Thread Last Poster Posts Last Post Archive through August 31, 2005 zaheer - uddin (Zahe 10  08-31-05  01:19 pm   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message   Jillchuang Starlite Member Username: Jillchuang Posted on Sunday, May 03, 2009 - 11:10 am:    God's words....the truth Jesus is our salvation He is known as the word God's words...the truth If we know the truth, the truth will set us free. The word of Jehovah God is sharp like sword With power and authority. Men don't live by bread alone They live by God's words...the truth If we speak the truth, God lives with us If we lie, we are speaking the words of the evil ones, father of all liars. May God's words...the truth be with us in our hearts and our life for always. Christian brothers & sisters, please help to spread the good news of God !   Scott Whitmore (Emhotep) Starlite Member Username: Emhotep Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 05:51 am:    AMEN For Those Words Michael. In " CIVIL SOCIETY " now days Mankind seems to our selfs higher than where we should be. I was talking with a friend of mine just the other day ( Ryan ), who is a Jehovah's Witness. About Adam & Eve in the garden of Eden, I asked him what he thought the ( Apple ) really was. It took a long time for his answer to come, what he said was that he wasn't sure what it was other than a piece of Fruit. Here is my own thoughts on the ( Apple ). It wasn't any type of fruit at all, it wasn't just knowledge alone but the knowledge of PLEASURE WITH SEX. God cursed women with their periods because of that & that is why only GOD can CREATE LIFE THROUGH SEX. JUST SIT AND THINK ABOUT IT FOT AWHILE, THEN YOU MAY SEE MY POINT. EVE WAS NOT WITH CHILD UP UNTIL SHE ATE THE FRUIT & BEING CAST OUT OF THE GARDEN. But again that is just my point of view as I see thing. Sorry for not being around lately, but I am back in School going for a MA. Which is tough work for someone with Temporal Lobe Troubles like myself. God's Grace Embrace Thee Akways. Scott zanthor2691@aol.com " If You Don't Stand For Something, You Will Fail At Everything." Wm. Scott Whitmore aka ~ Em~Hotep ~   Michael .P (Mik3y) Starlite Member Username: Mik3y Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 03:42 am:    I was pondering today on the idea of creation. I would often say God made me and God made you. But there would most definitely be plenty, and i indeed have heard some who would say God did not make me my parents did! Not only could i look down the family tree to the time of creation..i could also look to our present day God still creating each and every man/woman. Sure someone might say sex creates new life. If that were so everytime sex occured there would be new life. With or without contraception sex does not always create new life. Even during the time of highest fertility Life will not always be created. Thus, i do not believe that anyone is Born purely of man and woman..But of God. God is the only one who creates life, which is why we must do everything to perserve it because it is holier than thou! Michael william James   Michael .P (Mik3y) Starlite Member Username: Mik3y Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 05:42 pm:    Now to leave that in the past, here is some food for thought! Noone can love us as we are except God. How often do we expect people to love us as we are? I use to alot, i probably am still guilty of it sometimes..its hard not to when we know who we really are. Well the only other person who knows who we really are is God..as far as on this earth goes we can try and find people who understand us as good as we can understand them, nothing more or less. Another thing to think about, is that God loved us and does love us when we were sinners. Not many people can love their enemies but God can! When we do the most horrible things against God he is still able to love us. This doesnt mean his instantly going to send us to heaven regardless of what we do on this earth But it does mean that he will never stop loving us whether we chose him or not he will still Love us as we are "Sinners". I had to read over these two points which basically mean the same thing, just to really let it seep into me How much God loves me and his People For who they really are. Michael william James   Michael .P (Mik3y) Starlite Member Username: Mik3y Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 05:26 am:    If asking you, pleading with you even to not post apologetics or other peoples testamonies on a topic i titled "Personal Testamonies" is abusing you then im guilty as charged. I don't want to point fingers im not here to bag out Islam or any Religion as i said i have great respect for all.. perhaps i might have a more biast opinion when it comes to hare kristna and the jehova's witness though..but i try not to say too much about them. I completely deny the allegation that i abused you or posted abusive posts towards Islam written by me or anyone else. As i said i went to the sites you suggested and many others..i like to get all sides of the story before i share any opinion of my own, know that as it is true. Michael william James   zaheer - uddin (Zaheer) Starlite Member Username: Zaheer Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 08:50 am:    Idon't have to take any crap from you Michael -- you have no right to say what you're not authorised to- you have no idea what you've posted neither does your young man--- which i have refuted here-- you started this thread by posting links of websites that attack Islam misleading people from the actual message-- You abused me for posting irrelevant material on your theads which is a classic case of the kettle calling the pot black as you and your friends have posted all kind stuff on my threads totally irrelevant to the topic in question   Michael .P (Mik3y) Starlite Member Username: Mik3y Posted on Monday, September 12, 2005 - 06:12 pm:    Zaheer what does this have to do with you posting the same testamonies more than once on the discussion boards? I have no clue what im posting on here? Thats a tad childish. Im sure people know that what i say is from the heart and im by far not a simple minded man in the dumb sense..i strive to look for truth and love in all things. Even Islam..so please don't assume i am biast or ignorant in anyway. I have read the Islam sites you gave me as well as ones i have found Zaheer and i have also read Catholic and other Christian sites and what they have to say about Islam and even the Jewish sites and books! I will not carrying on reading anything i feel is rubbish or untrue..and i have come across many. I believe one you accused me of was vulgar..which it wasn't it was an unbiast view of a young man who was looking openly at Christianity and Islam, and it was his personal account of this. It was not all fact like from an encylopedia..it was from this young mans heart and i thought i would share that with people. I do not come on here to attack anyones Religion.. But when i see people Attacking others beliefs i.e belief in the trinity's been a popular one of recent, i will not sit and have people abuse the very beliefs of my own or anyone elses. I come here to learn and share..i am as interested in what you have to say as i am in anything i or someone else writes. But, since Tess has made it clear she does not want apologetics regurgitated on here, im keen on making sure what she asks is been done. Im not in charge but i will tell you if you are going against what admin have asked..before they come knocking on your own Door and ask you to leave. Michael william James   zaheer - uddin (Zaheer) Starlite Member Username: Zaheer Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 02:01 am:    I never wanted to respond to Michael's first posting but since those questions had to be answered i decided to reply--Michael has no clue to what he has posted, he's simply picked up some material from websites whose only purpose is to attack Islam-- some of their debates are posted on http://www.examinethetruth.com/ Anyways here is my response 1--He said ."Creator of the heavens and the earth. How should he have a son when He never had a consort?" Cattle - #100 I find the language of this verse very vulgar and offensive to the sanctity of the virgin Mary and the immaculate conception of Jesus. This verse is arguing ’how can god have a son when he never had a female consort?’. It’s offensive to God. It is disrespectful to the Christian faith.., My response-First the verse isn.t in cattle:100 but its in cattle:101 and the correct translation of the verse is . He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth. How can He have children when He has no wife? He created all things and He is the All-Knower of everything ..,and this verse never seems to be offensive .Its quite clear that every one gets a son only when he has got a partner(wife)..so whats wrong with this verse?i am really confused of what do you want to say.But look this biblical verse please (whether they their language is offensive or not). a-"and Jehovah repenteth of the evil which He hath spoken of doing to His people."(Exodus 32:14) b-.I repent that I have made Saul King . . .. (1 Samuel 15:10 to 11). c-.And the Lord repented that he had made Saul King over Israel. (1 Samuel 15:35). d-.The Lord was sorry that he made man. (Genesis 6:6). E.(god said)-I am sorry that I have made them. (Genesis 6:7) Can this verses of your holy bible then be unoffensive to the quality of God almighty?Do you think that your God isn.t alknowing that he don.t know what will happen to him as a results of his deeds. and in turn repents like a man? As for that of Mary I think only this verse of the holy quran can be a refutation to your claim,Look,. Behold! The angels said: "o Mary! God hath chosen thee and purified thee- chosen thee above the women of all nations."Quran 3:42 ,can you please give me a single verse from your bible that glorifies Mary to such extent? 2-He said ."We have adorned the lowest heaven with lamps, missiles to pelt devils with." Sovereignity (67) #4."We have decked the heavens with constellations and made them lovely to behold. We have guarded them from every cursed devil. Eavesdroppers are pursued by fiery comets" Al-Hijr 15:~18"We have decked the lower heaven with constellations. They guard it against rebellious devils, so that they may not listen in to those on high. Meteors are hurled at them from every side, then, driven away, they are consigned to an eternal scourge. Evesdroppers are pursued by fiery comets." The Ranks 37:9 These verses claim that stars and comets are rockets fired by God at devils eavesdropping on Him. "Say: ’Had the earth been safe enough for angels to walk on, We would have sent down to them an angel from heaven as an emissary.’" The Night Journey 17: 95 This one claims that angels (spirit beings) could get hurt on earth.. My response-First the verse isn.t in quran67:4 but its in quran 67:5 and it says .And indeed We have adorned the nearest heaven with lamps, and We have made such lamps (as) missiles to drive away the Shayâtin (devils), and have prepared for them the torment of the blazing Fire.. this verse never says that they(the lamps) are created only for such purpose.It only refers to two of their purposes and one of the purpose is as a missiles to drive shayatin away.Have a look at this verse from your bible please Genesis9:8-16. Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 9 "I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you-the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you-every living creature on earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth." 12 And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth." ,dear friend do you think that the purpose of the rainbow is to remind God almighty(who is alknowing and forgets nothing) his covenant with Noah?by the way is that scientific? About the angles lets take the verse and the verse before it, I mean .And nothing prevented men from believing when the guidance came to them, except that they said: "Has Allâh sent a man as (His) Messenger?" 95. Say: "If there were on the earth, angels walking about in peace and security, We should certainly have sent down for them from the heaven an angel as a Messenger."Surat Alisraa:94-95,here Allah doesn.t want to tell about angles but he is replying to those who said ."Has Allâh sent a man as (His) Messenger?".look at the time of the prophet(PBUH) people said .why don.t Allah send us messengers from angles or something other than man?. so Allah told them that for a man a messenger is sent only from among them selves(I mean from man) and gave an example to that angles(meaning that if angles were placed in the place of man then their messenger could had been from among them selves(from angles),This is not strange at all. It cant be shifted as what you said. This one claims that angels (spirit beings) could get hurt on earth..,the verse doesn.t speak about the safety of angles at all but it speaks about the identity messengers. 3-He said ."The adulterer and the adulteress shall each be given a hundred lashes. Let no pity for them cause you to disobey God, if you truely believe in God and the Last Day; and let their punishment be witnessed by a number of believers. The adulterer may marry only an adulteress or an idolatress; and the adulteress may marry only an adulterer or an idolater. True believers are forbidden such marriages." Light 24: 2- Note: This teaching of Mohammad contradicts the Law of Moses in the Old Testament which commands that adulterers be stoned to death. And the punishment prescribed seems too "easy" for the offense when compared to theft, whose punishment is cutting off the hand of the thief. It is believed that there is a Koranic "lost verse of stoning" for adultery" (Ibn Warraq, Why I am Not A Muslim). Compare this sentence to what Jesus Christ said when Jews brought to him a woman who had been caught in the act of commiting adultery (whom must be stoned according to the law of Moses): "He that is without sin among you, let him cast a stone at her" John 8:7 King James Version of the Bible. In regards the second teaching, some Arab societies would imprint ’ADULTERESS’ on a woman’s ID (I personally learned of this practice in Lebanon).. My response-first its quite funny that you your self have witnessed that Jesus contradicted .the law of moses. by denying the killing of the woman,But how it became uneasy to you if you got the so said Moses(PBUH) law changed in islam(how you blindly accepted that contradiction of of Jesus(even in the issue of divorse) to .the law of Moses.and accusing islam for contradicting it?and know that your bible is full of errors and its evedent in jermiah. "How can you say, ’We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us’? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. Jermiah8:8,so are you sure that the exact law of Moses for adultery was stonning? And you have to know too that God can change his laws in according to the condition of people.If one law was prescribed to one people at a certain time then it cant nessesarily mean that it will work well with some other people at different people,so God changes the law by revealing a new law to the prophet of the people. Lets take some biblical verses(although they are harsh i am sure that you are consumating them blindly). a-. . stone them to death, the young woman because she did not cry for help in the town and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife. (Deuteronomy 22:24) b-. If a man lies with a woman having her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has laid bare her flow and she has laid bare her flow of blood; both of them shall be cut off from their people.. (Leviticus 20:18) How do you feel about these two verse dear friend?arn.t they harsh..specially the first one..your god ordered even the poor woman to be killed!..please read your bible carefully and then try to judge the quran.I am sure that you are judging the quran only by starting from the point that the bible is against the verses that you are quotting(although there are much more offensive verse relating to them in your bible). You said "And the punishment prescribed seems too "easy" for the offense when compared to theft, whose punishment is cutting off the hand of the thief. It is believed that there is a Koranic "lost verse of stoning" for adultery" (Ibn Warraq, Why I am Not A Muslim).",who believed so?ibn warraq or who?..lol we muslims accept arguments as long as they have an authentic evidences. 4-He said ."Wives of the Prophet, you are not like other women... Stay in your homes and do not display your finery as women used to do in the days of ignorance4" The Confederate Tribes 33:31 This verse is I believe is the source of the Islamic teaching which leads to the practice in some Islamic societies of forbidding women from working (ex. Afghanistan under the Taliban, ex.2 Saudi Arabia the birthplace of Islam - where women can’t even drive).. My response-First I would like you not to judge islam by what some people do! Its only ignorant men who judge a religion by what some radical groups do or did.Judge islam by what it teaches.And I would like to tell you that the verse you quoted isn.t in quran33:31 its in quran33:32-33,and it says .. O wives of the Prophet! You are not like any other women. If you keep your duty (to Allâh), then be not soft in speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease (of hypocrisy, or evil desire for adultery, etc.) should be moved with desire, but speak in an honourable manner. 33. And stay in your houses, and do not display yourselves like that of the times of ignorance, and perform As-Salât (IqamâtasSal ât), and give Zakât and obey Allâh and His Messenger. Allâh wishes only to remove ArRijs (evil deeds and sins, etc.) from you, O members of the family (of the Prophet Sal-Allaahu ’alayhe Wa Sallam), and to purify you with a thorough purification. First, the wives of the prophet (pbuh) were allowed to go out for their needs as specifically stated in the authentic hadiths although it is true that they were also directed to stay at home except when such need arose.This verse doesn.t mean thet the wives of the peophet(may Allah be pleased with them) has to stay in their home all the time.If the verse was saying as what you interpret we couldn.t have found many hadiths telling that they were going out of home.Indeed they were the main teachers of many great Muslim scholars.How do you think that they conveyed their knowledge(teached) to the great scholars?do you think they thought them while they were staying in home?inshort this verse refers for them to stay at home for specific occasions(not to display themselves like that of the times of ignorance). 5-He said ."Prophet, We have made lawful for you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave-girls whom God has given you as booty; the daughters of your paternal and maternal uncles and of your paternal and maternal aunts who fled with you..." The Confederate Tribes 33:50- Marriage of cousins is still common amongst less modern Muslims. Modern day genetics has proven that this practice is unhealthy and increases the genetic probability for retardation. PS: I now find this argument of mine weak: There are occurences in the Old Testament of marriage of cousins and even ••••••. Also, King Solomon had hundreds of wives in apparent contradiction of Old Testament teaching My response-Its amazing the issue was unacceptable to you while you got it in the quran but when you got it in the bible you accepted it with out difficulty!. 6-he said ."You may put off any of your wives you please and take to your bed any of them you please. Nor is it unlawful for you to receive any of those whom you have temporarily set aside. That is more proper, so that they may be contented and not vexed, and may all be pleased with what you give them." The Confederate Tribes 33:51 This verse speaks of women as if they were mere objects of sexual satisfaction.. My response-inorder to convince you its better to use the methodology you want(using your bible).have a look at this verses please a-.Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man..numbers:31:17-18 b-."When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands and thoust has taken them captive, and seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and had a desire unto her, that though would have her to thy wife, then though shalt bring her home to thine house . . . and after that you may go into her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. But if though have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go" Deuteronomy 21:10-14. Look what your god says .first he acknowledged taking captives of war (beautiful women) to be their wife.then he ordered them to kick them out if they couldn.t get pleasure in them(poor beautiful captives of war!)..our Allah isn.t like yours dear friend. Dear friend what do you think about the verses?I am sure you will admit that the verse of the quran isn.t so strange as compared to that of your bible..it will be no more harsh to you! 7-He said. "Prophet, enjoin your wives, your daughters, and the wives of true believers to draw their veils close round them. That is more proper, so that they may be recognized and not be molested. God is ever forgiving and merciful." The Confederate Tribes 33:59 Veiling of women is common practice is muslim societies. Could it be though that it was just a "sign" to distinguish them from unbelieving women?. My response-you seem to be ignorant of your bible too dear friend!. look what your bible says. 1 Corinthians 11:5-15 "5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved. 6 If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head...then whats your problem with the head cover of Muslims while Paul ordered the women to cover their head? 8-He said ."As for the man of woman who is guilty of theft, cut off their hands to punish them for their crimes. That is the punishment enjoined by God. God is mighty and wise. But whoever repents after committing evil, and mends his ways, shall be pardoned by God, God is forgiving and merciful." The Table 5:~39 There is no such law in Judaism or Christianity... And it’s savagery is obvious. I believe one should be punished less severly and given a chance to repent before he/she lose their hand. "But God has permitted trading and made usury unlawful" The Cow 2:~276 "Believers, have fear of God and waive what is still due to you from usury, if your faith be true; or war shall be declared against you by God and His apostle. If you repent, you may retain your principal, suffering no loss and causing loss to none." The Cow 2:~278 Usury is the practice of lending money at exorbitant interest rates. . My response-please don.t just think that everything what Islam orders is bad and harsh. Cutting hands is nothing strange as compared to death. You tried to defend Christianity and Judaism saying that they haven.t got any harsh law like .that of Islam., but look these points please. .Moreover you shall accept no ransom for the life of a murderer who is subject to the death penalty; a murderer must be put to death.. (Numbers 35:31) bible prescribes Death for: Touching Mount Sinai .Any who touch the mountain shall be put to death.. (Exodus 19:12) If Your Ox Kills a Person .. . . the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. .(Exodus 21:29) If You Kill a Burglar After Sunrise .. . . but if it happens after sunrise, bloodguilt is incurred. .(Exodus 22:3) For Worshipping a Cow .He said to them, "Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, ’Put your sword on your side, each of you! Go back and forth from gate to gate throughout the camp, and each of you kill your brother, your friend, and your neighbor.’" The sons of Levi did as Moses commanded, and about three thousand of the people fell on that day.. (Exodus 32:27-28) Having intercourse with a woman in her period .If a man lies with a woman having her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has laid bare her flow and she has laid bare her flow of blood; both of them shall be cut off from their people. .(Leviticus 20:18) Any Outsider Who Comes Near the Place of Worship .. . . any outsider who comes near shall be put to death.. (Numbers 3:10) For Bringing a Foreign Woman into the Camp .. . . he went after the Israelite man into the tent, and pierced the two of them, the Israelite and the woman, through the belly. So the plague was stopped among the people of Israel.. (Numbers 25:8) Death to a Whole City for Worshipping Other Gods .. . . you shall put the inhabitants of that town to the sword, utterly destroying it and everything in it - even putting its livestock to the sword. All of its spoil you shall gather into its public square; then burn the town and all its spoil with fire, as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. It shall remain a perpetual ruin, never to be rebuilt.. (Deuteronomy 13:15-16) A Prophet Speaking in the Name of Another God .But any prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, or who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded the prophet to speak - that prophet shall die." (Deuteronomy 18:20) Malicious False Witness .. . . then you shall do to the false witness just as the false witness had meant to do to the other . . . . Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.. (Deuteronomy 19:19-21) A City That Refuses to Surrender .When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. If it accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you at forced labor. If it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you. .(Deuteronomy 20:10-14) .But as for the towns of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive.. (Deuteronomy 20:16) Murder .If anyone kills another, the murderer shall be put to death . . .. . (Numbers 35:30) .Moreover you shall accept no ransom for the life of a murderer who is subject to the death penalty; a murderer must be put to death.. (Numbers 35:31) Adultery .. . . both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.. (Leviticus 20:10) Rape of a Betrothed Virgin In the Open Country .. . . then only the man who lay with her shall die.. (Deuteronomy 22:25) A Raped Woman Who Did Not Cry for Help .. . . stone them to death, the young woman because she did not cry for help in the town and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife.. (Deuteronomy 22:24) •••••• .If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall be put to death; they have committed perversion, their blood is upon them.. (Leviticus 20:12) Bestiality .If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he shall be put to death; and you shall kill the animal. .(Leviticus 20:15) .If a woman approaches any animal and has sexual relations with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal. . . .. (Leviticus 20:16) Sodomy .If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death. . . . .(Leviticus 20:13) Kidnapping .Whoever kidnaps a person . . . shall be put to death.. (Exodus 21:16) Priest.s Daughter Fornicating .When the daughter of a priest profanes herself through prostitution, she profanes her father; she shall be burned to death. .(Leviticus 21:9) Witchcraft .You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live. .(Exodus 22:18) Offering Human sacrifice .. . . who give any of their offspring to Molech shall be put to death; the people of the land shall stone them to death.. (Leviticus 20:2) Striking or cursing father or mother .Whoever strikes father or mother shall be put to death.. (Exodus 21:15) .Whoever curses father or mother shall be put to death.. (Exodus 21:17) Disobedience to Parents .They shall say to the elders of his town, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard." Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid.. (Deuteronomy 21:20-21) Blasphemy .One who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall be put to death . . . . .(Leviticus 24:16) Working on a Saturday .. . . whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.. (Exodus 35:2) Gathering Sticks on a Saturday .. . . they found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day. . . .The whole congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death, just as the LORD had commanded Moses.. (Numbers 15:32-36) Family or Friends Who Invite You to Worship Another God .If anyone secretly entices you--even if it is your brother, your father’s son or your mother’s son, or your own son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your most intimate friend--saying, "Let us go worship other gods," whom neither you nor your ancestors have known. . . . Show them no pity or compassion and do not shield them. But you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them, and afterwards the hand of all the people.. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10) Sacrificing to false gods .Whoever sacrifices to any god, other than the LORD alone, shall be devoted to destruction.. (Exodus 22:20) Disobeying the Priest or the Judge .As for anyone who presumes to disobey the priest appointed to minister there to the LORD your God, or the judge, that person shall die. So you shall purge the evil from Israel. .(Deuteronomy 17:12 Look your bible prescribes killing(more worse that cutting of hands) for such minor crimes(even some are not crime at all).By the way have you seen that Jesus said ."If your hand sins, it is better to cut it off instead of going to hell with both hands" (MARK 9:43)..amazing! exactly as that of Islamic law. You know Islam teaches that if you steal its better to get punished in this world by cutting your hand rather that going to hell due to that sin, and you see how Jesus quoted that exactly! And your bible too prohibits Usury. Look, Leviticus 25:36-37 .Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.. Psalms 15:5 .He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved.. So what.s wrong with the quran? 9-He said ."Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land" The Table #32.and added saying .These and many other verses in the Kuran I find to be the source of Militancy in Islam. How can we avoid the misuse of these verses by Islamic militants and terrorists? My response-refer to the above killing verses of the bible to get the answer. And you have quoted one interesting verse of the quran which can stand against your argument. Thats "You shall not kill a man whom God has forbidden you to kill, except for a just cause." The Night Journey 17:~33.. the quran in many verses tells us that no killing with out cause is allowed. And don.t interpret Islam by what some people do. 10-He said. "Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." The Cow 2:216. And added .The third one is proof that jihad is military not spiritual as some Muslims claim..., My response-Its only your view.Whats wrong with this verse? Is there any thing there in the verse which makes Jihad a military not a spiritual? 11-He said. "Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of God; whoever fights for the cause of God, whether he dies or triumphs, on him We shall bestow a rich recompense." Women 4:74 . and added. The fourth one can easily be used to brainwash a suicide terrorist into blowing himself up.. My response-we don.t care on how some misleaded people shift the meanings of the words of Allah ,we only care about what they convey. 12-he said ."We gave Jesus son of Mary veritable signs and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit" The Cow #86 "The Holy Spirit brought it down from your Lord in truth to reassure the faithful, and to give guidance and good news to those that submit" The Bee #101 The Holy Spirit to us Christians is one manifestation of God, one of the Holy Trinity (The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit). What is the Holy Spirit in Islam? Response PS: I now think these verses should be used to reconcile rather than stress differences between Islam and Christianity. My response-The holy spirit is the angle Gabreal. 13-He said. "Poets are followed by erring men. Behold how aimlessly they rove in every valley, preaching what they never practice". The Poets #223 I could never believe this is the infallible word of God. This verse denigrates poets and poetry and calls men that love poetry "erring". I passionately believe that through music, art and poetry we come closer to God. I believe this verse can explain why the Taliban’s interpretation of Islam, as some call it "the purest form of Islam", bans music, singing, etc. Rabab Hajar’s Response PS: After some further studies into Jahilia and Abbasid poetry, I can see Mohammed’s point in denigrating poets, for there where many genres of poetry like Abu Nuwas’s and other court poets that got swept away in lust, pleasure and materialistic pleasures contrary to Islam’s call for spirituality and humility. Ibn Warraq in his book Why I am Not A Muslim quotes Islamic tradition quoting Mohammad saying "A belly full of purulent matter is better than a belly full of poetry". The hadith are full of condemnation for "makers of figured pictures, who are called the worst of men. They are condemned for competing with God, who is the only creator." (p. 1, Introduction). Iban Warraq stresses the fact that "the creative impulse underlying Islamic art, Islamic philosophy, Islamic science, and Islamic literature came from outside Islam from contact with older civilizations with a richer heritage... Without the influence of Greek philosophy or science, there would have been no Islamic philosophy or Islamic science... Without Byzantine art and Sassanian art, there would have been no Islamic art because Islam was hostile to its development... Some of the greatest figures in Arabic poetry, prose and science, for example, Ibn Al Mokaf’aa (one of the fathers of Arabic prose), Abu Nouwas (famous for his Wine poetry), Al-Mutannabi (one of the greatest Arabic poets of antiquity), Al-Ma’aarri (Arabic poet), and Al-Raazi (the greatest physician of the middle ages), were totally hostile to every tenet of Islam. Al Raazi went as far as denying the prophethood of Mohammad" (Why I am Not A Muslim, p.2+).. My response-The verse of the holy quran says .As for the poets, the erring follow them, 225. See you not that they speak about every subject (praising others right or wrong) in their poetry? 226. And that they say what they do not do..surat Ashuura:224-226These verses are clear , they speak only to a specific kind of poets, they don.t refer to all poets. And Allah added .Except those(poets) who believe (in the Oneness of Allâh Islâmic Monotheism), and do righteous deeds, and remember Allâh much, and reply back (in poetry) to the unjust poetry (which the pagan poets utter against the Muslims). And those who do wrong will come to know by what overturning they will be overturned..surat Ashuura:227, saying that the verses above(surat ashuura:224-226) refer to the pagan poets not to the ones who are described in surat ashuura:227.Its quite clear. You haven.t have to just pick one verse only to judge about Islam try to look on the verse around it too.(the verse no 227 distinguishes the good poets from the bad ones(who are described in verses224-226) 13-He said. "Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate" Sovereignity (66) #9 "Unbelievers are those that say: ’God is the Messiah, the son of Mary.’ For the Messiah himself said: ’Children of Israel, serve God, my Lord and your Lord.’ He that worships other deities besides God, God will deny him Paradise, and the Fire shall be his home. None shall help the evil-doers. Unbelievers are those that say: ’God is one of three.’ There is but one God. If they do not desist from so saying, those of them that disbelieve shall be sternly punished." The Table #71- "When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly. Then grant them their freedom or take a ransom from them, until War has laid down her burdens." Muhammad (47) #4 "When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful." Repentance (9) #5. "Fight against those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe in neither God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and his apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." Repentance (9) #28 "Therefore do not falter or sue [or call] for peace when you have gained the upper hand" Mohammad (47) #34 "Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme" The Spoils 8:~40 "God revealed his will to the angels, saying: ’I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!’ "This is because they defied God and His apostle. He that defies God and His apostle shall be sternly punished by God." The Spoils 6 8:12- So we, Christians, are evil doers, Unbelievers, and we ought to be sternly punished in war, ambushed and slain, and utterly subdued. Any anyone who defies God and His apostle shall be sternly punished. I hear on TV that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. How? Is this only when Muslims are the weaker party? It is my belief that these verses are the product of their time, when tribal wars were a way of life and should be taken in context. Perhaps some were even tactical strategic war advice pertinent to one specific situation but they are unfortunately taken as gospel by Muslims. My response-First I would like if you can refer all the stories of the battles fought by prophets in the bible . This is one misunderstanding that keeps rising up against Islam. Islam does not in anyway allow for the killing of any innocent soul. I have gathered some of the Noble Verses that I am aware of that deal directly with war and peace to shed some light upon my readers. Noble Verses that order the killing of the enemies: Let us look at Noble Verses 9:28-29 "O ye believe! Truly the pagans are unclear; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear povery, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, For Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, from among the people of the book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." Let us look at Noble Verse 9:5 "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." As we clearly see in the above Noble Verses, the laws of killing the unbelievers or the pagans were for particular and specific times, and not for all times and all places. Notice the quotes "...after this year..." and "...when the sacred months have passed...". It is important to know that when Prophet Muhammad m started preaching Islam, he had to deal with 360 Arab pagan tribes at first, and he and his followers had to go through a lot of battles that were imposed upon them by the pagans who were threatened by the new System and Wonderful Religion of Islam. Noble Verses that deal with peace: "Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: ’O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness.’ (The Noble Quran, 18:86)" In this Noble Verse we see that if the enemy wants to do us harm, then we must punish those who did us harm. Otherwise, we must treat the enemy civilians and the innocents with kindness. Let us look at Noble Verse 45:14 "Tell those who believe, to forgive those who do not look forward to the days of Allah: It is for Him to recompense (for good or ill) each people according to what they have earned." Let us look at Noble Verse 5:32 "...if any one 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 any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people..." In this Noble Verse we clearly see that Allah Almighty honors all the innocent souls that He created. Killing any innocent soul is so hated by Allah Almighty that He considers it as a crime against all of Mankind. Let us look at Noble Verse 25:68 "Those who invoke not, with God, any other god, nor slay such life as God has made sacred except for just cause, nor commit fornication; - and any that does this (not only) meets punishment." In this Noble Verse we clearly see that Allah Almighty considers the innocent soul "sacred". He will punish those who kill the innocent souls (by throwing them in hell). Let us look at Noble Verse 2:182 "But if anyone fears partiality or wrong-doing on the part of the testator, and makes peace between (The parties concerned), there is no wrong in him: For God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." Let us look at Noble Verse 2:224 "And make not God’s (name) an excuse in your oaths against doing good, or acting rightly, or making peace between persons; for God is One Who heareth and knoweth all things." I’d say, this Noble Verse clearly proves my point: Let us look at Noble Verse 8:61 "But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things)." In this Noble Verse, we clearly see Allah Almighty ordering us, the Muslims, to incline toward peace when the enemy inclines toward peace. This proves that Islam is not a religion for wars, but for peace. Allah Almighty orders Muslims in the Noble Quran to allow total freedom of choice to people and to never try to force them into Islam; "Let there be no compulsion (forcing others) in religion: Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. (The Noble Quran, 2:256)" The Noble Quran prohibits Muslims to force any person into Islam. Muslims must not let people resent Islam and Muslims. They must leave people decide for themselves because the "Truth stands out clear from error...(2:256)" Compulsion is incompatible with religion: Because (1) religion depends upon faith and will, and these would be meaningless by force; (2) Truth and Error have been so clearly shown up by the mercy of Allah Almighty that there should be no doubt in the minds of any persons of good will as to the fundamentals of faith; (3) Allah Almighty’s protection is continuous, and His Plan is always to lead us from the depths of darkness into the clearest light. In the above Noble Verses, we clearly see that Allah Almighty orders the Muslims to be forgiving to the enemies and to make peace and peace making their top priority. It is part of the Muslim’s morals to be a peaceful person. Muslims start their greetings with "As’salamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatu Allah Wa Barakatuh", which means in English "May GOD’s peace, mercy and blessings be upon you." 14-He said ."Unbelievers are those who do no judge according to God’s revelations. We decreed for them a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and a wound for a wound" The Table #43- "He that chooses a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted from him and in the world to come he will surely be among the losers" The Imrans #85 "Believers, do not befriend your fathers or your brothers if they choose unbelief in preference to faith. Wrongdoers are those that befriend them." Repentance (3)#23 "Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends1. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. God does not guide the wrongdoers." The Table (5) #51. (Response 1, 2) "Muhammad is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." Victory 48:29 "Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They [the unbelievers] will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is evident from what they utter with their mouths, but greater is the hatred which their breasts conceal." The Imrans 3:118 Again according to Islam, the Shari’a (God’s Law) is the only acceptable form of political Rule and Islam the only acceptable religion in the eyes of God. There is no democracy in Islam. Even your brother or father is not your friend if he chooses a different religion. And Jews and Christians are collectively shunned. Muslims are enjoined to be ruthless to the unbelievers. Where is the tolerance? My response-Democracy is man made law.Do you think that God stays happy when some one gone away from the right path?certainly not!look at this verse from your bible.Jesus said "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn "a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household." (Matthew 10:34-36) Tell me please what does this mean?Jesus clearly said in this verse that some one.s close relatives even family memberse will be regarded as his/her enemies due to the difference in faith.The quran is clearly confirming this words of Jesus.The verse you quoted tells us that our family members are only those who are in the same faith with us as what Jesus said. And look this verse from Luke:9 which reads as follows, .59He said to another man, "Follow me." But the man replied, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 60Jesus said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God." 61Still another said, "I will follow you, Lord; but first let me go back and say good bye to my family." 62Jesus replied, "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God." Look in this verse Jesus is indirectly saying that the believers shouldn.t be dearer to unbelieverse even is they are their fathers or mothers.And look this verse , ..If anyone secretly entices you--even if it is your brother, your father’s son or your mother’s son, or your own son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your most intimate friend--saying, "Let us go worship other gods," whom neither you nor your ancestors have known. . . . Show them no pity or compassion and do not shield them. But you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them, and afterwards the hand of all the people.. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10).This verse clearly informs us to cut our tie even to kill our family for difference in faith only.How can you accept this verse and reject that of Quran? 15-He said ."They denied the truth and uttered a monstrous falsehood against Mary. They declared: ’WE have put to death the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the apostle of God.’ They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but they thought they did." Women #157- Islam flat-out denies the death of Jesus Christ on the cross. Thousands witnessed the Roman soldiers hammering nails into Jesus. There are four eyewitness accounts of the Crucifixion (The Four Gospels). The body was never recovered. How can someone make such an unfounded claim? The explanation of this heresy, I believe, can be the following: Mohammad’s first wife, Khadija, was Christian. Her cousin, Ibn Warraq, was a Nestorian Christian. Nestorians were heretic Christians that, such as other heretic sects as the Essenes or the Great White Brotherhood, denied the divinity and/or the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Mohammad obviously must have fallen under the influence of heretic Christian teachings. The reference in the Koran to many apocryphal stories about Jesus (such as him speaking in the cradle, his fashioning a bird out of clay and breathing life into it) reinforce this theory.. MY response-first your bible cant even moves some one to conclude that Jesus was not crucified. The bible has got many conflicting narrations concerning this issue. So we can then conclude that the biblical narrations of crucification can never be reliable. -Waraqa is one of the four men who left the pagan faith of Mecca as mentioned in this article in search for the Hanifite roots ( the religion of Abraham(P)) and returned as a Christian. Even he was claimed to be the source of the Qur’ân. Some missionaries depended on hadîths narrated in Sahih al-Bukhârî: Narrated ’Aisha(R): Volume 4, Book 55, Number 605: "..The Prophet returned to Khadija while his heart was beating rapidly. She took him to Waraqa bin Naufal who was a Christian convert and used to read the Gospel in Arabic Waraqa asked (the Prophet), "What do you see?" When he told him, Waraqa said, "That is the same angel whom Allah sent to the Prophet) Moses. Should I live till you receive the Divine Message, I will support you strongly." The other hadîth is: Narrated ’Aisha(R): Volume 1, Book 1, Number 3 Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin ’Abdul ’Uzza, who, during the pre-Islamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as Allah wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadija said to Waraqa, "Listen to the story of your nephew, O my cousin!" Waraqa asked, "O my nephew! What have you seen?" Allah’s Apostle described whatever he had seen. Waraqa said, "This is the same one who keeps the secrets (angel Gabriel) whom Allah had sent to Moses. I wish I were young and could live up to the time when your people would turn you out." Allah’s Apostle asked, "Will they drive me out?" Waraqa replied in the affirmative and said, "Anyone (man) who came with something similar to what you have brought was treated with hostility; and if I should remain alive till the day when you will be turned out then I would support you strongly." But after a few days Waraqa died. Waraqa was an old man and died shortly after Muhammad(P) had received the revelation of the Qur’ân; as clearly can be read from the above hadîth. While the revelation of the Qur’ân continued for more than twenty years after the death of Waraqah bin Nawfal, the Prophet(P) was receiving the revelation in different places and even while he was among his Companions. Also, he was answering direct questions raised later by the Jews in Madinah. In addition, the Jews and the disbelievers of Mecca would be very pleased if they knew for sure that there was a knowledgeable person who was teaching Muhammad(P) the Qur’ân. And finally Waraqa himself announced in all of the hadîths reported in Sahih al- Bukhârî that he would support Muhammad(P) strongly if he lived long enough: "Should I live till you receive the Divine Message, I will support you strongly." "if I should remain alive till the day when you will be turned out then I would support you strongly." It is not surprising to see that when these points are brought together, Christian missionaries start to take refuge in the excuses that Waraqa was a heretic or on whose authority he said that he would support Muhammad’s prophethood? -And follow this link please http://www.islamicawareness. org/Quran/Sources/BBwives.html Its better if your arguments can be followed with evidences rather that simply guessing. 16-He said. "Because of their iniquity, We forbade the Jews wholesome things which were formerly allowed them; because time after time they have debarred others from the path of God; because they practice usury - although they were forbidden from it - and cheat others of their possessions." Women #159 "You will find that the most implacable of men in their enmity to the faithful are the Jews and the pagans..." The Table (2) #81 "Say: ’People of the Book2, is it not that you hate us only because we believe in God and in what has been revealed to us and to others before, and because most of you are evil-doers?’" The Table (5) #58 "The Jews say: ’God’s hand is chained.’ May their own hands be chained! May they be cursed for what they say! By no means. His hands are both outstretched: He bestows as He will" The Table (5) #64 "The Jews say Ezra is the son of God, while the Christians say the Messiah is the son of God. Such are their assertions, by which they imitate the infidels of old. God confound them! How perverse they are!" Repentance (9) #29 "... We have stirred among them [The Jews] enmity and hatred, which will endure till the Day of Resurrection. Whenever they kindle the fire of war, God puts it out. They spread evil in the land, but God does not love the evil-doers." The Table (5) #65 "The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures." The Proof (Al- Bayyinah - 98) #5 These verses among others worry me a lot. I find them apparently very racist and preaching and promoting blind hatred for the Jewish and Christian people. The last one is too much... To make the claim that Jews "spread evil in the land. is unforgivable slander for a holy book. Let us not forget that the greatest pacifist of all time - Jesus Christ - was a Jew.. MY response-They might seem so to you but they haven.t got any racism. Islam is against racism. Racism whether upon open or hidden, is an evil aspect of life which Islams seeks to eradicate. It is clear from the versus of the Quran, the book of the muslims, and many sayings of our final prophet which have narrated by his companions, that differences in colour, tribes, races, or traditions are not to be excuses for unjust behaviour or treatment. The Quran rehearses the words of the almighty Allah which reasons against racial discrimination and puts an end to it in Islam. "O Mankind, we created you from a single pair of a male and a female, and made you in to tribes and nations so that you may know each other (not that you despise each other). Verily, the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is he who is most righteous of you." (Al-Quran, Chapter 49, Verse 13) Allah explains the reason behind why he created mankind and then put them in to alternative tribes and nations. It is made clear and all doubts are seized when the most merciful Allah states: "that you may know each other". This statement is made unquestionable if comprehended and looked at one step further. In one tribe, there are many generations and families in which one name resembles another. To pinpoint the exact individual the family name will be called out within a tribe so that no one else is puzzled with the one who is demanded. However in a governing country, the tribe name will also be used so that the one demanded is not puzzled in between nations and tribes. Nevertheless, if a person looks for someone world wide, than one can imagine himself how difficult a task would it have been to find someone if tribes, nations, generations and families were not made separate. This is why the most generous Allah has made us in to alternative tribes so that we may recognize each other. "and made you in to tribes and nations so that you may know each other" Allah the most generous, has in the above verse of the Quran withdrawn racism and expressed a golden point. This golden point is unity and equality in each and every human being existing upon the earth. Allah (S.T) has made apparent and shone light upon the fact that everyone has been created from the same mother and father. We are all brothers and sisters. The relationship has been illuminated in the very same verse: "We created you from a single pair of male and a female" The above sentence in the Quran also expresses one more aspect which is supposed to evolve around the human life. Although the aspect of racism is totally wiped out, Allah (S.T) has encouraged us to exercise one attribute. This attribute is righteousness. Glory be to Allah (S.T) who mentions that the honoured is he who has the quality of righteousness in life. Allah (S.T) in the Quran has emphasized that in place of racism, righteousness should be practised, if you would like to be honoured in my sight. Almighty Allah has acknowledged in another verse in the Quran referring to why he created man in different colours: "And amongst his signs is the creation of heaven and the earth, and variation in your language and colours; Verily, in there are signs for those who know" (Al-Quran, Chapter 30, Verse 22) The above verse also identifies one of Allah (S.T) magnificent performance in separating the human kind in to groups. Allah (S.T) has first mentioned the heavens (the sky) which changes in many colours during the day as his first sign. After the sky Allah then informs us of the earth which also varies in colour. The earth can be green with grass like in rain forests, yellow in desserts and many other colours depending upon the environment. At the end of the verse, Allah (S.T) talks about people and variation in the language and colour. The all knowing Allah (S.T) then enlightens his reasoning to why he made variation in the surroundings of a person, variation in skin colour. The reason is that these are signs of Allah (S.T) for the believers, and also those who are intelligent. Allah (S.T) has cared and thought about his people so much that if they are to think about doing a sin, they will look around and by his signs they will return and repent to him for their mistakes and wrong practices. the quran never accuses all Jews.The quran accusses the evil Jews only. 17-He said ."Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them, forsake them in beds apart, and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme." Women 4:33 No Comment. Speaks for itself.. MY response-First the verse isn.t in 4:33 but its in 4:34 and it says .Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allâh has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allâh and to their husbands), and guard in the husband’s absence what Allâh orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity, their husband’s property, etc.). As to those women on whose part you see illconduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allâh is Ever Most High, Most Great.., its translation isn.t as you said .Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other,.,you got a wrong translation dear friend! 18-He said. If you two3 [Hafsah and Aisha - two wives of the prophet] turn to God in repentance (for your hearts have sinned) you shall be pardoned; but if you conspire against him [The Prophet Mohammed], know that God is his protector, and Gabriel and the the righteous among the faithful. the angels too are his helpers. It may well be that, if he divorce you, his Lord will give him in your place better wives than yourselves, submissive to God and full of faith, obedient, penitent, devout, and given to fasting; both formerly wedded and virgins." (Prohibition 66: 4-6) I find these verses very demeaning of women.. My response-Have a look at your bible please , ."When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands and thoust has taken them captive, and seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and had a desire unto her, that though would have her to thy wife, then though shalt bring her home to thine house . . . and after that you may go into her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. But if though have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go" Deuteronomy 21:10- 14. how does this verse work with you? Look what your god says .first he acknowledged taking captives of war (beautiful women) to be their wife.then he ordered them to kick them out if they couldn.t get pleasure in them. 19-HE said. "Women shall with justice have rights similar to those exercised against them, although men have a status above women. God is mighty and wise." The Cow 2:28 "And let them [believing women] not stamp their feet when walking so as to reveal their hidden trinkets." Light ~24:31 NOTE: Some Hadiths go to extremes in their demeaning views of women. For example: "Women are naturally, morally and religiously defective". (Bukhary - from http://www.submission.org/women/equal.html) Women are not even supposed to be heard when they walk !. MY response-I want to quote how women are viewed in the Quran and the Bible- Revelation 14:4 "Those are those (men) who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as first fruits to God and the Lamb." Women are not only spiritually defiling to men as Jesus put it, but they’re also physically defiling when they have their menses. Anything they touch becomes unclean: Leviticus 15:19-30 "And if a woman have an issue (her period/menses), [and] her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe [himself] in water, and be unclean until the even. And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe [himself] in water, and be unclean until the even. And if it [be] on [her] bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she [shall be] unclean. Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation. And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe [himself] in water, and be unclean until the even. But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one [for] a sin offering, and the other [for] a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness." I think it is safe to say that Revelation 14:4 and Leviticus 15:19-30 are sister verses. Birth of any female is a loss: Ecclesiasticus 22:3 "....and the birth of ANY daughter is a loss" (From the New Jerusalem Bible. It’s a Roman Catholics Bible). If a woman gives birth to a baby boy, then she becomes unclean for 7 days. But if she gives birth to a baby girl, then she becomes unclean for 14 days. So in other words, the birth of any female causes double the pollution: Leviticus 12:2-5 "Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a MALE child: then she shall be unclean SEVEN DAYS; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying THIRTY THREE days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a FEMALE child, then she shall be unclean TWO WEEKS, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying SIXTY SIX days." I think it’s safe to say that Ecclesiasticus 22:3 and Leviticus 12:2-5 are sister verses. If a woman tries to save her husband from a beating by grabbing the other man’s private parts to lift him off her husband, then both her hands must get cut off: Deuteronomy 25:11-12 "And in case men struggle together (in a fight) with one another, and the wife of the one has come near to deliver her husband out of the striking one (to save her husband), and she has thrust out her hand and grabbed hold of his private (the other man’s groin), she must then get both her hands cut off, and the eyes of the men must feel no sorrow." Fathers can sell their daughters as slave girls: Exodus 21:7-8 "And in case a man should sell his daughter as a slave girl, she will not go out in the way that the slave men go out. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master so that he doesn’t designate her as a concubine but causes her to be redeemed, he will not be entitled to sell her to a foreign people in his treacherously dealing with her." Daughters inherit nothing when there are sons: "If a man dies and leaves no son, turn his inheritance over to his daughter. (Numbers 27:8)" So the American law of splitting everything equally is not Biblical. Jesus himself in Revelation 14:4 considered women as dirt that defiles men. Even Jesus, the Christians’ highest model, despised women in the Bible!! It is crystal clear that women in the Bible are nothing but a defiling dirt and trash to men. This is no insult to women by me. This is just simply the way the Bible views women. Ironically, Jesus confirmed this view. In Islam: So how does Islam view women then? Is it any better than the Bible? You bet it is! Let us look at what Allah Almighty said about women in the Noble Quran: There is a great deal of good in some women: "O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may take away part of the dower [money given by the husband to the wife for the marriage contract] ye have given them, except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good. (The Noble Quran, 4:19)" Men and women were created for each others, in order to live in peace, harmony and love with each others as husbands and wives: "And among God’s signs is this: He created for you mates from amongst yourselves (males as mates for females and vice versa) that you might find tranquillity and peace in them. And he has put love and kindness among you. Herein surely are signs for those who reflect. (The Noble Quran, 30:21)" Men can not harm their wives: "...Do not retain them (i.e., your wives) to harm them...(The Noble Quran, 2:231)" "If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband’s part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best; even though men’s souls are swayed by greed. But if ye do good and practise self-restraint, God is well-acquainted with all that ye do. (The Noble Quran, 4:128)" Narrated Mu’awiyah al-Qushayri: "I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)" Righteous women are those who are loyal and obedient to their husbands: "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband’s) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all). (The Noble Quran, 4:34)" Men can’t have sex with their women during Menses, but they can sleep with them and touch them: "They ask thee concerning women’s courses. Say: They are a hurt and a pollution: So keep away from women in their courses, and do not approach them until they are clean. But when they have purified themselves, ye may approach them in any manner, time, or place ordained for you by God. For God loves those who turn to Him constantly and He loves those who keep themselves pure and clean. (The Noble Quran, 2:222)" Maimuna (the wife of the Holy Prophet) reported: "The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) contacted and embraced his wives over the waist-wrapper when they were menstruating. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Menstruation (Kitab Al-Haid), Book 003, Number 0579)" Women have equal rights for them and against them: "..and for women are rights equal to the rights against them but men have a degree over them (in the context of divorce) in what is just. (The Noble Quran, 2:228)" The birth of a female is not a biggest tragedy and the end of the world as it is in the Bible: "When news is brought to one of them, of (the birth of) a female (child), his face darkens, and he is filled with inward grief! With shame does he hide himself from his people, Because of the bad news He has had! Shall he retain it On (sufferance and) contempt, Or bury it in the dust? Ah! what an evil (choice) They decide on? (The Noble Quran, 16:58-59)" So considering the birth of females as a bad thing is evil by itself in the Noble Quran. Also, the Prophet peace be upon him said: Narrated AbuSa’id al-Khudri: "The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: If anyone cares for three daughters, disciplines them, marries them, and does good to them, he will go to Paradise. (Translation of Sunan abu Dawud, Book 41, General Behavior (Kitab Al-Adab), Number 5128)" Women have the right for the highest education, unlike what some Muslim fanatics claim: Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ashari: "The Prophet said, ’He who has a slave-girl and teaches her good manners and improves her education and then manumits and marries her, will get a double reward; and any slave who observes Allah’s right and his master’s right will get a double reward.’ (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Manumission of Slaves, Volume 3, Book 46, Number 723)" "....Are those equal, those who know and those who do not know? It is those who are endued with understanding that receive admonition. (The Noble Quran, 39:9)" "...Those truly fear God, among His Servants, who have knowledge: for God is Exalted in Might, Oft-Forgiving. (The Noble Quran, 35:28)" By the way, I once debated some Muslim fanatics regarding the education of women issue, and from what I gathered from them, they indirectly claimed that they feel threatened by learned wives who are "independent", because they would "challenge their authority", and would be "harder to control". So, the fanatics’ views about keeping women unlearned and illiterate as the Taliban did when they ruled Afghanistan is only their personal opinion that is not based on Islamic doctrine. I don’t have to oppress my wife and keep her down in order for me to keep our marriage. No, I instead use Noble Verse 30:21 when dealing with my wife: "And among God’s signs is this: He created for you mates from amongst yourselves (males as mates for females and vice versa) that you might find tranquillity and peace in them. And he has put love and kindness among you. Herein surely are signs for those who reflect. (The Noble Quran, 30:21)" Conclusion: As we clearly saw in the Bible, women are considered worthless and defiling to men. Females’ birth is even considered a loss and causes double the pollution and dirt in the Bible. The mother becomes double unclean when she gives birth to a female than to a male. How much more humiliation of women do we need to see in the Bible? And as we clearly saw in Islam, women are considered good. Allah Almighty created both men and women to live together as husbands and wives in peace, love and harmony. Also, considering the birth of females as a bad thing is evil by itself in the Noble Quran. So unlike the Bible, it is not the end of the world when females are born! 20-He said. "But the true servants of God shall be well provided for, feasting on fruit, and honored in the gardens of delight. Reclining face to face upon soft couches, they shall be served with a goblet filled at a gushing fountain, white, and delicious to those who drink it. It will neither dull their senses nor befuddle them. They shall sit with bashful, dark-eyed virgins, as chaste as the sheltered eggs of ostriches." The Ranks (37) #42- "As for the righteous, they shall be lodged in peace together amid gardens and fountains, arrayed in rich silks and fine brocade. Even thus: and We shall wed them to dark-eyed houris5. Secure against all ills, they shall call for every kind of fruit; and, having died once, they shall die no more. Your Lord will in His mercy shield them from the scourge of Hell. That will be the supreme triumph." Smoke (44) #50-56 "As for those that have faith and do good works, We shall not deny them their reward. They shall dwell in the gardens of Eden, where rivers will roll at their feet. Reclining there upon soft couches, they shall be decked with bracelets of gold, and arrayed in garments of fine green silk and rich brocade: blissful their reward and happy their resting place!" The Cave (18) #30 "As for the righteous, they shall truely triumph. Theirs shall be gardens and vineyards, and high-bosomed maidens for companions: a truly overflowing cup." The Tidings (78) #31- "Such is the Paradise which the righteous have been promised: Therein shall flow rivers of water undefiled, and rivers of milk for ever fresh; rivers of wine delectable to those that drink it, and rivers of clarified honey..." Mohammad (47) #15- "They [the righteous] shall recline on couches ranged in rows. To dark-eyed houris We shall wed them" The Mountain 52:19 "Fruits we shall give them, and such meats as they desire. They will pass from hand to hand a cup inspiring no idle talk, no sinful urge, and there shall wait on them young boys of their own, as fair as virgin pearls" The Mountain 52:21 "They [the righteous] shall recline on jewelled couches face to face, and there shall wait on them immortal youths with bowls and ewers and a cup of the finest wine (that will neither pain their heads nor take away their reason); with fuits of their own choice and flesh of fowls that they relish. And theirs shall be the dark-eyed houris5, chaste as virgin pearls: a guerdon for their deeds." That Which Is Coming 56:15- I find the Islamic concept of Paradise too materialistic, too physical. There is no spiritual element to it. Paradise is a spiritual dwelling place. I highly doubt there are couches and wine and all-you-can-eat meat and wedding with high-bosomed virgins there or as Paul the Apostle put it "For the Kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" Romans 15:17 NIV Bible. Jesus said "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." Mathew 22:30 NIV. MY response-First I want to remind you that Adam and Eve were eating and drinking while they were in paradise.It means that theres food and drink and moreover Allah created Eve to be Adam.s partner.. I can pass it only by saying words of Allaah (swt) in this hadith qudsi: "I have prepared for My righteous slaves that which no eye has seen, no ear has heard and has never crossed the mind of any human being".The Prophet (saw) said, "Recite, if you wish: "No person knows what is kept hidden for them of joy as a reward for what they used to do". (32:17).So know that what we are told in the Quran and sunnah is only a hint.So its doesn.t give sense if we can say much words about that(it.s a place where no eyes has seen and can.t be ever perceived by our minds! 21-He said. In this section I contrast many of Mohammed’s teachings with those of Jesus Christ, and the person of Christ with that of Mohammed. The Koran teaches "for who but God can forgive sin?" The Imrans 3:134 Jesus FORGAVE SIN: "Some men brought to him [Jesus] a paralytic. When he saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven." At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, "This fellow is blaspheming!" Mathew 9:2 NIV The Koran teaches "If you avoid the enormities you are forbidden, We shall pardon your misdeeds and usher you in with all honor." Women 4:30 contrast with "You have heard it was said, ’Love your neighbour and hate your enemy. [Deuteronomy 23:6]. But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than the others? Do not even the pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Jesus Christ - Mathew 5:43-48 NIV The Koran teaches "We decreed for them a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and a wound for a wound." The Table 5:44 contrast with: "You have heard that it was said, ’Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ [Exodus 21:24] But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." Jesus Christ - Mathew 5:38-42 NIV I myself rejected Christianity when I was an atheist and I found this teaching to be one of the "contradictions". One of the laws that went "against human nature". It was not until I realised that we are from born dust to dust, that we are just temporary visitors in this world, that I saw the unfathomable depth of this teaching of Jesus Christ... I told one of my muslim friends, Ibrahim El Sayed, once: "it takes a much nobler heart, a greater-than-life strength of mind, a complete surrender of Ego and denial of self, to forgive and love, rather than to hate the enemy...". My response-First are you sure that the verse you quoted are authentic and exact as what Jesus said?Your bible is full of fabrications and corruptions,so how can we take every verse as an authentic?As long as Jesus isn.t a God he cant forgive a sin.The one who can forgive sins is the one God almighty! And in the other verse we see Jesus clearly contradicting his own words saying .17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished..mathew5:19.He him self that it was written in exodus it was written. You have heard that it was said. but he said that he turned saying .But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well....then whats the wisdom between these contradicting verses?why Jesus contradicted him self?from this what we can understand is that either one of the verses or all of them are fabricated cos Jesus can.t speak contradicting words. As a conclusion I want to advise you not to rely upon non muslims either interpretation of the quran or biography of our beloved prophet(PBUH). .Say: .O people of the Book (Christians and Jews)! Come to a word that is just between us and you: that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords beside God.. (Quran, 3:64) .   Michael .P (Mik3y) Starlite Member Username: Mik3y Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 03:26 pm:    Forgive me but haven't you posted this same stuff before? Im feeling dajavu particulary with the cat stevens conversion story. Michael william James   zaheer - uddin (Zaheer) Starlite Member Username: Zaheer Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 03:03 pm:    The story of Kat Stevens Cat Stevens : How I came to Islam All I have to say is all what you know already, to confirm what you already know, the message of the Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) as given by God - the Religion of Truth. As human beings we are given a consciousness and a duty that has placed us at the top of creation. Man is created to be God's deputy on earth, and it is important to realize the obligation to rid ourselves of all illusions and to make our lives a preparation for the next life. Anybody who misses this chance is not likely to be given another, to be brought back again and again, because it says in Qur'an Majeed that when man is brought to account, he will say, {O Lord, send us back and give us another chance} The Lord will say, {If I send you back you will do the same} MY EARLY RELIGIOUS UPBRINGING I was brought up in the modern world of all the luxury and the high life of show business. I was born in a Christian home, but we know that every child is born in his original nature - it is only his parents that turn him to this or that religion. I was given this religion (Christianity) and thought this way. I was taught that God exists, but there was no direct contact with God, so we had to make contact with Him through Jesus - he was in fact the door to God. This was more or less accepted by me, but I did not swallow it all.I looked at some of the statues of Jesus; they were just stones with no life. And when they said that God is three, I was puzzled even more but could not argue. I more or less believed it, because I had to have respect for the faith of my parents. POP STAR Gradually I became alienated from this religious upbringing. I started making music. I wanted to be a big star. All those things I saw in the films and on the media took hold of me, and perhaps I thought this was my God, the goal of making money. I had an uncle who had a beautiful car. 'Well,' I said, 'he has it made. He has a lot of money.' The people around me influenced me to think that this was it; this world was their God. I decided then that this was the life for me; to make a lot of money, have a 'great life.' Now my examples were the pop stars. I started making songs, but deep down I had a feeling for humanity, a feeling that if I became rich I would help the needy. (It says in the Qur'an, we make a promise, but when we make something, we want to hold onto it and become greedy.)So what happened was that I became very famous. I was still a teenager, my name and photo were splashed in all the media. They made me larger than life, so I wanted to live larger than life and the only way to do that was to be intoxicated (with liquor and drugs). IN HOSPITAL After a year of financial success and 'high' living, I became very ill, contracted TB and had to be hospitalized. It was then that I started to think: What was to happen to me? Was I just a body, and my goal in life was merely to satisfy this body? I realized now that this calamity was a blessing given to me by Allah, a chance to open my eyes - 'Why am I here? Why am I in bed?' - and I started looking for some of the answers. At that time there was great interest in the Eastern mysticism. I began reading, and the first thing I began to become aware of was death, and that the soul moves on; it does not stop. I felt I was taking the road to bliss and high accomplishment. I started meditating and even became a vegetarian. I now believed in 'peace and flower power,' and this was the general trend. But what I did believe in particular was that I was not just a body. This awareness came to me at the hospital. One day when I was walking and I was caught in the rain, I began running to the shelter and then I realized, 'Wait a minute, my body is getting wet, my body is telling me I am getting wet.' This made me think of a saying that the body is like a donkey, and it has to be trained where it has to go. Otherwise, the donkey will lead you where it wants to go.Then I realized I had a will, a God-given gift: follow the will of God. I was fascinated by the new termino- logy I was learning in the Eastern religion. By now I was fed up with Christianity. I started making music again and this time I started reflecting my own thoughts. I remember the lyric of one of my songs. It goes like this: 'I wish I knew, I wish I knew what makes the Heaven, what makes the Hell. Do I get to know You in my bed or some dusty cell while others reach the big hotel?' and I knew I was on the Path.I also wrote another song, 'The Way to Find God Out.' I became even more famous in the world of music. I really had a difficult time because I was getting rich and famous, and at the same time, I was sincerely searching for the Truth. Then I came to a stage where I decided that Buddhism is all right and noble, but I was not ready to leave the world. I was too attached to the world and was not prepared to become a monk and to isolate myself from society.I tried Zen and Ching, numerology, tarot cards and astrology. I tried to look back into the Bible and could not find anything. At this time I did not know anything about Islam, and then, what I regarded as a miracle occurred. My brother had visited the mosque in Jerusalem and was greatly impressed that while on the one hand it throbbed with life (unlike the churches and synagogues which were empty), on the other hand, an atmosphere of peace and tranquillity prevailed. THE QUR'AN When he came to London he brought back a translation of the Qur'an, which he gave to me. He did not become a Muslim, but he felt something in this religion, and thought I might find something in it also. And when I received the book, a guidance that would explain everything to me - who I was; what was the purpose of life; what was the reality and what would be the reality; and where I came from - I realized that this was the true religion; religion not in the sense the West understands it, not the type for only your old age. In the West, whoever wishes to embrace a religion and make it his only way of life is deemed a fanatic. I was not a fanatic, I was at first confused between the body and the soul. Then I realized that the body and soul are not apart and you don't have to go to the mountain to be religious. We must follow the will of God. Then we can rise higher than the angels. The first thing I wanted to do now was to be a Muslim. I realized that everything belongs to God, that slumber does not overtake Him. He created everything. At this point I began to lose the pride in me, because hereto I had thought the reason I was here was because of my own greatness. But I realized that I did not create myself, and the whole purpose of my being here was to submit to the teaching that has been perfected by the religion we know as Al-Islam. At this point I started discovering my faith. I felt I was a Muslim. On reading the Qur'an, I now realized that all the Prophets sent by God brought the same message. Why then were the Jews and Christians different? I know now how the Jews did not accept Jesus as the Messiah and that they had changed His Word. Even the Christians misunderstand God's Word and called Jesus the son of God. Everything made so much sense. This is the beauty of the Qur'an; it asks you to reflect and reason, and not to worship the sun or moon but the One Who has created everything. The Qur'an asks man to reflect upon the sun and moon and God's creation in general. Do you realize how different the sun is from the moon? They are at varying distances from the earth, yet appear the same size to us; at times one seems to overlap the other. Even when many of the astronauts go to space, they see the insignificant size of the earth and vastness of space. They become very religious, because they have seen the Signs of Allah. When I read the Qur'an further, it talked about prayer, kindness and charity. I was not a Muslim yet, but I felt that the only answer for me was the Qur'an, and God had sent it to me, and I kept it a secret. But the Qur'an also speaks on different l I began to understand it on anothlevel, where the Qur'an says, {Those who believe do not take disbelievers for friends and the believers are brothers} Thus at this point I wished to meet my Muslim brothers. CONVERSION Then I decided to journey to Jerusalem (as my brother had done). At Jerusalem, I went to the mosque and sat down. A man asked me what I wanted. I told him I was a Muslim. He asked what was my name. I told him, 'Stevens.' He was confused. I then joined the prayer, though not so successfully. Back in London, I met a sister called Nafisa. I told her I wanted to embrace Islam and she directed me to the New Regent Mosque. This was in 1977, about one and a half years after I received the Qur'an. Now I realized that I must get rid of my pride, get rid of Iblis, and face one direction. So on a Friday, after Jumma' I went to the Imam and declared my faith (the Kalima) at this hands. You have before you someone who had achieved fame and fortune. But guidance was something that eluded me, no matter how hard I tried, until I was shown the Qur'an. Now I realize I can get in direct contact with God, unlike Christianity or any other religion. As one Hindu lady told me, 'You don't understand the Hindus. We believe in one God; we use these objects (idols) to merely concentrate.' What she was saying was that in order to reach God, one has to create associates, that are idols for the purpose. But Islam removes all these barriers. The only thing that moves the believers from the disbelievers is the salat. This is the process of purification. Finally I wish to say that everything I do is for the pleasure of Allah and pray that you gain some inspirations from my experiences. Furthermore, I would like to stress that I did not come into contact with anyMuslim before I embraced Islam. I read the Qur'an first and realized that no person is perfect. Islam is perfect, and if we imitate the conduct of the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) we will be successful. May Allah give us guidance to follow the path of the ummah of Muhammad (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam). Ameen! http://english.islamway.com/bindex.php?section=article&id=146 english.islamway.com   zaheer - uddin (Zaheer) Starlite Member Username: Zaheer Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 02:52 pm:    Published by Islamic Research and Information Foundation. © Aminah Assilmi The Introduction and Decision I was completing a degree in Recreation, when I met my first Muslims. It was the first year that we had been able to pre-register by computer. I preregistered and went to Oklahoma to take care of some family business. The business took longer than expected, so I returned to school two weeks into the semester (too late to drop a course). I wasn't worried about catching up my missed work. I was sitting at the top of my class, in my field. Even as a student, I was winning awards, in competition with professionals. Now, you need to understand that while I was attending college and excelling, ran my own business, and had many close friends, I was extremely shy. My transcripts actually had me listed as severely reticent. I was very slow to get to know people and rarely spoke to anyone unless was forced to, or already knew them. The classes I was taking has to do administration and city planning, plus programming for children. Children were the only people I ever felt comfortable with. Well, back to the story. The computer printout held one enormous surprise for me. I was registered for a Theatre class...a class were I would be required to perform in front of real live people. I was horrified! I could not even ask a question in class, how was I going to get on a stage in front of people? My husband was his usual very calm and sensible self. He suggested that I talk to the teacher, explain the problem, and arrange to paint scenery or sew costumes. The teacher agreed to try and find a way to help me out. So I went to class the following Tuesday. When I entered the classroom, I received my second shock. The class was full of 'Arabs' and 'camel jockeys'. Well, I had never seen one but I had heard of them. There was no way I was going to sit in a room full of dirty heathens! After all, you could catch some dreadful disease from those people. Everyone knew they were dirty, not to be trusted either. I shut the door and went home. (Now, there is one little thing you should know. I had on a pair of leather hot pants, a halter top, and a glass of wine in my hands...but they were the bad ones in my mind.) When I told my husband about the Arabs in the class and that there was no way i was going back, he responded in his usual calm way. He reminded that I was always claiming that God had a reason for everything and maybe I should spend some time thinking about it before I made my final decision. He also reminded me that I had a scholars award that was paying my tuition and if I wanted to keep it, I would have to maintain my G.P.A.. Three credit hours or 'F' would have destroyed my chances. For the next two days, I prayed for guidance. On Thursday I went back to the class convinced that God had put me there to save those poor ignorant heathens from the fires of hell. I proceeded to explain to them how they would burn in the fires of hell for all eternity, if they did not accept Jesus as their personal savior. They were very polite, but did not convert. Then, I explained how Jesus loved them and had died on the cross to save them from their sins. All they had to do was accept him into their hearts. They were very polite, but still did not convert. So, I decided to read their own book to show them that Islam was a false religion and Mohammed was a false God. One of the students gave me a copy of the Qur'an and another book about Islam, and I proceeded with my research. I was sure I would find the evidence I needed very quickly. Well, I read the Qur'an and the other book. Then I read another 15 books, Sahih Muslim and returned to the Qur'an. I was determined I would convert them! My studies continued for the next one and half years. During that time, I started having a few problems with my husband. I was changing, just in little ways but enough to bother him. We used to go to the bar every Friday and Saturday, or to a party, and I no longer wanted to go. I was quieter and more distant. He was sure I was having an affair, so he kicked me out. I moved into an apartment with my children and continued my determined efforts to convert the Muslims to Christianity. The, one day, there was a knock on my door. I opened the door and saw a man in a long white night gown with a red and white checkered table cloth on his head. He was accompanied by three men in pajamas. (It was the first time I had ever seen their cultural dress.) Well, I was more than a little offended by men showing up at my door in night clothes. What kind of a woman did they think I was? Had they no pride or dignity? Imagine my shock when the one wearing the table cloth said he understood I wanted to be a Muslim! I quickly informed him I did not want to be a Muslim. I was Christian. However, I did have a few questions. If he had the time.... His name was Abdul-Aziz Al-Shiek and he made the time. He was very patient and discussed every question with me. He never made me feel silly or that a question was stupid. He asked me if I believed there was only one God and I said yes. Then he asked if I believed Mohammed was His Messenger. Again I said yes. He told me that I was already a Muslim!. I argued that I was Christian, I was just trying to understand Islam. (Inside I was thinking: I couldn't be a Muslim! I was American and white! What would my husband say? If I am Muslim, I will have to divorce my husband. My family would die!) We continued talking. Later, he explained that attaining knowledge and understanding of spirituality was a little like climbing a ladder. If you climb a ladder and try to skip a few rungs, there was danger of falling. The Shahadah was just the first step on the ladder. Still we had to talk some more. Later that afternoon, May 21, 1977 at Asr', I took Shahadah. However, there were still some things I could not accept and it was my nature to be completely truthful so i added a disclaimer. I said: "I bear witness that there is no god but God and Mohammed is His Messenger" 'but, I will never cover my hair and if my husband takes another wife, I will castrate him.' I heard gasps from the other men in the room, but Abdul Aziz silenced them. Later I learned that he told the brothers never to discuss those two subjects with me. He was sure I would come to the correct understanding. The Shahadah was indeed a solid footing on the ladder to spiritual knowledge and closeness to God. but it has been a slow climb. Abdul Aziz continued to visit me and answer my questions. May Allah reward him for his patience and tolerance. He never admonished me or acted like a question was stupid or silly. He treated each question with dignity and told me that the only stupid question was the one never asked. Hmmm...my grandmother used to say that. He explained that Allah ahd told us to seek knowledge and questions were one of the ways to accomplish that. When he explained something, it was like watching a rose open - petal by petal, until it reached its full glory. When I told him that I did not agree with something and why, he always said I was correct up to a point. The he would show me how to look deeper and from different directions to reach a fuller understanding. Alhamdulillah! Over the years, I had many teachers. Each one special, each one different. I am thankful for each one of them and the knowledge they gave. Each teacher helped me to grow and to love Islam more. As my knowledge increased, the changes in me became more apparent. Within the first year, I was wearing hijab. I have no idea when I started. It came naturally, with increased knowledge and understanding. In time I even came to to a proponent of polygamy. I knew that if Allah had allowed it, there had to be something good in it. "Glorify the name of thy Guardian - Lord Most High, Who hath created, and further, given order and proportion; Who hath measured, and granted guidance; and Who bringeth out the (green and lush) pasture, and doth make it (but) swarthy stubble, By degrees shall We teach thee (The Message), so thou shalt not forget, except as Allah wills: for He knoweth what is manifest and what is hidden. And We will make it easy for thee (to follow) the simple (path)." (Al-A'la 87:1-8) When I first started to study Islam, I did not expect to find anything that I needed or wanted in my personal life. Little did I know that Islam would change my life. No human could have ever convinced me that I would finally be at peace and overflowing with love and joy because of Islam. This book spoke of THE ONE GOD, THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE. It described the beautiful way in which He had organised the world. This wondrous Qur'an had all the answers. Allah is The Loving! Allah is the Source of Peace! Allah is the Protector! Allah is the Forgiver! Allah is the Provider! Allah is the maintainer! Allah is the Generous One! Allah is the Responsive! Allah is the Protecting Friend! Allah is the Expander! "Have we not expanded thee thy breast? And removed from thee thy burden the which did gall thy back? And raised high the esteem (in which) thou (art held)? So, verily, with every difficulty, there is relief: Verily, with every difficulty there is relief!" (Al-Ishirah, 94: 1-6) The Qur'an addressed all the issues of existence and showed a clear path to success. It was like a map forgiving, an owner manual for life! How Islam changed my Life "How much more we love the light...If once we lived in Darkness." When I first embraced Islam, I really did not think it was going to affect my life very much. Islam did not just affect my life. It totally changed it. Family life: My husband and I loved each other very deeply. That love for each other still exists. Still, when I started studying Islam, we started having some difficulties. He saw me changing and did not understand what was happening. Neither did I. But then, I did not even realise I was changing. He decided that the only thing that could make me change was another man. There was no way to make him understand what was changing me because I did not know. After I realised that I was a Muslim, it did not help matters. After all...the only reason a woman changes something as fundamental as her religion is another man. He could not find evidence of this other man...but he had to exist. We ended up in a very ugly divorce. The courts determined that the unorthodox religion would be detrimental to the development of my children. So they were removed from my custody. During the divorce, there was a time when I was told I could make a choice. I could renounce this religion and leave with my children, or renounce my children and leave with my religion. I was in shock. To me this was not a possible choice. If I renounce my Islam....I would be teaching my children how to be deceptive. For there was no way to deny what was in my heart. I could not deny Allah, not then, not ever. I prayed like I had never prayed before. After the thirty minutes was up, I knew that there was no safer place for my children to be than in the hands of Allah. If I denied him, there would be no way in the future to show my children the wonders of being with Allah. The courts were told that I would leave my children in the hands of Allah. This was not a rejection of my children! I left the courts knowing that life without my babies would be very difficult. My heart bled, even though I knew, inside, I had done the right thing. I found solace in Ayat-Ul-Khursi. "Allah! There is no god but He - the Living, the Self-subsisting, Supporter of all. 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 doth extend over the heavens and the earth, and he feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He is Most High, The Supreme (in Glory)." (Al-Baqarah, 2:255) This also got me started looking at all the attributes of Allah and discovering the beauty of each one. Child custody and divorce were not the only problems I was to face. The rest of my family was not very accepting of my choice either. Most of the family refused to have anything to do with me. My mother was of the belief that it was just a phase and I would grow out of it. My sister, the 'mental health expert' was sure I had simply lost my mind and should be institutionalised. My father believed I should be killed before placed myself deeper in Hell. Suddenly I found myself with no husband and no family. What would be next? Friends: Most of my friends drifted away during that first year. I was no fun anymore. I did not want to go to parties or bars. I was not interested in finding a boyfriend. All I ever did was read that 'stupid' book (the Qur'an) and talk about Islam. What a bore. I still did not have enough knowledge to help them understand why Islam was so beautiful. Employment: My job was next to go. While I had won just about every award there was in my field and was recognised as a serious trend setter and money maker, the day I put on hijab, was the end of my job. Now I was without a family, without friends and without a job. In all this, the first light was my grandmother. She approved of my choice and joined me. What a surprise! I always knew she had alot of wisdom, but this! She died soon after that. When I stop to think about it, I almost get jealous. The day she pronounced Shahadah, all her misdeeds had been erased, while her good deeds were preserved. She died so soon after accepting Islam that I knew her 'BOOK' was bound to be heavy on the good side. It fills me with such joy! As my knowledge grew and I was better able to answer questions, many things changed. But, it was the changes made in me as a person that had the greatest impact. A few years after I went public with my Islam, my mother called me and said she did not know what this 'Islam thing' was, but she hoped I would stay with it. She liked what it was doing for me. A couple of years after that she called again and asked what a person had to do to be a Muslim. I told her that all person had to do was know that there was only ONE God and Mohammed was His Messenger. Her response was: "Any fool knows that. But what do you have to do?" I repeated the same information and she said: "Well...OK. But let's not tell your father just yet." Little did she know that he had gone through the same conversation a few weeks before that. My real father (the one who thought I should be killed) had done it almost two months earlier. Then, my sister, the mental health person, she told me that I was the most 'liberated' person she knew. Coming from her that was the greatest compliment I could have received. Rather than try to tell you about how each person came to accept Islam, let me simply say that more members of my family continue to find Islam every year. I was especially happy when a dear friends, Brother Qaiser Imam, told me that my ex-husband took Shahdah. When Brother Qaiser asked him why, he said it was because he had been watching me for 16 years and he wanted his daughter to have what I had. He came and asked me to forgive him for all he had done. I had forgiven him long before that. Now my oldest son, Whittney, has called, as I am writing this book, and announced that he also wants to become Muslim. He plans on taking the Shahadah as the ISNA Convention in a couple of weeks. For now, he is learning as much as he can. Allah is The Most Merciful. Over the years, I have come to be known for my talks on Islam, and many listeners have chosen to be Muslim. My inner peace has continued to increase with my knowledge and confidence in the Wisdom of Allah. I know that Allah is not only my Creator but, my dearest friend. I know that Allah will always be there and will never reject me. For every step I take toward Allah, He takes 10 toward me. What a wonderful knowledge. True, Allah has tested me, as was promised, and rewarded me far beyond what I could ever have hoped for. A few years ago, the doctors told me I had cancer and it was terminal. They explained that there was no cure, it was too far advanced, and proceeded to help prepare me for my death by explaining how the disease would progress. I had maybe one year left to live. I was concerned about my children, especially my youngest. Who would take care of him? Still I was not depressed. We must all die. I was confident that the pain I was experiencing contained Blessings. I remembered a good friend, Kareem Al-Misawi, who died of cancer when he was still in his 20's. Shortly before he died, he told me that Allah was truly Merciful. This man was in unbelievable anguish and radiating with Allah's love. He said: "Allah intends that I should enter heaven with a clean book." His death experience gave me something to think about. He taught me of Allah's love and mercy. This was something no one else had ever really discussed. Allah's love! I did not take me long to start being aware of His blessings. Friends who loved me came out of nowhere. I was given the gift of making Hag. Even more importantly, I learned how very important it was for me to share the Truth of Islam with everyone. It did not matter if people, Muslim or not, agreed with me or even liked me. The only approval I needed was from Allah. The only love I needed was from Allah. Yet, I discovered more and more people, who for no apparent reason, loved me. I rejoiced, for I remembered reading that if Allah loves you, He causes others to love you. I am not worthy of all the love. That means it must be another gift from Allah. Allah is the Greatest! There is no way to fully explain how my life changed. Alhamdulillah! I am so very glad that I am a Muslim. Islam is my life. Islam is the beat of my heart. Islam is the blood that courses through my veins. Islam is my strength. Islam is my life so wonderful and beautiful. Without Islam, I am nothing and should Allah ever turn His magnificent face from me I could not survive. "O Allah! let my heart have light, and my sight have light, and my hearing (senses) have light, and let me have light on my right, and let me have light on my left, and let me have light above me, and have light under me, and have light in front of me, and have light behind me; and let me have light." (Bukhari, vol. 8. pp. 221, #329) "Oh my Lord! Forgive my sins and my ignorance and my exceeding the limits (boundaries of righteousness) in all my deeds and what you know better than I. O Allah! Forgive my mistakes, those done intentionally or out of my ignorance or (without) or with seriousness, and I confess that all such mistakes are done by me. Oh Allah! Forgive my sins of the past and of the future which i did openly or secretly. You are the One who makes the things go before, and You are the One who delays them, and You are the Omnipotent." (Bukhari, vol. , pp. 271, #407)   zaheer - uddin (Zaheer) Starlite Member Username: Zaheer Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 02:49 pm:    The Bible Led Me to Islam Abdul Malik LeBlanc tells how he discovered Islam within the pages of Bible Source: International Edition Voice of Islam - November 1998, Page 25 During my Christian days there were many verses in the Bible that made me question the religion I was following (Christianity). There was one particular verse, 1 Thessalonians 5:17 which says; "pray without ceasing," that lingered heavily in my mind. I often wondered how a person (Christian) was supposed to pray (be in a state of worship) without ceasing? Without any biblical or divine guidance, the only way I thought this to be possible was to always do good deeds and keep the remembrance of God on my tongue and in my heart. However, I found this to be impossible to do as a human being. But when I was introduced to Islam in 1987, and began to read and learn more about this way of life, I found that Islam provided divine guidance both from God (Allah) and Prophet Muhammad (SAW) by which a person could pray (be in a state of worship) without ceasing, if it was the Will of God. Whether waking up, eating, sleeping, putting on clothes, being in the presence of a woman, looking at a woman, going shopping, going to the bathroom, looking in the mirror, traveling, visiting the sick, sitting in a non-religious meeting, taking a bath, having sexual intercourse with one’s wife, yawning, cutting you nails, sneezing, greeting people, talking, hosting guests at home, walking, exercising, fighting, entering one’s house, praying and many other acts, Islam and the guidance therein of the Quran, and the acts and sayings of Prophet Muhammad (SAW), provided ways in which I could observe 1 Thessalonians 5:17. In addition, it allowed me to be at peace with myself and in submission to the one True God - Allah (SWT). This divine guidance of Islam taught me greatly about my duties, responsibilities and birthright to my Creator (Allah), and more about the religion of Christianity as a Muslim, I [By the Will of Allah (SWT)] felt it necessary to share with you how the Bible led me to Islam. Christianity Given the fact that there has never been in the history of the Torah (Old Testament) the religion of God to be named after a Prophet (i.e. Adaminity, Abrahamity, Mosanity, etc.), I hope to explain that Jesus did not preach the religion of Christianity, but a religion that gives all Praise and Worship to The One God. One of the questions I asked myself as I took an objective (second) look at Christianity was; where did the word Christianity come from and was the word ever mentioned to Jesus? Well, I did not find the word Christianity in the Bible, not even in a Bible dictionary. Specifically, I did not find in the Bible where Jesus called himself a Christian. The word Christian was first mentioned by a pagan to describe those who followed Jesus. It is mentioned one of three times in the New Testament by a pagan and Jew in Antioch about 43 AD, (Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16) long after Jesus left this earth. To accept the words of pagans as having any value or association with divinity, Jesus or God is contrary to the teachings of all Prophets. Jesus prophesied that people would worship him uselessly and believe in doctrines made by men (Matthew 15:9). "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." This verse, Matthew 15:9, is further supported by these words of the Quran: "And (remember) when Allah will say (on the Day of Resurrection): "O Jesus, son of Mary! Did you say unto men: "Worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allah?" He will say: "Glory be to You! It was not for me to say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, You would surely have known it. You know what is in my inner-self though I do not know what is in Yours, truly, You, only You, are the All-Knower o fall that is hidden and unseen. Never did I say to them aught except what You (Allah) did command me to say: ‘Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.’ And I was a witness over them while I dwelt amongst them, but when You took me up, You were a Witness to all things. (This is a great admonition and warning to the Christians of the whole world)." (Al-Ma’idah 5:116-117) I found that Biblical verses like John 5:30, John 12:49, John 14:28, Isaiah 42:8 and Acts 2:22 support the above mentioned verses of the Quran. Before leaving the subject of Christianity, I should mention one small point of observation. If Christians are Christ-like, why are they not greeting each other with the words; Peace be with you (Salamu Alaikum), as Jesus did in Luke 24:36. As you may be aware, the greeting from one Muslim to another Muslim is Assalamu Alaikum; a Christ-like saying. Various Holy Bibles It is worth mentioning that the Bible references cited might not be exactly as the Bible you are using. There are MANY Bibles on the market that are used by different Christian sects and all of these sects say that their book, though different, is the word of God. Such Bibles are: The Revised Standard Version 1952 & 1971, New American Standard Bible, The Holy Bible; New International Version, the Living Bible, New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures used by Jehovah Witnesses, Roman Catholic Version and the King James Version. A special note: I have not found in any of these Bibles where the "New Testament" calls itself the "New Testament," and nowhere does the "Old Testament" call itself the "Old? Testament." Also, the word "Bible" is unknown within the pages of the Bible. In addition to the many different Christian sects and Bibles, I have learned that there are also different men, not Prophets, who founded these sects and are using various interpretations of the Bible and/or man-made doctrines as their creed. I would like to share with you some thoughts that you may not have read or known about the Bible being the word of God. Briefly, let me mention that on September 8, 1957, the Jehovah’s witnesses in their "Awake" magazine carried this startling headline - 50,000 Errors in the Bible. If you ask a Jehovah’s witness about this headline, it may be said that today most of those errors have been eliminated. How many have been eliminated, 5,000? Even if 50 remain, would one attribute those errors to God? Let me pose another question: if a "Holy" book contained conflicting verses would you still consider it to be Holy? Most likely you will say of course not. Let me share with you some conflicting verses both in the Old and New Testaments: II Samuel 8:4 (vs) II Samuel 8:9-10 II Kings 8:26 II Samuel 6:23 Genesis 6:3 John 5:37 John 5:31 I Chronicles 18:4 I Chronicles 18:9-10 II Chronicles 22:2 II Samuel 21:8 Genesis 9:29 John 14:9 John 8:14 Only two contradictions of the New Testament have been mentioned, but others will be referenced when the Trinity, Divinity of Jesus Christ, Divine Sonship of Jesus, Original Sin and Atonement are reviewed. How could the "inspired words" of God get the genealogy of Jesus incorrect (See Matthew 1:6-16 where it states 26 forefathers up to Prophet David, and Luke 3:23-31 says 41 in number). Or for that matter, give a genealogy to Jesus who had NO father? See II Kings 19:1-37, now read Isaiah 37:1-38. Why is it that the words of these verse are identical? Yet they have been attributed to two different authors, one unknown and the other is Isaiah, who are centuries apart; and yet, the Christians have claimed these books to be inspired by God. I looked up the word Easter in the Nelson Bible dictionary and learned that the word "Easter" (as mentioned in Acts 12:4) is a mistranslation of "pascha," the ordinary Greek word for "Passover." As, you know Passover is a Jewish celebration not a Christian holiday. I think human hands, all to human, had played havoc with the Bible. From the brief points mentioned above, and the fact that Biblical scholars themselves have recognized the human nature and human composition of the Bible (Curt Kuhl, The Old Testament: Its Origin and Composition, PP 47, 51, 52), there should exist in the Christian’s mind some acceptance to the fact that maybe every word of the Bible is not God’s word. As a side note to this subject, let me mention that some Christians believe that the Bible was dictated to Prophet Muhammad (SAW) by a Christian monk, and that is why some of the biblical accounts are in the Quran. After some research, I found that this could not have happened because there were no Arabic Bible in existence in the 6th century of the Christian era when Muhammad (SAW) lived and preached. Therefore, no Arab, not even Prophet Muhammad (SAW) who was absolutely unlettered and unlearned, would have had the opportunity to examine the written text of the Bible in his own language. The Gospels If you read Luke 1:2-3, you will learn, as I did, that Luke (who was not one of the 12 disciples and never met Jesus) said that he himself was not an eyewitness, and the knowledge he gathered was from eyewitnesses, and not as words inspired by God. Incidentally, why does every "Gospel" begin with the introduction According to. Why "according to?" the reason for this is because not a single one of the gospels carries its original author’s autograph! Even the internal evidence of Matthew 9:9 proves that Matthew was not the author of the first Gospel which bears his name: "And as Jesus passed forth thence, He (Jesus) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and He (Jesus) saith unto Him (Matthew), follow me (Jesus). And he (Matthew) arose, and followed Him (Jesus)." Without any stretch of the imagination, one can see that the He’s and the Him’s of the above narration do not refer to Jesus or Matthew as its author, but a third person writing what he saw or heard - a hearsay account and not words inspired by God. It is worth noting, and well known throughout the religious world, that the choice of the present four "gospels" of the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were imposed in the Council of Nicea 325 CE for political purposes under the auspices of the pagan Emperor Constantine, and not by Jesus. Constantine’s mind had not been enlightened either by study or by inspiration. He was a pagan, a tyrant and criminal who murdered his son, his wife and thousands of innocent individuals because of his lust for political power. Constantine ratified other decisions in the Nicene Creed such as the decision to call Christ "the Son of God, only begotten of the father." Literally, hundreds of gospels and religious writings were hidden from the people. Some of those writings were written by Jesus’ disciples, and many of them were eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ actions. The Nicea Council decided to destroy all gospels written in Hebrew, which resulted in the burning of nearly three hundred accounts. If these writings were not more authentic than the four present gospels, they were of equal authenticity. Some of them are still available such as the Gospel of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas which agree with the Quran. The Gospel of Barnabas, until now, is the only eyewitness account of the life and mission of Jesus. Even today, the whole of the Protestant word, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists and other sects and denominations condemn the Roman Catholic version of the Bible because it contains seven "extra" books. The Protestant have bravely expunged seven whole books from their word of God. A few of the outcasts are the Books of Judith, Tobnias, Baruch and Esther. Concerning Jesus’ teachings of the Gospel (Injeel), the Gospel writers frequently mentioned Jesus preaching the Gospel: Matthew 9:35, Mark 8:35, and Luke 20:1. The word "gospel" is recurrently used in the Bible. However, in the New Testament Greek edition the word Evangeline is used in place of the word gospel, which is translated to mean good news. My question was: what Gospel did Jesus preach? Of the 27 books of the New Testament, only a small fraction can be accepted as the words of Jesus, and only of the 27 books are known to be attributed as the Gospel of Jesus. The remaining 23 were supposedly written by Paul. Muslims do believe that Jesus was given God’s "Good News." However, they do not recognized the present four Gospels as the utterances of Jesus. The earliest Gospel is that of Mark’s which was written about 60-75 AD. Mark was the son of Barnabas’s sister. Matthew was a tax collector, a minor official who did not travel around with Jesus. Luke’s Gospel was written much later, and in fact, drawn from the same sources as Mark’s and Matthew’s. Luke was Paul’s physician, and like Paul, never met Jesus. By the way, did you know that the names Marks and Luke were not included in the 12 appointed disciples of Jesus as mentioned in Matthew 10:2-4? Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; the first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. John’s Gospel is from a different source, and was written in about 100 AD. He (John) should not be confused with John, the disciple, who was beheaded by Agrippa I in the year 44 CE long before this gospel was written. It should be accepted as a reliable account of the life of Jesus, and whether it should be included in the scriptures. Christians, as I once did, boast about the Gospels according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke and according to John. However, if we think about it, there is not a single Gospel according to Jesus himself. According to the preface of the KJV (King James Version) new open Bible study edition, the word "Gospel" was added (see below) to the original titles, "According to John, according to Matthew, according to Luke and according to Mark." The permission to call "According to" writings the Gospel was not given by Jesus nor by any other divine guidance. These writings; Matthew, Luke, Mark and John, were never originally to be the Gospel. Therefore, Mark 1:1 can not be a true statement that his writing is the gospel of Jesus. It should be mentioned that Muslims must believe in all Divine scriptures in their original form, their Prophets and making no distinction between them: The Suhuf (Abraham); Torah (Moses); Psalms (David); Gospel - or the Injeel (Jesus); and the Quran (Muhammad). It is clearly stated in the Quran 3:3 that Allah sent down the Torah and the Gospel. However, none of these scriptures remains in its original form now, except the Quran, which was sent for all mankind everywhere and for all times. In addition to other reasons why the Quran was sent to mankind, as mentioned in 18:4-5 it was sent to warn the Christians of a terrible punishment from God if they cease not in saying: "Allah has begotten a son." Muslims sincerely believe that everything Jesus (May the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) preached was from God; the Gospel (Injeel): The "good news" and the guidance of God for the Children of Israel. There is no place mentioned in the present four Gospels that Jesus wrote a single word of his Gospel, nor is it mentioned that Jesus instructed anyone to do so. What passes off, as the "Gospels" today are the works of third party human hands. The Quran 2:79 says: "And woe to those who write the book with their own hands and they say: "This is from Allah (God)." To traffic with it for a miserable price! So woe to them for what their hands do write, and woe to them for what they earn thereby!" Jesus As the Son of God Is Jesus the Son of God? Matthew 3:17 could be used by some Christians to support the divine Sonship of Jesus. If Matthew 3:17, "And Lo a voice for heaven, saying, this is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased," is used to support divine Sonship, then there should be no other verse that contradicts or gives equal divine Sonship to another person or persons in the Old or New Testament. However, many references were found in the Old and New Testaments that mentioned someone other than Jesus as having a divine Sonship to God. See Exodus 4:22: "Israel is my son, even my firstborn." II Samuel 7:14 and I Chronicles 22:10: "...and he shall be my son (Solomon)." Jeremiah 31:9: "...and Ephraim is my firstborn." Also, Psalm 2:7. The word "Son" must not be accepted literally because God addresses many of his chosen servants as son and sons. The Jews have also claimed Ezra to be the Son of God. The New Testament Greek words used for "son" (pias and paida, which mean servant or son in the sense of servant) are translated as son in reference to Jesus and as servant in reference to others in some translations of the Bible. Further, the term "Father" as used by Jesus corresponds more closely to the term Rabb, i.e. One who nourishes and sustains, so that in Jesus’ doctrine, God is "Father" – Nourisher and Sustainer – of all men. The New Testament also interprets "son of God" to be mystical: "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." (Romans 8:14). This mystical suggestion is further supported with Jesus being called the only begotten Son of God. In Psalm 2:7, the Lord said to David: "...Thou art my son: this day have I begotten thee." Does this mean that God had two sons? Jesus also said that God is not only his Father but also your Father (Matthew 5:45, 48). Luke 3:38 says: "...Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the Son of God." Who is mentioned in Hebrews 7:3 as like unto the Son of God? It is Melchisedec, King of Salem, as mentioned in Hebrews 7:1. He (Melchisedec) is more unique than Jesus or Adam. Why is he not preferred to be the Son of God? Moreover, Adam did not have a mother or father, but was the first human being created by God and in the likeness of God to exist in the Garden of Eden and on earth. Wouldn’t this give more rights to Adam to be called the Son of God in its truest meaning? I would like to share with you an obvious contradiction between John 3:16, Luke 10:25-28 and Matthew 19:16-17. John 3:16 reads: "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." Now let’s read Luke 10:25-28: And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, what is written in the law? How readest Thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and Thou shalt live. These verses tell us that the inheritance of eternal life is for anyone who believes and worships no other God, but the One True God. Luke 10:25-28 agrees with Matthew 19:16-17 which says; "And behold, one came and said to him (Jesus), Good teacher, what good things shall I do that I may have eternal life? So he (Jesus) said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? – No one is good but One that is, God. But if you want to enter into eternal life, keep the commandments." There is no commandment that says to worship Jesus, but there that tells us to worship God alone. In Luke 4:41, Jesus refused to be called the Son of God by demons. Do you think that Jesus would rebuke the demons, or anyone else for that matter, for telling the truth? Unquestionably, no! Jesus rebuked the demons because they were saying something false by calling him the Son of God. Also, if the demons knew that Jesus was the Christ, for Jesus to shut them up because they called him the Christ is a contradiction to Jesus’ mission. In Luke 9:20 & 21, Jesus said unto his disciples: "But who say ye that I am? Peter answered saying, "The Christ of God, and Jesus straightly charged them and commanded them to tell no man that thing." Furthermore, verses like John 3:2, John 6:14, John 7:40, Matthew 21:11, Luke 7:16 and 24:19 confirm that Jesus accepted the title of teacher, Prophet and called himself the son of man in Matthew 8:20, 12:40, 17:9 & 12, 26:24, Luke 9:26, 22:48, 22:69, and 24:7. The most conclusive verse that says Jesus is the son (servant) of man is Mark 14:26 where Jesus is mentioning the Day of Reckoning. Jesus specifically said we would see the son of man, not the Son of God, sitting in the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. The act of begetting is a physical act and such act is against God’s nature. The Qur’an 19:35 says: "It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter He only says to it "Be," and it is." (Maryam 19:35) The teachings of Jesus as the Son of God were not preached by Jesus nor accepted by Jesus, but were taught by Paul as supported in Acts 9:20: "And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God." Did Jesus ever claim to be God or say, "Here am I, your God, worship me"? The answer is no. For there is no single, unequivocal statement in the Bible whereby Jesus himself declares, "I am God, therefore worship me." Virtually all of the more than two thousand verses of the epistles of Paul are his own fabrications to include Romans 9:5 that says, depending upon which Bible you read: "...Christ came, who is overall, the eternally blessed God." Christians should know that Paul himself mentions his own gospel, not Jesus, in his epistle to the Romans when he says in Romans 2:16: "In the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel." In face, the Pauline epistle to the Romans serves as the foundation of today’s Christianity. Thus, it is the Christians whose efforts will be wasted in this life as they think they were acquiring good by their works when they attribute partners to God, as stated in Chapter 18:103-106 of the Qur’an: "Say: Shall we tell you of those who lost most in respect of their deeds? Those whose efforts have been wasted in this life, while they thought that they were acquiring good by their works?" they are those who deny the Signs of their Lord and the fact of their having to meet Him (in the Hereafter): vain will be their works, nor shall We, on the Day of judgment, give them any weight. That is their reward, Hell; because they rejected Faith, and took My Signs and My Messengers by way of jest. (Al-Kahf 18:103-106) Indeed, it is so strange and ironic, knowing that none of Paul’s epistle to the Romans, more than 430 verses, were ever formulated by Jesus. Paul should have made direct reference to the pristine teachings of Jesus, if only the former claim for apostleship by divine inspiration was indeed true. Instead, large parts of his epistles’ Biblical quotations (notably those in the Epistle to the Romans) were taken from the Old Testament – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Ezekiel and Hosea. His epistles were, indeed a product of tedious efforts, but that does not make Paul far better than any of the other men who authored the Bible, nor does it make him a Prophet. Other practices that were adopted under Paul included the following: the Roman sun-day as the Christian Sabbath; the traditional birthday of the Sun-god as the birthday of Jesus; the emblem of the sun-god (the cross of light) to be the emblem of Christians; and, the incorporation of all the ceremonies which were performed at the Sun-god’s birthday celebrations. As I come to a close concerning the position of Christ, I would like to ask my Christian reader bow down and pray earnestly to God and ask Him to invoke His curse on you, your wife, your sons, and your daughters if what you believe about Christ (Christ is God, Son of God or part of a trinity of God) are false. Likewise, I have learned that if you asked a Muslim to earnestly pray to God to invoke His curse on him, his wife, his sons, and his daughters if what he is saying about Christ (Prophet, Messenger of God, A Word from God) are false, the Muslims are firm in their faith knowing that Christ is not God, nor the Son of God and nor part of a trinity of God. This exercise of asking God to invoke His curse on you and your family may sound a bit cruel, but it would prove two points: (1) you would know that you are on the wrong path; and, (2) it would put you on the right path. The Crucifixion and Atonement A very significant event in the Christian doctrine is the Crucifixion of Jesus. Before talking about the many controversies surrounding the Crucifixion, it should be mentioned that it was a gospel of Paul’s which professed the Crucifixion/Resurrection of Jesus (II Timothy 2:8): "Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel." In addition, the gospel of the resurrection in Mark 16:9-20 was already removed from the text by gospel writers in the 1952 edition of the Revised Standard Version and then, for some reasons, restored in the 1971 edition. In many Bibles, if not removed, it is printed in small print or between two brackets and with commentary (See the Revised Standard Version, New American Bible and New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures). The traditional biblical account of Jesus’ Crucifixion is that he was arrested and crucified by the orders and plans of the chief priest and Jewish elders. This account was denied in the 1960’s by the highest Catholic Christian authority, the Pope. He issued a statement in which he said the Jews had nothing to do with Jesus’ Crucifixion. Did any one of the disciples or the writers of the Gospel see the Crucifixion or the Resurrection? No! In Mark 14:50, it says the disciples forsook Jesus and fled. Even Peter forsook Jesus after the •••• crowed three times as Jesus foretold: (Matthew 26:75) And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the •••• crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly. The most likely persons whom may have witnessed this moment in Jesus’ life were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, the mother of Zebedee’s children and other women (Matthew 27:55-56). However, there is no statement or account in the Gospels from those women as to what they saw or heard. The disciple(s) found the sepulchre where Jesus was laid down, empty, and made the conclusion that he was resurrected because the disciples and other witnesses saw him alive after the alleged Crucifixion. Nobody saw the moment he was resurrected. Jesus himself stated that he did not die on the cross in Luke 24:36-41, as explained in the following paragraphs. Early Sunday morning, Mary Magdalene went to the sepulchre, which was empty. She saw somebody standing who looked like a gardener. She recognized him after a conversation to be Jesus and wanted to touch him. Jesus said (John 20:17): "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father..." Now read Luke 24:36-41: "And as they (disciples) thus spoke, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are you troubled? And why so thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me end see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of boiled fish and of a honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them." Does a spiritual or dead body have a need to eat food? Jesus eating of food was to prove to the disciples that he was not a spirit, but rather, he was still alive and not dead. Jesus being alive and not dead is further supported in his own prophecy (Matthew 12:40): "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Did Jesus fulfill this miracle? Christians would say "yes," because Jesus died and rose three days later according to Luke 24:36 and Matthew 20:19, to name a few verses. However, in line with the miracle of Jonah and according to the Bible, Jesus only spent one day and two nights in the sepulchre, and not three days and three nights as he prophesied. Jesus was put in the sepulchre just before sunset on Friday (Good Friday) and was found missing before sunrise on Sunday (Easter). If we were to s-t-r-e-t-c-h the time frame a bit, one may say that Jesus spent three days in the earth, but there is no way and I repeat, no way, that Jesus spent three nights in the earth. We must not forget that the Gospels are explicit in telling us that it was "before sunrise" on Sunday morning that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb of Jesus and found it empty. Consequently, there are some inconsistencies as to whether Jesus fulfilled his own prophecy. Whether he was actually crucified, or if the day (Good Friday) of his alleged Crucifixion is wrong. Another significant point to mention is that Jonah was alive in the belly of the whale. The Christians says, Jesus was dead in the belly of the earth/tomb, and this contradicts Jesus’ own prophecy. Jesus said (Luke 11:30): "As Jonah was...so shall the Son of man be." If Jonah was alive, so was Jesus. One critical event that took place before the alleged Crucifixion was the prayer of Jesus to God for help. Luke 22:42: "Saying Father if thou be willing, remove this cup (of death) from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine be done." Jesus’ prayer not to die on the cross was accepted by God according to Luke 22:43 and Hebrews 5:7. Therefore, if all of Jesus’ prayer were accepted by God, including not to die on the cross, how could he have died on the cross? In Matthew 27:46, it states that while Jesus was on the cross, he said: "Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani (My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?). If Jesus said these words, it represents a blatant declaration of disbelief according to all theological authorities. This is a great insult as such words could only come from an unbeliever in God. Further, it is incredible that such words should come from a Prophet of God, because God never breaks His promise and His Prophets never complained against His promise, especially when the Prophet’s mission is understood. It could be said that whoever relates that this statement was said by a Prophet (Jesus), is a disbeliever. Muslims believe, as the Qur’an states, Jesus was not crucified. It was the intention of his enemies to put him to death on the cross, but Allah saved him from their plot. Qur’an 4:157: "That they (Jews) said boasting, "We killed Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah, but they (Jews) killed him not, nor crucified him..." (An Nisa 4:157)   zaheer - uddin (Zaheer) Starlite Member Username: Zaheer Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 10:25 am:    The Basis of Islamic Belief Introduction: The Basis of Islamic Belief By Dr. Gary Miller About the Author Gary Miller (Abdul-Ahad Omar) shows how we can establish true faith by setting standards of truth. He illustrates a simple but effective method of finding out the right direction in our search for truth. G.R. Miller is a mathematician and a theologian. He was active in Christian missionary work at a particular point of his life but he soon began to discover many inconsistencies in the Bible. In 1978, he happened to read the Qur'an expecting that it, too, would contain a mixture of truth and falsehood. He discovered to his amazement that the message of the Qur'an was precisely the same as the essence of truth that he had distilled from the Bible. He became a Muslim and since then has been active in giving public presentations on Islam including radio and television appearances. He is also the author of several articles and publications about Islam. Dilemma of Applying Reason Almost all of us have been faced with the questioning of a child by repeating one word over and over. He can be very frustrating to us as he asks 'Why?' If you put a knife beyond his reach, he wants to know, 'Why?' When you explain it is sharp, he asks 'Why?' And so you explain, 'in order to cut fruit,' and he asks, 'Why?' And so it goes. It illustrates the dilemma of applying reason. What we have to do when we apply reason is first to set standards of proof. We decide for ourselves, 'What will be satisfied with if I find such and such and so and so that constitutes for me a final proof?'. We have to decide on that first. What happens though, is that on the really important issues, the philosophical matters, thinkers set standards of proof and they take a look at their subjects and eventually they may arrive at their standards. They may arrive at the point which they say would constitute a proof. But then they ask for a proof of the proof. Setting Standards The key to avoiding an endless dissatisfaction is to satisfy ourselves about standards first; to satisfy ourselves that such and such are a list of criteria that constitute proof, satisfying proof, and then we test the subjects that we examine. In particular I will apply this to the Qur'an. Ask a thoughtful Christian why he is a Christian, and he will usually reply, 'The miracle of the Resurrection.' The basis for his belief being that about two thousand years ago a man died and he was raised from the dead. That is his miracle, his 'touchstone', because all else depends on that. Ask a Muslim, 'Well, what is your miracle? Why are you a Muslim? Where is your miracle?' and the Muslim can go over and take his miracle off the shelf and hand it over to you because his miracle is still with us today. It is the Qur'an; it is his 'touchstone'. Sign of God While all the prophets have their signs, Moses had the competition with the magicians and the Pharaoh, Jesus healed the sick and raised the dead and so on, one Sign was given to the last of the prophets. According to the Muslims, this is the Qur'an. And this one Sign is still with us. Does not that after all seem fair, that if prophethood is to end that the last prophet should bring something that stays with us so that, in fact, a Muslim who takes his religion seriously suffers no disadvantage to Muslims who lived fourteen centuries ago? Those people who kept company with the Prophet had access to no more of the necessary information than we have today. They had the Qur'an. That was the sign for them. It is still a sign to us today, the same miracle. Well, let us test the Qur'an. Suppose that if I say to a man, 'I know your father.' Probably he is going to examine the situation and see if it seems likely that I have met his father. If he is not convinced, he will start asking me questions like: 'You know my father, you say, is he a tall man? Does he have curly hair? Does he wear glasses?,' and so on. If 1 keep giving him the right answers to all these questions, pretty soon he is going to be convinced. 'Well, I guess this man did meet my father like he said.' You see the method. The Big Bang Theory Here in the Qur'an we have a book which claims that its author is one who was present at the beginning of the universe, at the beginning of life. So, we have a right to address that author and say, 'Well, tell me something prove to me that you were there when the world began, when life began.' The Qur'an gives us an interesting statement. It reads: Have not the disbelievers seen that the Heavens and the Earth were one piece and we parted them? And We made every living thing from water. Will they not then believe? (21:30). There are three key points here. First of all, it is the disbelievers who are mentioned as being those who would see that the heavens and the earth were one piece and then parted and would see that all life came to be made from water. As it happens, the universally accepted theory of the origin of the universe is now the Big Bang theory. It maintains that at one time all of the heavens and the earth were one piece, the monoblock as it is called. At a particular point in time, this 'monoblock' burst and it continues to expand. This gives us the universe we have today. This was a recent discovery, a recent comfirmation. The Nobel prize in Physics was awarded only a few years ago to those who confirmed the Big Bang origin of the universe. It was only about two hundred years ago that Leeuwenhoek and others perfected the microscope and discovered for the first time that living cells are composed of about eighty percent water. Those Nobel prize winners and the Dutchman who invented the microscope were not Muslims. And yet they confirmed the vital statement that at one time the universe was one piece, that life was made from water, just as this verse says: 'Have not the disbelievers seen that the heavens and the earth were one piece and We parted them? And We made every living thing from water. Will They not then believe?' (21:30). Well, ths sounds like an answer to the question we started with when we ask the author. 'Tell me something that shows me you were present when the universe began, when life began?' Taking a Stand Everyone must be committed to something. You have to put your foot down some place. It is impossible to be neutral at all times. There has to be a point of reference in the life of any thinking individual. You have to take a stand somewhere. The question, of course, is to put your foot down in the right place. Since there is no such thing as a proof of a proof of a proof and so on, in order to find the right place to put one's foot down, to take a stand, we have to search and find that place and it is by a method that I hope to illustrate here. It is a question of finding a point of convergence. You see, we search for truth in many places and we begin to know that we are succeeding in finding the truth if all our different paths start to converge; they start to come together at the same point. If we are examining a book, looking for evidence of divine origin, and we are led to Islam, this is one path. If at the same time, we are examining the words of all those who were called prophets and we find ourselves led to Islam, we have a firmly grounded basis for belief We started looking for truth in two different places and found ourselves going down the path headed for the same destination. No one ever proves all things. We have to stop at some point being satisfied with our standards as I have mentioned earlier. The point is, in order to take a stand and to be sure it is in the right place, we want to examine all the evidence around us and see where does it lead us and anticipate this point of convergence; to say it looks like all things are pointing to this place. We go to that place and then look at the data around us to see if it fits into place. Does it now make sense? Are we standing is on right place? The Expanding Heavens Let me first show more of our examination of the Qur'an, and then an examination of some words of prophets to find this point of convergence. In chapter fifty one, verse forty seven, it is mentioned that the heavens are expanding. As I mentioned earlier, this is in connection with the 'Big Bang' origin of the universe, as it is usually called, and it was in 1973 that the Nobel prize was awarded to three men who were confirming that, after all, the universe is expanding. The comments of Muslims over the centuries on this verse which speaks of the heavens doing exactly that is very interesting. The wisest among them had stated that the words are very dear, that the heavens are expanding, but they could not imagine how that could be so. But they were content to leave the words as they were, to say: 'Allah knows best.' The City of Iram The Qur'an mentions a city by the name of Iram (89:7). The city of Iram has been unknown to history, so unknown that even some Muslim commentators, out of embarrassment or feeling apologetic for their religion, have commented on this mention of the city in the Qur'an as being perhaps figurative, that Iram was possibly a man and not a city. In 1973 the excavation in Syria at the site of the ancient city of Eblus uncovered the largest collection of cuneiform writings on clay tablets ever assembled. In fact, the library discovered in Eblus contains more day tablets that are more than four thousand years old than all the other tablets combined from all the other sites. Interestingly enough, you will find the details in the National Geographic of December 1978 (pp.730- , esp. p.736) which confirms that in those tablets the city of Iram is mentioned. The people of Eblus used to do business with the people of Iram. So here in 1973, comes confirmation of the fact that, after all, there really was an ancient city by that name, wherever it was. How did it find its way into the Qur'an, we might ask? Those Muslims who may have offered their comments, trying to explain away this reference that they were uncomfortable with, were outsmarted by the author of the Qur'an. They are those who would outsmart the author of the Qur'an They would attempt it. Primarily, their activity would involve trying to produce the evidence that the author of this book had a primitive understanding of the world around us. The Smallest Matter For example, there is a word which is translated today usually in Arabic as zarrah. This is usually translated as 'atom' and it is usually thought of in Arabic as being the smallest item available at one time. Perhaps the Arabs thought it was an ant or a grain of dust. Today the word is usually translated as 'atom'. Those who would outsmart the author of the Qur'an have insisted that, well, the atom is not after all the smallest piece of matter because in this century it has been discovered that even the atom is made of still smaller pieces of matter. Is it then possible to outsmart the author who chose to use this word? Well, there is an interesting verse, in chapter ten, verse sixty one, which speaks of items the size of a zarrah, (atom) or smaller. There is no possibility that on this subject someone is going to say a new discovery has outdated the words of the Qur'an on the issue of the size of matter or the ultimate particles. The verse talks about items the size of a zarrah (atom) or smaller. Forgiveness Speaking of outsmarting the author of the Qur'an, the Islamic point of view is that when a man embraces Islam, his past is forgiven from the very beginning. This has been the invitation to Islam: come to Islam and all is forgiven from the past. But consider this. There is only one enemy of Muhammad, peace be upon him, who is mentioned by name in the Qur'an: one Abu Lahab. In a short chapter of this book, he is condemned to punishment for his sins. As it happens, the man himself was alive for many years after this revelation. He could therefore have finished Islam very easily. He needed only to go to the Muslims to announce his conversion. They had in their hands the revelation which said that this man is doomed to punishment. He could have gone to the Muslims and say- 'I accept Islam, am I forgiven or not?' He could have confused them so much as to finish this small movement because he would have been pointing out to them that they were now in confusion. The policy was instant forgiveness of the past but their own revealed scripture announced that he was not forgiven. As it was, Abu Lahab died without accepting Islam. Predictions In fact, the Qur'an confidently predicted a number of things only a few years before they came to pass. The fall of the Persian empire, for example, was predicted in spite of the fact that it had just suffered a serious military reverse. The evidence was all to the contrary. But in the chapter entitled Rom, the fall of the Persian empire who were recently victors over the Romans was predicted. When all the Muslims in the world could meet in one room, the revelations were already discussing their future successes. In confidence, they were planning for the day when they would be in charge of the city where they were forced at that time to hide for their very lives. Evidence of Divine Origin Some people may like to find any number of things in the Qur'an. But an honest method in examining this book, looking for evidence of the Divine origin, is to take things at their value, to look for things that are dear and to look in those places where we are invited to look. Remember the passage that I quoted earlier 'Have not the disbelievers seen...' This a common phrase of the Qur.an: '0 Man, Have you not seen.' The invitation is to examine the evidence in these places. We are doing the sensible thing if we examine the words used to look for the doubted meaning and to find evidence of the Divine origin. Each one of us is an expert on something. One does not have to have a degree in a particular subject to decide that now, 'I can take my expertise to the Qur'an and see what I can find.' We all know something for sure from our own experience and life. I heard a story, several years ago in Toronto, of a man who was given the Qur'an to read. The man was a member of the merchant marines who spent his life on the sea. When he read a verse in the Qur'an describing the waves on the ocean, 'waves within waves and the darkness between,' he was surprised because the description was just what he knew the situation to be. When he returned the Qur'an to the man who gave it to him to read, he asked him (because he was completely ignorant of the origins of Islam): 'This Muhammad, was he a sailor?' Well, of course, he was quite surprised to know that the man spent his life in the desert. So he had to ask himself. 'From where did he get this knowledge of what looks like on a stormy sea?' We all know something that we can be confident of, and if we can turn to the Qur'an to read what it says about this subject, we are asking for confirmation of our belief in the Divine origin of the book. The Two Phenomena A friend of mine from the University of Toronto, had the experience of dealing with a man who was doing his doctorate in psychology. He chose as his subject: 'The Efficiency of Group Discussion'. He suggested a number of criteria as to what constitutes an efficient discussion. He graphed the process; that is, he achieved a measure of the efficiency of all groups in their discussions according to an index by his system. On his graph he indicated the progress made by the discussion groups of various sizes. The interesting thing that happened which he did not expect to find when he began his project was that, while there were some differences between the size of any given group and how well they did in discussions, he was surprised to find that groups of two were completely off his scale. In other words, when two people sit down to discuss something, they were so much more efficient than any other size of group that it went completely off his scale of measurement. When my friend heard about this, something went on at the back of his mind. My friend, being a Muslim, thought there was something familiar here about this idea. The psychology researcher was not a Muslim. He was debating with himself on changing the topic of his thesis. Should he call it 'Ihe Phenomenon of Two' or 'The Two Phenomena'? He was so surprised at his discovery. Meanwhile, my friend found that there is a verse in the Qur'an, and he found it for himself on the same night, which speaks on discussions and the size of groups and how efficient they are. And maybe we should not be surprised to find that it is the groups that are two in numbers that do the best in achieving results. The verse in the Qur'an reads, concerning discussion groups, that when discussing the Qur'an one should sit alone and reflect on its meaning or discuss it in groups of two. Use and Mention of Words For myself, as I said everyone knows something for sure or has an interest and experience in life; my interest is in mathematics and logic. There is a verse in the Qur'an which says: 'This a scripture whose verses are perfected and then expounded.' (11:1) Which tells me that there are no wasted words in the Qur'an; that each verse is perfected and then it is explained. It could not be in a better form. One could not use fewer words to say the same thing or if one uses more words one would only be adding superfluous information. This directed my attention to a particular mathematical subject, a logical subject, and I examined the Quran to see if I could find something of what I knew to be the case. A revolution in logic has occurred in the last one hundred years, primarily over the difference between use and mention of words. A structure of logic seemed to be in danger of collapsing about a hundred years ago because it came to the attention of the people who studied these matters that the structure was not quite sound. The issue involved 'self-reference' and the use and the mention of words which I will explain briefly. Aristotle's law of the 'excluded middle' was the statement that every statement is either true or false. About a hundred years ago, somebody pointed out that the law of the excluded middle is a statement and is therefore not a law after all. It could just as well be false as well as true. This was a tangled knot for the logicians to untie until they came to understand the difference between the use and the mention of a word. When we use a word, we consider its meaning. When we mention a word we are discussing the word itself. If I say Toronto is a large city, I mean Toronto, that place, is a large city. If I say Toronto has seven letters, I am talking about the word 'Toronto'. In the first case I used the word and in the second I mentioned the word. You see the distinction. Jesus and Adam Connecting these ideas and the idea that the Qur'an is composed of verses that are perfected and then expounded for us, consider the verse which says: 'The likeness of Jesus before Allah is as the likeness of Adam.' (3:59) It is very clear that what we have in this statement is an equation. This verse goes on to explain how that is true because they both came under unusual circumstances rather than having a mother and a father in the usual human reproductive way. But more than that, 1 got to considering the use of the mention of words. The words are used clearly enough. Jesus is like Adam and by Jesus and Adam, we mean those two men. But what about the mention of the words? Was the author aware of the fact that if we were considering the words as words in themselves, this sentence also reads that 'Jesus' is somehow like 'Adam'. Well, they are not spelt with the same letters; how can they be alike in this revelation? The only answer came to me fairly quickly and I took a look at the index of the Qur'an. The index of the Qur'an has been made available only since 1945. This book was the result of years of work by a man and his students who assembled a book which lists every word in the Qur'an and where it can be found. So, when we look up the word Isa (Jesus), we find it in the Qur'an twenty-five times. When we look up Adam, we find it in the Qur'an twenty-five times. The point is that they are very much alike in this book. They are equated. So, following up on this idea, I continued to examine the index looking for every case where something was set up as an equation, where the likeness of something was said to be the likeness of some other thing. And in every case, it works. You have for example a verse which reads: 'The likeness of those who reject our signs is as the likeness of the dog.' (7:176) Well, the phrase in Arabic for 'the people who reject our signs' could be found in the Qur'an exactly five times. And so is the Arabic word for 'the dog' (al-kalb). And there are several instances of exactly the same occurrence. It was some months after I found this for myself that a friend of mine, who is continuing this investigation with me, made a suggestion that there are also some places in the Qur'an where one thing is said to be not like another thing. As soon as he mentioned this up to me, we both went for the index and had a quick look at several places where one thing is said to be not like another thing and counted their occurrence in the Qur an. We were surprised and maybe should not have been to find that, after all, they do not match up. But an interesting thing does happen. For example, the Qur'an makes it very clear in the verse that trade is not like interest. The two words will be found six times for one and seven for the other. And so it is in every other case. When one thing is said to be not like another, they occur for a difference of one time. It would be five of one and four of the other, or seven of one and eight of another. Good and Evil There is one interesting verse which, I felt, spoke directly to me from right off the page. It mentions two words in Arabic, al-khabeeth (the evil), and al-taib (the good). The verse reads: 'Say, the evil and the good are not comparable, even though the abundance of evil will surprise you. So be mindful of your duty to Allah, 0 Man of understanding, that you may succeed.' (5:100) Well, I had a look at those two words in Arabic, the evil and the good, and found it in the Qur'an that they both occur seven times. Yet the verse here is saying that they are not comparable. I should not expect to find that they occur the same number of times. But what does the rest of this verse say? 'The evil and the good are not comparable. The abundance of the evil will surprise you' and it did for there were too many of them. But it continues: 'So be mindful of your duty to Allah, 0 Man of understanding, that you may succeed.' So press on. Use your understanding and you will succeed. That is what the verse said to me. Well, I found the answer in one verse further on where it reads: 'Allah separates the evil from the good. The evil He piles one on top of the other, heaping them all together.' (8:37) Here is the solution to the difficulty. While we have seven occurrences of al-khabeeth (the evil) which matches up with the occurrences of al-taib (the good), according to the principle of this verse, evil is separated from good and is piled one on top of the other and heaped all together. We do not count them as seven separate instances. Occurrence of Words A favourite difficulty, or supposed difficulty, which critics like to cite or have cited in the past years concerning the Qur'an is that, apparently to their thinking, the author of this book was ignorant because he advised the Muslims to follow the lunar year instead of the solar year. The critics say the author was unaware of the difference in the length of years, that if one follows twelve lunar months one loses eleven days every year. The author of the Qur'an was well aware of the distinction between the length of the solar year and the lunar year. In chapter eighteen, verse twenty-five it mentions three-hundred years and gives their equivalent as three-hundred and nine years. As it happens, three-hundred solar years is equal to three-hundred and nine lunar years. Let us go back to my original scheme of the occurrence of words in the Qur'an. The Arabic word for 'month', shahar, will be found twelve times in the Qur'an. There are twelve months in a year. If we find twelve months, how many days should we expect to find? The word in Arabic is yaum, and as it happens you will find that the word occurs three-hundred and sixty-five times in the Qur'an. As a matter of fact, the original issue which had me interested in looking up the occurrence of months and days was this distinction between the solar year and the lunar year. Well, for twenty-five centuries it has been known that the relative positions of the sun, moon and earth coincide every nineteen years. This was discovered by a Greek by the name of Meton, and it is called the Metoniccycle. Knowing this, I looked again to the index for the word 'year', sanah, and found, sure enough, that it occurs, in the Qur'an nineteen times. Perfect Balance of Words Now, what is the point of this perfect balance of words? For myself, it shows the author was well aware of the distinction between using words and mentioning words, a fine logical point. But more than that, it indicates the preservation of this book. After giving a lecture on the subject of the Qur'an, I touched on some of these subjects and a questionnaire from the audience afterwards said: 'How do we know we still have the original Qur'an. Maybe pieces of it have been lost or extra parts been added?' I pointed out to him that we had pretty well covered that point because since these items, the perfect balance of words in the Qur'an, have come to light only in this generation, anybody who would have lost the portion of the book, hidden some of it or added some of their own would have been unaware of this carefully hidden code in the book. They would have destroyed this perfect balance. It is interesting to note too that, well, such a thing might be possible to organise today by the use of a computer to coordinate all words so that whatever thought you might have as to a meaning of a sentence or however you might construe an equation out of a sentence, you could check for yourself and the book will always have the balance of words. If that were possible today, if it were possible fourteen centuries ago, why would it be done and then left hidden and never drawn to the attention of those who first saw this book? Why it would be left with the hope of the author who contrive this, that maybe in many centuries someone will discover it and have a nice surprise? It is a scheme that does not make sense. Best Explanation We are told in the Quran that no questionnaire will come to the Muslims with the question for which a good answer has not been provided, and the best explanation for whatever his question. This verse says: 'For everything they say we are given something to go back to them and reply.' (25:33) We looked again to the index of the Qur'an and we found that the word, qalu (they say), is found three-hundred and thirty-two times. Now, what would be the natural counterpart? The Arabic word, qul, which is the command 'say' and you will find at the index it also occurs three-hundred and thirty-two times. Origin of the Qur'an An interesting feature of the Qur'an is that it replies to its critics as to its origin. That is, no one has yet come up with a suggestion as to where this book came from which is not commented on within the book itself. In fact, the new Catholic Encyclopedia, under the heading Quran, mentions that over the centuries there had been many theories as to where this book came from. Their conclusion: today, no sensible person believes any of these theories. This leaves the Christians in some difficulty. You see, all the theories suggested so far, according to this encyclopedia, are not really acceptable to anyone sensible today. They are too fantastic. Where did the book come from? Those who have not really examined the Qur'an usually dismissed it as being, as they say, a collection of proverbs or aphorisms, sayings that one man used to announce from time to time. They imagined that there was a man who, from time to time during the day, will think of some witty little sayings and spit it out and those around him will quickly write it down and eventually these were all collected and became the Qur'an. Those who read the Qur'an will find that it is not anything like that at all. The collection of things said by the Prophet is the subject and the content of the Hadith. But the subjects and contents of the Qur'an are all in a form of a composition and explanation. I cite as an example the chapter, Yusuf, which is an entire story in great detail about one particular episode or one portion of the life of one man. It is a composition. It is for this reason that virtually all those who have actually examined the Qur'an usually refer to it as being the product of the authorship as attributed to Muhammad and his 'co-adjudicators'. These were supposed to be people who would sit, with him and composed the Qur'an. You see, they imagined that the Qur'an was composed by a committee. They acknowledged that there was too much information and it was too well composed for one man to have assembled. So, they imagined that a committee of men used to meet regularly, brought their various sources of information, composed something and then handed to this man and told him, 'Go to the people tomorrow, this is your revelation.' In other words, it was a fraud concocted by a group of people. But what do we know about fraud? The Qur'an reminds us as it says: 'Say, now the truth has come, and falsehood neither invents anything nor restores anything.' (34:49). It is hard to translate it into English precisely, but what this verse is telling us is that falsehood is not the source of a new thing. A new and truthful thing cannot come from falsehood and falsehood does not restore, to our minds, the facts. Truth is in agreement with facts. Falsehood is something else. So, falsehood is empty. If something is born in fraud, it will never bring us new information. It will never endure; it will only collapse over a period of time. Challenge Another interesting verse is a challenge which is addressed to those non-believers. It reads: 'Have they not considered the Qur'an, if it came, other than Allah, surely they will find in it many inconsistencies.' (4:82) Here is a challenge to the reader. If you think you have an explanation where this book came from, have another look at the book. Surely you will be able to uncover some inconsistencies to support your case. Imagine a student submitting a term paper or a final exam and then writing at the bottom of the page a note to his teacher 'You will find no mistakes in this paper. There are no mistakes on this exam.' Can you imagine the teacher letting that rest? The teacher would probably not sleep until uncovering some inconsistency after a challenge like that. It is not the way human beings speak. They do not offer challenges like that. But here we have it in the Qur'an, a direct challenge saying. 