An Explanation of the Unipersonality of Christ for Muslims

Gerry Redman

Contents

Introduction

A. The Biblical View

1. The Two Natures

2. Definition of ‘Nature’ and ‘Person’

3. The Meaning of ‘Unipersonality’

4. The Nature of the Incarnation and Hypostatic Union

5. Communication of Properties

6. Kenotic Theories

7. The Necessity of the Hypostatic Union

8. Christological Errors

9. Historic Christian Creeds and Confessions

B. The Islamic view

Conclusion

References

Introduction

One of the great failures of Muslims in terms of their apologetic stance against Christianity, both with regard to the Qur’an and modern Islamic polemics is the absence of any detailed examination of the Christian doctrine of the Hypostatic Union – the dogma that Jesus is simultaneously divine and human whilst yet one person. The Qur’an, it will be seen, never addresses this issue. Among modern Islamic polemicists, there appears to be a definite shyness about investigating the topic. For example, Baagil in his supposed discourse with a Christian presents the latter as stating that Jesus ‘…is both God and man’, whilst the Muslim respondent merely limits himself to rhetorically querying if Jesus actually claimed that? 1Ahmed Deedat has published a booklet entitled The God that never was, that essentially examines texts dealing with the human nature of Jesus, and presents this as ‘God’ doing human physical functions. 2 Yet Deedat could not have been unaware that the historical Christian position is that Christ was both divine and human.

Of course, the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union is a supernatural paradox – that Jesus could be simultaneously finite and infinite, etc., but then, God’s dealings with humanity are not subject to human patterns of thought. Human beings are finite, and liable both to sin and err. The finite mind cannot fathom the mysteries of God. Ultimately, God can only be known through His own self-revelation. Only the infinite can express the infinite. Yet the infinite must be expressed in terms of the finite because it is revealed to the finite. Hence, the Incarnation is a necessary action because of revelation alone – God, taking human nature alongside His divine nature, expresses the infinite in terms of the finite. Thus, Jesus reveals the divine nature in terms of His holiness, His love, His power, and His revelatory action. For this reason Jesus is the supreme revelation of God – He reveals the Father, John 1:18; whoever has seen Him has seen the Father. He who is God is also the Word of God. He is the climax of revelation, Hebrews 1:1-2. To encounter Him is to encounter God Himself, and thus experience the infallible revelation.

Islam agrees with Christianity that God can only be fully known through His self-revelation, since the finite reason of Man cannot comprehend the infinitude of deity. Left to fallible native reason, human beings would always conceive God in terms with which they could understand, with respect to features with which they were familiar. That is, men always seek for analogy. Analogy has its limits with regard to God, precisely because He is unlimited, and, moreover, incomparable, since there is only one, unique deity – a tenet of faith common to Islam and the Bible. Clearly, the concept of the Hypostatic Union has no consistent analogy in nature.

Another point of commonality between Islam and Christianity is belief in the incomprehensibility of God. This is a consequence of the unique, transcendent nature of deity, and of human finitude. All human attempts to comprehend Him apart from revelation are inadequate and doomed to failure. Berkhof notes that this was the teaching of the Protestant Reformers:

To Calvin, God in the depths of His being is past finding out. ‘His essence’, he says, ‘is incomprehensible; so that His divinity escapes all human senses.’ The Reformers do not deny that man can learn something of the nature of God from His creation, but maintain that he can acquire true knowledge of Him only from special revelation, under the illuminating influence of the Holy Spirit. 3

This is a position with which Muslims are bound to agree. For example, one Muslim writer observes the following about the incomprehensibility of God:

‘But to have complete knowledge of God is beyond man’s ability. Man is finite and Allah is infinite…The creature cannot comprehend the Creator; “They (mankind) cannot encompass Him (Allah) with their knowledge”. Ta-ha, 20:110. Islam preaches that mankind should only refer to Allah as He has referred to Himself. There is no scope what-so-ever for inventing new ideas about Him or thinking of Him in a manner that suits us.’ 4

Similarly, Yusuf Ali comments on S. 112:

The nature of Allah is here indicated to us in a few words, such as we can understand.

The qualities of Allah are described in numerous places elsewhere, e.g., in lix. 22-24, lxii. 1, and ii. 255. Here we are specially taught to avoid the pitfalls into which men and nations have fallen at various times in trying to understand Allah. The first thing we have to note is that His nature is so sublime, so far beyond our limited conceptions, that the best way in which we can realise Him is to feel that He is a Personality, ‘He’, and not a mere abstract conception of philosophy. He is near us; He cares for us; we owe our existence to Him. Secondly, He is the One and Only God, the Only One to Whom worship is due; all Other things or beings that we can think of are His creatures and in no way comparable to Him. Thirdly, He is Eternal, without beginning or end, Absolute, not limited by time or place or circumstance, the Reality. Fourthly, we must not think of Him as having a son or a father, for that would be to import animal qualities into our conception of Him. Fifthly, He is not like any other person or thing that we know or can imagine: His qualities and nature are unique.

The divergence between Islam and Christianity begins when we consider the identity of divine self-revelation. Islam claims it is the Qur’an; Christianity holds that it is found in the Bible and supremely in Jesus Christ as the Word of God. Hence, Muslims can scarcely object to the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union because it is paradoxical and does not conform to their ideas of human reason, for the very reason that finite human reason is incapable of comprehending the divine essence, and thus fully understanding the Hypostatic Union. The great Princeton theologian A. A. Hodge observed that the very nature of the Incarnation does not allow for adequate analogy or comprehensibility:

The Person of the incarnate God is unique. His birth has had no precedents and his existence no analogy. He cannot be explained by being referred to a class, nor can he be illustrated by an example… This unique personality, as it surpasses all analogy, also transcends all understanding. The proud intellect of man is constantly aspiring to remove all mysteries and to subject the whole sphere of existence to the daylight of rational explanation. Such attempts are constantly ending in the most grotesque failure. Even in the material world it is true that omnia exeunt in mysterium. If we cannot explain the relation which the immaterial soul sustains to the organized body in the person of man, why should We be surprised to find that all attempts to explain the intimate relations which the eternal Word and the human soul and body sustain to each other in the Person of Christ have miserably failed? 5

This paper will attempt to explain the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union to Muslims, illustrating how Jesus is concurrentlydivine and human. It will also study what the Qur’an has to say on the subject, and consider the implications of Qur’anic Christology, both in terms of what it denies, and what it presents as Christian doctrine.

A. The Biblical view

1. The Two Natures

Although this is not the place for an extended treatment of either the humanity or deity of Christ, it is as well to give a short overview of some of the evidence for both these doctrines.

(a) Humanity of Christ

Today, this doctrine is rarely questioned, though we shall see that this was not always the case. We should firstly observe that whilst the conception of Jesus was supernatural, He had a normal human birth, Matthew 1:25, Luke 2:7, Galatians 4:4. Also, He experienced a normal human development – Luke 2:40-52, Hebrews 5:8. He ‘grew’ in wisdom. His Messianic consciousness begins to find expression at the age of twelve, and is perfected at the Baptism – Luke 3:22.

Jesus spoke of Himself as a Man, John 8:40, and is so termed by others – Acts 2:22, 1 Corinthians 15:21. He had a body and soul – Matthew 26:26, 38, Luke 24:39. He was subject to human wants and sufferings – Matthew 4:2, 8:24: hunger – Matthew 21:18; thirst – Matthew 11:19; weariness – John 4:6. He experienced true agony – Mark 14:33-36. Also, He genuinely knew the emotions of love – John 1:5, sorrow, Matthew 26:37, and anger Mark 3:5. In order to be the antitype of Adam, ‘bearer of destiny’ Romans 5:17ff, He must be true Man.

As a true man He worships the Father – Luke 4:16, and prays – 3:21, 6:12. He had, as a man, limited knowledge – Mark 6:38, Luke 2:46, Mark 13:32. However, it must be noted that He was sinless – Hebrews 4:15 – John 8:46, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 9:14, 1 Peter 2:22, 1 John 3:5. He resisted temptation. He was not a superman, but a true man filled with the Holy Spirit; His miracles are performed in the power of the Spirit.

(b) Deity of Christ

This is explicitly taught in John 1:1 – ‘the Word was God’; Greek scholars unanimously reject the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation perversion. Michael Bremmer’s article The Deity of Jesus Christ explores the magisterial work of Walter Martin on the Watchtower cult, and their distortion of this verse, a mistranslation that is beginning to be employed by Muslim apologists. 6 The Word was God. The syntax of John 1:1 is instructive in this regard, by virtue of placing the definite predicate before the verb but without the definite article (‘Colwell’s rule’):

‘En arxh ‘hn ‘o logos, kai ‘o logos’hn pros ton qeon, kai qeos’hn ‘o logos.

Not only does it affirm that Jesus (the Word) is God, it also demonstrates that the Godhead is not exhausted in Jesus, that is, that Jesus is not alone God, but rather there are more persons than the Son in the Godhead. Jesus is called ‘Lord’ – kurios – Jews used this to render ‘YHWH’, and we find it employed in Romans 10:9 – ‘confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord’. John 8:58 presents Him as claiming the personal name of God, ‘I am’ (YHWH). Cf. also Colossians 1:15; 2:9; Philippians 2:6-11; 2 Thessalonians 1:12; Hebrews 1:8-10; 1 John 5:20. Jesus, in John 5:22-23, states that all men may give Him equal honour as to the Father, and since the honour we give to God is worship, Jesus must be God. It is clear from John 5:18-19 that the Jews recognised Jesus as claiming deity.

YHWH is Shepherd of Israel – Psalm 23:1; Jesus is God Shepherd – John 10:11-16. Other texts pointing to the deity of Christ include John 20:28 – ‘My Lord and My God’; Acts 20:28 – ‘the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.’ It is likely that John 1:18 affirms the deity of Christ – ‘No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has revealed Him.’ The Greek makes this more explicit

yeon‘oudeiv‘ewrakenpwpote monogenhvyeov ‘o

‘wn‘eivton kolpontou patrov‘ekeinov‘exhghsato.

Romans 9:5 presents Jesus as ‘God over all’ – the context of sorrow over Israel’s fall precludes a doxology, and such does not usually appear in the middle of a passage. Doxologies usually refer to someone mentioned in the preceding sentence – Romans 1:25; 11:26; 2 Corinthians 11:31; Galatians 1:5; 2 Timothy 4:18. Whenever ‘euloghtov (‘blessed’) is used in an independent doxology, it always stands at the beginning of a sentence, e.g. 2 Corinthians 1:3; Ephesians 1:1; 1 Peter 1:3. As it stands, ‘God over all’ balances ‘concerning the flesh’. Christ is God over all.

Romans 14:10 refers to the Judgment Seat of God, and 2 Corinthians 5:10 ascribes it to Christ. Titus 2:13 speaks of the ‘great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, as does 2 Peter 1:1. If God and Jesus were distinguished, there would normally need to be a definite article before ‘Saviour’, but it is absent, so the texts affirm Christ’s deity. Revelation 1:17, 18; 2:8; 22:12, 13, 16 all refer to Jesus as Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End – used of God in Isaiah 41:4; 44:6; 48:12.

2. Definition of ‘Nature’ and ‘Person’

The Greek word hypostasis ‘upostasiv essentially means ‘substance’, hence its employment in Hebrews 11:1. The Christological controversies of the Early Church were often reducible to semantics, rather than concrete issues. Often it was because one word was used in a certain way in one area (e.g. Antioch) whilst a different area employed it otherwise (e.g. Alexandria) that problems arose. Nonetheless, the formula that was eventually accepted essentially made hypostasisequivalent to ‘person’, hence it is said that there are three hypostases in one divine essence – ousia ‘ousia. Probably the best definition is that of ‘the essence of an individual in virtue of which it is itself’. Thus, equivalent to ‘person’.

The Greek word translated as ‘nature’ is fusiv phusis (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:14; James 3:7). This is best understood as a substance (essence, being) possessed in common. Berkhof gives a helpful aid to definition:

The term ‘nature’ denotes the sum-total of all the essential qualities of a thing, that which makes it what it is. A nature is a substance possessed in common, with all the essential qualities of such a substance. The term “person” denotes a complete substance endowed with reason, and, consequently, a responsible subject of its own actions. Personality is not an essential and integral part of a nature but is, as it were, the terminus to which it tends. A person is a nature with something added, namely, independent subsistence, individuality. Now the Logos assumed a human nature that was not personalized, that did not exist by itself. 7

3. The Meaning of ‘Unipersonality’

a) Not Adoptionism

The Second Person of the Trinity does not in a charismatic way endue a distinct human person. There is perfect identity between Jesus of Nazareth and God the Son. Rather, the eternal Word came as flesh on the human scene – John 1:14.

b) Not Bi-Personality

As implied above, there are not two beings i.e. ‘persons.’ in the Mediator; only two natures. Berkhof points out that there is no ‘distinction of ‘I’ and ‘Thou’ in the inner life of the Mediator, such as we find in the triune Being of God, where one person addresses the other… Jesus never uses the plural in referring to Himself.’ 8

c) Not Docetism/Impersonality

The humanity of Christ is genuine, so docetism is untenable; and in order to be truly human, Jesus as a man must possess all that is native to human nature, He had a human mind, spirit, tastes, needs, will and all else that corresponds to the inner and exterior life of a normal man. Thus, the humanity of Christ may be said to be ‘personal’ without being a person – i.e. it does not possess an independent subsistence. We will examine this further later.

d) Not Metamorphosis

We are not presented with a case of metamorphosis whereby God the Son changes into a man, in the same manner as humans change into animals or vice versa in legends or fairy tales, Rather, the integrity of the deity is preserved. Without ceasing to be divine, God the Son assumes another (i.e. human) nature alongside His deity. John Murray observes in relation to John 1:14 ‘…lest we should interpret the incarnation in terms of transmutation or divestiture, John hastens to inform us that, in beholding the incarnate Word, they beheld his glory as the glory of the only-begotten from the Father (John 1:14)… he proceeds to identify the only-begotten in his unabridged character as “God only-begotten who is in the bosom of the Father (v. 18).’ 9

4. The Nature of the Incarnation and Hypostatic Union

The Second Person of the Trinity, whilst remaining God, assumed a human nature alongside His divine nature. This means we are dealing with the same Person who appeared to Moses and Joshua, the same Person who created the Cosmos. Deity being immutable and impassible, no change occurs in the Divine Logos. He remains the Creator and Maintainer of all things. We thus are presented with a Jesus who is at one point designated by the divine title, Acts 20:28; 1 Corinthians 2:8; Colossians 1:13, 14, and likewise with regard to the human title – John 3:13; 6:62; Romans 9:5. Berkhof clearly presents the Evangelical position on this complex issue:

There is but one person in the Mediator, the unchangeable Logos. The Logos furnishes the basis for the personality of Christ… The human nature of Christ as such does not constitute a human person. The Logos did not adopt a human person, so that we have two persons in the Mediator, but simply assumed a human nature… At the same time it is not correct to speak of the human nature of Christ as impersonal. This is true only in the sense that this nature has no independent subsistence of its own. Strictly speaking, however, the human nature of Christ was not for a moment impersonal. The Logos assumed that nature into personal subsistence with Himself. The human nature has its personal existence in the person of the Logos. It is in-personal rather than impersonal. For that very reason we are not warranted to speak of the human nature of Christ as imperfect or incomplete. His human nature is not lacking in any of the essential qualities belonging to that nature, and also has individuality, that is, personal subsistence, in the person of the Son of God. 10

A. A. Hodge presents a similar picture, emphasising that what has occurred is that the eternal Second Person of the Trinity has assumed another nature, not adopted another person, whilst retaining His deity:

Again: the Scriptures teach us that this amazing personality does not centre in his humanity, and that it is not a composite one originated by the power of the Spirit when he brought the two natures together in the womb of the Virgin Mary. It was not made by adding manhood to Godhead. The Trinity is eternal and unchangeable. A new Person is not substituted for the second Person of the Trinity, neither is a fourth Person added to the Trinity But the Person of Christ is just the one eternal Word, the second Person of the Trinity, which in time, by the power of the Holy Ghost, through the instrumentality of the womb of the Virgin, took a human nature (not a man, but the seed of man, humanity in the germ) into personal union with himself. The Person is eternal and divine. The humanity is introduced into it. The centre of the personality always continues in the eternal personal Word or Son of God. 11

Against all adoptionist positions, this position must be emphasised – that the eternal Son of God assumed an individual human person. Neither was it simply a human body that He assumed, but rather human nature in its entirety – John 1:14 means this. It is usually presented that the human nature of Christ is in-personal, rather than impersonal – i.e. the human nature has no independent entity. It is important to note that this does not mean that the humanity possesses no free will or consciousness. This view is termed Enhypostasia; another view is Anhypostasia – view that the humanity of Christ was impersonal – He assumed ‘Man’, rather than becoming a man. The modern and very able theologian Bruce Milne explains these terms:

This terminology was coined in the 6th century by Leontius during discussions of the identity of the personal centre, the self-conscious ‘I’, of Jesus Christ. If this self-conscious ‘I’ was the divine Word, the human nature assumed lacked a human self-consciousness; this looked dangerously like the Apollinarian denial of Christ’s true humanity and hence of his fitness to act as our redeemer. The contrary theory, of a full human self-consciousness in Christ independent of and alongside the Logos, threatened the integrity of the incarnation as an act by which the pre-existent Son of God became man, and also gave rise to another person alongside and independent of the Logos, i.e. Jesus of Nazareth, who is then not the eternal Son of God and can neither reveal God nor bring God’s salvation to us.

Leontius proposed that, negatively, the human self-conscious ‘I’ had no existence of its own; it existed only within the hypostatic union with the Logos (Gk. an = without, hence anhypostasia).

Positively, he proposed that it is present and real only in (Gk. en) the divine ‘I’ (hence enhypostasia). This permits the assertion of full manhood but retains the biblical recognition that the essential self-hood of the God-man is that of the eternal Son and Word of God who effectually reveals God and brings divine salvation to mankind. 12

A. N. S. Lane has described the difference succinctly, in noting how the Chalcedonian Definition met the challenges of both Nestorianism and Monophysitism: ‘the human nature of Christ is not merely anhypostasic (without a hypostasis), but enhypostasic in the Logos – i.e. the hypostasis of Christ’s human nature is that of God the Logos.’ 13

5. Communication of Properties

The obvious question that arises at this point is ‘what effect has the Hypostatic Union on the distinct natures of Christ?’ An extremely helpful answer to the query and exposition of the relationship of the two natures has been supplied by Stuart Olyott’s book Son of Mary, Son of God, in which he discusses the effects of the union on both natures:

His divine nature, being a divine nature, was of course eternal, immutable and incapable of addition, and therefore remained essentially unchanged. The whole immutable divine essence continued to exist as the person of the eternal Word, but now embraced a perfect human nature in the unity of his person. That human nature became the instrument of his will. In this way the relation of the divine nature to creation changed, although the nature itself remained unaltered. The eternal Son of God was now ‘God with us’ (Matthew 1:23), God ‘manifest in the flesh’ (1 Timothy 3:16). Of course, the divine nature of Christ remained incapable of suffering and death, free from ignorance, and insusceptible to weakness and temptation. It was not a divine nature which had assumed flesh, but the Son of God as person who had become incarnate. He could be ignorant and weak, and could suffer and die. This was because he had assumed an additional nature capable of these things, and not because there had been any change in his divine nature…

The human nature of Christ …never had any existence apart from him, and therefore was exalted from its very inception … its exaltation did not stop it being an unmixed and essentially unchanged human nature. It was not deified by the hypostatical union, but remained pure and separate humanity… Not only so, but his human nature is included in the worship due to him. The grounds upon which we worship him are that he is the eternal Son of God, possessed of divine attributes. But the object of our worship is not the divine excellences in the abstract, but the divine person. That person has two natures. We bow before a man, not because any man as man is to be adored, but because this particular man is God manifest in the flesh. He is the God-Man, at whose feet we fall unashamed. 14

A. A. Hodge makes the important observation of the Unipersonality of Jesus concerning His two natures, emphasising that we are not dealing with a hybrid individual, but rather One in whom the natures retain their integrity, yet what can be postulated of one nature can be ascribed to the Person:

Pointing to that unique phenomenon exhibited biographically in the four Gospels, the Scriptures affirm – (a) ‘He is God.’ Then we would naturally say, if he is God, he cannot be man; if he is infinite, he cannot be finite. But the Scriptures proceed to affirm, pointing to the same historical subject, ‘He is man.’ Then, again, we would naturally say, if that phenomenon is both God and man, he must be two Persons in reality, and one Person only in appearance. But yet again the Scriptures prevent us, In every possible way they set him before us as one Person. His divinity is never objective to his humanity, nor his humanity to his divinity. His divinity never loves, speaks to, nor sends his humanity, but both divinity and humanity act together as the common energies of one Person. All the attributes and all the acts of both natures are referred to the one Person. The same ‘I’ possessed glory with the Father before the world was, and laid down his life for his sheep. Sometimes in a single proposition the title is taken from the divine side of his Person, while the predicate is true only of his human side, as when it is said, ‘The Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.’ The same Person is called God because of his divinity, while it is affirmed that he shed his human blood for his Church. Again: while standing among his disciples on the earth, he says, ‘The Son of man, which is in heaven.’ Here the same Person, who is called Son of man because of his humanity, is declared to be omnipresent — that is, at the same time on earth and in heaven — as to his divine nature. This, of course, implies absolute singleness of Person, including at once divine and human attributes. 15

It is vital to note that there is never any communication from one nature to the other, only to the Person. Olyott’s treatment of the subject is extremely helpful in regard to this issue:

We must be clear that the properties of both the human and the divine natures of Christ are the properties of the person that he is. The person can be said to be almighty, omnisicient, omnipresent, and so on. He can also be called a man of sorrows, of limited knowledge and power, and subject to human want and miseries. But we must be careful to guard against thinking that anything belonging to his divine nature was communicated or transferred to the human nature, or vice versa. Christ shared in human weaknesses, although the Deity cannot. Christ participates in the essential perfections of the Godhead, although humanity cannot. This is possible because he is one person, the God-Man. We do not have to postulate any change in either of his natures, although we are admitting that their union did not leave them unaffected. 16

Christian Systematic Theology has historically explained the relationship of the two natures to the One Person by employing the following grid:

a) Communicatio Idiomatum

The properties of either nature are now ascribed to the Person. Hence Jesus is both finite and infinite, omnipotent and limited in power, etc. – hence Jesus could amaze (and outrage) His hearers by claiming pre-existence and deity – e.g. John 8:58; cf. Romans 9:5; Hebrews 1:3.

b) Communicatio Charismatum

Gratia habitualis – Christ as a man is filled with the Holy Spirit (N.B. this is without limit – John 3:34). He lives and ministers as such – a man of faith, endowed with the gifts of the Spirit. Many theologians speak of a gratia unionis – the ‘grace and glory of being united to the divine Logos’. A. A. Hodge stated ‘The God-man…. is to be worshipped in the perfection of his entire person, because only of his divine attributes’. 17

c) Communicatio Operantium

The One, undivided Person acts continually in all His actions. His work is divine-human. The two natures co-operate, working parallel – indeed act as one, within the qualification of operating in the sphere of its own energeia. There is no conflict between the two natures.

The last word on this subject belongs to the great systematic theologian T. C. Hammond:

…while the two natures were united, they were not inter-mingled and altered in their individual properties, so that there resulted a third type of substance which was neither divine nor human… there were not transfers of attributes from one to the other, such as a human characteristic transferred to the divine, nor was our Lord’s deity reduced to human limitations… the union was not an indwelling such as the indwelling of the Christian by the Spirit of God, but a personal union such that the resulting being was a unit, who thought and acted as a unit. While each nature retained its own properties they were not held together merely as though the hypostatic union was a ring thrown around two incompatible elements. There was a real harmony. 18

6. Kenotic Theories

Philippians 2:6ff, especially v7, speaks of Christ ’emptying’ Himself. What did this involve? Of what did He empty Himself? That question has exercised scholars, particularly Lutherans:

(a) Thomasius, Delitzsch, and Crosby

These scholars distinguished between the absolute and essential attributes of God, e.g. absolute power, holiness, love and truth; and relative attributes – omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience. The latter are laid aside – the argument is that doing so is essential to human nature.

(b) Gess and Beecher

They held that the Logos divested Himself of divine attributes – that He ceased from cosmic functions and emptied Himself of eternal consciousness during His time of earthly sojourn. The depotentiated Logos took the place of His human soul.

(c) Ebrard

As with Gess, Ebrard held that the Incarnate Logos took the place of the human soul in Christ. His life-centre is human, but He continued the exercise of His divine qualities in the Trinitarian sphere.

(d) Martensen and Gore

They proposed that Jesus had two non-communicating life-centres; He continued to function in Trinitarian sphere, and as Creator/Sustainer; but the depotentiated Logos was unaware of His cosmic functions.

Critique

i) It is based on a misunderstanding of Philippians2:7 – ‘ekenwsen ekenosen, aorist of kenoo, is best rendered ‘to make oneself of no account’; other texts employing the verb, Romans 4:14; 1 Corinthians 1:17; 9:15; 2 Corinthians 9:3 clarify its meaning as ‘no account’, ‘no effect’ or ‘no reputation’.

ii) Proper exegesis of Philippians2 displays that the import of the passage is not the elucidation of either the Incarnation or the deity of Christ, but rather Paul’s admonition to believers to as humble-minded as Christ was, cf. v5. There is an obvious allusion to the First Sin, where Adam ‘grasped’ at equality with God, Genesis 3:5, seeking a place which higher than his own, and not his by right, so that far from being the servant of God, he would be His equal, and rather than being an entity that was dependent upon God for his existence, he would be possessed of aseity. Jesus was divine by right, and was subject of angelic adoration and heavenly glory, yet He voluntarily relinquished such a position in order to take the place of a servant, and for from sinning, He was totally obedient; far from grasping at life, He suffered ignominious death. In this, He was the perfect example to believers.

iii) God is eternal and immutable, so it is impossible for Him to be divested of His attributes. Jesus therefore did notrelinquish His divine attributes. We find the disciples in Acts performing many of the same miracles as Jesus, yet unlike them, Jesus accepts worship; thus He remains God even in the State of Humiliation; this is the mystery of God Incarnate.

7. The Necessity of the Hypostatic Union

Why was it necessary for God to take human nature? What is the necessity of Christ having two natures? Firstly, it was necessary because the Covenant demanded it. The Covenant promise to the Patriarchs was ‘I will be their God, they will be my People, and I will dwell in their midst’ – Genesis 17:7-8 ‘And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto you and to your seed after you. 8 And I will give to you, and to your seed offspring you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.’ Exodus 29:45 ‘And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God.’; Leviticus 26:12 ‘And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and you shall be My people.’ 2 Corinthians 6:16 ‘for we are a temple of the living God; even as God said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.’; Revelation 21:3 ‘Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He shall dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be with them, and be their God’.

Ultimately, for the covenant promise to be realised, God must dwell in the midst of His people. In the Old Testament, the typological manifestation of this was the Tabernacle and later the Temple, the latter essentially being a concrete, permanent version of the former. The Tabernacle/Temple was the place of divine indwelling, and also the place where God revealed Himself to Man, where sacrifice and thus reconciliation took place, and where the worship of God was effected. When John 1:14 states that ‘the Word became flesh and dwelt among us’, the Greek word used for ‘dwell’ is eskénósen ‘eskhnwsen,which actually means ‘tabernacled’. So, in a further development from the dwelling-place of God in earlier times, God no longer dwells by His Name on the earth in something made by human hands, but dwells physically by virtue of the Incarnation. Thus, the eternal Word, as flesh, entered the human scene and tabernacled among us. Christ came specifically to redeem Man by the Cross, and His death is the means of the New Covenant, Luke 22:20.

Secondly, as we suggested earlier, only God can ultimately reveal God. Every other means has its limitations, since God alone is infinite, and everything else is finite. Therefore, the ultimate self-revelation of God can only result from His ontological auto-disclosure. However, it is impossible for Man to see the divine glory and remain alive, as God revealed to Moses, Exodus 33:20 ‘You cannot see my face; for man shall not see me and live.’ In some way, this divine self-revelation must be veiled; the Incarnation allows for this. In this sense, Jesus is the ultimate Revelation of God to Man – John 1:18 ‘No man has seen God at any time; God the only begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, has made Him known’; Hebrews 1:1-2 ‘God, who in previous times spoke to the fathers by the prophets in many portions and in various ways, has in these last days spoken unto us by His Son…’ As Olyott states:

It is because of his divine nature that he is a perfect Prophet. Other prophets could do no more than reflect his light, or pass on what they had received from him. All their knowledge was second hand. But the Lord Jesus Christ is God himself. His incarnation has meant that human eyes and ears have seen and heard the one who has been sent by God, who is God. We have received a perfect revelation of God, perfectly suited to our humanity. But we would have had no such Prophet, and no such revelation, if the one person had not been possessed of two distinct natures. 19

For redemptive purposes it was essential that the Redeemer be simultaneously God and Man. Only a sinless, perfect Man could render the perfect active and passive obedience essential for redemption, and since every man in born subject to original sin, a divine miracle was essential – God assuming human nature. Berkhof writes:

It was necessary that Christ should assume human nature, not only with all its essential properties, but also with all the infirmities to which it is liable after the fall, and should thus descend to the depths of degradation to which man had fallen, Heb. 2:7, 18. At the same time, He had to be a sinless man, for a man who was himself a sinner  and who had forfeited his own life, certainly could not atone for others, Heb. 7:26. 20

It is actually at the point of redemption that the necessity for the simultaneous divine and human natures of Christ becomes most apparent. Both natures were essential for the activity of appeasing the wrath of God against sin, and paying the price of divine retribution against human rebellion. To quote Berkhof again:

In the divine plan of salvation it was absolutely essential that the Mediator should also be very God. This was necessary, in order that (1) He might bring a sacrifice of infinite value and render perfect obedience to the law of God; (2) He might hear the wrath of God redemptively, that is, so as to free others from the curse of the law; and (3) He ‘might be able to apply the fruits of His accomplished work to those who accepted Him by faith. Man with his bankrupt life can neither pay the penalty of sin, nor render perfect obedience to God. He can bear the wrath of God and, except for the redeeming grace of God, will have to bear it eternally, but he cannot bear it so as to open a way of escape, Ps. 49:740; 130:3…Since man sinned, it was necessary that the penalty should be borne by man. Moreover, the paying of the penalty involved suffering of body and soul, such as only man is capable of bearing, John 12:27; Acts 3:18; Heb. 2:14; 9:22. 21

Likewise Olyott writes about the effect of the two natures upon the redemptive activity of Christ:

The human nature of Christ was necessary for him to keep God’s law on our behalf, to die in our place, and to be our representative Priest and sympathetic Intercessor in heaven. At the same time it is only the supreme dignity of his divine person which ensures that his obedience was of sufficient merit to justify sinners, and that his finite death was of infinite value, and therefore a sufficient satisfaction for divine justice. We would never have had the Priest that we need if the one person had not been possessed of two distinct natures. 22

The Incarnation and the Hypostatic Union also reveal the Love of God in a way the Islamic view of God fails to do. Christ’s two natures means that we have a Lord who knows the innermost depths of agony and despair, of hunger, of loneliness and abandonment, of fear (at the prospect of the cross – Gethsemane). He knows what it is to have friends desert you, and a companion betray you. Every conceivable pain, temptation and fear human beings can undergo has been experienced by the God-Man Jesus: Hebrews 2:17 ‘Therefore in all things he had to be made like His brothers, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For since He Himself suffered being tempted, he is able to aid those that are tempted.’ Hebrews 4:15 ‘For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathise with our infirmities; but One who has been in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.’ To quote Berkhof again:

Only such a truly human Mediator, who had experimental knowledge of the woes of mankind and rose superior to all temptations, could enter sympathetically into all the experiences, the trials, and the temptations of man, Heb. 2:17-18; 4:15-5:2, and be a perfect human example for His followers, Matt. 11:29; Mk. 10:39; John 13:13.15; Phil. 2:5.8; Heb. 12:2.4; 1 Pet. 2:21. 23

It is in this respect the contrast between the God of the Bible and the God of Islam becomes so glaring. The God of the Bible may expect His worshippers to suffer and die for Him, but He has done so already Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. Everything God demands of us in terms of obedience, even unto death, He has Himself performed. He demands nothing from us other than what He has Himself effected. It is different with the God of Islam. He may offer a sumptuous reward of silks, fruits and maidens to His martyrs, but He commands of them something He has never done Himself. In Islam, God expects Man to die for Him; in the Bible, God, in the person of Jesus, dies for Man. Further, we know and see in Jesus – in the incarnate God – the expression and character of divine love, not just for those who love Him, as in Islam, but for those who hate Him – Christ died for His enemies, Romans 5:8 ‘But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.’ Because of the Hypostatic Union, we have a God who can enter experientially, rather than just empirically, into human psychology and emotion – He has been there Himself. How very different is the God of Islam.

It is probably partly because of this lack in Islam that the concept of the Sunnah and the excessive love of Muhammad have emerged. The God of Islam is so transcendent and removed from Man, so failing in terms of revealing His love that there is nothing to stimulate genuine love in return. Nothing suggests an experimental acquaintance with human fears and emotions. Hence the import of Muhammad in Islam. However, this is a poor substitute for a God who actually assumes human nature. This is where the import of John 3:16 becomes so revealing – ‘God loved the world thus, He sent His unique Son…’ – He sent Him to die for us, the ultimate focus of human emotional concern. He triumphed over death, so now we have a man in fact, as our Representative, we have Man – at the throne of grace. This is something with which Islam cannot adequately compete.

8. Christological Errors

a) Apollinarianism

Apollinarius was Bishop of (Syrian) Laodicea. Apollinarius himself saw his Christology as a continuation of Alexandrian ‘Word-flesh’ tradition – i.e. the refusal to admit or give weight to human mind or soul in the God-man. In particular he saw his theology as continuing the teaching of the fathers who in 268 condemned the adoptionist dynamic Monarchianism of Paul of Samosata, who distinguished the eternal Word from Jesus Christ. 24 Partly as a result of semantic differences, he condemned the Antiochene ‘Dyophysite’ strain (emphasis on two natures) as implying the adoptionist heresy – God enduinga man or at least indicating a purely moral union between deity and humanity.

Scripture presents Christ as a unity.

To Apollinarius, the term ‘Nature’ was equivalent to ‘Person’. Thus if two natures are conjoined, then we have two persons. We can see that Apollinarius was denying a double personality in Christ. Hence, Christ has only one nature – phusis, a ‘simple, undivided Prosopon‘ (another Greek word for ‘person’). He also employed hypostasis – self-determining reality. However, we must be cautious in our understanding of his usage of ‘nature’ and ‘person’; he did not mean that Christ is only divine and not human – rather, he affirms the humanity of Christ. What he believes is that the Logos took the place of the soul in the Incarnate Jesus, so that it truly is the same Person, not two, it remains the Logos, and his flesh is truly human.

He held Man to be a trichotomy – Body, Soul, and Spirit. In Christ the Logos took the place of the human spirit – the higher rational principle. Apollinarius was able to do this because he followed Platonic anthropology – the idea that Man is Tri-partite; Body, Soul and Spirit. The Soul or Mind is the ruling element in human nature; freedom of choice rests therein. It is this that differentiates one man from another – the power of self-determination – thus the seat of independent personality.

The human soul is finite. Moreover, to Apollinarius, humanity was equivalent to iniquity – the human mind is ‘fallible and enslaved to filthy thoughts’, but the Logos is immutable. It is vital to recognise that for Apollinarius, the human soul is the seat of sin. Since only the pure may redeem the impure, the salvation of humanity is imperilled if Christ possessed a human mind like ours. Hence we can understand the stress of Apollinarius upon the need for Christ to have no ordinary human rational element; Apollinarius was governed by zeal for the deity and sinlessness of Christ.

If the incarnate Christ possessed no ordinary human soul, then he would not possess the opportunity (i.e. danger) of free choice – and thus be free from sin and enabled to redeem us. This is made possible by the Logos taking the place of the soul in Christ; so, rather than being Soma (body), Psuche (soul), Pneuma (spirit), Christ was Soma, Logos, Pneuma. This did not undermine the true humanity of Christ, inasmuch as every soul was part of the Logos, so the distinction between Christ and other men was qualitative in nature. The same functions of the Mind are fulfilled by the Logos re. intellect and will – ‘the divine energy fulfils the role of the animating spirit (psuches) and of the human mind (Nous)’. 25

Strongly anti-Arian, he held tenaciously to the true Deity of Christ. But he regarded the human spirit as the seat of sin and true human nature as sinful, and he was concerned to defend the sinlessness of Christ. (It is clear that this position had affinities with docetism.) The emphasis of the hated Arian heresy was – in terms of defining the character of the humanity of Christ – that the Logos had free will in regard to sin. Apollinarius regarded the ability to sin as the distinctive property of finite nature. If Jesus had a finite spirit, He could not redeem. Thus, He would not be divine.

Apollinarius did not say that the flesh was a cloak with which the Logos clothed Himself, but rather that Logos and flesh ‘blended’ – thus an absolute union with Deity. The Incarnate is ‘compound unity in human form’ – ‘one nature composed of impassible divinity and passible flesh’. The body could not exist as an independent nature but rather required an animating force – in the case of ordinary men, the soul; in the case of Christ, the Logos. Hence, the Logos affects not only the psychology of Christ, but also his flesh; the biological life of Christ was also governed by the Logos. This meant that he was free from ordinary psychic and carnal passions, immune to death and thus enabled to destroy Death.

Following from this, just as an ordinary man is a compound of body and soul and is thus a unity, so the body of Christ and the Logos are a unity. Moreover, the flesh of Christ is thereby glorified. (Contrary to his critics, he did not hold to the pre-existence of the flesh of Christ, nor to its consubstantiality with God.) If the flesh is so-fused, it may be worshipped, and with regard to the communicatio idomatum, what is predicated of the flesh may be so of the Logos and vice versa, and in the Eucharist, the faithful receive the divinised flesh of Christ and are thereby deified. N.B. Apollinarius held that in the virgin birth, the divine spirit replaced the spermatic matter which gives life to ordinary men. One can see the advantages for the traditional conception of deity as impassible, indivisible and immutable in this presentation.

Apollinarius had the principal concern of defending the unity of the Person of Christ, for which he was willing to discard the importance of the distinction of natures and his true humanity. Apollinarianism was controverted by the Cappadocian Fathers – Basil Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianus. (N.B. Their theological point of departure was soteriology rather than Christology.) For Christ to be our Redeemer, He had to be true man as well as true God. ‘What He has not assumed He has not healed… We assert the unity of the person… the Godhead and Manhood are two natures not two Sons or two Gods’.

Apollinarius was a strong defender of the title Theotokos for Mary and thus opposed Nestorianism. After leaving the orthodox Church in 375, Apollinarius saw his position condemned at the Council of Constantinople, 381.

b) Nestorianism

This term is perhaps a misnomer, for Nestorius was not guilty of holding to the heresy that bears his name. 26 He used unfortunate expressions, but his opponent Cyril, was also guilty of that. It seems to many modern observers that Nestorius was a victim of ecclesiastical politics and personal rivalry. Cyril was Bishop of Alexandria, Nestorius was Bishop of Constantinople, and the former wished to raise the prominence of his See at the expense of the latter. N.B. Nestorius was influenced by Antiochene theology, and the rivalry between Constantinople and Alexandria is today reflected in the separate existence and doctrines of the Greek Orthodox and Coptic Churches, headquartered in Istanbul and Alexandria respectively.

Nestorius was Bishop 428-431. He objected to Theotokos –’God-Bearer’ (unless balanced by anthropotokos) – being applied to Mary, as it suggested that the Deity of Christ was derived from Mary and thus similar to Arian and Apollinarian constructions – not the same Deity as the Father, or incomplete humanity. He preferred the term Christokos ‘Christ-bearer’. 27 Alexandria held to Theotokos – it was a consequence of communicatio idiomatum; and the Person was constituted by the Logos, so the Incarnate is rightly termed God. To Nestorius, the term implied that a creature could have been the cause of Deity, which was impossible: moreover, it implied that the deity of the Son was of inferior sort – and thus Arian view of Son as a creature, or Apollinarian view of incomplete humanity.

Formerly, it was held that Nestorius believed in dual personality of Christ, but the discovery of ‘Book of Heraclides’, where he accepts the Chalcedonian Definition, has undermined this. His position was that the two natures remain distinct in the union. The Godhead exists in the man mind and vice versa, without mixture or confusion. The Incarnation cannot affect the impassible Logos in change or suffering. Christ experienced genuine human emotional development. Such is impossible if deity and humanity fused. Thus the two natures were parallel and undiminished as to their respective properties and economy.

For Nestorius, the term ‘nature’ was equivalent to the concrete character of a thing. – the quality of being human or divine; e.g., humanity is circumscribed by finiteness. Prosopon was equivalent to the external form as an individual; nature is not an abstract concept – human nature demands a real, external body & soul to exist. This also demands hypostasis (equivalent to concrete subsistence), thus the human nature of Christ was not a cloak, pace ‘Word-flesh’, but was objectively real – without dichotomising Christ, His human nature had real personality – as did His deity of course, though there was only one Person. Nestorius rejected Paul of Samosata’s dogma of the two Sons: the Incarnate was a unity – God the Logos and the man are not numerically two. Never divided in purpose or will. Thus there are not two Persons, but one prosopon, with two ousiai – divine and human. Nestorius preferred to use ‘conjunction’, rather than ‘union’, as the latter could imply confusion of natures.

The man was the temple in which God dwelt: it was a voluntary conjunction – gracious condescension on the part of the divine, willing submission with regard to the human. Christ was a single being with a single will and intelligence -inseparable and indivisible. ‘Christ’ is the prosopon of union – the prosopon is not identified with the eternal Logos or the man, but is the consequence of the ‘coalescence’. With regard to the communicatio idiomatum, the human actions of Christ should be predicated of the human nature, the divine of the deity, but both could be predicated of the Person. The trouble occurred because either party had differing starting-points, one stressing the distinction of natures, the other the unity of the Person.

The actual teaching originated with Diodore, Bishop of Tarsus, 378. In opposition to Apollinarianism, he sharply contrasted ‘the word’ and ‘the flesh’ (not ‘the man’) in the God-man Thus he distinguished tile Son of God and the son of David – ‘the two Sons’. He seems to understate the humanity and the Union, but the evidence is uncertain. His theology was developed by Theodore of Mopsuestia (Cilicia, modern Turkey) 350-628. Nowadays he is seen as generally orthodox, despite some unfortunate language, hut he was perceived by the Cyrillian party as teaching a purely moral Union (e.g. as husband and wife form one flesh’) and thus two persons.

As well as Cyril, Nestorius had to cope with the antagonism of monks devoted to Mary. Together they accused him of Sabellian tendencies (i.e. that the Father, Son and Spirit were simply successive modes of office of a unipersonal God), or of teaching two persons. He was condemned at Ephesus in 43l, exiled and died 451 just after the Council of Chalcedon, where he felt his position was vindicated because of emphasis of the two natures. A large part of the Syrian as well as the Persian Church followed Nestorianism, and performed great pioneering mission – including to China, 635. The Church is called ‘Assyrian Church of the East’, and it does not seem to he guilty of Nestorianism, (but note its rejection of Theotokos). Two early synod statements of faith seems to indicate that the ‘Nestorians’ were not actually guilty of ‘Nestorianism’:

Synod of Mar Aqaq, AD 486

But our faith in the dispensation of Christ should also be in a confession of two natures of Godhead and manhood, none of us venturing to introduce mixture, commingling, or confusion into the distinctions of those two natures. Instead, while Godhead remains and is preserved in that which belongs to it, and manhood in that which belongs to it, we combine the copies of their natures in one Lordship and one worship because of the perfect and inseparable conjunction which the Godhead had with the manhood. If anyone thinks or teaches others that suffering and change adhere to the Godhead of our Lord, not preserving – in regard to the union of the parsopa of our Savior – the confession of perfect God and perfect man, the same shall be anathema. (Synod of Mar Aqaq, AD 486)

Synod of Mar Sabris, AD 596

It seemed good to his fatherhood and to all the metropolitans and bishops to write this composition of the faith… which accurately and plainly teaches us the confession …the same by which … all heresy is convicted and condemned which denies the Godhead and manhood of our Life-giver, Jesus Christ, accepting it with the exact meaning of the holy fathers, which the illustrious among the orthodox, the blessed Theodore the Antiochian, bishop of the city of Mopsuestia, ‘the Interpreter of the Divine Scriptures,’ explained, with which all the orthodox in all regions have agreed and do agree, as also all the venerable fathers who have governed this apostolic and patriarchal see of our administration have held, while we anathematize and alienate from all contact with us everyone who denies the nature of the Godhead and the nature of the manhood of our Lord Jesus Christ, whether through mixture and commingling, or compounding or confusing, introducing, with regard to the union of the Son of God, either suffering, or death, or any of the mean circumstances of humanity in any way, to the glorious nature of his Godhead, or considering as a mere man the Lordly temple of God the Word, which, in an inexplicable mystery and an incomprehensible union, he joined to himself in the womb of the holy Virgin in an eternal, indestructible, and indivisible union.Again, we also reject… one who calls the one Christ, the Son of God, two sons or two Christs, or one who does not say that the Word of God fulfilled the suffering of our salvation in the body of his manhood. Though he was in him, with him, and toward him in the belly, on the cross, in suffering, and for ever, inseparably, while the glorious nature of his Godhead did not participate in any sufferings, yet we strongly believe, according to the word and intent of the writings and traditions of the holy fathers, in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, who was begotten before the foundations of the world in his Godhead, spiritually, without a mother, and in the last times was born from the holy Virgin in a fleshly manner without the intercourse of a man through the power of the Holy Spirit. He is, in his eternal Godhead and in his manhood from Mary, one true Son of God, who in the nature of his manhood accepted suffering and death for us, and by the power of his Godhead raised up his uncorrupted body after three days, and promised resurrection from the dead, ascension to heaven, and a new and indestructible and abiding world for ever. (Synod of Mar Sabris, AD 596) 28

c) Monophysitism/Eutychianism.

This upholds the idea of one nature in Christ; the converse of Nestorianism. It developed out of the teaching of Cyril of Alexandria, the adversary of Nestorius.

It should be noted that in traditional Alexandrine theology Theotokos was a favourite term. Nestorius, who has reservations about the phrase, seemed to Cyril propose a purely external association between the Logos and a man. Thus the Passion was not that of God incarnate, but of a mere man. Hence, the implication of Nestorius’ teaching was that the Eucharist was cannibalism, since the flesh thereof was unvivified by Logos, so was that of a mere man.

The problem was accentuated by differences of language. For Antioch, Phusis was equivalent to ‘concrete assemblage of attributes’ – the quality of being something. For Alexandria, Phusis was equivalent to ‘concrete individual, or independent existent’ – approximating to hypostasis, thus virtually ‘person’. For Cyril, the incarnation was purely a matter of phases – Jesus was the Logos before and after incarnation – but same Logos, the only difference being that now He had flesh. As Cyril stated, ‘He remains what he was’. Hence his renowned formula, ‘one nature and that incarnate, of the divine Word’. Phusis here should be understood as in Alexandrine terminology.

Cyril was intent on guarding against division in the Incarnate. ‘Flesh’ meant humanity in toto, including the rational soul. Thus, Jesus had a true, concrete humanity. Hence, He was as truly man as He was God. The centre of this person was the divine Logos. Thus ‘conjunction’, as favoured by Nestorius, did not do justice to the evidence. The humanity of Christ became an hypostasis in the hypostasis of the Logos. The body was the body of the Logos, and the union of Logos and flesh produced a single concrete being. Thus, whilst there was no confusion of manhood and deity, Immanuel was not bi-personal.

It is important to safeguard Cyril against the idea that he believed that ‘one nature’ meant the union of deity with manhood; rather, the term expresses the singleness of the Person of Christ. Cyril did affirm the unity. The Jesus of History was God Himself in human flesh – thus what was born of Mary was God, because the humanity in her womb belonged to the divine Logos. Hence, it was inaccurate to speak of ‘the man’ being ‘co-adored’; Immanuel was the Lord ‘enfleshed’, who must be worshipped in a single adoration.

Cyril used the doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum to propose that the Logos suffered in the flesh, and that a measure of the properties of either nature were conferred to the other; thus, the humanity being infused with life-giving energy of Logos, became itself life-giving. However, it is vital to uphold the impassibility of the Logos – He took on a flesh that could suffer, so the suffering He experienced was His own. Thus, as a result of the incarnation, two distinct natures have fused into one. The Incarnation involved ‘condescension’ (kenosis). No change takes place in the Logos, but He deliberately limits Himself to extent which He takes our nature upon Himself, whilst yet upholding the universe.

Kelly states that there is evidence that his later Christology, on the basis of acknowledging the role played by the rational soul in Christ’s sufferings, accepted the existence of ‘a second nature’ in respect to the humanity, which made possible his compronise with moderate Antiochenes. His great concern was to guard against the ‘separation’ of natures. 29

However, the concept particularly developed under the monk Eutyches of Constantinople. The essence of the teaching of Eutyches is the avoidance of distinguishing ‘nature’ from personality. It is the opposite of Nestorianism – if the personality is not dual, there can only be a single nature. This heresy is a denial of the reality and permanence of the Lord’s humanity; rather, it is transmuted into deity – ‘Monophysitism’. The Deity swallows-up the humanity – not annihilating, but transforming it. After the Incarnation, there is only one nature, God made flesh. [Before it, Christ had two]. It is a completeincarnation – perfect man. However, His flesh was not consubstantial with ours Christ’s body is the body of God, but he seems to mean that it did not possess independent existence i.e. he was denying that the Eternal Son assumed a Man rather than human nature. Nonetheless he insisted on the formula ‘one nature after the Incarnation’. Bray argues that ‘Eutyches eventually got to the point where he almost denied any real humanity in Christ, saying that this had been absorbed by God at the incarnation…’ 30 His theories were denounced at Constantinople, 448.

Others developed this idea – Monophysitism – to teach either the fusion of natures, the ‘swallowing up’ of the humanity by the Deity, and even the deification of the humanity. There were three main forms.

i) Theopaschitists – ‘God suffered’.

ii) Phthartolatrists – the human nature of Christ was, like ours, capable of suffering, and thus worshipped what was corruptible (i.e. subject to material corruption).

iii) Aphthartodocetists – the opposite view of the preceding position – the divinising of the flesh of Christ. 31

Monophysitism (one nature) was condemned by the Tome of Leo, and at the Council of Chalcedon 451. The Coptic Church of Egypt, Eritrea and Ethiopia, the Armenian Gregorian Church, and the Syrian Jacobite Church remain to a degree Monophysite. However, a recent paper by a U.S. Coptic priest suggests that the actual differences may have been principally semantic, a point we have noted earlier. 32 Given that semantics caused confusion even among Christians, we should not be surprised if Muhammad and early Muslims misunderstood the Christian position, especially if the dominant theology they encountered was Monophysite in some form.

d) Monothelitism

Thelein –’will’. N.B. – At the time, ‘will’ meant more than volition; it included instincts, appetites, desires and affections. Thus was Christ capable of fear? Either it was held that the human will merged in the divine, or that they fused. This became the official position of the Maronite Church of Lebanon and Syria until its later union with Rome. Pope Honorius I, 625-638, was guilty
of this heresy. 33 It was condemned at the Sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople 680. Christ has both a divine and a human will, the two in perfect harmony.

N.B. The Chalcedonian definition condemned Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, and Eutychianism, upholding the doctrine of Christ as ‘two natures in One Person’.

9. Historic Christian Creeds and Confessions

The Historic Christian position, resulting from the systematising of Biblical data is that Jesus is One Person with two natures – divine and human. This has been the position emphasised by the historic councils and creeds of the Church:

Creed of the Council of Nicaea (325)

We believe in …one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down and was incarnate and was made man…

The Nicene Creed (a later creed)

We believe in …one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made man… And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.

Council of Chalcedon, Actio V. Mansi, vii.116 f.

Therefore, following the holy Fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance [‘omoiousiov] with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer [Feotokov]; one and the same Christ, Son, Only-begotten, recognized IN TWO NATURES, WITHOUT CONFUSION, WITHOUT CHANGE, WITHOUT DIVISION, WITHOUT SEPARATION; the distinction of natures being no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence [‘upostasiv], not as parted or separated into two but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the Fathers has handed down to us.34

The Tome of Leo

For it was the Holy Ghost who gave fecundity to the Virgin, but it was from a body that a real body was derived; and “when Wisdom was building herself a house,” the “Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, that is, in that flesh which he assumed from a human being, and which he animated with the spirit of rational life. Accordingly while the distinctness of both natures and substances was preserved, and both met in one Person, lowliness was assumed by majesty, weakness by power, mortality by eternity; and, in order to pay the debt of our condition, the inviolable nature was united to the passible, so that as the appropriate remedy for our ills, one and the same “Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus,” might from one element be capable of dying and also from the other be incapable. Therefore in the entire and perfect nature of very man was born very God, whole in what was his, whole in what was ours. By “ours” we mean what the Creator formed in us at the beginning and what he assumed in order to restore; for of that which the deceiver brought in, and man, thus deceived, admitted, there was not a trace in the Saviour; and the fact that he took on himself a share in our infirmities did not make him a par-taker in our transgressions. He assumed “the form of a servant” without the defilement of sin, enriching what was human, not impairing what was divine: because that “emptying of himself,” whereby the Invisible made himself visible, and the Creator and Lord of all things willed to be one among mortals, was a stooping down in compassion, not a failure of power. Accordingly, the same who, remaining in the form of God, made man, was made man in the form of a servant. For each of the natures retains its proper character without defect; and as the form of God does not take away the form of a servant, so the form of a servant does not impair the form of God…Accordingly, the Son of God, descending from his seat in heaven, and not departing from the glory of the Father, enters this lower world, born after a new order, by a new mode of birth. After a new order; because he who in his own sphere is invisible, became visible in ours; He who could not be enclosed in space, willed to be enclosed; continuing to be before times, he began to exist in time; the Lord of the universe allowed his infinite majesty to be overshadowed, and took upon him the form of a servant; the impassible God did not disdain to be passible Man and the immortal One to be subjected to the laws of death. And born by a new mode of birth; because inviolate virginity, while ignorant of concupiscence, supplied the matter of his flesh. What was assumed from the Lord’s mother was nature, not fault; nor does the wondrousness of the nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, as born of a Virgin’s womb, imply that his nature is unlike ours. For the selfsame who is very God, is also very man; and there is no illusion in this union, while the lowliness of man and the loftiness of Godhead meet together. For as “God” is not changed by the compassion [exhibited], so “Man” is not consumed by the dignity [bestowed]. For each “form” does the acts which belong to it, in communion with the other; the Word, that is, performing what belongs to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what belongs to the flesh; the one of these shines out in miracles, the other succumbs’ to injuries. And as the Word does not withdraw from equality with the Father in glory, so the flesh does not abandon the nature of our kind. For, as we must often be saying, he is one and the same, truly Son of God, and truly Son of Man. God, inasmuch as “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Man, inasmuch as “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” God, inasmuch as “all things were made by him, and without him nothing was made.” Man, inasmuch as he was “made of a woman, made under the law.” The nativity of the flesh is a manifestation of human nature; the Virgin’s child-bearing is an indication of Divine power. The infancy of the Babe is exhibited by the humiliation of swaddling clothes: the greatness of the Highest is declared by the voices of angels. He whom Herod impiously designs to slay is like humanity in its beginnings; but he whom the Magi rejoice to adore on their knees is Lord of all….For although in the Lord Jesus Christ there is one Person of God and man, yet that whereby contumely attaches to both is one thing, and that whereby glory attaches to both is another; for from what belongs to us he has that manhood which is inferior to the Father; while from the Father he has equal Godhead with the Father. Accordingly, on account of this unity of Person which is to be understood as existing in both the natures, we read, on the one hand, that “the Son of Man came down from heaven,” inasmuch as the Son of God took flesh from that Virgin of whom he was born; and on the other hand, the Son of God is said to have been crucified and buried, inasmuch as he underwent this, not in his actual Godhead; wherein the Only-begotten is coeternal and consubstantial with the Father, but in the weakness of human nature. Wherefore we all, in the very Creed, confess that “the only-begotten Son of God was crucified and buried,” …because one of these truths, accepted without the other, would not profit unto salvation, and it was equally dangerous to believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be merely God and not man, or merely man and not God.

The Capitula of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (Second Synod of Constantinople, A.D. 553)

I. If anyone shall not confess that the nature or essence of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is one, as also the force and the power; [if anyone does not confess] a consubstantial Trinity, one Godhead to be worshipped in three subsistences or Persons: let him be anathema. For there is but one God even the Father of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things, and one Holy Spirit in whom are all things.

II. If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, the one from all eternity of the Father, without time and without body; the other in these last days, coming down from heaven and being made flesh of the holy and glorious Mary, Mother of God and always a virgin, and born of her: let him be anathema.

III. IF anyone shall say that the wonder-working Word of God is one [Person] and the Christ that suffered another; or shall say that God the Word was with the woman-born Christ, or was in him as one person in another, but that he was not one and the same our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, incarnate and made man, and that his miracles and the sufferings which of his own will he endured in the flesh were not of the same [Person]: let him be anathema.

IV. If anyone shall say that the union of the Word of God to man was only according to grace or energy, or dignity, or equality of honour, or authority, or relation, or effect, or power, or according to good pleasure in this sense that God the Word was pleased with a man, that is to say, that he loved him for his own sake, as says the senseless Theodorus, or [if anyone pretends that this union exists only] so far as likeness of name is concerned, as the Nestorians understand, who call also the Word of God Jesus and Christ, and even accord to the man the names of Christ and of Son, speaking thus clearly of two persons, and only designating disingenuously one Person and one Christ when the reference is to his honour, or his dignity, or his worship; if anyone shall not acknowledge as the Holy Fathers teach, that the union of God the Word is made with the flesh animated by a reasonable and living soul, and that such union is made synthetically and hypostatically, and that therefore there is only one Person, to wit: our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Holy Trinity: let him be anathema. As a matter of fact the word “union” has many meanings, and the partisans of Apollinarius and Eutyches have affirmed that these natures are confounded inter se, and have asserted a union produced by the mixture of both. On the other hand the followers of Theodorus and of Nestorius rejoicing in the division of the natures, have taught only a relative union. Meanwhile the Holy Church of God, condemning equally the impiety of both sorts of heresies, recognises the union of God the Word with the flesh synthetically, that is to say, hypostatically. For in the mystery of Christ the synthetical union not only preserves unconfusedly the natures which are united, but also allows no separation.

V. If anyone understands the expression “one only Person of our Lord Jesus Christ” in this sense, that it is the union of many hypostases, and if he attempts thus to introduce into the mystery of Christ two hypostases, or two Persons, and, after having introduced two persons, speaks of one Person only out of dignity, honour or worship, as both Theodorus and Nestorius insanely have written; if anyone shall calumniate the holy Council of Chalcedon, pretending that it made use of this expression [one hypostasis] in this impious sense, and if he will not recognize rather that the Word of God is united with the flesh hypostatically, and that therefore there is but one hypostasis or one only Person, and that the holy Council of Chalcedon has professed in this sense the one Person of our Lord Jesus Christ: let him be anathema. For since one of the Holy Trinity has been made man, viz.: God the Word, the Holy Trinity has not been increased by the addition of another person or hypostasis.

VI. IF anyone shall not call in a true acceptation, but only in a false acceptation, the holy, glorious, and ever-virgin Mary, the Mother of God, or shall call her so only in a relative sense, believing that she bare only a simple man and that God the word was not incarnate of her, but that the incarnation of God the Word resulted only from the fact that he united himself to that man who was born [of her]; if he shall calumniate the Holy Synod of Chalcedon as though it had asserted the Virgin to be Mother of God according to the impious sense of Theodore; or if anyone shall call her the mother of a man or the Mother of Christ as if Christ were not God, and shall not confess that she is exactly and truly the Mother of God, because that God the Word who before all ages was begotten of the Father was in these last days made flesh and born of her, and if anyone shall not confess that in this sense the holy Synod of Chalcedon acknowledged her to be the Mother of God: let him be anathema.

VII. IF anyone using the expression, “in two natures,” does not confess that our one Lord Jesus Christ has been revealed in the divinity and in the humanity, so as to designate by that expression a difference of the natures of which an ineffable union is unconfusedly made, [a union] in which neither the nature of the Word was changed into that of the flesh, nor that of the flesh into that of the Word, for each remained that it was by nature, the union being hypostatic; but shall take the expression with regard to the mystery of Christ in a sense so as to divide the parties, or recognising the two natures in the only Lord Jesus, God the Word made man, does not content himself with taking in a theoretical manner the difference of the natures which compose him, which difference is not destroyed by the union between them, for one is composed of the two and the two are in one, but shall make use of the number [two] to divide the natures or to make of them Persons properly so called: let him be anathema.

VIII. IF anyone uses the expression “of two natures,” confessing that a union was made of the Godhead and of the humanity, or the expression “the one nature made flesh of God the Word,” and shall not so understand those expressions as the holy Fathers have taught, to wit: that of the divine and human nature there was made an hypostatic union, whereof is one Christ; but from these expressions shall try to introduce one nature or substance [made by a mixture] of the Godhead and manhood of Christ; let him be anathema. For in teaching that the only-begotten Word was united hypostatically [to humanity] we do not mean to say that there was made a mutual confusion of natures, but rather each [nature] remaining what it was, we understand that the Word was united to the flesh. Wherefore there is one Christ, both God and man, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood. Therefore they are equally condemned and anathematized by the Church of God, who divide or part the mystery of the divine dispensation of Christ, or who introduce confusion into that mystery.

IX. IF anyone shall take the expression, Christ ought to be worshipped in his two natures, in the sense that he wishes to introduce thus two adorations, the one in special relation to God the Word and the other as pertaining to the man; or if anyone to get rid of the flesh, [that is of the humanity of Christ,] or to mix together the divinity and the humanity, shall speak monstrously of one only nature or essence of the united (natures), and so worship Christ, and does not venerate, by one adoration, God the Word made man, together with his flesh, as the Holy Church has taught from the beginning: let him be anathema.

X. IF anyone does not confess that our Lord Jesus Christ who was crucified in the flesh is true God and the Lord of Glory and one of the Holy Trinity: let him be anathema.

It can be understood from this definition that the term ‘Mother of God’, which equally scandalises Muslims and Protestants, was not a step in the direction of Mariolatry, nor even a statement about Mary herself in the first analysis, but primarily a declaration that the babe to whom she gave birth was not only human, but was also God. This does not mean that Jesus derived His deity from Mary, or imparted His divine nature to her; rather, the rather unfortunate term merely affirmed the deity of Christ. Nonetheless, it is a term best avoided. The belief in the Hypostatic Union of Christ, His simultaneous two natures, is also affirmed in later Protestant confessions of faith:

Article II of the 39 Articles of the Church of England

Of the Word, or Son of God, which was made very man

The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile His Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.

Chapter 11 of the Second Helvetic Confession

Of Jesus Christ, True God and Man, the Only Saviour of the World

Two Natures in Christ. We therefore acknowledge two natures or substances, the divine and the human, in one and the same Jesus Christ our Lord (Heb. ch. 2). And we way that these are bound and united with one another in such a way that they are not absorbed, or confused, or mixed, but are united or joined together in one person–the properties of the natures being unimpaired and permanent.

Not Two but One Christ. Thus we worship not two but one Christ the Lord. We repeat: one true God and man. With respect to his divine nature he is consubstantial with the Father, and with respect to the human nature he is consubstantial with us men, and like us in all things, sin excepted (Heb. 4:15).

The Sects. And indeed we detest the dogma of the Nestorians who make two of the one Christ and dissolve the unity of the Person. Likewise we thoroughly execrate the madness of Eutyches and the Monothelites or Monophysites who destroy the property of the human nature.

The Divine Nature of Christ Is Not Passible, and the Human Nature Is Not Everywhere.Therefore, we do not in any way teach that the divine nature in Christ has suffered or that Christ according to his human nature is still in the world and thus everywhere. For neither do we think or teach that the body of Christ ceased to be a true body after his glorification, or was deified, and deified in such a way that it laid aside its properties as regards body and soul, and changed entirely into a divine nature and began to be merely one substance.

Article 19 of the Belgic Confession

The Two Natures of Christ

We believe that by being thus conceived the person of the Son has been inseparably united and joined together with human nature, in such a way that there are not two Sons of God, nor two persons, but two natures united in a single person, with each nature retaining its own distinct properties.

Thus his divine nature has always remained uncreated, without beginning of days or end of life, [Heb. 7:3] filling heaven and earth.

His human nature has not lost its properties but continues to have those of a creature– it has a beginning of days; it is of a finite nature and retains all that belongs to a real body. And even though he, by his resurrection, gave it immortality, that nonetheless did not change the reality of his human nature; for our salvation and resurrection depend also on the reality of his body.

But these two natures are so united together in one person that they are not even separated by his death.

So then, what he committed to his Father when he died was a real human spirit which left his body. But meanwhile his divine nature remained united with his human nature even when he was lying in the grave; and his deity never ceased to be in him, just as it was in him when he was a little child, though for a while it did not show itself as such.

These are the reasons why we confess him to be true God and true man – true God in order to conquer death by his power, and true man that he might die for us in the weakness of his flesh.

Chapter VIII of the Westminster Confession of Faith

Of Christ the Mediator

II. The Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon Him man’s nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.

III. The Lord Jesus, in His human nature thus united to the divine, was sanctified, and anointed with the Holy Spirit, above measure, having in Him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; in whom it pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell; to the end that, being holy, harmless, undefiled, and full of grace and truth, He might be thoroughly furnished to execute the office of a Mediator and Surety. Which office He took not unto Himself, but was thereunto called by His Father, who put all power and judgment into His hand, and gave Him commandment to execute the same.

V. The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, has fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for those whom the Father has given unto Him.

VII. Christ, in the work of mediation, acts according to both natures, by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet, by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in Scripture attributed to the person denominated by the other nature.

B. The Islamic view

The first thing we notice when we study the Qur’an and investigate its assertions about Christian Christology is that what it presents as Christian dogma is something other than what the Bible and the Historic Creeds affirm. It misrepresents the dogma of the eternal Sonship of Christ as the equivalent of pagan gods carousing with human females and producing semi-divine offspring, a totally false picture of what Christians believe. The Muslim writer Suzanne Haneef makes exactly this point is her exposition on the subject, referring to S. 2:116-117:

If Jesus were indeed God’s Son, he would be a sharer in the Godhead and of Divine nature himself and in that case God would have simultaneously begotten, been begotten, been born, lived as a human being, and died. Such a notion does not merit any comment, It has much more in common with pagan mythologies, in which ‘gods’ fathered semi-divine children by human women, than with a true religion coming from God and based on the relationship between the Creator and the created. Hence the claim that Jesus is God’s Son cannot be, by its very nature, other than a false one because it contradicts the very nature and attributes of the Creator, bringing Him down to the level of the beings He has created. 35

As I stated in my paper An Explanation of the Trinity for Muslims, ‘Islam accuses Christians with promoting a mere human being – Jesus, viewed simply as a prophet – to the status of deity. However, the Christian position is actually the opposite to some degree: Man did not become God, God took human nature alongside His divine nature without ceasing to be God. Deity and humanity are not confused in the One Person of Christ. Deity is not diluted, nor humanity elevated.’ This accusation against the Christians is clear from a perusal of some of the ayat in question:

Surah An-Nisaa 4:171

171. O people of the Book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an Apostle of Allah and His Word which He bestowed on Mary and a Spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His Apostles. Say not ‘Trinity’: desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is One Allah: glory be to him: (for Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.

172. Christ disdaineth not to serve and worship Allah nor do the angels those nearest (to Allah): those who disdain His worship and are arrogant He will gather them all together unto himself to (answer).

Surah 43 Az-Zukhruf

57 When (Jesus) the son of Mary is held up as an example behold thy people raise a clamor thereat (in ridicule)!

58 And they say ” Are Our gods best or He?” This they set forth to thee only by way of disputation: yea they are a contentious people.

59 He was no more than a servant: We granted Our favour to him and We made him an example to the Children of Israel.

Surah Maryam 19:35

35. 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.

Surah Maidah 5:72

72. They do blaspheme who say: ‘Allah is Christ the son of Mary.’ But said Christ: ‘O children of Israel! worship Allah my Lord and your Lord.’ Whoever joins Other gods with Allah Allah will forbid him the garden and the Fire will be his abode…

73. They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy) verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.

75 Christ the son of Mary was no more than an Apostle; many were the Apostles that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth makes His Signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!

Surah Al-Maida 5:116

116 And behold! Allah will say “O Jesus the son of Mary! didst thou say unto men ‘worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah'”? He will say: “Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart though I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.

117 “Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say to wit ‘Worship Allah my Lord and your Lord’; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up thou wast the Watcher over them and Thou art a Witness to all things.

S. Maryam 19:88

88 They say: “(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a son!”

92 For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should beget a son.’

Surah Al-i’Imran 3:79

79 It is not (possible) that a man to whom is given the Book and Wisdom and the prophetic office should say to people: “Be ye my worshippers rather than Allah’s; on the contrary (he would say): “Be ye worshippers of Him Who is truly the Cherisher of all for ye have taught the Book and ye have studied it earnestly.”

80 Nor would he instruct you to take angels and prophets for Lords and Patrons. What! Would he bid you to unbelief after ye have bowed your will (to Allah in Islam)?

Surah Tauba 9:30

30 …the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. …Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the truth!

31 They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; Yet they were commanded to worship but one Allah: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to him: (far is He) from having the parents they associate (with him).’

To continue quoting from my earlier paper, ‘what the Qur’an attacks is Tritheism, belief in three Gods. Such a dogma is completely absent from the Christian Scriptures and from orthodox Christian tradition such as that stated at the Councils of Nicæa (325 A.D.) and Chalcedon (451), which professed belief in the Triune nature of the Godhead, as opposed to any tritheistic ideas.’ This is relevant to the Christological issue since what Islam attacks is an ontological position whereby Christ is a distinct deity from Allah, and even, according to S, 5:72 that Jesus alone is God, both positions completely at variance with the Bible and Historic Creeds. What is absent from all the ayat relating to Jesus is any denial of the essential, fundamental doctrine of Christianity that Christ had two natures. We have seen from the councils and creeds that this was indeed a crucial dogma of Christianity, yet the Qur’an never attacks this belief. It never assaults the Christian concept that Christ was both God and Man. Instead, it merely attacks belief in His deity. As Watt observes, Islam’s presentation of Christian Christology is that the latter believes that

…Jesus is a deity apart from God… What is denied here is the assertion of complete identity between Jesus and God… generally regarded as the heresy of confusing the hypostases… In the light of the Qur’anic attack on tritheism, it seems certain that the denial that the Messiah was the son of God was a denial that he was a deity separate from God; and this is confirmed by the later part of 9:30 which identifies what is denied with the views of ‘former unbelievers’… that is presumably of the pagans. 36

Watt comments on S. 5:73, 77 and S. 4:171-69 that ‘…if these passages are examined without parti pris, it is clear that they are not attacking the orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity, but the misinterpretation of that doctrine sometimes called “tritheism”. The great body of Christians officially deny that they believe in three gods, and in their creeds profess their belief in God who is one.‘ 37 If we were to employ the ‘mirror’ argument with the Qur’an, i.e. assessing what an individual or group believe on the basis of what its critics say about their beliefs, we would emerge with the understanding that Christians believe that Christ is God – but only that Christ is God. We would never encounter the tenet for which there was such conflict and passion, even as Islam was emerging, that Christians believe Jesus had a human nature as well as a divine nature. Since the Qur’an’s attack on the Cross is essentially a disputation with Jewish polemics, rather than a denial of Christian soteriology, we would never encounter the centrality of the crucifixion as the crucial salvific event for Christians, one that would necessitate His humanity. This omission is not just surprising, it raises the important question: why?

The answer may lie in the Christian sect Muhammad encountered. The principal Christian centre in Arabia was Najran, and the Encyclopaedia of Islam holds that the prevailing Christological tendency in the area were the Monophysites. 38Trimingham believes that the Najran Christians were Monophysites, influenced from Abyssinia. 39 The likelihood is that Najran received its Christian influence from Ethiopia. Yusuf Ali suggests in his commentary on S. 27:24 that Abyssinia was the centre of origin for Christianity in Najran:

Yemen had easy access to Mesopotamia and the Persian Gulf by way of the sea, as well as with Abyssinia. That accounts for the Christians of Najran and the Jewish dynasty of kings (e.g. Zu-Nuwas, d. 525 A.D.) who persecuted them in the century before Islam, – also for the Christian Abyssinian Governor Abraha and his discomfiture in the year of the Prophet’s birth (S.cv.), say 570 A.D. Jewish-Christian influences were powerful in Arabia in the sixth century of the Christian era.

Mawdudi’s introduction to S. 105 notes the Abyssinian-Byzantine alliance against Dhu Nuwas, the fanatical anti-Christian Jewish King of Yemen, and which seems to support the idea of Abyssinian – and thus Monophysite – influence in the area. The fact that Abyssinia intervened because of the persecution would suggest it had a particular interest in defending these Christians. If they were Monophysites, we can understand why they would have been so-motivated:

… in retaliation for the persecution of the followers of the Prophet Jesus Christ (peace be on him) in Najran by the Jewish ruler Dhu-Nuwas of Yaman, the Christian kingdom of Abyssinia invaded Yaman and put an end to the Himyarite rule there, and in 525 A.D. this whole land passed under Abyssinian control… Abyssinia sent 70,000 of its troops by it across the Red Sea to Yaman.

Of course, according to the Sira, Muhammad met a delegation from Najran, and the first Hijra was to Abyssinia, so taking all these things into account, we can say that it is likely that the Christian theological influence Muhammad and the early Muslims encountered was some form of Monophysitism. Whether this was the more orthodox form that Copts today state they believe, or whether it was indeed full-blown Eutychianism does not matter. It is quite understandable that either Muhammad and/or the early Muslim redactors of the Qur’an would misunderstand the Monophysite position as involving the diminishing of Christ’s humanity such that He was only divine; after all, this was how many Christians perceived their position! It would indeed explain why the Qur’an never attacks the Hypostatic Union, or says to Christians ‘they do disbelieve who say that Christ is both God and Man’.

Of course, the problem for Muslims, is that if the Qur’an misunderstands the Biblical and Historic Christian position, this must mean that it is fallible, and thus not genuine revelation. It also means that Muhammad and the Qur’an were ignorant of the Biblical position on Christ’s two natures, which again implies that the Qur’an is not divine inspiration. Most of the Qur’anic assaults on suggested Christian Christology are more easily comprehensible if the holy book of Islam is controverting some form of Monophysitism, in the sense that Christ had only one nature, the divine. Interestingly, Bray suggests in regard to Monophysites that ‘it was their brand of Christianity which in a popular form had influenced the Prophet Muhammad. Muhammad rejected he divinity of Christ, but he retained the Monophysite emphasis on the Virgin Birth…’ 40 It follows from this that what the Qur’an controverts is not the Christology of the Bible, or for that matter of the Historic Creeds of the Church, but rather a Christological error, of which most Christians were not guilty. The fact that the Qur’an fails to recognise this undermines its claims to divine inspiration.

Conclusion

The touchstone of orthodoxy is ‘what think ye of Christ?’ In one way or another, practically all error results from a failure to understand the nature and work of Christ. It is absolutely crucial to the message and work of Jesus that He is simultaneously God and Man, without confusion, mixture or bi-personal separation. To perform the great work of salvation, He had to be both. No one argues that the concept of the Hypostatic Union is a difficult one to understand, not least because we have nothing in nature that is analogous to it. However, this should not be surprising, since we are dealing with God, who is, as both Islam and Christianity confess, incomparable and incomprehensible. The fact that finite human minds are incapable of fully comprehending a divine miracle such as the Hypostatic Union in no way diminishes its truth. All that this indicates is that the finite cannot comprehend the infinite.

It is one of the clearest indications that the Qur’an is not divinely inspired in that it fails to address what is clear Biblical doctrine – that Christ had two natures. Christians faithful to the Biblical picture of Christ never claimed he was a separate God from the Father, that He alone was God, or that He was only divine, not human. The Qur’an, however, never gets to grip with what is a crucial Christian dogma – the two natures of Christ. It never examines it, nor condemns it. It appears ignorant of it. Yet if God is omniscient, how could His ‘direct speech’ be unaware of it? The likelihood is that Muhammad and/or early Qur’anic redactors misunderstood Monophysitism, and wrongly assumed that this was Biblical Christian belief. As with the teaching about the deity of Mary, the divine sonship of Ezra, etc., the Qur’an made a mistake. The Christ it criticises is not the Jesus Christians worship.

References

1. Baagil, H. M., Christian-Muslim Dialogue (Revival of Islamic Heritage Society, Kuwait, 1984), p. 23.

2. Deedat, Ahmed, The God that never was, http://www.ais.org/~maftab/neverwas.htm

3. Berkhof, Louis, Systematic Theology, (Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, 1958, 1981 reprint), p. 29.

4. Rasheed, Asra, A Simple Call to the Worship of One God, (Jam’iat Ihyaa’ Minhaaj al-Sunnah, Ipswich, 1994), p. 10.

5. Hodge, A. A., Evangelical Theology: A Course of Popular Lectures, (First published 1860; Banner of Truth Trust edition, Edinburgh, 1976), pp. 185-186.

6. Bremmer, Michael The Deity of Jesus Christ, http://members.tripod.com/~Michael_Bremmer/deity.htm … View rest of footnote text

7. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 321-322.

8. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 323.

9. Murray, John, ‘The Person of Christ’, in Collected Writings, Vol. 2, Systematic Theology, (Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, 1977), p. 136.

10. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 322.

11. Hodge, Evangelical Theology, (1890, Banner of Truth edition 1976, Edinburgh), p. 189.

12. Milne, Bruce, Know the Truth, (IVP, Leicester, 1982), p. 145.

13. Lane, A. N. S. ‘Christology beyond Chalcedon’, in Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology presented to Donald Guthrie, edited by H. H. Rowdon, (IVP, Leicester, 1982), p. 272.

14. Olyott, Stuart, Son of Mary, Son of God: What the Bible teaches about the person of Christ, (Evangelical Press, Welwyn, 1984), pp. 111-112.

15. Hodge, A. A., Outlines of Theology, (1860, 1879 enlarged edition, Banner of Truth edition 1972, Edinburgh), pp. 188-189.

16. Olyott, Son of Mary, Son of God, p. 111.

17. Hammond, T. C., In understanding be men, (IVP, Leicester, 1968, sixth edition, revised and updated by David F. Wright), p. 101.

18. Olyott, Son of Mary, Son of God, p. 117.

19. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 319.

20. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 319.

21. Olyott, Son of Mary, Son of God, p. 117.

22. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 319.

23. Chadwick, Henry, The Early Church, (Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1967), p. 210.

24. Hodge, A. A., Outlines of Theology, p. 383.

25. Kelly, J. N. D., Early Christian Doctrines, (Harper & Row, 2nd Edition, 1960), p. 290.

26. Kelly, ibid., p. 292.

27. Kelly, ibid., pp. 312, 316.

28. Bray, Gerald, Creeds, Councils and Christ, (IVP, Leicester, 1984), p. 155.

29. Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East Commission on Inter-Church Relations and Education Development, http://www.cired.org/faith/christ.html

30. Kelly, ibid., p. 323.

31. Bray, Creeds, Councils and Christ, p. 158.

32. Berkhof, Louis, The History of Christian Doctrines, (1937, Banner of Truth Trust edition, Edinburgh, 1969), p. 108.

33. Wahba, Fr. Matthias F., St. Antonius Coptic Orthodox Church, Hayward, California, USA, http://pharos.bu.edu/cn/articles/MonophysitismReconsidered.txt … View rest of footnote text

34. Bettenson, Henry, Documents of the Christian Church, (Oxford University Press, London, 1963), p. 73.

35. Haneef, Suzanne, What everyone should know about Islam and Muslims, (Kazi Publications, Lahore, 1979), p. 177.

36. Watt, William Montgomery, Early Islam: Collected Articles, (Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1990), p. 68.

37. Watt, Early Islam, p. 67.

38. The Encyclopaedia of Islam, vol. VII, p. 872.

39. Trimingham, J. Spencer, Christianity among the Arabs in Pre-Islamic Times, (Longman, London, 1979), pp. 294, 298.

40. Bray, Creeds, Councils and Christ, p. 167.

A Comparison of the Biblical and Islamic Views of the States of Christ

Gerry Redman

Part 1: The State of Humiliation (i)

Introduction
1. The Incarnation
2. The Baptism
3. The Transfiguration

Part 1: The State of Humiliation (ii)

4. The Sufferings of Christ
5. The Passion
6. The Descent Into Hades

Part 2: The State of Exaltation

Introduction
1. The Resurrection
2. The Ascension
3. The Heavenly Session
4. The Second Coming

Tawhid: Belief in One God

Apologetic Paper (Jay Smith) – May 1995

Contents

1. Introduction

2. The Muslim View

3. The Christian Response

   1. What the Scriptures say

   2. The history of the word ‘Trinity’

   3. ‘Trinity’ defined

   4. Common misconceptions

      1. Can 1+1+1=1?

      2. Is Jesus not merely human?

      3. The ignobility of God’s humanity

      4. Was Jesus begotten?

      5. Where was God when Jesus was on Earth?

      6. Is Mary God?

      7. Is the concept of the Trinity not borrowed from a pagan source?

4. Conclusion

A: Introduction

A few years ago I received a letter from a colleague in India who had been approached by two Muslim teachers, in Bihar, with the request for: “A statement of Christian faith which would compare with the five principles of Muslim teaching.”

This list concerns The Beliefs of Iman, a group of five to six beliefs which all Muslims must adhere to, and which has, consequently become a sort of ‘Statement of Faith’ for the Muslim religion. The list includes the:

1. belief in One God (Allah)

2. belief in the Prophets

3. belief in the Holy Books

4. belief in Angels

5. belief in the Day of Judgment

6. belief in the Decrees or the Predestination of God (Allah).

I decided to write a Christian response to the six beliefs. This is the first response, concerned with the belief in one God (Tawhid). Because this paper is initially written for Muslims, it must be made understandable to them. For that reason I have left out many Christian religious terms which they would not be familiar with, and have kept the parameters of my response within the context of the positions espoused in the six beliefs of Iman. It is, therefore, not comprehensive; and for some Christians, perhaps simplistic. My desire is, however, that my position will be helpful in creating a platform from which both Muslims and Christians can begin a dialogue, with the hope that further discussion will ensue.

Let me commence by outlining their position, and then follow up with a Christian response to that position.

B: The Muslim View

The first and greatest teaching of Islam is proclaimed by the Shahada: “La Ilaha illa-l-lah, Muhammadun rasulu-l-lah.” (“There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the apostle of Allah.”) It is this very confession, which, once uttered sincerely, makes one a Muslim. This is the phrase all new converts are asked to say upon conversion. For those who take the pilgrimage, or the Hajj, it is requisite that they repeat this phrase with belief before they enter into the holy city of Mecca.

Allah, for a Muslim, is one (Wahid), and has no partners, no equal. In the Qur’an, Sura 28;88, we read: “And cry not unto any other god along with Allah. There is no god save Him.” Thus, Allah is totally other, totally distinct, totally unique. He created and maintains the world. Since He is one, no one else can share even an atom of His Divine power and authority. The Qur’an makes it clear that Allah has no son, no father, no relative, and no associates.

A few years back I did a survey on the attraction of Islam amongst North American converts to Islam, and I found that the greatest attraction was this view on Monotheism, or the belief in the oneness of God. Alongside this belief must be included the problems Muslims have with the trinity, the fact that Islam has no intercessor, and the belief that “Each person has a choice in his/her salvation.”

In the Hadith, Muhammad is reported to have related the ninety-nine names of Allah, to express some of His attributes. A number of these are: that He is merciful (that he provides humanity with food, drink, the means of movement, and all the necessities of life), that He is all-powerful (omnipotent), that He is wise and all-knowing (omniscient), and that He is eternal (has no beginning and no end).

The belief in the uniqueness of God (Tawhid) is repeated time and again in the Islamic institutions I have visited.

A number of my friends in an American mosque which I frequented questioned me as to why we needed an intercessor, and specifically one who was human? They felt that in giving Jesus deity we had diluted the power of God, in that God would then be dependent on someone else to fulfil His purposes on earth. “Islam,” they felt, “corrected that perception, and put God back in His rightful place, where He belonged.”

In my conversations, the relationship of Jesus to God caused concern as well. The administrator of the Masjid Ul-Haqq, in Baltimore, asked, “How could we believe that God would ever let Himself be killed?” and “Where is Jesus now?” “If he is sitting at the right hand of God, then that would imply that there are two gods, and that Jesus never went back into his original form (one with God).” It was this idea, which directed this administrator, the son of a second generation Baptist minister, to accept Islam as, “The Only True Religion,” and to become probably the most eloquent defender of Islam of those whom I met in the U.S.

Obviously, it is clear that the belief in the uniqueness of God, and the rejection of Jesus as the Son of God have a strong appeal for Muslims.

C: The Christian Response

From the outset, we need to say that perhaps no other category is as important to deny, from the Christian perspective, as the Islamic misconception that Christians believe in and worship three separate gods. This accusation is the one issue we must center all our energies on to condemn. Obviously, it is this “polytheism” which disturbs the Muslims the most. How can God be both THREE and ONE? Is this not illogical? Yet, God is beyond all human reason. Too often humans have tried to reduce God to a level that they could understand for themselves. They try to make God like themselves. We must reject such thought as quite ungodly.

Because God is beyond all human understanding we should expect to find aspects of Him that seem strange to us. Any explanation of God which is fully clear to human understanding must be wrong because He is far more than our little minds can grasp. Therefore to best understand who He is we are dependant on revelation. In other words we must go to our scriptures, to our authority to best understand who God is. It is there that we find the trinity revealed.

C1: What the Scriptures say

Christians and Muslims, alike, worship the God of Abraham. Furthermore, Muslims and Christians, alike, are Monotheistic, believing in only one, righteous, and transcendent, creator God. Muslims must understand that we echo them on this point.

The key verse of the Torah of the Prophet Moses states that: “The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might” (Deuteronomy 6:4).

God is one and He commands us to love Him totally.

Muslims are quick to point out that the Hebrew word ELOHIM, used in Deuteronomy 6:4 must not be translated “Gods,” as this is an example of a ‘royal plural.’ Yet, anyone who is trained in linguistics will tell you that in both Hebrew and Arabic, there is no such thing as a royal plural. Elohim can only mean “Gods,” which is plural. We find this plurality of God expressed in Genesis 1:26; and in Genesis 11:7 as well. In the Deuteronomy 6:4 passage it is especially clear, where we read, “Jahweh Eluhenu Jahweh echad,” which literally translated means, “The Lord our Gods, the Lord is one.” Because this is not acceptable in English grammar, we leave the “s” out in our English text. But that does not take away from the fact that the plural tense is there in the original Hebrew text.

Jesus Christ, speaking more than one-thousand years after the prophet Moses says:

“The Lord our God, the Lord is one; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength” (Mark 12:28-30 and Matthew 22:37).

Remember that this is the man, Jesus, who claims to have equality with God who is speaking.

The New Testament provides us with only small clues to the mystery of God as THREE in ONE. In John 1:18 we find that the only-born God who is Jesus Christ, is in the heart of God. God is in God!

The Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:10-12) is also in God. So, God the Son, is in God the Father, and God the Spirit is in God the Father. As strange and mysterious as this is to the human mind, yet the Bible, as the very Word of God, tells us these things.

Thus, both the Torah and the Gospel (Injil) agree that God is one. We are commanded to love one God. Only He has the right to require our ultimate loyalty. All other gods which man invents are totally false (Hosea 13:2,3).

C2: The history of the word ‘Trinity’

Thus, what is the correct definition of the trinity? To our Muslim friends we say, that from the scriptures we find revealed a Divine unity of three Persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. These make up the trinity.

Muslims probably have approached some of you, asking where in the scriptures the word trinity appears. We must say from the outset that the word “Trinity” never appears in the Bible. Not Once! It is a word which did not even exist at that time.

The word trinity is in fact a theological term adopted later by Christians to define what the Bible teaches concerning God. The word “trinity” in the early church simply meant “three persons”, but was always undergirded with the unity of God.

To correspond with Biblical revelation, the Christian must equally emphasize that God is one and three. Today the church has adapted the word to mean three in unity (or tri-unity). Though God is immensely complex, and cannot be exhaustively known, He has so revealed Himself in scripture that He can be truly known. The early church theologians wrestled with the difficulty of defining God from what is revealed in scripture with the limitations of the human language which had no word to express the reality of one God, who is three (even this definition in English seems illogical, and illustrates my point).

For centuries theologians adopted many words to try to express God’s revelation of Himself as three in one (for instance, words such as three prosopon, hupostasis, and trias), yet they were all inadequate. As an example of the difficulty which concepts like these engendered, the early church theologian, Tertullian (145-220 A.D.) created 590 new nouns, 284 new adjectives, and 161 new verbs to help explain this and other theological ideas found in the scriptures; ideas which because of their sophistication needed new terminology for us to understand them. It was Tertullian who came up with the word “trinity” over five hundred years before the writing of the Qur’an, the very book which tried to dispute its validity. Over the years the word trinity became the accepted definition.

C3: ‘Trinity’ defined

It is impossible to fully define the mystery of God as “triune.” That there is only one God, yet that the One God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit is the most basic Christian belief of all. All Christian beliefs depend upon the truth of that single statement.

The word trinity is simply used to express what the scripture delineates as God comprised of three Persons, who are infinite, yet personal, in complete unity of will, purpose, action and love, yet who cannot be separated though they have different functions.

The scriptures speak of God the Father who is the co-Creator with God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit; who blesses (Ephesians 1:3-4), initiates (John 17:2-9) and sends (John 17:3,18).

The scriptures also speak about God the Son, who speaks-out the creation (John 1:1), and acts into history, both during the time of the prophets (Genesis 32:25-30; Exodus 3:2-5; 13:21; 33:9-11; Judge 2:1), and later when He was physically incarnated as the savior, the historical Jesus Christ (John 1:14).

And finally, the scriptures speak of God the Holy Spirit, who is resident within the disciple of Jesus Christ, who guides, instructs and empowers him (John 14:16-17), and who mediates Jesus Christ and His atoning work (John 15:26).

Jesus referred to this ‘Trinity in Unity’ when He commanded His apostles to go everywhere and to persuade men to become His disciples, and to baptize believers “…in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19).

It is important that God as “Father” must not be viewed within a biological context. Christians share with Muslims the prohibition against conceiving of God in the form of an image (made by man). God as “Father” refers, rather, to a relationship; a description of the covenant and fellowship relationship between God and humanity.

C4: Common misconceptions

C4i: Can 1+1+1=1?

Possibly the greatest criticism against Christians by Muslims is the false view of the plurality of God. Christians have often been accused by Muslims of worshipping 3 gods (Sura 5:73). Many of you have probably been asked the question, “how can 1+1+1 equal 1,” assuming that 1 represents a separate god. Obviously this is not what Christians believe. God is not made up of three separate gods, but three “functions” expressed in the one God. It would perhaps be more correct to ask, “can 1x1x1 equal 1”?

All Christians strongly believe that there is but ONE God, and He alone must be the object of our worship and service. The Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments repeatedly tells us that there is only ONE God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Mark 12:29; Romans 3:30; 1 Timothy 1:17; James 2:19). Perhaps 1 Corinthians 8:4 says it best, “There is no God but ONE”.

C4ii: Is Jesus not merely human?

Muslims state emphatically that Jesus was merely a human. They point to Suras 4:171; 5:116; and 6:101, which maintain the impossibility of God having a son, or that any human could be divine.

Our scriptures also speak emphatically of Jesus’s humanness. They speak of His powerless in Mark 13:32, 11:12-13, and John 5:30. They point out that He was tempted in Mark 1:12-13, and Luke 4:13. Mark speaks of His humanness quite plainly in 1:35, and 6:3. In other passages we find that Jesus was violent, that He was fearful, helpless, and that He could and did die.

Yet our scriptures are also replete with examples of Chest’s uniqueness. The book of Matthew speaks of his genealogy in the Davidic line in Matthew 1:1; that He was the Son of Man in 8:20, and 11:19; that He had wisdom and miraculous powers 13:54-56, and 17:24-27; and that He was a King in 21:5. Luke mentions his fulfilled and miraculous birth in 2:21; and that He was more powerful than John the Baptist in 3:16. John states clearly that Jesus, the Word was God in 1:1; that He created all things in 1:2; and that He was the fulfilment of the many prophecies concerning the Messiah in 1:45, 12:15, and 19:23-24.

Ironically, the Uniqueness of Jesus is found in the Qur’an as well: the virgin birth is mentioned in Sura 19:16-35; that Jesus is the Spirit of God is referred to in Sura 4:171; that He was the Word of God is found in Sura 4:171; that He is faultless can be seen in Sura 19:19; that He is illustrious both here and in heaven is spoken about in Sura 3:45; that He would be taken to heaven can be found in Sura 4:158; and that He will come back to judge is quoted in Sura 43:61. Even the resurrection of Jesus is mentioned in the Qur’an, in Suras 4:157, and 19:15,33.

There are many more Biblical scriptures which we could refer to that point out Jesus’s uniqueness. What is important, however, is to note that our scriptures (like the Qur’an) points to both His natures, His humanity and His divinity. This can be best summarized by Philippians 2:6-8, which speaks specifically of His Godly nature, as well as His appearance as a man.

C4iii: The ignobility of God’s humanity

A further stumbling block for many Muslims is the implications which this doctrine entails. The fact that God the Son, who is fully God, became a human being, and lived in all the limitations and restrictions of human life, finally dying a human death, in all the pain and suffering associated with crucifixion is too much for them to comprehend. How would the almighty God allow such a thing to happen?

This is not so much a question about Jesus, but about the very nature of God himself. Christians believe that God is totally free, All-powerful, and able to do anything He wants to do. The only thing impossible for God to do is to sin, because by His very nature He cannot sin. It is not, however, sinful to be a human being. For God to be a human being He must accept the limitations of human life, but He does not have to stop being God. When God the Son became a human being, according to Philippians 2, He changed from being in the form (“shape”) of God and took the form (“shape”) of a servant (i.e. a human being). One of the basic Christian teachings is that the greatest action a person can do is to serve others, even to the point of dying for them. This selflessness, humility and self-sacrificial love is at the very heart of the God who is trinity. God is so great that He humbled Himself and became a servant, washing the feet of His disciples. The Creator of the Universe showed His greatness in humility, service and love.

While that may sound threatening to a Muslim, the implications of that act alone are life-changing and eternal.

C4iv: Was Jesus begotten?

Along this same vein, Muslims ask how could Jesus have been “begotten” of God (Sura 112:3, 19:35,88-92)?

In John 1:18 the New Testament describes Jesus as the Only-born Son of God. The Greek word used is Monogenes. What does this word mean? It is one of several Greek words used to translate the Hebrew word Yahid. In the Septuagint, an early translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek, Yahid is sometimes translated Agapteos (beloved), and sometimes it is translated as Monogenes”(unique or special child). For instance, Isaac is Abraham’s Yahid son (in Arabic the word Farid, meaning unique, is used).

How can such a term be used of Jesus of Nazareth? When was Jesus produced by God as Abraham produced Isaac?

In the Old Testament one of the most famous of all prophecies reads: “Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given (this presupposes that He was already existing, as one cannot give something which is not existing) And His name will be wonderful, counsellor, mighty God” (Isaiah 9:6). A Son would be given. That presupposes that the son already exists. Jesus Himself prayed to the Father that He be given the glory that was His before the world began. Christians do not believe that in some way God gave birth to Jesus, or that God had some female partner who gave birth to Jesus.

No, Christians believe that God the Son became a human being, was born as a human being, through the work of the Holy Spirit upon the Virgin Mary. Jesus was not the illegitimate offspring of God, produced by an associate: NO! This idea is blasphemous to both Christians and Muslims alike.

God has no consort and He does not produce children by any kind of reproductive activity. He is not like some Greek or Roman god who is mixed up with sordid and sinful human relationships. That is not the claim of the Bible. Of course we produce sons and daughters in a physical union. But we are not God! His Son has always existed; yet, became human through the power of god the Spirit.

“For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and caring of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, the following utterance was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, ‘This my Beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased'”(2 Peter 1:16-17)

Therefore it was God the Father who called Him His son, not later Christians. For this reason the virgin birth is a unique birth, described in both the Bible and the Qur’an alike.

C4v: Where was God when Jesus was on earth?

Many Muslims have difficulty understanding who it was that ran the universe while Jesus (as God) was on earth. The question by its very nature presupposes that God’s omnipresence is limited, an idea which is contrary to their own beliefs. When God was in Christ, being omnipresent, He was still everywhere else, much as the Holy Spirit, who is God is amongst us and yet everywhere. One must remember that it was God who became Christ, and not the other way around.

It might be helpful here to point out that this was not the first time that God, the son, (whom some delineate as the second person of the trinity) came to earth. There are other recordings of His appearance in the scriptures, such as God’s appearance before Moses in the burning bush (Exodus 3), or the angel of God who appeared to Abraham and told him of the impending ruin of Sodom, and of the miraculous birth of his son Isaac (Genesis 17-18).

Though the reasons for His appearances were different, they were nonetheless examples of God appearing on earth to man in time and in space, while simultaneously remaining as God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit. The fact that God as Son came before helps us accept that He also came in the form of Jesus the Christ 2,000 years ago.

When Christians explain The Trinity to a Muslim as I have above, they neutralize the criticism levelled against Jesus as being totally other than God. The function of Jesus the Redeemer, as intercessor, rather than diluting the power of God, brings into context the price of sin, that we cannot pay for the consequences of sin. That only God can do for us. Jesus, the Christ, by taking on Himself that substitute responsibility, not only proved Himself to be deity and to be equal with God, but proved Himself to be worthy of our thanks and worship, in that He has now eradicated the consequences of sin.

Perhaps the problem between Muslims and Christians has been accentuated due to the “Christian” environment in which transplanted Muslims find themselves; an environment which Muslims have incorrectly assumed is polytheistic. The prophet Muhammad had similar circumstances during his tenure in Mecca, where the polytheistic practices of the local religion caused him to speak out clearly and often against idolatry. Therefore, it stands to reason that the reactionary concept of God as one unit would be the focus of the Muslim evangelistic thrust.

In the bookstore of the Islamic Center, on Massachusetts Avenue, in Washington D.C., I counted six books which dealt with the subject. I took special note that these had been strategically placed near the door to attract the attention of any browser who happened to enter. Above the entrance of the Dar Al Hijrah Mosque, in Falls Church, Va., inscribed into the facade, is a quote from the Qur’an reminding the adherents that God is unique (one unit). This is the first inscription every individual sees when they come to do their prayers.

I wonder whether this same emphasis would be evident in a Pakistani or Middle Eastern Mosque, where, due to the small number of Christian churches present, the doctrine of Trinity is not so pronounced.

C4vi: Is Mary God?

A further problem arises with the Qur’anic misconception concerning who exactly makes up the godhead. In Suras Ma’Idah 5:73; and 5:116, we find Jesus questioned as to why He and His mother are to be worshipped, inferring their divine status by Christians. In Sura 6 (Cattle) line 101ff. it is said that there are those who believe that God has produced sons and daughters, as if God had a consort. Here is a distortion of what Christians believe. It must be made clear that God the Son was not produced by a sexual union of God the Father and Mary (as was mentioned above). Such an idea is as blasphemous to Christians as it is to Muslims.

The Bible teaches that God the Son has always existed, yet He became a human person by means of the virgin birth through Mary. Though she is highly honoured as the vehicle by which God used to come to earth, it is quite wrong to afford her divinity, which the Qur’an erroneously states Christians have done.

Muslims, mistakenly believe that Christians consider Mary to be “God the Mother”, who produced God the Son, by God the Father. This is completely false, as the Bible NEVER says anything remotely like it. According to the gospels, Mary was not at all divine, but was an ordinary sinful human who was used by God to bear Jesus Christ into the world as a human.

Somehow the “author” of the Qur’an got it awfully wrong, claiming something which the scriptures never even alluded to, while at the same time contradicting the theology of the church both before and after Muhammad’s time. This obviously puts suspicion on the veracity of the Qur’anic sources. If these were direct revelations from the all-knowing God, why did He not know what His previous revelations said, or at least what those who received it believed?

So how did this misconception creep in to the Qur’an? Though there is evidence of certain Maryamiyya cults in the 5th and 7th century who believed this doctrine, the Choloridian sect is the group which is more likely to have had influence on Muhammad’s thinking, as they espoused this form of trinity, and were known to have frequented the Arabian peninsula during Muhammad’s lifetime. Both groups, however, were small and insignificant in comparison to the larger Christian world at that time.

The fact that Muhammad used the word “trinity” in Sura 5:73 shows that he must have heard it from a group who were close at hand. Had Muhammad been literate, he would have read the scriptures and probably would not have made such an erroneous claim concerning the trinity.

C4vii: Is the concept of trinity not borrowed from a pagan source?

Many Muslims contend that early Christian writers merely borrowed their view of the trinity from surrounding pagan beliefs. The two most popular examples which have been suggested are: the ancient Egyptian pantheon, and the Neo-Platonic philosophy:

1. The ancient Egyptians believed in the three gods: Osiris the father, Isis the mother, and Horus their son, who rose up to killed his father Osiris. Obviously this is not at all like the Christian trinity. The Egyptian three are quite separate gods (one even killing another), and remain simply a gross pagan polytheism. The Biblical Jesus (God the Son) has always existed equal with the Father, in loving relationship.Athanasius, a great leader of the early Christian church, in 318 A.D. condemned the worship of Osiris,
   Horus and Isis as “straining impiety to the utmost… worshipping pleasure and lust, as do the pagan Romans and Greeks”.

2. Platonic Philosophy stated that God (the one) was totally distinct from matter and could have no contact with the material world. Thus an intermediary (the demiurge) had to emanate from him to give form to the material world, which then was given life by another emanation, the world-spirit.Again, this bears no resemblance to the Christian trinity, as neither the Demiurge nor the world-spirit are divine, and have no equality with the one. Whereas in the Biblical trinity God the Father loves the Son in unity with the Spirit, there is no sense of unity in the Platonic scheme.

D: Conclusion

Christians have only ever believed in One God. Yet, the Bible tells us that this One God has acted in history, showing Himself to be God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. There is no question of the divinity of Mary, or of any sexual union between God and Mary. Such ideas are blasphemous, and have always been rejected by Christians as heretical.

The challenge is: what is God Almighty like? Is He to be judged by any human logic or is He to be free to reveal Himself as He is, beyond all human understanding or imagination?

As we mentioned earlier, the word Trinity is shorthand for the concept of three and one. It is God the Father who loves and saves the world by God the Son through God the Holy Spirit. If we say less than this we are guilty of unbelief in the words of the Bible. If we say more than this we are guilty of speculation, putting our own ideas into the Bible. “We must not only say ‘no’ where God has said ‘no’ but we must also say ‘yes’ where God has said ‘yes'” (Barth)

We must not be misled by those who have not read or understood the scriptures. Do not be confused by false accusations. Examine for yourself the historical birth, life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, following the story on into the Acts of the Apostles. Only then will you be able to judge the Biblical proclamation of one God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

“… Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature (form) of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:6-11)

Six Muslim Beliefs (Iman) and a Christian’s Response

For a Muslim Enquirer

Apologetic Paper by Jay Smith (with help and advice from Marietta and Joe Smith) – May 1995

Contents

A preliminary discussion, using a Muslim’s criteria, on the Six Beliefs (Iman)

1. Belief in One God (Allah)

2. Belief in the Prophets

3. Belief in the Holy Books

4. Belief in Angels

5. Belief in the Day of Judgment

6. Belief in the Decrees or the Predestination of God (Allah)

7. Sources

A: Belief in one God (Allah)

A1: The Muslim View

The first and greatest teaching of Islam is proclaimed by the Shahada: “La Ilaha illa-l-lah, Muhammadun rasulu-l-lah.” (“There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the apostle of Allah.”) It is this very confession, which, once uttered sincerely, makes one a real Muslim.

For a Muslim, Allah is one (Wahid), and has no partners, no equals. According to the Quran, Sura 28;88, it is stated: “And cry not unto any other god along with Allah. There is no god save Him.” Thus, Allah is totally other. He created and maintains the world, and since Allah is one, no one else can share even an atom of His Divine power and authority. Islam makes it clear that Allah has no son, no father, no relative, and no associates.

In the Hadiths, Muhammad is reported to have related the ninety-nine names of Allah, to express some of His attributes. A number of these are: that He is merciful (that he provides man with food, drink, the means of movement, and all the necessities of life), that He is all-powerful (omnipotent), that He is wise and all-knowing (omniscient), and that He is eternal (no beginning and no end).

A2: The Christian Response

Christians and Muslims worship the God of Abraham. As do Muslims, Christians believe in only one righteous and transcendent creator God. The key verse of the Torah of the Prophet Moses states that: “The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might” (Deuteronomy 6:4). God is one and He commands us to love Him totally.

Jesus Christ, speaking more than a thousand years after the Prophet Moses says: “The Lord our God, the Lord is one; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength” (Mark 12:28-30 and Matt.22:37).

Thus, both the Torah and the Gospel (Injil) agree that God is one. We are commanded to love one God. Only He has the right to command our ultimate loyalty. All other gods which man invents are totally false (Hosea 13:2,3).

Perhaps the greatest criticism against Christians by Muslims is the view of the plurality of God, that God is three; and consists of “God the Father, Mary the mother, and Jesus the son.” This view is as repugnant to Christians as it is to Muslims, and has its origins in a heretical Christian sect (called Choloridians) who had contact with Muhammad during his tenure in Mecca.

We must say, however, that from the Scriptures we find revealed a Divine unity of three Persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, commonly known as the “trinity.” It is impossible to express the mystery of God as “triune.” In fact, this word is not found within Scripture, but was coined three centuries later by the Church, to express what Scripture delineated as God comprised of three Persons, who are in complete unity of will, purpose, action and love, yet cannot be separated though they have different functions. The Scriptures speak of God, the Father, who as the co-Creator, blesses (Eph.1:3-4), initiates (Jn.17:2-9) and sends (Jn.17:3,18). God, the Son, speaks-out the creation (Jn.1:1), and acts physically into history, both during the time of the prophets (Gen.32:25-30; Ex.3:2-5; 13:21; 33:9-11; Judge 2:1), and as the savior, Jesus Christ (Jn.1:14). And finally God, the Holy Spirit, who is resident within the believer, guides, instructs and empowers him (Jn.14:16-17), and mediates Jesus Christ and his atoning work (Jn.15:26).

Jesus referred to this ‘Trinity in Unity’ when He commanded His apostles to go everywhere and persuade men to become His disciples, and baptize believers “…in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19).

It is important that God as “Father” must not be viewed within a biological context. Christians share with Muslims the prohibition against conceiving of God in the form of an image. God as “Father” refers, rather, to a relationship; a description of the covenant and fellowship relationship between God and man.

Christians accept all the 99 names of God which Muslims repeat in praise to God. Even the name Allah is affirmed by Christians as one of the names of God, the same Arabic name which the Prophet Abraham used in Hebrew as “El” or “Elohim.”

B: Belief in the Prophets

B1: The Muslim View

Islam makes a distinction between a messenger (rasul) who is sent with a Divine Scripture to guide and reform mankind, and a prophet (al nabbi) who simply carries information or proclaims Allah’s news. Therefore, though all messengers are prophets, not all prophets are messengers.

The number of Allah’s prophets is said to be 124,000, yet the Qur’an mentions only 25. Adam was the first prophet, followed by others, some of whom are: Abraham, Jacob, Ishmael, Isaac, David, Solomon, John the Baptist, Jesus, and also Muhammad, the final and greatest of the prophets; or the “Seal of the Prophets.”

Allah raised up these prophets, among every nation (Sura 16:36), to provide mankind with firm and constructive guidance, so that they could walk the straight path of Allah, could live happily in this world, and could be prepared for life after death. Their fundamental message (Islam) was identical, remind- ing mankind of Allah’s unity; the reward of a good life; the day of judgment; and the terrible punishment for unbelievers.

Their witness was not always received well, and sometimes with total rejection, even in their own communities (Sura 17:94). Yet, Allah promised to protect them from serious sins and from bad diseases. Thus, the belief that a prophet could never be killed; and their denial that Jesus, a prophet, died on the cross.

B2: The Christian Response

Christians believe that God appointed prophets and others to speak to mankind His Word, the story of His redemptive acts in history. God revealed (nuzul) the interpretation of His acts to prophets, who passed it on to man by preaching, teaching, and writing.

Of the thirty or so prophets who are listed in the Bible, many are well known to Muslims, such as: Abraham, Moses, David, and John the Baptist; while others are not, such as: Miriam (Moses’s sister), Nathan, Isaiah, Jonah, Joel, and Daniel; all of whom came before Christ. Others, like Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter and Paul, wrote after Christ’s departure, and, though not recognized by Muslims, they are, for Christians, believed to be the last of the prophets.

We know as well, that all of these prophets were descendants of Abraham and Isaac, sent down over a period of 2,000 years, chiefly to the people of Israel, whom God had chosen to be His Covenant people; in order that from them the Truth of God might be made known to all the people of the world.

They came from different classes of society, some rich, others poor, young and old; some scholars, and others with little education. Not all wrote books (Elijah, John the Baptist), but they all heard God’s word, either through angels, by means of visions, by God’s voice, or by receiving the message in their minds and hearts.

We know also that the prophets were not sinless, but were believers who knew their sins were forgiven. To some the power was given to perform miracles, which verified the message. Yet, others, such as John the Baptist, performed none.

Their message was profound, but clear. They defined the character of a righteous God, and what He requires of them, warning of His judgment on rejecting Him and His Law, yet, assuring them of his forgiveness and blessing if they accepted them.

The prophets most important message, however, was that since there are none who could obey the Law fully, they remained still in sin, and so deserved death. Yet, they need not despair, because God had promised to take upon Himself the guilt of their sins, by incarnating Himself and dying on the cross, thus taking upon Himself that penalty, and so freeing Him to forgive them from those sins, which then brought them back into a personal relationship with Him.

In evaluating whether Muhammad was a prophet, a Christian must see Muhammad in light of the total Biblical witness culminating in Jesus the Messiah. To the extent that the prophet Muhammad 1) fully accepts the former Scriptures, and 2) points to the central significance of Jesus as redeemer, and 3) to the extent that the life and teachings of Muhammad exemplify suffering redemptive love, which is demonstrated by Jesus the Savior, Christians should, and will affirm the Prophet Muhammad. (Unless my Muslim brothers can show me otherwise, I find him lacking in all three.)

C: Belief in the Holy Books

C1: The Muslim View

Whenever chaos, confusion, or evil filled human society, Allah sent a message, via His prophets, to reform society. These messages were contained in the Holy Books of Allah, of which 5 are accepted by Muslims today: the Suhuf (Scrolls), revealed to the prophet Ibrahim, and now lost; the Taurut (Torah), revealed to the prophet Musa (Moses); the Zabur (Psalms), revealed to the prophet Daud (David); the Injil (Gospels), revealed to the prophet Isa (Jesus); and the Qur’an (Koran), the Holy Book, or “final message to mankind,” revealed to the prophet Muhammad. Each Scripture confirmed the preceding revelation, with the purpose of reforming mankind.

Yet, according to Muslims, the first three existing revelations (Tawrut, Zabur, and Injil) include teachings which are confined to a particular tribe, community, or nation, and to a specific period. Furthermore, they believe that human imperfections, or abrogations have been introduced. The Bible, they say, seems to be a mixture of history and revelation. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to separate the true revelation in the Bible from that of history and human personality.

Thus, the Qur’an, they believe, was sent as the perfection and culmination of all the truth contained in the earlier Scriptures. Though sent down in Arabic, it is the Book for all times, for all mankind. It guards the previous revelations by restoring the eternal truth of Allah (Sura 3:3-4a), and clears up all uncertainties.

C2: The Christian Response

Christians believe that the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, is the inspired Word of God (2 Tim.3:16,17). By inspired, they mean that the messages of God were relayed to His chosen men who spoke or wrote them, using their own language, personalities and thought forms. (Inspiration, thus, does not mean divine dictation.) David wrote as an inspired poet, and Jeremiah spoke as an inspired preacher, and so on.

The sixty-six Holy books, divide into two sections; the Old Testament and New Testament. The Old Testament, which means old covenant or sacred promise (between God and His chosen people), records God’s revelation of Himself to them, while processing them to receive Himself as the Redeemer Messiah, who would be born as one of them.

The Old Testament prophets recognized that the redemption for the world would be fulfilled through this Messiah (Jeremiah 31:31,33). Thus, they prophesied His coming hundreds of times, even speaking specifically of when and where His birth would occur, why He would come, how He would die, and that He would rise again; all hundreds of years before the events.

The New Testament (new covenant) is the historical record of the manner in which God fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah, and established the new covenant. It contains the account of the life and teachings of the Messiah (the Gospels), the creation of the Church (Acts of the Apostles), explanations of Christian beliefs and conduct (Epistles), and a description of the end times, when God’s purpose for mankind will be fulfilled (Revelation).

Christians accept only the Old and New Testament in the Bible as God’s inspired written Word, consisting of teachings by more than thirty prophets and apostles, written in times of tremendous change and diversity, spanning more than 1,500 years, yet holding a common unifying idea; that God is at work in history with the intent to redeem and save mankind from death.

The Bible has been translated into over 1,600 languages, so that 93% of the world’s population can read it in their mother tongue. Therefore, it is no surprise that the Bible continues to be the best-selling book in the history of mankind.

D: Belief in Angels

D1: The Muslim View

Muslims believe that Allah created a host of angels, all of whom are sinless, do not eat or drink, and have no determining sex. They, like humans, will die and be resurrected.

The angels have differing ranks, but there are four who are the mightiest of all, and are known as the four archangels. They are:

1. Gabriel, Allah’s chief messenger, or intermediary, who is referred to as the “Holy Spirit” in the Qur’an;

2. Michael;

3. Izrail, the Angel of Death; and

4. Israfil, who will blow the trumpet on the last day to awake the dead.

When Adam was created, Allah commanded all the angels to bow down to him. All the angels did so, except Iblis (Satan), who refused, saying, “He was made of clay, but I was made of fire, so I am better then he” (Sura 15:28-33). For his refusal, Allah cursed him and threw him out of paradise. From that time till now Iblis has become man’s chief enemy, and is the leader of all the demons and evil jinn, who harass and torment mankind (Sura 15: 34-46).

The chief responsibility of the angels is to praise Allah, and to do his will. They do His will by watching over believers, interceding for them and aiding them in their battles (thousands were used at the great battle of Badr).

Many Muslims believe that all individuals on earth have two angels who are positioned above each of their shoulders, as ‘recording angels’; one to record the good deeds man does, and the other to record his sins. At the time of death, two fierce black angels visit each corpse in the grave and ask him, “Who is thy Lord? What is thy religion?” and “Who is thy Prophet?” Depending on the response, the angels take the souls of the believers, and cause them to either fall into the fiery pit (Gahenna), or they send them across the razor sharp bridge, to paradise.

D2: The Christian Response

In the Bible there are many references to beings, other than men, who were created by God and were usually referred to as angels. They are God’s messengers, and were often sent by God to make His will known to the prophets and to help believers.

Angels appeared in human form to Abraham, Moses and others. The names of only two of God’s angels are given in the Bible: Michael and Gabriel. The angel Gabriel was the one who informed Mary that she would have a son named Jesus.

In addition to the holy angels who are obedient to God, we are told, in Scripture, that there are other created spiritual beings who were disobedient, who are enemies of God; the chief of whom is called Satan, the Devil, the dragon and serpent (Rev.12:3-9).

Many Christians think that Satan was created good, but because of pride disobeyed God. As a result, he, and the spirits who followed him, fell from their high and holy position in heaven. They are now doing all they can to destroy God’s work on earth.

Satan deceived Eve in the Garden of Eden, and ever since he has been trying to turn people away from the living God. He even tried to persuade Jesus Christ to disobey God three times (in the wilderness), but failed.

Satan has great power, which is not equal to God, and in fact is limited by God. Thus, Christians do not need to fear him or his evil spirits who harm so many people, because of Satan’s defeat through the historical death on the cross by the redeemer, Jesus Christ (Col.2:14,15). Because of that historical act, all believers have the strength, given by Christ, through the Holy Spirit, to resist and repel Satan and all his cohorts. God will finally cast Satan out of the earth and into the eternal fire, from where he will never bother man or God again.

E: Belief in the Day of Judgment

E1: The Muslim View

For a Muslim, sin is a private matter. The idea that one’s sin is binding from one generation to the next does not exist. This is because Satan is the root of all sin; and Allah, who is all-merciful, will forgive those who ask for forgiveness. There is one sin, however, which is unforgivable, that of “shirk,” the practice of associating anyone or anything with Allah.

Thus, the sin of Adam and Eve (Adam and Hauwa), was not really their fault, as they were tricked by Satan, and they asked for forgiveness. Furthermore, their sin is not hereditary. Adam, having repented, was made Allah’s first messenger on earth. How could Allah entrust such a high office to an evildoer?

