spirit was freely given to his disciples. Again Peter said, "The God of our fathers glorified Jesus" (Acts 3:13). We cannot see or comprehend this glory of Jesus here on earth (and Jesus himself said, "I do not receive glory from men" John 5:41), but he sent the Spirit so that we might behold this glory by the eye of faith. As Jesus himself said to his disciples of the Spirit: "He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine, therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you". John 16:14-15. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God and he is given to all true believers so that the glory of Jesus in heaven may become real to men on earth. John makes it plain how a man receives the Holy Spirit: Now this he spoke about the Spirit, which those who BELIEVED in him were to receive. John 7:39 To receive the Comforter, the Spirit of God, one must believe in Jesus and surrender body and soul to him. Without the Spirit no one sees or believes in the glory of Christ, but for those who are his true followers and who are sanctified by the Holy Spirit (1 Peter 1:2), Peter says: Without having seen him, you love him, though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with unutterable and exalted joy. As the outcome of your faith you obtain the salvation of your souls. 1 Peter 1:8-9. The distinction between those who have received the Spirit and those who have not, those who have beheld the glory of Christ and those who have not, comes out very clearly as Peter continues to speak to his fellow-believers: To you therefore who believe, he is precious, but for those who do not believe, ’The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner’. 1 Peter 2:7 The Bible says much about the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, but the great and most handsome work of the Spirit is summed up in Jesus’ words: "HE WILL GLORIFY ME". John 16:14 Although the Spirit had been at work in the world before the advent of Jesus Christ, and had indeed filled many of the great prophets and men of old with a longing for the coming Christ, he only finally united himself to men, and men to God, and indeed true believers to one another after the resurrection and ascension of Christ to heaven. Jesus Christ spoke to his OWN disciples of the coming of the Comforter because the Spirit was sent down to comfort and regenerate all true believers in Jesus. This is one of the most significant and consistent elements of the teaching of Jesus about the Comforter. The prime purpose of the coming of the Comforter - immediately after the ascension of Jesus - was to draw men to him so that those who are influenced by the work of the Comforter will therefore become followers of Jesus. It is further evidence against the theory that Muhammad was the Comforter for, whereas the Comforter would not speak of himself but only of Jesus, Muhammad drew attention away from Jesus to himself, describing himself as the ultimate apostle of God to be followed and obeyed. The Comforter was never to do a thing like this. Jesus made it plain that the Comforter would draw the attention and faith of all men to himself and would glorify him before the eyes of faith of true believers as the Lord of glory in heaven. After Jesus Christ had ascended to heaven to be glorified at the right hand of God above all the angels and departed saints, the Comforter came immediately upon his disciples to make this glory real to them and through them to spread it all over the world. For Jesus Christ is the very image of the Father’s glory. In him are all things united, whether in heaven or on earth. He is the climax of God’s plan for the fulness of time. He is the beginning and the end of all God’s gracious work in all ages - for all the salvation and glory that God has prepared for those who love him are vested in Jesus. The Comforter came to give us a foretaste of this glory. He came to make the resplendent glory of Jesus real to those who follow him. As Moses encouraged his people to look forward to the prophet who would be like him, who would mediate a new covenant to save all who truly believe, so the Comforter encourages Christ’s followers in this age to look up to the risen, ascended, Lord Jesus Christ who sits on the throne of God in eternal glory above the heavens. Far from Muhammad being foretold in the Bible, every prophecy, every agent of God, every true prophet and spirit, looks upward towards the radiance of the Father’s glory, the one who sits upon the throne, the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ ascended to heaven - God took him to himself. For Jesus alone is the Redeemer of the world. He alone is able, as a man, to enter the holy presence of the Father’s throne and fill it with his own glorious majesty. So likewise he is able to reconcile sinful men to God and will one day be seen again in all his splendour as he comes to call his own - those who eagerly awaited his coming before his time and all those who since his sojourn on this earth look forward to his return from heaven - to be with him where he is to behold with awe the glory which the Father gave him in his love for him before the foundation of the world. Moses rejoiced to see his day when speaking of the prophet to come. The Comforter today still rejoices to reveal his glory and majesty to those in whom he dwells. The angels and departed saints await with longing for the day when he shall be revealed to all the universe in all his magnificence - when all men shall be raised from the dead to see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory, a day when the Comforter’s work will be finally completed, a day when every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that it is Jesus Christ who is Lord - to the everlasting glory of God the Father - Amen! BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS: Badawi, Dr J - Muhammad in the Bible. (Islamic Information Foundation, Halifax, Canada, 1982). Dawud, Prof A - Muhammad in the Bible. (Angkatan Nahdhatul- Islam Bersatu, Singapore, 1978). Deedat, A H - Muhammad in the Old and the New Testaments. (Uthmania Islamic Service Centre, Johannesburg, South Africa. n.d.) Deedat, A H - Muhammad Successor to Jesus Christ as portrayed in the Old and New Testaments. (Muslim Brotherhood Aid Services, Johannesburg South Africa n.d.) Deedat, A H - What the Bible says about Muhammad. (Islamic Propagation Centre, Durban, South Africa, 1976) Durrani, Dr M H - Muhammad - The Biblical Prophet. (International Islamic Publishers, Karachi, Pakistan, 1980). Gilchrist, J D - The Prophet after Moses. (Jesus to the Muslims, Benoni, South Africa, 1976). Gilchrist, J D - The Successor to Christ. (Jesus to the Muslims, Benoni, South Africa, 1975). Hamid, S M A - Evidence of the Bible about Mohammad. (Karachi, Pakistan, 1973). Jamiat, U N - The Prophet Muhammad in the Bible. (Jamiat Ulema Natal, Wasbank, South Africa, n.d.) Kaldani D B - Mohammad in the Bible. (Abbas Manzil Library, Allahabad, Pakistan, 1952). Lee, F N - Muhammad in the Bible? (Unpublished M.Th. thesis, Stellenbosch, South Africa, 1964). S G Mission - The Prophet like unto Moses. (Scripture Gift Mission, London, England, 1951). Shafaat, Dr A - Islam and its Prophet: A Fulfilment of Biblical Prophecies. (Nur Al Islam Foundation, Ville St Laurent, Canada, 1984). Vidyarthy, A H - Muhammad in World Scriptures. (Volume 2, Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat-l-lslam, Lahore, Pakistan, 1968). Y.M.M.A. - Do you know? The Prophet Muhammad is prophesied in the Holy Bible! (Young Men’s Muslim Association. Johannesburg, South Africa, 1960). ARTICLES IN OTHER BOOKS: Niazi, K - The Bible and the last Prophet. (The Mirror of Trinity, S M Ashrai’, Lahorc, Pakistan, 1975). Pfander, C G - Is the Mission of Mohammad foretold in the Old or New Testaments? Mizanul Haqq - the Balance of Truth, Church Missionary House, London, England, 1867). Robson, J - Does the Bible speak of Muhammad? (The Muslim World, Vol. 25, p. 17). Smith, P - Did Jesus Foretell Ahmed? (The Muslim World, Vol. 12, p. 71). Tisdall, W St C - Does the Bible Contain Prophecies concerning Muhammad? (Mizanul Haqq - The Balance of Truth, Revised Edition, Religious Tract Society, London, England, 1910). LECTURES ON TAPE: Deedat, A H - Muhammad the Natural Successor to Christ. (Durban City Hall, Durban, South Africa, 1975) ======================================================================== CHAPTER 149: 07.6. THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF THE QUR'AN AND THE BIBLE ======================================================================== THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF THE QUR’AN AND THE BIBLE A Study of the Qur’an and the Bible "Three Grades of Evidence" The "Multiple Bible Versions" The Apocrypha The "Grave Defects" Fifty Thousand Errors? "Allah" in the Bible? Parallel Passages in the Bible Alleged Contradictions in the Bible Pornography in the Bible? The Genealogy of Jesus Christ Conclusion A Study of the Qur’an and the Bible Most Muslims do not believe that it is becoming of a true Muslim to condemn another man’s religion. Certain exceptions to this rule exist, however, one of whom is Ahmed Deedat who regularly attacks Christians and their religion in a spirit reminiscent of the Crusades of old. One of his recent efforts to condemn Christianity is his booklet entitled "Is the Bible God’s Word?", first published by his Islamic Propagation Centre in Durban in 1980. In this publication Deedat endeavours to prove that the Bible cannot be the Word of God. To the ignorant and unlearned his treatise may appear to be impressive, if not convincing, but those who have any real knowledge of the texts and textual history of the Qur’an and the Bible will see through his petty efforts immediately. It seems that Deedat is well aware of the inherent weakness of his case and, to cover it up, has resorted to bold and challenging statements to give the impression that a convincing and unanswerable dissertation is before the reader’s eyes. In a report on a symposium Deedat was once involved in, A.S.K. Joommal said: "Even if one’s case is weak and untenable, it is possible for one’s oratorical prowess to carry one through and sway the multitudes in one’s favor. We know Joommal has relied on this very method in his book "The Bible: Word of God or Word of Man?", referred to by Deedat (on pp. 44 and 51), and it certainly appears that Deedat himself has resorted to this same tactic in his booklet against the Bible. Both of them are obviously acutely and painfully aware of the "untenable" nature of their supposed case against our Holy Scriptures. Deedat audaciously suggests, on page 14 of his booklet, that if a Muslim should ever hand his publication to a missionary or Jehovah’s Witnesses and request a written reply, he will never see them ever again - let alone ever get a reply. We Christians are somewhat tired of the efforts this man has made over the years to discredit our faith but, to dispel the fond illusion that his booklet will chase any missionary back to his home for good, we have decided to formulate the reply he has requested. We have replied to other publications he has produced in the past and note with interest that, whereas we are always able to refute his assaults, he invariably proves incapable of saying anything further in reply to us. This seems to prove a point. 