'If you have a better idea as to where this book came from, here's all you need to do. Find some inconsistencies.' There are critics who make the attempt, critics who try to say the Qur'an contains inconsistencies. A publication that came to my attention recently suggested that the Quran was contradictory on the subject of marriage, because in one place, it says: 'Don't marry more than one wife unless you can provide for them all,' and in another place it says: 'Don't marry more than four.' They see this as a contradiction. What they have is a counter-distinction. In one case, the qualification for marrying more than one has been given. In the other case, a limitation on how many may be married is given. There is no contradiction. Critics are too quick to grab hold of something, give it an interpretation, and then offer it as an excuse to escape the reality of this document. For critics who would attack the Qur'an and insist it contains mistakes, we can use the same method as in our reply to Christians who claim that Jesus is on record as claiming to be equal to God. Remember the three categories of evidence offered. The evidence offered was insufficient, ambiguous or impossible. You see, if someone cites a verse from the Qur'an, trying to show that it is a mistake, we only need to show that the verse cited is insufficient to establish that there is a mistake or we need to show that the verse cited has other meanings than the one given by the critic or we can demonstrate that the verse cited cannot possibly have the interpretation which the critic is giving it. It will always fall into one of these three categories. Attributing to the Devil I had the experience, on one occasion, describing some of the contents in the Qur'an to a man who did not know the book I was talking about. He sat next to me, with the cover turned over. I just told him about the book, what it contained and told him it was not the Bible. His conclusion was, the book was miraculous. This man was a minister in a Christian Church. He said, 'Yes, that book could not possibly have originated with the man and therefore it must come from the devil, because it's not the Bible.' The Qur'an comments on this suggestion in chapter twenty-six, verse two-hundred and elevm as to those who would suggest that the book came from the devil. It points out that it does not quite suit him, does it? Is this how the devil misleads people? He tells them, worship none but God, he insists that they fast, that they practice charity. Is this how the devil misleads people? Compare the attitude of someone like this, to the attitude of the Jews who knew Jesus and opposed him until the very end. There is an episode reported in the Bible where Jesus raised a man from the dead, one Lazarus, who had been dead for four days. When Lazarus came out of the tomb, alive again, those Jews who were watching what did they do? Did they suddenly say that this man is a true prophet and become believers? No, the Bible says they immediately discussed among themselves that 'since this man is working on his signs soon everyone will believe in him. We've got to find a way to kill him,' and they attributed his miraculous powers to the devil. He raised that man by the power of the devil. Now, the Christians who read that episode will feel very sorry for those Jews who had clear evidence right before their very eyes and attributed the miracles to the devil. Does it not appear that they may be doing the same thing when we illustrate what we have in the Qur'an and their final excuse is only. 'It originated with the devil.' A Different Story There are those who insist that the Qur'an was copied, that it originated in Christian and Jewish sources. As a matter of fact, a book published in recent years called Worshipping the Wrong God has stated, as though it were a fact, that after the first revelation of the Qur'an came to Muhammad, peace be upon him, that his wife died and so he quickly married a Jew and a Christian, and this is where he drew the rest of his sources for his book. Well, they have the facts partly right. It was ten years after the first revelation of the Qur'an that his wife died, and it was another ten years after that when the Qur'an was virtually completed that he married a Jew and a Christian. Did he copy from Jewish and Christian sources? In the Qur'an, the ruler of Egypt who opposed Moses is known as Fir'aun, not Pharaoh. The Jews and Christians have always said 'Pharaoh'. It is easy for an Arab to say 'Pharaoh'. But in the Qur'an, it is Fir'aun, with an 'n'. Why? Surely the Jews and the Christians who surrounded the Muslim community must have teased them about that and said: 'You've got the word wrong. It's 'Pharaoh' and not Fir'aun.' But they insisted on it and it continues that way in the Qur'an, Fir'aun. As it happens, the historical writings of Herodotus, the Greek historian, e)dst to this day, and Herodotus conunents on the ruler of Egypt, being in his day and in the centuries before him, one man who went by the title of Fir'aun. Did the book copy from the Christian sources? The Qur'an insists that Jesus was not crucified, that this was only an illusion, but that the Jews who thought they crucified Jesus were mistaken because it was not really so. Christians would have no part of that. As it happens, the idea that Jesus was not really crucified is really very ancient and can be traced back to the first century. But Christians who believed that were eliminated as heretics within the first two-hundred years after the time of Jesus and they were not teachin this doctrine anywhere around the Arabian Peninsula fourteen centuries ago. Could the author of the Qur'an have been copying from Christian sources when he says that Jesus spoke to man as a babe (3:46) and in later life? The Arabic word used indicates that he was still speaking to man and teaching to them in his forties. The Christians have always maintained that Jesus was gone by the time he was thirty-three. It indicates that there could have been no copying. In fad, a man would have to be stubborn and insists on the points as explained in the Qur'an in the face of Christian opposition who would have said: 'No! No! It wasn't like that. We tell the story differently.' House Cleaning Now we go to the words of the prophets themselves, which represent another path that leads to Islam. In the Persian scriptures, which have been around for thousands of years, we read: 'When the Persians should sink so low in morality, a man will be born in Arabia whose followers will upset their throne, religion and everything. The mighty stiff-necked ones will be overpowered. The house which was built and in which many idols have been placed will be purged of idols and people will say their prayers facing towards it. His followers will capture the towns of the Farsi, Entaus and Balkh, and other big places round about. People will embroil with one another. The wise men of Persia and others will join his followers.' (Desature no.14) The Muslims recognise this very quickly because the Ka'abah, the building which all Muslims face in prayers everyday, was at one time filled with idols and it was part of the mission of Muhammad, peace be upon him, to purge the house of idols. They were destroyed and the house sits there cleansed of idols till today. It was in the next generation, after the time of the Prophet that the wise men of Persia and others did join his followers. A Prophet Like Moses In the Bible, in Deuteronomy chapter eighteen, we have the words of Moses who reports that God told him that He would raise up a prophet, from among the brothers of the Israelites, like Moses. Christians wish to apply this to Jesus, to say he was the prophet like Moses. It is uncomfortable for them to recognise, however, that Jesus was not very much like Moses and Jesus had no father, no wife, no children; he did not die of old age, and he did not lead a nation; all these things Moses had or did. But they say, well, Jesus will return; he will return as a victorious person, and so he will be more like Moses. Do they really expect he will return to also acquire a father and a wife and children and then die of old age? Not usually. Moreover, Jesus was an Israelite. The passage of scripture says that this prophet that was foretold would be raised up among the brothers of the Israelites, not from the Israelites. In the third chapter of Acts, the disciple Peter speaks to a crowd of people and explains that Jesus has been taken up and he is in heaven. He will remain in Heaven and he cannot return until all the things that were promised by God come to pass. So what are we still waiting for, does he tell the crowd? He quotes this very saying of Moses, saying. 'For God will raise up a prophet from among the brothers of the Israelites like Moses...' The point is very clear. Christians like to see this prophet as being Jesus. But read carefully Acts chapter three, what it says is that Jesus awaits a return. He cannot return until the fulfilment of this prophecy, that another prophet has to come. Jesus spoke of it himself and the words survived, just barely, but they survived in the Bible. Jesus spoke of God sending another 'Paraclete'. Paraclete There is a lot of argument over the meaning of this word 'Paraclete'. For now we can leave that aside. What is a 'Paraclete'? It does not matter. The first letter of John shows that Jesus was a 'Paraclete'. He is called a 'Paraclete' and we have Jesus promising another 'Paraclete' is going to be sent. We lose a lot by this word 'another' in English because it is ambiguous. If someone's car breaks down, and it is a Toyota, and I say, 'I'II go and get you another car,' maybe I mean, 'I'II go and get you another Toyota because this one you have is broken,' or maybe I mean, 'Forget Toyota, they're no good; I'II go and get you a Datsun.' It is an ambiguous word. But the Greeks had a word for it. When they meant 'another' of the same kind, they said aloes. When they meant another of a different kind, they said heteroes. The important thing here is that, when Jesus, who was himself a Paraclete, said 'God will send you another Paraclete' he used the word aloes, not heteroes. Christians want to say that this other 'Paraclete' that has been sent was different from Jesus. It was not a man, it was a spirit. What Jesus said was: 'God will send you another one like me, another man.' Muslims believe that Muhammad is the fulfilment of this prophecy by Jesus. The Qur'an says that this man is mentioned in the scriptures of the Jews and the Christians (see 7:157). Christians came to expect the return of Jesus because of a Jewish misunderstanding. 'Messiah' and 'Son of Man' have been given special significance by the Jews, even though many people were called by this same name as in the Bible. The Jews came to expect a victorious leader. When Jesus did not turn out to be quite what many expected, they hatched the idea that he would return some day and fulfill all these prophecies. Followers of Jesus Suppose that someone observed Jesus two-thousand years ago, and he left this planet, or he went to sleep for two-thousand years and returned today to look for the followers of Jesus, who would he find? Who would he recognise? Christians? I conclude with just this food for thought: the Bible says very clearly that Jesus used to fast. Do Christians fast? Muslims fast; it is obligatory one month every year. The Bible says that Jesus prayed by touching his forehead to the ground. Do Christians pray in this manner? Muslims do. It is characteristic of their prayer and no one on earth is probably ignorant of that fact. According to Jesus, he told his disciples to greet one another with the expression, 'Peace be with you.' Do the Christians do that? Muslims do, universally, whether they speak Arabic or not. The greeting for one to another is Assalamu'alaikum (peace be with you). The brother of Jesus in the Book of James, stated that no man should suggest what he is about to do or highlight his plans for the next few days in anyway without adding the phrase 'if God wills.' Do not say 'I will go here and there, do this and that' without adding the phrase 'if God wills.' Do Christians do that? Muslims do, whether they speak Arabic or not. If they so much as suggest they are going downtown to pick up some groceries, they will add, Insha-Allah, which in Arabic means, 'If God wills.' These conclude my thoughts on this subject. May Allah guide us always closer to the truth.   zaheer - uddin (Zaheer) Starlite Member Username: Zaheer Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 10:20 am:    The Amazing Quran Calling the Qur'an amazing is not something done only by Muslims, who have an appreciation for the book and who are pleased with it; it has been labeled amazing by non-Muslims as well. In fact, even people who hate Islam very much have still called it amazing. Dr Garry Miller Introduction One thing which surprises non-Muslims who are examining the book very closely is that the Qur'an does not appear to them to be what they expected. What they assume is that they have an old book which came fourteen centuries ago from the Arabian desert; and they expect that the book should look something like that - an old book from the desert. And then they find out that it does not resemble what they expected at all. Additionally, one of the first things that some people assume is that because it is an old book which comes from the desert, it should talk about the desert. Well the Qur'an does talk about the desert - some of its imagery describes the desert; but it also talks about the sea - what it's like to be in a storm on the sea. Merchant Marine Some years ago, the story came to us in Toronto about a man who was in the merchant marine and made his living on the sea. A Muslim gave him a translation of the Qur'an to read. The merchant marine knew nothing about the history of Islam but was interested in reading the Qur'an. When he finished reading it, he brought it back to the Muslim and asked, 'This Muhammad, was he a sailor?' He was impressed at how accurately the Qur'an describes a storm on a sea. When he was told, 'No as a matter of fact, Muhammad lived in the desert,' that was enough for him. He embraced Islam on the spot. He was so impressed with the Qur'an's description because he had been in a storm on the sea, and he knew that whoever had written that description had also been in a storm on the sea. The description of 'a wave, over it a wave, over it clouds' (Surah Nur, 24:40) was not what someone imagining a storm on a sea to be like would have written; rather, it was written by someone who knew what a storm on the sea was like. This is one example of how the Qur'an is not tied to certain place and time. Certainly, the scientific ideas expressed in it also do not seem to originate from the desert fourteen centuries ago. The Smallest Thing Many centuries before the onset of Muhammad's prophethood, there was a well-known theory of atomism advanced by the Greek philosopher, Democritus. He and the people who came after him assumed that matter consists of tiny, indestructible, indivisible particles called atoms. The Arabs too, used to deal in the same concept; in fact, the Arabic word dharrah commonly referred to the smallest particle known to man. Now, modern science has discovered that this smallest unit of matter (i.e., the atom, which has all of the same properties as its element) can be split into its component parts. This is a new idea, a development of the last century; yet; interestingly enough, this information had already been documented in the Qur'an (Surah Saba', 34:3) which states: 'He [i.e., Allah] is aware of an atom's weight in the heavens and on the earth and even anything smaller than that...' Undoubtedly, fourteen centuries ago that statement would have looked unusual, even to an Arab. For him, the dharrah was the smallest thing there was. Indeed, this is proof, that the Qur'an is not outdated. Honey Another example of what one might expect to find in an 'old book' that touches upon the subject of health or medicine is outdated remedies or cures. Various historical sources state that the Prophet (s) gave some advice about health and hygiene, yet most of these pieces of advice are not contained in the Qur'an. At first glance, to the non-Muslims this appears to be a negligent omission. They cannot understand why Allah would not 'include' such helpful information in the Qur'an. Some Muslims attempt to explain this absence with the following argument: 'Although the Prophet's advice was sound and applicable to the time in which he lived, Allah, in His infinite wisdom, knew that there would come later medical and scientific advances which would make the Prophet's advice appear outdated. When later discoveries occurred, people might say that such information contradicted that which the Prophet (s) had given. Thus, since Allah would never allow any opportunity for the non-Muslims to claim that the Qur'an contradicts itself or the teachings of the Prophet (s), He only included in the Qur'an information and examples which could stand the test of time.' However, when one examines the true realities of the Qur'an in terms of its existence as a divine revelation, the entire matter is quickly brought into its proper perspective, and the error in such argumentation becomes clear and understandable. It must be understood that the Qur'an is a divine revelation, and as such, all information in it is of divine origin. Allah revealed the Qur'an from Himself. It is the words of Allah, which existed before creation, and thus nothing can be added, subtracted or altered. In essence, the Qur'an existed and was complete before the creation of Prophet Muhammad (s), so it could not possibly contain any of the Prophet's own words or advice. An inclusion of such information would clearly contradict the purpose for which the Qur'an exists, compromise its authority and render it inauthentic as a divine revelation. Consequently, there was no 'home remedies' in the Qur'an which one could claim to be outdated; nor does it contain any man's view about what is beneficial to health, what food is best to eat, or what will cure this or that disease. In fact, the Qur'an only mentions one item dealing with medical treatment, and it is not in dispute by anyone. It states that in honey there is healing. And certainly, I do not think that there is anyone who will argue with that! Prophet Muhammad (s) and the Qur'an If one assumes that the Qur'an is the product of a man's mind, then one would expect it to reflect some of what was going on in the mind of the man who 'composed' it. In fact, certain encyclopedias and various books claim that the Qur'an was the product of hallucinations that Muhammad underwent. If these claims are true - if it indeed originated from some psychological problems in Muhammad's mind - then evidence of this would be apparent in the Qur'an. Is there such evidence? In order to determine whether or not there is, one must first identify what things would have been going on in his mind at that time and then search for these thoughts and reflections in the Qur'an. It is common knowledge that Muhammad (s) had a very difficult life. All of his daughters died before him except one, and he had a wife of several years who was very dear and important to him, who not only proceeded him in death but died at a very critical period of his life. As a matter of fact, she must have been quite a woman because when the first revelation came to him, he ran home to her, afraid. Certainly, even today one would have a hard time trying to find an Arab who would tell you, 'I was so afraid that I ran home to my wife.' They just aren't that way. Yet Muhammad (s) felt comfortable enough with his wife to be able to do that. That's how influential and strong woman she was. Although these examples are only a few of the subjects that would have been on Muhammad's mind, they are sufficient in intensity to prove my point. The Qur'an does not mention any of these things - not the death of his children, not the death of his beloved companion and wife, not his fear of the initial revelations, which he so beautifully shared with his wife - nothing; yet these topics must have hurt him, bothered him, and caused him pain and grief during periods of his life. Indeed, if the Qur'an was a product of his psychological reflections, then these subjects, as well as others, would be prevalent or at least mentioned throughout. Scientific Approach to the Qur'an A truly scientific approach to the Qur'an is possible because the Qur'an offers something that is not offered by other religious scriptures, in particular, and other religions, in general. It is what scientists demand. Today there are many people who have ideas and theories about how the universe works. These people are all over the place, but the scientific community does not even bother to listen to them. This is because within the last century the scientific community has demanded a test of falsification. They say, 'If you have theory, do not bother us with it unless you bring with that theory a way for us to prove whether you are wrong or not.' Such a test was exactly why the scientific community listened to Einstein towards the beginning of the century. He came with a new theory and said, 'I believe the universe works like this; and here are three ways to prove whether I am wrong!' So the scientific community subjected his theory to the tests, and within six years it passed all three. Of course, this does not prove that he was great, but it proves that he deserved to be listened to because he said, 'This is my idea; and if you want to try to prove me wrong, do this or try that.' This is exactly what the Qur'an has - falsification tests. Some are old (in that they have already been proven true), and some still exist today. Basically it states, 'If this book is not what it claims to be, then all you have to do is this or this or this to prove that it is false.' Of course, in 1400 years no one has been able to do 'This or this or this,' and thus it is still considered true and authentic. Falsification Test I suggest to you that the next time you get into dispute with someone about Islam and he claims that he has the truth and that you are in darkness, you leave all other arguments at first and make this suggestion. Ask him, 'Is there any falsification test in your religion? Is there anything in your religion that would prove you are wrong if I could prove to you that it exists - anything?' Well, I can promise right now that people will not have anything - no test, no proof, nothing! This is because they do not carry around the idea that they should not only present what they believe but should also offer others a chance to prove they're wrong. However, Islam does that. A perfect example of how Islam provides man with a chance to verify it authenticity and 'prove it wrong' occurs in the 4th chapter. And quiet honestly, I was very surprised when I first discovered this challenge. It states (Surah An-Nisa, 4:82): 'Do they not consider the Qur'an? Had it been from any other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.' This is a clear challenge to the non-Muslim. Basically, it invites him to find a mistake. As a matter of fact, the seriousness and difficulty of the challenge aside, the actual presentation of such a challenge in the first place is not even in human nature and is inconsistent with man's personality. One doesn't take an exam in school and after finishing the exam, write a note to the instructor at the end saying, 'This exam is perfect. There are no mistakes in it. Find one if you can!' One just doesn't do that. The teacher would not sleep until he found a mistake! And yet this is the way the Qur'an approaches people. Ask Those Who Have Knowledge Another interesting attitude that exists in the Qur'an repeatedly deals with its advice to the reader. The Qur'an informs the reader about different facts and then gives the advice: 'If you want to know more about this or that, or if you doubt what is said, then you should ask those who have knowledge.' This too is a surprising attitude. It is not usual to have a book that comes from someone without training in geography, botany, biology, etc., who discusses these subjects and then advises the reader to ask men of knowledge if he doubts anything. Yet in every age there have been Muslims who have followed the advice of the Qur'an and made surprising discoveries. If one looks to the works of Muslim scientists of many centuries ago, one will find them full of quotations from the Qur'an. These works state that they did research in such a place, looking for something. And they affirm that the reason they looked in such and such a place was that the Qur'an pointed them in that direction. For example, the Qur'an mentions man's origin and then tells the reader, 'Research it!' It gives the reader a hint where to look and then states that one should find out more about it. This is the kind of thing that Muslims today largely seem to overlook - but not always, as illustrated in the following example. Embryology A few years ago, a group of men in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia collected all of the verses in the Qur'an which discuss embryology - the growth of the human being in the womb. They said, 'Here is what the Qur'an says. Is it the truth?' In essence, they took the advice of the Qur'an: 'Ask the men who know.' They chose, as it happened, a non-Muslim who is a professor of embryology at the University of Toronto. His name is Keith Moore, and he is the author of textbooks on embryology - a world expert on the subject. They invited him to Riyadh and said, 'This is what the Qur'an says about your subject. Is it true? What can you tell us?' While he was in Riyadh, they gave him all the help that he needed in translation and all of the cooperation for which he asked. And he was so surprised at what he found that he changed his textbooks. In fact, in the second edition of one of his books, called Before We Are Born... in the section about the history of embryology, he included some material that was not in the first edition because of what he found in the Qur'an was ahead of its time and that those who believe in the Qur'an know what other people do not know. I had the pleasure of interviewing Dr. Keith Moore for a television presentation, and we talked a great deal about this - it was illustrated by slides and so on. He mentioned that some of the things that the Qur'an states about the growth of the human being were not known until thirty years ago. In fact, he said that one item in particular - the Qur'an's description of the human being as a 'leech-like clot' ('alaqah) at one stage (Surahs al-Hajj 22:5; al-Mu'minun 23:14; and Ghafir 40:67) - was new to him; but when he checked on it, he found that it was true, and so he added it to his book. He said, 'I never thought of that before,' and he went to the zoology department and asked for a picture of a leech. When he found that it looked just like the human embryo, he decided to include both pictures in one of his textbooks. Although the aforementioned example of man researching information contained in the Qur'an deals with a non-Muslim, it is still valid because he is one of those who is knowledgeable in the subject being researched. Had some layman claimed that what the Qur'an says about embryology is true, then one would not necessarily have to accept his word. However, because of the high position, respect, and esteem man gives scholars, one naturally assumes that if they research a subject and arrive at a conclusion based on that research, then the conclusion is valid. Skeptic's Reaction Dr. Moore also wrote a book on clinical embryology, and when he presented this information in Toronto, it caused quite a stir throughout Canada. It was on the front pages of some of the newspapers across Canada, and some of the headlines were quite funny. For instance, one headline read: 'SURPRISING THING FOUND IN ANCIENT PRAYER BOOK!' It seems obvious from this example that people do not clearly understand what it is all about. As a matter of fact, one newspaper reporter asked Professor Moore, 'Don't you think that maybe the Arabs might have known about these things - the description of the embryo, its appearance and how it changes and grows? Maybe they were not scientists, maybe they did some crude dissections on their own - carved up people and examined these things.' The professor immediately pointed out to him that he [i.e., the reporter] had missed a very important point - all of the slides of the embryo that had been shown and that had been projected in the film had come from pictures taken through a microscope. He said, 'It does not matter if someone had tried to discover embryology fourteen centuries ago. They could not have seen it!' All of the descriptions in the Qur'an of the appearance of the embryo are of the item when it is still too small to see with the eye; therefore, one needs a microscope to see it. Since such a device had only been around for little more than two hundred years, Dr. Moore taunted, 'Maybe fourteen centuries ago someone secretly had a microscope and did this research, making no mistakes anywhere. Then he somehow taught Muhammad (s) and convinced him to put this information in his book. Then he destroyed his equipment and kept it a secret forever. Do you believe that? You really should not unless you bring some proof because it is such a ridiculous theory.' In fact, when he was asked, 'How do you explain this information in the Qur'an?' Dr. Moore's reply was, 'It could only have been divinely revealed!' Geology One of Professor Moore's colleagues, Marshall Johnson, deals extensively with geology at the University of Toronto. He became very interested in the fact that the Qur'an's statements about embryology are accurate, and so he asked Muslims to collect everything contained in the Qur'an which deals with his speciality. Again people were very surprised at the findings. Since there are a vast number subjects discussed in the Qur'an, it would certainly require a large amount of time to exhaust each subject. It suffices for the purpose of this discussion to state that the Qur'an makes very clear and concise statements about various subjects while simultaneously advising the reader to verify the authenticity of these statements with research by scholars in those subjects. And as illustrated by the previous examples of embryology and geology, the Qur'an has clearly emerged authentic. [Qur'an and Scientific Knowledge] You Did Not Know This Before! Undoubtedly, there is an attitude in the Qur'an which is not found anywhere else. It is interesting how when the Qur'an provides information, it often tells the reader, 'You did not know this before.' Indeed, there is no scripture that exists which makes that claim. All of the other ancient writings and scriptures that people have do give a lot of information, but they always state where the information came from. For example, when the Bible discusses ancient history, it states that this king lived here, this one fought in a certain battle, another one had so may sons, etc. Yet it always stipulates that if you want more information, then you should read the book of so and so because that is where the information came from. In contrast to this concept, the Qur'an provides the reader with information and states that this information is something new. Of course, there always exists the advice to research the information provided and verify its authenticity. It is interesting that such a concept was never challenged by non-Muslims fourteen centuries ago. Indeed, the Makkans who hated the Muslims, and time and time again they heard such revelations claiming to bring new information; yet, they never spoke up and said, 'This is not new. We know where Muhammad got this information. We learned this at school.' They could never challenge its authenticity because it really was new! In concurrence with the advice given in the Qur'an to research information (even if it is new), when 'Umar was caliph, he chose a group of men and sent them to find the wall of Dhul-Qarnayn. Before the Qur'anic revelation, the Arabs had never heard of such a wall, but because the Qur'an described it, they were able to discover it. As a matter of fact, it is now located in what is called Durbend in the Soviet Union. Proof of Authenticity: An Aproach It must be stressed here that the Qur'an is accurate about many, many things, but accuracy does not necessarily mean that a book is a divine revelation. In fact, accuracy is only one of the criteria for divine revelations. For instance, the telephone book is accurate, but that does not mean that it is divinely revealed. The real problem lies in that one must establish some proof of the source the Qur'an's information. The emphasis is in the other direction, in that the burden of proof is on the reader. One cannot simply deny the Qur'an's authenticity without sufficient proof. If, indeed, one finds a mistake, then he has the right to disqualify it. This is exactly what the Qur'an encourages. Once a man came up to me after a lecture I delivered in South Africa. He was very angry about what I had said, and so he claimed, 'I am going to go home tonight and find a mistake in the Qur'an.' Of course, I said, 'Congratulations. That is the most intelligent thing that you have said.' Certainly, this is the approach Muslims need to take with those who doubt the Qur'an's authenticity, because the Qur'an itself offers the same challenge. And inevitably, after accepting it's challenge and discovering that it is true, these people will come to believe it because they could not disqualify it. In essence, the Qur'an earns their respect because they themselves have had to verify its authenticity. An essential fact that cannot be reiterated enough concerning the authenticity of the Qur'an is that one's inability to explain a phenomenon himself does not require his acceptance of the phenomenon's existence or another person's explanation of it. Specifically, just because one cannot explain something does not mean that one has to accept someone else's explanation. However, the person's refusal of other explanations reverts the burden of proof back on himself to find a feasible answer. This general theory applies to numerous concepts in life, but fits most wonderfully with the Qur'anic challenge, for it creates a difficulty for one who says, 'I do not believe it.' At the onset of refusal one immediately has an obligation to find an explanation himself if he feels others' answers are inadequate. In fact, in one particular Qur'anic verse which I have always seen mistranslated into English, Allah mentions a man who heard the truth explained to him. It states that he was derelict in his duty because after he heard the information, he left without checking the verity of what he had heard. In other words, one is guilty if he hears something and does not research it and check to see whether it is true. One is supposed to process all information and decide what is garbage to be thrown out and what is worthwhile information to be kept and benefitted from immediately or even at a later date. One cannot just let it rattle around in his head. It must be put in the proper categories and approached from that point of view. For example, if the information is still speculatory, then one must discern whether it's closer to being true or false. But if all the facts have been presented, then one must decide absolutely between these two options. And even if one is not positive about the authenticity of the information, he is still required to process all the information and make the admission that he just does not know for sure. Although this last point appears to be futile, in actuality, it is beneficial to the arrival at a positive conclusion at a later time in that it forces the person to at least recognize, research and review the facts. This familiarity with the information will give the person 'the edge' when future discoveries are made and additional information is presented. The important thing is that one deals with the facts and does not simply discard them out of empathy and disinterest. Exhausting the Alternatives The real certainty about the truthfulness of the Qur'an is evident in the confidence which is prevalent throughout it; and this confidence comes from a different approach - 'Exhausting the alternatives.' In essence, the Qur'an states, 'This book is a divine revelation; if you do not believe that, then what is it?' In other words, the reader is challenged to come up with some other explanation. Here is a book made of paper and ink. Where did it come from? It says it is a divine revelation; if it is not, then what is its source? The interesting fact is that no one has yet come up with an explanation that works. In fact, all alternatives have bee exhausted. As has been well established by non-Muslims, these alternatives basically are reduced to two mutually exclusive schools of thought, insisting on one or the other. On one hand, there exists a large group of people who have researched the Qur'an for hundreds of years and who claim, 'One thing we know for sure - that man, Muhammad (s), thought he was a prophet. He was crazy!' They are convinced that Muhammad (s) was fooled somehow. Then on the other hand, there is a group which alleges, 'Because of this evidence, one thing we know for sure is that that man, Muhammad (s) was a liar!' Ironically, these two groups never seem to get together without contradicting. In fact, many references to Islam usually claim both theories. They start out by stating that Muhammad (s) was crazy and then end by saying he was a liar. They never seem to realize that he could not have been both! For example, if one is deluded and really thinks that he is a prophet, then he does not sit up late at night planning, 'How will I fool the people tomorrow so that they think I am a prophet?' He truly believes that he is a prophet, and he trusts that the answer will be given to him by revelation. The Critic's Trail As a matter of fact, a great deal of the Qur'an came in answer to questions. Someone would ask Muhammad (s) a question, and the revelation would come with the answer to it. Certainly, if one is crazy and believes that an angel put words in his ear, then when someone asks him a question, he thinks that the angel will give him the answer. Because he is crazy, he really thinks that. He does not tell someone to wait a short while and then run to his friends and ask them, 'Does anyone know the answer?' This type of behavior is characteristic of one who does not believe that he is a prophet. What the non-Muslims refuse to accept is that you cannot have it both ways. One can be deluded, or he can be a liar. He can br either one or neither one, but he certainly cannot be both! The emphasis is on the fact that they are unquestionably mutually exclusive personality traits. The following scenario is a good example of the kind of circle that non-Muslims go around in constantly. If you ask one of them, 'What is the origin of the Qur'an?' He tells you that it originated from the mind of a man who was crazy. Then you ask him, 'If it came from his head, then where did he get the information contained in it? Certainly the Qur'an mentions many things with which the Arabs were not familiar.' So in order to explain the fact which you bring him, he changes his position and says, 'Well, maybe he was not crazy. Maybe some foreigner brought him the information. So he lied and told people that he was a prophet.' At this point then you have to ask him, 'If Muhammad was a liar, then where did he get his confidence? Why did he behave as though he really thought he was a prophet?' Finally backed into a corner, like a cat he quickly lashes out with the first response that comes to his mind. Forgetting that he has already exhausted that possibility, he claims, 'Well, maybe he wasn't a liar. He was probably crazy and really thought that he was a prophet.' And thus he begins the futile cycle again. As has already been mentioned, there is much information contained in the Qur'an whose source cannot be attributed to anyone other than Allah. For example, who told Muhammad (s) about the wall of Dhul-Qarnayn - a place hundreds of miles to the north? Who told him about embryology? When people assemble facts such as these, if they are not willing to attribute their existence to a divine source, they automatically resort to the assumption someone brought Muhammad (s) the information and that he used it to fool the people. However, this theory can easily be disproved with one simple question: 'If Muhammad (s) was a liar, where did he get his confidence? Why did he tell some people out right to their face what others could never say?' Such confidence depends completely upon being convinced that one has a true divine revelation. A Revelation - Abu Lahab Prophet Muhammad (s) had an uncle by the name of Abu Lahab. This man hated Islam to such an extent that he used to follow the Prophet around in order to discredit him. If Abu Lahab saw the Prophet (s) speaking to a stranger, he would wait until they parted and the would go to the stranger and ask him, 'What did he tell you? Did he say, 'Black'? Well, it's white. Did he say 'morning'? Well, it's night.' He faithfully said the exact opposite of whatever he heard Muhammad (s) and the Muslims say. However, about ten years before Abu Lahab died, a little chapter in the Qur'an (Surah al-Lahab, 111) was revealed about him. It distinctly stated that he would go to the fire (i.e., Hell). In other words, it affirmed that he would never become a Muslim and would therefore be condemned forever. For ten years all Abu Lahab had to do was say, 'I heard that it has been revealed to Muhammad that I will never change - that I will never become a Muslim and will enter the Hellfire. Well, I want to become Muslim now. How do you like that? What do you think of your divine revelation now?' But he never did that. And yet, that is exactly the kind of behavior one would have expected from him since he always sought to contradict Islam. In essence, Muhammad (s) said, 'You hate me and you want to finish me? Here, say these words, and I am finished. Come on, say them!' But Abu Lahab never said them. Ten years! And in all that time he never accepted Islam or even became sympathetic to the Islamic cause. How could Muhammad (s) possibly have known for sure that Abu Lahab would fulfil the Qur'anic revelation if he (i.e., Muhammad) was not truly the messenger of Allah? How could he possibly have been so confident as to give someone 10 years to discredit his claim of prophethood? The only answer is that he was Allah's messenger; for in order to put forth such a risky challenge, one has to be entirely convinced that he has a divine revelation. The Flight Another example of the confidence which Muhammad (s) had in his own prophethood and consequently in the divine protection of himself and his message is when he left Makkah and hid in a cave with Abu Bakr (ra) during their emigration to Madeenah. The two clearly saw people coming to kill them, and Abu Bakr was afraid. Certainly, if Muhammad (s) was a liar, a forger and one who was trying to fool the people into believing that he was a prophet, one would have expected him to say in such a circumstance to his friend, 'Hey, Abu Bakr, see if you can find a back way out of this cave.' Or 'Squat down in that corner over there and keep quiet.' Yet, in fact, what he said to Abu Bakr clearly illustrated his confidence. He told him, 'Relax! Allah is with us, and Allah will save us!' Now, if one knows that he is fooling the people, where does one get this kind of attitude? In fact, such a frame of mind is not characteristic of a liar or a forger at all. So, as has been previously mentioned, the non-Muslims go around and around in a circle, searching for a way out - some way to explain the findings in the Qur'an without attributing them to their proper source. On one hand, they tell you on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, 'The man was a liar,' and on the other hand, on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday they tell you, 'He was crazy.' What they refuse to accept is that one cannot have it both ways; yet they need both theories, both excuses to explain the information in the Qur'an. An Encounter with a Minister About seven years ago, I had a minister over to my home. In the particular room which we were sitting there was a Qur'an on the table, face down, and so the minister was not aware of which book it was. In the midst of a discussion, I pointed to the Qur'an and said, 'I have confidence in that book.' Looking at the Qur'an but not knowing which book it was, he replied, 'Well, I tell you, if that book is not the Bible, it was written by a man!' In response to his statement, I said, 'Let me tell you something about what is in that book.' And in just three to four minutes, I related to him a few things contained in the Qur'an. After just those three or four minutes, he completely changed his position and declared, 'You are right. A man did not write that book. The Devil wrote it!' Indeed, possessing such an attitude is very unfortunate - for many reasons. For one thing, it is a very quick and cheap excuse. It is an instant exit out of an uncomfortable situation. As a matter of fact, there is a famous story in the Bible that mentions how one day some of the Jews were witnesses when Jesus (pbuh) raised a man from the dead. The man had been dead for four days, and when Jesus arrived, he simply said, 'Get up!' and the man arose and walked away. At such a sight, some of the Jews who were watching said disbelievingly, 'This is the Devil. The Devil helped him!' Now this story is rehearsed very often in churches all over the world, and people cry big tears over it, saying, 'Oh, if I had been there, I would not have been as stupid as the Jews!' Yet, ironically, these people do exactly what the Jews did when in just three minutes you show them only a small part of the Qur'an and all they can say is, 'Oh, the Devil did it. The devil wrote that book!' Because they are truly backed into a corner and have no other viable answer, they resort to the quickest and cheapest excuse available. [Jesus ('Isa) and other Prophets of Allah]. The Source of the Qur'an Another example of people's use of this weak stance can be found in the Makkans' explanation of the source of Muhammad's message. They used to say, 'The devils bring Muhammad that Qur'an!' But just as with every suggestion made, the Qur'an gives the answer. One verse (Surah Al-Qalam 68: 51-52) in particular states: 'And they say, 'Surely he is possessed [by jinn],' but it [i.e., the Qur'an] is not except a reminder to the worlds.' Thus it gives an argument in reply to such a theory. In fact, there are many arguments in the Qur'an in reply to the suggestion that devils brought Muhammad (s) his message. For example, in the 26th chapter Allah (SWT) clearly affirms: 'No evil ones have brought it [i.e., this revelation] down. It would neither be fitting for them, nor would they be able. Indeed they have been removed far from hearing.' (Surah ash-Shu'ara 26:210-212) And in another place (Surah an-Nahl 16:98) in the Qur'an, Allah (SWT) instructs us: 'So when you recite the Qur'an seek refuge in Allah from Shaytan, the rejected.' Now is this how Satan writes a book? He tells one, 'Before you read my book, ask God to save you from me?' This is very, very tricky. Indeed, a man could write something like this, but would Satan do this? Many people clearly illustrate that they cannot come to one conclusion on this subject. On one hand, they claim that Satan would not do such a thing and that even if he could, God would not allow him to; yet, on the other hand, they also believe that Satan is only that much less than God. In essence they allege that the Devil can probably do whatever God can do. And as a result, when they look at the Qur'an, even as surprised as they are as to how amazing it is, they still insist, 'The Devil did this!' Thanks be to Allah (SWT), Muslims do not have that attitude. Although Satan may have some abilities, they are a long way separated from the abilities of Allah. And no Muslim is a Muslim unless he believes that. It is common knowledge even among non-Muslims that the Devil can easily make mistakes, and it would be expected that he would contradict himself if and when he wrote a book. For indeed, the Qur'an states (Surah an-Nisa 4:82): 'Do they not consider the Qur'an? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.' Mythomania In conjunction with the excuses that non-Muslims advance in futile attempts to justify unexplainable verses in the Qur'an, there is another attack often rendered which seems to be a combination of the theories that Muhammad (s) was crazy and a liar. Basically, these people propose that Muhammad was insane, and as a result of his delusion, he lied to and misled people. There is a name for this in psychology. It is referred to as mythomania. It means simply that one tells lies and then believes them. This is what the non-Muslims say Muhammad (s) suffered from. But the only problem with this proposal is that one suffering from mythomania absolutely cannot deal with any facts, and yet the whole Qur'an is based entirely upon facts. Everything contained in it can be researched and established as true. Since facts are such a problem for a mythomaniac, when a psychologist tries to treat one suffering from that condition, he continually confronts him with facts. For example, if one is mentally ill and claims, 'I am the king of England,' a psychologist does not say to him 'No you aren't. You are crazy!' He just does not do that. Rather, he confronts him with facts and says, 'O.K., you say you are the king of England. So tell me where the queen is today. And where is your prime minister? And where are your guards?' Now, when the man has trouble trying to deal with these questions, he tries to make excuses, saying 'Uh... the queen... she has gone to her mother's. Uh... the prime minister... well he died.' And eventually he is cured because he cannot deal with the facts. If the psychologist continues confronting him with enough facts, finally he faces the reality and says, 'I guess I am not the king of England.' The Qur'an approaches everyone who reads it in very much the same way a psychologist treats his mythomania patient. There is a verse in the Qur'an (Surah Yunus 10:57) which states: 'O mankind, there has come to you an admonition [i.e., the Qur'an] from your Lord and a healing for what is in the hearts - and guidance and mercy for the believers.' At first glance, this statement appears vague, but the meaning of this verse is clear when one views it in light of the aforementioned example. Basically, one is healed of his delusions by reading the Qur'an. In essence, it is therapy. It literally cures deluded people by confronting them with facts. A prevalent attitude throughout the Qur'an is one which says, 'O mankind, you say such and such about this; but what about such and such? How can you say this when you know that?' And so forth. It forces one to consider what is relevant and what matters while simultaneously healing one of the delusions that facts presented to mankind by Allah can easily be explained away with flimsy theories and excuses. New Catholic Encyclopedia It is this very sort of thing - confronting people with facts - that had captured the attention of many non-Muslims. In fact, there exists a very interesting reference concerning this subject in the New Catholic Encyclopedia. In an article under the subject of the Qur'an, the Catholic Church states: 'Over the centuries, many theories have been offered as to the origin of the Qur'an... Today no sensible man accepts any of these theories!!' Now here is the age-old Catholic Church, which has been around for so many centuries, denying these futile attempts to explain away the Qur'an. Indeed, the Qur'an is a problem for the Catholic Church. It states that it is revelation, so they study it. Certainly, they would love to find proof that it is not, but they cannot. They cannot find a viable explanation. But at least they are honest in their research and do not accept the first unsubstantiated interpretation which comes along. The Church states that in fourteen centuries it has not yet been presented a sensible explanation. At least it admits that the Qur'an is not an easy subject to dismiss. Certainly, other people are much less honest. They quickly say, 'Oh, the Qur'an came from here. The Qur'an came from there.' And they do not even examine the credibility of what they are stating most of the time. Of course, such a statement by the Catholic Church leaves the everyday Christian in some difficulty. It just may be that he has his own ideas as to the origin of the Qur'an, but as a single member of the Church, he cannot really act upon his own theory. Such an action would be contrary to the obedience, allegiance and loyalty which the Church demands. By virtue of his membership, he must accept what the Catholic Church declares without question and establish its teachings as part of his everyday routine. So, in essence, if the Catholic Church as a whole is saying, 'Do not listen to these unconfirmed reports about the Qur'an,' then what can be said about the Islamic point of view? If even non-Muslims are admitting that there is something to the Qur'an - something that has to be acknowledged - then why are people so stubborn and defensive and hostile when Muslims advance the very same theory? This is certainly something for those with a mind to contemplate - something to ponder for those of understanding! Testimony of an Intellectual Recently, the leading intellectual in the Catholic Church - a man by the name of Hans - studied the Qur'an and gave his opinion of what he had read. This man has been around for some time, and he is highly respected in the Catholic Church, and after careful scrutiny, he reported his findings, concluding, 'God has spoken to man through the man, Muhammad.' Again this is a conclusion arrived at by a non-Muslim source - the very leading intellectual of the Catholic Church himself! I do not think that the Pope agrees with him, but nonetheless, the opinion of such a noted, reputed public figure must carry some weight in defense of the Muslim position. He must be applauded for facing the reality that the Qur'an is not something which can be easily pushed aside and that, in fact God is the source of these words. As is evident from the aforementioned information, all of the possibilities have been exhausted, so the chance of finding another possibility of dismissing the Qur'an is nonexistent. Burden of Proof on the Critic If the book is not a revelation, then it is a deception; and if it is a deception, one must ask, 'What is its origin? And where does it deceive us?' Indeed, the true answers to these questions shed light on the Qur'an's authenticity and silence the bitter unsubstantiated claims of the unbelievers. Certainly, if people are going to insist that the Qur'an is a deception, then they must bring forth evidence to support such a claim. The burden of proof is on them, not us! One is never supposed to advance a theory without sufficient corroborating facts; so I say to them, 'Show me one deception! Show me where the Qur'an deceives me! Show me, otherwise don't say that it is a deception!' Origin of the Universe and Life An interesting characteristic of the Qur'an is how it deals with surprising phenomena which relate not only to the past but to modern times as well. In essence, the Qur'an is not and old problem. It is still a problem even today - a problem to the non-Muslims that is. For everyday, every week, every year brings more and more evidence that the Qur'an is a force to be contended with - that its authenticity is no longer to be challenged! For example, one verse in the Qur'an (Surah al-Anbiya 21:30) reads: 'Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then We clove them asunder, and made from water every living thing? Will they not then believe?' Ironically, this very information is exactly what they awarded the 1973 Noble Prize for - to a couple of unbelievers. The Qur'an reveals the origin of the universe - how it began from one piece - and mankind continues to verify this revelation, even up to now. Additionally, the fact that all life originated from water would not have been an easy thing to convince people of fourteen centuries ago. Indeed, if 1400 years ago you had stood in the desert and told someone, 'All of this, you see (pointing to yourself), is made up of mostly water,' no one would have believed you. Proof of that was not available until the invention of the microscope. They had to wait to find out that cytoplasm, the basic substance of the cell, is made-up of 80% water. Nonetheless, the evidence did come, and once again the Qur'an stood the test of time. More on Falsification Test In reference to the falsification tests mentioned earlier, it is interesting to note that they, too, relate to both the past and the present. Some of them were used as illustrations of Allah's omnipotence and knowledge, while others continue to stand as challenges to the present day. An example of the former is the statement made in the Qur'an about Abu Lahab. It clearly illustrates that Allah, the Knower of the Unseen, knew that Abu Lahab would never change his ways and accept Islam. Thus Allah dictated that he would be condemned to the Hellfire forever. Such a chapter was both an illustration of Allah's divine wisdom and a warning to those who were like Abu Lahab. People of the Book An interesting example of the latter type of falsification tests contained in the Qur'an is the verse which mentions the relationship between the Muslims and the Jews. The verse is careful not to narrow its scope to the relationship between individual members of each religion, but rather, it summarizes the relationship between the two groups of people as a whole. In essence, the Qur'an states that the Christians will always treat the Muslims better than the Jews will treat the Muslims. Indeed, the full impact of such a statement can only be felt after careful consideration of the real meaning of such a verse. It is true that many Christians and many Jews have become Muslims, but as a whole, the Jewish community is to be viewed as an avid enemy of Islam. Additionally, very few people realize what such an open declaration in the Qur'an invites. In essence, it is an easy chance for the Jews to prove that the Qur'an is false - that it is not a divine revelation. All they have to do is organize themselves, treat the Muslims nicely for a few years and then say, 'Now what does your holy book say about who are your best friends in the world - the Jews or the Christians? Look what we Jews have done for you!' That is all they have to do to disprove the Qur'an's authenticity, yet they have not done it in 1400 years. But, as always, the offer still stands open! A Mathematical Approach All of the examples so far given concerning the various angles from which one can approach the Qur'an have undoubtedly been subjective in nature; however, there does exist another angle, among others, which is objective and whose basis is mathematical. It is surprising how authentic the Qur'an becomes when one assembles what might be referred to as a list of good guesses. Mathematically, it can be explained using guessing and prediction examples. For instance, if a person has two choices (i.e., one is right, and one is wrong), and he closes his eyes and makes a choice, then half of the time (i.e., one time out of two) he will be right. Basically, he has a one in two chance, for he could pick the wrong choice, or he could pick the right choice. Now if the same person has two situations like that (i.e., he could be right or wrong about situation number one, and he could be right or wrong about situation number two), and he closes his eyes and guesses, then he will only be right one-fourth of the time (i.e., one time out of four). He now has a one in four chance because now there are three ways for him to be wrong and only one way for him to be right. In simple terms, he could make the wrong choice in situation number one and then make the wrong choice in situation number two; or he could make the wrong choice in situation number one and then make the right choice in situation number two; or he could make the right choice in situation number one and then make the wrong choice in situation number two; or he could make the right choice in situation number one and then make the right choice in situation number two. Of course, the (only instance in which he could be totally right is the last scenario where he could guess correctly in both situations. The odds of his guessing completely correctly have become greater because the number of situations for him to guess in have increased; and the mathematical equation representing such a scenario is ? x ? (i.e., one time out of two for the first situation multiplied by one time out of two for the second situation). Continuing on with the example, if the same person now has three situations in which to make blind guesses, then he will only be right one-eighth of the time (i.e., one time out of eight or ? x ? x ? ). Again, the odds of choosing the correct choice in all three situations have decreased his chances of being completely correct to only one time in eight. It must be understood that as the number of situations increase, the chances of being right decrease, for the two phenomena are inversely proportional. Now applying this example to the situations in the Qur'an, if one draws up a list of all of the subjects about which the Qur'an has made correct statements, it becomes very clear that it is highly unlikely that they were all just correct blind guesses. Indeed, the subjects discussed in the Qur'an are numerous [some of them are listed in the Qur'an and Scientific Knowledge], and thus the odds of someone just making lucky guesses about all of them become practically nil. If there are a million ways for the Qur'an to be wrong, yet each time it is right, then it is unlikely that someone was guessing. The following three examples of subjects about which the Qur'an has made correct statements collectively illustrate how the Qur'an continues to beat the odds. The Female Bee In the 16th chapter (Surah an-Nahl 16:68-69) the Qur'an mentions that the female bee leaves its home to gather food. Now, a person might guess on that, saying, 'The bee that you see flying around - it could be male, or it could be female. I think I will guess female.' Certainly, he has a one in two chance of being right. So it happens that the Qur'an is right. But it also happens that that was not what most people believed at the time when the Qur'an was revealed. Can you tell the difference between a male and a female bee? Well, it takes a specialist to do that, but it has been discovered that the male bee never leaves his home to gather food. However, in Shakespeare's play, Henry the Fourth, some of the characters discuss bees and mention that the bees are soldiers and have a king. That is what people thought in Shakespeare's time - that the bees that one sees flying around are male bees and that they go home and answer to a king. However, that is not true at all. The fact is that they are females, and they answer to a queen. Yet it took modern scientific investigations in the last 300 years to discover that this is the case. So, back to the list of good guesses, concerning the topic of bees, the Qur'an had a 50/50 chance of being right, and the odds were one in two. The Sun In addition to the subject of bees, the Qur'an also discusses the sun and the manner in which it travels through space. Again, a person can guess on that subject. When the sun moves through space, there are two options: it can travel just as a stone would travel if one threw it, or it can move of its own accord. The Qur'an states the latter - that it moves as a result of its own motion (Surah al-Anbiya 21:33). To do such, the Qur'an uses a form of the word sabaha to describe the sun's movement through space. In order to properly provide the reader with a comprehensive understanding of the implications of this Arabic verb, the following example is given. If a man is in water and the verb sabaha is applied in reference to his movement, it can be understood that he is swimming, moving of his own accord and not as a result of a direct force applied to him. Thus when this verb is used in reference to the sun's movement through space, it in no way implies that the sun is flying uncontrollably through space as a result of being hurled or the like. It simply means that the sun is turning and rotating as it travels. Now, this is what the Qur'an affirms, but was it an easy thing to discover? Can any common man tell that the sun is turning? Only in modern times was the equipment made available to project the image of the sun onto a tabletop so that one could look at it without being blinded. And through this process it was discovered that not only are there spots on the sun but that these spots move once every 25 days. This movement is referred to as the rotation of the sun around its axis and conclusively proves that, as the Qur'an stated 1400 years ago, the sun does, indeed, turn as it travels through space. And returning once again to the subject of good guesses, the odds of guessing correctly about both subjects - the sex of bees and the movement of the sun - are one in four! Time Zones Seeing as back fourteen centuries ago people probably did not understand much about time zones, the Qur'an's statements about this subject are considerably surprising. The concept that one family is having breakfast as the sun comes up while another family is enjoying the brisk night air is truly something to be marveled at, even in modern time. Indeed, fourteen centuries ago, a man could not travel more than thirty miles in one day, and thus it took him literally months to travel from India to Morocco, for example. And probably, when he was having supper in Morocco, he thought to himself, 'Back home in India they are having supper right now.' This is because he did not realize that, in the process of traveling, he moved across a time zone. Yet, because it is the words of Allah, the All-Knowing, the Qur'an recognizes and acknowledges such a phenomenon. In an interesting verse it states that when history comes to an end and the Day of Judgement arrives, it will all occur in an instant; and this very instant will catch some people in the daytime and some people at night. This clearly illustrates Allah's divine wisdom and His previous knowledge of the existence of time zones, even though such a discovery was non-existent back fourteen centuries ago. Certainly, this phenomenon is not something which is obvious to one's eyes or a result of one's experience, and this fact, in itself, suffices as proof of the Qur'an's authenticity. Conclusions Returning one final time to the subject of good guesses for the purpose of the present example, the odds that someone guessed correctly about all three of the aforementioned subjects - the sex of bees, the movement of the sun and the existence of time zones - are one in eight! Certainly, one could continue on and on with this example, drawing up longer and longer list of good guesses; and of course, the odds would become higher and higher with each increase of subjects about which one could guess. But what no one can deny is the following: the odds that Muhammad (s), an illiterate, guessed correctly about thousands and thousands of subjects, never once making a mistake, are so high that any theory of his authorship of the Qur'an must be completely dismissed - even by the most hostile enemies of Islam! Indeed, the Qur'an expects this kind of challenge. Undoubtedly, if one said to someone upon entering a foreign land, 'I know your father. I have met him,' probably the man from that land would doubt the newcomer's word, saying, 'You have just come here. How could you know my father?' As a result, he would question him, 'Tell me, is my father tall, short, dark, fair? What is he like?' Of course, if the visitor continued answering all of the questions correctly, the skeptic would have no choice but to say, 'I guess you do know my father. I don't know how you know him, but I guess you do!' The situation is the same with the Qur'an. It states that it originates from the One who created everything. So everyone has the right to say, 'Convince me! If the author of this book really originated life and everything in the heavens and on the earth, then He should know about this, about that, and so on.' And inevitably, after researching the Qur'an, everyone will discover the same truths. Additionally, we all know something for sure: we do not all have to be experts to verify what the Qur'an affirms. One's iman (faith) grows as one continues to check and confirm the truths contained in the Qur'an. And one is supposed to do so all of his life. May God (Allah) guide everyone close to the truth. Addendum 1 An engineer at the University of Toronto who was interested in psychology and who had read something on it, conducted research and wrote a thesis on Efficiency of Group Discussions. The purpose of his research was to find out how much people accomplish when they get together to talk in groups of two, three, ten, etc. The graph of his findings goes up and down at places, but it reaches the highest point at the variable of two. The findings: people accomplish most when they talk in groups of two. Of course, this discovery was entirely beyond his expectations, but it is very old advice given in the Qur'an (Surah Saba 34:46): 'Say, 'I exhort you to one thing - that you stand for Allah, [assessing the truth] by twos and singly, and then reflect...'' Addendum 2: 'Iram Additionally, the 89th chapter of the Qur'an (Surah al-Fajr 89:7) mentions a certain city by the name of 'Iram (a city of pillars), which was not known in ancient history and which was non-existent as far as historians were concerned. However, the December 1978 edition of National Geographic introduced interesting information which mentioned that in 1973, the city of Elba was excavated in Syria. The city was discovered to be 43 centuries old, but that is not the most amazing part. Researchers found in the library of Elba a record of all of the cities with which Elba had done business. Believe it or not, there on the list was the name of the city of 'Iram. The people of Elba had done business with the people of 'Iram! In conclusion I ask you to consider with care the following (Surah 29:50-51): 'And they say, 'Why are not signs sent down to him from his Lord?' Say, 'Indeed, the signs are with Allah, and I am but a clear warner.' But it is sufficient for them that We have sent down to you the Book [i.e., Qur'an] which is rehearsed to them? Verily, in that is mercy and a reminder to people who believe.' Allah: Allah is the proper name in Arabic for The One and Only God, The Creator and Sustainer of the universe. It is used by the Arab Christians and Jews for the God (Eloh-im in Hebrew). The word Allah does not have a plural or gender. Allah does not have any associate or partner, and He does not beget nor was He begotten. SWT is an abbreviation of Arabic words that mean 'Glory Be To Him.' : Allah is the proper name in Arabic for The One and Only God, The Creator and Sustainer of the universe. It is used by the Arab Christians and Jews for the God (Eloh-im in Hebrew). The word Allah does not have a plural or gender. Allah does not have any associate or partner, and He does not beget nor was He begotten. SWT is an abbreviation of Arabic words that mean 'Glory Be To Him.' : Allah is the proper name in Arabic for The One and Only God, The Creator and Sustainer of the universe. It is used by the Arab Christians and Jews for the God (Eloh-im in Hebrew). The word Allah does not have a plural or gender. Allah does not have any associate or partner, and He does not beget nor was He begotten. SWT is an abbreviation of Arabic words that mean 'Glory Be To Him.' : Allah is the proper name in Arabic for The One and Only God, The Creator and Sustainer of the universe. It is used by the Arab Christians and Jews for the God (Eloh-im in Hebrew). The word Allah does not have a plural or gender. Allah does not have any associate or partner, and He does not beget nor was He begotten. SWT is an abbreviation of Arabic words that mean 'Glory Be To Him.' : Allah is the proper name in Arabic for The One and Only God, The Creator and Sustainer of the universe. It is used by the Arab Christians and Jews for the God (Eloh-im in Hebrew). The word Allah does not have a plural or gender. Allah does not have any associate or partner, and He does not beget nor was He begotten. SWT is an abbreviation of Arabic words that mean 'Glory Be To Him.' : Allah is the proper name in Arabic for The One and Only God, The Creator and Sustainer of the universe. It is used by the Arab Christians and Jews for the God (Eloh-im in Hebrew). The word Allah does not have a plural or gender. Allah does not have any associate or partner, and He does not beget nor was He begotten. SWT is an abbreviation of Arabic words that mean 'Glory Be To Him.' : Allah is the proper name in Arabic for The One and Only God, The Creator and Sustainer of the universe. It is used by the Arab Christians and Jews for the God (Eloh-im in Hebrew). The word Allah does not have a plural or gender. Allah does not have any associate or partner, and He does not beget nor was He begotten. SWT is an abbreviation of Arabic words that mean 'Glory Be To Him.' : Allah is the proper name in Arabic for The One and Only God, The Creator and Sustainer of the universe. It is used by the Arab Christians and Jews for the God (Eloh-im in Hebrew). The word Allah does not have a plural or gender. Allah does not have any associate or partner, and He does not beget nor was He begotten. SWT is an abbreviation of Arabic words that mean 'Glory Be To Him.' : Allah is the proper name in Arabic for The One and Only God, The Creator and Sustainer of the universe. It is used by the Arab Christians and Jews for the God (Eloh-im in Hebrew). The word Allah does not have a plural or gender. Allah does not have any associate or partner, and He does not beget nor was He begotten. SWT is an abbreviation of Arabic words that mean 'Glory Be To Him.' : Allah is the proper name in Arabic for The One and Only God, The Creator and Sustainer of the universe. It is used by the Arab Christians and Jews for the God (Eloh-im in Hebrew). The word Allah does not have a plural or gender. Allah does not have any associate or partner, and He does not beget nor was He begotten. SWT is an abbreviation of Arabic words that mean 'Glory Be To Him.' Allah: Allah is the proper name in Arabic for The One and Only God, The Creator and Sustainer of the universe. It is used by the Arab Christians and Jews for the God (Eloh-im in Hebrew). The word Allah does not have a plural or gender. Allah does not have any associate or partner, and He does not beget nor was He begotten. SWT is an abbreviation of Arabic words that mean 'Glory Be To Him.' Allah: Allah is the proper name in Arabic for The One and Only God, The Creator and Sustainer of the universe. It is used by the Arab Christians and Jews for the God (Eloh-im in Hebrew). The word Allah does not have a plural or gender. Allah does not have any associate or partner, and He does not beget nor was He begotten. SWT is an abbreviation of Arabic words that mean 'Glory Be To Him.' Allah is the proper name in Arabic for The One and Only God, The Creator and Sustainer of the universe. It is used by the Arab Christians and Jews for the God (Eloh-im in Hebrew). The word Allah does not have a plural or gender. Allah does not have any associate or partner, and He does not beget nor was He begotten. SWT is an abbreviation of Arabic words that mean 'Glory Be To Him.' s or pbuh: Peace Be Upon Him. This expression is used for all Prophets of Allah. ra: Radiallahu Anhu (May Allah be pleased with him). 'The Holy Qur'an,' Text, Translation and Commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, 1934. (Latest Publisher: Amana Publications, Beltsville, MD, USA; Title: 'The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an,' 1992). Includes subject index. To read online. http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/SURAI.HTM 'The Meaning of the Glorious Koran,' An Explanatory Translation by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, a Mentor Book Publication. (Also available as: 'The Meaning of the Glorious Koran,' by Marmaduke Pickthall, Dorset Press, N.Y.; Published by several publishers since 1930). 'The Bible, The Qur'an and Science (Le Bible, le Coran et la Science),' The Holy Scriptures Examined in the Light of Modern Knowledge, by Maurice Bucaille, English version published by North American Trust Publication, 1978 .To read online http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MB_BQS/default.htm links of Dr Miller's articles http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/GM_aq/index.htm   zaheer - uddin (Zaheer) Starlite Member Username: Zaheer Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 10:13 am:    CHRISTIANITY: AN OVERVIEW By Gary Miller If this booklet were written to announce my conversion to Christianity, no Christian would complain that it is too blunt. So if I must reject an aspect of Christianity in a succinct form, let me not be accused of bluntness either. A Muslim believes in the religion of Jesus but sees mainline Christianity as a religion constructed about Jesus. Our protest is against two excesses: The apotheosis of Jesus and the most frequent missionary tactic directed toward Muslims. Christians and Muslims who learn something of one another's religion find that a crucial issue is the nature of Jesus. The majority of Christians deify Jesus while Muslims say that he was no more than a prophet of God, a faultless human being. The doctrine of the Trinity avows that three distinct co-equals are God. In particular, Jesus is said to be God the Son, or the Son of God. As the Muslim questions details of this theology, the Christian characteristically forms a common explanation for our differences: He complains that Muslims do not understand the Trinity; that we are actually accusing Christians of Tritheism and other heresies. So the Muslim seeks clarification of the teaching and asks at every step: 'How could that be so?' For example, we insist that the term 'Son of God' cannot have a literal interpretation. Sonship and divine nature would be necessary attributes of such an actuality, but these are incompatible. The first describes a recipient of life while the second describes One who received life from no one. These are mutually exclusive requirements then. To be a son is to be less than divine, and to be divine is to be no one's son. As a discussion proceeds, it is the Christian who will eventually take refuge in the response: 'These are things that we cannot understand.' His assessment of the Muslim's problem becomes his own confession. The Christian explanation becomes self-defeating so there is a change of tactic. He complains that the Muslim refuses to accept what cannot be understood. But the modified approach is a diversion. Now the concepts of verification and understanding are confused. To illustrate: Chemical reactions may be verified but the atom is not thereby understood. Facts are catalogued but not always explained. This distinction is the key to our concise reply. It is the Muslim who must redirect the discussion. Our primary issue is more basic than resolving the incongruities of Trinitarian doctrine. Rather than ask how the Trinity can be so, we should ask why it must be so. We ask, 'Why must Jesus be divine? Can we verify the necessity of this belief?' The Muslim Position A few centuries ago, European Philosophers commonly felt that a conjecture was proven if it could be shown to be equivalent to an assertion made by Aristotle. Unfortunately, such an approach stopped short of challenging Aristotle and discovering truth. Similarly, testing the Trinitarian case on what people have said about Jesus stops short of establishing the integrity of the authorities and the truth of the matter. Our purpose here is no more than the illustration that belief in the Trinity can only be based on Church authority. Many Christians admit that this is the case while others insist that the teaching was elaborated by Jesus himself. 'Let them produce their proof,' is the repeated admonition of the Quran, that is, 'provide the documentation that Jesus himself claimed unqualified deity,' (Quran 21:24). Unless this evidence can be produced, authorities are subject to challenge. Then the Christian may not evade the Muslim's questions concerning understanding. The Christian will have no justification for maintaining an illogical position, unless he is content to rely on the opinions of men. If he will probe no deeper than this, the Christian-Muslim dialogue is finished. For Christians, the only documents accepted as reporting the words of Jesus are the accounts given in the Bible. We leave the Muslim attitude toward the Bible for part II of this essay and find our motivation now in the Quranic verse, 'Say: 'O People of the Book! You have no ground to stand upon unless you stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord.' (Quran 5:68). Christians are advised to support their claims by citing their books. Thus Muslims believe that no saying of Jesus can be produced which shows him grasping at equality with God. The primary issue is not whether Jesus is God. The first question is whether he said that he was equal to God. Methodology The Bible record of sayings credited to Jesus is quite meager. After allowance for duplication in the four gospel accounts, these sayings could be printed in two columns of a newspaper. None of this handful of texts is an explicit claim of deity. All quotations are implicit, that is, they require interpretation. We are told what Jesus said and then told what he meant. So our methodology takes an obvious form. It is not our intention or obligation to reinterpret the Bible. We are satisfied to merely verify that Christian interpretations are insufficient, ambiguous, or impossible. We mean to argue: 1) that where the meaning of a quotation is clear, it is still insufficient to prove that Jesus claimed equality with God; 2) that other quotations cited are open to various interpretation, ambiguous; 3) and that still other quotations have been given interpretations that are impossible. This means the evidence is either inadequate, inconclusive, or unacceptable, respectively. Insufficient Evidence The virgin birth of Jesus and the miracles he demonstrated are cited by some as proof of his divinity. The insufficiency of the premise is obvious. We need only read the Biblical account of Adam's creation, without father or mother, and the accounts of miracles associated with the prophet Elisha (Genesis and 2 Kings chapters 4,5,6). In the case of these two men, no Christian asserts their divinity, yet each has a qualification in common with Jesus. Some maintain that Jesus was God because the Hebrew Scriptures predicted his coming. The inadequacy here is only slightly less apparent. The ancient Hebrew Scriptures are also cited as predicting the role of John the Baptist (Malachi chapter 4). These three arguments are mentioned to show that the ready claims of Christian betray a selective or forgetful recall of scripture. They know the fact of virgin birth as well as they know the account of Adam's origins, yet they interpret the first and overlook the second. Now to pursue our case indirectly. Does the Bible quote Jesus as claiming equality with God? Bible texts are produced to show that Jesus used the terms 'son of man', 'son of God', 'Messiah', and 'savior'. But each of these terms is applied to other individuals in the Bible. Ezekiel was addressed as 'son of man' (Ezekiel chapter 3). Jesus himself speaks of the peacemakers as 'sons of God' (Matthew 5:9). Cyrus the Persian is called 'messiah' at Isaiah 45:1. The duplicity of translators is manifested here, for they inevitably render only the meaning of the word 'Messiah' which is 'anointed'. Where other Bible verses seem to refer to Jesus, they prefer to transliterate 'Messiah' or the Greek equivalent 'Christ'. In this way they hope to give the impression that there is only one Messiah. As for 'savior', the word is applied to other than Jesus (2 Kings 13:5). Christians choose to cite the forty-third chapter of Isaiah as proof that there is only one savior. Again, translators have tried to obscure the fact that God is the only savior in the same ultimate sense that He is our only nourisher and protector, though men also have these assigned tasks. By over specifying this pronouncement in Isaiah they hope to have us believe that God equals savior and Jesus equals savior therefore Jesus equals God. The conspiracy of modern translation is easily demonstrated. The King James Bible of 1611 is everywhere available. Compare it to a more recent translation, say the New American Bible of this century. In the earlier version we find 2 Kings 13:5 contains the word 'savior', but in the newer version the synonymous word 'deliverer' has been substituted. In fact, 'saviours', the plural, will be found at Obadiah 21 and Nehemiah 9:27. Here again, by substituting a different word, the connotation of divinity tied to the word 'savior' has been guarded in modern versions by less than honest translation. Once more we have exhibited the insufficient warrant of arguments offered: Those terms said to connote divinity are used of individuals other than Jesus. There is a quotation that should be mentioned here also. At John 8:58 it is reported that Jesus said, 'Before Abraham was, I am'. Even if Jesus meant to claim by these words that he was alive before Abraham was, is this sufficient ground to say that he was divine? If Jesus lived in heaven then came to earth it might mean something remarkable, but it would not be enough to establish him as God incarnate. Additionally, it should be noted that these words are open to other interpretation. Christians do not imagine that the prophet Jeremiah had a pre-human existence and so they find a suitable way of interpreting the words of Jeremiah 1:5 which portray such a situation, if taken literally, Why not apply a similar understanding in the case of John 8:58? Ambiguous Evidence Some scholars have insisted that in this statement of Jesus just discussed, he appropriated for himself a divine title. In Exodus chapter 3, it is reported that God told Moses 'I am what I am,' as most English Bibles translate the Hebrew text. At John 8:58 Jesus says, 'before Abraham was, I am,' as most English Bibles translate the Greek text. But here is the key to another deception. The original of the first text is in Hebrew while the original of the second is in Greek. All but a few of Jesus' words were recorded in Greek. For two hundred years before the time of Jesus the Jews used a Greek translation of their Hebrew scriptures, the Septuagint. This work translated the key phrase 'I am' of Exodus as HO ON. However, the words of Jesus, 'I am', have been given to us in Greek as EGO EIMI. If the gospel writer of John 8:58 wanted to tell his Greek-speaking audience that Jesus had imitated God he would have used the familiar words of the Septuagint, otherwise the point would be lost. The evidence of John 8:58 is far from conclusive. There is another Greek word to consider which betrays suppression or neglect of evidence. At John 10:30 Jesus is quoted as saying 'I and the Father are one.' The Greek word translated 'one' is HEN. Certain scholars have insisted that the only possible understanding of this word is 'one in essence or nature'. One need not be a Greek scholar to refute this unjustified claim. A counter example is sufficient. The same word is used by Jesus in John 17:11,21,22,23, as he includes his disciples in this oneness, whatever its meaning. The most widely translated sentence on earth is said to be Jesus' statement of John 3:16, 'For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son...' While Christians wish to say that the word 'only-begotten' gives Jesus special status among all the 'sons of God', again there is a problem if ambiguity. The same word translated as 'only-begotten' is found at Hebrews 11:17. In this verse the word refers to Isaac. The Bible itself shows that Isaac's older brother Ishmael outlived his father (Genesis 25:9). Therefore, at no time was Isaac, strictly speaking, the only-begotten son of Abraham. Recognizing this, Christian scholars qualify the meaning of the word in this case and give it a less than literal interpretation. But if the meaning is subject to interpretation here, why not also in the passage of John 3:16? Once more the possibility of ambiguity means that John 3:16 is inconclusive evidence. Whether or not Jesus really used the term 'Father' when speaking of God is another controversy. But here our point is again, that suck use is inconclusive evidence that God was literally Father to Jesus. All Christians use the term when addressing God. The Jews themselves used the term (John 8:41). Jesus told them that the devil was their father (John 8:44). Of course, he was not speaking literally. Certain scholars stress the verse of Mark 14:36 where Jesus speaks the Aramaic word for Father, 'Abba'. They insist that this implies a very unique relationship between Jesus and God. This displays a- schizophrenic forgetfulness. For favorite scripture passages are Romans 8:14 and Galatians 4:6 where every Christian is said to use this term of address for God. Impossible Evidence An episode is recounted in the twentieth chapter of John and a certain Thomas is quoted as saving, 'My Lord and my God.' In interpreting this, Christians maintain that Thomas was addressing Jesus by both of these titles. The Muslim would have no objection to the term 'Lord'. As the Bible explains, the word means 'master' and Sarah is said to have called her husband Abraham by this title (Peter 3:6). The suggestion that Thomas addressed Jesus as literally being God is a different matter. Jesus has already pointed out that the Hebrew scriptures themselves address men as 'gods' (John 10:34; Psalms 82:6). This would allow for Thomas' use of the term. However, Paul gave new rules in 1 Corinthians chapter 8, saying that there are many lords and gods '...yet for us there is but one God, the Father.... and one Lord, Jesus Christ...' Christians apply this verse to sort out the ambiguities of Thomas' expression. But now we are left with an unorthodox doctrine, namely that Jesus is the Father. This ancient heresy has been branded by the Church as Patripassianism, Monarchianism, or Sabellianism. The impossibility of an orthodox interpretation of Thomas is now apparent. The distinction between Father and Son is essential to the doctrine of the Trinity. This distinction is blurred again when John 14:9 is pressed into service. Here Jesus' reply to a man named Philip is recorded as, 'He who has seen me has seen the Father.' A strictly literal explication would mean the unacceptable doctrine that Jesus is the Father. So interpreters say that 'Father' is here equivalent to 'God'. However, we cannot possibly be obliged to understand that Jesus meant to say that seeing him was exactly the same as seeing God because he was God. Our reason is found in the contrariety of John 5:37. Here he told a crowd about the Father saying, 'You have neither heard His voice at any time not seen his form.' The Total Evidence Did the Jews Understand? Surprisingly enough, it is often conceded that individual verses are insufficient, inconclusive, or even unusable in the case made for the divinity of Jesus. However, there are those who insist that while any given verse may be deficient, it is the total collection of all such verses that proves the case. This betrays a misunderstanding of the reasoning process. Each verse must prove something, or it is dispensable. Given a verse, we must demand to know exactly what it does prove, and why. Christian exegesis, the traditional explanation of scripture, has been exposed as incredible within the church itself. It has been shown to be enthymemic in the extreme. That is, premises and conclusions are not clearly stated. (Exactly what is meant by the 'redemption of man' is still not clear to this date. [This article was written in 1983]) Whether we probe the roots or the outgrowth of the system, the structure becomes vague. (See for example, THE MYTH OF GOD INCARNATE, a Christian publication.) A final argument has been offered based on the understanding of the Jews. Christians have said that our rebuttal given here is unimportant because the Jews understood Jesus to grasp at equality with God. They cite John 5:18, ' ...because ... (he) was calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.' They pass over the verses that follow immediately, where Jesus subjected himself to God, naming those things which God gave him. They cite the tenth chapter of John where the Jews tried to stone Jesus for blasphemy. The point of the reply Jesus made is neglected. He demonstrated to those Jews, by quoting their own scripture, that they had no grounds for their accusation. Curiously enough, in their haste to put claims on the lips of Jesus, part of the Christian church constructs a very confused story. The Hebrew scriptures made reference to a Messiah and the Church says this can only mean an incarnate God and so when Jesus spoke of himself as Messiah he was blaspheming because no man can be God, according to Hebrew scriptures ... or so the reasoning seems to flow together in confusion. There is a legal point to be made here. If the a understood that the Messiah was to be a man who was equal to God then a man who claimed to be the Messiah could only be condemned as a false messiah. He could not be condemned on the grounds that he uttered a statement which must always be blasphemous in itself. At some future time, the true Messiah would have to speak the very same words without being condemned. When certain Jews declared Jesus' words as blasphemy they could only have meant to condemn him as a false messiah. Any supposed connection between the word 'Messiah' and the attribute of divinity has no bearing on this matter. (The fact is, the Jews have never believed that the promised Messiah would be a man who is equal to God.) In the second chapter of Mark, Jesus tells a man, 'Your sins are forgiven.' The customary interpretation takes the side of the Jews then present, who asked, 'Who can forgive sins but God Alone?' But the verse at John 12:49, among others, explains very well how a man could make such a statement. In this verse Jesus denies any personal initiative. (See also John 8:40; 14:10.) The argument based on Jewish understanding makes the assumption that the Jews understood Jesus. A more viable hypothesis is simply that the enemies of Jesus misunderstood him. In fact Jesus repeatedly alludes to this (e.g. Mark 4:11, 12). It is interesting to note that today Jewish scholars find virtually no objections to anything Jesus said. (See the reference under Jesus in the UNIVERSAL JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA.) Conclusion We have not merely used the Bible to suit ourselves. Verses have been cited without any commitment as to their veracity. It has been our intention only to show the defects in the Christian stand which says: 'Jesus claimed to be equal to God.' If we decoct the mixture said to establish that stand, we find inferior ingredients, weak evidence and specious reasoning. Our position has been narrowed enough to make almost any Christian response a step toward the Muslim’s position. We have cited the most quoted and clear scriptures, so if any others are brought forward, the Christian admits the deficiency of previous arguments, and thus makes a short list even shorter ... the list of quotations said to prove his case. Or, if the Christian builds a case on something other than the words attributed to Jesus, he repeats exactly what we first protested: mainline Christianity is based on what people have said about Jesus. Afterword We asked, 'Why must Jesus be divine?' By this we meant to ask why a Christian believes so. If the question is asked without reference to the foregoing discussion, a Christian will answer that Jesus must be divine if his death is to be sufficient atonement for the sins of mankind. In the Christian scheme of redemption, it is held that sacrificial death was necessary that men might be saved. Ask why the death of any man would be insufficient and the Christian replies that all men are imperfect. Ask why they are imperfect and we are told that this is an inheritance from our fathers. Jesus had no father. By their own scheme he would have been an unblemished sacrificial victim. Nevertheless, they still require that he be divine to suit the role of redeemer. So we ask, 'Did God die?' He quickly replies, 'No, only the man Jesus died.' Jesus is said to be a God-man and it was the human component that died. But now he has said that the death of a man has atoned for sin. The Infinite is required for this ritual of sacrifice but the Infinite is not actually sacrificed. There are many missionary tactics directed by Christians toward Muslims. The bulk of these stands immediately condemned by the Bible which speaks about their Master's path being straight (Luke chapter 3, Matthew chapter 7). Missionary strategies have included enticement with money, women, alcohol and social status. These methods may lead people, but do they lead by a straight path? A complete exposure of such activities would be a worthwhile document, but this in not our concern here. Christian authors who deal with the Quran and the Bible in order to win converts are the subject now. Disputing the Quran Attacks on the Quran have abounded since the Book's first appearance. In fact, in a remarkable verse the Quran invites examination; 'Have they not considered the Quran? If it was from other than God, surely they would find in it many inconsistencies,' (4:82). While many theories have been offered to explain the Quran's origin, 'today no sensible person believes these theories. This leaves the Christian in some difficulty,' in the words of the NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA. We want to also mention that no theory has yet been suggested that is not already commented on within the Quran itself ... the book replies to its critics. When a verse of the Quran is said to be in error, the Muslim's natural urge is to correct the inaccurate interpretation. But we perform more efficiently if we are realistic. There is a difference in attitude between those who study the Quran and those who assault the Quran. A sincere questioner has open-mindedly accepted the challenge of the verse 4:82. But most often the missionary both attacks and distorts the Quran, while pretending to be reasonable. This opponent is not interested in the proper understanding of any given verse. So, we may best proceed as outlined in Part I: We demonstrate only that the so-called difficulty of any Quranic verse originates in an interpretation which has not considered sufficiency, ambiguity, or acceptability. We need only to show: (1) that a given interpretation is inadequate to build a case; (2) or that the meaning of words has been overly restricted and is not the only meaning possible; (3) or that a meaning has been given which is actually impossible. My experience has often been that Christians who question will find their answers in the same place they found their questions. Frequently they have studied the Muslim commentaries of the Quran (TAFSEER), and when they find an obscure point, they bring it to Muslims hoping that we are unaware of research and explanation already done on the matter centuries ago. What does the Quran say About the Bible? Certain missionary writers intend to tell not only Christians about the Quran, but Muslims also by their eristic methods they build a flimsy case in order to provoke controversy where none exists. They tell us that the Quran says the Bible is accurate. They tell us that the Quran accuses Christians of changing the texts of their scriptures. The Quran does not make either of these assertions. By pointing to disagreements between the Quran and the Bible they hope to make difficulty. By arguing for preservation of ancient Biblical texts they intend to cause still more confusion for Muslims. However, these tactics can only work if we admit the premises on which they stand ... and we do not. First, the Quran states that Christians have access to the truth in their scriptures. But it does not catalogue the sixty-six small books called the Bible and label them as accurate. In fact it condemns those who would claim divine inspiration for something composed by a man. Part of the Bible, as will be seen, falls into this category. Second, the Quran does not accuse Christians of deliberately tampering with the original texts of their scriptures. Rather, it accuses them of manipulating the understanding of their scriptures. The deceptive translations mentioned in part I illustrate this practice. In short, the Muslim believes that the Bible contains the words of God, and more words besides these. Is Total Acceptance of The Bible Deserved? The last sentence of the preceding section states the Muslim's attitude toward the Bible. It is actually the attitude of many Christians. It is only a certain collection of Christians (the Fundamentalists) who maintain that ALL of the Bible originated with God. Adherence to this belief is unwarranted for at least four reasons; (1) It is not claimed within the Bible itself; (2) It is an unworthy attitude; (3) It is not self-consistent; (4) It is logically impossible. (1) ... The Bible nowhere names itself. The word 'Bible' is not in the Bible. Sixty-six books have been bound as one without any divine command to do so. Compare, for example, the opening of the book of Jonah: 'The word of the LORD came to Jonah the son of Amittai saying …' and the opening remarks of the writer of the third gospel account: '... it seemed fitting for me ... to write it out... ,' (NEW AMERICAN BIBLE). The first book claims divine inspiration, while the second author makes no such claim. By trading on the vagueness of the words 'scripture' and 'book' the Fundamentalists try to make a case for the Bible's total inspiration. For example, they quote 2 Timothy 3:16 where Paul wrote to Timothy, '... all scripture is inspired of God ...' In the first place, it still remains to establish the authority of Paul ... did he speak for God here? But the real trickery is in the isolation of this verse. In the sentence before this. Paul indicated what he considered as scripture, namely, that which Timothy studied as a child. When Timothy was a child the last twenty seven books of the Bible had not been written. The antepenultimate verse of today's Bible seems to conclude the whole of the Bible, as it warns against adding or subtracting contents in 'this book'. However. 'this book' can only refer to this last book of the Bible and not to the Bible itself. The reason is clear: Any Christian reference will acknowledge that other books of the Bible were written after this one, that is, the last book in today's Bible was not the last one written. In fact, exactly which books should form the contents of the Bible was still being debated three hundred years after Jesus. (2) ... The official position of Fundamentalist churches is really a modification of the blunt statement: 'The Bible is the perfect word of God.' While they consider the modification only slight, it is actually ruinous. They say that the Bible is 'inerrant in the original manuscripts'. If all contradictions in the Bible could be explained away as misunderstandings, why would they rely on this excuse? By taking this position they admit to errors in the Bible. These are said to be only small copying errors made over the centuries as the scriptures were recopied. They have disregarded the advice of Jesus who said that carelessness in the little things means carelessness in large matters (Luke 16:10). Yet the unworthy statement about today's Bible is really: 'The Bible contains small mistakes but no big ones.' (3) ... There are abundant copying errors in the Bible, the conflicting statistics of Ezra 2:5 and Nehemiah 7:10, for example. On the one hand the Fundamentalist admits this to be the case and excuses it as a minor copying error. On the other hand, he puts his trust in the statement of Isaiah 40:8 which says, 'The word of our God stands forever.' This verse does not go on to accept minor details due to flaws in the transcription of His word. According to this verse, if God says it, it does not get lost. But mistakes of transcription means something of the original has been lost. It is inconsistent to excuse error and simultaneously disallow error. The only solution is to drop the notion of total divine inspiration of the Bible. (4) ... Total inspiration is illogical because it is both disavowed and disproved within the Bible. At 1 Corinthians 7:25 the Bible writer specifically says that he is about to make a statement which did not originate with God ... inspiration is disavowed. In the first chapter of Titus we have a counter example which disproves total divine inspiration. Paul quoted the famous Epimenides paradox, specifying that the speaker himself was a Cretan: 'Cretans are always liars ...'. He then says that the man spoke the truth. But when the statement is spoken by a Cretan it is definitely not true. If it was true then at least once, a Cretan was not a liar, in which case the statement is false. The conclusion is the denial of the assumption, so the statement is not true. The writer Paul at least on this occasion, was without divine guidance for he did not discern this subtlety. Conclusion The Christian who would preach to Muslims must first be prepared to allow us to clearly establish our own position. Otherwise he confronts a man of straw but misses the target of genuine Islam. His comparisons of the Bible and the Quran are most often seen to be shallow and misleading. As with the matter discussed in part I, our most fruitful debates will be those that consider Why not How. If the Christian wishes to prove his stand, he must justify it after explaining it. Conversely, if he would attack out stand he must understand it correctly before we can be asked to justify it. Finally, this is not an attack on the Bible. It is an attack on an unjustified attitude held by some concerning the Bible. Again, the Muslim believes the Bible to contain God's words, but he does not accept the entire contents as such. Deciding which portions deserve our acceptance is not a matter of convenience. It is a matter of consistency. Those portions, and only those portions, which are self-consistent, compatible with reason, and self-proclaimed as divinely revealed deserve our consideration. Christian belief reduces to this: The Jews have cherished an incorrect notion of the Messiah. That is, while Jews expect someone who is only son of God in a figurative sense, Jesus told the Jews that the Messiah was literally the son of God. In this frame of mind, the Christian can point to every Biblical account of Jews being angry with Jesus and claim that this new truth was the cause of their upset. But there are important facts to consider. The concept of the Messiah was gradually formed by the Jews and opinions differed. While several men had already been called Messiah, son of God, son of man, in scripture, the Jews came to expect a preeminent Messiah, a victorious leader through whom their nation would be a blessing to all the world. Our suggestion is this: Suppose instead that Jesus meant to tell the Jews that while he also deserved to be called Messiah, he was not to fulfill their unrealistic and misunderstood expectations. Now several mysteries are clarified. Jesus could not have meant to claim status for he charged his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the true Messiah (Luke 9:21). Notice how he dissuaded a man who may have had mistaken ideas (Matthew 8:20). While many Jews believed that the Messiah would inherit his kingly rights from David, Jesus pointed out the difficulty of this interpretation (Matthew 22:43). Note also that today's Jewish scholars have indicated that 'son of God' is given its Christian meaning not by Jesus, but by Paul. (See 'son of God' in reference 3.) Meanwhile, some Jewish aspects have been adopted. Paul incited Christians to find symbolic meaning in scripture (1 Corinthians chapter 10). So we have impossible parallels like that of Matthew 2:15 which quotes a fragment of Hosea 11:1,2 and thus likens Jesus to an idolatrous nation! We have the unprecedented case of a prophet who supposedly would die then to return to fulfill all things expected of him. While acts 3:20-23 promises the return of Jesus, Christians understand that the prophecy yet to be fulfilled before he can return is actually only a reference to Jesus... as though Jesus was the one predicted by Moses in Deuteronomy chapter 18. The scripture quoted here by the disciple Peter reports that God told Moses about the future prophet 'like you from among their brothers'. While Jesus was unlike Moses in being leader of a nation, Christians believe that he will be victorious on his second visit. However, they do not usually expect him to acquire a human father, a wife and children and then die of old age like Moses. Moreover. 