For the Muslim, salvation is attained not by faith, but by works, in observing the Five Pillars of Islamic practice, as well as avoiding the major and minor sins. Tradition indicates that on the Judgment Day, once the person is buried, the two recording angels appear, and the dead person sits up to undergo an examination. If he says the “Shahada” (“There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the apostle of Allah”), he lies down peacefully and awaits his judgment. If he refuses the “Shahada,” he is severely beaten for as long as Allah pleases.

Each individual is then put on a scale where his good and bad deeds, taken from their “book of destiny,” are weighed. Yet, Allah reserves the absolute right to send the individual to wherever He pleases. If the book is placed in his right hand he is saved and crosses a razor sharp bridge as narrow as a hair.

On the other side is paradise, a perfumed garden of material and sensual delights, surrounded by rivers and flowing fountains, populated with black-eyed virgins, who are there to serve them with all variety of fruits (Suras 47 & 56).

On the other hand, a vivid hell (Gahenna) awaits those who fail the above test, a hell which consists of boiling water, gore and fire, a hell of extreme physical pain (Suras 4, 38, & 50).

E2: The Christian Response

According to Scripture, any sin is an abomination to a holy God, because it is, in essence, a rejection of His character. We believe, as Muslims believe, that Satan does tempt us. Yet, we are responsible for our own sins, and not Satan. We have the choice to reject Satan’s tempting. But, the Scripture insists throughout, that the wages of sin is death, and since we are all guilty, therefore, we all deserve death. God, however, in His mercy, has not left us in that guilt, but has offered payment and forgiveness for those who receive it. He has sent His Son to die in our place, to take upon Himself our guilt. Therefore, those who believe in His redeeming death on the cross, and repent of their sins, are saved from eternal separation (John 3:16,17); while those who reject Him will be eternally condemned.

Before His ascension into heaven, Christ promised to return a second time to judge the world. He warned his followers against false Christs and false prophets, saying that the whole world will know when He comes again; and that He will come as He was taken up (Acts 1:11). When He returns, He will raise all the dead to life (John 5:28-29), and will separate those who believe from those who reject, as a shepherd divides the sheep from the goats.

Those rejecting Christ, will live in eternal punishment, in total isolation from God; because, in rejecting God’s Son, they have rejected God the Father and God the Holy Spirit as well, and no sin is greater than this (1 John 2:22-23).

Those who have truly believed in Christ the redeemer, will not fear Christ the Judge, and will have eternal life (John 5:22- 24; Acts 17:30-31). This does not mean that they will go into a garden full of carnal pleasures, which, as we know in this life, separates us from God, but they will go into the presence of God Himself, to live forever with Him in love and in joy. For, as it says in Revelation 21:1-7, “Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people,… He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain.”

F: Belief in the Decrees or Predestination of God (Allah)

F1: The Muslim View

“Islam,” the word, means submission to the will of Allah. A Muslim, therefore, is one who submits, much as a slave submits to his master. The reason for this submission is found in the belief that everything, including good and evil, faith and unbelief, is preordained. As a religion, Islam is a code of political, ceremonial, civil, and criminal law, as well as moral and religious precepts, all promulgated in Allah’s name, while leaving nothing to the believer’s initiative.

Muslims believe that Allah is in control of all of history. This belief embraces the doctrine of predestination, an acceptance of destiny, and resignation to fate (Kismet). Allah is sovereign. Thus, anything that happens is the will of Allah, and so is attributed to him. It explains why the phrase In sh’allah, “If Allah wills it,” is so common in the Muslim world. For some, this idea that Allah has total control over history leads to fatalism and passivity. For others, it sets the mind at liberty from matters over which they have absolutely no control. Kismet makes the Muslim fanatically self-sacrificing in war, resigned in defeat, in bereavement and disaster, and inactive in the presence of preventable evil, such as epidemics, because these could be called the “Will of Allah.”

Furthermore, Allah is not bound by any moral obligation, as this would limit his sovereignty. Therefore, it follows that Allah is also the author of evil. He is under no necessity of his nature, to be right or just or merciful. Allah does not will an act because it is good; rather, it is good because he has willed it.

F2: The Christian Response

For the Christian, God’s attributes are found in His holiness, grace and love (1 John 4:16). For a Muslim, Allah “loves” only those who do His will. Yet, we find that the God of the Bible not only loves those who are good, but He loves those who are sinners as well, even to the point of giving His life for them. (Romans 5:1-10)

Unlike Allah of the Qur’an, who is portrayed as a distant God with whom no one can have a personal relationship, the Biblical view of God is one who very much wants a personal relationship with His creation (John 1:11-14;15:9-15).

In the Qur’an, as was mentioned above, Allah is considered as the author of evil. Yet, in the Bible we find just the opposite. God is infinitely righteous and holy (Psalm 77:13;99:9). His “eyes are too pure to look on evil” (Habakkuk 1:13).

If we take these three attributes of the Biblical God (a God of selfless love, in relationship with His creation, unable to create or accept evil), we will find in these three the relation- ship that He seeks with His creation as well.

God doesn’t seek total blind obedience from His creation. This is not true love. True love seeks the best for the other at one’s own expense. It is best exemplified in Christs’ own sacrificial act on the cross. It is this love which God desires of us, both in our relationship with Him, and with others.

The Bible tells us that man was created in God’s image (Genesis 2:27), a view which is in direct contrast to that of the Muslim ideal, of man as slave. Man was never created to be a slave to God, but was meant from the very beginning, to be His son, in perfect relationship with Him. This assumes, however, freedom of choice, in that man can accept to be in relationship with His creator, or reject Him.

And finally, by God’s very nature, He cannot create nor tolerate evil. Thus, He has not brought about, nor can He tolerate the evilness of man. Sin is of man’s own doing. But God has made a way by which sin can be forgiven, so that man can, once again, be brought back into relationship with God, as was intended from the very beginning, with Adam and Eve. Our fate, therefore, is never predestined. We can, by simply acknowledging Christ as our Lord and Saviour, be assured that we will be once more reunited with God, in heaven, for eternity.

G: Sources

• A Guide to Islam, Angus Nicolson, Sterling Tract Enterprise, 1951

• Islam-The Basic Truths, Ja’sfar S. Idris, Muslim Welfare House, London

• A Christian’s Response to Islam, W. M. Miller, Presbyterian & Reformed Publ. Co., Philipsburg, New Jersey, 1976

• Beliefs and Practices of Christians, W.M.Miller, Masihi Isha’at Khana, Lahore, Pak.

• Islam, A Christian Perspective, M.Nazir-Ali, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1983

• Islam and Christianity, Badru Kateregga and David Shenk, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1980

Muhammad

Apologetic Paper (Jay Smith) – May 1995

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Is Muhammad a Prophet?

   1. The Muslim Position

      1. Supernatural witness points to Muhammad’s Prophethood

      2. Illiterate Creator of the Qur’an points to his Prophethood

      3. Prophesying points to his Prophethood

      4. Miracles point to his Prophethood

   2. The Christian Position

      1. Who qualifies as a true Prophet of God?

         1. A Prophet must be born in the Prophetic Race

         2. A Prophet must Speak in the Name of God (=YAHWEH or JEHOVAH)

         3. A Prophet’s Message must Conform to previous Revelation

         4. A Prophet’s Predictions must be Verifiable

      2. Which of these Biblical qualifications does Muhammad demonstrate?

         1. Was he born in the line of the Prophets?

         2. Did he speak in the name of “the eternal,” YAHWEH?

         3. Did Muhammad’s revelation conform to the message which had preceded him?

         4. Were any of Muhammad’s predictions verifiable within his lifetime?

3. Questions concerning Muhammad’s Prophethood

   1. Was Muhammad a specific or universal Prophet?

   2. Was Muhammad a Prophet of the Jews?

   3. Was Muhammad a Prophet to the Christians?

   4. Was Muhammad the Seal of the Prophets

      1. What about Jesus?

      2. What about the Other Prophets?

      3. What about Muhammad?

         1. Muhammad’s Concessions to People

         2. Muhammad’s Sexuality

         3. Muhammad’s Elevation

         4. Muhammad’s Sin

4. Were there prophecies concerning Muhammad?

   1. Is there a prediction of Muhammad in Deuteronomy 18?

      1. Comparison: Who is the prophet like Moses?

      2. Contrast: This prophet cannot be Muhammad

      3. Consideration: This prophet must be Jesus

      4. Conclusion: Without a prediction where is Muhammad’s authority?

   2. Are there further predictions of Muhammad in the Old Testament?

      1. Do we find Muhammad in the Old Testament?

      2. Muslims find Muhammad in the Old Testament

      3. Names which point to Muhammad

      4. Song of Solomon 5:16

      5. The Problem with this exercise

   3. Is there a prophecy of Muhammad in the Injil?

      1. Parakletos or Periklytos?

      2. Greek language confirms parakletos

      3. Greek manuscripts confirm parakletos

      4. Therefore Muhammad could not be the parakletos

      5. So who is the parakletos?

      6. The answer is the Holy Spirit, who arrived 50 days later

5. Conclusion

A: Introduction

All of us have had discussions with Muslims concerning our different beliefs. If your experience has been like mine, in order to dialogue convincingly with a Muslim about his beliefs, you have had to bring up the thorny question concerning the foundation for his beliefs. And in order to speak to those foundations, you have had to speak to the issue concerning the founder (as far as the Muslims world is concerned) for those beliefs.

According to Muslim Tradition (as opposed to historical and scientific evidence) Islam was created by Allah, but the final and truest revelations of Islam were “passed down” (Nazil) to humanity via the angel Jibril (Gabriel), to Muhammad. Muhammad, therefore is the final authority for Allah’s revelation here on earth.

Consequently, if we are to dialogue with a Muslim it is imperative that we begin with the expounder for their beliefs, Muhammad. It is he who takes on the mantle of the “seal of the prophets,” the final and greatest spokesman for God.

But where is the proof for such a title? How is he any different from any other man or thinker or statesman who came before; or after, for that matter? In Isaiah 41:21-23 we find a challenge to those who claim to come in the name of the Lord. Isaiah writes:

“‘Present your case,’ says the Lord. ‘Set forth your arguments,’ says Jacob’s King. ‘Bring in your [proofs] to tell us what is going to happen. Tell us what the former things were, so that we may consider them, and know their final outcome. Or declare to us the things to come, tell us what the future holds, so that we may know you are gods.’

Like Isaiah in his day, we make the same challenge today, asking Muslims to provide us with proof for Muhammad’s prophethood. Let us then see the case for their argument.

B: Is Muhammad a Prophet?

Muslims point to not just one proof but to a number of areas, which they feel, substantiate their claim to Muhammad’s prophethood. It would be helpful to look at these areas, and come to some conclusion as to whether they are legitimate claims for his prophethood.

B1: The Muslim Position

The name Muhammad, like Ahmed, means “the Praised One.” It is more than likely that this was not his initial name, but was the name attributed to him later on in life once he became the recognized prophet to the Arabs. Scholars believe that his childhood name was “Amin,” named after his mother “Amina” who died when he was 6 years old.

His father was called “Abdullah,” but Muhammad never knew him as he died before he was born. After the death of his mother Muhammad was brought up by his grandfather, and following his death by his uncle, Abu Talib. In his youth Muhammad travelled widely with camel trading caravans. It is at this point, according to Muslim Tradition, that certain things happened to him which were indicators of his special status among men.

B1i: A supernatural witness points to Muhammad’s prophethood

When he was three years old, two angels came and took out his heart from his chest, cleaned it with ice water, put it back and left. In doing so they supposedly prepared him for his mission on earth.

Another story which comes via Muslim Tradition mentions that after the death of his grandfather Abdu-Mutalib, Muhammad went to visit a Catholic monk with his uncle Abu-Talib. It is reported that the monk saw a cloud specifically protect Muhammad from the sun. It was then that he knew that he would be someone special.

At the age of twenty-five he married Khadijah, a widow fifteen years his senior, who was in fact his employer. The marriage was a happy one, and two boys and four girls were born to them, though the two boys did not live to a mature age. Khadija died after twenty-five years of marriage to Muhammad. During that time Muhammad never took another wife.

In 612 C.E. Muhammad became withdrawn and frequently went for meditation to Mt. Hira, which is situated close to Mecca. Here, according to tradition he had his first revelation.

In the Mishkat-ul-Massabih, vol.IV, pp.356-357 we read about this first revelation as reported by Aisha, Muhammad’s favorite wife:

“The first revelation which began to be revealed to the Apostle of Allah was a correct dream in sleep. He did not see a dream but it came like the morning dawn. Thereafter loneliness became dear to him and he used to seclude himself to the cave of Hira and engaged therein in deep devotion (and it is divine service) for many nights before he went to his house and provided himself with food therefor. Then he would return to Khadija and take provision for the like of them (nights) until the truth came unto him while he was in the cave of Hira. The angel appeared before him and said, ‘Read.’ He said, ‘I cannot read.’ He narrated: Then he took me and pressed me hard till there came great exhaustion on me; thereafter he let me off and said, ‘Read.’ I replied, ‘I cannot read.’ Then he took me and pressed me hard for the second time until there appeared a great exhaustion on me; thereafter he let me off. He said, ‘Read.’ I said, ‘I cannot read.’ Then he took me and pressed me a third time till there appeared a great exhaustion on me; thereafter he let me off. He said, ‘Read in the name of your Lord who created, created man from a clot. Read and your Lord is the Most Generous, who taught with the pen, taught man what he knew not.’ Then the prophet returned therewith, his heart was trembling and he went to Khadijah and said, ‘Wrap me up, wrap me up.’ Then they wrapped him until the dread went away from him.

Like anyone who had been grabbed by an angel (some traditions say he was grabbed by the throat), he became frightened and ran home to his wife, who had her own rather interesting means of delineating whether he was telling the truth or not. She put him on each of her hips and asked him if he still saw the angel, to which he said yes. Then she disrobed in front of him and asked him again, and when he said no, she then believed he was receiving authentic revelations.

Khadija then took him to a Nestorian monk in Mecca, named Waraqa ibn Nofal, who was translating the book of Matthew into Arabic at the time. He, upon questioning him, confirmed that Muhammad was indeed a prophet. Unfortunately this monk must not have translated Matthew 24:24 by this time. Had he done so, Muhammad may never have taken the route of prophethood.

These above accounts, according to Muslim Tradition, are how Muhammad obtained his authority to begin his ministry, and how he received credibility as a prophet of God, and more than that, as the penultimate prophet of God, the “seal of all the prophets” (according to Sura 33:40).

There are other alleged “proofs” which Muslims point to which substantiate his claim to prophethood:

B1ii: The Illiterate Creator of the Qur’an points to his prophethood

Muslims claim that Muhammad was illiterate. They reason: “How can an illiterate man compose a book like the Qur’an?” By this they imply that the authorship for the Qur’an could not have been done by one who could not read, so consequently its composition is a miracle, since it must have come from Allah. They conclude, therefore, that the miracle of the Qur’an affords Muhammad the right to claim prophethood.

To better understand this argument, we need to refer to the passage which speaks of his illiteracy. In Sura 7:157 we read:

“Those who follow the Apostle, the unlettered prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures); in the Law and the Gospel; for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil: he allows them as lawful what is good.”

In order to understand what the words ‘unlettered prophet’ really mean, we have to take a look at the Arabic text. In the Arabic it says, an-nabiyyal-ummi. Nabi is easy to translate. It means prophet. That is pretty clear. The word ‘ummi,’ however, is not so clear. To discern its meaning we need to refer to another verse in the Qur’an which uses it. We find it used in Sura 62:2, which says:

“It is He who has sent amongst the Unlettered an apostle from among themselves, to rehearse to them His signs, to sanctify them, and to instruct them in Scripture and Wisdom.”

Who are the ‘unlettered’ in this text? Yusuf Ali’s commentary makes it quite clear who these unlettered are. He says in footnote no.5451, “The Unlettered; as applied to a people, it refers to the Arabs, in comparison with the People of the Book, who had a longer tradition of learning, but whose failure is referred to in verse 5 below. As applied to individuals, it means that Allah’s Revelation is for the benefit of all men, whether they have worldly learning or not.” The word ummiyyun used in Sura 62:2 is the plural form of ummi found in Sura 7:157. Therefore what we find is that the word ummi was used for people who did not have the scriptures, in contrast to the Jews and Christians. To put it simply, they were “unscriptured.” Muhammad considered himself to be the prophet to the unscriptured, a prophet to those who had no Book, no revelation; in other words, to the Arabs. Therefore Sura 7:157 cannot be used as proof that Muhammad was illiterate.

What we can say is that more than likely Muhammad was literate. He was responsible for Khadija’s caravans, had travelled widely, and must have kept records of his transactions.

The Hadith of Ibn Sa’d alludes to the fact that he wrote. Ibn Sa’d states:

“The prophet, may Allah bless him, fell ill on Thursday. Thereupon he, i.e., Ibn ‘Abbas began to weep and say: ‘Woe be to this Thursday! What a Thursday.’ The illness of the prophet, may Allah bless him, became severe: he said: ‘Bring an ink-pot and something [paper or papyrus or any material used for writing] to write on. I shall [write for you] a document and you will never be misguided.” (Ibn Sa’d, p.302)

This entire argument, however, is rather moot if one considers that the Qur’an which is in our possession today is not the original revelation which was revealed via Muhammad to his followers. In fact, according to tradition, it is the work of Muhammad’s secretary Zaid ibn Thabit, who finally compiled it 14 years after Muhammad’s death, during the reign of Uthman. Where, then, is the miracle in that?

From an historical perspective the argument falls even further into disrepute, as many historians believe that very little of the Qur’an was actually written by Muhammad, but was rather the result of an evolving set of polemical writings which became canonized in the 9th-10th century, 200-300 years after the life of Muhammad. Can we claim this a miracle?

The further one uncovers the facts, the further it becomes clear that the Qur’an is not the miracle which Muslims like to point to as proof for Muhammad’s credibility as a prophet.

B1iii: Prophesying points to his prophethood

Another proof of his prophethood, according to Muslims, stems from the fact that Muhammad prophesied events in the future, which then came to pass later on. Only a prophet of God could know what was going to happen in the future, and therefore Muhammad must be a prophet. Yet, the only ‘real’ prophecy recorded, which Muslims attribute to Muhammad is that found in Sura 30:1-4, where it is written:

This passage refers to the defeat of the Byzantines in Syria by the Persians under Khusran Parvis (in A.D. 615), six years before the Hijra.

The defeat of the Persians should take place soon- “in a small number of years.” In light of this prediction, Abu-Bakr undertook a bet with Ubai-ibn-Khalaf that this prediction would be fulfilled within three years. But he was corrected by Muhammad, who stated that the “small number” is between three and nine years (Al-Baizawi).

Muslims tell us that the Byzantines overcame their enemies within seven years. However, the fact is that the Byzantines defeated Persia in AD 628 (Al-Baizawi’s commentary). That was twelve years after the prediction of Muhammad. Consequently, this passage does not qualify as a prophecy, particularly as the time between the prophecy and fulfilment was far too short, and in addition the event was easily predictable. The odds were only 50/50.

The other ‘prophecies’ which Muslims point to refer to Muhammad’s victories and those relating to the Qur’an itself. It is nearly impossible to establish whether these prophecies were said before their fulfilment. Besides, like the previous example, they were either easily predictable, or just war- propaganda. In this event George Bush might be called a prophet too, for he predicted that the Gulf-coalition would win the war with Iraq.

B1iv: Miracles point to his Prophethood

Muslims also claim that Muhammad performed miracles, and this is further proof that he was a prophet. Interestingly, despite this claim by Muslims, the Qur’an, whose authority they refer to, denies that Muhammad performed any miracles.

Take for instance Sura 17:90-93. Here Muhammad is challenged to perform miracles to prove his credibility, and he responds by admitting that he is only a man, an apostle. There are other similar Suras which speak about the challenge for a sign by unbelievers, and Muhammad’s angry retort that he was merely a “warner,” a “guide,” and a “bearer of glad tidings.” (refer to Suras 2:118-119; 6:37 and 124; 13:7; and 17:59).

The Hadith, on the other hand, reports a number of miracles which Muslims are quick to point to as further proof for Muhammad’s authority. In Mishkat IV page 411 we read:

“The prophet was looking while riding upon his mule like one eagerly longing to kill them. He said: ‘This was when the blood boiled in veins.’ Thereafter he took some pebbles and threw them at the faces of the infidels and then said: ‘Be routed, by the Lord Muhammad.'”

And in Mishkat IV pages 419-420 we read:

“Anas reported: A man wrote to the prophet that he turned an apostate from Islam and joined the infidels. The prophet said: ‘Verily the earth will not accept him.’ Abu Talhah informed me that he had come to the land wherein he died. He found him thrown outside. He said: ‘What is the matter with him?’ They said: ‘They buried him several times but the earth did not accept him.'”

But probably the most popular miracle which has been passed down by the hadith and fomented by Muslims even today, is the splitting of the moon by Muhammad. It is recorded in Sahih Muslim IV, pg.1467:

This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of ‘Abdullah b. Mas’ud (who said): We were along with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) at Mina that moon was split up into two. One of its parts was behind the mountain and the other one was on this side of the mountain. Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to us: ‘Bear witness to this.'”

The splitting up of the moon is not simply a fable from the Hadith, but is alluded to in the Qur’an as well. Sura 54, which is titled “The Moon,” begins by saying, “The hour (of judgment) is nigh, and the moon is cleft asunder…” From the context it is obvious that this was meant to be a sign, but people rejected it as such and in their desire to create some supernatural proof for their faith interpreted it word-for-word. Even today you will hear Muslims claim that the American astronauts, upon landing on the moon took pictures of a large crack, or fissure on the moon’s surface, which is what remains from Muhammad’s split.

These reports, for Christians, sound very much like the legendary stories of the New Testament Apocrypha. Though they are well-meaning reports, they are often very fanciful in character. However, they lack one simple ingredient: authenticity.

The Apocrypha primarily dates from the 2nd century C.E. (i.e. 70-170 years after the death of Jesus). The Hadith, on the other hand, was compiled approximately 250-300 years after the Hijra. Before that time all material and stories were passed down from generation to generation by oral tradition. Is it no wonder, then, that with each passing generation more was added to the story in order to enhance the image and character of the prophet?

Can we, therefore, say that these four proofs put forward by the Muslims give validity to Muhammad’s claim as a true prophet? I think not. Yet, according to Muslim Tradition these stories are all that are needed to give Muhammad the title “Rasu- ul-Allah.”

I dare to differ. From our discussion above it is clear that the early supernatural witnesses are probably apocryphal additions from later Muslim Traditions, while the claim for Muhammad’s illiteracy, though debatable, considering his background and vocation, misses the point entirely, since the Qur’an was never written by him anyway. His claim of prophesying, furthermore, is as valid a claim as either you or I could give, considering he never went beyond a 50/50 odds. And the miracles attributed to him are so incredulous that they speak more to the times of the later tenth century polemical traditions then those of the seventh century Arabic isolation.

Obviously the Muslims will need to come up with better defenses then these for substantiating Muhammad’s prophethood. Yet that is not all, for we as Christians are also interested in the question of prophethood. It is and always has been in our best interest to delineate who exactly is a true prophet, for we have been warned to be watchful for false prophets who will come our way (Matthew 24:24). Let’s then look at some of the criteria which our scriptures give us for describing a true prophet.

B2: The Christian Position

Let me begin by asking you a question. How would you define a prophet? Better yet, how would you know one if you saw him, or her? Would he or she be someone who is learned, perhaps wearing a beard (if a male), perhaps dressed in a white robe, and carrying a staff, with fiery eyes and booming voice, speaking with “thees” and “thous”? That is how Hollywood has portrayed a prophet. But is this the criteria God has given for a prophet? Is this the type of man God has chosen to represent Him on earth, to carry His message to the world?

What I would like to do now is try to answer the question of who, according to the scriptures, exactly qualifies to be called a prophet? Surely, if God had sent individuals to be His representatives on earth, He would have given us criteria by which we could recognize them, a means by which we could know who truly was His and who truly was not. Let’s then go to the scriptures, His revelation to us, to find who God delineates as a true prophet.

B2i: Who qualifies as a true Prophet of God?

“Amos 3:7) “Surely the Sovereign Lord does nothing without revealing His plan to His servants the prophets.

Both Muslims and Christians would agree with this verse from Amos. God uses prophets to fulfil His purposes on earth. At times individuals are used to prophecy specific events (such as Miriam, Balaam, and Saul in the Old Testament, and Anna in the New Testament-Luke 2:36). The office of a prophet, however, is a specific task given to only certain chosen men. Many of us know the names of the more famous prophets, such as: Moses, Abraham, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Yaxya (John the Baptist) and so on… Muslims would add to our list of prophets another name, that of Muhammad, whom they believe is the final and greatest of all prophets. According to the Qur’an, we read:

(Sura Al Ahzab 33:40) “Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets.”

Today we need to ask how it is that these men have come to have the office of prophet? What gives them the authority for calling themselves prophet? When we go to the scriptures we find that God delineated as qualifications for the office of prophet four categories:

1. a prophet must be born in the prophetic race,

2. he must speak in the name of God,

3. his message must conform to the message which has gone before, and

4. there must be verifiable accomplishments to the prophet’s predictions.]

Let’s go through each of these four categories one-at-a-time.

B2ia: A Prophet must be born in the Prophetic Race
To begin with, a prophet must be born within the line or race of the prophets. The Bible speaks specifically what this line is. In Genesis 12:1-3, we see that this refers to the family of Abraham (see also Galatians 3:8), and then carries on through his son Isaac (Genesis 17:2,7-8,15-21; 21:10-12; 22:2). The Qur’an, in Sura Al ‘Ankabut 29:27, also speaks specifically of this prophetic line, saying: “and we bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, and We establish the Prophethood and the Scripture among his seed” (also Sura Al Jathiyah 45:16).

As we continue on in Genesis 25:23,31-33; 26:1-2 we find that the alliance passes to Jacob, who is subsequently named Israel (also Genesis 28:13-15; 32:28). Further on, in Genesis 49:1-4,8-10, this alliance passes on to Judah. In fact, as we continue throughout the Old Testament we find that God’s work on earth runs uniquely through the line of Isaac and Jacob. It is their lineage alone that God uses for His work on earth. Even in the Deuteronomy 18 where Moses promises a prophet like unto him, it says specifically that the prophet would come “from among your own brothers,” an Israelite of the line of Jacob.

Continuing this theme further we read in 2 Samuel 7:4-16 and Psalms 89:35-38 that God’s alliance with humanity passes to David, and is finally fulfilled in Jesus Christ 1,000 years later (see Matthew 22:42).

Nowhere in any of those passages do we find any other line mentioned or acknowledged as being chosen for the office of prophethood.

B2ib: A Prophet must speak in the Name of God (=YAHWEH or JEHOVAH)
Secondly, a prophet of God must speak in the name of God, the unique name which He gave His creation to use. What exactly is that name? Traditionally it was known as the “Tetragrammaton” (YHWH). Today we spell it Yahweh or Jehovah depending on which vowels are used. This is the Hebrew name for God revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai (in Exodus 3), consisting of the four consonants YHWH. We don’t know what vowels were used as it was never spoken audibly, due to the fact that it was regarded by the Jews as too sacred a name to be pronounced.

In Exodus 3:1-6, 13-15, where God talks to Moses at the burning bush, we find God referring to Himself as “I am” which in Hebrew means “YAHWEH,” or in English The One Who Is. This is very significant. What God is saying here is that this name signifies His complete self-existence, that He has no dependence upon any other. Being self-existent, He cannot but be self- sufficient, and therefore, all-sufficient. No-one can claim to be self-existent but God, and thus no-one can claim this name. It is uniquely His.

God continues by saying that “this is my name for ever,” signifying that it is His eternal name, the name which only God can take for Himself, and the name by which the Jews in Egypt would recognize Him (see also Ps.72:17-19 and Rev. 1:8,17).

One can now see why the Jews in Palestine were so angry when Jesus made the same claim, calling Himself the “I am” in John 8:24,58. They naturally picked up stones to kill Him, as He had dared to take this name of God for Himself, and this was blasphemous, a sin which deserved the punishment of death by stoning.

Muslims are not familiar with the historical context of this name, nor the significance of its meaning, therefore they laugh when they hear Jesus referring to Himself as “I am” in John 8. It would be helpful to take them back to the Exodus 3 passage of the burning bush, since it is a story which exists in the Qur’an as well.

If we were to take a survey of the names for God found in the Bible and the Qur’an, we would find a rather interesting contrast. The General name for God in Hebrew is Elohim, which is mentioned 2,550 times. In Arabic it is Allah. The Descriptive name for God in Hebrew is Adonai, meaning Lord, and is mentioned only 340 times. In Arabic the equivalent is Rabb. But the Specific and Personal name for God in Hebrew, the name which God Himself asked Moses to use when referring to Him, is Yahweh, which means “the One who Is.” This name is repeated 6,823 times in the Old Testament alone! Look it up for yourself.

(note: in our English translation, Yahweh can be identified easily. Every time the word “LORD” is capitalized, that signifies Yahweh). Thus all of the ancient Biblical prophets speak of God using this name. However, this name for God is not used even once in the Qur’an, and has no equivalent in the Arabic language, the language Muslims claim God speaks.

B2ic: A Prophet’s message must conform to previous revelation
A third qualification of a prophet concerns his message. A prophet’s message, in order to be credible must conform to the revelation which God had revealed before. God’s word must remain consistent, in other words unchanging, otherwise it becomes useless, a tool in the hands of corrupt rulers and would-be prophets, bending and swaying with the whim of succeeding generations.

The unchangeableness of God’s word is often repeated in the scriptures. In Deuteronomy 4:1-2; Isaiah 8:20; Matthew 5:17-18; 24:35; and Revelations 22:18-20 we find warnings not to change or delete God’s Word. God’s Word must remain constant. In Psalms 89:35 we read that God cannot contradict His word.

The Qur’an, as well, agrees with this directive in Suras Al An’am 6:34 and Yunus 10:64. In Sura Qaf 50:28-29 Allah is quoted as saying: “I had already in advance sent you warning; the Word changes not.” In fact, the Qur’an claims that it was sent to guard the former revelations (Al Ma’idah 5:47-51). Thus, that which the prophets revealed cannot be contradictory. If it is, it must not be trusted.

There are, however, many Qur’anic stories which contradict the Biblical account (the revelation which came before). We don’t have time to go into all of them here, but perhaps it would be helpful to just relate a few of the more relevant ones:

1. Many contradictions are found concerning Abraham:

   1. Abraham’s father is wrongly called Azar, instead of Terah (Al An’am 6:74 vs. Genesis 11:26).

   2. He did not raise his descendants in the valley of Mecca, but in Hebron (Genesis 13:14-18).

   3. His hometown was not called Mecca but Ur in Chaldea. Even the secular-Ebla tablets found in Syria recently give proof for this (see Genesis 11:31).

   4. He wandered through Haran, not Arabia, and he went to Canaan, not to Mecca’s valley. The Ebla tablets prove this as well (Genesis 11:31 & 12:5)

   5. He was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac, and not Ishmael, as the Lord was to make His covenant with the Son brought about by His making, and not the son of the Egyptian slave, Hagar (see Genesis 17:18-21 & 22:2).

   6. There is no record that he and Ishmael went to Arabia and built the Ka’ba in Mecca, though he did spend some time in Egypt (Genesis 12:10).

2. Muslims assume that the Arabs are Ishmael’s descendants.

   1. Yet, according to the best historical records, the first father of the Arabs was Qahtan or Joktan. Some of his sons names are still found in geographical locations in Arabia today, names such as Sheba, Hazarmaveth, Ophir, and Havilah.

   2. Furthermore, Abraham’s nephew Lot is another ancestor of the Arabs; as is Jacob’s twin brother Esau, the father of the Edomites and the Moabites.

   3. Finally, Keturah, Abraham’s third wife, had six sons who all became forefathers of Arabs (i.e. Sheba and Dedan, located in Yemen)(Genesis 25).

3. Other errors are found in the Qur’an which contradict the Biblical account:

   1. In the Qur’an Mary is recorded as the sister of Aaron and the daughter of Imran, as well as the mother of Jesus (Sura Maryam 19:28). Yet, the Mary of the Qur’an depicted as the mother of Jesus is 1,570 years removed from the Mary, the sister of Aaron (also referred to Miriam in the Bible).

   2. Haman, which is not an Egyptian name but Babylonian, is mentioned as the Wazir of the Pharaoh in Suras 28:5; 29:38: 40:25,38, yet the book of Esther correctly lists him as an official of king Xerxes, in Babylon.

   3. The Qur’an presents a confused and often contradictory view of the Holy Spirit. It is called God’s own breath (15:29), the angel Gabriel (19:17), and the divine inspiration (16:2).

These are only some of the examples we could give, but they do point out that there are very real problems concerning the conformity of God’s revelation relating to these two scriptures.

B2id: A Prophet’s predictions must be verifiable
The final qualification of a prophet deals with the veracity of the prophet’s message, whether what he says can be verified. A prophet shows his authenticity by predicting events which can be verified by witnesses. Those predictions which cover the longest duration are the most relevant and valuable for us, and therefore we tend to focus on them. Yet, according to the principle which is announced in Deuteronomy 18:21-22; Isaiah 43:9; and John 13:18-21, it is important that there are other predictions which are short-term, which can be verified by contemporary’s of the prophet. These predictions serve to identify him immediately as a prophet, and so give credibility to the longer, future predictions.

When we take the example of Moses, we find that his prediction of the death and defeat of the Egyptian army was immediately fulfilled (Exodus 14:13-14,27-28). The same can be said of the prophet Isaiah, who prophesied that God would hold back the sun for ten steps (or hours) to permit Hezekiah to defeat his Assyrian enemy. It was fulfilled the same day (Isaiah 38:5-8). Another prophecy by Isaiah, concerning the rout of 185,000 of Sennacherib’s soldiers came to pass the next morning (in Isaiah 37:21-38).

Imagine if you had been with Moses or Isaiah at the time these prophecies were fulfilled. How would you have felt? I’m sure your estimation for these two men would have increased dramatically. That was one of the reasons for these prophecies. It gave immediate credibility to him who was making the prophecy.

Someone could say that it is simple to predict a victory or defeat of an enemy; as one has a 50% chance of being correct. Therefore other predictions were required to substantiate the claim of the prophet, especially for later generations who did not have the ability to know the prophet first-hand. In Deuteronomy 28:1,15,64-66, and 30:1,4-5, Moses offers a prophecy concerning God’s blessings and curses for the Children of Israel, depending on whether they obeyed or not. These curses were fulfilled far into the future, centuries later and consequently did not benefit those who initially heard the prophecy.

A prophecy by Isaiah to Hezekiah, concerning the captivity and enslavement of his descendants by the rulers of Babylon was fulfilled 150 years later, in 606 B.C. (Isaiah 39:6-7).

Even the prophecy concerning the fall of Babylon was fulfilled 200 years later. In fact some believe its fulfilment continues on until today (read Isaiah 13:1,19-20).

Babylon was destroyed in 539 B.C., 200 years after the prophecy was made by Isaiah. Interestingly, however, up until now, 2,500 years later, no-one has ever tried to live there. The Arabs even refuse to stay overnight, yet they know nothing of this prediction since it does not exist in the Qur’an.

Finally we come to another prophecy which some believe is being fulfilled in our lifetime (see Isaiah 11:11-12). This prediction was given by Isaiah in 750 B.C., over 140 years before the first dispersion which occurred in 606 B.C. We know from historical records, and the scriptures that the first return was in 536 B.C. History also tells us that the second dispersion was in 70 C.E., while, according to some, the second return began towards the beginning of this century, in 1900, and continues till today.

These prophecies are especially helpful for us today, thousands of years later, as we, in hindsight can see the authenticity of Moses’s and Isaiah’s calling. Due to the fact that what they said so long ago has been fulfilled and are even now being fulfilled, what they say on other matters then takes on added credibility, because we know that they are truly men of God, who are being used by Him.

Since God’s fingerprint can be evidenced in those fulfilled prophecies, His fingerprint can then be ascribed to the other claims which these men of God assert.

An interesting point needs to be interjected here; why were there so many verifications given by God for Isaiah? The reason must be that he has a unique place among all the prophets, because it is he who predicts, more than any other prophet:

1. the coming of Jesus (prophesied in Isaiah 7:14 & 9:6, and fulfilled in Matthew 1:22).

2. It is Isaiah who predicts Jesus’s death (prophesied in Isaiah 35:4-5 & 53:1-12, and fulfilled in Luke 7:18-22, 24-27).

3. And finally, it is Isaiah who predicts Jesus’s resurrection (prophesied in Isaiah 53:11, and fulfilled in Luke 18:33; 24:6-7).

There was no doubt that these were truly prophets of God, as they spoke of things which only God could have known,
both immediately so that the people of their time could identify them as prophets, and in the long term so that we today can acknowledge the hand of God in their lives and ministry.

B2ii: Which of these Biblical qualifications does Muhammad demonstrate?

The question then must be asked: which of these four Biblical qualifications does Muhammad demonstrate? Was he born in the prophetic race, did he speak in the name of God, did his message conform to the message which had gone before, and was there any verifiable accomplishments to the prophet’s predictions?

B2iia: Was he born in the line of the Prophets?
To begin with, we must ask the question whether he was born in the line of the prophets? Sura 29:27 mentions that prophethood and the scriptures came uniquely through the seed of Isaac and Jacob (Sura 45:16 concurs with Sura 29).

There are no Muslims, that I am aware of, who believe Muhammad was a descendant of Isaac. While there is an ongoing discussion concerning the veracity of the claim for Muhammad’s descendance through Ishmael, this view is, nonetheless, widely held by Muslims today. Yet, this is a moot point, since according to both the Bible and the Qur’an, all the prophets came in the line of Isaac, fulfilling the promise to Abraham in Genesis 17:20-21, that only through Isaac, and not Ishmael would the alliance with the Lord be fulfilled.

B2iib: Did he speak in the name of “the eternal,” YAHWEH?

Secondly, did Muhammad speak in the name of God, using that name which God gave as a signature for His authority, the name Yahweh? Though the term YHWH was used 6,823 times in the Bible, it is not used once in the Qur’an, and perhaps was not even known by Muhammad, since if he was supposedly illiterate in his own language, Arabic, it is hardly likely that he would have been able to read Hebrew.

Yet, is it not curious that Muhammad, the “seal of the prophets,” he who was commissioned to bring the ‘final revelation’ did not even know the name of the God by whom he was commissioned? Is it not also curious that the God of Abraham, Isaac, Moses and David would go to the trouble of revealing His unique name in the Hebrew language, which was then passed down from generation to generation, up to the present day, yet somehow this name was forgotten or never revealed in the language which Muhammad claimed was God’s special language, Arabic?

Moses could speak to the Israelites in Egypt with credibility because he spoke in the name of God. Why then did Muhammad presume that the descendants of those Israelites living in Medina would accept him as their prophet if he didn’t even know the true name of God?

Would you accept my authority as a teacher of Christian apologetic, if I never once mentioned the name of Jesus, nor even knew that it existed? Of course not!

A prophet, by definition is one who comes with a message which is not his own (the Arabic word for prophet, Rasul means “the sent one”). Consequently, in order to give meaning to the message, there needs to be a sender, a person who created the message, whose signature goes along with the message to identify it as coming from Him. If I did not know who it was who sent me, my message would certainly lose its credibility. If I spoke as a Christian yet did not know the name of Jesus Christ, I would be a pretty miserable creature, and not worthy of my vocation.

In much the same way Muhammad’s message completely loses its credibility since he was never even aware of the name of the sender, Yahweh, the One Who Is.

Consequently, if Muhammad did not even know the name of God, nor was God’s true name even used in the language of Muhammad, then how could he claim to be truly from God?

B2iic: Did Muhammad’s revelation conform to the message which had preceded him?
Thirdly, did Muhammad’s revelation conform to the message which had preceded him via the former prophets? We have seen that there are many contradictions between the Qur’an and the Bible, the most damaging of which concern who Jesus is, and the reason for His mission on earth.

Both the Bible and the Qur’an agree that God’s word cannot change, and certainly must not contradict that which has gone before. Why then do we find all these contradictions?

If Muhammad is responsible for receiving these contradictory revelations from God, does it not put suspicion on his veracity as a true prophet? Certainly it does. If God had got the story right through the thousands of generations from Abraham to Jesus, with each successive prophet agreeing with and verifying that which had preceded him, then why all of a sudden did God get it so wrong less then 700 years later with the prophet Muhammad?

Neither Muslims nor Christians would blame God for the contradictions. The blame must be placed on the messenger. Either all the previous prophets got it wrong, or the one who came at the end did. It beggars belief to think that for thousands of years the Jewish prophets were consistently revealing corrupted stories which all agreed in content, with not even once trying to correct the seeming errors. Then, finally, the last prophet got it right, and brought the message back to what God had intended all along. It reminds me of the mother, who watching her son in a parade whispers over to her friend, “Oh look, everyone’s out of step but my Johnny boy!”

If a prophet’s message goes against previous predictions, he then can no longer qualify as a true prophet.

B2iid: Were any of Muhammad’s predictions verifiable within his lifetime?
And finally, were any of Muhammad’s predictions verifiable within his own lifetime? Although Muhammad, on occasion, predicted the victory of Islam in the battles which were fought in Arabia, there are no other precise predictions which we know of which demonstrate that his authority came from God (the victory of a battle has a 50-50 chance of being correct, or not). In fact, this was a cause for concern even for Muhammad, who, numerous times in the Qur’an mentions the distrust by others of his inability to produce a miraculous sign which would substantiate his authority (see Suras 10:21, 13:7 & 13:27).

There is little evidence from our scriptures which show that Muhammad had authority to claim prophethood. He was not born into the line of Jacob, nor did he speak in the name of Yahweh, nor did his revelations conform to the message which preceded him, and his predictions were not verifiable.

What, then, must be our conclusion? In Matthew 24:24-25 we read “…false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect… See I have told you ahead of time.” In Deuteronomy 18:19-22 we find an even stronger warning:

If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death. You may say to yourselves, ‘How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?’ If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

C: Questions concerning Muhammad’s Prophethood

In this paper we have been asking the question of whether Muhammad could qualify as a true prophet of God. We posed the Muslim positions that he could: because of the supernatural witness to his prophethood during his early childhood, because of the fact that he delivered the Qur’an though he was illiterate, and because both his prophesies and miracles pointed to his prophethood.

After presenting rebuttals to all four of these positions we followed up with four criteria of our own, taken from scripture, to ascertain what God considers the qualities of the office of a prophet are. These were that he must be born in the prophetic race, that he must speak in the name of Yahweh, that his message must conform to previous revelations, and that his predictions must be verifiable. We concluded that Muhammad could not qualify in any four of these categories.

Now we take that same argument further, and ask some disturbing questions as to whether Muhammad could qualify to be a true prophet of God, not just for the Arabs, but for the world as a whole. We begin, then, with that very point. Was Muhammad called to be a prophet for the whole world, or was his calling only limited to that of Arabia?

C1: Was Muhammad a specific or universal Prophet?

When we read the Qur’an we find that Muhammad understood himself at first to be a warner to Arabia in the succession of the Biblical prophets. It is evident from these passages in the Qur’an that he considered his duty was that of bringing the same message which can be found in the Bible, but now within the Arabic language. The Taurat was a book for the Jews, the Injil a book for the Christians, and now the Qur’an was a book for the Arabs. This was his initial understanding.

Let’s look at some of the earlier Suras which seem to point out that Muhammad’s specific task was simply to warn, and at the same time reveal Allah’s word in the Arabic language.

Sura 2:119: “Verily, We have sent thee in truth as a bearer of glad tidings and a warner: but of thee no question shall be asked of Companions of the Blazing Fire.”

Sura 14:4: “We sent an apostle except (to teach) in the language of his (own) people, in order to make (things) clear to them.”

Sura 17:93: “Say: ‘Glory to my Lord! am I aught but a man, an Apostle?”

Sura 26:195,196: “In the perspicuous Arabic tongue. Without doubt it is (announced) in the mystic Books of former peoples.”

Sura 27:91: “For me, I have been commanded to serve the Lord of this City, Him Who has sanctified it and to Whom (belong) all things: and I am commanded to be of those who bow in Islam to Allah’s Will,”

Sura 42:7: “Thus have We sent by inspiration to thee an Arabic Qur’an: that thou mayest warn the Mother of Cities and all around her,”

Sura 43:3: “We have made it a Qur’an in Arabic, that ye may be able to understand (and learn wisdom).”

Sura 46:12: “And before this, was the Book of Moses as a guide and a mercy; and this Book confirms (it) in the Arabic tongue; to admonish the unjust, and as Glad Tidings to those who do right.”

As we continue on through the Qur’an we find that this position changes. He becomes not just a prophet for the Arabs, with simply an Arabic Qur’an, but enlarges on this idea to now become the universal and the final prophet for all people.

Sura 33:40: “Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Apostle of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets, and Allah has full knowledge of all things.”

Sura 34:28: “We have not sent thee but as a universal (Messenger) to men, giving them glad tidings, and warning them (against sin), but most men understand not.”

While in Mecca, at least, where the former Suras quoted above were written, Muhammad considered himself as a warner to the Arab peoples. This position contradicts the claim by Muslims today that Muhammad was always a universal messenger for all peoples in all times.

The term “Arabic Qur’an” (in Suras 42:7; 43:3 and 46:12 – above) obviously presupposes that there was at least one other Qur’an. This more than likely is referring to the Hebrew and possibly the Greek “Qur’an” (which are the Old and New Testament). Muslims would not say that they are invalidated by the Arabic Qur’an, but are rather confirmed by it.

There is a problem, however. An Arabic Qur’an was not announced in “the mystic books of the former peoples” (Sura 26:196). To say the least, there is no such book available today which speaks of this “Arabic Qur’an,” in contrast to the former “Qur’ans.” Neither was it known at the time of Muhammad, as we have many manuscripts in our possession with which to verify if such an announcement had been made.

So, initially Muhammad was only a messenger for the Arab people. He saw the polytheism which were pervasive in Arabia, and sought to eradicate it with the ‘messages’ he was receiving via the angel Gabriel.

Why then, did he go universal? There are those who believe this probably came about due to his successes on the battle- field. As his prominence grew, so did his authority over people who were not necessarily Arab. In other words, his supernatural monotheistic message, had to keep pace with the natural polytheistic reality on the ground. Suras 33:40 and 34:28 provided him with the authority to do so.

A more likely scenario is that the later redactors of the Qur’an imposed this universal application on Muhammad, once the borders of Islam had reached beyond the Hijaz (Arabia). Without eradicating the Suras which speak of his specific Arabic mission, they simply imposed this new category while applying the law of abrogation to the former Suras.

C2: Was Muhammad a Prophet of the Jews?

The second question we ask is whether Muhammad was a prophet to the Jews? In Medina were a number of Jewish groups called the Kahinan. They were the wealthiest inhabitants of Medina, and lived in fortified forts surrounding the city. There were three principle tribes living in Medina (according to Muslim Tradition): the Kaynuka, the al-Nadir, and the Kurayza. They all had good relations with the Jews of the north (especially in Khaybar).

During his first year in Medina Muhammad devoted considerable attention to the Jewish inhabitants there, describing himself as their prophet, who could be placed in the long line of prophets.

To appease them, he adopted many of their religious observances. Some of these were:

1. keeping the 10th of Muharram as a fast day, much like the Yom Kippur fast,

2. performing the 3-daily prayer rituals (versus the two Salats kept by Muhammad before the Hijra, while still in Mecca),

3. the weekly community worship services in the early afternoons on fridays (following the Jewish Sabbath day of preparation).Note:This also made common-sense since Friday was the market day, the day when the largest number of people would have been in Medina. And finally:

4. Muhammad also adopted the north-facing Qibla, the practice of facing Jerusalem when praying.

It soon became clear, however, that the Jews in Medina were not going to accept Muhammad’s claim to prophethood. These were for a number of reasons, which we can find in Sura 17:90-93. The Jews would not accept an Arabic speaking prophet. They had never accepted Jesus as a prophet, and he was an Aramaic speaking Jew! So why should they change now? Their principle requests, as we can derive from Sura 17, was that Muhammad present them with a few “superfluous” miracles.

In Sura 3:183 and 184 the Jews ask for a sign similar to that of Elijah for proof of his prophethood. Muhammad retorts that this has always been the way with previous prophets. In Suras 2:118-119; 6:37,124; 13:7; 17:59 the Jews also ask for a sign, to which Muhammad responds that even if a sign were given, like those of the earlier prophets, they would not believe it.

Since Muhammad did not proffer them with a sign, the Jews refused to accept him as their prophet.

The opposition of the Jews of Medina to Muhammad appears to have had a significant impact on the shaping of Islam, for it was precisely at that time and apparently in direct response to the Jews’ rejection of him that the nascent Muslim community took on a pronounced national character through the adoption of various elements from ancient Arabian worship. This occurred in the 2nd year of the Hijra, and was signaled by the change of direction for the Qibla. Instead of facing Jerusalem, the prayers were now to be carried out facing Mecca. Here we find a break with Muhammad’s Jewish roots, and a symbolic statement that Islam was now venturing on an Arabic course.

This nationalization of Islam gave Muhammad a certain legitimization and broadened his authority in the eyes of the Arab world. Instead of worshipping or adopting a foreign god, which had been the case for most of their pre-Islamic history, Muhammad could now offer a universally accepted god, who was uniquely adapted to the indigenous community. This not only elevated the status of the Arab people, whose allegiance Muhammad needed to continue his military campaigns, but it elevated the status of Muhammad as the mouthpiece of the true God. It also enhanced Muhammad’s vision to introduce his heightened concept of god for the whole civilized world.

Muhammad stepped forward as the restorer of the religion of Abraham that had been distorted by the Jews and Christians. Abraham now became the great Hanif and not a Jew or a Christian. He now took the honour as the ‘first Muslim,’ “a person fully surrendered to the one true God,” according to Suras 3:67: 2:135; 3:95; 6:161; 16:123.

Abraham and his son Ishmael, who the rest of the world regarded as having come from Ur of the Chaldeans, were now perceived to be the Arab’s direct ancestors, and were now considered to have founded the Meccan sanctuary and the rites celebrated there.

Muhammad’s task, therefore, was to restore the ancient rites to their original monotheistic state, as they had been corrupted by the intervening polytheists.

Note: It is highly unlikely that Muhammad was acquainted with the idea of the connection between Abraham and the Ka’ba before the Hijra since this relationship occurs nowhere in the numerous Meccan passages that treat the significance of the Ka’ba. This apparent evolution in Muhammad’s theology seems to have been created by his relationship with the Jews.

What then, of the Jews who remained under Muhammad’s jurisdiction? They, needless to say, did not accept many of these new revelations concerning their own God. What was to be done with them? Let’s see what Muslim Tradition tells us.

In 624 C.E., Muhammad routed a group of 900 Meccans with only a force of 300 at the battle of Badr. This battle became of the utmost significance for the history of Islam. Muhammad saw in the victory a powerful confirmation of his belief in the one true God (Suras 8:17,65; 3:123), and in his own call.

Word got around to the outlying areas of this defeat of the Meccans. Upon his return to Medina, Muhammad began to besiege the outlying Jewish tribe of the Kaynuka (Sura 59:14). Some say that he did so because they had not supported him when he decided to face the Meccans. The Jews were forced to abandon their fort and move north to other Jewish settlements leaving their possessions behind.

In 625 C.E., the Meccans sent a force of 3,000 and defeated Muhammad at the battle of Uhud, wounding Muhammad. But with his eloquence, he endeavored to raise the morale of his followers by exhortations and censure alike (Sura 3:118ff). His authority was inevitably hurt, and he took out much of his anger on the Jewish tribe of Banu ‘l-Nadir. They could not withstand his wrath, and he banished them to Khaybar to the north, leaving behind their weapons, gold, and silver which was reserved for Muhammad alone (Sura 59:7ff).

In 627 C.E. Muhammad managed to keep an army of 10,000 Meccans at bay by building a trench around Medina (referred to as the “Battle of the Trench.” Once the frustrated Meccans finally left, Muhammad declared war on the last Jewish tribe in Medina, the Kurayza. Unlike the other Jewish families before them, they were given no clemency. According to Ibn Hisham, all the men, numbering between 600-900 were beheaded and their property was divided among the Muslims, while the women and children were taken as captives (for further reading, refer to Christians Ask Muslims by Gerhard Nehls).

The expulsion or elimination of these three Jewish tribes brought Muhammad closer to his goal of organizing an umma strictly on a religious basis. Many Muslims today contend that the Kurayza brought upon themselves their own destruction, as they were treacherous towards Muhammad and refused to accept his authority. According to the Qur’an, however, their only sin was that they “defied God and his messenger” (Sura 59:4). They were eliminated, it seems, simply because they remained neutral.

Note: If we take the annihilation of the Kurayza tribe as a precedent, considering it was given authority by Muhammad himself, is it no wonder that so many non-Muslims in the world today shudder with apprehension at the thought of a Muslim domination of their state? Muslims will speak often of the rights of the non-believers within a Muslim Khilafa, yet, when observing the above examples, one wonders where those rights begin and the ‘rights for self-expression’ end? Is this why propagation of one’s belief is illegal in many Muslim lands today? Will blasphemy also be prohibited, and punishable by death?

The question which we asked was whether Muhammad was a prophet of the Jews? We see that initially he attempted to be their prophet, incorporating many of their religious practices into those of his own. We would expect a prophet to do this.

They demanded that he prove his prophethood with signs. The Qur’an contends that these were of a miraculous nature. We have no way of knowing if this was all that they asked. It is likely that the Jews would have wanted to know whether his prophecies corroborated with those of their own.

It is obvious from the historical account, as well as the Qur’anic account that Muhammad was not able to provide either of the two, and consequently he was rejected by the Jews.

Instead of changing his beliefs, Muhammad decided to fight against the Jews. This we see vividly through his expulsions and executions of the three major tribes of Medina, using them as a scapegoat for the defeat of Uhud. What is more significant, however, is that all their riches were taken by himself and his followers. These were the wealthiest inhabitants of Medina, therefore, by taking their possessions they not only enriched Muhammad, but enhanced his image amongst the other Arabs.

Because of his actions, it is quite likely that Muhammad would not be acknowledged as a prophet of the Jews, both then in Medina, and currently today in the 20th century. It also now helps us to understand the great gulf which exists between Jews and Muslims currently.

C3: Was Muhammad a Prophet to the Christians?

We now come to the Christians. Was Muhammad a prophet to the Christians? Initially, according to Muslim Tradition, the Christians carried favour with Muhammad. We can see this attitude in Sura 5:82-86.

In this passage Muhammad mentions that the Jews and pagans were the furthest from the believers, while the Christians were “the nearest among them in love…” This, according to Sura 5, was because they were men of learning who had renounced the world and were not arrogant (possibly referring to the Monks whom Muhammad had contact with earlier in his life). He goes on to say that when the Christians heard his message they accepted it with tears, and immediately counted themselves amongst the believers.

Obviously, we would have a problem with this definition of a Christian. What Muhammad is speaking of here are not Christians, as we know them, but individuals who have either conceded to him out of fear for their lives, or have converted out of Christianity and become Muslims. It would be difficult to believe that Christians could make such statements about their beliefs towards Muhammad and still call themselves Christians. These individuals have truly rejected their earlier faith.

The supposed affinity with Christians was, nonetheless, short-lived. The Qur’an gives the impression that there was a gradual deterioration in the Muslims relationship towards the Christians, in Sura 57:27. Those who followed Jesus the son of Mary had been called on “to seek for the Good pleasure of Allah,” but, according to this Sura, they soon became rebellious transgressors.

If we were to read other Suras which pertained to Jews and Christians, it soon becomes evident that both the Jews and Christians were both considered little more than enemies of the unbelievers. They were only acceptable to Muhammad once they had acknowledged him as a prophet (Sura 5:86). In fact there are specific Suras which warn the believers not to acquaint themselves with the Christians and Jews, warning that the Christians are only interested in converting the believers to their own beliefs. Consider these:

Sura 2:120: “Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion. Say: ‘The Guidance of Allah, that is the (only) Guidance.’ Wert thou to follow their desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither Protector nor Helper against Allah.”

Sura 3:28: “Let not the Believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers; if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah; except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (to remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.”

Sura 5:54: “O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors; they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.”

With quotes like the above, is it possible for us to contend that Muhammad was the prophet of the Christians? It is highly doubtful. It seems that Muhammad, and those who follow him can only accept Jews and Christians if they first renounce their beliefs and follow Muhammad as the final prophet. This is not an accommodation at all but rather a threat, and finally a denunciation of all that the Jews and Christians cherish dearly.

C4: Was Muhammad the Seal of the Prophets?

We now come to the question of whether Muhammad had the right to claim to be the greatest of all the prophets, the final revelation of God, by whom all other prophets were to be measured.

For most Christians the very question is sparked with controversy, as it assumes that Muhammad can be deemed a legitimate prophet. There are few Christians who would make this claim. For argument’s sake, however, let’s assume that Muhammad did have the right to claim prophethood. Could he be the seal of the prophets; that is the greatest of all the prophets? Does he have the character to make such a claim?

The Qur’an is very clear that he does. In Sura 33:40 we read, “Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets, and Allah has full knowledge of all things.”

C4i: What about Jesus?

How, as Christians are we to answer that claim? What the Qur’an is saying, in essence, is that Muhammad has a standing with God which is superior to that of even Jesus. We know that the Qur’an does not attribute divinity to Jesus, but considers him merely as a prophet. Yet, in the pages of both the Qur’an and the Bible Jesus enjoys a uniqueness that elevates Him above all other prophets. The Qur’an is replete with attributes of Jesus which are absent in all other prophets:

1. He was born of a virgin (Suras 19:16-34; 21:91)

2. He was uniquely holy, pure or faultless, according to Sura 19:19.

Note: In Yusuf Ali’s translation Jesus is referred to as “holy;” in Arberry’s translation He is referred to as “pure,” and in Pickthall’s He is referred to as “faultless”.

C4ii: What about the other Prophets?

Contrast this claim with the examples of the other prophets. We know that in the Bible all of the prophets were weak and sinful. Not one could stand up to the same standard which Jesus fulfilled. The Qur’an also recounts many sins of the prophets. Note the following:

1. Adam
   In Sura 20:119 disobeyed his Lord and so sinned. In Sura 2:33 we find that Adam violated the prohibition to refrain from eating of the tree. The blame according to the following verse (34) is placed on Satan, but nonetheless Adam is charged with the sin. Then finally, in Sura 7:23 Adam and Eve ask for forgiveness for their wrongdoing.

2. Noah
   In Sura 71:24-28 we find Noah cursing the infidels, asking God to annihilate them all, and then asks for forgiveness for his request. Noah in Sura 11:47-49 requests that God forgive his illegitimate son Canaan, and is rebuked by God for requesting it, implying a reprimand and threat to Noah. Noah’s subsequent request for pardon is proof of his guilt.

3. Abraham
   Abraham is ascribed a number of sins in the Qur’an, such as idolatry (Sura 6:77), doubting (2:263), deceit (Sura 37:39), and divination (Sura 37:86). These Suras show that Abraham worshiped the planets, questioned the might of God, lied several times, and consulted the stars.

4. Lot
   Lot is charged with failing to rely upon the Lord in Sura 22:82, when the people of Sodom refused the gift of his two daughters instead of the angels.

5. Aaron
   Aaron is charged with going-along with the Israelites in building the golden calf, and therefore having done evil in Moses’s absence (Suras 7:146-151 and 20:86-96).

6. Moses
   Moses was charged with ordering two golden cherubim to be fashioned in Sura 2:248. He is charged with murder, and the need for forgiveness in Sura 28:14-15. He allows sorcerers to practice their magic in Sura 26:42, and He asks forgiveness from God for his anger in Sura 7:147-150.

7. DavidDavid asks forgiveness from the Lord for his sin (which alludes to his taking of Uriah’s wife, Bathsheba) in Sura 38:20-24.

8. Solomon
   Solomon asks for forgiveness for letting horses cloud out his devotion to his Lord in Sura 38:30-34.

We can therefore say that even the Qur’an shows categorically that the prophets have all sinned, proving that, unlike Jesus, they were fallible. It is true that we have to look hard to find these sins (i.e, the Qur’an only alludes to David’s sin, rather then emphatically pronouncing what the sin was in Sura 38), but the Qur’anic accounts do admit that God’s holy emissaries were less then perfect. Jesus alone stands apart as “faultless.”

Note: It is important to remember that their sins are all in the realm of personal weaknesses, while their infallibility comes about when conveying divine revelations. In such instances they make no mistakes. It is this factor which seems to confuse so many Muslims, possibly because of their view of Nazil revelation, attributed to the Qur’an.

Jesus is the only one who is both infallible during his life, and when conveying divine revelations. There is no recorded evidence in the Bible or the Qur’an of Jesus sinning, both privately or publicly.

C4iii: What about Muhammad?

But what about Muhammad? If he is the Seal of the prophets, he should have a better record then those which are mentioned above. As the greatest of all prophets his life should be exemplary. But is it? Let’s find out:

C4iiia: Muhammad’s concessions to people
God sent His prophets to nations which committed many sins. Although these prophets were also sinners, they never compromised with those to whom they were sent. Prophets like Elijah and Micah, though they were faced with formidable odds (i.e. 400 false prophets, their king and people) they never shifted from their position, nor did any seek to present a message to satisfy the expectations of their audience.

Muhammad was altogether different. Ibn Abbas broke with the restriction of having sex with his wife when he first awoke, which was a law instigated by Muhammad, and therefore, asked forgiveness from Muhammad, who, receiving Sura 2:183 suddenly allows men to now do that which before was prohibited.

Muhammad legalized Muta marriages (marriages of pleasure) for his followers during the battle of Khaybar and Fath (Al- Bukhari’s “al-Jami’ al-Sahih, pg.423). He then prohibits it during the battle of Wadaa, because he believed it now resembled fornication (Imam Muslim’s “al-Jami’ al-Sahih” pg.130-131).

The Satanic Verses found in Sura 53:19-20 which speak about the goddesses Allat, Manat and Al Uzza were recognized by Muhammad during a dispiriting time in Mecca. When he mentioned them, the Meccans rejoiced and joined him in prayer. Then, supposedly Gabriel told him later to change this revelation.

C4iiib: Muhammad’s sexuality
The sexuality of Muhammad is a rather contentious area for most Muslims who believe that the sexual rules practiced by Muhammad and his followers were simply a fact of those days in which he lived, and we must see him within that context.

The argument by Muslims is that during the “Holy Wars” when many men were killed, polygamy, for instance, was a justifiable provision for the widows. Yet, according to notes in “Sahih Muslim” III, pg.941, in all the 82 hostilities during the lifetime of Muhammad, only 259 Muslims lost their lives. Muhammad moved to Mecca with 10,000 men. How many of them would have had a chance of marrying even one widow? 2%! (current figures show an over-abundance of males due to amnio-synthesis tests, because of the girls who are aborted as a result of the findings: 20 million extra boys in China)

So what must we say about polygamy?

We are reminded of the words of Jesus who said, “He who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery” (Luke 16:18).

Because polygamy excludes devoted love, for love between the sexes is exclusive, it is degraded in essence to mere sexual fulfilment. No woman who loves her husband and wishes to be fully loved in return, can tolerate a partner (why else was Hafsa so upset with Muhammad when he took the Copt Mary to her bed?).

Take for instance a report from Aisha, Muhammad’s favorite wife (recorded in Mishkat 1, pg.210, and noted in the Hadiths collected by al-Bukhari and Muslim). This report quotes her as saying: “I used to backbite those (females) who offered themselves for the Messenger of Allah. So I asked: Does a woman offer herself? Then the Almighty Allah revealed: you (Muhammad) may put off whom you please of them, you may take to you whom you wish, and if you desire any whom you have separated, no blame attaches to you (from Sura 33:51). It seems to me that your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire.”

There is a further aspect: monogamy gives recognition, status and integrity to a woman. It is simplistic to argue that a polygamous society makes prostitution unnecessary. What about sexual fulfilment for the woman who has to share her husband with other wives? And what about the men who surely have to go without wives, because someone else (usually an older and thus richer man) has more than one?

When we look at the life of Muhammad we find an even larger emphasis on sex, and the fulfilment of carnal desires. Consider the following examples:

1. Thirteen Wives
   A Muslim man is permitted to marry up to four wives (excluding concubines) according to Sura 4:3. Muhammad had lived 25 years married to his first wife Khadija. After her death, which roughly coincided with the Hijra to Medina, he married about thirteen wives (the exact number is still debated). All except Aisha were widows or divorcees.It is recorded in Sura 33:50, “O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers, and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Mecca) with thee; and any believing woman, who dedicates her soul to the Prophet, and if the Prophet wishes to wed her-this only for thee, and not for the believers (at large)…”This Sura gives Muhammad an unlimited number of women who lived in and around him, yet set strict restrictions on the other believers.

2. Zainab
   Zainab was the wife of his adopted son Zaid. When Zaid realized that Muhammad wanted her he divorced her so that Muhammad could have her. Sura 33:36-38 speaks of this affair (read).

3. Preference
   In Sura 33:51 we read, “Thou mayest put off whom thou wilt of them, and whom thou wilt thou mayest take to thee; and if thou seekest any thou hast set aside there is no fault in thee. So it is likelier they will be comforted, and not sorrow, and every one of them will be well-pleased with what thou givest her.”According to Al-Hasan, this phrase means “that the Lord (may He be praised and exalted) allowed Muhammad to abandon or to sleep with any of his women, according to his wish.” Muhammad bestowed his love on Aisha, Hafsa, Um Salama and Zainab constantly and equally, and deferred the turn of five of his women (Ummu Habiba, Maymuna, Sawda, Juwayrid, and Safiyya). These he would visit according to whim (al-Zamakhshari’s commentary on the verse).

4. Mary
   According to tradition, Muhammad would take a rota with his wives, sleeping with each in their turn. One night, during Hafsa’s turn, she asked to visit her father, and Muhammad granted her request. While she was gone, however, Muhammad took Mary the Coptic slave-girl and slept with her in Hafsa’s bed. Hafsa returned, was enraged, and confronted Muhammad. He promised (on oath) not to touch Mary again if she would keep this a secret, and then promised that her father Umar would be his successor after Abu Bakr (according to al-Sira al- Halabiyya, vol.2).Hafsah, however, told Aisha of the incident, and for a full month Muhammad had no dealings with any of his wives, living with Mary alone. Aisha berated Muhammad for his deceit, whereupon Muhammad was finally given the vision recorded in Sura 66:1, in order to defend himself (Mizanu’l Haqq, pg.330 and Mishkat II, pgs.680-681) (read Ali’s version of 66:1, plus footnotes).This Sura says, “O prophet, why forbiddest thou what God has made lawful to thee, seeking the good pleasure of thy wives…?” Based on this ayya it seems that God is in the business of not only getting Muhammad out of his ‘jams’, but that God justifies unfaithfulness and deceit as well.

5. Aisha
   According to Sahih Muslim (pg.716) Aisha reported that Muhammad married her when she was seven years old, and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, along with her dolls. When Muhammad died she was only eighteen.

6. Zealousness
   There are many accounts of Muhammad’s prowess with women. The traditions maintain that his marriages were primarily an act of compassion towards the widows whom he married. The evidence seems to say differently.According to Al-Bukhari (1 pg.165) “the prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number. I asked Anas, ‘Had the prophet the strength for it?’ Anas replied, ‘We used to say that the prophet was given the strength of thirty (men). And Sa’id said on the authority of Qatada that Anas had told him about nine wives only (not eleven).”Ibn Sa’d backs this up as well where he states (1 pg.438) “The apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, said: Gabriel brought a kettle from which I ate and I was given the power of sexual intercourse [equal] to forty men.”It is odd that God would allow one of His prophets, the recipient of revelations, to indulge in lust and revel with women at his pleasure. Muhammad embraced those who captivated his mind and heart with their beauty, such as Aisha and Zainab, and treated the rest poorly.Do we find any of the other prophets so obviously controlled by sex, or even engaged in this sort of lifestyle? Of course not! We would be appalled if a prophet would allow his carnal desires to so completely control him that he would even use the Word of God to escape from difficult circumstances (such as we noted with Zainab or the incident with Hafsa and Aisha).

C4iiic: Muhammad’s elevation
Looking at the “revelations” of the Qur’an and the Hadith Traditions, we cannot fail to see that a number of statements deal with personal advantages and give Muhammad a particular status which is far beyond any other prophet’s.

We are told that all believers were to follow his example. Malek-b-Anas reported a defective tradition where Muhammad is purported to say, “I leave with you two things; as long as you hold fast by them both, you will never be misguided; the book of Allah and the Sunnah of his messenger (the copying of the lifestyle of Muhammad)” (from Mishkat 1, pg.159)

Abu Hu’airah reported that the messenger of Allah said, “Every one of my followers will enter Paradise except he who refused.” He was questioned, “And who has refused (truth)?” He said, “Whoever obeys me shall enter paradise, and whoever disobeys me has refused” (from Mishkat 1, Pg.173). Now not only must we obey God, but it is requisite that we obey Muhammad in order to enter paradise!

The Qur’an also assumes a high regard for Muhammad as the supreme example in Sura 33:21, saying, “Ye have indeed in the Apostle of Allah a beautiful pattern of (conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the praise of Allah.” Later, in ayya 36 a reprimand is given for any who question the prophet’s authority, equating his authority with that of Allah, “It is not fitting for a believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Apostle, to have any option about their decision. If anyone disobeys Allah and His Apostle, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.”

C4iiid: Muhammad’s sin

Our final category asks whether Muhammad, unlike Jesus (Sura 19:19), ever sinned. Can the same be said of Muhammad that was said of Jesus? I believe not!

The Qur’an admits that the sins of Muhammad were many and that they weighed heavily on him. Sura 94:1-3 speaks of this when it says: “Have We not expanded thee thy breast? And removed from thee they burden, the which did gall thy back?” These verses indicate that Allah had to remove Muhammad’s burdens (sin) from his back. Muslims contend that these sins were committed before he became a prophet (before 610). We need only refer to Sura 48:2 which says in reference to Muhammad, “Allah may forgive thee thy faults of the past and those to follow…” indicating that even after the Sura was delivered Allah expected him to sin.

In Suras 40:55 and Sura 47:19 we find written, “…and ask forgiveness for thy fault…” This seems straightforward, until you read Yusuf Ali’s note at the bottom (4428), which explains that due to the prophet’s responsibilities he asks forgiveness in a representative capacity. Leaving Yusuf Ali’s “eisegesis” aside it seems evident that Muhammad, a weak and sinful man, pales in comparison to Jesus, the sinless and perfect incarnate God Himself.

As an outside observer, we find it incredulous that Muhammad is permitted to live outside of the very rules which he has ordained for the believers (i.e. permitted to marry more than four wives, or permitted to marry the wife of his adopted son, or permitted to consummate a marriage to a girl of only nine).

Yet, according to Islam, he is, at the same time, the absolute example of which all believers are to model. One is left with a set of contradictions: How are we to follow the model of a prophet who himself abrogates the very parameters which he has set for us to live by? To follow his example would contravene his laws. If a person is asked to follow a certain leader, they would weigh up the ‘pros and cons’ before reaching a decision. But when truth and eternal life are involved, expediency on temporal issues no longer applies. So when we are told to follow in the footsteps of a spiritual leader, our confidence must not be emotional alone; our confidence must be rational.

That presupposes as deep a study of the quality of the life of the example as possible. One should not give a deaf ear to negative reports, provided they are substantiated. Also one should not explain away possible flaws. But most of all one must have a fixed standard by which to measure right and wrong, good and evil. As Christians we use the standard that is found in the Bible. Ultimately, our concept of what is moral and what is immoral will find its root there.

We are deeply interested in the question of true prophethood. It is and always has been in our best interest to delineate who exactly is a true prophet, for we have been warned to be watchful for false prophets who will come our way (Matthew 24:24).

In light of that we ask whether Muhammad follows the standards by which he has set for himself; and we find him to be wanting. The historical record shows us that he abrogated his call to the Jews when he exiled them from Medina and executed the males of the Kurayza tribe. His claim to be the Seal of the prophets rings hollow in light of his carnal inadequacies, especially in comparison with the other prophets who preceded him.

Finally we ask whether Muhammad fits the pattern of a prophet which we find in our own scriptures. That is the true test for us as Christians. From our study last week it was easy to ascertain that Muhammad failed in this category as well. What remains is to deal with one last area, the claim by Muslims that Muhammad was promised by the prophets who preceded him, and that these prophecies can be found in their writings. It is that area which we will take up next in order to conclude this study.

D: Were there prophecies concerning Muhammad?

We now come to this third and final category in our paper where we ask the question of whether the former prophets ever spoke about Muhammad? To begin with, let’s ask that question of Moses, and see whether Muhammad is spoken of in the Taurat.

Let’s begin with a hypothetical situation. For instance, what would you say if I were to stand up and claim that I was the final prophet, in a long line of prophets; that whatever I said came straight from God, and therefore was to be believed as authoritative? You would obviously question my credentials as a spokesman from God; as a prophet. With a name like Joseph Smith, the same name as the founder of Mormonism, I wouldn’t be the first to make this claim. And like him, all I would have to do is write a book which prescribed a new way of life, a new revelation for humanity, and then look around for some disciples who would believe me willingly.

There is another prophet who made such a claim, one who came a few hundred years before my namesake; you all know him as Muhammad, born in 570 C.E.

At the onset he received visions via the angel Gabriel in the Hira cave, outside Mecca, when he was 40 years old. Interestingly, it was his Nestorian Christian uncle who first told him that his visions were authoritative. Yet initially there were few people who took him seriously, or believed in him as a prophet. In fact, when he finally fled to Medina 8 years later, in 622 C.E. (known as the Hijra), he had less then 100 followers with him (not even a good-sized church by today’s standards).

It was only when he attained political power, which afforded him economical might and control, that he was taken seriously, from a religious standpoint. This was especially so following the battle of Badr, when he turned against the Jews in Medina, with whom he had earlier made security alliances.

One might say, then, that his religious credibility was in direct proportion to his political ascendancy, culminating in his triumphal entry into Mecca 8 years later, after which a true theocracy was instilled, which by its very nature neutralized any criticism or suspicion of his religious credibility.

Because of his power-base in Medina and Mecca, Muhammad’s authority was in no doubt 1,300 years ago, but it is in doubt today. There are many who are now asking where exactly Muhammad received his authority as a prophet? Previous prophets were authoritative first of all because they belonged to the line of prophets (the Israelite tribe), and secondly, because what they revealed coincided with what had been revealed before; and indeed, continued the same theme, which was: the promise of a Messiah who would come to save the world from sin, and thereby bring God’s children back in relationship with Him.

Yet, when we look at the revelations which Muhammad gave the world, we find many contradictions with the scriptures which preceded him. Some of the more common ones you know quite well:

1. the claim that Ishmael instead of Isaac was the son who was to be sacrificed by Abraham, and the two of them then building the Ka’ba in Mecca

2. the erroneous burial account of Abel by Cain

3. the rather humorous account of king Solomon meeting the queen of Sheba by talking to a Hoopoo bird

4. the miraculous birth of Jesus, which according to the Qur’an took place under a palm tree

5. and even the story of Jesus speaking as a baby

6. and later breathing life into birds of clay.

But probably the most damaging contradictions in the Qur’an is 7. its refusal to accept not only the doctrine of the Trinity, but to reject the divinity of Jesus as well as his crucifixion and resurrection. These are absolutely central to the Biblical testimony.

Because so much of that which is important is at a variance with that which came before one has to ask for proof of his authority in making such claims. And this is being done today. It is for this reason that Muslims are attempting to come up with a ready defense.

Initially, Muslims held the view that the differences between the Bible and the Qur’an could be blamed on the Jews and Christians, who, they believed, conspired to corrupt their scriptures in order to reject the claims of the prophet of Islam. One must ask how the Jews and Christians would have known what to change considering they would have had to do their work hundreds of years before the arrival of the Qur’an, as we have thousands of manuscripts which predate the Qur’an in our possession today, all of which remain true to the scripture which we hold in our hands today.

The Qur’an itself, in Suras 5:47-51, 6:34, and 10:64 say that God cannot change his word, and that the Qur’an was sent to guard the former revelations. Thus many Muslim scholars have been forced to deny the possibility of corruption in the Word of God contained in the Bible. Consequently, they have turned their endeavors in other directions, looking for predictions of Muhammad within those preceding scriptures. And it is this assertion which concerns us here.

The Muslim Agenda
Muslims will point out that in the Qur’an there are two ayas (verses) which speak of a prediction of Muhammad in the Taurat and the Injil (the Torah and the Gospels). They are:

1. Sura 7:157: “Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Taurat and the Injil…”

2. Sura 61:6:”Jesus son of Mary said: O Children of Israel! Lo! I am the messenger of Allah unto you, confirming that which was (revealed) before me in the Taurat, and bringing good tidings of a messenger who cometh after me, whose name is Ahmad (the Praised One).”

These two ayas say specifically that Muhammad was referred to in both the Taurat and the Injil (the Torah and the Gospel). Our concern here is to ascertain whether this is true, whether there are any predictions concerning Muhammad outside the Qur’an?

In other words, we are interested in finding out whether there is any evidence that the previous Jewish and Christian scriptures spoke about his coming?

Most Muslims believe that in the Taurat (specifically in Deuteronomy 18:18) there is reference to the prophecy which the Qur’an speaks of in Sura 7:157 and Sura 61:6 concerning Muhammad. So it is to that passage that we will first focus our enquiry.

D1: Is there a prediction of Muhammad in Deuteronomy 18?

In Deuteronomy 18:18 we read:

“I (the LORD) will raise up for them a Prophet like you (Moses) and he will tell them everything I command him.”

D1i: Comparison: Who is the prophet like Moses?

Our inquiry here is to ascertain what evidence supports the Muslim claim that it is Muhammad who is “a Prophet like you [Moses].” Is it he who is referred to in these verses? If it is then this would contradict the claim by Christians that the verse refers to the prophet Jesus, the promised Messiah.

In order to support their claim, Muslim apologists have tried to write a list of criteria pertaining to Moses and Muhammad, saying that: both were married and had children, both led battles, and both were leaders, etc… What they fail to take into consideration is that any prophet could claim many of these parallels for himself.

A handier tool would be to identify those comparisons which Moses fulfilled which are unique to his ministry, and which would, therefore, be unique to him who is: “a prophet like you (Moses).” In other words, compare apples with apples.

D1ii: Contrast: This prophet cannot be Muhammad

Can we, therefore, say that Muhammad is the promised one, this “prophet like Moses”? From what we have just read, we find that Muhammad was not born in the prophetic line of Moses, had no personal relationship with God, nor was he established in authority by God, as were both Moses and Jesus.

More importantly, the mission of Muhammad was nothing like that of Moses and Jesus, for it was Moses and Jesus who offered themselves as a sacrifice for the sins of their people (Exodus 32:30-32; Deuteronomy 34:10-12; and Matthew 26:28).

Most significantly, however, is the fact that, beginning with Moses and concluding with Jesus, the means of forgiveness and reconciliation with God were brought about (Leviticus 4:2; 6:24,25; 14;13 and Hebrew 19:22). This is the real criteria for “a prophet who is like you (Moses).” Many prophets can claim to be like Moses from the standpoint of human reasoning. Only one can claim to be like Moses from the standpoint of God’s reasoning. His desire to save mankind, which Moses first began by bringing the Children of Israel out of captivity from Egypt, and which Jesus finally accomplished by bringing all believers out of captivity from sin 2,000 years ago.

D1iii: Consideration: This prophet must be Jesus:

Muhammad can never claim to parallel the essential and unique aspects of Moses’ ministry on earth, as Jesus can. Those who worked alongside Jesus, and who predated Muhammad by nearly 700 years came to this same conclusion. Consider the following witnesses from John and Luke:

John 1:45: “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law.”

John 5:46: “If you believed Moses you would believe me [Jesus], for he wrote about me.”

John 6:14: “Surely this [Jesus] is the prophet who is to come into the World.”

Acts 3:22: “Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people…’.” (i.e. own brothers=sons of Israel.)

D1iv: Conclusion: Without a prediction where is Muhammad’s authority?

In order to prove that Muhammad was a true prophet, the Qur’an stipulated that in the Taurat and the Injil predictions concerning him could be found (Refer to Suras 7:157 and 61:6 above). Yet we find none of these prophecies in either the Taurat, or the Injil (i.e. John 16:7 which we will deal with later). What does this say for the authority of Muhammad?

At the heart of the argument, for a Muslim, is the desire to find any external predictions for the coming of Muhammad in the Taurat and the Injil (as referred to in Sura 7:157). Without it, the only criteria for Muhammad’s authority is the Qur’an; while the only authority for the Qur’an is Muhammad. This is circular reasoning, which is not a valid scholarly argument. Since the evidence for any prediction by Moses concerning Muhammad does not exist in the Taurat, this creates a problem for Muslims who must produce external criteria for the authenticity of their prophet.

Without it, Muhammad has no outside evidence to prove his prophethood. Furthermore, the Qur’an itself claims, in Sura 29:27, that prophethood belongs solely to the line of Isaac and Jacob, to which Muhammad has no part.

Consequently, the authority for the beliefs of over one billion Muslims then hangs on the single testimony of one finite man. (note: a man who himself admits his lack of power in Sura:Ta Ha 20:49, and his sinfulness in Sura: Ghafir 40:55, in contrast with the claim by Jesus to have all power in Matthew 28:18, and to be without sin in I Peter 2:22, which we also find in Sura 19:19).

As we read these verses and consider what has been written, it is easy to conclude that this prophecy by Moses in Deuteronomy 18 can only belong to Jesus the Christ. It is He who was born in the line of Moses, and it is He who had a relationship with God, as He was God. It was He who was established in authority with God, and it was He who, like Moses, offered Himself as a sacrifice for the sins of others (in His case for all of humanity). It is this last criteria which sets these two off from the rest. Only Moses and Jesus had the unique mission: to bring about a renewal of relationship with God; the one, Moses, out of the captivity of slavery in Egypt, and the other, Jesus, out of the captivity of sin in our hearts, for eternity.

D2: Are there further predictions of Muhammad in the Old Testament?

We now come to the question of whether there are any other predictions of Muhammad in the Old Testament? According to Muslims there are a number of other instances where their prophet can be found. We need to know how to answer them on these issues as well.

D2i: Do we find Muhammad in the Old Testament?

According to Suras 7 and 61 Muhammad is supposedly predicted somewhere in the former scriptures (i.e. Taurat). For a long time now, Muslims have tried desperately to find these predictions for their prophet in those scriptures which preceded the Qur’an (the Taurat, Zabuur and the Injil), but to no avail. It is ironic that Muslims are now compelled by their own scripture to establish the credibility of their prophet in the Old Testament, the very book which they claim elsewhere to be corrupted and of no real worth.

Muslims and Christians alike agree that Christ’s coming was predicted often in the Old Testament. Yet, if God had intended to send another prophet far greater than He, we should naturally find predictions concerning him there as well. Yet, none are to be found. Therefore, without a prediction the sole criteria for Muhammad’s authority rests entirely on the Qur’an, whose sole authority rests on Muhammad, and for obvious reasons this is unworkable.

D2ii: Muslims find Muhammad in the Old Testament

Due to the predicament which Muslims find themselves in, they have, after a hurried perusal of our Bible, come forward with a series of twelve passages from the Old Testament which they believe point to Muhammad. Outside of the Deuteronomy 18 passage (dealt with above), all of these passages, which supposedly refer to a messenger, falls into four general categories.

1. This person is someone who used the sword (Psalm 45:2-5; 149; Isaiah 63).However, when we read further, the context in these passages clearly points out that the sword-wielder is not only God, but the Creator, the Lord of Israel and the Lord of Hosts. I know of few Muslims who would be willing to equate these titles with Muhammad.

2. This person is someone whose life-style parallels that of Muhammad’s day (i.e rides a camel, lives in a desert) (Isaiah 21:7 and 53).Yet the context again refers to both a messenger from Babylon, and a servant who was crushed, pierced, and wounded for others, hardly analogous to Muhammad’s life.

3. This person is someone whose geographical location coincides with that of Muhammad (Deuteronomy 33:2; Isaiah 63; Habakkuk 3:3).Yet the Mount Paran which they claim to be in Mecca is rather on the Sinai Peninsula, while Bozrah is not Basrah, but modern-day Al-Busairah, situated in Edom, south of the Dead Sea.In Habbakuk 3:3 we read, “God comes from Teman.” Muslims maintain that Teman refers to Islam. To be consistent they must also adhere to the other prophecies concerning Teman. In Jeremiah 49:7 God questions whether there is any wisdom in Teman. Verse 20 says the people of Teman will be aghast at their fate. Ezekiel 25:13 promises that God will lay waste the people of Teman, and God will send fire and consume them (Amos 1:12), and there will be no survivors (Obadiah 8-10). This would suggest that there is no wisdom in Islam, and that there awaits all Muslims a destruction by fire which will consume them!Fortunately for the Muslims, we know that this fate has no place in reality. For when we refer to the Biblical account we find
   that Teman is not Islam at all, but a town close to Jericho, in the territory of Edom.

4. This person is someone whose name has a common root to that of Muhammad.In Genesis 49:8-10 it is Judah; in the Song of Solomon 5:16 it is Ahmad; and in Haggai 2:7 it is Hemdah. This fourth category needs further discussion as it is adhered to more resolutely by the Muslims as real proof for a prediction than the others.

D2iii: Names which point to Muhammad:

Muslims believe that all of these three passages use names which can be translated as “praise” (Judah, Ahmad, and Hemdah), and are semantically similar to “Muhammad,” which means “the praised one.” However, in Arabic the verb “Hamada” (to praise) is the root for many words, yet one does not find Muslims substituting “Muhammad” and “Hamada” interchangeably.

Take for instance the very first Sura of the Qur’an. In the second ayya (verse) we find, “Praise (al-hamadi) be to Allah.” Do we dare change this to Muhammad? Of course not! That is sacrilege!

In Haggai 2:7 Muslims believe “Hemdah” (the desire of nations) comes from the same root as the word “Muhammad.” Yet they must certainly cringe when this word is again used in Daniel 11:37 to refer to a person “desired by women” who is a false god of the heathen.

D2iv: Song of Solomon 5:16

But perhaps the best example to illustrate the difficulty in exchanging one word for another is found in the Song of Solomon, chapter 5, verse 16. In this passage Muslims claim that the Hebrew word “Machmad” (altogether lovely) can be translated “praise” or “Ahmad.” Following is the text of the passage as translated in the New International Version Bible:

“His mouth is sweetness itself; he is altogether lovely. This is my lover, this my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.”

The book of Song of Solomon is a poetic love story between the Beloved and her Lover. It is a piece that explores the beauty of a marriage relationship between a king and his wife.

Muslims believe that the adjectival clause “altogether lovely” can be changed to a proper noun, “Muhammad.” The text should then read, when translated into English:

“His mouth is sweetness itself; he is Muhammad. This is my lover, this my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.”

This rendering, however, begs a number of difficult questions according to the context of the entire book.

1. Who are the daughters of Jerusalem? Did Muhammad ever court one of his many wives in Jerusalem?

2. If this is Muhammad, which of his wives is speaking? Was Muhammad ever married to a dark woman he wooed from Lebanon?

3. Did Muhammad ever claim kingship?

What, then, is this prophecy saying? The underlined words in the text above are the English renderings of the Hebrew word, machmad. Strong’s concordance defines machmad as: desire, desirable thing, a pleasant thing.

So, can Machmad signify Muhammad? Wise men allow that when one verse is in doubt it is justified to explain one passage of the Bible by another. The word machmad appears twelve more times in the Old Testament. Since Muslims are so intent on finding the name of Muhammad in the Hebrew word “machmad,” it is important that they remain consistent. Therefore, we have printed these twelve prophetic verses below and leave it to you to ascertain whether they fit. Note that we have been consistent in now translating this word as the long-neglected “proper noun” which they claim it to be.

1 Kings 20:6: “Yet I will send my servants to thee tomorrow about this time, and they shall search thy house, and the houses of thy servants; and it shall be, [that] whatever is Muhammad in thy eyes, they shall take [it] in their hand, and carry [it] away.”

2 Chronicles 36:19: “And they burnt the house of God, and broke down the wall of Jerusalem, and burnt all its palaces with fire, and destroyed all its Muhammad vessels.”

Isaiah 64:11: “Our holy and our beautiful house, where our fathers praised thee, is burned with fire: and all our Muhammad things are laid waste.”

Lamentations 1:10: “The adversary hath spread out his hand upon all her Muhammad things: for she hath seen [that] the nations entered into her sanctuary, whom thou didst command [that] they should not enter into thy congregation.”

Lamentations 1:11: “All her people sigh, they seek bread; they have given their Muhammad things for food to relieve the soul: see, O LORD, and consider; for I am become vile.”

Lamentations 2:4: “He hath bent his bow like an enemy: he stood with his right hand as an adversary, and slew all [that were] Muhammad to the eye in the tabernacle of the daughter of Zion: he poured out his fury like fire.”

Ezekiel 24:16: “Son of man, behold, I take away from thee the Muhammad of thy eyes with a stroke: yet neither shalt thou mourn nor weep, neither shall thy tears run down.”

Ezekiel 24:21: “Speak to the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will profane my sanctuary, the excellence of your strength, the Muhammad of your eyes, and that which your soul pitieth; and your sons and your daughters whom ye have left shall fall by the sword.”

Ezekiel 24:25: “Also, thou son of man, [shall it] not [be] in the day when I take from them their strength, the joy of their glory, the Muhammad of their eyes, and that on which they set their minds, their sons and their daughters.”

Hosea 9:6: “For, lo, they are gone because of destruction: Egypt shall gather them up, Memphis shall bury them: the Muhammad [places] for their silver, nettles shall possess them: thorns [shall be] in their tabernacles.”

Hosea 9:16: “Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay [even] the Muhammad [fruit] of their womb.”

Joel 3:5: “Because ye have taken my silver and my gold, and have carried into your temples my Muhammad things.”

If this mutilation of Scripture seems to you ridiculous, it is meant to be as it shows the quality of the theory behind such an idea.

When taken to its logical conclusion it makes a mockery of Hebrew grammar. Why should an adjectival clause be translated a proper noun? Machmad already has a proper noun counterpart, but more closely related to the clause — Chemdan (or Hemdan), the eldest son of Dishon of Anah the Horite. If machmad should have been written as a proper noun the author would have written Chemdan.

D2v: The problem with this exercise

This claim is quite similar to the issue of the paraclete in the book of John (which we will refer to later). Many Muslims contend that it is another prophecy of Muhammad. Yet this prophecy in John 14 and 16 has been shown for what it is – a prophecy of the Spirit of God. We find it peculiar that Muslims will, in one text, base their claim on the meaning of one word at the expense of its pronunciation (paracletos versus periclytos) and yet with another text base their claim on the pronunciation of a single word at the expense of its meaning (desire versus praise)!

If these techniques of hermeneutics are just, then wouldn’t it be quite in line to expect to find as a substitute for the word paracletos a prophet named “Perry Clinton,” whose name really means “the desired one?” Absurd? Yes! That is the point. Using this technique one can conjure up a prophecy for nearly any prophet one happens to fancy, or even make up one on the whim.

Conversely, a Hindu could claim that in Sura 30:1, the word “al-rum” (for Romans), which can be written “Ram,” must be referring to the Hindu God “Rama.”

A further irony in this whole exercise is that Muhammad is not even the name which the prophet grew up with. According to Muslim tradition, in his youth Muhammad was called Amin, a common Arab name meaning “faithful, or trustworthy.” Amin was his given name, a masculine form from the same root as his mother’s name “Amina.”

We understand the desire by Muslims to find any prophecy which will give credence to Muhammad, for without it Muhammad has no outside evidence to prove his prophethood. That then leaves the authority for the beliefs of over one billion Muslims hanging on the single testimony of just one finite man. We ask, however, that Muslims not twist or attack the scriptures in order to gain their own agenda. We are constantly amazed that Muslims should be at once both critics and stewards of the Holy Scriptures of Christians and Jews. It would be better to be of one mind.

If Muslims firmly believe the scriptures are inadequate then they should behave as such and abstain from picking and choosing what they like from what they deem a hopelessly inadequate book. We will not insult them for bravely allying with other enemies of the Bible. But it is hypocrisy to use data from a book they claim is crude and inferior to support an already illogical argument.

If we truly believe the scriptures and desire to find prophecies within them, then we need to read them all and learn with an open mind. We need to truly submit ourselves to the authoritative and COMPLETE teachings of Scripture as has been diligently preserved throughout the ages.

D3: Is there a prophecy of Muhammad in the Injil?

We now come to the final claim by Muslims, that a prediction of Muhammad can be found in the Injil, in other words in the New Testament.

D3i: Parakletos or Periklytos?

The two ayas quoted at the beginning of this lecture speak of a prophet or messenger who will be described in the Taurat and Injil, who can neither read nor write, who will come after Jesus, and will be called Ahmed. Attempts have been made by Muslims since the middle of the 10th century to quote definite verses from the Bible which speak of Muhammad; verses such as Genesis 16:9-12; 17:20-21; 21:21 and Deuteronomy 33:2,12. These are easily defendable, and need little of our time.

Another scripture which is often quoted by Muslims as the definitive proof of a prediction concerning Muhammad is that found in the New Testament in John 14:16 and John 16:7. These are the passages which we will deal with here.

Let’s open to those passages. (Read John 14:16 and 16:7)

The problem comes with the word “Counsellor”. All the misunderstanding which separates Jews, Christians and Muslims come from the manner in which one pronounces or writes parakletos, which the translators of the gospel have rendered as “counsellor.” There are two popular spellings of this word, the one parakletos and the other periklytos.

Muslims, aware that the original New Testament was written in Greek, choose the latter spelling, periklytos, which in Greek is translated as ‘glorious’, over parakletos which means ‘counsellor’, or ‘lawyer’.

On the strength of the Qur’anic text Muslims claim that John 14:16 and 16:7 are predictions of the coming of Muhammad, as the word periklytos (glorious), refers to the Ahmad spoken of in Sura 61:6, a form of the name Muhammad, since both mean “the Praised one”.

D3ii: Greek language confirms parakletos

What the Muslims have tried to do with this word is to replace the vowels as they see fit (replacing the a-a-e-o in parakletos with e-i-y-o in periklytos). In Hebrew and Arabic, where the vowels are not included in the words, there is room for debate as to which vowels the author intended (such as YHWH), however, this is not so in Greek, as the vowels are clearly written in all Greek texts.

Abdullah Yusuf Ali in his footnotes in the Qur’an referring to this passage says: “Our doctors contend that Paracletos is a corrupt reading for Periklytos, and that in their original saying of Jesus there was a prophecy of our Holy Prophet Ahmad by name” (pg. 1461, note no.5438).

D3iii: Greek manuscripts confirm parakletos

It would have been helpful if Ali and his learned “doctors”, before making such an erroneous claim, had referred to existing manuscripts (MSS) which are easily accessible for examination (including two of the oldest, the Codex Siniaticus and the Codex Alexandrinas, both in the British Museum in London).

There are more than 70 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in existence today, dating from before the time of Muhammad, and not one of them use the word periklytos! All use the word parakletos. In fact the word periklytos does not even appear at all in the Bible!

D3iv: Therefore Muhammad could not be the parakletos

So why do Muslims continue to cling to the erroneous rendering of this word? Obviously, as we have mentioned before, Yusuf Ali and his friends have a deep desire to find any prediction for the coming of Muhammad in the Taurat and Injil. Not only does the Qur’an mention that the predictions exist, but more damaging for today, without it the sole criteria for Muhammad’s authority takes on an invalid circular reasoning, which goes something like this: Muhammad receives his authority from the Qur’an, which receives its authority from Muhammad, who receives his authority from the Qur’an…so on and so forth. There is no outside authority which can provide him with the credibility he needs.

The evidence for any prediction by Jesus concerning Muhammad just does not exist in the Injil, creating a problem for Muslims who must, therefore, produce some further external criteria for the authenticity of their prophet. It’s an unenviable task, one which I wouldn’t want to have to do myself.

D3v: So who is the parakletos?

A further problem for the Muslim exists once they open to the verses in question. John 14:16 says: “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counsellor (parakletos) to be with you for ever.” Most Muslims quote only the first half of this verse, as well as John 16:7, and then shut the Bible.

What they fail to realize is that, as is the case in most pieces of literature, it is dangerous to read any verse or phrase without looking at the context first.

When we continue reading beyond chapter 14:16 and chapter 16:7, we find that Jesus predicts the specific details of the arrival and identity of the parakletos. Therefore, according to the context of John 14 & 16 we find that:

1. Jesus said the parakletos is not a human being:14:16: “he will be with you for ever” (a human doesn’t live forever)14:17: “he will be the spirit of truth” (a human is distinct from spirit)
   14:17: “the world neither sees him…” (a human is visible)
   14:17: “…nor knows him” (a human would be known by others)
   14:17: “and he will be in you” (a human cannot be within others)

2. Jesus said that the parakletos has a specific mission; to point to Jesus:14:26: “whom the Father will send in my (Jesus’) name”
   14:26: “will remind you everything I (Jesus) have said to you”
   16:8: “he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin…”16:14: “He will bring glory to me (Jesus)…”

3. Finally, Jesus said that the parakletos is a spirit:14:17: “the Spirit of Truth”
   14:26: “the Counsellor (parakletos), the Holy Spirit”

D3vi: The answer is the Holy Spirit, who arrived 50 days later

It is clear from the context that no human prophet or angelic being can qualify as the parakletos. Consider what these verses say: He will be with them forever, not seen, nor known, yet within others, and will set about reminding the people of what Jesus did, while bringing glory to Jesus. There is only one being who qualifies in all these areas, the Holy Spirit of the Injil, whom Jesus pointedly identifies as the parakletos. He fulfills all the above requirements.

In Acts 1, Jesus, just before He was to be taken up into heaven, and 40 days after He had first promised the Holy Spirit, again spoke about this “gift”:

1. v.4: “wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about”

2. v.5: “in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

It is obvious that this counsellor, of whom Jesus speaks is indeed the Holy Spirit, who came in power, 50 days after these promises were given to the disciples; on the day of Pentecost (which is translated as the 50th day), and 570 years before the birth of Muhammad.

E: Conclusion

So what have we learned? We began this paper by asking whether Muhammad could qualify as a true prophet of God. We presented the Muslim positions, positing that they claimed his prophethood due to the supernatural witness to his prophethood during his early childhood, as well as the fact that he delivered the Qur’an, though he was illiterate, and because both his prophesies and miracles pointed to his prophethood.

We then gave rebuttals to all four of these positions and followed up with four criteria of our own, concluding that Muhammad could not qualify in any four of these categories.

Following that we took the question further by asking whether Muhammad’s message was for Arabs alone, or whether it was universal. Though verses can be found in the Qur’an which maintain both positions, we determined that this particular revelation had possibly evolved and followed the natural polytheistic reality on the ground at that time.

We asked whether Muhammad could be a prophet to the Jews and Christians, and came away bruised and battered from the violence with which he enjoined those two groups.

From there it was only natural to ask whether Muhammad could be understood as the seal of the prophets? In comparing him with Jesus and the former prophets we soon found that he didn’t even come close. Not only did he concede his revelations to the people around him, but he had an enormous sexual appetite, while elevating himself almost on par with Allah. And finally, he, himself, realized that he had sinned and needed forgiveness.

In all these categories Muhammad failed to persuade us that he could legitimately claim to be a prophet of God. But our enquiry was still not finished. We needed to ascertain if others had spoken previously about this prophet who was yet to come.

In Suras 7:157 and 61:6 we read of a prophet, Ahmad (or Muhammad), who was revealed beforehand in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injil (Gospel). Because these Suras are included in the “eternal and perfect” authority for Muslims, it is imperative, therefore, that these passages be found, since without them, Muhammad has no outside evidence to prove his prophethood, other than himself.

Muhammad’s word worked fine in the heady days of the seventh century, where no-one dared counter his claim to prophethood, and where convenient revelations “descended” regularly to give him credibility before his people. But today, outside the realm of Islamic jurisdiction, and on the heels of an invigorated and ongoing literary criticism, the critics demand more proof. Without it the authority for the beliefs of over one billion Muslims then hangs on the single testimony of this one finite man, Muhammad. And many of those beliefs go diametrically against the intrinsic revelations espoused in the scriptures which preceded him, the very scriptures which Muslims must now use to find a prediction for their prophet in order to give him credibility.

There are, however, no passages in the Taurat or the Injil which speak of him, not one.

Muslims will certainly come forward and point to the passages in Deuteronomy 18, or the Song of Solomon 5:16, or John 14 and 16 as the one’s which refer to Ahmad, or Muhammad. Yet, are they? Can this prophet like Moses, the promised one, this counsellor, be a mere human or a mere prophet; or is He more than that? Is He not God Himself, in the form of a man, or, as we found in John, in the form of the Holy Spirit?

As we read these verses and consider what has been said here, it will be good to feel encouraged that we do indeed serve the true God, who chooses to reveal Himself clearly and simply, from Genesis through to Revelation, and chooses to be in relationship with us as His creatures, by coming to us as a man in the line of Moses, while still relating to us by means of His Holy Spirit, mediating Christ in us.

Because Muslims do not understand God within these parameters, it is no wonder that they are confused to find that it is Jesus and not Muhammad who is prophesied to carry on the mission of reconciliation, and that it is the Holy Spirit who has been promised to continue that same mission today, right here and right now, until we will all be with Him together for eternity; providing we believe.

The Hermeneutical Key (Genesis 3:8-9)

Apologetic Paper (Jay Smith) – May 1995

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Finding the Hermeneutical Key

   1. The Garden of Eden

3. Applying the Hermeneutical Key

   1. God

   2. Trinity

   3. Humanity

   4. Sin

   5. Revelation

   6. The Incarnation

   7. The Cross / Atonement

   8. Predestination

   9. Theocracy

   10. Jihad

   11. The Spirit World

   12. Prayer

   13. Paradise

4. Conclusion

A: Introduction

A number of months ago, I had just arrived home from the university, where I had been involved in an enlivening though exhausting discussion with an English convert to Islam. We had talked about the role of the Khilafa, and how Britain was or was not ripe for an Islamic state. Because of my Mennonite background, I not only had difficulty in agreeing with my friend, but I had problems understanding why such a state was so important for him. I couldn’t understand his position and he couldn’t understand mine. Both of us were simply talking past each other.

It was cold that evening, and I was dirty and tired. So I slipped off my clothes, turned on the hot water and slid into a steaming hot tub. On that particular occasion, as I so often do when I am taking a bath, I sank down into the warm soothing water until the suds were tickling at my nose, and my eyes were on the level where I could see the vapors as they lifted lazily off the surface to swiftly disappear into the dark cold air above. It is at times like these that the rusty gears in my mind wake up out of their lethargy and begin to slowly creak and groan themselves awake, letting loose the long dormant creative juices, which sometimes give birth to outrageous thoughts and ideas, while at other times they simply waft along in idle fantasy. On this night, my mind was still occupied with the earlier discussion, and the juices were flowing.

And that is how, suddenly, an idea popped right into my partly submerged head which would clarify the discussion I had just had with my friend at SOAS, and make sense of the log-jam which we had experienced. The idea, interestingly, originated from two seemingly insignificant verses which are found in the 3rd chapter of Genesis.

If you have the time, put this paper down and read Genesis chapter 3, and ask yourself what is the major theme of this chapter? How would you interpret it for someone else? In other words, what is the hermeneutical key which comes to mind here?

Now, without wanting to lose my audience in the first few minutes, let me explain what I mean by “hermeneutical key.” This term is nothing more than the science of interpreting what scripture says, exegeting passages so they make sense, or presenting an idea which is used as a cornerstone for other ideas, a sort of code-book which explains a host of little known secrets, a program which unravels the intricate details of a complicated set of beliefs. In fact, by penning these definitions we have carried out an exercise in doing just that.

Where, then, would the two small verses which I am referring to be? They are verses 8 and 9.

Genesis 3:8-9: “Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called out to the man. “Where are you?”

“…God walked in the garden, with Adam… and the Lord had to call out to Adam.” That was it! That was what I had been missing! That was what my friend needed to hear. I needed to take him back to Eden. Now it all made sense.

B: Finding the Hermeneutical Key

B1: The Garden of Eden

Let me explain. Ever since I was a little child I had been told the story of creation, and the story of the Garden of Eden. I knew all about Adam and Eve. I still remember vividly till this day the movie titled “The Bible.” I remember the Eden episode especially, as it has become the standard for how I view that story even up to this day. The greater part of the story, however, gravitated around the incident at the tree with the forbidden fruit.

I soon found that most of the stories about Adam and Eve dealt with the fruit. Every Sunday-School lesson, every night- time devotional on the subject, and every film and film-strip always reminded me that it was here that I and all of the rest of the little boys and girls in the world became evil. We all became polluted because of that offensive fruit. Every teacher since that day has taken it upon themselves to remind me and every other little boy and girl that Eden was where all our troubles began. I am sure that the reason I don’t like fruit till this day has something to do with my sensibilities over that dastardly first-fruit which has put us into the mess in which we find ourselves.

But, you know what is curious? I don’t ever remember anyone talking about verses 8 and 9! And I don’t know why, all of a sudden, those two verses popped into my head on that cold spring evening while basking in my 2nd floor tub. But they did. And since then, they have completely changed the way I view God, and the way I intend to introduce Him to others, especially my Muslim friends.

Now some of you may say, “So what? They are not important to the story, except to tell us that Adam and Eve were about to be caught for their sin.” And on face value, I would have to agree, “So what?” All my life I have been taught the same view. But it wasn’t just they who were going to be caught, but me and my sisters and all the rest of the little boys and girls who were in the world. We were all imputed with guilt as a result of that act. Genesis 3 has always been drummed into my head as the chapter on the great fall. I had never really stopped at these two verses, or paid them any attention, because the real meat was with the apple and with the condemnation which followed. That is, until that night in the tub.

While salubriously sitting, soaking in the suds a suggestion slinked its way slowly into my subconscious, saying: “what was God doing walking among the trees and calling out to Adam, ‘Where are you?'”

Here was the creator of the universe, who flung the stars into space and tread out the valleys on the earth, who reached out and in one swoop separated the light from the darkness; who shaped the mountains and rustled up the wind, and with only a word formed every living, swimming, crawling or flying creature that has ever existed.

This great omnipotent and powerful God humbled Himself to walk in the cool of the day, and look among the trees and call out, “Where are you?” This was the God who made the heavens and the earth. Why should He have to call out and ask Adam where he was?

Now can you begin to see why I find these two verses so important? Because here in this little scenario, we find something about the character of God which you will not find in any other religious or philosophical book in the history of the world. No other religion or faith even comes close to delineating the creator-God as someone who would lower and come among those whom He has created.

The Aristotelian tradition of thought starts from a completely different starting point. The material world and God, according to Aristotle, are incompatible with one another. The two never intersect. The one, God, exists in total separation from the other, the material world. This view of the God-world dichotomy, which originated in the third century B.C., has become deeply entrenched in not just western-European thinking but has been borrowed, via the expansion and conquest of North Africa, by Islam following the prophet’s death.

Therefore, since no other faith has desired to present their God in the context of relationship, they have missed what I consider to be the most important aspect about God, which, in turn explains the entire scope of who we are, how the world is to be run, and what God’s intentions are for His created.

From these two verses we can find three things.

1. LimitationWe read that this omnipotent God came down and was walking in the garden. That shows us, as I have mentioned, that God lowered Himself and took on the limitations of His created. He was looking for Adam. Therefore, He restricted Himself, casting away His omnipotence to walk and search and talk in the same fashion as did His created man and woman.

2. ResponseThis omniscient, all-knowing God called out “Where are you?” Certainly God knew where Adam was. He knows everything. Yet, in this verse we find that He gave Adam the chance to respond. He had humbled Himself to come down to His level, and now He was calling out to Adam to return to Him.

3. RelationshipFinally, and most importantly, from the fact that God was walking about and looking, we can surmise that this was something that He did often with Adam and Eve, possibly taking walks with them in the evening. What astounds me about this act, however, is that the all-powerful creator God seemed to have a personal relationship with Adam and Eve. The possibility that He did this often shows me that He cared about them, and sought out their companionship. He was looking for them, which implies that He wanted to spend time with them. Indeed, He was in relationship with them.

In other words, here we find an infinite creator-God who walks and talks with His finite created man. Do you know of any other concept of God that claims to do this?

The reason I find this important is that from this item alone, I believe, we can build a theology of not only who God is, but who we are, what purpose we have here on earth, how we are to model our lives, our families, our societies, where it is that we are headed, and what we will find once we get there.

It is these verses that show us the unique relationship which Adam and Eve shared with their creator. Therefore, it is this relationship which, I feel, must be the hermeneutical key with which we can measure almost everything else.

Interestingly, in respect to Islam, it is not surprising to note that these two verses do not exist at all in the Qur’an. A reason for their exclusion could be due to the influence of the Aristotelian thought which, some believe, crept into Islamic philosophy after the conquest of North Africa, where it had already been well entrenched.

Note: The evolution of the Qur’an infers that many theological, political and social concepts were added later on by Muslim tradition in the 8th and 9th centuries.

Consequently, one might say that because these verses do not exist in their Qur’an, it stands to reason that there will be a large divergence in the way the Muslims explain who God is, who we are, what purpose we have on earth, where it is we are headed, and what we will find once we get there.

This hermeneutical key doesn’t exist in Islam, and therefore, we have a tool which can help us understand the differences between us.

What I would like to do now is begin listing how this hermeneutical key, the relationship which God had with man, features in our two theologies today. Because once we do that, I feel we can then interpret the gospel so much more adequately for the Muslims.

C: Applying the Hermeneutical Key

C1: God

A good place to begin our discussion is with God, because that is where our scriptures begin. In the first verse of Genesis we read, “In the beginning God…” As we delineate who this God is we find that the God of the Bible is quite different from that of Allah in Islam.

According to Islam, Allah is one-dimensional; that is he has only one character, which is powerful and imposing (almost Aristotelian). He is an omnipotent and impersonal God, one who is completely transcendent, and therefore quite distant and distinct from his creation.

Though Muslims will respond that there are 99 names which delineate his character, not one of these names are personal, or denote a true understanding of a God of love. Muslims say he is merciful and compassionate, yet they do not define those terms as we do.

1. PersonalThe God of the Bible, likewise, is all- powerful, but He is not impersonal. Verses 8 and 9 of Genesis 3 show us that God walks and talks with His creation. He is very personal, and the name He has chosen for Himself, Yahweh, delineates His personal character. In the Bible we find this name repeated 6,823 times, more than any other name (note: In the English translation of the Bible this name for God is indicated by capitalizing the letters LORD).In the Greek New Testament several times God is referred to as Abba (which means father) denoting a very close and intimate relationship with His creation. This is unique to the Judeo- Christian understanding of God. A true father not only instructs and protects his children, he loves and is self-sacrificial for them, even to the point of death. Nowhere in any other holy book or philosophy do we find this character of God even intimated.

2. Relational / SacrificialFurther attributes of Allah point out other differences between a Muslim and Christian concept of God. Allah, because he is not interested personally with his creation loves only those who do his will. Sura 66:12 says, “If you love Allah, follow me, (i.e. Muhammad), Allah will love you and forgive your sins. Allah is forgiving, merciful… Allah directs the hearts of those that believe him…”The God of the Bible, Yahweh, however, because He desires to be in relationship with His creation, not only loves those who are good, but He loves those who are sinners, even those who reject Him. His love is exemplified in its highest expression, the sacrifice of one for another. Yet, His death on the cross encompassed not just those who loved Him, but all of creation, though its saving power is only efficacious for those who acknowledge it (Romans 5:1-10).

3. Just / RighteousIslam tells us that Allah is not bound by any moral obligation, as this would limit his sovereignty. Al-Ghazzali, an 11th century Islamic scholar, confirms this in the context of love, stating, “Love is to sense a need of the beloved and since Allah cannot be said to have a need or an experience of a need, it is therefore impossible that Allah should love” (Nehls, Asks, 34).We would expect to find this in a one-dimensional god. It follows that Allah is also the author of evil. Sura 91:7,8 implies this by saying, “He intimated to it by inspiration its deviating from truth and its piety” (Mishkat III pg.104).Allah is under no necessity of his own nature to be right, or just. Al-Ghazzali maintains that, “Allah’s justice is not to be compared with the justice of man. A Man may be supposed to act unjustly by invading the position of another, but no injustice can be conceived on the part of Allah. It is in his power to pour down torrents upon mankind and if he were to do it, his justice would not be arraigned. There is nothing he can be tied to, to perform, nor can any injustice be supposed of him, nor can he be under obligation to any person whatever” (Nehls, Asks, 28). A Muslim exhibits this twist-of-logic by saying, “Allah does not will an act because it is good; rather, it is good because he has willed it.”Allah is free to be good or evil. The fact that He is both good and evil, proves that He is free for himself only. If Allah has no principles in which he has bound himself to, his justice is likewise unbound. There are no absolutes by which he has bound himself to, and thus mankind has no real boundaries by which to live by, except that which Allah has revealed in his law, making that law the only absolute. Consequently, Allah can be totally capricious in his dealings with man. Allah pronounces his law, though he does not live by it himself. This presupposes no idea of a covenant relationship with his created.In Christianity we find quite a contrast to this idea of a capricious God. The God of the Bible wills not to be evil. As Barth says: “God’s freedom constitutes not only His action towards what is outside Himself, but also His own inner being.” (Church Dogmatics Vol.2, Part 1, pg.303) “According to the Biblical testimony, God has the prerogative to be free without being limited by His freedom from external conditioning, free also with regard to His freedom, free not to surrender Himself to it, but to use it, to give Himself to this communion, and to practice this faithfulness in it, in this way being really free, free in Himself” (Barth, pg. 303). Thus God, Yahweh is free to not be free. He could choose to have no choice, so we must not limit His freedom.We, on the other hand, are limited by our nature. We cannot walk through walls. Yet there is freedom within that choice, in that we can walk upto and around the walls. God, on the other hand, is unbound by His nature. He can be whatever He wants. He could walk through walls if He so chose. He could also sin if He so chose. Yet God chooses to limit that choice, and so He has chosen not to be sinful. His choices became even more limited when He chose to become human. But why did he take on these limitations?What we know about the Biblical God is that He chose to be in covenant with His creation, thus He chose to limit his power. God, before the world began drew up a charter, to live by certain limitations. It is an eternal covenant (Ephesians 1:9, Colossians 2; 1 Pet.1-2). The Father and the Son covenanted together with respect to their creation.Consequently the Biblical God is now bound by His character because of that choice, and He is absolutely just and pure. God is infinitely righteous and holy (Psalm 77:13;99:9). What this means is that God, Yahweh, is incapable of doing evil, nor could He be attributed as its author, and though He allows evil to exist, it may never share its presence with Him, for, according to Habakkuk 1:13, “His eyes are too pure to look on evil.”

When we take these three attributes of the Biblical God:

1. a God who desires a personal relationship with His creation

2. who is completely selfless and sacrificial in His love, yet

3. who is unable by His choice to create or accept evil,

we find in these three that which sets Him apart from all other gods created by man.

The God of the Bible, therefore, is multi-dimensional. He is both an omnipotent king, and a personal father; both the almighty creator and a sacrificial servant; both righteous judge and redeeming priest.

Perhaps for many these categories seem contradictory, and that is just as well, for God does not choose to stoop to the categories of men. His character is beyond our feeble wisdom.

What these characteristics of God do reveal, however, is that they could not have originated within a one-dimensional and impersonal god, such as we find in the Allah of Islam. No, they could only be explained within the context of a multi-dimensional God, one who is both three and one, or, what the church has chosen to call the “trinity.” Yet, it is this very term which has caused so much derision by both non-Christians and Muslims alike.

C2: Trinity

“How,” many people today ask, “can God be both three and one?” Furthermore, they continue, “why is this so important?”

To begin with it is important primarily because we find God revealed in the scriptures as both three and one. The first clues to what God is like is found almost immediately, in fact, in the very first verse of Genesis, where we read, “In the beginning God created…” The word for God (Elohim) is plural, so God is plural. The word created (Bara) which follows, however, is singular. Therefore, in this first verse we find that a plural God creates as one. This is echoed again in the same chapter, verse 26, where God speaks to Himself saying: “Let us make man in our own image, in our likeness.”

As we continue on through the Old Testament we find many inferences to the plurality, yet oneness of the godhead (Genesis 3:22; and 11:7; Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 6:8; 7:14; 9:6; 44:6; and 63:7-10). The New Testament, likewise, carries the theme on from where the Old Testament left off, many times stating that God expresses Himself in a multi-dimensional capacity (John 1:1-5,10- 12; 8:58; Luke 7:49; Colossians 1:19,16-17; Philippians 2:6-7; Rom.9:4-5; II Corinthians 4:4; Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 1:2-3).

It explains the love of God

But to understand why this concept of the trinity is important for our present discussion, it may be helpful to use as an example the idea of the love of God, a belief which both Christians and Muslims can agree upon (though our definitions may vary, as evidenced in al-Ghazzali’s quote earlier, where he intimates God’s love as mercy and compassion). It is not until we comprehend the trinity (a doctrine much maligned by Muslims) that we can truly understand love. For it is within the trinity that love is fully expressed.