1. "THREE GRADES OF EVIDENCE". Deedat begins his booklet with quotes from two Christian authors, Scroggie and Cragg, to the effect that there is a positive human element in the Bible. He then boldly concludes: Both these doctors of religion are telling us in the clearest language humanly possible that the Bible is the handiwork of man. (Deedat, Is the Bible God’s Word? p.2). What he subtly omits to do, however, is to inform his readers, firstly, that the Christian Church has always held that the Word of God was written by men under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21), and, secondly, that these authors were not "letting the cat out of the bag" (as Deedat fondly imagines) but were setting out to show how God has in fact revealed his Word. Deedat’s quote from Cragg’s "The Call of the Minaret" is very astutely wrenched from its context. Cragg speaks of the human element in the Bible to demonstrate a decisive advantage that the Bible enjoys over the Qur’an. Whereas the Qur’an is alleged to be free of any human element, in the Bible God has deliberately chosen to reveal his Word through the writings of his inspired prophets and apostles so that his Word may not only be conveyed to man but may be communicated to his understanding and powers of comprehension as well. The apostle not only receives the Word of God but is able himself, infallibly inspired by the Holy Spirit, to convey its meaning to his readers. This the Qur’an cannot do if it has no human element as is generally alleged. Deedat then ingeniously divides the Bible into "three different kinds of witnessing" (Is the Bible God’s Word?, p.4), namely the Word of God, Words of a Prophet of God and Words of an Historian. He then quotes passages where God speaks, others where Jesus speaks, and lastly where things are said of Jesus, proudly suggesting that the Muslims are careful to separate these three. He states that the Qur’an alone has the Word of God, the Hadith has the Words of the Prophet, and other books have the writings of historians. He concludes by saying: The Muslim keeps the above three types of evidence jealously apart, in their proper gradations of authority. He never equates them. (Deedat, Is the Bible God’s Word?, p.6). We find it most astonishing that a man who poses as a scholar of Islam should make such a claim. He must surely know that there is no truth in his statement at all. Firstly the Qur’an contains many passages which record the words of the prophets of God. For example, we read that Zakariya, the prophet said: How can I have a son when age hath overtaken me already and my wife is barren? Surah 3.40 If, as Deedat suggests, the Qur’an only contains the Word of God while the words of prophets are only found in the Hadith, it is extremely difficult to see how these words can ever be attributed to God! Secondly there is a passage in the Qur’an which clearly contains the words of angels to Muhammad and not the Word of God to him as is generally alleged: We come not down save by commandment of thy Lord. Unto him belongeth all that is before us and all that is behind us and all that is between these two, and thy Lord was never forgetful. Surah 19.64 There is no hint in the Qur’an as to who is speaking but these words are clearly addressed to Muhammad directly by their authors. From the text itself it is quite clear that these are the words of angels and not of God. Furthermore we find in the Hadith many words which are not the words of any prophet but obviously of God himself. These sayings are known as Hadith-i- Qudsi (divine sayings) and here is an example: Abu Huraira reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, said: I have prepared for my pious servants which eye has seen not, and the ear has heard not and no human heart has perceived such bounties leaving aside those about which Allah has informed you. (Sahih Muslim, Vol.4, p.1476). The Hadith are full of such sayings. Furthermore much of the Qur’an and Hadith read like the passages in the Bible which are alleged to be the words of an historian. The passage in the Qur’an which relates the birth of Jesus from his mother Mary reads precisely like the "third type" quoted in Deedat’s booklet: And she conceived him, and she withdrew with him to a far place. And the pangs of childbirth drove her unto the trunk of a palm tree. Surah 19. 22-23. What the Qur’an says here of Mary is no different in narrative form to what Mark 11:13 says of Jesus. Nevertheless Deedat, using this verse in Mark as an example, says such narratives are not found in the Qur’an! We must conclude that Deedat’s effort to distinguish between the Qur’an and the Bible is founded on totally false premises. The Qur’an has the words of prophets and historical narratives throughout its pages and no one can honestly say that it contains the alleged words of God alone. Furthermore the Hadith also contain alleged sayings of God as well as those of prophets. When Deedat says that these three types of evidence - words of God, prophets and historians - are kept "jealously apart" by the Muslims, he makes a blatantly false statement - one typical of the many we find in his booklet. It is apparent right from the outset that Deedat’s arguments against the Bible are unjustified and the trend continues right through his booklet. 2. THE "MULTIPLE BIBLE VERSIONS". Deedat begins his third chapter by denying that the Jewish and Christian Scriptures constituting the Holy Bible are those honoured by the Qur’an as the Taurat and Injil respectively (the Law and the Gospel - i.e., the Old and New Testaments). Instead he suggests that the real Taurat and Injil were different books entirely which were allegedly revealed to Moses and Jesus respectively. This attempt to distinguish between the books of the Holy Bible and those referred to in the Qur’an is, to say the least, very difficult to consider with any seriousness. No matter how widely this view may be held in the Muslim world, there is no evidence of any nature whatsoever to support it. At no time in history has there ever been any proof that books as such were "revealed" to Moses and Jesus, or that any other Taurat (Law) or Injil (Gospel) other than the books of the Old and New Testaments ever existed. Furthermore, as we shall show, the Qur’an itself does not distinguish these books from the Holy Scriptures of the Jews and the Christians but, on the contrary, openly admits that they are those books which the Jews and Christians themselves hold to be the Word of God. Significantly, in trying to establish his theory that the Taurat and Injil were books other than those found in the Bible, Deedat has to resort inevitably to pure subjectivism. He bleats We Muslims believe ... we believe ... we sincerely believe ... but is incapable of producing even the slightest degree of evidence in favour of these beliefs. Surprisingly he proves to be guilty of the very "mulish mentality" he wrongly attributes to Christians in his booklet (see p.3). All we can say in response to these stated beliefs is that all the evidence of history weighs irreversibly against them and that they are accordingly purely speculative and devoid of any foundation whatsoever. In passing, however, we must comment that, in the light of Deedat’s claim that the Qur’an has been perfectly preserved and protected from human tampering by God himself for fourteen centuries (Is the Bible God’s Word? p.7), it is rather astonishing to discover that the same God proved singularly incapable of preserving even a record of the fact that such a Taurat or an Injil ever even existed - let alone preserve the books themselves! We find such a paradox fundamentally impossible to believe - for the Eternal Ruler of the universe will surely act consistently at all times. You cannot expect us to believe that God has miraculously preserved one of his books perfectly for centuries and yet proved absolutely powerless to preserve independently in human history even so much as a record that other such books ever existed. We find this too hard to swallow. In any event, as we have seen already, the Qur’an itself unambiguously confirms that the Taurat of the Jews was the book regarded as such by them at the time of Muhammad and that the Injil likewise was the book in the possession of the Christians at that time which they themselves considered to be the Word of God. At no time in history have Jews and Christians ever regarded any books as the sacred Word of God other than those constituting the Old and New Testaments as we know them today. At the time of Muhammad the Jews universally knew only one Taurat - the books of the Old Testament precisely as they are today. So at the same time the Christians knew only one Injil - the books of the New Testament exactly as they are found today. Useful Qur’anic texts proving the point are: How come they unto thee for judgment when they have the Torah wherein Allah hath revealed judgment ? Surah 5.43 Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein. Surah 5.47 It is impossible to consider how the Christians of Muhammad’s time could ever judge by the Gospel (Injil) if they were not in possession of it. In Surah 7.157 the Qur’an again admits that the Taurat and Injil were in possession of the Jews and Christians at the time of Muhammad and that they were those books which these two groups themselves accepted as the Law and the Gospel respectively. No one can honestly say that these two books were other than those of the Old and New Testaments as they are found in the Bible today. Furthermore it is most significant to note that distinguished commentators like Baidawi and Zamakshari openly admit that Injil is not an original Arabic word but is borrowed from the Syriac word used by the Christians themselves to describe the Gospel. Indeed, whereas some early Qur’anic scholars tried to find an Arabic origin for it, these two men of authority rejected the theory with undisguised contempt (Jeffery, The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur’an, p.71). This substantiates all the more the conclusion that the Injil was not a phantom book revealed as such to Jesus, all trace of which has strangely disappeared, but rather the New Testament itself precisely as we know it today. The same can be said for the Taurat as the word is obviously of Hebrew origin and is the title which the Jews themselves have always given to the books of the Old Testament as we know it today. Therefore the Qur’an unreservedly admits that the Bible itself is the true Word of God. Deedat knows this for a fact and therefore tries to circumvent the implications by suggesting that there are "multiple" Bible versions in circulation today. This is a very artful misrepresentation of the truth. He fails to inform his readers that he is really referring to different English translations of the Bible which are widely distributed in the world today. He speaks of the King James Version (KJV), Revised Version (RV), and Revised Standard Version (RSV) but, in the name of honesty, he should have made it clear that these are not differing editions of the Bible itself but simply different English translations of it. All three are based on the original Hebrew and Greek texts of the Old and New Testaments respectively which have been preserved intact by the Christian Church since centuries before the time of Muhammad. We shall presently consider the differences between them but it will be useful to refer here to a furore which raged among the Muslim leaders of South Africa in 1978 over the distribution of an English translation of the Qur’an by Muhammad Asad. (As with the Bible, there are numerous different translations of the Qur’an in English as well). Reaction against Asad’s translation was so vehement that the Islamic Council of South Africa, in a public statement, openly discouraged distribution of this book among the Muslims of South Africa. At no time has any English translation of the Bible ever been treated so drastically. Therefore readers must not be duped by Deedat’s suggestion that "multiple" versions of the Bible exist and should appreciate immediately that he is pulling the wool over his readers’ eyes when he suggests that the Christian Church does not have just one Bible. 