'from among their brothers seems to indicate not an Israelite, but a relative of that nation. There is another historical figure who fits the role as the prophet promised by Moses better than Jesus. He was not an Israelite, but Jesus said that God's special favours would be taken from Israel and given to a nation which would become fruitful (Matthew 21:43). It was Jacob or Israel the man himself, who prophesied that the kingdom would be the possession of the family of his son Judah until the coming of 'the one whose it is' (Genesis 49:10). While Christians see this one as Jesus, look again at these words. When I give a man something and tell him to keep it until the owner comes, do I mean to say that the item belongs to one of his descendents? This would hardly be a natural understanding. The many Quranic and Biblical references to the last prophet are a new subject, a satisfying discussion that inexorably leads to the Messenger who brought Islam to a nation and through them to all nations. (Quran 6:89,90). BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE, 1977, The Lockman Foundation La Habra, California. 2. THE MYTH OF GOD INCARNATE; 1978, Edited by John Hick; Westminster. 3. UNIVERSAL JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA; 1948, Universal Jewish Encyclopedia Co. Inc.; New York, N.Y. 4. NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA; 1967, The Catholic University of America; Washington D.C. 5. THE KORAN INTERPRETED; 1964, Arthur J. Arberry; Oxford University Press; Oxford.   zaheer - uddin (Zaheer) Starlite Member Username: Zaheer Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 10:09 am:    The prophet of Arabia The Prophet Of Arabia As Spoken Of In The Bible 'The Burden Upon Arabia' - Isaiah xxi. 13. . We read the following words in the Book of Deuteronomy chapter xviii. verse 18: 'I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee; and I will put my words in his mouth.' If these words do not apply to Prophet Muhammad, they still remain unfulfilled. Prophet Jesus himself never claimed to be the Prophet alluded to. Even his disciples were of the same opinion: they looked to the second coming of Jesus for the fulfillment of the prophecy. So far it is undisputed that the first coming of Jesus was not the advent of the 'prophet like unto thee,' and his second advent can hardly fulfill the words. Jesus, as is believed by his Church, will appear as a Judge and not as a law-giver; but the promised one has to come with a 'fiery law' in 'his right hand.' In ascertaining the personality of the promised prophet the other prophecy of Moses is, however, very helpful where it speaks of the shining forth of God from Paran, the mountain of Mecca. The words in the Book of Deuteronomy, chapter xxxiii. verse 2, run as follows: 'The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints; from his right hand went a fiery law for them.' In these words the Lord has been compared with the sun. He comes from Sinai, he rises from Seir, but he shines in his full glory from Paran, where he had to appear with ten thousands of saints with a fiery law in his right hand. None of the Israelites, including Jesus, had anything to do with Paran. Hagar, with her son Ishmael, wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba, who afterwards dwelt in the wilder- ness of Paran (Gen. xxi. 21). He married an Egyptian woman, and through his first-born, Kedar, gave descent to the Arabs who from that time till now are the dwellers of the wilderness of Paran. And if Prophet Muhammad admittedly on all hands traces his descent to Ishmael through Kedar and he appeared as a prophet in the wilderness of Paran and re- entered Mecca with ten thousand saints and gave a fiery law to his people, is not the prophecy above-mentioned fulfilled to its very letter? The words of the prophecy in Habakkuk are especially noteworthy. His (the Holy One from Paran) glory covered the heavens and the earth was full of his praise. The word 'praise' is very significant, as the very name Muhammad literally means 'the praised one.' Besides the Arabs, the inhabitants of the wilderness of Paran had also been promised a Revelation: 'Let the wilderness and the cities thereof lift up their voice, the villages that Kedar doth inhabit: let the inhabitants of the rock sing, let them shout from the top of the mountains. Let them give glory unto the Lord, and declare His praise in the islands. The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy like a man of war, he shall cry, yea, roar; he shall prevail against his enemies' (Isaiah). In connection with it there are two other prophecies worthy of note where references have been made to Kedar. The one runs thus in chapter 1x. of Isaiah: 'Arise, shine for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee ... The multitude of camels shall cover thee, the dromedaries of Midian and Ephah; all they from Sheba shall come.. All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto thee, the rams of Nebaioth shall minister unto thee: they shall come up with acceptance on mine altar, and I will glorify the house of my glory' (1-7). The other prophecy is again in Isaiah 'The burden upon Arabia. In the forest in Arabia shall ye lodge, O ye travelling companies of Dedanim. The inhabitants of the land of Tema brought water to him that was thirsty, they prevented with their bread him that fled. For they fled from the swords and from the bent bow, and from the grievousness of war. For thus hath the Lord said unto me, Within a year, according to the years of an hireling, and all the glory of Kedar shall fail: And the residue of the number of archers, the mighty of the children of Kedar, shall be diminished' Read these prophecies in Isaiah in the light of one in Deutero- nomy which speaks of the shining forth of God from Paran. If Ishmael inhabited the wilderness of Paran, where he gave birth to Kedar, who is the ancestor of the Arabs; and if the sons of Kedar had to receive revelation from God; if the flocks of Kedar had to come up with acceptance to a Divine altar to glorify 'the house of my glory' where the darkness had to cover the earth for some centuries, and then that very land had to receive light from God; and if all the glory of Kedar had to fail and the number of archers, the mighty men of the children of Kedar, had to diminish within a year after the one fled from the swords and from the bent bows - the Holy One from Paran (Habakkuk iii 3 ) is no one else than Prophet Muhammad. Prophet Muhammad is the holy offspring of Ishmael through Kedar, who settled in the wilderness of Paran. Muhammad is the only Prophet through whom the Arabs received revelation at the time when the darkness had covered the earth. Through him God shone from Paran, and Mecca is the only place where the House of God is glorified and the flocks of Kedar come with acceptance on its altar. Prophet Muhammad was persecuted by his people and had to leave Mecca. He was thirsty and fled from the drawn sword and the bent bow, and within a year after his flight the descen- dants of Kedar meet him at Badr, the place of the first battle between the Meccans and the Prophet, the children of Kedar and their number of archers diminish and all the glory of Kedar fails. If the Holy Prophet is not to be accepted as the fulfillment of all these prophecies they will still remain unfulfilled. 'The house of my glory' referred to in Isaiah lX is the house of God in Mecca and not the Church of Christ as thought by Christian commentators. The flocks of Kedar, as mentioned in verse 7, have never come to the Church of Christ; and it is a fact that the villages of Kedar and their inhabitants are the only people in the whole world who have remained impenetrable to any influence of the Church of Christ. Again, the mention of 10,000 saints in Deutero- nomy xxx 3 is very significant. He (God) shined forth from Paran, and he came with 10,000 of saints. Read the whole history of the wilderness of Paran and you will find no other event but when Mecca was conquered by the Prophet. He comes with 10,000 followers from Medina and re-enters 'the house of my glory.' He gives the fiery law to the world, which reduced to ashes all other laws. The Comforter - the Spirit of Truth - spoken of by Prophet Jesus was no other than Prophet Muhammad himself. It cannot be taken as the Holy Ghost, as the Church theology says. 'It is expe- dient for you that I go away,' says Jesus, 'for if I go not away the Comforter will not come unto you, but if I depart I will send him unto you.' The words clearly show that the Comforter had to come after the departure of Jesus, and was not with him when he uttered these words. Are we to pre- sume that Jesus was devoid of the Holy Ghost if his coming was conditional on the going of Jesus: besides, the way in which Jesus describes him makes him a human being, not a ghost. 'He shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear that he shall speak.' Should we presume that the Holy Ghost and God are two distinct entities and that the Holy Ghost speaks of himself and also what he hears from God? The words of Jesus clearly refer to some messenger from God. He calls him the Spirit of Truth, and so the Qur'an speaks of Prophet Muhammad, 'No, indeed, he has brought the truth, and confirmed the Messengers.' Ch.37:37 http://sultan.org/#muhammad   zaheer - uddin (Zaheer) Starlite Member Username: Zaheer Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 10:03 am:    Muhammad(peace be upon him) in the Bible What Does the Bible Say about Muhammad? By Ahmad Deedat Say: 'Do you see whether this message be from Allah (God Almighty), and yet you reject it, and a witness from among the Children of Israel bore witness of one like him.' ' (the Holy Quran 46:10) As a young man, about 30 years ago, I attended a series of religious lectures by a Christian theologian, a certain Rev. Hiten, at the 'Theater Royal', Durban in South Africa. his Reverend gentleman was expounding Biblical prophecies. He went on to prove that the Christian Bible foretold the rise of Soviet Russia, and the Last Days. At one stage he went to the extent of proving that his Holy Book did not leave even the Pope out of its predictions. He expatiated vigorously in order to convince his audience that the Beast 666 mentioned in The Book of Revelation, the last book of the New Testament, was the Pope, who was the Vicar of Christ on earth. . Rev. Hiten's lectures led me to ask that if the Bible foretold so many things - not even excluding the 'Pope' and 'Israel', - then surely it must have something to say about the greatest benefactor of mankind, prophet Muhammed, may the peace of Allah be upon him. As a youngster I set out to search for an answer. I met priest after priest, attended lectures, and read everything that I could lay my hands relating to the fields of Bible prophecies. Tonight I'm going to narrate to you one of these interviews with a Dominee of the Dutch Reformed Church. The thirteenth call brought me pleasure and relief. A Dominee Van Heerden ('Dominee' is the Afrikaans equivalent of 'priest') agreed to meet me at his home on the Saturday afternoon that I was to leave for Transvaal. Why Nothing? I posed the question: 'What does the Bible say about Muhammed?' Without hesitation he answered: 'Nothing!' I asked: 'Why nothing? According to your interpretation the Bible has so many things to say about the rise of Soviet Russia and about the Last Days and even about the Pope of the Roman Catholics?' He said: 'Yes, but there was nothing about Muhammed!' I asked again: 'Why nothing? Surely this man Muhammed who had been responsible for the bringing into being a world-wide community of millions of believers who, on his authority, believe in: the miraculous birth of Jesus, that Jesus is the Messiah, that he gave life to the dead by God's permission, and that he healed those born blind and the lepers by God's permission. Surely this book (the Bible) must have something to say about this great leader of men who spoke so well of Jesus and his mother Mary?' The old man from the Free State replied: 'My son, I have been reading the Bible for the past 50 years, and if there was any mention of him, I would have known it.' Not One by Name! I inquired: 'According to you, are there not hundreds of prophecies regarding the coming of Jesus in the Old Testament.' The Dominee interjected: 'Not hundreds, but thousands!' I said: 'I am not going to dispute the thousand and one prophecies in the Old Testament regarding the coming of Jesus Christ, because the whole Muslim world has already accepted him without the testimony of any Biblical prophecy. Muslims have accepted the de facto Jesus on the authority of Muhammed alone, and there are in the world today no less than 900,000,000 followers of Muhammed, who love, respect, and revere Jesus Christ as a great Messenger of God without having the Christians to convince them by means of Biblical dialectics. Out of the 'thousands' of prophecies referred to, can you please give me just one single prophecy where Jesus is mentioned by name? The term Messiah, translated as Christ, is not a name but a title. Is there a single prophecy where it says that the name of the Messiah will be Jesus, and that his mother's name will be Mary, that his supposed father will be Joseph the Carpenter; that he will be born in the reign of Herod the King, etc? No! There are no such details! Then how can you conclude that those 'Thousand' prophecies refer to Jesus, peace be upon him?' What is Prophecy? The Dominee replies: 'You see, prophecies are word pictures of something that is going to happen in the future. When that thing actually comes to pass, we see vividly in these prophecies the fulfillment of what had been predicted in the past.' I said: 'What you actually do is that you deduce, you reason, you put two and two together.' He said: 'Yes.' I said: 'If this is what you have to do with a 'thousand' prophecies to justify your claim with regards to the genuineness of Jesus, why should we not adopt the very same system for Muhammed?' The Dominee agreed that it was a fair proposition, a reasonable way of dealing with the problem. I asked him to open up Deuteronomy, chapter 18, verse 18, which he did. I read from memory 'I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.' (Deut 18:18) Prophet Like Moses Having recited the verse in Afrikaans, I apologized for my uncertain pronunciation; the Dominee assured me that I was doing fine. I inquired: 'To whom does this prophecy refer?' Without the slightest hesitation he answered: 'Jesus!' I asked: 'Why Jesus? his name is not mentioned here' The Dominee replied: 'Since prophecies are word pictures of something that is going to happen in the future, we find that the wordings of this verse adequately describe him. You see, the most important words of this prophecy are 'soos jy is', 'like unto thee', or 'like you' - like Moses; and Jesus is like Moses.' I asked the Dominee: 'In which way is Jesus like Moses?' The answer was: 'In the first place Moses was a Jew and Jesus was also a Jew; secondly, Moses was a Prophet and Jesus was also a Prophet - therefor Jesus is like Moses and that is exactly what God had foretold Moses - 'Can you think of any other similarities between Moses and Jesus?' I asked. The Dominee said that he could not think of any. I replied: 'If these are the only two criteria for discovering a candidate for this prophecy of Deuteronomy 18:18, then in that case the criteria could fit any one of the following Biblical personages after Moses:- Solomon, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Malachi, John the Baptist etc., because they were also all Jews as well as Prophets. Why should we not apply this prophecy to any one of these prophets, and why only to Jesus?' The Dominee had no reply. I continued: 'You see, my conclusions are that Jesus is most unlike Moses, and if I am wrong I would like you to correct me.' Three Unlike So staying, I reasoned with him: 'In the first place Jesus is not like Moses, because, according to you, Jesus is God, but Moses is not God, is this true?' He said: 'Yes.' I said: 'Therefore Jesus is not like Moses!'. 'Secondly, according to you, Jesus died for the sins of the world, but Moses did not have to die for the sins of the world. Is this true?' He again said: 'Yes.' I said: 'Therefore Jesus is not like Moses!'. 'Thirdly, according to you, Jesus went to Hell for three days, but Moses did not have to go there. Is this true?' He answered meekly: 'Y-e-s!' I concluded: 'Therefore Jesus is not like Moses!'. 'But Dominee,..' I continued: '..these are not hard, solid facts, they are mere matters of belief over which the little ones can stumble and fall. Let us discuss something very simple, very easy that if the little ones are called in to hear the discussion, would have no difficulty following it, shall we?' The Dominee was quiet happy at the suggestion. Father and Mother 'Moses had a father and a mother. Muhammed also had a father and a mother. But Jesus had only a mother, and no human father. Is this true?' He said: 'Yes.' I said: 'Daarom is Jesus nie soos Moses nie, maar Muhammed is soos Moses!' Meaning: 'Therefore Jesus is not like Moses, but Muhammed is like Moses!' (By now the reader will realize that I was using the Afrikaans language only for practice purposes. I shall discontinue its use in this narration). Miraculous Birth 'Moses and Muhammed were born in the normal, natural course, i.e. the physical association of man and woman; but Jesus was created by a special miracle. You will recall that we are told in the Gospel of St. Matthew 1:18 '..before they came together, (Joseph the Carpenter and Mary) she was found with child by the Holy Ghost.' And St. Luke tells us that when the good news of the birth of a holy son was announced to her, Mary reasoned: 'How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee'(Luke 1:35). The Holy Quran confirms the miraculous birth of Jesus, in nobler and sublimer terms. In answer to her logical question: 'O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?' The angel says in reply: 'Even so, Allah createth what He willeth: when He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it 'Be', and it is' (the Holy Quran, 3:47). It is not necessary for God to plant a seed in man or animal. He merely wills it and it comes into being. This is the Muslim conception of the of birth of Jesus. (When I compared the Quran and the Biblical versions of the birth of Jesus to the head of the Bible Society in our largest city, and when I inquired: 'Which version would you prefer to give your daughter, the Quranic version or the Biblical version?' The man bowed his head and answered: 'The Quranic.')(see Christ in Islam for the author). In short, I said to the Dominee: 'Is it true that Jesus was born miraculously as against the natural birth of Moses and Muhammed?' He replied proudly: 'Yes!' I said: 'Therefore Jesus is not like Moses, but Muhammed is like Moses. And God says to Moses in the Book of Deuteronomy 18:18 'Like unto thee', 'Like You', like Moses and Muhammed is like Moses.' Marriage Ties 'Moses and Muhammed married and had children, but Jesus remained a bachelor all his life. Is this true?' The Dominee said: 'Yes.' I said: 'Therefore Jesus is not like Moses, but Muhammed is like Moses.' Jesus Rejected by his People 'Moses and Muhammed were accepted as prophets by their people in their very lifetime. No doubt the Jews gave endless trouble to Moses and they murmured in the wilderness, but as a nation, they acknowledged that Moses was a Messenger of God sent to them. The Arabs too made Mohammad's life impossible. He suffered very badly at their hands. After 13 years of preaching in Mecca, he had to emigrate from the city of his birth. But before his demise, the Arab nation as a whole accepted him as the Messenger of Allah. But according to the Bible, 'He (Jesus) Came unto his own, but his own revived him not'(John 1:11). And even today, after two thousand years, his people, the Jews, as a whole, have rejected him. Is this true?' The Dominee said: 'Yes.' I said: 'Therefore Jesus is not like Moses, but Muhammed is like Moses.' 'Other Worldly' Kingdom 'Moses and Muhammed were prophets as well as kings. A prophet means a man who receives Divine Revelation for the Guidance of man and this Guidance he conveys to God's creatures as received without any addition or deletion. A king is a person who has the power of life and death over his people. It is immaterial whether the person wears a crown or not, or whether he was ever addressed as king or monarch: if the man has the prerogative of inflicting capital punishment, he is a king. Moses possessed such a power. Do you remember the Israelite who was found picking up firewood on Sabbath Day, and Moses had him stoned to death? (Numbers 15:13). There are other crimes also mentioned in the Bible for which capital punishment was inflicted on the Jews at the behest of Moses. Muhammed too, had the power of life and death over his people. There are instances in the Bible of persons who were given gift of prophecy only, but they were not in a position to implement their directives. Some of these holy men of God who were helpless in the face of stubborn rejection of their message, were the prophets Lot, Jonah, Daniel, Ezra, and John the Baptist. They could only deliver the message, but could not enforce the Law. Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him, also belonged to this category. The Christian Gospel clearly confirms this. When Jesus was dragged before the Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate, charged for sedition, Jesus made a convincing point in his defense to refute the false charge: Jesus answered: 'My Kingdom is not of this world. If my Kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now is my Kingdom not from hence'(John 18:36). This convinced Pilate (a pagan) that though Jesus might not be in full possession of his mental faculty, he did not strike him as being a danger to his rule. Jesus claimed a spiritual Kingdom only; in other words he only claimed to be a prophet. Is this true?' The Dominee answered: 'Yes.' I said: 'Therefore Jesus is not like Moses but Muhammed is like Moses.' No New Laws 'Moses and Muhammed brought new laws and new regulations for their people. Moses not only gave the Ten Commandments to the Israelites, but a very comprehensive ceremonial law for the guidance of his people. Muhammed comes to a people steeped in ignorance. They married their step-mothers and buried their daughters alive; drunkenness, idolatry, and gambling were the order of the day. There was hardly anything to distinguish between the 'man' and the 'animal' of the time. From this abject ignorance, Muhammed elevated the Arabs, in the words of Thomas Carlysle, 'Into torch-bearers of light and learning. To the Arab nation it was as a birth from darkness into light. Arabia first became alive by means of it. A poor shepherd people, roaming unnoticed in its deserts since the creation of the world. See, the unnoticed becomes world notable, the small has grown world-great. Within one century afterwards Arabia was at Granada on one hand and at Delhi on the other. Glancing in valor and splendor, and the light of Genius, Arabia shines over section of the world..'. The fact is that Muhammed gave his people a Law and Order they never had before. As regards Jesus, when the Jews felt suspicious of him that he might be an impostor with designs to pervert their teachings. Jesus took pains to assure them that he had not come with a new religion - no new laws and no new regulations. I quote his own words: 'Think not that I am come to destroy the law of the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot of one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.'(Mathew 5:17-18). In other words he had not come with any new laws or regulation he came only to fulfill the old law. This what he gave the Jews to understand unless he was speaking with the tongue in his cheek trying to bluff the Jews into accepting him as a man of God and by subterfuge trying to ram a new religion down their throats. No! This Messenger of God would never resort to such foul means to subvert the Religion of God. He himself fulfilled the laws. He observed the commandments of Moses, and he respected the Sabbath. At no time did a single Jew point a finger at him to say: ''Why don't you fast' or 'why don't you wash your hands before you break bread', which charges they always levied against his disciples, but never against Jesus. This is because as a good Jew he honored the laws of the prophets who preceded him. In short, he had created no new religion and had brought no new law like Moses and Muhammed.' 'Isn't this true?' I asked the Dominee, and he answered: 'Yes.' I said: 'Therefore, Jesus is not like Moses but Muhammed is like Moses.' How they Departed 'Both Moses and Muhammed died natural deaths, but according to Christianity, Jesus was killed on the cross. Is this true?' The Dominee said: 'Yes.' I averred: 'Therefore Jesus is not like Moses but Muhammed is like Moses.' Heavenly Abode 'Moses and Muhammed both lie buried in earth, but according to you, Jesus is in heaven. Is this true? The Dominee agreed. I said: 'Therefore Jesus is not like Moses but Muhammed is like Moses.' Ishmael the First Born Since the Dominee was helplessly agreeing with every point, I said: 'Dominee, so far what I have done is to prove only one point out of the whole prophecy - that is proving the phrase 'Like unto thee' - 'Like You', like Moses'. The Prophecy is much more than this single phrase which reads as follows: 'I will raise them up a prophet from among their bretheren like unto thee..' The emphasis is on the words 'From among their brethren.' Moses and his people, the Jews, are here addressed as a racial entity, as a whole, and as such their brethren would undoubtedly be the Arabs. Abraham had two wives, Sarah and Hagar. Hagar bore Abraham a son, his first born, '..and Abraham called his son's name, which Hagar bare Ishmael.' (Genesis 16:15). 'And Abraham took Ishmael his son..' (Genesis 17:23). 'And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.' (Genesis 17:25). Up to the age of thirteen Ishmael was the only son of Abraham, then God grants him another son through Sarah, named Isaac, who was very much the junior to his brother Ishmael. Arabs and Jews If Ishmael and Isaac are the sons of the same father Abraham, then they are brothers. And so the children of the one are the bretheren of the children of the other. The children of Isaac are the Jews and the children of Ishmael are the Arabs - so they are bretheren to one another. The Bible affirms: 'And he (Ishmael) shall dwell in the presence of all his bretheren.' (Genesis 16:12). 'And he (Ishmael) died in the presence of all his bretheren.' (Genesis 25:18). The children of Isaac are the brethren of the Ishmaelites. In like manner Muhammed is from among the brethren of the Israelites because he was a descendant of Ishmael the son of Abraham. This exactly as the prophecy has it - 'From among their bretheren' (Deut.18:18). There the prophecy distinctly mentions that the coming prophet who would be like Moses, must arise not from the Children of Israel nor from among themselves, but from among their brethren. Muhammed therefore was among their bretheren! Words in the Mouth The prophecy proceeds further: '..And I will put my words into his mouth..' What does it mean when it is said 'I will put my words in your mouth'? You see, when I asked you (the Dominee) to open Deuteronomy chapter 18, verse 18, at the beginning, and if I had asked you to read, and if you had read, would I be putting my words into your mouth? The Dominee answered: 'No.' But, I continued: 'If I were to teach you a language like Arabic, about which you have no knowledge, and if I asked you to read or repeat after me what I utter i.e. 'Say: 'He is Allah the One and Only; Allah, the eternal absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; and there is none like unto Him.' (the Holy Quran 112:1-4) (I read them in Arabic). Would I not be putting these unheard words of a foreign tongue which you utter, into your mouth?' The Dominee agreed that it was indeed so. 'In an identical manner', I said: 'The words of the Holy Quran, the Revelation vouchsafed by the Almighty God to Muhammed, were revealed. History tells us that when Muhammed was forty years of age he was in a cave some three miles north of the City of Mecca. In the cave the Archangel Gabriel commands him in his mother tongue: 'Eqra!', which means 'Read!', or 'Recite!' Muhammed was terrified, and in his bewilderment replied that he was not learned!. The angel commands him a second time with the same result. For the third time the angel continues. Now Muhammed, grasps that what was required of him was to repeat! to rehearse! And he repeats the words as they were put into his mouth: 'Read! In the Name of the Lord and Charisher, Who Created. Created man from a (mere) clot of congealed blood: Read! and thy Lord is the Most Bountiful, He Who taught (the use of) the pen, taught man that which he new not'. (the Holy Quran 96:1-5). These are the first five verses which were revealed to Muhammed, which now occupy the beginning of the 96th chapter of the Holy Quran. The Faithful Witness When the angel departed, Muhammed rushed to his home. Terrified and sweating all over he asked his wife Khadija to 'cover-him up!' He lay down, and she watched by him. When he had regained his composure, he explained to her what he had seen and heard. She assured him of her faith in him and that Allah would not allow any terrible thing to happen to him. Are these the confessions of an impostor? Would impostors confess that when an angel of the Lord confronts them with a Message from on High, they get fear-stricken, terrified, and sweating all over, run home to their wives? Any critic can see that his reactions and confessions are that of an honest, sincere man. During the next twenty three years of his life, words were 'put into his mouth', and he uttered them. They made an indelible impression on his heart and mind; and as the volume of the Sacred Scripture, the Holy Quran, grew, they were recorded on palm-leaf libre, on skins; and in the hearts of his devoted disciples. Before his demise these words were arranged according to his instructions in the order in which we find them today in the Holy Quran. The words (revelation) were actually put into his mouth, exactly as foretold in the prophecy under discussion: 'And I will put my words in his mouth.' (Deut 18:18). Unlettered Prophet Mohammad's experience in the Cave of Hira, and his response to that first Revelation is the exact fulfillment of another Biblical Prophecy. In the Book of Isaiah, chapter 29, verse 12, we read: 'And the Book is delivered to him that is not learned' (Isaiah 29:12). 'The Unlettered prophet' (the Holy Quran 7:158). And the Biblical verse continues: 'Saying, read this, I pray thee:' 'And he saith, I am not learned.'. 'I am not learned.' is the exact translation of the Arabic words which Muhammed uttered twice to the Holy Spirit, the Archangel Gabriel, when he was commanded: 'Read!'). Let me quote the verse in full without a break as found in the King James Version, or the Authorized Version as it is more popularly know: 'And the Book is delivered to him that is no learned, saying: 'Read this I pray thee'. And he saith: 'I am not learned.' ' (Isaiah 29:12). Important note : It may be noted that there were no Arabic Bibles in existence in the 6th century of the Christian Era when Muhammed lived and preached. Besides, he was absolutely unlettered and unlearned. He never knew how to read and write Arabic, his own language, let alone knowing a completely different one. 'He does not speak (aught) of (his own) desire: It is no less than inspiration sent down to him. He was taught by One Mighty in Power' (the Holy Quran 53:3-5). Without any human learning, 'he put to shame the wisdom of the learned'. Grave Warning 'See!' I told the Dominee, 'how the prophecies fit Muhammed like a glove. We do not have to stretch prophecies to justify their fulfillment in Muhammed.' The Dominee replied, 'All your expositions sound very well, but they are of no real consequence, because we Christians have Jesus Christ the incarnate God, who has redeemed us from the Bondage of Sin!' I asked: 'Not important? God didn't think so! He had His warnings recorded in the scriptures. God knew that there would be people like you who will light-heartedly discount His words, so He followed up Deuteronomy 18:18 with a dare warning: 'And it shall come to pass (it is going to happen), that whosoever will not hearken unto My words which he shall speak in My Name, I will require if of him.' (In the Catholic Bible the ending words are 'I will be the revenger', 'I will take revenge!'). 'Does not this terrify you? God Almighty is threatening revenge! We shake in our pants if some hoodlum threatens us, yet you have no fear of God's warning?' Miracle of Miracles! in the verse 19 of Deuteronomy chapter 18, we have a further fulfillment of the prophecy in Muhammed! Note the words '..My words which he shall speak in My Name'. In whose name is Muhammed speaking?' I opened Yusuf Ali's translation of the Holy Quran, at chapter 114, Surat An-Nas, or The Chapter of Mankind, the last chapter of the Quran, and showed him the formula at the head of the chapter, and the meaning: 'In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful'. And the heading of chapter 113, and the meaning: 'In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful'. And every chapter downwards 112, 111, 110,..was the same formula and the same meaning on every page, because the end surahs (chapters) are short and take about a page each. And what did the prophecy demand? '..Which he shall speak in My Name'; and in whose name does Muhammed speak? In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. The Prophecy is being fulfilled in Muhammed to the letter; every chapter of the Holy Quran except the 9th begin with the formula: 'In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful'. The Muslim begins his every lawful act with the Holy formula. But the Christian begins: 'In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.' Concerning Deuteronomy chapter eighteen, I have given you more than 15 reasons as to how this prophecy refers to Muhammed and not to Jesus. Baptist Contradicts Jesus In New Testament times, we find that the Jews were still expecting the fulfillment of the prophecy of One like Moses, refer John 1:19-25. When Jesus claimed to be the Messiah of the Jews, the Jews began to esquire as to where was Elias? The Jews had a parallel prophecy that before the coming of the Messiah, Elias must come first in his second coming. Jesus confirms this Jewish belief: 'Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, that Elias is come already, and they knew him not,.. then the Disciples understood that he spoke unto them of John the Baptist.' (Mathew 17:11-13). According to the New Testament the Jews were not the ones to swallow the words of any would-be Messiah. In their investigations they underwent intense difficulties in order to find their true Messiah. And this the Gospel of John confirms: 'And this is the record of John (the Baptist), when the Jews sent priests and levites from Jerusalem to ask him, 'Who art thou?', and he confessed and denied not; but confessed, 'I am not the Christ' ' (This was only natural because there can't be two Messiahs at the same time. If Jesus was the Christ then John couldn't be the Christ!) 'And they asked him: 'What then? Art thou Elias?' And he saith: 'I am not' ' Here John the Baptist contradicts Jesus! Jesus says that John is Elias and John denies that he is what Jesus ascribes him to be. One of the two (Jesus or John), God forbid!, is definitely not speaking the truth! On the testimony of Jesus himself, John the Baptist was the greatest of the Israelite prophets: 'Verily I say unto you, among them that are born of women, there has not risen a greater than John the Baptist' (Matthew 11:11). We Muslims know John the Baptist as Yahya. We revere him as a true prophet of Allah. The Holy Prophet Jesus known to us as Eesa, is also esteemed as one of the mightiest messenger of the Almighty. How can we Muslims impute lies to either of them? We leave this problem between Jesus and John for the Christians to solve, for their 'Sacred Scriptures abound in discrepancies which they have been glossing over as the 'dark sayings of Jesus' ' (See the Times Magazine December 30th, 1974, article How true is the Bible?). We Muslims are really interested in the last questions posed to John the Baptist by the Jewish elite - Art thou that prophet? And he answered, 'No.'(John 1:21). Three Questions! Please note that three different and distinct questions were posed to John the Baptist, and to which he gave three emphatic No's as answers. To recapitulate: 'Art thou the Christ?' 'Art thou Elias ?' 'Art thou that Prophet?' But the learned men of Christendom somehow only see two questions implied here. To make doubly clear that the Jews definitely had three separate prophecies in their minds when they were interrogating John the Baptist. Let us read the remonstrance of the Jews in the verses following: 'And they asked him, and said unto him: 'Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ.. nor Elias.. neither that Prophet ?' ' (John 1:25). The Jews were waiting for the fulfillment of three distinct prophecies: a. the coming of Christ. b. the coming of Elias, and c. the coming of that Prophet. 'That Prophet' If we look up any Bible which has a concordance or cross-references, then we will find in the marginal note where the words the Prophet, or that Prophet occur in John 1:25, that these words refer to the prophecy of Deuteronomy 18:15 and 18. And that that Prophet - the Prophet like Moses - 'Like unto thee', we have proved through overwhelming evidence that he was Muhammed and not Jesus! Muslims are not denying that Jesus was the Messiah, which word is translated as Christ. We are not contesting the Thousand and One Prophecies which the Christians claim abound in the Old Testament foretelling the coming of the Messiah. What we say is that Deuteronomy 18:18 does not refer to Jesus Christ but it is an explicit prophecy about the prophet Muhammed!.' The Dominee, very politely parted with me by saying that it was a very interesting discussion and he would like me very much to come one day and address his congregation on the subject. A decade and half has passed since then but I am still awaiting that privilege. I believe the Dominee was sincere when he made the offer, but prejudices die hard, and who would like to loose his sheep? The Acid Test To the Lambs of Christ I say, why not apply that acid test which the Master himself wanted you to apply to any would be claimant to prophethood? He had said: 'By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes from the thorns, of figs from the thistles? Every good tree will bear good fruit and every evil tree will bear evil fruit... By their fruits ye shall know them'. (Mathew 7:16-20). Why are you afraid to apply this test to the teachings of Muhammed? You will find in the Last Testament of God, the Holy Quran, the true fulfillment of the teachings of Moses and Jesus which will bring to the world the much needed peace and happiness. George Bernard Shaw was quoted as saying: 'If a man like Muhammed were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness.' The weekly news magazine Time dated July 15, 1974, carried a selection of opinions by various historians, writers, military men, businessmen an others on the subject: 'Who were History's Great Leaders?' Some said that it was Hitler; others said Gandhi, Buddha, Lincoln and the like. But Jules Masserman, a United States psychoanalyst, put the standards straight by giving the correct criteria wherewith to judge. He said: 'Leaders must fulfill three functions: Provide for the well-being of the led, Provide a social organization in which people feel relatively secure, and Provide them with one set of beliefs.' With the above three criteria he searches history and analyses Hitler, Pasteur, Gaesar, Moses, Confucius and the lot, and ultimately concludes: 'People like Pasteur and Salk are leaders in the first sense. People like Ghandi and Confucius, on one hand, and Alexander, Caesar, and Hitler on the other, are leaders in the second, and perhaps the third sense. Jesus and Buddha belong in the third category alone. Perhaps the greatest leader of all times was Muhammed, who combined all three functions. To a lesser degree, Moses did the same.' According to the objective standards set by the professor of the Chicago University, Jesus and Buddha are nowhere in the picture of the 'Great Leaders of Mankind', but by a queer coincidence groups Moses and Muhammed together, thus adding further weight to the argument that Jesus is not like Moses, but Muhammed is like Moses. Deut 18:18 'Like unto thee', like Moses! In conclusion, I end with a quotation of a Christian Reverend the commentator of the Bible, followed by that of his Master: 'The ultimate criterion of a true prophet is the moral character of his teaching.' (Prof. Dummelow). 'By their fruits ye shall know them.' (Jesus Christ) A concluding suggestion : come let us reason together! 'Say: 'O People of the Book! Come to common terms as between us and you: that we worship none but Allah (God); that we associate no partners with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, lords and patrons other than Allah (God)'. If then they turn back, say: 'Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (Bowing to God's Will).' ' (the Holy Quran 3:64) People of the Book is the respectful title given to the Jews and the Christians in the Holy Quran. The Muslims are here commanded to invite, O People of the Book!, O Learned People!, O People who claim to be the recipients of Divine Revelation, of a Holy Scripture; let us gather together onto a common platform, 'that we worship none but Allah (God)', because none but God is worthy of worship, not because 'The Lord thy God is a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me.' (Exodus 20:25). But because He is our Lord and Cherisher, our Sustainer and Evolver, worthy of all praise, prayer and devotion. In the abstract the Jews and the Christians would agree to all the three propositions contained in this Quranic verse. In practice they fail. Apart from doctrinal lapses from the unity of the One True God, Allah, may He be praised, there is the question of a consecrated Priesthood (among the Jews it was hereditary also), as if a mere human being - Cohen or Pope, or Priest, or Brahuman, - could claim superiority apart from his learning and the purity of his life, or could stand between man and God in some special sense. Islam does not recognize priesthood!. The Creed of Islam is given to us here in a nutshell from Holy Quran: 'Say ye: 'We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes (of the Children of Israel), And that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) Prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam).' ' (the Holy Quran 2:136). The Muslim position is clear. The Muslim does not claim to have a religion peculiar to himself. Islam is not a sect or an ethnic religion. In its view all religion is one, for the Truth is one: 'It was the same religion preached by all the earlier prophets.' (the Holy Quran 42:13). It was the truth taught by all the inspired Books. In essence it amounts to a consciousness of the Will and Plan of God and a joyful submission to that Will and Plan. If anyone wants a religion other than that, he is false to his own nature, as he is false to God's Will and Plan. Such a one cannot expect guidance, for he has deliberately renounced guidance. http://www.jamaat.net/deedat.htm   zaheer - uddin (Zaheer) Starlite Member Username: Zaheer Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 09:56 am:    1 MUHAMMAD 570-632 From the 100, a Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History by Michael H. Hart My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels. Of humble origins, Muhammad founded and promulgated one of the world's great religions, and became an immensely effective political leader. Today, thirteen centuries after his death, his influence is still powerful and pervasive. The majority of the persons in this book had the advantage of being born and raised in centers of civilization, highly cultured or politically pivotal nations. Muhammad, however, was born in the year 570, in the city of Mecca, in southern Arabia, at that time a backward area of the world, far from the centers of trade, art, and learning. Orphaned at age six, he was reared in modest surroundings. Islamic tradition tells us that he was illiterate. His economic position improved when, at age twenty-five, he married a wealthy widow. Nevertheless, as he approached forty, there was little outward indication that he was a remarkable person. Most Arabs at that time were pagans, who believed in many gods. There were, however, in Mecca, a small number of Jews and Christians; it was from them no doubt that Muhammad first learned of a single, omnipotent God who ruled the entire universe. When he was forty years old, Muhammad became convinced that this one true God (Allah) was speaking to him, and had chosen him to spread the true faith. For three years, Muhammad preached only to close friends and associates. Then, about 613, he began preaching in public. As he slowly gained converts, the Meccan authorities came to consider him a dangerous nuisance. In 622, fearing for his safety, Muhammad fled to Medina (a city some 200 miles north of Mecca), where he had been offered a position of considerable political power. This flight, called the Hegira, was the turning point of the Prophet's life. In Mecca, he had had few followers. In Medina, he had many more, and he soon acquired an influence that made him a virtual dictator. During the next few years, while Muhammad s following grew rapidly, a series of battles were fought between Medina and Mecca. This was ended in 630 with Muhammad's triumphant return to Mecca as conqueror. The remaining two and one-half years of his life witnessed the rapid conversion of the Arab tribes to the new religion. When Muhammad died, in 632, he was the effective ruler of all of southern Arabia. The Bedouin tribesmen of Arabia had a reputation as fierce warriors. But their number was small; and plagued by disunity and internecine warfare, they had been no match for the larger armies of the kingdoms in the settled agricultural areas to the north. However, unified by Muhammad for the first time in history, and inspired by their fervent belief in the one true God, these small Arab armies now embarked upon one of the most astonishing series of conquests in human history. To the northeast of Arabia lay the large Neo-Persian Empire of the Sassanids; to the northwest lay the Byzantine, or Eastern Roman Empire, centered in Constantinople. Numerically, the Arabs were no match for their opponents. On the field of battle, though, the inspired Arabs rapidly conquered all of Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine. By 642, Egypt had been wrested from the Byzantine Empire, while the Persian armies had been crushed at the key battles of Qadisiya in 637, and Nehavend in 642. But even these enormous conquests-which were made under the leadership of Muhammad's close friends and immediate successors, Abu Bakr and 'Umar ibn al-Khattab -did not mark the end of the Arab advance. By 711, the Arab armies had swept completely across North Africa to the Atlantic Ocean There they turned north and, crossing the Strait of Gibraltar, overwhelmed the Visigothic kingdom in Spain. For a while, it must have seemed that the Moslems would overwhelm all of Christian Europe. However, in 732, at the famous Battle of Tours, a Moslem army, which had advanced into the center of France, was at last defeated by the Franks. Nevertheless, in a scant century of fighting, these Bedouin tribesmen, inspired by the word of the Prophet, had carved out an empire stretching from the borders of India to the Atlantic Ocean-the largest empire that the world had yet seen. And everywhere that the armies conquered, large-scale conversion to the new faith eventually followed. Now, not all of these conquests proved permanent. The Persians, though they have remained faithful to the religion of the Prophet, have since regained their independence from the Arabs. And in Spain, more than seven centuries of warfare 5 finally resulted in the Christians reconquering the entire peninsula. However, Mesopotamia and Egypt, the two cradles of ancient civilization, have remained Arab, as has the entire coast of North Africa. The new religion, of course, continued to spread, in the intervening centuries, far beyond the borders of the original Moslem conquests. Currently it has tens of millions of adherents in Africa and Central Asia and even more in Pakistan and northern India, and in Indonesia. In Indonesia, the new faith has been a unifying factor. In the Indian subcontinent, however, the conflict between Moslems and Hindus is still a major obstacle to unity. How, then, is one to assess the overall impact of Muhammad on human history? Like all religions, Islam exerts an enormous influence upon the lives of its followers. It is for this reason that the founders of the world's great religions all figure prominently in this book . Since there are roughly twice as many Christians as Moslems in the world, it may initially seem strange that Muhammad has been ranked higher than Jesus. There are two principal reasons for that decision. First, Muhammad played a far more important role in the development of Islam than Jesus did in the development of Christianity. Although Jesus was responsible for the main ethical and moral precepts of Christianity (insofar as these differed from Judaism), St. Paul was the main developer of Christian theology, its principal proselytizer, and the author of a large portion of the New Testament. Muhammad, however, was responsible for both the theology of Islam and its main ethical and moral principles. In addition, he played the key role in proselytizing the new faith, and in establishing the religious practices of Islam. Moreover, he is the author of the Moslem holy scriptures, the Koran, a collection of certain of Muhammad's insights that he believed had been directly revealed to him by Allah. Most of these utterances were copied more or less faithfully during Muhammad's lifetime and were collected together in authoritative form not long after his death. The Koran therefore, closely represents Muhammad's ideas and teachings and to a considerable extent his exact words. No such detailed compilation of the teachings of Christ has survived. Since the Koran is at least as important to Moslems as the Bible is to Christians, the influence of Muhammed through the medium of the Koran has been enormous It is probable that the relative influence of Muhammad on Islam has been larger than the combined influence of Jesus Christ and St. Paul on Christianity. On the purely religious level, then, it seems likely that Muhammad has been as influential in human history as Jesus. Furthermore, Muhammad (unlike Jesus) was a secular as well as a religious leader. In fact, as the driving force behind the Arab conquests, he may well rank as the most influential political leader of all time. Of many important historical events, one might say that they were inevitable and would have occurred even without the particular political leader who guided them. For example, the South American colonies would probably have won their independence from Spain even if Simon Bolivar had never lived. But this cannot be said of the Arab conquests. Nothing similar had occurred before Muhammad, and there is no reason to believe that the conquests would have been achieved without him. The only comparable conquests in human history are those of the Mongols in the thirteenth century, which were primarily due to the influence of Genghis Khan. These conquests, however, though more extensive than those of the Arabs, did not prove permanent, and today the only areas occupied by the Mongols are those that they held prior to the time of Genghis Khan. It is far different with the conquests of the Arabs. From Iraq to Morocco, there extends a whole chain of Arab nations united not merely by their faith in Islam, but also by their Arabic language, history, and culture. The centrality of the Koran in the Moslem religion and the fact that it is written in Arabic have probably prevented the Arab language from breaking up into mutually unintelligible dialects, which might otherwise have occurred in the intervening thirteen centuries. Differences and divisions between these Arab states exist, of course, and they are considerable, but the partial disunity should not blind us to the important elements of unity that have continued to exist. For instance, neither Iran nor Indonesia, both oil-producing states and both Islamic in religion, joined in the oil embargo of the winter of 1973-74. It is no coincidence that all of the Arab states, and only the Arab states, participated in the embargo. We see, then, that the Arab conquests of the seventh century have continued to play an important role in human history, down to the present day. It is this unparalleled combination of secular and religious influence which I feel entitles Muhammad to be considered the most influential single figure in human history. http://www.jamaat.net/deedat.htm   zaheer - uddin (Zaheer) Starlite Member Username: Zaheer Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 09:51 am:    WHAT WAS THE SIGN OF JONAH? By Ahmed Deedat 'CHRIST' NOT A NAME Over a thousand million Christians today blindly accept that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ. They produce 'a thousand and one' prophecies from the Jewish Bible (the Old Testament) to prove their claim that Jesus was the Messiah promised to the Jews. Let us hold the thousand' prophecies in abeyance for a moment and examine the only unequivocal claim made by Jesus in the Gospels and examine whether he fulfilled his promise to the Jews. We must admit that the word CHRIST is not a name. It is a title. It is a translation of the Hebrew word Messiah, meaning 'anointed.' The Greek word for 'anointed' is Christos from which we get the word Christ. Priests and kings were 'anointed' when being consecrated to their office. The Holy Bible confers this title even on a heathen king CYRUS (Isaiah 45:1). We are reminded in the Gospel of St.Luke that 'WHEN EIGHT DAYS WERE ACCOMPLISHED FOR THE CIRCUMCISING OF THE CHILD, HIS NAME WAS CALLED JESUS, WHICH WAS SO NAMED OF THE ANGEL BEFORE HE WAS CONCEIVED IN THE WOMB.' (Luke 2:21). The name that was given to Mary for her yet unborn son was JESUS and NOT Christ. It was only after his baptism at the hands of John the Baptist that he, Jesus, claimed to be the Christ. The Jews were not the ones to accept his claim on its face value. They wanted proof! MIRACLE AS PROOF Matthew records that the learned men among the Jews - the Scribes and Pharisees - came to Jesus and asked, 'MASTER, WE WOULD SEE A SIGN FROM THEE'. (Matthew 12:38). What they really wanted was some 'magic trick,' some 'sleight of hand' like producing a rabbit out of a hat or walking on the water or flying in the air or trodding on burning coal. This is the type of 'sign' or MIRACLE they were looking for. The Jews mistook him for a sorcerer, a wizard, a charlatan. NO 'SIGN' BUT ONE With righteous indignation Jesus replies: 'AN EVIL AND ADULTEROUS GENERATION SEEKETH AFTER A SIGN; AND THERE SHALL NO SIGN (no miracle) BE GIVEN TO IT, BUT THE SIGN (miracle) OF THE PROPHET JONAS: FOR AS JONAS WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE WHALE'S BELLY; SO SHALL THE SON OF MAN BE THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE HEART OF THE EARTH.' Matthew 12:39-40). Jesus says, 'NO SIGN.' He does not refer the Jews to blind Bartimeus whose sight he had restored. He does not speak about the 'woman with issues' who was healed by merely touching him; or about the 2000 pigs he had destroyed to heal 'a man possessed;' or the 5000 and the 3000 people he had fed and satiated with a few pieces of fish and a few pieces of bread. 