True love by its very nature requires an object, otherwise it becomes self-centered, self-serving and carnal. If God were one-dimensional, where would true love have originated? How could love have existed before creation if there was no object on which it could be expressed?

The trinity, encompassing the triune godhead, delineates the source from which love began, as each person of the godhead, since eternity, has given and received love from among themselves.

The best example of the love between the godhead is exemplified by God the Father who sent God the Son to earth (John 3:16); and by God the Son, who in turn “being in very nature God… made Himself nothing… being made in human likeness… He humbled Himself and became obedient to death, even death on a cross” (Philippians 2:7-8).

As a result of this extreme act of love, we humans, being made in the image of God, can now explain and model perfect love to the world, using the examples of God the Father towards God the Son, and the ongoing relationship of God the Holy Spirit in our lives counselling us to become more like Him, by exemplifying that same love.

When Muslims maintain that Allah can be defined as the God of love our response must be that this claim simply makes no sense. For where did it originate, and from where is it exemplified in history, or in Islam today? Realistically speaking, love can only be understood within the context of a multi-dimensional God, where it was not only originally modelled within Himself, but continues even now as He aids us in that same endeavor through the working of the Holy Spirit.

God, as three in one, then, helps explain why relationships between one person and another are so important, and why we humans are such ‘social animals.’ Having been made in God’s image, it stands to reason that we would reflect these very significant attributes of God, a God who has eternally been in relationship within the trinity.

One can, moreover, understand why God desires that same relationship with His created. And with that in mind, we can now introduce our next category, God’s highest creation: humanity.

C3: Humanity

Here again, by using the hermeneutical key of relationship we find a vast divergence between the view of humanity in Islam and that of Christianity.

Because Allah is considered to be totally transcendent, his creation shares none of his character. Humans enjoy a unique place in creation, because Allah breathed into Adam his spirit (Sura 15:29). But the Qur’an never explains what the Spirit of Allah does. What we do know is that humans were created to be Allah’s representative, or his viceregent on earth (Suras 2:30; 33:72; 35:39). Thus, humans have the task to maintain the earth.

The relationship between Allah and his creatures was in the context of obedience and fear, what the Qur’an calls Taqwa (which when translated means self-protection or fear of God). Therefore, humans are no more than slaves to Allah; their sole requirement to obey their creator. In fact the word “Muslim” has come to mean “one who obeys, or submits.”

In God’s image

Christians, likewise, believe that humans were created to “rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth” (Genesis 1:26). But that is only half the story, for the Bible tells us that humans were created in God’s image (Genesis 2:27), a view which is in direct contrast to that of Islam, which perceives humans as slaves to Allah. According to the Bible, we were never created to be slaves. We were created, from the very beginning, to be His children, in perfect relationship with Him.

We see clearly from Genesis chapter 3 that God walked and talked with Adam. This implies that Adam had a higher status than simply that of a caretaker. Indeed, a relationship is evidenced between Adam and God; a relationship which was worked out within a context of equality, in that God, the second person of the trinity, confined Himself by taking on all the limited characteristics of Adam’s finite existence, such as the need to walk, to search and even to call out when He couldn’t find Adam in the garden.

Freedom of choice

Conversely, because Adam was made in God’s image he had the capacity to choose, to make up his own mind. This stands against the concept of slavery, as a slave has no freedom to choose. Freedom of choice entails that one can accept or reject something, in this case a relationship with God, despite the fact that He is their creator. Adam was given that choice, with tragic consequences, and we, each one of us, are likewise confronted with the choice to accept or reject God.

Though Muslims testify to the superiority of Allah, because he is only one-dimensional, they fail to take into account that which is missing, that which Allah cannot offer. Allah, because of his overwhelming omnipotence cannot accept the possibility of rejection by those he creates. In fact, all that Allah can offer is that his disciples follow him blindly. The penalty for apostasy is death. While the Qur’an mentions nothing about a death penalty for apostasy, the Hadiths attribute numerous occasions when he demanded it. He is purported to have said, “Slay him who changes his religion” (Gibb and Kramers, pg.413), and at another time a set of traditions reports his ruling that it is permissible to take the life of someone who “abandons his religion and separates himself from his community” (Gibb and Kramers, pg.413).

In contrast, the God of the Bible does not seek a blind obedience from His creation, nor does He demand any sort of capital punishment for those who reject Him. For that would not illustrate true love. True love seeks the best for the loved- one, at the owner’s expense.

This sacrificial love is best exemplified in the crucifixion of Christ, the 2nd person of the trinity, on the cross. It is this same quality of love which God desires from us, both in our relationship with Him, and in our relationships with all of humanity, who are made in His image, sinner and saved alike.

Made in His image, and therefore free to chose to accept or reject His love for us, brings us to the fifth category where Islam and Christianity differ: sin.

C4: Sin

In both the Qur’anic and Biblical accounts of Eden, we find that Adam and Eve sinned by eating the fruit. But the consequences of that sin are quite different between the two beliefs.

In Islam, since there was no special relationship between man and God in the garden, there was nothing which could be lost by Adam’s sin. Therefore, the sin of Adam was his and his alone. In fact, not much ado is made of his sin in the Qur’an. It was an act of disobedience for which Adam, and he alone, was responsible. Once he repented of the sin, God simply forgave him and extended to him his mercy and guidance (Sura 20:122). Nothing needed to be repaired, because nothing substantial had been broken. The matter is then left to rest.

Adam was sinless

In the Biblical account, the story is altogether different. Adam’s sin was taken much more seriously. It is not difficult for us to understand why in light of Genesis 3. As we know, before the sin of Adam and Eve, Eden was a garden which was perfect. There was no blemish, and as such it was a place in which God could come and be in relationship with Adam, the two communing openly. There was nothing between them which could impede their relationship.

Adam became sinful

Once the fruit was eaten, however, that relationship was completely altered. Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge and, suddenly, like God, they could now understand right from wrong (Genesis 3:22).

Before they had been in total innocence and only knew that which was right. They had been naked and felt no shame. Now, however, they covered their bodies with leaves to hide their shame, and they hid behind trees to hide their guilt. Their relationship with God had now been totally broken, because sin had entered into the world. In other words, they, who were now in sin had to be removed from Him who knew no sin. Thus, they were dismissed from God’s presence because of the fall.

Note: The idea of fall comes from Origen in his work “Periarchon.” In his overwrought fantasy the small logoses (all created beings) turn round and round the real Logos contemplating him. They fell, however, when they began to contemplate themselves [Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol.4, pg.256-260]. The fall, therefore, is a misnomer. It would perhaps be more correct to call it the divorce, or separation.

Adam was thrown out of Eden

This one seemingly small bite from the fruit had eternal consequences, one which would affect the entire shape of history. Not only was corruption and death introduced into the world by this little bite, but more devastating, humanity’s unique relationship with the Lord was annulled, causing Adam and Eve, and along with them all their descendants, including us, to be banished from God’s presence.

The fruit was probably the most expensive the world has ever known. Though it may have been a small blemish for the fruit, it incurred an enormous blemish for all of mankind, and that’s the bad news. But fortunately, we serve a God who desires above all else to remain in relationship with us, His created. We know that the story doesn’t end with the garden of Eden. We know that God has made a way for us to get back in relationship with Him. We know this because of God’s revelation, His written word, and our next category.

C5: Revelation

Islam tells us that Allah is remote and therefore must not reveal himself to man upon a personal level. It is for that reason that Allah reveals himself by means of appointed prophets, who are referred to as, rasul, meaning “the sent one.” These prophets are merely human and so finite, yet they are protected by God. Revelation in Islam is simply one-way, from God to Man via the prophets. The final revelation, and therefore the most important, according to Muslims, is the Qur’an. It was revealed to Muhammad between A.D. 610-632, via the angel Gabriel, using a process known as Nazil, which implies a word-for-word transmission.

Thus, Muslims believe that the exact Arabic words that we find in the Qur’an are those which exist eternally on the original stone tablets, in heaven.

Since Allah is infinite and transcendent, it stands to reason that his revelation would be infinite and transcendent. For instance, according to Sura 85:21 and 22, we read, “Nay this is a glorious Qur’an, (inscribed) in a tablet preserved.” Muslim scholars admit that this passage refers to the tablets which were never created. They contend that the Qur’an is an absolutely identical copy of the eternal heavenly book, even so far as the punctuation, titles and divisions of chapters is concerned. Why modern translations still can’t agree what those divisions are is evident when trying to refer to an aya (verse) between one version and another.

The Qur’an is the “Mother of books,” according to Sura 43:3. There is no other book or revelation which can compare. In fact, three times, in Suras 2:23, 10:37-38, and 17:88 we find the challenge to, “Present some other Sura or book of equal beauty.”

Thus this final revelation, according to Islam, is transcendent, and consequently, beyond the capacity for conjecture, or criticism. What this means is that the Qur’an which we possess today is and has always been final and pure, which prohibits any possibility for verification or falsification of the text.

Because Allah is revered much as a master is to a slave, so his word is to be revered likewise. One does not question its pronouncements any more than one would question a master’s pronouncements.

What then are we to do with the problems which do exist in the Qur’an? If it is such a transcendent book, as Muslims claim, then it should stand above any criticism. Yet, when we look more carefully at the text which we have in our possession today, that (supposedly) of Uthman’s final codification of the Qur’an, compiled by Zaid ibn Thabit, from a copy of Hafsah’s manuscript, we are puzzled by the differences between it and the other codices of Abdullah Masoud, Abu Musa, and Ubayy Ibn Ka’b, all of which have deviations and deletions between them. We are also puzzled by the many errors and contradictions in its text.

Other problems concern its very pronouncements. Because of its seeming transcendency we are obliged not question its content, much of which originates (we are told) from the later Medinan period of Muhammad’s life (the last 10 years). These Suras consist primarily of rules and regulations for seventh to ninth century social, economical, and political structures, leaving us with a document which is ill adapted to the twentieth century.

The Bible, by contrast is not simply a book of rigid rules and regulations, which takes a particular historical context and absolutizes it for all ages and all peoples. Instead, we find in the Bible broad principles with which we can apply to each age and each culture (i.e. worship styles, music, dress).

As a result the Bible is much more adaptable and constructive for our societies today. Since we do not have a concept of Nazil revelation, we have no fear of delving into and trying to understand the context of what the author was trying to say (historical analysis).

But one would expect such from a revelation provided by a personal God who intended to be actively involved in the transmission of His revelation.

Perhaps this is the crux of the problem between the two views on revelation.

Christians believe that God is interested in revealing Himself to His creation. Since the time of creation He has continued to do so in various ways. His beauty, power and intricate wisdom is displayed in the universe all around us, so that humanity cannot say that they have never known God. That is what some theologians like to call “general revelation.”

But God also chooses to reveal Himself more specifically; what those same scholars call “special revelation.” This He does by means of prophets, who are sent with a specific word for a specific time, a specific place, and a specific people.

Unfortunately, much of what was revealed to those people was quickly forgotten. The human mind has a remarkable urge to be completely independent of God, and will only take the time to think of Him (if at all) when they are in a crisis, or near to death.

Therefore, God saw the plight of His creation and in His love and compassion for His creation, decided to do something about it.

God decided to reveal Himself directly, without any intervening agent, to His creation. He did this also to correct that relationship which had been broken (which we will refer to later). This is consistent with a God who is personally involved with His creation.

Simply speaking, God Himself came to reveal Himself to humanity. He took upon Himself the form of a human, spoke our language, used our forms of expression, and became an example of His truth to those who were His witnesses, so that we, who are human would better understand Him who is beyond all human understanding.

As we find in Hebrews 1:1,2:

“God, who at various times and in diverse ways spoke in past times to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds.”

In Jesus Christ we see God perfectly revealed to humanity. This goes beyond special revelation. This is revelation personified!

The Bible, therefore, introduces the world to Jesus Christ. One may prefer to call it a secondary revelation, as it is simply the witness by men to the revelation of God. The Bible tells about His life, speaking about what He said and did, and then expounds upon these teachings for the world today. Consequently, it is a book which points to a person. We can use the book to learn about the person, but ultimately, we will need to go to the final revelation, Jesus Himself, to truly understand who God is.

And here is where revelation becomes specific for us today, because God did not simply stop revealing Himself with Jesus Christ. He still desires to be in relationship with His creation, and has continued to reveal Himself in an incarnational way. His ongoing revelation continues from that time right up until the present as He reveals Himself by means of Himself, the Holy Spirit, the comforter, convicting us of guilt in regard to sin, guiding us into all truth, telling us what is yet to come, and bringing glory to Jesus (John 16:7-15).

Jesus is the truest revelation. We find out about Him in the Bible. Yet, that is not all, for the Holy Spirit continues to make Him known to us even today, and that is why the scriptures become alive and meaningful for us.

For Muslims this must sound confusing, and possibly threatening. Perhaps to better explain this truth to them, we may want to change tactics somewhat. Instead of comparing the Qur’an with the Bible, as most apologists tend to do, it might be helpful to compare the Qur’an with Jesus, since they are both considered as the Word of God, and stand as God’s truest revelation to humanity.

The Bible (especially the New Testament), consequently, is the testimony of Jesus’s companions, testifying about what He said and did. To take this a step further, we could therefore compare the Bible with their Hadiths, or the Tarikh, the Sira and the Tafsir, all of which comment upon the history and teachings of the prophet and the Qur’an. While this may help us explain the Bible to a Muslim we must be careful to underline that while the New Testament speaks mostly about what Jesus said, about His message, it has little to say concerning what He did, whereas the Hadiths and such talk primarily about the life of Muhammad, what he did, with interpretations of what he said.

In this light, there is no comparison between the two revelations, Jesus and the Qur’an. The Qur’an, a mere book with all its faults and inadequacies, its very authenticity weakly resting on the shoulders of one finite man, who himself has few credentials as a prophet, is no match against Jesus, the man, revered by Muslims and Christians alike as sinless, who, according to His sinless word is God Himself, and therefore, the perfect revelation.

In light of Genesis 3 we would expect God to reveal Himself in this way, because that is what someone who desires a truly loving relationship would do. And this takes us to our seventh category, that of the incarnation.

C6: The Incarnation

Muslims would not accept that the perfect omnipotent God would choose to pollute Himself by coming amongst his creation, let alone live among them. Take for instance the pronouncement of the Muslim apologist Ahmed Deedat who identifies humanity as equalling worms, or maggots. He says:

“These worms, you know, that go on manure, human dung. You and I according to this book of God, you are nothing more than a maggot… God Almighty goes out of His way to tell you. Look, this Jesus of mine is no exception… this Son of Man, who is only a worm, worm, a worm! (shouting out the word).”

It is not surprising then, that with such a chasm between Allah and his creation there is no room for the incarnation in Islam, because it implies that Allah needed to do something to help humanity, almost as if he had to correct a mistake, his mistake.

Muslims would not say that Allah is incapable of doing this, but that it is against His character to do so. For proof, they point to the complete humanity of Jesus. How would God debase Himself so?

Since Jesus had all the characteristics of a human, they throw the problem back into our laps, contending that this fact alone is proof that Christians started from the perspective of humanity and simply elevated a man to the position of God. For a Muslim this act is considered the most heinous of sins, as it is simple idolatry, what the Qur’an refers to as “Shirk” (see Suras 4:48; 5:75-76; and 41:6).

For Christians, the incarnation, on the other hand, stands as one of the cardinal examples of God’s love for His creation. God, desiring to be in relationship with humanity, as we noticed earlier, takes the initiative and comes Himself as a human.

What better way to communicate than to enter into relationship with the people with whom you want to communicate, be one of them, live with them, speak their language, cry with them, and use their methods and world-view to better explain your truth. It is much the same model we use as missionaries when going cross-culture.

We must remember that it was God who came down to the garden with Adam, and incarnated Himself there. If He did it at that time, then why should we be surprised if He chose to do it again?

Since Muslims don’t have this incarnational story in their Qur’an, it stands to reason that they cannot perceive God in that role.

In what capacity was He there? Is this an incarnation, or a theophany? Most likely it was the later.

Muslims are not aware of the theophanies which many Christians believe are found in our scriptures: such as Genesis 18:1-33 where He came as Abraham’s visitor; or in Genesis 32:25- 30 where He wrestled with Jacob; or in Exodus 3:2-5 at the burning bush with Moses; or in Exodus 13:21 where He appeared as pillars of cloud and fire leading the Israelites; and later in Exodus 33:9-11 appearing as a cloud at the tent of Meeting with Moses; and finally in Judges 2:1 where He came as an angel at Bokim.

Once Muslims understand that the supreme incarnation Jesus Christ had entered time and space before, it will then be easier for them to understand that God could come down again as the Christ, 2,000 years ago.

They will also then understand that in His desire to be continually in relationship with us, He continues even till this day to incarnate Himself by means of His Holy Spirit.

Yet, though we can understand why God would want to incarnate Himself, so as to better communicate His truth to us, that is only half the picture. He did not simply come to earth to reveal the gospel. He came also to repair that relationship with His creation which had been broken at the very beginning, in the garden of Eden.

C7: The Cross / Atonement

We now come to the eighth category for delineating how the hermeneutical key of Genesis 3 helps us understand the nature of God and ourselves.

Earlier we talked about sin and mentioned that sin separated us from God and needed to be repaired. God ordained in the Old Testament that after sins were committed, the offender should seek to atone for them in order to be reconciled with God (Leviticus 4:2). The way this should be done was stipulated in great detail in the book of Leviticus. It was by means of a sacrifice. The word atonement appears 79 times in the Old Testament.

In the New Testament the place of an animal sacrifice was taken by Jesus, who suffered in the place of the offender once for all (Hebrews 9:12,14,26-27; 10:10).

Ironically, the word for atonement is found only once in the New Testament. We know from the Bible, therefore, that our relationship with God has been repaired by means of this sacrifice, this atonement on the cross.

Muslims disagree with this, reasoning that it would be unjust of God to punish the innocent for the offence of the guilty. Jesus, therefore, the just, cannot suffer for someone else’s sin, that of the unjust, for this would be offensive to God’s concept of righteousness and justice. Each person, they believe, must pay the penalty for their own sin. What the Qur’an does not teach, is that the penalty for sin is death. Sin, for them, can merely be forgiven with a few words of pardon from Allah. Death is not required.

It is for this reason that the death of one of God’s prophets is appalling to Muslims. Why would Allah allow prophets to die? God has promised to protect his prophets, yet ironically the Qur’an does admit that prophets did suffer and die in Sura 3:183.

To say that God, while in the form of a man, died is even more audacious, as it not only implies the inadequacy of Allah to protect His prophets, but assumes that God as a man could not even protect Himself!

Consequently no atoning death is needed. Muhammad taught that the shedding of blood for the sacrifice of one’s sin did not bring forgiveness in Suras 6:164 and 53:38.

Christians, on the other hand, believe that blood is required. Furthermore, we believe that Christ as God on the cross is the only means by which complete atonement can be achieved. Atonement means a reconciliation with God after having rebelled against Him by breaking the covenant that He made with humanity, which is sin.

Atonement demands the shedding of blood. It is not sufficient to simply say someone is forgiven. It should not be difficult for Muslims to understand this, as they are familiar with the sacrifice of Ishmael, and that of Cain versus Abel. It is part of their history as well. Yet, have they dared to stand back and question why so much of Old Testament history, and that which is revealed in the previous scriptures speak of blood sacrifices? Have they bothered to question why they must sacrifice a goat at Eid; or why the goat must be unblemished? These are bridges which we can use with the Muslims to introduce the need for atonement.

Sin demands a punishment in order for justice to be served. The offender deserves to be punished, to be put to death. Since sin separates us from God, atonement reverses that process by returning us to God.

By punishing sin with death God expresses His righteousness (providing for the justice demanded by the sin), and by taking the punishment on Himself, He expresses His mercy. Apart from this there is no way for a righteous God to punish the heinousness of the sin and yet be merciful as well.

Both Muslims and Christians believe in justice. Justice is getting what we deserve. We deserve to die. Mercy, which both Muslims and Christians believe in, is not getting what we deserve. Yet, we don’t deserve to be pardoned if sin has not been dealt with. That is a false pardon, but it is that which Islam offers. What is needed is grace. We don’t deserve pardon, because we have not paid for our sins. Yet, God, by His atonement on the cross has paid for our sin, which we receive by His grace. Therefore, Grace is getting what we don’t deserve. Only Christ on the cross fulfils the price of sin, death, and provides the atonement for those who acknowledge that God has bought them back a second time (i.e. the story of ‘little John’ and his boat: “Little boat you are mine two times; I first made you, and then I bought you back again.”)

C8: Predestination (where you find yourself when you’ve missed your train)

Sura 9:51 says “Nothing shall ever befall upon us except what Allah has ordained for us.” For many
Muslims the idea that Allah has total control over all that happens, including history, gives them the security they crave.

The popular phrase “Insh’allah”, which means “if Allah wills it,” reflects this mentality.

All our actions both good and bad, they believe, are controlled by Allah. Consequently, it is Allah who brings about evil and good. There is no personal choice, and consequently no assurance of salvation, as it is Allah who decides what is to happen to us (Sura 16:93,95). What Muslims fail to acknowledge is that this belief smacks of the mechanical doctrine of predestination, a non-questioning acceptance of destiny and a resignation to fate, commonly termed Kismet (or Qismah) in Arabic, much like a master to a slave or an engineer to a robot.

This is total determinism. Humanity is judged and condemned for what they cannot help doing. This is also total injustice. One would expect such from a non-personal god, one who seeks total obedience. Gone is any hope of free will.

For some, Allah’s complete control leads to a fatalism and passivity; while for others, it frees the mind from matters over which it has absolutely no control. Kismet makes the Muslim fanatically self-sacrificing in war, yet resigned in defeat or in bereavement or in disaster, or in the presence of preventable evil such as epidemics (because these could fall under the “will of Allah”).

Without the context of relationship one would expect Allah to be in total control, his creation accepting his authority without questioning, as a robot with its maker.

Christianity, however, views this relationship quite differently. The Bible stands against the idea of a total pre- destination of humanity. While there is some room for interpretation within scripture concerning whether God totally predestines or merely has foreknowledge of our choices (reflected in the two traditions which speak to this issue best: Reformed vs. Arminian thinking), it must be remembered that these views are only argued within the context of one’s salvation.

Many Christians believe that we are given the option of free-will, that we are given the option to accept our saviour or reject Him (notwithstanding the theology of election). God woos us, and we respond. Depending on our decision, we are either saved or condemned, but the decision rests with us.

This form of choice reflects what a lover would do for his loved one. One cannot demand love, it must be earned. We respond to God’s love by accepting Him, because He first loved us, and made it possible for us to respond freely to that love. A true relationship, by its very nature, requires the possibility for both acceptance and rejection. Therefore, it is this kind of relationship between the creator and His created which is unique to the God of the Bible.

C9: Theocracy

The tenth category which I would like to deal with is that of the Kingdom of God, and follows on from our discussion on predestination, in that if we begin with a God who controls us so completely, then we would expect his kingdom to reflect that same control.

A transcendent God would desire a transcendent kingdom, where he would have absolute authority. The term for this kingdom in Islam is Khilafah, which constitutes a theocratic state on earth, controlled by the dictates of Allah, and maintained as an aspiration for all Muslims.

Allah’s blueprint for all of life is best exemplified by the control which would be established within the Khilafah, and would include social, political, economical, legal (Shari’ah) and religious functions. Modelled upon a seventh-ninth century scenario, with a Caliph at the head, it would be supported by a hierarchy of religious leaders (Ulema) who would be chosen from within the circle of Dar-al-Islam (house of Islam).

Jacques Ellul in his writings speaks of cities as the epitome of rebellion against God. Cities, he believes, are man’s extreme attempt for security, to be their own gods, to be in control, and away from the authority of God. Theocracy has much the same desire. One might argue that this view of the Kingdom of God found within Islam, the Khilafa, parallels what we find in Ellul’s cities, an attempt to create structures of security for ourselves, which in the end merely take over and supplant God.

Christianity, on the other hand perceives itself as made up of individuals who are sojourners passing through this world. This is not our home. Indeed, our home is where God is, in heaven, or with the Holy Spirit on earth. We yearn and desire to be with Him at all times.

While on earth, our security is with Him, via the Holy Spirit. Thus our relationship with Him, in whatever environment we find ourselves (either belligerent or welcoming), is what we seek after. We have no need for a physical Kingdom of God, as He is with us wherever we are. Because our security is in His hands, we have no need to recreate that security.

We, therefore, are not fearful of belligerent kingdoms, and ironically, historically we have thrived under persecution. Perhaps that is because sometimes it takes persecution to eradicate our carnal securities, to put us back on the “cutting edge,” and bring us back into God’s security, back into relationship with Him. Thus, we stand against a theocracy.

Speaking of history, Christianity has a number of examples of failed theocracies, such as: Solomon’s kingdom, Constantine’s religious state in the 4th century, the Reformationist experiment in Geneva during the 1500’s, and colonialism in this century. All of these are examples of failed human attempts to create their own security, while erroneously using the name of God for their authority, much as Islam continues to do.

C10: Jihad

One cannot talk of a Khilafa state without also bringing into the picture the means by which it is installed, that which Muslims term Jihad, or “striving.” While many Muslims are quick to point out that this only refers to peaceful forms of Da’wah (which means “to invite”), much as we have in our own missionary activity, history has shown that much of the expansion across North Africa, and into the southern reaches of Turkey, and also into India (under Aurangzeb) was carried out by forceful conquest, followed by an “Islamic Ambience” (i.e. influencing from above, by implementing Dhimmi laws and Jizya and Kharaj tax).

Perhaps an easy example for today would be that of the existing Islamic countries which refuse to open themselves up for the propagation of the gospel. It is understandable why a religion which is rigid and transcendental would require such a violent and rigid means of propagation and consolidation.

Compare that with Christianity, where we are never invoked towards violence but are demanded specifically to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them… and teaching them…” (Matt.28:19-20). We know that we are merely the vessels of the Word of God, a pen in the hands of a ready-writer. It is the Holy Spirit who has the task to convict and bring men and women to God. God Himself, who desires to bring His creation back to Himself, does so Himself. We are His mouthpiece, through which the Holy Spirit can work. And that brings us to our 12th category, that of the Spirit World.

C11: The Spirit World

Islam perceives the world within a Dualistic framework, which some believe was borrowed from Aristotelian thought (discussed earlier). Therefore, much of the current Muslim superstitions surrounding the fear of Jinns and spirits do not belong within an orthodox understanding of Islam. In fact, most scholars today point to pre-Islamic Arabic religions, which incorporated many Jinns in their beliefs, for the influence of demons and Jinn in Islam. Theologically speaking, Islam has no “excluded middle.” Consequently, Folk Islam has evolved over the centuries to fill this gap, and interestingly, now makes up two- thirds of the Islamic world.

Allah, who is impersonal, does not involve himself in the day-to-day goings-on of humanity. He does not intersect time and space, and work amongst his creation, and therefore does not fulfil the need, which all humans have, to be in contact with something bigger than themselves.

Christianity, which accepts God as personal, acknowledges the spirit world. Jesus often speaks about it, and warns against the evil forces which Satan controls. Yet, He doesn’t just leave His creation open to the whims of the evil one, but promises power over him and his cohorts by means of the Holy Spirit.

One would expect a personal God to value His contact with His creation, while providing a defense against those evil powers which seek to thwart His rule, as we find in Christianity.

C12: Prayer

Along those same lines, a God who desires relationship with His creation would also desire to communicate with them on an ongoing basis.

In Islam we find that individuals can only communicate to Allah by means of certain prescribed prayers, many of which are memorized and repeated verbatim, without any thought of a response from God. It is a one-way communication (i.e. the 5 pillars: Shahada = a programmed oath, Salat = a programmed communication, Sawm = a programmed penitence, Hajj = a programmed fellowship, Zaka t= a programmed giving)

In Christianity prayer is not at all conceived within the framework of a programmed formula. We wouldn’t converse to a friend this way, nor to our wife or husband, and certainly not to Him who is the focus of our life, our Saviour and Lord. Relationship requires a two-way communication, so we would expect that a loving God who desires our relationship would willingly and joyfully respond to our requests and praises to Him.

C13: Paradise

The final category which I will deal with is that of paradise, or heaven. In Islam, Paradise is a garden, with rivers (some of wine), fruits and large eyed virgins (Hourris); a very carnal and man-centered environment (Suras 55:56; 56:22,35-36), reflecting again a seventh-ninth century Arabic mentality.

Ironically, in Islam, men are promised the very things which they must abstain from in this life. Nowhere is there any mention of Allah in relationship with his creation in paradise. He is conspicuously absent. The Islamic aversion towards any contact between the creator and his created continues even till the end. Mankind is relegated to spending eternity filling up on fruit, wine and women.

Christianity, however, has a completely contrasting view of heaven, one that is absolutely God-centered. For it is here, in heaven, that the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve finally return to full relationship with God. In heaven Eden is realized as it should have been. We are once again walking and talking with God, but in a new and invigorated garden.

In heaven the incarnation of God is fully realized, so that the relationship which He had intended from the very beginning comes to fruition. In heaven we come full circle. For every individual who accepts and acknowledges Christ’s relationship with them, brought about by means of the cross while on earth, will be allowed into a perfect and eternal relationship with God in heaven, as He had intended from the beginning.

D: Conclusion

So what can we say concerning this new hermeneutical key which we find in verses 8 and 9 of Genesis 3? Does it help us to better understand the gulf which exists between our two faiths? Can it be used to explain the Muslim and Christian views concerning who God is, who we are, and what God intends for us?

I believe it can, for if we use this key to compare we find that:

1. on the one hand, when we consider the Allah of Islam, we are confronted with a one-dimensional transcendent God who neither desires, nor is able to have a relationship with his creation.On the other hand, within the Biblical account we find substance to the concept of love and sin, because it is fashioned not only within the context of the Godhead but reflected within the relationship between the creator and His created. Love which creates the relationship, and sin, which destroys it.

2. On the one hand within Islam we find humanity created to serve and obey Allah, their sole responsibility that of viceregents on earth.On the other hand the Bible views the creation of humanity within the terms of a relationship, with a God who creates Adam to be much more than just a viceregent of the earth, but created to be His child whom He loves.

3. On the one hand we find an Allah who is totally one-dimensional, and singular, which excludes any possibility of how or where love and relationship originated.On the other hand we find that the fountainhead for relationship and love is exemplified within the Godhead itself, and is adequately described by the trinity, because only in the context of a God who is both three and one can true love have originated, which engenders relationship one with another, and which in turn gives us, who are made in His image, that same character.

4. On the one hand we find within Islam a concept of sin which is cheap and simplistic, because it does not take into account that which sin has destroyed, the relationship which only humans enjoy with their creator. Nor does it take into account the consequences of sin, which is death, both physical and spiritual.On the other hand the Bible not only acknowledges the heinousness of sin, and its consequence, but it speaks of a response, provided by God Himself on the cross, a more than adequate atonement for our sins, restoring that relationship with God which He had intended with Adam in the garden of Eden.

5. On the one hand we find the final revelation of Islam a mere book, the Qur’an, an echo of its creator, supposedly, though a book, totally transcendent, final, cold and non- verifiable.On the other hand the revelation which we hold most dear is that of God Himself, in the person of Jesus on earth. The Bible, which is merely a book written by men, though inspired, is only a secondary account of what the true revelation, Jesus, said and did, and to which we can refer to in order to know better who God is, and what He intends for our lives.

6. On the one hand, because of Genesis 3, we can now understand why Islam fails to acknowledge an incarnational God, as this would pollute his character.On the other hand, within a Christian framework, we would expect God to take on the form of a human since He had previously done so not only in Genesis 3 but subsequently as well, choosing to enter time and space to communicate and relate with His creation, both in history and now, by means of the Holy Spirit.

7. On the one hand, the cross and the atonement for Muslims make no sense, since without any true concept of the separation with God which sin causes, there is no need for a reparation, and thus no need for an atonement, or a saviour.On the other hand because Christianity is the only faith which points to the dilemma of a creator separated from His creation, through no fault of His own, it is the only faith, likewise, which adequately provides an answer to the separation which we all feel with our creator, a solution rendered by the creator, Himself, on the cross 2,000 years ago.

8. On the one hand a transcendent God would necessarily require a transcendent kingdom, exemplified in the Khilafa, a structured hierarchical entity which controls all aspects of human life, much as a master would control a slave. It would follow that the means by which individuals are brought in to the Khilafa, Jihad, also reflects this same distant and impersonal thinking.On the other hand the Biblical perception of God’s children is that of sojourners, incorporating, voluntarily, the kingdom within their hearts, in anticipation of the final and eternal kingdom of God, which we yearn for, but which we will only experience on the other side of death.

9. On the one hand a dualistic world, as Islam personifies, leaves no room for the work of God amongst His people. Allah, because he is distant, remains distant, not even attempting to communicate personally with his creation, demanding instead a blind and complete obedience to his rules and regulations.On the other hand Yahweh of the Bible, because He truly desires a relationship desires equally to communicate and involve Himself intrinsically with His creation; responding to prayers, while guiding and protecting His loved ones much as we would expect a true father to do.

10. And finally, on the one hand without any understanding of Allah in relationship with humanity, Islam delivers a view of paradise which is quite carnal and man-centered, an escape to all the desires which man is to repress in this life, with no inference at all to Allah’s presence. And humanly speaking, that possibly makes sense.On the other hand heaven for a Christian is where the relationship broken at the time of Eden is finally and completely restored, where the creator reunites with His created, coming full circle to offer humanity the life which He had intended from the very beginning, to be with Him in perfect relationship for eternity. Now this makes more sense.

So, essentially, what we have found in this discussion is that without a view of a God who is in relationship with His creation, all the other ramifications of our lives fall into a cold and calculated man-centered existence, devoid of God’s presence. Until Muslims understand that God is not just a one- dimensional transcendent being, but personal and loving, they won’t be able to understand the reason or the possibility for a loving God who can and did come to earth to rectify the moral dilemma of our sin.

And until they begin to step back and take a critical look at the authority for their beliefs: the Qur’an, Muslims will be condemned to limit their view of reality to that of the dualistic, black and white hues which it proposes, while neglecting the myriad of colours which reflect the true revelation of a God seeking to relate to each of His creation, personally, and in accordance to their individual needs, so that we all can live with Him in relationship, as was intended in the garden of Eden.

Furthermore, until Muslims see God and Man in the context of a loving relationship, as they were originally were in Eden, they won’t understand why sin has caused so much damage. Nor will they understand why we need to repair that which has gone wrong.

Islam, without a concept of the personal loving and sacrificial God, only has half the picture. God as Abba father wants to be in relationship with me and you His children, now more than ever before. The good news is that the possibility for a repaired relationship has been provided by God, both because of what happened on the cross 2,000 years ago, and subsequently, because of the continuing work of the Holy Spirit in our lives today. We don’t have to wait for the “pie in the sky when we die, but can enjoy the steak on our plate while we wait.” It is that which gives us hope.

What remains is for us to speak, and go out and offer to our Muslim friends that which their revelation cannot offer; a true view of the creator-God in relationship with His creation; a relationship which, because of the fruit, was temporarily broken, but which, because of the cross, can be repaired at any time, anywhere, and by any one, loved and un-loved alike.

An Explanation of the Trinity for Muslims

Gerry Redman

Introduction

Undoubtedly one of the hottest areas of debate in discussions between Christians and Muslims is the Christians dogma of the Trinity. Almost invariably, Muslims are convinced that Christians believe in three, separate deities, whilst Christians are adamant in affirming their absolute commitment to monotheism. Without question, the concept of the Triune deity – indeed, the whole doctrine of God – is difficult to understand, but this difficulty is unnecessarily accentuated if an uninformed or incorrect view of Christian dogma is held by Muslims. The purpose of this paper is to set the record straight, and also to compare and contrast aspects of the doctrine of God in both religions.

1. Divine Ontology

1.1 The Biblical Doctrine of God

The Bible reveals a God who is personal. We encounter a Being Who thinks, wills, loves, etc. 1 Corinthians 2:11 is clear in presenting a Being Who has thoughts. He loves – 2 Corinthians 13:14. He has a will – 1 Thessalonians 5:18. The essential qualities of personality are mind, will and emotion, and the Bible presents a God possessed of all these faculties. God is personal. The impersonal deity of Hinduism – ‘Brahman’ – is not the deity presented to us in Scripture.

God is a Spirit; this is the clear testimony of Scripture, stated plainly in John 4:24 – God is a spirit. The Mormon doctrine of a deity possessing bodily, physical parts is wholly contrary to Scripture. The words of Jesus in Luke 24:39 are emphatic; a spirit does not have flesh and bones. If God did have a body, the comment of Colossians 2:9 about Jesus in would be redundant – the Scripture is marvelling at the mystery of the Incarnation – God taking a body; He thus did not previouslypossess one. 1 Timothy 3:15 speaks of the ‘household of God’ and ‘the church of the living God’, and v.16 then says ‘He appeared in a body’, to indicate that this is ‘the mystery of godliness’ – that God could take human nature and thus a body alongside His divine nature and essence. The deity of the Word already having been established in John. 1:1, John 1:14 says the ‘Word became flesh’ – therefore He was not flesh beforehand.

It is true that Scripture does speak sometimes of God having limbs, but both the context and the teaching of Scripture as a whole – the Analogy of Faith – clarify that this is purely figurative terminology e.g. Ezekiel 3:14, 22ff, 8:1-3, 37:1 etc. use ‘Hand of YHWH’ and ‘Spirit of YHWH’ interchangeably. The term is employed because the ‘hand’ is the ‘power’ of the body (e.g. ‘you’re in my hands’), and the Spirit is the ‘power’ of God.

Other attributes of God include aseity (self-existence) – John 1:1-3 indicates that He is the uncaused eternal, self-existent being, and that everything is dependent upon Him. The divine Name YHWH indicates this – ‘I Am Who I Am’: His ground of entity rests in His own being – John 5:26 – ‘the Father has life in Himself.’ Linked to this is the fact that He is eternal – Psalm 90:2, Ephesians 3:21, a point pregnant in the name YHWH itself. He is infinite, unlimited by space or time. He is omnipresent, filling all things, 1 Kings 8:27; Acts 7:48-49. Hence, God is both transcendent and immanent. Another attribute is omniscience, Psalm 139:1-12, which is linked to His perfect wisdom, Daniel 2:20-21.

It follows from all this that as God is perfect in every way, Matthew 5:48, He is immutable, Malachi 3:6, James 1:17. Thus he cannot, in the strict sense, ‘repent’ i.e. change His mind, 1 Samuel 15:29. It is true that Jonah 3:10 does speak of His doing so, but what happened there was that because of the wickedness of Nineveh, God was going to destroy the city, but when the situation changed, the attitude of God and thus His action – i.e. wrath and destruction, which were directed to an condition of sin, were no longer operable. In other words, God did not change, the situation did so. Likewise, in the Incarnation, God did not metamorphose into humanity, nor did he cease at any time to be God, He simply took another nature as well as His divine nature. The babe in a Palestinian manger 2000 years ago remained the Creator of the world.

It need hardly be said that God is omnipotent and sovereign, Genesis 18:14, Luke 1:37. He is holy, Isaiah 6:5, true – John 14:6, Hebrews 6:18, and Love – 1 John 4:8.

1.2 The Islamic Doctrine of God

1.2.1 The Nature of God In Islam

Islamic fiqh (jurisprudence) says the following about the nature of God:

AL-RISALA (Maliki Manual)

Chapter 1

On that which tongues shall utter and hearts believe of the obligatory religious affairs.

1.01 GOD

That includes having faith at heart and uttering with the tongue that Allah is the one God and that there is no other god apart from Him. There is none similar to Him, and He has no equal. He has no son, father or wife. Besides, He has no associates.

His earlier existence had no beginning and His future existence shall have no end. His true nature cannot be described by anyone, nor can thinkers imagine that nature.

To know Him one considers His signs, but one does not think about His essence. None learns anything about His knowledge, except that which He wills. His throne spreads over the heavens and the earth and the upholding of both the heavens and the earth does not burden Him. He is the Exalted and the Great.

He is the Knower, the Knowing, the Organiser, the Powerful, the Hearing, the Seeing, the Exalted and the Great. He settles upon His glorious throne with His essence. He is everywhere with His knowledge. He created man and knows what his soul is whispering. Allah is closer to a man than the man’s jugular vein. A single leaf does not fall down except that He knows of it. Neither would a grain in the dark recesses of the earth nor a wet or dry object exist without being in the Clear Book.

Allah has settled upon the throne and holds sovereignty. He has the most beautiful names and most exalted attributes. He continues with all His attributes and names. He is too Exalted for these attributes to have been created and for his names to have occurred at a given time.

He addressed Moses with His words which are the attribute of His essence, and not a creature from His creation. He appeared before the rock and it became flat because of His Majesty.

God’s seven principal attributes are Life, Knowledge, Power, Will, Hearing, Sight, Speech. He is self-existent – this is the import of S. 112. It follows from this that God is the creator, omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent, eternal. The immanence of God is not emphasised as in Christianity, but the Qur’an does hold that God is nearer to man than his own jugular vein, S. 50:15. In this respect we discern a parallel with the Christian idea of divine personality. Among the differences, we find that in Islam God is not omnipresent, and thus Christianity has a greater emphasis on divine immanence than does Islam. In Islam, Allah resides in the heavens, above His creation. He does not directly interact with it. His inspiration and sovereignty is effected by the mediation of angels. This idea conforms to the Muslim emphasis on divine transcendence.

From this we can understand that the effecting of divine sovereignty by angels corresponds to a large degree to the Christian concept of the function of the Holy Spirit, and it may not be coincidental that the Ruh al-Qudus (Holy Spirit) in Islam is the archangel Jibril (Gabriel). The Biblical idea of Covenant is thus impossible for Islam (at least prior to the end of the world) since its essence is that ‘I will be their God, they will be My People, and I will dwell in their midst‘ (e.g. Genesis 17:7-8; Exodus 6:7; 2 Corinthians 6:6). Nor is the Biblical concept of the Spirit of God indwelling an individual possible. In Islam, God is locally confined (by His own nature), and thus the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is infeasible, whereas the Christian emphasis on divine immanence and omnipresence allow for its potential.

It follows that the Biblical concept of Incarnation, being a logical consequence of the Covenant as well as one of its climactic acts, is out of question to Islam not just because of the incompatibility of deity and humanity, but because God simply does not descend to live with His creatures (apart from at the eschaton, when the spiritual condition of Mankind and the earth will be metamorphosed for the divine presence.): rather, the reverse is true – Man ascends to Paradise. The Muslim idea is that Allah condescends for a time to allow His power to descend to the earth to effect His will. As opposed to indwelling His creation, He visits it.

1.2.2 The Most Beautiful Names

The name of God in Islam is Allah, which is the Essential Name of the Deity. It corresponds to the Biblical name Yahweh as opposed to Elohim, which indicates that Allah is the proper name of the Deity rather than the generic description. The Islamic scholar Mawdudi, after stating that the Arabic word ilah corresponds to ‘God’, states ‘The word Allah, on the other hand, is the essential personal name of God.’ Islam gives the name Allah the title of ism ad-dhat – ‘the Name of the Nature’. All Other titles, such as Rabb, ‘Lord’, are regarded as attributes. Apart from the Essential Name, ninety-nine Other names are to be discovered in the Qur’an and Hadith, and these are termed the ‘Names of the Attributes’, or ‘the most beautiful names’ in several ayat of the Qur’an. The Hadith corpus lists the ‘Most Beautiful Names’:

AbuHurayrah MISHKAT AL-MASABIH

Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said, ‘Allah Most High has ninety-nine names. He who retains them in his memory will enter Paradise.

He is Allah, other than whom there is no god, the Compassionate, the Merciful, the King, the Holy, the Source of Peace, the Preserver of Security, the Protector, the Mighty, the Overpowering, the Great in Majesty, the Creator, the Maker, the Fashioner, the Forgiver, the Dominant, the Bestower, the Provider, the Decider, the Knower, the Withholder, the Plentiful Giver, the Abaser, the Exalter, the Honourer, the Humiliator, the Hearer, the Seer, the Judge, the Just, the Gracious, the Informed, the Clement, the Incomparably Great, the Forgiving, the Rewarder, the Most High, the Most Great, the Preserver, the Sustainer, the Reckoner, the Majestic, the Generous, the Watcher, the Answerer, the Liberal, the Wise, the Loving, the Glorious, the Raiser, the Witness, the Real, the Trustee, the Strong, the Firm, the Patron, the Praiseworthy, the All-Knowing, the Originator, the Restorer to Life, the Giver of Life, the Giver of Death, the Living, the Eternal, the Self-sufficient, the Grand, the One, the Single, He to Whom men repair, the Powerful, the Prevailing, the Advancer, the Delayer, the First, the Last, the Outward, the Inward, the Governor, the Sublime, the Amply Beneficent, the Accepter of Repentance, the Avenger, the Pardoner, the Kindly, the Ruler of the Kingdom, the Lord of Majesty and Splendour, the Equitable, the Gatherer, the Independent, the Enricher, the Depriver, the Harmer, the Benefactor, the Light, the Guide, the First Cause, the Enduring, the Inheritor, the Director, the Patient.’

Tirmidhi and Bayhaqi, in Kitab ad-Da’wah al-Kabir, transmitted it, Tirmidhi saying this a gharib tradition.

An obvious point of reference between Christianity and Islam is that in Christianity, it is revealed that God is Love, whilst one of the names of God in Islam is ‘the Loving’. God is described as ‘loving’ in the Qur’an, S. 3:76; S. 19:96, although the principal Muslim expression and stress is on the related concepts of compassion and mercy is found in the bismillah – Allah the Merciful, the Compassionate, which adorn all but one Qur’anic Surah. Ar-rahman describes His intrinsic merciful character, and ar-rahim, explains His merciful action. The British Muslim convert Gai Eaton states:

It is said that the former describes God as He is in His eternal nature and that everything is brought into existence through the overflowing of this innate “Mercy”, while the latter – al-Rahim – refers to the blessings He pours out upon His creatures.

1.2.3 Arab polytheism in relation to ‘Allah’

Islam holds that the pristine, true worship of Allah in Arabia was distorted by Arab polytheism. A frequent polemical assertion of the Qur’an is that Allah has no ‘partners’ or ‘offspring’. This was particularly pointed since in practice the supposed progeny of Allah were the effective objects of worship rather than Allah Himself, and indeed, the Qur’an refers to the three favourite deities of the Meccans – Lat, Uzza and Manat as the binat’Allah – ‘the daughters of Allah’. It can be seen from this that the original reference of this assertion was not to any purported Christian view of Trinitarianism or divine sonship, but rather to the polytheistic Arab idea of Allah’s paternity of the Meccan pantheon. Yet Islam tends to associate the Biblical dogma of the eternal Sonship of Christ with pagan ideas of divine progeny. In commentating on Surah 66:12, Yusuf Ali, the great Qur’an translator, states the following:

The virgin birth should not therefore be supposed to imply that Allah was the father of Jesus in the sense in which Greek mythology makes Zeus the father of Apollo by Latona or of Minos by Europa. And yet that is the doctrine to which the Christian idea of ‘the only begotten Son of God’ leads.

Similarly, S. 19:88 purportedly attacks the Christian concept of divine sonship. Yusuf Ali states:

Here the Christian attitude is condemned, which raises Jesus to an equality with Allah: in some cases venerates Mary almost to idolatry: attributes a physical son to Allah: and invents the doctrine of the Trinity, opposed to all reason, which according to the Athanasian Creed, unless a man believes, he is doomed to hell for ever.

Yet what Islam is condemning in this text is a naturalistic idea of the eternal Sonship of Jesus, proposing a concept of God behaving like the gods of Greece and Rome, seducing humans and producing demi-gods. This is not how Biblical and historic Christian dogma has presented the idea of divine sonship in its understanding.

2. The Unity and Uniqueness of God

2.1 Biblical Data

The Bible is adamant in contending for the unity and uniqueness of God. The Shema, Deuteronomy 6:4 expresses this succinctly ‘the Lord our God, the Lord is one’. It is probably best to understand this as stating ‘the Lord our God is Lord alone’ i.e. unique, thus reflecting the First Commandment which forbids the worship of rivals to YHWH (such as Baal). This is fundamental to Biblical faith. Mark 12:29 reiterates this, emphasising this before elaborating our duty of attitude to God. The Shema is the basic tenet of faith of Hebrew religion; its creed, in fact. This truth is re-emphasised in Galatians 3:20 ‘God is One’ and James 2:19 ‘…there is one God’. Christianity is monotheistic – believing in one God who is undivided.

Further texts of note include Deuteronomy 4:35 – ‘YHWH is God: beside Him there is no other’. Deuteronomy 32:39 ‘there is no god beside Me’. These Scriptures express the uniqueness of YHWH; He alone is God. The Bible wholly rejects polytheism, and the Decalogue jealousy reserves worship for YHWH. Throughout the Old Testament, a running battle is fought against attempts by Israel to syncretise their religion; e.g. to mix Baal-worship with the adoration of YHWH. 2 Sam. 22:32 rhetorically queries ‘who is God besides the Lord?’ Hezekiah likewise states ‘you alone are God’. Isaiah 43:10 emphatically declares that before YHWH there was no god, nor will one follow Him. Isaiah 44:6 states that He is the First and the Last – there is no God apart from Him.

It is true that the word ‘god’ is sometimes used of other beings, e.g. Satan – 2 Corinthians 4:4; Moses – Exodus 7:1; the Judges – Psalm 82:6; but such is purely metaphorical and is qualified by adjectival phrases e.g. ‘god of this age’, a god ‘to Pharaoh’, (possibly, ‘as God to Pharaoh’), whilst Psalm 82 is clear that Judges are metaphorically termed ‘gods’ because they exercise governing authority in His name.

2.2 The Islamic View

Given that Islam viewed Hejazi polytheism as the distortion of the pristine faith, it can be understood that Muhammad saw his prophetic mission as seeking the restoration of the primal, undiluted and unique worship of Allah alone. That is, Muhammad was directing his polemic against polytheism, and thus the fulcrum of his message concerned the unity and uniqueness of God, termed in Islam as tawhid. The Shahada, the Islamic declaration of faith, demonstrates this emphasis in the words La ilaha illa llah – ‘there is no God but God’. The first clause of the Shahada is termed nafi – what is rejected, and the second clause as ithbat – what is established. This is based on the teaching of the Qur’an on this issue. Islam stresses that Allah is self-subsisting, and sufficient, without need for forebears, offspring or equals. The Islamic doctrine of shirk, ‘association’, which is the unforgivable sin in Islam, thus concerns the polytheistic practice of ‘associating’ other beings with God.

Islam holds that Christianity offends in this matter by virtue of its belief in the Trinity and the eternal Sonship of Christ. However, it should be stated in response that this accusation would only be true if Christians believed in Tritheism or in the deification of a human being, similar to the way the Romans raised figures to the position of divinity such as Romulus (who was deified as Quirinus) or Augustus. Islam accuses Christians with promoting a mere human being – Jesus, viewed simply as a prophet – to the status of deity. However, the Christian position is actually the opposite to some degree: Man did not become God, God took human nature alongside His divine nature without ceasing to be God. Deity and humanity are not confused in the One Person of Christ. Deity is not diluted, nor humanity elevated.

Moreover, what the Qur’an attacks is Tritheism, belief in three Gods. Such a dogma is completely absent from the Christian Scriptures and from orthodox Christian tradition such as that stated at the Councils of Nicæa (325 A.D.) and Chalcedon (451), which professed belief in the Triune nature of the Godhead, as opposed to any tritheistic ideas. For this reason Christians can sincerely plead ‘not guilty’ to the accusation of shirk, since they do not believe in a divided divine essence. They do not believe in three gods. They believe in three Persons sharing the same divine essence. On this basis, Christians are not ‘associating’ any being with God, since they are not shattering the single divine essence or proposing that there is a plurality of divine essences; rather they are affirming an inseparable distinction within the unique divine essence. Nor is the generation of the Son to be viewed in terms of a temporal distinction between the First and Second Persons of the Trinity. There was never a time when the Son did not exist, nor is His essence different from that of the Father (or the Spirit). The charge of ‘association’ demands a division of the divine essence, or a plurality of such essences, and neither proposition has ever been held by Christians.

3. Relationship of Persons in the Trinity

3.1 Definition

Before discussing the evidence for the Trinity, it is well to define what we mean by such. Scripture does not reveal three gods (Tritheism), or three ‘modes’ or ‘manifestations’ of the One Person of God (Sabellianism). Rather, it teaches the existence of the One God eternally present in three Persons – Father, Son and Spirit. There is one divine essence – the quality of ‘being’, the ontological nature of deity, the quality of ‘Godhood’.

3.2 One Essence, Distinct, Inseparable Subsistence

As human beings, we all share a common quality of Humanity. We possess a human nature. Similarly, the three divine Persons commonly possess the quality of deity with the difference that in their case it is a single nature, indivisible and notseparate, whereas humans possess a common nature that is differently present in each individual. It is never fully and infinitely present in a single individual.

The divine Persons are distinct but not separate. They commonly possess the one nature, one mind, one will, one energy. Individual men possess only individual parts of human nature, whilst the Persons of the Trinity each possess it wholly and indivisibly, and equally. The Persons possess an essence which is numerically one. The term ‘Persons’ is inadequate, but nought else suffices. They are not separable. They exist in, through and unto each other. There are three different modes of existence or subsistence within the divine essence, distinguished by their properties and offices – Paternity, Filiation and Spiration.

3.3 Eternal Generation And Spiration

The Father is unbegotten, and He is the Source of the generation of the Son and thus ultimately of the Spiration of the Holy Spirit. Women bear, men beget. This is what is meant when we say that the First Person begets or generates the Second. The Son is begotten of the Father. Generation is the act whereby the Father is the Ground of a second personal subsistence like His own, and puts the Second Person in possession of the whole divine essence – all this as one indivisible act.

The difference with human fathers and sons is that with God, the generation is eternal – there was never a time when the Son was not in existence, and it is a necessary act – it was not an act of choice or will – it was unconditional. God would not be God if He were not a Trinity. The Father has only one begotten Son, unique – John 3:16. The same basic process is true of the Spirit, save that it is a joint act of the Father and the Son, equally eternal and necessary – only termed Spiration, for whereas the Son being in the image of the Father received the property of communicating the entire divine essence to another Person (in conjunction with the Father) but the Spirit receives no such property. The Spirit is the completion of the Godhead, and is the ‘bond of love’ between the other two Persons – Matthew 10:20 – ‘Spirit of the Father’, Galatians 4:6 ‘Spirit of the Son’.

3.4 The Trinity According To Islam

There are major difficulties for Muslims with regard to their understanding of the Trinity. The Qur’an attacks belief in a Trinity comprising three gods, and declares that the Trinity consists of God, Mary and Jesus. The object of the Islamic polemic in this respect does not reflect the Biblical and historic Christian concept of the Trinity as being three hypostases sharing the same essence. What Islam attacks is Tritheism, something which Biblical Christians have never advocated. Devotion to Mary was certainly an increasing feature of the time in which Muhammad began his mission, and intercessory powers were attributed to her, in contradiction to the Holy Scriptures. In later ages this elevation became more extravagant, and the Protestant Reformation was a return to the Biblical position on this. However, the onus is on Muslims to prove that any Christian group ever explicitly declared her to be a deity.

The problem for Muslims is that Christians are not guilty of the accusation hurled against them with respect to Tritheism. Christian Trinitarian doctrines are not to be equated with pagan ideas of divine paternity. Tritheism would undermine the Biblical position on the unity and uniqueness of God, since, as we have seen, Christianity is aggressively monotheistic, and eschews any idea that the Godhead is divided. Three hypostases yes, three gods, no! The Biblical and historic Christian position found in the Creeds and Confessions of faith clarify that Christianity believes in one single divine essence shared by three hypostases, and definitely not three separate deities – i.e. three independent essences.

Whilst we should not discount the possibility of the existence of a heretical group of Christians holding these beliefs, we would have to make two points in this regard: firstly, the onus is on Muslims to prove the existence of such a group, and secondly, such views were not those held by orthodox, historic Christianity. It should be remembered that Muhammad actually met a Christian delegation from Najran, which contained a leading theologian in its ranks, and we know he had some other contacts with Christians, not least with the Negus of Abyssinia. It is most unlikely that any believed in the kind of physical sonship akin to that of pagan deities with which the Qur’an accuses Christianity.

This can be illustrated by examining what occurred at the time of the Najran visit. This visit is recorded in the Hadith. The aim of the deputation was to engage in theological debate and also to resolve some political issues, which are not pertinent to our theme. The Sirah of Ibn Ishaq states that the group was sixty strong, and included the political leader of Najran, Abdu’l-Masih, an administrator called al-Ayham, and a renowned bishop and theologian named Abu Haritha bin ‘Alqama. The delegation were said to be ‘…Christians according to the Byzantine rite…’, although this is unlikely. More probable is that they were Monophysites, as opposed to the Chalcedonian Orthodox of Byzantium, given their proximity to Abyssinia. According to the Sirah, they informed the Muslims that Jesus was God; the son of God; the third person of the Trinity ‘…which is the doctrine of Christianity.’ They supported their claims by pointing to his miracles. Purportedly, the ayat in Surah Al-i-Imranreferring to Christian beliefs came into existence at this time, and Muhammad stated them to the Najran delegation.

The German Muslim scholar Ahmad von Denffer refers to the Sirah and states that the delegation argued ‘…that God was three in one.’ Hence, the Najranis did not argue for three separate deities. von Denffer also comments that Muhammad received Christian deputations form Yemen and Bahrain. It is possible that some of these were Nestorians, but whether the Christians involved were Monophysites, Nestorians or Chalcedonians, none of them would have believed in Tritheism – the tripartite division of the divine essence, as opposed to tripersonal distinction within the same divine essence. Nor would any of them have held to the deity of Mary, or that the Trinity was God, Mary and Jesus. It is hard to imagine that Muhammad could have been unaware as to the true Biblical or historic Christian position. Indeed, von Denffer states ‘…one wonders why even today some people raise the objection that Muhammad, as they put it, did not know the Christian scriptures well enough…’

4. Biblical Data for Plurality in the Godhead

4.1 Trinitarian Texts

To Muslims, it seems contradictory to speak of a ‘Trinity’ and yet hold to the doctrine of one God. Of course, we are not advocating Tritheism, but Triunity. Moreover, there is Old Testament evidence that God is not unipersonal. The general term for ‘God’ is Elohim, whereas YHWH (i.e. ‘the LORD’) is His personal name. There are three possible personal numbers in Hebrew: singular, dual, and plural, the last-mentioned indicating three or more, and Elohim is of this kind – plural. It would be natural then to translate it as ‘gods‘, save that it is followed by a singular verb, and there is interchange between singular and plural pronouns e.g. Genesis 1:26-27 – ‘God said, let Us make man in Our image after Our likeness..and God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him.’ (cf. Genesis 3:22; 11:6-7.)

Further evidence is found Isaiah 6:8 ‘I heard the voice of the Lord saying, ‘Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?’. cf. Zechariah 2:8 with v 9 and v 11 – the Lord sends someone who is the Lord! Hence there is a distinction within God. Isaiah 48:12-16 presents God as speaking, concluding with the expression ‘The Lord God has sent Me, and His Spirit’ – One God in plurality. Malachi 3:1 speaks of ‘the Lord you are seeking… the messenger of the covenant you desire’ – but the one speaking is the Lord. Zechariah 13:7 has the Lord speaking of the ‘Shepherd of Israel’ and ‘the Man next Me’. The German theologian Hengstenberg, along with many commentators, renders this as ‘fellow’ or ‘neighbour’, which in the usage of the time implied‘brother’ i.e. one of the same quality of nature – cf. Leviticus 19:11, 15, 17; 24:19; 25:15-17; 6:2. It is the equivalent of John 10:30 – ‘I and the Father are one’. These all indicate that the Old Testament sees a plurality in the Godhead, a distinction of persons within God.

The Theophanies – the manifestations of God in human form – presage the Incarnation, the distinction being that with the latter, we are dealing with a permanent theanthropic entity. The Angel of YHWH in the Old Testament is to be distinguished from angels in general. This is demonstrated by Genesis 1:18ff where three men (the number itself is significant) visit Abraham. Two of them are angels – 19:1, but the other is the Lord – v10, 13, 22. The Angel of YHWH appeared to Moses in Exodus 3:2. and in v6 introduces Himself as the God of the Patriarchs. Likewise, we should consider Genesis 16:7-13, 21:17-18, 22:11, 48:15-16, Judges 2:1-5, 6:11-22, cf. v14 and v16. Cf. also the Captain of the host of the Lord before Joshua, Josh 5:13-15 – who is the Lord, 6:2, and we should note that like the Theophany who appeared at Sinai to Moses, the Theophany here commands the human subject to remove his shoes in reverence.

Isaiah 63:7-10 presents the three together – ‘the LORD … and the angel of His Presence … but they … grieved His Holy Spirit’. Cf. Isaiah 48:12-16. The Aaronic Benediction in Numbers 6:24-27 perhaps points to the Trinity:

The Lord bless you and keep you:

The Lord make His face shine upon you, and be gracious unto you:

The Lord lift up His countenance and give you peace. (cf. 2 Cor. 13:14)

The threefold ascription of praise to God is significant – Isaiah 6:3 ‘Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of Hosts’. (cf. Revelations 4:8)

The New Testament, being the fulfilment of the Old, is also the fuller revelation, since Biblical revelation is progressive up to the first coming of Christ. The Father is God: Matthew 6:8, 7:21, Galatians 1:1. The Son is God: John 1:1 – Greek scholars all reject the Jehovah’s Witnesses’s New World translation perversion. The Word was God. The syntax of John 1:1 is instructive in this regard, by virtue of placing the definite predicate before the verb but without the definite article (‘Colwell’s rule’):

‘En arxh ‘hn

‘o logos, kai logos ‘hn pros ton qeon, kai qeos ‘hn ‘o logos.

Not only does it affirm that Jesus (the Word) is God, it also demonstrates that the Godhead is not exhausted in Jesus, that is, that Jesus is not alone God, but rather there are more persons than the Son in the Godhead.

Romans 9:5 presents Jesus as ‘God over all’ – the context of sorrow over Israel’s fall precludes a doxology, and such does not usually appear in the middle of a passage. Doxologies usually refer to someone mentioned in the preceding sentence – Romans 1:25; 11:26; 2 Corinthians 11:31; Galatians 1:5; 2 Timothy 4:18. Whenever euloghtos (‘blessed’) is used in an independent doxology, it always stands at the beginning of a sentence, e.g. 2 Corinthians 1:3; Ephesians 1:1; 1 Peter 1:3. As it stands, ‘God over all’ balances ‘concerning the flesh’. Christ is God over all.

Romans 14:10 refers to the Judgment Seat of God, and 2 Corinthians 5:10 ascribes it to Christ. John 1:18 speaks of Jesus as the unique (monogenes) God. Acts 20:28 speaks of the Church of God purchased with His blood – thus Jesus is God. Jesus, in John 5:22-23, states that all men may give Him equal honour as to the Father, and since the honour we give to God is worship, Jesus must be God. It is is clear from John 5:18-19 that the Jews recognized Jesus as claiming deity. John 8:58 presents Him as claiming the personal name of God, ‘I am’ (YHWH). Cf. also Colossians 1:15; 2:9; Philppians 2:6-11; 2 Thessalonians 1:12; Hebrews 1:8-10; 1 John 5:20. Titus 2:13 speaks of the ‘great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, as does 2 Peter 1:1. If God and Jesus were distinguished, there would normally need to be a definite article before ‘Saviour’, but it is absent, so the exts affirm Christ’s deity. Revelation 1:17, 18; 2:8; 22:12, 13, 16 all refer to Jesus as Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End – used of God in Isaiah 41:4; 44:6; 48:12.

The Spirit is God: Mark 3:29 – only God can be blasphemed. Acts 5:3-4 – Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit who is God. 2 Corinthians 3:7-16 refers to Exodus 34:29-35 when Moses communed with the Lord, whom the New Testament scripture equates with the Spirit. Hebrews 9:14 says that the Spirit is eternal, and only God possesses that attribute.

The three are one – Matthew 28:19 – baptism is in the name (singular) of the Trinity. It is implied in the benediction of 2 Corinthians 13:14 – it would be illegitimate to so construct the text unless the three were equal and one. It is essential to guard against tritheism – three gods – and Modalistic Monarchianism – the idea that God is uni-personal (rather than, as we have seen, tri-personal) and that the names Father, Son and Spirit are simply different manifestations of the same Person e.g. as a man may be at the same time a husband to his wife, a son to his mother, a father to his children – thus the Son is God in His redemptive capacity, the Spirit is God in His sanctifying office, the Father is God in His electing role. That there are distinct offices in the Trinity, we would accept, but they are performed by distinct Persons It can be seen that Modalistic Monarchianism (Sabellianism) is erroneous from the evidence of inter-Personal communication in the Trinity – the Father loving the Son, commissioning Him, speaking to Him etc. John 3:16; 15:26; Mark 1:11; Matthew 11:25; Romans 8:26; John 1:1, 4, 5; 16:14.

The Persons co-operate in the activity of redemption: the Father planned it, Ephesians 1:4, 9, the Son procured it, Ephesians 1:7, the Spirit applies it, 2 Thessalonians 2:13. This is essential, because God is revealed in His acts, as much as His propositions, e.g. the Decalogue. When God brought destructive miracles upon the Egyptians, they were revelations to both the Egyptians and the Israelites as to the person and character of God – e.g. Exodus 6:7, 7:5, 8:22, and the miracles of Jesus are called signs – John 20:30. The miracles of Jesus demonstrate His unity with the Father – John 14:9ff. There is a relationship between the functional and ontological aspects of deity – what God does reveals who He is. His works reveal a Being who is active, loving, holy, faithful and saving. In Acts 7 Stephen reviews the historical acts of God to demonstrate that Jesus is the Messiah. In this respect, Luke 10:21-22 provides us with an insight to the relationship between the Trinity and revelation. The disciples, commenting on the miraculous power of Jesus against demons, v17, are answered by Jesus, and then the text goes on to state ‘At that very time He rejoiced greatly in the Holy Spirit, and said “…no-one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and anyone to whom Son wills to reveal Him”‘

Two related concepts indicating the reality of the Trinity are resurrection-power and divine grace. The power of God gave resurrection to Jesus, Romans 4:23-25. It is said in Galatians 1:1 that God the Father raised Jesus from the dead. In John 2:19-22 and 10:17-18, it is indicated that Jesus would resurrect Himself. According to Romans 1:4; 8:11, the Spirit was the Agent of the Resurrection of Christ. Moreover, it is indicated in Romans 6:4-5 that the Father resurrected Jesus and will do likewise with us. The voice of the Son of God will effect resurrection, John 5:25. In John 6:40 and 11:25 Jesus stated that He is the Resurrection – He has the power of resurrection, a divine function. The power of the Spirit will renew the bodies of believers – that is, grant them resurrection bodies – Romans 8:19-25. Hence, resurrection is a triune event.

Linked to this is the concept of divine grace. Indeed, divine grace and power are virtually synonymous; in 2 Corinthians 12:9-10 we are presented with a parallel structure –

…arkei soi

‘h= xaris mou/ gar dunamis en asqeneia teleitai…kauxhsomai en tais asqeneiais mou, ‘ina ‘episkhnwsh ‘ep’ ’eme ‘h dunamis tou Xristou.

From this, we infer that at least one aspect of ‘grace’ is that it is a power. Grace is ascribed to God, Romans 5:15; it is used with respect to the Father, Romans 1:7, simultaneously in the same verse of Jesus, in itself and indication of divine identity; it is used of Jesus alone, Romans 16:20; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Revelations 22:21, and of the Spirit, Hebrews 10:29. Grace is a triune divine activity.

Moreover, all God’s actions are related to His promises, especially the Abrahamic Covenant. His actions with regard to the Exodus were in fidelity to His promise to Abraham, Exodus 2:24, and the expression of this is the divine indwelling – we see an indication of this in the Theophany on Sinai when YHWH introduces Himself as the God of the Patriarchs, 3:6, and the very purpose of the Exodus was that God would dwell among His People, 29:46. The coming of Christ was also in fulfilment of the Abrahamic Covenant, Luke 1:54-55, 72-73. Not only was He God, John 1:1, He was the Word who was God dwelt among us, v14. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would be in the disciples, John 14:17, and so would the Father and Jesus Himself, v23, in itself pointing to the Triune nature of God.

The presence of the Spirit – i.e. the indwelling of God – establishes a relationship of fellowship between God and Man which effects the moral transformation of the believer, 2 Corinthians 6:16 – it makes the recipients of the divine indwelling holy, the People of God. When God reveals Himself, He transforms the person – Saul the persecuting Pharisee became Paul the Apostle – Galatians 1:15. The Holy God sanctifies. God’s actions in redemption are climaxed in the divine indwelling, and these actions in this regard point to the unity of Father, Son and Spirit – the divine action reveals the nature and identity of God. The very fact that Father, Son and Spirit unitedly take part in the action of divine indwelling points to their common divine essence, as only an eternal, infinite being could indwell the multiplicity of human beings. The common actions of the Three Persons reveal they possess a common divine essence.

4.2 The Incarnation

4.2.1 The Subject

Not the entire Godhead, but rather the Second Person of the Trinity is incarnated. We see evidence of communication between Father and Son in John 12:27-28; upon the baptism of Jesus the Spirit descends from heaven to rest on Him, and the voice of the Father in heaven speaks with respect to His son – Matthew 3:16-17, which verses indicate that the Other two divine Persons remain in heaven, and are distinguished from the Son, so are not incarnated with Him.

However, all three persons collaborate in effecting the incarnation – Matthew 1:20; Luke 1:35; John 1:14, Acts 2:30; Romans 8:3; Galatians 4:4; Philippians 2:7. Berkhof makes the vital point that since the Son was active in this process, this points to His pre-existence. These points are amplified when looking at the pre-existent Mediator and His activity. By this we can understand why it was the Son rather than the Father or Spirit who is incarnated.

John 1:1 speaks not only of the Logos as being pre-existent, but identifies Him as the Agent of Creation. John 8:56 identifies Him as the Agent of Revelation to Abraham (and 1:18 indicates that this remains his work). Since it was the angel of YHWH who appeared to Abraham, and since this figure is represented as an agent of revelation and redemption in the Old Testament, e.g. Genesis 48:16, we may identify him with the pre-incarnate Son. The Son is the Agent of Revelation and Redemption, so it had to be the Son who was incarnated.

Other texts which indicate His pre-existence are John 6:38; 2 Corinthians 8:9; Galatians 4:4; Philippians 2:6-8. The essential element is that the Second Person of the Trinity, without diminution of His deity, divests Himself of heavenly glory to enter the realm of Mankind as a man, and subject to the limitations and obligations thereof – Galatians 4:4 stresses His birth into a Jewish family and thus His obligation to adhere to the Torah. The Giver of the Law became subject to it.

4.2.2 The Nature Of The Incarnation

John 1:14 indicates that the Son became a true human being, and entered the human scene, but He is not thereby metamorphosed – rather, He is rendered theanthropic.

4.2.2.1 The Virginal Conception And Birth

The Seed of Promise in Genesis 3:15 is specifically stated to be the seed of the woman. This should not be overstressed as evidence for the virgin birth, but it is an indication. The birth of Isaac, although not virginal, provides some clue to the unique supernatural character of Jesus’ birth. Obviously, the principal text is Isaiah 7:14, which predicts the birth of One who would be the fulfilment of the covenantal promise of divine presence – ‘I will dwell in the midst of you’ – Immanuel, ‘God with us’. The Hebrew word almah is often broadened to include any young woman, specifically of marriageable age, though it should be pointed out that the word is usually translated as ‘maiden’ in Proverbs 3:19. The LXX translated the word by parthenos, and this term seems restricted in meaning to ‘virgin’ – cf. Matthew 25:1, 7, 11; Acts 21:9. Thus Matthew 1:23 and Luke 1:27 do fulfil Isaiah 7:14 in exactitude – Christ was born of a virgin.

It is more exact to speak of virginal conception, rather than birth, for the latter, together with gestation, was normal, save in respect that Jesus was preserved from defilement. The conception of Jesus was miraculous in that no man was involved in this act – it occurred through the power of the Holy Spirit ‘overshadowing’ Mary, Luke 1:35. In passing, it must be stated that the Muslim and Judaistic conception of what this means is not the right interpretation of this act – it does not imply marital intimacy between God and Mary and the production of a demi-god: it is simply that the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit miraculously caused the implantation of life in the womb of Mary. (See also Matthew 1:18, 20; Galatians 4:4.)

4.2.3 The Baptism

The baptism of Jesus is often problematic for Muslims. To explain, we must consider the whole nature of the plan of salvation. The Old Testament prophets predicted a Restoration of Israel after the Babylonian Exile which would have the character of a Second Exodus, Isaiah 11:11ff, and will reflect the divine requirement of faith in that only a purified Remnantwill return – Is 10:22; Ezekiel 11:18-21; 20:34-38. The latter text, together with Isaiah 40:3-5 stresses the importance of the desert in this process – as the avenue by which the Restoration will be accomplished and the Judgement essential to this act effected. (In this respect it is a pattern of the Final Judgement which effects the entry of the Righteous into their inheritance, the Kingdom.)

Isaiah 52:7 builds on 40:3 by stating that God will return with the exiles as their King. Other texts, e.g. Ezekiel 37:24 indicate that the Reign of God will be mediated through the Davidic King – the Messiah, whose reign will be over a righteous people who adhere to the New Covenant, cf. 36:25-27; Jeremiah 31:33-34. Jeremiah 31:2, 7 underline this, as 23:6 and 33:15-16, which identify the King with the People – specifically Jerusalem. Although a Remnant did return from Babylon, the Reign of God through Messiah was as yet unrealised.

Mark 1:2-5 (and parallels in Matthew 3:1-11; Luke 3:2-16) reveal the fulfilment of these texts, specifically represented by Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 – the preparation for the arrival of God in Canaan. This occurs through the ministry of John Baptist in the desert, v 4, where a purging takes place – only those confessing their sins will share in the End of the Exile. The rest will suffer the Judgement – vs. 7, 10, 12 of Matthew 3. John is preparing a refined people for the One who will effect the Return from Exile under the Reign of God, which will see the Baptism of the Spirit, Matthew 3:11. The Bestowal of the Spirit is the evidence that Jesus is the Davidic King, Acts 2:30, 33, 36. So with the manifestation of Jesus, the Exile has ended and the Reign of God has arrived – Mark 1:15/Isaiah 52:7.

This sets the scene for understanding the Baptism of Jesus.

1. Jesus had no need to repent – note how John was reluctant to baptise Him, and Jesus had to tell him to ‘permit’ it – Matthew 3:15.

2. In saying this, John recognized that the One whom he was to baptise in water was the One who would baptise in the Spirit, v 14. That is, Jesus was the Messiah.

3. The fact that Jesus does not contradict John’s assertion is evidence of His own belief in His sinlessness.

4. Jesus gives as His reason for submission to baptism as being right to ‘fulfil all righteousness’. ‘Fulfil’ in Matthew is used mainly of Jesus’ relation to the predictions and patterns of the Old Testament’ e.g. 5:17. Thus Jesus was accomplishing fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy, which ties in with John’s own ministry. ‘Righteousness’ in Matthew is linked to the idea of the Kingdom, e.g. 5:10, 20; 6:33; 21:31-32. It has the sense of ‘obedience to the will of God’ and thus of ‘submission to the Reign of God’ – cf. Romans 14:17.Jesus, by being baptised, is thus identifying with the people who are preparing for the reception of the Reign of God and probably there is a reflection here of Isaiah 53:11, where the Servant represents the people. We should also note the ‘Moses’ typology theme in Matthew, and the fact that Israel was ‘baptised’ into Moses, so the Spirit will ‘baptise’ the people into Christ – i.e. identifying them. The idea is that the fulfilment of the Old Testament Hope, with which the people are identifying, is realized in Jesus.

5. Unlike Pentecost, the Spirit is not represented by fire, which would imply cleansing, but by a dove, indicating purity and the creation of something new – cf. Genesis 1:2.

John 1:33 seems to imply that the One on Whom the Spirit abides is the bestower of the Spirit, and v 34 indicates that this evidences that Jesus is the Son of God. Cf. also Ezekiel 1:1; 2:2.

1. The heavenly voice calls Jesus ‘beloved Son’, reflecting Psalm 2:7 and Isaiah 42:1 (and possibly Genesis 22:2 LXX) – He is the Davidic King, Servant and true Israel – cf. Mark 1:11 with 12:1-11. He is the embodiment of the Old Testament Messianic Hope, of the Kingdom of God and of the New Covenant. All these things help us to understand the significance of the Temptation.

2. As Jesus begins his ministry after this, we can see that the bestowal of the Spirit was the divine ‘call’ or ‘ordination’ – the King and the Servant were to characterised by the anointing with the Spirit. John 1:33 and 3:34 seem to underline this.

We should also note the Trinitarian aspect to the Baptism – the voice of the Father, descent of the spirit upon the Son, and the revelatory miracle as to the identity of Jesus.

5. Was the Bible Corrupted and then Improved?

One of the problems for Muslims is that not only do the Qur’anic depictions of Christian belief about the Trinity not reflect historic and Biblical presentations about divine Triunity, the Qur’an itself considers that the Tawrah, Zabur and Injil were true divine revelations. Of course, many Muslims today hold that the Christian scriptures were later distorted, but this causes a problem for them with regard to the Qur’anic allegation of tritheism against Christians, especially with respect to the idea that Christians ascribe deity to Mary. If the true Injil reflected Islamic dogma, but then the Christians descended into the polytheism of which the Qur’an accuses it, then this declension must have occurred fairly quickly after the Ascension of Christ, because thereafter the Christians improved their position, by removing from the New Testament all Tritheistic references, especially any presentation of Mary as a goddess.

The oldest extant texts of the New Testament include a papyrus fragment of John’s Gospel 18:31-33, 37-38, from Egypt, located in the John Rylands Library of Manchester University, dating from c. 135 AD. It is clear from canonical history that the books comprising the New Testament were around by the end of the First Century, e.g. as demonstrated by the letter to the Corinth Church from Clement of around. 96 A.D., who refers to Matthew,. Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Hebrews., James, and 1 Peter. Since nowhere in the New Testament do we find the Qur’anic idea of the Trinity, Muslims are left with several possibilities:

1. That the Christians first distorted the Injil to present a concept of the Trinity in conformity to the Qur’anic criticism, and then excised this and improved the position to reflect the contemporary Scriptuary presentation – and that this dual tampering took place within 50-60 years, however unlikely that may be. Of course, , the onus of proof for the historicity of this process rests on the Muslims. It should be pointed out that there is no manuscript evidence to support such a thesis, nor is there are contemporary reference in the early Church fathers either to such a process nor to belief in the Qur’anic idea of the Trinity. At any rate, by the time of Muhammad, there was no purported ‘gospel’ presenting the Islamic idea of the three gods including Mary.

2. That the Qur’an is attacking the views of an unrepresentative heretical group, the onus of proof for the existence of which rests on the Muslims. It has been claimed on the basis of the works of Epiphanius that an heretical group called the Collyridians worshipped Mary, but the historicity of the group is questioned, and at any rate, both in terms of mainstream Christian dogma, historical theology and Biblical data, there is no support for tritheism.The Qur’an may be referring to such a group colloquially as Christians, just as many non-Muslims refer to the heretical Nation of Islam and the Ahmadiyya sect as Muslims. In that case, Biblical Christians have no case to answer, anymore than orthodox Muslims can be held responsible for the NOI’s beliefs about the evil Black scientist Yacub creating an evil race of white people, or that God was incarnated in the person of Fard in the USA in the 1930s.

3. The hardest option for Muslims is that the Qur’an may simply be wrong.

4. The Qur’an may be stating that in its eyes, this is how it regards Christian Trinitarianism. Christians may object, but if someone states that whatever people say are their beliefs, he will continue to believe that his impression is what will guide him, then no clarification or discussion is possible. However much Christians state that they do not believe in three separate gods or in the deity of Mary, this is how the Qur’an sees Christian Trinitarianism. Any further debate is useless. Given that Surah Al-i-Imran came into existence at the time of the Najran deputation, it would seem to be quite likely that this option is the most likely, unless Muslims can produce evidence for (ii). All Christians can say is, if someone is convinced that another person believes in Martians however strongly the latter denies it, then we have moved from the rational to the irrational.

This view is also problematic for Muslims in another way. The Qur’an never invites Christians to judge the Injil by Islam, but rather the reverse – S. 5:74 – ‘Let the people of the Gospel judge by what is written therein’. Since the Injil, whether the supposed Islamic Injil the Muslim Messenger ‘Isa is held to have propagated, nor the Christian Scriptures recognized as canonical by the world-wide Church does propose such a Trinity, according to the Qur’an, Christians have the right to critically consider Islam’s Holy Book, and to find it wanting if indeed it is presenting this as the authentic Christian view.

6. Theological Considerations

6.1 Divine Love

There are also considerations which demand the necessity of the Trinity. 1 John 4:8, 16 – God is love. Love cannot exist in isolation. Love demands an object. Since love demands an object, God must have an object for His love: and since love is one of His attributes or perfections, as He is a perfect Being, and as He is an eternal Being, the object of His love must belikewise perfect and eternal. However, only God is both those things! Thus, the object of His love must be divine – and, since He is unique, be within Himself The object of His love is His Son. The bond of their love is His Spirit. Between the three Persons there is eternal love.

This fact is also important to emphasise with respect to divine immutability and self-sufficiency.

6.2 The Attributes and Nature of God

Given that in Islam, God is held to be eternal and to be loving, and given that Love is a transitive action, one that needs an object, the Muslim view of divine unipersonality involves a contradiction which actually endangers the very deity of God! To explain, this, we need to examine what Islam believes about divine attributes. The ‘most beautiful names’ describe the attributes of God in Islam. Islam is adamant that these names and attributes are eternal. At the same time, it vigorously affirms the self-sufficiency of God; indeed, Eaton translates Samad in S.112:2 as ‘utterly Self-sufficient’. Likewise, the Hadith, as we have seen, states that this is one of the ‘most beautiful names’. As Eaton states, ‘This conception of the deity is strictly monotheistic and unitarian. God alone has absolute being, totally independent and totally self-sufficient.’ With this proposition, Christians would whole-heartedly agree. God is infinite and perfect, Psalm 145:3; Matthew 5:48. Hence, He is wholly independent and has no need of anything outside Himself – not even relationships. His incommunicable attributes, such as aseity, demonstrate this.

Moreover, it should be stated that His actions flow from His attributes, without being identical with them. John 3:16 is the classic demonstration of this. The Holiness of God demanded righteous justice upon sinners, i.e. damnation. The Love of God led to the incarnation and reconciliation, based on the Cross, in order to meet the demands of divine justice and holiness, and thus allowed for forgiveness. Forgiveness, however, is not an essential attribute of God, but is a consequence of divine love and holiness. After all, in eternity, before the creation of Man and Angels, there was no-one to be forgiven, nor will there be the potential for the operation of forgiveness after the Last Day.

We have seen that Islamic fiqh regards the names and attributes of God as eternal and uncreated – they are part of His essence (and this is why Sunni Muslims hold that the Qur’an is eternal and uncreated):

Allah has settled upon the throne and holds sovereignty. He has the most beautiful names and most exalted attributes. He continues with all His attributes and names. He is too Exalted for these attributes to have been created and for his names to have occurred at a given time.

He addressed Moses with His words which are the attribute of His essence, and not a creature from His creation.

It is at this point that Islamic monotheism finds itself in difficulty. A cursory examination of the ninety-nine names of God demonstrates that some of them are transitive – they require a direct object. Consider two of them in the light of what we have examined about forgiveness in Christianity – ‘The Forgiver’ and ‘The Forgiving’. If these are essential, eternal attributes of God, they demonstrate that the God of Islam is not self-sufficient, since these are active qualities requiring an object. Since Allah is held to be unipersonal, this means that this object must be external to His Essence, and at any rate, God is scarcely in need of His own forgiveness! Therefore, a consequence of Islamic theology is that God does need His creatures to be God, because His own essence demands it. This is also implied in another of His Essential Names in Islam – the Creator. If ‘Creatorhood’ belongs to His essence, He had to create – He would be diminished without His creation. However, any genuine definition of God requires that He be self-sufficient and independent, which the God of Islam patently is not. It can be seen that most attributes of God in Islam are anthropocentric, whereas for example, the Christian concept of divine love is theocentric.

The same criticism goes for the love of God in Islam. He is called ‘The Loving’ but whom did He love before the Creation? Creation would be a necessary act because God needed someone to love by virtue of His essence. Furthermore, It is clear that the God of Islam only loves Muslims – S. 19:96. Since everyone except Muslims – Jews, Christians and pagans included – are held to be guilty of shirk, which is the unpardonable sin in Islam, this places Muslims in a difficult position with respect to the divine essence before the calling of Muhammad. If there were no Muslims around, God had no-one to love, and so His essence was in contradiction.

Linked to this concept are two other attributes/names – Merciful and Compassionate, which, as we have seen, adorn all but one Surahs of the Qur’an. They are transitive verbs. Yet before the Creation, to whom was God Merciful and Compassionate? In Christianity, however, the love of God as an essential attribute causes no problems, because the triune nature of God demonstrates a mutual, eternal love that is not dependent on the Creation. The essence of God Himself is satisfactory for the operation of this essential quality. Hence, the Christian concept of divine Triunity safeguards the concept of God from any human limitations or requirements, and thus from pagan accretions. Islam does not meet the test of a true definition of God in this respect.

Zwemer also points out that the Qur’an’s comment on the Light of God being ‘lit from a blessed olive tree’, S. 24:35, also makes God’s attributes dependent upon something external to the divine essence. We should also consider two other names – ‘Forgiver’ and ‘Forgiving’. Since these names are attributes, God needed to forgive, and thus needed someone to forgive, so His essence was dependent on something external. Moreover, the divine essence in this respect required people to sin, so that God could forgive. Hence, according to Islam, the divine essence could not exist apart from the reality of sin. The Holy God needed sin to exist!

The same criticism can be made against many other names/attributes of God in Islam. One cannot escape this problem by saying that they only operate after the creation, because then such attributes are created and the divine essence is mutable. Secondly, the critique cannot be obviated through claiming that divine prescience is concerned, because that still makes the divine essence dependent on creation. Thirdly, one must return to the fact that the divine attributes in Islam depend on creation, and if God is dependent on anything outside Himself, He is not God, just a Superman figure.

A further point that needs to be considered is that of divine immutability, which Islamic fiqh affirms of the divine attributes. In the Christian concept of the Incarnation, no change is effected in the essence of God, because human nature is not introduced into the divine essence. However, the Islamic concept of God would seem to imply that a change in the nature of God occurs, since at some point the focus of His attributes is no longer operative. To whom does He ‘give death’ after the end of the world? What will He ‘create’ after this date? Moreover, it surely follows that before the Creation, He was lacking, since as essentially Creator He necessarily, rather than volitionally created. Prior to the creation He was diminished by the absence of His creation. Thus, God changed – according to the logic of Islam, He is mutable.

6.3 The Incomprehensibility of God

Christianity and Islam both affirm the incomprehensibility of God. Job 11:7 rhetorically queries ‘Can you by searching find out God?’ 1 Corinthians 2:11 is adamant that only the Spirit of God knows the thoughts of God. After all, if God is God, then He is infinite, as we have seen, and the human mind being finite, cannot fully comprehend the essence or will of God. Thus, God must reveal Himself. Islam, with its emphasis on divine transcendence, agrees with the proposition that apart from revelation, God is incomprehensible. The Christian writer Zwemer mentions a popular song among Muslims which states ‘Whatsoever your mind can conceive, that Allah is not you may well believe.’ Islamic fiqh states, as we have seen, ‘His true nature cannot be described by anyone, nor can thinkers imagine that nature…None learns anything about His knowledge, except that which He wills.’ Gai Eaton, before quoting S. 6:103, states that ‘In the Islamic view, it is impossible for the human mind to form an adequate conception of God as He is in His eternal and absolute being. The creature cannot comprehend the Creator.’ This view is echoed by Suzanne Haneef, who states:

And thus it is clear and certain – as Islam emphatically proclaims – that He is infinitely beyond anything which the mind or senses of man can grasp or comprehend or imagine or explain…

Asra Rasheed agrees with this:

But to have complete knowledge of God is beyond man’s ability. Man is finite and Allah is infinite…The creature cannot comprehend the Creator;

“They (mankind) cannot encompass Him (Allah) with their knowledge”.

Ta-ha, 20:110

Islam preaches that mankind should only refer to Allah as He has referred to Himself. There is no scope what-so-ever for inventing new ideas about Him or thinking of Him in a manner that suits us.

Yusuf Ali comments on S. 112:

The nature of Allah is here indicated to us in a few words, such as we can understand.

The qualities of Allah are described in numerous places elsewhere, e.g., in lix. 22-24, lxii. 1, and ii. 255. Here we are specially taught to avoid the pitfalls into which men and nations have fallen at various times in trying to understand Allah. The first thing we have to note is that His nature is so sublime, so far beyond our limited conceptions, that the best way in which we can realise Him is to feel that He is a Personality, ‘He’, and not a mere abstract conception of philosophy. He is near us; He cares for us; we owe our existence to Him. Secondly, He is the One and Only God, the Only One to Whom worship is due; all Other things or beings that we can think of are His creatures and in no way comparable to Him. Thirdly, He is Eternal, without beginning or end, Absolute, not limited by time or place or circumstance, the Reality. Fourthly, we must not think of Him as having a son or a father, for that would be to import animal qualities into our conception of Him. Fifthly, He is not like any other person or thing that we know or can imagine: His qualities and nature are unique.

Hence, Islam agrees with Christianity that God can only be fully known through His self-revelation, since the finite reason of Man cannot comprehend the infinitude of deity. Naturally, Man would always imagine God in terms with which He could cope and with which he was familiar, such as human unipersonality. The idea of a triune Being has no point of reference in creation. Muslims frequently accuse the Christian concept of the Trinity of being inconceivable to reason. Yet, if God is transcendent and accessible only through self-revelation, it follows that the Christian dogma is indeed credible. The Muslim position indicates that if we could comprehend God, He would not be God, and that all human attempts to comprehend Him apart from revelation are inadequate and doomed to failure. This is indeed the Christian position. Berkhof, the great systematic theologian, states the following:

To Calvin, God in the depths of His being is past finding out. “His essence”, he says, “is incomprehensible; so that His divinity escapes all human senses.” The Reformers do not deny that man can learn something of the nature of God from His creation, but maintain that he can acquire true knowledge of Him only from special revelation, under the illuminating influence of the Holy Spirit.

Of course, the problem between Islam and Christianity starts when we turn to the question of the identity of divine self-revelation. Islam claims it is the Qur’an; Christianity holds that it is found in the Bible and supremely in Jesus Christ as the Word of God. The point is, Muslims can scarcely object to the idea of the Trinity because it does not conform to their ideas of human reason, since we should not expect finite human reason to be capable of the exercise of comprehending the essence of God.

There is another problem for Muslims in this regard. As we have seen, Islamic fiqh states ‘To know Him one considers His signs, but one does not think about His essence.’ Hence, if Muslims object to the Trinity on the basis that what they see as their revelation denies it (though in reality what it denies is not the Christian Trinity, but tritheism), that is legitimate, but if they object because their considerations of the divine essence will not accept it, they are actually going against their own faith, because they should not be considering the divine essence in the first place!

6.4 Revelation and the Trinity

The Christian view of the Trinity is also demonstrated by the fact of divine revelation. Human beings are finite, let alone liable to sin. The finite mind cannot fathom the mysteries of God. Although various historical philosophical arguments such as the Cosmological argument may point to the existence of a divine being, they do not definitely establish either the character of such a being – for example, they do not help us with the problem of evil – nor do they definitely reveal a unique deity, as opposed to a polytheistic pantheon. Hence, God must reveal Himself to provide an adequate and genuine knowledge of Himself and His will. Ultimately, all instruments that provide divine revelation are inadequate because all such instruments are finite, whether they be angels, or miracles, although of course what they reveal is infallible. The only totally adequate revealer of God is God Himself, who can express the infinite. Yet the infinite must be expressed in terms of the finite because it is revealed to the finite. Hence, the Incarnation is a necessary action because of revelation alone – God, taking human nature alongside His divine nature, expresses the infinite in terms of the finite.

In this respect Jesus reveals what God is like in His holiness, His love, His power, and His revelatory action. For this reason Jesus is the supreme revelation of God – He reveals the Father, John 1:18; whoever has seen Him has seen the Father. He who is God is also the Word of God. He is the climax of revelation, Hebrews 1:1-2. To encounter Him is to encounter God Himself, and thus experience the infallible revelation. This is what Paul experienced on the Damascus Road, as we have seen, and it was sufficient to transform Him. However, the bodily revelation of Jesus is itself not the completion of the divine revelation, because He is not eternally bodily present on the earth, and because the transformation He works is not complete apart from the divine indwelling, which is effected by the Holy Spirit. Since all three persons share the same essence of deity, whenever the Spirit indwells a person, the latter has experienced the inward revelation of the Triune God.

The Father reveals the Son by sending Him, the Son reveals the Father by His presence and work, (Matthew 11:27), the Spirit reveals the Son and thus the Father by applying this work with His presence. In this way Paul came to know the true revelation of God as a result of the Damascus experience. Only God uniquely and fully knows God, and thus only he may reveal Himself fully. On this basis, revelation points to the Triune nature of God. We know what God is like when we experience the Father, by the Holy Spirit, revealing the Son in our lives. This revelation is in conformity to the way God made men – as beings capable of intelligent relationship, especially love. Man is made in God’s image, and is social – made for relationship and fellowship. The expression of divine love and desire for fellowship is effected through divine revelation. The theanthropic Person of Jesus is the climactic expression of revelation in that in a unique way, God comes to Man. The perfect Man who is also God can express in human terms the mind of the Creator.

Islam, by contrast, cannot wholly address this issue. Sunni Muslims believe that the Qur’an is the uncreated, eternal Word of God, which is almost a part of God – His Speech in fact. Shia Muslims reject the idea that the Qur’an is uncreated because of the danger of ditheism – by definition, what is uncreated and eternal is God. The purported revelation of Qur’an, according to Sunnis, is virtually equivalent to the Incarnation in Christianity, only that in the case of Islam, the Word became a Book, rather than flesh. However, as any Muslim will affirm, the Qur’an only truly exists when untranslated; that is, it is only really the Qur’an when it is in Arabic. The language of the Qur’an is an essential part of the revelation – S. 12:2; 13:37; 16:103; 41:44; 42:7; 43:30. Thus, despite its claim to be ‘mercy for mankind’, the Qur’an is contextually limited by time and space, especially in terms of accessibility. There is not the same revelatory action of interaction between God and Man, especially since the Qur’an is effectively limited to those who know Arabic. Jesus, however, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, is universally accessible, whatever the language or ethnic group, and this is demonstrated by His easy movement from Aramaic to Greek when He deals with Gentiles like the Centurion, and through the Spirit He still speaks to people of any language. The Word became Man, not specifically Meccan/Quraish (or any other language).

6.5 An Islamic Trinity?

Although Islam denies the ontological Trinity of Christianity, it does not escape a functional Trinity which verges on tritheism. Apart from God Himself, it is essential for Muslims to believe in the angels. Their function is so vital that belief in angels is a fundamental tenet of Muslim faith, equated with belief in Allah and the Qur’an. Although their function is similar to Christian concepts in certain ways, in many aspects they actually resemble the function of the Holy Spirit in Christianity, especially with respect to Gabriel. They act as mediators for the transcendent God. This is necessitated by the Islamic concepts of the nature of God and revelation. The Muslim dogma of God does not present Him as omnipresent in the Christian sense, stressing rather His transcendence and majesty. The Incarnation is rejected not just because God assumes Human nature, but because God interacts with man on the terrestrial scene – the idea of the Word dwelling among us is rejected by Muslims. Islam thus must accommodate the divine immanence in another fashion.

In Islam, angels are the agents of divine immanence. It can be understood that in Islam, many functions that Christianity ascribes to the Son or the Holy Spirit are expressed by angels. Angels act as divine agents in Creation, Revelation and the Last Judgment. To illustrate how parallel their functions are to that of the Spirit in Christianity, we should note that Islam believes that when a person becomes a Muslim, he is coterminously supported by Allah, Jibril and the angels. It should be remembered that pre-Islamic Arabs regarded the angels as gods, the offspring of Allah, S. 17:40ff. Islam believes that the angels are those ‘nearest’ to Allah, S. 4:172, perhaps an echo of the pre-Islamic era.

It is well known that the Islamic equivalent to Jesus is not Muhammad, but the Qur’an. The Qur’an is believed by Sunni Muslims to be the eternal, uncreated word of God, inscribed on the Preserved Tablets in heaven and thus free from human influence. Christianity has the Incarnation, but Islam has what we may call the ‘Inliteration’ – the commencement of revelation in Laylat al-Qadr, ‘the Night of Power’, during the month of Ramadan when the portion of the Tablet descended to the ‘House of Protection’ in the lowest of the seven heavens, revealed by Gabriel, S. 97. The Qur’an is the means of salvation, revealing how to live in obedience to the divine will, S. 2:136. Since Islam does not believe in original sin, there is no basis for the atoning death of Christianity, rather, all that is required is obedience to divine revelation. Thus, it can be said that just as Jesus is the Saviour in Christianity, the Qur’an performs that function in Islam.

Effectively, therefore, Islam has a functional Trinity of God, the Qur’an and angels (especially Jibril) which corresponds to the Christian functional Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In the Christian system this functional Trinity reflects the ontological Trinity, who share the single divine essence. Islam, however, actually verges on a tritheistic emphasis, since Islam, unlike Christianity, holds that the angels were created from the Light of God Himself. Although Muslims would undoubtedly deny it, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that they owe their origins to the essence of God Himself, especially since one of the names of Allah, and thus His attribute, is ‘the Light’.

Further, we have seen that one of the attributes of Allah is Speech, and that for Sunni Muslims, the Qur’an represents the eternal, uncreated Speech of God. Since Speech is an attribute of God, and as Islam views the attributes of God as part of His essence, if the Qur’an is distinguished from the essence of God, it can be said that Islam divides the essence of God! This is all the more emphasised when we consider what we have examined about the origin of the angels. If the Qur’an is not so distinguished, then ironically, we encounter something similar to what Christians believe about the relationship of Father and Son, so that we are presented almost with a di-personal being. These beliefs undermine Islam’s claim to undiluted monotheism.

6.6 Trinitarian Emphasis

Given that the Qur’an engages in sustained, aggressive condemnation of polytheism and assertion of divine unity, some Muslims often comment that they feel that there is a lack of multiple emphases in the Bible about the Trinity. Of course, this is often special pleading, being usually a polemical jibe against the Bible and Trinitarianism. As we have seen, there is abundant evidence for the doctrine. However, unlike the Qur’an, we never find the Bible saying ‘They do err who deny the triune nature of God’, because of several factors.

Firstly, the Bible is revealed in a historical context. Its denials and rectifications occur when the situation demands it. Thus, in the Old Testament, the frequent attacks on idolatry and polytheism, and thus an affirmation of monotheism, arise because of the pagan practices of the Canaanites and neighbouring peoples were snares to the Israelites, and thus the warnings and polemic against them reflect the historical context. There was no need to emphasise the tripersonal nature of the divine essence in such contexts, because the necessity to assert the uniqueness of the divine essence – i.e. monotheism. In the New Testament, there was no need for Trinitarianism to be asserted, because the Jews were at this time free from idolatry/polytheism for the most part; nor was the triune nature of God a complete innovation, as we have seen.

When pagan ideas need to be addressed, as in the Gentile cities, we do find polemic against their beliefs – e.g. 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, and at the same time, an affirmation of the deity of both Father and Son. Elsewhere, as in 1 John, the polemic is against heresy that denies the full import of the Incarnation – docetic ideas arguing against the true humanity of Christ. Had there been anyone arguing for the Muslim idea of God or engaging in the Islamic polemic against the Triune nature of God, no doubt there would have been comments against such. In this respect, it should be remembered that Christians do not have the same view of the Bible as uncreated and eternal as do Sunni Muslims – that is the position of Christ in Biblical faith.

We need to remember that this is true of Islam as well. Islam arose in a polytheistic environment, one which believed in God having physical offspring. Since a major part of the message of Muhammad’s message involved an assertion of divine uniqueness, and a refusal to accept pagan ideas of divine offspring, we should not be surprised to find the emphasis on aggressive monotheism. Further, as we have previously noted, Islam views the ministry of Muhammad as one of purging the Hejazi cultus from the polytheistic corruption of the purported pristine Abrahamic faith of Ishmael – from the idols that the Arabs, as well as the people of Noah’s time, worshipped.

Hence we would expect to find an overwhelming emphasis on monotheism over against polytheism, simply because that was Muhammad’s major emphasis and principal problem in the context of Mecca. In this respect Muhmmad’s activity resembles that of Elijah, who demanded the purging of the Israelite cultus from Baalist syncretistic accretions, and exclusive worship of YHWH. Interestingly, we do not find a large number of references to denials of the Trinity in the Qur’an, and none at all in the early Meccan stage, because Muhammad was not yet in confrontation with the Christians; as we have seen, the texts in Al-i-Imran reflect the visit of the Najranis (and the same goes for texts attacking purported Jewish distinctives).

Secondly, the major emphasis of the Bible is soteriological and eschatological. Sin involves not just disobedience, but a fallen nature, and the message of the Scriptures is the promise and then fulfilment of such with respect to the advent of the Messiah, e.g. Mark 1:15. As previously stated, monotheism was scarcely an issue in first century Palestine, save possibly among some Gentiles in Palestine, like the Romans. Moreover, it should be remembered that the Islamic emphasis on salvation through believing in monotheism is regarded as insufficient by the Bible, since even demons give intellectual assent to that truth, James 2:19, as did Adam and Eve, yet they still fell. Salvation is essentially through trust in Jesus, and this is the emphasis of the Bible.

Thirdly, as we have seen, the Qur’an never invites Christians to judge the Injil by Islam, but rather the reverse – S. 5:74 – ‘Let the people of the Gospel judge by what is written therein’. If Muslims object to the Bible not having the same emphasis on asserting the essential nature of God – albeit primarily in negatives – as does the Qur’an, we can respond that the Muslim holy book never asks us to regard the Qur’an as the basis for critically examining the Bible, but rather vice versa. At any rate, since Christians do not accept the inspiration of the Qur’an, this criticism leaves them unmoved. Moreover, since the supreme revelation is the Person of Christ Himself, His very being affirmed the Trinity.

We should state that there is abundant evidence in the Bible for the affirmation of divine unity and uniqueness – there is only one God. There is equally overwhelming evidence for the deity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There is corresponding evidence for tri-personal inter-communication and fellowship, indicating a personal distinction. However, texts like Matthew 28:19 and the basic concept of One God demonstrate that Christians are not affirming a divided essence. These facts taken together indicate that God is a triune Being.

To Muslims who argue that 1+1+1=3, we point out that Christians are upholding three Persons (for want of a better human term to express a divine reality). However, we are not speaking of three Gods; we are affirming that God, an incomprehensible being, is tri-personal. At any rate, it is not that Christians are claiming that God is composite; on the contrary, they affirm the undivided unity of the divine essence. For this reason, the criticism of Suzanne Haneef where she represents the Christian dogma as one presenting ‘three parts’, and critiques that ‘God is not like a pie or an apple which can be divided into three thirds which form one whole’, is groundless. Christians do not believe that God is in three parts, and the analogy of the apple is invalid because God is not like an apple, pie or any created substance; He is unique, and without comparison, and problems start when we try to compare Him to anything created.

Haneef actually virtually admits this when she states of the Christian dogma ‘To Muslims this makes absolutely no sense, and even if it is explained as being a “Mystery” too high for any human mind to grasp, belief in the Trinity is regarded by Islam…as a form of polytheism.’ She must resort to denying the doctrine because of Qur’anic dogma, because she earlier affirms of the essence of God that He ‘…is far above anything we can conceive of…’ Ultimately, Islam rejects the Trinity not out of any supposed rational arguments, but because what it believes is divine revelation rejects that which it (wrongly) imagines the Trinity to mean. Equally, Christians uphold the doctrine because they believe in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ set forth in the Holy Scriptures.

7. Trinitarian Development in the New Testament?

Some Muslims claim that there is a Christological and Trinitarian development in the New Testament; specifically, that the later the text, the more the picture of Jesus conforms to the Nicene and Chalcedonian affirmations. Of course, Christians would claim that the Creeds reflect the Biblical data. The assertion about Trinitarian development is based upon a house of sand. Paul is frequently accused by Muslims of being the main culprit in the supposed corruption of pristine Christianity, yet the srcriptures revealed through him are widely held to be the earliest in the New Testament, although oral tradition would have preserved and transmitted the gospel material. The Gospel of John is usually considered the Scripture with the most explicit affirmation of Christ’s deity, yet it has been argued with some force in recent years that it may even have been written before the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70; a modernistic scholar such as John Robinson wrote a book entitled The Priority of John, indicating that its material is not a creation of the later Church, but goes back to Jesus Himself.

We need also to examine the dating of the gospels. There are different theories about their dates, but the gap between them whatever the theory is not large, and certainly not the decades or even centuries some Muslims propose. It is usually, but not universally held that Mark was the first gospel, yet a major emphasis of the gospel is the affirmation that Jesus is the Son of God. Indeed, Mark records the Roman officer stating this at the Crucifixion, Mark 15:39. Luke-Acts, on the other hand, has as a major theme the idea of the restoration of the Kingdom of Israel through the person and ministry of Christ and the Church, the reception of the Gentiles into the restored Israel, and of the opposition this received from the Jewish leadership, often bringing Christians to court on trumped-up charges, as they did Jesus, and so the gospel emphasises the centurion’s exclamation of the innocence of Jesus, Luke 23:47. Yet Luke is usually held to be later than Mark, but it is not concerned to emphasise the Christological confession. It should be said that all the different books of the New Testament have distinct but complementary aims, approaching various aspects of the life and ministry of Christ and the Church.

The aim of the Gospel of John is explicitly Christological and evangelistic, John 20:31 revealing jesus to be God, the divine Son and the Messiah. The Gospel of Matthew wishes to emphasise a Christological-Ecclesiological relationship – as with Jesus, so with the Church, e.g. with respect to persecution, 10:18, 24-25; commission to miraculous activity, cf. 10:5ff with 11:4ff; the one who receives the Church receives Jesus and thus receives God, 10:40; the authority of Jesus is with the Church, 16:18-19; 18:18, and this is the authority of God, 11:27, 28:19. Jesus is the Son of David, 1:1, the Messianic King, 16:16, and Isaiah 22:22 speaks of the ‘key of David’. Jesus gives the ‘keys of the kingdom to the Church, 16:19. Jesus is the Son of Abraham, 1:1, and the Church is the true Israel, 16:18 (qahal is translated by ekklesia), 21:43. Jesus is the unique Son of God, 3:7, 28:19, and because of their relation to Him, the Church are sons of God, 5:9, 45.

Hence, it cannot be argued that there is an escalation of the position of Jesus the later the text; there is no real difference in the Scriptural revelations of Jesus, as is demonstrated by their mutual affirmations. One common prominent feature of the gospels, found also in the Apocalypse, is the title Son of Man. The origin of this term is in Daniel 7:13ff, where a heavenly, supernatural being ‘comes’ to God to receive power and authority over humanity. Jesus clearly employs (c) e.g. Mark 14:61-62; Matthew 26:63-64; Luke 22:67-70; cf. Matthew 24:30; John 1:51, Revelations 1:13. It is more a reference to His deity, than to His humanity, as John 3:13 and 6:62, which ascribe pre-existence to the Son of Man, demonstrate. Equally, the use of the absolute term ‘the Son’ (as opposed to ‘Son of God’) is a case in point, found in Matthew;11:27; 28:19; Mark 13:32; Luke 9:35; 10:22; John 1:35-36; 5:19-26; 6:40; 8:35-36. There are of course many other points of contact which demonstrate both the deity of Christ and divine Triunity, but this is sufficient to demonstrate both Scriptural unanimity and the absence of the alleged escalation of the position of Jesus.

The ‘I AM’ sayings prove Jesus to be Divine

L. M. Abdallah

---

As we reflect on the whole witness of the inerrant and infallible Scriptures, regarding the Person of Jesus, we can see many elements and various passages that assert, affirm and prove His divinity. For example, there are the Messianic prophesies, such as, Ps.2:7,12, which speaks of Him as God’s Son. Ps.110:1 declares Him as lord, while Ps.45:6 and Isa.9:6 speak of Him as God. Then there are the didactic passages, for instance, Jhn.1:1,14 speak of Jesus the Christ being the Word and the Word also being divine (God), then becoming flesh [human]. Phil. 2:5-11 speaks of Him being the “form of God” and Heb. 1;2-3; Col. 1:15 declare that “He is the radiance of the glory of God, the exact representation of His being and the image of the invisible God,” while Heb. 1:8 boldly states that He is God, and 1 Tim. 3:16 asserts that this God “appeared in a body.” We also have the narrative materials, such as, Mk. 2:27-28; Lk. 5:20; Jhn. 11:43-44, amongst many others, which testify that Jesus claimed divine prerogatives. These include, redefining the Sabbath, forgiving sin and raising the dead.! However, besides His own bodily resurrection, I genuinely believe that it is in the “I am” sayings of Jesus that we are presented with some of the clearest assertions, affirmations and proof of His divinity. For in them we have the very words of Jesus concerning His “true identity.” Here we have the self-disclosure of the Incarnate God. It is with the assistance of the Apostle John, along with other eminent theologians, that I seek to present this truth.

I begin by stating that the implicit intentions of the Apostle John, in writing his version of the Gospel of Jesus the Christ, are to be found in Chapter 20 verses 30-31. There, John clearly states, “Jesus did many more miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. So, we see that John’s aim is two-fold. Firstly, it is revelatory, he seeks to reveal and demonstrate “that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” Secondly, it is evangelistic, he wants people to know the true identity of Jesus, so “that you may have life in his name.” Now, for the purpose of this essay, it is the initial aim of John that I want to highlight. As we have seen, John is seeking to prove that ” Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, the Saviour of the world” (4:42). And in his attempt to do so he enlists the aid of many things. For example, the statements of witnesses, such as John the Baptist (1:29, 32-36), the Samaritan woman and villagers (4:39-42), Jesus (8:13-14), and God Himself (8:17; 12:28-30), accounts of the life, ministry and works of Jesus, including His many discourses and His eventual death and resurrection. He also introduced, or recorded, various miracles (signs) performed by Jesus, which are also recorded in the Synoptic Gospels. However, it is he alone, of all the Gospel writers, who that gives an account of the sermonic discourses of Jesus, which shed light on the meaning of the message behind the miracles that took place. Hence John’s use of the Greek word ‘semeion’ [sign], rather than simply ‘dunamis’ [miracle]. Now, included in these sermonic statements are some of the “I am” sayings, for example, “I am the bread of life” (6:35) and “I am the resurrection and the life.” The remainder of the sayings took place during his verbal interactions with the people (8:12), the Pharisees (10:7, 9, 11), and His disciples (14:6; 15:1).

Another thing which I seek to draw the readers attention to is the actual Greek words ‘ego eimi’, translated (I AM). Leon Morris correctly states, “Jesus uses an emphatic “I AM” to bring out important teaching about his person. In Greek, the personal subject of the verb is not normally expressed: the form of the verb makes clear what the subject is. But if it is desired to emphasize the subject, then the appropriate pronoun may be used. What makes this so important in John is that we find a similar usage in the Greek translation of the Old Testament. There we find that the translators used the emphatic form of the speech when they were rendering words spoken by God.” He then goes on to say, “When Jesus used the “I AM” construction he was speaking in the style of deity.” And, “There is general agreement among Johannine scholars that this kind of language is a significant pointer to what John is telling us about the person of Jesus.” (1) In other words, when Jesus was using the “I AM” construction he was indicating His divinity, and in John recording His statements he was doing likewise.

Morris, also, correctly observes that there are two groups within the “I AM” sayings. One with the predicate and one without the predicate. Commenting on them he says, “Both constructions are somewhat unusual, and the form a Johannine distinctive.” Quoting J.H.Bernard, he goes on to say, “This is clearly the style of Deity…Its force could at once be appreciated by one familiar with the LXX version of the Old Testament.” (2) In examining both groups of the “I AM” sayings, I would like to follow Morris’s example and present the former group first and the latter group second.

“I AM the Bread of Life”

The first of the notable “I AM” sayings, in the book of John, is “I AM the bread of life” (6:35). This was uttered in the discourse which followed the feeding of the multitude. During the discourse, Jesus tells the crowd, “Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you” (6:27). As He seeks to elicit their faith in Himself, He is met with a challenge to “demonstrate His credentials.” (3) “What sign do you do that we may see and believe?”, they ask. To this they add, “Our forefathers ate manna in the desert, as it is written: ‘He gave them bread to eat'” (v.31). They were obviously implying that Moses gave them the manna, for Jesus goes on to correct their misunderstanding. He states, “I tell you the truth, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but it was my Father” (v.32). To that He adds, “My father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven” (v.33). By this, Jesus was not only implying that God gave “bread from heaven” in the past and continues to do so in the immediate present, but was also implicitly stating that He Himself is “the bread of God come down from heaven” (v.33). “In apparent expression of some stirring of spiritual desire they ask for this bread from heaven, though how earth- bound their understanding remains will emerge as the conversation continues.” (4)

Now, it is in response to their request that Jesus makes the astounding claim, “I AM the bread of life, he who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty” (v.35). This saying actually enshrines the essence of Jesus’ message. He is the answer to the needs of the human heart. “The bread of life implies the fundamental, elemental role Jesus claims to fulfil in relation to the yearning human spirit. For Jesus’ bread was ‘the staff of life’, the primary source of nourishment. But since bread is a basic food universally, there is also the implicit claim that he fulfils this role for everyone. He is (the Saviour of the world)” (5), and gives life to the world (v.33). Morris, interestingly, points out that the definite article, before the word bread, indicates the fact that Jesus, and Jesus alone, is the one who is the bread of life. (6) While Milne states that, “the bread of life also points to the satisfying nature of Jesus.” (7) This is clearly seen in the corollary, “never go hungry, and never be thirsty.” All other bread, like manna in the wilderness, leave a sense of dissatisfaction. The inner ache is not assuaged: we hunger again. By contrast Jesus, once tasted, obviates the need for further satisfaction. In conclusion, we contend that in the claim, “I AM the bread of life,” Jesus is making His heavenly origins known, and the fact that He alone supplies the spiritual need of His hearers.

“I AM the Light of the World”

This is the second “I AM” statement that is followed by a predicate. John has previously informed us, in the Prologue, that the Incarnate Word was “the life,” and “the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it” (vv.4- 5). He once again picks up the light metaphor, and elaborates what he has previously said. John states that Jesus made the claim, about being “the light of the world,” and other similar statements, on various occasions. For example, 8:12; 9:5; 12:35-36, 46. Although John does not actually identify exactly when Jesus maid the claim in 8:12, he does tell us where He made it. He gives the Feast of Tabernacles, and the possibly the temple courts, as the backdrop to this eventful drama (7:14).

During the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles, two major religious, and highly symbolic, ceremonies took place. The first was the out- pouring of water on the west side of the alter, by the Levitical priests, as the choir sang the Great Hallel (Ps. 113-18). (8) The second was the lighting of several large candels in the temple precint. John indicates that Jesus took the opportunity of using these two symbols to illustrate His teachings (7:37-38; 8:12). The light metaphor is steeped in Old Testament allusion. The glory of the very presence of God in the cloud led the people to the promised land (Ex. 13:21-22), and protected them from their enemies (Ex. 14:19-25). The Israelites were trained to sing, “the LORD is my light and my salvation” (Ps. 27:1). The Word of God, the law of God, is a light to guide the path of those who cherished instruction (Ps. 119:105; Pr. 6:23); God’s light is shed abroad in revelation (Ezk. 1:4,13,26-28), and salvation (Hab. 3:3-4). “Light is Yahweh in action” (Ps. 44:3). Isa tells us that the Servant of the LORD was appointed as a light to the Gentiles, that He might bring salvation to the ends of the earth (Isa. 49:6). The coming eschatological age would be a time when the LORD Himself would be the light of His people (Isa. 60:19-22; cf Rev. 21:23-24). Perhaps Zech 14:5b-7 is especially significant, with its promise of continual light on the last day, followed by the promise of living water flowing from Jerusalem-this passage probably forming part of the litergical reading of the Feast.