3. THE APOCRYPHA. Deedat then proceeds to make another blatantly false charge when he suggests that the Protestants have bravely expunged seven whole books from the Bible (Is the Bible God’s Word?, p.9), the books being those that constitute the Apocrypha. It seems that there is very poor information about the Bible at Deedat’s disposal for these books are of Jewish origin and the authors never intended to write Scripture, nor have they ever formed part of the Jewish Holy Scriptures, the Old Testament, which we Christians accept as the Word of God. Therefore they have not been expunged from the Bible as Deedat erroneously suggests. Only the Roman Catholics, for reasons best known to themselves, give them the authority of Scripture. 4. THE "GRAVE DEFECTS". With his customary aggressiveness Deedat then challenges the believing Christian to steel himself for the unkindest blow of all as though what he was about to say was entirely unknown to us. He quotes these words from the preface to the RSV which are underlined in his booklet: Yet the King James Version has grave defects... these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision. (Deedat, s the Bible God’s Word?, p.11). These "defects" are nothing but a number of variant readings which were generally unknown to the translators who composed the KJV early in the seventeenth century. The RSV of this century has identified these readings and they are noted as footnotes on the relevant pages of its text. Furthermore, where a verse like 1 John 5:7 appears in the KJV (because the translators took it from later manuscripts), the RSV has omitted it altogether (as it is not found in the oldest texts of the New Testament in the original Greek). Firstly, we must again point out that the KJV and RSV are English translations of the original Greek texts and that these texts, as they are preserved for us, have in no way been changed. (We have about 4000 Greek texts dating back to not less than two hundred years before Muhammad and Islam). Secondly, there is no material alteration of any form in the structure, teaching or doctrine of the Bible in the revised translation referred to. Throughout the KJV, the RSV, and other English translations, the essence and substance of the Bible is totally unchanged. Thirdly, these are not differing versions of the Bible. We have heard it said that there is only "one Qur’an" whereas Christians have different versions of the Bible. This is a totally false comparison for these "versions" of the Bible are, it needs again be said, only English translations of the original Hebrew and Greek texts. There are many such English translations of the Qur’an as well but no one suggests that these are "different versions" of the Qur’an. In the same way we have many English translations but, as a cursory comparison of these will immediately show, we have just one Bible. We freely admit that there are variant readings in the Bible. We believe, as Christians, in being entirely honest at all times and our consciences do not allow us to avoid the facts, nor do we believe anything can sincerely be achieved in pretending such variants do not exist. On the contrary we do not consider that these variant readings prove that the Bible has been changed as such. The effect they have on the book is so slight and, indeed, so negligible that we know we can confidently assert that the Bible, as a whole, is intact and has never been changed in any way. We have never ceased to be amazed, however, at the general Muslim claim that the Qur’an has never been changed whereas the Bible has allegedly been so corrupted that it is no longer what it was and therefore cannot be regarded as the Word of God. All the evidence history has bequeathed to us in respect of the textual history of the Qur’an and the Bible suggests, rather, that both books are remarkably intact in the form in which they were originally written but that neither has escaped the presence, here and there, of variant readings in the text. We can only presume that the fond illusion of Qur’anic inerrancy and Biblical corruption is the figment of pure expediency, a convenient way - indeed, as the evidence shows, a desperate and drastic way - of explaining away the fact that the Taurat and Injil are actually Christian rather than Islamic in content and teaching. Whatever the reason for this myth, we know we speak the truth when we say that the suggestion that the Qur’an is unchanged while the Bible has been changed on many occasions is the greatest lie ever proclaimed in the name of truth. It is time the Muslim doctors of religion in the world told their pupils and students the truth. There is abundant evidence that, when the Qur’an was first collated by the Caliph Uthman into one standard text, there were numerous texts in existence which all contained a host of variant readings. During his reign reports were brought to him that, in various parts of Syria, Armenia and Iraq, Muslims were reciting the Qur’an in a way different to that in which those in Arabia were reciting it. Uthman immediately called for the manuscript of the Qur’an which was in the possession of Hafsah (one of the wives of Muhammad and the daughter of Umar) and ordered Zaid-b-Thabit and three others to make copies of the text and to correct it wherever necessary. When these were complete we read that Uthman took drastic action regarding the other manuscripts of the Qur’an in existence: Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.6, p.479). At no time in Christian history has anyone attempted to standardize just one copy of the Bible as the true one while attempting to have all the others destroyed. Why did Uthman make such an order regarding the other Qur’ans in circulation? We can only presume that he believed that they contained "grave defects" - so "many and so serious as to call" not for revision but for wholesale destruction. In other words, if we assess the textual history of the Qur’an just at this point, we find that the Qur’an standardized as the correct one is that which a man (and not God), according to his own discretion (and not by revelation), decreed to be the true one. We fail to see on what grounds this copy was regarded as the only perfect one available and will shortly produce evidence that the codex of Ibn Mas’ud had a far greater claim to be the best one available. (Indeed not one could seriously be regarded as perfect in the light of the many differences between them). It is practically certain that there was not one Qur’an in existence which agreed with Hafsah’s copy in every detail for all other copies were ordered to be burnt. This kind of evidence most certainly does not in any way back up the fallacy that the Qur’an has never been changed in any way. Firstly, there is incontrovertible evidence that even this one "Revised Standard Version" of the Qur’an was anything but perfect. In the most accredited works of Islamic tradition we read that even after these copies were sent out the same Zaid recalled a verse which was missing. He testified: A verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur’an and I used to hear Allah’s Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima-bin-Thabit al Ansari. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.6, p.479). The verse was Surah 33.23. Therefore, if the evidence is to be believed (and there is none to the contrary), there was not one Qur’an at the time of Uthman’s reclension which was perfect. Secondly, there is similar evidence that, to this day, verses and, indeed, whole passages are still omitted from the Qur’an. We are told that Umar in his reign as Caliph stated that certain verses prescribing stoning for adultery were recited by Muhammad as part of the Qur’an in his lifetime: God sent Muhammad and sent down the Scripture to him. Part of what he sent down was the pas- sage on stoning, we read it, we were taught it, and we heeded it. The apostle stoned and we stoned them after him. I fear that in time to come men will say that they find no mention of stoning in God’s book and thereby go astray in neglecting an ordinance which God has sent down. Verily stoning in the book of God is a penalty laid on married men and women who commit adul- tery. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p.684). Here is clear evidence that the Qur’an, as it stands today, is still not "perfect" as the verse about stoning of adulterers remains absent from the text. Elsewhere in the Hadith we find further evidence that certain verses and passages once formed part of the Qur’an but are now omitted from its text. It is quite clear, therefore, that the textus receptus of the Qur’an in the world today is not the textus originalis. Going back to the texts which were marked for the fire, however, we find that in every case there were considerable differences between these and the text which Uthman decided, according to his own discretion, to standardize as the best text of the Qur’an. Furthermore these differences were not purely dialectal, as is often suggested. In many cases we find that they were "real textual variants and not mere dialectal peculiarities" (Jeffery, The Qur’an as Scripture). In some cases there were consonantal variants in certain words, in others the variants concerned whole clauses, and here and there words and sentences were found in some codices that were omitted in others. There were some fifteen different codices affected by these differences. We shall now consider the text of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud. (What can be said of his codex generally applies to the others destroyed by Uthman’s command as well). His text was regarded by the local community at Kufa as their official reclension of the Qur’an and when Uthman first sent out the order that all the texts besides that in Hafsah’s possession were to be burnt, for some time Ibn Mas’ud refused to relinquish his codex and it rivaled the codex of Hafsah as the official text. Ibn Mas’ud was one of the very first Muslims and also one of the earliest teachers among those who taught the reading and recitation of the Qur’an. Indeed he was widely regarded as being one of the best authorities on its text. On one occasion he recited more than seventy surahs of the Qur’an in Muhammad’s presence and no one found fault with his recitation (Sahih Muslim, Vol.4, p.1312). Indeed in the same highly respected collection of traditions of Imam Muslim we read: Masruq reported: They made mention of Ibn Mas’- ud before Abdullah b. Amr whereupon he said: He is a person whose love is always fresh in my heart after I heard Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Learn the recita- tion of the Qur’an from four persons: from Ibn Mas’ud, Salim, the ally of Abu Hudhaifa, Ubayy b. Ka’b, and Mu’adh b. Jabal. (Sahih Muslim, Vol.4, p.1313). According to another work of Hadith, this same Ibn Mas’ud was present when Muhammad allegedly reviewed the Qur’an with Gabriel each year (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol.2, p.441). In a similar tradition we read that Muhammad said: Learn the recitation of the Qur’an from four: from Abdullah bin Mas ’ud [he started with him], Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, Mu’adh bin Jabal, and Ubai bin Ka’b. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.5, pp. 96-97). The words in square brackets are the comment of the reporter of the tradition, namely Masruq. They show that, of all Muslims at that time, Ibn Mas’ud was the foremost authority on the Qur’an. Records of many variant readings in the codices of both Salim and Ubai bin Ka’b exist but, as Ibn Mas’ud was especially singled out before the others by Muhammad himself, it is astonishing to discover that his text varied from the others (including Hafsah’s) so often that the different readings involved are set out in no less than ninety pages of Arthur Jeffery’s collection of variants in the various codices (Cf. Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’an, pp. 24-114). The author has taken his evidence from numerous Islamic sources which are documented in his book. There are no less than 19 cases in Surah 2 alone where his text differed from the others in circulation, in particular the text of Hafsah. Furthermore one of the reasons he gave for refusing to abandon his codex in favour of Hafsah’s was that the latter text was compiled by Zaid-b-Thabit who was still only in the loins of an unbeliever when he had already become one of the closest companions of Muhammad. Two things emerge from all this. Firstly, it appears that the text of Ibn Mas’ud had far better grounds than that of Hafsah for being the best text of the Qur’an available - in particular as Muhammad had considered him to be the first of the four best authorities on the Qur’an. Secondly, there were voluminous textual variants between the two texts - literally thousands which are all, without exception, documented in Jeffery’s book. Allowing further for the fact that there were about a dozen other primary codices of prominent men like Salim and Ubai bin Ka’b and that these differed radically from Hafsah’s text as well (often agreeing with the text of Ibn Mas’ud instead!), we must conclude that the evidence available totally negates the fond illusion that there is no proof that the Qur’an has never been changed. Jeffery’s book contains 362 pages of incontrovertible evidence that the foremost codices of the Qur’an in those all-important early days differed widely from one another in many respects. Therefore the Qur’an, too, has suffered from variant readings and in no way can any man with an honest conscience before God suggest that the Qur’an is free from the "grave defects" found in the textual history of the Bible. This is a fallacy expediently propagated in astonishing defiance of the cold facts to the contrary. The truth is that the textual history of the Qur’an is very similar to that of the Bible (Guillaume, Islam, p.58). Both books have been preserved remarkably well. Each is, in its basic structure and content, a very fair record of what was originally there. But neither book has been preserved totally without error or textual defect. Both have suffered here and there from variant readings in the early codices known to us but neither has in any way been corrupted. Sincere Christians and Muslims will honestly acknowledge these facts. The only difference between the Qur’an and the Bible today is that the Christian Church has, in the interests of truth, carefully preserved the variant readings that exist in the Biblical text whereas the Muslims at the time of Uthman deemed it expedient to destroy as far as possible all evidences of different readings of the Qur’an in the cause of standardizing one text for the whole of the Muslim world. There may well be only one text of the Qur’an in circulation today, but no one can honestly claim that it is exactly that which Muhammad handed down to his companions. No one has ever shown why Hafsah’s text deserved to be regarded as infallible and the evidence, on the contrary, suggests that Ibn Mas’ud’s text had a far greater right to be regarded as the best available. These facts must also always be considered against the background of further evidence in the Hadith that the Qur’an today is still not complete. It does not help to say that all Qur’ans in the world today are the same. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link - and the weak link in the chain of the textual history of the Qur’an is found right at this point where, in those crucial early days, different and differing codices of the Qur’an exis- ted and other evidence was given that the text finally standardized as the best one was still far from being complete or in any way perfect. Only those who have neither love for truth nor respect for valid evidences will claim that the Bible has been corrupted while the Qur’an is allegedly unchanged. Such men may fondly imagine that the cause of their faith is being greatly served with such distortions of truth. But God, who is true and who loves the truth, will assuredly set his face against their questionable propaganda. 5. FIFTY THOUSAND ERRORS? Deedat then produces a reproduction of a page from a magazine entitled Awake dating back some twenty-three years published by the Jehovah’s Witnesses (a non-Christian minority cult) which quotes a secular magazine Look to the effect that there are some "modern students" who "say" that there are probably "50,000 errors in the Bible". Very significantly no mention is made of the identity of these so-called modern students, nor is even the slightest evidence given of just a sample of this alleged abundance of errors. We can only presume that this allegation is purely rhetorical and stems from excessive prejudice against the Bible and all that it teaches. Unfortunately those who share this prejudice willy-nilly swallow anything they read against the Bible - no matter how far-fetched or absurd it may be. In the same way Deedat takes as established fact any charge he reads against the Bible without the slightest effort to verify it. We find it hard to take him seriously when he says: We do not have the time and space to go into the tens of thousands of - grave or minor - defects that the authors of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) have attempted to revise. (Deedat, Is the Bible God’s Word? p.l4). What he means is that he does not know of tens of thousands of errors in the Bible. Of these alleged fifty thousand defects he produces just four for our consideration. Now we must presume that a man with such an alleged wealth of errors at his disposal will be able to provide, in just four cases, very substantial evidence of total corruption in the Bible. We are also surely entitled to presuppose that these four examples will be the very best he can produce. Let us examine them. a). The first - and presumably foremost - "error" in the Bible is allegedly found in Isaiah 7:14 : Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14 (KJV). In the RSV we read instead of the word virgin that a young woman would conceive and bear a son. According to Deedat, this is supposed to be one of the foremost errors in the Bible. The word in the original Hebrew is almah - a word found in every Hebrew text of Isaiah. Therefore there is no change of any nature in the original text. The issue is purely one of interpretation and translation. The common Hebrew word for virgin is bethulah whereas almah refers to a young woman - and always an unmarried one. So the RSV translation is a perfectly good literal rendering of the word. But, as there are always difficulties translating from one language to another, and as a good translator will try to convey the real meaning of the original, most English translations translate the word as virgin. The reason is that the context of the word demands such an interpretation. (Muslims who have translated the Qur’an into English have often experienced similar problems with the original Arabic text. A literal rendering of a word or text may lose the implied meaning in the original language). The conception of the child was to be a sign to Israel. Now there would be no sign in the simple conception of a child in the womb of an unmarried woman. Such a thing is commonplace throughout the world. The sign is clearly that a virgin would conceive and bear a son. That would be a real sign - and so it was when Jesus Christ fulfilled this prophecy by being conceived of the Virgin Mary. Isaiah uses the word almah rather than bethulah because the latter word not only means a virgin but also a chaste widow (as in Joel 1:8). Those who translate it as a young woman (so the RSV) give a literal rendering of the word whereas those who translate it as virgin (so the KJV) give its meaning in its context. Either way the young woman was a virgin as Mary duly was when Jesus was conceived. The issue is purely one of translation and interpretation from the original Hebrew into English. It has absolutely nothing to do with the textual integrity of the Bible as such. So Deedat’s first point falls entirely to the ground. b). His second text is John 3:16 which reads in the King James Version as follows: For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16 In the RSV we read that he gave his only Son and Deedat charges that the omission of the word "begotten" proves that the Bible has been changed. Once again, however, this is purely a matter of interpretation and translation for the original Greek word properly means unique. Either way there is no difference between "only Son" and "only begotten Son" for both are fair translations of the original Greek and make the same point: Jesus is the unique Son of God. (We cannot understand Deedat’s claim that the RSV has brought the Bible nearer to the Qur’an which denies that Jesus is the Son of God. In the RSV the fact that he is indeed the unique Son of God is emphasized in the same terms as in the KJV). We need to