'No sign,' says Jesus, BUT ONE! - 'THE SIGN OF THE PROPHET JONAS!' He is putting all his 'eggs' in one basket. His claim to being the Messiah (Christ) stands or falls the ONLY 'sign' he was prepared to give. Did Jesus fulfill the only sign he gave? Christendom answers with a unanimous Y-E-S! without heeding the Biblical advice - 'not to take things for granted.' - but 'PROVE ALL THINGS!' (1 Thessalonians 5:21) JONAH FLEES HIS CALL What was the 'sign' (miracle) of Jonah? We have to go to the 'Book of Jonah' in the Old Testament to find out. God commanded Jonah to go to Nineveh and warn the Ninevites to repent from their 'evil ways, and from the violence that is in their hands.' (Jonah 3:8) But Jonah was loath to go as a warner unto the Ninevites, so he goes to Joppa instead of Ninevah, and takes a boat to run away from the Lord's command. While at sea, there was a terrible tempest. According to the superstition of the mariners, a person fleeing from his Master's command creates such a turmoil at sea. They began to enquire among themselves and said, 'COME, AND LET US CAST LOTS, (like the tossing of a coin, 'head' or 'tail') THAT WE MAY KNOW FOR WHOSE CAUSE THIS EVIL IS UPON US. SO THEY CAST LOTS, AND THE LOT FELL UPON JONAH.' (Jonah 1:7). Though here was a temporary lapse on the part of Jonah in fulfilling his mission, he manfully and most outrageously volunteers: 'AND HE SAID UNTO THEM TAKE ME UP, AND CAST ME FORTH INTO THE SEA; SO SHALL THE SEA BE CALM UNTO YOU: FOR I KNOW THAT FOR MY SAKE THIS GREAT TEMPEST IS UPON YOU.' (Jonah 1:12) DEAD OR ALIVE? Since Jonah was selflessly offering himself as a 'vicarious' sacrifice there was no need for strangling him before throwing him into the sea, no need to spear him or break his arm or limb. In his own words: 'TAKE ME UP AND CAST ME FORTH.' The question now arises, that when the shipmaster and the crew threw him overboard, was Jonah dead or alive? Any Christian child who has attended Sunday School will give an immediate reply: 'ALIVE!' The storm subsides. Was this perhaps a coincidence? A fish swallows Jonah. Was he dead or alive when swallowed? The answer again is 'ALIVE' Was he dead or alive when 'JONAH PRAYED UNTO THE LORD HIS GOD OUT OF THE FISH'S BELLY?' (Jonah 2:1) Surely dead men don't cry and don't pray! The answer again is 'ALIVE' For three days and three nights the fish takes him around the ocean: dead or alive? 'ALIVE!' is the answer. On the third day it vomits him on the seashore: dead or alive? A-L-I-V-E, of course! What had Jesus prophesied about himself? He said: 'AS JONAH WAS ..... SO SHALL THE SON OF MAN BE' LIKE JONAH. And how was Jonah? Was he dead or alive for three days and three nights? Alive! ALIVE! ALIVE! is the unanimous answer from the Jew, the Christian and the Muslim! UNLIKE JONAH 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! But Christianity hangs on the flimsy thread of the death' of Jesus for its salvation. So it has to answer that Jesus was DEAD for three days and three nights. The contradiction between his utterance and its fulfilment is obvious. Jonah ALIVE, Jesus DEAD! Very UNLIKE Jonah! Jesus had said 'LIKE Jonah' not UNLIKE Jonah. If this is true then according to his own test Jesus is not the TRUE Messiah of the Jews. If the Gospel record is genuine then how can we blame the Jews for rejecting 'CHRIST'. THREE AND THREE = 72 HOURS? The Doctor of Divinity and the Professor of Theology replies that in Matthew 12:40 under discussion, the emphasis is on the TIME factor - 'as Jonas 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.' 'Please note,' says the learned theologian, 'that the word 'THREE' is repeated F-O-U-R times in this verse to prove that Jesus was going to fulfil the prophecy as regards the length of time he was going to remain in the tomb, and NOT 'As Jonas was' in relation to his being alive or dead. If it is the time factor that Jesus was stressing then let us ask whether he fulfilled that aspect of his promise to the Jews as well. The Christian dogmatist answers: 'OF COURSE!' PUBLIC HOLIDAY The question arises: when was Christ crucified? The whole Christian world answers: 'FRIDAY!' Is this the reason we celebrate 'Good Friday' - as a Public Holiday in every Christian nation from America to Zambia, from Abyssinia to Zaire at Easter? What makes Good Friday' so good? 'it is the death of Christ on the Cross on this day to wash off our sins,' says the Christians. So he was killed on the cross on a Friday, 19xx years ago? 'YES!' says the Christians. From the Gospel records we gather that the Jews were in a hurry to eliminate Jesus. Hence the midnight trial, and then dispatching him off to Pilate in the morning; from Pilate to Herod and then back again to Pilate. The vested interests were afraid of the general public. Jesus was their hero. He had been their benefactor. His enemies had to do away with him quickly, and succeeded in doing so. However, as much as they were in a hurry to hang him on the cross, they were in equal hurry to bring him down from the cross before sunset on Friday because of the Sabbath. The Sabbath starts at about 6 p.m. on Friday and the Jews were warned in Deuteronomy 21:23 that the victim of crucifixion was an 'accursed of God' and was not to be permitted to remain hanging on the Sabbath day, 'that thy land be not defiled which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.' To satisfy the religious scruples of the Scribes and Pharisees the 'secret disciples' of Jesus took down the body from the cross. They gave the body the Jewish burial-bath, plastered it with 'one hundred pounds weight of aaloes and myrrh' (John 19:39), then placed the shrouded body into the sepulcher before night-fall. WHY 'SUPPOSED'? There are numerous differences between the various sects and denominations of Christianity, but on the above they are unanimous. Jesus is SUPPOSED to be in the tomb on the night of Friday. He is still SUPPOSED to be in the tomb on the day of Saturday. He is still SUPPOSED to be in the tomb on the night of Saturday. Christians agree whole-heartedly with this. It will be noted that I have repeated the word 'SUPPOSED' three times. The reason is that the Gospels are silent as to when exactly Jesus came out of the tomb. He could have been taken away on Friday night by his 'secret disciples' to a more congenial and restful place, but I have no right to assume about what the Gospel writers are silent. I have, therefore, repeated the word 'SUPPOSED' three times. In the final analysis, let us see whether Jesus was THREE days and THREE nights in the tomb:- EASTER WEEK IN THE SEPULCHER DAYS NIGHTS FRIDAY - placed in tomb just before sunset - nil - One night SATURDAY - supposed to be in tomb One day One night SUNDAY - missing before sunrise - nil - - nil - TOTAL One Day Two Nights You will no doubt note that the GRAND TOTAL is ONE day and TWO nights, and NOT three days and three nights. According to the Christian Scriptures Jesus had failed a SECOND time. FIRST he was unlike Jonah, who was ALIVE in the belly of the fish, which is the exact opposite of what the Christians claim had happened to their master Jesus, who was DEAD for the same period of time as Jonah was - ALIVE. SECONDLY, we discover that he also failed to fulfill the TIME FACTOR as well. The greatest mathematician in Christendom will fail to obtain the desired result - THREE days and THREE nights. We must not forget that the Gospels are explicit in telling us that it was 'before sunrise' on Sunday morning (the FIRST day of the week), that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb of Jesus and found it empty. 'GOOD' WEDNESDAY The Armstrong family has debunked the whole Christian world. They seem to know their arithmetic! Mr Robert Fahey of the 'Plain Truth' magazine, delivered a lecture recently at the 'Holiday Inn,' Durban, where I was present. Mr Fahey attempted to prove to his Christian audience that Jesus Christ was crucified on a Wednesday and not on Friday, as is supposed by Orthodox Christianity for the past two thousand years. According to him if one counts backwards from Sunday morning deducting 3 DAYS and 3 NIGHTS, one ought to get WEDNESDAY as the answer. I congratulated Mr Fahey for his ingenuity. I asked him, how was it possible for the past two thousand years the whole Christian world celebrated GOOD FRIDAY instead of GOOD WEDNESDAY. Thus the 1,200,000,000 Christians of the world today are ignorant of the correct day of the so called crucifixion! It means that even the Roman Catholic Church – which claims an unbroken chain of Popes from Peter to this day - according to Mr Fahey are mislead. GOD OR THE DEVIL? The question arises, who deceived the millions of Christians for the past TWO THOUSAND years. GOD or the DEVIL? Mr Fahey categorically answered: 'THE DEVIL!' 'If the devil,' I said, 'can succeed in confusing the Christians in the most elementary things of their Faith, whether to celebrate a Good Friday or a Good Wednesday, then how much easier for him to mislead Christians in other things concerning God?' Mr Fahey blushed and walked away. If this is the belief of the trend-setters of the Christian Faith in the world today, may we not then ask: is this not the mightiest hoax in history? http://www.jamaat.net/deedat.htm   zaheer - uddin (Zaheer) Starlite Member Username: Zaheer Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 09:16 am:    Crucifixion or Crucifiction By Ahmed Deedat CHRISTIAN OBJECTION To the Muslim belief that Jesus Christ was 'neither killed nor crucified', the Christian objects, 'how can a man (Muhummed pbuh) a thousand miles away from the scene of a happening, and 600 years after an event, pronounce as to what had transpired?' The Muslim says that the words Muhummed (pbuh) uttered were not his own, but that the Words were 'put into his mouth' by the All-Knowing, All-Seeing God. The Christian retorts that he is not prepared to accept the metaphysical aspect of Muhummed's revelation; moreso, in view of the written records by 'eye-witnesses' (?) and 'ear-witnesses' (?) as regards the happenings on that Easter week-end some two thousand years ago. The Christian plea is valid. Their logic is good. To entertain their plea we will call up their witnesses and cross examine them to discover the truth or falsity of the matter from their own authorities. Admittedly, the key witnesses in the case are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John — the alleged authors of the Canonical Gospels. But they have all died and are in their graves. 'Yes, that is true, but we have in our possession their sworn affidavits!' says the Christian. DEMAND FOR PROOF When confronted by the extravagant and conflicting claims of the Jews and the Christians to their exclusive rights to salvation, Allah commands us to demand for Proof. He says: And they say: 'None shall enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian.' Those are their (vain) desires. Say: 'Produce your proof if ye are truthful.' (SURA BAQARA)Holy Quran 2:111 And they have produced the only proof they have; in over fifteen hundred different languages! Eleven different dialects of the Bible for the Arabs alone! Are we going to swallow them hook, line and sinker? No! It is presupposed that when Allah commands us to demand for proof, that we would be in a position to analyse the proof, once it is produced. Otherwise, it makes no sense to demand for proof; it would be nonsense! THIRD-PARTY EVIDENCE — 'ACCORDING TO . . .' The amazing thing about the Christians' sworn affidavits (writings attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) is that not a single one of them is duly attested. Not a single one bears the SIGNATURE, SIR NAME , MARK or THUMB-PRINT of its author in the so-called originals. They now claim of being in possession of over 5000 'originals' of which no two 'originals' are identical. Amazing! Little-wonder the Christians themselves label their Gospels as — 'The Gospel according to St. Matthew', 'The Gospel according to St. Mark', 'The Gospel according to St. Luke' and 'The Gospel according to St. John'. When Christian scholars are asked why the words 'according to' are repeated at the beginning of every Gospel, the obvious implication is that they are not autographed. It is only assumed that they are authored by the names the Gospels carry today. The translators of the 'New International Version' have unceremoniously expunged the 'According to’s' from the four Gospels in their latest translation. Of the alleged Gospel writers, viz., Matthew, Mark, Luke and John it can be categorically stated that 50% were not even the elected Twelve Disciples of Jesus (pbuh). . PRIMA-FACIE CASE I dare humbly claim that such unattested documents would be thrown out of hand, in any Court-of-Law, in any civilised country, in just two minutes. Furthermore, one of the alleged witnesses, St. Mark, tells us that at the most critical juncture in the life of Jesus — 'All his disciples forsook him and fled'- (Mark 14:50). So the so-called 'eye-witnesses' were not really eyewitnesses to the happenings, unless St. Mark is not telling us the whole truth, the 'gospel truth'. Yet he is supposed to be speaking under oath! You will agree that a case based on such hearsay evidence would be thrown out of Court, TWICE in two minutes, in any Court-of-Law, in any civilised country; that is TWICE in just 120 seconds flat! But a ghost (dogma) of two thousand years standing, upon which hangs the salvation of 1200 million Christians, should not be summarily dismissed. It deserves a little more circumspection. We will therefore entertain the alleged testimonies of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as if they were duly attested. WHERE DO WE BEGIN? At the beginning of course! — exactly as the Bible does ('In the beginning. . .' - Genesis 1:1) — just 24 hours before the cataclysmic events of 'a thunderstorm; an eclipse of the sun; an earthquake; rocks being rent; the veil of the temple being torn from the top to bottom; graves being opened and sleeping corpses marching through the streets of Jerusalem . . .' as narrated by the Christians' Witnesses. We must not forget that the Jews are in the dock, alleged for the murder of Jesus Christ; and we as Muslims are constrained to defend them against the Christian charge, because justice must be done. Whatever their sins of commission and omission, Allah exonerates them from the charge of murder. He says: FOR OF A SURETY THEY KILLED HIM NOT. (Holy Qur’an 4:157) AROUND THE TABLE On the eve of the Passover Feast, Jesus and his twelve disciples are seated around a huge Table with their host — the 'beloved disciple', whose name also happened to be JOHN. Johns' and Jesus' 1 were names, common among the Jews in the year 30 A.C. as Toms, Dicks, Johns and Jimmys are with us in the twentieth century. There were at least 14 men at the table MARCH INTO JERUSALEM Jesus (Peace be upon him) made his triumphant royal entry into Jerusalem at the head of an excited and enthusiastic following, with high hopes of establishing the 'Kingdom of God' any minute; riding a donkey to fulfill prophecy (Zechariah 9:9) – Tell ye the daughter of Zion, behold, thy KING cometh. . . sitting upon an •••. . . And a great multitude spread their garments. . . and branches in the way. . . and the multitude cried, saying, 'Hosanna to the SON OF DAVID. . . Hosanna in the highest . . .' (HOLY BIBLE) Matthew 21:5-9 Let Luke the beloved physician, add his strokes to clarify the picture. '. . . because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should IMMEDIATELY appear'- (HOLY BIBLE) Luke 19:11 HEAVENLY KINGDOM??? 'But those mine enemies, who would not that I should REIGN over them, bring them hither, and SLAY them before me'- (HOLY BIBLE) Luke 19:27. . . . Blessed be the KING who cometh in the name of the Lord. . . (HOLY BIBLE) Luke 19:38. And John adds that the excited throng exclaimed — 'Hosanna! Blessed is the KING of ISRAEL, that cometh in the name of the Lord'- (HOLY BIBLE) John 12:13. 'The Pharisees said. . . Behold, the world is gone (mad) after him (Jesus)'- (HOLY BIBLE) John 12:21. 'NOW is the judgement of this world; N-O-W shall the prince of this world be CAST OUT'- (HOLY BIBLE) John 12:31. Who would withstand such heady-wine of impending glory? Little wonder that Jesus was tempted physically to oust those that bought and sold within the temple precincts. He overthrew the money-changer's tables and drove them out with a 'whip of cords'-(John 2:15). AN ABORTED COUP The overthrow of the Temple Authority was imminent, and a forerunner to the expulsion of the Romans, heralding the 'Kingdom of God.' But alas his high hopes did not materialize. The whole performance fizzled out like a damp squib, despite all the 'Hosannas' and hoorays to the 'Son of David' and the 'King of Israel.' All this ballyhoo was only forty years premature. 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. His nation was not ready for any sacrifice, in spite of all their infantile clamour. JEWISH REASONING The Jewish leaders reasoned that this one man had almost brought the nation to destruction. Therefore, 'It is expedient for one man to die for the nation – (HOLY BIBLE) John 11:50. But with all the mass hysteria surrounding him, it was also NOT expedient to apprehend Jesus in public. They waited for the opportunity of a clandestine arrest. As luck would have it they found in Judas, an elected disciple of Jesus (Peace be upon him), a traitor who would sell his Lord and Master for thirty miserable pieces of silver. JUDAS WAS DISGRUNTLED In the opinion of Christian divines it was the greed of gold which enticed Judas to do his dastardly deed. But he had more money-sense then the Christians gave him credit for. As a purser for the elect group of Jesus he had endless opportunities of pinching pennies permanently. Why jeopardize that for all times for 30 paltry pieces? There is more to that than meets the eye. Judas was disgruntled, after all those mass demonstrations on Jesus' regal entry into Jerusalem — those hot out-pourings of: 'The HOUR is come — and NOW is — the Prince of this World will be CAST OUT — I should REIGN over them — bring them HITHER and SLAY THEM before me.' Jesus had now developed cold-feet. If only Jesus could be provoked, he might react with miracles, and bring down fire and brimstones from Heaven upon his enemies; and, of course, the legions of angels (which he boasted were at his disposal), which would enable him and his disciples to rule the world. From close contact with the Master, he had learned that Jesus was kind, tender and loving. But, he was not a mealy-mouthed man; he was no milk-and-water Messiah. But Judas could not understand the 'hot and cold' blowings of Jesus. Perhaps if Jesus was accosted, he would yet deliver the goods. To this end Judas schemed. THE TRAITOR KNOWN The furtive looks and the suspicious behaviour of Judas had revealed everything to Jesus (pbuh). He did not need the Holy Ghost to interpret the misgivings in Judas’s mind. At the Table in the Upper-room where Jesus and his disciples were having that 'Last Supper', Jesus dismissed Judas with the words: '. . . What thou doest, do quickly.' (HOLY BIBLE) John 13:27 And Judas took off to put the seal on the deal to the stab-in-the-back. Jesus will not be a sitting-duck for a clandestine arrest by the Jews. He prepares his disciples for the impending showdown. Discreetly, so as not to frighten his disciples, he introduces the subject of defence. Gently he begins: 'When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye anything?' And they said, 'Nothing' Then said he unto them, 'But now, he that hath no purse, let him take it, and likewise his bag; and he that hath no SWORD, let him sell his garment and buy one!' (HOLY BIBLE) Luke 22:35-36 This is a preparation for a Holy War — Jews against Jews! Why! Why this somersault? Did he not advise them to 'turn the other cheek'; 'to forgive seventy times seven Did he not send his chosen Twelve with the advice: 'Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves; be ye, therefore, as wise as serpents, (?) and as harmless as doves.' (HOLY BIBLE) Matthew 10:16 TO ARMS! TO ARMS! The situation and the circumstance have changed and as with any wise and able general, the strategy must also change. The disciples were already armed. They had some foresight. They had not left Galilee with bare knuckles. They responded: '. . . Lord, behold, here are two SWORDS.' And he said unto them, 'It is enough'. (HOLY BIBLE) Luke 22:38 The missionary, so as to retain the impression of the 'meek and gentle Jesus', 'the Prince of Peace', pleads that the SWORDS were spiritual! If the swords were spiritual, then the 'garments' must also be spiritual. If the disciples of Jesus were to sell their SPIRITUAL garments to buy SPIRITUAL swords, in that case they would all become SPIRITUALLY naked! Furthermore, one does not lop off peoples physical ears with spiritual swords — 'And, behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his SWORD, and struck a servant of the high priests, and cut off his ear.' (HOLY BIBLE) Matthew 26:51 The only purpose of swords or guns is to maim and to kill. People did not carry swords to pare apples and bananas in the time of Christ. WHY COUPLE OF SWORDS ENOUGH? If this was a preparation for war, then why should two swords be 'enough'? The reason is that Jesus was not contemplating a battle against the legions of Rome. Since his 'friend' Judas was in league with the Temple authorities, he was expecting a clandestine, underhand attempt by the Jewish oligarchy to seize him. It would be a question of Jews against Jews. In such a battle against the Jewish temple servants and the riff-raff of the town, he would prevail. Of that he was sure. He had with him Peter (the Rock) and John and James (the sons of Thunder) together with the other eight, each vying with one another to go to prison for him; to die for him. These were all Galilians. They had a reputation of Zealotism, terrorism and repeated insurrections against the Romans. Armed with sticks and stones, and the swords, and fortified with the spirit of self-sacrifice which they had avowed for their Master, he was sure to knock hells into any Jewish rabble that dare confront him. . 'Likewise also said all the disciples.'- (Mathew 26:35) A MASTER TACTICIAN He had proved himself a skilful strategist and planner, alert and resourceful. This was not the time to sit and twiddle thumbs; to be a sitting-duck, cooped up with his disciples in the upper-room! No, not for him. He leads his platoon, in the middle of the night, to Gethsemane-Gethsemane — an olive press — a courtyard built of stone walls some 5 miles out of town. On the way, he unburdens to them the seriousness of the situation. The implications and the explosive nature of the coup that failed. Now he must bear the wrath of the powers that be. The price of failure! You do not have to be a military genius to appreciate that, Jesus (pbuh) deploys his forces as a master tactician, in a manner that would bring credit to any Officer out of 'Sandhurst'. He places eight of the eleven disciples at the entrance to the courtyard, commanding them: '... Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder.' (HOLY BIBLE) Matthew 26:36 The question that would bug any thinker is: 'Why did they all go to Gethsemane? To pray? Could they not have prayed in the upper-room? Could they not have gone to the Temple of Solomon, a stone's throw from where they were, if prayer is all that they wanted to do? No! They went to the Garden so that they might be in a better position to defend themselves! Observe, Jesus does not take the eight with him to pray. He positions them strategically at the entrance to the courtyard; armed to the hilt, as the circumstances would allow: 'And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee. . . Then saith he unto them. . .tarry ye here and watch with me.' (HOLY BIBLE) Matthew 26:37-38. Where is he taking Peter and John and James now? Further into the Garden! To pray? No! To make an inner line of defence — he had put eight at the Gate, and, now these zealous Zealots (the fighting Irishmen of their day), armed with SWORDS, to 'wait and watch ' — TO KEEP GUARD! The picture is very vivid; Jesus leaves nothing to our imagination. A-n-d HE (alone) prayed! JESUS PRAYS FOR RESCUE '. . . and began to be sorrowful and very depressed. Then saith he unto them, ‘my soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death' . . .' 'And he went a little further, and fell on his face (Exactly as the Muslim does in Salaat), and prayed, saying, 'O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.' ( (HOLY BIBLE) Matthew 26: 37-39 'And being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat was, as it were, great drops of blood falling down to the ground’’ (HOLY BIBLE) Luke 22:44 MESSIAH SOBS FOR HIS PEOPLE Why all this bewailing and lamentation? Is he crying to save his skin? It would be highly cynical on his part to do that! Did he not advise others: 'And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out . . . And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.' (HOLY BIBLE) Matthew 5:29-30 We would be doing Jesus a grave injustice if we thought that he was crying like a woman to save his body from physical harm. He was crying for his people — the Jews. They held a queer logic, that if they succeeded in killing any would-be Messiah (Christ), it would be a sure proof of his imposture. For God Almighty will never allow His truly 'anointed one' (Christ) 1 to be killed — (Deuteronomy 18:20). Hence the insistence of the Jews as a people, as a whole, in rejecting Jesus, the son of Mary, as their promised Messiah — 'The eternal rejection.' IMAGINATIVE VERSION This harrowing sob-story, the blood-curdling cries and lamentations would evoke sympathy in the hardest of hearts.. We are told that Jesus was destined to die for the sins of mankind. That he was 'being prepared for this vicarious sacrifice before the foundation of the world'. That even before the material universe came into being, there was a contract between 'Father and son,' and that in the year 4000 A.A. (After Adam) , God himself in the form of Jesus, as the second person from the enigmatic Trinity, was to get himself hanged to redeem mankind from the Original Sin and their actual sins. . JESUS UNAWARE OF HEAVENLY CONTRACT 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. It reminds one of the Biblical Abraham, leading his son to the slaughter with the bluff that the Lord will provide a 'scape-goat.' AN UN-WILLING VICTIM If this was God's plan for a vicarious atonement to redeem mankind, then obviously He had chosen a wrong substitute. This candidate was most reluctant to die. Arming! Wailingi Sweating! Crying! Complaining! 1 Contrast these responses with those of Lord Nelson, a war-hero, who gave up the ghost with these undying words: 'THANK GOD, I HAVE DONE MY DUTY!'. There are millions today, who would happily immolate themselves for king and country, with smiles on their faces, with shouts of 'Amandhia!' or 'Allahu-akbar!' or 'God save the Queen!' Jesus was an un-willing victim. If this was God's scheme of salvation, then it was a heartless plot. It was murder in the first degree, and not redeeming self-sacrifice. Major Yeats-Brown, in his 'Life of a Bengal Lancer', summarises the Christian Doctrine of the Atonement in just a single sentence: 'NO HEATHEN TRIBE HAS CONCEIVED SO GROTESQUE AN IDEA, INVOLVING AS IT DOES THE ASSUMPTION, THAT MAN WAS BORN WITH A HEREDITARY STAIN UPON HIM: AND THAT THIS STAIN (FOR WHICH HE WAS NOT PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE) WAS TO BE ATONED FOR: AND THAT THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS HAD TO SACRIFICE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON TO NEUTRALISE THIS MYSTERIOUS CURSE.' 'What could ye not watch with me for one hour?' — (HOLY BIBLE) Matthew 26:40. 'And again he (Jesus) went away, and prayed, and spoke the same words. And when he returned, he found them sleep again …' — (HOLY BIBLE) Mark 14:39-40. St. Mark bemoans that the disciples could give no excuse for their lassitude, their somnambulism. He records: 'neither knew they what to answer him', — (HOLY BIBLE) Mark 14:40 However, the most lucid, the most coherent and systematic of all Gospel writers, St. Luke, hazards a guess for this anomaly. He says: 'And when he (Jesus) rose from prayer, and was come to his disciples, he found them sleeping for SORROW.' (HOLY BIBLE) Luke 22:45 UNUSUAL REASONING St. Luke, though he was never one of the elected Twelve disciples of Christ, holds numerous distinctions according to Christians. Among them, the 'most historical', the beloved 'physician', etc. As a Physician, his theory of men 'SLEEPING FOR SORROW' is unique. Cries and waitings, sobs and sorrows were in abundance from Jerusalem to Gethsemane on the lips of Jesus (pbuh) which would shock and alert to wakefulness any un-ebriated1 person. Why were the 'lullabies' of woe, lulling the disciples to slumber? Was their psychological make-up any different from that of twentieth century man? Professors of physiology opine that under shock, stress and fear the adrenal gland secretes a hormone into the bloodstream — nature's own injection — which chases away all sleep. Is it not possible that the disciples of Jesus had eaten too much and drunk too much: remembering that food and drink was all 'on the house,' 2 SECOND MISCALCULATION Jesus had doubly miscalculated:- 1. Regarding the enthusiasm demonstrated by the disciples in that upper-room. Believing that he would only have to contend with the Jews in a clandestine arrest. 2. The Jews were more wily then he had thought. They brought with them Roman soldiers. The Christian scholars are no less wily in their translations and manipulations of the Bible. They have changed the words 'Roman soldiers' to simply 'soldiers' and from the word soldiers to now 'band of men' and 'the guard'. 'Judas then, having received a BAND OF MEN1 and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh there with lanterns and torches and weapons' (HOLY BIBLE) John 18:3 ' CAUGHT NAPPING The disciples were Literally caught napping. The enemy trod over them roughshod. Only one of the soldiers of Christ had the presence of mind to ask: '. . . Master, shall we smite them with the sword?' (HOLY BIBLE) Luke 22:49 But before Jesus could attempt a reply, the impetuous Peter struck out with his sword and cut off the right ear of one of the enemy. Jesus had not anticipated Roman soldiers. Realising that the tables were turned against his misconceived strategy, he advises his disciples: '. . . Put up again thy sword into its place; for all they that TAKE THE SWORD shall PERISH WITH THE SWORD.' (HOLY BIBLE) Matthew 26:52 CHANGE OF STRATEGY Did Jesus not know the truth of this statement when he ordered his disciples to sell their garments and buy SWORDS? He surely did! Then why the contradiction now? . There is really no contradiction! The situation changes, so the strategy must also change. He had sense enough to realise that against trained and well-equipped Roman soldiers it would be suicidal for his sleepy warriors to offer even a pretence of resistance. PRINCE OF PEACE??? Why do not the Christian controversialists give their 'Lord and Master' credit for this simple common-sense? Because they have been programmed for a period of two thousand years that Jesus, the 'lamb', the 'prince of peace', couldn't harm a fly. They overlook the other side of his nature which demanded blood and fire! They forget his instructions to his soldiers regarding those of his enemies who would not like him to rule over them, to bring them forth: . . . and SLAY1 them before me.' (HOLY BIBLE) Luke 19:27 'Think NOT that I am come to send PEACE on earth; I. came NOT to send PEACE, but a SWORD.' (HOLY BIBLE) Matthew 10:34 'I am come to send FIRE on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? Suppose ye that I am come to give PEACE on earth? I tell you, NAY; but rather DIVISION.' (HOLY BIBLE) Luke 12:49 & 51 In view of these solemn pronouncements and his repeated vitriolic outbursts against the learned men of his time, if the sword of Peter had prevailed, we would have witnessed a massacre without compunction, equal to that of his ancestor Joshua (meaning Jehova — Saviour)2 who utterly destroyed all that was in Jericho: 'both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and •••, with the edge of the SWORD.' (HOLY BIBLE) Joshua 6:21 And the Gospel writers would not have been slow in putting words into the mouth of Jesus, word for word, as fulfilment of prophecies VATICINIUM EX EVENTU (prophecies after the event) as recorded3 of his 'father' (?) David. FAILURE, AND TRIAL The march on Jerusalem had fizzled out. The sabre-rattling in the Garden had proved abortive. As there is a reward for success, likewise there is a price for failure. The odds are heavy! Hence the trial, the tribulation, the turmoil and the sweat and blood. With heavy hands, the Roman soldiers dragged Jesus (pbuh) from Gethsemane to Annas, and from Annas to Caiphas the High Priest, and on to the Sanhedrin as directed by the Jews, for trial and execution. Whilst Jesus was being manhandled and buffeted towards his doom, where were his heroes who were beating their breasts with the war-cry: 'Master, we are prepared to die for you. Master, we are prepared to go to prison for you!' ? St. Mark, the first of the Gospel writers, without any apology reveals: 'AND THEY ALL FORSOOK HIM, AND FLED.' (HOLY BIBLE) Mark 14:50 http://www.jamaat.net/crux/Crux1-5.html   zaheer - uddin (Zaheer) Starlite Member Username: Zaheer Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 09:11 am:    WHO CRUCIFIED JESUS? by Earl Doerthy A Two-Edged Sword In the first Gospel story of Jesus' trial and crucifixion, the author of Mark engages in a carefully crafted and delicate balancing act over the question of responsibility for Jesus' death: between Jew and Roman, between the Jewish religious establishment and the secular arm of the Empire. Mark knew full well that only the Roman governor could condemn a man to the cross, but he also wanted to allot to the Jewish leaders and to the Jewish people as a whole an equal if not greater role in Jesus' execution. And so throughout his story Mark set the scene by having the chief priests, scribes and elders plot to do away with Jesus, and it is their forces who first arrest him in the Garden of Gethsemane. He invented a follower of Jesus, Judas by name to symbolize all Jewry, who betrays Jesus to his enemies and leads the arresting force to him. And it is the High Priest and Sanhedrin who first question Jesus and abuse him, finding him guilty of blasphemy and deserving of death—on grounds which have never made much sense. Indeed, the entire circumstances of Mark's trial before the Jewish Council can be seen to contravene so many known conventions and prohibitions that some scholars have been led to reject its very historicity. But that's a story for another time. When Jesus is finally turned over to the Roman governor, Mark makes Pilate behave in a manner which is entirely uncharacteristic of what we know of him from historical sources, and of Roman policy in general. By whitewashing Pilate, by having the demands of the Jewish leaders and Jewish people override his attempts to free Jesus, by having the crowd choose Barabbas over Jesus (an option no governor of Judea would ever have offered, and there is no record of such a Roman policy anywhere), Mark places the primary responsibility for Jesus' death at the feet of the Jews. When Pilate finally washes his hands of the affair, official Roman brutality takes over, and Jesus is further abused, scourged and finally crucified. But the Jews immediately reenter the picture in the jeers of the spectators at the foot of the cross, and their obstinate unbelief is contrasted with the Roman centurion who declares in an act of faith that "truly this man was the Son of God." Finally, Mark brings God himself into the picture to hide the sun's face behind a blackened sky, and to repudiate his treacherous people by rending the very veil of his own holy sanctuary. Mark thus set the course for the Jews' wretched fate at the hands of Christians and the Christian church for the next two millennia, and Matthew would seal its ferocity with the most heinous line of fiction ever penned: "His blood be upon us and upon our children!" Such is the picture of Jesus' death presented in the Gospels: the unjust execution of an innocent man, beset by betrayal and false accusations and a pitiless establishment. Its lurid details should have been indelibly branded into the mind of every Christian preacher and writer, every convert to the new faith. Instead, there is scarcely a murmur of it until Mark—drawing on a multitude of scriptural passages and an old literary formula found throughout centuries of Jewish writing, known as the Suffering and Vindication of the Innocent Righteous One—sits down to pen his tale, a good half century or more after it all supposedly took place. A Sweet Sacrifice Amid all the references to Jesus' sacrificial death in Paul and the other first century epistle writers, we get not a single detail of the vivid trial and crucifixion story portrayed in the Gospels. Beyond two passing references we will presently examine, none of its rich panoply of characters appear, none of its memorable places, nor any of its horrifying litany of abuse and torture. The words of Jesus on the cross are never quoted, while the response of the universe to his passing goes unrecorded by anyone. Indeed, a figure like Pilate, who delivered this innocent Jesus up to scourging and execution, seems far from Paul's mind when he says (Romans 13:3-4) in a general defense of the secular authority: "Rulers hold no terrors for them who do right . . . (the ruler) is the minister of God for your own good." In Romans 8:32 he extols the magnanimity of God who "did not spare his own son but delivered him up for us all." And for the writer of Ephesians (5:2), it is Christ himself who in love "delivered himself up on your behalf as an offering and a sacrifice whose fragrance is pleasing to God." (Note that the word usually translated "arrested" or "betrayed" in 1 Corinthians 11:23 is literally "to deliver up" which, as we can see above, implies no necessary Gospel setting: see Part Two of the Main Articles.) Wherever Paul and the other epistle writers of the first century envisioned this sacrifice as having taken place, it seems far from the dread hill of Golgotha and the expression of God's dark wrath toward the towering sin of deicide. The Jews "Who Killed the Lord Jesus" What then are we to make of the passage in 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16, about the Jews "who killed the Lord Jesus"? Well, many scholars (e.g., Mack, Koester, Pearson, Meeks, Perkins, Brandon: see the Bibliography at end) have tended to make short work of it, dismissing it as an interpolation by some later editor or copyist. They do so on two grounds. One is what they consider to be an unmistakable allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem in verse 16, an event which happened after Paul's death. Here is the passage in its entirety, courtesy of the New English Bible: "14You [referring to the Christians of Thessalonica] have fared like the congregations in Judea, God's people in Christ Jesus. You have been treated by your countrymen as they are treated by the Jews, 15who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and drove us out, the Jews who are heedless of God's will and enemies of their fellow-men, 16hindering us from speaking to the gentiles to lead them to salvation. All this time they have been making up the full measure of their guilt, and now retribution has overtaken them for good and all." This finality of God's wrath must refer to an event on the scale of the first Jewish War (66-70), when the Temple and much of Jerusalem were destroyed, not, as is sometimes claimed (e.g., by R. E. Brown), to the expulsion of Jews from Rome (apparently for messianic agitation) by Claudius in the 40s. This gleeful, apocalyptic statement is hardly to be applied to a local event which the Thessalonians may or may not have been aware of several years later. Besides, Paul's reference in verse 14 (which many take as the end of the genuine passage) is to a persecution by Jews in Judea, and even the killing of Jesus was the responsibility of Jews in that location. Offering a local event in Rome as a punishment for either crime seems somehow inappropriate. There are also those who question whether any such persecution of Christians took place prior to 70 (see Douglas Hare, The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel According to St. Matthew, p.30ff.), indicating that perhaps even verse 14 is part of the interpolation, by someone who had little knowledge of the conditions in Judea at the time of Paul's letter. (Pearson, below, suggests this.) It has been pointed out that there are no different textual traditions of 1 Thessalonians without the disputed passage. Since this is so, it is claimed, the insertion would have to have been made very early (soon after 70), when there would hardly have been enough time for the evolution from the mythical to the historical Jesus phase. But this is an unfounded assumption. Recently (see The New Testament and Its Modern Interpreters, Epp and MacRae, eds., 1989, p.207f.) some scholars have abandoned the old idea that the first corpus of Pauline letters was assembled no later than the year 90. They now see such a collection as coming around the time of Marcion in the 140s. Even though a few individual letters, like Romans and the two Corinthians, do seem to have been known by the turn of the century to people like Ignatius, the first witness to the epistle 1 Thessalonians in the wider Christian record (beyond the writer who used it to compose 2 Thessalonians, probably in that city) comes no earlier than that first corpus. Thus the interpolation in 2:15-16 could have been made considerably later than 70. Even into the second century, Christian anti-Semitism remained high and the catastrophic events of the first Jewish War were very much alive in the memories of both Jew and gentile in the eastern empire. The inserted passage could have been made in the letter's own community, before it entered the corpus. It is even barely conceivable that verse 16 refers to the outcome of the second Jewish Revolt (132-5), when Bar Kochba was crushed, Jews were expelled from Palestine, and a Roman city was built over the ruins of Jerusalem. The second reason scholars tend to reject this passage as not genuine to Paul is because it does not concur with what Paul elsewhere says about his fellow countrymen, whom he expects will in the end be converted to Christ. The vicious sentiments in these verses is recognized as an example of "gentile anti-Judaism" and "foreign to Paul's theology that 'all Israel will be saved'." (See Birger Pearson: "1 Thessalonians 2:13-16: A Deutero-Pauline Interpolation," Harvard Theological Review 64 [1971], p.79-94, a thorough consideration of the question.) We might also note that in Romans 11, within a passage in which he speaks of the guilt of the Jews for failing to heed the message about the Christ, Paul refers to Elijah's words in 1 Kings, about the (largely unfounded) accusation that the Jews have habitually killed the prophets sent from God. Here Paul breathes not a whisper about any responsibility on the part of the Jews for the ultimate atrocity of the killing of the Son of God himself. This would be an inconceivable silence if the 2:15-16 passage in 1 Thessalonians were genuine and the basis of the accusation true. Crucified Under Pontius Pilate If the one reference in the New Testament epistles to the guilt of the Jews for the death of Jesus can reasonably be rejected as a later insertion, what about the other side of the coin of responsibility? The sole reference to Pontius Pilate in the canonical correspondence comes in 1 Timothy 6:13, and every scholar who recognizes that the three Pastoral epistles are not by Paul dates them no earlier than the beginning of the second century. Can we possibly imagine that the man who executed their founder and divinity would immediately sink from the consciousness of Christian letter writers for some three-quarters of a century, that all the references to Jesus' death in Paul would contain not a hint of him, nor of the trial process he presided over? Even in 1 Timothy, some commentators have found reason to question the integrity of the reference to Pilate, since there are problems in seeing it as appropriate to the context. But since this epistle is late, when conceivably it could reflect the beginnings of the idea that Jesus had been crucified by Pilate (it is at least no earlier than the time of Ignatius, who is the first Christian writer outside the Gospels to mention Pilate's name), the question is not critical, and I will place the arguments in favor of interpolation for 1 Timothy 6:13 in an Appendix at the end of this article. Personally, I support interpolation since the Pastorals as a whole contain strong indications that their writer is still unfamiliar with an historical Jesus. The Rulers of This Age If both references to the Gospel agents of Jesus' crucifixion are to be discounted (these are the only passages in all the epistles I would claim as interpolations, plus one or two other 'possibles'), how then does the early record deal with the circumstances and responsibility concerning the death of the Son of God? Who does Paul identify as having slain Christ? Let's look at 1 Corinthians 2:6-8: "6And yet I do speak of a wisdom for those who are mature, not a wisdom of this passing age, nor of the rulers of this age who are passing away. 7I speak of God's secret wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and predestined by God for our glory before time began. 