So, with these verses in mind and “in the context of such powerful ritual, Jesus’ declaration must have come with stunning force.” (9) What is also stunning is the note of universality about the claim. He is not simply the light of the Jews, but “the light of the World.” This reference to light is not just physical or moral light. As Morris correctly points out, that when Jesus declared, “If anyone walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him” (11:9-10), that the reference to the light not being in him, shows that we have moved from physical illumination to spiritual truth. He then comments, “Jesus is telling his hearers that those who reject him, who do not take him into their lives are in grave danger.” (10) By way of summary, we contend that in each of the “I AM the light of the world” passages, the main thought is that “Jesus is the only light and that people must respond to the coming of the light by giving him a welcome and believing in him. Apart from that they are lost eternally. That Jesus is the light of the whole world and that people’s eternal destiny depend on their reaction to him tell us something very important about him.” (10)

“I AM the Door”

The next “I AM” saying of Jesus is found in the context of a disputive discourse with the Pharisees. We see in chapter 9 Jesus healing the blind man, who is subsequently excommunicated for defending Jesus and who eventually believes in Him (vv.34-38). After this miraculous sign, and the subsequent ill treatment of the former blind man by the Pharisees, Jesus contrasts Himself with the religious leaders of His day, whom He terms as “thieves and robbers.” This contrast is dressed in the form of a “figure of speech” (v.6), which consists of some very striking metaphors. For example, “sheep pen” (10:1), “shepherd” (v.2), “watchmen” (v.3) and “door”, or, “gate” (v.3). Despite the vividness of the metaphors, the Pharisees did not grasp Jesus’ point (v.6). Therefore, Jesus, seeking to explain His message and expand its meaning , not only elucidates, but also amplifies and inter-relates the metaphors. For example, He now claims, “I AM the door” (by which the sheep of the sheep pen enter) (v.7). Previously, He spoke of Himself as “the shepherd” (v.2), which HE will do again with a further modification (v.10).

What does Jesus mean when He says “I AM the door.”? In order to answer this, we may find it helpful to remind ourselves that a sheep pen normally has one doorway, and that the shepherds of the Near East often slept in the doorway, acting as the door itself. Its is plain to see then, in order for the sheep to enter the pen they would obviously have to enter through the doorway, and metaphorically speaking through the shepherd. Thus in answer to our question, we see that Jesus is saying He Himself, and no other, is the means by which the sheep may enter into the promised fulness of life (vv.9-10). For as Morris points out, “Jesus says He is “the door”, not “a door.” There is something exclusive about “the” door. He is saying that the way into life goes through him, and him alone. He is the door.” (11) This is further emphasized when Jesus says, “The thief only comes to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life; and have it to the full.” “This is a proverbial way of insisting that there is only one means of receiving eternal life, only one source of knowledge of God, only one fount of spiritual nourishment, only one basis for spiritual security-Jesus alone”. (12) Jesus also said, “If anyone enters through me, he will be saved, and go in and go out, and find pasture” (v.9). Although He does not explain what He means exactly by “saved”, we can take it as meaning having “eternal life.” For we find the two concepts of being “saved” and having “eternal life” linked in Jhn 3:16-17. Therefore, expositional consistency demands that we understand a similar linkage here.

Thus in conclusion, as Morris has so astutely observed, “once again we encounter the thought of an exclusive salvation, exclusive in the sense that it can be entered only through the door, Jesus Christ. If there is one door for all the race, then once more we are reminded of something very important about Jesus. Like the other I AM sayings, this one leads us to think of deity.” (13)

“I AM the Good Shepherd”

The next I AM saying of Jesus is closely related to the one previously discussed, in the sense that it is a metaphor that has been used in the same “figure of speech”, in which we find “I AM the door.” In chapter 10 verve 1, Jesus speaks of “the shepherd.” He now adds an adjective to the word shepherd, and makes the claim “I AM the good shepherd” (10). Here again Jesus is contrasting Himself with the religious leaders, whom He is speaking too, who are the not-so-good-sheperds, or retaining the metaphor in the passage, “the hired hand” (vv.12-13). That He is referring to the Pharisees, as the “hired hand”, is evident in verse 13. For there He speaks of the hired hand as “not caring for the sheep.” This is an obvious referal to their harsh treatment of the former blind man.

When Jesus used the term “the good shepherd”, He is speaking of His intrinsic goodness, as well as His moral rectitude and beauty. In His using the term “shepherd”, He is speaking of His position. He is the shepherd of the sheep, He is the one who protects, leads, guides and nourishes the sheep. In turn, the sheep are utterly defensive and totally dependant upon the Shepherd. It is hard not to see an allusion to Ps 23, where the LORD is the Shepherd, who protects, leads, guides and nourishes His sheep. Jesus is also referring to His mission. For on no less than three occasions, He speaks of “laying down” His life for the sheep (vv.15,17,18). The Shepherd, who protects the sheep, now protects them to the point of death. The Shepherd now reveals that He is also the sacrificial “lamb of God” (1:29,35), who willingly lays down His life for the sheep. “The death of Jesus is no tragic accident, but the divinely appointed way whereby salvation would be brought to those who trust in Him.” (14) It was not just for the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” that He was to lay down His life, but also for the “sheep of another pen” (10:16), the Gentiles. Thereby, making one flock, resided over by one Shepherd (v.16). How can the death of one man avail the redemption of so many, unless it was rendered more than sufficient by the divinity of this one man.! Thus, we contend that this I AM saying screams out the divinity of Jesus the Christ.

“I AM the Resurrection and the Life”

This particular I AM saying was made to Martha, who’s brother Lazarus had recently died. When Jesus told her that Lazarus would rise again she took this to refer to “the resurrection of the last day” (11:23-24). It is at this point that He makes this explicit and astounding claim, “I AM the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me , even if he dies, he will live, and everyone who lives, and believes in me will certainly not die.” (11:25-26). With this claim, Jesus is not simply stating that He imparts resurrection and life, but that He Himself is resurrection and life. As John said in his Prologue Jesus, (the Word), was life (1:4). Morris notes, “That he is the resurrection means death, which to us appears so final, is no obstacle, and that he is the life means that the quality of life that he imparts to us here and now never ceases.” (15) This claim of Jesus is fully sustantiated in the following raising of Lazarus from the dead (v.44).

In commenting on John’s recording of this incident, Morris powerfully states, “He is writing about one who is supremely great and who has breathtaking superiority over death. It is a comment to the human race that in the end we all face death and there is nothing we can do about that. We may stave off death for a time, but when it takes place it is final. John writes about a Lord for whom it is not final. He is such a great person that even death gives place to him.” (15) Surely this claim of Jesus’ has no place on the lips of an ordinary man, but can only have place on the lips of Him who is divine.

“I AM the Way and the Truth and the Life”

This is the next I AM saying, to be addressed to those who have committed themselves to Jesus. On the eve of the Lord’s crucifixion, Jesus gives His ‘Kingly farewell speech’. He has just instituted the Lord’s Supper, (though John does not record this), and announced His imminent departure (13:33,36;14:2-3). In conjunction to the announcement of His departure, He adds, “You know the way to the place where I am going” (14:4). To this, the perplexed disciple Thomas responds, “Lord, we do not know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”. “He wants the position to be clear, and will not let our Lord’s word stand as though he understands them when he really does not. The man’s fundamental honesty stands revealed”. (16) This provides Jesus with the opportunity of expanding and elucidating what he has just said. Thus, He replies, “I AM the way and the truth and the life”. To which He adds, “No-one comes to the Father except through me” (14:6), (italics mine).

Despite the controversy that surrounds these words, and the many forms of translations and interpretations given, it is clear, by the the syntactical structure of these words, that Jesus is saying three distinct things about Himself. (The stress in the verse falls on “the way”, since that is the issue (v.5). However, the three terms, “the way”, “the truth” and “the life” are syntactically co-ordinate. Hence the indication that Jesus is declaring three distinct things about Himself.)

First He says, “I AM the way”. Again, we see here an exclusivity which can not be denied, nor overlooked. Since Jesus refers to going to His Fathers house (v.2), and that “No-one comes to the Father except through me (v.6), we can see that He is not speaking of a moral or ethical way, but the way of salvation. The way of salvation leading to the Father. He is confidently stating that He is not one of many ways to God, but “the” way. This astounding claim hits at the heart of our pluralistic society and the syncristic philosophy that it dearly subscribes and holds on to. With one fell swoop, He disintegrates mans false notions of approaching God, and asserts His ‘uniqueness’. His substitutionary, atoning death is closely linked with Him being “the way”. For it is through His death that God and sinners are reconciled.

Second, He claims to be “the truth”. This speaks of His utter veracity and reliability. All that He has said, claimed and done can be both believed and trusted in, not simply because He tells the truth, but because He is the truth. For He is the Word of God that has become flesh (1:1,14). As Carson insightfully points out, “Jesus is the truth, because he embodies the supreme revelation of God-he himself ‘narrates’ God (1:18), says and does exclusively what the Father gives him to say and do (5:19ff; 8:29), indeed he is properly called God (1:1, 18; 20:28). He is God’s gracious self-disclosure, his “Word”, made flesh (1:14). (17)

Third, Jesus states that He is “the life”. This, as Morris correctly states, “takes us into the same area as the saying, “I AM the resurrection and the life”. (18) Once again we observe Jesus associating very closely with life. “It is he alone whose life is unique, self- existent like the life of the Father (5:16). He is the life and the source of life to others (3:16)”. (19)

We contend, then, that “this comprehensive saying claims an exclusive position for Jesus. He is the one way to God, he is thoroughly reliable, and he stands in a relation to truth such as no one else does. The same, of course, is true of his relationship to life”. (20)

“I AM the True Vine”

Now we come to the final I AM saying with the predicate. During the upper room discourse, Jesus twice makes the declaration, that He is “the vine”. On the first occasion He links Himself with the Father, when He says “I AM the true vine, and my Father is the gardener”, or, “vinedresser” (15:1). On the second occasion He links Himself with the believer, when He declares, “I AM the vine; you are the branches”, or, “vine canes” (21), and “goes on to refer to the mutual indwelling of the Saviour and the saved (15:5)”. (22)

Many commentators have indicated the connection between this declaration of Jesus’ and the Old Testament usage of the vine image. One of these is the noted theologian Bruce Milne. In his commentary on the Book of John, which places the emphasis on Jesus’ mission, he states, “The image of the vine serves the ‘mission’ theme in two important ways. In the first place, it was the supreme symbol of Israel. A great golden vine trailed over the temple porch, and the coinage minted during the revolt against Rome (AD 68-70) also bore a vine symbol. The Old Testament has many pertinent allusions. Possibly the most important in connection with Jesus’ claim, I am the true vine (v.1), is Psalm 80, which blends talk of Israel as ‘the vine out of Egypt’ (v.8) with ‘the son of man you raised up for yourself’ (v. 17).

But the vine ‘is burned with fire’ (Ps. 80:16). Israel has failed in God’s long-term role she was called to fulfil, that being ‘a light for the Gentiles’ (Is. 49:6), to bring God’s salvation ‘to all the ends of the earth’… Israel, however, was more attracted by the gods of the surrounding nations than penetrating them as a missionary. Her centuries-long declension from God’s purposes now reaches its nadir in the rejection of the Messiah and the repudiation of the kingship of God (19:15). But God’s purposes, from which Israel turn in final apostasy, does not fall to the ground. It is grasped anew by the one who stands in the midst of Israel, and among the disciples. In contrast to the vine which has destroyed itself by disobedience, Jesus is ‘the true vine’. He is the obedient Son through whose sacrifice and consequent mission the age-old purpose of Israel would find fulfilment, the nations would be reached, and ‘all the families of the earth shall bless themselves’ (Gn. 12:2).

He then continues, “The image of the vine has a second, less theological, pointer to mission. the vine is an essentially utilitarian plant; it exists to bear fruit. W. Temple eloquently portrays the fruit- bearing function of the vine. ‘The vine lives to give its life-blood. Its flower is small, its fruit abundant, and when that fruit is mature and the vine has become, for a moment, glorious, the treasure of the grapes is torn down and the vine is cut back to the stem’. This function is reflected in Jesus’ stress on fruit-bearing (explicitly in verses 2, 4-5, 8, 16). We should therefore beware of interpretations of this passage which concentrate solely on our inward relationship with the Lord. Its real thrust is the renewal of the mission of Israel through Jesus the Messiah and the disciple community. While more ‘subjective’ aspects are not entirely absent (cf. Jesus’ reference to ‘love’ and ‘obedience’ to his commands; 10, 12, 17), the primary focus remains bracingly objective and missionary. Jesus by his exaltation in death and resurrection will be removed tangibly from the world. The disciples are sent into the world, as was Jesus, to carry on the task in his ‘absence’. That is the principle implication of Jesus’ saying, I am the vine; you are the branches”. (23)

While I concur with Milne’s interpretation of Jesus being the fulfiller of God’s missionary objectives, i.e. the true vine, through His life, death and subsequent resurrection. I do not whole-heartedly agree with his interpretation of I am the vine; you are the branches. I would tend to agree more on the lines of Morris’ argument when he states, “the second saying emphasizes the vital contact with Christ. ‘He who remains in me, and I in him’, says Jesus ‘this man bears much fruit, apart from me you can do nothing’ (15:5).” He continues, “it is an error to suppose that in the energy of the flesh that we are able to do anything that pleases God. For that we need the strength that he alone can supply. The condition of fruitful in Christian service is vital contact with Christ… Exactly what the “fruit” is is not explained, but usually in the New Testament the word means qualities of Christian character (Matt. 3:8; 7:20; Rom. 6:22; Gal. 5:22 etc.) and we should see this as primary in mind here. (24)

When we consider that “Salvation comes from God” (Jonah 2:9), and that Jesus the Christ is appointed of God as “a light for the Gentiles”, so that He may bring God’s “salvation to the ends of the earth” (Isa. 49:6), and that the transformation of the believer is only possible by the work of the indwelling Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:9), and one’s vital contact with Him (Jn 15:5). We can see that this I AM saying, like the rest, indicates His deity.

“I AM” without the Predicate

Having briefly examined the I AM sayings with a predicate, we now come to the I AM sayings without the predicate. While it may be true that the. Greek words ‘ego eimi’, (translated I am in English), can normally have a simple human meaning (e.g. Jn. 9:9; 12:26), as we have already pointed out John’s use of the term is highly distinctive. This truth is evident as one views the following passages in their context.

In John Chapter four, we see Jesus having a conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well. When she states that the matters that they have been discussing would be dealt with by the coming Messiah, Jesus responds, “I AM, who am speaking to you”(v.26). Morris points out that, “Ethelbert Stauffer”, (whoever he his!), “denies that this is ‘an indirect messianic affirmation’, and insists ‘that John wishes Jesus’ answer to be understood as the theophanic formula ANI HU’. (25) While I Totally disagree with Stauffer that this is not ‘an indirect messianic affirmation’, as a syntactical analysis indicates that it is. (For Jesus is directly responding to her statement about the Messiah (v.15)). I do, however, concur with him that that this is a “Theophanic formula”. For as we have previously stated, John’s usage of the term is highly distinctive, the underling emphasis being divinity. I see no incongruity in seeing Jesus’ claim as an indirect Messianic affirmation, and a claim to deity. For, we have already observed that John’s intentions are to demonstrate the Messiahship and Deity of Jesus (20:30-31). Also, we see a link between “the Prophet who is to come into the world” (6:14), and His deity (6:33).

Two other passages, in which we find the “I AM” sayings, are Chapters 8 and 13. In the former passage, Jesus says to the Jews, “Unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins” (v.24). While in the latter, He declares to His disciples, “I tell you before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe that I AM” (13:19). Morris helpfully comments, “In both passages we find the Johannine emphasis on the importance of believing, and in both it is linked with Jesus’ own person. In both Jesus is saying that it is important that those addressed come to trust him as the I AM, which looks very much like a claim to sharing in the nature of deity”. (25)

Probably the most familiar “I AM” saying, without the predicate, is to be found in verse 58 of chapter 8. There, Jesus pulls the theological rug from underneath the feet of the Jews, when He confidently asserts His pre-existent and consequently His deity, by saying, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM”. It is evident, from the context, that Jesus was declaring His deity. For the biblical record states, “At this, they picked up stones to stone him”. John has previously stated that the Jews tried to kill Jesus, for exactly the same reason-“He was calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God” (5:18). (italics added)

Now that we have briefly examined both groups of the “I AM” sayings, from a historical, literary, lexical, syntactical, structural and theological approach, we conclude that the “I AM” sayings prove the deity of Jesus the Christ. And that when Jesus uttered these solemn words, He sought to convey the astounding fact of his divine nature- as did the Apostle John when he recorded these life-giving words.

NOTES

1. Leon Morris, Jesus Is The Christ (STUDIES IN THE THEOLOGY OF JOHN), pp. 107-8.

2. Ibid., p. 109.

3. Bruce Milne, The Message of JOHN, p. 110.

4. Ibid., p. 111.

5. Ibid.

6. L. Morris, Jesus Is The Christ, p. 110.

7. B. Milne, The Message of JOHN, p. 111.

8. Mishnah, tractate Sukkah 4.9.

9. D.A. Carson, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN, p. 338.

10. L. Morris, Jesus Is The Christ, p. 113.

11. Ibid., p. 114.

12. D.A. Carson, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN, p. 385.

13. L. Morris, Jesus Is The Christ, p. 114-15.

14. Ibid., p. 116.

15. Ibid., p. 117-18.

16. L. Morris, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN, p. 640.

17. D.A. Carson, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN, p. 491.

18. L. Morris, Jesus Is The Christ, p. 119.

19. Ibid.

20. Ibid.

21. Ibid., p. 120.

22. Ibid.

23. B. Milne, The Message of JOHN, p. 219-20.

24. L. Morris, Jesus Is The Christ, pp. 121-22.

25. Ibid., p. 122.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

NESTLE-ALAND, NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRAECE (26th Edition).

David Alan Black, USING NEW TESTAMENT GREEK IN MINISTRY.

Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton, The Septuagint With Apocrapha.

Gerald Bray, KNOWING JESUS.

F.F. Bruce, THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.

D.A. Carson, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN.

Mario Pei and Frank Gaynor, Dictionary of Linguistics.

Jay P. Green, Sr, Editor, Pocket Interlinear: New Testament.

Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology.

Bruce Milne, The Message of JOHN.

Leon Morris, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN.

Leon Morris, Jesus Is The Christ (STUDIES IN THEOLOGY OF JOHN).

A Christian reads the Qur`an

L. M. Abdallah

Original Swedish title: En Kristen läser Koranen

Translated by Adrian De Almeida

Foreword

The interpretation of the Qur`ân is:

• from my perspective as a Christian.

The aim of the study is:

• to make the characters, teachings and events of the Qur`ân easily accessible.

The study is intended for:

• those interested in getting acquainted with the Qur`ân.

• Christians who have recently converted from Islam.

Nowadays many people have a greater interest in getting to know what the Qur`ân teaches but since they are not used to it, they find the Qur`ân unstructured and inaccessible. Very often they feel that they need some assistance, and it is such assistance that this book would like to offer. Here they can get acquainted with some of the Qur`ân’s characters, events and teachings from a Christian perspective.

For many new Christians from a Muslim background their relationship to the Qur`ân is not so obvious. They may have indeed found salvation in Christ, but a question which soon arises is what they will now do with Muhammad and the Qur`ân.

For them, the Qur`ân came with their mothers’ milk, so to speak, but they have perhaps never dared to pose any critical questions about the book, such questions being taboo within traditional Islam.

As new Christians they dare, often for the first time in their lives, to question the position of the Qur`ân as the Word of God. This study may help the new Christian to deal with this question.

I have many Muslim friends whom I respect. I would be disappointed if Christians used this study without love with the aim of attacking Islam.

L M Abdallah

Stockholm 1995

Simplified Transcription and Pronunciation

Arabic Name/Letter   Sign Used  Pronunciation hamza`glottal stop, as in “a car”âlifa, â“^” marks a long vowelbâ’btâ’tthâ’thas in “three”jîmjhâ’h(aspirated) khâ’khas in German “Buch“ dâlddhâldhas in “the”râ’rzâ’zsînsshînshas in “she”sâds(velarised)dâdd(velarised) tâ’t(velarised) zâ’z(velarised)‘ayn‘voiced counterpart of “ha'” ghaynghsimilar to throaty French “r” fâ’fqâfq(uvular), as “k” not “kw” kâfk(palatal)lâml mîmm nûnn hâ’hwâww, û yâ’y, î

CONTENTS

Introduction

A. The Qur`an, The Eternal Word of God

1. The original is in heaven

2. God is able to change or confirm earlier books

3. No unclean person is to touch the Qur`ân

B. Arguments for the Divine Origin of the Qur`an

1. The Qur`ân agrees with earlier scripture

2. Jews converted to Islam

3. The Qur`ân came in Arabic

4. No-one can produce such a recital

5. The Qur`ân is Muhammad’s sign

C. It is in Accordance With Earlier Revelations

1. The Qur`ân confirms earlier scriptures

2. The People of the Book pretended that they did not know

3. Jews and Christians studied the Bible during the time of Muhammad

4. The Bible was studied and taught by Christians

5. Jews and Christians are challenged to hold to the Bible

6. Those listening are challenged to consult the People of the Book

D. The Qur`an is Positive Towards the People of the Book

1. The Jews received God’s book and the task of preserving it

2. Jews are challenged to hold to the Book

3. Jews and Christians need not fear judgment

4. Jesus’ disciples were true believers

5. Jesus’ followers will be made superior to those who reject faith

E. The Qur`an Deviates from the Bible

1. Cain, Abel and the raven

2. The wives of Noah, Lot and Pharaoh and the Virgin Mary

3. Abraham’s father

4. Abraham refuses to worship idols

5. Abraham and the red-hot furnace

6. Abraham and the Kaaba

7. Joseph and Potiphar’s wife

8. Moses adopted by Pharaoh’s wife

9. Moses and an unknown person’s peculiar journey

10. Moses and Aaron before Pharaoh and his magicians

11. Pharaoh and Haman

12. Mount Sinai hovering over the children of Israel in the desert

13. Moses, Aaron, the golden calf and Al Samiri

14. Miriam and the Virgin Mary

15. Tâlût (Saul) and Gideon

16. The wise Solomon

17. Dhu al Qarnayn (Alexander the Great)

18. The Virgin Mary and Zechariah

19. Zechariah was struck dumb

20. Mary gives birth to Jesus

21. Jesus prophesied about Muhammad

22. Jesus is merely human

23. Jesus has never died

24. The sleepers in the cave

F. Christians and Jews Have Falsified the Bible

1. The People of the Book have different opinions about the Bible

2. Christians deliberately distort the Bible

3. Jews falsify the Word of God

4. God himself alters his book

5. God replaces old Qur`ân verses with better ones

G. Jesus in the Qur`an

1. Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary

2. Mary and the baby Jesus were given shelter on a hill

3. Jesus is the Word of God and the Spirit of God

4. Jesus is created like Adam

5. The miracles of Jesus in the Qur`ân

6. Jesus received the Gospel from God

7. God has never begotten anyone

8. God has no son

9. Jesus denies the Trinity

10. Jesus has never died

11. Has Jesus died after all?

12. Jesus prophesied about Muhammad

H. Muhammad in the Qur`an

1. The Muslim is to obey God and Muhammad

2. Muhammad, the seal of the prophets

3. Muhammad performed no signs

4. The Qur`ân is Muhammad’s sign

5. Muhammad saw Gabriel twice

6. Muhammad’s nocturnal journey to Jerusalem

7. Muhammad was accused of being a false prophet

8. Muhammad was accused like all other prophets

9. Muhammad’s right to unlimited marriages

10. Muhammad was prohibited from marrying again

11. Muhammad could bypass the order of wives

12. Muhammad could break inconvenient promises

13. Muhammad married his adopted son’s former wife

14. Threat of divorce because of gossip

15. Promise of blessing for lowering the voice

16. No-one could stay too long with Muhammad

17. Jews who were forced to flee from Medina

18. Muhammad decided over Jewish booty

I. The Foundational Beliefs of Islam

1. The articles of Islamic belief

2. The doctrine of the one true God

3. God has no son

4. The ninety-nine most beautiful names of Allah

J. The Five Pillars of Islam

1. The witness

2. The prayers

3. The fast

4. The alms

5. The pilgrimage

K. Judgement and Grace

1. Two angels record people’s deeds

2. All deeds are written down

3. A person is chained to his eternal destiny

4. The scales decide paradise and hell

5. If God were to judge justly everyone would perish

6. One good deed outweighs ten evil deeds

7. God forgives those who turn in repentance

8. God will fill hell

9. No grace in hell

L. Paradise and Hell

1. Paradise is before God’s throne

2. Paradise for husbands and wives

3. Paradise contains all that could please the eye

4. Paradise contains beautiful virgins for the men

5. People drink wine in paradise

6. Hell is a place of eternal torment

7. The food of hell

8. Fire and boiling water in hell

9. Disobedience towards Allah and Muhammad is regretted in hell

M. Jinn, Angels and Mysticism

1. The jinn were created from fire

2. Some jinn are righteous

3. Jinn repent and preach to others

4. Jinn believe in the Qur`ân

5. Evil jinn are the fuel of hell

6. All angels fell down before Adam except the devil

7. The angels Harut and Marut taught evil

8. Shooting stars chase away evil spirits

9. God gave Solomon demonic power

10. Heaven is opened during the night of power

N. Jihad

1. Jihâd in the cause of God

2. Holy war

3. Idolaters were to be killed if they did not become Muslims

4. Combat all non-Muslims

5. Paradise awaits those who die in Jihâd

6. Cowardly soldiers are punished with hell

7. The spoils of war

8. Muhammad’s share of the spoils

O. Islam’s Opponents

1. Terrible punishments for the opponents of Islam

2. Punishment awaits those who leave Islam

3. Opponents are given an ignominious burial

4. Hell for the disobedient

5. No protection for the apostate

6. Idolaters were to become Muslims or be executed

P. Equality Between Men and Women

1. Men are a degree above women

2. Two female witnesses are like one male

3. Two daughters inherit as one son

4. Wife-beating

5. Maid-servants can be forced into sex

6. Men are allowed four wives

7. Men can divorce women

8. Paradise contains beautiful virgins for the men

Bibliography and List of References

Qur`an Verses

Bible Verses

Introduction

The word Qur`ân comes from the Arabic “Al Qur`ân” which means “The Recital”, and it was only in that form that the Qur`ân was available as it grew over a period of twenty-two years. It was only after Muhammad’s death that it was compiled as a book.

The Qur`ân is therefore not just a book to be read for its content, but for many Muslims the Qur`ân is in its proper form when it is recited in Arabic using the characteristic chanting of Muhammad. It is then that it exists in its original form.

The public reading of the Qur`ân has developed into an art form of its own with certain rules for rhythm, melody and pauses.

In Egypt, for example, those who can read the Qur`ân in the prescribed manner can receive wide acclaim. The best readers of the Qur`ân can be heard virtually every day on TV, radio and on tape at workplaces, markets and so on.

The Qur`ân grew gradually as Muhammad announced new “revelations” which, according to his own testimony, had been dictated to him by the angel Gabriel. One of those present would then try to remember the new verses or write them down on skin, palm leaves, pieces of bone or white stones. Then Muhammad himself would give instructions as to where these new verses should come in the text which was divided into chapters or suras. The Qur`ân was also memorized by certain people known as “hâfiz”. These “hâfiz”, as well as written fragments, later became a primary source during the Qur`ân’s compilation.

According to Muhammad, the Qur`ân was dictated in Arabic by the angel Gabriel. If the Qur`ân is translated into other languages it ceases to be the Qur`ân in its true sense, but according to Islam, a translation can at best capture the meaning of the Qur`ân. However for practical reasons we will have to use a translation.

The first Qur`ân was compiled within two years after Muhammad’s death by a “hâfiz” named Zaid ibn Thâbit by the command of the first Caliph Abu Bakr. It was called “The Leaves” or “The Pages” and was kept safe by one of Muhammad’s widows, Hafsah.

Since Islam covered the whole Arabian peninsula, the Qur`ân came to be recited in seven different dialects. In time, differences and small variations arose in the text. The third Caliph, Uthmân, decided to compile a new official version of the Qur`ân. He gave the task to Zaid ibn Thâbit, who had put together the first version, along with three other “hâfiz”, ‘Abdallah ibn Zubair, Sa’îd ibn Al Âs and ‘Abdallah ibn Hârith ibn Hishâm. We can only speculate as to why the original Qur`ân was not simply copied. The only logical explanation is that “The Leaves of Hafsah” were not a complete version of the Qur`ân after all.

When the official Qur`ânic text had been established, all other deviating versions of the Qur`ân were burned. Only the original “leaves of Hafsah” escaped the flames, but even this copy was later burned by a certain Marwân, who was the mayor of Medina. These drastic proceedings eliminated much of the discussion surrounding the Qur`ânic text, but far from all of it.

Background to Introduction:

Islam lära och livsmönster, Hjärpe, AWE/GEBERS, 1979, pp 21-56

Balance of Truth, Pfander, The Religious Tract Society, 1910, pp 259-261

A Christian Reads the Qur`an

Quotations from the Qur`ân have been taken from The Holy Qur`ân (Abdullah Yusuf Ali).

A. The Qur`an, the Eternal Word of God

The Qur`ân claims to be the eternal and perfect word of God. Traditional Islam teaches that the Qur`ân existed in eternity before God created the world. At a certain point in history it came down through the angel Gabriel and was dictated to Muhammad word for word and letter for letter. (Islam lära och livsmönster, Hjärpe, AWE/GEBERS, 1979, p. 15, pp 36-38).

A1. The original is in heaven

“And verily, it is in the Mother of the Book, in our presence, high (in dignity), full of wisdom.” Al Zukhruf 43:4

Comment:
According to the Qur`ân, God has an original book in heaven. The idea is that the Qur`ân is an exact copy of the heavenly original. The Qur`ân therefore claims that it is a copy of the eternal word of God.

A2. God is able to change or confirm earlier books

“…For each period is a Book (revealed). Allah doth blot out or confirm what he pleaseth: with him is the Mother of the Book.” Al Ra’d 13:38-39

Comment:
The Qur`ân states that God does not have to confirm the scriptures he had earlier revealed because he is God and therefore above his own word. The original book is after all with him in heaven.

A3. No unclean person is to touch the Qur`ân

“That this is indeed a Qur`ân most honourable, in a Book well guarded, which none shall touch but those who are clean.” Al Wâqi’ah 56:77-79

Comment:
Since the Qur`ân is the word of God only those who are clean may touch it. Clean, in this instance, refers both to an inward and an outward purity. A Muslim is therefore to practise ritual washing before touching the Qur`ân. A special stand for the Qur`ân to rest upon is desirable so that it is not held unnecessarily.

Conclusion:

Muslims consider Islam to be the original religion. Muhammad did not consider that he introduced new revelations which in some way contradicted earlier books. (Islam lära och livsmönster, Hjärpe, AWE/GEBERS, 1979, p.18). The Qur`ân is presented as a copy of God’s original book: the mother book, from which all God’s books come. The Qur`ân, therefore, according to Islam, is the eternal word of God.

B. Arguments for the Divine Origin of the Qur`an

A considerable proportion of Muhammad’s activity was geared towards convincing people that he was God’s apostle and that the Qur`ân was the word of God. In reading the Qur`ân we notice a number of arguments aimed at convincing those listening that the eternal word of God was now in Arabic.

B1. The Qur`ân agrees with earlier scripture

“They say: ‘Why does he not bring us a sign from his Lord?’ Has not a clear sign come to them of all that was in the former Books of revelation?” Tâ Hâ 20:133

Comment:
Time after time, the Qur`ân argues its trustworthiness on the basis that it confirms earlier scripture from God, that is, the Bible.

The Qur`ân recounts part of the Bible, above all Genesis and Exodus. Otherwise there are only names or fragments from the rest of the Bible.

Is this really a sign from God? The Bible was, after all, completed over 500 years before the Qur`ân, so it is not in itself any wonder at all that Muhammad produced a book which in part likens the Bible. The Qur`ân would, on the other hand, have been a complete miracle if it could be shown that Muhammad had never had access to the biblical accounts and yet succeed in producing a book like the Qur`ân.

Islamic sources report that Muhammad, already at the age of nine to twelve, made his first journey with a trade caravan to Syria where he came in contact with Christians. We also know that on a second visit to Syria he showed great interest in the Judaism and Christianity he encountered there. He spent some time during that period with a Nestorian Christian monk named Bahirah (The Holy Qur`ân, Ali, p.7, note 8)

Both Christians and Jews lived in the area. There were three Jewish tribes in Medina. Several Arabic Bedouin tribes were Christians with their own bishops. The whole population of the town of Najrân was in some way Christian. There were even some Christian mercenaries and slaves from Abyssinia in Mecca itself (Islam lära och livsmönster, Hjärpe, AWE/GEBERS, 1979, p.31, 32). Waraqah Abn Nûf was a Christian from among Muhammad’s own family and was besides the cousin of Muhammad’s wife Khadijah. Waraqah and Khadijah were the first to be convinced of Muhammad’s calling to be the Apostle of Allah (The Holy Qur`ân, Ali, C.32, p.9, 10). There was therefore a lot of potential for Muhammad to learn about biblical characters and accounts from both Jews and Christians.

We also know that between the ages of thirty and forty Muhammad was a religious seeker, who, for example, devoted himself to long periods of fasting and meditation. When he later received his first “revelation” at the age of forty he continued his dialogue with both Jews and Christians, something which the Qur`ân often confirms. Besides this, some Christians converted to Islam even from the outstart and later Jews as well.

In the light of the fact that people discussed the Bible virtually every day, it is not at all remarkable that Muhammad could talk about its characters and events. Those details from the Bible which are to be found in the Qur`ân are in addition of just the kind which can be easily passed on by word of mouth in story form. It should also be noted that there are quite a number of details in the Qur`ân which deviate greatly from the Bible’s accounts but which are instead to be found in the apocryphal writings and legends of Judaism and Christianity (see also B. THE QUR`AN DEVIATES FROM THE BIBLE). One gets the impression that those Jews and Christians who had informed Muhammad about their faith could not themselves have been able to tell the difference between what was biblical and what was apocryphal or pure legend. We are after all aware that this problem even exists among different Christian groups in the world today, despite literacy and printing.

B2. Jews converted to Islam

“Say: ‘See ye? If (this teaching) be from Allah, and ye reject it, and a witness from among the Children of Israel testifies to its similarity (with earlier scripture), and has believed while ye are arrogant, (how unjust ye are!) Truly, Allah guides not a people unjust.'” Al Ahqâf 46:10

Comment:
A number of Jews converted to Islam. However, the overwhelming majority of the Jews rejected Muhammad as a prophet.

In Medina, sharp disputes arose between the Jewish minority and the Muslims. During these disputes many Jews lost their lives, but most of them were forced into exile (see also H17. Jews who were forced to flee from Medina).

B3. The Qur`ân came in Arabic

“Verily this is a Revelation from the Lord of the Worlds…In the perspicuous Arabic tongue. Without doubt it is (announced) in the revealed Books of former peoples. Is it not a Sign to them that the Learned of the Children of Israel knew it (as true)? Had We revealed it to any of the non-Arabs, and had he recited it to them, they would not have believed in it.” Al Shu’arâ` 26:192, 195-199

Comment:
The very fact that the Qur`ân came in Arabic was considered a strong argument for its being the word of God. Neither the Old nor the New Testaments had yet been translated into Arabic. Jews and Christians read their holy scriptures in foreign languages, but now material in Arabic was emerging in a form that likened the Bible and which Muhammad claimed was authenticated by the Bible. The fact that the Bible was not available in Arabic made it quite difficult for Jews and Christians to prove that the Qur`ân did indeed deviate from the Bible on a good many points, and if anyone succeeded in convincing his audience of this fact, Muhammad explained that he was either concealing the truth or had distorted the interpretation of the earlier scriptures.

B4. No-one can produce such a recital

“Or do they say, ‘He fabricated the (Message)’? Nay, they have no faith! Let them then produce a recital like unto it – if (it be) they speak the Truth!” Al Tûr 52:33-34

Comment:
Muhammad was evidently accused of fabricating the Qur`ân and he then challenged his opponents to themselves produce a similar recital, which it appears they could not (see also Al Baqarah 2:23).

The question is what they were unable to emulate. It ought not to have been the language itself since there were poets living in Mecca at that time who were acknowledged to be of great ability, Imra`ul Qays, for example (The Sources of Islam, St Clair-Tisdall, T&T Clark, 1901, p.9). On the other hand there was certainly no-one among them able to produce a book likening the Bible in content since there was presumably no other Arabic poet in Mecca with the same depth of knowledge as regards the Jewish and Christian accounts.

Muslims often point out that the Qur`ân is written in the richest and most beautiful Arabic, and that the very language of the Qur`ân is a proof that it must be the word of God. Without doubt, most experts in the language consider the Qur`ân to be of the highest class, but at the same time there are a good number who say that old Arabic poetry exists, often older than the Qur`ân, which linguistically and stylistically is of an even higher class, for example “Al Mu’allaqât” or “Maqâmât” by Harîrî (Balance of Truth, Pfander, The Religious Tract Society, 1910, p.264).

B5. The Qur`ân is Muhammad’s sign

“Yet they say: ‘Why are not Signs sent down to him from his Lord?’ Say: ‘The Signs are indeed with Allah: and I am indeed a clear Warner.’ And is it not enough for them that We have sent down to thee the Book which is rehearsed to them?..” Al ‘Ankabût 29:50-51

Comment:
In a good many places in the Qur`ân, Muhammad’s audience demands signs in order to believe in him as God’s apostle. Time after time the Qur`ân itself is pointed to as Muhammad’s sign.

Conclusion:

None of the above arguments seems particularly convincing today, but when we place ourselves in the situation which prevailed on the Arabian peninsula of the seventh century, the arguments become considerably more persuasive.

C. It is in Accordance With Earlier Revelations

This area is important since Islam teaches that the Bible is corrupted (muharraf). It is believed that Jews and Christians (called “The People of the Book” in the Qur`ân) have falsified the biblical texts so that the Bible is now a mixture of truth and lies. The question which immediately arises is of course when this alleged falsification took place. The Qur`ân itself teaches that its own text confirms the earlier revelations (the Bible) and that these scriptures were in the possession of Jews and Christians during Muhammad’s lifetime.

C1. The Qur`ân confirms earlier scriptures

“And when there comes to them a Book from Allah, confirming what is with them.” Al Baqarah 2:89

Comment:
Here Muhammad is speaking about Jews and Christians. We can draw two important conclusions from this verse. Firstly, Muhammad believed that the Qur`ân confirmed earlier scripture from God, and secondly, Muhammad knew that these scriptures were in the possession of seventh-century Jews and Christians.

C2. The People of the Book pretended that they did not know

“And when there came to them a Messenger from Allah, confirming what was with them, a Party of the People of the Book threw away the Book of Allah behind their backs. As if (it had been something) they did not know!” Al Baqarah 2:101

Comment:
Muhammad considered the Qur`ân to be “confirming what was with them” (musaddiqun limâ m’ahum), in other words, the Bible. The People of the Book should therefore have confirmed that the Qur`ân was of God. Instead Muhammad held that a number of them had thrown away God’s Word and acted as if they did not know what was in the Bible.

C3. Jews and Christians studied the Bible during the time of Muhammad

“The Jews say: ‘The Christians have naught (to stand) upon’; And the Christians say: ‘The Jews have naught (to stand) upon.’ Yet they (profess to) study the (same) Book.” Al Baqarah 2:113

Comment:
Muhammad knew that Jews and Christians disagreed as to the Bible’s interpretation, but he also knew that both groups studied the same scriptures. The form of the verb “yatlûna” (translated “study”) shows that they did this in the seventh century.

C4. The Bible was studied and taught by Christians

“…’Be ye worshippers of Him Who is truly the Cherisher of all: for ye have taught the Book and ye have studied it earnestly.'” Âli ‘Imrân 3:79

Comment:
Muhammad was indignant about the claims of some Christians that Jesus had said to people that they were to worship him and not Allah. Muhammad considered this a lie which was not to be found in the Book (which is correct). Yet again he points to the fact that Christians had both studied and taught from the Bible and therefore ought to have known better.

C5. Jews and Christians are challenged to hold to the Bible

“Say: ‘O People of the Book! Ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord.'”

Al Mâ`idah 5:68

Comment:

Muhammad is again indignant with the People of the Book for their refusal to accept that either he or the Qur`ân came from God. Since he is convinced that the Qur`ân confirms the Bible, he challenges Jews and Christians to adhere to the Bible so that they will also realise the truth about the Qur`ân. The challenge becomes meaningless if the Bible was not both available and trustworthy.

C6. Those listening are challenged to consult the People of the Book

“If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in nowise of those in doubt.” Yûnus 10:94

Comment:
Muhammad or those listening are challenged to ask those who had read the Book earlier, the People of the Book, in order that the Qur`ân’s message be confirmed by them. This challenge becomes completely meaningless if their book was corrupted.

Conclusion:

These few verses are enough to show that Muhammad was convinced that the Qur`ân confirmed the earlier books, the Bible. That is why he boldly issues a challenge to Jews and Christians to hold to the Bible and to his audience to seek the advice of the People of the Book if they have any doubts.

We also saw how the Qur`ân confirms that the earlier scriptures existed during Muhammad’s time. They were read, studied and taught by Jews and Christians. Muhammad presupposes that the People of the Book know the Bible and he can therefore not understand why Jews and Christians do not receive him as God’s messenger and the Qur`ân as God’s word.

An answer to the question of when the Bible was corrupted becomes therefore impossible:

• It cannot have taken place before the Qur`ân since the Qur`ân challenges both Christians and Jews to hold to the Bible and challenges people to consult the People of the Book if they have any doubts about the Qur`ân. The Bible must therefore have been reliable even in Muhammad’s time.

• It cannot have taken place after the Qur`ân since we have about 4000 manuscripts of the New Testament dating back to the time before Muhammad (Evidence that Demands a Verdict, McDowell, Campus Crusade for Christ, 1972, p.46).

All prominent textual critics agree that the Bible we have today is essentially identical with the Bible of the seventh century.

D. The Qur`an is Positive Towards the People of the Book

In most of the earlier suras it can be seen that Muhammad sets out with a positive attitude towards the People of the Book, that is to say, Jews and Christians. This is quite a natural position since he assumed that the Qur`ân really did confirm the Bible. It was only later that the Qur`ân attacked the People of the Book, when the majority of Jews and Christians neither accepted Muhammad as a prophet nor the Qur`ân as the word of God. For this reason we find both verses which are positive and verses which are negative towards the People of the Book, depending on the situation.

D1. The Jews received God’s book and the task of preserving it

“It was We who revealed the Law (to Moses): therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the Prophets who bowed (as in Islam) to Allah’s Will, by the Rabbis and the Doctors of Law: for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah’s Book, and they were witnesses thereto…” Al Mâ`idah 5:44

Comment:
The Qur`ân confessed the Pentateuch, the Books of Moses. The Books of Moses recorded God’s laws and standards as a foundation and guide from God. Also on this same foundation spoke the prophets of the Old Testament. All this, according to the Qur`ân, was put together into God’s book, which was the code for the Jews. Jewish rabbis and scholars also acted on the basis of this book. They had also been entrusted with the task of preserving and protecting (istahfaza) God’s book.

D2. Jews are challenged to hold to the Book

“…And they study what is in the Book. But best for the righteous is the Home in the Hereafter. Will ye not understand? As to those who hold fast by the Book and establish Regular Prayer – never shall We suffer the reward of the righteous to perish.” Al A’râf 7:169-170

Comment:
The Qur`ân promises those Jews who hold to the Old Testament and the prayers that they will have a share in eternal life, which shows that Muhammad considered their foundation to be the right one but that many of them did not live in accordance with the Bible.

D3. Jews and Christians need not fear judgement

“Those who believe (in the Qur`ân), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians – any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness – on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.” Al Mâ`idah 5:69

Comment:
This verse seems to be saying that provided that Jews and Christians follow their own faith, they will go to heaven and have no need of fearing judgement. Only the problem is that in a number of other verses one must also believe in the Qur`ân as the word of God and Muhammad as God’s messenger (2:40-41, 3:31, 4:150-151, 7:157, 33:40, 61:6). It is remarkable that the Sabeans are named together with Muslims, Jews and Christians since they represented the idolatry practised in the area (see O6. Idolaters were to become Muslims or be executed).

D4. Jesus’ disciples were true believers

“And behold! I inspired the Disciples to have faith in Me and Mine Messenger; they said, ‘We have faith, and do thou bear witness that we bow to Allah as Muslims.'” Al Mâ`idah 5:111

Comment:
The Qur`ân confesses that Jesus’ disciples were true believers (see also Âli ‘Imrân 3:52). It was these disciples who wrote down the Gospel and the events surrounding Jesus. They were eye-witnesses to Jesus’ death and resurrection. They were also responsible for the spreading of the Christian faith in the Roman Empire. This seemingly obvious point is necessary since Islam teaches that the Bible has been corrupted by Jews and Christians (Islam lära och livsmönster, Hjärpe, AWE/GEBERS, 1979, p.17). But how would it at all be theoretically possible to carry out such a corruption of the New Testament after the Gospel had been spread out over great areas? So the questions of when, how, who and why remain regarding Islam’s unproved accusations against the Bible.

D5. Jesus’ followers will be made superior to those who reject faith

“Behold! Allah said: ‘O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection…” Âli ‘Imrân 3:55

Comment:
Regarding Jesus’ death I will comment on this verse later (see G11. Has Jesus died after all?). But it is interesting that Jesus’ followers are mentioned sufficiently positively to receive a higher position than the unfaithful.

Conclusion:

The Qur`ân makes quite a number of positive statements about both Jews and Christians. This is natural if we think of Muhammad’s positive attitude towards their Book, the Bible. Unfortunately it must be said that the Qur`ân also makes a great many negative statements levelled against local Jews and Christians because they neither accept Muhammad nor the Qur`ân.

E. The Qur`an Deviates from the Bible

Muhammad claims that the Qur`ân confirms earlier scriptures. But an accustomed reader of the Bible will see quite quickly that there are a great number of details in the Qur`ân’s accounts that noticeably deviate from the Bible. I am able here, of course, to touch upon only a part of the material. There are besides this some examples that are to be found outside biblical history. As regards the Qur`ân’s teaching on Jesus, I will discuss this more fully in a separate chapter. I have given the examples in a somewhat chronological order based on the Bible’s chronology.

E1. Cain, Abel and the raven

“Then Allah sent a raven, who scratched the ground, to show him how to hide the shame of his brother. ‘Woe is me!’ said he; ‘Was I not even able to be as this raven, and to hide the shame of my brother?’ Then he became full of regrets.” Al Mâ`idah 5:31

Comment:
There is not one word to be found about a raven in the biblical account of Cain and Abel (Genesis 4:1-16). Where did Muhammad find out about the raven that helps with Abel’s burial?

One could contend that God revealed this new detail. But it is nevertheless worth noting that this detail about the raven is mentioned in a Jewish legend about Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel which is found in “Pirke Rabbi Eliazer” (The Sources of Islam, St Clair-Tisdall, T&T Clark, 1901, p.15).

E2. The wives of Noah and Pharaoh

“Allah sets forth, for an example to the Unbelievers, the wife of Noah and the wife of Lut: they were (respectively) under two of our righteous Servants, but they were false to their (husbands)…

And Allah sets forth, as an example to those who believe, the wife of Pharaoh: behold she said: ‘O my Lord! build for me, in nearness to Thee, a mansion in the Garden, and save me from Pharaoh and his doings…” Al Tahrîm 66:10-11

Comment:
The problem is that the Bible does not say anything about either Noah’s wife being a bad example or Pharaoh’s wife being a good example.

E3. Abraham’s father

“Lo! Abraham said to his father Âzar…” Al An’âm 6:74

Comment:
According to Genesis 11:26, Abraham’s (Abram’s) father is called Terah. Names can indeed change from one language to another but the difference in this case is genuinely great.

E4. Abraham refuses to worship idols

“Behold! he said to his father and his people ‘What are these images, to which ye are (so assiduously) devoted?'” Al Anbiyâ` 21:52

Comment:
In Sura Al Anbiyâ` 21:51-75 we can read quite a long dialogue between Abraham and his contemporaries in which he argues against idolatry and for belief in the one true God. It is not in itself incredible that Abraham had discussions with his contemporaries, and what Abraham says is in itself correct, but not a single word of this dialogue is to be found in the Bible.

E5. Abraham and the red-hot furnace

“They said, ‘Build him a furnace, and throw him into the blazing fire!'” Al Sâffât 37:97

Comment:
Several places in the Qur`ân describe how idol worshippers were angered by Abraham’s arguments against their idolatry and his teaching on the one true God. On more than one occasion we can read how they prepared a type of red-hot oven into which they threw Abraham. But God saves Abraham from the blazing furnace.

The account is colourful; it is reminiscent of when God saved Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego from the fiery furnace in Daniel 3. The problem is that Abraham’s being cast into a burning oven is to be found not in the Bible, but in the Jewish book “Midrash Rabbah” (The Sources of Islam, St Clair-Tisdall, T&T Clark, 1901, p.16). One gets the impression that Muhammad did not know what came from the Bible and what came from extrabiblical sources.

E6. Abraham and the Kaaba

“Behold! We gave the site, to Abraham, of the (Sacred) House, (saying): ‘Associate not anything (in worship) with Me; and sanctify My House for those who compass it round…'” Al Hajj 22:26

Comment:
According to the Qur`ân, Abraham received the Kaaba from God in Mecca as a holy place for worship. There are no sources or historical evidence at all, either in the Bible or anywhere else, confirming that Abraham had ever been in Mecca. Besides this, according to Islam, Abraham and his son Ishmael built the original Kaaba.

We know that the Kaaba was the holy place for the “Sabeans”, whose religion was in Mecca before Islam (Islam lära och livsmönster, Hjärpe, AWE/GEBERS, 1979, p.30). The black stone which is walked round and kissed, as well as many other rites performed during the pilgrimage, were part of the earlier religion and were retained within Islam. In the early days of Islam, Allah was worshipped facing Jerusalem, but later, after one year and four months in Medina (the year 623), the direction of prayer was changed to the Kaaba in Mecca instead (2:142-143 and The Holy Qur`ân, Ali, note 141).

E7. Joseph and Potiphar’s wife

“When she heard of their malicious talk, she sent for them and prepared a banquet for them: she gave each of them a knife: and she said (to Joseph), ‘Come out before them.’ When they saw him, they did extol him, and (in their amazement) cut their hands: they said, ‘Allah preserve us! no mortal is this! This is none other than a noble angel!'” Yûsuf 12:31

Comment:
It is true that the Bible tells us about Potiphar’s wife trying to seduce Joseph (Genesis 39:1-20). But there is no banquet where the women invited each receive a knife and, on the arrival of the handsome Joseph, begin to shout and cut themselves in the hands, either to prevent themselves if possible from committing the same sin as Potiphar’s wife or because they had completely lost their sense of coordination during the meal.

E8. Moses adopted by Pharaoh’s wife

“The wife of Pharaoh said: ‘(Here is) a joy of the eye, for me and for thee: slay him not. It may be that he will be of use to us, or we may adopt him as a son.’…” Al Qasas 28:9

Comment:
The Qur`ân’s version of how Moses came to Pharaoh’s court agrees with the Bible’s, except on one point. In the Qur`ân it is Pharaoh’s wife who adopts Moses, whereas in the Bible it is Pharaoh’s daughter (Exodus 2:10).

E9. Moses and an unknown person’s peculiar journey

“Behold, Moses said to his attendant, ‘I will not give up until I reach the junction of the two seas or (until) I spend years and years in travel.'” Al Kahf 18:60

Comment:
This passage of the Qur`ân (18:60-82) is about a strange journey made by Moses and unknown man. The unknown man, acting by order of God, scuttles a boat, slays a young man and sets a wall up straight. Then the man explains to Moses why he has performed these actions. There turned out to be a deeper, unfathomable reason which the impatient Moses was not at first able to understand.

This is another interesting legend which completely lacks biblical support.

E10. Moses and Aaron before Pharaoh and his magicians

“…Surely this must be your leader, who has taught you magic! Be sure I will cut off your hands and feet on opposite sides, and I will have you crucified on trunks of palm trees…” Tâ Hâ 20:71

Comment:
Pharaoh’s magicians had realised that God’s power was greater than their own. Then Pharaoh threatened to have them crucified and cut off their hands and feet. There is nothing about this in Exodus.

It is worth noting that neither crucifixion nor mutilation were practised in ancient Egypt, something of which Muhammad was obviously not aware. The practices themselves, however, were known to Muhammad, who himself prescribed this very punishment for those who opposed Islam (Sura Al Mâ`idah 5:33).

E11. Pharaoh and Haman

“Pharaoh said: ‘O Hâmân! Build me a lofty palace, that I may attain the ways and means – the ways and means of (reaching) the heavens, and that I may mount up to the God of Moses…'” Ghâfir 40:36-37

Comment:
Who was this Haman, who was called upon to build Pharaoh an enormous palace so that he could ascend all the way up to the God of Moses?

Haman is mentioned in several places in the Qur`ân together with Pharaoh. One gets the impression that Muhammad believed him to be something akin to a Prime Minister to Pharaoh.

There is not one word of either Pharaoh’s fantastic building plans or of any Haman in Exodus. The Bible, however, tells the story of a certain Haman who was as good as Prime Minister in Persia under King Xerxes (Esther 3:1). Could it be a case of mistaken identity for Muhammad?

E12. Mount Sinai hovering over the children of Israel in the desert

“When We shook the Mount over them, as if it had been a canopy, and they thought it was going to fall on them…” Al A’râf 7:171

Comment:
The Qur`ân teaches that when Moses and the children of Israel were at Mount Sinai, the whole mountain lifted up from the ground and floated above their heads like a giant roof.

It is true that Exodus 19:16-19 tells us of great manifestations of God’s presence on the mountain in the form of thunder and lightning, fire, smoke, loud noise and an earthquake. But there is not one single word about the whole of Mount Sinai hovering about in the air.

E13. Moses, Aaron, the golden calf and Al Samiri

“(Allah) said: ‘We have tested thy people in thy absence: the Sâmirî has led them astray.'” Tâ Hâ 20:85

“…and that was what the Sâmirî suggested. Then he brought out (of the fire) before the (people) the image of a calf: it seemed too low: so they said: ‘This is your god, and the god of Moses, but (Moses) has forgotten!'” Tâ Hâ 20:87-88

Comment:
A detailed account of Moses, Aaron and the golden calf is given in the Bible (Exodus 32:1-35). It clearly states that Aaron, urgently requested by the people, made a golden calf with his own hands and said, “This is your God, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.” But in the Qur`ân it is Al Sâmirî who both led the people astray and produced the calf while Aaron is largely innocent. In verse 20:97 where Al Sâmirî was rebuked by Moses, he was told that the ashes of his idol would be scattered at sea.

Who then is this Al Sâmirî, who is not mentioned at all in Exodus? Has Muhammad simply made up a name out of thin air?

There is a strained connection between Al Sâmirî and a golden calf in the Bible. The name “Al Sâmirî” quite simply means “the Samaritan” in Arabic. After the death of King Solomon in 932 BC, Israel was divided into two kingdoms. In time Samaria became the capital of the northern kingdom, a city which was founded in around 875 BC, hundreds of years after Moses and Aaron (Bibelfakta i färg, Libris, 1986, p.272 = Encyclopedia of the Bible, Lion Publishing).The first king in the north was Jeroboam. He had two golden calves made and said, “Here are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.” (1Kings 12:25-31), which is what Aaron had said several hundred years earlier. Can it be that Muhammad got the golden calves mixed up, even though they are separated by several hundred years, and therefore speaks about the Samaritan who made a golden calf?

The Samaritans as an ethnic people arose much later, after the Assyrians had defeated the northern kingdom and carried off the people into captivity in 722 BC. The Israelites remaining in the area became mixed with other peoples, and so the “Samaritans” were formed. For this reason we can exclude the possibility that an ethnic Samaritan could have been with Aaron and made a golden calf.

E14. Miriam and the Virgin Mary

“And Mary the daughter of ‘Imrân, who guarded her chastity; and We breathed into (her body) of Our spirit; and she testified to the truth…” Al Tahrîm 66:12

“O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!” Maryam 19:28

Comment:
As we can see, the Qur`ân claims that the father of the Virgin Mary was called Imran. The New Testament does not say what Mary’s father was called. Where then does Muhammad get Imran?

It can be worth mentioning that “Mary” and Moses’ sister “Miriam” are identical names in Arabic, “Maryam”. It is therefore possible to get these two Maryams confused. We know that Aaron, Moses and Miriam’s father was called Amram (1 Chronicles 6:3), deceptively similar to Imran, in other words. It can well be a case of mistaken identity.

The second verse (19:28) tells us that the Virgin Mary has just given birth to the baby Jesus and how people begin to call in question Mary’s purity and virginity. At this, the new-born Jesus speaks in defence of his mother.

Again one gets the impression that Muhammad has mixed up the two “Maryams”, that is to say Miriam (Aaron and Moses’ sister) and the Virgin Mary. The Bible gives no details about the brothers of the Virgin Mary. However, we do know that Miriam, who lived more than a thousand years before Mary, was Aaron’s sister (Exodus 15:20).

E15. Tâlût (Saul) and Gideon

“When Tâlût set forth with the armies, he said: ‘Allah will test you at the stream; if any drinks of its water, he goes not with my army; only those who taste not of it go with me; a mere sip out of the hand is excused’…” Al Baqarah 2:249

Comment:
Tâlût is identified as King Saul (The Holy Qur`ân, Ali, note 284). The Bible says nothing about Saul’s army being tested in this way. It is however almost exactly the same as the description of how Gideon’s army was tested (Judges 7:4-6). We can scarcely conclude other than that Muhammad once more has mixed up events and people.

E16. The wise Solomon

“And Solomon was David’s heir. He said: ‘ O ye people! We have been taught the speech of Birds, and on us has been bestowed (a little) of all things: this is indeed Grace manifest (from Allah.)’ And before Solomon were marshalled His hosts – of Jinns and men and birds, and they were all kept in order and ranks. At length, when they came to a (lowly) valley of ants, one of the ants said: ‘O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it.’ So he smiled, amused at its speech; and he said:…” Al Naml 27:16-19

“He said (to his own men): ‘Ye Chiefs! which of you can bring me her throne before they come to me in submission?’…Said one who had knowledge of the Book: ‘I will bring it to thee within the twinkling of any eye!’ Then when (Solomon) saw it placed firmly before him, he said:…” Al Naml 27:38-40

“She was asked to enter the lofty Palace: but when she saw it, she thought it was a lake of water, and she (tucked up her skirts), uncovering her legs. He said: ‘This is but a palace paved smooth with slabs of glass.'” Al Naml 27:44

Comment:
It is true that there is a lot in the Bible about Solomon’s wisdom and palace in 1 Kings 1-11, but the Qur`ân’s version of Solomon abounds in remarkable and fantastic details of which there is no trace in the Bible, for instance:

• Solomon can speak with birds (v.16).

• Solomon’s army is made up of people, jinn and birds (v.17).

• The ants talk with each other and Solomon understands their conversation (v. 18-19).

• A bird, called “Al Hudhud”, tells Solomon what is happening in Sheba where a queen rules on a great throne (v.20-26).

• “Al Hudhud” is commissioned to fly with a message to the queen of Sheba, who eventually decides to visit Solomon (v. 27-37).

• Before the queen arrives in Jerusalem, Solomon asks his court if there is anyone who can arrange for the queen’s throne to move from Sheba (Yemen) to Jerusalem before she gets there, whereupon someone in the court conjures up the queen’s throne in the twinkle of an eye (v. 38-40).

• Solomon now orders that the queen’s throne be supernaturally altered, almost beyond recognition, in order to test the queen (v. 41-42).

• When the queen enters Solomon’s palace she believes that the floor is made of water! So she lifts her skirts, thereby uncovering her legs. Solomon is then quick to inform her that the floor is only made of glass (v. 44).

From where has Muhammad got this version with talking birds and ants, a flying throne and a palace with a glass floor that looks like water?

There is nothing about this in the Bible, but there is in the Jewish book “II Targum of the Book of Esther”, (The Sources of Islam, St Clair-Tisdall, T&T Clark, 1901, p.24).

Once again it seems that Muhammad has heard the Jewish legend but not realised that none of its peculiar details in any way belongs to the Bible, and in this way the whole account came to be in the Qur`ân.

E17. Dhu al Qarnayn (Alexander the Great)

“They ask thee concerning Dhu al Qarnayn. Say, ‘I will rehearse to you something of his story.'” Al Kahf 18:83

Comment:
Who is this Dhu al Qarnayn (the name means “the Lord of the two Horns”), described in Sura 18:83-101?

In Appendix VI of “The Holy Qur`ân, Ali”, page 738, we read “Now the generality of the world of Islam have accepted Alexander the Great as the one meant by the epithet Dhu al Qarnayn.” Ali goes on to give his personal opinion on page 740, “Personally, I have not the least doubt that Dhu al Qarnayn is meant to be Alexander the Great.”

The problem is that this idolater is described in the text as a true believer (Sura 18:86, 95, 98).

We may quite simply conclude that Muhammad did not know that Alexander was an idolater, but actually believed that he instead had a real faith in the one true God.

E18. The Virgin Mary and Zechariah

“Right graciously did her Lord accept her: He made her grow in purity and beauty; to the care of Zakarîya was she assigned…” Âli ‘Imrân 3:37

Comment:
According to the Qur`ân, Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, was instructed to bring up Mary. There is not a word of this in the Bible. It is however to be found in an apocryphal Christian book in Arabic, “History of our holy Father the Aged, the Carpenter”, (The Sources of Islam, St Clair-Tisdall, T&T Clark, 1901, p.53). Once again one gets the impression that Muhammad could not tell the difference between that which came from Holy Scripture and that from extrabiblical sources.

E19. Zechariah was struck dumb

“He said: ‘O my Lord! Give me a Sign!’ ‘Thy Sign,’ was the answer, ‘shall be that thou shalt speak to no man for three days but with signals…'” Âli ‘Imrân 3:41

Comment:
According to the Qur`ân, Zechariah asks God for a sign that he will have son. God’s sign was that Zechariah would be struck dumb for three days. According to Luke 1:18-20, Zechariah was struck dumb because of his unbelief, and according to Luke 1:59-64, his speechless state lasted until after the birth of his son, i.e. for nine months.

Once again Muhammad fails to give accurate details in his attempt to reproduce the biblical material.

E20. Mary gives birth to Jesus

“So she conceived him, and she retired with him to a remote place. And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm tree: she cried (in her anguish): ‘Ah! would that I had died before this! would that I had been a thing forgotten and out of sight!'” Maryam 19:22-23

Comment:
The whole of this portrayal of Jesus’ birth under a palm tree in Sura 19, which ends in the new-born Jesus giving a speech of defence, contains many details not found in the accounts of Matthew 1 and Luke 1-2. However, many of the Qur`ân’s details are to be found in various apocryphal Christian books. In the apocryphal Arabic book, “The Gospel of the Infancy” (The Sources of Islam, St Clair-Tisdall, T&T Clark, 1901, p.58) we can read that the new-born Jesus could speak.

Once more it seems that Muhammad did not distinguish between biblical and extrabiblical material.

E21. Jesus prophesied about Muhammad

“And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: ‘O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad’…” Al Saff 61:6

Comment:
Muslims often ask if we are aware of this prophecy about Muhammad. (Muhammad and Ahmad come from the same root word in Arabic). There is not a single quotation of Jesus in the Bible in which he predicts the coming of Muhammad or Ahmad. The only one whose coming Jesus foretold is the Holy Spirit (John 14:15-26, 15:26, 16:5-15; Acts 1:4-8). The Spirit did indeed come upon the disciples at Pentecost as Jesus had promised (Acts 2:1-4).

E22. Jesus is merely human

“Christ, the son of Mary, was no more than a Messenger…” Al Mâ`idah 5:75

“And behold! Allah will say: ‘O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, “Worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah”?’ He will say: ‘Glory to Thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say)…'” Al Mâ`idah 5:116

“Say: ‘If (Allah) Most Gracious had a son, I would be the first to worship.'” Al Zukhruf 43:81

“Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; and there is none like unto Him.” Al Ikhlâs 112:2-4

Comment:
The Qur`ân teaches that Jesus, who was certainly born of a virgin, was only human. The Qur`ân also categorically denies that God revealed himself in Jesus and that Jesus was the Son of God.

Regarding the Bible’s claim that Jesus was the Son of God, Muhammad has completely misunderstood the implications of the biblical term. Within Islam the expression is understood literally and physically, that is to say that God is to have had sex with Mary and had a son by her. The Christian Trinity in the Qur`ân is therefore the Father, Mary and their son Jesus. By this Muhammad understands that Christians worship three gods, of whom two are mere humans!

E23. Jesus has never died

“That they said (in boast), ‘We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.’ – but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not – nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.” Al Nisâ` 4:157-158

Comment:
Thus the Qur`ân denies Jesus’ crucifixion and death (see also G10. Jesus has never died).

E24. The sleepers in the cave

“Or dost thou reflect that the Companions of the Cave and of the Inscription were wonders among Our Signs?” Al Kahf 18:9

“Thou wouldst have deemed them awake, whilst they were asleep, and We turned them on their right and on their left sides: their dog stretching forth his two forelegs on the threshold…” Al Kahf 18:18

“So they stayed in their Cave three hundred years, and (some) add nine (more).” Al Kahf 18:25.

Comment:
In Sura 18:9-26 we read about some men who slept for over three hundred years in a cave. God saw to it that they were turned on their right and their left sides while they slept. They were able to sleep in safety since they had a dog with them guarding the entrance to the cave. After this marathon sleep they woke up and thought that they had only slept for one day or a few hours. But they had actually slept for 309 years. Now where does all this come from?

It is a case of an old legend which is to be found in, among other sources, the book “Story of Martyrs” written in Latin by Gregory of Tours (The Sources of Islam, St Clair-Tisdall, T&T Clark, 1901, p.48).

The remarkable thing is that Muhammad does not realise that it is a legend, but even gives the exact length of time the men were in the cave, 309 years.

Conclusion:

When we see all these deviations, confusions of people and events, mixes of extrabiblical material with the biblical text, we see a picture of Muhammad getting his information to a large extent from Jews and Christians who themselves did not know what belonged to the Bible, what was pure legend and what was a mixture of the two. In the light of this it was obviously difficult, if not impossible, for Muhammad himself to sort out what really belonged to Holy Scripture. As we have seen earlier he was nevertheless completely convinced that the Qur`ân agreed with previous revelations.

Islam assumes the Qur`ân to be God’s infallible word which came to Muhammad through direct dictation by the angel Gabriel. If the Qur`ân on point after point shows itself to have a human origin, then the whole of Islam, which is based on this assumption, falls.

F. Christians and Jews Have Falsified the Bible

It is, as we have seen, quite easy to discover that the Qur`ân deviates from the Bible on a good many points. The question which quite quickly arises is whether both books can be true even though they sometimes contradict each other.

In time there were a lot of discussions in both Mecca and Medina about Muhammad himself and the Qur`ân as the word of God. Muhammad, as we have previously seen, persisted in his claim that the Qur`ân did indeed confirm the earlier revelations from God, the Bible. A problem arose when the majority of Jews and Christians did not receive Muhammad as God’s messenger. Muhammad then issued different accusations and claims about his opponents.

F1. The People of the Book have different opinions about the Bible

“We certainly gave the Book to Moses, but differences arose therein…” Hûd 11:110

Comment:
Here Muhammad levels no criticism at Scripture, but against the People of the Book, who have different interpretations of Scripture. This observation appears again and again in the Qur`ân. If we are to be honest the same phenomenon still exists today, namely that Christians and Jews interpret Scripture differently, both from each other and among themselves.

F2. Christians deliberately distort the Bible

“There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (as they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, ‘That is from Allah,’ but it is not from Allah: it is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it! It is not (possible) that a man, to whom is given the Book, and Wisdom, and the Prophetic Office, should say to people: ‘Be ye my worshippers rather than Allah’s’…” Âli ‘Imrân 3:78-79

Comment:
Here Muhammad is speaking against a smaller group of Christians who claimed that Jesus told people to worship him instead of God. We know that Jesus never said anything like this in the Bible. If a group of Christians really did make such an erroneous claim, then Muhammad is right in saying that they intentionally or unintentionally distorted the Bible. Once again the criticism is of a smaller group of Christians and not against the Bible.

F3. Jews falsify the Word of God

“And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: ‘This is from Allah,’ to traffic with it for a miserable price!” Al Baqarah 2:78-79

Comment:
Here Muhammad is speaking against a group of Jews in Medina. He claims that they had illiterates among them who did not know Scripture. We do not know a great deal about the Jews living in Medina, but it is possible that some of them indeed were illiterate and had never studied the word of God.

He then accuses some other Jews of having written the Scripture themselves and claimed that the book was the word of God. And besides, this writing was on sale for a very low price. Remarkably, it was for just this that Muhammad’s opponents accused him. It would be extremely interesting to have the opportunity to study the book which Muhammad attacks as false. It is not out of the question that it is a case of an Arabic translation of, for example, parts of the Pentateuch with the strong recommendation that people discover for themselves what we have already seen, that the Qur`ân again and again deviates from the Bible.

Unfortunately we will have to be content with stating once again that if it was the case that some Jews in Medina wrote their own version of the Old Testament, this was of course indefensible.

F4. God himself alters his book

“Allah doth blot out or confirm what He pleaseth: with Him is the Mother of the Book.” Al Ra’d 13:39

Comment:
This remarkable claim, that God should alter and make deletions in his own word, becomes intelligible if someone had really confronted Muhammad with all the Qur`ân’s deviations from the Bible.

However, this claim is still quite contrary to the teaching of Jesus:

“It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.” Luke 16:17

“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” Luke 21:33

F5. God replaces old Qur`ân verses with better ones

“None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar…” Al Baqarah 2:106

“When We substitute one revelation for another – and Allah knows best what he reveals (in stages) – they say, ‘Thou art but a forger’: but most of them understand not.” Al Nahl 16:101

Comment:
These verses are about Qur`ân verses (`âya) which have been annulled or been forgotten. It seems that a number of suras were changed little by little. Muhammad’s opponents noticed the problem and accused Muhammad of fabricating his revelations. The Muslims however were reassured that these replacements and changes were all part of God’s plan and came from him.

From these Qur`ân verses is derived the doctrine of “replacement” (nasakha). In short this doctrine says that if two Qur`ân verses contradict each other, the newer verse is valid. According to Islam’s scholars (‘Ulama), there are 225 Qur`ân verses which have been replaced with others (Balance of Truth, Pfander, The Religious Tract Society, 1910, p.57).

Conclusion:

Nowhere in the Qur`ân does Muhammad attack the Bible, which he, on the contrary, esteems. The Qur`ân teaches that the People of the Book had these writings. He also believes that the Qur`ân confirms these earlier revelations. On the other hand, he accuses local Christians and Jews of intentionally distorting the Bible in their interpretations and expositions. The teaching that Christians and Jews had falsified the Bible itself took a decidedly firmer form when Islam, shortly after Muhammad’s death, was spread in the Christian world and it was shown on comparison that the Qur`ân did indeed deviate from the Bible on quite a number of points. Since the Qur`ân, according to Islam, was held to be the infallible word of God, the Bible came to be seen as a falsification, a mixture of truth and lies. That it should be the other way round was considered to be completely out of the question.

During the whole of the Qur`ân’s period of emergence Muhammad claimed that the Qur`ân confirmed the Bible and thereby must be true. After this period Muslims claim that the Bible does not confirm the Qur`ân and therefore cannot be true.

G. Jesus in the Qur`an

Muslims often say that they believe in Jesus Christ and ask, a little surprised, why we do not believe in Muhammad. For this reason it is interesting to find out who Jesus is in the Qur`ân. The crucial difference between Islam and the Christian faith has to do with Jesus Christ. What is the true identity of the one born of a virgin? Why was he born into the world at all?

G1. Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary

“And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our Spirit, and We made her and her son a Sign for all peoples.” Al Anbiyâ` 21:91

Comment:
Thus the Qur`ân confirms the virgin birth, that Mary conceived through the Holy Spirit, and that this miracle was a sign for the whole world.

G2. Mary and the baby Jesus were given shelter on a hill

“And We made the son of Mary and his mother as a sign: We gave them both shelter on high ground, affording rest and security and furnished with springs.” Al Mu`minûn 23:50

Comment:
After the birth Mary needed to withdraw and rest. God arranged a place of refuge for them on a hill with a spring. Where Joseph was, the Qur`ân does not say.

G3. Jesus is the Word of God and the Spirit of God

“…Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and his Messengers. Say not ‘Trinity’: desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is One God. Glory be to Him. (Far Exalted is He) above having a son…” Al Nisâ` 4:171

Comment:
In this Qur`ân verse Jesus bears the highly-charged names the “Word of God” and “a Spirit proceeding from him”. Both expressions refer to when Mary became pregnant through a miracle of God. But so that there will be no misunderstanding of the Qur`ân’s teaching on Jesus, the expression is preceded by an assurance that Jesus is merely the apostle of God, like Muhammad and many others. Besides this, the verse continues with an attack against the Trinity and an assertion that God does not have a son.

G4. Jesus is created like Adam

“The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: ‘Be’: and he was.” Âli ‘Imrân 3:59

Comment:
The Qur`ân teaches that Jesus is merely human. Islam draws no other conclusions from Mary’s conceiving through the Spirit of God than that Jesus was created just like Adam.

G5. The miracles of Jesus in the Qur`ân

“I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah’s leave: and I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I quicken the dead, by Allah’s leave…” Âli ‘Imrân 3:49

Comment:
The Qur`ân admits that Jesus performed miracles, but only with God’s permission and help. That Jesus created a bird from clay, in approximately the same way as God had created mankind, does not appear in the Bible, but in the apocryphal book “The Gospel of Thomas the Israelite” (The Sources of Islam, St Clair-Tisdall, T&T Clark, 1901, p.57).

G6. Jesus received the Gospel from God

“…We sent after them Jesus the son of Mary, and bestowed on him the Gospel…” Al Hadîd 57:27

Comment:
The Qur`ân teaches that Jesus received the Gospel (al Injîl) from God. The word always appears in the singular in the Qur`ân and is understood by Muslims to be a single book dictated to Jesus, in approximately the same way as it is believed that the Qur`ân was dictated to Muhammad. It is for this reason that Muslims are often surprised when they encounter the “Four Gospels”, which were written by Jesus’ disciples, and the simple narrative form. This fact is often considered to be evidence that the Bible really has been falsified and the original “al Injîl” been lost.

G7. God has never begotten anyone

“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.” Al Ikhlâs 112:1-4

Comment:
This sura expresses the most important doctrine in the Qur`ân, the teaching on God’s oneness (tawhîd). The Qur`ân rejects every notion of trinity as irreconcilable with the doctrine of the one true God. God has never fathered any son, full stop.

G8. God has no son

“Say: ‘If (Allah) Most Gracious had a son, I would be the first to worship.” Al Zukhruf 43:81

Comment:
Muhammad presupposes that it is completely unthinkable for God to have a son and therefore puts himself forward as the first worshipper of this son, who according to the Qur`ân cannot exist.

G9. Jesus denies the Trinity

“And behold! Allah will say: ‘O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, “Worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah”?’ He will say: ‘Glory to Thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say).” Al Mâ`idah 5:116

Comment:
One can only wonder where these remarkable ideas come from. It is completely alien to the Bible and therefore the Christian faith that Jesus should have put forward worship of himself and Mary as an alternative to God. The verse also shows that Muhammad believed that the Christian Trinity included the Virgin Mary instead of the Spirit of God. What then should Muhammad have believed? He did, after all, see “Christians” bow the knee and worship before statues and pictures of the Virgin Mary and baby Jesus. Muhammad saw this as erroneous and incompatible with faith in the one true God.

The Bible instead teaches:

• that God, who is one God, reveals himself in three persons: the Father, the Son and the Spirit. Christian baptism takes place therefore in the name of the triune God. (Matthew 28:19-20)

• that Jesus Christ is true God and true human in the same person (John 1:1, 14)

• that the term “the Son of God” is spiritual, not physical (John 1:18, 14:6-11)

G10. Jesus has never died

“That they said (in boast), ‘We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah’ – but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety, they killed him not – nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself, and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.” Al Nisâ` 4:157-158

Comment:
Here the Qur`ân truly contradicts the Bible! Already in the prophecies of the Old Testament we read that the Messiah would have to suffer and die for the sin of mankind (Isaiah 53). Large parts of the Gospels and remaining New Testament deal with Jesus’ suffering and death on the cross. In the Bible we have eyewitnesses to his death and resurrection. Almost all of Jesus’ apostles gave their lives and were killed when they gave testimony to precisely this.

It is true that there are a number of different explanations for these Qur`ân verses, but the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of Qur`ânic commentators teaches that Jesus Christ has never been crucified or died. It is written: “but so it was made to appear to them.”

The teaching is that God took Jesus up to heaven before the crucifixion, and that someone else was transformed to look like Jesus. So the wrong person was arrested and the wrong person crucified! And the one behind this gigantic bluff was God himself. In doing this, he allowed all the disciples, and even Mary, Jesus’ own mother, to believe that it was Jesus being crucified, though in actual fact it was “so it was made to appear to them.”

From where has Muhammad got this remarkable idea?

It is plausible to believe that the “Christians” Muhammad spoke with about Jesus’ crucifixion and death were in fact influenced by Gnosticism, which mixed Hellenism and Christianity. The Gnostics believed in the kingdoms of light and darkness, with all that is spiritual, for example the human soul and spirit, belonging to the kingdom of light, and all matter, the human body for example, belonging to the kingdom of darkness. The world of light was created by a good God while the world of darkness was created by an evil God. This led to the false teaching that Jesus did not have, as we do, a physical body, but instead a type of spiritual pseudo-body. His suffering and death on the cross became thereby a meaningless quasi-death. A number of Gnostics, for example Basilides who was operative in Alexandria between 120 and 140 AD, even went as far as denying that Jesus had ever died on the cross.

He taught:

“…Nevertheless, when the unbegotten , unutterable Father witnessed their depravation, he sent his first-born Nous – it is he who is called Christ – in order to release those who believe in him from the power of those who created the world. However, for the people of the Archons he appeared on earth as a human who performed miracles. Therefore he did not suffer, but instead a certain Simon from Cyrene who was forced to bear the cross for him. Because of ignorance and delusion he was crucified since he had been transformed by Christ so that it would be believed that he (Simon) was Jesus. But Jesus himself assumed the appearance of Simon, stood alongside and laughed in ridicule at them (the Archons and their people). For because he was an incorporeal force and the unbegotten Father’s Nous, he could assume every form at will and thus he ascended to him who had sent him. In that he ridiculed them since he could not be held down and was invisible to all. For this reason, those who know this are released from the creators of the world, the Archons. And one does not need to profess the one crucified, but instead the one who came in human form and was seemingly crucified, called Jesus…” (Jesus till Moder Teresa, Tergel, Verbum, 1973, p.29).

If we assume that the “Christians” who informed Muhammad were in fact influenced by Gnosticism, we can then understand how Muhammad could produce a verse which in principle contradicts the whole New Testament.

G11. Has Jesus died after all?

“Those of you who die and leave widows…” Al Baqarah 2:240

“…And I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them…” Al Mâ`idah 5:117

“Behold! Allah said: ‘O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself…'” Âli ‘Imrân 3:55

“So Peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the Day that I shall be raised up to life (again)!” Maryam 19:33

Comment:
In Sura 2:240 it is written “Those of you who die (yutawaffûn)…”, and the word must mean “die” since the word refers to widows.

The same root word is used about Jesus in 3:55 “…take thee (mutawaffîka).” According to “The Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic”, “mutawaffan” means “deceased, dead”. The same root word is even used by Jesus when he says to God in 5:117 “..thou didst take me up (tawaffaytanî). According to Hans Wehr “tuwuffîya” means “to die”.

Things do not become much clearer when the new-born Jesus speaks in Sura 19:33 of the three great and unique days in his life on earth, according to the Bible, namely his unique birth, death and resurrection.

All authorised Qur`ânic commentators have chosen, however, to read these verses in the light of 4:157 “But they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them.” Note again that Ali renders the Arabic words “thou didst take me up” and “I will take thee.”

As regards the traditional interpretation of the baby Jesus’ words about his future death and resurrection, these are explained by saying that Jesus will one day return to the world. It is then that he will die and rise like all other normal mortals.

G12. Jesus prophesied about Muhammad

“And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: ‘O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad…” Al Saff 61:6

Comment:
In this verse are named the Qur`ân’s two most important reasons for the coming of Jesus to the world. He came partly in order to, like Muhammad, confirm God’s earlier revelations, the Pentateuch, and partly to prophesy that Muhammad would come. Ahmed and Muhammad are namely two forms of the same root word in Arabic.

Muslims often ask if we are aware of this prophecy. Unfortunately, there is not a single quotation of Jesus in the Bible where he predicts Muhammad’s coming. The only one Jesus said would come was the Holy Spirit (John 14:15-26, 15:26, 16:5-15; Acts 1:4-8).

The Spirit did indeed come upon the disciples at Pentecost as Jesus had promised (Acts 2:1-4).

Conclusion:

Even though the Qur`ân contains almost no material which comes directly from the New Testament, there are quite a number of facts about Jesus which agree with the New Testament, for instance, the virgin birth, that he performed great miracles, that his book is called the Gospel, that he was the Messiah, God’s apostle, and so on.

There are also a great number of departures from the New Testament. The most serious deviations are, of course, that the Qur`ân denies the deity of Jesus, his death on the cross and thereby atonement in its entirety. The idea that God has reconciled the whole world to himself in Christ does not exist in Islam. Jesus is not a Saviour, he is not a mediator between God and man. He is merely a prophet like Moses or Muhammad. The problem from a Christian perspective is that if one takes away the deity of Jesus and his death for our sins, there is no longer any Gospel left. But this is precisely the Qur`ân’s message about Jesus.

H. Muhammad in the Qur`an

The Islamic creed is as follows:

There is no God but Allah.

Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.

Muhammad is not only God’s messenger, he is also the seal on the whole office of apostleship. After him come no further apostles and no more revelations.

The following is a list of some important years and events in the life of Muhammad:

570Muhammad’s birth. His father, ‘Abdallah, had already died.576His mother, Âmînah, dies when Muhammad is six years old. He goes to live with his paternal grandfather, ‘Abd Al-Muttalib, and later with his paternal uncle, Abû Tâlib.579At around the age of nine to twelve Muhammad travels for the first time with a caravan to Syria. There he receives his first deep impressions of the People of the Book.593At 23 years of age Muhammad takes on the work of caravan driver to a rich widow called Khadijah. He shows great interest in the People of the Book in Syria, where he spends time with a Christian monk named Bahîrah.595At the age of 25 Muhammad marries the rich Khadijah, at the time, around forty years old. He gains a respectable status in Mecca. In time Muhammad becomes a religious seeker, devoting himself, among other things, to periods of secluded fasting and meditation. The question of monotheism becomes important for Muhammad. Who is Allah? His own father, whom he had never met, was called, incidentally, ‘Abdallah (servant of Allah).610At forty years of age Muhammad receives his first “revelation” on Mount Hira outside Mecca after a long period of solitary fasting. He experienced the angel Gabriel embracing him forcefully and three times commanding him to read, “Iqra`!”It was a harrowing experience for Muhammad. He went home and told his wife, Khadijah, everything. He sensed darkness and fear, enough to make his whole body shake and feel cold. He himself doubted that the “revelation” could be from God. But Khadijah comforted him and succeeded with the help of her Christian cousin, Waraqah, in convincing the doubting Muhammad that he really was chosen to be the apostle of God. Muhammad began his service in Mecca and met with great resistance, both to himself and his teaching. It took about three years for the next “revelation” to come. After that they came a good deal more frequently.616The persecution of the few Muslims in Mecca becomes even greater and some are forced to flee to Abyssinia.622This is year nought in Islamic chronology. Muhammad and around 150 Muslims move because of persecution to Yathrib (present-day Medina). This event is known as “The Flight” or “The Hegira” (Al Hijra). Many in Medina receive Muhammad as a prophet from God. Under Muhammad’s leadership Muslims begin to carry out plundering expeditions against both armed trade caravans and various Bedouin tribes. But above all continues the conflict against Quraysh, Muhammad’s own clan, which ruled Mecca. Islam expands. The majority of Jews in Medina reject Muhammad as a prophet from God. Muhammad, after a revelation during his second year in Medina, changes the direction of prayer from Jerusalem to Mecca. The first Jewish family, Banû Qaynuqa’, is expelled to Syria in the year 3 AH (624). The second Jewish family, Banû Nadîr, is forced into exile in the year 4 AH (625) after having had to pay with their property and possessions for safe-conduct out of the area. Most badly fare the last remaining Jewish family, “Banû Quraiza”. The men (about 600 in number) are executed while the women and children become slaves.630Muhammad occupies Mecca without a battle with an army of 10,000 men. He destroys the idols at the Kaaba in Mecca, but retains many of the old religion’s rites, especially those performed during pilgrimage. Muhammad consolidates his position as ruler of the Arabian peninsula.632Muhammad dies and is buried in Medina.

Now as we turn to the Qur`ân in order to find out something about this remarkable man, we realise that we cannot gain a deeper knowledge about his life from there, apart from a few details. A complete picture of him requires an in-depth study of the Hadîth (the tradition), which contains everything Muhammad said and did.

H1. The Muslim is to obey God and Muhammad

“The Day that their faces will be turned upside down in the Fire, they will say: ‘Woe to us! would that we had obeyed Allah and obeyed the Messenger!'” Al Ahzâb 33:66

“…He that obeys Allah and His Messenger, has already attained the highest Achievement.” Al Ahzâb 33:71

Comment:
Islam requires not only submission to God but also to Muhammad. This exhortation to obey God and his apostle recurs many times in the Qur`ân (see also Sura Al Nûr 24:51-54). Many Westerners are surprised by the fact that the “Hadîth” (the tradition) possesses divine authority in Islam. In the Hadîth is all that Muhammad said and did on different occasions (this is usually called Muhammad’s “sunna”). But in the light of the Qur`ân’s repeated exhortations to the Muslim to obey Muhammad, the authority of the Hadîth is fully understandable.

H2. Muhammad, the seal of the prophets

“Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the prophets…” Al Ahzâb 33:40

Comment:
The expression “the seal of the prophets” means that Muhammad is the last prophet and that the office of prophetship ended with him. The Qur`ân is therefore, according to Islam, God’s definitive revelation.

H3. Muhammad performed no signs

“They swear their strongest oaths by Allah, that if a (special) Sign came to them, by it they would believe. Say: ‘Certainly (all) Signs are in the power of Allah: but what will make you (Muslims) realise that (even) if (special) Signs came, they will not believe?” Al An’âm 6:109

Comment:
The fact that Muhammad did not perform any miracles is often the subject of discussion in the Qur`ân. Muhammad never conceals this fact, but points repeatedly to the Qur`ân as God’s sign.

H4. The Qur`ân is Muhammad’s sign

“Yet they say: ‘Why are not Signs sent down to him from his Lord?’ Say: ‘The Signs are indeed with Allah: and I am indeed a clear Warner.’ And is it not enough for them that We have sent down to thee the Book which is rehearsed to them?..” Al ‘Ankabût 29:50-51

Comment:
The Qur`ân is unequivocal on this point. Muhammad performed no signs, but the Qur`ân was to be God’s sign.

H5. Muhammad saw Gabriel twice

“While he was in the highest part of the horizon: then he approached and came closer, and was at a distance of but two bow-lengths or (even) nearer.” Al Najm 53:7-9

“For indeed he saw him at a second descent.” Al Najm 53:13

Comment:
These Qur`ân verses are about the angel Gabriel. According to “The Holy Qur`ân, Ali”, note 5092, Muhammad saw the angel Gabriel on two occasions, once at his call to service and again here when Gabriel revealed himself at a distance. Ali considers this second occasion to be in connection with the journey by night from Mecca to the temple in Jerusalem (see next point).

H6. Muhammad’s nocturnal journey to Jerusalem

“Glory to (Allah) who did take His Servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did bless – in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the One Who heareth and seeth (all things).” Al Isrâ`17:1

Comment:
The Qur`ân claims that Muhammad flew away from the Kaaba in Mecca to the temple in Jerusalem. According to Ibn Ishâq, ‘Aishah, one of Muhammad’s wives, said that Muhammad’s body was not absent during the nocturnal journey. And besides, there are no details in the Qur`ân about what Muhammad saw or what it looked like at the temple in Jerusalem. Was Muhammad even aware that no temple remained, but only some ruins, the Wailing Wall, for example?

In the Hadîth are different versions of what Muhammad saw and experienced during his journey, which, together with the angel Gabriel, was made on the back of a horse called Burâq. According to one Hadîth which goes back to Ibn Ishâq and is recounted in the book “Sirat Ibn Hishâm”, Muhammad encountered Abraham, Moses and Jesus and other prophets in the temple in Jerusalem, where he led them in the worship of Allah. Neither in this Hadîth do we get the impression that there was in fact no temple in Jerusalem during the seventh century.

According to another Hadîth which goes back to Qutâda and is found in the book “Miskât al Masâbîh”, Muhammad made a journey with the angel Gabriel’s help through seven different heavens and met different prophets in the different heavens. John the Baptist and Jesus were already to be found in the second heaven, while Abraham, for example, was highest, in the seventh heaven. After this Muhammad and Gabriel continued to paradise itself, which is described as a beautiful garden. (The Sources of Islam, St Clair-Tisdall, T&T Clark, 1901, pp 76-82; Islam lära och livsmönster, Hjärpe, AWE/GEBERS, 1979, p.44).

H7. Muhammad was accused of being a false prophet

“‘Nay,’ they say, ‘(these are) medleys of dreams! – Nay, he forged it! – Nay, he is (but) a poet! Let him then bring us a Sign like the ones that were sent to (Prophets) of old!'” Al Anbiyâ` 21:5

Comment:
This is a sample of the different types of accusation which Muhammad met with, and there are a good deal more of the same kind in the Qur`ân.

H8. Muhammad was accused like all other prophets

“Similarly, no messenger came to the Peoples before them, but they said (of him) in like manner, ‘A sorcerer, or one possessed’!” Al Dhâriyât 51:52

Comment:
Muhammad points out the fact that it was quite normal for prophets to meet with resistance from their contemporaries. In other words, he considered himself in good company when he encountered various accusations. Only the problem was that this moderate stance changed when he himself had gained greater power. His opponents then had to be careful if they wanted to avoid punishment.

H9. Muhammad’s right to unlimited marriages

“O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makkah) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her – this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large)…” Al Ahzâb 33:50

Comment:
Normal Muslims were given the right to have four wives at the same time. But Muhammad had at his disposal an unlimited number of marriages because he was God’s apostle. Regarding women taken as prisoners of war, it was not necessary to follow the laws of marriage since they had been given by Allah as booty. The verse continues namely as follows “We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess…” (33:50). The expression “mâ malakat aymânuhum” (that which their right hand possesses) in the Qur`ân most often refers to prisoners of war or booty, as it has also been defined earlier in the passage. In reality these women became slaves, a terrible fate, in other words, for the other side’s women if they were conquered by the Islamic army. This fact is confirmed by the well-known Hadîth compiler, Al Baidawi. (Balance of Truth, Pfander, The Religious Tract Society, 1910, p.328).

H10. Muhammad was prohibited from marrying again

“It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them for (other) wives, even though their beauty attract thee, except any thy right hand should possess (as handmaidens)…” Al Ahzâb 33:52

Comment:
This ban on marriage came in the year 7AH (629 AD) when Muhammad was already 59 years old and with nine wives still alive. (In total he had eleven wives and two concubines). It seems undeniably the case that Muhammad had had enough, although he reserved the right to take from among the slaves, something which he in fact took advantage of when he took his servant, the Copt Mary, as a concubine (The Holy Qur`ân, Ali, note 3754).

H11. Muhammad could bypass the order of wives

“Thou mayest defer (the turn of) any of them that thou pleasest, and thou mayest receive any thou pleasest: and there is no blame on thee if thou invite one whose (turn) thou hadst set aside. This were nigher to the cooling of the eyes…” Al Ahzâb 33:51

Comment:
Obviously all his wives began to clamour if Muhammad disregarded the order. He had to namely spend the night with each of them in turn. But Allah had a simple solution to the problem. He revealed to Muhammad that he was quite simply made exempt from this.

H12. Muhammad could break inconvenient promises

“O Prophet! Why holdest thou to be forbidden that which Allah has made lawful to thee? Thou seekest to please thy consorts. But Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths…” Al Tahrîm 66:1-2

Comment:
Clearly Muhammad had promised his different wives things which became difficult to keep long-term. This problem, too, was solved with a revelation which said that the promises could quite simply be broken.

H13. Muhammad married his adopted son’s former wife

“Behold! thou didst say to one who had received the grace of Allah and thy favour: ‘Retain thou (in wedlock) thy wife, and fear Allah.’ But thou didst hide in thy heart that which Allah was about to make manifest: thou didst fear the people, but it is more fitting that thou shouldst fear Allah. Then when Zayd had dissolved (his marriage) with her, with the necessary (formality), We joined her in marriage to thee…” Al Ahzâb 33:37

Comment:
According to two well-known Qur`ânic commentators and Hadîth compilers, Al Baidawi (volume 2, p.129) and Al Jalâlân (commentary of 33:37), Muhammad took a liking to Zainab after having joined her in wedlock with his adopted son, Zayd. They became aware of this situation. When problems arose between them, Muhammad said to Zayd, “Retain thou (in wedlock) thy wife, and fear Allah.” But Zayd nevertheless divorced Zainab, and Muhammad was then called by Allah to marry his adopted son’s former wife (Balance of Truth, Pfander, The Religious Tract Society, 1910, p.331).

This was not the only controversial marriage Muhammad entered into. He married ‘Aishah when she was seven years old and he began to spend the night with her when she was nine or ten years old according to Ibn Hishâm, volume 3, p.94; Ibn Athîr, volume 2, p.117, 118; Mishkât Al Masâbîh, p.262, 272 (Balance of Truth, Pfander, The Religious Tract Society, 1910, p.329).

H14. Threat of divorce because of gossip

“When the Prophet disclosed a matter of confidence to one of his consorts, and she then divulged it (to another), and Allah made it known to him…” Al Tahrîm 66:3

“It may be, if he divorced you (all), that Allah will give him in exchange Consorts better than you…” Al Tahrîm 66:5

Comment:
One of Muhammad’s wives clearly enjoyed telling people the latest news. There were certainly a lot of people interested in listening to the latest gossip about what the prophet had said. But God spoke to the wives through the prophet and threatened them with divorce. Besides this, God threatened to give Muhammad even better wives instead of those who were not careful.

H15. Promise of blessing for lowering the voice

“O ye who believe! Raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet, nor speak aloud to him in talk, as ye may speak aloud to one another, lest your deeds become vain and ye perceive not. Those that lower their voice in the presence of Allah’s Messenger – their hearts has Allah tested for piety: for them is Forgiveness and a great Reward.” Al Hujurât 49:2-3

Comment:
It seems that it was taxing for Muhammad if someone had too loud a voice. Allah noticed the problem and sent down these verses, which in short amount to people having to be less vociferous than the prophet if they did not want to forfeit forgiveness and rewards.

H16. No-one could stay too long with Muhammad

“O ye who believe! Enter not the Prophet’s houses – until leave is given you – for a meal, (and then) not (so early as) to wait for its preparation: but when ye are invited, enter; and when ye have taken your meal, disperse, without seeking familiar talk. Such (behaviour) annoys the Prophet: he is ashamed to dismiss you, but Allah is not ashamed (to tell you) the truth.” Al Ahzâb 33:53

Comment:
Muhammad clearly thought it was tiresome with people who only wanted to talk and take a long time when they visited. He himself was too shy to tell them. But Allah came to the rescue with a revelation giving clear instructions as to what was what in Muhammad’s house.

H17. Jews who were forced to flee from Medina

“It is He Who got out the Unbelievers among the People of the Book from their homes at the first gathering…” Al Hashr 59:2

“And had it not been that Allah had decreed banishment for them, he would certainly have punished them in this world: and in the Hereafter they shall (certainly) have the Punishment of the Fire. That is because they resisted Allah and His Messenger: and if anyone resists Allah, verily Allah is severe in punishment.” Al Hashr 59:3-4

Comment:
This exile affected a rich Jewish family in Medina called Banû Nadîr in the year 4 AH (626 AD). They could count themselves fortunate to have escaped with their lives, which was not the case for the men of the last Jewish family in Medina, “Banû Quraiza.” They were executed in the year 5 AH, while the women and children became slaves. According to Islamic sources it was six to seven hundred men who were executed by beheading (Sîrat Al Rasûl, part 2, p.148, 75; Kitâb Al Maghâzî, Wâqidî, p.125, 126; Balance of Truth, Pfander, The Religious Tract Society, 1910, p. 332-333; Islam lära och livsmönster, Hjärpe, AWE/GEBERS, 1979, p.53).

H18. Muhammad decided over Jewish booty

“…So take what the Messenger assigns to you, and deny yourselves that which he withholds from you. And fear Allah; for Allah is strict in Punishment.” Al Hashr 59:7

Comment:
The rich Jewish family Banû Nadîr owned an area of houses and orchards outside Medina called Fadak. Muhammad himself with his family seized these properties in exchange for the Banû Nadîr’s safe-conduct out of the country. Fadak was later given to Muhammad’s daughter Fatma as a gift and inheritance. The first Caliph Abu Bakr cited a Hadîth (which he alone heard) which meant that children of the prophet would not receive any inheritance, and thereby Fatma was declared to be without inheritance, upon which Abu Bakr himself took over the property Fadak. The property later became the cause of feuds within the family for several generations (Nahjul Balagha, Reza, Tahrike Tarsile Qur`ân Inc, 1978, p.517-529).

So Muhammad thought that he should take the largest portion of the booty from this well-to-do Jewish family, Banû Nadîr. It was therefore quite fitting that Allah instructed Muslims about suitable conduct, namely that they were allowed to keep whatever they were given. There was no point complaining “for Allah is strict in punishment.”

Conclusion:

We cannot avoid noticing how close Muhammad came in certain situations to abusing his position. He seemed to receive a great deal of his revelations when he had a personal problem or need or could secure himself certain privileges. When we read about these circumstantial solutions to Muhammad’s personal problems it is difficult to understand how just these Qur`ân verses could be eternal so that they were in the presence of God before he created the world.

The sometimes almost inconceivable cruelty and the many remarkable relationships with women give a mystifying picture of this remarkable man who called himself God’s apostle.

I. The Foundational Beliefs of Islam

There are many teachings to be found in the Qur`ân, some more manifest than others, and later on they have naturally been systematised and compiled to form one body of doctrine. I have touched upon a number of these teachings in other chapters, and I will therefore only list the articles of belief, as well as write a little about the most important doctrine in the Qur`ân: Allah, the one true God.

I1. The articles of Islamic belief

“…But it is righteousness – to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers…” Al Baqarah 2:177

Comment:
This verse gives five of the six articles of belief, which are usually listed in the following order:

1.Allah:the one true God2.Angels:Archangels, lesser angels, jinn3.The Scriptures:Tawrâh (the Pentateuch), Zabûr (the Psalms), Injîl (the Gospel) and the Qur`ân. The first three are understood to be falsified and a mixture of truth and lies, while the Qur`ân is God’s definitive revelation.4.The Prophets:Many of the Bible’s prophets, as well as some others. Muhammad is the final prophet.5.Destiny:All that happens is decided in advance by God. It is written (maktub) before it has taken place.6.The Day of Judgement:Everyone will give account (hisâb) before God, and it will be decided if a person is to go to paradise or to hell.

I2. The doctrine of the one true God

“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.” Al Ikhlâs 112:1-4

Comment:
No doctrine in the Qur`ân is more important than that about the one true God. It is the very foundation of the witness: “There is no god but Allah.” The greatest sin in Islam is for this reason “shirk” (to make someone or something equal with God), (Islam lära och livsmönster, Hjärpe, AWE/GEBERS, 1979, p.11). The Christian doctrine of the Trinity is, according to Islam, incompatible with the teaching that God is one.

I3. God has no son

“Say: ‘Praise be to Allah, Who begets no son, and has no partner in (His) dominion…” Al Isrâ` 17:111

Comment:
The Qur`ân completely denies the notion that God should have a son. In the Qur`ân, the Trinity is shown to be the Father, Mary and their son Jesus. The term “the Son of God” is understood literally within Islam, physically, not spiritually.

As regards the expression that God has no “partner”, the Arabic word is “sharîkun” from which the term “shirk” comes.

I4. The ninety-nine most beautiful names of Allah

“Allah is He, than Whom there is no other God – Who knows (all things) both secret and open; He, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Allah is He, than Whom there is no other god – the Sovereign, the Holy One, the Source of Peace (and Perfection), the Guardian of Faith, the Preserver of Safety, The Exalted in Might, the Irresistible, the Supreme: Glory to Allah! (High is He) above the partners they attribute to Him. He is Allah, the Creator, the Evolver, the Bestower of Forms, (or Colours). To Him belong the Most Beautiful Names. Whatever is in the heavens and on earth, doth declare His Praises and Glory. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.” Al Hashr 59:22-24

Comment:
As Christians we notice that in principle all the names are biblical and are fitting for the God of the Bible. The expression “God is love”, of course, is missing, but on the other hand there are many other similar attributes which describe what the Bible means by love.

The expression “to him belong the most beautiful names” (lahu al-asmâ` al husnâ) is the foundation of the teaching on the ninety-nine beautiful names of Allah. These are the ninety-nine attributes ascribed to Allah in the Qur`ân. The Islamic “rosary” is based on the ninety-nine names. It has ninety-nine, thirty-three or eleven beads. For a complete list of the ninety-nine names see “Islam lära och livsmönster, Hjärpe, AWE/GEBERS, 1979, p.14.”

Conclusion:

These six points represent the foundational beliefs of Islam. Parallel to belief (`îmân) comes the practice of religion (dîn), which I will discuss in the next chapter.

J. The Five Pillars of Islam

The five pillars describe how God wants Muslims to practise their faith. Islam understands the relationship with God more or less like a treaty with certain conditions and promises. If a person fulfils his side then God will fulfil his.

J1. The witness

“And your God is One God: there is no god but He…” Al Baqarah 2:163

Comment:
A Muslim must declare the following witness: There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his apostle. Remarkably, this witness is not to be found word for word in the Qur`ân. There are, however, many verses with the same content.

With every call to prayer in the mosque, the witness is cried out. It is also a part of the ritual prayers, which are prayed five times a day.

J2. The prayers

” And establish regular prayers at the two ends of the day and at the approaches of the night…” Hûd 11:114

“O ye who believe! Approach not prayers with a mind befogged, until ye can understand all that ye say – nor in a state of ceremonial impurity (except when travelling on the road), until after washing your whole body…” Al Nisâ` 4:43

“O ye who believe! When the call is proclaimed to prayer on Friday (the Day of Assembly), hasten earnestly to the Remembrance of Allah…” Al Jumu’ah 62:9

Comment:
There is no verse which expressly mentions the five times of prayer each day, even if Sura Hûd 11:114 can be interpreted in this way (The Holy Qur`ân, Ali, note 1616, 1617). The one praying must be sober and clean. The ritual washings before prayer are very important in Islam.

The most important time of prayer is at midday on Friday, the Muslim’s holy day.

J3. The fast

“…And seek what Allah hath ordained for you, and eat and drink, until the white thread of dawn appear to you, distinct from its black thread; then complete your fast till the night appears…” Al Baqarah 2:187

Comment:
The fast is commanded during the whole month of Ramadan. The fast is from when the sun goes up until it goes down. The fast is absolute, that is to say, no food or drink is allowed. At night, however, both eating and drinking are allowed. Islam is a religion based on good works. A Muslim sees the fast as an important part of his efforts to reach heaven.

J4. The alms

“And be steadfast in prayer; practise regular charity; and bow down your heads with those who bow down (in worship).” Al Baqarah 2:43

“Alms are for the poor and the needy, and those employed to administer the (funds); for those whose hearts have been (recently) reconciled (to the Truth); for those in bondage and in debt; in the cause of Allah, and for the wayfarer…” Al Tawbah 9:60

Comment:
In many different Qur`ân verses the Muslim is exhorted to give something to the poor. In this way no poor person need starve in Islamic society (dâr al islâm). This is also the reason why beggars are relatively common in many Islamic countries today. It is worth noting that alms could also be used to help and encourage people who were either close to conversion or had recently converted to Islam. Alms could also be used “in the cause of Allah”, which in the Qur`ân generally means those who fight for Allah, but can also refer to others in the service of Islam.

J5. The pilgrimage

“And complete the Hajj or Umrah in the service of Allah…” Al Baqarah 2:196

Comment:
Every Muslim for whom it is possible is to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in his life. It may be interesting to know that several of the religious rites a Muslim performs during the pilgrimage had been retained by Muhammad from the earlier Sabean religion in Mecca (Balance of Truth, Pfander, The Religious Tract Society, 1910, p.296). Muslims believe that the pilgrimage has a purifying effect so that God forgives many sins because of the journey. Without a doubt, it is believed that the pilgrimage weighs a great deal on the scales on the Day of Judgement.

“‘Umra” (lesser pilgrimage) is a journey to Mecca outside the official period of pilgrimage. All of the rites of the real pilgrimage need not be performed either.

Conclusion:

Islam is a religion based on belief and good works. The Muslim sees the five pillars more or less like a treaty with different conditions and promises. If a person meets his side of the agreement, God will be gracious and merciful on the Day of Judgement and allow the Muslim to enter paradise. The Muslim who does not perform his religious duties can be doomed to hell. But everything takes place in accordance with God’s will, and God is gracious and merciful towards all Muslims. Besides this, tradition says that Muhammad will pray for all Muslims on the Day of Judgement. Thus even those Muslims who have not performed their duties have a certain hope of getting to paradise after all.

K. Judgement and Grace

Judgement is a very large subject in the Qur`ân. Since Jesus Christ has never died, neither does reconciliation in Christ exist. The Qur`ân’s teaching on “judgement and grace” is therefore somewhat unlike that of the New Testament.

K1. Two angels record people’s deeds

“Behold, two (guardian angels) appointed to learn (his doings) learn (and note them), one sitting on the right and one on the left.” Qâf 50:17

Comment:
According to Islam, there are two angels following every person, one sitting on the right shoulder and the other on the left. The angel on the right shoulder notes all good deeds, while the other angel notes all evil deeds. On the day of reckoning (yûm al hisâb) when a person gives account for his life, the two angels report everything he has done. The good deeds are placed on the right-hand dish of the scales and the evil deeds on the left. And depending on which way the scales tip a person will go to paradise or hell. Everything, nevertheless, takes place in accordance with the will of Allah, and he is gracious and merciful to all Muslims. Besides this, Muhammad prays for all Muslims on the Day of Judgement, and this of course increases the Muslim’s chances of getting into paradise.

K2. All deeds are written down

“All that they do is noted in (their) Books (of Deeds): every matter, small and great, is a record.” Al Qamar 54:52-53

Comment:
These verses confirm that everything is recorded. This documentation is prepared by the two angels sitting on people’s shoulders.

K3. A person is chained to his eternal destiny

“Every man’s fate We have fastened on his own neck: On the Day of Judgement We shall bring out for him a scroll, which he will see spread open.” Al Isrâ` 17:13

Comment:
No-one can escape the life he leads. What a person has done is, so to speak, chained round his neck, and on the Day of Judgement the verdict comes.

K4. The scales decide paradise and hell

“Then, he whose balance (of good deeds) will be (found) heavy, will be in a Life of good pleasure and satisfaction. But he whose balance (of good deeds) will be (found) light – will have his home in a (bottomless) Pit. And what will explain to Thee what this is? (It is) a Fire blazing fiercely!” Al Qâri’ah 101:6-11

Comment:
At the Day of Judgement all a person’s deeds are placed on the scales, and depending on the verdict, the person is sentenced to paradise or hell.

K5. If God were to judge justly everyone would perish

“If Allah were to punish men for their wrongdoing, He would not leave, on the (earth), a single living creature: but He gives them respite for a stated Term. When their Term expires, they would not be able to delay (the punishment) for a single hour, just as they would not be able to anticipate it (for a single hour).” Al Nahl 16:61

Comment:
It is solely because of God’s mercy that any human life at all continues to exist on earth. If God were to punish every sin then every single human being would have perished long ago.

This verse is similar to the Bible’s teaching on our inheritance of a sinful nature from Adam, which results in all humans sinning. The difference is, however, that according to Islam, humans sin because God created humans weak and not because of Adam and Eve’s fall (see Sura Nisâ` 4:27-28 “Allah doth wish to turn to you, but the wish of those who follow their lusts is that ye should turn away (from Him) – far, far away. Allah doth wish to lighten your (difficulties): for man was created weak (in flesh).”

K6. One good deed outweighs ten evil deeds

“He that doeth good shall have ten times as much to his credit: he that doeth evil shall only be recompensed according to his evil…” Al An’âm 6:160

Comment:
Humans are sinners who have the tendency to do more evil than good. This problem is ingeniously solved by saying that one good deed cancels out ten evil ones. If someone prays once he can, in theory, sin ten times and still be even.

Here the Bible and the Qur`ân differ. According to the Bible, the sinner stands in debt before God until he has received grace and forgiveness through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross (2 Corinthians 5:17-21).

K7. God forgives those who turn in repentance

“…Forgive, then, those who turn in Repentance, and follow Thy Path; and preserve them from the Penalty of the Blazing Fire! And grant, our Lord! that they enter the Gardens of Eternity, which Thou hast promised to them…” Ghâfir 40:7-8

Comment:
Here is an example of the type of prayer the Muslim expects Muhammad will pray on the Day of Judgement. The Qur`ân speaks of forgiveness for the one who repents; if God wills, that person will be forgiven. But the person cannot be sure.

A passage like this could equally well have come from the Bible. Jesus also spoke often about repentance as the condition for forgiveness, as for example in the parable of “the prodigal son”, Luke 15:11-32.

Repentance and faith the Bible says are, before God, a person’s responsibility. But the difference between the Qur`ân and the Bible lies partly in what a person is to believe in and partly in what God has done, that God in Christ has reconciled the whole world to himself. He thus offers a person forgiveness and salvation through Christ. This reconciliation, which the Bible says is the very foundation upon which forgiveness stands, is not to be found at all in Islam.

K8. God will fill hell

“…But the Word from Me will come true, ‘I will fill Hell with Jinns and men all together.'” Al Sajdah 32:13

Comment:
According to the Qur`ân, hell will be completely full of jinn and humans. What is meant by “all together” we can only wonder.

K9. No grace in hell

“If, then, they have patience, the Fire will be a Home for them! And if they beg to be received into favour into favour will they not (then) be received.” Fussilat 41:24

Comment:
The Qur`ân says that there is no grace to be found for the one in hell. See also Sura Al Jinn 72:23 “…For any that disobey Allah and His Messenger – for them is Hell: they shall dwell therein forever.” The Bible also speaks of an eternal punishment.

Conclusion:

According to the Qur`ân, humans sin because God created them weak and not because they have inherited Adam’s sinful nature. Thus, humans are not born sinners in need of reconciliation with God, but they instead have the capacity in themselves to obey God and do what God expects, and in this way to come to paradise.

The Qur`ân speaks a lot about judgement. This judgement is based on a person’s deeds, good and evil. If a persons repents God will forgive that person’s sins if he so wills. But the person cannot be sure of this.

The Bible says, however, that God acts according to his character and his Word, and therefore a person’s sin will lead to punishment. The wages of sin are, as we know, death (both physical and spiritual), Romans 6:23. Since the God of the Bible keeps to his Word but at the same time loves humans, Christ had to sacrifice himself by bearing their guilt and punishment, in order to thus reconcile them with God. The believer can therefore be assured of God’s forgiveness in Christ. All this is done away with in Islam.

L. Paradise and Hell

At first glance it may seem that the Bible’s heaven and the Qur`ân’s paradise are identical since they both refer to the glory a believer comes to after death.

L1. Paradise is before God’s throne

“Those who sustain the Throne (of Allah) and those around it sing Glory and Praise to their Lord; believe in Him; and implore Forgiveness for those who believe…” Ghâfir 40:7

Comment:
Exactly as in the Bible, believers gather around God’s throne to worship him.

L2. Paradise for husbands and wives

“Enter ye the Garden, ye and your wives, in (beauty and) rejoicing.” Al Zukhruf 43:70

Comment:
Men can take their wives to paradise. Exactly what situation the wives will be in while their husbands are entertaining themselves with other exquisitely beautiful women in paradise is not described.

L3. Paradise contains all that could please the eye

“To them will be passed round, dishes and goblets of gold: there will be there all that the souls could desire, all that the eyes could delight in…” Al Zukhruf 43:71

Comment:
The Qur`ân describes paradise as a beautiful green garden. There is to be found everything that could please the human eye. Paradise in the Qur`ân is therefore a sensual paradise. The problem is, however, that Muhammad carries the thought of everything pleasing the eye right through to the extreme, even to things forbidden on earth. See also Suras 37:42-49 and 56:11-38.

L4. Paradise contains beautiful virgins for the men

“In them will be (Maidens), chaste, restraining their glances, whom no man or Jinn before them has touched – then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?” Al Rahmân 55:56-57

“In them will be fair (Companions), good, beautiful – then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny? Companions restrained (as to their glances), in (goodly) pavilions – then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny? Whom no man or Jinn before them has touched – then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny? Reclining on green Cushions and rich Carpets of beauty. Then which..?” Al Rahmân 55:70-77

Comment:
The Qur`ân says that there will be an unknown number of exquisitely beautiful women (hûrun) in paradise. These virgins, says Muhammad, will satisfy the men in paradise. Remarkable, of course, is that this orgy is strictly forbidden on earth, but clearly not in the paradise of the Qur`ân.

We can ask ourselves where the wife’s place is in all this. But when we give thought to the fact that a Muslim had the right to four wives plus possible slave women as concubines and that Muhammad himself had the right to an unlimited number of wives on earth, Muhammad’s idea of paradise becomes less far-fetched.

This sensual, sexual understanding of paradise is alien to the Bible. Jesus instead taught: “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” Matthew 22:30.

L5. People drink wine in paradise

“Their thirst will be slaked with Pure Wine sealed: the seal thereof will be Musk: and for this let those aspire, who have aspirations.” Al Mutaffifîn 83:25-26

Comment:
In many Qur`ân verses it is described how believers will drink wine in paradise which will not intoxicate them. Remarkably, drinking wine is strictly forbidden in Islam, but obviously not in the paradise of the Qur`ân.

L6. Hell is a place of eternal torment

“Truly Hell is as a place of ambush – for the transgressors a place of destination: they will dwell therein for ages. Nothing cool shall they taste therein, nor any drink, save a boiling fluid and a fluid, dark, murky, intensely cold.” Al Naba` 78:21-25

Comment:
The Qur`ân says that all unrepentant sinners will go to hell, a place of fire and indescribable torment. There they will rue their defiance and regret not having listened to Allah and his apostle Muhammad. See also Sura Al Jinn 72:23 “…For any that disobey Allah and His Messenger – for them is Hell: they shall dwell therein forever.”

L7. The food of hell

“Verily the tree of Zaqqûm will be the food of the Sinful – like molten brass; it will boil in their insides, like the boiling of scalding water.” Al Dukhân 44:43-46

Comment:
Even the food of hell is described as a terrible torment. It is difficult to imagine something worse than molten brass boiling in the stomach.

L8. Fire and boiling water in hell

“(A voice will cry): ‘Seize ye him and drag him into the midst of the Blazing Fire!’ Then pour over his head the Penalty of Boiling Water.” Al Dukhân 44:47-48

Comment:
The Qur`ân describes hell in the most cruel terms thinkable. First a person is dragged into the very centre of the fire, and then boiling water is poured over his head.

L9. Disobedience towards Allah and Muhammad is regretted in hell

“The Day that their faces will be turned upside down in the Fire, they will say: ‘Woe to us! would that we had obeyed Allah and obeyed the Messenger!” Al Ahzâb 33:66

Comment:
The Qur`ân teaches that those who have rejected Muhammad as the messenger of Allah will regret it when their faces are fried in the fire of hell.

Conclusion:

The Qur`ân gives detailed descriptions of paradise and hell. Muhammad made use of the most savage pictures imaginable in describing hell, while portraying a sensual paradise for those who became Muslims.

There are certain similarities in the Bible’s description of paradise and hell. The central difference lies, as we have seen, in that the Qur`ân places emphasis upon a sensual paradise, while the Bible’s emphasis is on the presence of God and his holiness and glory. According to the Bible, it is our personal relationship with God himself that is of central importance. This difference is quite logical since it is precisely this which characterises Islam and the Christian faith here and now. Traditional Islam does not teach that a person comes near to God in a personal, intimate relationship, as with a father and his beloved child, but rather that a person believes in God and serves him at a respectful distance, with not a little fear.

The heart of the Christian faith is that God himself comes to us in Jesus Christ, that God in Christ reconciles people with himself through Christ’s sacrifice. As the apostle Paul said, “But now in Christ Jesus you who were once far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ” Ephesians 2:13. Besides this, the Bible teaches that God has let his own Spirit make his dwelling in the one who believes in Jesus Christ. In the light of this, the Bible’s emphasis on closeness to God himself in paradise is completely logical.

M. Jinn, Angels and Mysticism

The Qur`ân presents us with concepts of supernatural beings unknown to the Bible. Certainly, angels are also given important tasks in the Bible, but the term “jinn”, however, is not to be found, its closest biblical counterpart being demons. Remarkably, according to the Qur`ân there are both good and evil jinn.

It is otherwise in what is known as “folk Islam” that we see the occult in full-scale.

For a more thorough study of the subject I recommend “The Unseen Face of Islam, Musk, Monarch Publications, 1989.”

M1. The jinn were created from fire

“And the Jinn race, We had created before, from the fire of a scorching wind.” Al Hijr 15:27

Comment:
The Qur`ân teaches that these spirit beings were created out of the fire of a hot wind. What then exactly are jinn?

Abdullah Yusuf Ali teaches the following about jinn: “… I think, from a collation and study of the Quranic passages, that the meaning is simply ‘a spirit’, or a hidden force… Both the Qur`ân and the Hadîth describe the Jinn as a definite species of living beings. They are created out of fire and are like man, may believe or disbelieve, accept or reject guidance. The authoritative Islamic texts show that they are not merely a hidden force, or a spirit. They are personalized beings who enjoy a certain amount of free will and thus will be called to account” (The Holy Qur`ân, Ali, note 929).

M2. Some jinn are righteous

“There are among us some that are righteous, and some the contrary: we follow divergent paths.” Al Jinn 72:11

Comment:
In this sura the jinn speak in the “we”-form. They explain, among other things, that some of them were righteous and some evil.

M3. Jinn repent and preach to others

“Behold, We turned towards thee a company of Jinns (quietly) listening to the Qur`ân: when they stood in the presence thereof, they said, ‘Listen in silence!’ When the (reading) was finished, they returned to their people, to warn (them of their sins). They said, ‘O our people! We have heard a Book revealed after Moses, confirming what came before it…O our people, hearken to the one who invites (you) to Allah, and believe in him: He will forgive you your faults, and deliver you from a Penalty Grievous.” Al Ahqâf 46:29-31

Comment:
God reveals to Muhammad that he had allowed some jinn to eavesdrop when he recited the Qur`ân. The result was not long in coming. The jinn noticed that the Qur`ân confirmed the Pentateuch. When Muhammad had finished speaking, the jinn returned to their own kind and called other jinn to listen to Muhammad and repent.

M4. Jinn believe in the Qur`ân

“Say: It has been revealed to me that a company of Jinns listened (to the Qur`ân). They said, ‘We have really heard a wonderful Recital!” Al Jinn 72:1

Comment:
Another verse saying that God had revealed to Muhammad that jinn had secretly heard the Qur`ân, and they were, to say the least, delighted with what they heard.

M5. Evil jinn are the fuel of hell

“But those who swerve – they are (but) fuel for Hell-fire.” Al Jinn 72:15

Comment:
The verse is about jinn. The majority of jinn are evil, and the Qur`ân teaches that hell will be filled with humans and jinn. (“…But the Word from Me will come true, ‘I will fill Hell with Jinns and men all together.'” Sura Al Sajdah 32:13).

The jinn will then serve as extra fuel on the fire.

M6. All angels fell down before Adam except the devil

“When We said to the angels, ‘Prostrate yourselves to Adam’, they prostrated themselves, but not Iblîs: he refused.” Tâ Hâ 20:116

Comment:
This verse comes up many times in the Qur`ân. God obviously had commanded the angels to fall down before Adam. But Iblis, the devil, was disobedient towards God and refused.

The verse is noteworthy because the verb “asjudû” (fallen down) also indicates worship. According to “The Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic” the verb “sajada” means “to bow down, to bow in worship, to prostrate, to worship.” In this case, God commanded the angels remarkably to fall down in worship before Adam. The whole story becomes even more remarkable when Iblis (the Devil) quite rightly refuses to fall down in worship before Adam. Iblis’ sin lies nevertheless in his disobedience of Allah’s command.

In the Qur`ân, almost all angels are good. They carry out God’s commands of justice and mercy. The archangels Gabriel and Michael are mentioned by name in Sura Al Baqarah 2:98.

M7. The angels Harut and Marut taught evil

“They followed what the evil ones gave out (falsely) against the power of Solomon: the blasphemers were, not Solomon, but the evil ones, teaching men magic, and such things as came down at Babylon to the angels Hârût and Mârût. But neither of these taught anyone (such things) without saying: ‘We are only for trial; so do not blaspheme.’ They learned from them the means to sow discord between man and wife…” Al Baqarah 2:102

Comment:
It is not clear from the context who these evil ones were or who the angels Hârût and Mârût were. The evil ones (Al Shayâtîn) taught magic which they in their turn had learned from the angels Hârût and Mârût. These angels seem to have warned people that they were tests, before they taught the evil.

M8. Shooting stars chase away evil spirits

“We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty (in) the stars – (for beauty) and for guard against all obstinate rebellious evil sprits, (so) they should not strain their ears in the direction of the Exalted Assembly but be cast away from every side, repulsed, for they are under a perpetual penalty, except such as snatch away something by stealth, and they are pursued by a flaming Fire, of piercing brightness.” Al Sâffât 37:6-10

Comment:
This remarkable thought is about evil spirits trying to listen to what is said at God’s throne. But they are normally held in check by all the stars(!) Sometimes, however, an evil spirit manages to get loose and catch one or two words, but then he is immediately pursued by a shower of shooting stars.

One can quietly wonder over what kind of cosmology Muhammad had.

M9. God gave Solomon demonic power

“Then We subjected the Wind to his power, to flow gently to his order, whithersoever he willed – as also the evil ones…” Sâd 38:36-37

Comment:
This passage lists a number of things over which Solomon was given power and which he also made use of. He thus received power over the wind and over the evil spirits (Al Shayâtîn). According to Suras 27:17 and 34:12-13, jinn made up part of Solomon’s army, and also constructed buildings, images, large basins etc for him.

In Sura 27:39, one of the jinn, an “‘Ifrît”, or a demon, offers his powers to Solomon when he says that he can get him the queen of Sheba’s throne in an instant: “Said an ‘Ifrit of the Jinns: I will bring it to thee before thou rise from thy council: indeed I have full strength for the purpose, and may be trusted.” We read in “The Holy Qur`ân, Ali”, note 3274, “‘Ifrît: a large, powerful Jinn, reputed to be wicked and crafty…” Thus it seems, according to the Qur`ân, that Solomon availed himself of both good and evil jinn.

M10. Heaven is opened during the night of power

“The Night of Power is better than a thousand Months. Therein come down the angels and the Spirit by Allahs permission, on every errand.” Al Qadr 97:3-4

Comment:
Muslims usually believe that ” Leylat al qadr” (the night of power), the night Muhammad received his first revelation, falls on the 23rd, 25th or the 27th of the fast month of Ramadan. It is believed that heaven is open for a short time on this night, in such a way that the one who prays during that time receives answers to prayer from God.

No-one can know with certainty either the day or time for “Leylat al qadr”, and therefore many Muslims usually pray for several nights towards the end of the month of Ramadan in the hope of receiving an answer to prayer.

Conclusion:

As we have seen, the Qur`ân contains a great many mystical details about jinn and Shayâtîn (evil ones) which could either be classed as pure superstition or in biblical terminology as demonic.

Suras 113 and 114 are used by Muslims as a safeguard against different forms of magic and necromancy, which is, incidentally, a normal occurrence in the Muslim world.

Dr. Musk considers that it is verses just like the ones quoted here that have opened the way for the exceedingly large amount of superstition and magic that flourishes within folk Islam (The Unseen Face of Islam, Musk; Monarch Publications, 1989, p.224).

N. Jihad

Many Westerners see “Jihâd” as exactly the same as a “holy war.” But even though Jihâd includes such a war, the word has a much wider meaning. The word comes from the verb “jahada” which has the following definition according to “The Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic”: “to endeavour, strive, labour, take pains, overwork, fatigue, etc.” So the word “Jihâd” actually means to struggle and strive to the utmost.

Islamic fundamentalism is gaining influence and is today making its voice heard more and more. Among these groups “Jihâd” is considered a religious duty for all true Muslims, that is to say, a sixth pillar of Islam. “Jihâd” is often given a literal and militant interpretation.

In his book on Islamic fundamentalism Dr. Musk writes: “A purely ‘spiritual’ or ‘liberal’ approach to the Qur`ân in exegesis is unacceptable to the reformist muslim. We have seen his insistence upon literalism demonstrated in many situations with regard to the duty of jihâd or ‘holy war’. According to the Islamists, one cannot talk of ‘higher’ or ‘spiritual’ jihâd, a kind of war against the world, the flesh and the devil. That is not what the Qur`ân and sunna refer to. One has to face up to the reality of armed conflict. Such is the literal meaning of jihâd in the source texts.” (Passionate Believing, Musk, Monarch Publications, 1992, p.185). It is therefore of interest to see what the Qur`ân teaches on “Jihâd.”

N1. Jihâd in the cause of God

“Those who believe, and suffer exile and strive with might and main, in Allah’s cause, with their goods and their persons, have the highest rank in the sight of Allah: they are the people who will achieve (salvation).” Al Tawbah 9:20

Comment:
This verse describes the broader meaning of Jihâd which is that a person completely spends himself in the cause of Allah. The Arabic has “wa jahadu fi sabîl Allah” (“and strive with might and main, in Allah’s cause”). There is also to be found here the promise of special blessing for the Muslim who sacrifices himself for God in this way.

N2. Holy war

“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter…” Al Baqarah 2:190-191

Comment:
The expression “fight in the cause of Allah” is very common in the Qur`ân since Muslims found themselves in many battles during the expansion in Medina. These wars were considered holy wars for God (Islam lära och livsmönster, Hjärpe, AWE/GEBERS, 1979, p.50). The verse seems to say that Muslims are never to attack an enemy. But in reality all who actively opposed Muhammad and Islam came to be seen as enemies which had to be fought against. It is these opponents who are to be killed wherever they are found, and it is their tumult and oppression which are worse than slaughter, that is to say, their negative influence on people was such that it even justified killing them.

N3. Idolaters were to be killed if they did not become Muslims

“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” Al Tawbah 9:5

Comment:
Muhammad pronounced these judgements over idolaters towards the end of his work, when the Muslims were in a clear majority in the area. They were to be fought against and killed wherever they were encountered. Only conversion to Islam could save their lives.

N4. Combat all non-Muslims

“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 Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Al Tawbah 9:29

Comment:
Earlier in this sura Muhammad explains what idolaters had in store, namely the choice between conversion and death. Regarding the People of the Book, that is to say, Jews and Christians, they were allowed to exist in Islamic society (dâr al islâm) on certain conditions. They were to be fought into submission and then willingly pay a special personal tax (Jizya), which only applied to them.

N5. Paradise awaits those who die in Jihâd

“And if ye are slain, or die, in the way of Allah, forgiveness and mercy from Allah are far better than all they could amass. And if ye die or are slain, Lo! it is unto Allah that ye are brought together.” Âli ‘Imrân 3:157-158

Comment:
There are several clear promises in the Qur`ân that those who die in the cause of God will be allowed to go to him. Islam teaches that God forgives all the sins of those who die in Jihâd. They are thereby guaranteed a place in paradise.

N6. Cowardly soldiers are punished with hell

“If any do turn his back to them on such a day – unless it be a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop (of his own) – he draws on himself the wrath of Allah, and his abode is Hell – an evil refuge (indeed)!” Al Anfâl 8:16

Comment:
Deserters or those who fled from battle in fear could feel certain that they would go to hell. This also applied to those who refused to even go out to war.

N7. The spoils of war

“But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good…” Al Anfâl 8:69

Comment:
It was a very lucrative business plundering a defeated enemy. It was not material possessions alone that Muslims were allowed to plunder but they could also take women and children as slaves. Of these women, the Muslim could then take concubines in addition to the four wives he had the right to (see Sura Al Ahzâb 33:50).

N8. Muhammad’s share of the spoils

“And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah – and to the Messenger, and to near relatives, orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer…” Al Anfâl 8:41

Comment:
Muhammad had the right to one fifth of the spoils, which he then divided among his relatives and other needs.

Conclusion:

In studying the subject of “Jihâd” in the Qur`ân we find partly the broader, more general definition and partly the meaning of a militant holy war against Islam’s opponents. Without doubt Muhammad’s attitude towards his opponents became all the more violent the greater the political power he gained. All were to be defeated in God’s war. Idolaters were to be exterminated or become Muslims. The only ones tolerated were Jews and Christians who allowed themselves to be completely subjugated and willingly paid their special tax.

It was every healthy male Muslim’s duty to participate in the holy war against Islam’s opponents. Those who did so were, in the case of death, guaranteed paradise, and those who refused were guaranteed hell.

O. Islam’s Opponents

Islam is often presented in the West as a very tolerant religion. It is pointed out, for example, that although the word “Islam” in itself means submission (under the will of God), the word for peace, “salam”, comes from the same root as the word “Islam”. By this is meant that the whole religion right from the very beginning has been tolerant and peace-loving. Reference is often given to Sura Al Baqarah 2:256 “Let there be no compulsion in religion…” It is therefore of interest to study how the Qur`ân describes the situation of Islam’s opponents.

O1. Terrible punishments for the opponents of Islam

“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.” Al Mâ`idah 5:33

Comment:
As Muhammad’s political power grew in Medina, it became more and more dangerous for his opponents. This led to a great number of them being executed in the year 5AH (627 AD), among them all the men (about 600) in the last Jewish family in Medina, “Banû Quraiza”. Earlier, in the year 4AH (626 AD) another Jewish family from Medina, “Banû Nadîr” was forced into exile (see Sura Al Hashr 59:2-4) (Sîrat Al Rasûl, part 2, p.148, 75; Kitâb Al Maghâzî, Wâqidî, p.125,126; Balance of Truth, Pfander, The Religious Tract Society, 1910, p.332-333).

This Qur`ân verse shows that, ultimately, there was no mercy for Islam’s opponents, but instead that they were to be punished in the most cruel ways thinkable.

It is worth noting that it is precisely this verse which is still used today in Islamic law and has served as the foundation for many death penalties in Iran after the revolution there. It has even been included in the grounds for court rulings with the death sentence against members of Bahaism. The verse has regularly been cited during the sentencing of those whom we would classify as political opponents of the regime.

When someone is called “mufsid” (one who “strives with might and main for mischief” or spreads corruption) and “muhârib Allah wa rasûlahu” (one who “wages war against Allah and his Messenger”), it is a very serious accusation which brings with it a definite risk of the death penalty in present-day Iran.

O2. Punishment awaits those who leave Islam

“…And if any of you turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.” Al Baqarah 2:217

Comment:
Quite definitely, an apostate of Islam can only expect hell after his death. It is, according to Islamic law, strictly forbidden to leave Islam. Those who leave Islam become “murtadd” (apostate) and are, according to Islamic law, to be sentenced to death (The Religion of Islam, Dr. Ahmad Galwash, Islamic Congress, 1957, p.112).

We can ask ourselves how it is that leaving Islam carries the death penalty in Islamic law (Shari’a), since it is not explicitly stated in the Qur`ân.

The reason is that in the Hadîth (the tradition) are direct quotations from Muhammad where he prescribed the death penalty for apostasy. Islamic law (Shari’a) is derived, namely, both from the Qur`ân and Muhammad’s “sunna” (that is, his approach to the practice of Islam), which is written in the “Hadîth” (the tradition).

One Hadîth, which goes back to Uthmân Ibn Affân, is as follows.

“I heard the Messenger of Allah (sala Allah ‘aleihi wa sallam) say:

Shed not the blood of a Muslim man save in one of these three cases:

• The one who has committed adultery… he is to be stoned.

• The one who has killed without just cause.

• The one who has apostatised from Islam…”

(Sunun, Hâfith Ibn Abdallah Muhammad Bin Yazîd Al-Qazwînî Ibn Mâjah, Hadîth 2533).

O3. Opponents are given an ignominious burial

“Nor do thou ever pray for any of them that dies, nor stand at his grave; for they rejected Allah and His Messenger, and died in a state of perverse rebellion.” Al Tawbah 9:84

Comment:
Even after his death an opponent was to be dishonoured. A Muslim was not allowed to express sympathy, something which was otherwise a social duty. The reason was quite simply that the deceased had renounced Allah and Muhammad as his apostle.

O4. Hell for the disobedient

“…For any that disobey Allah and His Messenger – for them is Hell: they shall dwell therein forever.” Al Jinn 72:23

Comment:
It was dangerous not to obey Muhammad. Those who disobeyed could be sure of hell (see also Sura Al Tawbah 9:80).

O5. No protection for the apostate

“…But if they turn back (to their evil ways), Allah will punish them with a grievous penalty in this life and in the Hereafter: they shall have none on earth to protect or help them.” Al Tawbah 9:74

Comment:
The apostate, apart from hell, could be sure of that no-one would help or protect him in Islamic society.

O6. Idolaters were to become Muslims or be executed

“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” Al Tawbah 9:5

Comment:
Those who chose to keep their idolatry in the end found no grace in Muhammad. He ordered their execution. Their only chance of survival was conversion to Islam.

Conclusion:

For Islam’s opponents at the time of Muhammad, Sura Al Baqarah 2:256 “Let there be no compulsion in religion…” must have sounded like quite a hollow claim. On closer examination it turns out that Islam was not at all tolerant towards its opponents, but on the contrary, rejection of Muhammad and the Qur`ân meant mortal danger.

We must sadly say that this has also been the case with Christianity during long periods in history. The crucial difference, however, lies in the fact that the Jesus Christ of the New Testament never at any time sanctioned violence, but taught instead: “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.” Luke 6:27-28

P. Equality Between Men and Women

The form of Islam we meet in the West often tries to make it appear that men and women are equal within Islam, that women in Islam are free and not subordinate to men. But what is the real picture of women we see in the Qur`ân?

P1. Men are a degree above women

“…But men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.” Al Baqarah 2:228

Comment:
It does not say in what way men have an advantage over women in this verse, but in other places in the Qur`ân it quite clearly proves to be the case that men have certain privileges and rights which women do not enjoy. But here, however, it is enough to conclude that the Qur`ân gives men advantage over women.

P2. Two female witnesses are like one male

“…And get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses…” Al Baqarah 2:282

Comment:
Quite clearly, the Qur`ân prescribes that in court hearings the testimony of two women is equivalent to that of one man. This is a verse which shows how men enjoyed a certain advantage over women according to the Qur`ân. Since the Qur`ân teaches this, these regulations still apply today in “Shari’a” (Islamic law) (Punishment in islamic law: A comparative study, Muhammad S. El-Awa, American Trust Publications, 1982, p.125).

P3. Two daughters inherit as one son

“Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females…” Al Nisâ` 4:11

Comment:
There are legitimate reasons for this apparent difference between sons and daughters. It was the sons who carried on the family name. They also had a special responsibility to look after their ageing parents, while the daughters were married off to other families. The fact remains, however, that a son received a double share of the inheritance. This still applies today in Islamic law.

P4. Wife-beating

“…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)…” Al Nisâ` 4:34

Comment:
Here the Qur`ân shows how a wife who conducts herself badly and does not subordinate herself can be disciplined by her husband. What is remarkable is that the man has the right to use his greater physical strength by beating his wife. The word is “adribuhunna” (“beat them”) and “lightly” is not in the Arabic. With this verse as a basis, it is allowed for a man to beat his wife even according to Shari’a law (The Religion of Islam: A Standard Book, Dr. Ahmed A. Galwash, Islamic Congress, 1957. p.112-113).

P5. Maid-servants can be forced into sex

“…But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them).” Al Nûr 24:33

Comment:
The verse has a promising start for a vulnerable group of women, namely those maid-servants who wished to lead pure lives. But the rest of the verse must have been a nightmare for these women. The Qur`ân teaches that God is very forgiving if men obtain sex with these poor maid-servants by force.

P6. Men are allowed four wives

“…Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four…” Al Nisâ` 4:3

Comment:
This privilege still applies today in Islamic law and in most of the countries where Islam is a majority religion.

P7. Men can divorce women

“O Prophet! When ye do divorce women…” Al Talâq 65:1

“…And take for witness two persons from among you, endued with justice, and establish the evidence…” Al Talâq 65:2

Comment:
Apart from a very few exceptional cases it is the man alone who has the right to divorce his wife according to Shari’a law (The Religion of Islam: A Standard Book, Dr. Ahmed A. Galwash, Islamic Congress, 1957, p.67). In the presence of witnesses, he is to say three times that he divorces his wife. After this the divorce is fact. Besides this he is not allowed to remarry her until she has been married to another man.

It is also worth noting that according to Islamic law a Muslim woman is not allowed to marry a non-Muslim man, while a Muslim man is allowed to marry a non-Muslim woman from the People of the Book (The Religion of Islam: A Standard Book, Dr. Ahmed A. Galwash, Islamic Congress, 1957, p.69).

P8. Paradise contains beautiful virgins for the men

“In them will be fair (Companions), good, beautiful – then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny? Companions restrained (as to their glances), in (goodly) pavilions – then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny? Whom no man or Jinn before them has touched – then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny? Reclining on green Cushions and rich Carpets of beauty. Then which..?” Al Rahmân 55:70-77

Comment:
Thus, there will be an unknown number of beautiful virgins who, according to Muhammad, will satisfy the men in paradise.

We can safely say that neither in paradise will there be equality between men and women.

Conclusion:

These examples are sufficient to show that men and women are not equal in the Qur`ân, but that men have certain rights and privileges that women do not have. The Qur`ân is thereby consistent in its claim, “…but men have, ‘daraja’, a degree (of advantage), over them.”

Bibliography and List of References

 Place in studyThe Holy Qur`ân, Ali, Amana Corporation, Brentwood, Maryland,1989 note 8B1C. 32B1note 141E6note 284E15page 738, 740E17note 5092H5note 3754H10note 1616, 1617J2note 929M1note 3274M9 The BibleE1, 3, 5, 7-8, 10-16, 19-21;
F4; G9-10, 12; K6-7, CONC.;
L4, CONC.; O CONC. The Sources of Islam, St Clair-Tisdall, T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1901 Pirke Rabbi EliazerE1Midrash RabbahE5II Targum of the Book of EstherE16History of our holy Father the Aged, the CarpenterE18The Gospel of the InfancyE20Story of Martyrs, Gregory of ToursE24The Gospel of Thomas the IsraeliteG5Miskât al MasâbîhH6 Balance of Truth, Pfander, The Religious Tract Society, London, 1910INTRO, B4, F5, H9, 13, 17, J5, O1Al Baidawi, vol 2, p.129H13Al Jalâlân, commentary of Ibn Hishâm, vol 3H13Ibn Athîr, vol 2H13Mishkât al MasâbîhH13Sîrat Al Rasûl, part 2H17, O1Kitâb Al Maghâzî, WâqidîH17, O1 Islam lära och livsmönster, Hjärpe, Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm, 1979 Evidence That Demand A Verdict, McDowell, Campus Crusade For Christ Inc, 1972C CONC.Encyclopedia Of The Bible, Lion Publishing, Tring, Herts, EnglandE13Från Jesus Till Moder Teresa, Tergel, Verbum, 1973G10The Hans Wehr Dictionary Of Modern Written Arabic, Spoken Language Services Inc, 1976G12, M6, N INTNahjul Balagha, Reza, Tahrike Tarsile Qur`ân Inc, New York, 1984 The Unseen Face Of Islam, Musk, Monarch Publications, Tumbridge Wells, 1989M INT, CONPassionate Believing, Musk, Monarch Publications, Tumbridge Wells, 1992N INTROThe Religion Of Islam, Galwash, Islamic Congress, 1957O2, P4, 7Sunun, Hâfith Ibn Abdallah Muhammed Bin Yazîd Al-Qazwînî Ibn Mâjah, Hadîth 2533O2Punishment In Islamic Law, El-Awa, American Trust Publications, Indianapolis, 1982P4

Qur`an Verses

A list of the Qur`ân verses quoted in each section. References in brackets are Qur`ân and Bible verses mentioned in the comments.

A1 43:4

A2 13:38-39

A3 56:77-79

B1 20:133 (Genesis; Exodus)

B2 46:10

B3 26:192, 195-199

B4 52:33-34 (2:23)

B5 29:50-51

C1 2:89

C2 2:101

C3 2:113

C4 3:79

C5 5:68

C6 10:94

D1 5:44

D2 7:169-170

D3 5:69 (2:40-41; 3:31; 4:150-151; 7:157; 33:40; 61:6)

D4 5:111 (3:52)

D5 3:55

E1 5:31 (Genesis 4:1-16)

E2 66:10-11

E3 6:74 (Genesis 11:26)

E4 21:52 (21:51-75)

E5 37:97 (Daniel 3)

E6 22:26 (2:142-143)

E7 12:31 (Genesis 39:1-20)

E8 28:9 (Exodus 2:10)

E9 18:60 (18:60-82)

E10 20:71 (Exodus; Sura 5:33)

E11 40:36-37 (Esther 3:1)

E12 7:171 (Exodus 19:16-19)

E13 20:85, 87-88 (Exodus 32:1-35; Sura 20:97; 1 Kings 12:25-31)

E14 66:12; 19:28 (1 Chronicles 6:3; Exodus 15:20)

E15 2:249 (Judges 7:4-6)

E16 27:16-19, 38-40, 44 (1 Kings 1-11; Sura 27:16-44)

E17 18:83 (18:83-101, 18:86, 95, 98)

E18 3:37

E19 3:41 (Luke 1:18-20, 59-64)

E20 19:22-23 (Matthew 1, Luke 1-2)

E21 61:6 (John 14:15-26; 15:26; 16:5-15; Acts 1:4-8; 2:1-4)

E22 5:75, 116; 43:81; 112:2-4

E23 4:157-158

E24 18:9, 18, 25

F1 11:110

F2 3:78-79

F3 2:78-79

F4 13:39 (Luke 16:17; 21:33)

F5 2:106; 16:101

G1 21:91

G2 23:50

G3 4:171

G4 3:59

G5 3:49

G6 57:27

G7 112:1-4

G8 43:81

G9 5:116 (Matthew 28:19-20; John 1:1, 14; 1:18; 14:6-11)

G10 4:157-158 (Isaiah 53)

G11 2:240; 5:117; 3:55; 19:33 (4:157)

G12 61:6 (John 14:15-26; 15:26; 16:5-15; Acts 1:4-8; 2:1-4)

H1 33:66, 71 (24:51-54)

H2 33:40

H3 6:109

H4 29:50-51

H5 53:7-9, 13

H6 17:1

H7 21:5

H8 51:52

H9 33:50

H10 33:52

H11 33:51

H12 66:1-2

H13 33:37

H14 66:3, 5

H15 49:2-3

H16 33:53

H17 59:2-4

H18 59:7

I1 2:177

I2 112:1-4

I3 17:111

I4 59:22-24

J1 2:163

J2 11:114; 4:43; 62:9

J3 2:187

J4 2:43, 9:60

J5 2:196

K1 50:17

K2 54:52-53

K3 17:13

K4 101:6-11

K5 16:61 (4:27-28)

K6 6:160 (2 Corinthians 5:17-21)

K7 40:7-8 (Luke 15:11-32)

K8 32:13

K9 41:24 (72:23)

K Conclusion (Romans 6:23)

L1 40:7

L2 43:70

L3 43:71 (37:42-49; 56:11-38)

L4 55:56-57, 70-77 (Matthew 22:30)

L5 83:25-26

L6 78:21-25 (72:23)

L7 44:43-46

L8 44:47-48

L9 33:66

L Conclusion (Ephesians 2:13)

M1 15:27

M2 72:11

M3 46:29-31

M4 72:1

M5 72:15 (32:13)

M6 20:116 (2:98)

M7 2:102

M8 37:6-10

M9 38:36-37 (27:17; 34:12-13; 27:39)

M10 97:3-4

M Conclusion (Suras 113 and 114)

N1 9:20

N2 2:190-191

N3 9:5

N4 9:29

N5 3:157-158

N6 8:16

N7 8:69 (33:50)

N8 8:41

O Introduction 2:256

O1 5:33 (59:2-4)

O2 2:217

O3 9:84

O4 72:23 (9:80)

O5 9:74

O6 9:5

O Conclusion (2:256; Luke 6:27-28)

P1 2:228

P2 2:282

P3 4:11

P4 4:34

P5 24:33

P6 4:3

P7 65:1-2

P8 55:70-77

A list of Qur`ân verses mentioned or quoted in the study sura for sura.

2:23 (B4), 2:40-41 (D3), 2:43 (J4), 2:78-79 (F3), 2:89 (C1),2:98 (M6), 2:101 (C2), 2:102 (M7), 2:106 (F5), 2:113 (C3),2:142-143 (E6), 2:163 (J1), 2:177 (I1), 2:187 (J3), 2:190-191 (N2), 2:196 (J5), 2:217 (O2), 2:228 (P1), 2:240 (G11), 2:249 (E15), 2:256 (O INTRODUCTION,O CONCLUSION), 2:282 (P2)

3:31 (D3), 3:37 (E18), 3:41 (E19), 3:49 (G5),3:52 (D4), 3:55 (D5, G11), 3:59 (G4), 3:78-79 (F2), 3:79 (C4), 3:157-158 (N5)

4:3 (P6), 4:11 (P3),4:27-28 (K5), 4:34 (P4), 4:43 (J2),4:150-151 (D3), 4:157 (G11), 4:157-158 (E23, G10), 4:171 (G3)

5:31 (E1), 5:33(E10, O1), 5:44 (D1), 5:68 (C5), 5:69 (D3), 5:75 (E22), 5:111 (D4), 5:116 (E22, G9), 5:117 (G11)

6:74 (E3), 6:109 (H3), 6:160 (K6)

7:157 (D3), 7:169-170 (D2), 7:171 (E12)

8:16 (N6), 8:41 (N8), 8:69 (N7)

9:5 (N3, O6), 9:20 (N1), 9:29 (N4), 9:60 (J4), 9:74 (O5),9:80 (O4), 9:84 (O3)

10:94 (C6)

11:110 (F1), 11:114 (J2)

12:31 (E7)

13:38-39 (A2), 13:39 (F4)

15:27 (M1)

16:61 (K5), 16:101 (F5)

17:1 (H6), 17:13 (K3), 17:111 (I3)

18:9, 18, 25 (E24), 18:60 (E9),18:60-82 (E9), 18:83 (E17),18:83-101 (E17), 18:86, 95, 98 (E17)

19:22-23 (E20), 19:28 (E14), 19:33 (G11)

20:71 (E10), 20:85, 87-88 (E13),20:97 (E13), 20:116 (M6), 20:133 (B1)

21:5 (H7),21:51-75 (E4), 21:52 (E4), 21:91 (G1)

22:26 (E6)

23:50 (G2)

24:33 (P5),24:51-54 (H1)

26:192, 195-199 (B3)

27:16-19, 38-40, 44 (E16),27:16-44 (E16), 27:17 (M9), 27:39 (M9)

28:9 (E8)

29:50-51 (B5, H4)

32:13 (K8,M5)

33:37 (H13), 33:40(D3, H2), 33:50 (H9,N7), 33:51 (H11), 33:52 (H10), 33:53 (H16), 33:66 (H1, L9), 33:71 (H1)

34:12-13 (M9)

37:6-10 (M8),37:42-49 (L3), 37:97 (E5)

38:36-37 (M9)

40:7 (L1), 40:7-8 (K7), 40:36-37 (E11)

41:24 (K9)

43:4 (A1), 43:70 (L2), 43:71 (L3), 43:81 (E22, G8)

44:43-46 (L7), 44:47-48 (L8)

46:10 (B2), 46:29-31 (M3)

49:2-3 (H15)

50:17 (K1)

51:52 (H8)

52:33-34 (B4)

53:7-9, 13 (H5)

54:52-53 (K2)

55:56-57 (L4), 55:70-77 (L4, P8)

56:11-38 (L3), 56:77-79 (A3)

57:27 (G6)

59:2-4 (H17,O1), 59:7 (H18), 59:22-24 (I4)

61:6(D3, E21, G12)

62:9 (J2)

65:1-2 (P7)

66:1-2 (H12), 66:3-5 (H14), 66:10-11 (E2), 66:12 (E14)

72:1 (M4), 72:11 (M2), 72:15 (M5), 72:23(K9, L6, 04)

78:21-25 (L6)

83:25-26 (L5)

97:3-4 (M10)

101:6-11 (K4)

112:1-4 (G7, I2), 112:2-4 (E22)

113 (M CONCLUSION)

114 (M CONCLUSION)

Bible Verses

A list of Bible verses quoted or mentioned in the comments.

Old Testament

Genesis (B1), 4:1-16 (E1), 11:26 (E3), 39:1-20 (E7)

Exodus (B1, E10), 2:10 (E8), 15:20 (E14), 19:16-19 (E12), 32:1-35 (E13)

Judges 7:4-6 (E15)

1 Kings 1-11 (E16), 12:25-31 (E13)

1Chronicles 6:3 (E14)

Esther 3:1 (E11)

Isaiah 53 (G10)

Daniel 3 (E5)

New Testament

Matthew 1 (E20), 22:30 (L4), 28:19-20 (G9)

Luke 1-2 (E20), 1:18-20, 59-64 (E19), 6:27-28 (O Conclusion), 15:11-32 (K7), 16:17 (F4), 21:33 (F4)

John 1:1, 14, 18 (G9), 14:6-11 (G9), 14:15-26 (E21, G12), 15:26 (E21, G12), 16:5-15 (E21, G12)

Acts 1:4-8 (E21, G12), 2:1-4 (E21, G12)

Romans 6:23 (K Conclusion)

2 Corinthians 5:17-21 (K6)

Ephesians 2:13 (L Conclusion)

A Comparison of the Biblical and Islamic Views of the States of Christ Part 2: The State of Exaltation

Gerry Redman

Back to Redman paper

Introduction

In the third paper in this series the comparative examination of the Biblical and Islamic presentations of the states of Christ continues, studying the critical stages in the life and ministry of Christ as outlined in the Bible, and examining the Islamic equivalent (if any), to comprehend the contrasting portraits of the life of Jesus. In this paper, the bedrock of the Christian faith – the resurrection – is examined. Equally, the ascension of Jesus, common to both Islam and the Bible, will be studied, together with their distinctive characters, as will the present condition of Jesus in Paradise and His Second Coming. By this comparative ‘biographical’ analysis of the life and ministry of Jesus the differences and similarities of the two systems can be analysed, as well as the question of their respective inner consistencies or otherwise. Before going further, we should observe that for Christian theology, the state of exaltation is paradoxically, the result of the state of humiliation – Philippians 2:9-11. The position of the lowly sufferer is exchanged for that of the majestic, heavenly glory.

1. The Resurrection

A. The Biblical view

(i) The Renewed Body of Christ

Philippians 3:21 (‘who will transform the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed to the body of His glory, according to the working whereby He is able even to subject all things unto Himself’) informs us that our resurrection bodies will be of the same pattern as that of Christ, a thought echoed in 1 John 3:2, (‘Beloved, now are we children of God, and it is not yet appeared what we shall be. We know that, when He appears, we shall be like him…’). Hence, His characteristics indicate the nature of our somatic lives in the future.

(a) It was a real body – Christ was not a disembodied spirit; He specifically denied this in Luke 24:39. This is underlined by the fact that he could eat – Luke 24:30; 41-43; John 21:12; Acts 10:41. This does not mean that, as Muslim polemicists like Deedat claim in Crucifixion or Cruci-fiction, p. 60, Jesus had not died at all; such an assertion is a complete non sequitor. Rather, it reveals the nature of the resurrection body – that Jesus was not a ghost, but had truly, bodily risen. At any rate, given that Muslims believe that resurrected believers will enjoy material blessings in the Final State, including eating and drinking, Deedat’s position is self-contradictory. As for Deedat’s assertion that Luke 20:36 teaches that resurrected believers are ‘angelised’, this refers only to their immortality, and the fact that immortal beings such as angels do not marry.

(b) Its essential state was invisibility and thus immateriality. Harris observes that the most common verbal form denoting His resurrection experiences is ophthe, which means ‘he came to visibility’. 1 Luke 24:44 supports this, Harris notes that the beginning of an appearance is invariably mentioned, but rarely the disappearance.

(c) He was no longer bound by spatial, materia1 limits. He could walk through a sealed tomb, Matthew 28:2, 6; through closed doors, John 20; 19, 28; could transport without physical movement, Luke 24: 36; and effect instant appearance and disappearance, Luke 24:31, 36. He could materialise at will and thus localise.

(d) When localised in heaven, His body appeared radiant – Acts 7:55-56; 9: 3-9; Revelation 1:12-16.

(e) From the fact that the body was missing from the tomb, and as Thomas could feel the wound in the body, we see that it is the same body, only renewed: identity-in-transformation.

(ii) The Nature of the Resurrection

(a) It is important to distinguish the resurrection body of Christ from those raised previously. Although others had been restored to life in both Old Testament and New Testament times, e.g. 1 Kings 17:17-24; Luke 7:11-17, there is a qualitativedifference between a body so-revived and the resurrection body of Christ. The former remains a normal body which the grave will one claim again: the latter is a swma pneumatikon soma pneumatikon, spiritual body, which can walk through walls (e.g. John 20:19, 26), materialise and de-materialise, etc.

(b) Another difference is that whilst a revived carnal body would eventually return to the grave, a spiritual body will not. The bodies of Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus were revived, their spirits returned to their natural bodies, and the grave would one day claim them again. Christ, however, has been resurrected through death, to a glorified body, never again to return to the grave. This is because the latter does not belong to the Present Age, but to the age to Come – the Resurrection Age. The former comes back from death, the latter through death, conquering death for eternity, Romans 6:9, ‘knowing that Christ being raised from the dead, will not die again; death has no more dominion over him. 10 For the death that he died, he died unto sin once: but the life that he lives, he lives unto God.’

(iii) Significance of the Resurrection

(b) This being so, the resurrection of Christ is the surety of our resurrection – 1 Corinthians 15:22; Romans 6:8; 8:11. Again, Christians can look forward to a resurrection body after the pattern of the Messiah. The present possession of the Holy Spirit is the guarantee to the believer that the Spirit of Him who resurrected Jesus will equally resurrect us. Harris comments on this:

A comparison of 2 Corinthians 1.22 and 5.5 shows that for Paul ‘sealing’ denoted God’s giving of the Spirit as a pledge. But the crucial question remains: as a pledge of what? Paul states, ‘Now God himself has prepared us for this very purpose and has given us the pledge of the Spirit’ (2 Cor. 5.5). The ‘purpose’ referred to is the receipt and possession of the spiritual body which verses 1-4 have described in various ways: as the acquisition of a building from God (v. 1), as investiture with a heavenly dwelling (v. 2), and as the swallowing up of the mortal body (v.4). The Spirit, then, is the pledge God has given the believer of the acquisition of an immortal body (vv. 1-2) through the transformation of the mortal body (v. 4)… God’s gift of the Spirit is therefore not only the fulfilment of promise (Gal. 3.14; Eph. 1.13) but also the promise of fulfilment (2 Cor. 5.5; Eph. 1.14). 2

(c) The Resurrection allows for the impartation of the Life of the Kingdom of God – Philippians 3:10; Acts 2:31-33; 13:32-34, 37-38; Mark 10:23, 30. The ‘other Paraclete’ of John 14:16 – i.e. the Holy Spirit – imparts the life of the Risen Jesus – Galatians 2:20.

(d) Christ is the embodiment of the Kingdom of God, and that such is perfectly realised in the Resurrection Age, Luke 20:34-35; 1 Corinthians 15:50. In Old Testament, the Kingdom of God was expressed and operated through the mediatorial reign of the House of David. Despite the fall of the latter, the prophets looked to its restoration in a new age characterised by the outpouring of the Spirit through the person of the Messiah. 3 When we examined the significance of the Baptism of Jesus, we saw that the Baptism presaged the Restoration of Israel through the Messianic reign, and that Jesus ‘is the embodiment of the Old Testament Messianic Hope, of the Kingdom of God and of the New Covenant… As Jesus begins his ministry after this, we can see that the bestowal of the Spirit was the divine ‘call’ or ‘ordination’ – the King and the Servant were to characterised by the anointing with the Spirit.’ O. P. Robertson observes in regard to the restoration of the Davidic reign through Jesus that the title ‘Christ’ indicates ‘that his distinctiveness resides in his being “anointed” by God’s Holy Spirit…’ 4

In the person of Jesus the Messiah, this new age the prophets anticipated has arrived, established through the Resurrection. Hosea 6:2 predicts that the Israelite Kingdom would be restored ‘after three days’. 1 Corinthians 15:4 alludes to this in respect to the Resurrection of Christ. Thus the Resurrection of Christ is the Restoration of Israel that the Old Testament looked toward; this is further evidence by the frequent reference in ‘Acts’ to the Resurrection as the ‘Hope of Israel’ – 23:6; 26:6-7; 28-20. Ezekiel 37:11-13 pictures the resurrection of the nation of Biblical Israel (in context, this refers to its spiritual and political restoration after the Babylonian exile, rather than to a physical restoration), and this is linked to the reign of the Davidic King i.e. the Messiah. Isaiah 49:8 predicts the restoration of Israel, a text quoted in 2 Corinthians 6:1-2. The latter announces that this has been fulfilled. The message of ‘Acts’ is that the state and nation of Israel is restored in the Resurrection of Christ. N. T. Wright states concerning this aspect of the Resurrection:

The gospel of the early church, of Paul, of the evangelists, is that the promises of the Jewish scriptures had come true in the resurrection. That is why Paul and others keep insisting that Jesus’ death and resurrection happened ‘according to the scriptures’, or in fulfilment of them… the point of such ideas is that the scriptures as a whole tell of the covenant; of the exile as the result of Israel’s god punishing his people for their sins; and of the great ‘return’ that will happen when that dark period is finally over and done. What the early church is saying, when telling the story of Jesus’ resurrection and announcing it to the world as the summons to obedient faith, is that the history of, and promises to Israel had come true in Jesus, that in his death he had taken the exile as far it could go, and that in his resurrection he had inaugurated the real return from that real exile. 5

Of course, whilst fulfilled, the restoration of the True Israel is not consummated until the Return of Christ. This was the basis of the disciples’ question in 1:6 – ‘will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?’ The reply of Jesus with regard to the question of ‘times and seasons’ is similar to his reply to the disciples’ query in the Olivet Discourse about ‘the close of the age’ – Matthew 24:3, 36 – namely, that such is in the hands of the Father alone. The disciples rightly perceived that with Christ’s resurrection, the Resurrection Age had arrived, and queried if this was to be completed by the General Resurrection – which is the culmination of the Kingdom of God, established at the Coming of Christ. What we find in ‘Acts’ is that the Davidic State is restored, but not consummated: Acts 15:16ff regards Amos 9:11ff as fulfilled – the Restoration of the BiblicalState of Israel (i.e. not the modern state claiming that title) is a past event which occurred with the Resurrection of Christ.

(e) Christ’s resurrection appoints Him, as the Son of God with power – Romans 1:4. It vindicates His claims and ministry. This is important for Christian discussion with both Jews and Muslims. We saw earlier that the apparent Muslim denial of the Crucifixion, whatever the nature of that denial, resulted from dispute between Muhammad and the Medinan Jews. The Jews, no doubt looking back to the divine curse on anyone hanging on a tree in Deuteronomy 21:22f, regarded the cursed death (i.e. crucifixion) of Jesus as the demonstration that His Messianic claims were false. Hence the statement in 1 Corinthians 1:23 that the preaching of ‘Christ crucified’ was a stumbling block to Jewish belief in Jesus as Messiah. As far as the Jews were concerned, the death of Jesus was not just their negative estimation of His Messianic claims, but more pointedly a divine judgment on Jesus, and as we saw, the Talmud precisely advanced that tenet.

Since it was essential to Muhammad’s claims to prophethood that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, the rather ambiguous denial of what the Jews asserted about the crucifixion of Jesus had to be refuted in some way. For Christians, the matter is resolved by the Resurrection. The Jews had judged Jesus wrongly. God had vindicated His Anointed One. This is the import of Acts 2:32 ‘This Jesus God raised up, of which we all are witnesses… 36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for sure, that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.’ 6 As Harris writes:

For those with eyes to see, Jesus had received divine accreditation by his ‘mighty works, wonders and signs’ (Acts 2.22). But such accreditation was effectively cancelled in the eyes of even responsive Jews, when Jesus was crucified. The cross reversed the verdict of responsive Jews and confirmed the suspicions of the unresponsive: Jesus had been rejected by God. But the Resurrection was the great divine reversal. The same one who had once declared ‘a hanged man is accursed’ Deut. 21.23) now declared ‘this hanged man is accepted’ (cf. Acts 3.1-15). He whom man rejected, God accepted and installed as his Messiah, no longer Messiah-elect or simply Messiah de jure but Messiah de facto. Since the God-appointed messianic destiny remained unfulfilled until Jesus had suffered, it was only after and because of his suffering that he could be acknowledged as Messiah in reality. Responding to the question of the high-priest at his trial before the Sanhedrin, Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed?’, Jesus spoke of their being future witnesses of his ‘sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven’ (Mark 14.62). 7

The resurrection also demonstrates that God affirmed the crucifixion as the redemptive act for Humanity. Jesus did not just die as a martyr, all that He had said previously about His death being the ‘ransom’ for all, Mark 10:45 (cf. 1 Timothy 2:6) was proved to be the case. The resurrection evidences that the death of Christ is indeed the means of salvation. The cross was the path to the Messianic crown, Luke 24:46. Since He was innocent of any wrong-doing, He was crucified for ourtrespasses, Romans 4:25, and as the Suffering Servant, indicated at the Baptism, He was the One on whom ‘the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all’. Jesus was manifested in the flesh, and justified by the Spirit, 1 Timothy 3:16.

Of course, as the text demonstrates, the resurrection validates the claims of Jesus to divine sonship – it proves Islam wrong; Jesus is indeed, the Son of God. This claim was the very reason the Jews killed Him – John 19:7 – the resurrection is God’s answer. The voice at the Baptism and Transfiguration as to the unique sonship of Christ, the revelation Gabriel gave to Mary, Luke 1:35, the claim Jesus made to Nicodemus, the Son who had a unique relationship with the Father, Matthew 11:27, and with the Spirit in the Trinity, Matthew 29:19, the positive answer He gave to the High Priest’s question as to whether He was the Son of the Blessed in Mark 14:61-62, is shown to be true. God said it was true by resurrecting Him. Hence, those denying His unique eternal sonship will be judged, John 3:18. 2 Corinthians 13:4 ‘for he was crucified through weakness, but He lives through the power of God.’

(f) The references to Christ’s resurrection as being ‘the Hope of Israel’ indicates that this event was what the Old Testament was about, and Paul’s comments in 1 Corinthians 15, especially v 14, indicates this is also true of the New Testament. It is vital to the resurrection schema to recognise that Adam and Christ, being the Bearers of Destiny for the Race, are Representative prototypes for Humanity – Romans 5:18-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21-23; 47-49. Their actions and experiences had consequences for all in solidarity with them: thus, when Adam fell, Humanity fell in and with him; and when Christ rose from the dead, the New Humanity rose also. Spiritually, this becomes actual when a person receives the Holy Spirit, and thus experiences the spiritual benefits of resurrection life with Christ – Roman 7:6; Galatians 5:25. Humanity has already entered the Resurrection Age. Christ is the first fruits of the Age-to-Come – Acts 4: 2; 26: 23; 1 Corinthians 15; 20, 23; Colossians 1:18 – He is the Guarantee of our resurrection.

This is borne out by Acts 2:25-32, quoting Psalm 18 – David was confident of his own resurrection because he knew God would not allow His Holy One (Hasid) – i.e. Christ – to see corruption; David was “in Christ”, thus like Him, he would rise again. Paul repeats this thought in Acts 13:32-37 – Christ, by His resurrection, fulfilled the promises to the Patriarchs and to David. Further, we see from all this that the Resurrection of Christ is the Hope of Israel. All Israel – is the Church – is “in Christ”, and thus His Resurrection fulfils the promise of the Restoration of Israel – 1 Corinthians 15:45 has in mind, among other texts, Hosea 6:2.

(g) We summarise much of the preceding by referring to historic Christian Confessions of Faith. Article IV ‘Of the Resurrection of Christ’, of the Church of England’s 39 Articles states ‘Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again His body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of man’s nature, wherefore He ascended into heaven, and there sitteth until He return to judge all men at the last day.’ Article III of the Augsburg Confession declares that Jesus

…truly rose again the third day; afterward He ascended into heaven that He might sit on the right hand of the Father, and forever reign and have dominion over all creatures, and sanctify them that believe in Him, by sending the Holy Ghost into their hearts, to rule, comfort, and quicken them, and to defend them against the devil and the power of sin. The same Christ shall openly come again to judge the quick and the dead, etc., according to the Apostles’ Creed.

Article 45 of the Heidelberg Catechism, answering the question, ‘How does Christ’s resurrection benefit us?’, answers as follows: ‘First, by His resurrection He has overcome death, so that He could make us share in the righteousness which He had obtained for us by His death. Second, by His power we too are raised up to a new life. Third, Christ’s resurrection is to us a sure pledge of our glorious resurrection.’ The Second Helvetic Confession, Chapter eleven, explains the nature of the Resurrection, of Jesus in relation to the characteristics of His constitution – that He possessed a real body:

Christ Is Truly Risen from the Dead. We believe and teach that the same Jesus Christ our Lord, in his true flesh in which he was crucified and died, rose again from the dead, and that not another flesh was raised other than the one buried, or that a spirit was taken up instead of the flesh, but that he retained his true body. Therefore, while his disciples thought they saw the spirit of the Lord, he showed them his hands and feet which were marked by the prints of the nails and wounds, and added: ‘See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see, for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have’ (Luke 24:39).

(iv) Objections to the Resurrection

(a) Deceit: The disciples stole the body and circulated the idea that Christ had risen. Such was of course, the response of the Jewish authorities in Matthew 28:11-15. The likelihood that a group whose ethics stressed Truth and Peace would do this is small, but further, one may ask how realistic it is that they would be able to overcome the Prussian-like efficiency of the Roman Army in a sort of comical guerrilla operation! At any rate, no-one has ever alleged this, and as far as soldiers falling asleep on duty is concerned, cf. Acts 12:19. Moreover, people would have challenged the Christians to show their risen Messiah, and failure to do so would have undermined the cause.

It much be stressed that the Christians were speaking to a largely hostile audience who would have been quick to pick holes in their arguments. Thus the Church would have been meticulous in is presentation of the Truth. The elaborate precautions that the Hierarchy and the Governor undertook are in themselves evidence for the veracity of the gospel account. There were about five hundred witnesses of the Risen Jesus, 1 Corinthians 15:6. Above all, as we have suggested, Biblical faith is based on the fact of Christ’s resurrection, so it is difficult to imagine the disciples as continuing to believe in something like the Messianic Kingship of Jesus if its foundation was invalid.

(b) The Vision Theory: It is suggested that the psychological pressures that came upon the disciples following the death of the One they thought was the Messiah unhinged them, and that visions of Jesus were produced by this pressure. Apart from the fact that the experience of the Risen Jesus was often a group affair, we must remember that such were not the products of meditation, etc, but experienced in everyday life. Conversation occurs between the Risen Christ and His followers – scarcely appropriate for the kind of vision envisaged here. Moreover, we much remember that the disciples were not necessarily disposed to believe in the resurrection: cf. the scepticism of the disciples on the road to Emmaus, Luke 24:22-24, and especially that of Thomas, John 20:24-29.

(c) The Mythical Theory: This thesis holds that the origins of the resurrection faith are to be found in Oriental Mystery cults which often stressed the death and resurrection of a god. Such theories, however, consistently fail to establish direct linkage between mystery cults and gospel accounts, and further, ignores the difference that it is the resurrected humanity of Christ in the New Testament that is emphasised.

(d) The Swoon Theory: Christ did not die but merely fainted, to be later resuscitated either naturally or by the disciples. The severe tortures Christ experienced, together with the spear in His side, rule out such a proposal. Could such a weakened man be able to push back the stone, overcome the guards, walk to and from Emmaus, etc.? What became of Him afterwards? Of course the Ahmadi/Qadiani sect, viewed as heretics by orthodox Muslims, actually do propose this hypothesis, claiming that He swooned, recovered, migrated to India and is now buried in Kashmir!

Mirza Ahmad, the founder of the Ahmadiyya, always strove to discredit the truth about Jesus. In the first volume of his book, ‘Baraheen’, he followed the traditional Islamic belief about Christ. However in 1891 he put forward a new doctrine that Jesus was crucified but did not die on the cross. Instead he swooned, was removed from the cross and later died in Galilee. According to his teaching the Qur’an (Surah 4:157-158) ‘does not deny the fact of Jesus’s being nailed to the cross, but denies his having died on it’. This was indeed a deviation from orthodox Islamic belief that Jesus was taken up to heaven by divine intervention at the cross, without having suffered crucifixion at all.

In 1899, Mirza modified this idea in his book, Masih Hindustan Main, Jesus in India. After escaping from the cross, Jesus received divine healing by the application of some special ointment. He then left Palestine and travelled to Syria, Persia and later came to India, where he stayed in Kashmir to preach the gospel to the lost tribes of Israel. According to Mirza Ahmad, Jesus died in Kashmir at the age of 120. 8

Masood has observed that despite their traditional hostility to the Qadianis, orthodox Muslim have been at worst plagiarising, at best employing the ideas of Ahmadis on many Christian dogmas. Deedat, despite his popularity among mainstream Muslims, appears to have imbibed this idea in some form. In his polemical tract, Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction, p. 43, Deedat seems to affirm that Jesus was still alive when taken down from the cross – he contends that the Jews were ‘under the false assumption that he had died.’ 9 Indeed, Deedat affirms most strongly on the following page that Jesus was still alive! Gilchrist expresses his amazement that Deedat is willing to employ an Ahmadi argument like this. 10 The title (and contents) of one of Deedat’s pamphlets, Resurrection or Resuscitation?, does seem to point in this direction. 11

One thing is certain; according to the Qur’an, as we have seen, Jesus was either bodily assumed into Paradise, or He died as a consequence of the divine decree. Orthodox Muslims do not have the Qadiani option open to them; the body taken from the cross, whatever its identity, could not, on the basis of Islamic doctrine, have been alive when it was removed. If it were someone else, like Judas, the resurrection could not have occurred, and therefore the charade Deedat presents in his writings on the subject would have been impossible. At any rate, the Muslim belief that Jesus is now in Paradise prior to His Second Coming fatally compromises Deedat’s theory.

(e) The Gnostic/Muslim Theory: As we have seen in the previous paper, both Gnostics and Muslims (usually) believe that Christ did not really die on the Cross, but rather that a double from the crowd took His place. Gnostics held it was Simon of Cyrene, Muslims usually hold that it was Judas. There are many obvious and clear objections to this, as we have seen, but suffice it to say that the Romans were guarding Jesus, and it is hard to imagine how such a thing could have happened. A theory like this impugns the integrity of Jesus, that He would permit such an occurrence, and then appear three days later to lie by claiming His resurrection. Christ definitely claimed both death and resurrection – Revelation 1:18.

B. The Islamic view

[i] The Resurrection of Jesus

Taking the Qur’an and Sunnah together, as we suggested in our previous paper, it is clear that the authoritative sources of Islam deny that Jesus died on the cross. This being the case, it is clear that Islam does not hold that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, since, obviously, resurrection presumes death. Instead, Jesus is believed to have been bodily assumed – in His natural body – into Paradise. Islam, however, does hold that Jesus will one day die, and be raised again – S. 19:33 – ‘So Peace is on me the day I was born the day that I die and the Day that I shall be raised up to life (again)’! The Hadith definitely speaks of the future death of Jesus:

Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith 4310Narrated by AbuHurayrahThe Prophet (peace be upon him) said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (peace be upon him). He will descend (to the earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him.Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 5772Narrated by Abdullah ibn SalamThe description of Muhammad is written in the Torah and also that Jesus, son of Mary, will be buried along with him. AbuMawdud said that a place for a grave had remained in the house.Tirmidhi transmitted it

One interesting point, considering the urgent concern of modern Muslims like Ahmed Deedat to controvert the idea of Christ’s resurrection, is that the Qur’an nowhere denies this Biblical tenet! The Qur’an does not explicitly affirm the resurrection of Jesus, but neither does it deny it. Perhaps this explains the emergence of various Hadith and traditions about Jesus to address this anomaly. In fact, were it not for the Hadith, we could, if we took the interpretation of the text in S. 4:177 proposed by Muslims like Taha, conclude that the text addressing Christ’s resurrection, S. 19:33 – ‘So Peace is on me the day I was born the day that I die and the Day that I shall be raised up to life (again)’ actually supports the Biblical view! Even if we take the majority Muslim view about the Substitution theory, it is strange that there is no explicit denial of Christ’s resurrection, given that other specific Christian dogmas are clearly denounced – ‘Say not “three”‘, ‘Jesus was no more than an apostle’, ‘the similitude of Jesus is like Adam’, the denial of His being the Son of God, etc. Given the importance of Christ’s Resurrection for Christians, and the polemics that have traditionally surrounded this belief down to the present, it is puzzling that rejection of this doctrine found no place in the Qur’an, not even the assertion that the Christians got the timing wrong!

It should be remembered that the natural meaning of mutawaffika is ’caused to die’, and its usage in S. 4:157, as well as in S. 3:55 and S. 5:117 (tawaffaitani), in the latter two texts immediately followed by His exaltation to God’s presence, do not preclude belief in the resurrection. In fact, given the fact that Muslims hold that S. 43:61 teaches the Second Coming of Jesus, it would make more sense that He had been resurrected and then exalted to Paradise, and to return bodily. After all, given that the Qur’an does seem to teach that Jesus was made to die, it would be strange and incongruous to believe that a disembodied spirit would ‘return’ from Paradise, to fight, marry and rule! 

[ii] The Nature of the Resurrection Body

Since Islam does not hold that the General, Final Resurrection has commenced with the resurrection of Jesus, there is a paucity of information about the nature of the resurrection body in Islamic sources. Certainly, the future resurrection of Muhammad gives no pattern for it. According to Fiqh, the resurrection body according to Islam will be just as the natural body, though with the implication that it will be immortal. 12 Some texts teach that the wounds of believers will be transformed into musk, whilst other threaten the wicked and unbelieving with disfigurement. It can be seen that one text even teaches that the souls of believers are placed inside the birds of Paradise. Most definitely, the future resurrection of Jesus after His return, reign and death presents no pattern for the resurrection body of believers. As we shall see, the Islamic view of Paradise – including during the Resurrection state – involves the resurrected body enjoying material pleasures, such as eating fruits, consuming wine and milk, and especially having sexual relations. 

[iii] The Significance of the Resurrection

Jesus will be present on the Day of Resurrection, and will have two special roles. One, according to the Qur’an, will be as a witness against the Jews for disbelieving in Him – S. 4: 159 ‘And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment He will be a witness against them.’ The other, according to the Hadith, seems to be as the Agent of the Resurrection, but not according to the Biblical portrait. Rather, it is simply His arrival that causes it, though it must be stated that this contradicts other ahadith which present Jesus as living for forty years after Hid descent, and also give priority to Muhammad:

Sahih Muslim Hadith 293

Narrated by Jabir ibn Abdullah

I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) say: A section of my people will not cease fighting for the Truth and will prevail till the Day of Resurrection. He said: Jesus son of Mary would then descend and their (Muslims’) commander would invite him to come and lead them in prayer, but he would say: No, some amongst you are commanders over some (amongst you). This is the honour from Allah for this Ummah.

Rather than the activity of Jesus, we find instead that Muhammad‘s role of intercession will be vital, although this is to be found in the Hadith, as opposed to the Qur’an, which merely affirms the reality of the Day of Resurrection, and of God’s action in bringing it about. 13 According to the Hadith, Muhammad will have eschatological priority over other prophets, and cause Paradise to receive Muslims – ‘On the Day of Resurrection I shall be the bearer of the banner of praise under which will be Adam and the others… I shall be the first intercessor and the first whose intercession is accepted on the Day of Resurrection… I shall be the first to rattle the knocker of Paradise, and Allah will open for me and bring me into it accompanied by the poor ones among the believers… I shall be the most honourable in Allah’s estimation among those of earliest and latest times….’ 14

A similar tradition states clearly that Muhammad (and therefore not Jesus) will be the chief of all the people on the Day of Resurrection. 15 Indeed, one tradition implies that Muhammad may be more important than Jesus on the Day of Resurrection, if, as is probably the implication, Muhammad has more followers on that Day than any other prophet. 16 This is also supported by the belief that Muhammad will be the first to be resurrected, clearly demonstrating that the position of Jesus has been supplanted by Muhammad:

Sahih Muslim Hadith 5655Narrated by AbuHurayrahAllah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: I shall be pre-eminent amongst the descendants of Adam on the Day of Resurrection and I will be the first intercessor and the first whose intercession will be accepted (by Allah).Sahih Muslim Hadith 389Narrated by AbuHurayrahThe Prophet of Allah (peace be upon him) said: There is for every apostle a prayer which is granted, but every prophet showed haste in his prayer. I have, however, reserved my prayer for the intercession of my Ummah on the Day of Resurrection, and it would be granted, if Allah so willed, in case of everyone amongst my Ummah provided he dies without associating anything with Allah.Sahih Muslim Hadith 284Narrated by Anas ibn MalikThe Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: I will come to the gate of Paradise on the Day of Resurrection, and would seek it opening, and the keeper would say: Who art thou? I would say: Muhammad. He would then say: It is for thee that I have been ordered, and not to open it for anyone before thee.Sahih Muslim Hadith 381Narrated by Anas ibn MalikThe Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: I would be the first among people to intercede in the Paradise and amongst the apostles I would have the largest following (on the Day of Resurrection).Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 9.524Narrated by Abu Said Al KhudriThe Prophet said, “The people will fall unconscious on the Day of Resurrection, then suddenly I will see Moses holding one of the pillars of the Throne.” Abu Huraira said: The Prophet said, “I will be the first person to be resurrected and will see Moses holding the Throne.”Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.732Narrated by Jubair bin MutimAllah’s Apostle said, “I have five names: I am Muhammad and Ahmad; I am Al-Mahi through whom Allah will eliminate infidelity; I am Al-Hashir who will be the first to be resurrected, the people being resurrected there after; and I am also Al-‘Aqib (i.e. There will be no prophet after me).”Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 5762Narrated by Abdullah ibn AbbasWhen some of the companions of Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) were sitting he came out, and when he came near them he heard them discussing. One of them said Allah had taken Abraham as a friend, another said He spoke direct to Moses, another said Jesus was Allah’s word and spirit, and another said Allah chose Adam. Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) then came out to them and said, “I have heard what you said, and you wonder that Abraham was Allah’s friend, as indeed he was; that Moses was Allah’s confidant, as indeed he was; that Jesus was His spirit and word, as indeed he was; and that Adam was chosen by Allah, as indeed he was. I am the one whom Allah loves, and this is no boast. On the Day of Resurrection I shall be the bearer of the banner of praise under which will be Adam and the others, and this is no boast. I shall be the first intercessor and the first whose intercession is accepted on the Day of Resurrection, and this is no boast. I shall be the first to rattle the knocker of Paradise, and Allah will open for me and bring me into it accompanied by the poor ones among the believers, and this is no boast. I shall be the most honourable in Allah’s estimation among those of earliest and latest times, and this is no boast.”Tirmidhi and Darimi transmitted it.Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 5761Narrated by AbuSa’idAllah’s Messenger said, “I shall be pre-eminent among the descendants of Adam on the Day of Resurrection, and this is no boast; and in my hand will be the banner of praise, and this is no boast. There will be no prophet, Adam or any other, who will not be under my banner. I shall be the first from whom the Earth will be cleft open, and this is no boast.”Tirmidhi transmitted it.

Other ahadith appear to contradict this claim of Muhammad’s priority. 17 It can be seen that the unique and crucial position Jesus holds in Christianity is given to Muhammad in Islam. However, the differences are singular; Muhammad, unlike Jesus, did not rise from the dead, and so it follows he is not the pledge of the General Resurrection. In Eschatological terms, this means that unlike the Biblical schema, according to Islam, the powers of the Age to Come have not invaded the Present Age. At any rate, since Islam does not have the sense of ‘eternal life’ realised in the present, but simply holds that Man, having made the Shahadah, is capable of submission to divine precepts, the importance of Christ’s resurrection for the present sanctification of the believer does not arise. As for the Hope of Israel and its relation to Christ’s resurrection, this has no direct equivalent in Islam.

However, it could be argued that there is a rough equivalent to the Restoration of Israel in the ministry of Jesus bringing the Gospel to testify to the truth of the Torah. In our previous paper we noted that Yusuf Ali comments on Surah Al-Ahqaf 46:12: ‘The last revealed Book which was a Code of Life (Shari’at) was the Book of Moses; for that of Jesus was not such a Code, but merely moral precepts to sweep away the corruptions that had crept in…’ In that regard, the resurrection of Jesus along Biblical lines would be superfluous. At any rate, it is the Muslim Ummah, rather than the Christians, the Ummah of Jesus, who will have priority on the Day of Resurrection. 18 They are also the first Ummah to come forward on that Day, and Muhammad will be the first to raise his head. 19

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 1.239

Narrated by Abu Huraira

Allah’s Apostle (peace be upon him) said, ‘We (Muslims) are the last (people to come in the world) but (will be) the foremost (on the Day of Resurrection).’

2. The Ascension

A. The Biblical view

(i) The Fact of the Ascension

Luke refers to it twice, Luke 24:50ff; 50 ‘And He led them out as far as Bethany: and He lifted up His hands, and blessed them. 51 And it came to pass, while He blessed them, He parted from them, and was carried up into heaven. 52 And they worshipped Him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy: 53 and were continually in the temple, blessing God.’ In Acts 1:6-11 we read the following:

6 ‘They therefore, when they were come together, asked him, saying, Lord, are you at this time restoring the kingdom to Israel? 7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know times or seasons, which the Father has set within His own authority. 8 But you shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit comes upon you: and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and to the uttermost part of the earth. 9 And when he had said these things, as they were looking, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. 10 And while they were looking continually into heaven as he went, two men stood by them in white apparel; 11 who said, You men of Galilee, why are you looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was received up from you into heaven shall come in the same way as you saw him going into heaven.’

The structure of John depends on the schema of Descent-Ascent: 6:62 – ‘What then if you should see the Son of man ascending where he was previously?’; 14:2 – ‘In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were otherwise, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you.’; 14:12 – ‘Truly, Truly, I say unto you, whoever believes on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and he will do greater works than these; because I go to the Father’; 16:5 – ‘But now I go to Him who sent me’, 10 – ‘…I am going to the Father, and you shall see me no more’ (cf. v17), 28 ‘I went forth from the Father, and came into the world: again, I am leaving the world, and going to the Father.’; 17:5 ‘And now, Father, glorify me together with yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was’; 20:17 – ‘Jesus said to her, Do not hold on to me; for I have not yet ascended to the Father: but go to my brothers, and say to them, “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.”‘. The theme is that Jesus will ascend to where He was before – Heaven. This testifies to His pre-existence, and thus His deity.

The nature of Ephesians 1:20ff implies the reality of the Ascension – ‘…when He raised Him from the dead, and caused Him to sit at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: 22 and He put all things in subjection under His feet, and made Him to be head over all things to the church…’ Ephesians 4:8-10 is explicit in affirming its reality – ‘8 … When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men. 9 (Now this, “He ascended”, what does it mean other than that he also descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is also ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)’. 1 Timothy 3:16 in all probability refers to it – ‘taken up in glory’.

The same is true of 1 Peter 3:22 – ‘who is on the right hand of God, having gone into heaven; angels and authorities and powers being made subject to Him’. Hebrews 1:3 (‘when he had made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high’) and 6:19-20 (‘…which enters within the veil; 20 where as a forerunner Jesus entered for us, having become a high priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek’) imply it, with 4:14 (‘Having then a great high priest, who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God’) and 9:12 (‘…through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place…’), 24 (‘For Christ did not enter into a holy place made with hands, like a pattern of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God for us’) being explicit. It is essential to the heavenly Session of Christ, and texts mentioning the Second Coming of Christ, e.g. Philippians 3:20 presume it (‘For our citizenship is in heaven; from where we also wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ’) – if He is to return from heaven, He must have first ascended there.

It is interesting to observe the differences between the Qur’anic and Biblical views of the Ascension at this point. The Qur’anic material mentioning the ascension is sparse and ambiguous, whereas as we can see, there is abundant Biblical evidence for the event, both at the time, and predicted by Jesus Himself, despite the claims of Deedat that it is generally absent from the gospels (he seems to ignore the Gospel of John). 20 He also ignores the evidence of the Apostle Peter. Moreover, unlike the ‘substitution’ rescue most orthodox Muslims believe, the Biblical presentation of the ascension reveals a public event – one witnessed by a number of people – Luke 24:33ff (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:6); Acts 1:1-14. Harris notes the use of the imperfect tense anaphereto in Luke 24:51 – ‘he was [slowly] taken up’, and the reference in Acts 1:9 to a cloud removing Jesus from the sight of His disciples. 21

The Muslim view, however, depends purely on belief in the Qur’an as revelation. Obviously, the ‘Muslim ascension’ could have had no eyewitnesses, and so none could have recorded it. There is no objective evidence for it. The Biblical ascension, didhave eyewitnesses. As we can see, the event is given mention elsewhere in the New Testament. The Apostle Paul was literally stopped in his tracks by the vision of the Ascended Jesus – 1 Corinthians 15:8. The very fact that Jesus predicted His Second Coming implied it. The event has real significance, not least because Jesus in heaven continues to perform His ministry, unlike the Islamic portrait. The Biblical narrative of the Ascension is more logically consistent than that of Islam in this respect. Nor does it rely on a purported revelation six hundred years after the event for evidence.

(ii) Its Nature

It represents a change in the location of Jesus – He moves from one place (earth) to another (heaven): this must be stated, since not only is the condition of Jesus changed, i.e. from humiliation to exaltation, but the place wherein this glory is realised is necessarily different – heaven, not the cursed earth Jesus ascends to a heavenly throne.

The Ascension is a bodily assumption of Jesus – it is not just His spirit that is taken up. It is a necessary event, since only in heaven could he be enthroned, and also because the cursed earth is not the proper place for the resurrection body – 1 Corinthians 15:44, 48-49. A heavenly body demands a heavenly home. The event points to the manner of the Second Coming – that of a visible, bodily return – Acts 1:11. This is important for the comparison with the Islamic viewpoint. This verse indicates the parallel between two supernatural events – the ascension of Christ to heaven, and His return from there – that it will occur in like manner. The same is not true of Islam.

(iii) Its Significance

Christ was with the disciples for forty days teaching and convincing them of the reality and nature of the Resurrection e.g. Luke 24:42. In this respect, the bodily ascension of Jesus evidences the truth of His resurrection (and thus prior death). As we have seen, many people had the chance to vie the resurrected one, and the fact that He was the assumed into heaven disproves the Qadiani/Deedat theory that Jesus did not really die or rise again. His death had supernatural connotations, His resurrection was obviously supernatural, so was the event which marked His departure from the Earth. The fact that He was received into Heaven marks the divine acceptance of His sacrifice and ministry. It was the public testimony by God, similar to the Voice at the Baptism and Transfiguration, as to the nature of Christ – His unique sonship – ‘I am ascending to MyFather…’ John 6:62 points to the ascension as indicating Christ’s pre-existence – ‘where He was before‘. It is His return to heavenly glory – Philippians 2:8-9ff. This was true of neither Enoch nor Elijah.

Further, as Harris points out, the resurrected body of Jesus did not have a natural habitat on the present earth, but rather in heaven. 22 As Hebrew 9:24 puts it, Christ has entered ‘into heaven itself.’ Henceforth, there was no opportunity for ordinary sight of Jesus – faith alone was the vehicle (cf. John 16:10.) His earthly ministry is completed, and He ascends to begin His heavenly Royal and Intercessory work. It is necessary for His purpose of preparing a place for His disciples – John 14:2-3. Matthew 28:19-20 points to the fact that Christ’s kingdom is of a universal, rather than particularist nature – and effectively this could only be exercised from heaven. Linked to the preceding point, it is essential for Jesus to ascend to heaven for the Spirit to be poured out on all flesh – John 16:7-10: the Spirit is the sign of the Kingdom – Acts 2:33.

The Westminster Confession of Faith summarises Biblical revelation about the resurrection and ascension of Jesus in Article four of Chapter eight: ‘On the third day He arose from the dead, with the same body in which He suffered, with which also he ascended into heaven, and there sits at the right hand of His Father, making intercession, and shall return, to judge men and angels, at the end of the world.’ Article 46 of the Heidelberg Catechism answers the question:

‘What do you confess when you say, He ascended into heaven?’ by stating ‘That Christ, before the eyes of His disciples, was taken up from the earth into heaven, and that He is there for our benefit until He comes again to judge the living and the dead.’

The Catechism further develops this theme by exploring the aspects of the ascension, specifically in answer to ‘How does Christ’s ascension into heaven benefit us?’, which it answers by declaring: ‘First, He is our Advocate in heaven before His Father. Second, we have our flesh in heaven as a sure pledge that He, our Head, will also take us, His members, up to Himself. Third, He sends us His Spirit…’ The Second Helvetic Confession examines the purpose and character of Christ’s ascension in its eleventh chapter:

Christ Is Truly Ascended Into Heaven. We believe that our Lord Jesus Christ, in his same flesh, ascended above all visible heavens into the highest heaven, that is, the dwelling-place of God and the blessed ones, at the right hand of God the Father. Although it signifies an equal participation in glory and majesty, it is also taken to be a certain place about which the Lord, speaking in the Gospel, says: ‘I go to prepare a place for you’ (John 14:2). The apostle Peter also says: ‘Heaven must receive Christ until the time of restoring all things’ (Acts 3:21).

B. The Islamic view

It is significant that although Muslims, especially those holding to the ‘substitution’ theory of the crucifixion, believe Jesus ascended to Paradise, there appears to be no significance to the subject in either the Qur’an or Hadith other than the idea that in some way, this frustrated Jewish intentions, and the obvious, bare fact that at His Second Coming, Jesus will descend from Paradise. At best, on the ‘substitution’ theory, the ascension was a rescue mission. Obviously, it was not visible, not attended by angels, and did not involve a change in status. According to the ‘substitution’ theory, it was a bodily assumption, although this is not clear from the Qur’an. Rather, it is an implication from the Hadith, based on the idea of His return.

As indicated previously, there is no parallel in Islam between the method of Christ’s ascent to Paradise and His return from there – one is secret and invisible, the other is open and visible. As we shall see, unlike the Biblical concept of the Ascension, there is no sense in Islam of the ascent of Jesus being a continuation of His ministry; rather, it is an interlude. Though there might be some indication that His ascent to heaven aided His relatives (see below), it does nothing for the generality of the human race. He has not gone to prepare a place for anyone. It can be seen that there is no logical progression in the Qur’an between the earthly ministry of Jesus and His ascension. Effectively, His ministry terminates until the time of His return. There is no meaningful significance for the Ascension in the ministry of the Islamic Jesus.

Perhaps this is partly because Muhammad supplants Jesus in this respect. We have already seen that one aspect of the Miraj is roughly equivalent to the Transfiguration. However temporary Muhammad’s Ascent to the heavens may be, according to Islam he accomplishes more during this short-lived event than Jesus does in all the time He is there. Jesus, as we shall see in the next section, ‘The Session’, performs no function whatsoever in Paradise according to Islam. Muhammad, however, manages to establish the actual number of prayers Muslims will have to say, by bargaining with God. 23 We shall see in the next section that in this respect, the consequences of the ascent of Muhammad is equivalent to the effects of Christ’s session – the establishment of His kingdom, the New Testament Church, and its nature as a worshipping community through the gift of the Spirit.

3. The Heavenly Session

A. The Biblical view

We have noted the connection between the Resurrection and the Kingdom. The time Christ actually commenced His cosmic reign was after the Ascension, when He was seated at the right hand of the Father. We note the following:

[i] Nature

The Resurrection is defined in Acts 13:32-34 as the fulfilment of the Promises to the Patriarchs and to David – ’32 And we bring you good tidings of the promise made to the Patriarchs, 33 that God has fulfilled this for us, their progeny, in that He raised up Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, You are My Son, this day have I begotten You. 34 And having raised Him up from the dead, never to return to corruption, He has spoken thus, “I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.”‘ The reference to David indicates that the nature of the Promise/Covenant involves Kingship, Genesis. 17:6 respecting Abraham’s progeny – ‘kings shall from you’. McComiskey writes about this aspect of the promise to Abraham: ‘…as the history of the ancient Hebrews unfolded, and they became a nation in their own land, they felt the need for a king and the Israelite monarchy was born. It was then this promise to Abraham began to be realized.’ ))McComiskey, T. E., The Covenants of Promise: A theology of the Old Testament Covenants, (IVP, Nottingham, 1985), pp. 57-58.))

The Covenant commitment to Abraham that royalty will be his offspring is narrowed specifically to the House of David in 2 Samuel 7:12-14, which promises David that his offspring will be king – ‘I will establish your offspring after you… 13 …I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son…’ It is significant that Psalm 72:17 states that the Promise to Abraham that all nations will be blessed through him is renewed but the fulfilment thereof is assigned to the Davidic King, so that the Seed of Abraham will be the Son of David: ‘His name shall endure for ever; His name shall continue as long as the sun: All nations shall be blessed in him; And men shall call him blessed’. The fulfilment of all these covenant promises is found in Matthew 1:1, which refers to Jesus as ‘the son of David, the son of Abraham’.

Further, 2 Samuel 7:14 states that the son of David would also be the son of God, reiterated in Psalm 2:7, which Acts 13:33 states is fulfilled in the Resurrection. We should note that 2 Samuel 7:12 LXX says anastasw to sperma mou meta se …anastaso to sperma mou meta se… which may be translated ‘I will resurrect your offspring after you…’ 24 Most importantly, it is clear that the throne of David is coterminously the throne of the Lord God – 1 Chronicles 29:23 – ‘Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king…’ [Significantly, the Kingdom is stated to be both God’s and Christ’s – Ephesians. 5:5]. It is clear that the aspect of divine sonship involved here is synonymous with kingship – when the son of David mounted the throne, then he became the son of God in this sense. As the Heir of David the King, he was the Heir of God, but he was only inaugurated as such and entered into the full exercise of his power when he ascended the throne. This necessitated His death and resurrection, and thus His Ascension into heaven.

This is the meaning of Acts 13:33, and we can see the significance of 2:30-31 – ‘…knowing that God had sworn to him (David) to sit the fruit of his loins upon his throne, he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ…’ and the throne of David is located at the right hand of God in heaven – v33 – ‘Being therefore lifted-up to the right hand of God’. The Session of Christ fulfils the covenant with David, reconstituting the Biblical State of Israel, 15:16 (‘After these things I will return, and I will rebuild the fallen tabernacle of David’). Of course, Christ was already a King before the resurrection and Session, but with the latter, He is inaugurated into the exercise of His full authority, particularly to the Cosmic aspects of such – the exercise of Kingship was no longer confined to Palestine. This is the significance of Acts 2:36 – ‘…God has made Him Lord and Christ…’, ‘lord’ here signifying kingship, rather than deity.

This also demonstrates the logical consistency of the Biblical view. Jesus is presented as continuing in heaven the ministry He exercised and proclaimed on the earth – the Kingdom of God (better, the Reign of God) – Mark 1:15 (‘The Time is fulfilled, the Kingdom of God is near’) and Luke 17:21 (‘the kingdom of God is in your midst’). The essential difference is one of intensification – this ministry is unchallenged and universal (not limited to Palestine). One of the great Biblical scholars of he twentieth century was George Eldon Ladd, who wrote extensively on the Kingdom of God. He made the point that the Kingdom of God was present in ‘Jesus’ person and message.’ 25 His disciples, the recipients of His ‘messianic salvation became the true Israel…’ 26 This continues with the Session, by the gift of the Holy Spirit. We have already seen the relation of the gift of the Spirit to the restoration and resurrection of Israel and the Davidic monarchy, especially with regard to Ezekiel 37:13ff:

13 And you shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, and caused you to come up out of your graves, O my people. 14 And I will put My Spirit in you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land: and you shall know that I, The Lord, have spoken it and performed it, says the Lord…. 23 …I will …cleanse them: so shall they be My people, and I will be their God. 24 and My servant David shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk according to My ordinances, and observe My statutes, and do them.

On the Day of Pentecost, the Resurrected Davidic King – the Messiah – bestowed the Spirit on the true Israel, that they might have eternal life and walk blamelessly before God. We should remember the import of Romans 1:4 – the Resurrection of Jesus was not only individual, but commenced the collective resurrection of redeemed Humanity. When he rose from the dead, Israel was resurrected, and the Holy Spirit imparted the eternal life of the risen Messiah to His disciples, making them the true Israel. This is the context and meaning of Peter’s sermon in Acts 2:33 – ‘Being therefore exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this, which you see and hear.’ Those who received the Holy Spirit of the Messianic Davidic King – He is actually called the Spirit of Christ – Romans 8:9; 1 Peter 1:11 – become the true subjects of the Davidic King, and thus the true Israel. F. F. Bruce writes about this:

… on the Day of Pentecost, seven weeks after Jesus’ death and resurrection, the disciples ‘were all filled with the Holy Spirit’ (Acts 2:4). When the crowd of spectators was amazed at the visible and audible phenomena which marked the event, Peter explained that Jesus, crucified by men but raised from the dead by God, was now ‘exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear’ (Acts 2:33).

The baptism of the Spirit, or baptism with the Spirit, is thus the work of the risen Christ. By this act he brought his church into being. The church – the people of God in New Testament times – is continuous with the people of God in Old Testament times; but on that day of Pentecost it experienced a new beginning, a spiritual rebirth. Jesus is the representative of the people of God in Old and New Testament times alike; when he descended into death and rose again, the people of God symbolically died and rose with him. ‘The Spirit of him raised Jesus from the dead’ now came to dwell in his followers and made them a new community – the community of which Jesus had said ‘I will build my church, and the gates of Hades [the powers of death] shall not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18) Whereas the people of God in Old Testament times; had been almost entirely confined to members of one nation the reborn people of God, endowed by Jesus with his speedily came to embrace men and women of many nations. …in 1 Corinthians 12:13…’in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body’ … the meaning of the Pentecostal event is made plain. It is the risen Christ who baptizes his people – all his people –’in one Spirit’, and by this baptism they are incorporated ‘into one body’.. 27

We should remember the connection of the Spirit with the first manifestation of the restoration of Israel at the Baptism of Jesus. The timing of the Pentecostal outpouring is significant. The Spirit could only be given when Jesus was enthroned in heaven, by the right hand of the Father. Jesus had promised the Spirit to His disciples in John 16:7ff, and connected this to His exaltation – ‘Nevertheless I tell you the truth: It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 and when He comes, will convict the world in respect of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: …10 of righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will no longer see me…’ Again, there is clear, logical progression and consistency in the Biblical presentation.

We find this same logical progression and consistency with respect to the cosmopolitan nature of Christ’s kingship. We have seen that the covenant-promise to Abraham stated that all nations would be blessed through him and his progeny, and in Psalm 72:17 this is specifically related to the Davidic King – i.e. the Messiah. It can be seen that the renewed Israel would be a multi-ethnic people. Muslims like Badawi, as we have seen earlier, claim that Jesus was only an emissary to the Jews, usually citing Matthew 15:24 ‘But He answered and said, I was only not sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’ In doing so they ignore the context of the narrative – that Jesus was testing the faith of the Canaanite woman, and that once she passes the test, He grants her request.

Jesus also predicted that whilst many Jews would reject the gospel, many Gentiles would receive it – Luke 13:28 ‘There shall be weeping and the gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, but yourselves cast out. 29 And they shall come from the east and west, and from the north and south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God.’ When Jesus witnessed the faith of the Roman Centurion, He predicted the incoming of the Gentiles – Matthew 8:10 And when Jesus heard it, he was amazed, and said to His followers, Verily I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel. 11 And I say to you, that many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven: 12 but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast into the outer darkness: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.’

Of course, in the main, Jesus’ earthly ministry was largely restricted to Palestine and the adjacent lands, which meant that His primary focus was on Jews, but we can see from these predictions that Jesus definitely saw His ministry as leading to the salvation of Gentiles and their incorporation into the People of God. John 3:16 states that the reason for the Incarnation was that God loved the world, and not just the Jews. Jesus was conscious that His death would draw all humanity – John 12:32 ‘And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Myself.’ It can be seen that the Session is a logical progression from the Passion in this respect. Similarly, the ironic, unintentional prophecy of the High Priest testified that Jesus would die in the nation’s stead, to which the inspired gospel adds that He would die in the stead of all humanity – John 11:49-52 ‘…Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, it is expedient that one man should die for the people, so that the whole nation does not perish… being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation; and not for the nation only, but that He might also gather together into one the children of God that are scattered abroad.’

The last words of Jesus before His ascension concerned the salvation of the Gentiles – Matthew 28:19 – ‘Go therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’; Acts 1:8 ‘But you shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and to the uttermost part of the earth.’ Jesus, as universal king, employs the Church as His instrument to extend His kingdom. Specifically, this occurs after the conversion of Cornelius and the Gentiles in Acts 10:44-45. This was discussed at the Council of Jerusalem, where James, Jesus’ half-brother, stated the following:

Acts 15:14 Simeon (i.e. Peter) has reported how first God visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And with this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16 After these things I will return, And I will rebuild the fallen tabernacle of David; And I will repair its ruins, And I will establish it: 17 That the remnant of men may seek after the Lord, And all the Gentiles, upon whom My name is called…

The word translated ‘people’ is laov laos– i.e. ‘chosen people’ in a religious sense rather than eynov ethnos – an ethnic group. Essentially, the visitation of God to these Gentiles made them members of the people of God. Hence, it can be seen that with the Session the full significance of the term ‘Messiah’ – the anointed Davidic King is realised. He reigns over all, and brings about the extension of the reign of the House of David to include all humanity. His message and work was for all humanity, as He demonstrated when he healed the servant of the centurion and the daughter of the Canaanite woman, He died for all humanity, as testified by the Gospels, He commissioned the Church to proselytise all humanity, at Pentecost, as Risen, Ascended King He poured out the Holy Spirit on all Humanity – Acts 2:17 ‘And it shall be in the last days, says God, I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh…’, and His reign is specifically over all humanity. When He returns, He will judge and resurrect all humanity – Matthew 25:32. Again, the Session is a logical progression of His other work.

[ii] Significance

(a) The ‘right hand’ is the place of royal honour and dignity – 1 Kings 2:19. It is questionable if too much should be made of the fact that Jesus is presented as ‘sitting’; He is not resting in the sense of sleeping or being inactive. Note that He is presented as being at the right hand of God, Romans 8:34; 1 Peter 3:22; standing, Acts 7:56; walking, Revelation 2:1. The point of emphasis is simply that Christ is exalted to the place of divine power.

Christ had stated that He would be seated at the right hand of power – Matthew. 26:64. The terminology is drawn from Psalm 110:1 – ‘The LORD said to my Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand, till I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’, which verse is quote in Acts 2:34 to indicate its fulfilment. The fact that Christ conflated Psalm 110 with Daniel 7:13-14 in Matthew 26:64 indicates that His position as the Son of Man (a title referring to His heavenly origins, as Daniel 7:13-14 demonstrates) is connected to the Session. In Daniel 7 the ‘one like a son of man’ comes to God, to receive universal authority. It is significant that in Matthew. 25:31, 34 the Son of Man is a King. Reference to the event is also made in Acts 5:31; Ephesians. 1:20-22; Philippians 2:9-11; Hebrews 1:3, 13; 7:26; 10:12-13; 12:2; Revelation 3:21; 22:1. Christ is referred to as a King in Romans 14:9; 1 Corinthians. 15:24-28; Hebrews 2:7, 8.

(b) The Session is presented as a past event in certain texts, e.g. Acts 2:33ff, 5:31, Hebrews 1:3, 10:12, etc. As Harris says, ‘The fact of ‘sitting down’ points to the completion of a task. When Christ ‘sat down’ the words ‘mission accomplished’ were written over his earthly career’. 28 In Philippians 2:5-11, Christ is exalted to the highest place, having been obedient to the extent of enduring the crucifixion. To quote Harris again, ‘The heavenly glory he had enjoyed in the Father’s presence before his incarnation had been restored – and augmented. Jesus is now ‘crowned with (fresh) glory…’. At his exaltation he not only re-entered glory but entered into new glory (Luke 24:26; 1 Peter 1:21)…’ 29

Whilst Christians are destined to rule with Christ, Matthew. 19:28; 2 Timothy 2:12, and are enthroned with Him, Ephesians. 2:6, Christ’s own throne is unique. The phrase ‘at His right hand’ is never ascribed to anyone but Christ.

(c) It is also a present event – as previously stated, He is active now in exercising His reign. The principal characteristic of the latter is the destruction of His enemies. The Heidelberg Catechism rhetorically asks ‘Why is it added, “And sits at the right hand of God?”‘, to which the answer is given ‘Christ ascended into heaven to manifest Himself there as Head of His Church, through whom the Father governs all things.’ It further questions:

‘How does the glory of Christ, our Head, benefit us?’, responding that ‘First, by His Holy Spirit He pours out heavenly gifts upon us, His members. Second, by His power He defends and preserves us against all enemies.’

Although in some places this cosmological conflict is presented as a work the Father does for Christ, e.g. Acts 2:35, elsewhere it is an act that the Son performs – 1 Corinthians. 15:24-27. Taken in line with Ephesians. 5:5, this indicates that cosmic governance is synergistic and that the Son’s role is thus mediatorial. The ‘enemies’ involved are spiritual forces, both demonic Principalities, Ephesians. 1:20-22, Sin, 1 Corinthians. 15:56-57, and Death, v26, whereupon the terminus of His mediatorial reign is reached, v24, and He returns in glory to the earth.

It is clear from Galatians. 4:3, 9 that the Apostle Paul regards Paganism, Judaism and heretical Christianity as demonic, principally because they reject or undermine the Christ-event. The subjugation and destruction of false religion is thus a major facet of the Session. The first instance of the public, cataclysmic display of the Session of the Son of Man in destroying His foes is the Destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in AD 70, whereupon it would be signified that the Son of Man had come on the clouds to God and been given universal authority, Matthew 24:30. Because it is universal authority, Christ will perform this everywhere for as long as he reigns, and because it is cosmic, it means that there is nowhere in this universe that the power of Satan can withstand that of Christ.

This is indeed what we find in the Biblical presentation of the Session. From the time Jesus begins His ministry, He confronts the Forces of Darkness. Immediately after the Baptism, He successfully faced the assault of Satan in the desert. Thereafter, we find Him exorcising demons – note what He says in Matthew 12:28 ‘But if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.’ The fight against demonic forces was also accomplished on the Cross – John 12:31 – ‘Now the Prince of this world will be cast out’; Colossians 2:15 ‘having despoiled the principalities and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.’ Hence, at the Session, Jesus perpetuates this ministry. The Kingly reign of Christ both on the earth and from heaven confronts demons. The injunction to perform exorcisms was also a command to His disciples, Matthew 10:8, and after Pentecost we find the disciples continuing this ministry – e.g. Acts 19:12. Moreover, this clash of kingdoms continues directly in the ministry of Jesus from heaven.

In Philippians 2:9 we read that one consequence of the exaltation is precisely this cosmic confrontation which results in Messianic triumph – ‘Therefore God highly exalted him, and gave to him the name which is above every name; 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, whether in heaven and on earth and under the earth’. Harris identifies those in heaven with angels, and those under the earth with demons or the dead or with the ‘angelic powers that were commonly thought to rule over the astral, terrestrial, and chthonic regions of the universe.’ 30 This idea seems to lie behind the thought of Ephesians 6:12 ‘For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.’ This verse in itself points to the fact that the ministry of Christ in heaven is partly realised through the activity of those to whom the Messiah gave the Holy Spirit.

The Church is able to perform this ministry because of the exalted dominion of Christ over the cosmic forces of evil, as a result of God’s power, Ephesians 1:20 ‘which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and made him to sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come’ It is clear that the Session actively subjects the cosmic forces to Jesus – 1 Peter 3:22 ‘who is on the right hand of God, having gone into heaven; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.’ Several texts, quoting or alluding to Psalm 110, indicate that the Session actively subjugates the cosmic enemies of Christ – 1 Corinthians 15:25 ‘For he must reign, until he has put all his enemies under his feet’ (cf. Hebrews 1:13; 10:13).

The other present aspect of the Session is Christ’s heavenly intercession. Jesus is not only a King, but a priest. In fact, He is a King-Priest, after the order of Melchizedek, again a quote from Psalm 110, e.g. Hebrews 5:10 ‘named by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.’ The cross was a priestly work of intercession, Jesus offering the sacrifice of Himself to God for the sins of the world. The death of Christ both propitiates the wrath of God against Man’s sin and expiates sin from Man – Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10. This sacrifice is a once-for-all act, Hebrews 9:12; 10:12, but it has continuing consequences. Jesus has a present work as intercessory Advocate in Heaven; as 1 John 2:1-2 presents, if we sin, He acts as our Advocate (paraklhtov parakletos) with the Father. John Murray writes concerning this:

… if Christ as priest after the order of Melchizedek is the mediator and surety of the new covenant as the everlasting covenant, this means that his priestly function is operative in the consummating action which will bring to final and perfect fruition the redemptive counsel of God. The ever-active priestly activity of Christ is thus brought into relation with the consummation of redemption, just as it is his priestly function of making propitiation which ensured by its once-for-all transcendent efficacy and perfection that redemption would be consummated. In other words, the priestly activity of the Redeemer is central in the whole redemptive process. It is because he is a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek that redemption in its Old Testament adumbration had saving effectiveness, that redemption in its objective accomplishment has meaning, and that redemption in its consummation will be achieved.

The heavenly high priesthood of Christ means, therefore, that Christ appears in the presence of God at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens to present himself as the perfected high priest to plead on the basis of what he has accomplished the fulfilment of all the promises, the bestowment of all the benefits, and enduement with all the graces secured and ratified by his own high priestly offering. This is a ministry directed to the Father. This it is pre-eminently. The Godward reference is primary here as it is also in the once-for-all priestly offering. But it is also a ministry on behalf of men. As directed to the Father it has no relevance except as he is appointed for men in things pertaining to God (cf. Heb. 5:1). But since it is a ministry on behalf of men, it is also a ministry which reaches to men in that it involves the administration of the house of God upon earth and the ministration of succour to the people of God in all their temptations and tribulations. 31

Hence, it is the very presence of Jesus in heaven that acts as intercession. Romans 8:34 links the death of Christ to His continual intercession for believers, and presents this as also liked to the resurrection – ‘who is the one that condemns? It is Christ Jesus that died, rather, that was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.’ A similar point is made in Hebrews 7:25 ‘Therefore also He is able to save to the uttermost those that draw near to God through him, seeing He ever lives to make intercession for them.’ This intercession could only function in the true, heavenly sanctuary – not in the earthly Jerusalem – Hebrews 8:2. As Guthrie states, ‘The work of mediation between God and man depended on the entrance into heaven of the mediator, as the intercessory nature of the Jewish high priest depended on his gaining access to the holy of holies. The session at the right hand of God, secured through the ascension, gives Christ as our heavenly high priest an inestimable advantage over the Aaronic priests.’ 32 It is clear from Romans 8:34 that this continuing ministry is exercised as a consequence of the Session. Harris writes:

…Christ is presented as a levitical high-priest of the Aaronic order before his session, and a royal high-priest of the order of Melchizedek after his session. Just as the levitical high-priest fulfilled his ministry only when he had brought the victim’s blood inside the holy place, so Christ did not fulfil his Aaronic high-priestly role until he had entered the heavenly sanctuary with his own blood and had sat down at God’s right hand (Heb. 9.11-12; 10.12). Thereafter he fulfils a priesthood of the Meichizedekian type, acting as a minister in the real sanctuary (Heb. 8.1), interceding for his people (Heb. 7.25; 9.24) and offering up their praise (Heb. 13.15; cf. 1 Pet. 2.5), and guaranteeing their permanent and free access into the holy place (Heb. 4.16; 10.19-22). 33

B. The Islamic view

[i] Nature

We have previously noted ahadith about the Miraj mentioning that Muhammad encountered other prophets in his ascent to Paradise, Jesus being among them. This bare fact alone is mentioned. In the Biblical presentation, the Return of Christ is a logical progression of His heavenly activity. He returns to complete His reign and all-round work of salvation. In heaven, He ruled, until His foes were made His footstool. The last foe, Death, is consumed at His return. With regard to the presence of Jesus in Paradise according to Islam, however, it can only be considered an interruption in His active service to Allah. There is no logical consistency between the presence of Jesus in Paradise and His return, as in the Bible. We are not told what Jesus is doing in Paradise, and there seems to be no indication that He is either reigning or uniquely interceding there as in the Biblical portrait. This in itself makes His return all the more incongruous. His very presence there is irrelevant. It should also be asked of those Muslims holding to the ‘substitution’ theory as to why Jesus remained in Paradise after the threat from the Jews passed – certainly after Christianity was given toleration by the Roman Empire? An American Muslim has faced this question, without giving a satisfactory answer:

As far as what Jesus is now doing up in Heaven, this is a matter of the Unseen known only to Almighty God, and as such, it can only be known through Divine Revelation. I have personally never heard any hadeeths that describe what Jesus, peace be upon him, is doing up in Heaven (not that this necessarily means there aren’t any), but as a Muslim, I am not allowed to guess when it comes to matters of the Unseen. Certainly, one might say that ‘there doesn’t seem much point in this’ but part of Islam is trusting in the wisdom of Almighty God… Certainly, Almighty God could have allowed him to be killed (just like other prophets were killed), just as He could have explained what happened to him in greater detail, if He so wished. However, He – due to His Wisdom – chose not to. 34

In the absence of data to the contrary, we can only assume that Jesus is held to be behaving in the normal way Muslims in Paradise conduct themselves – enjoying the sensual delights of the place. The Islamic portrait of Paradise involves luxury, rivers of milk and wine, robes and silk, and heavenly voluptuous maidens whose only function is sexual satisfaction for the master.35 This in itself makes the Islamic position logically inconsistent – the hooris warn the ‘earthly’ wife that her husband is only a ‘passing guest’, but according to Islam, Jesus will return to earth. Further, He will cease to enjoy these hooris, replacing them, for a while, with a presumably less desirable woman, only to enjoy them again after His death following His forty-year reign on the earth.

Finally, there is a glaring logical inconsistency in the Islamic presentation of the ministry of Jesus associated with His title – al-Masih the Messiah. We have seen that the term refers to the eschatological Davidic King, and surely a king is meant to reign. In the Biblical narrative that is exactly what Christ does in glory when He sits on His heavenly throne. The Islamic Jesus, however, does nothing of the sort when He ascends on high to Paradise. His presence in Paradise is pointless and irrelevant in relation to His title, and the reverse is true as well. It is difficult to see how Muslims can address this inconsistency in their schema.

[ii] Significance

There is one Hadith that implies that a martyr intercedes for his relatives, presumably meaning that his good deed is merited to their account as well. 36 If Jesus is counted in some way as a martyr, He may be considered as performing this function. There is no indication that the presence of Jesus in Paradise aids His followers. He is not preparing a place for them, nor performing any salvatory or even prophetic role whatsoever. He is not subjecting His enemies. Instead of Jesus being at the right hand of God, the possibility of Muhammad occupying this position is proposed, with the difference that this occurs after the Resurrection, and from the second hadith in view, the place of supremacy and the role of intercession performed by Jesus during the Session is effected by Muhammad after the Last Day:

Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 936Narrated by Ruwayfi’Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: He who invokes blessings upon Muhammad saying: O Allah, cause him to occupy the nearest seat to Thee on the Day of Resurrection, my intercession will be assured for him.Transmitted by Ahmad.Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 1.588Narrated by Jabir bin AbdullahAllah’s Apostle said, “Whoever after listening to the Adhan says, ‘Allahumma Rabba hadhihi-d-da’ watit-tammati was-salatil qa’imati, ati Muhammadan al-wasilata wal-fadilata, wab’ athhu maqaman mahmudan-il-ladhi wa’ adtahu (O Allah! Lord of this perfect call (of not ascribing partners to You) and of the regular prayer which is going to be established! Kindly give Muhammad the right of intercession and superiority and send him (on the Day of Judgment) to the best and the highest place in Paradise which You promised him)’, then intercession for me will be permitted for him on the Day of Resurrection).”

It is also clear from this and from another hadith that the right of intercession on the Day of Resurrection belongs to Muhammad, rather than Jesus; another implication of the same tradition is that Jesus was only called to one nation, and so any idea of universal, cosmic kingship for Christ, despite the obvious connotations of the technical phrase Al-Masih, must be rejected by Islam:

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 1.429

Narrated by Jabir bin Abdullah

Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been given five things which were not given to any amongst the Prophets before me. These are:

1. Allah made me victorious by awe (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month’s journey.

2. The earth has been made for me (and for my followers) a place for praying and a thing to perform Tayammum. Therefore my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due.

3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me (and was not made so for anyone else).

4. Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation exclusively but I have been sent to all mankind.

5. I have been given the right of intercession (on the Day of Resurrection.)’

An inference from other ahadith must be that there is no special act or prayer of intercession possible for Jesus in that He, like other prophets, has used up His special prayer already, leaving only Muhammad with the unique prayer of intercession:

Sahih Muslim Hadith 389Narrated by AbuHurayrahThe Prophet of Allah (peace be upon him) said: There is for every apostle a prayer which is granted, but every prophet showed haste in his prayer. I have, however, reserved my prayer for the intercession of my Ummah on the Day of Resurrection, and it would be granted, if Allah so willed, in case of everyone amongst my Ummah provided he dies without associating anything with Allah.Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 9.566Narrated by Abu HurairaAllah’s Apostle said, “For every Prophet there is one invocation which is definitely fulfilled by Allah, and I wish, if Allah will, to keep my that (special) invocation as to be the intercession for my followers on the Day of Resurrection.”

It should be stated that there are contradictory statements in both the Qur’an and Hadith that indicate that Allah alone is the intercessor, different ayat that He allows others to perform this function, traditions that others than Muhammad can perform a present work of intercession, such as the martyrs we examined earlier, and that even Fasting and the Qur’an perform this activity. 37 Despite this, there are other aspects that point to Muhammad supplanting Jesus. After his ascent, Muhammad was properly able to establish the Muslim Ummah by the revelation of liturgical prayer, i.e., Salat. Just as the presence of the Holy Spirit produces the New Covenant Church, so the existence of Salat is the key to Islam, since it includes belief in the Qur’an and Muhammad:

Fiqh-us-Sunnah 1.75 Prayer

The prayer is a type of worship consisting of specific statements and actions. It is begun by pronouncing the greatness of Allah, and is concluded with salutations of peace. As prayer is the essence of Islam, we will discuss it here in detail. To state it simply, prayer must exist, for without it Islam can not stand. The Prophet, upon whom be peace, said, “The head of the matter is Islam, its pillar is the prayer, and the top of its hump is jihad in the way of Allah.” It was the first act of worship that was made obligatory by Allah. Its obligation was revealed directly to the Prophet, during his ascension to heaven. Said Anas, “The prayers were made obligatory on the Prophet, upon whom be peace, the night of his ascension to heaven. At first, they were fifty in number, but were reduced several times until they were five. Then it was proclaimed, ‘O Muhammad, the order is not changed. These five are (equivalent) to the fifty.” As to the authenticity of the report, it is related by Ahmad, an-Nasa’i and at-Tirmidhi, who said it is sahih…

It follows that the Miraj also subsumes the act of Jesus at Pentecost. Likewise, it was after the Miraj that Muhammad was able to establish the Islamic State at Medina, again equivalent to Jesus being enthroned on high after His ascension, and in equivalence to Jesus overcoming His foes, Muhammad after his ascent to power in Medina subjected and destroyed his foes – pagans, Jews and Hypocrites by jihad:

Maududi Sura Introductions Surah 17. Al-Israa

This Surah takes its name (Bani Israil) from v. 4. But this name is merely a distinctive appellation like the names of many other surahs and not a descriptive title, and does not mean that “Bani Isra’il” is the theme of this Surah…. The very first verse indicates that this Surah was revealed on the occasion of Miraj (Ascension). According to the Traditions and books on the life of the Holy Prophet, this event happened one year before Hijrah. Thus, this Surah is one of those which were revealed in the last stage of Prophethood at Makkah…

The Holy Prophet had been propagating Tauhid for the previous twelve years and his opponents had been doing all they could to make his Mission a failure, but in spite of all their opposition, Islam had spread to every corner of Arabia and there was hardly any clan which had not been influenced by his invitation. In Makkah itself the true Believers had formed themselves into a small community and were ready and willing to face every danger to make Islam a success. Besides them, a very large number of the people of Aus and Khazraj (two influential clans of Al- Madinah) had accepted Islam. Thus the time had come for the Holy Prophet to emigrate from Makkah to Al-Madinah and there gather together the scattered Muslims and establish a state based on the principles of Islam. These were the conditions when Mi’raj took place and on his return the Holy Prophet brought down the Message contained in this Surah.

4. The Second Coming

A. The Biblical view

Just as there are four schools of Islamic law, so there are four ‘schools’ of interpretation about the Second Coming among Christians – Amillennialist, Postmillennialist, Historic Premillennialist and Dispensational Premillennialist. All agree that the Second Coming of Christ will finally result in the General Resurrection, Last Judgment and cosmic metamorphosis. There are different nuances within these schools. Hence, what follows is largely based on common understandings of the event; where distinctive elements intrude, they follow the Amillennial viewpoint, regarding the Battle of Armageddon as fulfilled in the Destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and that the verses in Matthew 24 up to and including v35 refer to the latter event, whilst from v36 onwards we encounter the prophecy of the Second Coming. 38 [An excellent book examining the four views is that edited by R. G. Clouse, The Meaning of the Millennium, (IVP, Illinois, 1977)].

[i] Timing

(a) No one knows the time of the Second Coming. Neither will any sign be given: Jesus made it quite clear that the event will be of the same character as the Flood – no sign will be given of the impending act. Even Jesus, as to His human nature, was unaware of its timing – Matthew 24:36. When we study the texts concerning the situation preceding the Flood, we note that no indication was given, apart from the preaching of Noah – 2 Peter 2:5; rather, life went on as normal – Matthew 24:39 (there is no indication in either text of an intensification of evil during the period of Noah’s construction of the Ark) – it will come as a complete shock.

(b) This is reinforced by Luke 17:22ff – the event will be as unpredictable as lightning, and as with Sodom, life will go on as usual with no outstanding, obvious supernatural indication of coming judgment.

(c) The Day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night, e.g. 2 Peter 3:10. A thief gives no advance warning of the time of his approach, verbal or otherwise.

(d) The fact that life will go on as normal is further underlined by 1 Thessalonians 5:3 – Jesus will return at a time of peaceand safety. At times of conflict and danger, men tend to more seriously consider their spiritual state and future, but with the passing of such they revert to type.

The text indicates that Jesus will return at a period of general security, involving world peace prior to His Second Coming. In this situation, the Second Coming will be like the arrival of the initial labour pains of an expectant mother.

This is not to say that certain things will not occur first – the revelation of the Man of Lawlessness, for example (if in fact such is yet future), or the Great Tribulation of AD 70, but nothing will indicate the timing of the Parousia.

[ii] Its Nature

The Second Coming will have the following characteristics:

(a) Personal

It is a personal return, not figurative – Acts 1:11 indicates that the Return will be of the same fashion as the Ascension, which was personal, cf. Matthew 24:44; Acts 3:19-21; 1 Corinthians 15:22; Philippians 3:20: 1 Thessalonians 2:19, etc. Jesus Himself will directly return to the earth from Heaven.

(b) Physical

It is not a spiritual return – cf. again Acts 1:11. Jesus will bodily return to the earth. Critics have pointed to the meaning ofParousia as ‘presence’, which may indicate the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost; however, other words are used – apokalupsi’ (‘revelation’), and epiphaneia (‘manifestation’) – which point to a public event. Moreover, the New Testament epistles speak of it as a future event – Philippians 3:20; 1 Thessalonians 3:13; 4:15, 16; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10; Titus 2:13.

(c) Visible

Acts 1:11 implies this, as do Colossians 3:4; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 9:28 – ‘so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to those that wait for him, unto salvation.’ The disciples saw Jesus ascend into Heaven, we will witness His return from there.

(d) Sudden

It will catch people by surprise – Matthew 24: 37-44; 25:1-12; Mark 13:33-37; 1 Thessalonians 5:2, 3; Revelation 16:15. This follows from what we examined about the issue of timing – Jesus will come like a thief in the night.

(e) Decisive

When Jesus returns, history as we know it will cease – 1 Corinthians 15:24 – then the end will come.

(f) Glorious

His first coming was in humiliation; His second will be in glory – a glorified body, royal apparel – Hebrews 9:28; myriad angels will accompany Him – 2 Thessalonians 1:7; archangels will herald Him – 1 Thessalonians 4:16; He returns in sovereignty, having conquered His enemies – 1 Corinthians 15:25.

[iii] Its Purpose

(a) To crown His reign: He is ruling now – 1 Corinthians 15:25, but He returns because He has completed the process of overcoming His foes; in fact, He will not return until He has made His enemies His footstool, Acts 2:34-35, until the ‘times of restoration’, 3:21.

When we consider points (b) and (c), we observe a logical progression between Christ’s work on the cross and His ascension and Session. His death conquered him who had the power of death, the Devil – Hebrews 2:14. The Devil was also exorcised by the Cross – John 12:31. It was for this reason the Incarnation took place – 1 John 3:8. During the Session, He reigned until His foes became His footstool; at the Second Coming, they are damned to Hell for all eternity. The Last Enemy is death, 1 Corinthians 15:26, conquered at the cross, vanquished at Christ’s Resurrection, annihilated by the Second Coming with the concomitant General Resurrection – 1 Corinthians 15:54.

Equally, the election we noted as characterising the Restoration of Israel in Christ’s ministry, from the Baptism onwards, and then applied to all humanity, is climaxed at His Return, when the Righteous inherit the New Heaven and the New Earth, whilst those who rejected Jesus as Lord and Saviour are damned to Hell.

(b) To resurrect the dead: 1 Corinthians 15:23; 1 Thessalonians 4:16. The Dead in Christ rise first, followed by those believers yet alive being rapt into the air. This completes the General Resurrection commenced with Christ’s own resurrection.

(c) To judge all humanity, living and dead, and to damn all demons – Acts 10:42; 17:31; Romans 2:3-16; 1 Corinthians 4:5 etc. Matthew 25:31ff indicates that the Righteous and the Wicked are separated at this point, the latter to Hell, the former to their ‘inheritance’ – the Renewed earth. The destiny of demons is settled – they are removed from this sphere, and damned to Hell with those rejecting the Lordship of Christ – Matthew 25:41.

(d) To establish the New Earth: the cursed earth is laid bare, and the Renewed Earth formed, 2 Peter 3:7, 10, 12, 13; cf. Acts 3:21. Just as we are resurrected, so is the earth – Romans 8:18-24. The ancient promise to righteous Israelites, those who truly walked in the faith of Abraham, that they would inherit the Land, Psalm 37:11, and renewed to the cosmopolitan True Israel at the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:5, where it is expanded to include the entire earth, now comes to fruition, in fulfilment of the covenant-promise to Abraham that his offspring would inherit the Land and ultimately, the earth – Romans 4:13. This brings us full circle to the promises to the Patriarchs, and demonstrates the logical consistency of the Biblical position. What is important for us at this point is that this is effected by the Return of Christ in glory.

[iv] Place?

There is no indication in the New Testament of Christ returning to any particular locality – not even in Revelation 20. Acts 1:11 speaks only of the manner of the event. Appeal is sometimes made to Zechariah 14:4 – that He will tip His toe on the Mount of Olives, but this is unviable because:

(a) The language is anthropomorthic – no first century Jew imagined YHWH as having literal, physical feet (cf. Old Testament terms like ‘outstretched arm’, ‘the Hand of YHWH’, etc.). Furthermore, there is no indication that this is a Messianic prophecy; usually, such predictions are couched in terms describing the Messiah as ‘David’, ‘the Branch’, etc. However, such titles or descriptions are completely absent.

(b) The second half of Zechariah belongs to the genre of apocalyptic and prophetic imagery – and so should not be interpreted in a crass literalistic fashion.

(c) The text speaks of the Temple, localised worship, and sacrifices, v21 – all obsolete in the New Testament age – Hebrews 8:13.

(d) Zechariah 14 is set in a time of war, whereas the New Testament represents Jesus as returning at a time of peace. Further, Christ’s conflict with the demonic forces is cosmic and spiritual, not physical.

(e) The New Testament presents Jesus as being in the air and then on the throne at His coming: and the fact that the Judgment and the Resurrection occur at this time would seem to undermine a literal understanding of Zechariah 14.

(f) At any rate, the old earth is laid bare at His coming, so old localities are destroyed. 

We can summarize Biblical teaching on the Return of Christ by examining the Westminster Confession of Faith declares about the Second Coming of Christ in Chapter XXXIII – ‘Of the Last Judgment’:

1. God has appointed a day, wherein He will judge the world, in righteousness, by Jesus Christ, to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father. In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged, but likewise all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil.

2. The end of God’s appointing this day is for the manifestation of the glory of His mercy, in the eternal salvation of the elect; and of His justice, in the damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient. For then shall the righteous go into everlasting life, and receive that fullness of joy and refreshing, which shall come from the presence of the Lord; but the wicked who know not God, and obey not the Gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power.

3. As Christ would have us to be certainly persuaded that there shall be a day of judgment, both to deter all men from sin; and for the greater consolation of the godly in their adversity: so will He have that day unknown to men, that they may shake off all carnal security, and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour the Lord will come; and may be ever prepared to say, Come Lord Jesus, come quickly, Amen.

B. The Islamic view

Muslims are agreed that Jesus will return to earth one day. It is an essential element of their faith. However, there is little or no indication in the Qur’an that this will definitely occur. The text that is usually presented as evidence for this is S. Az-Zukhruf 43:61 – ‘And (Jesus) shall be a Sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgment): therefore have no doubt about the (Hour) but follow ye Me: this is a Straight Way.’ Yusuf Ali comments: ‘This is understood to refer to the second coming of Jesus in the Last Days before the Resurrection, when he will destroy the false doctrines that pass under his name, and prepare the way for the universal acceptance of Islam, the Gospel of Unity and Peace, the Straight Way of the Qur’an. (43.61)’

Gilchrist observes that this interpretation commands wide support among Muslims: ‘Maulana Abdul Majid Daryabadi also has a similar comment on this verse in his translation, saying “The reference is to the second advent of Jesus” (The Holy Qur’an, Vol.2, p.493B). Indeed the vast majority of Muslim commentators take Surah 43.61 to be a prophecy of the descension of Jesus to earth, an interpretation sustained for centuries in Muslim writings. The anticipated event has become known as the nuzul-i-Isa, the “descension of Jesus”.’ 39

However, it should be observed that Yusuf Ali is interpreting, rather than strictly translating the Arabic here at this point (which can be either ‘it’ or ‘he’ – obviously, Yusuf Ali chooses the latter pronoun to make it refer to Jesus); Pickthall renders it ‘there is knowledge of the Hour’, which is closer to the original, especially as ilm is usually translated by ‘knowledge’ rather than ‘sign’. It does well to examine the context:

57 When (Jesus) the son of Mary is held up as an example behold thy people raise a clamour thereat (in ridicule)!

58 And they say ‘Are Our gods best or He?’ This they set forth to thee only by way of disputation: yea they are a contentious people.

59 He was no more than a servant: We granted Our favour to him and We made him an example to the Children of Israel.

60 And if it were Our Will We could make angels from amongst you succeeding each other on the earth.

61 And (Jesus) shall be a Sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgment): therefore have no doubt about the (Hour) but follow ye Me: this is a Straight Way.

62 Let not the Evil One hinder you: for he is to you an enemy avowed.

63 When Jesus came with Clear Signs he said: ‘Now have I come to you with Wisdom and in order to make clear to you some of the (points) on which ye dispute: therefore fear Allah and obey me.

64 ‘For Allah; He is my Lord and your Lord: so worship ye Him: this is a Straight Way.’

65 But sects from among themselves fell into disagreement: then woe to the wrongdoers from the Penalty of a Grievous Day!

66 Do they only wait for the Hour that it should come on them all of a sudden while they perceive not?

It should be remembered that the objects of the passage are the pagans, rather than Jews or Christians. The assertion that Jesus was only a ‘servant’ in v59 is in response to the mockery of the Meccans that Jesus was a foreign god, and is not directed at Christian dogma. It merely corrects the defamation by the pagans. Previously in the chapter, Moses is presented as a messenger who faced mockery from the pagans, vv. 46-47, 54. As a result of the Egyptian obstinacy, the pagans were destroyed, v55, as an example for others, v. 56. Similarly, the contemporary pagans mocked Jesus when Muhammad referred to Him, and again, Jesus is quoted as an example, v57. As elsewhere, there is obvious typological correspondence here – the Meccans mocked Muhammad, as previous messengers were mocked by the peoples to whom they were sent – vv. 6-7 – ‘How many a Prophet did We send among the men of old. And never came there unto them a Prophet but they used to mock him.’ The next verse, v8, recounts that the recalcitrant were destroyed by Allah, an example for others. Like Muhammad, the former messengers were ‘warners’, v23 – specifically of the Hour of Judgment.

It is important to note that the antecedent verse to ayah 61 refers not to Jesus, but to the angels. The connection between v59 – where Jesus is presented as an example to Israel –i.e. of warning, and v60, where it states that if Allah had willed, he could have set angels as viceroys on the earth, is that the Meccans are presented as worshipping the angels, and claiming they were female – vv. 16-20. In this light, we can see that v60 is denying the pagan claim that the Daughters of Allah were ‘partners’ with Allah; rather, they – the angels – were subject to Him, to the extent that if Allah willed, He could have sent them to be His deputies on the earth – thus making mockery of the assertion that they were co-equal objects of power and devotion alongside Him.

Hence, the warning for polytheists is that Allah has set a Day for Judgment – the fact that Allah is uniquely sovereign – to the extent that He can command the angels – is for knowledge of the Hour. No one should doubt the reality of the Hour, and that Allah alone has knowledge of it – a persistent theme in the Qur’an, e.g. S. 7:187; 31:34; 33:63; 41:47. This becomes especially apparent when we compare 43:61 with a verse later in the chapter, but continuing the theme of the passage under consideration – v85 ‘And blessed is He unto Whom belongeth the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them, and with Whom there is knowledge of the Hour…’ Of course, this sovereign power is exercised even over the angels. Just as previous messengers like Jesus declared, as Muhammad now reiterated, people should only worship Allah. Those worshipping others than He should note that it has been revealed that there is an Hour of Judgment, when the pagans will be destroyed, cf. v66. This is the import of the passage.

It follows from all this that S. 43:61 is not predicting the Second Coming of Christ. Possibly, one reason Muslim exegetes have sought to hang the doctrine on this particular verse is that in its absence, there is no clear indication in the Qur’an of the Second Coming of Christ, and the ambiguity of this text allows them to suggest this ayah as its foundation. Undoubtedly, Muslims have been prompted to uphold the Second Coming of Christ because otherwise, there is a glaring logical inconsistency in the Qur’an concerning Jesus. Surah Maryam 19:33 presents Jesus as stating ‘So Peace is on me the day I was born the day that I die and the Day that I shall be raised up to life (again)’. This demands that Jesus one day expire, and be resurrected. Obviously, if Jesus is in Paradise, He cannot die, so logically, He must return to earth again if only for this purpose.

In all probability, it is partly also for this reason that the Hadith traditions about the Second Coming of Christ emerged. Gilchrist notes that ‘The Hadith teach unambiguously that Jesus will return towards the end of the world. There are no less than seventy accredited traditions supporting this doctrine and they are regarded as mutawatir, “universally-attested” traditions of unquestioned reliability.’ (Gilchrist, Nuzul-i-Isa, p. 8.)) Indeed, this is most definitely the unambiguous testimony of many ahadith, which begs the question as to why there is such an abundance of clear texts in the Hadith corpus when there is so little (or even nothing) in the Qur’an on the subject? The difference is salutary, and reveals a logical inconsistency between the Qur’an and Hadith. There is no logical progression between the inactivity of Jesus in Paradise and what He does at His return.

Further inconsistencies concern the difference on the one hand between the paucity of references to the work of Christ in general in the Qur’an, where He does precious little, and further, which are relatively trivial in comparison to Muhammad, and on the other to the abundance of information on the crucial work Jesus performs after His return. Again, given His very secondary and textually impoverished work in the Qur’an in contrast to Muhammad, why is it He, rather than Muhammad, who performs such a vital eschatological role before the Hour? Once again, we see that Islamic doctrine is devoid of logical progression and consistency.

[i] Timing

The Hadith traditions link Christ’s return with a conflict between the Roman (i.e. Byzantine Empire) and the Muslims, and with the emergence of the Antichrist. Obviously, this tradition is embarrassing for modern Muslim exegetes since the Byzantine Empire ceased to exist in the fifteenth century! 40 The Hadith is even more uncomfortable for Muslims holding to the infallibility of prophetic revelation, or at least that ahadith are reliable guides, since it states that one third of the Islamic army will immediately proceed to conquer Constantinople – at the time the capital of the Byzantine Empire. The problem is, the city was actually conquered by the Muslim Ottomans in 1453! On this basis, the return of Christ should have occurred centuries ago. The fact that it did not happen disproves the Hadith as a reliable guide, and as such, raises questions about Islam itself.

This is further compounded by the fact that according to sahih ahadith, Muhammad expected Jesus to return imminently, which leaves Muslims with the unenviable option that either Muhammad was mistaken, and thus not a true prophet, or that the Hadith corpus is questionable as a reliable source:

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.657Narrated by Abu HurairaAllah’s Apostle said, “By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, surely (Jesus,) the son of Mary will soon descend amongst you and will judge mankind justly (as a Just Ruler); he will break the Cross and kill the pigs and there will be no Jizya (i.e. taxation taken from non-Muslims). Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it, and a single prostration to Allah (in prayer) will be better than the whole world and whatever is in it.” Abu Huraira added “If you wish, you can recite (this verse of the Holy Book): ‘And there is none of the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (i.e. Jesus as an Apostle of Allah and a human being) Before his death. And on the Day of Judgment He will be a witness against them.” (4.159)Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 3.425Narrated by Abu HurairaAllah’s Apostle said, “By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the cross and kill the pig and abolish the Jizya (a tax taken from the non-Muslims who are in the protection of the Muslim government). Then there will be abundance of money and nobody will accept charitable gifts.

A further problem for Muslims is that many of the ahadith relating to the Second Coming of Christ refer to Him killing the Dajjal al-Masih – the Antichrist. Yet there are traditions indicating that the Dajjal was alive at the time of Muhammad, someone by the name of Ibn Sayyad, and since he can ultimately be killed, we have to assume that he was a man, not a demon or something else. 41 Given that Jesus has not returned, that must mean that Ibn Sayyad is getting very long in the tooth! Either that, or he died, undermining the eschatological prophecies of Islam. A recent Muslim publication refers to the Dajjal in a way that seems to be an attempt to explain away this contradiction: ‘…the Dajjal, the person, the final leader of the Roman (i.e. Western) One World Empire, a man of Jewish descent (described in the Hadith in the likeness of a Jew by name of Ibn Sayyad…’ 42 However, the texts do not state that the Dajjal is like Ibn Sayyad, but indicate that he is indeed the Antichrist.

Another tradition implies that he cannot be killed – except, we presume in the light of other traditions, by Jesus. 43 It should be noted that yet another text indicates that the Dajjal should have appeared and been overcome by the Muslims after the succession of their victories against Arabia, Persia and the Byzantines. A similar tradition about the Muslims fighting the Byzantines and then hearing of the activity of the Dajjal excludes reference to Jesus. Another, strange tradition (also excluding reference to Jesus) indicates that Constantinople will be conquered by Jews apparently converted to Islam, who will there learn of the actions of the Dajjal. According to one hadith, Ibn Sayyad disappeared after a battle.44

What is particularly incongruous is that one hadith claims that every prophet since Noah predicted the coming of the Dajjal! 45 Why this should be so, given what little the Qur’an states about Jesus, is difficult to fathom. The natural assumption is of a figure in opposition to Muhammad, rather than Jesus. Certainly, we never find Jesus in the Qur’an predicting the coming of the Antichrist, nor anyone nor anything comparable. Indeed, we never find any prophet in the Qur’an – not even Muhammad – making such a prophecy. We have to depend entirely on the Hadith for this information. This is perhaps the best indication that the entire dogmas of the Second Coming of Jesus and the Antichrist have been borrowed and adapted from Christian sources. The idea of the last battle was probably borrowed from traditions about Armageddon, as a recent Muslim publication inadvertently suggests by referring to these events as ‘the Muslim version of Armageddon…’ 46

[ii] Its Nature

The Second Coming according to Islam will have the following features:

(a) Personal

The very fact that Jesus fights and ultimately dies after His return is evidence that His return is literal, not spiritual. This undermines Qadiani assertions about their founder, Mirza Ghulam Ahmed, being the spiritual Second Coming of Jesus. 47

(b) Physical

This is implied in our previous point. From the descriptions in the Hadith, it is clear that Jesus bodily returns to the earth. His marriage and begetting of children surely demand this, as does the fact that He will die:

Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith 4310

Narrated by AbuHurayrah

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (peace be upon him). He will descend (to the earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him.

(c) Visible

The hadith we examined in the previous section, with the imperative that Jesus should be recognised, implies that His return will be visible. However, given that according to another hadith, He seems to return to a normal earth, and to a specific locality – Damascus – it is unlikely that we should compare this with the Biblical portrait.

Sahih Muslim Hadith 7015

Narrated by An-Nawwas ibn Sam’an

…It will at this very time that Allah will send Christ, son of Mary. He will descend at the white minaret on the eastern side of Damascus, wearing two garments lightly dyed with saffron and placing his hands on the wings of two Angels…

(d) Expected

There does not appear to be the same indication that Jesus will return like a thief in the night. Rather, the traditions, without giving a definite, specific date as to His return, do indicate the occasion wherein His descent occurs. We have already seen that one tradition relates this to the conquest of Constantinople, and others to the emergence of the Dajjal. Given that the Dajjal is said to appear either forty days, forty months or forty years before the coming of Christ, it should be possible to plot the timing of Christ’s descent, even to the point of the exact minute, since He returns at the time for prayer, and so the element of sudden surprise is absent from the Islamic presentation.

Sahih Muslim Hadith 7023Narrated by Abdullah ibn AmrSomeone came to him and said: What is this hadith that you narrate that the Last Hour will come at a certain time? Thereupon he said: Hallowed be Allah, there is no god but Allah (or words to the same effect). I have decided that I shall not narrate anything to anyone now. I have only said that you will see after some time an important event: that the (sacred) House (Ka’bah) will be burnt and it definitely happen. He then reported that Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: The Dajjal will appear in my Ummah and he will stay (in the world) for forty – I cannot say whether he meant forty days, forty months or forty years. Allah will then send Jesus, son of Mary, who will resemble Urwah ibn Mas’ud. He (Jesus Christ) will chase him and kill him. Then people will live for seven years, during which time there will be no rancour between any two persons. After that Allah will send a cold wind from the direction of Syria. None will survive on Earth, having a speck of good in him or faith in him: he will die. Even if some among you were to enter the innermost part of the mountain, this wind would reach that place also and cause your death. I heard Allah’s Apostle (peace be upon him) as saying: Only the wicked people will survive and they will be as careless as birds with the characteristics of beasts. They will never appreciate good nor condemn evil. Then Satan will come to them, in human form, and would say: Don’t you respond? They will say: What do you order us to do? He will command them to worship the idols but, in spite of this, they will have an abundance of sustenance and lead comfortable lives. Then the trumpet will be blown and he who hears it will bend his neck to one side and raise it from the other side. The first one to hear that trumpet will be the person who is busy in setting right the cistern meant for supplying water to the camels. He will faint and the other people will also faint. Then Allah will send or He will cause to be sent rain which will be like dew and there will grow out of it the bodies of people. Then the second trumpet will be blown and they will stand up and begin to look (around). Then it will be said: O people, go to your Lord. They will be made to stand there and they will be questioned. Then it will be said: Bring out a group (of them) for the Hell-Fire. It will be asked: How much? It will be said: Nine hundred and ninety-nine out of one thousand for the Hell-Fire. That will be the day that will make the children old because of its terror and that will be the day about which it has been said: “On the day when the shank will be uncovered”.Sahih Muslim Hadith 6924Narrated by AbuHurayrahAllah’s Apostle (peace be upon him) said: The Last Hour will not come until the Romans land at al-A’maq or in Dabiq. An army consisting of the best (soldiers) of the people on Earth at that time will come from Medina (to oppose them). When they arrange themselves in ranks, the Romans will say: Do not stand between us and those (Muslims) who took prisoners from among us. Let us fight them. The Muslims will say: Nay, by Allah, we shall never turn aside from you and from our brethren so that you may fight them. They will then fight and a third (part) of the army, whom Allah will never forgive, will run away. A third (part of the army), which will be constituted of excellent martyrs in Allah’s eyes, would be killed. The third who will never be put on trial will win and they will be the conquerors of Constantinople. As they are busy in distributing the spoils of war (amongst themselves) after hanging their swords by the olive trees, Satan will cry: The Dajjal has taken your place among your families. They will then come out, but it will be of no avail. When they reach Syria, he will come out while they are still preparing themselves for battle, drawing up the ranks. Certainly, the time of prayer will come and then Jesus (peace be upon him), son of Mary, descend and will lead them in prayer. When the enemy of Allah see him, it will (disappear) just as salt dissolves in water and if he (Jesus) were not to confront them at all, even then it would dissolve completely. Allah would kill them by his hand and he would show them their blood on his lance (the lance of Jesus Christ).

(e) Decisive?

Inasmuch as the traditions relate that Jesus will slay the Dajjal during a great battle, then convert the world to Islam, and thereafter rule for forty years, it can be argued that a definite change occurs in History. However, History as we know it does not end with the return of Christ – the End, though imminent, does not occur as yet, and He has minimal role in the Resurrection and Judgement, as we have seen. One tradition, however, does imply that His return is linked to the Resurrection, although it must be said that it contradicts other ahadith and the Qur’an:

Sahih Muslim Hadith 293

Narrated by Jabir ibn Abdullah

I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) say: A section of my people will not cease fighting for the Truth and will prevail till the Day of Resurrection. He said: Jesus son of Mary would then descend and their (Muslims’) commander would invite him to come and lead them in prayer, but he would say: No, some amongst you are commanders over some (amongst you). This is the honour from Allah for this Ummah.

(f) Glorious?

The Islamic Jesus, like the Biblical Jesus, returns accompanied by angels, though in a different way:

Sahih Muslim Hadith 7015

Narrated by An-Nawwas ibn Sam’an

…It will at this very time that Allah will send Christ, son of Mary. He will descend …placing his hands on the wings of two Angels…

However, in the Islamic narrative, only two angels return with Him, and do so for the obvious reason that He cannot fly! There is nothing comparable to the Biblical narrative where myriad angels accompany Jesus as His heavenly retinue. Jesus returns to conquer in the Islamic portrait, rather than as conqueror, following the Biblical presentation. Given that He eventually dies, the Islamic narrative does not present the glorious picture of Jesus we find in the Bible.

[iii] Its Purpose

(a) To destroy the Dajjal

We have already seen traditions that Jesus slays the Dajjal, and we can quote Abu-Dawood 4310 on this ‘…He will destroy the Antichrist….’ This occurs in a literal battle in Palestine, near Lydda. The Muslim idea of Christ killing the Dajjal probably resulted from a misunderstanding of 2 Thessalonians 2:8, which refers to Jesus destroying the Man of Lawlessness ‘with the breath of his mouth, and bring to nought by the manifestation of his coming’. Neither in the Bible nor the Qur’an do we ever encounter Jesus physically killing anyone, again indicating that the Islamic presentation is devoid of logical consistency and progression.

Part of the problem is the identity of the Antichrist. There have been many candidates for the post, from Nero to Hitler, though the Reformers and the Puritans were keen on recognising the Papacy as an institution as the guilty party: Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXV, article VI: ‘There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof, but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.’ When we examine the most extensive treatment of the subject in the first epistle of John, although one cannot be dogmatic about this, the indications are that ‘antichrist’ is generic, rather than individual title, referring to incipient Gnosticism:

1 John 2:18 ‘Little children, it is the last hour: and as you heard that antichrist comes, even now have there arisen many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last hour’; 1 John 2:22 ‘Who is the liar but he that denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, even he that denies the Father and the Son’; 1 John 4:3 ‘and every spirit that confesses not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming; and now it is in the world already’; 2 John 1:7 ‘For many deceivers are gone forth into the world, even those that do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.’

Chilton, after examining these texts, aptly states that ‘…Antichrist is a description of both the system of apostasy andindividual apostates. In other words, Antichrist was the fulfilment of Jesus’ prophecy that a time of great apostasy would come, when ” many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and will mislead many” (Matthew 24:10-11).’ 48 When Jesus returns, all that stood against Him will be destroyed in Hell. No one will be physically killed. The terminology in 2 Thessalonians 2:8 is metaphorical in this respect. Significantly, the Islamic Jesus destroys some of the Wicked by His body odour (!), suggesting an adaptation of the Biblical portrait:

Sahih Muslim Hadith 7015

Narrated by An-Nawwas ibn Sam’an

…It will at this very time that Allah will send Christ, son of Mary… Every non-believer who smells the odour of his body will die and his breath will reach as far as he is able to see. He will then search for him (Dajjal) until he catches hold of him at the gate of Ludd and kills him…

In the final analysis, the Islamic Christ’s destruction of the Dajjal contrasts most unfavourably with the Biblical Christ’s glorious if grim role in the Final Judgment of all the Wicked.

(b) To establish the global supremacy of Islam

In the Bible, when Jesus returns the Final Judgment ensues, and only true, born-again Christians remain to inherit the new earth. It is then too late to repent and receive Christ as Saviour. However, this is not the case with Islam. Christ’s return ends the presence of all other religions, including Judaism and Christianity. In one tradition Allah Himself is the Agent of this, albeit occurring as a consequence of the Second Coming. In other traditions, Jesus plays an active role, especially against Jews and Christians. He destroys crosses and pigs, and abolishes the Jizyah, because Jews and Christians (and all other religious believers) having been slain, there is no place for it.

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 3.656Narrated by Abu HurairaAllah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you as a just ruler, he will break the cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the Jizya tax. Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it (as charitable gifts).Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 3.425Narrated by Abu HurairaAllah’s Apostle said, “By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the cross and kill the pig and abolish the Jizya (a tax taken from the non-Muslims who are in the protection of the Muslim government). Then there will be abundance of money and nobody will accept charitable gifts.Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith 4310Narrated by AbuHurayrahThe Prophet (peace be upon him) said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (peace be upon him). He will descend (to the earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him.Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.657Narrated by Abu HurairaAllah’s Apostle said, “By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, surely (Jesus,) the son of Mary will soon descend amongst you and will judge mankind justly (as a Just Ruler); he will break the Cross and kill the pigs and there will be no Jizya (i.e. taxation taken from non-Muslims). Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it, and a single prostration to Allah (in prayer) will be better than the whole world and whatever is in it.” Abu Huraira added “If you wish, you can recite (this verse of the Holy Book): ‘And there is none of the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (i.e. Jesus as an Apostle of Allah and a human being) Before his death. And on the Day of Judgment He will be a witness against them.” (4.159)

Squires quotes the 12th Century Muslim writer Ibn Taymiyyah on the subject:

“Almighty God did not state that Christ died, nor that he was killed. He said, rather: “0 Jesus, I am gathering you and causing you to ascend to Me, and am cleansing you of those who disbelieve”(Qur’an 3:55)… When he descends, the Jews and Christians will believe that he is the messenger of God — not rejecting him as do the Jews now, nor claiming that he is God as do the Christians. God states that they will put faith in him when he descends to earth. It is stated that he was raised up to God when He said: “I am gathering you and causing you to ascend to Me” (Qur’an 3:55). He will descend to earth before the Day of Resurrection and then he will die. By this God has informed us that they will believe in him before Christ’s death, as He also says elsewhere (Qur’an 43:59-65). In the sound hadith reports from the Prophet he said:

It is impending that the son of Mary will descend among you as a just judge, a righteous imam; he will break the cross, kill the pig, and impose the jizya. 49

Another modern Muslim writer after examining the traditions about establishing the supremacy of Islam and the destruction of other faiths, states the following:

‘To break the Cross and kill the swine’ means that Christianity will cease to exist as a separate religion. The entire creed of Christianity is based on the doctrine that God caused His only son (the Prophet Jesus) to die an ‘accursed’ death on the Cross, which made him the Atonement for the sin of man. And the distinction of the Christians among the prophetic communities is that they abandoned the whole Divine Law and only took this doctrine; so much so that they made the swine lawful, which was forbidden in the Law of all the Prophets. Therefore, when the Prophet Jesus will himself declare: ‘I am neither son of God, nor did I die on the Cross, nor became atonement for anybody’s sin,’ the Christian faith will have no basis left for it. Likewise, when he will declare that he had neither made the swine lawful for his followers nor given them the freedom to disobey the Law, the other distinctions of Christianity will also disappear.

In other words it means: ‘All kinds of differences among the communities will disappear and human beings will join one community, the Community of Islam; thus, war will be put to an end to, and jizyah will cease to be imposed.’ 50

(c) To rule for forty years

There is abundant evidence from the Hadith that Jesus will rule after His return, having slain the Antichrist and destroyed all other religions:

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 3.656Narrated by Abu HurairaAllah’s Apostle said, “… the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you as a just ruler, he will break the cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the Jizya tax. Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it (as charitable gifts).Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 3.425Narrated by Abu HurairaAllah’s Apostle said, “…son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the cross and kill the pig and abolish the Jizya (a tax taken from the non-Muslims who are in the protection of the Muslim government). Then there will be abundance of money and nobody will accept charitable gifts.

Effectively, Jesus becomes Caliph or Imam of the global Islamic State. Of course, this actually allows for Jesus to realise some aspect of the force of His title in the Qur’an – al-Masih, although in practice, this picture has nothing resembling the glorious reign of Christ for all eternity that we find following His Return in the Bible. It is limited – for no apparent reason – to a mere forty years! Then, after dying, He does not continue to reign in any sense, but presumably returns to the sensuous joys of Paradise. Once again, Islam dogma is incongruous, and deficient in logical consistency and progression. Whilst on the earth, Christ’s reign is characterised by material prosperity, religious exclusivism, and the implementation of the Shari’ah – the Christians are warned about the supercession of the Injil by the Qur’an in the following hadith:

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.658

Narrated by Abu Huraira

Allah’s Apostle said “How will you be when the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you and he will judge people by the Law of the Qur’an and not by the law of Gospel?

However, despite the fact that Jesus judges upon His Second Coming, He does not return to effect the Last Judgment. Squires specifically denies this:

This is because all of the Qur’anic verses and hadeeths that refer to Jesus’ death refer when he returns to earth in the time of the Mahdi. However, your statement that ‘…when Jesus comes back to Earth to judge people (including Muhammad? – interesting to know what you think about this)’, is not correct. It seems as though you’ve confused Christian beliefs with Muslim beliefs. As the last paragraph of Ibn Taymiyyah’s quotation said, Islam certainly does not teach that Jesus, peace be upon him, will come to judge people – especially Muhammad, peace be upon him. Neither the Qur’an nor the authentic hadeeths record such a thing… 51

Another incongruous tradition, is that despite Jesus returning to be the Emir of the globe, He rejects the honour of leading Salat, probably because Islam wants to undermine the status given Him in the Bible as our great High Priest:

Sahih Muslim Hadith 293

Narrated by Jabir ibn Abdullah

I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) say: A section of my people will not cease fighting for the Truth and will prevail till the Day of Resurrection. He said: Jesus son of Mary would then descend and their (Muslims’) commander would invite him to come and lead them in prayer, but he would say: No, some amongst you are commanders over some (amongst you). This is the honour from Allah for this Ummah.

A further problem in the Islamic eschatological schema is that of the role of the Mahdi, the rightly-guided one, who fills the world with justice and righteousness. Shi’ite Muslims identify him with the Twelfth Imam. Sunni Muslims merely reckon him to be a descendant of Muhammad through his daughter Fatima. The concept is absent from the Qur’an, found only in the Hadith: Yusuf Ali comments:

For: 4.159

Before his death: Interpreters are not agreed as to the exact meaning. Those who hold that Jesus did not die refer the pronoun ‘his’ to Jesus. They say that Jesus is still living in the body and that he will appear just before the Final Day, after the coming of the Mahdi, when the world will be purified of sin and unbelief…

The Hadith reveals that the coming of the Mahdi, who will reign for seven years, will be an era of just government (i.e. Shari’ah) and material prosperity:

Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith 4272Narrated by AbuSa’id al-KhudriThe Prophet (peace be upon him) said: The Mahdi will be of my stock, and will have a broad forehead a prominent nose. He will fill the earth will equity and justice as it was filled with oppression and tyranny, and he will rule for seven years.Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith 4271Narrated by Umm Salamah, Ummul Mu’mininThe Prophet (peace be upon him) said: The Mahdi will be of my family, of the descendants of Fatimah. Abdullah ibn Ja’far said: I heard AbulMalih praising Ali ibn Nufayl and describing his good qualities.Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 5455Narrated by AbuSa’id al-KhudriThe Prophet (peace be upon him) said in the course of the story about the Mahdi, that a man would come to him and say, “Give me, give me, Mahdi,” and he would pour into his garment as much as he was able to carry.Tirmidhi transmitted it.Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 6278Narrated by Ja’far as-SadiqAllah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said, “…How can a people perish of which I am the first, the Mahdi the middle and the Messiah the last? But in the course of that there will be a crooked party which does not belong to me and to which I do not belong.”Razin transmitted it.Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith 4276ANarrated by Ali ibn AbuTalibAbuIshaq told that Ali looked at his son al-Hasan and said: This son of mine is a sayyid (chief) as named by the Prophet (peace be upon him), and from his loins will come forth a man who will be called by the name of your Prophet (peace be upon him) and resemble him in conduct but not in appearance. He then mentioned the story about his filling the earth with justice.Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith 4645Narrated by AbuBakrahThe Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said to al-Hasan ibn Ali. This son of mine is a Sayyid (chief), and I hope Allah may reconcile two parties of my community by means of him. Hammad’s version has: And perhaps Allah may reconcile two large parties of Muslims by means of him.Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith 4269Narrated by Abdullah ibn Mas’udThe Prophet (peace be upon him) said: If only one day of this world remained. Allah would lengthen that day (according to the version of Za’idah), till He raised up in it a man who belongs to me or to my family whose father’s name is the same as my father’s, who will fill the earth with equity and justice as it has been filled with oppression and tyranny (according to the version of Fitr). Sufyan’s version says: The world will not pass away before the Arabs are ruled by a man of my family whose name will be the same as mine.Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith 4270Narrated by Ali ibn AbuTalibThe Prophet (peace be upon him) said: If only one day of this time (world) remained, Allah would raise up a man from my family who would fill this earth with justice as it has been filled with oppression.Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith 4277Narrated by Ali ibn AbuTalibThe Prophet (peace be upon him) said: A man called al-Harith ibn Harrath will come forth from Ma Wara an-Nahr. His army will be led by a man called Mansur who will establish or consolidate things for Muhammad’s family as Quraysh consolidated them for the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him). Every believer must help him, or he said: respond to his sermons.

Again, there is a lack of logical progression here. It appears that the Mahdi does practically everything Jesus does, only within a shorter time-frame. In fact, from this, it appears that the crucial function of Jesus is to slay the Dajjal and end all other religions. Other than this, the golden age will have already existed for seven years prior to His coming, making ‘date-fixing’ for His return easier. Again, contradictions abound; if the world has been subjected to the rule of the Mahdi, how can we harmonise with other ahadith about the Muslims fighting the Romans? What happens to the Mahdi; does he abdicate in favour of Jesus, or is he killed by the Dajjal or someone else? There is a tradition which may relate to the Mahdi, and if this is so, he dies at the end of his seven year reign; the parallel between this figure and Jesus is such that it is even mentioned that las with the death of Jesus, the Muslims will recite funeral prayers over him:

Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith 4273

Narrated by Umm Salamah, Ummul Mu’minin

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: Disagreement will occur at the death of a caliph and a man of the people of Medina will come flying forth to Mecca. Some of the people of Mecca will come to him, bring him out against his will and swear allegiance to him between the Corner and the Maqam. An expeditionary force will then be sent against him from Syria but will be swallowed up in the desert between Mecca and Medina. When the people see that, the eminent saints of Syria and the best people of Iraq will come to him and swear allegiance to him between the Corner and the Maqam. Then there will arise a man of Quraysh whose maternal uncles belong to Kalb and send against them an expeditionary force which will be overcome by them, and that is the expedition of Kalb. Disappointed will be the one who does not receive the booty of Kalb. He will divide the property, and will govern the people by the Sunnah of their Prophet (peace be upon him) and establish Islam on Earth. He will remain seven years, then die, and the Muslims will pray over him.

(d) To marry

A tradition is quoted by the polemical Muslim writer ur-Rahim from the Kitab al Wafa’ of Ibn al-Jauzi that after His descent, Jesus will marry and have children. 52 It is likely that the tradition arose because of Muslim discomfort at the idea of an unmarried prophet, especially in the light of Muhammad’s polygamy. It may also be a reaction to the Biblical portrait of the Church being the spiritual Bride of Christ. However, there is a decided paucity of evidence for this tradition in the Hadith.

(e) To die

We have already seen that the death of Christ is required by the text of the Qur’an, and the Hadith resolves this embarrassment by relocating it to after His Second Coming. This is something of an anticlimax after Jesus destroying the Antichrist and presiding over a golden age. Undoubtedly, by presenting it in this way, Muslim authors hoped to undermine faith in Jesus as the eternal Messianic King. After all, as the Qadianis realised, it is embarrassing that Islam’s ‘Final Prophet’ died whilst its penultimate one remains alive! Masood quotes Mirza Ahmed ‘We cannot tolerate the thought that our Master [i.e. Muhammad] is dead and buried, while Jesus is alive and in Heaven. We feel humiliated before Christians.’ 53

It is quite clear both from S. 4:159 and the following ahadith that Jesus will die at the close of His forty-year reign:

Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith 4310Narrated by AbuHurayrah… He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die…Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.657Narrated by Abu Huraira…”If you wish, you can recite (this verse of the Holy Book): ‘And there is none of the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him … Before his death…” (4.159)

It is also clear from the fact that Muslims have prepared a grave for Him in Medina that they expect Jesus to die at this time:

Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 5772

Narrated by Abdullah ibn Salam

The description of Muhammad is written in the Torah and also that Jesus, son of Mary, will be buried along with him. AbuMawdud said that a place for a grave had remained in the house.

Tirmidhi transmitted it.

[iv] Place?

It can be seen from what the Hadith states that Jesus is believed to return to Damascus. Masood notes that Muslims will place a ladder for Him by the minaret so He can climb down!54 Again, this is in glaring contrast to the Biblical Return of Christ. Why Jesus should return to Syria is difficult to fathom, since the bulk of Jesus’ ministry – as Muslims agree – was in Palestine, so it would surely make more sense for Him to return to Jerusalem, Bethlehem or Nazareth. Even in the Muslim schema, Jesus then moves to Palestine.

In conclusion to our examination of the Second Coming of Christ , we should note that practically everything Jesus does after His return in the Islamic portrait could have been done by anyone else; in fact, we find almost exact equivalence with the activity of the Mahdi. The specific presence of Jesus is superfluous. This arises out of the contradictions of Islamic Christology and its careless borrowing from Christian sources. In many ways, the typology of prophethood is reversed. The Jesus of Islamic Christology in the end is essentially Muhammad transmogrified into Christ.

As Muhammad moved from Mecca to Medina to escape persecution by the pagans, so Jesus is rapt to Paradise to escape the Jews. As Muhammad later returned in triumph to Mecca after physically fighting his foes, Jesus returns from His place of ‘Hijrah’ to literally fight His enemies. Just like Muhammad, the purpose of the jihad the Muslim Jesus fights against the foes of Islam is to establish a pure Islamic State. As ruler, just as Muhammad cleansed the holy city of Mecca of idols and instituted the pure worship of Allah, Jesus will similarly cleanse the holy city of Jerusalem, where He originally operated, by ridding Palestine – and the entire earth – of crosses and swine, supposed innovative religious corruptions by Christians of the primal Islamic doctrines of ‘the Muslim prophet’ Jesus. Like Muhammad, he rules according to the Shari’ah. Finally, like Muhammad, He marries and dies like any other human being.

Again, in order to harmonise the contradiction of Jesus being in Paradise when He must one day die, Islam borrows from Christian sources to present an eschatological Muhammad who is re-classified as Jesus who does on a grander scale what Islam’s prophet himself did – even to the point of warring against Jews and Christians! Of course, the pieces will not fit together, because the Jesus of Islam is not the Messiah of History – especially when we consider that History is His Story. To find the true Jesus, and a portrait that unlike Islam, is characterised by logical consistency and progression, we must look to the Bible alone.

References

1. Harris, M. J.,Raised Immortal: Resurrection and Immortality in the New Testament, (Marshall, Morgan and Scott, London, 1983), pp. 53-54.

2. Harris, Raised Immortal, p. 144.

3. Ladd, G. E., I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, (Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1975), pp. 63-64. See also Harris, Raised Immortal, pp. 95-96.

4. Robertson, O. Palmer, The Christ of the Covenants, (Presbyterian & Reformed, Phillipsburg, 1980), p. 220.

5. Wright, N. T., The New Testament and the People of God, (SPCK, London, 1992), p. 400.

6. Acts 2:24ff: 24 whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death: because it was not possible for Him to be held in its power. 29 Brothers, I may say to you freely of the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his throne; 31 he foreseeing this spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he left to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. 32 This Jesus did God raise up, of which we all are witnesses… 36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for sure, that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified. 37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brothers, what shall we do? 38 And Peter said to them, Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ to the remission of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

7. Harris, Raised Immortal, p. 73.

8. Masood, Steven, Jesus and the Indian Messiah, (Word of Life, Oldham, 1994), p. 49.

9. Deedat, Ahmed,Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction, (IPC, Birmingham, 1984), p. 43.

10. Gilchrist, John, The Crucifixion of Christ: A Fact, Not Fiction, (Jesus to the Muslims, Benoni, 1985), pp. 15-16.

11. Deedat, Ahmed,Resurrection or Resuscitation, http://home2.swipnet.se/~w-20479/Resur.htm

12. GENERAL TEACHING FROM THE QUR’AN:
    Surah Al-Qiyamat 75 1 I do call to witness the Resurrection Day; 3 Does man think that We cannot assemble his bones?… 4 Nay We are able to put together in perfect order the very tips of his fingers.
    Surah Al-Hajj 22 5 O mankind! if ye have a doubt about the Resurrection (consider) that We created you out of dust then out of sperm then out of a leech-like clot then out a morsel of flesh partly formed and partly unformed in order that We may manifest (Our Power) to you; and We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term then do We bring you out as babes then (foster you) that ye may reach your age of full strength; and some of you are called to die and some are sent back to the feeblest old age so that they know nothing after having known (much). And (further) thou seest the earth barren and lifeless but when We pour down rain on it, it is stirred (to life) it swells and it puts forth every kind of beautiful growth (in pairs). 6 This is so because Allah is the Reality: it is He Who gives life to the dead and it is He Who has power over all things. 7 And verily the Hour will come: there can be no doubt about it or about (the fact) that Allah will raise up all who are in the graves.
    Surah Al-Baqara 2 258 Hast thou not turned thy vision to one who disputed with Abraham about his Lord because Allah had granted him power? Abraham said: “My Lord is He Who Giveth life and death.” He said: “I give life and death.” Said Abraham: “but it is Allah that causeth the sun to rise from the East do thou then cause him to rise from the West.” Thus was he confounded who (in arrogance) rejected faith. Nor doth Allah give guidance to a people unjust. 259 Or (take) the similitude of one who passed by a hamlet all in ruins to its roofs. He said: “Oh! how shall Allah bring it (ever) to life after (this) its death?” But Allah caused him to die for a hundred years then raised him up (again). He said: “How long didst thou tarry (thus)?” He said: “(perhaps) a day or part of a day.” He said: “Nay thou hast tarried thus a hundred years; but look at thy food and thy drink; they show no signs of age; and look at thy donkey: and that We may make of thee a Sign unto the people look further at the bones how We bring them together and clothe them with flesh! When this was shown clearly to him he said: “I know that Allah hath power over all things.” 260 Behold! Abraham said: “My Lord! show me how thou givest life to the dead. He said: “Dost thou not then believe?” He said: “Yea! but to satisfy my own understanding.” He said: “Take four birds; tame them to turn to thee; put a portion of them on every hill and call to them; they will come to thee (flying) with speed. Then know that Allah is Exalted in Power Wise.”
    THE RIGHTEOUS:
    AL-RISALA (Maliki Manual)
    1.05 RESURRECTION AND JUDGEMENT
    Surely the Resurrection will come to pass, there is no doubt about it; and surely Allah will raise to life the dead as He created them before.
    And surely Allah shall multiply the reward of His faithful servants, and forgive them their major sins when they repent. He shall forgive them their venial sins when they keep away from the mortal sins. He shall deal with the person who failed to repent from mortal sins, in accordance with His wishes. Allah shall not forgive associating other deities with Him, but shall forgive whom He wills for committing sins which fall short of that.
    He would bring out of hellfire the faithful servant He punishes and would cause him to enter paradise. Whoever does good of the size of an atom shall be rewarded for it. Those of the Prophet’s community who committed mortal sins shall be taken out of hellfire through the intercession of the Prophet.
    Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 4459, Narrated by Ka’b ibn Murrah, “Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said, ‘If anyone grows a grey hair in Islam it will be a light to him on the Day of Resurrection.'” Tirmidhi and Nasa’i transmitted it.
    Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith 4190, Narrated by Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-’As, “The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Do not pluck out grey hair. If any believer grows a grey hair in Islam, he will have light on the Day of Resurrection. (This is Sufyan’s version). Yahya’s version says: Allah will record on his behalf a good deed for it, and will blot out a sin for it.”
    Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith 2535, Narrated by Mu’adh ibn Jabal, “The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said: If anyone fights in Allah’s path as long as the time between two milkings of a she-camel, Paradise will be assured for him. If anyone sincerely asks Allah for being killed and then dies or is killed, there will be a reward of a martyr for him. Ibn al-Musaffa added from here: If anyone is wounded in Allah’s path, or suffers a misfortune, it will come on the Day of resurrection as copious as possible, its colour saffron, and its odour musk; and if anyone suffers from ulcers while in Allah’s path, he will have on him the stamp of the martyrs.”
    Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 6.253, Narrated by Abu Huraira, “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘On the Day of Resurrection, a huge fat man will come who will not weigh, the weight of the wing of a mosquito in Allah’s Sight,” and then the Prophet added, “We shall not give them any weight on the Day of Resurrection.'” (18.105)
    Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 1.238, Narrated by Abu Huraira, “The Prophet said, ‘A wound which a Muslim receives in Allah’s cause will appear on the Day of Resurrection as it was at the time of infliction; blood will be flowing from the wound and its colour will be that of the blood but will smell like musk.'”
    Sahih Muslim Hadith 0750, Narrated by Mu’awiyah ibn AbuSufyan, “When the Mu’adhdhin called (Muslims) to prayer. Mu’awiyah said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) saying: The Mu’adhdhins will have the longest necks on the Day or Resurrection.”
    Sahih Muslim Hadith 367, Narrated by Jabir ibn Abdullah, “Jabir was asked about the arrival (of people on the Day of Resurrection). He said: We shall come on the Day of Resurrection like this like this and see, carefully that which concerns “elevated people”. He (the narrator) said: Then the people would be summoned with their idols whom they worshipped, one after another. Then our Lord would come to us and say: For whom are you waiting? They would say: We are waiting for our Lord. He would say: I am your Lord. They would say: (We are not sure) until we gaze at Thee. He would manifest Himself smilingly to them, and would go with them and they would follow Him. Every person, whether a hypocrite or a believer, would be endowed with a light. There would be spikes and hooks on the bridge of Hell, which would catch hold of those whom Allah will. Then the light of the hypocrites would be extinguished, and the believers would secure salvation. The first group to achieve it would comprise seventy thousand men who would have the brightness of the full moon on their faces, and they would not be called to account. Then the faces of the people immediately following them will be like the brightest stars in Heaven. This is how (the groups would follow one after another). Then the stage of intercession would come, and they (who are permitted to intercede) would intercede until he who has declared: “There is no god but Allah” and has in his heart virtue of the weight of a barley grain would come out of the Fire. They would be then brought into the courtyard of Paradise. The inhabitants of Paradise would begin to sprinkle water over them until they sprout like the sprouting of a plant in flood water, and their burns would disappear. They would ask their Lord until they are granted (the bounties) of the world and with them ten more besides.”
    Fiqh-us-Sunnah 4.89b, The Questioning in the Grave
    Al ahl al-Sunnah wa Al-Jama’ah agree that each person will be questioned after his death, whether he is buried or not. Even if a person were eaten by carnivorous animals or burnt to ashes and thrown into the air or drowned in the sea, he or she would be questioned about his or her deeds, and rewarded with good or evil depending on his or her deeds in life. Both the body and the soul together experience punishment or reward. Ibn al-Qayyim said, “The early Muslim community and its prominent scholars held that after death, a person is either in bliss or torment both physically and spiritually. After its separation from the body, the soul endures a state of happiness or punishment. At times, when the soul rejoins the body, both of them receive torture or joy. On the Day of Resurrection, the souls will be returned to the bodies and they will rise from their graves and stand before the Lord of the worlds. The Muslims, Christians, and Jews all believe in the resurrection of the body.
    Al-Maruzi related that Imam Ahmad said, “The punishment in the grave is a reality, and only he who is misguided or wants to misguide others denies it.” Hanbal said, “I asked Abu Abdallah about the punishment in the grave. He said, ‘These are the sound hadith and we believe in them and affirm them. We affirm everything that comes from the Prophet, peace be upon him, with a sound chain of narrators. If we were to confirm a report as being from the Prophet, peace be upon him, and then reject it or oppose it, we would be denying the Word of Allah, “Whatever the Messenger gives you, take it”.’ I asked him, ‘Is the punishment of the grave a reality?’ He said, ‘Yes, it is a reality. The people are punished in their graves. ‘ I heard Abu Abdallah saying, ‘We believe in the punishment of the grave, in Munkar and Nakir (the two questioning angels), and that the deceased will be questioned in their graves.’ The Qur’an states that ‘Allah will establish in strength those who believe in the Word, that stands firm in this world and in the Hereafter,’ Qur’an 14.27 that is, in the grave.”
    Ahmad ibn al-Qasim said, I asked, ‘O Abu Abdallah! Do you believe in Munkar and Nakir and what is related concerning the punishment of the grave? ‘ He said, ‘Glory to Allah. Yes, we do confirm that and we declare so.’I said, ‘This expression that you use, is it Munkar and Nakir? Or do you call them, “The two angels?”‘ He answered: ‘Munkar and Nakir.’I said, ‘They say, “There is no mention of Munkar and Nakir in the hadith”.’ He replied, ‘Of course there is. There is Munkar and Nakir’.”
    Al-Hafiz said in Al-Fath, “Ahmad ibn Hazm and Ibn Hubairah are of the opinion that the questioning is addressed to the soul only, without its returning to the body. The majority of Muslim scholars, however, disagree with them. They say, ‘The soul is returned to the body or some of it, as is confirmed by the hadith. Had the punishment been directed at the soul only, there would not be concern for the body. The scattered parts of a body should pose no problem, for Allah is able to give life to any part of a body, and then address the questioning to that particular part. Likewise, He is able to gather all its parts easily’.”
    Those who hold that the questioning will be addressed only to the soul say that if one were to examine the body in the grave at the time of the questioning, one will notice no trace of its sitting or any other movement. One will also notice that the grave is neither more narrow nor spacious. Similar is the case of those who are not buried in any grave, e.g., the people who are crucified. To counter this objection, it is maintained that it is not impossible. Rather, in physical life we find a similar example, namely, sleeping. A sleeping person experiences both pleasure and pain, but his companion cannot notice any of its effects on him. In fact, even a person who is wide awake also feels pain and pleasure when he hears or thinks of his painful or pleasant experiences, but its effects cannot be noticed. Considering the unseen in the light of what is seen or guessing about life after death in terms of the present life is the mistake of this fallacious thinking.
    Obviously Allah has screened the sights and sounds of the other world from man, and with our limited physical faculties, we are incapable of perceiving the vast kingdom of heavens, unless Allah wills it. The opinion of the majority in this respect is supported by various hadith. The Prophet, peace be upon him, for example, told us, “the deceased hears the sound of their footsteps”; “his ribs are altered because of the embrace of the grave”; “the sound of his voice resounds when the angel strikes him with a hammer”; “he is struck between his ears,” or “they (the two angels) will cause him to sit up.” All these hadith refer to various bodily conditions. We will mention here some of the sound hadith concerning this subject.
    Zaid ibn Thabit reported, “The Prophet, peace be upon him, was going with us toward the dwellings of Banu an-Najjar. He was riding a pony, which spooked and he nearly fell off. He found four, five, or six graves there, and asked, ‘Which of you knows about those lying in these graves?’ Someone said, ‘ I do . ‘ Thereupon the Prophet, peace be upon him, asked, ‘ In what state did they die? ‘ He replied, ‘They died as polytheists. ‘ He said, “These people are passing through an ordeal in the graves. You would stop burying your dead in the graves if you heard the torment in the grave that I hear. If it were not for this fact, I should have certainly made you listen to it.’ Then turning his face toward us, he admonished, ‘Seek refuge with Allah from the torment of Hell.’ They replied, ‘We seek refuge with Allah from the torment of Hell.’ He said, ‘Seek refuge with Allah from the torment of the grave.’ They said, ‘We seek refuge with Allah from the torment of the grave. ‘ He warned, ‘Seek refuge with Allah from temptations both visible and invisible.’ They replied, ‘We seek refuge with Allah from temptation (fitnah) in every visible and invisible form.’ Then he added, ‘Seek refuge with Allah from the temptation of the Dajjal.’ They said, ‘We seek refuge with Allah from the temptation of the Dajjal’.” (Muslim)
    Qatadah reported that Anas ibn Malik said, “The Prophet, peace be upon him, said, ‘When a human is laid in his grave and his companions return and he hears their footsteps, two angels will come to him and make him sit and ask him, “What did you say about this man, Muhammad, may peace be upon him?” He will say, “I testify that he is Allah’s servant and His Messenger.” Then it will be said to him, “Look at your place in Hell-Fire. Allah has exchanged for you a place in Paradise instead of it”.’ The Prophet, peace be upon him, added, ‘The dead person will see both his places. As for a non-believer or a hypocrite, he will respond to the angels, “I do not know, but I used to say what the people used to say ! ” It will be said to him, “Neither did you know nor did you seek guidance from those who had knowledge.” Then he will be hit with an iron hammer between his two ears, and he will cry and that cry will be heard by all except human beings and jinns’.” (Bukhari and Muslim)
    Al-Bara ibn ‘Azib reported: The Prophet, peace be upon him, said, ‘When a Muslim is questioned in his grave, he bears witness that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.’ According to one report, the verse, ‘Allah will establish in strength those who believe with the Word, that stands firm in this world and in the Hereafter’ (Qur’an 14.27) was revealed concerning the punishment of the grave. The deceased will be asked, ‘Who is your Lord?’ He will say, ‘Allah is my Lord and Muhammad is my Prophet.’ That is what is meant by the statement of Allah, ‘Allah will make firm those who believe with a firm statement in this life and in the hereafter’.” (Al-Bukhari, Muslim, and Sunan)
    Ahmad and Abu Hatim reported that the Prophet, peace be upon him, said, “When a deceased person is laid in his grave, he hears the sound of the footsteps of people as they go away. If he is a believer, the prayer will stand by his head, the fasting will be to his right, alms to his left, and all other good deeds of charity, kindness to relations, and good behaviour will be by his feet. The deceased will be questioned by the angels at his head. The prayer will say, ‘There is no entrance through me.’ Then he will be questioned by his right side where fasting will say, ‘There is no entrance through me.’ Then he will be questioned by his left side where charity will say, ‘There is no entrance through me.’ Then he will be questioned by his feet where the good acts of voluntary charity, kindness to relations, and good behaviour will say, ‘There is no entrance through me.’ Then they will say to him, ‘Get up.’ And he will get up. The sun will appear to him and it will begin to set. Then they will ask, ‘This man who was among you, what do you say about him? What is your testimony about him?’ The man will say, ‘Let me pray.’ The angels will say, ‘You will pray. Answer our question. What do you think about this man who was among you? What do you say concerning him? What do you testify concerning him?’ The deceased will say, I bear witness that Muhammad was the Messenger of Allah who brought the truth from Allah.’ The deceased will be told, ‘According to this you lived, died, and according to this you will be resurrected, if Allah wills.’
    “Then a door to Paradise will be opened for him. He will be told, ‘This is your place in Paradise and what Allah has prepared for you. ‘ At this the desire and happiness of the deceased will increase. His grave will be enlarged 70 arms-length and his grave will be lit up. His body will change to his original form and his spirit will be placed in a bird dangling by the trees of Paradise in a nice breeze.” The Prophet, peace be upon him, added, “That is what is meant by the statement of Allah, ‘Allah will establish in strength those who believe with the Word that stands firm, in this world and in the Hereafter’.” He also mentioned the unbeliever and said, “His grave will be compressed, so that his ribs will be crushed together. About this the Qur’an says, ‘Verily, for him is a narrow life and We will resurrect him blind on the Day of Resurrection’.” Qur’an 20.124
    Samura ibn Jundub reported, “The Prophet, peace be upon him, after the prayers would turn toward us and ask us, ‘Did any one of you have a dream?’ If someone had, he would relate it. Upon hearing it the Prophet, peace be upon him, would say, ‘Whatsoever Allah wills (is done).’ One day he questioned us saying, ‘Did anyone of you have a dream?’ They answered, ‘No.’ Then the Prophet, peace be upon him, said, ‘But I saw tonight two men. They came to me. They held my hand and took me to the holy land. We came across a man Iying down, and behold, another man was standing over his head, holding a big rock. Behold, he was throwing the rock at the man’s head, crushing it. The rock rolled away and the thrower followed it and brought it back. By the time he reached the man, his head was restored to its normal state. The thrower then did the same as he had done before. I asked my two companions, “Who are these two people?” They said, “Proceed!” So we proceeded and came to a man lying flat on his back and another man standing over his head with an iron hook. Behold, he would put the hook in one side of the man’s mouth and tear off that side of his face to the back of the neck and similarly tear his nose from front to back and his eye from front to back. Then he turned to the other side of the man’s face and did just as he had done with the other side. As soon as he tore one side, the other side returned to its normal state. Then he returned to it to repeat what he had done before. I said to my two companions, “Who are these two people?” They said to me, “Proceed!” So we proceeded and saw a hole like an oven, narrow at the top and wide at the bottom, and fire burning in it. In that oven there were naked men and women, and behold, flames of fire were reaching them from underneath, and when it reached them, they would be raised high until they were close to the mouth of the oven. Then the fire subsided and they went back inside it again. I asked, “Who are these?” They said to me, “Proceed!” And so we proceeded and came to a river of blood. And behold, in the middle of the river was a man standing, and on the bank there was one who had many stones. The man who was in the river would try to leave but the other man would throw rocks into his mouth so that he would return to where he was. Every time the former tried to leave, the other would throw rocks into his mouth. Then he would return to where he was. I asked, “Who are these people?” They replied, “Proceed! Proceed!” We proceeded until we came to a man with a repulsive appearance, the most repulsive appearance you ever saw in a man! Beside him there was a fire and he was kindling it and running around it. I asked my companions, “Who is this (man)?” They said to me, “Proceed! Proceed!” So we proceeded until we reached a garden of deep green dense vegetation, bedecked with all sorts of spring colours. In the middle of the garden there was a very tall man. I could hardly see his head because of his great height. And around him there were more children than I had ever seen before. I said to my companions, “Who is this?” They replied, “Proceed! Proceed!” So we proceeded until we came to a huge majestic garden, greater and better than I have ever seen! My two companions said to me, “Go up,” and I went up.’
    “The Prophet, peace be upon him, added, ‘So we ascended until we reached a city built of gold and silver bricks. We went to its gate and asked the gatekeeper to open the gate. It was opened and we entered the city. There we found men with one side of their bodies as handsome as the most handsome person you have ever seen, and the other side as ugly as the ugliest person you have ever seen. My two companions ordered those men to throw themselves into the river. Behold, there was a river flowing through the city, and its water was as white as milk. Those men went and threw themselves in it and then returned to us after the ugliness of their bodies had disappeared and they turned in the best shape.’ I said to them, “I have seen many wonders tonight. What is the meaning of all that I have seen?”
    They replied, “We will inform you. As for the first man you came upon whose head was being crushed with the rock, he is the symbol of the one who studies the Qur’an and then neither recites it nor acts on it, and sleeps, neglects the enjoined prayers. As for the man you came upon whose mouth, nostrils, and eyes were torn off from front to back, he is the symbol of the man who goes out of his house in the morning and tells so many lies that it spreads all over the world. And those naked men and women whom you saw in the oven, they are the adulterers and the adulteresses, and the man whom you saw in the river of blood is the usurer. As for the man by the base of the tree, he was Abraham. As for the children around him, they are the children of the people. (The narrator added, “Some Muslims asked the Prophet. peace be upon him, ‘O Messenger of Allah! What about the children of pagans?’ The Prophet, peace be upon him, replied, ‘And also the children of pagans’.”) And the man whom you saw near the fire kindling it and going round it, is Malik, the gatekeeper of Hell.”‘ “The Prophet, peace be upon him, added, ‘My two companions explained, “The men you saw half handsome and half ugly were those persons who had mixed an act that was good with another that was bad, but Allah forgave them.” The first house is the common believer’s house. As for this house, it is the house of martyrs. I am Gabriel and this is Michael. Now, raise your head.”
    When I raised my head, I saw a palace that looked like a cloud. They said, “This is your home.” I said, “Let me enter my house.” They said, “You still have some life to complete on earth. Upon completing it, you may come to your home”.’ (Al-Bukhari) Ibn al-Qayyim explained, “This is a text that pertains to the punishment of barzakh, for a vision by the Prophets is like revelation demonstrating the reality.” Al-Tahawi reported from Ibn Mas’ud that the Prophet, peace be upon him, said, “A person was ordered to be lashed a hundred times in his grave. He continuously asked Allah to decrease his punishment until only one lash remained. His grave was totally filled by fire. When the fire was removed, he regained consciousness and asked, ‘Why was I lashed?’ He was told, ‘You offered a prayer once without proper purification, and you passed by an oppressed person but you did not help him’.”
    Anas reported, “The Prophet, peace be upon him, once heard a voice from a grave. He asked, ‘When did this one die?’ They said, ‘He died during the pre-Islamic era.’ He was pleased to hear that and remarked, ‘Had I not feared that you would stop burying your dead, I would have asked Allah to let you hear the punishment of the grave’.” (Reported by Nasa’i and Muslim)
    ‘Abdallah ibn ‘Umar reported, “The Prophet, peace be upon him, said, ‘This is (Sa’d ibn Mu’adh), for whom the Throne (of Allah) moved. The doors of Heaven were opened for him and seventy thousand angels participated (in his funeral prayer). (His grave) was compressed and later on was expanded for him’.”(Nasa’i)
    THE WICKED:
    Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 5112, Narrated by Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-’As, “Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said, ‘The proud will be resurrected like specks on the Day of Resurrection in the form of men, covered all round with ignominy. They will be driven to a prison in Jahannam called Bawlas with the hottest fire rising over them, and will be given to drink the liquid of the inhabitants of Hell, which is tinat al-khabal.'” Transmitted by Tirmidhi.
    Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith 4855, Narrated by Ammar, “The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: He who is two-faced in this world will have two tongues of fire on the Day of Resurrection.”
    Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 5674, Narrated by AbuHurayrah, “Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said, ‘On the Day of Resurrection the molar tooth of an infidel will be like Uhud, his thigh like al-Bayda’, and his abode in Hell a three-nights’ journey like ar-Rabadhah.'” Tirmidhi transmitted it.
    Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 1850, Narrated by Hubshi ibn Junadah, “Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said, ‘Begging is not allowable to a rich man, or to one who has strength and is sound in limb, but only to one who is in grinding poverty or is seriously in debt. If anyone begs to increase thereby his property, it will appear as laceration on his face on the Day of Resurrection and as heated stones which he will eat from Jahannam. So let him who wishes ask little, and let him who wishes ask much.'” Tirmidhi transmitted it.

13. Interestingly, this Hadith about the Day of Judgment clearly reflect Biblical eschatological teaching in Matthew 25:34ff where the Judge is Jesus: Sahih Muslim Hadith 6232, Narrated by AbuHurayrah, “Allah’s Apostle (peace be upon him) said, Verily, Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, will say on the Day of Resurrection: O son of Adam, I was sick but you did not visit Me. He will say: O my Lord, how could I visit Thee when Thou art the Lord of the worlds? Thereupon He will say: Didn’t you know that a certain servant of Mine was sick but you did not visit him, and were you not aware that if you had visited him, you would have found Me by him? O son of Adam, I asked you for food but you did not feed Me. He will say: My Lord, how could I feed Thee when Thou art the Lord of the worlds? He will say: Didn’t you know that a certain servant of Mine asked you for food but you did not feed him, and were you not aware that if you had fed him you would have found him by My side? (The Lord will again say:) O son of Adam, I asked you for something to drink but you did not provide Me with any. He will say: My Lord, how could I provide Thee with something to drink when Thou art the Lord of the worlds? Thereupon He will say: A certain servant of Mine asked you for a drink but you did not provide him with one, and had you provided him with a drink you would have found him near Me.”

14. Hadith Qudsi, Hadith Qudsi 36The believers will gather together on the Day of Resurrection and will say: Should we not ask [someone] to intercede for us with our Lord? So they will come to Adam and will say: You are the Father of mankind; Allah created you with His hand He made His angels bow down to you and He taught you the names of everything, so intercede for us with you Lord so that He may give us relief form this place where we are. And he will say: I am not in a position [to do that] – and he will mention his wrongdoing and will feel ashamed and will say: Go to Noah, for he is the first messenger that Allah sent to the inhabitants of the earth. So they will come to him and he will say: I am not in a position [to do that] – and he will mention his having requested something of his Lord about which he had no [proper] knowledge (Quran Chapter 11 Verses 45-46), and he will feel ashamed and will say: Go to the Friend of the Merciful (Abraham). So they will come to him and he will say: I am not in a position [to do that]. Go to Moses, a servant to whom Allah talked and to whom He gave the Torah. So they will come to him and he will say: I am not in a position [to do that] – and he will mention the taking of a life other that for a life (Quran Chapter 28 Verses 15-16), and he will fell ashamed in the sight of his Lord and will say: Go to Jesus, Allah’s servant and messenger, Allah’s word and spirit. So they will come to him and he will say: I am not in a position [to do that]. Go to Muhammad (may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), a servant to whom Allah has forgiven all his wrongdoing, past and future.So they will come to me and I shall set forth to ask permission to come to my Lord, and permission will be given, and when I shall see my Lord I shall prostrate myself. He will leave me thus for such time as it pleases Him, and then it will be said [to me]: Raise your head. Ask and it will be granted. Speak and it will be heard. Intercede and your intercession will be accepted. So I shall raise my head and praise Him with a form of praise that He will teach me. Then I shall intercede and He will set me a limit [as to the number of people], so I shall admit them into Paradise. Then I shall return to Him, and when I shall see my Lord [I shall bow down] as before. Then I shall intercede and He will set me a limit [as to the number of people]. So I shall admit them into Paradise. Then I shall return for a third time, then a fourth, and I shall say: There remains in Hell-fire only those whom the Quran has confined and who must be there for eternity. There shall come out of Hell-fire he who has said: There is no god but Allah and who has in his heart goodness weighing a barley-corn; then there shall come out of Hell-fire he who has said: There is no god but Allah and who has in his heart goodness weighing a grain of wheat; then there shall come out of Hell-fire he who has said: There is no god but Allah and who has in his heart goodness weighing an atom.Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 5762Narrated by Abdullah ibn AbbasWhen some of the companions of Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) were sitting he came out, and when he came near them he heard them discussing. One of them said Allah had taken Abraham as a friend, another said He spoke direct to Moses, another said Jesus was Allah’s word and spirit, and another said Allah chose Adam. Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) then came out to them and said, “I have heard what you said, and you wonder that Abraham was Allah’s friend, as indeed he was; that Moses was Allah’s confidant, as indeed he was; that Jesus was His spirit and word, as indeed he was; and that Adam was chosen by Allah, as indeed he was. I am the one whom Allah loves, and this is no boast. On the Day of Resurrection I shall be the bearer of the banner of praise under which will be Adam and the others, and this is no boast. I shall be the first intercessor and the first whose intercession is accepted on the Day of Resurrection, and this is no boast. I shall be the first to rattle the knocker of Paradise, and Allah will open for me and bring me into it accompanied by the poor ones among the believers, and this is no boast. I shall be the most honourable in Allah’s estimation among those of earliest and latest times, and this is no boast.”Tirmidhi and Darimi transmitted it.

    Sahih Muslim Hadith 380

    Narrated by AbuHurayrah and Hudhayfah

    The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Allah, the Blessed and Exalted, would gather the people. The believers would stand until the Paradise is brought near them. They would come to Adam and say: O our father, open Paradise for us. He would say: What turned ye out from Paradise was the sin of your father, Adam. I am not in a position to do that; you should go to my son, Ibrahim, the Friend of Allah. He (the Holy Prophet) said: He (Ibrahim) would say: I am not in a position to do that. Verily I had been the Friend (of Allah) from a long time ago; you should approach Moses (peace be upon him) with whom Allah conversed. They would come to Moses (peace be upon him) but he would say: I am not in a position to do that; you should go to Jesus, the Word of Allah and His spirit. Jesus (peace be upon him) would say: I am not in a position to do that. So they would come to Muhammad (peace be upon him). He would then be permitted (to open the door of Paradise)…

15. Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 6.236, Narrated by Abu Huraira, “Some (cooked) meat was brought to Allah Apostle and the meat of a forearm was presented to him as he used to like it. He ate a morsel of it and said, ‘I will be the chief of all the people on the Day of Resurrection.’ Do you know the reason for it? Allah will gather all the human beings of early generations as well as late generations on one plain so that the announcer will be able to make them all hear his voice and the watcher will be able to see all of them. The sun will come so close to the people that they will suffer such distress and trouble as they will not be able to bear or stand. Then the people will say, ‘Don’t you see to what state you have reached? Won’t you look for someone who can intercede for you with your Lord?’ Some people will say to some others, ‘Go to Adam.’ So they will go to Adam and say to him, ‘You are the father of mankind; Allah created you with His Own Hand, and breathed into you of His Spirit (meaning the spirit which he created for you); and ordered the angels to prostrate before you; so (please) intercede for us with your Lord. Don’t you see in what state we are? Don’t you see what condition we have reached?’ Adam will say, ‘Today my Lord has become angry as He has never become before, nor will ever become thereafter. He forbade me (to eat of the fruit of) the tree, but I disobeyed Him. Myself! Myself! Myself! (has more need for intercession). Go to someone else; go to Noah.’ So they will go to Noah and say (to him), ‘O Noah! You are the first (of Allah’s Messengers) to the people of the earth, and Allah has named you a thankful slave; please intercede for us with your Lord. Don’t you see in what state we are?’ He will say, ‘Today my Lord has become angry as He has never become nor will ever become thereafter. I had (in the world) the right to make one definitely accepted invocation, and I made it against my nation. Myself! Myself! Myself! Go to someone else; go to Abraham.’ They will go to Abraham and say, ‘O Abraham! You are Allah’s Apostle and His Khalil from among the people of the earth; so please intercede for us with your Lord. Don’t you see in what state we are?’ He will say to them, ‘My Lord has today become angry as He has never become before, nor will ever become thereafter. I had told three lies (Abu Haiyan (the sub-narrator) mentioned them in the Hadith. Myself! Myself! Myself! Go to someone else; go to Moses.’ The people will then go to Moses and say, ‘O Moses! You art Allah’s Apostle and Allah gave you superiority above the others with this message and with His direct Talk to you; (please) intercede for us with your Lord! Don’t you see in what state we are?’ Moses will say, ‘My Lord has today become angry as He has never become before, nor will become thereafter, I killed a person whom I had not been ordered to kill. Myself! Myself! Myself! Go to someone else; go to Jesus.’ So they will go to Jesus and say, ‘O Jesus! You are Allah’s Apostle and His Word which He sent to Mary, and a superior soul created by Him, and you talked to the people while still young in the cradle. Please intercede for us with your Lord. Don’t you see in what state we are?’ Jesus will say, ‘My Lord has today become angry as He has never become before nor will ever become thereafter. Jesus will not mention any sin, but will say, ‘Myself! Myself! Myself! Go to someone else; go to Muhammad.’ So they will come to me and say, ‘O Muhammad ! You are Allah’s Apostle and the last of the prophets, and Allah forgave your early and late sins. (Please) intercede for us with your Lord. Don’t you see in what state we are?’ ‘ The Prophet added, ‘Then I will go beneath Allah’s Throne and fall in prostration before my Lord. And then Allah will guide me to such praises and glorification to Him as He has never guided anybody else before me. Then it will be said, ‘O Muhammad! Raise your head. Ask, and it will be granted. Intercede! It (your intercession) will be accepted.’ So I will raise my head and say, ‘My followers, O my Lord! My followers, O my Lord’. It will be said, ‘O Muhammad! Let those of your followers who have no accounts, enter through such a gate of the gates of Paradise as lies on the right; and they will share the other gates with the people.’ ‘ The Prophet further said, ‘By Him in Whose Hand my soul is, the distance between every two gate-posts of Paradise is like the distance between Mecca and Busra (in Sham).’Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 9.532CNarrated by AnasThe Prophet said, “The believers will be kept (waiting) on the Day of Resurrection so long that they will become worried and say, ‘Let us ask somebody to intercede for us with our Lord so that He may relieve us from our place.’ Then they will go to Adam and say, ‘You are Adam, the father of the people. Allah created you with His Own Hand and made you reside in His Paradise and ordered His angels to prostrate before you, and taught you the names of all things will you intercede for us with your Lord so that He may relieve us from this place of ours? Adam will say, ‘I am not fit for this undertaking.’ He will mention his mistakes he had committed, i.e., his eating off the tree though he had been forbidden to do so. He will add, ‘Go to Noah, the first prophet sent by Allah to the people of the Earth.’ The people will go to Noah who will say, ‘I am not fit for this undertaking.’ He will mention his mistake which he had done, i.e., his asking his Lord without knowledge. He will say (to them), ‘Go to Abraham, Khalil Ar-Rahman.’ They will go to Abraham who will say, ‘I am not fit for this undertaking.’ He would mention three words by which he told a lie, and say (to them), ‘Go to Moses, a slave whom Allah gave the Torah and spoke to, directly and brought near Him, for conversation.’They will go to Moses who will say, ‘I am not fit for this undertaking.’ He will mention his mistake he made, i.e., killing a person, and will say (to them), ‘Go to Jesus, Allah’s slave and His Apostle, and a soul created by Him and His Word.’ (Be: And it was.) They will go to Jesus who will say, ‘I am not fit for this undertaking but you’d better go to Muhammad, the slave whose past and future sins have been forgiven by Allah.’ So they will come to me, and I will ask my Lord’s permission to enter His House and then I will be permitted. When I see Him I will fall down in prostration before Him, and He will leave me (in prostration) as long as He will, and then He will say, ‘O Muhammad, lift up your head and speak, for you will be listened to, and intercede, for your intercession will be accepted, and ask (for anything) for it will be granted.’ Then I will raise my head and glorify my Lord with certain praises which He has taught me. Allah will put a limit for me (to intercede for a certain type of people) I will take them out and make them enter Paradise.” (Qatada said: I heard Anas saying that, the Prophet said, “I will go out and take them out of Hell (Fire) and let them enter Paradise, and then I will return and ask my Lord for permission to enter His House and I will be permitted.)”When I will see Him I will fall down in prostration before Him and He will leave me in prostration as long as He will let me (in that state), and then He will say, ‘O Muhammad, raise your head and speak, for you will be listened to, and intercede, for your intercession will be accepted, and ask, your request will be granted.’ ” The Prophet added, “So I will raise my head and glorify and praise Him as He has taught me. Then I will intercede and He will put a limit for me (to intercede for a certain type of people). I will take them out and let them enter Paradise.” (Qatada added: I heard Anas saying that) the Prophet said, “I will go out and take them out of Hell (Fire) and let them enter Paradise, and I will return for the third time and will ask my Lord for permission to enter His house, and I will be allowed to enter.)”
    When I see Him, I will fall down in prostration before Him, and will remain in prostration as long as He will, and then He will say, ‘Raise your head, O Muhammad, and speak, for you will be listened to, and intercede, for your intercession will be accepted, and ask, for your request will be granted.’ So I will raise my head and praise Allah as He has taught me and then I will intercede and He will put a limit for me (to intercede for a certain type of people). I will take them out and let them enter Paradise.” (Qatada said: I heard Anas saying that the Prophet said, “So I will go out and take them out of Hell (Fire) and let them enter Paradise, till none will remain in the Fire except those whom Quran will imprison (i.e., those who are destined for eternal life in the fire).)” The narrator then recited the Verse: “It may be that your Lord will raise you to a Station of Praise and Glory.” (17.79) The narrator added: This is the Station of Praise and Glory which Allah has promised to your Prophet.

16. Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 6.504, Narrated by Abu Huraira, “The Prophet said, ‘Every Prophet was given miracles because of which people believed, but what I have been given, is Divine Inspiration which Allah has revealed to me. So I hope that my followers will outnumber the followers of the other Prophets on the Day of Resurrection.’”

17. Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.626Narrated by Abu HurairaOnce while a Jew was selling something, he was offered a price that he was not pleased with. So, he said, “No, by Him Who gave Moses superiority over all human beings!” Hearing him, an Ansari man got up and slapped him on the face and said, “You say: By Him Who Gave Moses superiority over all human beings although the Prophet (Muhammad) is present amongst us!” The Jew went to the Prophet and said, “O Abu-l-Qasim! I am under the assurance and contract of security, so what right does so-and-so have to slap me?” The Prophet asked the other, “Why have you slapped”. He told him the whole story. The Prophet became angry, till anger appeared on his face, and said, “Don’t give superiority to any prophet amongst Allah’s Prophets, for when the trumpet will be blown, everyone on the earth and in the heavens will become unconscious except those whom Allah will exempt. The trumpet will be blown for the second time and I will be the first to be resurrected to see Moses holding Allah’s Throne. I will not know whether the unconsciousness which Moses received on the Day of Tur has been sufficient for him, or has he got up before me. And I do not say that there is anybody who is better than Yunus bin Matta.”Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 9.564Narrated by Abu Huraira”A man from the Muslims and a man from the Jews quarrelled, and the Muslim said, “By Him Who gave superiority to Muhammad over all the people!” The Jew said, “By Him Who gave superiority to Moses over all the people!” On that the Muslim lifted his hand and slapped the Jew. The Jew went to Allah’s Apostle and informed him of all that had happened between him and the Muslim. The Prophet said, “Do not give me superiority over Moses, for the people will fall unconscious on the Day of Resurrection, I will be the first to regain consciousness and behold, Moses will be standing there, holding the side of the Throne. I will not know whether he has been one of those who have fallen unconscious and then regained consciousness before me, or if he has been one of those exempted by Allah (from falling unconscious).” (See Hadith No. 524, Vol. 8)
    Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 8.524, Narrated by Abu Huraira, “Two men, a Muslim and a Jew, abused each other. The Muslim said, ‘By Him Who gave superiority to Muhammad over all the people.’ On that, the Jew said, ‘By Him Who gave superiority to Moses over all the people.’ The Muslim became furious at that and slapped the Jew in the face. The Jew went to Allah’s Apostle and informed him of what had happened between him and the Muslim. Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Don’t give me superiority over Moses, for the people will fall unconscious on the Day of Resurrection and I will be the first to gain consciousness, and behold! Moses will be there holding the side of Allah’s Throne. I will not know whether Moses has been among those people who have become unconscious and then has regained consciousness before me, or has been among those exempted by Allah from falling unconscious.'”

18. Sahih Muslim Hadith 1862, Narrated by AbuHurayrah and Hudhayfah, “The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: It was Friday from which Allah diverted those who were before us. For the Jews (the day set aside for prayer) was Sabt (Saturday), and for the Christians it was Sunday. And Allah turned towards us and guided us to Friday (as the day of prayer) for us. In fact, He (Allah) made Friday, Saturday and Sunday (as days of prayer). In this order would they (Jews and Christians) come after us on the Day of Resurrection. We are the last of (the Ummah) among the people in this world and the first among the created to be judged on the Day of Resurrection. In one narration it is: ‘to be judged among them’.”

19. Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 299, Narrated by AbudDarda’, “Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: I shall be the first to be permitted to fall in prostration on the Day of Resurrection and I shall be the first to whom permission will be given to raise his head. I shall then look in front of me, and recognise my Ummah amongst the other Ummahs; I shall do the same behind me, on my right hand and on my left. Someone said: Allah’s Messenger, how will you recognise your Ummah among the peoples from Noah’s time onwards? He said: They (the people of Ummah) will have white faces, arms and legs because of the traces of ablution and none beside them will be like them. I shall recognise them because they will be given their scrolls in their right hand and I shall recognise them with their posterity (going) before them.Transmitted by Ahmad.”

20. Deedat, Ahmed, Is the Bible God’s Word?, (IPC, Birmingham, 1980), p. 17.

21. Harris, Raised Immortal, p. 88.

22. Harris, Raised Immortal, p. 92.

23. Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 9.608Narrated by Anas bin MalikThe night Allah’s Apostle was taken for a journey from the sacred mosque (of Mecca) Al-Ka’ba: Three persons came to him (in a dream) while he was sleeping in the Sacred Mosque before the Divine Inspiration was revealed to Him. One of them said, “Which of them is he?” The middle (second) angel said, “He is the best of them.” The last (third) angle said, “Take the best of them.” Only that much happened on that night and he did not see them till they came on another night, i.e. after the Divine Inspiration was revealed to him, and he saw them, his eyes were asleep but his heart was not – and so is the case with the prophets: their eyes sleep while their hearts do not sleep. So those angels did not talk to him till they carried him and placed him beside the well of ZamZam. From among them Gabriel took charge of him. Gabriel cut open (the part of his body) between his throat and the middle of his chest (heart) and took all the material out of his chest and abdomen and then washed it with ZamZam water with his own hands till he cleansed the inside of his body, and then a gold tray containing a gold bowl full of belief and wisdom was brought and then Gabriel stuffed his chest and throat blood vessels with it and then closed it (the chest). He then ascended with him to the heaven of the world and knocked on one of its doors.The dwellers of the Heaven asked, “Who is it?” He said, “Gabriel.” They said, “Who is accompanying you?” He said, “Muhammad.” They said, “Has he been called?” He said, “Yes.” They said, “He is welcomed.” So the dwellers of the Heaven became pleased with his arrival, and they did not know what Allah would do to the Prophet on earth unless Allah informed them. The Prophet met Adam over the nearest Heaven. Gabriel said to the Prophet, “He is your father; greet him.” The Prophet greeted him and Adam returned his greeting and said, “Welcome, O my Son! O what a good son you are!” Behold, he saw two flowing rivers, while he was in the nearest sky. He asked, “What are these two rivers, O Gabriel?” Gabriel said, “These are the sources of the Nile and the Euphrates.”Then Gabriel took him around that Heaven and behold, he saw another river at the bank of which there was a palace built of pearls and emerald. He put his hand into the river and found its mud like musk Adhfar. He asked, “What is this, O Gabriel?” Gabriel said, “This is the Kauthar which your Lord has kept for you.” Then Gabriel ascended (with him) to the second Heaven and the angels asked the same questions as those on the first Heaven, i.e., “Who is it?” Gabriel replied, “Gabriel.” They asked, “Who is accompanying you?” He said, “Muhammad.” They asked, “Has he been sent for?” He said, “Yes.” Then they said, “He is welcomed.) Then he (Gabriel) ascended with the Prophet to the third Heaven, and the angels said the same as the angels of the first and the second Heavens had said.Then he ascended with him to the fourth Heaven and they said the same; and then he ascended with him to the fifth Heaven and they said the same; and then he ascended with him to the sixth Heaven and they said the same; then he ascended with him to the seventh Heaven and they said the same. On each Heaven there were prophets whose names he had mentioned and of whom I remember Idris on the second Heaven, Aaron on the fourth Heaven, another prophet whose name I don’t remember, on the fifth Heaven, Abraham on the sixth Heaven, and Moses on the seventh Heaven because of his privilege of talking to Allah directly. Moses said (to Allah), “O Lord! I thought that none would be raised up above me.”But Gabriel ascended with him (the Prophet) for a distance above that, the distance of which only Allah knows, till he reached the Lote Tree (beyond which none may pass) and then the Irresistible, the Lord of Honour and Majesty approached and came closer till he (Gabriel) was about two bow lengths or (even) nearer. (It is said that it was Gabriel who approached and came closer to the Prophet. Among the things which Allah revealed to him then, was: “Fifty prayers were enjoined on his followers in a day and a night.”Then the Prophet descended till he met Moses, and then Moses stopped him and asked, “O Muhammad! What did your Lord enjoin upon you?” The Prophet replied, “He enjoined upon me to perform fifty prayers in a day and a night.” Moses said, “Your followers cannot do that; Go back so that your Lord may reduce it for you and for them.” So the Prophet turned to Gabriel as if he wanted to consult him about that issue. Gabriel told him of his opinion, saying, “Yes, if you wish.” So Gabriel ascended with him to the Irresistible and said while he was in his place, “O Lord, please lighten our burden as my followers cannot do that.” So Allah deducted for him ten prayers where upon he returned to Moses who stopped him again and kept on sending him back to his Lord till the enjoined prayers were reduced to only five prayers.
    Then Moses stopped him when the prayers had been reduced to five and said, “O Muhammad! By Allah, I tried to persuade my nation, Bani Israel to do less than this, but they could not do it and gave it up. However, your followers are weaker in body, heart, sight and hearing, so return to your Lord so that He may lighten your burden.”
    The Prophet turned towards Gabriel for advice and Gabriel did not disapprove of that. So he ascended with him for the fifth time. The Prophet said, “O Lord, my followers are weak in their bodies, hearts, hearing and constitution, so lighten our burden.” On that the Irresistible said, “O Muhammad!” the Prophet replied, “Labbaik and Sa’daik.” Allah said, “The Word that comes from Me does not change, so it will be as I enjoined on you in the Mother of the Book.” Allah added, “Every good deed will be rewarded as ten times so it is fifty (prayers) in the Mother of the Book (in reward) but you are to perform only five (in practice).”
    The Prophet returned to Moses who asked, “What have you done?” He said, “He has lightened our burden: He has given us for every good deed a tenfold reward.” Moses said, “By Allah! I tried to make Bani Israel observe less than that, but they gave it up. So go back to your Lord that He may lighten your burden further.” Allah’s Apostle said, “O Moses! By Allah, I feel shy of returning too many times to my Lord.” On that Gabriel said, “Descend in Allah’s Name.” The Prophet then woke while he was in the Sacred Mosque (at Mecca).

24. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, p. 330.

25. Ladd, G. E., The Presence of the Future, (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids/Cambridge, 1974), p. 250.

26. Ladd, The Presence of the Future, p. 250.

27. Bruce, F. F., The Work of Christ, (Kingsway, Eastbourne, 1979, 1984 edition), pp. 45-46.

28. Harris, Raised Immortal, p. 79.

29. Harris, Raised Immortal, p. 80.

30. Harris, Raised Immortal, pp. 81-82.

31. Murray, John, Collected Writings, Vol. 1: The Claims of Truth, (Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, 1976), p. 48.

32. Guthrie, Donald, New Testament Theology, (IVP, Leicester, 1981), p. 399.

33. Harris,Raised Immortal, p. 83.

34. Squires, Abu Iman ‘Abd ar-Rahman Robert, The Muslim View of the Ascension of Jesus, http://www.muslim-answers.org/ascend.htm

35. Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 3834, Narrated by Al-Miqdam ibn Ma’dikarib, “Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said, ‘The martyr receives six good things from Allah: he is forgiven at the first shedding of his blood; he is shown his abode in Paradise; he is preserved from the punishment in the grave; he is kept safe from the greatest terror; he has placed on his head the crown of honour, a ruby of which is better than the world and what it contains; he is married to seventy-two wives of the maidens with large dark eyes; and is made intercessor for seventy of his relatives.’” Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah transmitted it.

36. Surah Ad-Dukhan 44 51 “As to the Righteous (they will be) in a position of Security 52 Among Gardens and Springs; 53 Dressed in fine silk and in rich brocade they will face each other; 54 So; and We shall Join them to Companions with beautiful big and lustrous eyes.55 There can they call for every kind of fruit in peace and security; 56 Nor will they there taste Death except the first Death; and He will preserve them from the Penalty of the Blazing Fire
    Surah Ar-Rahman 55 46 But for such as fear the time when they will stand before (the Judgment Seat of) their Lord there will be two Gardens 47 Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny? 48 Containing all kinds (of trees and delights)… 50 In them (each) will be two Springs flowing (free); … 52 In them will be Fruits of every kind two and two… 54 They will recline on Carpets whose inner linings will be of rich brocade: the Fruit of the Gardens will be Near (and easy of reach)… 56 In them will be (Maidens) Chaste restraining their glances whom no man or Jinn before them has touched… 58 Like unto rubies and coral… 60 Is there any Reward for Good other than Good? … 62 And besides these two there are two other Gardens… 64 Dark green in colour (from plentiful watering)… 66 In them (each) will be two springs pouring forth water in continuous abundance… 68 In them will be Fruits and dates and pomegranates… 70 In them will be fair (companions) good beautiful… 72Companions restrained (as to their glances) in (goodly) pavilions… 74 Whom no man or Jinn before them has touched… 76 Reclining on green Cushions and rich Carpets of beauty.
    Surah Al-Waqi’a 56 10 And those Foremost (in Faith) will be Foremost (in the Hereafter). 11 These will be those Nearest to Allah: 12 In Gardens of Bliss: 13 A number of people from those of old 14 And a few from those of later times. 15 (They will be) on Thrones encrusted (with gold and precious stones). 16 Reclining on them facing each other. 17 Round about them will (serve) youths of perpetual (freshness). 18 With goblets (shining) beakers and cups (filled) out of clear-flowing fountains: 19 No after-ache will they receive therefrom nor will they suffer intoxication: 20And with fruits any that they may select; 21 And the flesh of fowls any that they may desire. 22 And (there will be) Companions with beautiful big and lustrous eyes 23 Like unto Pearls well-guarded. 24 A Reward for the Deeds of their past (Life). 25 No frivolity will they hear therein nor any taint of ill 26 Only the saying “Peace! Peace.” 27 The Companions of the Right Hand what will be the Companions of the Right Hand? 28 (They will be) among lote trees without thorns 29 Among Talh trees with flowers (or fruits) piled one above another 30 In shade long-extended 31 By water flowing constantly 32 And fruit in abundance 33 Whose season is not limited nor (supply) forbidden 34 And on Thrones (of Dignity) raised high. 35We have created (their Companions) of special creation. 36 And made them virgin-pure (and undefiled) 37 Beloved (by nature) equal in age 38 For the companions of the Right Hand.
    Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 1967, Narrated by Abdullah ibn Umar, “The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, ‘Paradise is decorated for Ramadan from the beginning of the year till a following year, and when the first day of Ramadan comes, a wind under the throne blows some of the leaves of paradise on the maidens with large bright eyes, and they say, ‘My Lord, appoint us husbands from among Thy servants, with whom we shall be happy and who will be happy with us.'” Bayhaqi transmitted it in Shu’ab al-Iman.
    Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 3258, Narrated by Mu’adh ibn Jabal, “The Prophet (peace be upon him) said that no woman annoyed her husband in this world without his wife among the large-eyed maidens saying, ‘You must not annoy him. Allah curse you! He is only a passing guest with you and is about to leave you to come to us.'” Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah transmitted it, Tirmidhi saying this is a gharib tradition.
    Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 5649, Narrated by Ali ibn AbuTalib, “Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said, in Paradise there is a meeting-place for the large-eyed maidens who will raise voices such as created beings have never heard and say, ‘We are the women who live for ever and do not pass away, we are the women in affluent circumstances who will not be destitute, we are the women who are pleased and not displeased. Blessed are those who belong to us and to whom we belong!'” Tirmidhi transmitted it.
    Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith 4759, Narrated by Mu’adh ibn Jabal, “The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said: if anyone suppresses anger when he is in a position to give vent to it, Allah, the Exalted, will call him on the Day of Resurrection over the heads of all creatures, and ask him to choose any of the bright and large eyed maidens he wishes.”

37. Surah Az-Zumar 39 43 Or choose they intercessors other than Allah? Say: What! Even though they have power over nothing and have no intelligence?44 Say: Unto Allah belongeth all intercession. His is the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth. And afterward unto Him ye will be brought back.Surah Ta-ha 20109 On that Day no intercession availeth save (that of) him unto whom the Beneficent hath given leave and whose He accepteth:
    Surah An-Najm 53:26And how many angels are in the heavens whose intercession availeth naught save after Allah giveth leave to whom He chooseth and accepteth!
    Surah Saba 34:23 No intercession availeth with Him save for him whom He permitteth. Yet, when fear is banished from their hearts, they say: What was it that your Lord said? They say: The Truth. And He is the Sublime, the Great.
    Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 1.98, Narrated by Abu Huraira, “I said: ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Who will be the luckiest person, who will gain your intercession on the Day of Resurrection?’ Allah’s Apostle said: ‘O Abu Huraira! …The luckiest person who will have my intercession on the Day of Resurrection will be the one who said sincerely from the bottom of his heart. None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’…”
    Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 1963, Narrated by Abdullah ibn Amr, “Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said, ‘Fasting and the Qur’an intercede for a man. Fasting says, “O my Lord, I have kept him away from his food and his passions by day, so accept my intercession for him.” The Qur’an says, “I have kept him away from sleep by night, so accept my intercession for him.’ Then their intercession is accepted.”‘” Bayhaqi transmitted it in Shu’ab al-Iman.
    Sahih Muslim Hadith 367, Narrated by Jabir ibn Abdullah, “Jabir was asked about the arrival (of people on the Day of Resurrection). He said: We shall come on the Day of Resurrection like this like this and see, carefully , that which concerns “elevated people”. He (the narrator) said: Then the people would be summoned with their idols whom they worshipped, one after another. Then our Lord would come to us and say: For whom are you waiting? They would say: We are waiting for our Lord. He would say: I am your Lord. They would say: (We are not sure) until we gaze at Thee. He would manifest Himself smilingly to them, and would go with them and they would follow Him. Every person, whether a hypocrite or a believer, would be endowed with a light. There would be spikes and hooks on the bridge of Hell, which would catch hold of those whom Allah will. Then the light of the hypocrites would be extinguished, and the believers would secure salvation. The first group to achieve it would comprise seventy thousand men who would have the brightness of the full moon on their faces, and they would not be called to account. Then the faces of the people immediately following them will be like the brightest stars in Heaven. This is how (the groups would follow one after another). Then the stage of intercession would come, and they (who are permitted to intercede) would intercede until he who has declared: “There is no god but Allah” and has in his heart virtue of the weight of a barley grain would come out of the Fire. They would be then brought into the courtyard of Paradise. The inhabitants of Paradise would begin to sprinkle water over them until they sprout like the sprouting of a plant in flood water, and their burns would disappear. They would ask their Lord until they are granted (the bounties) of the world and with them ten more besides.
    Sahih Muslim Hadith 2071, Narrated by Aisha, “Allah’s Apostle (peace be upon him) said: If a company of Muslims numbering one hundred pray over a dead person, all of them interceding for him, their intercession for him will be accepted.”

38. See Pratney, Winkie & Chant, Barry, The Return, (Sovereign World, Chichester, 1988), p. 87ff. Also, Bruce, F. F., The Hard Sayings of Jesus,(Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1983), p. 225ff.

39. Gilchrist, John, Nuzul-i-Isa: The Second Coming of Jesus Christ, (Jesus to the Muslims, Benoni, 1986), p. 8.

40. Sahih Muslim Hadith 6924, Narrated by AbuHurayrah, “Allah’s Apostle (peace be upon him) said: The Last Hour will not come until the Romans land at al-A’maq or in Dabiq. An army consisting of the best (soldiers) of the people on Earth at that time will come from Medina (to oppose them). When they arrange themselves in ranks, the Romans will say: Do not stand between us and those (Muslims) who took prisoners from among us. Let us fight them. The Muslims will say: Nay, by Allah, we shall never turn aside from you and from our brethren so that you may fight them. They will then fight and a third (part) of the army, whom Allah will never forgive, will run away. A third (part of the army), which will be constituted of excellent martyrs in Allah’s eyes, would be killed. The third who will never be put on trial will win and they will be the conquerors of Constantinople. As they are busy in distributing the spoils of war (amongst themselves) after hanging their swords by the olive trees, Satan will cry: The Dajjal has taken your place among your families. They will then come out, but it will be of no avail. When they reach Syria, he will come out while they are still preparing themselves for battle, drawing up the ranks. Certainly, the time of prayer will come and then Jesus (peace be upon him), son of Mary, descend and will lead them in prayer. When the enemy of Allah see him, it will (disappear) just as salt dissolves in water and if he (Jesus) were not to confront them at all, even then it would dissolve completely. Allah would kill them by his hand and he would show them their blood on his lance (the lance of Jesus Christ).”

41. Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 9.453, Narrated by Muhammad bin Al Munkadir, “I saw Jabir bin ‘Abdullah swearing by Allah that Ibn Sayyad was the Dajjal. I said to Jabir, ‘How can you swear by Allah?’ Jabir said, ‘I have heard ‘Umar swearing by Allah regarding this matter in the presence of the Prophet and the Prophet did not disapprove of it.'”
    Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith 4317, Narrated by Jabir ibn Abdullah, “Muhammad ibn al-Munkadir told that he saw Jabir ibn Abdullah swearing by Allah that Ibn as-Sa’id was the Dajjal (Antichrist). I expressed my surprise by saying: You swear by Allah! He said: I heard Umar swearing to that in the presence of the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him), but the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) did not make any objection to it.”
    Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith 4316, Narrated by Abdullah ibn Umar, “Nafi’ told that Ibn Umar used to say: I swear by Allah that I do not doubt that Antichrist is Ibn Sayyad.”
    Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith 4314, Narrated by Jabir ibn Abdullah, “The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said one day from the pulpit: When some people were sailing in the sea, their food was finished. An island appeared to them. They went out seeking bread. They were met by the Jassasah (the Antichrist’s spy). I said to AbuSalamah: What is the Jassasah? He replied: A woman trailing the hair of her skin and of her head. She said: In this castle. He then narrated the rest of the (No. 4311) tradition. He asked about the palm-trees of Baysan and the spring of Zughar. He said: He is the Antichrist. Ibn Salamah said to me: There is something more in this tradition, which I could not remember. He said: Jabir testified that it was he who was Ibn Sayyad. I said: He died. He said: Let him die. I said: He accepted Islam. He said: Let him accept Islam. I said: He entered Medina. He said: Let him enter Medina.”
    Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith 4311, Narrated by Fatimah, daughter of Qays, “The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) once delayed the congregational night prayer. He came out and said: The talk of Tamim ad-Dari detained me. He transmitted it to me from a man who was on one of the islands of the sea. All of a sudden he found a woman who was trailing her hair. He asked: Who are you? She said: I am the Jassasah. Go to that castle. So I came to it and found a man who was trailing his hair, chained in iron collars, and leaping between Heaven and Earth. I asked: Who are you? He replied: I am the Dajjal (Antichrist). Has the Prophet of the unlettered people come forth now? I replied: Yes. He said: Have they obeyed him or disobeyed him? I said: No, they have obeyed him. He said: That is better for them.”
    Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith 4283, Narrated by Abdullah ibn Busr, “The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: The time between the great war and the conquest of the city (Constantinople) will be six years, and the Dajjal (Antichrist) will come forth in the seventh.”
    Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith 4282, Narrated by Mu’adh ibn Jabal, “The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: The greatest war, the conquest of Constantinople and the coming forth of the Dajjal (Antichrist) will take place within a period of seven months.”
    Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith 4281, Narrated by Mu’adh ibn Jabal, “The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: The flourishing state of Jerusalem will be when Yathrib is in ruins, the ruined state of Yathrib will be when the great war comes, the outbreak of the great war will be at the conquest of Constantinople and the conquest of Constantinople when the Dajjal (Antichrist) comes forth. He (the Prophet) struck his thigh or his shoulder with his hand and said: This is as true as you are here or as you are sitting (meaning Mu’adh ibn Jabal).”
    Sahih Muslim Hadith 6930, Narrated by Nafi’ ibn Utbah, “We were with Allah’s Apostle (peace be upon him) on an expedition when there came to Allah”a Apostle (peace be upon him) some people from the west. Dressed in woollen clothes, they stood near a hillock and met Allah’s Apostle (peace be upon him) as was sitting. I said to myself: I had better go to them and stand between him and them so that they may not attack him. Then I thought that perhaps there were secret negotiations going on between them. However, I went to them and stood between them and him and remember four of the words (on that occasion), which I repeat (on the fingers of my hand), that he (Allah’s Apostle p.) said: You will attack Arabia and Allah will enable you to conquer it, then you will attack Persia and He will cause you to conquer it. Then you will attack Rome and Allah will enable you to conquer it, then you will attack the Dajjal and Allah will enable you to conquer him. Nafi said: Jabir, we thought that the Dajjal would appear after Rome (Syrian territory) was conquered.”
    Sahih Muslim Hadith 6927, Narrated by Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, “Once there blew a red storm in Kufah and there came a person who had nothing to say but (these words): Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, the Last Hour has come. He (Abdullah ibn Mas’ud) was sitting reclining against something, and he said: The Last Hour will not come until the people divide inheritance and rejoice over booty. Then He said pointing towards Syria, with a gesture of his hand like this: The enemy will muster strength against the Muslims and the Muslims will muster strength against them (Syrians). I said: You mean Rome? He said: Yes, and there will be a terrible fight. The Muslims will prepare a detachment (for fighting unto death) which will not return unless victorious. They will fight until darkness intervenes. Both sides will return without being victorious and both will be wiped out. The Muslims will again prepare a detachment for fighting unto death so that they may not return unless victorious. When it is the fourth day, a new detachment from the remnant of the Muslims will be prepared and Allah will decree that the enemy will be routed. They would fight such a fight the like of which has not been seen, so fierce that even if a bird were to pass their flanks, it would fall down dead before reaching the other end. (There will be such a large scale massacre) that when counting will be done, (only) one out of a hundred men related to one another would be found alive. So what can be the joy at the spoils of such war and what inheritance can be divided? They will be in this very state when they will hear of a calamity more horrible than this. A cry will reach them: The Dajjal has taken your place among your offspring. They will therefore throw away what is in their hands and go forward, sending ten horsemen as a scouting party. Allah’s Apostle (peace be upon him) said: I know their names, the names of their forefathers and the colour of their horses. They will be the best horsemen on the surface of the Earth on that day or among the best horsemen on the surface of the Earth on that day.”
    Sahih Muslim Hadith 6979, Narrated by AbuHurayrah, “Allah’s Apostle (peace be upon him) said: You have heard of the city, one side of which is inclined and the other is on the coast (Constantinople). They said: Yes, Allah’s Apostle (peace be upon him). Thereupon he said: The Last Hour will not come until seventy thousand people from Banu Isra’il attack it. When they land there, they will neither fight with weapons nor shower arrows but will only say: “There is no god but Allah and Allah is the Greatest,” and one side of it will fall. Thawr (one of the narrators) said: I think that he said: The area on the coast. Then they will say for the second time: “There is no god but Allah and Allah is the Greatest,” and the other side will also fall. They will say: “There is no god but Allah is the Greatest,” and the gates will be opened for them and they will enter. They will be collecting spoils of war and distributing them among themselves when a noise will be heard and it will be said: Verily, the Dajjal has come. Thus they will leave everything there and turn to (confront) him.”

42. Bleher, S. M., The New Millennium through Muslim Eyes, (UKIM Dawah Centre, Birmingham, 1999), p. 7.

43. Sahih Muslim Hadith 6990, Narrated by Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, “We were along with Allah’s Apostle (peace be upon him) that we happened to pass by children amongst whom there was Ibn Sayyad. The children made their way but Ibn Sayyad kept sitting there (and it seemed) as if Allah’s Apostle (peace be upon him) did not like it (his sitting with the children) and said to him: May your nose be besmeared with dust, don’t you bear testimony to the fact that I am the Messenger of Allah? Thereupon he said: No, but you should bear testimony that I am the messenger of Allah. Thereupon Umar ibn al-Khattab said: Allah’s Apostle (peace be upon him) permit me that I should kill him. Thereupon Allah’s Apostle (peace be upon him) said: If he is that person who is in your mind (Dajjal), you will not be able to kill him.”

44. Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith 4318Narrated by Jabir ibn AbdullahWe saw the last of Ibn Sayyad at the battle of the Harrah.

45. Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith 4738, Narrated by AbuUbaydah ibn al-Jarrah, “I heard the Prophet (peace be upon him) say: There has been no Prophet after Noah who has not warned his people about the antichrist (Dajjal), and I warn you of him. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) described him to us, saying: Perhaps some who have seen me and heard my words will live till his time. The people asked: Apostle of Allah! what will be the condition of our hearts on that day? Like what we are today? He replied: Or better.”

46. Bleher, The New Millennium through Muslim Eyes, p. 7.

47. Massod, Jesus and the Indian Messiah, p. 136.

48. Chilton, David, The Great Tribulation, (Dominion Press, Fort Worth, 1987), p. 35.

49. Squires, The Muslim View of the Ascension of Jesus, (quoting from A Muslim Theologian’s Response to Christianity, edited and translated by Thomas F. Michel, Caravan Books, Delmar, New York, 1984, pages 305-308, English translation of Ibn Taymiyyah’s al-Jawab as-Saheeh).

50. Sharfi, M. Zakiuddin, Did the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)predict the Second Coming of Jesus and World War III? (Islamic Publications, Lahore, 1984), p. 6 (the actual pages are unpaginated; I have counted from the page after the preface).

51. Squires, The Muslim View of the Ascension of Jesus.

52. ur-Rahim, Muhammad ‘Ata, Jesus Prophet of Islam, (Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an Inc., Elmhurst, 1991), pp. 227-228.

53. Massod, Jesus and the Indian Messiah, p. 53.

54. Massod, Jesus and the Indian Messiah, pp. 136-137.

Back to Redman paper

A Comparison of the Biblical and Islamic Views of the States of Christ Part 1: The State of Humiliation (ii)

Gerry Redman

Back to Redman paper

Introduction

In this second paper we will continue our comparison of the Biblical and Islamic presentations of the states of Christ, reviewing the crucial stages in the life and ministry of Christ as presented in the Christian Scriptures, and examining the Islamic equivalent (if any), to understand the contrasting portraits of the life of Jesus. In this particular paper, we reach the crux of the matter in terms of the ministry, as opposed to the nature of Jesus – specifically, His death. The death of Christ is crucial to Christian theology, being the objective means whereby salvation is provided for humanity. Islam, of course, denies the death of Christ. Thus an examination of the states of Christ in this regard will be most illuminating to both Christians and Muslims to discover the consistency of both systems.

4. The Sufferings of Christ

A. The Biblical view

The Scriptures, e.g. Acts 8:28-35, present Jesus is the Suffering Servant prophesied by Isaiah – cf. especially chapter 53:6-10:

6. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed, yet when he was afflicted he did not open his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he did not open his mouth.

8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who among them considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due?

9 And they made his grave with the wicked, and with a rich man in his death; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief: when you shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

The Gospel records display the hostility Jesus received from His contemporaries, even those of His own town: – Matthew 13:57 ‘And they were offended at him. But Jesus said to them, A prophet is not without honour, except in his own country, and in his own household.’ John 1:11 ‘He came to his own, and those that were his own did not receive him.’ This even included, at first, the unbelief of His own family – John 7:5 ‘For even his brothers did not believe on him.’ Attempts and plots were made to kill Him – John 5:18 ‘Because of this the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God.’ 7:1 ‘And after these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he was unwilling to walk in Judaea, because the Jews sought to kill him.’

1. Thus we can say that He suffered at the hands of his fellows – in various ways outlined above.

2. He suffered inasmuch as that He, the sinless One, was obliged to dwell in a sinful environment – Matthew 17:17 ‘And Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I bear with you?’ John 8:23 ‘And he said unto them, You are from below; I am from above: you are of this world; I am not of this world.’

3. Especially, He suffered in His loneliness – in Gethsemane, He was forsaken by everyone – Matthew 26:56 ‘But all this is coming to pass, so that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples left him, and fled.’

4. He suffered Temptation. Indeed, Hebrews 4:15 indicates that He endured the full range of temptation – ‘For we do not have a high priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one that has been in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.’ Hebrews 5:7-8 makes clear the fact that such temptations were essential to His ministry – 7 Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up prayers and supplications with crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and having been heard for his godly fear, 8 though he was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which he suffered…’ This text is often misunderstood, especially by Muslims, so the explanation of the great Princeton Professor Geerhardus Vos is appropriate at this point:
   

   The point of identification here is the experiential knowledge of obedience, as appears from the correspondence between this conception in verse 8 and verse 9: ‘having learned obedience, He became the author of salvation to those that obey.‘ It has been too quickly inferred, however, from this statement that the author of Hebrews ascribes to Jesus a progressive moral development in general and associates this with the teleiwois he predicates of Him. It must be plain to the most superficial reader that ‘obedience’ here has a very specific meaning: it is obedience to the call of suffering, for the Saviour learned it ‘from what He suffered.’ If in the two preceding passages the suffering appeared as a school in which was learned the strength of temptation as inherent in suffering, here we meet with the positive counterpart to this conception: the suffering as a school of obedience through the overcoming of the temptation proceeding from it. Because the obedience developed itself in suffering, the period of its development is called ‘the days of His flesh,’ i.e., the days in which He was subject to the weakness of the natural earthly life, and therefore had to conquer the dread of pain and death which is inseparable from this state. The prayers and supplications which He is said to have offered up were not that He might be saved from death, but that He might be saved out of it; they were expressions of that obedience He was learning, not expressions of a mood of weakness He had to unlearn. For the writer adds that He was heard, He obtained what He prayed for, and this was not escape from death, but salvation through and out of death.From the above it appears how we must understand the statement that ‘He learned obedience.’ ‘Learning’ is not here equivalent to acquiring what was not previously there in principle, far less to acquiring that of which the opposite was previously there. Chapter 10:5-7 shows that the writer ascribes to Jesus the spirit of perfect obedience at the very moment of His coming into the world, for he makes Him say in the words of the Psalmist: ‘Lo, I am come to do thy will, 0 God,’ and the will of God he referred to is specifically the will that the Messiah should suffer and die. ‘Learning’ simply means to bring out into the conscious experience of action, that which is present as an avowed principle antecedent to the action. There is a difference between the desire and resolve to obey and the carrying through of this attitude of mind in the concrete circumstances of life, whilst natural inclinations assert themselves in the opposite direction. It should be noticed that the article stands before ‘upacohn, which shows once more that a specific type of obedience is in the author’s mind. The contrast also indicated in the words ‘although being a Son’ is not a contrast between sonship and obedience in general, but between sonship and obedience evinced in suffering. It is natural for a son to obey, it is not natural for a son to have to learn obedience in this way.Now it is this training in obedience that the passage brings into connection with the teleiwois of Christ. Having learned obedience and having been made perfect, He became the author of salvation. It is most natural to take the ‘having been made perfect’ here as resumptive of ‘having learned obedience,’ so that it adds not a second qualification to the first, but interprets the fact of the obedience which Christ learned in its significance as a qualification for His office. The rendering strictly ought to be: ‘having learned obedience and thus been made perfect.’ This, however, does not yet decide how the author understands the ‘perfecting.’ Does he mean to say: having learned obedience and having been made perfect in obedience, He became the author of salvation? Or is his meaning rather: having learned obedience and thereby been made a perfect high priest, He became author of salvation? The latter is to be preferred, because the emphasis in the context rests on the likeness between the obedience of Christ and that of believers. Because He practiced obedience Himself, He can appreciate and reward the obedience of those who follow Him. To introduce the thought of the absolute perfection of the Saviour’s obedience would tea to obscure this parallelism. Of course the author conceived of Christ’s obedience as absolutely perfect. But here it was out of place to call attention to this. What he affirms is simply that through the practice of obedience Christ became a perfect high priest, since now He is able to endow with eternal salvation all those who obey Him in however imperfect a degree. 1

It is a matter of discussion as to whether Jesus could or could not sin, but two facts are certain: He did not sin, and the temptations were real. The setting of the Temptation by Satan in the desert is in the nature of fulfilment of prophecy, as we saw in our previous paper. Jesus endures the same temptations as Israel faced whilst in the desert with Moses, but whereas Old Testament Israel miserably failed the test, Jesus passes with flying colours.

Deuteronomy 8:2ff, looking back to Exodus 16:2-3, recalls how God tested Old Israel with hunger, a test, like the others, which would reveal whether Israel knew itself to be, and thus whether in truth it was the People of God. By its moaning and desiring to return to Egypt, Israel displayed itself devoid of faith and thus fails. Jesus, on the other hand, although hungry, does not respond to Satan, but quotes Deuteronomy 8:3 to display that His is the true Son of God, unlike the failed old ‘son’.

The Temple pinnacle temptation was to put God to the test. Faith in God does not require props, or constant dynamic displays. By threatening to stone Moses at Massah, Israel drew from the LORD the act that proved them to be His people – Exodus 17:1-7, so Satan tempts Jesus to seek outward evidence that He is God’s Son by forcing the hand of the LORD, but Jesus refuses, quoting Deuteronomy 6:16.

The third temptation reflects the collapse into total lack of faith that characterised Israel in Exodus 34 when Moses was up the mountain. Israel committed idolatry. Deuteronomy 6:13-14 forbids the worship of other gods, and Jesus quotes this in passing the test here. The significance of this is that Israel was to secure its national existence by no compromises with the heathen, especially their gods. They were not to be a nation like any other, but rather to be a holy nation. Jesus refuses to the invitation to become a ruler like any other through the means Satan offers – obeisance to him, compromise with the forces controlling the world.

It must be underlined that these were not only temptations from Satan, they were tests from God – note how Jesus was ledby the Spirit into the desert, which the Old Testament reveals to the place of testing: the true Son of God is revealed thereby – Jesus, the true Israel – Matthew 4:1 ‘Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.’ Temptation of itself does not indicate inward sin – rather, it has its origins in the natural desires – James 1:13-15. Adam and Eve were still sinless when they were tempted.

To understand the importance of the sufferings of Christ, we must consider the purpose of His incarnation – John 3:16 -to provide salvation for anyone with faith in Him; 1 John 3:8 – to destroy the works of the Evil One. This involved the ultimate suffering on the cross, for our sakes. We shall see later that His death on Calvary is characterised as the Passive obedience of Christ. This is made by possible by His active obedience. His role as the Suffering Servant ‘ implies commission by the Father, subjection to, and fulfilment of, the father’s will. All of this involves obedience.’ 2 We see evidence of this in His Baptism by John – Matthew 3:15 – it was performed for the sake of righteousness, identifying with the people He came to save. His work is performed at the behest of the Father – John 4:34; 6:38; 10:17-18. Note the emphasis in the Epistles on the subject – Romans 5:19; Philippians 2:7; Hebrews 5:8, etc.

The Atonement was necessary by reason of the demands of Divine Law. 1 Peter 1:19 shows that the offering had to be an entity without ‘blemish or defect’, since that which was blemished by iniquity could never remove such pollution. Thus Christ, as the offering, must live as a flawless believer – offering perfect and total adherence to the Torah, both in outward action and inward thought – in short, He must love God with all His heart, etc, and love His neighbour as Himself, with all that this implies. Berkhof, makes the vital point that ‘…if Christ had suffered only the penalty imposed on man, those who shared in the fruits of His work would have been left exactly where Adam was before he fell.’ 3 As the old hymn says, ‘in Him the tribes of Adam boast more blessings than their father lost’. The righteous life, as well as the death of Christ gains for us the following blessings:

1. Freedom from the Law as the means of either entering or maintaining eternal Life – Galatians 4:4, 5.

2. Adoption as Sons of God – (ditto).

3. An inheritance and position of heirship – v7. The Righteousness of Faith (both in terms of entry and maintenance) supersedes that of the Torah – Romans 10:3, 4; 8:3, 4; 2 Corinthians 5:21.

B. The Islamic view

Ahmed Deedat, in The God that never was, refers to Hebrews 5:7-8 in a dismissive and derogatory way, and, as in the whole of his pamphlet, ignores the Biblical dogma (of which he must be aware), that Jesus was simultaneously divine and human, states that ‘”God” Learnt Through Experience: “Learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.” (Hebrews, 5:8)’ 4 We have already addressed this issue. Deedat also attacks the Biblical narrative of the temptations of Jesus, once again either displaying his complete ignorance of the theological import of the narrative as explained above, or wilfully engaging in pejorative polemics:

THE TEMPTING OF “GOD” The Devil Tempted “God” For 40 Days: “And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness. And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan.” (Mark, 1:12-13) The Devil Tempted “God” Continuously: “And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season.” (Luke, 4:13) Like the Sinners, “God” Was Tempted In All Things: “But (he) was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” (Hebrews, 4:15) True God Cannot be Tempted With Evil: “God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.” (James, 1:13) Only The Ungodly Are Tempted With Evil: “But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.” (James, 1:14) 5

However, the Qur’an does picture Jesus as enduring suffering. Whilst Islam denies original sin, it does hold to the sinlessness of the Prophets – Surah Al-An’am 6:85 – ‘And Zakariya and John and Jesus and Elias: all in the ranks of the righteous…’ The Biblical position, however, is that Jesus was uniquely sinless, something Islam traditionally denies in favour of the collegiality of the prophets. However, in seeming contradiction to this assertion, the Hadith does imply that only Jesus had no charge of sin against Him, something no other prophet can claim, and equally the Qur’an apparently implies that even Muhammad had to ask forgiveness for his sins. 6 Jesus is described as a ‘holy son’ in Surah Maryam 19:16ff. 7 It is likely that this unwitting affirmation of the unique sinlessness of Jesus reflects Qur’anic borrowing from Christianity, and the presence of this belief in both Qur’anic and Hadith texts is significant. Similarly, the contradictory claim of the impeccability of all the prophets is probably an attempt to assert equality for Muhammad with respect to Jesus. There is not the same sense in Islam as in the Bible that it involved a state of humiliation for the sinless one to enter the realm of the sinful, but in practical terms, the fact that the ministry of Jesus was met by unbelief and hostility is definitely apparent. The Jews are portrayed in the Qur’an as being guilty of unbelief with respect to the ministry and message of Jesus, S. 3:52ff:

52 …Jesus found unbelief on their part…

54 And (then unbelievers) plotted and planned and Allah too planned and the best of planners is Allah.

55 Behold! Allah said: ‘O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme…’

The Muslim translator and commentator, Yusuf Ali, refers to the iniquity of the Jews in this passage:

394 Read this with iv. 157, where it is said that ‘whereas they slew him not nor they crucified him but it was made dubious unto them.’ The guilt of the Jews remained, but Jesus was eventually taken up to Allah. (3.55)

395 Jesus was charged by the Jews with blasphemy as claiming to be Allah or the son of Allah…

396 Those who follow thee refers to those who followed Jesus in contrast to the Jews who rejected him. (3.55)

One aspect of the suffering of Jesus according to Islam is found in S. 4:156, which indicates that Mary was accused of immorality, implying that Jesus was illegitimate: ‘That they rejected faith: that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge.’ Yusuf Ali comments: ‘The false charge against Mary was that she was unchaste. Cf. xix. 27-28. Such a charge is bad enough to make against any woman, but to make it against Mary, the mother of Jesus, was to bring into ridicule Allah’s power itself.’ Samuel Zwemer in his book The Muslim Christ suggests that the statement in S. 4:172 ‘Christ disdaineth not to serve and worship Allah…’ is a reference to ‘the title of the Messiah in Isaiah as the servant of Jehovah.’ 8 Whether this is so or not, there seems to be no specific theological necessity for Jesus to suffer according to Islam. Rather, the Qur’an simply makes the historical observation that this occurred, and notes that this was the common inheritance of the prophets:

Surah Al-Baqara 2:87ff

87 We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of Apostles; We gave Jesus the son of Mary clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit. Is it that whenever there comes to you an Apostle with what ye yourselves desire not ye are puffed up with pride? Some ye called impostors and others ye slay!

91 When it is said to them: ‘believe in what Allah hath sent down’ they say ‘We believe in what was sent down to us’; yet they reject all besides even if it be truth confirming what is with them. Say: ‘Why then have ye slain the prophets of Allah in times gone by if ye did indeed believe?’

Surah An-Nisaa 4:155

155 (They have incurred divine displeasure): in that they broke their Covenant: that they rejected the Signs of Allah; that they slew the Messengers in defiance of right; that they said ‘Our hearts are the wrappings (which preserve Allah’s Word; we need no more)’; nay Allah hath set the seal on their hearts for their blasphemy and little is it they believe.

156 That they rejected faith: that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge.

157 That they said (in boast) ‘We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary the Apostle of Allah’; but they killed him not nor crucified him but so it was made to appear to them and those who differ therein are full of doubts with no (certain) knowledge but only conjecture to follow for of a surety they killed him not.

Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 6093

Narrated by Ali ibn AbuTalib

Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said to him, “You have a resemblance to Jesus whom the Jews hated so much that they slandered his mother…Ahmad transmitted it.

Given that Muhammad, rather than Jesus, is the central figure in Islam, we should not be surprised that there is no presentation of Jesus as the Man of Sorrows and acquainted with grief. In the Bible, His sufferings presage and climax in the Crucifixion, which Islam denies. Islam, however, presents the sufferings of Jesus as presaging those of Muhammad. It can be seen that ultimately, the ministry of Muhammad supplants the role of the crucifixion of Christ. In this respect, it is significant that the Qur’an contains nothing comparable to the temptations of Jesus in the New Testament. Given that Jesus is not presented as either the climax or the crux of salvation-history, this is not surprising. As we have seen, the temptations of Jesus as presented in the Bible play a specific salvatory role, for which the Islamic portrait of Jesus has no place or point. In this respect, the temptations of Jesus would be superfluous as to the Islamic theological schema. At any rate, it is taken for granted that prophets are sinless. However, Zwemer notes a Muslim tradition about the temptation of Jesus that obviously borrows from the Biblical account:

There is also this curious version of the temptation of Jesus which may indicate His victory over the devil, but is not very conclusive: Ta’us of Yemen, one of the early followers of Mohammed, used to say, ‘There is nothing which a man says but is counted against him, even his moaning in illness.’ He said, ‘Jesus having met Iblis, the latter said to him, Do you not know that nothing will betide you but what is destined for you?’ Jesus replied, ‘Yes.’ Iblis then said, ‘Ascend to the summit of this mountain and throw yourself down: see whether you will live or not.’ Jesus replied, ‘Do you not know that God has said, ‘My servant cannot test me, for I do what I please?’ Verily, a servant does not try his Lord, but God tries His servant.’ Ta’us said, ‘Iblis there-fore became his enemy.’ 9

In fact, the portrait of the sufferings of Jesus in the Qur’an seem merely to fulfil the function of typology – showing that it is the common experience of divine messengers to experience rejection and hostility, and thus present the persecution of Muhammad by the pagans as the culmination of human animosity towards the prophets of God. 10 Islam can then argue that the antagonism of the Quraish to the message of the prophet of Islam fits a theological/historical pattern. Muhammad, however, goes one better (according to the Muslim perception): he ultimately triumphs over his persecutors in the material, political sense. The other reason that Jesus is displayed as persecuted by the Jews is to explain and justify the removal of prophethood from that people to the Arabs, in a parallel way to the import of Matthew 21:43 – and thus argue for the Apostolic ministry of Muhammad, Surah Maidah 5:78 – ‘Curses were pronounced on those among the Children of Israel who rejected faith by the tongue of David and of Jesus the son of Mary: because they disobeyed and persisted in excesses.’ The Hadith and Fiqh also refer to this:

Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith 4322

Narrated by Abdullah ibn Mas’ud

The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said: The first defect that permeated Banu Isra’il was that a man (of them) met another man and said: O so-and-so, fear Allah, and abandon what you are doing, for it is not lawful for you. He then met him the next day and that did not prevent him from eating with him, drinking with him and sitting with him. When they did so. Allah mingled their hearts with each other. He then recited the verse: “curses were pronounced on those among the children of Isra’il who rejected Faith, by the tongue of David and of Jesus the son of Mary”…up to “wrongdoers”. He then said: By no means, I swear by Allah, you must enjoin what is good and prohibit what is evil, prevent the wrongdoer, bend him into conformity with what is right, and restrict him to what is right.

Fiqh-us-Sunnah

Fiqh 4.76

The Prohibition Against Talking Ill of the Dead

…Cursing the dead disbelievers is permissible, because Allah, the Exalted, says: “Curses by the tongue of David and of Jesus, the son of Mary, were pronounced on those among the Children of Israel who rejected faith.” Qur’an 5.78 Similarly we read in the Qur’an: “Perish the hands of the Father of Flame!” Qur’an 111.1 Pharaoh and others like him have also been cursed in the Qur’an, besides the great curse of Allah about which we read: “Behold! the curse of Allah is on those who do wrong. Qur’an 11.18

Yusuf Ali comments about Surah Al-Maidah 5:78-79, interestingly borrowing from the New Testament to elaborate on these verses:

786 The Psalms of David have several passages of imprecations against the wicked. Cf- Psalms cix 17-18; lxxviii. 21-22 (‘Therefore the Lord heard this and was wroth; so a fire was kindled against Jacob, and anger also came up against Israel; because they believed not in God, and trusted not in His salvation’); Psalms lxix. 22-28, and Psalms v. 10. (5.78)

787 Cf. Matt- xxiii, 33 (‘Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of Hell?); also Matt. xii. 34. (5.78)

788 There are bad men in every community, but if leaders connive at the misdeeds of the commonalty,-and even worse, if leaders themselves share in the misdeeds, as happened with the Pharisees and Scribes against whom Jesus spoke out, then that community is doomed. (5.79)

5. The Passion

A. The Biblical View

(a) Jesus is crucified for being the Messiah, and Son of Man – Matthew 26:63-64. His death was necessary, as He was the Suffering Servant. He dies, albeit in parody, as King of Israel – 27:37, 42, and is recognised by a representative Gentile as ‘Son of God’ which many of His compatriots, especially the Hierarchy, rejected – 26:65; 27:43; Mark 15:39.

(b) This latter fact points to an aspect of His ministry as the Son of Man and servant – the ingathering of the Gentiles into the New Covenant Israel – Isaiah 11:10ff; 42:1, 6; 49:6; Matthew 12:18, 21; John 11:51-52; 12:31-32.

(c) The Cross was His avenue to the Father, John 17:1, 11, and to glory – 12:27-28; 16:23; 17:2, 5.

(d) It establishes the New Covenant – Matthew 26:28. The fact that this is related to His death and is associated with the Passover in 26:1; 1 Corinthians 5:7 points to the election predicted in Ezekiel 20:24-38 and which characterised the first Exodus itself – only those of faith who put themselves under the blood enter His kingdom and covenant, and such is removed from those whose rejection of Jesus evidence their infidelity – Matthew 21:43.

(e) Jesus bears upon Himself the Judgement of Wrath that was to come upon all mankind, but specifically the judgement to be poured out on Jerusalem and the generation of Israel to which He came – Matthew 23:35-36; Luke 21:22-23 poured out on Jerusalem and the generation of Israel to which He came – Matthew 23:35-36; Luke 21:22-23. This was fulfilled in AD 70, and the latter event displayed the election within Israel to which we referred earlier – those who had identified themselves with the Messiah did not suffer the Judgement – Matthew 24:22; Luke 21:28.

(f) His crucifixion and death are real, and involve real pain and anguish. He anticipates this in Gethsemane, when, faced with the reality of the torturous, long, drawn-out pain of the Cross he naturally, like any man, wishes it were possible to forego the agony inherent in the event – Matthew 26:3-56; Mark 14:3250; Luke 22:39-53. Geoffrey Grogan writes about the Agony in the Garden:

Mark gives us a particularly vivid account of what happened on that occasion. He tells us that Jesus ‘took with him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly distressed and troubled.’ (Mark 14:33.) Commentators are agreed that this sentence is not easy to translate into English. The language is strong, very strong, and no English verb quite expresses either of the two Greek verbs involved. Distress, horror, dread, amazement all are involved. Out of this horrifying experience came a poignant word to his disciples, ‘My soul is very sorrowful, even to death;’ (Mark 14:34). These words too are so very difficult to translate. The New English Bible rendering is rather free, but it does more justice to them as an expression of deep feeling: ‘My heart is ready to break with grief.’

It was while his heart was thus weighed down with horror and grief that Jesus went to pray. ‘Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what thou wilt.’ (Mark 14:36.) The use of the word ‘cup’ in such a context as this makes us realize what an agony of anticipation must have formed the emotional background to its use by him on earlier occasions. His human nature shrank from the cross, yet his will embraced the Father’s will. He would do what the Father wanted him to do, no matter what the cost of it might be to him. 11

It is worth noting that unlike Muhammad, Jesus never physically fought His enemies, telling His followers to put away their swords. 12 Indeed, Jesus died for the sake of His enemies – Romans 5:8. There is nothing comparable to the massacre of the Banu Qurayza in the ministry of Jesus; rather, in fulfilment of prophecy, He went like a sheep to the shearers. It was not as though He could not have destroyed His foes; He informs His disciples that if He so-requested it, He could appeal to His Father, who would immediately once send Him more than twelve legions of angels, Matthew 26:53. Furthermore, it should be noted that the Agony in the Garden is unintelligible unless He knew that He was going to die. The Father could have sent His angels to deliver Jesus, but it was the Father’s will for Him to die, in contradiction to Islam’s belief about the miraculous rescue from the cross.

The agony on the cross is, however, accentuated by two other factors – the fact that He will have to bear the wrath of God against the sin He vicariously bears, and also that He will have to undergo all of this alone.

(g) We should remember that most of His close associates fled and abandoned Him upon His arrest, that He was scorned, mocked, tortured and humiliated by the Jewish Hierarchy and Roman army, and was compelled to die as a common criminal with two men who were such, both of whom, initially, joined the taunts of those who looked on. (Isaiah 53:9 prophesied Jesus’ position with such men in His dying moments.)

Worse than all else was His abandonment by God – Matthew 27:46, quoting Psalm 22:1. As Jesus vicariously bore the sins of all, in this sense becoming sin for us, He experienced what the wicked in Hell must know and feel – the utter abandonment by God, the total separation from the love and presence of the Father.

It is well-known that Muslims believe that someone was substituted for Jesus on the cross. Whilst this cry – ‘My God, my God, why have You forsaken me’ could be interpreted as supporting this, the request for the Father’s forgiveness for those crucifying Him is more problematic – Luke 23:34. This is even more unlikely in the light of John 19:27, where Jesus instructs John to take care of His mother – ‘Then he said to the disciple, Behold, your mother! And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home.’ If it were Judas, Peter, Simon of Cyrene or whoever, this would make no sense. The same goes for the promise of imminent entry into Paradise for the repentant thief in Luke 23:43 – ‘And he said to him, Truly I say to you, Today you shall be with me in Paradise.’

(h) The Crucifixion ends on a note of victory – Tetelstai (‘tetelestai’) ‘it is finished’ and with a shout of triumph, Luke 23:46, in which having completed His work, He commits his spirit into the hands of the Father, to whom He now returns – v 43. We thus see the separation between material and immaterial aspects of a human being common before the Parousia – He yields up His spirit to God, Matthew 27:50, whilst His body is entombed, and that in the grave of a rich man, in fulfilment of Isaiah 53:9; Matthew 27:57, 60. Again, it should be observed that it would be unintelligible for Judas, Peter, Simon of Cyrene or whoever to make this shout of victory.

(i) Jesus thus triumphs over death in and through death – 1 Corinthians 15:54-57. He conquers the one who had the power of death – Hebrews 2:14-15. He has overcome the cosmological forces of sin and death – Romans 6:6-7, 9.

(j) We see the identification of the elect with Christ in His death and burial. Not only did Christ die for us, becoming a ‘curse’ for us, i.e. receiving the due threatened upon the sinner in Deuteronomy 21:22-23 (and Deuteronomy 28) and stated thus in Galatians 3:13, but we have died with Him and in Him – Galatians 2:20; Romans 6:3-11. The latter passage probably speaks of spiritual, rather than water baptism. We are thus set free form sin and death – we have a key to the grave, which will be opened at the Parousia. Practically, we know that what we were formerly – the old self – went into the grave with Christ and stayed there, and that our new self has been raised with the Risen Christ that we might live unto God. Christ has dominion over sin, death and Satan, so they no longer have dominion over us, because of our identification with Him.

B. The Islamic View

It is well-known that the Qur’an specifically denies the crucifixion of Jesus. This is a daring thing to do in the light of the clear testimony of the New Testament, and also in the face of the Christian practice of the Eucharist, however erroneously Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have presented it. Since all professing Christians had Eucharistic practices and dogmas at the time of Muhammad, he could scarcely be unaware that this testified to the reality of the death of Christ. Moreover, this practice was not a later development, nor supposedly a creation of Paul, but went right back to Jesus, predicted as His Last Supper: Matthew 26:26 (Mark 14:22ff; Luke 22:19) ‘And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27 And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink this; 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for remission of sins.’ We find the Eucharist also addressed and employed in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles. 13 It is hard to explain the early (indeed, immediate) and widespread practice of the Eucharist unless everyone was convinced of the reality of Christ’s death.

The Qur’anic denial of the death of Jesus did not originate in polemical dispute with Christians, but rather with Jews. Montgomery Watt has argued that the latter is the probable term of reference. 14 The Medinan Jews are said to have responded to Muhammad’s claims of being a messenger in the prophetic college of Abraham, Moses and Jesus by denying the prophetic standing of Jesus, as they had been able to kill Him. God would not have permitted Him to be put to death if He were a genuine messenger of God. Given that Muhammad claimed to be the prophetic successor to Jesus, the consequent implication is that if Jesus were a false prophet, so was Muhammad. On this basis, we can understand the necessity for the Qur’an at this point to deny the reality of the death of Jesus to safeguard not so much Him, but rather Muhammad against Jewish attacks (we shall see later that the nature and cause of this denial causes theological problems for Islam).The Jews are not totally absolved of guilt, since the Qur’an definitely accuses them of attempted murder against Jesus:

Surah An-Nisa 4:157

157. That they said (in boast) “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary the Apostle of Allah”; but they killed him not nor crucified him but so it was made to appear to them and those who differ therein are full of doubts with no (certain) knowledge but only conjecture to follow for of a surety they killed him not.

158. Nay Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power Wise.

159. And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment He will be a witness against them.

There are different Islamic theories as to what occurred on Calvary. This results from the ambiguity of the language of the Qur’an (Wa maa qataluhuu wa maa salabuhuu wa laakin shubbiha lahum) in this regard. Usually, it is believed that a passing Jew, one of the Roman soldiers, Judas, Simon of Cyrene or even one of the disciples, frequently Peter, was the unhappy victim, whose features were transformed by God. 15 Gilchrist refers to the work of the Islamic scholar Tabari in this regard:

Tabari, although he treats the subject very fully and gives a great number of traditions, does not seem to have known the story of a Jew who was crucified. As to Judas, he states that some of the Christians assert that he was the one made in the likeness of ‘Isa and crucified. Tabari realizes constantly the confusion in the different contradicting statements current even in his time, and after venturing the above remark, says that Allah knows best how it was. 16

Later, Gilchrist notes the comments of another Muslim, Daryabadi, on this issue: ‘It was not Jesus who was executed but another, who was miraculously substituted (how and in what way is another question, and is not touched upon in the Quran) for him.’ (The Holy Qur’an, Vol. 1, p. 96-A). However, it should be noted that the ‘substitution’ theory is not explicitly taught in the Qur’an, which simply affirms a divine miracle that made the crucifixion appear real. Essentially, a mass delusion – even affecting Jesus’ followers – occurred. However, the reference to Jesus being assumed into Paradise does seem to indicate that this belief probably derives from the teaching of the Gnostic leader Basilides, who taught that, rather like a sci-fi ‘body swap’, the features of Simon of Cyrene were altered so that he would resemble Jesus, and the same occurred in reverse to Jesus, who stood by laughing. Irenaeus writes about the beliefs of this sect:

Those angels who occupy the lowest heaven, that, namely, which is visible to us, formed all the things which are in the world, and made allotments among themselves of the earth and of those nations which are upon it. The chief of them is he who is thought to be the God of the Jews; and inasmuch as he desired to render the other nations subject to his own people, that is, the Jews, all the other princes resisted and opposed him. Wherefore all other nations were at enmity with his nation. But the father without birth and without name, perceiving that they would be destroyed, sent his own first-begotten Nous (he it is who is called Christ) to bestow deliverance on them that believe in him, from the power of those who made the world. He appeared, then, on earth as a man, to the nations of these powers, and wrought miracles. Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them. For since he was an incorporeal power, and the Nous (mind) of the unborn father, he transfigured himself as he pleased, and thus ascended to him who had sent him, deriding them, inasmuch as he could not be laid hold of, and was invisible to all. Those, then, who know these things have been freed from the principalities who formed the world; so that it is not incumbent on us to confess him who was crucified, but him who came in the form of a man, and was thought to be crucified, and was called Jesus, and was sent by the father, that by this dispensation he might destroy the works of the makers of the world. If any one, therefore, he declares, confesses the crucified, that man is still a slave, and under the power of those who formed our bodies; but he who denies him has been freed from these beings, and is acquainted with the dispensation of the unborn father. 17

St. Clair Tisdall notes the opinions of other heretics who believed someone was substituted for Jesus:

But this view regarding Christ’s dying only in appearance and not in reality was not confined to Basilides. Photius (820-91 circa) in his Bitliotheca (Cod. 114) mentions the fact that in an apocryphal book called the ‘Travels of the Apostles’ it was asserted ‘that Christ had not been crucified, but another in His stead.’ Manes or Mani, the celebrated false prophet who at one time obtained so much influence in Persia, in a similar way held that ‘The prince of darkness therefore was fastened to the cross, and the same person bore the crown of thorns.’ It cannot be said that Muhammad denies Christ’s death on good authority, or that in doing so he is in good company. 18

It is significant that Yusuf Ali is obliged to make reference to Gnostics such as Basilides in his commentary on S. 4:157ff in order to defend the Qur’anic account, ignoring the fact Gnostic theology contradicts Islam as much as it does Christianity:

The end of the life of Jesus on earth is as much involved in mystery as his birth, and indeed the greater part of his private life, except the three main years of his ministry. It is not profitable to discuss the many doubts and conjectures among the early Christian sects and among Muslim theologians. The Orthodox Christian Churches make it a cardinal point of their doctrine that his life was taken on the Cross, that he died and was buried, that on the third day he rose in the body with his wounds intact, and walked about and conversed, and ate with his disciples, and was afterwards taken up bodily to heaven. This is necessary for the theological doctrine of blood sacrifice and vicarious atonement for sins, which is rejected by Islam. But some of the early Christian sects did not believe that Christ was killed on the Cross. The Basilidans believed that some one else was substituted for him. The Docetae held that Christ never had a real physical or natural body, but only an apparent or phantom body, and that his Crucifixion was only apparent, not real. The Marcionite Gospel (about A.D. 138) denied that Jesus was born, and merely said that he appeared in human form. The Gospel of St. Barnabas supported the theory of substitution on the Cross. The teaching is that Christ was not crucified nor killed by the Jews, notwithstanding certain apparent circumstances which produced that illusion in the’ minds of some of his enemies: that disputations, doubts, and conjectures on such matters are vain; and that he was taken up to Allah.(4.157)

There is difference of opinion as to the exact interpretation of this verse. The words are: The Jews did not kill Jesus, but Allah raised him up (rafa’u) to Himself. One school holds that Jesus did not die the usual human death, but still lives in the body in heaven, which is the generally accepted Muslim view. (4.158)

It can be inferred that the Qur’an recognises that the Jews believed that they had crucified Christ, and also that those attending the crucifixion in general were of the same perception. A further and rather obvious observation is that that Basilides and his followers were not even alive at the time of the crucifixion, and thus their views can be safely ignored as baseless. Further, the testimony of the gospels is not the only witness to the reality of the crucifixion. The Jews themselves firmly believed that they had killed Jesus: the Talmud, after accusing Him of being a ‘magician’ who ‘planned to deceive Israel with his delusions’, states ‘It is taught: On Passover Eve they hanged Yeshu …they hanged him on Passover Eve’, and quotes Deuteronomy 13:8f, which requires the execution of such a person, (Babylonian Talmud 43a) 19 It remains the orthodox Jewish belief that Jesus is being punished in Hell, a belief which necessitates His death. The Jewish historian Josephus, in his famous Antiquities of the Jews records that Jesus was slain in this way, and given that he writing after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, his testimony is especially significant: ‘…Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day…’ 20

The Roman historian Tacitus (a hostile foe of Christianity), writing after 115 AD and so not too far removed from the events, states the following in his Annals 15:44: ‘…Christus, had been executed when Tiberius was emperor by order of the procurator Pontius Pilatus.’ The Greek Epicurean historian Lucien, 100 AD, wrote that ‘The Christians continue to worship that great man who was crucified in Palestine because he brought a new religion into the world.’ 21 Thallus, a Samaritan-born historian, c. AD 52, quoted by Julius Africanus, c. AD 221, similarly affirms the reality of the crucifixion: ‘Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness [at the time of the crucifixion] as an eclipse of the sun- unreasonable, of course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of the full moon, and it was the time of the pascal full moon when Christ died.’ The Letter of Mara Bar-Serapion, after AD 73 (this letter resides in the British Museum): ‘What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished…. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given.’ 22 Hence, Islam has to contend with the fact that the consensus of opinion, both of Christians and their foes, in and shortly following the time of the crucifixion, is that Jesus was indeed placed on the cross and died there.

The Hadith implies a bodily assumption of Jesus into Paradise. This is the natural inference from Bukhari 6.149, where it presents Jesus as saying to Allah ‘you took me up’. 23 Whilst there are parallels with the Biblical narratives of the bodily ascensions before death of Enoch and Elijah, it more likely that Gnostic theory has influenced Islam on this point, as comparison with the doctrine of Basilides we examined earlier testifies: ‘… he transfigured himself as he pleased, and thus ascended to him who had sent him, deriding them, inasmuch as he could not be laid hold of, and was invisible to all.’ The implication of both this and S. 4:157 (‘they did not kill him’) is that Jesus did not die. The reference in v159 ‘there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death’ also implies this.

There are obvious objections to the Islamic denial of the crucifixion of Jesus. Islam has no problem with God deceiving people – Surah Al-i-Imran 3:54 ‘And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.’ Yet, it is not just the act of deception that is problematic here. How could a righteous God engage in such a callous deception that would send possibly a completely unwilling innocent man to die in this way (if it were not Judas)? Gilchrist notes that the damage done to the moral character of God by Islam’s substitution theory:

It is extremely difficult to see why God should transform the appearance of a bystander to make him look like Jesus so that the Jews and Romans could crucify him instead. The very act of misrepresenting one man as another is surely a form of impersonation and we cannot expect to find the ‘Holy God who shows himself holy in righteousness’ (Isaiah 5.16) doing such a thing. Furthermore, if it was God’s intention to deliver and save Jesus, why should anyone be crucified at all, particularly an innocent bystander (that is, one innocent of any supposed crime for which the Jews sought to crucify Jesus). Muslim writers attempt to circumvent this difficulty by proposing Judas Iscariot as the victim as his crucifixion would supposedly be a fitting consequence of his wish to betray Jesus into the same form of execution. There is no hint in the Qur’an, however, as to the identity of the victim substituted for Jesus and the choice of Judas is an obvious expedient designed to remove a troublesome objection.

What are we to say of the nature of a God Who behaves in this way or of the character of a Christ Who permits another – even if a Judas – to suffer the consequences of an antagonism His own teaching has aroused against Himself? Is this kind of victory the worthiest in prophets of God? (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 296). 24

Similarly, Steven Masood writes about the ‘substitution’ theory: ‘Whoever it was, if God made his face to look like that of Jesus at that moment so people were ‘taken in’, would this not be an intolerable deception? How could Jesus, the prophet of God, allow such a terrible deception? If God wanted to raise Jesus to heaven, why was it necessary to victimize a bystander? Many Muslims answer: “God knows.”‘ 25

A perhaps more significant objection, given that Islam has little trouble with ‘heavenly deception’, is the question of the theological import of the rescue of Jesus from the cross. It is well-known that Muslims, especially when debating Christians, will deny the need for the crucifixion on the basis of Islam’s rejection of the concept of Vicarious Reconciliation, since it instead affirms the necessity of submission to God by obedience to Islamic law (the Shari’ah). The Muslim writer Abdalati declares on this subject that ‘Islam rejects the …Crucifixion… This rejection is based on the authority of God Himself as revealed in the Qur’an and on a deeper rejection of blood sacrifice and vicarious atonement for sins.’ 26 However, it should be remembered that the denial of the crucifixion did not arise as a result of controversy with Christians, but rather in dispute with Jews. This is quite clear from the context of the passage in question, S. 4:157ff, wherein Christians are not mentioned. What is controverted is a Jewish, not Christian theological assertion. This is important, because so often Muslims (and even Christians) anachronistically read back their controversies on the means of salvation to these verses, whereas the theme of the passage is not a rejection of vicarious blood sacrifice, but rather of the supposed Jewish ‘boast’ of the execution of Jesus, and the implications this assertion possessed for the prophetic claims of Muhammad himself.

As we saw previously, Watt suggested that the denial was a result of an declaration by the Jews that Jesus was not a true prophet because He had been executed. It is quite likely that the form of His death – crucifixion, linked to a divine curse (Deuteronomy 21:22-23; Galatians 3:13), as well as the tradition found in the Talmud, was the basis of this belief. Hence the Muslim assertion that it only appeared to be so. It is probable that this statement accurately reflects what actually occurred between Muhammad and the Jews of Medina, whatever the origins of the rest of the passage. Indeed, it is quite possible that the remaining verses in the passage are a later insertion, because they are quite embarrassing for the ‘substitution’ theory. This is particularly true of 4:155 – ‘they slew the Messengers’. Similarly, in Surah Al-Baqarah 2:61, 87, we read about the actions of the Jews towards divine Messengers ‘That was because they disbelieved in Allah’s revelations and slew the prophets wrongfully’; ‘Some ye called impostors and others ye slay!’ The same thought is found in v91 ‘Why then have ye slain the prophets of Allah in times gone by if ye did indeed believe?’ A similar idea is found in S. 3:112 ‘That is because they used to disbelieve the revelations of Allah, and slew the Prophets wrongfully.’ Again, S. 5:70 ‘We made a covenant of old with the Children of Israel and We sent unto them messengers. As often as a messenger came unto them with that which their souls desired not (they became rebellious). Some (of them) they denied and some they slew.’ It seems that there was neither divine rescue nor any theological reason for these prophets not to be killed.

The obvious question then arises as to why then was Jesus ‘taken up’ when other prophets were slain? What was so different about Jesus? This is something Islam has yet to answer. Given that other prophets were not spared, and that according to the Qur’an, Jesus will indeed die one day, why was it necessary to preserve His life from assassination? Unlike the Biblical position, according to Islam Jesus is presently doing nothing of a salvatory character in Paradise – He is not ruling or interceding. What then is the theological import of His assumption? What theological reason is there for Jesus notto die, as did other divine messengers? There is no crucial reason for Jesus not to have been crucified and died. It serves neither theological purpose – nor any logical purpose, for that matter – for Jesus to have cheated death the way He did according to Islam.

There are two possibilities that might help to resolve this dilemma. One is that Muhammad gave a knee-jerk reaction to the Jewish polemic, which later Qur’anic redactors were unable to harmonise with other theological assertions. This is more than a possibility, given that it is often observed that the Qur’an gives the impression of hurried collation. Another possibility is that the text should read as not denying the action of murder, but rather the identity of the perpetrator. That is, we should understand the text not as rejecting the claim that the Jews killed Christ, but instead, that the Jews killed Christ. Rather, Allah was responsible, and it only appeared to the Jews that they had got their way. Elsewhere, the Qur’an tells Muslims who killed their foes at the battle of Badr, S. 8:17 ‘Ye (Muslims) slew them not, but Allah slew them. And thou (Muhammad) threwest not when thou didst throw, but Allah threw, that He might test the believers by a fair test from Him. Lo! Allah is Hearer, Knower.’ In short, divine sovereignty and providence was the agent for the crucifixion, and the Jews were merely the instrument of the heavenly purpose. Anderson notes that a form of this theory has recently been suggested by a Sudanese Muslim leader:

Mahmoud Mohammad Taha the leader of the Republican Brothers in Sudan, wrote in a booklet titled al-Masih:

The belief of the Muslims that Jesus did not die is based on Sura 4:157. But it is clear that that verse does not give that understanding … specially if we take into consideration the other verse in which God said, ‘Isa [Jesus] I am about to cause you to die and lift you up to me’, and also the words, ‘Peace be upon me, the day I was born, and the day I die, the day I am raised up alive’. Naturally the Qur’an does not contradict itself, for the expression ‘mutawaffika’ means that he will die … and also the expression ‘the day I die’ points in the same direction. So the straight understanding becomes that the Christ was killed, then raised up. And that is what is pointed to by the words of God, ‘and they slew him not of a certainty – no indeed’, which means that without any doubt they killed him, as they thought they did, but they slew him not of a certainty which is the same expression as ‘they thought they did’… this meaning appears in the Qur’an in other places such as the words of God, ‘you did not slay them, but God did, and when thou throwest, it was not thyself that threw, but God threw’. And the meaning of that verse is that, when you killed them, it was not you who killed them, but it was God.

Thus Mamoud Mohammad Taha, like the philosopher Sagastani understood from the same Qur’anic passages that Jesus was killed by the Jews without a doubt, then raised up by God. With Dr. Ayoub he found no difficulty in concluding that the Qur’an speaks plainly of the death of Jesus, otherwise the Qur’an would be contradicting itself. He then proceeded to prove that this mode of expressing the death of Christ is not unique but has a parallel in the Qur’an, indeed it is an affirmation in the form of negation. 27

This view has much to commend it, and may well be the original understanding. It would accord with the Servant passages in the Book of Isaiah – 53:10 – ‘Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; He has put him to grief:’ In other words the Lord was responsible for the death of Jesus, using the instrumentality of the sin of the Jewish priesthood to accomplish this. Recently, a Christian website paper pointed to the following Hadith, which taken in tandem with this interpretation, may echo the original Christian concept of the death of Christ (although the prophet is unidentified), especially as Luke 23:34 says: ‘Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.’:

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 9.63

Narrated by Abdullah

As if I am looking at the Prophet while he was speaking about one of the prophets whose people have beaten and wounded him, and he was wiping the blood off his face and saying, ‘O Lord! Forgive my people as they do not know.’ 28

The problem is that the Hadith corpus, as with the majority Muslim interpretation, does not seem to allow for this. As we examine the following texts, the implication is that Jesus will die after His Second Coming. If that were the case, it is difficult to see how He could have died previously. Of course, there is nothing to say that the Hadith does not contradict the Qur’an, and given the late dating of the Hadith, the interpretation it offers does not preclude the interpretation suggested by people like Mahmoud Mohammad Taha being the original one, and indeed the correct exegesis of the Qur’anic passage in question. We are obliged to say, however, that the view of Islamic sources in their entirety – i.e. the Qur’an and Sunnah – indicate that Islam denies the death of Christ on the cross:

Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith 4310Narrated by AbuHurayrahThe Prophet (peace be upon him) said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (peace be upon him). He will descend (to the earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him.Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.657Narrated byAbu HurairaAllah’s Apostle said, “By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, surely (Jesus,) the son of Mary will soon descend amongst you and will judge mankind justly (as a Just Ruler); he will break the Cross and kill the pigs and there will be no Jizya (i.e. taxation taken from non-Muslims). Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it, and a single prostration to Allah (in prayer) will be better than the whole world and whatever is in it.” Abu Huraira added “If you wish, you can recite (this verse of the Holy Book): ‘And there is none of the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (i.e. Jesus as an Apostle of Allah and a human being) Before his death. And on the Day of Judgment He will be a witness against them.” (4.159)Surah Al-Maidah 5:110110 Then will Allah say: “O Jesus the son of Mary! recount my favour to thee and to thy mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the holy spirit so that thou didst speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught thee the Book and Wisdom the Law and the Gospel. And behold! thou makest out of clay as it were the figure of a bird by My leave and thou breathest into it and it becometh a bird by My leave and thou healest those born blind and the lepers by My leave. And behold! thou bringest forth the dead by My leave. And behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) thee when thou didst show them the Clear Signs and the unbelievers among them said: ‘This is nothing but evident magic’.Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 5772Narrated by Abdullah ibn SalamThe description of Muhammad is written in the Torah and also that Jesus, son of Mary, will be buried along with him. AbuMawdud said that a place for a grave had remained in the house.Tirmidhi transmitted it.

We should also consider S. 5:110 in this regard, which speaks of God restraining the Jews from violence against Jesus. This could possibly speak of the cross, though, as Yusuf Ali suggests, it may be referring to incidents prior to this – ‘The Jews were seeking to take the life of Jesus long before their final attempt to crucify him: see Luke iv. 28-29. Their attempt to crucify him was also foiled, according to the teaching we have received: Q. iv. 157.’ If the latter is the case, whilst it might suggest a pattern in the life of Jesus whereby God preserved Him from destruction, it also begs the question why God would have to assume Him into Paradise, given that He protected Him otherwise previously.

A further point requires examination. In the absence of vicarious atonement, what exactly is the (earthly) ministry of Jesus according to Islam? The actual ministry of Jesus is two-fold and complementary – guidance and prophecy. It can be observed that the ministry of guidance according to Islam is exactly equivalent to the Biblical ministry of sacrifice. This can be seen by examining Genesis 3:15, the judgment of God after the sin of Adam and Eve, with God addressing the Devil as well – ‘and I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed: he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.’ This prophesies a Deliverer who will undo the work of Satan at cost to Himself – the first Messianic prophecy, which itself points to the Sacrificial death of Christ, and is in keeping with texts like John 12:31, which specifically deals with the Cross – ‘now the ruler of this world shall be cast out’, and 1 John 3:8 ‘For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, to destroy the works of the devil.’

When we compare this with the Qur’an, we find that instead of a promised Deliverer, there is a prediction of Guidance – S. 2:38 ‘We said: Go down, all of you, from hence; but verily there cometh unto you from Me a guidance; and whoso followeth My guidance, there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve’; S. 20:123 ‘He said: Go down hence, both of you, one of you a foe unto the other. But if there come unto you from Me a guidance, then whoso followeth My guidance, he will not go astray nor come to grief.’ It is clear that Guidance of this sort has a salvatory function from what is stated in S. 7:35 ‘O Children of Adam! If messengers of your own come unto you who narrate unto you My revelations, then whosoever refraineth from evil and amendeth there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.’

On this basis, we should not be surprised to find Islam presenting not a Jesus who willingly and in the determination of God suffers a sacrificial death, but rather one se primary ministry is to mediate divine revelation. It is in this sense and context we should understand the Qur’anic references to the Gospel bestowed upon and brought by Jesus. Of course, by the InjilMuslims often understand not so much the message, the kerygma, but a revelatory Book. This is perceived as a portion of the Book of Allah preserved on heavenly tablets: S. 3:23 ‘Hast thou not turned thy vision to those who have been given a portion of the Book? They are invited to the Book of Allah to settle their dispute but a party of them turn back and decline (the arbitration).’ Yusuf Ali comments ‘A portion of the Book. I conceive that Allah’s revelation as a whole throughout the ages is ‘The Book’. The Law of Moses, and the Gospel of Jesus were portions of the Book. The Qur’an completes the revelation and is par excellence the Book of Allah. (3.23)’ Similarly, Surah Al-i’ Imran 3:3 is instructive on this issue: ‘It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step) in truth the Book confirming what went before it; and He sent down Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this as a guide to mankind and He sent down the Criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).’ In the Biblical schema, Jesus brings in His person and His work the means of salvation – His redemptive, vicarious self-sacrifice. In Islam, He brings the Book of Allah. The common aspect between the two religions is that with Jesus, the means of salvation has come from heaven to earth. The difference is the identity and nature of that means of salvation.

The ministry of Jesus therefore consists of divine revelation accompanied by attesting miracles. This can be seen from S. 3:46ff, where Jesus as the divine Apostle reveals the will of God whilst yet a babe! Specifically, this message involves testimony to the truth of the Torah, a change in the food laws (probably reflecting Mark 7:19), and the affirmation of the unique worship of Allah, belief in which is the testimony of relationship to Allah:

Surah Al-i’ Imran 3:46

46 “He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity and he shall be (of the company) of the righteous.”

48 “And Allah will teach him the Book and Wisdom the Law and the Gospel.

49 “And (appoint him) an Apostle to the Children of Israel (with this message): I have come to you with a sign from your Lord in that I make for you out of clay as it were the figure of a bird and breathe into it and it becomes a bird by Allah’s leave; and I heal those born blind and the lepers and I quicken the dead by Allah’s leave; and I declare to you what ye eat and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe.

50 “(I have come to you) to attest the Law which was before me and to make lawful to you part of what was (before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah and obey me.

51 “It is Allah who is my Lord and your Lord; then worship Him. This is a way that is straight.”

52 When Jesus found unbelief on their part he said: “Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?” Said the Disciples: “We are Allah’s helpers we believe in Allah and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims.

53 “Our Lord! we believe in what thou hast revealed and we follow the Apostle; then write us down among those who bear witness.”

Similar thoughts on the saving nature of guidance are found in other texts, such as S. 5:46 ‘And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary confirming the law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light and confirmation of the law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah’, and S. 2:87 ‘We gave Jesus the son of Mary clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit.’ The content of this ‘guidance’ might surprise many Christians familiar with the Sermon on the Mount, since it included an injunction to jihad: Surah At-Tauba 9:111 ‘Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their good; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth through the Law the Gospel and the Qur’an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah?’ Far from urging forgiveness for His enemies, the Islamic Jesus cursed them, S. 5:78: ‘curses were pronounced on those among the children of Israel who rejected Faith, by the tongue of David and of Jesus the son of Mary’.

According to Surah An-Nisaa 4:160, the original kosher regulations were a divine punishment, so it is significant, if contradictory, that despite the iniquity of the Jews continuing during the ministry of Jesus, and in fact climaxing with their rejection of Him, the Gospel Jesus received apparently relieved them of this punitive burden: ‘For the iniquity of the Jews We made unlawful for them certain (foods) good and wholesome which had been lawful for them; in that they hindered many from Allah’s way.’ Despite this, Yusuf Ali comments on Surah Al-Ahqaf 46:12: ‘The last revealed Book which was a Code of Life (Shari’at) was the Book of Moses; for that of Jesus was not such a Code, but merely moral precepts to sweep away the corruptions that had crept in. The Qur’an has the same attitude to it as the teaching of Jesus had to the Law. Jesus said (Matt. v. 17): “Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” But the corruptions took new forms in Christian Churches: an entirely new Shari’at became necessary, and this was provided in Islam.’ It is difficult to harmonise this interpretation with S. 4:160, especially since food laws are a principal consideration of the Shari’ah.

The emphasis on the unique worship of God is clear from Surah Az-Zukhruf 43:63, where we read that ‘When Jesus came with Clear Signs he said: “Now have I come to you with Wisdom and in order to make clear to you some of the (points) on which ye dispute: therefore fear Allah and obey me. 64 “For Allah; He is my Lord and your Lord: so worship ye Him: this is a Straight Way.”‘ Specifically, this ‘Gospel’ guidance did not contain an affirmation of Christ’s deity, according to Surah Al-Maidah 5:116–117: ‘And behold! Allah will say “O Jesus the son of Mary! didst thou say unto men ‘worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah”? He will say: “Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say)… 117 “Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say to wit ‘Worship Allah my Lord and your Lord’…’ The same call to the unique worship of Allah and the denial of that worship to Jesus is found in v72 of the same surah.

As we saw earlier, Islam presents the sufferings of Jesus as presaging those of Muhammad. There is no sense of the Cross being the earthly climax of Christ’s ministry prior to the Resurrection, and in the absence of the death of Christ, and for that matter the resurrection and session, it follows that something else is the climactic terminus of His ministry. The answer is found in S. 33:40 ‘Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but he is the messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets…’, and also in the Hadith:

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.652Narrated by Abu HurairaAllah’s Apostle said, ‘Both in this world and in the Hereafter, I am the nearest of all the people to Jesus, the son of Mary. The prophets are paternal brothers; their mothers are different, but their religion is one.’Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.651Narrated by Abu HurairaI heard Allah’s Apostle saying, ‘I am the nearest of all the people to the son of Mary, and all the prophets are paternal brothers, and there has been no prophet between me and him (i.e. Jesus).’Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.658Narrated by Abu HurairaAllah’s Apostle said “How will you be when the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you and he will judge people by the Law of the Qur’an and not by the law of Gospel?Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.655Narrated byAbu Musa Al AshariAllah’s Apostle said, ‘…if a man believes in Jesus and then believes in me, he will get a double reward…’Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.734Narrated by Jabir bin AbdullahThe Prophet said, ‘My similitude in comparison with the other prophets is that of a man who has built a house completely and excellently except for a place of one brick. When the people enter the house, they admire its beauty and say: “But for the place of this brick (how splendid the house will be)!”‘Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.735Narrated by Abu HurairaAllah’s Apostle said, ‘My similitude in comparison with the other prophets before me, is that of a man who has built a house nicely and beautifully, except for a place of one brick in a corner. The people go about it and wonder at its beauty, but say: “Would that this brick be put in its place!” So I am that brick, and I am the last of the Prophets.’Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 5791Narrated by Ali ibn AbuTalibWhen Ali described the Prophet (peace be upon him) he said: …Between his shoulders was the seal of prophecy and he was the seal of the prophets…Tirmidhi transmitted it.Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 1.189Narrated by As Saib bin YazidMy aunt took me to the Prophet and said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! This son of my sister has got a disease in his legs.’ So he passed his hands on my head and prayed for Allah’s blessings for me; then he performed ablution and I drank from the remaining water. I stood behind him and saw the seal of Prophethood between his shoulders, and it was like the ‘Zir-al-Hijla’ (means the button of a small tent, but some said ‘egg of a partridge.’ etc.)Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 5764

Narrated by Jabir ibn Abdullah

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, ‘I am the leader (qa’id) of the messengers, and this is no boast; I am the seal of the prophets, and this is no boast; and I shall be the first to make intercession and the first whose intercession is accepted, and this is no boast.’

Darimi transmitted it.

It can be seen that ultimately, the ministry of Muhammad supplants the role of the crucifixion of Christ. Even the distinctive Guidance Jesus brings from God – the Gospel – is superseded by the Qur’an at His return. The ministry of Jesus is simply the penultimate stage of the prophetic line. Indeed, we may be bold enough to argue that effectively, the Muslim Jesus approximates to the role of John the Baptist in the Bible – the preparatory forerunner. His ministry sets the typological pattern for Muhammad, as can be seen from a comparison of S. 61:6 and S. 5:110, with the references to the charges of occultism against both prophets:

Surah Al-Maidah 5:110110 Then will Allah say: “O Jesus the son of Mary! recount my favour to thee and to thy mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the holy spirit so that thou didst speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught thee the Book and Wisdom the Law and the Gospel. And behold! thou makest out of clay as it were the figure of a bird by My leave and thou breathest into it and it becometh a bird by My leave and thou healest those born blind and the lepers by My leave. And behold! thou bringest forth the dead by My leave. And behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) thee when thou didst show them the Clear Signs and the unbelievers among them said: ‘This is nothing but evident magic’.Surah As-Saff 61:6And remember Jesus the son of Mary said: ‘O Children of Israel! I am the apostle of Allah (sent) to you confirming the Law (which came) before me and giving glad Tidings of an Apostle to come after me whose name shall be Ahmad.’ But when he came to them with Clear Signs they said ‘This is evident sorcery!’

In fact, the parallel is absolute when we consider the prediction of Muhammad (‘Ahmad’) in S. 61:6. Hence, the climax of Christ’s ministry according to Islam is not found in His own activity, but in that of another – Muhammad. With the advent of Muhammad, the typological and prophetic terminus has been reached. Muhammad is said to have stated in his farewell sermon ‘O People, no prophet or apostle will come after me and no new faith will be born’. Thus, what the Epistle to the Hebrews 1:1-2 states of Jesus being the fulfilment of the revelation of God applies in Islam to Muhammad. The ministry of Jesus in Islam is not the crux and apex of salvation-history as it is in the Bible. Whatever the interpretation of Surah 4:157, it is clear that for Islam, the cross is emptied of its meaning, since ultimately the means of salvation awaited the coming of the Arabian Apostle.

It is precisely at this point that incongruities arise. If Jesus is so secondary, why is the end of the world according to Islam presaged by His return, and not that of Muhammad? Why is the great eschatological agent of Satan called Ad-Dajjal Al-Masih – the Antichrist, and not the ‘Anti-Muhammad’? Why is the conversion of the world to Islam accomplished by His return than by a second advent of Muhammad? Why was Muhammad allowed to die partly as a result of an enemy poisoning his food when Jesus was bodily assumed to safeguard Him from harm? Why are the conception, ante-natal activity and birth of Jesus so uniquely miraculous if Muhammad is the climax of salvation-history? Why does Jesus speak as a prophet from His cradle, when Muhammad has to wait until the age of forty? Moreover, and crucially, other than to predict the coming of Muhammad, what is the point of Christ’s ministry at all?

The partial answer to this, about which we have touched earlier, also supplies a further problem. The ministry of Muhammad, whilst predicted by Jesus according to the Qur’an, and the climax of the prophetic line, was not according to S. 6:89 inevitable. If the Jews had welcomed the ministry of Jesus, the prophetic line would not have passed to the Arabs, making the call of Muhammad impossible! Of course, the rejection of Jesus is the climactic eschatological reason for the transference of the line of prophethood, so in that respect, we can see a crucial role for the ministry of Jesus, but it is difficult to see how this text can be reconciled with S. 61:6 if the Jews had responded positively to Jesus. Yusuf Ali writes about this text (S. 6.89): ‘Them, i.e., the Book, and authority and Prophethood. They were taken away from the other People of the Book and entrusted to the holy Apostle Muhammad and his People.’

Surah Al-An’am 6:83

83 That was the reasoning about Us which We gave to Abraham (to use) against his people: We raise whom We will degree after degree: for thy Lord is full of wisdom and knowledge.

84 We gave him Isaac and Jacob: all (three) We guided: and before him We guided Noah and before him We guided Noah and among his progeny David Solomon Job Joseph Moses and Aaron: thus do We reward those who do good:

85 And Zakariya and John and Jesus and Elias: all in the ranks of the righteous:

86 And Ismail and Elisha and Jonas and Lot: and to all We gave favour above the nations:

87 (To them) and to their fathers and progeny and brethren: We chose them. And We guided them to a straight way.

88 This is the guidance of Allah: He giveth that guidance to whom He pleaseth of His worshippers. If they were to join other gods with Him all that they did would be vain for them.

89 These were the men to whom We gave the Book and authority and prophethood: if these (their descendants) reject them behold! We shall entrust their charge to a new People who reject them not.

90 Those were the (prophets) who received Allah’s guidance: copy the guidance they received; Say: ‘No reward for this do I ask of you: this is no less than a Message for the nations.’

It can be seen that the Islamic position is riddled with inconsistencies. This is largely the result of attempting to synthesise the ministry of Jesus with that of Muhammad by elevating the latter, and to harmonise the distinctive claims of the Biblical Jesus with the Arabian Apostle and their contradictory means of salvation. Given both the historical priority of Jesus, His unique personal standing, and His climactic eschatological role, this undertaking is impossible. Hence the muddled views of Islam on the issue.

6. The Descent Into Hades

A. The Biblical view

The Roman Catholic Church traditionally believed that His death, Jesus entered the Limbus Patrum, the supposed abode of Old Testament saints, and proclaimed His triumphant redemption. He then led them into heaven:

The first truth is that Jesus truly died. By saying that he ‘descended into hell’, Christians affirmed that he was really dead. It meant the humiliation of being dead, of being cut off from life… It is now revealed that the Lord is with us even in death. This is the first meaning of ‘descended into hell’… Jesus was ‘gathered to his fathers’, that is, he joined the great mass of the dead. And so the Church began to think of the millions who had died before Christ, and for whom God also cared Jesus was imagined as announcing the redemption, immediately after his death, to the mass of the dead. ‘He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey… in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark’ (1 Pet. 3:20)… Later, it was said that they waited in limbo, ‘the limbo of the Fathers’. 29

Suffice it to say that Scripture knows of no such abode. Article III of the 39 Articles of the Church of England, ‘Of the going down of Christ into Hell’, states ‘As Christ died for us, and was buried, so also is it to be believed that He went down into Hell.’ The Lutheran Augsburg Confession echoes this thought in Article III of its constitution – ‘truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried… He also descended into hell, and truly rose again the third day…’ The Heidelberg Confession states the same in regard to its twenty-third question. The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter VIII section four, states that Christ ‘endured most grievous torments immediately in His soul, and most painful sufferings in His body; was crucified, and died, was buried, and remained under the power of death, yet saw no corruption.’ The Second Helvetic Confession of the Swiss Reformed churches does not address the subject directly, but states in its eleventh chapter

‘We believe, moreover, that our Lord Jesus Christ truly suffered and died for us in the flesh, as Peter says (1 Peter 4:1). We abhor the most impious madness of the Jacobites and all the Turks [i.e. Muslims] who execrate the suffering of the Lord. At the same time we do not deny that the Lord of glory was crucified for us, according to Paul’s words (1 Cor. 2:8)… We believe and teach that the same Jesus Christ our Lord, in his true flesh in which he was crucified and died, rose again from the dead…’

This idea of Christ’s descent into Hell probably derives from the so-called ‘Apostles’ Creed’, as implied by the reference in the Augsburg Confession itself to this creed, which is not a product of the Apostles themselves but a later attempt to relate Apostolic teaching in the face of heresy, states that Christ descended into ‘hell’. Berkhof suggests it was first employed circa 390 AD, in the Latin terms descendit in inferna, which can denote either descent into ‘lower parts’ or ‘hades’. 30 Neither the original creed of Nicaea nor the later ‘Nicene creed’ present such a thought of descent into Gehenna, but rather that Jesus ‘suffered’ in the words of the former creed, and ‘suffered and was buried’ in the latter.

The concept is completely absent from the Bible. The promise to the repentant thief ‘Today you will be with Me in Paradise’ totally excludes it. Rather, Acts 2:27 speaks about the Messiah being in hades. By this hades the state of death, rather than Gehenna, the place of eternal punishment is meant. The Hebrew term in the Old Testament is Sheol; the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) translates this by hades. Sometimes the term is used for the ‘grave’, other times both senses are apparent – if someone had died and been buried, he is in the grave. A consideration of some sample texts points to the term referring to the state of death – 1 Samuel 2:6; Psalm 16:10; Isaiah 14:9-11; 38:10; Acts 2:27, 31; Revelation 1:18; 6:8; 20:13, 14. We shall look at the Biblical basis for this.

(a) Ephesians 4:9 – ‘He also descended into the lower parts of the earth’. Some equate the latter location with Hades, the Realm of the Dead; as we have seen, some even identify it as hell, but this is untenable, as the place of punishment is not probationary, and no second chance for salvation is possible – Hebrews 9:27 makes clear that the eschatological destiny of everyone is settled at death.

The Passion narratives indicate that the soul of Jesus upon His death went immediately to heaven – Matthew 27:50; Luke 23:43, 46. The soul of a man upon death enters immediately upon his destiny and destination – cf. 2 Corinthians 5:6-8; Philippians 1:21-23; Revelation 14:13. Christ, as a man, would have conformed to this pattern – such is essential for the reality of His humanity. Nor is there any evidence from the Resurrection narratives of Jesus descending into ‘hell’ or anywhere else prior to His ascension in Acts 1:9.

The text in question does not develop the theme of the descent into the lower parts of the earth, but rather stresses the fact that Christ has ascended, and done so in order to sanctify Church. Berkhof states ‘…the opposite of the ascension is the incarnation, cf. John 3:13. Hence the majority of commentators take the expression as referring simply to the earth’. 31 He sees Psalm 139:15 as an influence here (cf. also Isaiah 44:23). In my view, the ‘lower parts’ of the earth are simply placed in antithetical apposition to ‘all the heavens’ – the latter meaning either the scriptural idea of the three heavens or the Jewish idea of seven heavens – after all, if we take the former phrase in a crass form of literalism, we must do the same for the latter – so that is would mean that Christ ascended above the heavens – that He was not now in heaven. Thus the contrast is simply between heaven and earth, ascension and incarnation.

(b) 1 Peter 3:18-19: ‘he went and preached to the spirits in prison’. The first question is the identity of the imprisoned spirits. One view is that they are the fallen angels of Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4. Clearly, the ‘preaching’ involved could not be evangelisation, as no provision for the redemption of demons has been made. It is suggested that a triumphal declaration is indicated, but such seems rather forced. Moreover, the succeeding texts refer to those disobedient during the time of Noah, and humans are indicated. There are thus three possible views:

(i) The reference is those who died in their sins in Old Testament times: but as we have seen, no second chance is given.

(ii) Old Testament saints are in view: but the syntax and context rule this out. The spirits in question are in ‘prison’, a punitiveterm wholly inappropriate to describe the blessedness of the righteous dead. What Old Testament evidence there is indicates that Old Testament saints went to heaven – 2 Kings 2:1; Hebrews 11:5. Moreover, v 20 clearly states that the disobedient are in view.

(iii) As indicated above, disobedient spirits are in view, and specifically the people of Noah’s day – v 20. The context would seem to be limited to these alone. Peter is referring to an Old Testament event – the Flood – which is presented as a ‘type’ of something in the New Testament – specifically baptism, which v 21 says is the ‘anti-type’ of the salvation wrought in the Flood. In 2 Peter 2:4ff the Flood is one of several types (v 6) to which Peter refers. Thus, the preaching is restricted to the disobedient persons of the time of Noah and this helps to establish that the incident referred to – preaching to the ungodly – was something accomplished at that time, not is the time of the Incarnation. 2 Peter 2:5 seems to support this by referring to Noah as a ‘preacher of righteousness’.

This leads us on to discover the meaning of ‘spirit’ in 1 Peter 3:18. Pneumati here is probably an instrumental dative, and probably refers to the Holy Spirit, rather than man’s spirit. The reference to ‘quickening’ is not used in the New Testament with respect to the intermediate state: it denotes resurrection, either physical or spiritual e.g. Romans 8:11, John 5:21. Where sarx (flesh) is in contrast to pneuma and the latter is in apposition to ‘life’, especially ‘quickening’, the context suggests that pneuma refers to the Holy Spirit, e.g. John 6:63: the Holy Spirit is the agent of Resurrection – Romans 8:11. As we have seen, there is no evidence that the Risen Christ went anywhere but straight to heaven, nor is any claim to the contrary made here: it simply says that in the Spirit He went to preach to those of Noah’s day in Noah’s time – the same spirits now imprisoned.

Hosea 9:7 says that a prophet is ‘a man of the Spirit’. Noah was engaged in prophetic proclamation – 2 Peter 2:5 calls him a ‘herald of righteousness’. Genesis 6:3 relates how the Spirit did address Himself to the antediluvians, and the two verses inform us that He did so through the agency of Noah, preaching in the power of the Spirit to those now in prison. The Spirit and Christ (and the Father) share the same essence, so it can be said that whoever receives the Son receives the Spirit and the Father. Peter has already identified the work of the Third Person of the Trinity in the Old Testament as that of ‘the Spirit of Christ’, and done so in a context like this one of the impartation of revelation. Peter is quite keen on relating OT types and examples to contemporary matters. Thus the text does not teach Christ’s descent into Hell.

(1 Peter 4:6 probably does not refer to this or any other Old Testament event but rather to dead New Testament Christians. The text clearly speaks of them living unto God – i.e. they were righteous, unlike the sinful dead of 3:19-20. Kai here has the sense of ‘indeed’ – i.e. ‘for this reason indeed’. Those now dead – i.e. in Christ – had the gospel formerly preached to them. ‘Spirit’ again refers to the Holy Spirit, and probably refers to the life of their earthly sojourn. Nothing is said in the verse about Christ proclaiming the gospel to them whilst dead. The text looks back to v 5, and forward to vs. 17-18.)

(c) Psalm 16:8-10/Acts 2:25-27, 30, 31: ‘You will not leave my soul in Sheol; neither will you suffer your Holy One (hasid) to suffer Corruption’.

(i) We must first ask what Sheol means here: since it is contrasted with resurrection, the most obvious understanding is that it does not refer to Hell, but rather to the grave, or to the state of death.

(ii) The next question is the identity of the figure(s) here: the author of the psalm is David, and vs. 8-9 are clearly about himself. Hasid is best translated ‘Favoured One’ the object of grace. David claimed to be such in Psalm 4:4; 89:19-20. From Deuteronomy 33:8 (cf. Exodus 17:2, 7); 1 Samuel 2:9-10, etc., we know it came to have messianic overtones. Thus, David was a forerunner of the ultimate hasid – the Christ.

We can thus see the importance of Acts 2:27: David was confident of his eventual resurrection from the grave and the state of death because he knew that God would resurrect the anti-typical hasid, Jesus, with whom he was in union; the concept is similar to that of 1 Corinthians 15:20-23. Hence the text does not mean Christ first went to hell, but merely that He died! There is thus no evidence that Christ ever descended into hell; He simply entered the state of death.

Theologically, the significance for Christians is that as original sin – ‘the old man’ was crucified with Christ so that we would be liberated from the power of sin, Romans 6:6, the mystical union of the Church with Christ means that ‘the old man’ was buried with Him, Romans 6:4 ‘We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death: that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life’; Colossians 2:12 ‘having been buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.’ Christians are identified with Christ in his burial and entry into the state of death – the sinful nature is entombed there.

B. The Islamic view

Clearly, if Jesus was bodily assumed into Paradise in a miraculous rescue from the cross, He cannot have entered the state of death. In this regard, Islam has nothing that corresponds to this stage. However, this is not to say that Islam does not believe Jesus will avoid death. The latter clause of S. 4:159 (‘And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment He will be a witness against them.’) is also problematic for Islamic theology. Yusuf Ali comments that there is some disagreement about the interpretation of this:

Before his death: Interpreters are not agreed as to the exact meaning. Those who hold that Jesus did not die refer the pronoun ‘his’ to Jesus. They say that Jesus is still living in the body and that he will appear just before the Final Day, after the coming of the Mahdi, when the world will be purified of sin and unbelief. There will be a final death before the final Resurrection, but all will have believed before that final death. Others think that ‘his’ is better referred to ‘none of the People of the Book’, and that the emphatic form ‘must believe’ (la-yu’ minanna) denotes more a question of duty than of fact. (4.159)

Muslims usually take the reference to Jesus dying here as allusion to His death after His Second Coming, as Yusuf Ali indicates. Another text compounds the ambiguity of the Qur’an about the death of Jesus: S.19:33 – ‘So Peace is on me the day I was born the day that I die and the Day that I shall be raised up to life (again)’! A similar phrase is found with reference to John the Baptist in S. 19:15 – ‘So Peace on him the day he was born the day that he dies and the day that he will be raised up to life (again)!’ Even more difficult is S. 3:55: ‘Behold! Allah said: “O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject Faith to the Day of Resurrection; then shall ye all return unto Me and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.”‘(Yusuf Ali) The Arabic is Iz qa lalla hu ya ‘isa inni mutawaffika wa ra fi’uka ilayya wa mutahhiruka minal lazina kafaru wa ja ‘ilul lazinattaba’u ka fauqal lazina kafaru ila yaumil qiya mah(ti), summa ilayya marji’ukum fa ahkumu bainakum fima kuntum fihi takhtalifu n(a). The word mutawaffika definitely means ’cause to die’.

In the context of the passage, it appears that those blaspheming or disbelieving are Jews, as Yusuf Ali suggests, even though his interpretation is probably inaccurate, given that he refers this to the Jewish charge against Jesus of blasphemy, rather than the calumnies of the Jews themselves, which the text has in focus. 32) The reference to ‘raising’ or ‘ascending’ could mean either resurrection or the assumption of Jesus. If the latter is what is meant, then this would support the view that the Qur’an doessupport the view that Jesus died on the cross, and His spirit ascended to Paradise, specifically Barzakh, the intermediate state. 33)

In critique, there is something incongruous in Jesus enjoying (so far) two thousand years in bodily existence in Paradise to descend to earth for a short time, only to die and enter the same state disembodied. Yet again, this is evidence of how Islam has been unable to harmonise its incorporation of the uniqueness of Jesus into its own theological schema. We have seen that from the Hadith Jesus is fated to die after His return, in a normal and non-violent way, with no soteriological significance for Muslims, as it does for Christians. The only significance His grave will possess is that of honour, being situated between that of Muhammad and Abu Bakr, the first caliph.

References

1. Vos, Geerhardus, ‘The Priesthood of Christ in Hebrews’, in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter writings of Geerhardus Vos, (Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co., USA, 1980; original article in Princeton Theological Review, 1907), pp. 147-148.

2. Murray, John, ‘The Obedience of Christ’, Collected Writings Vol. 2, p. 151.

3. Berkhof, Louis, Systematic Theology, p. 380.

4. Deedat, Ahmed, The God that never was, http://www.ais.org/~maftab/neverwas.htm

5. ibid.

6. Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 6.236, Narrated by Abu Huraira, “Some (cooked) meat was brought to Allah’s Apostle and the meat of a forearm was presented to him as he used to like it. He ate a morsel of it and said, ‘I will be the chief of all the people on the Day of Resurrection. Do you know the reason for it? Allah will gather all the human beings of early generations as well as late generations on one plain so that the announcer will be able to make them all hear his voice and the watcher will be able to see all of them. The sun will come so close to the people that they will suffer such distress and trouble as they will not be able to bear or stand. Then the people will say, “Don’t you see to what state you have reached? Won’t you look for someone who can intercede for you with your Lord?” Some people will say to some others, “Go to Adam.” So they will go to Adam and say to him, “You are the father of mankind; Allah created you with His Own Hand, and breathed into you of His Spirit (meaning the spirit which he created for you); and ordered the angels to prostrate before you; so (please) intercede for us with your Lord. Don’t you see in what state we are? Don’t you see what condition we have reached?” Adam will say, “Today my Lord has become angry as He has never become before, nor will ever become thereafter. He forbade me (to eat of the fruit of) the tree, but I disobeyed Him. Myself! Myself! Myself! (has more need for intercession). Go to someone else; go to Noah.” So they will go to Noah and say (to him), “O Noah! You are the first (of Allah’s Messengers) to the people of the earth, and Allah has named you a thankful slave; please intercede for us with your Lord. Don’t you see in what state we are?” He will say, “Today my Lord has become angry as He has never become nor will ever become thereafter. I had (in the world) the right to make one definitely accepted invocation, and I made it against my nation. Myself! Myself! Myself! Go to someone else; go to Abraham.” They will go to Abraham and say, “O Abraham! You are Allah’s Apostle and His Khalil from among the people of the earth; so please intercede for us with your Lord. Don’t you see in what state we are?” He will say to them, “My Lord has today become angry as He has never become before, nor will ever become thereafter. I had told three lies (Abu Haiyan (the sub-narrator) mentioned them in the Hadith. Myself! Myself! Myself! Go to someone else; go to Moses.” The people will then go to Moses and say, “O Moses! You art Allah’s Apostle and Allah gave you superiority above the others with this message and with His direct Talk to you; (please) intercede for us with your Lord! Don’t you see in what state we are?” Moses will say, “My Lord has today become angry as He has never become before, nor will become thereafter, I killed a person whom I had not been ordered to kill. Myself! Myself! Myself! Go to someone else; go to Jesus.” So they will go to Jesus and say, “O Jesus! You are Allah’s Apostle and His Word which He sent to Mary, and a superior soul created by Him, and you talked to the people while still young in the cradle. Please intercede for us with your Lord. Don’t you see in what state we are?” Jesus will say, “My Lord has today become angry as He has never become before nor will ever become thereafter.” Jesus will not mention any sin, but will say, “Myself! Myself! Myself! Go to someone else; go to Muhammad.” So they will come to me and say, “O Muhammad ! You are Allah’s Apostle and the last of the prophets, and Allah forgave your early and late sins. (Please) intercede for us with your Lord. Don’t you see in what state we are?”‘ The Prophet added, ‘Then I will go beneath Allah’s Throne and fall in prostration before my Lord. And then Allah will guide me to such praises and glorification to Him as He has never guided anybody else before me. Then it will be said, “O Muhammad! Raise your head. Ask, and it will be granted. Intercede! It (your intercession) will be accepted.” So I will raise my head and say, “My followers, O my Lord! My followers, O my Lord”. It will be said, “O Muhammad! Let those of your followers who have no accounts, enter through such a gate of the gates of Paradise as lies on the right; and they will share the other gates with the people.”‘ The Prophet further said, ‘By Him in Whose Hand my soul is, the distance between every two gate-posts of Paradise is like the distance between Mecca and Busra (in Sham).’
   Surah Muhammad 47:19, “So know (O Muhammad) that there is no God save Allah, and ask forgiveness for thy sin and for believing men and believing women. Allah knoweth (both) your place of turmoil and your place of rest.” (Pickthall)[]

7. Surah Maryam 19:16ff, “16 Relate in the Book (the story of) Mary when she withdrew from her family to a place in the East. 17 She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them: then We sent to her Our angel and he appeared before her as a man in all respects. 18 She said: ‘I seek refuge from thee to (Allah) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear Allah.’ 19 He said: ‘Nay I am only a messenger from thy Lord (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son.’”

8. Zwemer, Samuel, The Muslim Christ, (Message for the Muslims Trust, originally published by Oliphant, Anderson and Ferrier, Edinburgh and London, 1912), p. 28.

9. ibid., p. 126, quoting Hayat Al-Hayawan, p. 227, by Ad-Damiri.

10. Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.652, Narrated by Abu Huraira, “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Both in this world and in the Hereafter, I am the nearest of all the people to Jesus, the son of Mary. The prophets are paternal brothers; their mothers are different, but their religion is one.'”

11. Grogan, Geoffrey, I want to know what the Bible says about Jesus, (Kingsway, Eastbourne, 1979), p. 77.

12. Matthew 26:52 “Then Jesus said to him, ‘Put away your sword: for all those taking the sword shall perish with the sword. 53 Or do you not think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and He shall at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?'”
    Luke 22:49 “And when those who were around Him saw what was going to happen, they said, ‘Lord, shall we strike with the sword?’ 50 And a certain one of them struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. 51 But Jesus answered and said, ‘Stop! No more of this.’ And He touched his ear, and healed him.”
    John 18:10 “Simon Peter therefore having a sword drew it, and struck the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. Now the servant’s name was Malchus. 11 Jesus therefore said unto Peter, ‘Put back the sword into the sheath: the cup which the Father has given me, shall I not drink it?'”

13. Acts 2:42 ‘And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers.’
    Acts 2:46 ‘And day by day, continuing steadfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home…’
    Acts 20:7 ‘And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul spoke to them, intending to depart the next day; and prolonged his speech until midnight.’
    Acts 20:11 ‘And when he went up, and had broken the bread…’
    1 Corinthians 10:16 ‘The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ?’
    1 Corinthians 10:17 ‘seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one body: for we are all partake of the one bread.’
    1 Corinthians 11:23 “For I received from the Lord that which also I delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed took bread; 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.’ 25 In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ 26For as often as you eat this bread, and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till he comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.”

14. Watt, Montgomery, Muhammad in Medina, (Oxford University Press, 1988), p. 317.

15. Robinson, Neal, Christ in Islam and Christianity, (Macmillan, London, 1991), pp.111-140.

16. Gilchrist, John, The Christian witness to the Muslim, http://www.answering-islam.org/gilchrist/vol2/index.html quoting Elder, J., ‘The Crucifixion in the Koran’, The Muslim World, Vol. 13, p. 246.

17. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 24:4.

18. Rev. W. St. Clair Tisdall, The Original Sources of The Qur’ân, (1905, Society For The Promotion of Christian Knowledge, London), p. 184.

19. Jadeed, Iskander, The Cross in the Gospel and the Qur’an, (The Good Way, Switzerland), pp. 34-35. France, R.T., The Evidence for Jesus, (Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1986), p. 33.

20. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 18:63-64.

21. Jadeed, The Cross in the Gospel and the Qur’an, pp. 32-33.

22. The Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ: A Historical Fact, http://www.spotlights.org/Cx-2.htm

23. Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 6.149, Narrated by Ibn Abbas, “Allah’s Apostle delivered a sermon and said, ‘O people! You will be gathered before Allah bare-footed, naked and not circumcised.’ Then (quoting Quran) he said: ‘As We began the first creation, We shall repeat it. A promise We have undertaken: Truly we shall do it…’ (21.104) The Prophet then said, ‘The first of the human beings to be dressed on the Day of Resurrection, will be Abraham. Lo! Some men from my followers will be brought and then (the angels) will drive them to the left side (Hell-Fire). I will say. ‘O my Lord! (They are) my companions!’ Then a reply will come (from Almighty), ‘You do not know what they did after you.’ I will say as the pious slave (the Prophet Jesus) said: And I was a witness over them while I dwelt amongst them. When You took me up, You were the Watcher over them and You are a Witness to all things.’ (5.117) Then it will be said, ‘These people have continued to be apostates since you left them.'”

24. Gilchrist, The Christian witness to the Muslim.

25. Masood, Steven, Jesus and the Indian Messiah, (Word of Life, Oldham, 1994), p. 48.

26. Abdalati, Hammudah, Islam in Focus, (American Trust Publications, 1975), p. 159.

27. Anderson, M., Jesus The Light and the Fragrance of God, http://www.answering-islam.org.uk/Mna/frag4_2.html[]

28. http://www.answering-islam.org.uk/Cross/hadith.html

29. A New Catechism – Catholic Faith for Adults, (Search Press, London, 1970), p. 177.

30. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 340.

31. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 341.

32. Yusuf Ali comments:
    394 Read this with iv. 157, where it is said that ‘whereas they slew him not nor they crucified him but it was made dubious unto them.’ The guilt of the Jews remained, but Jesus was eventually taken up to Allah. (3.55)
    395 Jesus was charged by the Jews with blasphemy as claiming to be Allah or the son of Allah. The Christians (except a few early sects which were annihilated by persecution, and the modern sect of Unitarians), adopted the substance of the claim, and made it the cornerstone of their faith. Allah clears Jesus of such a charge or claim. (3.55)
    396 Those who follow thee refers to those who followed Jesus in contrast to the Jews who rejected him. (3.55)
    397 All the controversies about dogma and faith will disappear when we appear before Allah. He will judge not by what we profess but by what we are. (3.55)

33. Fiqh-us-Sunnah: Fiqh 4.95, The Abode of Souls, Ibn al-Qayyim dealt with this subject under a separate chapter in which he mentions opinions of various scholars concerning the abode of souls. Mentioning the most correct position he explained, “It is said that the abodes of the souls in barzakh vary considerably. Some of them are in the highest reaches of the heavens, such as the souls of the Prophets, peace be upon them all. Their status also varies as observed by the Prophet, peace be upon him, during the night of Isra.”Some souls are in the form of green birds who roam around freely in Paradise. These are the souls of some of the martyrs, but not all of them. The souls of some martyrs are prevented from entering Paradise on account of their debts or some other similar thing. This is supported by a report by Ibn Hanbal in his Musnad from Muhammad ibn Abdallah ibn Jahsh that “A man came to the Prophet, peace be upon him, and asked, ‘O Allah’s Prophet! What would I have if I am killed in the cause of Allah?’ The Prophet, peace be upon him, replied, ‘Paradise.’ But, when the man got up to go, the Prophet added, ‘Unless you have some debts to pay. Gabriel has informed me about it just now’.”Some souls will be locked out at the gate of Paradise, in accordance with this hadith: “I have seen your companion locked out at the gate of Paradise.” Other souls are restricted to their graves as is evident from the hadith about the martyr who had stolen a cloak (He had stolen it out of the spoils of war before their proper distribution) when he was killed, the people asked, “Will he have bliss in Paradise?” The Prophet, peace be upon him, said, “By Him in whose hand is my soul, the cloak which he stole causes a fire to flare over him in his grave.”The abode of others is at the gate of Paradise, as described in a hadith by Ibn ‘Abbas that, “The abode of martyrs is in a green dome, on a bright river, near the gate of Paradise. Their provision comes from Paradise in the morning and in the evening.” (Ahmad) This does not apply to Ja’far ibn Abi Talib, whose hands were transformed into wings, and with these he flies wherever he wishes in Paradise.
    Others remain confined to earth, for these souls cannot rise to heaven. Indeed, these are base, earthly souls which do not mix with the heavenly souls, just as they do not mix with them during their sojourn on earth. A soul that is oblivious to its Lord, blind to His love, negligent of His remembrance, and remiss in seeking His pleasure is a despicable earthly soul. After separation from its body, it cannot go anywhere, but remains here. On the other hand, the heavenly soul in this life clings to the love of Allah and to His remembrance, and seeks His pleasure and nearness. After separation from its body, it will join other kindred heavenly souls. In the barzakh (Literally an interval, a separation or a partition, Al-barzakh may be defined as the intervening state between death and the Last Day) and on the Day of Resurrection a person will be with those he loved. Allah will join some souls with others in the abode of barzakh and on the Day of Resurrection, placing the believer’s soul with other pure souls, that is, other pure souls kindred to his soul. A soul, after separation from the body, joins other kindred souls who in their nature and deeds are similar to it and stays with them.
    Some souls would be thrown in an oven or a pit along with other fornicators and harlots. Other souls would be in a river of blood, floating therein and swallowing rocks. The two categories of souls – the blessed and the damned – do not share a similar abode, for there are souls that reside in the highest reaches of heavens, while the others, low and mean earthly souls, cannot rise above the earth.
    When one ponders the hadith and traditions on this subject carefully, one can easily find the reason for this. There is no contradiction in the sound traditions on this subject. In fact, they are all true and each supports the other. It is important, however, to understand the soul and to appreciate its essence and the laws that govern its functions. Indeed, the soul is something completely different from the body. It is in Paradise, but at the same time is attached to the grave and the body in it. It is the swiftest thing in moving, relocating, ascending, or descending from one place to another. These souls are divided into various categories: the ones that are free to move about, those that are confined, the ones that are celestial, and the others that are earthly and of a low order. After separation from their bodies, souls do experience health and sickness, and they feel far more pleasure and pain than they experienced when they were joined together. They are subject to confinement, pain, punishment, sickness, and grief as they are to various states of joy, rest, bliss, and freedom. How similar is its condition in the body to when it was in the womb of its mother! And likewise how analogous is its situation after separation from the body to when it came out of the womb into this world! There are four abodes of the soul, and each abode is bigger and greater than the previous one.
    The soul’s first abode is the womb of the mother, where there is confinement, compression, seclusion, and three layers of darkness. The second abode is its earthly habitat where it grows, does good and evil, and accumulates blessings for its ultimate success or failure. Its third abode is the abode of barzakh, which is more spacious and immense than the abode of this world. This abode, compared to the fourth one, is like this (third) abode compared to the first abode.
    The fourth abode is the abode of eternity, either Paradise or Hell. There is no other abode after these. Allah causes the soul to pass through these abodes in stages, until it reaches the abode most suitable for it, an abode that only it deserves and for which it is (uniquely) suitable, because this abode was created for it, and the soul was given the ability to perform the deeds that lead precisely to this abode.
    Surah Al-Muminun 23:100, “‘In order that I may work righteousness in the things I neglected.’ ‘By no means! it is but a word he says before them is a Partition till the Day they are raised up. 101 Then when the Trumpet is blown there will be no more relationships between them that day nor will one ask after another!’”
    Yusuf Ali comments: 2940 Barzakh: a partition, a bar or barrier; the place or state in which people will be after death and before Judgment. Cf. xxv. 53 and Iv. 20. Behind them is the barrier of death, and in front of them is the Barzakh, partition, a quiescent state until the judgment comes. (23.100)

Back to Redman paper

A Comparison of the Biblical and Islamic Views of the States of Christ Part 1: The State of Humiliation (i)

Gerry Redman

Back to Redman paper

Introduction

As with the doctrine of God, so with the doctrine of Christ, there is great difference and misunderstanding between Muslims and Christians. Obviously, the main point of disagreement is over the deity of Christ, but that question will not be the principal focus of this paper and its companions. Rather, in these series of papers, I wish to explore the distinct views of Islam and the Bible about the states of Christ. By doing so, we will be able to judge which system better meets the challenge of consistency and credibility. We will also be able to clear up any misconceptions held by either side. Necessarily, we will be employing theological terms native to Christian dogmatics, which some Muslims might find objectionable, but they allow for a better contrast of the two systems of belief. The conclusion will be given at the end of the last paper in this series.

1. The Incarnation

A. The Biblical View

(a) The Subject

Not the entire Godhead, but rather the Second Person of the Trinity is incarnated. We see evidence of communication between Father and Son in John 12:27-28 – ‘27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour. But for this cause came I unto this hour. 28 Father, glorify thy name. There came therefore a voice out of heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.’ Upon the baptism of Jesus the Spirit descends from heaven to rest on Him, and the voice of the Father in heaven speaks with respect to His son – Matthew 3:16-17, which verses indicate that the other two divine Persons are distinguished from the Son, so are not incarnated with Him.

However, all three persons collaborate in effecting the incarnation – Matthew 1:20; Luke 1:35; John 1:14, Acts 2:30; Romans 8:3; Galatians 4:4; Philippians 2:7. The great theologian of Christian dogmatics, Louis Berkhof made the vital point that since the Son was active in this process, this points to His pre-existence. 1 These points are amplified when looking at the pre-existent Mediator and His activity. By this we can understand why it was the Son rather than the Father or Spirit who is incarnated.

John 1:1 speaks not only of the Logos as being pre-existent, but goes on in v3 to identify Him as the Agent of Creation – ‘All things were made through him; and without him nothing was made that has been made.’ John 8:56 identifies Him as the Agent of Revelation to Abraham – ‘Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad’, and 1:18 indicates that this remains his work – ‘no man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made Him known’. Since it was the angel of YHWH who appeared to Abraham, and since this figure is represented as an agent of revelation and redemption in the Old Testament, e.g. Genesis 48:16 – ‘the angel who redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads…’, He is to be identified with the pre-incarnate Son. The Son is the Agent of Revelation and Redemption, so it had to be the Son who was incarnated.

Other texts which indicate His pre-existence are John 6:38 – ‘For I came down from heaven…’; 2 Corinthians 8:9 – ‘For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor…’; Galatians 4:4 – ‘but when the fullness of the time came, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law…’; Philippians 2:6-8 – ‘6 who, existing in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; 8 and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even death on the cross.’ The essential element is that the Second Person of the Trinity, without diminution of His deity, divests Himself of heavenly glory to enter the realm of Mankind as a man, and subject to the limitations and obligations thereof – Galatians 4:4 stresses His birth into a Jewish family and thus His obligation to adhere to the Torah. The Giver of the Law became subject to it.

(b) Necessity of the Incarnation

There has been a debate among Christian theologians as to whether the Incarnation was conditioned by human sin.

(i) Pro: Berkhof refers to several texts in support of this – John 3:16; Luke 19:10; Galatians 4:4; Philippians 2:5-11; 1 John 3:8. 2 Jesus came to put an end to spiritual darkness, occasioned by the Fall – He came to die on Calvary. The aim was to reverse the effects of the Fall and to restore divine-human fellowship. Hence, His coming was occasioned by the Fall.

(ii) Con: The danger with (i) is that it could suggest that the action of God was contingent, responsive and secondary, whereas the principle of Grace underlines that divine action is primary, unconditional (in the sense of not being dependent) – God always takes the first step. If God intended to incarnate, then He must always have planned such, since he is immutable.

Further, since the Son is the Mediator, and since God has always desired divine-human fellowship, the latter is only fully realised if the Son is incarnated.

The Church is Humanity in- fellowship with-God, Romans 5:17, and was in the eternal purposes of God, Ephesians 1:4-5 ‘4 as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love: 5 having foreordained us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will’; verses 10, 20-23 also underline this – that it was the eternal divine plan to position the Son as the fulcrum of the cosmos, which seems to hold true irrespective of the Fall. Since the Church is the Body of Christ, 5:31-32, and is the means of displaying the divine wisdom, it must have always been in the purposes of God for the Son to become incarnate to perform this function. The Fall simply necessitates a particular action of the Son (i.e. the Cross) to realise this.

(c) The Nature of the Incarnation

John 1:14 ‘And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.’ indicates that the Son became a true human being, and entered the human scene, but He is not thereby metamorphosed – as John Murray explains,

In John 1:14 there is no hint that the Word in becoming flesh ceased to be that which he is defined to be as the eternally subsistent one, eternally co-ordinate with God, and eternally identified with God in John 1:1. And lest we should interpret the incarnation in terms of transmutation or divestiture, John hastens to inform us that, in beholding the incarnate Word, they beheld his glory as the glory of the only-begotten from the Father (John 1:14). And then he proceeds to identify the only-begotten in his unabridged character as ‘God only-begotten who is in the bosom of the Father’ (v.18)… So the only construction that satisfies the terms of john’s prologue is that the incarnation means addition and conjunction, not subtraction. Other statements of Scripture are to the same effect (cf. Phil. 2:6,7; Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:1-3).

The incarnation, therefore, means that the Son of God took human nature in its integrity into his person with the result that he is both divine and human, without any impairment of the fulness of either the divine or the human. He is God-man. 3

A. A. Hodge, one of the great Princeton theologians of the 19th century, echoes this analysis about the unchanged deity of the eternal Son:

Again: the Scriptures teach us that this amazing personality does not centre in his humanity, and that it is not a composite one originated by the power of the Spirit when he brought the two natures together in the womb of the Virgin Mary. It was not made by adding manhood to Godhead. The Trinity is eternal and unchangeable. A new Person is not substituted for the second Person of the Trinity, neither is a fourth Person added to the Trinity. But the Person of Christ is just the one eternal Word, the second Person of the Trinity, which in time, by the power of the Holy Ghost, through the instrumentality of the womb of the Virgin, took a human nature (not a man, but the seed of man, humanity in the germ) into personal union with himself. The Person is eternal and divine. The humanity is introduced into it. The centre of the personality always continues in the eternal personal Word or Son of God. 4

As opposed to being metamorphosed, the Son is theanthropic: simultaneously divine and human. It is this fact that often eludes Muslims, who often point to Biblical texts evidencing His humanity to disprove His deity (see Ahmed Deedat’s ‘The God that never was’, http://www.ais.org/~maftab/neverwas.htm). Christians never dispute that there are verses emphasising the truth of Christ’s humanity; equally, there are texts demonstrating His deity. The upshot of this is that Jesus is both God and Man.

(d) The Virginal Conception and Birth

The Seed of Promise in Genesis 3:15 is specifically stated to be the seed of the woman. This should not be overemphasised as evidence for the virgin birth, but it is an indication. The birth of Isaac, although not virginal, provides some clue to the unique supernatural character of Jesus’ birth. Obviously, the principal text is Isaiah 7:14, which predicts the birth of One who would be the fulfilment of the covenantal promise of divine presence – ‘I will dwell in the midst of you’ – Immanuel, ‘God with us’. The Hebrew word almah is often broadened to include any young woman, specifically of marriageable age, though it should be pointed out that the word is usually translated as ‘maiden’, as in Proverbs 3:19. The Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Old Testament translated the word by parthenos, and this term seems restricted in meaning to ‘virgin’ – cf. Matthew 25:1, 7, 11; Acts 21:9. Thus Matthew 1:23 and Luke 1:27 do fulfil Isaiah 7:14 in exactitude – Christ was born of a virgin.

It is more exact to speak of virginal conception, rather than birth, for the latter, together with gestation, was normal, save in respect that Jesus was preserved from defilement. The conception of Jesus was miraculous in that no man was involved in this act – it occurred through the power of the Holy Spirit ‘overshadowing’ Mary, Luke 1:35. In passing, it must be stated that this does not imply marital intimacy between God and Mary and the production of a demigod: it is simply that the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit miraculously caused the implantation of life in the womb of Mary. (See also Matthew 1:18, 20; Galatians 4:4.)

(e) The Significance of the Dogma

(i) Usually, it is held that the virgin conception safeguarded the moral integrity – it sinlessness of Jesus, especially as Luke 1:35 speaks of the one conceived as ‘holy: Jesus was thus preserved from sharing in the defilement of Adam. It should be stated that this should not be necessarily understood that Adamic defilement is transmitted only through the father, which indeed some hold, but is probably not valid. John Murray makes an interesting point when he states that ‘natural generation would have entailed depravity (John 3:6).’ 5 On this basis, being born in a natural way (with two parents providing the generation) following the Fall is how sin is imputed. By being born otherwise, Jesus is spared this pollution.

(ii) Certainly, the event is significant in regard to the identity of Jesus as the Son of God – verses 32, 35.Such points to the native paternity of Jesus by God. Perhaps the best modern expression of the significance of the virgin birth is provided by Bruce Milne:

1. It proclaimed the unique character of the babe to be born. In Scripture special children often have special births (Genesis 21:1-7; Luke 1:5-23).

2. It demonstrates the operation of the supernatural in the incarnation. For this reason biological objections are entirely beside the point. On the presupposition of an omnipotent God, the virginal conception was wholly possible.

3. The coming of the Spirit upon Mary declared that in Christ God entered completely and fully into our human experience from the very moment of conception.

4. It wholly agrees with Paul’s teaching (Romans 5:12f; 15 22) that Christ is the second Adam in whom there takes a new beginning to the moral history of the human race. There is no suggestion that original sin was avoided by the absence of sexual intercourse, as though sin were a genetical contagion, which in any would have been as surely inherited from Mary as from Joseph; a view logically requires the impeccability of Mary on the principle that a sinless child requires a sinless mother.

5. It is consistent with our Lord’s pre-existence. In our case the conception is the coming into existence of a new person; in his case the eternal Word pre-existed conception. This is expressed in the biblical words ‘the Holy Spirit will come upon’ and ‘overshadow’ Mary ( Luke 1:35).

6. It provides an analogy of redemption elsewhere described as a ‘new birth’ (Jn. 1:12; 3:3ff.; 1 Pet. 2:2; Tit. 3:5). The setting aside of Joseph expresses in vivid fashion the helplessness, and in this sense the judgment of man in face of God’s work of redemption. 6

B. The Islamic View

1. Muslim Objections to the Incarnation

It is fascinating that Islamic theology is so negatory in character, especially when it comes to assertions about Jesus. We learn far more about what He is not than what He is. This demonstrates the historical and theological priority of Christianity – that the Qur’an was partly framed to engage in polemics against Christian dogmas. Obviously, its starting point with the Incarnation is its denial of the deity of Christ:

Surah Maida 5:73

They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no God save the One God. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve.

Surah An-Nisaa 4:171

171. O people of the Book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an Apostle of an Apostle of Allah and His Word which He bestowed on Mary and a Spirit proceeding from Him…

Surah Al-Baqarah 2:116

116 They say: ‘Allah hath begotten a son’; Glory be to Him. Nay to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth; everything renders worship to Him.

Surah Maryam 19:88

88 They say: ‘(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a son!’

89 Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous!

The comments of Yusuf Ali in regard to Surah Maryam 19:88 demonstrate that Islam has the wrong idea of the Biblical concept of the incarnation:

Just as a foolish servant may go wrong by excess of zeal for his master, so in religion people’s excesses may lead them to blasphemy or a spirit the very opposite of religion. The Jewish excesses in the direction of formalism, racialism, exclusiveness, and rejection of Christ Jesus have been denounced in many places. Here the Christian attitude is condemned, which raises Jesus to an equality with Allah: in some cases venerates Mary almost to idolatry: attributes a physical son to Allah: and invents the doctrine of the Trinity, opposed to all reason, which according to the Athanasian Creed, unless a man believes, he is doomed to hell for ever.

Clearly, the Qur’an misconceives Christian dogma by presenting Trinitarianism as a question of is Tritheism, belief in three Gods, whilst the historic Christian position is belief in the Triune nature of the Godhead – that there are three hypostases(‘Persons’) commonly possessing the unique divine essence, inseparable and eternal. Moreover, the texts, as well as the misunderstanding by Yusuf Ali, appear to accuse Christians of divinising a mere human being – Jesus, viewed by Islam merely as a prophet – to the status of deity. However, this is the reverse of the Christian position. Rather than Man becoming God, God took human nature alongside His divine nature without ceasing to be God. As I stated in my paper on the Trinity, ‘Deity and humanity are not confused in the One Person of Christ. Deity is not diluted, nor humanity elevated.’ It is clear that Islam holds that Christians believe that Jesus had a naturalistic divine Sonship, in the same sense as pagan gods who slept with human women:

Rather, the Islamic Jesus is purely human, just like Adam. There is nothing unique about Him in this respect: Surah Al-i-Imran 3:59 – ‘This similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam: He created him from dust then said to him: “Be” and he was.’ Yusuf Ali employs this ayah to attack the Biblical view of Jesus as divine:

After a description of the high position which Jesus occupies as a prophet, we have a repudiation of the dogma that he was Allah, or the son of Allah, or anything more than a man. If it is said that he was born without a human father, Adam was also so born. Indeed Adam was born without either a human father or mother. As far as our physical bodies are concerned they are mere dust. In Allah’s sight Jesus was as dust just as Adam was or humanity is. The greatness of Jesus arose from the divine command ‘Be’: for after that he was-more than dust – a great Prophet and teacher.

2. Islam and the Virgin Birth

Islam believes in the Virgin Birth of Jesus, but no special emphasis is given to it, save the fact that it was a miracle indicating the prophethood of Jesus, and there is nothing to indicate it was necessary to preserve Him from original sin, a concept denied by Islam, nor that it demonstrated His divine paternity, also denied. In commentating on Surah 66:12 Yusuf Ali says the following:

…As a virgin she gave birth to Jesus: xix. 16-29. In xxxii. 9, it is said of Adam’s progeny, man, that Allah ‘fashioned him in due proportion, and breathed into him something of His spirit’. In xv. 29, similar words are used with reference to Adam. The virgin birth should not therefore be supposed to imply that Allah was the father of Jesus in the sense in which Greek mythology makes Zeus the father of Apollo by Latona or of Minos by Europa. And yet that is the doctrine to which the Christian idea of ‘the only begotten Son of God’ leads.

Other texts speak of the virgin birth, but rather than emphasising the person of Jesus, they give at least equal weight, and in the case of S. 21:91, special emphasis to Mary, so much so that the virgin birth as Islam presents it is as much about her as it is about Jesus – they are jointly signs:

Surah An-Anbiyaa 21:91

And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our Spirit and We made her and her son a Sign for all peoples.

Surah An-Muminun 23:50

And We made the son of Mary and his mother as a Sign: We gave them both shelter on high ground affording rest and security and furnished with springs.

Yusuf Ali comments about this (21:91), and the concept is strange to Christian ears, in that it implies that Mary was herself a sign. What is missing in all these accounts is any special reason for Jesus to be virgin-born, and the elevation of Mary herself to being a sign is perhaps an attempt to compensate for any pressing need for Jesus to be born in this way:

The virgin birth of Jesus was a miracle both for him and his mother. She was falsely accused of unchastity, but the child Jesus triumphantly vindicated her by his own miracles (xix. 27-33), and showed by his life the meanness of the calumny against his mother.

Strangely, in the Hadith, there is an indication that the birth of Jesus was unique in other ways, and perhaps represents an echo of Christian teaching on the virgin birth, in that although every other human being, including presumably Muhammad, was touched as an infant by Satan, Jesus was preserved from this. 7 There is a tension, if not contradiction, between the accounts of the virgin birth in the Qur’an; in that S. 3:45 speaks of a plurality of angels, whereas S. 19:17 speaks of only one:

Surah Al-i-Imran 3:45ff

45 Behold! the angels said ‘O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus the son of Mary held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah.

46 ‘He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity and he shall be (of the company) of the righteous.’

47 She said: ‘O my Lord! how shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?’ He said: ‘Even so: Allah createth what He willeth; when He hath decreed a plan He but saith to it ‘Be’ and it is!

Surah Maryam 19:16ff

16 Relate in the Book (the story of) Mary when she withdrew from her family to a place in the East.

17 She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them: then We sent to her Our angel and he appeared before her as a man in all respects.

18 She said: ‘I seek refuge from thee to (Allah) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear Allah.’

19 He said: ‘Nay I am only a messenger from thy Lord (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son.’

20 She said: ‘How shall I have a son seeing that no man has touched me and I am not unchaste?’

21 He said: ‘So (it will be): thy Lord saith `That is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us’: it is a matter (so) decreed.’

22 So she conceived him and she retired with him to a remote place.

23 And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm-tree: she cried (in her anguish): ‘Ah! would that I had died before this! Would that I had been a thing forgotten and out of sight!’

24 But (a voice) cried to her from beneath the (palm-free): ‘Grieve not! for thy Lord hath provided a rivulet beneath thee;

25 ‘And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree: it will let fall fresh ripe dates upon thee.

26 ‘So eat and drink and cool (thine) eye. And if thou dost see any man say ‘I have vowed a fast to (Allah) Most Gracious and this day will I enter into no talk with any human being.’ ‘

27 At length she brought the (babe) to her people carrying him (in her arms). They said: ‘O Mary! truly an amazing thing hast thou brought!

28 ‘O sister of Aaron! thy father was not a man of evil nor thy mother a woman unchaste!’

29 But she pointed to the babe. They said: ‘How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?’

30 He said: ‘I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet;

31 ‘And He hath made me Blessed wheresoever I be and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live;

32 ‘(He) hath made me kind to my mother and not overbearing or miserable;

33 ‘So Peace is on me the day I was born the day that I die and the Day that I shall be raised up to life (again)’!

34 Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth about which they (vainly) dispute.

35 It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him!

The text bears a striking resemblance to the Biblical story of Hagar after she was cast out from Abraham’s household, Genesis 21:14ff, suggesting a case of borrowing and adaptation. The story of Jesus talking whilst yet a babe is absent from the canonical gospels, but is rather found in the Apocryphal writings. The denial of the eternal sonship of Jesus at the climax of this passage in v35 is quite inexplicable, being not related in any way to what preceded it. This emphasises the negatory character of Islamic Christology mentioned earlier. It is interesting that v19 of the Surah Maryam describes Jesus as ‘a holy son’, but then, Islam holds that all children are born thus. 8 Further more, Islam holds that all prophets are sinless, leaving little purpose in the virgin birth as understand by Christians. 9 Realistically, the virgin birth as Islam presents it is a superfluous divine act. Effectively, it has merely re-worked and reduced the concept to fit its theological presuppositions and polemics.

2. The Baptism

A. The Biblical View

The baptism of Jesus is often problematic for Muslims, as Deedat’s tract, The God that never was, demonstrates: ‘The Confession and Repentance of “God”: before the beginning of his public ministry: “Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist” (Matthew, 3:13), “which signified the confession of sins” (Matthew, 3:6), “and repentance from sins (Matthew, 3:11).’ 10

To explain why Jesus was baptised, we must consider the whole nature of the plan of salvation. The Old Testament prophets predicted a Restoration of Israel after the Babylonian Exile which would possess the character of a Second Exodus, Isaiah 11:11ff, and will reflect the divine requirement of faith in that only a purified Remnant will return – Isaiah 10:22; Ezekiel 11:18-21; 20:34-38. The latter text, together with Isaiah 40:3-5 emphasises the importance of the desert in this process – as the avenue by which the Restoration will be accomplished and the Judgement essential to this act effected. (In this respect it is a pattern of the Final Judgement that effects the entry of the Righteous into their inheritance, the Kingdom.)

Isaiah 52:7 builds on 40:3 by stating that God will return with the exiles as their King. Other texts, e.g. Ezekiel 37:24 indicate that the Reign of God will be mediated through the Davidic King – the Messiah, whose reign will be over a righteous people who adhere to the New Covenant, cf. 36:25-27; Jeremiah 31:33-34. Jeremiah 31:2, 7 underline this, as 23:6 and 33:15-16, which identify the King with the People – specifically Jerusalem. Although a Remnant did return from Babylon, the Reign of God through Messiah was as yet unrealised.

Mark 1:2-5 (and parallels in Matthew 3:1-11; Luke 3:2-16) reveal the fulfilment of these texts, specifically represented by Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 – the preparation for the arrival of God in Canaan. This occurs through the ministry of John Baptist in the desert, v 4, where a purging takes place – only those confessing their sins will share in the End of the Exile (cf. also Matthew 3:3 ‘For this is the one spoken of through Isaiah the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight’). The rest will suffer the Judgement – Matthew 3:7, 10, 12. John was preparing a refined people for the One who would effect the Return from Exile under the Reign of God, which will see the Baptism of the Spirit, Matthew 3:11. The Bestowal of the Spirit is the evidence that Jesus is the Davidic King, Acts 2:30, 33, 36. So with the manifestation of Jesus, the Exile has ended and the Reign of God has arrived – Mark 1:15/Isaiah 52:7.

This sets the scene for understanding the Baptism of Jesus.

(a) Jesus had no need to repent – note how John was reluctant to baptise Him, and Jesus had to tell him to ‘permit’ it – Matthew 3:15.

(b) In saying this, John recognised that the One whom he was to baptise in water was the One who would baptise in the Spirit, v 14. That is, Jesus was the Messiah.

(c) The fact that Jesus does not contradict John’s assertion is evidence of His own belief in His sinlessness.

(d) Jesus gives as His reason for submission to baptism as being right to ‘fulfil all righteousness’. ‘Fulfil’ in Matthew is used mainly of Jesus’ relation to the predictions and patterns of the Old Testament’ e.g. 5:17. Thus Jesus was accomplishing fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy, which ties in with John’s own ministry. ‘Righteousness’ in Matthew is linked to the idea of the Kingdom, e.g. 5:10, 20; 6:33; 21:31-32. It has the sense of ‘obedience to the will of God’ and thus of ‘submission to the Reign of God’ – cf. Romans 14:17.

Jesus, by being baptised, is thus identifying with the people who are preparing for the reception of the Reign of God and probably there is a reflection here of Isaiah 53:11, where the Servant represents the people. We should also note the ‘Moses’ typology theme in Matthew, and the fact that Israel was ‘baptised’ into Moses, so the Spirit will ‘baptise’ the people into Christ – i.e. identifying them with Him. The idea is that the fulfilment of the Old Testament Hope, with which the people are identifying, is realised in Jesus.

(e) Unlike Pentecost, the Spirit is not represented by fire, which would imply cleansing, but by a dove, indicating purity and the creation of something new – cf. Genesis 1:2. John 1:33 seems to imply that the One on Whom the Spirit abides is the bestower of the Spirit, and v 34 indicates that this evidences that Jesus is the Son of God. Cf. also Ezekiel 1:1; 2:2.

(f) The heavenly voice calls Jesus ‘beloved Son’, reflecting Psalm 2:7 and Isaiah 42:1 (and possibly Genesis 22:2 LXX) – He is the Davidic King, Servant and true Israel – cf. Mark 1:11 with 12:1-11. He is the embodiment of the Old Testament Messianic Hope, of the Kingdom of God and of the New Covenant. All these things help us to understand the significance of the Temptations by Satan in the desert, Matthew 4:3-11, climaxing in the attempt to get Jesus to avoid the cross by accepting the offer of the kingdoms of this world by worshipping Satan, vv. 8-9 – ‘8 Again, the devil took him up to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; 9 and he said to him, All these things I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me. 10 Then Jesus said to him, Away with you, Satan: for it is written, you shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.’ These reproduce the Tests of Israel, the Old Testament ‘Son’ of God in the desert of Sinai, in Deuteronomy chapters 6-8, tests the old son failed, but which the ultimate Son passes with flying colours.

(g) As Jesus begins his ministry after this, we can see that the bestowal of the Spirit was the divine ‘call’ or ‘ordination’ – the King and the Servant were to characterised by the anointing with the Spirit. John 1:33 and 3:34 seem to underline this.

We should also note the Trinitarian aspect to the Baptism – the voice of the Father, descent of the spirit upon the Son, and the revelatory miracle as to the identity of Jesus.

B. The Islamic View

The ‘baptism of God’ is mentioned in S. 2:138, but it is the only reference to the subject, and it is clear that this ‘divine baptism’ is purely metaphorical: ‘(Our religion is) the baptism of Allah; and who can baptize better than Allah? and it is He whom we worship.’ Pickthall renders this ‘(We take our) colour from Allah, and who is better than Allah at colouring. We are His worshippers.’ Yusuf Ali comments on this verse as follows:

Sibgat: baptism: the root-meaning implies a dye or colour; apparently the Arab Christians mixed a dye or colour in the baptismal water, signifying that the baptized person got a new colour in life. We do not believe that it is necessary to be baptized to be saved. Our higher baptism is the ‘Baptism’ of God, by which we take on a colour (symbolically) of God, and absorb His goodness in us.

Interestingly, whilst Muslims like Yusuf Ali refer to ‘John the Baptist’, as with his comments on S. 19:12, it is significant that neither the Qur’an nor the Hadith ever present him with this full title, or actually practising this function:

In this section of the Sura the centre of interest is Yahya, and the instruction is now given to him. ‘Keep fast hold of Allah’s revelation with all your might’: for an unbelieving world had either corrupted or neglected it, and Yahya (John the Baptist) was to prepare the way for Jesus, who was coming to renew and re-interpret it.

Given that Islam regards John as a prophet, the paucity of references to him is significant – especially when we consider that he is never presented as baptising! There are only passing references to him in narrations about the Ascension of Muhammad to the heavens. 11 It is also notable that when the prediction of judgment and resurrection is given in the Hadith, and it is claimed that people will try out all former prophets for intercession before finally finding help from Muhammad, the text jumps right from Moses to Jesus, ignoring John. 12 S. 19:12is the only text which presents any indication of the ministry of the Islamic John: ‘(To his son came the command): ‘O Yahya! take hold of the Book with might’: and We gave him wisdom even as a youth.’ Nowhere is John clearly presented as preparing the way for Jesus, although Yusuf Ali seems to interpret S. 3:39 in this way ‘While he was standing in prayer in the chamber the angels called unto him: “Allah doth give thee glad tidings of Yahya witnessing the truth of a Word from Allah and (be besides) noble chaste and a Prophet of the (goodly) company of the righteous.”’

380 The birth of Mary, the mother of Jesus, of John the Baptist, the precursor of Jesus, and of Jesus, the prophet of Israel, whom Israel rejected, occurred in that order chronologically, and are told in that order. They are all inter-connected. Zakariya prayed for no ordinary son. He and his wife were past the age of parenthood. Seeing the growth of Mary, he prayed for some child from Allah,- “from Thee, a progeny that is pure”. To his surprise, he is given a son in the flesh, ushered in by a special Sign. (3.38)

381 Notice: “a Word from Allah”, not “the Word of Allah”, the epithet that mystical Christianity uses for Jesus. As stated in iii. 59 below, Jesus was created by a miracle, by Allah’s word “Be”, and he was. (3.39)

Pickthall renders the same text as follows: ‘And the angels called to him as he stood praying in the sanctuary: Allah giveth thee glad tidings of (a son whose name is) John, (who cometh) to confirm a word from Allah, lordly, chaste, a Prophet of the righteous.’ Arberry translates it similarly. In view of the lack of an explicit reference to Jesus, it would seem more likely that the verse parallels 19:12 – the kalima in question being synonymous with the kitab or at least its message. Never are we presented with John preaching about the coming of Jesus, or in any way aiding His ministry. Indeed, we learn virtually nothing about John’s ministry whatsoever. This is despite Yusuf Ali comments on S. 19:7 ‘(His prayer was answered): “O Zakariya! We give thee good news of a son: his name shall be Yahya: on none by that name have We conferred distinction before.”’:

This was John the Baptist, the forerunner of Jesus. In accordance with his father’s prayer he, and Jesus for whom he prepared the way, renewed the Message of Allah, which had been corrupted and lost among the Israelites. The Arabic form Yahya suggests ‘Life’. The Hebrew form is Johanan, which means ‘Jehovah has been Gracious’… It does not mean that the name was given for the first time, for we read of a Johanan the son of Careah in II Kings, xxv. 23, an otherwise obscure man. It means that Allah had, for the first time, called one of His elect by that name.

This parallels the lack of definition of Al-Masih with respect to Jesus, indicating that in both cases the Qur’an is dependent upon the Bible for elaboration. Again, it is significant that Yusuf Ali has to refer to the Biblical account, without acknowledging that he is so-doing, to illustrate the history of John the Baptist, again pointing to the historical and theological priority of the Bible:

John the Baptist did not live long. He was imprisoned by Herod, the tetrarch (provincial ruler under the Roman Empire), whom he had reproved for his sins, and eventually beheaded at the instigation of the woman with whom Herod was infatuated. But even in his young life, he was granted (1) wisdom by Allah, for he boldly denounced sin; (2) gentle pity and love for all Allah’s creatures, for he moved among the humble and lowly, and despised ‘soft raiment’; and (3) purity of life, for he renounced the world and lived in the wilderness. All his work he did in his youth. These things showed themselves in his conduct, for he was devout, showing love to Allah and to Allah’s creatures, and more particularly to his parents (for we are considering that aspect of his life): this was also shown by the fact that he never used violence, from an attitude of arrogance, nor entertained a spirit of rebellion against divine Law. (19.13)

The other question that this raises is what is the actual function of John’s ministry? Abadalati summarises what Muslims usually believe about the ministry of Jesus: ‘It was to install the true religion of God and restore His revelations which had been misinterpreted and abused.’ 13 The Qur’an teaches that several messengers/prophets were given scriptures: Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus and Muhammad. Jesus, of course, was given the Injil, S. 57:27 – ‘Then in their wake We followed them up with (others of) Our apostles: We sent after them Jesus the son of Mary and bestowed on him the Gospel…’ S. 5:46 – ‘And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary confirming the law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light and confirmation of the law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.’ S. 3:48 ‘And Allah will teach him the Book and Wisdom the Law and the Gospel.’ Yet even according to the Islamic view, the ministries of John and Jesus were virtually simultaneous, which leaves open the question of the purpose and content of the message of John. What was deficient in his message that Jesus had to come to correct it? After all, Muslims believe all prophets brought the same message.

Nor does the Qur’an ever present John as predicting the coming of Jesus, in the way Jesus supposedly predicts the coming of ‘Ahmed’, nor performing any particular act that actually does prepare the way for Jesus. John is virtually a footnote in the Qur’anic life of Jesus, in contrast to the crucial eschatological role he plays in the Biblical narrative. It need hardly be noted that the Qur’anic accounts of the relationship of John to Jesus do not present anything like the Biblical narrative, with Jesus being the climax of the Old Testament hope of the Restoration of the True Israel and the Return from Exile. This is partly conditioned by Islam’s belief in Muhammad as the seal of the prophets, and by its rejection of the soteriological work of Christ on the cross.

A further question that must be asked concerns what actually was the kitab that John had to hold? Was it the Tawrah, or the Zabur (Psalms)? If so why is this not stated? It may be the case that it refers to a special Scripture uniquely given to John. However, this contradicts the traditional Muslim belief that there was no scripture between David and Jesus, especially as S. 5:46 presents the Injil’s confirming the Tawrah, rather than any supposed intervening book (though this also causes problems for Muslims; why is Jesus not presented as confirming the Zabur? Cf. also S. 3:50). The issue becomes even more problematic when we consider how parallel S. 3:48 is to S. 19:12; the kitab there appears to be distinguished from both the Law and the Gospel. Both these texts given the impression of hurried borrowing from Christian scriptures.

The Qur’an does not appear to have any parallel to the desert temptations of Jesus, and there only appears to be one tradition that in any ways parallels the Biblical account:

Makhul Abu ’Uthman said that once when ’Isa, peace be upon him, was praying at the top of a mountain, Iblis came to him and said, ‘Don’t you believe in the determination and the decree?’ ’Isa said, ‘Indeed I do.’ So he said to ’Isa, ‘Then throw yourself over the edge and only what Allah has decreed for you will befall you.’ ’Isa retorted, ‘The Lord puts His slave to the test and tries him. It is not proper for the slave to test his Lord.’ (Ibn Abi’d-Dunya transmits it.) 14

As Islam denies the need for Representative/Substitutionary atonement/reconciliation, Jesus cannot be the Suffering Servant, as the Baptism attests. Although Jesus is called Al-Masih (e.g. S. 5:72), no description of the term is given, and nothing indicating that Jesus is King is ever presented in either the Qur’an or the Hadith. The latter does indicate He will return to rule for forty years, but not as King; rather, He rules as Amir or Imam of the Muslims. 15) The Qur’an holds that He was ‘strengthened’, though not necessarily anointed with ‘the holy spirit’, but the latter in Islam is of course Gabriel – S. 2:87 – ‘We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of Apostles; We gave Jesus the son of Mary clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit…’; S. 2:253 – ‘Those apostles We endowed with gifts some above others: to one of them Allah spoke; others He raised to degrees (of honor); to Jesus the son of Mary We gave clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit….’. Jamal Badawi writes in Jesus (peace be upon him) in the Qur’an and the Bible that ‘Holy Spirit means Gabriel the Angel of Revelation (16:102).’ 16

In this Badawi is no doubt influenced by the traditional beliefs of Islam that Gabriel was the medium of revelation with respect to the Qur’an, as the verse he mentions indicates – ‘Say the Holy Spirit has brought the revelation from thy Lord in truth in order to strengthen those who believe and as a guide and Glad Tidings to Muslims.’ However, whilst there is nothing to indicate that the Holy Spirit anoints Jesus for His kingly and priestly ministries, as the Biblical account indicates, the Qur’an, perhaps as a result of careless borrowing from apocryphal books like Gospel of the Infancy, does indeed present the work of the ‘holy spirit’ as aiding the ministry of the Islamic Jesus:

S. 5:110 – ‘Then will Allah say: “O Jesus the son of Mary! recount my favour to thee and to thy mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the holy spirit so that thou didst speak to the people in childhood and in maturity…”’ {Yusuf Ali)

‘When Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favour unto thee and unto thy mother; how I strengthened thee with the holy Spirit, so that thou spakest unto mankind in the cradle as in maturity;…’ {Pickthall)

Compare this with the apocryphal Gospel of the Infancy:

1) …Jesus spoke, and, indeed, when He was lying in His cradle said to Mary His mother: I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos, whom thou hast brought forth, as the Angel Gabriel announced to thee; and my Father has sent me for the salvation of the world.

Similarly, S. 19:27-30 betrays the influence of this apocryphal work:

27 At length she brought the (babe) to her people carrying him (in her arms). They said: ‘O Mary! Truly an amazing thing hast thou brought!

28 ‘O sister of Aaron! thy father was not a man of evil nor thy mother a woman unchaste!’

29 But she pointed to the babe. They said: ‘How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?’

30 He said: ‘I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet…

The evidence suggests a re-working and conflation of the Infancy pseudo-gospel as well as the references in the canonical gospels with relation to the descent of the Holy Spirit on Jesus to bring them in line with Islamic presuppositions. The reference to the ‘holy spirit’ in S. 5:110, reflecting the reference to Gabriel in the Infancy pseudo-gospel, the commission of Jesus to speak to ‘mankind’, rather than just Israel as Badawi claims [MISSION specifically TO THE ISRAELITES (3:49, 5:75,61:6)], and the reduction of ‘the Son of God, the Logos’, to ‘servant of Allah’ and ‘prophet’ all indicate this. S. 5:110 indicates that the effect of the presence of the ‘holy spirit’ in Jesus’ life was to enable Him to speak the words of God, and possibly perform the miracle of infant speech, rather than to be inspired with the Injil. Inasmuch as the anointing with the Holy Spirit in the Bible is the ‘ordination’ of Jesus to begin His public ministry, there is some analogy between the Biblical and Islamic systems. The differences, however, are marked.

3. The Transfiguration

A. The Biblical View

The Transfiguration follows the confession by the disciples of the Messiahship of Jesus at Caesarea Philippi, Matthew 16:13ff; Mark 8:27ff. Jesus then indicated that His Messianic ministry involved His being subject to rejection and murder. Probably His trip to the Mountain should be seen in this light – His reflecting these things, so needs to pray with a few close associates. He is then ‘transfigured’ – metamorphosed. The meaning thereof is seen in the clauses following. The reference to ‘His face shone like the sun’ recalls Moses in Exodus 34:29:35, and ‘the garments white as light’ suggest a heavenly being (cf. 28:3; Luke 24:4); cf. the ultimate glory of the ‘righteous’ in 13:32’.

(a) It would seem to be an intervention of the Heavenly state into the earthly – Jesus appears, like Moses and Elijah ‘in glory’ – a reference to the shekinah, the Presence of God in the Temple, and God speaks to them out of a ‘Cloud’ – cf. Exodus 19:9; 2 Chronicles 5:13-14; 6:1-2. Also, the Moses-typology is indicated by the Cloud – Ex 24:16: By ‘listen to him’ – cf. Deuteronomy 18:15, 19; and by Luke 9:31 which speaks of Jesus’ exodos, which connects the scene with His revelation to His disciples of His death, q v.

(b) It was common Jewish belief that the Messianic Age – i.e. the Restoration of Israel – would be presaged by the coming of these two figures in some way (cf. Matthew 11:14). Their manifestation here suggests its arrival.

(c) Inasmuch as we are presented with a ‘coming’ of heaven to earth, and notably of two men whose departure from the earth was unusual, as Elijah was translated and Moses was buried by God, but by this time it was believed he had to ‘assumed’ into heaven, the event looks to the Resurrection Age, where the dwelling of God is with men, where heaven comes to earth – Revelation 21:1-4.

The Messianic Age is synonymous with the Kingdom of God, and the Kingdom of God is synonymous with the Age to Come, the resurrection Age – Luke 20:34-35: 1 Corinthians 15:50. Since the two speak of Jesus’ exodos, the point is that the end of the Exile, the Restoration of Israel, the Kingdom is established through the death of Jesus: the very idea of ‘resurrection’ in itself presupposes death. This event points to the ‘glory’ that will follow the Passion – Luke 24:21, 25-26.

(d) At Caesarea Philippi, Jesus had to rebuke Peter for his aversion to the necessity of the Passion. Here again it is the case in all likelihood that Peter’s actions were motivated by a desire to ‘institutionalise’ the event by constructing ‘booths’ for the three – allowing for a permanent experience of the Glory now revealed. The word skene used in Mark 9:6 reflects Hebrew terms used for the Tabernacle or Temple, which indicates that the function of the latter was realised in Jesus, but also the fact that Peter was suggesting that the experience of permanent glory could be realised without resort and submission to death. Further, it would have been an attempt to pre-empt the Final State, the time of which is withheld from Man – Matthew 24:36; Acts 1:6.

(e) In an action which recalls the Baptism, the Voice from the heavens sounds, directing them to act upon the words of Jesus, identifying Him as the Son of God in terms of Isaiah 42:1 (The Servant) and Deuteronomy 18. This stresses that as Servant, Jesus must suffer first.

Jesus links that incident to His future glory by His self-designation as ‘Son of Man’, Matthew 17:9, who receives divine authority over all nations in association with the Saints of the Most High, Daniel 7:13ff, in the context of the heavenly court, and by saying He will rise from the dead – indicating that His glory will follow His death and be identified with His resurrection.

B. The Islamic View

There appears to be nothing that remotely resembles the narrative of the Transfiguration. Yusuf Ali, commenting on S. 6:85 ‘And Zakariya and John and Jesus and Elias: all in the ranks of the righteous’, does refer to the Biblical account:

The third group consists not of men of action, but Preachers of Truth, who led solitary lives. Their epithet is: ‘the Righteous.’ They form a connected group round Jesus. Zakariya was the father of John the Baptist, the precursor of Jesus (iii. 37-41); and Jesus referred to John the Baptist as Elias, ‘this is Elias, which was to come’ (Matt xi. 14); and Elias is said to have been present and talked to Jesus at the Transfiguration on the Mount (Matt. xvii. 3). Elias is the same as Elijah.

There is very little else about Elijah in the Qur’an, save S. 37:123 -132:

123 So also was Elias among those sent (by us)…

124 Behold he said to his people “Will ye not fear (Allah)?

125 “Will ye call upon Baal and forsake the Best of Creators

126 “Allah your Lord and Cherisher and the Lord and Cherisher of your fathers of old?”

127 But they rejected him and they will certainly be called up (for punishment)

128 Except the sincere and devoted Servants of Allah (among them).

129 And We left (this blessing) for him among generations (to come) in later times

130 “Peace and salutation to such as Elias!”

131 Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.

132 For He was one of Our believing Servants.’

Interestingly, Yusuf Ali once again has to make recourse to the Bible to explain the nature of Elijah’s ministry:

See n. 905 to vi. 85. Elias is the same as Elijah, whose story will be found in the Old Testament in I Kings xvii-xix. and 2 Kings i-ii. Elijah lived in the reign of Ahab (B.C. 896-874) and Ahaziah (B.C. 874-872), kings of the (northern) kingdom of Israel or Samaria. He was a prophet of the desert, like John the Baptist,-unlike our holy Prophet, who took part in, controlled, and guided all the affairs of his people. Both Ahab and Azariah were prone to lapse into the worship of Baal, the sun-god worshipped in Syria. That worship also included the worship of nature-powers and procreative powers, as in the Hindu worship of the Lingam, and led to many abuses. King Ahab had married a princess of Sidon, Jezebel, a wicked woman who led her husband to forsake Allah and adopt Baal-worship. Elijah denounced all Ahab’s sins as well as the sins of Ahaziah and had to flee for his life. Eventually, according to the Old Testament (2 Kings, ii-11) he was taken up in a whirlwind to heaven in a chariot of fire after he had left his mantle with Elisha the prophet. (37.123)

There are probably two major reasons for the absence of the Transfiguration from the Qur’an. Firstly, the particular theology associated with the event in the Bible is incompatible with Islam – the idea that Jesus was going to die, for example. The eschatological emphasis, both in terms of fulfilment of Old Testament hope and presaging of the eternal state also contradict Islam. Another reason is that there is an Islamic equivalent, specifically the Isra and the Miraj – the Night Journey to Jerusalem, and the Ascension to the heavens by Muhammad, where he meets the prophets, and receives revelation about the daily prayers (Mawdudi makes this point in his introduction to the Surah in Yusuf Ali’s translation ‘Incidentally, we learn from Traditions that Mi’raj was the first occasion on which the five daily Prayers were prescribed to be offered at fixed times.’):

S. Al-Isra 17:1

Glory to (Allah) Who did take His Servant for Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque whose precincts We did Bless in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the one Who heareth and seeth (all things).

S. 53:13 – ‘For indeed he saw him at a second descent.’

Yusuf Ali explains the significance of the latter verse: ‘The first occasion when Gabriel appeared in a visible form was at the Mountain of Light, when he brought his first revelation beginning with Iqraa:. The second was at the Prophet’s Miraj or Ascension: see Introduction to S. xvii. (53.13)’ The Hadith is more fulsome in its references to the Miraj:

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.462

Narrated by Ibn Abbas

The Prophet said, “On the night of my Ascent to the Heaven, I saw Moses who was a tall brown curly-haired man as if he was one of the men of Shan’awa tribe, and I saw Jesus, a man of medium height and moderate complexion inclined to the red and white colors and of lank hair. I also saw Malik, the gate-keeper of the (Hell) Fire and Ad-Dajjal amongst the signs which Allah showed me.” (The Prophet then recited the Holy Verse): “So be not you in doubt of meeting him when you met Moses during the night of Mi’raj over the heavens.” (32.23)

Narrated Anas and Abu Bakra: “The Prophet said, ‘The angels will guard Medina from Ad-Dajjal (who will not be able to enter the city of Medina).’”

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.648

Narrated by Ibn Umar

The Prophet said, ‘I saw Moses, Jesus and Abraham (on the night of my Ascension to the heavens). Jesus was of red complexion, curly hair and a broad chest. Moses was of brown complexion, straight hair and tall stature as if he was from the people of Az-Zutt.’

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.640

Narrated by Malik bin Sasaa

That the Prophet talked to them about the night of his Ascension to the Heavens. He said, “(Then Gabriel took me) and ascended up till he reached the second heaven where he asked for the gate to be opened, but it was asked, ‘Who is it?’ Gabriel replied, ‘I am Gabriel.’ It was asked, ‘Who is accompanying you?’ He replied, ‘Muhammad.’ It was asked, ‘Has he been called?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ When we reached over the second heaven, I saw Yahya (i.e. John) and Jesus who were cousins. Gabriel said, ‘These are John (Yahya) and Jesus, so greet them.’ I greeted them and they returned the greeting saying, ‘Welcome, O Pious Brother and Pious Prophet!’” 17

References

1. Berkhof, Louis, Systematic Theology, (Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, 1958 edition, 1981 reprint), p. 333.

2. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 334.

3. Hodge, A. A., Evangelical Theology: Lectures on Doctrine, (First edition 1890; Banner of Truth Trust edition, 1976, Edinburgh), p. 189.

4. Murray, John, ‘The Person of Christ’, in Collected Writings, Vol. 2, Systematic Theology, p. 136.

5. Ibid., p. 135.

6. Milne, Bruce, Know the Truth, (IVP, Leicester, 1982), p. 139.

7. Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 6.71, Narrated by Said bin Al Musaiyab, “Abu Huraira said, ‘The Prophet said, “No child is born but that, Satan touches it when it is born where upon it starts crying loudly because of being touched by Satan, except Mary and her Son.”‘ Abu Huraira then said, ‘Recite, if you wish: “And I seek Refuge with You (Allah) for her and her offspring from Satan, the outcast.”‘” (3.36)
   Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.641,  Narrated by Said bin Al Musaiyab, “Abu Huraira said, ‘I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “There is none born among the offspring of Adam, but Satan touches it. A child therefore, cries loudly at the time of birth because of the touch of Satan, except Mary and her child.”‘ Then Abu Huraira recited: ‘And I seek refuge with You for her and for her offspring from the outcast Satan.'” (3.36)
   Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.506, Narrated by Abu Huraira, “The Prophet said, ‘When any human being is born, Satan touches him at both sides of the body with his two fingers, except Jesus, the son of Mary, whom Satan tried to touch but failed, for he touched the placenta-cover instead.'”

8. Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 8.597, Narrated by Abu Huraira, “… Allah’s Apostle said, ‘No child is born but has the Islamic Faith, but its parents turn it into a Jew or a Christian.’”

9. Surah Al-i-Imran 3:161, “No prophet could (ever) be false to his trust. If any person is so false He shall on the Day of Judgment restore what he misappropriated; then shall every soul receive its due whatever it earned and none shall be dealt with unjustly.”
   The Hadith echoes this assertion: Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith 3960, Narrated by Abdullah ibn Abbas, “The verse ‘And no Prophet could (ever) be false to his trust’ was revealed about a red velvet. When it was found missing on the day of Badr, some people said; Perhaps the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) has taken it. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down ‘And no prophet could (ever) be false to his trust’ to the end of the verse.”

10. Deedat, Ahmed, The God that never was, http://www.ais.org/~maftab/neverwas.htm

11. Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.640 (cf. 4:429; 5:227), Narrated by Malik bin Sasaa, “That the Prophet talked to them about the night of his Ascension to the Heavens. He said, ‘(Then Gabriel took me) and ascended up till he reached the second heaven where he asked for the gate to be opened, but it was asked, “Who is it?” Gabriel replied, “I am Gabriel.” It was asked, “Who is accompanying you?” He replied, “Muhammad.” It was asked, “Has he been called?” He said, “Yes.” When we reached over the second heaven, I saw Yahya (i.e. John) and Jesus who were cousins. Gabriel said, “These are John (Yahya) and Jesus, so greet them.” I greeted them and they returned the greeting saying, “Welcome, O Pious Brother and Pious Prophet!”‘”

12. Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 6.236, Narrated by Abu Huraira, “Some (cooked) meat was brought to Allah’s Apostle and the meat of a forearm was presented to him as he used to like it. He ate a morsel of it and said, ‘I will be the chief of all the people on the Day of Resurrection. Do you know the reason for it? Allah will gather all the human beings of early generations as well as late generations on one plain so that the announcer will be able to make them all hear his voice and the watcher will be able to see all of them. The sun will come so close to the people that they will suffer such distress and trouble as they will not be able to bear or stand. Then the people will say, “Don’t you see to what state you have reached? Won’t you look for someone who can intercede for you with your Lord?” Some people will say to some others, “Go to Adam.” So they will go to Adam and say to him, “You are the father of mankind; Allah created you with His Own Hand, and breathed into you of His Spirit (meaning the spirit which he created for you); and ordered the angels to prostrate before you; so (please) intercede for us with your Lord. Don’t you see in what state we are? Don’t you see what condition we have reached?” Adam will say, “Today my Lord has become angry as He has never become before, nor will ever become thereafter. He forbade me (to eat of the fruit of) the tree, but I disobeyed Him. Myself! Myself! Myself! (has more need for intercession). Go to someone else; go to Noah.” So they will go to Noah and say (to him), “O Noah! You are the first (of Allah’s Messengers) to the people of the earth, and Allah has named you a thankful slave; please intercede for us with your Lord. Don’t you see in what state we are?” He will say, “Today my Lord has become angry as He has never become nor will ever become thereafter. I had (in the world) the right to make one definitely accepted invocation, and I made it against my nation. Myself! Myself! Myself! Go to someone else; go to Abraham.” They will go to Abraham and say, “O Abraham! You are Allah’s Apostle and His Khalil from among the people of the earth; so please intercede for us with your Lord. Don’t you see in what state we are?” He will say to them, “My Lord has today become angry as He has never become before, nor will ever become thereafter. I had told three lies (Abu Haiyan (the sub-narrator) mentioned them in the Hadith. Myself! Myself! Myself! Go to someone else; go to Moses.” The people will then go to Moses and say, “O Moses! You art Allah’s Apostle and Allah gave you superiority above the others with this message and with His direct Talk to you; (please) intercede for us with your Lord! Don’t you see in what state we are?” Moses will say, “My Lord has today become angry as He has never become before, nor will become thereafter, I killed a person whom I had not been ordered to kill. Myself! Myself! Myself! Go to someone else; go to Jesus.” So they will go to Jesus and say, “O Jesus! You are Allah’s Apostle and His Word which He sent to Mary, and a superior soul created by Him, and you talked to the people while still young in the cradle. Please intercede for us with your Lord. Don’t you see in what state we are?” Jesus will say, “My Lord has today become angry as He has never become before nor will ever become thereafter.” Jesus will not mention any sin, but will say, “Myself! Myself! Myself! Go to someone else; go to Muhammad.” So they will come to me and say, “O Muhammad ! You are Allah’s Apostle and the last of the prophets, and Allah forgave your early and late sins. (Please) intercede for us with your Lord. Don’t you see in what state we are?”‘ The Prophet added, ‘Then I will go beneath Allah’s Throne and fall in prostration before my Lord. And then Allah will guide me to such praises and glorification to Him as He has never guided anybody else before me. Then it will be said, “O Muhammad! Raise your head. Ask, and it will be granted. Intercede! It (your intercession) will be accepted.” So I will raise my head and say, “My followers, O my Lord! My followers, O my Lord”. It will be said, “O Muhammad! Let those of your followers who have no accounts, enter through such a gate of the gates of Paradise as lies on the right; and they will share the other gates with the people.”‘ The Prophet further said, ‘By Him in Whose Hand my soul is, the distance between every two gate-posts of Paradise is like the distance between Mecca and Busra (in Sham).'”

13. Abdalati, Hammudah, Islam in Focus, (American Trust Publications, 1975), p. 156.

14. Ashour, Mustafa, The Jinn in the Qur’an and the Sunna, (Dar Al Taqwa, London, 1989), p. 33.

15. Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.657, Narrated by Abu Huraira, “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, surely (Jesus,) the son of Mary will soon descend amongst you and will judge mankind justly (as a Just Ruler); he will break the Cross and kill the pigs and there will be no Jizya (i.e. taxation taken from non-Muslims). Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it, and a single prostration to Allah (in prayer) will be better than the whole world and whatever is in it.'”
    Abu Huraira added “If you wish, you can recite (this verse of the Holy Book): “And there is none Of the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (i.e. Jesus as an Apostle of Allah and a human being) Before his death. And on the Day of Judgment He will be a witness against them.'” (4.159)

16. Badawi, Jamal, Jesus (peace be upon him) in the Qur’an and the Bible, http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/6808/Jesus.html 2000.

17. Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 1.345, Narrated by Abu Dhar, “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘While I was at Mecca the roof of my house was opened and Gabriel descended, opened my chest, and washed it with Zamzam water. Then he brought a golden tray full of wisdom and faith and having poured its contents into my chest, he closed it. Then he took my hand and ascended with me to the nearest heaven, when I reached the nearest heaven, Gabriel said to the gatekeeper of the heaven, “Open (the gate).” The gatekeeper asked, “Who is it?” Gabriel answered: “Gabriel.” He asked, “Is there anyone with you?” Gabriel replied, “Yes, Muhammad is with me.” He asked, “Has he been called?” Gabriel said, “Yes.” So the gate was opened and we went over the nearest heaven and there we saw a man sitting with some people on his right and some on his left. When he looked towards his right, he laughed and when he looked toward his left he wept. Then he said, “Welcome! O pious Prophet and pious son.” I asked Gabriel, “Who is he?” He replied, “He is Adam and the people on his right and left are the souls of his offspring. Those on his right are the people of Paradise and those on his left are the people of Hell and when he looks towards his right he laughs and when he looks towards his left he weeps.” Then he ascended with me till he reached the second heaven and he (Gabriel) said to its gatekeeper, “Open (the gate).” The gatekeeper said to him the same as the gatekeeper of the first heaven had said and he opened the gate.
    Anas said: “Abu Dhar added that the Prophet met Adam, Idris, Moses, Jesus and Abraham, he (Abu Dhar) did not mention on which heaven they were but he mentioned that he (the Prophet) met Adam on the nearest heaven and Abraham on the sixth heaven.’
    Anas said, ‘When Gabriel along with the Prophet passed by Idris, the latter said, “Welcome! O pious Prophet and pious brother.” The Prophet asked, “Who is he?” Gabriel replied, “He is Idris.”‘
    The Prophet added, ‘I passed by Moses and he said, “Welcome! O pious Prophet and pious brother.” I asked Gabriel, “Who is he?” Gabriel replied, “He is Moses.” Then I passed by Jesus and he said, “Welcome! O pious brother and pious Prophet.” I asked, “Who is he?” Gabriel replied, “He is Jesus.” Then I passed by Abraham and he said, “Welcome! O pious Prophet and pious son.” I asked Gabriel, “Who is he?” Gabriel replied, “He is Abraham.”‘
    The Prophet added, ‘Then Gabriel ascended with me to a place where I heard the creaking of the pens.’
    Ibn Hazm and Anas bin Malik said: ‘The Prophet said, “Then Allah enjoined fifty prayers on my followers. When I returned with this order of Allah, I passed by Moses who asked me, “What has Allah enjoined on your followers?” I replied, “He has enjoined fifty prayers on them.” Moses said, “Go back to your Lord (and appeal for reduction) for your followers will not be able to bear it.” (So I went back to Allah and requested for reduction) and He reduced it to half. When I passed by Moses again and informed him about it, he said, “Go back to your Lord as your followers will not be able to bear it.” So I returned to Allah and requested for further reduction and half of it was reduced. I again passed by Moses and he said to me: “Return to your Lord, for your followers will not be able to bear it.” So I returned to Allah and He said, “These are five prayers and they are all (equal to) fifty (in reward) for My Word does not change.” I returned to Moses and he told me to go back once again. I replied, “Now I feel shy of asking my Lord again.” Then Gabriel took me till we reached Sidrat-il-Muntaha (Lote tree of the utmost boundary) which was shrouded in colours, indescribable. Then I was admitted into Paradise where I found small (tents or) walls (made) of pearls and its earth was of musk.'”
    Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 5.227, Narrated by Abbas bin Malik, “Malik bin Sasaa said that Allah’s Apostle described to them his Night Journey saying, ‘While I was lying in Al-Hatim or Al-Hijr, suddenly someone came to me and cut my body open from here to here.’ I asked Al-Jarud who was by my side, ‘What does he mean?’ He said, ‘It means from his throat to his pubic area,’ or said, ‘From the top of the chest.’ The Prophet further said, ‘He then took out my heart. Then a gold tray of Belief was brought to me and my heart was washed and was filled (with Belief) and then returned to its original place. Then a white animal which was smaller than a mule and bigger than a donkey was brought to me.’ (On this Al-Jarud asked, ‘Was it the Buraq, O Abu Hamza?’ I (i.e. Anas) replied in the affirmative). The Prophet said, ‘The animal’s step (was so wide that it) reached the farthest point within the reach of the animal’s sight. I was carried on it, and Gabriel set out with me till we reached the nearest heaven.’
    When he asked for the gate to be opened, it was asked, “Who is it?” Gabriel answered, “Gabriel.” It was asked, “Who is accompanying you?” Gabriel replied, “Muhammad.” It was asked, “Has Muhammad been called?” Gabriel replied in the affirmative. Then it was said, “He is welcomed. What an excellent visit his is!” The gate was opened, and when I went over the first heaven, I saw Adam there. Gabriel said (to me). “This is your father, Adam; pay him your greetings.” So I greeted him and he returned the greeting to me and said, “You are welcomed, O pious son and pious Prophet.” Then Gabriel ascended with me till we reached the second heaven. Gabriel asked for the gate to be opened. It was asked, “Who is it?” Gabriel answered, “Gabriel.” It was asked, “Who is accompanying you?” Gabriel replied, “Muhammad.” It was asked, “Has he been called?” Gabriel answered in the affirmative. Then it was said, “He is welcomed. What an excellent visit his is!” The gate was opened.
    When I went over the second heaven, there I saw Yahya (i.e. John) and ’Isa (i.e. Jesus) who were cousins of each other. Gabriel said (to me), “These are John and Jesus; pay them your greetings.” So I greeted them and both of them returned my greetings to me and said, “You are welcomed, O pious brother and pious Prophet.” Then Gabriel ascended with me to the third heaven and asked for its gate to be opened. It was asked, “Who is it?” Gabriel replied, “Gabriel.” It was asked, “Who is accompanying you?” Gabriel replied, “Muhammad.” It was asked, “Has he been called?” Gabriel replied in the affirmative. Then it was said, “He is welcomed, what an excellent visit his is!” The gate was opened, and when I went over the third heaven there I saw Joseph. Gabriel said (to me), “This is Joseph; pay him your greetings.” So I greeted him and he returned the greeting to me and said, “You are welcomed, O pious brother and pious Prophet.” Then Gabriel ascended with me to the fourth heaven and asked for its gate to be opened. It was asked, “Who is it?” Gabriel replied, “Gabriel.” It was asked, “Who is accompanying you?” Gabriel replied, “Muhammad.” It was asked, “Has he been called?” Gabriel replied in the affirmative. Then it was said, “He is welcomed, what an excellent visit his is!”
    The gate was opened, and when I went over the fourth heaven, there I saw Idris. Gabriel said (to me), “This is Idris; pay him your greetings.” So I greeted him and he returned the greeting to me and said, “You are welcomed, O pious brother and pious Prophet.” Then Gabriel ascended with me to the fifth heaven and asked for its gate to be opened. It was asked, “Who is it?” Gabriel replied, “Gabriel.” It was asked. “Who is accompanying you?” Gabriel replied, “Muhammad.” It was asked, “Has he been called?” Gabriel replied in the affirmative. Then it was said, “He is welcomed, what an excellent visit his is!” So when I went over the fifth heaven, there I saw Harun (i.e. Aaron), Gabriel said, (to me). “This is Aaron; pay him your greetings.” I greeted him and he returned the greeting to me and said, “You are welcomed, O pious brother and pious Prophet.” Then Gabriel ascended with me to the sixth heaven and asked for its gate to be opened. It was asked, “Who is it?” Gabriel replied, “Gabriel.” It was asked, “Who is accompanying you?” Gabriel replied, “Muhammad.” It was asked, “Has he been called?” Gabriel replied in the affirmative. It was said, “He is welcomed. What an excellent visit his is!”
    When I went (over the sixth heaven), there I saw Moses. Gabriel said (to me), “This is Moses; pay him your greeting.” So I greeted him and he returned the greetings to me and said, “You are welcomed, O pious brother and pious Prophet.” When I left him (i.e. Moses) he wept. Someone asked him, “What makes you weep?” Moses said, “I weep because after me there has been sent (as Prophet) a young man whose followers will enter Paradise in greater numbers than my followers.” Then Gabriel ascended with me to the seventh heaven and asked for its gate to be opened. It was asked, “Who is it?” Gabriel replied, “Gabriel.” It was asked, “Who is accompanying you?” Gabriel replied, “Muhammad.” It was asked, “Has he been called?” Gabriel replied in the affirmative. Then it was said, “He is welcomed. What an excellent visit his is!”
    So when I went (over the seventh heaven), there I saw Abraham. Gabriel said (to me), “This is your father; pay your greetings to him.” So I greeted him and he returned the greetings to me and said, “You are welcomed, O pious son and pious Prophet.” Then I was made to ascend to Sidrat-ul-Muntaha (i.e. the Lote Tree of the utmost boundary) Behold! Its fruits were like the jars of Hajr (i.e. a place near Medina) and its leaves were as big as the ears of elephants. Gabriel said, “This is the Lote Tree of the utmost boundary.” Behold! There ran four rivers; two were hidden and two were visible. I asked, “What are these two kinds of rivers, O Gabriel?” He replied, “As for the hidden rivers, they are two rivers in Paradise and the visible rivers are the Nile and the Euphrates.”
    Then Al-Bait-ul-Ma’mur (i.e. the Sacred House) was shown to me and a container full of wine and another full of milk and a third full of honey were brought to me. I took the milk. Gabriel remarked, “This is the Islamic religion which you and your followers are following.” Then the prayers were enjoined on me: They were fifty prayers a day. When I returned, I passed by Moses who asked (me), “What have you been ordered to do?” I replied, “I have been ordered to offer fifty prayers a day.” Moses said, “Your followers cannot bear fifty prayers a day, and by Allah, I have tested people before you, and I have tried my level best with Bani Israel (in vain). Go back to your Lord and ask for reduction to lessen your followers’ burden.” So I went back, and Allah reduced ten prayers for me. Then again I came to Moses, but he repeated the same as he had said before. Then again I went back to Allah and He reduced ten more prayers. When I came back to Moses he said the same, I went back to Allah and He ordered me to observe ten prayers a day. When I came back to Moses, he repeated the same advice, so I went back to Allah and was ordered to observe five prayers a day.
    When I came back to Moses, he said, “What have you been ordered?” I replied, “I have been ordered to observe five prayers a day.” He said, “Your followers cannot bear five prayers a day, and no doubt, I have got an experience of the people before you, and I have tried my level best with Bani Israel, so go back to your Lord and ask for reduction to lessen your follower’s burden.” I said, “I have requested so much of my Lord that I feel ashamed, but I am satisfied now and surrender to Allah’s Order.” When I left, I heard a voice saying, “I have passed My Order and have lessened the burden of My Worshippers.”‘”

Back to Redman paper

Insights Into Islam

From The Way of Righteousness, Appendix D

---

Muslims are My Friends

With so much media attention given to radical, violent Muslim groups, we need to remind ourselves that most Muslims are friendly, hospitable, peace-loving people. They are our neighbors and our friends. In general, I feel more comfortable speaking with Muslims than I do with secularized Americans. Unlike so many in the West, most Muslims fear God, sense His impending judgment, and are willing to talk about God and the prophets. For those unfamiliar with a Muslim’s basic beliefs and practices, the following observations may be helpful.

Islam, Muslims and Allah

Islam is the religion of Muslims. The Arabic word Islam means submission (to Allah). Muslim (or Moslem) means one who submits. Allah is the Arabic word for God. Islam’s fundamental concept of God is that God is one. God is great, indescribable, almighty, and compassionate – especially to Muslims. Everything that happens in the world has been predetermined by God. Muslims believe that God has revealed His will, but not Himself, to humankind. Muslims view their relationship to God as a master-slave relationship, with no possibility of a more intimate father-son relationship.

Five Pillars

The roughly one billion Muslims around the world find themselves in widely differing socio-economic-cultural circumstances – ranging from the wealthy oil sheiks of the Persian Gulf to the rural farmers of West Africa. While local culture and perspectives affect Muslim beliefs considerably, all Muslims assent to Islam’s “Five Pillars.” Most Muslims believe that they must fulfill these five duties to atone for their sins and merit a place in paradise.

The Five Pillars of Islam are:

1. The Witness (Shahada): La illaha illa Allah, wa Mohammed Rasul Allah. “There is no god but God, and Muhammad is the prophet of God.”

2. Ritual Prayers (Salat): Five times daily at hours specified, in the Arabic language, facing toward Mecca, preceded by a ceremonial washing of face, hands and feet.

3. Alms (Zakat): Sharing 2.5% of one’s wealth with those in need.

4. Annual Fast (Saum): An obligatory, dawn-to-dusk, month-long fast which takes place during Ramadan, the ninth month on the Islamic lunar calendar.

5. Pilgrimage to Mecca (Hajj): Required of all able-bodied Muslims who can afford it, at least once in a lifetime.

The Prophets and the Qur’an

Most Muslims profess belief in the prophets of the Bible. The Qur’an names more than twenty Bible prophets, including Abraham (Ibrahim), Moses (Musa), David (Dawud), John the Baptist (Yahya) and Jesus the Messiah (Isa al Masih). Muslims consider Muhammad (born in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, in 570 A.D. and buried in Medina in 632 A.D.) to be the last and greatest prophet.

Muslims maintain that God revealed His will through four holy books: the Torah (“Taurat”) of Moses, the Psalms (“Zabur”) of David, the Gospel (“Injil”) of Jesus, and the Qur’an (also spelled Koran) of Muhammad. Many Muslims assert that the Qur’anic revelation annuls the earlier revelations, but this assertion has no clear support from the Qur’an. They believe that Muhammad (who never learned to read or write) received the Qur’anic verses over many years from the angel Gabriel in a desert cave near Mecca. Muhammad recited the verses to his followers who wrote them down. Years after Muhammad’s death, these verses were collected into a single book known as the Qur’an – which means “recitation.”

The Qur’an has 114 chapters (suras) and is about two-thirds the length of the New Testament. Muslims venerate the Qur’an and are profoundly affected by its Arabic language and poetic style. Though most Muslims have never read the entire Qur’an, it is their point of reference for every area of life: religion, family, health, ethics, economics and politics. Like the Bible, the Qur’an affirms the reality of God and Satan, angels and evil spirits, a coming day of resurrection and judgment, a hell to shun and a paradise to gain. But the similarity ends there. The Qur’an’s descriptions and definitions of these realities differ greatly from those recorded by the prophets of the Bible.

God

The Qur’an presents God as a single entity. “Say not, ‘Three.’ Forbear, it will be better for you. God is only one God! Far be it from His glory that He should have a son!” (4:172) {Note: “4:172” means chapter 4 and verse 172 of the Qur’an. However, the verse may be as many as five verses away in different versions of the Qur’an.} This and other Qur’anic verses (5:116), combined with the Roman Catholic Church’s unscriptural practice of praying to Mary, have caused many Muslims to think that Christians believe in three gods–God, Mary and Jesus. This is a tragic misunderstanding of what a true Christian believes. The Bible says: “There is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:5)

The Bible clearly condemns polytheism and idolatry, and consistently confirms the oneness of God, declaring: “You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve!… The LORD our God, the LORD is one!” (Matthew 4:10; Deuteronomy 6:4,13; Mark 12:29) Oneness, however, does not preclude depth and dimension. The Qur’an reveals God as unknowable and one-dimensional. The Bible reveals God as self-revealing and tri-dimensional – Eternal Father, Eternal Son and Eternal Holy Spirit.

Satan, Sin and Man

The Qur’an teaches that Satan became the Devil (Iblis) when he stubbornly refused to bow down to Adam at God’s command. (7:11-18) Adam is said to have been in a heavenly Paradise before he ate the forbidden fruit. After Adam transgressed, God sent him down to earth. The Qur’an views Adam’s disobedience as a minor slip rather than a major fall. According to many Qur’anic scholars, all Adam had to do to get back into God’s favor was to learn and recite certain prayers. (7:18-30; 2:30-40)

While the Bible portrays God as absolutely holy and man as totally depraved, the Qur’an portrays man as weak and misguided. In the Muslim view, man does not need redemption, he only needs some guidance so that he might develop the inherently pure nature with which the Creator has endowed him. If he will be faithful in his prayers, almsgiving and fasting, God is likely to overlook his sins and usher him into Paradise, a garden of sensual delights.

Jesus

Every Muslim professes to believe in Isa (the Qur’anic name for Jesus). By this they mean that they believe that Jesus is one of 124,000 prophets, that he was sent uniquely to the Jews, that he denied the Trinity, that he predicted the coming of Muhammad, that he was not the Son of God and that he was not crucified! The Bible calls such a Jesus “another Jesus.” (2 Corinthians 11:4)

The Qur’anic profile of Jesus presents Muslims with a difficult paradox. While certain verses declare that Jesus was “no more than a prophet” (4:171-173; 5:75; 2:136), others ascribe to him characteristics and titles attributed to God, but never attributed to any other prophet. For example, the Qur’an affirms that Jesus was born of a virgin, that he was righteous and holy, and that he possessed the power to create life, open the eyes of the blind, cleanse the lepers and raise the dead. (3:45-51; 5:110-112; 19:19) Furthermore, the Qur’an calls him the Messiah (Al Masih), the Word of God (Kalimat Allah) and the Spirit [Soul] of God (Ruh Allah). (4:171,172) These supernatural descriptions and titles have caused many Muslims to seek the truth about who Jesus really is.

One day, a devout Muslim man said to me, “The Qur’an calls Jesus Ruh Allah. If Jesus is the Soul of God, then He must be God!” This Muslim was beginning to grasp one of the most basic truths of Holy Scripture – not that a man became a god – but that God became a Man in order to reveal Himself to the children of Adam and save them from their sins. Some time later, at the cost of being cast out by his family, this same Muslim boldly acknowledged Jesus as his Savior and Lord.

The Son of God

The ultimate sin in Islam is “shirk” (Arabic for association). Shirk is the sin of regarding anything or anyone as equal to God. The Qur’an rejects Jesus’ title as the Son of God. “They say: ‘Allah has begotten a son. God forbid!” (2:110) “Say: ‘If the Lord of Mercy had a son, I would be the first to worship him.'” (43:81; 4:172; 5:72.73) Unfortunately, many Muslims interpret “Son of God” in a carnal sense. They understand the term to mean that God took a wife and had a son by her! In several Way of Righteousness lessons, we explain from the Bible why the prophets, the angels, and God Himself call Jesus the Son of God. These simple explanations have helped many Muslims so that they no longer say, “Astaghferullah!” (“God forgive you for this blasphemy!”) when they hear Jesus called by His rightful title as The Son of God.

The Bible gives three main reasons why Jesus is called the Son of God. Interestingly, the Qur’an contains verses that appear to affirm all three of these reasons.

1. The Bible calls Jesus the Son of God because He came from God. (Isaiah 7:14; Luke 1:34,35) Similarly, the Qur’an teaches that Jesus came directly from God, that He was born of a virgin, that He had no earthly father. (3:47; 19:20) Also, the Qur’an sets Jesus apart from all other prophets by calling Him the Messiah (the Anointed One). (4:157,171,172) Unlike Adam, who was formed from dust, the Messiah came from heaven.

2. The Bible calls Jesus the Son of God because He is like God. He has God’s holy and sinless character and all of God’s mighty attributes. Like Father, like Son. (Hebrews 1:1-9; Matthew 17:5) The Qur’an calls Jesus “a holy son.” (19:19; 3:46). While the Qur’an speaks of the other prophets’ need of forgiveness (38:24; 48:1), it never attributes a single sin to Jesus. Also, it ascribes to Jesus supernatural powers that God alone possesses. (3:45-51; 5:110-112)

3. The Bible calls Jesus the Son of God because He is One with God. He is the Eternal Word who has always been One with God. (John 1:1-18; Philippians 2:5-11) Similarly, the Qur’an calls Jesus the Word of God and the Soul/Spirit of God (4:171,172). Just as, in some mysterious way, a person is forever one with his words, spirit, and soul – so God and Jesus Christ are eternally One.

The Cross

All the prophets of the Bible, in one way or another, foretold the Messiah’s sacrificial death. But the Qur’an says: “They denied the truth and uttered a monstrous falsehood against Mary. They declared: ‘We have put to death the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, the apostle of Allah.’ They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but it appeared so to them.” (4:157) While Qur’anic scholars interpret this verse in a variety of ways, most Muslims fervently deny the historical and Scriptural records concerning Jesus’ death on the cross. They believe it inappropriate that a great prophet like Jesus should die such a shameful death. Thus, Muslims dismiss the central message of the prophets of the Bible – that Jesus the Messiah willingly offered Himself as the final sacrifice to pay the sin-debt of the world “that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” (Matthew 26:56)

The Qur’an omits the Good News of atonement through Jesus’ shed blood by which God “might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” (Romans 3:26) The Muslim sees no need for the sin-bearing death of the sinless Messiah. The Qur’an says, “No soul shall bear another’s burden” (6:164; 17:14-16; 39:7). Islam teaches that God excuses sin based on man’s repentance and good works. (42:26,31; 39:54,55) The Qur’an bases salvation on what man can do for God. The Bible bases salvation on what God has done for man, saying, “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us…” (Titus 3:4)

Islam’s Sacrifice

While Islam denies the Messiah’s death on the cross – it faithfully commemorates an Old Testament sacrifice which prefigured the Messiah’s sacrificial death. Every year, on the tenth day of the last month of the Islamic calendar, Muslims celebrate the Feast of Sacrifice (Id al-Adha). On this day Muslims around the world slay carefully selected rams (or lambs, male goats, cows or camels) in commemoration of the ram that God provided on the mountain to die in the place of Abraham’s son. Tragically however, they overlook the fact that, about two thousand years after God provided the ram for Abraham, God fulfilled the symbolism of Abraham’s sacrifice. For on the same mountain (not far from where the Dome of the Rock is located today), Jesus the Messiah willingly shed His righteous blood as God’s sufficient and final payment for sin. And three days later God raised Jesus from the dead – the triumphant Savior and Lord of all who believe.

Through Jesus’ voluntary substitutionary sacrifice, God has revealed His great love and mercy to humankind. The Messiah’s death and resurrection perfectly fulfilled God’s plan of salvation about which the prophets wrote – thus eliminating the need for continued animal sacrifices. Yet millions persist in sacrificing animals while ignoring the purpose, meaning and fulfilment of the animal sacrifice.

The Qur’an says…

Many are surprised to learn that the Qur’an commands Muslims to believe the Torah, the Psalms and the Gospel. The Qur’an says: “If you are in doubt concerning what we revealed to you, then question those who read the Scripture that was before you.” (10:94) “We sent down the Torah in which there is guidance and light.” (5:44) “We have revealed to you as we revealed to Noah and the prophets after him, and as we revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the tribes; to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, Solomon and David, to whom we gave the Psalms.” (4:163) “We sent forth Jesus, the son of Mary, to follow in the footsteps of the prophets, confirming the Torah which was before him, and we gave him the Gospel with its guidance and light, confirmatory of the preceding Torah; a guidance and warning to those who fear God. Therefore let the people of the Gospel judge according to what God has sent down therein. Evildoers are those that do not judge according to God’s revelations.” (5:46) “Those who treat the Book, and the message we have sent through our apostles, as a lie, will know the truth hereafter: when, with chains and collars around their necks, they shall be dragged through scalding water and burned in the fire of hell.” (40:71)

The Qur’an contains dozens of similar verses.

The Dilemma

Such Qur’anic verses confront sincere Muslims with a serious dilemma: How can one accept both the Bible and the Qur’an when they clearly contradict each other? Furthermore the Qur’an emphasizes the high risk involved: to treat any of the Writings of the Prophets as a lie is to be “burned in the fire of hell.” Many attempt to resolve their dilemma by contending that the original Bible has been lost or falsified and is no longer reliable. Yet this explanation does not satisfy those who know their Qur’an which says: “The Word of God shall never change. That is the supreme triumph.” (10:64) “None can change the decrees of God.” (6:34) The Qur’an claims that it was given to confirm and guard the preceding Scriptures. Muslims must ask themselves, “Would the Qur’an confirm a corrupted, unreliable book?”

Some suggest that Christians and Jews falsified the Bible after the time of Muhammad. This argument is disproved by the fact that today’s Bibles are based on hundreds of ancient manuscripts which date to a time long before Muhammad. The Bible we are reading today is in harmony with the Bible of Muhammad’s time. “Allahu Akbar!” God is great – great enough to preserve His eternal Word for every generation.

The bottom line is that those who read the Bible with a desire to understand it will discover that it defends itself. The best defense is a good offense. “The Word of God which lives and abides forever” presents an awesome offense.

“All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field: the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the Word of the Lord stands forever!” (1 Peter 1:23-25)

The Way of Righteousness

Wolofs say, “Truth is a hot pepper” and “Whoever wants honey must brave the bees.” Similarly, the penetrating power of God’s Truth and everlasting sweetness of God’s way of righteousness makes going after it worth every possible risk – even ostracism, persecution, and physical death.

The prophet Solomon wrote: “In the way of righteousness is life (a relationship with God), and in its pathway there is no death (separation from God)!” (Proverbs 12:28) Does this claim sound too good to be true? Friends, with God – nothing is “too good to be true.” Allahu Akbar! God is great!

To all who submit to God’s way of righteousness, He promises to give freely that which religion can never provide: Salvation from the penalty and power of sin, a credited-righteousness, assurance of sins forgiven, a cleansed conscience, a deep peace, an untouchable joy, a new nature, a personal relationship with God, an eternal home with Him in Paradise, and infinitely more!

To all who have read or heard these one hundred lessons – we commend you to God, the Compassionate, the Merciful, the Righteous – who extends this life-giving and life-transforming promise to all who will claim it:

“You will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart.”
(Jeremiah 29:13)

Scriptures taken from the New King James Version.

The Son of Man

A Study in a title of Jesus

Many Muslims have profound problems with the identity of Jesus. It has been supposed that there is very little evidence in the Bible to substantiate the Christian belief that Jesus is God. Any Christian who has spent much time talking to Muslims will no doubt have come up against the common challenge: ‘Where in the Bible does Jesus say, “I am God – worship me”?’This statement, of course, does not exist; hence the reason for its repeated use. Does this, however, mean that the same sentiment is not conveyed in the Bible? Is the deity of Jesus a fabrication of the Christian mind, a relic of pagan worship somehow incorporated into a corruption of the true religion of Allah? This is definitely not the case and it is the purpose of this essay to deal with just one of the many reasons why an open-minded reading of the Bible can leave the reader with no option other than to conclude that Jesus is indeed God.

Before beginning, it must be understood that the Jews of Jesus’ time held the name of God in such great respect that they would go to great lengths to avoid pronouncing it. This was to make sure that they were not guilty of breaking one of the greatest commandments of the Torah of Moses – ‘You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name’ (Exodus 20:7). This can be easily seen in one of the fundamental statements of Judaism, found in Deuteronomy 6:4 and reaffirmed by Jesus in Mark 12:29. It reads thus:

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

This, of course, does not negate the Christian assertion of Jesus’ deity, for neither Christians nor the Bible claim that Jesus is a god beside Allah (which the Qur’an seems to think). The concept of a triune God allows for a plurality of persons within one Godhead: three persons in one God.

The Hebrew word, here translated as LORD, is the personal name of the God of Israel, often transliterated as ‘Yahweh’ or ‘Jehovah’. Whenever Jews recite this verse, known as the Shema, they do not pronounce the name of God, but substitute instead Adonai, the word translated as Lord (not all in capitals) in most English Bible translations.

Another example is that when English Jews are writing about God, they often miss out the middle letter and write G-d, to show respect for his name.

Against this background, it is not at all surprising that Jesus did not say ‘I am God – worship me’, for the reasons stated above. Instead, we see in the New Testament many inferences when Jesus talked about God. For instance, he spoke of God as ‘the Father’. In the parable of the lost son (Luke 15:18), the son tells his father, ‘I have sinned against heaven and against you.’ From the context it is clear that he is referring to God when he mentions ‘heaven’.

The above has prepared us for the main subject of this essay. The phrase ‘Son of Man’ is found around 200 times in the whole Bible and 82 times in the four accounts of Jesus’ life and words, which we refer to as the gospels. In many instances it simply refers to an ordinary man and is not of any special significance. This can be seen in the 100 or so references in the book of Ezekiel, all of which refer to the prophet Ezekiel himself.

In Numbers 23:19, we find the statement, ‘God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.’ No doubt some Muslims will jump onto this reference as evidence against the claims of Christians. However, an unbiased reading of the passage in context will show that it is simply stating that God’s moral character is way above that of evil men, a sentiment which both Christians and Muslims will have no problem with.

For the purpose of our discussion, the foundation text is found in Daniel 7:13,14:

In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshipped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Here, in Daniel’s vision, he saw two people inparticular. One is the Ancient of Days, a title which is given to God and mentioned three times in Daniel 7. The other person mentioned is one like a son of man, referring to the fact that he was human in his appearance. Some facts about this person in the passage are very instructive:

• He was given sovereign power

• All nations worshipped him (other English translations render this as ‘served’, but the Aramaic word in question is only used in the Bible to refer to serving God)

• He was the king of an eternal kingdom

We must ask the question, is it possible that Daniel’s vision could refer to one who was merely a man and nothing more? It is utter blasphemy to suppose that the whole world would worship or serve anyone but God whilst they were in his presence. Additionally, who can conceive that God would give sovereign (total) power to anyone else, let alone a mere man? Not one of the human prophets of God, in Christianity or Islam, would claim this. This leaves us with only one conclusion; namely, that this one like a son of man, was more than just a man.

This reference is one of many in the Hebrew scriptures (Old Testament, for want of a better word), which point to the coming of a great king who would rescue God’s people from their sins and release them from slavery. This expected deliverer came to be called the Messiah, which means ‘anointed one’. In the Old Testament, different people were anointed with special oil, in order to set them apart for a specific task, including prophets, priests and kings. It can therefore be concluded that the promised Messiah would combine the offices of prophet, priest and king in one person.

Since the time that the book of Daniel was written (in approximately 400BC), the Jews rightly saw this person in 7:13,14 as the Messiah. Therefore, at the time of Jesus, they were expecting the one like a son of man. So in the gospels the term ‘son of man’ was not simply a way of denoting any old human being, but was used as a title to refer to this special person in the prophecy of Daniel. We will see more of this below.

Below I shall list all the references to the Son of Man in the gospels, so that anyone with an interest can spend time looking them up and checking what is said here. Afterwards, I will go onto quote from those references which are more relevant to our discussion. Please take note that these references are to a specific person and not a general reference to a normal human.

Occurrences of the title ‘Son of Man’ in the gospels:

Matthew8:209:5,610:2311:1912:812:3212:4013:3713:4116:13-1716:2716:2817:917:1217:22,2319:2820:18,1920:2824:2724:30 x224:3724:3924:4425:3126:226:24 x226:4526:64Mark2:102:288:318:389:99:129:3110:33,3410:4513:2614:21 x214:4114:62Luke5:246:56:227:349:229:269:449:5811:3012:812:1012:4017:2217:2417:2617:3018:818:31-3319:1021:2721:3622:2222:4822:6924:7John1:513:133:145:276:276:536:628:289:35-3812:2312:34 x213:31

Now I would like to quote the most relevant occurrences and then to discuss their implications.

Matthew 9:5,6 – ‘Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…’ Then he said to the paralytic, ‘Get up, take your mat and go home.’

Matthew 12:8 – ‘For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.‘

Matthew 12:40 – ‘For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.‘

Matthew 13:41 – ‘The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.’

Matthew 16:13-17 – When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, ‘Who do people say the Son of Man is?‘ They replied, ‘Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.’

‘But what about you?’ he asked. ‘Who do you say I am?‘ Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Christ [Messiah], the Son of the living God.‘

Jesus replied, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.‘

Matthew 17:9 – As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, ‘Don’t tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.‘

Matthew 17:22,23 – When they came together in Galilee, he said to them, ‘The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised to life.‘ And the disciples were filled with grief.

Matthew 20:18,19 – ‘We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will turn him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!‘

Matthew 20:28 – ‘…the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.‘

Matthew 26:2 – ‘As you know, the Passover is two days away – and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.‘

Matthew 26:45 – Then he returned to the disciples and said to them, ‘Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the hour is near, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.‘

Mark 8:31 – He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.

Mark 9:31 – He said to them, ‘The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise.‘

Mark 10:33,34 – ‘We are going up to Jerusalem,’ he said, ‘and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise.‘

Mark 14:41 – Returning the third time, he said to them, ‘Are you still sleeping and resting? Enough! The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.‘

Luke 9:22 – And he said, ‘The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.‘

Luke 12:40 – ‘You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.‘

Luke 18:31-33 – Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, ‘We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again.‘

Luke 22:48 – …but Jesus asked him, ‘Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?‘

John 3:13-15 – ‘No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven – the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.‘

John 9:35-38 – Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, ‘Do you believe in the Son of Man?’ ‘Who is he sir?‘ the man asked. ‘Tell me so that I may believe in him.‘

Jesus said, ‘You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you.‘

Then the man said, ‘Lord, I believe,‘ and he worshipped him.

The above references give far more information about who exactly this ‘Son of Man’ is. Matthew 16:13-17, Luke 22:48 and John 9:35-38 make it crystal clear that it can only refer to Jesus. The other examples teach us much more about his character and purpose. We see that:

• He has power to forgive sins (Matthew 9:6);

• He is Lord of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:8);

• He is the king of a kingdom and the angels are his (Matthew 13:41);

• He is the Messiah, the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:13-17);

• He was to be killed and raised from the dead (resurrected) (Matthew 17:9,22,23;20:18,19;26:2; Mark 8:31;9:31;10:33,34; Luke 9:22;18:31-33);

• He was to give his life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28);

• He was unique and came from heaven (John 3:13);

• All who believe in him are to have eternal life (John 3:14,15);

• He accepted worship (John 9:35-38).

In the light of the above, it will be seen that the Christian position on the person of Jesus has ample support from the Bible. Far from being simply a human prophet of Allah, he is unique, far above all other prophets. The following reference from Revelation 1:12-18 is yet again instructive. John, in his vision from God, says:

I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw… someone ‘like a son of man’, dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters… His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.

When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me andsaid: ‘Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades [Hell].

Christians and Muslims alike must be very careful not to make a mistake in their treatment of this issue, for it is one of immense importance. We would all do well to remember the words of Jesus in Luke 12:37-40:

You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.

Toby Jepson

Interpretations of Jahiliyya and Rashidun

Were Pre-Islamic Women worse off than Muslim Women?

By Beth Peltola

The Status of women in Islam can be properly understood only when we know their status during jahiliyya (the period of ignorance or pre-Islamic period). The reason is obvious. No revolution, political or religious (and Islam was indeed a socio-religious revolution), can remove all traces of the past. 1

Terms such as the “spirit” of Islam are employed in order to argue that the spirit of Islam is justice, egalitarianism, equality, or humanism – either as single signifiers or combinations of these qualities…Often history is invoked to argue that these ideals were evident at the very inception of Islam as a tradition in the seventh century. 2

Glossary:

• Jahiliyya – the time of ignorance before Islam, according to Muslim sources

• Rashidun – the golden era of Islam from the time of Muhammad and the first four rightly guided caliphs

PART 1

A. Ambiguity Surrounding the Jahiliyya and Rashidun Periods

The prevalent view in most Islamic writing is the notion that Islam, in contrast to the surrounding Arabian tribes and religions, ennobled the position of women. Muslim scholars champion a view of ‘degradation’ for pre-Islamic women. 3

The Modernist scholar Asghar Ali Engineer echoes this belief when he says,

“What was the status of women in pre-Islamic society? Was it better or worse than in the Islamic period? The theologians maintain that women enjoyed no rights whatsoever and were treated no better than a commodity.” 4

Yet, it is difficult to come to a firm understanding of the exact environment which existed before the time of Muhammad, due to the lack of material available to us; and that which is extant (mainly Islamic sources) provide a contradictory picture of Islam’s formation 5, as well as the environment from which it arose. For example, Raga’ Elnimr, a feminist, states,

Much of the history of pre-Islamic Arabia is obscured by myth and legend and romantic notions have often been confused with factual elements. One feature, however, which seems to stand out as the most striking characteristic of Arabian society is its diversity. 6

Modernist, progressive Muslims, take the position that though some of the treatment of women in the early days of Islam may not be considered to have parity with the standards of the Western world today, in its context, the arrival of Islam improved the status of women. For them, this improvement set in motion a paradigm which should have developed the gradual ennoblement of women up to the modern era, largely due to their belief in Islam’s principle of ‘justice’ 7. Though, in reality, they contend that women’s liberty and rights in the modern era have been trampled by Islamic male elitist interpreters 8.

Keeping in mind the notion of women’s ennoblement by Islam, consider the claims of the Modernist writer, Asghar Ali Engineer on the Jahiliyya:

• Women used to be enslaved and ‘inherited as a possession.’ Engineer believes Qur’an 4:19 prohibited this practice 9when is states “O you who have believed, it is not lawful for you to inherit a woman by compulsion”.

• ‘After inheriting a woman from her father, a man would marry her.’ Engineer deems Qur’an 4:23 prohibited the practice. Although the verse doesn’t seem to address this particular issue.

• Qur’an 81:9 refers to the practice of infanticide – burying baby girls alive – which the Arabs allegedly practiced during the Jahiliyya period. Engineer refers to a Hadith which claims Muhammad said that those who do not bury their daughter alive, nor humiliate her, nor prefer a son to her, ‘will be sent to paradise’ 10.

• In pre-Islamic Arabia there were no restrictions on the number of wives a man could have, and making political alliances through marriage was the norm; for example, according to al-Tabari, a man of the Quraysh tribe married on average ten wives. Engineer refers the reader to Qur’an 4:3 to show that the practice of polygamy was restricted, and was in fact not the norm for Muslims, according to the Qur’anic injunction which states, ‘if you … fear that you might not be able to treat them with equal fairness, then (only) one – or (from among) those whom you rightfully possess.’ When this verse was revealed Engineer states that the prophet told his men to choose four of their wives and divorce the rest 11. According to Engineer, this was an improvement in the treatment of women 12.

It is interesting that in the very verse Engineer uses for his argument of how Islam stopped the excesses of pre-Islamic Jahiliyya, which to him, is an improvement, a devastating Allah-ordained opt-out injunction is given, outlined in the oft-repeated phrase ‘except what your right hand possesses’. That is, the woman you own is open to be treated by you as you wish. It is important to note that only Muslim chaste women are permitted slightly better treatment, whilst there are cruel stipulations as to how un-chaste, and non-Muslim women, especially slave-girls, are to be treated 13. What’s more, unchaste women are to be confined to houses until taken by death, or Allah ordains some other way for them, (Qur’an 4:15).

So, are the Islamic views of a despicable Jahiliyya period justified? Not everyone agrees.For instance, Ghada Karmi, a senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies at Durham University, believes that “the situation for women in pre-Islam was not quite as bad as has been attested,” and reiterates the problem of defining the Jahiliyya experience for women, due to little available information, much of which came through, “the censorship of ardent Muslim believers wishing to throw a bad light on everything which preceded Islam.” 14

What she does determine, however, is that during this period there were female goddesses, a fact which suggests to her a matriarchal or matrilineal society. It was a society where marriage was flexible and women had considerably more independence and control over their own lives, where women stayed with their kin family after marriage; and a society where polyandry was practiced 15. Furthermore, in this society a woman’s word was final when placing the paternity of her child on a man; a practice in direct contrast to Islam today, where a man can legally deny paternity to a child, no matter what a mother says, and his testimony holds supremacy against hers 16.

Karmi states further that unlike the earlier Jahiliyya period, “a hierarchical social structure which ensures male supremacy is fundamental to the Qur’anic view of society.” 17 In contrast, this patriarchal hierarchical structure was not the only form of societal makeup before the advent of Islam. Karmi then concludes, “we cannot know fully what the social situation in seventh century Mecca was, nor to what social forces the Islamic revelation had to address itself.” 18

Therefore, any further discussion of pre-Islamic Arabia and the advent of Islam and what it brought to Arabia, and the world, must be considered with this in mind. Never-the-less, there are two areas of historical investigation which may aid a deeper understanding of women pre-Islam, that found externally, in archaeological and documentary evidence, be it fairly sparse, and that found internally in the histories of Islam and through a re-consideration of who Khadija, Muhammad’s first wife represents. Asking whether she is a woman of the Jahiliyya, or a woman of the Rashidun?

B. The Debate on the Status of Women in the Jahiliyya and Rashidun

Modernist Scholars, such as Leila Ahmed and Fatima Mernissi, often refer to Western, non-Muslim scholarship, to support their views of the Jahiliyya. They regard the widely held Muslim views of the Jahiliyya to be inconsistent with the mounting evidence gleaned by historians around the world 19.

Taking into consideration the ambiguous, and at times conflicting reports from early Muslim scholars and historians, 20there is external evidence to suggest that during the Jahiliyya, at least women of a higher status commanded greater resources and were held in great esteem. Certain customs and rules did not apply to them 21. For example, Khadijah was a woman of great prowess in business, and had authority over men in her field of expertise.

However, Muslim scholar Haifa Jawad sees Khadijah as an exception among the small elite, rather than as an example of the general condition of women in that society. She takes Engineer’s ideas a step further, using more emphatic language to communicate her position of pre-Islamic women:

• ‘men enjoyed absolute right over women,’

• ‘husbands enjoyed… absolute power,’

• ‘inhuman treatment,’

• ‘degradation of womanhood,’

• ‘deplorable situation,’

• ‘liberties of women were… trampled on’

• ‘captured women were completely under the authority of her captor,’ et al 22.

She then contrasts it with the situation of women under Islam, stating that, “with the advent of Islam, the position of women was radically redefined.” 23 She begins her defence with a list of verses commonly referred to by Muslim scholars to support the ennoblement of women in Islam, 24 and employs the commonly held misconception among Muslims, that Christians see Eve as responsible for mankind’s sin, in contrast to Muslims, who put the responsibility on both Adam and Eve 25. Furthermore, she believes that Islam created a new relationship between men and women “based on respect and mutual understanding,” wherein taking care of the woman, and respecting her were emphasised. She adds,

It is within this context [‘being allowed to attain the highest ranks of progress materially, intellectually and spiritually’] 26.

However, in order to uphold her position of ‘ennoblement’ under Islam, she has to ignore a plethora of stories from Muhammad’s biography 27, and direct Qur’anic edicts to men and for men on divorce, punishment and divinely ordained obedience of women to men, none of which supports ‘ennoblement’ in the eyes of Western society today, and in direct contrast and contradiction with the divine Biblical edicts of how a man is to treat his wife today 28.

A similar verdict is held by Dr. Jamal Badawi, a highly influential Egyptian Scholar living in Canada, in an essay on the status of women in Islam. He introduces his subject with a quick overview of the position of women seen throughout history, from the pre-Islamic era up to the 19th century, including a look at the ‘Mosaic’ Biblical period. Each example is given in contrast to the Islamic position which he believes only needs more clarification, because in Western culture, a “disparity between the sexes exist”, implying there is none in Islam 29.

He quotes what he considers are “Biblical decrees,” by citing the Encyclopaedia Biblica’s descriptions of the Mosaic Law, as well as unfavourable examples from the early church fathers, and examples from Roman times; building a case for the destructive environment for women living under such worldviews and societies 30. He then notes the central Arabian treatment of women before Islam – the time of Jahiliyya – citing Qur’anic examples against infanticide, and sayings of Muhammad as a contrast to Mosaic Law and previous Arabian culture, concluding that Muhammad’s words are “favourable towards women” 31.

It is a skewed picture of history, with a deep misunderstanding of previous culture and ancient Mosaic culture, never-the-less, many a Muslim signs up to his impression of the past without a question as to its reliability. It is with this in mind that he, along with Haifa Jawad, and their many counterparts, present their views on the days of Jahiliyya and the influence of Islam on it. But are they correct? Does the evidence, both in the Qur’an and in the life of Muhammad, really affirm ‘protection’, ‘rights’ and ‘safeguards’ for women? Are the descriptions of Jahiliyya, such as those presented by Haifa Jawad, in actual fact a better reflection ofthe Qur’anic view of woman, rather than pre-Islamic, or non-Islamic.

In fact, isn’t it true that the biography of Muhammad and Qur’an 2:223, 228; 4:3, 24; 4:34, 33:53; 66:1-5 either dictate, or by means of deduction, give men:

• ‘absolute rights over women,’

• ‘absolute power’

• allow cruel treatment

• a degraded view of womanhood

• provide a ‘deplorable situation,’

• allow the ‘liberties of women’ to be trampled on

• complete control and abuse of the women they capture, enslave and marry.

C. A truer picture of women under Islam

The historical data, from within Muslim sources themselves, point to this deteriorating scenario for women under Islam, and would need to be ignored by scholars who espouse an ‘ennoblement’ of women from the dawn of Islam, if they are to continue to maintain their position. Take for example, the detailed stories of how non-Muslim women were treated with little regard by the growing Muslim community during the Rashidun period. Female captives faced a daunting future when taken during Muhammad’s battles and campaigns as he fought to gain territory in Arabia 32. Many troubling stories are detailed of non-believing women, taken as captives by the early Muslims, who had little choice but to turn to Islam after their capture if they were to escape judgement, or treated as mere chattel 33.

In today’s world, Muhammad and his tribal warriors affirmed the practice of sexual violence against women in war, the trafficking of women in sex-slavery, and the forced marriages of women (including married women). The early Islamic literature reports that ‘spoils of war’ were subsequently taken as wives, sold ‘for horses and weapons,’ retained for ransom leverage 34, or kept as slaves and concubines by the Muslim raiders 35. Suggesting that during Muhammad’s last ten years, there seems to have been few freedoms for non-Muslim women who found themselves under his ‘protection’ 36.

There are further disturbing stories, such as reports from Muhammad’s young teenage wife Aisha, which tell of women being captured, abused, enslaved, and killed. Aisha is said to have related one such incident of a woman in fear of what she was about to face

She was…talking with me and laughing immoderately as the apostle was killing her men [the men of the Quraysh tribe] in the market when suddenly an unseen voice called her name…the woman states, “I am to be killed… because of something I did.” 37 She was then beheaded.

Safiyah bint Huyayy, a wife Muhammad took as booty in battle 38, is another such story of a captured woman. The Jews gave up all their possessions as loot to Muhammad at the siege of Khaybar after Kinana the Chief, Safiyah’s husband, and her relatives were tied to stakes and burned with fire to torture out of them the whereabouts of their wealth. His victims included her father, brother, first husband, three uncles and several cousins. Kinana’s 17 year old wife was then forced to become Muhammad’s wife, and Muhammad consummated the wedding soon after, not waiting for the prescribed iddah (waiting period) as dictated in the Qur’an. (2:234-235; 65:1-6). Her life is an example of the lives of the women enslaved by Muslim groups which are prolific today, such as ISIS, Boko Haram, Al-Shabab, as well as ongoing stories of forced marriages within Muslim communities of the world 39.

“Diḥyah al-kalbī had asked the Messenger for Safiyah when the Prophet chose her for himself… the Apostle traded for Safiyah by giving Diḥyah her two cousins. The women of Khaybar were distributed among the Muslims.” 40

Another woman, ‘Asmā’ d. Marwān, came to an untimely death at the end of a Muslim sword while suckling her child. Her murder, an act praised by Muhammad. Yet, what was her crime? She wrote poetic verse against Muhammad after he killed a relative from her clan 41. Her open poetic critique suggests she lived in an Arabian tribe that gave people, including women, an arena for free speech; something seriously lacking among those who followed Muhammad.

Similarly, the prolific Muslim historian, al-Tabari (d.923), early compiler of Tafsir (Qur’anic exegesis) and histories of Islam, relates stories of Muhammad ordering the execution of women, reporting the following command: ‘the messenger of God commanded that six men and four women should be killed’ 42 What’s more, Muhammad’s closest companions were not exempt from horrific crimes against women. For example, Ibn Hisham 43 (who wrote the earliest full biography of Muhammad) writes of girls among the spoils of the battle of Hawāzan, whom Muhammad gave to ‘Ali, ‘Uthman, and ‘Umar 44.

A further illuminating study on the role of women pre-Islam (or non-Islamic woman of other tribes) can be seen in discussions between Muhammad and his men. The exegete, Ibn Kathir, details a story of Umar, a companion of Muhammad stating: “We, the people of Quraysh, used to have authority over our women. But when we came to live with the Ansar, we noticed that the Ansari women had the upper hand over their men, so our own started acquiring the habits of the Ansari Women.” 45 Sahih Bukhari also narrates the same story narrated by `Abdullah bin `Abbas, of Umar going to talk to Muhammad about the problem and found Hafsa weeping, along with many other Muslims, due to a rumour that Muhammad had divorced all his wives for their behaviour. Muhammad had not divorced them, but swore that he would not go to his wives for one month, because of his severe anger towards them “until Allah the Exalted and Most Honoured censured him.” This story is repeated by many narrators, exegetes and Hadith, providing some illumination of the power of women outside of Islam compared to the control of women within Islam.

It was always in response to domestic situations within Muhammad’s family that Allah responded with Qur’anic verses that defended and excused Muhammad of his oaths. We see this in sura 66:3-5 which refers to the above ‘disobedience’ of two of his wives, (traditionally held to be Hafsa and Aisha), by threatening them to toe-the-line. After one of Muhammad’s young wives had shared a secret of Muhammad with another wife, Allah informed him in part of what she had said. Allah then responds with the following threat to the wives:

“If you two [wives] turn in repentance to Allah, your hearts are indeed so inclined; but if you help one another against him then verily, Allah is his Maulā (Lord, or Master, or protector), and Jibrail, and the righteous among the believers; and furthermore, the angels are his helpers. It may be if he divorced you that his Lord would give him instead of you, wives better than you, – Muslims, believers, obedient, turning to Allah in repentance, worshipping Allah sincerely, given to fasting (or emigrants), previously married and virgins.”

It would seem, then, that strict obedience is expected and demanded from the women of Muhammad, which in turn means the same for all the women of Islam, if they are to obey the Qur’anic injunction of obeying Muhammad 46).

All of the above stories come from traditionally held authoritative Islamic sources, from their own history, and thus, according to most Muslim Jurists, from their own prophet. It is difficult to reconcile such stories with Jamal Badawi and like-minded Muslim scholar’s apologetic for an Islamic ‘ennoblement of women’. It seems Islam in fact teaches and exemplifies quite the opposite of ‘protection’, ‘rights’ and ‘safeguards’ for women.

D. Khadija and Aisha as examples of the Jahiliyya versus Islamic Women

The debates of what truly constituted a woman’s life before Islam and after Islam’s advent continue unabated. These debates largely remain in academic circles, especially among Modernist, liberal Muslim scholars, who find traditional Muslim views of womanhood based on the Sunna and Sira objectionable. Popular belief, however, among Traditional Muslims paint a despicable picture for women pre-Islam, and an ennoblement of women post Islam, although their particular view of ‘ennoblement’ is negated by Modernists.

One example of a Modernist challenging traditional belief is Leila Ahmad’s reference to Khadija and Aisha as examples of what Islam would do for women after its inception; Khadija representing the pre-Islamic woman 47, and Aisha representing what was to become the norm for Muslim women. She states,

Autonomy and monogamy were conspicuously absent in the lives of women Muhammad married after he became the established prophet and leader of Islam, and the control of women by male guardians and the male prerogative of polygyny were thereafter to become formal features of Islamic marriage 48.

She continues to say, “It was Aisha’s lot… which would prefigure the limitations that would thenceforth hem in Muslim women’s lives.” 49 These ‘limitations’ are referred to as ‘protection’, ‘rights’ and ‘safeguards’ in most popular Islamic literature.

Conclusions

A quick perusal of the literature available to us, reveal a mixed view of Jahiliyya, with some Modernist scholars contradicting the current Islamic apologetic of a ‘deplorable situation’ for women in Jahiliyya. They acknowledge that the evidence does not all point towards a ‘despicable’ situation for women, although they still champion a ‘spirit of Islam’ that sought to bring about some sort of ‘emancipation’ for women. However, in the end, it is Islamic literature itself that unwittingly provides clues of a better life for women pre-Islam, or outside of Islam, by stipulating a continued tightening of control for women post-Islam, especially for the non-Muslim women under Islamic control.

Whilst Muslim apologists in the West attempt to convince the Muslim masses of a betterment for women with the inception of Islam, their convictions fail to stand up when analysed in the light of their own Traditions; the Sira (biographies), the Tafsir (exegetes), the Tariq (histories) and their Qur’an. Furthermore, the inequalities brought upon women wherever Islam has dominated, is compelling for a narrative that underlines, spells out and points to Islamic holy literature written to men and for men. Overwhelmingly, the data highlights the establishment of the ‘degradation of women’ with few liberties and untenable wellbeing with the dawn of Islam.

1. Asghar Ali Engineer, The Rights of Women in Islam (London: C. Hurst and Co, 1992), 20.

2. Ebrahim Moosa, “The Debts and Burdens of Critical Islam,” Progressive Muslims on Justice, Gender, and Pluralism, ed. Omid Safi (Oxford: OneWorld Publications, 2003), 111 – 144.

3. Haifaa A. Jawad, The Rights of Women in Islam: An Authentic Approach (Hampshire: Macmillan Press Ltd., 1998), 2ff. This practice seems to have continued under Muhammad’s jurisdiction, cf. Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ishāq’w Sīrat rasūl Allāh (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 461ff.

4. Engineer, The Rights of Women in Islam, 20.

5. C.E. Bosworth, “Al-Tabarī.” in Encyclopaedia of Islam Vol.10, eds. P.J Bearman, TH. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. Van Donzel, W.P. Heinriches (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2000 2), 11-15.

6. Raga’ El-Nimr, “Women in Islamic Law,” in Feminism and Islam: Legal and Literary Perspectives, ed. Mai Yamani (Reading: Ithaca Press, 1996), 87.

7. Amina Wadud, Qur’an and Woman: Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman’s Perspective (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 14ff.

8. Ibid., 87.

9. Engineer, The Rights of Women in Islam, 20.

10. Sunan Dawud, in Engineer, The Rights of Women, 21.

11. Engineer, The Rights of Women, 22.

12. Ibid.

13. The same phrase ‘what your right hand possesses’ is repeated in 4:24-25; 23:6; 24:34; 70:30; 33:50.

14. Ghada Karmi, “Women, Islam and Patriarchalism” in Feminism and Islam: Legal and Literary Perspectives, ed. Mai Yamani (Berkshire: Ithaca Press, 1996), 76.

15. Polyandry: women having more than one husband at a time.

16. Karmi, “Women, Islam and Patriarchalism,” in Feminism and Islam, 77.

17. Ibid., 79.

18. Ibid., 80.

19. Leila Ahmed, Women and Gender in Islam: Historical roots of a Modern Debate (Newhaven & London: Yale University Press), 43.

20. Patricia Crone, ‘What do We Actually Know About Mohammed?’ (31.08.2007), at Open Democracy.net, http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/mohammed_3866.jsp, accessed May 5th, 2007.

21. Engineer, The Rights of Women in Islam, 33.

22. Jawad, The Rights of Women in Islam, 2ff. This practice seems to have continued under Muhammad’s jurisdiction, cf. Guillaume, The life of Muhammad, 461ff.

23. Ibid., 4.

24. Cf. Qur’an 3:194; 33:32; 16:95; 9:71; 48:5.

25. Cf. Sherif Abdel Azim’s [Ph.D. from Queens University in Ontario, Canada] essay, challenging the position of women in the Judeo Christian traditions at http://www.islamworld.net/compwomen.html, and the Christian response at http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Responses/Azeem/women_response.htm.

26. Jawad, in The Rights of Women In Islam, 7.] that Islam has granted women broad social, political and economic rights, education and training rights and work opportunity rights. To protect these rights from being abused by men, Islam provided firm legal safeguards ((Ibid., also cf. S.A.A Mawdudi, Purdah and the Status of Woman in Islam (Lahore: Islamic Publications Ltd, 1998), 150-155.

27. Read about Muhammad’s disturbing marriage to Safiyah bint Huyayy (See Alfred Guillaume/Ishaq 241-242, 511, 514-515, 516-517, 520; Al-Tabari, Vol. 9, pp. 134-135; Al-Tabari, V. 39, pp. 184-185), and his unofficial concubine: a beautiful Coptic concubine (possibly sent as a gift from the governor of Egypt). Muhammad went to Hafsa for her day, but she was not at home, so he took her slave girl instead, Mariya. Hafsa caught them. The slave girl got pregnant, but the baby died. Aisha was very jealous and both women refused to sleep with Muhammad. It was then that Muhammad received the revelation from Allah threatening to replace them with better wives for Muhammad, if they did not start towing the line (S 66:5) (Guillaume/Ishaq, 653; Al-Tabari, Vol. 9, pp. 137, 141; Al-Tabari, Vol. 39, pp. 193-195; Bewley/Saad 8:148-151).

28. Ephesians 5:25 ‘Husbands love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her’, as well as the celebration of the love and intimacy between a man and woman in the Song of Songs.

29. Jamal A.Badawi, “The Status of Women in Islam,” http://www.iad.org/books/S-women.html, accessed 5th December 2005.

30. See, Sherif Abdel Azeem, “Women in Islam Verses Women in the Judeo Christian Tradition, Islam101, http:// www.islam101.com/religions/christianity/women3.html, and the Christian response at: http://www.answering- islam.de/Main/Responses/Azeem/women_response.htm.

31. Jamal A. Badawi, The Status of Women in Islam (Birmingham: Islamic Propagation Centre International, no date given), 8.

32. Al Waqidi, 348-349. Guillaume, 466; Al-Tabari, Vol. 8, p. 117; Vol. 9, p. 137; Vol. 39 p. 164-165.

33. Juwayriyya bint Al-Harith a Jewess, a very beautiful wife of the chief, who was taken as booty. She tried to buy her freedom, butcaught Muhammad’s eye. Aisha was very jealous of her (Guillaume/Ishaq, 490-493; Al- Tabari, Vol. 9, p. 133; Al-Tabari, Vol. 39, p. 182-184).

34. Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ishāq’w Sīrat rasūl Allāh (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 593.

35. Ibid., 466.

36. Ibid., 464.

37. Ibid.

38. Guillaume/Ishaq 241-242, 511, 514-515, 516-517, 520; Al-Tabari, Vol. 9, pp. 134-135; Al-Tabari, V. 39, pp. 184-185.

39. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/11/forced-marriage-pakistan-matrimony-laws, accessed 3rd June, 2016.

40. Al Tabari VIII:117

41. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, 675 & Ibn Sa’d, Haq.S. Moinul, ed., Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir 2, p. 30-31.

42. Al-Tabari, “The Victory of Islam,” in The History of al-Tabari, Vol.8, trans. Michael Fishbein (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997), 178-181.

43. Muslims believe his writings are based on an earlier version of Muhammad’s biography written by Ibn Ishaq, but very little, if any of Ishaq’s writing are in existence, except for references in material too late to be authentic.

44. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, 593.

45. Sahih Bukhari Vol. 3, book 43, # 648; http://sunnah.com/bukhari/46/29, accessed 11.06.16.

46. “He who obeys the Messenger (Muhammad) has indeed obeyed Allah…” (S. 4:80) “Nor does he speak from (his own) desire. It is only a Revelation revealed.” (S. 53:3) “And Allah said: “Oh you who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger.” (S.47:33) “Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in Allah and the Last Day and remembers Allah much.” (S. 33:21) “And verily, you are on an exalted standard of character.” (S. 68:4) “It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error.” (S. 33:36)

47. Karmi, “Women, Islam and Patriarchalism,” in Feminism and Islam, 78.

48. Ahmed, Women and Gender in Islam, 42ff.

49. Ibid., 43.

The Siege of the Banu Qurayza

Anees

In the context of: Is Muhammad a model for today?

It is the year 627 AD, year 5 after Hijra, somewhere between February-March; the Meccans have retreated from the battle of the Trench. It is here that Muhammad and his troops now turn towards the Banu Qurayza, the third largest and richest of the three Jewish tribes of Medina (the other two, the Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir, having been banished from Medina earlier). However, the Banu Qurayza were not as lucky as the other two. According to some of the earliest Muslim historians and commentators (Ibn Ishaq, Al-Waqidi, Al-Tabari, and Ibn Kathir), the Banu Qurayza were besieged for 25 days by the Muslims, led by Muhammad. Qur’anic passages from chapter 33 refer to the incident, although in a more oblique manner. Hadith collections such as Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and Sunan Abu Dawud also give narratives of the event. After the final surrender of the Banu Qurayza, ditches were dug and the men, between 600-800 of them with tied shoulders, were then beheaded, and buried in them, while their children and women were taken as captives, or sold for horses and weapons. Before we get into the ‘nitty-gritty’ of the event and the historic sources, let us first look at the milieu at that time in Medina. Often overlooked, it nonetheless resulted in the banishment of these tribes which arose with the migration of Muhammad and his followers from Mecca to Medina.

The late Meccan period brought challenges to Muhammad. Abu Talib, who was the primary source of Muhammad’s security against the pagans, passed away, and so did Khadija, the wife of Muhammad, an influential character. The situation was bleak and due to much hostility exposed Muhammad to threats. In order to gain strength and have his new religion survive he had to establish connections with other tribes, which forced him to migrate to Yathrib (Medina), the town inhabited by a number of Jewish tribes. Watt asserts that,

“In such circumstances if Islam was not to fade away, some fresh line of activity was urgently required. All that could be done in Mecca had been done; therefore, the chief hope lay in advances elsewhere.” (Watt, 1953, p.138)

Before migrating to Medina, Muhammad had acquired his new religion to fit the Judaic Christian tradition, which was considered superior to the Arab paganism. This new religion of Muhammad he felt would seek to reunify the Jewish and Christian traditions, known as the people of the scriptures, with whom God cared to speak to, unlike the Arab pagans whom he belittled. Over the years, using whatever information Muhammad could get hold of, “a work in progress”, he established connections with material from the earlier scriptures. The polytheistic paganism was being challenged by the already existing monotheistic traditions, before Muhammad’s arrival on the scene. According to the traditional view Mecca was situated on the trading crossroads and was home to the sanctuary considered holy by the Arabs (Watt, 1953). Patricia Crone (in her research of 2004) challenges the historicity of Mecca’s engagement in heavy trading, doubting the city even existed this early; however, we shall approach the subject with the traditional view for now. According to the traditional Islamic account, the pilgrims would come to the sacred shrine and bring stories, as well as their experiences from the tribes of other regions. Watt maintains (1953) that there were only a few Jews in Mecca as well as people of the Christian faith. Carimokam (2010) points out that paganism was already a dying tradition and the movement towards monotheism was already taking place. There are accounts of both positive and negative reactions to Muhammad’s prophetic call. Armstrong (1993) acknowledges that there was a widespread feeling of spiritual inferiority. There were some Jewish tribes in Yathrib (Medina) and Fadak (to the north of Mecca), and some of the northern tribes on the borderlands of the Persian and Byzantine empires who had converted to Monophysite and Nestorian Christianity. Perhaps this could account for the influence of Nestorian Christianity in the Qur’an.

The work of Puin (2008) suggests that the Qur’an’s central theological tenets were influenced by Syrian Christianity. Although the Arabs cherished the superior tradition of the Jews and Christians, they experienced cultural isolation as paganism wore away, and this made them reluctant to embrace a tradition cloaked in a foreign language.

According to Wellhausen (1975), the Banu Qaylah maintained control of Medina, at the time of the Hijra. The Banu Qaylah were further divided into sub groups, the Banu al-Aus and the Banu al-Khazarj. Ibn Ishaq tells us that the Aus and Khazarj were polytheists who knew little about heaven and hell. The Jews were the second largest community in Medina. Lewis (1950) acknowledges that the Jews were disliked by the Arabs, due to their engagement in agricultural, and handiworks, which made them economically and culturally superior to the Arabs. Consequently they were attacked and almost eliminated. This has also been supported by the work of Wellhausen (1975), which suggests that even though the Jews did not have political control of Medina, nonetheless, due to their economic power and large numbers, they remained a threatening force.

Ibn Ishaq writes that,

There were two parties: The B. Qaynuqa and their adherents, allies of Khazarj; and al-Nadir and Qurayza and their adherent’s allies of Aus. When there was war between Aus and Khazraj the B. Qaynuqa went out with Khazraj, and al-Nadir and Qurayza with Aus, each side helping its allies against his own brethren so that they shed each other’s blood, while the Torah was in their hands by which they knew what was allowed and what was forbidden them. When the war came to an end they ransomed their prisoners in accordance with the Torah each side redeeming those of their men who had been captured by the polytheists. God said in blaming them for that; ‘Will you believe in a part of the scripture and disbelieve in another part?’ (Ibn Ishaq, p.253)

The Islamic sources do show us the prevalent inherent antagonism of the different tribes in Mecca. According to them, when Muhammad entered Medina, he longed to bring harmony between the tribes of the city so that they could all unite as a force. Muhammad made an effort to bring his new religion as close to Judaism as possible. He wished his revelations would strike a chord with the Jews and they would accept him as a prophet. Armstrong notes,

Thus he prescribed a fast for Muslims on the Jewish Day of Atonement and commanded Muslims to pray three times a day like the Jews, instead of only twice as hitherto. Muslims could marry Jewish women and should observe some of the dietary laws. Above all Muslims must now pray facing Jerusalem like the Jews and Christians. (Armstrong, 1993, p.184)

The traditions tell us that it was in Medina for the first time that Muhammad confronted the Jews, who had superior knowledge of the scriptures. It was easy for them to point out fallacies in Muhammad’s revelations, which differed substantially from the Judaic version. Armstrong (1993) acknowledges that the Jews had sound religious reasons to reject Muhammad; although they awaited the Messiah’s arrival, they believed the era of prophecy was over. Ironically the same theological reason is used by Muslims to reject later claims of prophet-hood. The greatest disappointment for Muhammad was the Jewish rejection which made his religious authority unstable. Nonetheless, Armstrong (1993) notes that some of the friendly Jews helped Muhammad to understand the Bible so that he could give rebuttals to the Jews criticisms. Muhammad learned the chronology of the prophets for the first time. He could now see why it was so crucial that Abraham lived before Moses and Jesus. He also learned that although Jews and Christians follow the same Abrahamic religion, they had serious theological disagreements between them. Muhammad had been oblivious to these details previously. Carimokam (2010) notes that the details in Muhammad’s ‘revelations’ almost disappeared in the Medinan period. Nonetheless, he made the utmost effort to attain the acknowledgement of the Jews, in order to unite with them as an alliance against the Meccans; yet, that unity never materialized, for Muhammad soon turned to violence.

We learn through Ibn Ishaq that Muhammad and his followers orchestrated various military raids and killings during the Medinan period. These included raids on Waddan, Buwat, al-Ushra, al-Kharrar, Safawan, B. Sulaym, Dhu Amarr, Al-Furu, Qaynuqa, Dhatu’l-Riqa, Dumatu’l-Jandal, B. Qurayza, B. Lihyan, Dhul Qarad, B. al-Mustaliq, Muta, and a Meccan caravan at Qarada, as well as the killing of Ka’b b. al-ashraf, Abu Afak, Sallam, and Asma bint Marwan, and finally the banishment of B. Nadir.

Through a Muslim apologist’s eyes all of these raids and killings were defensive and justified, and in each case the resisting party was considered obviously wrong. Yet, such an approach seems farfetched and inconceivable. For instance the raid on the Meccan caravan at Qarada resulted in all mainstream trading routes becoming risky for the Meccans forcing them not to travel along the western trade route to Syria. After a waiting period of almost one year Abu Sufyan concluded that they needed to find an alternate route to Syria before all of their trading stock was consumed. Furat Ibn Hayyan was hired to take them to Syria, by an eastern Iraqi route, not known to the Muslims. Nonetheless, the news was leaked to Muhammad and Zayd Ibn Harith was sent to seize the caravan. The Muslim captors warned Ibn Hayyan that if he embraced Islam Muhammad would not kill him. Thus, when he was brought in front of Muhammad, Ibn Hayyan accepted Islam and was set free (Tabari, cited in Carimokam, 2010, p.367).

Carimokam (2010) argues that this could be taken as a case of forced conversion, and as Islam spread many would face the same fate as Ibn Hayyan, following Muhammad’s practice. The event also proves that the trade route to Syria from Mecca was totally under the influence of Muhammad, and the Meccans were struggling as a result. Could it be these developments which inevitably pushed the Meccans to retaliate against Muhammad, leading first to the battle of Uhud (625) and subsequently to the battle of the trench (627)? Armstrong (1993) defends Muhammad’s practice, acknowledging that in the time of Muhammad, in a region where there was no central authority, each tribe was a law unto itself. Yet, it is my view that Muhammad, a guest in Medina, quickly appropriated the role of policing all of Medina, which included subjugating the indigenous Arabs who had invited him there to begin with (known as the ‘Ansar’), while forcing the Jewish families of Medina to join with him against the Meccan ‘Quraishi’, yet they had nothing to gain from Muhammad’s raids on the Meccan merchant caravans, nor the booty that Muslims obtained from these raids. What Armstrong does not recognize (or maybe doesn’t want to) is that Muhammad’s group of Muslims in seventh century Arabia followed their own social norms, raided caravans, used captive women sexually, traded them for armour, and slaughtered subjugated tribes. These practices would become the example of Islam and be imitated as the best example for all Muslims from this period on.

To underline these points we shall now return specifically to the siege of the Banu Qurayza in 627. Ibn Ishaq tells us that after the battle of the trench (al-Khandaq), once the Meccans had retreated, instead of putting his weapons down, Muhammad was instructed to turn against the Banu Qurayza Jews, on the orders of the angel Gabriel.

Narrated by ‘Aisha,

When Allah’s Apostle returned on the day (of the battle) of Al-Khandaq (i.e. Trench), he put down his arms and took a bath. Then Gabriel, whose head was covered with dust, came to him saying, “You have put down your arms! By Allah, I have not put down my arms yet.” Allah’s Apostle said, “Where (to go now)?” Gabriel said, “This way,” pointing towards the tribe of Bani Qurayza. So Allah’s Apostle went out towards them. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, book 52, Number 68)

We also learn from the Tafsir of Ibn Khathir,

The Messenger of Allah returned to Al-Madinah in triumph and the people put down their weapons. While the Messenger of Allah was washing off the dust of battle in the house of Umm Salamah, may Allah be pleased with her, Jibril, upon him be peace, came to him wearing a turban of brocade, riding on a mule on which was a cloth of silk brocade. He said, “Have you put down your weapons, O Messenger of Allah” He said, “Yes” He said, “But the angels have not put down their weapons. I have just now come back from pursuing the people.” Then he said: “Allah, may He be blessed and exalted, commands you to get up and go to Banu Qurayza. According to another report, “What a fighter you are! Have you put down your weapons” He said, “Yes”. He said, “But we have not put down our weapons yet, get up and go to these people.” He said: “Where?” He said, “Banu Qurayza, for Allah has commanded me to shake them.” So the Messenger of Allah got up immediately, and commanded the people to march towards Banu Qurayza, who were a few miles from Al-Madinah. This was after Salat Az-Zuhr. He said, No one among you should pray `Asr except at Banu Qurayza. (Ibn Kathir, p.213)

Ibn Ishaq tells us that Muhammad and his troops besieged the Banu Qurayza for twenty-five nights until “they were sore pressed and God cast terror into their hearts” (Ibn Ishaq, p.461).   When the Jews were certain that Muhammad would not release them, Ka’b b. Asad proposed three possibilities; 1. Accept Muhammad as a prophet 2. Kill their women and children and fight the Muslims 3. Take Muhammad and his men by surprise on the Sabbath. The Banu Qurayza decided not fight. Perhaps they had hopes they would be exiled by Muhammad, like the banu Qaynuqa and the Al-Nadir Jewish tribes. Wellhausen (1975) questions how Muslim historians can know about these negotiations from behind the bastioned walls of Qurayza? In my opinion there could be only two possibilities; 1. These are later developments, where historians put words in the mouths of the Jews; 2. The surviving women and children could have passed on the traditions, since they were eye witnesses to the event. Nonetheless, since we have no Jewish account of this incident, the authenticity should be taken with some scepticism.

According to Ibn Ishaq, al-Aus, an ally of the Qurayza, tried to convince Muhammad to banish them from Medina, but instead they had to face a worse fate. Carimokam (2010) notes that when Abdullah b. Ubbay b. Salul had earlier urged Muhammad to spare the previous Jewish tribe, the banu Qaynuqa, Muhammad got angry and it took great effort by him to convince Muhammad to banish them. Wellhausen (1975) also points out that Muhammad’s initial intention was to kill the Banu Qaynuqa. Muhammad asked Aus if they would be happy to submit to the judgement of one of their own leaders, and consequently Sa’ad b. Mu’adh was chosen as the arbitrator.  It is worth noticing that according to Ibn Ishaq it is Muhammad who chooses Sa’ad, not the Jews;

When al-Aus spoke thus the apostle said: ‘Will you be satisfied, O Aus, if one of your own number pronounces judgement on them?’ When they agreed he said that Sa’ad b. Mu’ad is the man. (Ibn Ishaq, p.463)

Interestingly, later Muslim writers assert that it was the Jewish Banu Qurayza themselves who chose Sa’ad as the arbitrator.

Narrated by Abu Said,

The people of (the tribe of) Qurayza agreed upon to accept the verdict of Sa’ad. The Prophet sent for him (Sa’ad) and he came. The Prophet said (to those people), “Get up for your chief or the best among you!” Sa’ad sat beside the Prophet and the Prophet said (to him), “These people have agreed to accept your verdict.” Sa’ad said, “So I give my judgment that their warriors should be killed and their women and children should be taken as captives.” The Prophet said, “You have judged according to the King’s (Allah’s) judgment.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 74, Number 278)

The notion that a tribe on its knees, subdued and surrendered, besieged for 25 nights, were then given a choice to choose their arbitrator is somewhat incoherent. Could this be a case of an evolving hagiography with the passage of time? Muslim polemicists like W.N Arafat (1976) argue that Ibn Ishaq’s accounts are on shaky grounds because they were written some one hundred and forty years after the event, hence there is room for many alterations. That very well might be the case, however if Ibn Ishaq’s records are murky, al Bukhari’s would be even more so, since they were written a full two hundred and forty years after the event. As we noted earlier, Ibn Ishaq’s are the earliest Muslim sources to this event, and we don’t even have any Jewish sources to verify whether they are true!

Muslim apologists like Arafat (1976) also claim that Ibn Ishaq did not apply a strict method of a chain of narrators, known as isnad to verify the credibility of his sources. Nonetheless, the work of Watt (1991) shows that while many of the isnadsthemselves were fabricated, Ibn Ishaq was quoted as one of the prominent ‘scientific’ transmitters. The Isnad method was a later development, hence the work of Ibn Ishaq could not be dismissed out of hand. We also learn that al-Bukhari authenticated some 4400 hadiths from approx. 600,000. This in itself suggests that a huge number of fabricated hadiths were in circulation at that time. Contemporary scholars would also be discredited with this approach.

Nonetheless, even if Sa’ad was chosen by the Qurayza, this still doesn’t shift the entire burden of responsibility on Sa’ad’s shoulders, as Muhammad was the supreme authority and his decision could override Sa’ad’s, yet he chose not to. Wellhausen (1975) points out that the demise of the Banu Qurayza was inevitable once Sa’ad was selected as the arbitrator, because of his hostility towards the Qurayza.

Narrated by ‘Aisha,

So, on that day, Allah’s Apostle got up on the pulpit and complained about ‘Abdullah bin Ubai (bin Salul) before his companions, saying, ‘O you Muslims! Who will relieve me from that man who has hurt me with his evil statement about my family? By Allah, I know nothing except good about my family and they have blamed a man about whom I know nothing except good and he used never to enter my home except with me.’ Sa’ad bin Mu’adh the brother of Banu ‘Abd Al-Ashhal got up and said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! I will relieve you from him; if he is from the tribe of Al-Aus, then I will chop his head off, and if he is from our brothers, i.e. Al-Khazraj, then order us, and we will fulfil your order.’ (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 461)

The above extract shows the very hostile viewpoint taken by Sa’ad towards people making defiling remarks against Muhammad.

Ibn Ishaq tells us further about Sa’ad’s verdict,

Do you covenant by Allah that you accept the judgement I renounce on them? They said yes, and he said, ‘And it is incumbent on the one who is here?’ (looking) in the direction of the apostle not mentioning him out of respect, and the apostle answered Yes. Sa’ad said, ‘Then I give judgement that the men should be killed, the property divided, and the women and children taken as captives.’ (Ibn Ishaq, p.464)

According to Ibn Sa’ad,

The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, authorised Sa’ad ibn Mu’adh to give a decision about them. He passed an order: He who is subjected to razors (i.e. the male) should be killed, women and children should be enslaved and property should be distributed. Thereupon the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, said: You have decided in confirmation to the judgement of Allah, above the seven heavens. The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, returned on Thursday 7 Dhu al- Hijjah. Then he commanded them to be brought into al-Madinah where ditches were dug in the market. The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, sat with his Companions and they were brought in small groups. Their heads were struck off. They were between six hundred and seven hundred in number. (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p. 93)

According to Al-Tabari, those killed were only men,

The Messenger of God had commanded that all of them who had reached puberty should be killed. (Tabari, Volume 8, p.38)

We also learn this from Atiyyah al-Qurazi,

I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair. (Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4390)

According to Ibn Kathir’s commentary, the number was as high as 800 men.

Then the Messenger of Allah commanded that ditches should be dug, so they were dug in the earth, and they were brought tied by their shoulders, and were beheaded. There were between seven hundred and eight hundred of them. The children who had not yet reached adolescence and the women were taken prisoner, and their wealth was seized (Tafsir Ibn Kathir Juz’21, p.213)

Even the Qur’an, Chapter 33, Verses 26-27 speaks of this incident, saying,

And He brought down those who supported them among the People of the Scripture from their fortresses and cast terror into their hearts [so that] a party you killed and you took captive a party. And He caused you to inherit their land and their homes and their properties and a land which you have not trodden. And ever is Allah, over all things, competent.

Muslim apologists like Arafat argue that only the warrior men were beheaded, yet these sources above prove that all the males post pubescent were killed. Interestingly, in the Qur’an there are only two categories given, the ones who were killed and the ones taken captives. It is clear from the sources above that only the women and children were taken as captives and then sold for horses and weapons. Some Muslims suggest that Sa’ad derived the punishment from Deuteronomy 20:12-14, which stipulates that all men are to be killed; yet if this was true, than Sa’ad should have read verses 16-17 which clearly states that all living things (including women and children) were to be killed, something Sa’ad did not follow. Furthermore, if the earliest Muslim sources have been corrupted, then it adds to the obscurity of Islam. It should also be taken into account that these events, as difficult as they are, would be used in legal Islamic proceedings of punishment throughout the world today, and would be interpreted as sharia law.

The slaughter of the Banu Qurayza is commonly justified by Muslim apologists on the basis that the entire tribe was treasonous towards the treaty that Muhammad made with them. Yet, according to Ibn Ishaq, it was only 7 men amongst the Banu Qurayza who joined the Meccans, and so were treasonous. Unfortunately, the entire Banu Qurayza tribe paid the price for these 7 men through either enslavement, or death. Is that just, or a model we should use today?

It has been discussed previously that Muhammad’s utmost struggle was to gain Jewish acceptance and unite Medina as a force against the Meccans. It is at this point that we need to introduce the ‘Constitution of Medina’, signed, according to Islamic Tradition, by both the Jews and the Muslims.

Ibn Ishaq relates,

This is a document from Muhammad the prophet [governing the relations] between the believers and the Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib, and those who followed them and joined them and laboured with them. A believer shall not slay a believer for the sake of an unbeliever, nor shall he aid an unbeliever against a believer. If any dispute or controversy likely to cause trouble should arise it must be referred to God and Muhammad the apostle of God. (Ibn Ishaq, p.232-233)

It is worth noticing that in the last line Muhammad is portrayed as the arbitrator between God and man. How would any Jew accept a treaty which designates Muhammad as the arbiter between them and God; what’s more, why would they have agreed to such a treaty? We will never know, since we have no Jewish confirmation of such a treaty.

It is well known that the Jews did not consider Muhammad’s revelation, the Qur’an, authoritative, nor therefore, himself as a prophet. From a Jewish perspective the Qur’an was a patchwork consisting of miscellaneous incongruous material much of which was made up of Jewish apocryphal borrowings. Far from being the ‘unalterable speech’ of God, much of the Qur’an is borrowed from earlier Jewish material written in the second century AD, or later. For instance; Surah An-Naml (27) in the Qur’an was revealed during the middle stage of the Prophet’s stay in Mecca. The story of Solomon and the queen of Sheba, in this surah, has been ‘lifted’ directly from The Second Targum of Esther, a 2nd century apocryphal account, with parts of the story omitted in the Qur’an.

As we mentioned earlier, Muhammad was not indigenous to Medina. He and his followers migrated to Medina, from Mecca, according to the Traditions, in 622 AD. It was the Jews who were indigenous to the city, and had lived there for centuries. Thus, he was the guest, not them. Yet, with the banishment of the Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Al-Nadir, a pattern was already in place that would ultimately lead to the Banu Qurayza’s demise, and they could foresee that. The Banu Qurayza were being sucked into this confrontation between Muhammad and the Meccans, a problem which was not theirs. If they had indeed signed such a treaty (unlikely as it now seems), perhaps breaking the treaty would have been the only choice left to ensure their neutrality and survival. Nonetheless, the Muslim sources agree that they surrendered after the siege.

Watt (1956) acknowledges that the Banu Qurayza could have been detrimental for Muhammad and his clan, because of their economic clout, but since they didn’t struggle against him, their reluctance jeopardised their own existence.

It must also be noted that Muhammad made a good deal of profit in destroying the Banu Qurayza, since 1/5th of all their booty went to him personally, a practice which from this time on became commonplace.

Ibn Ishaq states,

Then the apostle divided the property, wives and children of B. Qurayza among the Muslims, and he made known on that day the shares of horse and men, and took out the fifth. It was the first booty on which the lots were cast and the fifth was taken. According to its precedent and what the apostle did the divisions were made, and it remained the custom for raids. Then the apostle sent Sa’ad b. Zayd al-Ansari brother of b. Abdu’l-Ashal with some of the captive women of B. Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons. (Ibn Ishaq, p.466)

Not all of the Banu Qurayza were acquiescent, however, for there was one woman who stood up to the prophet, refused to be his wife, and refused to accept Islam. As Ibn Ishaq continues,

The apostle had chosen one of their women for himself, Rayhana d. Amr b. Khunafa, one of the women of B. Amr b. Qurayza, and she remained with him until she died, in his power. The apostle had proposed to marry her and put the veil on her, but she said: ‘Nay, leave me in your power, for that will be easier for me and you.’ So he left her. She had shown repugnance towards Islam when she was captured and clung to Judaism. So the apostle put her aside and felt some displeasure. (Ibn Ishaq, p.466)

The episodes concerning Muhammad and his wives are also referred to in the Qur’an, Chapter 33, Verses 49- 50, though interestingly, nowhere does it refer to the Jewish Rayhana’s refusal. It states,

O Prophet, indeed We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their due compensation and those your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you [of captives] and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who emigrated with you and a believing woman if she gives herself to the Prophet [and] if the Prophet wishes to marry her, [this is] only for you, excluding the [other] believers. We certainly know what We have made obligatory upon them concerning their wives and those their right hands possess, [but this is for you] in order that there will be upon you no discomfort. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful. 

We also learn from Sahih al-Bukhari that the Muslim captors used to use the captive women sexually. Al Bukhari mentions this in a narration by Abu Said Al-Khudri,

While he was sitting with Allah’s Apostle he said, “O Allah’s Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about ‘coitus interruptus’?” The Prophet said, “Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence. (Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 34, Number 432)

Once the Banu Qurayza were defeated, all of the Jews were then thrown out of Medina, their home for many centuries. According to al-Bukhari, and narrated by Ibn Umar,

Bani An-Nadir and Bani Qurayza fought (against the Prophet violating their peace treaty), so the Prophet exiled Bani An-Nadir and allowed Bani Qurayza to remain at their places (in Medina) taking nothing from them till they fought against the Prophet again). He then killed their men and distributed their women, children and property among the Muslims, but some of them came to the Prophet and he granted them safety, and they embraced Islam. He exiled all the Jews from Medina. They were the Jews of Bani Qaynuqa’, the tribe of ‘Abdullah bin Salam and the Jews of Bani Haritha and all the other Jews of Medina (Sahih al-Bukhari, volume 5, book 59, number 362)

Conclusion

Almost all of the material quoted above, concerning the situations surrounding the attack on the Banu Qurayza, come from the earliest Muslim sources. It is striking that Muslim apologists hold the accounts of these earlier historians of Islam (Ishaq and Hisham) with disdain and instead choose to go with the later developments (Bukhari and Muslim). It has to be kept in mind we are mulling over the historicity of the events through uniquely Muslim sources. The closest documentation we can even obtain concerning this early history of Islam does not appear before the emergence of Ibn Ishaq’s ‘Sirat Rasul Allah’ (765 AD), transmitted through Ibn Hisham (833 AD), over 200 years after the events they refer to, followed by Al Waqidi and others. The later hadith literature, such as al Bukhari, Muslim and others astonishingly emerge some 240 to 300 years after these events, a good 100 years after Ibn Ishaq. The long silence that surrounds the history of early Islam has profound implications and raises some serious questions concerning its reliability. Ironically Muslim apologists like W.N. Arafat who reject the earliest historic writings of Ishaq and Hisham, choosing instead al Bukhari and Muslim, stand against historical critical practice, which starts from the premise that the closer the document is to the event, the more reliable it tends to be. Ishaq and Hisham are indeed the closer writings, and thus should be the more reliable.

Nonetheless, whether we accept the early or late Muslim sources, they all give us a rather disturbing picture of Islam’s final and greatest prophet, who Muslims consider a model for all people, in all places, and for all time. This picture describes a man from Mecca, invited as a guest to Medina to arbitrate between the native Arabs and Jews. Yet, within two years he quickly sides with one group (the Arab Ansars), against the other (the Jewish clans), and takes on a policing role. After two years of wooing the Jews, he then takes over political power of the city and turns against them, blaming them for not supporting him in his grievances against the Meccans, a grievance which had nothing to do with them. After first exiling two of the Jewish clans for not supporting him, he then turns his attention against the last, largest, and richest of the Jewish families, the Banu Qurayza, whom he attacks and defeats within 25 days. He then chooses a hostile person to arbitrate their surrender, who stipulates that all the 600 – 800 men be beheaded in one afternoon, and the children, women and goods be taken and divvied up, with 1/5th going to Muhammad himself. Indeed Muhammad benefitted greatly from the demise of these Jews.

Later Muslim sources say killing them was legitimate because the Qurayza tribe were all guilty of treason, as they betrayed the ‘Treaty of Medina’, which they had signed earlier, possibly under duress. According to the earlier sources, it was only 7 of the men who sided with the Meccans, yet the entire tribe was convicted, while the treaty itself stipulated that Muhammad would be the arbiter between them and God, a document no Jew would sign, considering their high view of prophet-hood, their disdain for Muhammad, and their refusal to accept the Qur’an as a revelation. Thus, all were indicted for the guilt of a few.

The question for us today is this; if these are the actions of Islam’s greatest prophet, and their greatest paradigm, than what should we expect from Muslims today who choose to follow such a model? Could they, following this model, not likewise move to our cities as guests, begin to police us, and demand we sign a document accepting Muhammad as a prophet, even as our arbiter with God (at the moment they already demand that we not criticize him publicly)? And if we refuse to accept their prophet, as the Banu Qurayza did, should they not do as their prophet did, and attack us, kill our men, and enslave our women and children? Perhaps that scenario seems to you a bit ‘far-fetched’ (and hopefully not prophetic). Nonetheless, is Muhammad’s treatment of the Banu Qurayza a model worth emulating, and should Muhammad be a legitimate paradigm for anyone, anywhere, and for any time, including today, here in Britain? I think not…how think ye?

References

-Arent Jan Wensinck, Muhammad and the Jews of Medina (Berlin: Freiburg, 1975)

-Bernard Lewis, Arabs in History, Oxford University Press, USA; 6th edition (May 23, 2002)

-Gerd Puin, The Hidden Origins of Islam: New Research into Its Early History, Prometheus Books (2008)

-Gilchrist, Jam Al-Qur’an, Jesus to the Muslims (1989)

-Karen Armstrong, Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet, Phoenix; New Ed edition (2001)

-Karen Armstrong, A History of God, Vintage, 1999

-M. J. Kister, “The massacre of the Banu Qurayza: a re-examination of a tradition,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 8 (1986)

-Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, Sirat Rasul Allah, A Guillaume (Trans), London, 1955

-Muhammad ibn Sa’d. Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir. (translated into English by S. Moinul Haq), 2 volumes, Pakistan Historical Society, Karachi, Pakistan. 1972.

-Patricia Crone, Meccan Trade and the rise of Islam, Gorgias Press (20 July 2004)

-Sahaja Carimokam, Muhammad and the People of the Book, Xlibris, Corp, 2010

-Tafsir Ibn Kathir Juz’ 21 (Part 21): Al-Ankabut 46 to Al-Azhab 30, Muhammad Saeed Abdul Rehman MSA Publication Limited, 2009

-The History of Al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, translated by Michael Fishbein, State University of New York Press, Albany, (1997)

-W. Montgomery Watt, Early Islam, EDINBURGH University Press, 1990

-W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Mecca, Oxford, 1953

-W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Medina, Oxford, Clarendon press, 1956

-W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad Prophet and statesman, Oxford, 1961

-W. Montgomery Watt, “The Condemnation of the Jews of Banu Qurayza: A Study of the Sources of the Sira,” in Early Islam: Collected Articles (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1990)

-W. N. Arafat, “New Light on the Story of the Banu Qurayza,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2 (1976)

Overview

Manuscripts

Christianity

New Testament written before the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., & before the fire of Rome, because these events and the martyrdoms of James (62 A.D.), Paul (64 A.D.) & Peter (65 A.D.), all pivotal Christian events, are not mentioned.

New Testament manuscripts

• 5,300 Greek

• 10,000 Latin Vulgate

• 9,300other early versions

• + 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today!

Magdalene Manuscript

(Dr.Thiede)=50-68A.D.

(KE=Kurios=Lord) oldest of 98 Papyrus

=15,000 translations: Latin, Syriac, Coptic Armenian, Gothic, Nubian, Georgian, Ethiopic

=2,135 Lectionaries from 6th century

=32,000 quotes from Early Church Fathers’ letters; all N. Test. except for 11 verses (-325A.D.) Uthmanic recension. not Topkapi / Sammarkand

Islam

1. Ma’il 7th-9th century Medina and Mecca.

2. Mashq 7th century onwards.

3. Kufic 8th-11th century.

4. Naskh 11th century till today.

Noldeke, Hawting, Schacht, Lings, Safadi all date Topkapi / Sammarkand to 9th century.

Quraish = Mecca, Kufa = 636 A.D. = Persia.

Ma’il Qur’an in British Library, Lings=790 A.D.

Conclusion: no Uthmanic recension, Qur’an= 1,200 years old, 150 year gap!!!

Documentary Evidence

Christianity

Moses didn’t write?, yet Black Stele found = laws of Hammurabi 300 yrs. before Moses.

Daniel not 2nd but 6th BC, East India. Inscription=Dan.4:30=Nebuchadnezzar building.

Dead Sea Scrolls 100 BC = Massoretic MS=916 A.D.

Armana tablets (Egypt) Habiru=Hebrew, first given to Abraham (Gen.14:13)

Ebla tablets (Syria) 17,000=Tell Mardikh 2300 BC=Deuteronomy law code, Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, Zoar=Gen. 14:8

Mari tablets (Euphrates) Arriyuk=Arioch=Gen.14 Nahor, Harran=Gen.24:10, Benjamin

Nuzi tablets (Iraq) speaks of 6 Patriarchal customsJewssplit with Muh. 624 A.D. (S.2:144-150) – Doctrina Iacobi, 642A.D. Jews/Saracens allied.

Islam

Armenian Chronicler 660 A.D.= Jews & Ishmaelites together up to 640 A.D.

Mecca (S.3:96)=1st sanctuary, Adam=Kaaba 1st city, Abraham/Ishmael, Trade – no ancient reference till 724A.D. (“Makoraba” 1st?)

Sources Periplus (50A.D.), Pliny (79A.D.) vs. Cosmas, Procopius, Theodoretus

no overland trade post – 1st cent=maritime=Red Sea

no trade post-3rd cent, then Ethiopians (Adulis)

Mecca a valley, no water, unlike Taif 50 miles away

cheaper 1,250 miles by ship than 50 miles by camel

Archaeological Accuracy

Christianity

Abraham on Babylonian inscription

Field of Abram in Hebron = 918 BC by Shishak of Egypt, on walls of Karnak temple

Doors of Sodom 2200-1600 BC = heavy = Gen.19:9, 900-600BC = arch/curtains (security)

Beni Hasan Tomb Asiatics went to Egypt/famine

Joseph’s price (20 shekels) Gen.37:28=1,700 BC, earlier cheaper, later more

Joseph’s Tomb Josh.24:32 = in Shechem found mummy with Egyptian sword!

Jericho’s walls fell outwards = Joshua 6:20

David’s Water shafts found (II Sam.5:6-8; I Chron.11:6)Qibla (S.2:144-150) Jeru -> Mecca 624A.D.

Islam

Wasit, Baghdad & Kufa = West, Al As = East

Syrian Caliphal Palaces = Jerusalem

Jacob of Edessa 705 A.D. to Jerusalem

Dome of the Rock: by Abd al-Malik 691A.D., Mi’raj?

Inscriptions polemical & not = Qur’an!

Variant verbal forms, & extensive deviances

No Qibla, octagonal thus 1st sanctuary?

Nevo’s Inscriptions Arabic, religious after 661A.D., no Muh. formula until 690A.D.

then Tawhid, Muhammad rasul Allah, Jesus=man

on Protocols suddenly & only, until 724A.D.

Note: Compared to the Biblical archaeological evidence, there is no archaeological evidence for Adam, Abraham, or Ishmael in Arabia!

Luke’s Accuracy

Erastus = Corinth treasurer (Rom. 16:23), pavement found in 1929 with this name.

Meris = Philippia “district” of Macedonia doubted until inscriptions use it for district.

Politarchs = civil authority of Thessalonica (Acts 17:6) 19 inscriptions use it, 5 in Thesselonica

Praetor = Philippian ruler instead of Duumuir, Romans used Praetor earlier.

Proconsul = title for Gallio (Acts 18:12) – corroborated by Delphi Inscription (52 A.D.) Gallio held this position for 1yr.

Quirinius = governor of Syria at Jesus’ birth = an inscription from Antioch.

---

• Next Part >

References Cited

Bonwetsch, N. (ed.), “Doctrina Iacobi nuper baptizati,” in Abhandlungen der Koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse, N.s., vol. xii, Berlin, 1910

Brock, S.P., “Syriac Views of Emergent Islam,” Studies on the First Century of Islamic Society,edited by G.H.A. Juynboll, Carbondale, So.Ill.Univ.Press, 1982

Bulliet, R.W., The Camel and the Wheel, Cambridge, Mass., 1975

Cook, Michael, Muhammad, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1983

Creswell, K.A.C., Early Muslim Architecture, vol.i, part one, Oxford, 1969

id. A Short Account of Early Muslim Architecture, (Revised by James W. Allan), Aldershot,Scolar Press, 1989

Crone, Patricia & Cook, Michael, Hagarism, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1977 Crone, Patricia, Slaves on Horses, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1980

id, Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam, Princeton University Press, 1987

De Goeje, M. & P.de Jong (eds.), Fragmenta Historicorum Arabicorum, vol.i, Leyden, 1869

Elson, John, “Eyewitnesses Jesus?“, Time, April 8, 1996, pg.60

Fehervari, G., Development of the Mihrab down to the XIVth Century, London Ph.D. 1961 Feinburg, C.L., The New Bible Dictionary (2nd ed.), Leicester, Inter-Varsity Press, 1993

Gilchrist, John, Jam’ Al-Qur’an, Jesus to the Muslims, 1989

Glubb, John, The Life and Times of Muhammad, New York, Stein and Day, 1971

Groom, N., Frankincense and Myrrh, a Study of the Arabian Incense Trade, London, 1981 Humphreys, R.S., Islamic History, a framework for Enquiry, Princeton, 1991

Jeffrey, A. (tr.), ‘Ghevond’s (Levond’s) text of the Correspondence between ‘Umar II and Leo III’, The Harvard Theological Review, 1944

Kister, M.J., Mecca and Tamim, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 8 (1965), 117-163

Lemonick, Michael D., “Are the Bible Stories True?“, Time, December 18, 1995, pgs. 50-58

Lings, M., & Safadi, Y.H., The Qur’an, (A catalogue of an exhibition of Qur’an manuscripts at the British Library, 3 April-15 August 1976), British Library, World of Islam Pub. Co., 1976 al-Maqrizi, Ahmad b. ‘Ali, Kitab al-mawa’iz wa’l-i’tibar, Cairo, 1326

McDowell, Josh, Christianity; A Ready Defence, Harpendon, Scripture Press Foundation, 1991 id, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Vols.I & II, Harpendon, Scripture Press Foundation, 1990 Muller, W.W., “Weibrauch…,” off-print: Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopadie, Supplement and 15, Munich, 1978

Nau, F., ‘Un colloque du Patriarche Jean avec l’emir des Agareens,’ Journal asiatique, 1915

Nevo, Yehuda D., “Towards a Prehistory of Islam,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, vol.17, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1994

Ostling, Richard N., “A Step Closer to Jesus”, Time, Jan.23, 1995, pg.57

Patkanean K.R. (ed.), Patmout’iun Sebeosi Episkoposi i Herakln, St. Petersburg, 1879

Pfander, C.G., The Mizanu’l Haqq ( Balance of Truth’), London, The Religious Tract Society, 1910 (& 1835)

Rippin, Andrew, “Literary Analysis of Qur’an, Tafsir, and Sira, the Methodologies of John Wansbrough”, Approaches to Islam in Religious Studies, Richard C. Martin (ed.), Tucson, Univ. of Arizona Press, 1985

id, Muslims, Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, vol. 1, London, Routledge, 1990

Schacht, Joseph, “A Revaluation of Islamic Traditions,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain, Hertford, Stephen Austin, 1949

Schimmel, Annemarie, Calligraphy and Islamic Culture, New York, New York University Press, 1984

Sebeos, Bishop, Histoire d’Heraclius, tr. F. Macler, Paris, 1904

Shorrosh, Anis A., Islam Revealed, A Christian Arab’s View of Islam, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1988

Sprenger, A., Das Leben und die Lehre des Mohammad, 2nd ed., Vol. 3, Berlin, 1869

Van Berchem, M., Materiaux pour un Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum, part two, vol.ii, Cairo, 1927

Van Ess, J., Fruhe Mu’tazilitische Haresiographie, Beirut, 1971

Wansbrough, J., Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1977

id, The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation History, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1978

---

• The Bible and The Qur’an: Contents

• Next Part >

Conclusion

Now that we have carried out a cursory study of the historicity for both the Qur’an and the Bible, it is important that we make some conclusions. What can we say concerning the veracity of these two scriptures in light of the evidence produced by the manuscript, document and archeological data at our disposal?

Starting with the Qur’an, it is reasonable to conclude that these findings indeed give us reason for pause concerning its reliability. Manuscript, as well as documentary and archaeological evidence indicates that much of what the Qur’an maintains does not coincide with the historical data at our disposal which comes from that period. From the material amassed from external sources in the 7th-8th centuries, we now know:

1. that the Jews still retained a relationship with the Arabs until at least 640 A.D.;

2. that Jerusalem and not Mecca was more-than-likely the city which contained the original sanctuary for Islam, as Mecca was not only unknown as a viable city until the end of the seventh century, but it was not even on the international trade route;

3. that the Qibla (direction of prayer) was not fixed towards Mecca until the eighth century, but to an area much further north, possibly Jerusalem;

4. that the Dome of the Rock situated in Jerusalem was possibly the original sanctuary;

5. that Muhammad was not known as the seal of prophets until the late seventh century;

6. that the earliest we even hear of any Qur’an is not until the mid-eighth century;

7. and that the earliest Qur’anic writings do not coincide with the current Qur’anic text. All of this data contradicts the Qur’an which is in our possession, and adds to the suspicion that the Qur’an which we now read is NOT the same as that which was supposedly collated and canonized in 650 A.D. under Uthman, as Muslims contend (if indeed it even existed at that time). One can only assume that there must have been an evolution in the Qur’anic text. Consequently, the sole thing we can say with a certainty is that only the documents which we now possess (from 790 A.D. onwards) are the same as that which is in our hands today, written not 16 years after Muhammad’s death but 160 years later, and thus not 1,400 years ago, but only 1,200 years ago.

---

As for the Bible, with the abundance of existing manuscripts (handwritten copies) of the New Testament (more than 24,000), we know little has been lost through the transmission of the text. In fact there is more evidence for the reliability of the text of the New Testament than there is for any ten pieces of classical literature put together. It is in better textual shape than the 37 plays of William Shakespeare which were written a mere 300 years ago, after the invention of the printing press! This is indeed surprising, considering the early period in which the manuscripts were compiled, as well as the flimsy material on which they were written. The fact that we have such an abundance of manuscripts still in our possession points to the importance the scriptures have held for the church over the centuries. As far as we can know, the names, places, and events mentioned in the Bible have been recorded accurately so that what we have is the representation of what God said and did. Besides the massive numbers of early New Testament documents, the Old Testament can also be substantiated by the Jewish community who continue to corroborate the proof for its accuracy, as well as documents such as the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls which give added weight to the claim that it has never been changed.

Even the Qur’an, possibly written during the 7th-8th centuries recognized the authority of our scriptures 1. We also know that, outside of the few scribal errors, the historical events and personages are adequately correct, as they do not confuse names, dates and events, and in fact, surprisingly, continue to coincide with current archaeological findings. This is indeed significant, since with each successive year, ongoing documental and archaeological discoveries fail to divulge any historical contradictions. Instead they continue to corroborate what the Bible has been saying for 2,000-3,000 years (examples such as the Ebla tablets, or the newly discovered tomb of the priest Caiaphus give continuing credibility to the scriptures historical trustworthiness).

Therefore, the testimony of the historical evidence is that the Bible and not the Qur’an can be trusted as an accurate and reliable historical document. While we continue to unearth data which substantiates the Bible’s accuracy, we likewise unearth further data which erradicates the validity for the Qur’anic account. If a scripture claims to be a revelation from God, it must prove its claim by establishing its historical credentials, to the extent that even a third party can agree upon the evidence provided. This the Bible and not the Qur’an does adequately.

We must also know that the Bible is unique? Consider: Here is a book written over a 1,500 year span (about 40 generations), by more than 40 authors, among whose number were found: kings, peasants, philosophers, fishermen, poets, statesmen, scholars, a herdsman, a general, a cupbearer, a doctor, a tax collector, and a rabbi. It was written on three continents: Asia, Africa, and Europe, and in three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Its subject matter includes hundreds of controversial topics, yet from Genesis right on through to Revelation the authors all spoke with harmony and continuity on the theme of the unfolding story of “God’s redemption of humanity.”

If God truly created the world for His pleasure, He would have created it to work to a pattern. This pattern we would expect to find revealed in His Word; as indeed we do, not only in the life of Jesus, the incarnate Word, who came and dwelt among us, but in the truth of the Gospel which was found in His teaching and later written down by His apostles. It is therefore not surprising that many cultures and governments even today continue to follow its precepts, laws and institutions, even though they do not necessarily adhere to its authorship.

It should not surprise us then that the Bible continues to be the source of God’s revelation to His creation, for families and communities around the world, and that, according to the latest statistics, the Bible and not the Qu’ran is uncontested as the most popular book ever written. The statistics prove that it is read by more people and published in more languages than any other book in the history of humanity, so that even now “one copy of the Bible is published every three seconds day and night; or 22 copies every minute day and night; or 1,369 copies every hour day and night; and 32,876 copies every day in the year, and so on…”.

It is logical, then, that Christianity, because it holds the repository of Biblical principles and thinking, is the fastest conversion-growing religion in the world today. What better testimony could one ask to demonstrate the Bible’s claim to be the truly revealed and inspired Word of God.

---

• The Bible and The Qur’an: Contents

• Next Part >

1. see suras 2:136; 3:2-3; 4:136; 5:47-52,68; 10:95; 21:7; and 29:46[]

The Bible’s Archaeological Evidence

(1900=Abraham, 1700=Joseph, 1447=Moses, 1000=David):

What has become evident over the last few decades is that unlike the difficulties found with the Qur’anic evidence, the most fruitful area for a confirmation of the Bible’s reliability has come from the field of archaeology, for it is here that the past can speak to us the clearest concerning what happened then.

Because Abraham is honoured by both Christianity and Islam it is interesting to look at the archaeological evidence concerning his time which is now coming to light in the twentieth century. What we find is that archaeology clearly places Abraham in Palestine and not in Arabia.

1. Abraham’s name appears in Babylonia as a personal name at the very period of the patriarchs, though the critics believed he was a fictitious character who was redacted back by the later Israelites.

2. The field of Abram in Hebron is mentioned in 918 B.C., by the Pharaoh Shishak of Egypt (now also believed to be Ramases II). He had just finished warring in Palestine and inscribed on the walls of his temple at Karnak the name of the great patriarch, proving that even at this early date Abraham was known not in Arabia, as Muslims contend, but in Palestine, the land the Bible places him.

3. The Beni Hasan Tomb from the Abrahamic period, depicts Asiatics coming to Egypt during a famine, corresponding with the Biblical account of the plight of the sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’.

There is further archaeology evidence which supports other Biblical accounts, such as:

1. The doors of Sodom (Tell Beit Mirsim) dated to between 2200-1600 B.C. are heavy doors needed for security; the same doors which we find in Genesis 19:9. Yet, if this account had been written between 900-600 B.C., as the critics previously claimed, we would have read about arches and curtains, because security was no longer such a concern then.

2. Joseph’s price as a slave was 20 shekels (Genesis 37:28), which, according to trade tablets from that period is the correct price for 1,700 B.C. An earlier account would have been cheaper, while a later account would have been more expensive.

3. Joseph’s Tomb (Joshua 24:32) has possibly been found in Shechem,as in the find there is a mummy, and next to the mummy sits an Egyptian officials sword! Is this mere coincidence?

4. Jericho’s excavation showed that the walls fell outwards, echoing Joshua 6:20, enabling the attackers to climb over and into the town. Yet according to the laws of physics, walls of towns always fall inwards! A later redactor would certainly have not made such an obvious mistake, unless he was an eyewitness, as Joshua was.

5. David’s capture of Jerusalem recounted in II Samuel 5:6-8 and I Chronicles 11:6 speak of Joab using water shafts built by the Jebusites to surprise them and defeat them. Historians had assumed these were simply legendary, until archaeological excavations by R.A.S. Macalister, J.G.Duncan, and Kathleen Kenyon on Ophel now have found these very water shafts.

Another new and exciting archaeological research is that which has been carried out by the British Egyptologist, David Rohl. Until a few years ago we only had archaeological evidence for the Patriarchal, Davidic and New Testament periods, but little to none for the Mosaic period. Yet one would expect much data on this period due to the cataclysmic events which occurred during that time. David Rohl (in A Test of Time) has given us a possible reason why, and it is rather simple. It seems that we have simply been off in our dates by almost 300 years! By redating the Pharonic lists in Egypt he has been able to now identify the abandoned city of the Israelite slaves (called Avaris), the death pits from the tenth plague, and Joseph’s original tomb and home. There remain many ‘tells’ yet to uncover.

Moving into the New Testament material we are dependant on archaeology once again to corroborate a number of facts which the critics considered to be at best dubious and at worst in error.

1. Paul’s reference to Erastus as the treasurer of Corinth (Romans 16:23) was thought to be erroneous, but now has been confirmed by a pavement found in 1929 bearing his name.

It is to Luke, however, that the skeptics have reserved their harshest criticisms, because he more than any other of the first century writers spoke about specific peoples and places. Yet, surprisingly, once the dust had settled on new inscription findings, it is Luke who has confounded these same critics time and again. For instance:

1. Luke’s use of the word Meris to maintain that Philippi was a “district” of Macedonia was doubted until inscriptions were found which use this very word to describe divisions of a district.

2. Luke’s mention of Quirinius as the governor of Syria during the birth of Jesus has now been proven accurate by an inscription from Antioch.

3. Luke’s usage of Politarchs to denote the civil authority of Thessalonica (Acts 17:6) was questioned, until some 19 inscriptions have been found that make use of this title, 5 of which are in reference to Thessalonica.

4. Luke’s usage of Praetor to describe a Philippian ruler instead of duumuir has been proven accurate, as the Romans used this term for magistrates of their colonies.

5. Luke’s usage of Proconsul as the title for Gallio in Acts 18:12 has come under much criticism by secular historians, as the later traveller and writer Pliny never referred to Gallio as a Proconsul. This fact alone, they said, proved that the writer of Acts wrote his account much later as he was not aware of Gallio’s true position. It was only recently that the Delphi Inscription , dated to 52 A.D. was uncovered. This inscription states, “As Lusius Junius Gallio, my friend, and the proconsul of Achaia…” Here then was secular corroboration for the Acts 18:12 account. Yet Gallio only held this position for one year. Thus the writer of Acts had to have written this verse in or around 52 A.D., and not later, otherwise he would not have known Gallio was a proconsul. Suddenly this supposed error not only gives credibility to the historicity of the Acts account, but also dates the writings in and around 52 A.D. Had the writer written the book of Acts in the 2nd century as many liberal scholars suggest he would have agreed with Pliny and both would have been contradicted by the eyewitness account of the Delphi Inscription.

It is because of discoveries such as this that F.F.Bruce states, “Where Luke has been suspected of inaccuracy, and accuracy has been vindicated by some inscriptional evidence, it may be legitimate to say that archaeology has confirmed the New Testament record.”

In light of archaeological evidence, books such as Luke and Acts reflect the topography and conditions of the second half of the first century A.D. and do not reflect the conditions of any later date. Thus it is because Luke, as a historian has been held to a higher accountability then the other writers, and because it has been historical data which has validated his accounts, we can rest assured that the New Testament can be held in high regard as a reliable historical document.

We have no reason to fear archaeology. In fact it is this very science which has done more to authenticate our scriptures than any other. Thus we encourage the secular archaeologists to dig, for as they dig we know they will only come closer to that which our scriptures have long considered to be the truth, and give us reason to claim that indeed our Bible has the right to claim true authority as the only historically verified Word of God. This is why so many eminent archaeologists are standing resolutely behind the Biblical accounts. Listen to what they say (taken from McDowell’s Evidences 1972:65-67):

G.E. Wright states,”We shall probably never prove that Abram really existed…but what we can prove is that his life and times, as reflected in the stories about him, fit perfectly within the early second millennium, but imperfectly within any later period.”

Sir Frederic Kenyon mentions, “The evidence of archaeology has been to re-establish the authority of the Old Testament, and likewise to augment its value by rendering it more intelligible through a fuller knowledge of its background and setting.”

William F. Albright (a renowned archaeologist) says, “The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the 18th and 19th centuries, certain phases which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history.”

Millar Burrows of Yale states, “On the whole, archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record.”

Joseph Free confirms that while thumbing through the book of Genesis, he mentally noted that each of the 50 chapters are either illuminated or confirmed by some archaeological discovery, and that this would be true for most of the remaining chapters of the Bible, both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Nelson Glueck (a Jewish Reformed scholar and archaeologist) probably gives us the greatest support for the historicity of the Bible when he states, “To date no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single, properly understood biblical statement.”

---

• The Bible and The Qur’an: Contents

• Next Part >