emphasize once again that there is no change in the original Greek text and that the issue is purely one of interpretation and translation. So Deedat’s second point falls away as well. To illustrate our point further we can refer to Deedat’s quote from Surah 19.88 where we read that Christians say that God Most Gracious has begotten a Son. He has taken this from Yusuf Ali’s translation of the Qur’an. Now in the translations of Pickethall, Muhammad Ali and Maulana Daryabadi, we do not find the word begotten but rather taken. If Deedat’s line of reasoning is to be believed, then here is evidence that the Qur’an, too, has been changed! We know our Muslim readers will immediately tell us that these are only English translations and that the original Arabic has not been changed even though the word "begotten" is not found in the other versions of the Qur’an. So we in turn plead with you to be quite realistic about this as well - nothing can be said against the integrity of the Bible just because the word "begotten", as in the Qur’an, is only found in one translation and not in another. c). Deedat’s third example is, we admit, one of the defects the RSV set out to correct. In 1 John 5:7 in the KJV we find a verse outlining the unity of the Father, Word and Holy Ghost which is omitted in the RSV. It appears that this verse was originally set out as a marginal note in an early text and that it was mistaken by later transcribers as part of the actual text. It is omitted in all modern translations because we now have older texts of greater authority where it is not found. Deedat suggests that this verse is the closest approximation to what the Christians call their Holy Trinity in the encyclopedia called the BIBLE (Deedat, Is the Bible God’s Word?, p.16). If it was, or alternatively, if the whole doctrine of the Trinity was based on this one text alone, then indeed this would be a matter for very serious consideration. On the contrary any honest expositor of Biblical theo- logy will freely admit - as all Catholics, Protestants and other Christians uniformly do - that the doctrine of the Trinity is the only doctrine of God that can be obtained from the teaching of the Bible as a whole. Indeed the following verse is a far closer approximation to and definition of the doctrine of the Trinity than the spurious verse Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Matthew 2:19 Only one, singular name of the three persons is referred to. In the Bible the word "name" used in such a context refers to the nature and character of the person or place so described. So Jesus speaks of only one name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - implying an absolute unity between them - and of only one name - implying a total similarity of character and essence. This verse is thoroughly Trinitarian in content and emphasis and therefore, as 1 John 5:7 merely endorses it, we do not see what effect the omission of this verse in modern translations has on Christian doctrine at all. Accordingly it is not worthy of any form of serious consideration. d). His fourth point is such an outstanding fallacy that we marvel at his abysmal ignorance. He suggests that the "inspired" authors of the canonical Gospels did not record a single word about the ASCENSION of Jesus (Deedat, Is the Bible God’s Word?, p.19). This claim is made pursuant to a reference to two statements about the ascension of Jesus in the Gospels of Mark and Luke which the RSV has identified as being among the variant readings we have earlier referred to. Apart from these verses the Gospel writers allegedly make no reference of any nature whatsoever to the ascension. On the contrary we find that all four knew of it perfectly well. John has no less than eleven references to it. In his Gospel Jesus says: I am ascending to my Father and to your Father, to my God and to your God. John 20:17 Luke not only wrote his Gospel but also the Book of Acts and in the latter book the first thing he mentions is the ascension of Jesus to heaven: And when Jesus had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. Acts 1:9 Matthew and Mark regularly speak of the second coming of Jesus from heaven (see, e.g., Matthew 26:64 and Mark 14:62). It is difficult to see how Jesus could come from heaven if he had not ascended there in the first place. In conclusion we must point out that the passages Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-11 have not been expunged from the Bible and later restored as Deedat suggests. In the RSV translation they are now included in the text because scholars are persuaded that they are indeed part of the original text. The truth of the matter is that in our oldest scripts they are found in some texts and not in others. The RSV editors are not tampering with the Bible as Deedat has suggested - they are merely trying to bring our English translations as close as possible to the original texts - unlike the editors of Uthman’s reclension of the Qur’an who deemed it more expedient simply to destroy anything that varied in any way with their preferred text. Finally it proves nothing to state that all the original manuscripts - those on which the books of the Bible were written for the first time - are now lost and have perished for the same is true of the very first texts of the Qur’an. The oldest text of the Qur’an still extant dates from the second century after the Hijrah and is compiled on vellum in the early al-mail Arabic script. Other early Qur’ans are in Kufic script and date from the same time as well. 6. "ALLAH" IN THE BIBLE? On page 22 of his booklet ’Is the Bible God’s Word?’ Deedat reproduces a pamphlet allegedly showing that the Arabic word for God, Allah, is found in the Scofield translation of the Bible. Fortunately the evidence, in this case, is set before us to consider. A copy of a page from a Scofield Bible is reproduced and in a footnote we find that the Hebrew word for God, Elohim, is derived from two words, El (strength) and Alah (to swear). This last word is supposed to be proof that the Arabic word Allah is found in the Bible! A more far-fetched and fanciful effort to prove a point can hardly be imagined. The word in Hebrew is alah, a common word meaning "to swear". How this is supposed to be proof that the word Allah in Arabic, meaning God, is found in the Bible is altogether unclear to us. Deedat’s effort to twist the facts further in suggesting that Elah in Hebrew (meaning God) has been spelt by the editors of the Scofield translation alternatively as Alah (Deedat, Is the Bible God’s Word?, p.21) taxes our credulity to an unbearable extreme. These editors clearly identify the latter word as another one entirely meaning "to swear". As if this was not enough, we are obliged to swallow even more of his unpalatable illogic when he suggests that the omission of the word Alah in the latest Scofield translation is proof that the word has been blotted out ... in the Bible of the orthodox! (Deedat, Is the Bible God’s Word?, p.21). What is quite clear is that it has been omitted from a footnote in a commentary and we cannot possibly see how this can be regarded as a change in the text of the Bible itself! Elsewhere Deedat claims that Christians may not consider any footnote as part of the Word of God itself (Is the Bible God’s Word?, p.17). It is a great pity that this man cannot apply to himself the standards he demands from others. It will be useful to point out here, however, that there is nothing unique about the word Allah nor must it be regarded as coming originally from the pages of the Qur’an. On the contrary it is quite clearly derived from the Syriac word Alaha (meaning "God") in common use among Christians in pre-Islamic times (cf. the authorities cited by Jeffery in The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur’an, p.66). It was also in common use among the Arabs before Islam as appears from the name of Muhammad’s own father Abdullah (i.e., "servant of God" from abd, meaning "servant", and Allah, meaning "God"). It is also certain that Allah was the name used for God in pre-Islamic poetry (Bell, The Origin of Islam in its Christian Environment, p.53). Accordingly there is nothing unique about the name at all. In the circumstances we really fail to see what Deedat is trying to prove or what his excitement is all about . 7. PARALLEL PASSAGES IN THE BIBLE. We need not deal extensively with Deedat’s chapter entitled "Damning Confessions" as these are nothing but honest admissions that the Bible has suffered textual errors such as those we have considered already. As we have also seen that the Qur’an has also been beset with the same problems, we do not believe that there is any further obligation on us to treat this red-herring seriously. We do marvel, however, at a grossly inaccurate statement by Deedat to the effect that "out of over four thousand differing manuscripts the Christians boast about, the church fathers just selected four which tallied with their prejudices and called them Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" (Deedat, Is the Bible God ’s Word?, p.24) . Once again Deedat has exposed his appalling ignorance of his subject for these four thousand scripts are copies of the 27 books which constitute the New Testament. Hundreds of these are copies of the four Gospels referred to. Statements like these force us to conclude that the booklet written by Deedat cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be regarded as a scholarly critique of the Bible but rather a vociferous tirade against it by a man whose ignorance is matched only by his extreme prejudice against it. Such prejudice is openly exposed on the next page where he claims that the five books of Moses cannot be regarded as being the Word of God or of Moses because statements like these, The Lord said unto Moses..., in the third person, appear quite frequently. Because Deedat cannot consider even for a moment that Moses might well have chosen to describe himself in the third person, he claims that these words come from "a third person writing from hearsay" (Deedat, Is the Bible God’s Word?, p.25) . If so, then the Qur’an too must fall away as being neither the Word of God nor that of a prophet but of a "third person writing from hearsay" for similar statements are found in its pages, e.g.: When Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favour unto thee. Surah 5.110 We cannot see any difference between the sayings where the word spoken to Moses in the Bible and where Allah spoke to Jesus in the Qur’an. Surely any criticism of the Biblical expression must rebound against the Qur’an as well. Finally Moses obviously did not write his own obituary as Deedat implies. The 34th chapter of the Book of Deuteronomy was written by his successor, Joshua the prophet, who also wrote the book of the same name which immediately follows it. Deedat’s sixth chapter deals with the authenticity of the four Gospels. He begins by suggesting that internal evidence proves that Matthew was not the author of the first Gospel (Deedat, Is the Bible God’s Word?, p.26) purely because Matthew describes himself in his Gospel in the third person. We have already seen how feeble this line of reasoning is. God is alleged to be the author of the Qur’an yet he is described in it on numerous occasions in the third person. Once again we cannot see how a Muslim can seriously question the authorship of any book of the Bible purely because the author describes himself in the third person. Furthermore a brief analysis of the reproduction of the introduction to the Gospel of Matthew by J.B. Phillips in Deedat’s booklet proves very enlightening. Phillips says: Early tradition ascribed this Gospel to the apostle Matthew, but scholars nowadays almost all reject this view. The author, whom we can still conveniently call Matthew, has plainly drawn on the mysterious "Q", which may have been a collection of oral traditions. (Deedat, Is the Bible God’s Word?, p.28). Anyone who knows the meaning of the expression sweet reason will give thoughtful consideration to the following facts: 1. Early Christian tradition unanimously ascribed this Gospel to Matthew. The subjective beliefs of some "modern scholars" cannot seriously be weighed against the objective testimony of those who lived at the time when this Gospel was first copied and distributed. In any event we question very seriously the charge that almost all scholars reject the authorship of Matthew for this Gospel. It is only a particular school of scholars who do this - those who do not believe in the story of creation, who write off the story of Noah and the flood as a myth, and who scoff at the idea that Jonah ever spent three days in the stomach of a fish. We are sure our Muslim readers will know what to make of such "scholars". On the contrary those scholars who accept that these stories are historically true practically without exception also accept that Matthew was the author of this Gospel. 2. Phillips says that the author can still conveniently be called Matthew purely because there is no reasonable alternative to his authorship of this Gospel, nor has the history of the early Church ever suggested another author. 3. The mysterious "Q" is only mysterious because it is the figment of the imagination of modern "scholars". It is not a mystery - it is a myth. There is no evidence of an historical nature whatsoever that such a collection of oral traditions ever existed. Finally we find it hard to give serious consideration to Deedat’s complaints about the fact that Matthew copied from Mark and that a chapter in Isaiah 37:1-38 is repeated in 2 Kings 19:1-37. The reasoning behind his suggestion that such wholesale cribbing (Deedat, Is the Bible God’s Word?, p.29) rules out the possibility that the Bible is the Word of God is extremely hard to follow. One only needs to know the background of the Gospel of Mark to see through the folly of Deedat’s line of argument. The Church Father Papias has recorded for us the fact that the Apostle Peter was the source of information for Mark’s Gospel. Peter had far more first-hand information about the life of Jesus than Matthew. The former’s conversion is described in chapter 4 of Matthew’s Gospel whereas the conversion of the latter appears only in chapter 9 - long after many events witnessed by the Apostle Peter had already taken place. Furthermore Peter was often with Jesus when Matthew was not: The former witnessed the transfiguration (Mark 9:2) and was present in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:33) while Matthew was absent on both occasions. Matthew could hardly have found a more reliable source for his Gospel and, as he copied from a Biblical, scriptural text, we cannot see how his Gospel can lose the stamp of authority or genuineness. If Deedat could show that Biblical narratives such as those he produces had parallels in extra-Biblical works predating the Gospels, where such works were known to be collections of fables and fairy-stories, we would treat his points more seriously. On the contrary, while such parallels are obviously lacking in Biblical cases, there are many stories in the Qur’an, set forth as true to history, which have awkward parallels in pre-Islamic Jewish books of fables and fairy-tales. We shall consider just one example. The Qur’an records the murder of Abel by his brother Cain (Surah 5.27-32) which is also found in the Bible in the Book of Genesis. At one point, however, we find an unusual statement which has no parallel in the Bible: Then Allah sent a raven scratching up the ground, to show him how to hide his brother’s naked corpse. Surah 5.31 In a Jewish book of fables and folklore, however, we read that Adam wept for Abel and did not know what to do with his body until he saw a raven scratch in the ground and bury its dead companion. At this Adam decided to do as the raven had done. (Pirke Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter 21). In the Qur’an it is Cain who sees the raven and in the Jewish book it is Adam but, apart from this minor difference, the similarity between the stories is unmistakable. As the Jewish book predates the Qur’an it appears that Muhammad plagiarized the story and, with convenient adjustments, wrote it down in the Qur’an as part of the divine revelation! If this conclusion is to be resisted, we would like to be given sound reasons why it should be - especially when we consider the very next verse in the Qur’an which reads: For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Surah 2.32 At first sight this verse appears to have no connection with the preceding narrative. Why the life or death of one should be as the salvation or destruction of all mankind is not at all clear. When we turn to another Jewish tradition, however, we find the link between the story and what follows. We turn to The Mishnah as translated by H. Danby and there we read these words: We find it said in the case of Cain who murde- red his brother, The voice of thy brother’s bloods crieth (Genesis 4:10). It is not said here blood in the singular, but bloods in the plural, that is, his own blood and the blood of his seed. Man was created single in order to show that to him who kills a single individual it shall be reckoned that he has slain the whole race, but to him who preserves the life of a single individual it is counted that he hath preserved the whole race. (Mishnah Sanhedrin, 4.5). According to the Jewish rabbi who wrote these words the use of the plural bloods in the Bible implies not only the blood of one man but that of his whole progeny. We consider his interpretation to be highly speculative but, be that as it may, we are constrained to ask how it is that the alleged revelation of Allah in the Qur’an is a patent repetition of the rabbi’s beliefs! We can only conclude that Muhammad plagiarized the dictum about the whole nation from a Jewish source without showing (or even knowing!) where the link originates. By this comparison it is made clear what led Muhammad to this general digression: he had evidently received this rule from his informants when they related to him this particular event. (Geiger, Judaism and Islam, p.8l). The extraordinary sequel between the story of the raven in both the Qur’an and Jewish folklore and the subsequent philosophy about the implications of the murder of one man together with his seed clearly suggests that Muhammad was depending on certain informants for his information and that these verses could not possibly have come from God. This conclusion can hardly be resisted: The story of the world’s first murderer affords a most informing example of the influence of a Jew behind the scenes. (Guillaume, "The Influence of Judaism on Islam", The legacy of Israel, p. 139). Instead of trying to make capital out of the passages in the Bible which have parallels elsewhere in the Bible, Deedat should rather give us an alternative explanation as to why Qur’anic passages are embarrassingly similar to and patently reliant on Jewish books of fables and folklore. He closes his chapter by describing those who believe that every word, comma and full stop of the Bible is God’s Word as "Bible-thumpers" (Deedat, Is the Bible God’s Word ?, p.33) . Certainly we have no sympathy with fanatics who make such extreme claims for the Bible but, in the light of the evidence we have studied thus far, we can only retort that those equally fanatical Muslims who in the same manner vainly make similar extremist claims for the Qur’an against all the evidence to the contrary must be viewed with the same disdain and deserve to be ridiculed as Qur’an-thumpers! 8. ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS IN THE BIBLE. Deedat begins his seventh chapter "The Acid Test" with a claim that there is a contradiction between 2 Samuel 24:1, where we read that the Lord moved David to number Israel, and 1 Chronicles 21:1, which says it was Satan who provoked him to do so. Anyone who has a reasonable knowledge of both the Bible and the Qur’an will immediately perceive that Deedat is exposing nothing but his hopelessly inadequate understanding of a distinctive feature of the theology of both books. In the Qur’an itself we find a similar passage which sheds much light on this subject: Seest thou not that we have set the devils on the disbelievers to confound them with confusion? Surah 19.83 Here we read that Allah sets devils on unbelievers. Therefore, whereas it is God who moves them to confusion, he uses the devils to provoke them towards it. In precisely the same way it was God who moved against David and used Satan to provoke him to number Israel. Likewise in the Book of Job in the Bible we read that Satan was given power over Job (Ayub in the Qur’an) to afflict him (Job 1:12) but that God later spoke as if it was he who was moved against him (Job 2:3). Whenever Satan provokes men the action can also indirectly be described as the movement of God for without his permission Satan could achieve nothing. This quote from Zamakshari’s commentary on Surah 2.7 (Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts) should suffice as the final word on this matter: It is now in reality Satan or the unbeliever who has sealed the heart. However, since it is God who has granted to him the ability and possibility to do it, the sealing is ascribed to him in the same sense as an act which he has caused. (Gatje, The Qur’an and its Exegesis, p. 223). It appears that novices like Deedat should take a lesson in Qur’anic theology from renowned scholars like Zamakshari before exposing themselves to ridicule through unwarranted attacks on the Bible. Deedat’s further points about the three or seven years of plagues in 2 Samuel 24:13 and 1 Chronicles 21:11 and other similar discrepancies are all accounted for as minor copyist errors where scribes mistook one figure for another. For example in Hebrew one very small word is used for 2000 in 1 Kings 7:26 and it is remarkably similar to the figure for 3000 found in 2 Chronicles 4:5 (see Deedat, Is the Bible God’s Word?, p.42). To any objective enquirer it is clear that a scribe in the latter case mistook 2000 for 3000. In all the cases set out by Deedat we have minor copyist errors easily identifiable as such and not contradictions in the normal sense of the word as he suggests. No one has ever shown us what effect these negligible errors have on the contents of the Bible as a whole. We can just as easily allege that there is a palpable contradiction in the Qur’an where a day with God is described as a thousand years in our reckoning (Surah 32.5) whereas in an earlier Surah such a day is described as fifty thousand years (Surah 70.4). Instead of haranguing about the fact that 2 Chronicles 9:25 speaks of four thousand stalls while 1 Kings 4:26 speaks of forty thousand, which he describes as a staggering discrepency (sic!) of 36000 (Is the Bible God’s Word?, p.44), Deedat should rather explain an even more staggering discrepancy of 49000 whole years which have summarily disappeared from the reckoning of a day with God in the Qur’an. 9. PORNOGRAPHY IN THE BIBLE In his next chapter Deedat makes much of the story of Judah’s incest with Tamar (recorded in Genesis 38:1-30) and of similar stories in the Bible (such as Lot’s incest with his daughters) and suggests that the Bible cannot be the Word of God because such stories are found in it. We find this line of reasoning extremely hard to follow. Surely a book claiming to be the Word of God cannot be rejected as such because it shows up men - even the best of them - at their worst. All the stories Deedat refers to have to do with the wickedness of men and how the frank disclosure of the sins of men can affect the Bible’s claim to be the Word of God is beyond comprehension. Throughout the Bible God is shown to be absolutely holy, perfectly righteous, and wonderfully loving. Very significantly Deedat nowhere suggests that the character of God in the Bible is worthy of reproach and surely this is all we really are concerned about when it comes to determining whether a book is the Word of God. If it unreservedly exposes the sins of men for what they are and refuses to cover up the excesses of even the best of them, it surely has a very fair claim to be God’s Word - for it is concerned about his praise and not the praise of men. It is the glory of God that the Bible is concerned about - not the vainglory of men! What is also significant is that Deedat conveniently overlooked a story in the Bible which reveals far greater wickedness than those he chooses to deal with. In 2 Samuel 11:1-27 we read that David saw Bathsheba bathing and had her brought in to him and he committed adultery with her. After this, when she conceived a child, David had her husband Uriah killed and took her as his own wife. This story is at least the equal of all those referred to by Deedat in its wickedness but he carefully chooses to omit it. Why? Because the Qur’an also refers to it. We read in the 38th Surah that two men appeared before David and one who had ninety-nine ewes demanded the only ewe that the other had for himself. David retorted that he who had the ninety-nine had wronged the other in demanding his lone ewe. After this, however, we read that David realized that the parable was against himself and the Qur’an quotes Allah as saying of him: David guessed that We had tried him and he sought forgiveness of his Lord, and he bowed himself, and fell down prostrate and repented. So we forgave him that. Surah 38.25-26. As with the story of Cain and Abel we have a vague sequence of events which have no apparent connection with what precedes. How did God try David and what had he done that he repented of for which he received God’s forgiveness? We have to turn to the Bible to find the answer. In 2 Samuel 12:1-31 we read that the prophet Nathan came to David and told him of a rich man who had flocks of lambs but, when he needed one for a meal, took the one precious lamb of one of his servants instead. David was angry at the rich man but Nathan said to him: You are the man. Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ’I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul, and I gave you your master’s house, and your master’s wives into your bosom, and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah, and if this were too little I would add to you as much more. Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do what is evil in his sight? You have smitten Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife, and have slain him with the sword of the Ammonites. 2 Samuel 12:7-9. It is now clear how God had tried David. He had more than he could wish for and a host of wives but had taken the one wife of his servant for himself. When David responded ’I have sinned against the Lord’, Nathan answered: ’The Lord has also put away your sin’ (2 Samuel 12:13). The stories in the Qur’an and the Bible are so similar that they clearly refer to the same cause - David’s adultery with Bathsheba. We need only say two things in the circumstances. Firstly, Deedat obviously chose to ignore this story of David’s wickedness because he knew that it had a sequel in the Qur’an. Secondly, the fact that the Qur’an upholds the Biblical narrative shows that there can be no genuine objection to similar stories where the misdemeanours of other prophets are set out in the Christian Bible. All the prophets were men of flesh and blood and were as likely to fall into gross wickedness as any lesser mortal might, and the Bible cannot fairly be criticized for sparing them no mercy in exposing their deeds. Even Muhammad was a man of passions similar to those of any other man and, although he had up to nine wives at one time, he could not restrain his desire to cohabit with whichever one he chose rather than share the company of each in turn. When Surah 33.51 was "revealed", which gave him divine sanction to defer and receive whomever he wished of his wives at his own whim and discretion, his favourite wife Ayesha was constrained to comment: I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.6, p.295). Jesus Christ was the only man who lived who was not subject to the whims, desires and failings of other men. Deedat asks, in the light of 2 Timothy 3:16, under what headings we can classify the stories he mentions. I will kindly oblige with an answer: 1. Doctrine. All men are sinners, including even the prophets and the best of men. All need forgiveness which comes through the grace of God in Jesus Christ. 2. Reproof. Men cannot sin against God without incurring consequences. It is very interesting to see that immediately after the story of Judah’s incest the only son of Jacob we hear of at any great length is Joseph - the one son whose conduct throughout the pages of Genesis remains blameless. He triumphed through his faithfulness while in time his less fortunate brothers had to bow the knee to him and beg him to give them their food for survival. 3. Correction. Although God may forgive us our sins he may yet make us suffer the consequences for our own good. David was forgiven of his adultery but he suffered four severe losses in his life as a result of his sin. Nevertheless this served to correct him for he never did anything remotely like this again. 4. Instruction into Righteousness. These events all show that man has no inherent righteousness but only the most awful potential, given the opportunity, to commit the worst of sins. We need to seek the righteousness of God instead which comes by faith in Jesus Christ. After repenting of the terrible crime he had committed, David prayed: Create in me a clean heart, O God, and put a new and right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence and take not thy holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of thy salvation and uphold me with a willing spirit. Psalms 51:10-12. Sinners can obtain the righteousness of God by repenting of their sins, seeking God’s forgiveness, and trusting to him for their salvation. As the Apostle Peter put it so well: Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38 10. THE GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST. Deedat begins his last chapter with a suggestion that there is a contradiction between the genealogies of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke simply because there is a vast difference in the names listed by the two writers. To Deedat this distinction between these lists immediately proves that "both these authors are confounded liars" (Deedat, Is the Bible God’s Word? p.54). It taxes our credulity to believe that men who painstakingly recorded the most holy and truthful teaching ever given to mankind should turn out to be "confounded liars" as Deedat claims. Fortunately we do not share Deedat’s prejudice against the Bible and can afford to approach this question objectively. At the outset it is obviously true to say that every man has two genealogies - one through his father and one through his mother. Joseph was not the physical father of Jesus but he had to be regarded as his father for the sake of his genealogy as all Jews reckoned their genealogies through their fathers. Therefore Matthew, without further ado, records the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph’s line and, in his succeeding narrative about the birth of Jesus, concentrates on Joseph’s role as his natural guardian and as the husband of Mary his mother. Deedat casually mentions that, according to Luke 3:23, Joseph was the supposed father of Jesus (Is the Bible God’s Word?, p.52) without further comment. Here, in this one word, lies the key to the genealogy of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke. Throughout the list of ancestors he names we find no mention of a woman. Although he concentrates on Mary’s role in the birth of Jesus, when he comes to her genealogy he does not describe Jesus as the son of Mary but as the supposed son of Joseph, meaning that, for the sake of sustaining a masculine genealogy, Joseph was being named in her place. Luke has very carefully included the word "supposed" in his genealogy so that there could be no confusion about it and so that his readers would know that it was not the actual genealogy of Joseph that was being recorded. This very simple explanation does away immediately with alleged contradictions or problems. Even though the true facts have been explained for centuries, men blinded by prejudice continue to make this puerile charge for contradiction against the writers Matthew and Luke. (Finlay, Face the Facts, p.102). Deedat, while endeavouring to sustain his claim that there is a contradiction between the Gospel-writers, also accuses Matthew of giving Jesus an ignoble ancestry by naming certain "adulterers and offspring of incest" (Is the Bible God’s Word?, p. 52) as his forefathers, as if this affected his total purity and holiness. If we examine the Gospel of Matthew we will find four women named in the genealogy of Jesus. They are Tamar, who committed incest with Judah; Rahab, who was a prostitute and a Gentile; Ruth, who was a Gentile as well; and Bathsheba, who was an ad- ulteress. Very significantly Matthew has named the four women in the ancestry of Jesus who had moral or ethnic defects. He has obviously done so delibera- tely and clearly did not think he was dishonouring Jesus by naming such women. If there was any stigma attached to such an ancestry he would surely have named some of the more holy women he was descended from, like Sarah and Rebecca. Why did he choose to specifically name the very four women who disturbed the "purity" of his ancestry? Matthew very quickly gives us his own answer. When the angel came to Jo- seph he said of the child to be born: You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins. Matthew 2:21 It was precisely for people such as Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba that Jesus came into the world. He came to save such people from their sins and to make his salvation available to all men, both Jew and Gentile alike. As he himself said to the Jews and to his disciples on one occasion: Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, ’I desire mercy and not sacrifice’. For I came not to call the righteous but sinners. Matthew 9:12-13. If you, the reader, imagine that the religious efforts you have made over the years count for some sort of righteousness before God and that your sins will be glossed over by a God who cares little for the manner in which they confront his holiness, then pursue your futile quest for self-righteousness. You need not look to Jesus for he cannot help you. There is no one who can help you. But if you know that your sins are many and if you have discovered your true self, and have found that there is no righteousness in you but only gross wickedness; if you have been so honest with yourself as to admit these facts, then turn to Jesus for he came to save men like you and he is able to cleanse you and deliver you from all your sins. We do not propose to deal at any length with Deedat’s queries about the authors of the books of the Bible. Jesus confirmed that all the books of the Old Testament as received by the Jews were the inspired and authoritative Word of God, constantly quoting from them and declaring that the Scriptures, as received by them, could not be broken (John 10:35), and the Holy Spirit has uniformly testified through all quarters of the Christian Church to the equal authority of the books of the New Testament. The Qur’an too, as we have seen, likewise gives full support to the scriptures of the Jews and the Christians at the time of Muhammad as being the genuine Taurat and Injil, the very Word of God. Those books were the Old and New Testaments as we know them. No one can sincerely doubt these facts. 11. CONCLUSION. We can only draw one conclusion from all that has been said. Deedat has failed to discredit the Bible as the Word of God. Like Joommal before him, he has only exposed himself as an unworthy critic of the Christian scriptures. Furthermore it is sad to see the negative spirit and attitude that pervades every page of his booklet. Nowhere is there any effort to treat the contents of the Bible objectively. Not once is a good word said for it and it amazes us that any one could read through the Bible and write a treatise on it that is purely critical. From first page to last the reader is confronted with a spirit of excessive prejudice, one truly unworthy of a self-acclaimed "scholar of the Bible". On page 41 of his booklet he urges his readers to obtain a free Bible from our fellowship. I decided one day to visit one of the many Muslims who had, in consequence, written to us for a Bible and found that this young man had followed Deedat’s advice on the same page to mark all the alleged contradictions and pornographic passages in coloured ink. He wasted no time in finding the texts he was looking for, which Deedat had vainly promised him would "confute and confuse any missionary or Bible scholar" (Is the Bible God’s Word?, p.41) who happened to come his way. Apart from these texts the young man, however, had made no effort to read the Bible or find out what it actually taught. We had hoped that the spirit of the Crusades was buried by now but it appears that certain Muslim authors are determined to revive it in the hearts of the Muslim youth of today. Surely any sincere Muslim will agree that such an approach to the Bible is thoroughly questionable. What profit can be gained by perusing a book with no other purpose than to find fault with it? What sort of mentality is this that motivates men to seek nothing but supposed errors in a book before they have even read a word of it? Well did a Christian author say of the Bible: It is thus a wondrous Word that God has given to man. Its depth and beauty will largely be missed by those who read with only an eye to criticize. (Young, Thy Word is Truth, p. 138). I have often been heartened to receive letters from Muslims requesting Bibles which show a very deep measure of respect for it and have also been encouraged to discover that there are other Muslim authors in the world who take a different approach to our Holy Book. The Islamic Foundation, a wellknown Muslim organisation which has published many books on Islam, has adopted a far more mature and respectable attitude to the Bible. It encourages all Muslims to do likewise and has this to say of the Christian faith in one of its publications: The importance of need for a Muslim to study Christianity requires no emphasis ... While Is- lam is being studied by many Christian students, few Muslims have taken the study of Christianity as a serious task ... The situation in which Muslims find themselves today demands that they study Christianity ... Certainly the best ap- proach to study Christianity is to consult its own source materials and analyze the thoughts and presentations of its adherents, instead of indulging in cheap polemics as regrettably some Muslim writers have done in the past. (Ahmad Von Denffer, General and Introductory Books on Christianity, p.4). What sound words of wisdom these are! Unfortunately, as we have seen, it is not only some Muslim writers of the past who have indulged in cheap harangue against the Bible. It is still going on today through the likes of Deedat and Joommal. We can only endorse the sentiments in the quotation we have given and must say to our Muslim readers that they will obtain nothing but a thoroughly distorted view of Christianity from booklets such as the one we have refuted in this publication. As the wiser Muslim has said, the best way for Muslims to gain a true understanding of the Christian faith is to obtain books written by Christians who truly believe in it. This quote is well worthy of the consideration of all sincere Muslims: There is no reason why those established in their faith should not read the Bible. This line may be taken with those who aver their strong faith in Islam. Possession of the Qur’an need not debar the Moslem from making acquaintance with scriptures of such unique historical, moral and instructive importance for all men as the Bible. Many Moslems having at first, through ignorance, rejected the Bible, later on learning its true contents have reckoned it their priceless treasure. (Harris, How to Lead Moslems to Christ, p.l7). We shall willingly supply a free Bible to any Muslim who will read it openly with a genuine desire to discover what it really teaches, who will not deface it in any way as Deedat recommends by colouring in its texts (Is the Bible God’s Word?, p.41), and who will show it the same respect that he would like Christians to show to the Qur’an. Those who share Deedat’s prejudices, however, should not bother to open a Bible until they have changed their attitude towards it. They are like those of whom the Qur’an speaks when it says their likeness is as the likeness of the ass carrying books (Surah 62.5). As the donkey is unaware of the value of the load on its back, so such men are ignorant of the spiritual treasure they have taken into their unwashed hands. May God Almighty, in his great mercy and love, grant that we may all come to the knowledge of his holy truth - and that we may be willing to seek it wherever it may be found. May all Muslims who have the immense privilege of possessing a Bible discover its glorious truths and radiant beauty by reading it openly with a sincere desire to know and understand its teachings and guidance. BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS: Abidi, S A A - Discovery of the Bible. (Karachi, Pakistan. 1973). Adelphi, G and Hahn, E - The Integrity of the Bible according to the Qur’an and Hadith. (Henry Martyn Institute, Hyderabad, India. 1977). Brown, D - The Christian Scriptures. (Christianity and Islam Series No. 2, S.P.C.K., London, England. 1968). Bruce, F F - The Books And The Parchments. (Pickering and Inglis Ltd., London, England. 1971).- The New Testament Documents. (Inter Varsity Press, London, England. 1970). Burton, J - The Collection of the Qur’an. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. 1977). Deedat, A - Is the Bible God’s Word? (Islamic Propagation Centre, Durban, South Africa. 1980), Fellowship of Isa - God’s Word HAS Never Been Changed. (Fellowship of Isa, Minneapolis, USA. 1981). Gaussen, L - Divine Inspiration of the Bible. (Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, USA. 1971). Gilchrist, J- Evidences for the Collection of the Qur’an. (Jesus to the Muslims, Benoni, South Africa. 1984). Jadeed, I - The Infallibility of the Torah and the Gospel. (Centre for Young Adults, Basel, Switzerland. 1978). Jeffery, A - Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’an. (AMS Press, New York, USA. 1975). The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur’an. (Al-Biruni, Lahore, Pakistan. 1977). The Qur’an as Scripture. (Books for Libraries, New York, USA, 1980) . Joommal, A S K The Bible: Word of God or Word of Man? (Islamic Missionary Society, Johannesburg, South Africa. 1976). Muir, Sir W - The Beacon of Truth. (Religious Tract Society, London, England. 1894).- The Coran: Its Composition and Teaching. (S.P.C.K., London, England. 1878). Pfander, C G The Mizan ul Haqq; or, Balance of Truth. (Church Missionary House, London, England. 1867). The Mizanu’l Haqq (’Balance of Truth’). (W St Clair-Tisdall edition, Religious Tract Society, London, England. 1910). Scroggie, W G Is the Bible the Word of God? (Moody Press, Chicago, USA. 1922). Shafaat, A The Question of Authenticity and Authority of the Bible. (Nur Media Services, Montreal, Canada. 1982). Shenk, Dr D W - The Holy Book of God. (Africa Christian Press, Achimota, Ghana. 1981). Tisdall, W St Clair - Muhammadan Objections to Christianity. (S.P.C.K., London, England. 1911). The Original Sources of the Qur’an. (SPCK, London, England, 1905) The Sources of Islam. (T & T Clark, Edinburgh, Scotland. 19013. Young, E J - Thy Word is Truth. (Banner of Truth Trust, London, England. Considering the complexity of the topic, this could only be a sketchy introduction. And John Gilchrist only answered to the specific claims made by Ahmed Deedat. Much more has to be said. Further pages dealing with these topics are found at: Dr. William Campbell, The Qur’an & the Bible in the Light of History & Science, and our general page on The Bible. ======================================================================== Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/writings-of-john-gilchrist/ ========================================================================