8None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." A great amount of scholarly ink has been spilled over the meaning of "the rulers of this age" (ton archonton tou aionos toutou, verses 6 and 8). In both pagan and Jewish parlance, the word archontes could be used to refer to earthly rulers and those in authority (as in Romans 13:3). But it is also, along with several others like it, a technical term for the spirit forces, the "powers and authorities" who rule the lowest level of the heavenly world and who exercise authority over the events and fate (usually cruel) of the earth, its nations and individuals. That invisible powers, mostly evil, were at work behind earthly phenomena was a widely held belief in Hellenistic times, including among Jews, and it was shared by Christianity. J. H. Charlesworth (Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, p.66) puts it this way: "Earth is full of demons. Humanity is plagued by them. Almost all misfortunes are because of demons: sickness, drought, death and especially humanity's weaknesses about remaining faithful to the covenant (with God). The region between heaven and earth seems to be almost cluttered by demons and angels; humanity is often seen as a pawn, helpless in the face of such cosmic forces." There has not been a universal scholarly consensus on what Paul has in mind in 1 Corinthians 2:8, but over the last century a majority of commentators (see below), some reluctantly, have decided that he is referring to the demon spirits. The term aion, "age," or sometimes in the plural "ages," was in a religious and apocalyptic context a reference to the present age of the world, in the sense of all recorded history, since the next age was the one after the Parousia when God's Kingdom would be established. One of the governing ideas of the period was that the world to the present point had been under the control of the evil angels and spirit powers, and that the coming of the Kingdom would see their long awaited overthrow. Humanity was engaged in a war against the demons, and one of the strongest appeals of the Hellenistic salvation cults was their promise of divine aid in this war on a personal level. Thus, "rulers of this age" should not be seen as referring to the current secular authorities who happen to be in power in present political circumstances. Rather, Paul envisions that those in the present age who have controlled the earth and separated it from heaven, the evil angelic powers, are approaching their time of "passing away" (2:6). They did not understand God's purposes, namely their own destruction, when they inadvertently crucified "the Lord of glory." Ephesians 3:9-10 echoes these hidden purposes of God, and declares that they have now been brought to light: "9. . . the application of this mystery which has been hidden for long ages in God the creator of the universe, 10so that through the church the wisdom of God might be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavens, in accordance with his eternal purpose which he carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord." Here the rulers are clearly identified as the ones in heaven. And we might note that the writer is consistent with general Pauline expression in allotting the task of revealing God's long-hidden mystery to the "church," to men like himself, not to any recent historical Jesus. That last phrase refers to the workings of Christ in the higher spiritual world, his redeeming actions within God's eternal realm and time. In other words, the world of myth. A prominent first century Christian idea was that Christ by his death had subjected all the spirit powers and authorities, both good and bad, to his control. In this light, Colossians 2:15 again places Jesus' crucifixion in a spiritual milieu, for it is difficult to see any historical scene on Calvary contained in this idea: "On the cross he discarded the cosmic powers and authorities like a garment; he made a public spectacle of them and led them as captives in his triumphal procession." Ephesians 6:12 also speaks of the fight which is not against human foes, but against the "cosmic powers, authorities and potentates of this dark world, the superhuman forces of evil in the heavens." These were even thought of has having political organizations like rulers on earth. They were certainly well placed and capable of executing a spiritual Christ who had descended from the higher divine realm into their territory, and we will look in a moment at a document which paints this picture of the Son descending from heaven to be crucified by the evil angels. Scholars who balk at this interpretation of Paul's words and declare that he simply means the earthly powers which the Gospels specify (e.g., Anchor Bible, p.164), are bucking even ancient opinion. Ignatius uses the term archon in a thoroughly angelic sense (Smyrneans 6:1). Origen regarded the archonton of 2:8 as evil spiritual beings, and so did the gnostic Marcion. Modern scholars like C. K. Barrett (First Epistle to the Corinthians, p.72), Paula Fredriksen (From Jesus to Christ, p.56), and Jean Hering (The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, p.16-17, a brief but penetrating analysis), have felt constrained to agree. Delling in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (I, p.489) notes that the spirit rulers are portrayed by Paul as "treating the Lord of glory as prey in ignorance of the divine plan for salvation." They operated in the spiritual realm, which S. Salmond (The Expositor's Greek Testament, Ephesians, p.284) describes as "supra-terrestrial but sub-celestial regions." Paul Ellingworth, A Translator's Handbook for 1 Corinthians, p.46, states: "A majority of scholars think that supernatural powers are intended here." S. G. F. Brandon (History, Time and Deity, p.167) unflinchingly declares that although Paul's statement "may seem on cursory reading to refer to the Crucifixion as an historical event. . .the expression 'rulers of this age' does not mean the Roman and Jewish authorities. Instead, it denotes the daemonic powers who . . . were believed to inhabit the planets (the celestial spheres) and control the destinies of men. . . . Paul attributes the Crucifixion not to Pontius Pilate and the Jewish leaders, but to these planetary powers." However, Brandon (like everyone else) fails to address the question of how Paul could have spoken in such terms if he had the tradition of Jesus' recent death in Judea before his eyes, providing not so much as a hint of qualification to this supernatural picture. It will not do to suggest that since earthly rulers are considered to be controlled by heavenly ones, the latter are seen as operating "through" the former. Paul would not likely have presented things in this way without an explanation. And once we get to the Gospel picture which first makes a clear reference to earthly rulers in the death of Jesus, any heavenly dimension which supposedly lies behind those rulers completely disappears. Descending Gods The concept that a god, in order to perform a salvific act, had to approach or even enter the "world of flesh" was arrived at by philosophical reasoning. In the higher celestial spheres where deity was perfect and unsullied by any contact with matter and the world of humans, gods existed in their fully divine state. There they could certainly not do something as human as to suffer. Pain, blood, death: these were the unfortunate features of the lower, baser levels of the universe. To undergo such things, the god had to come down to humanity's territory. He had to take on material characteristics and capacities. If contact between flesh and divinity was to be made, the initiative lay with the god. Deity had to pity its unfortunate, fallen creation. It had to humble itself, compromise its spiritual purity. It had to descend. And descend it did, for the concept of the "descending redeemer" seems to have been a pervasive idea during this era, though the evidence for the pre-Christian period is patchy and much debated. The ancient mind at the turn of the era saw the universe as multi-layered. Under the influence of Platonism, there was first of all a dualistic division between the lower material world where humans lived, and the higher, spiritual world where divinity dwelled. The former was only a transient, imperfect copy of the latter. Spiritual processes and the activity of gods in the higher realm had their corresponding effects on the world below. Paul thus lived at a time when the world of matter was viewed as only one dimension of reality, the observable half of a larger integrated whole whose other, invisible, half was referred to as the "genuine" reality, accessible to the intellect. But most views of the universe also saw a division of the upper world into several levels—usually seven, based on the known planets. As a deity descended from the higher reaches of pure spirit, he passed through ever degenerating levels of the heavens, and took on an increasing likeness to lower, material forms as well as an ability to suffer fleshly fates, such as pain and death. The first level of the spirit world was the air, or "firmament," between the earth and the moon. This was the domain of the demon spirits—in Jewish parlance, of Satan and his evil angels—and it was regarded as closely connected to the earthly sphere. The demonic spiritual powers belonged to the realm of flesh (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, VII, p.128) and they were thought of as in some way corporeal, though they possessed 'heavenly' versions of earthly bodies (Ibid., p.143). Thus it was wholly conceivable for Paul's savior deity in that spiritual world to descend into the realm of the demon spirits. Here he would be in the sphere of flesh, which fits the early writers' almost universal use of such stereotyped phrases as "in flesh," "according to the flesh." (C. K. Barrett translates kata sarka in Romans 1:3 as "in the sphere of the flesh." See his Epistle to the Romans, p.20; compare C. E. B. Cranfield, International Critical Commentary: Romans, p.60.) Here Christ possessed or could assume counterpart characteristics to those of the visible world; he could undergo suffering and death at the hands of the spirits as a blood sacrifice, and be raised by God back to the highest heaven. Even if it was all a part of God's "mystery," something that had taken place in God's eternal time, hidden for long generations and knowable to men like Paul only through divine revelation in scripture (as in Romans 16:25-27, Ephesians 3:5, etc.). Such ideas were not restricted to Judaism and Christianity, although the few surviving writers who touch on the Greek mysteries and the activities of their deities tend to be sophisticated philosophers like Plutarch and Sallustius. These men saw the stories of the Greek salvation cults as "eternal meanings clothed in myths." They were "allegorical interpretations" only, even if the minds of "ordinary men" saw them as more literal. (Some of those average devotees of the cults may also have retained a more traditional way of viewing the myths of the savior gods as belonging to a primordial past on earth.) The fourth century Sallustius regarded the story of Attis as "an eternal cosmic process, not an isolated event of the past" (On Gods and the World, 9). His mentor, the "Apostate" emperor Julian, describes (in Orations V, 165) Attis' descent to the lowest spirit level prior to matter, undergoing his death by castration to give the visible world order and fruitfulness; but he regards this as a symbol of the annual cycle of agricultural rebirth, the generative power which descends into the earth from the upper regions of the stars. Myths of the descent and ascent of deity are often interpreted (especially in gnosticism and neoplatonism) as symbolizing the ancient idea of the fall of the soul into matter, its suffering and death within that base, imperfect world, followed by a reascent into its proper abode and state, an exaltation. The myth of the redeeming god, the paradigm for the soul's descent and ascent, guarantees this destiny for the believer. There are clear echoes of such thinking in Paul (e.g., Romans 6:5). And the earliest uncoverable layers of Christian cultic mythology, such as the christological hymn found in Philippians 2:6-11, often allude to such a paradigmatic "descent and suffering leading to exaltation": "For the divine nature was his from the first; yet he did not think to snatch at equality with God, but made himself nothing, assuming the nature (or form) of a slave. Bearing the human likeness, revealed in human shape, he humbled himself, and in obedience accepted even death—death on a cross. Therefore God raised him to the heights and bestowed on him the name above all names, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow—in heaven, on earth, and in the depths—and every tongue confess, 'Jesus Christ is Lord', to the glory of God the Father." (The NEB translation) This pre-Pauline hymn is the early Christian epitome of the descending-ascending redeemer myth, and there is not a breath of identification with any Jesus of Nazareth. Three times does the hymn allude to the idea that this divinity took on a likeness to base, material form, but never does it say that he became an actual man, much less give him a life on earth. Instead, this deity descends to undergo death (some commentators, such as Norman Perrin, Dennis C. Duling in The New Testament: An Introduction, 2nd ed., p.61, feel that the phrase "death on a cross" is probably a Pauline addition, since it interrupts the pattern of the poetic lines) and is raised back to the highest heaven, where he is exalted. Note, by the way, that this divinity is given the name "Jesus" only after his exaltation following death, indicating that the hymnist knew of no previous life on earth under that name. (The term "Lord" is a title, not a name.) The shorter hymn in 1 Timothy 3:16 offers a similar descent-ascent pattern performed by a divine being: "He who was manifested in flesh, vindicated in spirit, seen by angels; was proclaimed among the nations, believed in throughout the world, glorified in high heaven." Once again there is no identification with a human man, and any suggestion of a ministry is pointedly lacking. This deity seems to have been seen only by angels and engaged in no proclaiming of his own. The "in flesh" of the first line (en sarki) can be translated "in the sphere of the flesh," as noted above. However, no Christian writer or hymnist expresses the view that the Christ myth is allegorical or symbolic. Paul seems to have very much believed in the divine Jesus' literal suffering at the hands of the demon spirits. The Descent of the Son In a Jewish/Christian piece of writing called the Ascension of Isaiah we can find corroboration for the picture of a divine Son who descends into the lower reaches of the heavens to be crucified by the demon spirits. This document falls into two sections which were originally independent. The second section, the Vision of Isaiah (chapters 6-11), underwent its own evolution before being combined with the first, and it contains a detailed picture of the descent-ascent motif we have been discussing. This is a difficult document to analyze in any exact fashion, since the several surviving manuscripts differ considerably in wording, phrases and even whole sections. It has been subjected to much editing in a complicated and uncertain pattern of revision. But a couple of passages seem to indicate that in its earlier layers the Vision speaks only of a divine Son who operates entirely in the spiritual realm. The community that wrote this, probably toward the end of the first century, lived in a world of apocalyptic expectation and revelation from the Holy Spirit (6:6f). Salvation is expected for the righteous elect, who will be exalted as a consequence of the death and exaltation of the Son. Isaiah is granted a vision, in which he ascends through the seven heavens of a layered universe and receives a view of God and his Beloved, also called the Chosen One and Christ. He learns that this Son is to descend to the lower world, where he will be killed and rise, rescuing the souls of the righteous dead from Sheol as he reascends to the highest heaven. Here is the key passage. The seer and his angelic guide have reached the seventh heaven. There they see the Lord, the Christ, and the angel foretells this to Isaiah (9:13-17): "13The Lord will descend into the world in the last days, he who is to be called Christ after he has descended and become like you in form, and they will think that he is flesh and a man. 14And the god of that world will stretch out his hand against the Son, and they will lay their hands upon him and hang him upon a tree, not knowing who he is. 15And thus his descent, as you will see, will be concealed from the heavens, so that it will not be known who he is. 16And when he has plundered the angel of death, he will rise on the third day and will remain in the world for 545 days. 17And then many of the righteous will ascend with him." This looks like a fleshing out of the implication behind Paul's reference to the crucifixion in 1 Corinthians 2:8. We have the descent of the Son through the layers of heaven, a taking on of the "likeness" of men. "They will think that he is flesh and a man" clearly implies that he is not. There is no suggestion of Jesus of Nazareth here. Nor is it likely to be a reference to docetism (Christ having an earthly body which only "seems" human), since the phrase looks to be related to the idea in verses 14 and 15 that his identity has been concealed. Nor is the Gospel trial and execution anywhere in sight in the reference to the hanging upon a tree. Rather, this hanging is something performed by "the god of that world," meaning Satan. (Some manuscripts read: "he will hang him upon a tree.") Though it is set "in the last days" (Jewish apocalyptic writers tend not to be so Platonically strict), the entire thing has the ring of a mythological scene. To undergo this fate, the Son has entered the firmament (the "air" between the earth and the moon) where Satan and his evil angels dwell. At the beginning of his ascent (7:9-12), Isaiah has passed through the firmament where he saw Satan and his warring angels, a struggle, his guide tells him, which "will last until the one comes whom you are to see, and he will destroy him." As in 1 Corinthians 2:8 and Colossians 2:15, one of the Son's principal tasks will be the conquest of the demon spirits. Verse 14 tells us that those who do the hanging do not know who this Son is. Once again, this would not seem to be a Gospel reference to Romans or Jews, but means the evil angels of the firmament, for verse 15 indicates that it is the layers of heaven where the concealment and the ignorance about the Son's identity lie. This ignorance on the part of the "god of that world" is similar to that of the "rulers of this age" who unwittingly crucify the Lord of Glory in 1 Corinthians 2:8. Thus the crucifixion is something perpetrated by the supernatural powers and takes place in the spiritual world. The reference to rising on the third day and remaining for 545 days is, in the opinion of M. Knibb, the translator and commentator on the Ascension of Isaiah in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (II, p.143f.), a later addition to the text based on gnostic sources which believed that Jesus remained on earth after his resurrection for 18 months (p.170, n.'v'). Other bits and pieces throughout the Vision are the reworkings of editors, so that it is difficult to uncover and differentiate the various strands. Knibb even voices the possibility (p.170, n.'g') that all entries of the names Jesus and Christ are later additions. As part of Isaiah's vision (10:8-14), the Father gives instructions to the Son about his coming descent into the lower world and his reascent to the seventh heaven. There is nothing in this divine directive which speaks of an incarnation into flesh and earthly history, nothing of a ministry, nothing of a death at the hands of humans. There is not a whisper of any knowledge of the Gospels. The Son's activities seem to relate entirely to the spirit realm, layers of heaven extending through the firmament and including Sheol. God's instructions focus on how he is to proceed through these heavenly spheres, and on the task of destroying the power of Satan and the evil spirits. When Mark came to write his midrashic tale about a Jesus on earth, the war by heaven and the Son against the demons was translated into Jesus' war on earth against the new, humanized demons: the Jews. Just as the "rulers of this age," the evil spirits, were the murderers of Christ in the Pauline phase, the earthly Jews became the Christ-killers in the Gospel version, an allegory which very quickly got turned into history. Christ Reaches Earth Simplistically put, there are three types of surviving manuscripts of the Ascension of Isaiah: Ethiopic, second Latin, and Slavonic. The first is thought to be based on one Greek text, the other two on a different Greek text. There are notable differences between the Ethiopic on the one hand, and the second Latin and Slavonic on the other. Also, the latter pair include only the second section of the work, chapters 6 to 11, which is the part we are concerned with. In the Ethiopic text we encounter an unusual passage in 11:2-22, not a word of which appears in the other two. It recounts (as part of Isaiah's vision of the future) first the birth of the Lord to Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem. This passage agrees with no Gospel Nativity scene. Here Jesus is born in his parents' house, to a Mary who has not been forewarned of who this infant is. Lacking any details concerning Herod, magi, census, manger, shepherds, etc., it would seem to be an early, more primitive formulation of a birth story. The passage goes on to make bare reference to the great signs and miracles the adult Jesus performed in Israel, how the children of Israel turned against him, how he was handed over to the "ruler" (Knibb presumes that this must be Pilate) to be crucified, and how he descended to the angel in Sheol. It then concludes (verse 20): "In Jerusalem, I saw how they crucified him on a tree, and how after the third day he rose and remained (many) days. And I saw when he sent out the twelve disciples and ascended." Knibb (op.cit., p.154) remarks that "the primitive character of this narrative makes it difficult to believe that it did not form part of the original text." Elsewhere (p.146), he suggests that the Greek text on which the second Latin and Slavonic manuscripts were based was a "revision" of the one on which the Ethiopic was based, and that the 11:2-22 passage had been cut from the latter because of its "legendary features." But this would not seem to make much sense. Why would a "reviser" choose to delete such a key passage, the only one in the Vision which has anything to say about Jesus' life on earth? And why would such details be seen as "legendary," implying that they were undesirable? If they seemed primitive to a later editor, experience has always shown that when a Christian copyist or redactor does not like something, he changes it to make it conform to current outlook. Rarely does he drop it altogether—or reduce it to a phrase, such as is found at that point in the other versions. An earlier scholar of the Ascension, R. H. Charles, also regarded 11:2-22 as part of the original text, but he did so the basis of preconception. Since chapter 9, he says, "leads us to expect a definite portrayal of these events in a vision," (i.e., crucifixion, descent into Sheol, resurrection on the third day), 11:2-22 fulfills this expectation (The Ascension of Isaiah, 1900, p.xxii). Of course, such an expectation is based on the assumptions of the Gospels. Would not a better explanation be that the Latin and Slavonic texts are earlier, and that the Greek text behind the Ethiopic has enlarged upon an earlier Greek version lying behind the others? Even within the Ethiopic text of 11:2-22, we can detect signs of incremental expansion and revision. For example, in 11:21, in referring to how long Christ remained on earth after rising, different manuscripts in the Ethiopic have varying lengths of time, one being "forty days," no doubt under the influence of Acts. In general, the Ethiopic seems to show expansions on more primitive passages in the other two. I would argue that the Ascension of Isaiah may reveal an evolution from a spiritual Christ operating in a supernatural setting, to a physical Christ living a life in an earthly setting. A document is being periodically revised (by multiple redactors in different versions) to reflect new developments in thought and doctrine, even if not every detail is always brought up to date. The Ethiopic manuscripts can contain a brief account of Jesus' life on earth and yet not have descriptions of the Son's descent enlarged to include an earthly dimension. Perhaps it was felt to be implicit—as some modern scholars would assume. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix Is the Reference to Pilate in 1 Timothy 6:13 an Interpolation? 1 Timothy 6:12-14 reads ("Paul" addressing "Timothy"): "12Run the great race of faith and take hold of eternal life. For to this you were called and you confessed your faith nobly before many witnesses. 13Now in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Jesus Christ, [who himself made the same noble confession and gave his testimony to it before Pontius Pilate,] 14I charge you to obey your orders irreproachably and without fault until our Lord Jesus Christ appears." 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus (called "the Pastoral Epistles") were written in Paul's name so as to claim the authority of that famous apostle for the views the writer is advocating. Most critical scholars date them between 100 and 125. They can be a product neither of Paul nor of his time. As J. L. Houlden says (The Pastoral Epistles, p.18): "Neither in vocabulary and literary techniques nor in atmosphere and teachings is it plausible to suppose that these writings come from the same pen as the main body of Paul's letters." The Pastorals reflect the beginnings of a church system which only came into existence around the beginning of the second century: a bishop, supported by a group of elders and deacons. As well, all sense of immediate expectation of the Parousia has passed. The church is becoming acclimatized to the world and a future. Timothy's confession of faith before many witnesses (verse 12) is interpreted as referring to one of two possible occasions: either the baptismal ceremony upon his conversion to the faith, or his ordination as a minister. Commentators usually choose the former, since baptism is the more likely event at which one is "called to eternal life." The sacrament was publicly administered before the congregation, providing the "many witnesses" referred to. Timothy is confessing his faith before God and fellow Christians. The content of that statement of faith no doubt had to do with a belief in Christ. The way the reference to Pilate is introduced into the text (the clause in square brackets above) shows that it is intended as a parallel to Timothy's confession in the previous sentence. But there is much to be concerned about in this assumption. (See J. H. Houlden, The Pastoral Epistles, p.100-1; J. N. D. Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles, p.143.) Jesus' situation on trial before Pilate is not the same as Timothy's at his baptism, or even his ordination. Timothy's confession is before God and friendly witnesses; Jesus' is not, and it puts Pilate in parallel to God, which is at best inappropriate, at worst irreverent. Jesus' declaration before Pilate is presumably a statement about himself, which is an awkward equivalent to the believer's declaration of faith in Jesus. With all of these difficult features in such a comparison, one might wonder what would have led the original writer to think of making it. Commentators discount the possibility that the occasion of Timothy's confession was before a magistrate, when he might have been on trial for his Christian beliefs. No such event, from which the writer could have drawn, appears in the genuine Pauline letters. Besides, such a trial would hardly be called a summons to eternal life. However, we must consider the possibility that a later scribe may have misinterpreted things in this way. Perhaps by some time further into the second century a tradition had grown up that Timothy had in fact been prosecuted for his faith. This may have prompted such a scribe to insert the idea that, just as Timothy had declared before hostile magistrates his faith that Jesus was the Son of God and Messiah, Christ himself before a hostile Pilate had declared these things about himself. Such an editor may have felt that while "God" (in verse 13) had a qualifying phrase, "who gives life to all things," something was lacking after "and of Jesus Christ," and the comparison with Jesus' trial was what came into his mind. It has also been pointed out that in the account of the trial before Pilate in the synoptic Gospels, Jesus barely says anything, maintaining a stoic silence. His simple agreement, "It is as you say," in answer to the question "Are you the king of the Jews?" is hardly a "noble confession" to inspire such a comment as we find in 1 Timothy 6:13. However, John, when he came to revise the synoptic passion story, had Jesus engage in a dramatic debate with the Roman governor, which might well have been the source of the comment. Since attestation for the Gospel of John is lacking during the period to which the Pastorals are usually assigned, this would suggest that the clause is indeed an interpolation from a later point in the century, when John was more widely known. The Pastorals are not included in the earliest corpus of the Pauline letters, so the fact that there is no manuscript evidence of the letter without this reference to Pilate does not pose a problem. Moreover, only a few verses later (6:16), when speaking of God, the epistle makes this sweeping statement: "No man has ever seen or ever can see him." If the man Jesus of Nazareth had recently been on earth, standing before Pilate, a man who had in fact seen and come from God, one would not expect the writer to have said such a thing—at least without some qualification. The possibility of interpolation is supported by something suspicious which occurs a few verses earlier. In six places in the Pastoral letters the writer uses the phrase "wholesome teaching." In five of these, there is no indication of the source of such teaching. In fact, the first time the phrase appears, in 1 Timothy 1:10, the writer (speaking as Paul) says that such teaching "conforms with the gospel entrusted to me, the gospel which tells of the glory of God." This pointedly ignores any identification of Jesus as the source of the teaching. But in 1 Timothy 6:3 an unexpected phrase intrudes: "If anyone . . . teaches differently and does not agree with wholesome words—those of our Lord Jesus Christ—and with pious teaching, I call him puffed up and ignorant." The phrase "those of our Lord Jesus Christ" (tois tou kuriou hemon Iesou Christou) has the look of a scribal notation originally made in the margin which later got inserted into the text. (This was a common occurrence in the transmission of ancient manuscripts.) If it were part of the original writer's text, the word "those" (tois) would have been redundant and would not likely have been written. Rather, it conveys the impression of an afterthought. The whole thing seems carelessly done, because the insertion fails to cover the succeeding phrase, "and with pious teaching," which we would expect to find identified with Jesus as well. (Note that taken by itself, the passage in 6:3 is not required to be an interpolation in order to maintain that the Pastorals know no historical Jesus. Even if tois tou kuriou hemon Iesou Christou is part of the original text, it need imply no more than that the "teaching" is considered to be revealed through the spiritual Christ, in much the same sense as Paul's "words of the Lord." Most gods were regarded as "teaching.") We have here a very likely interpolation made some time after the letter was written, and it occurs just a few verses before another phrase, the one about Pilate, which seems similarly out of place. It is admittedly in my own interest to regard the reference to Pontius Pilate in 1 Timothy 6:13 as a possible interpolation, but there are clearly good reasons for doing so. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bibliography These are some of the scholars who have pronounced 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16 an interpolation: - Birger A. Pearson: "1 Thessalonians 2:13-16: A Deutero-Pauline Interpolation," Harvard Theological Review 64 (1971) p.79-94 - Burton Mack: Who Wrote the New Testament? p.113 - Wayne Meeks: The First Urban Christians, p.9, n.117 - Helmut Koester: Introduction to the New Testament, vol. II, p.113 - Pheme Perkins: Harper's Bible Commentary, p.1230, 1231-2 - S. G. F. Brandon: The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church, p.92-93 - Paula Fredriksen: From Jesus to Christ, p.122   Scott Whitmore (Emhotep) Starlite Member Username: Emhotep Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 04:39 am:    THERE'S NO FUN BEING PICKED ON ANYONE HERE MIKEY... I JUST WANT TO MAKE A POINT ABOUT HOW SOWING ANY HATE AT ALL EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T THINK WERE DOING IT. CAN MAKE A FOOL OUT OF ANYONE & EVERYONE...SAME ~ SAME FOR WHOEVER IS SAYING AND/OR THINKING OF STARTING ANYTHING.... Ona Gwe, Waki Wm Scott Whitmore aka Em~Hotep   Scott Whitmore (Emhotep) Starlite Member Username: Emhotep Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 04:28 am:    Hey.! Zaheer... I just found something that Mikey will RUN UP HIS FLAG POLE WITH A FANFARE . Take a Look at this BULL@#%* that was online then wonder why the World is Going Bad So Quickly and a simple phrase or opinion is so SMASHED ON. ----------------- Do the Brits have their priorities right.????? Re:The Russian submarine snarled in underwater cables a couple of weeks ago. By the time we cleared all the bureaucratic "B.S." and got started, Great Britain had arrived, completed the rescue of the seven men trapped in the submarine, and were cleaning up. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ @@@@ HERE'S THE KICKER TO THE STORY @@@@ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ England's Prime Minister Tony Blair made a national speech yesterday in which he more or less said he didn't give a " Bloody Damm what color you were, nor what religion you practiced, or how long you had every been in England....anyone stirring trouble was " OUT .... DEPORTED ....GONE.....! If you are an immigrant muslim, YOU ARE GONE.! exported. If you are a " Brit" who converted to radical Muslimism, your BUTT is in jail...DONE (period). The preaching of any extreme-ism simply will not be tolerated....!! We're having a hell of a time keeping men, women and children from crossing our borders illegally, we support them when they get here, and should be put people in jail for Not reporting them. Within days of the terrorist attacks in England, Scotland Yard had accounted for every man that was involved. We are still looking for 9/11 more terrorists, can't even find Bin Laden, and are now trying to get " permission " to search people who might have bombs. While the rest of the world is dealing with major problems, we've got Our whole damn Congress ( KeyStone Kops )fighting over the appointment of one Judge and whether or not the Atlanta Braves can keep their mascot. Politically we look like idiots to the rest of the world. Guess Which Fool Wears The DUNCE CAP in that White House Palace.! When All Is Said & Done Mikey / Zaheer do we all need to act that way, or ARE WE BETTER FOR NOT BEING A COURT JESTER PLAYING THE FOOL TO PLEASE MORONS. NUFF SAID Ona Gwe, Waki Wm Scott Whitmore aka Em~Hotep   zaheer - uddin (Zaheer) Starlite Member Username: Zaheer Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 07:24 pm:    You sure know what your'e doing Michael! you've set up a precedent by posting hate websites on this forum---   zaheer - uddin (Zaheer) Starlite Member Username: Zaheer Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 06:57 pm:    Orientalism, Misinformation and Islam by Abu Iman 'Abd ar-Rahman Robert Squires Any open-minded person embarking on a study of Islam, especially if using books written in European languages, should be aware of the seemingly inherent distortions that permeate almost all non-Muslim writings on Islam. At least since the Middle Ages, Islam has been much maligned and severely misunderstood in the West. In the last years of the Twentieth Century, it does not seem that much has changed—even though most Muslims would agree that progress is being made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QUESTIONABLE MOTIVES & GENERAL IGNORANCE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I feel that an elegant summary of the West's ignorance of Islam and the motives of Orientalism are the following words by the Swiss journalist and author, Roger Du Pasquier: "The West, whether Christian or dechristianised, has never really known Islam. Ever since they watched it appear on the world stage, Christians never ceased to insult and slander it in order to find justification for waging war on it. It has been subjected to grotesque distortions the traces of which still endure in the European mind. Even today there are many Westerners for whom Islam can be reduced to three ideas: fanaticism, fatalism and polygamy. Of course, there does exist a more cultivated public whose ideas about Islam are less deformed; there are still precious few who know that the word islam signifies nothing other than 'submission to God'. One symptom of this ignorance is the fact that in the imagination of most Europeans, Allah refers to the divinity of the Muslims, not the God of the Christians and Jews; they are all surprised to hear, when one takes the trouble to explain things to them, that 'Allah' means 'God', and that even Arab Christians know him by no other name. Islam has of course been the object of studies by Western orientalists who, over the last two centuries, have published an extensive learned literature on the subject. Nevertheless, however worthy their labours may have been, particularly in the historical and and philological fields, they have contributed little to a better understanding of the Muslim religion in the Christian or post-Christian milieu, simply because they have failed to arouse much interest outside their specialised academic circles. One is forced also to concede that Orientals studies in the West have not always been inspired by the purest spirit of scholarly impartiality, and it is hard to deny that some Islamicists and Arabists have worked with the clear intention of belittling Islam and its adherents. This tendency was particularly marked—for obvious reasons—in the heyday of the colonial empires, but it would be an exaggeration to claim that it has vanished without trace. These are some of the reasons why Islam remains even today so misjudged by the West, where curiously enough, Asiatic faiths such as Buddhism and Hinduism have for more than a century generated far more visible sympathy and interest, even though Islam is so close to Judaism and Christianity, having flowed from the same Abrahamic source. Despite this, however, for several years it has seemed that external conditions, particularly the growing importance of the Arab-Islamic countries in the world's great political and economic affairs, have served to arouse a growing interest of Islam in the West, resulting—for some—in the discovery of new and hitherto unsuspected horizons." (From Unveiling Islam, by Roger Du Pasquier, pages 5-7) The feeling that there is a general ignorance of Islam in the West is shared by Maurice Bucaille, a French doctor, who writes: "When one mentions Islam to the materialist atheist, he smiles with a complacency that is only equal to his ignorance of the subject. In common with the majority of Western intellectuals, of whatever religious persuasion, he has an impressive collection of false notions about Islam. One must, on this point, allow him one or two excuses. Firstly, apart from the newly-adopted attitudes prevailing among the highest Catholic authorities, Islam has always been subject in the West to a so-called 'secular slander'. Anyone in the West who has acquired a deep knowledge of Islam knows just to what extent its history, dogma and aims have been distorted. One must also take into account that fact that documents published in European languages on this subject (leaving aside highly specialised studies) do not make the work of a person willing to learn any easier." (From The Bible, the Qur'an and Science, by Maurice Bucaille, page 118) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORIENTALISM: A BROAD DEFINITION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The phenomenon which is generally known as Orientalism is but one aspect of Western misrepresentations of Islam. Today, most Muslims in the West would probably agree that the largest volume of distorted information about Islam comes from the media, whether in newspapers, magazines or on television. In terms of the number of people who are reached by such information, the mass media certainly has more of a widespread impact on the West's view of Islam than do the academic publications of "Orientalists", "Arabists" or "Islamicists". Speaking of labels, in recent years the academic field of what used to be called "Orientalism" has been renamed "Area Studies" or "Regional Studies", in most colleges and universities in the West. These politically correct terms have taken the place of the word "Orientalism" in scholarly circles since the latter word is now tainted with a negative imperialist connotation, in a large measure due to the Orientalists themselves. However, even though the works of scholars who pursue these fields do not reach the public at large, they do often fall into the hands of students and those who are personally interested in learning more about Islam. As such, any student of Islam—especially those in the West—need to be aware of the historical phenomenon of Orientalism, both as an academic pursuit and as a means of cultural exploitation. When used by Muslims, the word "Orientalist" generally refers to any Western scholar who studies Islam—regardless of his or her motives—and thus, inevitably, distorts it. As we shall see, however, the phenomenon of Orientalism is much more than an academic pursuit. Edward Said, a renowned Arab Christian scholar and author of several books exposing shortcomings of the Orientalist approach, defines "Orientalism" as follows: " . . . by Orientalism I mean several things, all of them, in my opinion, interdependent. The most readily accepted designation of for Orientalism is an academic one, and indeed, and indeed the label still serves in a number of academic institutions. Anyone who teaches, writes about, or researches the Orient—and this applies whether the person is an anthropologist, sociologist, historian, or philogist—either in its specific or its general aspects, is an Orientalist, and what he or she does is Orientalism." (From Orientalism, by Edward W. Said, page 2) "To speak of Orientalism therefore is to speak mainly, although not exclusively, of a British and French cultural enterprise, a project whose dimensions take in such disparate realms as the imagination itself, the whole of India and the Levant, the Biblical texts and the Biblical lands, the spice trade, colonial armies and a long tradition of colonial administrators, a formidable scholarly corpus, innumerable Oriental "experts" and "hands", an Oriental professorate, a complex array of "Oriental" ideas (Oriental despotism, Oriental splendor, cruelty, sensuality), many Eastern sects, philosophies, and wisdoms domesticated for local European use—the list can be extended more or less indefinitely." (From Orientalism, by Edward W. Said, page 4) As is the case with many things, being aware of the problem is half the battle. Once a sincere seeker of the Truth is aware of the long standing misunderstanding and hostility between Islam and the West—and learns not to trust everything which they see in print—authentic knowledge and information can be obtained much more quickly. Certainly, not all Western writings on Islam have the same degree of bias—they run the range from willful distortion to simple ignorance—and there are even a few that could be classified as sincere efforts by non-Muslims to portray Islam in a positive light. However, even most of these works are plagued by seemingly unintentional errors, however minor, due to the author's lack of Islamic knowledge. In the spirit of fairness, it should be said that even some contemporary books on Islam by Muslim authors suffer from these same shortcomings, usually due to a lack of knowledge, heretical ideas and or depending on non-Muslim sources. This having been said, it should come as no surprise that learning about Islam in the West—especially when relying on works in European languages—has never been an easy task. Just a few decades ago, an English speaking person who was interested in Islam, and wishing to limit their reading to works by Muslim authors, might have been limited to reading a translation of the Qur'an, a few translated hadeeth books and a few dozen pamphlet-sized essays. However, in the past several years the widespread availability of Islamic books—written by believing and committed Muslims—and the advent of the Internet have made obtaining authentic information on almost any aspect of Islam much easier. Today, hardly a week goes by that an English translation of a classical Islamic work is not announced. Keeping this in mind, I would encourage the reader to consult books written by Muslim authors when trying to learn about Islam. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMPERIALISTIC AIMS & EAGER MISSIONARIES -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Moving on to a more detailed look at the West's distorted view of Islam in general and Orientalism in particular . . . Edward Said, the Arab Christian author of the monumental work Orientalism, accurately referred to Orientalism a "cultural enterprise". This is certainly no distortion, since the academic study of the Oriental East by the Occidental West was often motivated—and often co-operated hand-in-hand— with the imperialistic aims of the European colonial powers. Without a doubt, the foundations of Orientalism are in the maxim "Know thy enemy". When the "Christian Nations" of Europe began their long campaign to colonize and conquer the rest of the world for their own benefit, they brought their academic and missionary resources to bear in order to assist in the task. Orientalists and missionaries—whose ranks often overlapped—were more often than not the servants of an imperialist government who was using their services as a way to subdue or weaken an enemy, however subtly: "With regard to Islam and the Islamic territories, for example, Britain felt that it had legitimate interests, as a Christian power, to safeguard. A complex apparatus for tending these interests developed. Such early organizations as the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (1698) and the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (1701) were succeeded and later abetted by the Baptist Missionary Society (1792), the Church Missionary Society (1799), the British and Foreign Bible Society (1804), the London Society for Promoting Christianity Among the Jews (1808). These missions "openly" joined the expansion of Europe." (From Orientalism, by Edward W. Said, page 100) Anyone who has studied the subject knows that Christian missionaries were willing participants in European imperialism, regardless of the pure motives or naďveté of some of the individual missionaries. Actually, quite a few Orientalist scholars were Christian missionaries. One notable example is Sir William Muir, who was an active missionary and author of several books on Islam. His books were very biased and narrow-minded studies, but they continue to be used as references for those wishing to attack Islam to this very day. That Christians were the source of some of the worst lies and distortions about Islam should come as no surprise, since Islam was its main "competitor" on the stage of World Religions. Far from honouring the commandment not to bear false witness against one's neighbour, Christians distortions—and outright lies—about Islam were widespread, as the following shows: "The history of Orientalism is hardly one of unbiased examination of the sources of Islam especially when under the influence of the bigotry of Christianity. From the fanatical distortions of John of Damascus to the apologetic of later writers against Islam that told their audiences that the Muslims worshipped three idols! Peter the Venerable (1084-1156) "translated" the Qur'an which was used throughout the Middle Ages and included nine additional chapters. Sale's infamously distorted translation followed that trend, and his, along with the likes of Rodwell, Muir and a multitude of others attacked the character and personality of Muhammmed. Often they employed invented stories, or narration's which the Muslims themselves considered fabricated or weak, or else they distorted the facts by claiming Muslims held a position which they did not, or using the habits practised out of ignorance among the Muslims as the accurate portrayal of Islam. As Norman Daniel tell us in his work Islam and the West: "The use of false evidence to attack Islam was all but universal . . . " (p. 267)." (From An Authoritative Exposition - Part 1, by 'Abdur-Raheem Green) This view is confirmed by the well known historian of the Middle East, Bernard Lewis, when he writes: "Medieval Christendom did, however, study Islam, for the double purpose of protecting Christians from Muslim blandishments and converting Muslims to Christianity, and Christian scholars, most of them priests or monks, created a body of literature concerning the faith, its Prophet, and his book, polemic in purpose and often scurrilous in tone, designed to protect and discourage rather than to inform".." (From Islam and the West, by Bernard Lewis, pages 85-86) There is a great deal of proof that one could use to demonstrate that when it came to attacking Islam, even the Roman Catholic Church would readily embrace almost any untruth. Here's an example: "At a certain period in history, hostility to Islam, in whatever shape or form, even coming from declared enemies of the church, was received with the most heartfelt approbation by high dignitaries of the Catholic Church. Thus Pope Benedict XIV, who is reputed to have been the greatest Pontiff of the Eighteenth century, unhesitatingly sent his blessing to Voltaire. This was in thanks for the dedication to him of the tragedy Mohammed or Fanaticism (Mahomet ou le Fanatisme) 1741, a coarse satire that any clever scribbler of bad faith could have written on any subject. In spite of a bad start, the play gained sufficient prestige to be included in the repertoire of the Comédie-Française." (From The Bible, the Qur'an and Science, by Maurice Bucaille, page 118) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WIDESPREAD LIES & POPULAR CULTURE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The dedicated enemy of the church, referred to above, was the French philosopher Voltaire. For an example of what he thought of at least one Christian doctrine, read his Anti-Trinitarians tract. Also, the above passage introduces a point that one should be well aware of: the distortions and lies about Islam throughout the ages in Europe were not been limited to a small number of scholars and clergy. On the contrary, they were part of popular culture at the time: "The European imagination was nourished extensively from this repertoire [of Oriental images]: between the Middle Ages and the eighteenth century such major authors as Ariosto, Milton, Marlowe, Tasso, Shakespeare, Cervantes, and the authors of the Chanson de Roland and the Poema del Cid drew on the Orient's riches for their productions, in ways that sharpened that outlines of imagery, ideas, and figures populating it. In addition, a great deal of what was considered learned Orientalist scholarship in Europe pressed ideological myths into service, even as knowledge seemed genuinely to be advancing." (From Orientalism, by Edward Said, page 63) "The invariable tendency to neglect what the Qur'an meant, or what Muslims thought it meant, or what Muslims thought or did in any given circumstances, necessarily implies that Qur'anic and other Islamic doctrine was presented in a form that would convince Christians; and more and more extravagant forms would stand a chance of acceptance as the distance of the writers and public from the Islamic border increased. It was with very great reluctance that what Muslims said Muslims believed was accepted as what they did believe. There was a Christian picture in which the details (even under the pressure of facts) were abandoned as little as possible, and in which the general outline was never abandoned. There were shades of difference, but only with a common framework. All the corrections that were made in the interests of an increasing accuracy were only a defence of what had newly realised to be vulnerable, a shoring up of a weakened structure. Christian opinion was an erection which could not be demolished, even to be rebuilt." (From Islam and the West: The Making of an Image, by Norman Daniel, page 259-260) Edward Said, in his classic work Orientalism, referring to the above passage by Norman Daniel, says: "This rigorous Christian picture of Islam was intensified in innumerable ways, including—during the Middle Ages and early Renaissance—a large variety of poetry, learned controversy, and popular superstition. By this time the Near Orient had been all but incorporated in the common world-picture of Latin Christianity—as in the Chanson de Roland the worship of Saracens is portrayed as embracing Mahomet and Apollo. By the middle of the fifteenth century, as R. W. Southern has brilliantly shown, it became apparent to serious European thinkers "that something would have to be done about Islam," which had turned the situation around somewhat by itself arriving militarily in Eastern Europe." (From Orientalism, by Edward W. Said, page 61) "Most conspicuous to us is the inability of any of these systems of thought [European Christian] to provide a fully satisfying explanation of the phenomenon they had set out to explain [Islam]—still less to influence the course of practical events in a decisive way. At a practical level, events never turned out either so well or so ill as the most intelligent observers predicted: and it is perhaps worth noticing that they never turned out better than when the best judges confidently expected a happy ending. Was there any progress [in Christian knowledge of Islam]? I must express my conviction that there was. Even if the solutions of the problem remained obstinately hidden from sight, the statement of the problem became more complex, more rational, and more related to experience." (From Western Views of Islam in the Middle Ages, by R. W. Southern, pages 91-92) Regardless of the flawed, biased—and even devious—approach of many Orientalists, they too can have their moments of candour, as Roger DuPasquier points out: "In general one must unhappily concur with an Orientalist like Montgomery Watt when he writes that 'of all the great men of the world, no-one has had as many detractors as Muhammad.' Having engaged in a lengthy study of the life and work of the Prophet, the British Arabist add that 'it is hard to understand why this has been the case', finding the only plausible explanation in the fact that for centuries Christianity treated Islam as its worst enemy. And although Europeans today look at Islam and its founder in a somewhat more objective light, 'many ancient prejudices still remain.'" (From Unveiling Islam, by Roger Du Pasquier, page 47 - quoting from W. M. Watt's Muhammad at Medina, Oxford University Press) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOUND ADVICE & CONCLUDING REMARKS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In conclusion, I would like to turn to a description of Orientalism by an American convert to Islam. What he has this to say about the objectives and methods of Orientalism, especially how it is flawed from an Islamic perspective, is quite enlightening. While summarizing his views on a book by an Orientalist author, he writes: " . . . (t)he book accurately reports the names and dates of the events it discusses, though its explanations of Muslim figures, their motives, and their place within the Islamic world are observed through the looking glass of unbelief (kufr), giving a reverse-image of many of the realities it reflects, and perhaps calling for a word here on the literature that has been termed Orientalism, or in the contemporary idiom, "area studies". It is a viewpoint requiring that scholarly description of something like "African Islam" be first an foremost objective. The premises of this objectivity conform closely, upon reflection, to the lived and felt experience of a post-religious, Western intellectual tradition in understanding religion; namely, that comparing human cultural systems and societies in their historical succession and multiplicity leads the open-minded observer to moral relativism, since no moral value can be discovered which on its own merits is transculturally valid. Here, human civilizations, with their cultural forms, religions, hopes, aims, beliefs, prophets, sacred scriptures, and deities, are essentially plants that grow out of the earth, springing from their various seeds and soils, thriving for a time, and then withering away. The scholar's concern is only to record these elements and propose a plausible relation between them. Such a point of departure, if de rigueur for serious academic work . . . is of course non-Islamic and anti-Islamic. As a fundamental incomprehension of Islam, it naturally distorts what it seeks to explain, yet with an observable disparity in the degree of distortion in any given description that seems to correspond roughly to how close the object of explanation is to the core of Islam. In dealing with central issues like Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), the Koran, or hadith, it is at its worst; while the further it proceeds to the periphery, such as historical details of trade concessions, treaties names of rulers, weights of coins, etc., the less distorted it becomes. In either case, it is plainly superior for Muslims to rely on fellow Muslims when Islamic sources are available on a subject . . . if only to avoid the subtle and not-so-subtle distortions of non-Islamic works about Islam. One cannot help but feel that nothing bad would happen to us if we were to abandon the trend of many contemporary Muslim writers of faithfully annotating our works with quotes from the founding fathers of Orientalism, if only because to sleep with the dogs is generally to rise with the fleas." As anyone who has studied Orientalism knows, both their methodology and their intentions were less than ideal. The following remarks serve as a pointed synopsis of the approach of Western Orientalist scholars to the Qur'an in particular and Islam in general: "The Orientalist enterprise of Qur'anic studies, whatever its other merits and services, was a project born of spite, bred in frustration and nourished by vengeance: the spite of the powerful for the powerless, the frustration of the "rational" towards the "superstitious" and the vengeance of the "orthodox" against the "non-conformist." At the greatest hour of his worldly-triumph, the Western man, coordinating the powers of the State, Church and Academia, launched his most determined assault on the citadel of Muslim faith. All the aberrant streaks of his arrogant personality -- its reckless rationalism, its world-domineering phantasy and its sectarian fanaticism -- joined in an unholy conspiracy to dislodge the Muslim Scripture from its firmly entrenched position as the epitome of historic authenticity and moral unassailability. The ultimate trophy that the Western man sought by his dare-devil venture was the Muslim mind itself. In order to rid the West forever of the "problem" of Islam, he reasoned, Muslim consciousness must be made to despair of the cognitive certainty of the Divine message revealed to the Prophet. Only a Muslim confounded of the historical authenticity or doctrinal autonomy of the Qur'anic revelation would abdicate his universal mission and hence pose no challenge to the global domination of the West. Such, at least, seems to have been the tacit, if not the explicit, rationale of the Orientalist assault on the Qur'an." (From: "Method Against Truth: Orientalism and Qur'anic Studies", by S. Parvez Manzoor, Muslim World Book Review, Vol. 7, No. 4, Summer 1987, pp. 33-49.) Need we say more? http://thetruereligion.org   Michael .P (Mik3y) Starlite Member Username: Mik3y Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 10:44 pm:    You obviously didn't read it all did you?! The guy who wrote it never asked to hate or disrespected Islam at all. I have no idea what you're talking about, because his words were far from hateful and disrespectful. Please read it again and point out to me where the man wrote anything hateful? Michael william James

Add Your Message Here Post: -Color- Black Red Green Blue Yellow Purple Orange Cyan Gray White -Font- Arial Courier Symbol Times Verdana -Size- Smallest (-2) Small (-1) Normal Large (+1) Largest (+2) Username: Posting Information: This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here. Password: Options: Enable HTML code in message Automatically activate URLs in message Action: