JESUS OF THE BIBLE IS NOT ISA BIN MARYAM OF THE QURAN

 

In this thread I will explain the difference between Jesus of the Bible and Isa of the Koran. Please be informed that, according to the God of the Bible, Names are very important in Biblical terms, in contrast, Allah of the Koran never cares much about the names. God used to name people according to their job, title, and calling. In the Old Testament we often see that the Angel of the Lord would tell the parents of the prophet what to name their child, and we see also that God would often change the prophet’s name after a turning point in the prophet’s life. For example, we see it in the life of Abraham, whose name was changed from Abram (Genesis 17:5), as well as many others through the entire Bible. And it was not just during the Old Testament time; we see it in the New Testament, as well, when Jesus changes the name of Simon into Peter (John 1:42).

Christ Jesus, the Son of the Living God, was not given His name because it was the name of His grandfather, not even because His earthly mother "Mary" gave Him that name, but because the Angel of the Lord gave Him the name anointed name - Jesus. As fully and impeccably explained in the gospel of according to Matthew 1:21, “You shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins.” Jesus is a Hebrew word meaning “Savior.”

Peter who was known Simon, the apostle said in his preaching to the Jews, “Salvation is in one else; for there is no other name under heaven given among men, by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). By that great name Jesus, which is above all names, those who believed in His name went around preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. They commanded sickness and demons to leave the bound and the oppressed in the name of Jesus Christ the Son of the living God, and not in the name of Isa the son of Mary.

Accordingly, Prophet Isa of the Koran is not the same person as our Lord Jesus Christ whom we read about in the Gospel. Actually, Mohammed mentioned Isa as a prophet who was given a book to the people of Israel as it says, “And Allah will teach him (Isa) the Book and Wisdom, the Torah and the Gospel, and (appoint him) as a messenger to the Children of Israel” (Sure 3:48).

Muhammed came with a message to His people, saying, “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” (Sure 5:117), inter-alia, Jesus came with the Revelation, that is why Christians have Holy Spirit who is the Reveler of the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

After finishing His work on earth, Christ Jesus the Son of the Living God said to His disciples, “Go and teach the nations to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20). This could not be a normal prophet or messenger.

Please be informed that, Allah's Prophet Mohammed has changed the biblical picture of Messiah-Jesus—the Lord of Lords and the King of Kings to which every knee shall bow—into the picture of a normal prophet. Surely this made it easy for Mohammed to convince his people that he was a prophet to the Arabs, just like Moses and Isa son of Mary were prophets to their people, the Jews.

Wherefore, if the slave of Allah- Mohammed is to be believed, then we would also have to believe the messages of Buddha, the Hindus, and many other false prophets who were sent to deceive the world in order that it would not see the only true Light which came to our world—the one who enlightens every man (John 1:9), who came to set us free of our sins and healed those who were oppressed of the devil (Acts 10:38).

Jesus Christ the Son of the living God did not come to our world to give us a new religion or a new book, but came to destroy the work of the devil (1 John 3:8), that everyone who calls upon that name of Jesus the Savior shall be saved of his sins that separate him from the holy God (Isaiah 59:2).

Isa is the son of Mary (The Cow 2:253).

Jesus is the Son of God (John 1:49).

Isa is a prophet (Surah 5:75).

Jesus is the Lord of the prophets (Matthew 22:45).

Isa is a creation (Surah 3:59).

Jesus is the creator (John 1:3).

Isa did not taste death, for god took him to heaven (Surah Women 4:157).

Jesus tasted death for everyone (Hebrew 2:9).

You can read about the prophet Isa son of Mary in the Koran, but we believe in the Lord Jesus Christ the Son of the living God whom was written about in the Bible. That’s why you have to make a choice: Bible or Koran, Jesus the Son of God or Isa the son of Mary.

Jesus of the Bible is not Isa of the Koran.

Shalom,

Dr. Max Shimba for Max Shimba Ministries org.

ISA OF THE QURAN IS FAKE AND NOT JESUS OF THE BIBLE

 

Today we increasingly hear and read that Christianity and Islam ‘share’ Jesus, that he belongs to both religions. So also with Abraham: there is talk of the West’s ‘Abrahamic civilization’ where once people spoke of ‘Judeo-Christian civilization’. This shift of thinking reflects the growing influence of Islam.

These notes offer some information and reflections on the ‘Muslim Jesus’, to help put this trend in its proper context.

References in brackets are to the Qur’an. Numbering systems for the Qur’anic verses are not standardized: be prepared to search through nearby verses for the right one.

Islam the primordial faith

Islam regards itself, not as a subsequent faith to Judaism and Christianity, but as the primordial religion, the faith from which Judaism and Christianity are subsequent developments. In the Qur’an we read that Abraham ‘was not a Jew nor a Christian, but he was a monotheist, a Muslim’ (Âl 'Imran 3:66). So it is Muslims, and not Christians or Jews, who are the true representatives of the faith of Abraham to the world today. (Al-Baqarah 2:135)

The Biblical prophets were all Muslims

Many prophets of the past received the one religion of Islam. (Ash-Shura 42:13) Who were these previous prophets? According to Al-An’am 6:85-87 they include Ibrahim (Abraham), ‘Ishaq (Issac), Yaqub (Jacob), Nuh (Noah), Dawud (David), Sulaiman (Solomon), Ayyub (Job), Yusuf (Joseph), Musa (Moses), Harun (Aaron), Zakariyya (Zachariah), Yahya (John the Baptist), ‘Isa (Jesus), Ilyas, Ishmael, Al-Yash’a (Elisha), Yunus (Jonah) and Lut (Lot).

The Muslim ‘Isa (Jesus)

There are two main sources for ‘Isa, the Muslim Jesus. The Qur’an gives a history of his life, whilst the Hadith collections — recollections of Muhammad’s words and deeds — establish his place in the Muslim understanding of the future.

The Qur’an

‘Isa, was a prophet of Islam

Jesus’ true name, according to the Qur’an, was ‘Isa. His message was pure Islam, surrender to Allah. (Âl 'Imran 3:84) Like all the Muslim prophets before him, and like Muhammad after him, ‘Isa was a lawgiver, and Christians should submit to his law. (Âl 'Imran 3:50; Al-Ma’idah 5:48) ‘Isa’s original disciples were also true Muslims, for they said ‘We believe. Bear witness that we have surrendered. We are Muslims.’ (Al-Ma’idah 5:111)

‘The Books’

Like other messengers of Islam before him, ‘Isa received his revelation of Islam in the form of a book. (Al-An’am 6:90) ‘Isa’s book is called the Injil or ‘gospel’. (Al-Ma’idah 5:46) The Torah was Moses’ book, and the Zabur (Psalms) were David’s book. So Jews and Christians are ‘people of the Book’. The one religion revealed in these books was Islam. (Âl 'Imran 3:18)

As with previous prophets, ‘Isa’s revelation verified previous prophets’ revelations. (Âl 'Imran 3:49,84; Al-Ma’idah 5:46; As-Saff 61:6) Muhammad himself verified all previous revelations, including the revelation to ‘Isa (An-Nisa’ 4:47), and so Muslims must believe in the revelation which ‘Isa received. (Al-Baqarah 2:136) However, after ‘Isa the Injil was lost in its original form. Today the Qur’an is the only sure guide to ‘Isa’s teaching.

The biography of ‘Isa

According to the Qur’an, ‘Isa was the Messiah. He was supported by the ‘Holy Spirit’. (Al-Baqarah 2:87; Al-Ma’idah 5:110) He is also referred to as the ‘Word of Allah’. (An-Nisa’ 4:171)

‘Isa’s mother Mariam was the daughter of ‘Imran, (Âl 'Imran 3:34,35) — cf the Amram of Exodus 6:20 — and the sister of Aaron (and Moses). (Maryam 19:28) She was fostered by Zachariah (father of John the Baptist). (Âl 'Imran 3:36) While still a virgin (Al-An’am 6:12; Maryam 19:19-21) Mariam gave birth to ‘Isa alone in a desolate place under a date palm tree. (Maryam 19:22ff) (Not in Bethlehem).

‘Isa spoke whilst still a baby in his cradle. (Âl 'Imran 3:46; Al-Ma’idah 5:110; Maryam 19:30) He performed various other miracles, including breathing life into clay birds, healing the blind and lepers, and raising the dead. (Âl 'Imran 3:49; Al-Ma’idah 5:111) He also foretold the coming of Muhammad. (As-Saff 61:6)

‘Isa did not die on a cross

Christians and Jews have corrupted their scriptures. (Âl 'Imran 3:74-77, 113) Although Christians believe ‘Isa died on a cross, and Jews claim they killed him, in reality he was not killed or crucified, and those who said he was crucified lied (An-Nisa’ 4:157). ‘Isa did not die, but ascended to Allah. (An-Nisa’ 4:158) On the day of Resurrection ‘Isa himself will be a witness against Jews and Christians for believing in his death. (An-Nisa’ 4:159)

Christians should accept Islam, and all true Christians will

Christians (and Jews) could not be freed from their ignorance until Muhammad came bringing the Qur’an as clear evidence (Al-Bayyinah 98:1). Muhammad was Allah’s gift to Christians to correct misunderstandings. They should accept Muhammad as Allah’s Messenger, and the Qur’an as his final revelation. (Al-Ma’idah 5:15; Al-Hadid 57:28; An-Nisa’ 4:47)

Some Christians and Jews are faithful and believe truly. (Âl 'Imran 3:113,114) Any such true believers will submit to Allah by accepting Muhammad as the prophet of Islam, i.e. they will become Muslims. (Âl 'Imran 3:198)

Although Jews and pagans will have the greatest enmity against Muslims, it is the Christians who will be ‘nearest in love to the believers’, i.e. to Muslims. (Al-Ma’idah 5:82) True Christians will not love Muhammad’s enemies. (Al-Mujadilah 58:22) In other words, anyone who opposes Muhammad is not a true Christian.

Christians who accept Islam or refuse it

Some Jews and Christians are true believers, accepting Islam: most are transgressors. (Âl 'Imran 3:109)

Many monks and rabbis are greedy for wealth and prevent people from coming to Allah. (At-Taubah 9:34,35)

Christians and Jews who disbelieve in Muhammad will go to hell. (Al-Bayyinah 98:6)

Muslims should not take Christians or Jews for friends. (Al-Ma’idah 5:51) They must fight against Christians and Jews who refuse Islam until they surrender, pay the poll-tax and are humiliated. (At-Taubah 9:29) To this may be added hundreds of Qur’anic verses on the subject of jihad in the path of Allah, as well as the ‘Book of Jihad’ found in all Hadith collections.

Christian beliefs

Christians are commanded not to believe that ‘Isa is the son of God: ‘It is far removed from his transcendent majesty that he should have a son’. (An-Nisa’ 4:171; Al-Furqan 25:2) ‘Isa was simply a created human being, and a slave of Allah. (An-Nisa’ 4:172; Âl 'Imran 3:59)

Christians are claimed by the Qur’an to believe in a family of gods — Father God, mother Mary and ‘Isa the son — but ‘Isa rejected this teaching. (Al-Ma’idah 5:116) The doctrine of the Trinity is disbelief and a painful doom awaits those who believe it. (Al-Ma’idah 5:73)

‘Isa (Jesus) in the Hadith

‘Isa the destroyer of Christianity

The prophet ‘Isa will have an important role in the end times, establishing Islam and making war until he destroys all religions save Islam. He shall kill the Evil One (Dajjal), an apocalyptic anti-Christ figure.

In one tradition of Muhammad we read that no further prophets will come to earth until ‘Isa returns as ‘a man of medium height, or reddish complexion, wearing two light garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head although it will not be wet. He will fight for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill pigs, and abolish the poll-tax. Allah will destroy all religions except Islam. He (‘Isa) will destroy the Evil One and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die’. (Sunan Abu Dawud, 37:4310) The Sahih Muslim has a variant of this tradition: ‘The son of Mary ... will soon descend among you as a just judge. He will ... abolish the poll-tax, and the wealth will pour forth to such an extent that no one will accept charitable gifts.’ (Sahih Muslim 287)

What do these sayings mean? The cross is a symbol of Christianity. Breaking crosses means abolishing Christianity. Pigs are associated with Christians. Killing them is another way of speaking of the destruction of Christianity. Under Islamic law the poll-tax buys the protection of the lives and property of conquered ‘people of the Book’. (At-Taubah 9:29) The abolition of the poll-tax means jihad is restarted against Christians (and Jews) living under Islam, who should convert to Islam, or else be killed or enslaved. The abundance of wealth refers to booty flowing to the Muslims from this conquest. This is what the Muslim ‘Isa will do when he returns in the last days.

Muslim jurists confirm these interpretations: consider, for example, the ruling of Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 1368).

"... the time and the place for [the poll tax] is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace). After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus' descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace) ..." (The Reliance of the Traveller. Trans. Nuh Ha Mim Keller, p. 603).

Ibn Naqib goes on to state that when Jesus returns, he will rule ‘as a follower’ of Muhammad.

Critical Comments on the Muslim ‘Isa (Jesus)

‘Isa not an historical figure

The Qur’an’s ‘Isa is not an historical figure. His identity and role as a prophet of Islam is based solely on supposed revelations to Muhammad over half a millennium after the Jesus of history lived and died.

Jesus’ name was never ‘Isa

Jesus’ mother tongue was Aramaic. In his own lifetime he was called Yeshua in Aramaic, and Jesu in Greek. This is like calling the same person John when speaking English and Jean when speaking French: Jesu, pronounced "Yesoo", is the Greek form of Aramaic Yeshua. (The final -s in Jesu-s is a Greek grammatical ending.) Yeshua is itself a form of Hebrew Yehoshua’, which means ‘the Lord is salvation’. However Yehoshua’ is normally given in English as Joshua. So Joshua and Jesus are variants of the same name.

It is interesting that Jesus' name Yehoshua’ contains within it the proper Hebrew name for God, the first syllable Yeh- being short for YHWH ‘the LORD’.

Yeshua of Nazareth was never called ‘Isa, the name the Qur’an gives to him. Arab-speaking Christians refer to Jesus as Yasou’ (from Yeshua) not ‘Isa.

Jesus did not receive a ‘book’

According to the Qur’an, the ‘book’ revealed to ‘Isa was the Injil. The word Injil is a corrupted form of the Greek euanggelion ‘good news’ or gospel. What was this euanggelion? This was just how Jesus referred to his message: as good news. The expression euanggelion did not refer to a fixed revealed text, and there is absolutely no evidence that Jesus received a ‘book’ of revelation from God.

The ‘gospels’ of the Bible are biographies

The term euanggelion later came to be used as a title for the four biographies of Jesus written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the ‘gospels’. This was a secondary development of meaning. Apparently this is where Muhammad got his mistaken idea of the Injil being a ‘book’.

Most so-called prophets of Islam received no book

Virtually all of the so-called ‘prophets’ of Islam, whose names are taken from the Hebrew scriptures, received no ‘book’ or law code. For example, the Psalms are not a book revealing Islam, as the Qur’an claims, but a collection of songs of worship, only some of which are David’s. There is not a shred of evidence in the Biblical history of David that he received a book of laws for the Israelites. They already had the Torah of Moses to follow. So David was not a prophet in the Qur’an’s sense of this word. Likewise most of the prophets claimed by Islam were neither lawgivers nor rulers.

Biblical prophecy and Islamic prophecy are not the same thing

The Biblical understanding of prophecy is quite different from Muhammad’s. A Biblical prophecy is not regarded as a passage from a heavenly eternally pre-existent text like the Qur’an, but a message from God for a specific time and place. A biblical prophet is someone to whom God reveals hidden things, and who then acts as God’s verbal agent. When a Samaritan woman called Jesus a prophet (John 4:19) it was because he had spoken about things in her life that he could only have known supernaturally. Christianity teaches that Jesus was a prophet, but he brought no ‘book’: he himself was the living ‘Word of God’, a title used of ‘Isa in the Qur’an.

By no means all prophecies referred to in the Bible became part of the Biblical text. The Bible consists of a wide variety of materials originally written for many different purposes, including letters, songs, love poetry, historical narratives, legal texts, proverbial wisdom as well as prophetic passages. These are regarded as inspired by God, but not dictated from a timeless heavenly book.

As prophetic history, the Qur’an contains many errors and anachronisms

The claim that Jesus was not executed by crucifixion is without any historical support. One of the things that all the early sources agree on is Jesus’ crucifixion.

Mariam the mother of ‘Isa is called a sister of Aaron, and also the daughter of Aaron’s father ‘Imran (Hebr. Amram). Clearly Muhammad has confused Mary (Hebr. Miriam) with Miriam of the Exodus. The two lived more than a thousand years apart!

In the Bible Haman is the minister of Ahasuerus in Media and Persia (The Book of Esther 3:1-2). Yet the Qur’an places him over a thousand years earlier, as a minister of Pharoah in Egypt.

The claim that Christians believe in three Gods — Father, son Jesus and mother Mary — is mistaken. The Qur’an is also mistaken to claim that Jews say Ezra was a son of God. (At-Taubah 9:30) The charge of polytheism against Christianity and Judaism is ill-informed and false. (Deuteronomy 6:4, James 2:19a)

The story of the ‘two horned one’ (Al-Kahf 18:82 cf also Daniel 8:3, 20-21) is derived from the Romance of Alexander. Certainly Alexander the Great was no Muslim.

The problem with the name ‘Isa has already been discussed. Other Biblical names are also misunderstood in the Qur’an, and their meanings lost. For example Elisha, which means ‘God is salvation’, is given in the Qur’an as al-Yash’a, turning El ‘God’ into al- ‘the’. (Islamic tradition did the same to Alexander the Great, calling him al-Iskandar ‘the Iskander’). Abraham ‘Father of many’ (cf Genesis 17:5) might have been better represented as something like Aburahim ‘father of mercy’ instead of Ibrahim, which has no meaning in Arabic at all.

The Qur’an has a Samaritan making the golden calf, which was worshipped by the Israelites in the wilderness (Ta Ha 20:85) during the Exodus. In fact it was Aaron (Exodus 34:1-6). The Samaritans did not exist until several centuries later. They were descendants of the northern Israelites centuries after the Exodus.

Many Qur’anic stories can be traced to Jewish and Christian folktales and other apocryphal literature. For example a story of Abraham destroying idols (As-Saffat 37) is found in a Jewish folktale, the Midrash Rabbah. The Qur’anic story of Zachariah, father of John the Baptist, is based upon a second-century Christian fable. The story of Jesus being born under a palm tree is also based on a late fable, as is the story of Jesus making clay birds come alive. Everything the Qur’an says about the life of Jesus which is not found in the Bible can be traced to fables composed more than a hundred years after Jesus’ death.

Jesus’ titles of Messiah and Word of God, which the Qur’an uses, find no explanation in the Qur’an. Yet in the Bible, from which they are taken, these titles are well integrated in a whole theological system.

The Qur’an mentions the Holy Spirit in connection with Jesus, using phrases which come from the gospels. Ibn Ishaq (Life of Muhammad) reports Muhammad as saying that this ‘Spirit’ was the angel Gabriel (cf also An-Nahl 16:102, Al-Baqarah 2:97). However the Biblical phrase ‘Spirit of God’ (Ruach Elohim) or ‘Holy Spirit’ can only be understood in light of the Hebrew scriptures. It certainly does not refer to an angel.

Jesus’ alleged foretelling of Muhammad’s coming (As-Saff 61:6) appears to be based on a garbled reading of John 14:26, a passage which in fact refers to the Spirit.

The Hebrew scriptures were Jesus’ Bible. He affirmed their authority and reliability and preached from them. From these same scriptures he knew God as Adonai Elohim, the Lord God of Israel. He did not call God Allah, which appears to have been the name or title of a pagan Arabian deity worshipped in Mecca before Muhammad. Muhammad's pagan father, who died before Muhammad was born, already bore the name ‘Abd Allah ‘slave of Allah’, and his uncle was called Obeid Allah.

We read that An-Najm 53:19-23 seeks to refute the pagan Arab belief that Allah had daughters named al-Uzza, al-Ilat and Manat. (See also An-Nahl 16:57 and Al-An’am 6:100).

The Biblical narratives are rich with historical details, many confirmed by archaeology. They cover more than a thousand years, and reveal a long process of technological and cultural development. In contrast the Qur’an’s sacred history is devoid of archaeological support. Its fragmentary and disjointed stories offer no authentic reflection of historical cultures. No place name from ancient Israel is mentioned, not even Jerusalem. Many of the supposed historical events reported in the Qur’an have no independent verification. For example we are told that Abraham and Ishmael built the Kaaba in Mecca (Al-Baqarah 2:127), but this is totally without support. The Biblical account, more than a thousand years older, does not place Abraham anywhere near Arabia.

The Qur’an is not a credible source for Biblical history

The Qur’an, written in the 7th century AD, cannot be regarded as having any authority whatsoever to inform us about Jesus of Nazareth. It offers no evidence for its claims about biblical history. Its numerous historical errors reflect a garbled understanding of the Bible.

Islam appropriates the history of Judaism and Christianity to itself

When Muhammad linked the name of Allah to the religious histories of Judaism and Christianity, this was a way to claim them for Islam. In the light of later events, the claim that Islam was the original religion, and that all preceding prophets were Muslims, can be regarded as an attempt to appropriate the histories of other religions for Islam. The effect is to rob Christianity and Judaism of their own histories.

Consider that many Biblical sites, such as the tombs of the Hebrew Patriarchs and the Temple Mount, are claimed by Islam as Muslim sites, not Jewish or Christian ones. After all, the Qur’an tells us that Abraham ‘was a Muslim’. Under Islamic rule all Jews and Christians were banned from such sites.

The place of the Jewish scriptures in Christianity is completely different from the place of the Bible in Islam

There is a fundamental difference between Christian attitudes to the Jewish scriptures and Islamic attitudes to the Bible. Christians accept the Hebrew scriptures. They were the scriptures of Jesus and the apostles. They were the scriptures of the early church. The whole of Christian belief and practice rests upon them. Core Christian concepts such as ‘Messiah’ (Greek ‘Christos’), ‘Spirit of God’, ‘Kingdom of God’ and ‘salvation’ are deeply rooted in the Hebrew Biblical traditions.

We note also that Christian seminaries devote considerable effort to studying the Hebrew scriptures. This is an integral part of training for Christian ministry. The Hebrew scriptures are read (in translation) every Sunday in many churches all around the world.

In contrast Islam’s treatment of the Bible is one of complete disregard. Although it purports to ‘verify’ all earlier prophetic revelation, the Qur’an is oblivious to the real contents of the Bible. The claim that Christians and Jews deliberately corrupted their scriptures is made without evidence, and this only serves to cover up the Qur’an’s historical inadequacies. Muslim scholars rarely have an informed understanding of the Bible or of biblical theology and so remain ignorant of these realities.

Some contemporary Muslim voices on Jesus

Yasser Arafat, addressing a press conference at the United Nations in 1983 called Jesus "the first Palestinian fedayeen who carried his sword" (i.e. he was a freedom fighter for Islam).

Sheikh Ibrahim Madhi, employee of the Palestinian Authority, broadcast live in April 2002 on Palestinian Authority television: "The Jews await the false Jewish messiah, while we await, with Allah's help... Jesus, peace be upon him. Jesus's pure hands will murder the false Jewish messiah. Where? In the city of Lod, in Palestine."

Author Shamim A. Siddiqi of Flushing, New York put the classical position of Islam towards Christianity clearly in a recent letter to Daniel Pipes, New York Post columnist:

"Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad were all prophets of Islam. Islam is the common heritage of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim community of America, and establishing the Kingdom of God is the joint responsibility of all three Abrahamic faiths. Islam was the din (faith, way of life) of both Jews and Christians, who later lost it through human innovations. Now the Muslims want to remind their Jewish and Christian brothers and sisters of their original din [religion]. These are the facts of history."

This historical negationism — appearing to affirm Christianity and Judaism whilst in fact rejecting and supplanting them — is a lynchpin of Muslim apologetics. What is being affirmed is in fact neither Christianity nor Judaism, but Jesus as a prophet of Islam, Moses as a Muslim etc. This is intended to lead to ‘reversion’ of Christians and Jews to Islam, which is what Siddiqi refers to when he speaks of ‘the joint responsibility’ of Jews and Christians to establish ‘the Kingdom of God’. By this he means that American Christians and Jews should work to establish shari’ah law and the rule of Islam in the United States.

Conclusion

‘Isa (Jesus) of the Qur’an is a product of fable, imagination and ignorance. When Muslims venerate this ‘Isa, they have someone different in mind from the Yeshua or Jesus of the Bible and of history. The ‘Isa of the Qur’an is based on no recognized form of historical evidence, but on fables current in seventh century Arabia.

For most faithful Muslims ‘Isa is the only Jesus they know. But if one accepts this Muslim ‘Jesus’, then one also accepts the Qur’an: one accepts Islam. Belief in this ‘Isa is won at the cost of the libel that Jews and Christians have corrupted their scriptures, a charge that is without historical support. Belief in this ‘Isa implies that much of Christian and Jewish history is in fact Islamic history.

The Jesus of the gospels is the base upon which Christianity developed. By Islamicizing him, and making of him a Muslim prophet who preached the Qur’an, Islam destroys Christianity and takes over all its history. It does the same to Judaism.

In the end times as described by Muhammad, ‘Isa becomes a warrior who will return with his sword and lance. He will destroy the Christian religion and make Islam the only religion in all the world. Finally at the last judgement he will condemn Christians to hell for believing in the crucifixion and the incarnation.

This final act of the Muslim ‘Isa reflects Islam’s apologetic strategy in relation to Christianity, which is to deny the Yeshua of history, and replace him with a facsimile of Muhammad, so that nothing remains but Islam.

"The Muslim supersessionist current claims that the whole biblical history of Israel and Christianity is Islamic history, that all the Prophets, Kings of Israel and Judea, and Jesus were Muslims. That the People of the Book should dare to challenge this statement is intolerable arrogance for an Islamic theologian. Jews and Christians are thus deprived of their Holy Scriptures and of their salvific value."

— Bat Ye’or in Islam and Dhimmitude: where civilizations collide, p.370.

APPENDIX: The historical evidence for Jesus (Yeshua)

of Nazareth and his death by crucifixion

Non-Christian sources for Jesus

• Tacitus (AD 55-120), a renowned historical of ancient Rome, wrote in the latter half of the first century that ‘Christus ... was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also.’ (Annals 15: 44).

• Suetonius writing around AD 120 tells of disturbances of the Jews at the ‘instigation of Chrestus’, during the time of the emperor Claudius. This could refer to Jesus, and appears to relate to the events of Acts 18:2, which took place in AD 49.

• Thallus, a secular historian writing perhaps around AD 52 refers to the death of Jesus in a discussion of the darkness over the land after his death. The original is lost, but Thallus’ arguments — explaining what happened as a solar eclipse — are referred to by Julius Africanus in the early 3rd century.

• Mara Bar-Serapion, a Syrian writing after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, mentions the earlier execution of Jesus, whom he calls a ‘King’.

• The Babylonian Talmud refers to the crucifixion (calling it a hanging) of Jesus the Nazarene on the eve of the Passover. In the Talmud Jesus is also called the illegitimate son of Mary.

• The Jewish historian Josephus describes Jesus’ crucifixion under Pilate in his Antiquities, written about AD 93/94. Josephus also refers to James the brother of Jesus and his execution during the time of Ananus (or Annas) the high priest.

Paul’s Epistles

• Paul’s epistles were written in the interval 20-30 years after Jesus’ death. They are valuable historical documents, not least because they contain credal confessions which undoubtedly date to the first few decades of the Christian community.

Paul became a believer in Jesus within a few years of Jesus’ crucifixion. He writes in his first letter to the Corinthians ‘For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he was seen by Cephas (Peter), then by the twelve.’ This makes clear that belief in the death of Jesus was there from the beginning of Christianity.

The four gospels

• The four gospels were written down in the period 20-60 years after Jesus’ death, within living memory of the events they describe.

The events which the gospels describe for the most part took place in the full light of public scrutiny. Jesus’ teaching was followed by large crowds. There were very many witnesses to the events of his life. His death was a public execution.

Manuscript evidence for the Bible and its transmission

The manuscript evidence for the Greek scriptures is overwhelming, far greater than for all other ancient texts. Over 20,000 manuscripts attest to them. Whilst there are copying errors, as might be expected from the hand of copyists, these are almost all comparatively minor and the basic integrity of the copying process is richly supported.

Futhermore, when Western Christians studies the Hebrew scriptures during the Renaissance, they found them to agree remarkably closely with their Greek and Latin translations which had been copied again and again over a thousand years. There were copying errors, and some other minor changes, but no significant fabrications of the stupendous scale which would be required to concoct the story of Jesus’ death.

Likewise when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered they included Hebrew Biblical scrolls dating from before the time of Jesus. These too agreed very closely with the oldest Hebrew Masoretic manuscripts of more than a thousand years later. Again, no fabrications, but evidence of remarkably faithful copying.

Conclusion: Jesus of Nazareth is a figure of history

Clearly there are events recorded in connection with Jesus’ life that many non-Christians will not accept, such as the miracles, the virgin birth, and the resurrection. However what is beyond dispute is that Yeshua (‘Jesus’) of Nazareth was a figure of history, who lived, attracted a following in his life time amongst his fellow Jews and was executed by crucifixion by the Roman authorities, after which his followers spread rapidly. Both secular and Christian sources of the period agree on this.

The primary sources for the history of Jesus’ public life are the gospels. These were written down relatively soon after his death — within living memory — and we have every indication that these sources were accepted as reliable in the early Christian community, during a period when first and second hand witnesses to Jesus’ life were still available.

We conclude that any statements about ‘Isa (Jesus) in the Qur’an, made six centuries after Jesus’ death, must be judged against the historical evidence from these first century sources, and not vice versa.

Shalom,

Dr. Max Shimba for Max Shimba Ministries Org.

REWRITING OF THE QURAN BY UTHMAN'S INSTRUCTIONS

 

Sahih al-Bukhari 4987

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to `Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to `Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur'an) as Jews and the Christians did before." So `Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to `Uthman. `Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, `Abdullah bin AzZubair, Sa`id bin Al-As and `AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. `Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, `Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. `Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt.

حَدَّثَنَا مُوسَى، حَدَّثَنَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ، حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ شِهَابٍ، أَنَّ أَنَسَ بْنَ مَالِكٍ، حَدَّثَهُ أَنَّ حُذَيْفَةَ بْنَ الْيَمَانِ قَدِمَ عَلَى عُثْمَانَ وَكَانَ يُغَازِي أَهْلَ الشَّأْمِ فِي فَتْحِ إِرْمِينِيَةَ وَأَذْرَبِيجَانَ مَعَ أَهْلِ الْعِرَاقِ فَأَفْزَعَ حُذَيْفَةَ اخْتِلاَفُهُمْ فِي الْقِرَاءَةِ فَقَالَ حُذَيْفَةُ لِعُثْمَانَ يَا أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَدْرِكْ هَذِهِ الأُمَّةَ قَبْلَ أَنْ يَخْتَلِفُوا فِي الْكِتَابِ اخْتِلاَفَ الْيَهُودِ وَالنَّصَارَى فَأَرْسَلَ عُثْمَانُ إِلَى حَفْصَةَ أَنْ أَرْسِلِي إِلَيْنَا بِالصُّحُفِ نَنْسَخُهَا فِي الْمَصَاحِفِ ثُمَّ نَرُدُّهَا إِلَيْكِ فَأَرْسَلَتْ بِهَا حَفْصَةُ إِلَى عُثْمَانَ فَأَمَرَ زَيْدَ بْنَ ثَابِتٍ وَعَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ الزُّبَيْرِ وَسَعِيدَ بْنَ الْعَاصِ وَعَبْدَ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنَ الْحَارِثِ بْنِ هِشَامٍ فَنَسَخُوهَا فِي الْمَصَاحِفِ وَقَالَ عُثْمَانُ لِلرَّهْطِ الْقُرَشِيِّينَ الثَّلاَثَةِ إِذَا اخْتَلَفْتُمْ أَنْتُمْ وَزَيْدُ بْنُ ثَابِتٍ فِي شَىْءٍ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ فَاكْتُبُوهُ بِلِسَانِ قُرَيْشٍ فَإِنَّمَا نَزَلَ بِلِسَانِهِمْ فَفَعَلُوا حَتَّى إِذَا نَسَخُوا الصُّحُفَ فِي الْمَصَاحِفِ رَدَّ عُثْمَانُ الصُّحُفَ إِلَى حَفْصَةَ وَأَرْسَلَ إِلَى كُلِّ أُفُقٍ بِمُصْحَفٍ مِمَّا نَسَخُوا وَأَمَرَ بِمَا سِوَاهُ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ فِي كُلِّ صَحِيفَةٍ أَوْ مُصْحَفٍ أَنْ يُحْرَقَ‏.‏

Reference  : Sahih al-Bukhari 4987

In-book reference  : Book 66, Hadith 9

USC-MSA web (English) reference  : Vol. 6, Book 61, Hadith 510

  (deprecated numbering scheme)

Why Uthman burned the QURAN?

 Why did Uthman burn all other versions of Quran and how did he choose the perfect version?

Whole Qur’ānic Manuscripts copies burnt

Narrated Anas bin Malik: Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to `Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur’an, so he said to `Uthman, “O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur’an) as Jews and the Christians did before.” So `Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, “Send us the manuscripts of the Qur’an so that we may compile the Qur’anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you.” Hafsa sent it to `Uthman. `Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, `Abdullah bin AzZubair, Sa`id bin Al-As and `AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. `Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, “In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur’an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur’an was revealed in their tongue.” They did so, and when they had written many copies, `Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. `Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. — Sahih al-Bukhari 4987

According to the authentic Hadiths (Sahih) from Bukhari there was a war and a Muslim named Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman approached Uthman (the son-in-law to Muhammad). Because the Quran was memorised by men there was concerns that during the war individuals who knew the Quran by memory would be killed, thereby, they would lose portions of the Quran. Hudhaifa was afraid of the differences in the recitation of the Qur’an and said to Uthman “Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur’an) as Jews and the Christians did before”.

This is interesting, the Hadith is saying there were different recitations of the Quran which means different verses and words. Uthman then sought to standardize all of the different readings into 1 Quran.

Uthman then orders his men to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies, afterwards he returns Hafsa’s manuscripts and orders to burn any other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies. This proves that Uthman was trying to destroy other Arabic versions of the Quran which contradicts the Hafs version in order to make 1 Quran.

Are men and women equal in Islam?

 

Are two female witnesses equal to one in Islam?

Gender equality is one issue that critics of Islam bring up quite often. In order to paint the narrative that Islam discriminates and oppresses women, many critics bring up the example of testimony, alleging that the testimony of a woman is considered half of that of a man. The verse that is presented by them is:

یٰۤاَیُّہَا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡۤا اِذَا تَدَایَنۡتُمۡ بِدَیۡنٍ اِلٰۤی اَجَلٍ مُّسَمًّی فَاکۡتُبُوۡہُ ؕ وَ لۡیَکۡتُبۡ بَّیۡنَکُمۡ کَاتِبٌۢ بِالۡعَدۡلِ ۪ وَ لَا یَاۡبَ کَاتِبٌ اَنۡ یَّکۡتُبَ کَمَا عَلَّمَہُ اللّٰہُ فَلۡیَکۡتُبۡ ۚ وَ لۡیُمۡلِلِ الَّذِیۡ عَلَیۡہِ الۡحَقُّ وَ لۡیَتَّقِ اللّٰہَ رَبَّہٗ وَ لَا یَبۡخَسۡ مِنۡہُ شَیۡئًا ؕ فَاِنۡ کَانَ الَّذِیۡ عَلَیۡہِ الۡحَقُّ سَفِیۡہًا اَوۡ ضَعِیۡفًا اَوۡ لَا یَسۡتَطِیۡعُ اَنۡ یُّمِلَّ ہُوَ فَلۡییُّہٗ بِالۡعَدۡلِ ؕ وَ اسۡتَشۡہِدُوۡا شَہِیۡدَیۡنِ مِنۡ رِّجَالِکُمۡ ۚ فَاِنۡ لَّمۡ یَکُوۡنَا رَجُلَیۡنِ فَرَجُلٌ وَّ امۡرَاَتٰنِ مِمَّنۡ تَرۡضَوۡنَ مِنَ لشُّہَدَآءِ اَنۡ تَضِلَّ اِحۡدٰٮہُمَا فَتُذَکِّرَ اِحۡدٰٮہُمَا الۡاُخۡرٰی ؕ وَ لَا یَاۡبَ الشُّہَدَآءُ اِذَا مَا دُعُوۡا
“O ye who believe, when you take a loan, one from another, for a term, reduce the transaction to writing; and let a scribe record it in your presence faithfully. And no scribe should refuse to set it down in writing, because Allah has taught him, so he should write. And let him who undertakes the liability dictate; and he should fear Allah, his Lord, and not diminish anything therefrom. But if the person incurring the liability should be of defective intelligence, or a minor, or unable to dictate then let his guardian dictate faithfully. And procure two witnesses from among your men; and if two men be not available, then one man and two women, of such as you like as witnesses, so that if either of the two women should be in danger of forgetting, the other may refresh her memory. And the witnesses should not refuse to testify when they are called upon to do so.” (Surah al-Baqarah, Ch:2: V.283)

The bold portion of this verse above is often presented as “proof” to allege that, in Islam, the weight of two female witnesses is equated to the weight of a single male witness. What is further alleged is that this is due to Islam not considering women “wise enough” or “intelligent enough” to give proper testimony.
In this article, we shall focus primarily on the issue at hand, that is, witness testimony, and explore the issue comprehensively, without distracting ourselves with other verses or Ahadith which speak of gender differences.
First of all, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih IV, may Allah have mercy on him, has noted that these verses apply to financial matters only and do not at all mean that in all legal and other affairs, two women should be requested in case a male witness is not available. Secondly, he has listed the following important points which are necessary to fully understand their true import:
The verses do not at all require both women to testify

The role of the second woman is clearly specified and confined to be that of an assistant

If the second woman who is not testifying finds any part of the statement of the witness as indicative of the witness not having fully understood the spirit of the bargain, she may remind her and assist the witness in revising her understanding or refreshing her memory
It is entirely up to that woman who is testifying to agree or disagree with her assistant. Her testimony remains as a single independent testimony and in case she does not agree with her partner, she would have the last word. (Islam’s Response to Contemporary Issues, p. 198)

One female witness equal to one male witness

The first point that Hazrat Khalifatul Masih IVrh has brought up is that the verse does not imply anywhere that two female testimonies are equal in weight to one male testimony. The relevant portion of the verse only implies testimony from a single female witness, not two. It is only when she requires assistance and needs any help in recalling something that she can employ the help of her assistant. Evidently, the role of the assistant is to “refresh her memory” as the verse notes, not to provide testimony in her own right.

If a single female witness had not been considered enough, or had been deemed deficient in some way, it would have applied to several other scenarios and circumstances. For instance, in Chapter 4, verse 16 of the Holy Quran, when witnesses are mentioned, the language used is gender-neutral and there is no qualifier given in regard to maintaining a ratio of one male witness to two female witnesses. It implies that a single female testimony is indeed equal to a single male testimony. The same is the case in terms of receiving testimony of a wife against her husband regarding inappropriate behaviour, as discussed in Chapter 24, verses 7-9. Here, too, the weight of a single female witness (the wife) is considered sufficient and equal to a single male witness (the husband).

Moreover, giving testimony in religious matters is far more important than giving testimony in worldly matters. When it comes to religious matters, such as those found in Ahadith, we find that one of the most common narrators is Hazrat Aishara, the wife of the Holy Prophetsa. Many other women have also narrated traditions from Prophet Muhammadsa. In none of these cases has a Muslim ever suggested that the testimony of a woman is not acceptable unless corroborated or confirmed by another woman.

In fact, many companions and others from the early days of Islam often consulted Hazrat Aishara in matters of religious significance. If the testimony of a single woman was only half of that of a man, none of the narrations from single a woman would have ever been accepted. Yet, they are not just accepted, but also revered. It is important to understand the significance of this matter. The verse under discussion, chapter 2, verse 283, is in relation to financial matters only, pertaining to worldly wealth, and these are not as important as religious matters, where a person’s salvation and connection with God is at stake. However, in every case – and there are hundreds of them – a single woman’s testimony about what the Prophet Muhammadsa said or did, is accepted without question!

The prime witness and the assistant
Commenting on Hazrat Khalifatul Masih IV’srh four-point summary of chapter 2, verse 283, one critic has attempted to raise some doubts. For instance, he alleges that the Holy Quran does not have any evidence for the differentiation made between the “prime witness” and the “assistant witness”. He also asks why there is a need for a female witness in the first place? Further making an attempt to make his case, he questions why the English translation of the verse under discussion use the words, “either of the two women”, without identifying which one of the two is the main witness and which one is the assistant.
The problem is that critics who make such allegations do not have a good grasp of Arabic. It should be noted that the Quranic language is what is called mubeen – eloquent, articulate and powerful. Multiple meanings can be driven from a single phrase, even a single word. Keeping this in mind, we turn to the questions raised by such critics, which are directed towards the following phrase of the Holy Quran:

اَنۡ تَضِلَّ اِحۡدٰٮہُمَا فَتُذَکِّرَ اِحۡدٰٮہُمَا الۡاُخۡرٰی
The words translated as “either of the two women” are “ihdaa humaa” and they appear twice in the above phrase. A literal translation of ihdaa humaa is “one of the two women”. Consequently, a literal translation of the entire phrase above would be:

“If one of the two women should be in danger of forgetting, one of the two women may refresh the memory of the other woman.”
To make it easier and lucid for modern English readers, the translation writes out the full sentence as follows:

“If either of the two women should be in danger of forgetting, the other may refresh her memory.”

However, regardless of the above adjustment for easier reading, the phrase “ihdaa humaa” literally means “one of the two women” and has been used in other parts of the Quran such as the following verse:

فَجَآءَتۡہُ اِحۡدٰٮہُمَا تَمۡشِیۡ عَلَی اسۡتِحۡیَآءٍ ۫ قَالَتۡ اِنَّ اَبِیۡ یَدۡعُوۡکَ لِیَجۡزِیَکَ اَجۡرَ مَا سَقَیۡتَ لَنَا
“And one of the two women came to him, walking bashfully. She said, ‘My father calls thee that he may reward thee for thy having watered our flocks for us.’ So when he came to him and told him the story, he said, ‘Fear not; thou hast escaped from the unjust people.’”(Surah al-Qasas, Ch.28: V.26]
Here, the translation does not require the adjustment to “either” and is written out as follows:

“And one of the two women came to him, walking bashfully. She said, ‘My father calls thee that he may reward thee for thy having watered our flocks for us.’”

The word ihdaa comes from the root letters A-H-D (a-ha-da), meaning “one”. Hence, the literal translation of ihdaa is “one” and an implied interpretation is “either”. This does not mean that the translation, “either of the two women”, is wrong. It simply means that what Hazrat Khalifatul Masih IVrh has concluded from the actual Arabic wording of this verse is perfectly valid and an accurate understanding and interpretation of this verse. In fact, it is closer to the literal meaning of the phrase ihdaa humaa.

What he has essentially argued is that the Quran does not directly say that either one of the two women can remind the other. The Quran instead says that one of the two women may remind the other. This may seem trivial in the English language, but it is an extremely important difference clearly seen in the original Arabic wording. Without having some rudimentary knowledge of Arabic, a person cannot truly appreciate this subtle difference.  
As far as the issue of identifying the prime witness and her assistant is concerned, the Quran has indicated this arrangement by adding the word “Al-Ukhraa” at the end of the phrase. The word “Al-Ukhraa” means, “the latter, ultimate, last, other” (Lane’s Lexicon).
Hence, the prime witness is pointed out in the phrase ihdaa humaa (mentioned at the beginning), and the assistant is qualified by using the phrase ihdaa humal-ukhraa (i.e., one of the two women who is the other/latter/last).
In fact, the wording of the full phrase even provides a chronology that further elaborates this issue. Dividing the verse into four portions, it goes as follows:

An-Tadhilla – if she forgets
Ihdaa humaa – one of the two women(Let’s call her Aisha)

Fa-tuzakkira – she may remind
Ihdaa humal-ukhraa – the other one among the two(Let’s call her Maryam)

In essence, the phrase is saying: “If Aisha forgets, Maryam may remind her.” This is something that a literal, plain reading of the Arabic verse of the Holy Quran easily reveals. Here, Aisha is the prime witness and Maryam is the assistant.

Why the need for an assistant in the first place?

Why has the Quran felt the need to have two female witnesses – one prime and one assistant – in financial transactions? Are women deficient in some way in regard to business? Are they considered less efficient in remembering numbers?

All these questions seem fair but draw from a lack of understanding of what the Quran is teaching at a broader level. It should be noted that there indeed do exist differences in the genders in terms of how they remember things. As a result, the premise of the Quran is indeed correct. Men and women remember things differently. While men have the upper hand in keeping certain types of memory, women have the upper hand in other types of memory.
Those who have researched this subject argue that in general terms, neither gender is superior in memory. However, subtle differences appear in the way things are remembered by men and women.

One researcher, Elizabeth Loftus, makes the following observation:

“The results were clear-cut. Males were more accurate and less suggestible about the male-oriented items while females were more accurate and less suggestible about the female-oriented items. This finding provided clear support for the hypothesis that females and males tend to be accurate on different types of items, perhaps indicating their differential interest in particular items and corresponding differential amounts of attention paid to those items.” (Who Remembers What? Gender Differences in Memory. Michigan Quarterly Review, 26, pp. 64-85)

It is quite remarkable that the premise the Quran uses for providing an assistant to the female witness is pointing to a memory difference between the genders, something that is only being researched and proven 1400 years after the revelation of the Quran. However subtle the differences, there is no denying that they do exist.

This brings us to the broader question of acknowledging gender differences which Islam speaks about. Islam teaches gender equality in the best sense, acknowledging the strengths and weaknesses of both genders, and not turning a blind eye to them.

All this does not mean that Islam teaches that women are deficient in their memories of certain items such as those related to financial matters. It only means that Islam creates a social climate which intends to empower and favour women.

Empowerment of women

By ensuring that a female prime witness has an assistant, Islam has empowered women and taught them to work together in the face of patriarchy. There is no denying the fact that patriarchy has always existed and many argue that even in the free societies of the West today, it continues to persist. In light of this fact of life, Islam has dismissed any notion that women should be deprived of being part of the process of witnessing financial transactions. At the same time, it has recognised that patriarchy may come in the way and discourage women from being part of such proceedings. As a result, women are told to go as a pair and not feel any intimidation in such proceedings. This however remains as an option for the prime witness, who, as pointed out earlier, may not choose to accept any help from the assistant witness.

Islamic social climate

Secondly, it must be noted that Islam is a religion where men and women do not interact in a free manner as is done in some cultures. Islam safeguards women and men from promiscuity and other evils by ensuring that there is some distance between the two in social gatherings.

All of this points to an Islamic social climate as an ideal for Muslim men and women to seek. As such, if a financial transaction is taking place where several men are involved, a single female witness may feel uncomfortable in such an environment, given the social climate that Islam seeks. Hence, she is empowered through the presence of the second assistant witness. It is essentially a supportive system which Islam seeks to establish not to oppress but to empower women. Due to the revelations brought about by the #MeToo movement in recent years, we are no strangers to the fact that women are sometimes exploited in certain situations, and feel more comfortable, relaxed, and empowered when they are in the company of other women. 

We must also acknowledge that the Quran was revealed initially to an Arab society where women were treated very badly and had no rights at all. It was necessary then to consider the circumstances of such women and to create the means for what Khalil calls “breaking down barriers for women in Islamic society”. A new civilisation was being born with the coming of Islam where women were going to enjoy equal status with men. This change was going to take great courage and efforts to challenge the norms.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is completely wrong to assume that Islam considers the testimony of a woman as half of that of a man. The one verse where this teaching is supposed to have come from does not imply this at all. It only speaks of a prime witness and her assistant, who may help her with some details if the prime witness deems it necessary. Such a teaching is there in Islam to help empower women as part of an Islamic social climate.

Shalom

Dr. Max Shimba for Max Shimba Ministries Org

MUHAMMAD WAS BUSTED HAVING SEX WITH HIS WIFE'S HOUSEMAID MARIA

 

Muhammad is caught by wife Hafsa having sex with his slave Maria in Hafsa’s bed on Hafsa’s day. Muhammad tells Hafsa not to tell anyone and makes an oath to her that he won’t have sex with Maria anymore. Hafsa ends up telling Aisha the secret. All hell breaks loose when all the wives find out. (Nasai 3411, Tafsir al-Jalalayn 66:1)

Shalom 

Dr. Max Shimba for Max Shimba Ministries Org

DO YOU KNOW WHY MOHAMMAD DIVORCED HAFSA

 

“Muhammad: the Best of All Husbands” divorces Hafsa (after Hafsa reveals his “secret” that she caught him having sex with his slave in Hafsa’s bed)

In this revealing hadith, Muhammad divorces his wife Hafsa.

In Islam, for a man to divorce a woman, all he must say is, “I divorce you.” He must say it three times, ideally over three menstrual cycles, for it to be finalized.

Muhammad gave Hafsa one divorce, but he took her back:

Narrated Qais bin Zaid:

The Prophet ﷺ divorced Hafsah bint Umar. Her maternal uncles, Qudamah and Uthman, the sons of Maz‘un, visited her. She cried and said, “By Allah, he did not divorce me on account of satiation.” The Prophet ﷺ came and said, “Gabriel, peace be upon him, said to me, ‘Go back to Hafsah, for she fasts often and prays often at night, and she shall be your wife in Paradise.’”

(Al-Hakim, Al-Mustadrak 6753. Classed hasan by al-Albani.)

It is consensus among the ulama that Muhammad divorced Hafsa because she revealed Muhammad’s "secret." This is what is discussed in Quran 66:1-5, some of the most extraordinarily self-serving verses in the entire Quran. (Allah warns Hafsa and Aisha that He's Muhammad protector and they had better stop ganging up on Muhammad. Then He threatens all of Muhammad's wives that Muhammad will divorce them if they don't shape up.)

The exegete al-Tabari also arrives at that conclusion in an interesting (to me) linguistic discussion on the term arrafa found in 66:3:

He arafa (without the shadda on the letter "r") what Ḥafṣa did when she revealed the secret that he confided in her, meaning: The Prophet ﷺ was angry with her and for that he punished her. Like the saying of one to someone who wronged him: “For I will penalize you (u’arrifanna) for what you did, meaning that I will punish you for it.

They said: And the Prophet ﷺ punished her for what she did by divorcing her.

(Tafsir al-Tabari 23/91-92)

So what was Muhammad’s secret? There are two different sahih stories on what happened. The first one makes sense. The second one makes no sense.

Scholars typically say that both stories are true, which I find implausible. In any case, the two stories are:

Muhammad is caught by wife Hafsa having sex with his slave Maria in Hafsa’s bed on Hafsa’s day. Muhammad tells Hafsa not to tell anyone and makes an oath to her that he won’t have sex with Maria anymore. Hafsa ends up telling Aisha the secret. All hell breaks loose when all the wives find out. (Nasai 3411, Tafsir al-Jalalayn 66:1)

Wives Aisha and Hafsa want Muhammad to stop eating honey with his wife Zainab bint Jahsh. They falsely tell Muhammad that he smells bad after eating honey at Zainab’s. Muhammad then makes an oath that he won’t eat honey with Zainab anymore, and this needs to be kept a secret. Hafsa tells some other wife this. All hell breaks loose when all the wives find out. (Bukhari 6691)

Muhammad behaves like a petulant man-child in divorcing Hafsa. After getting caught having sex with his slave on Hafsa’s bed, he should be begging Hafsa for forgiveness every single day. Instead, he divorces her.

But thankfully the angel Gabriel (or Hafsa’s father Umar) got Muhammad to take Hafsa back.

Funny enough, there is a book called The Prophet Muhammad: the Best of All Husbands. That Muhammad divorced Hafsa or had sex with his slave in Hafsa's bed is mentioned nowhere in the book.

• HOTD #268: Sunan Abu Dawud 2283. Classed sahih by al-Albani and al-Arna’ut.

For 2018, I am counting down the 365 worst hadiths, ranked from least worst to absolute worst. This is our journey so far: HOTD list.

Muslim Wife Beating

 Muslim Wife Beating

MOHAMMAD WAS BEATING BABY AISHA 

The Quran:

Sura (4:34) - "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."

A husband has the legal right and religious obligation to beat a wife if she disobeys him, is disloyal to him or simply does not please him. The concept of wife abuse does not exist in Islam.  According to Islamic law, a husband may strike his wife for any one of the following four reasons:    

      

·                          She does not attempt to make herself beautiful for him (i.e. "let's herself go")

·                          She refuses to meet his sexual demands

·                          She leaves the house without his permission or a "legitimate reason"

·                          She neglects her religious duties

Any of these are also sufficient grounds for divorce.

From the Hadith:

Muslim (4:2127) - Muhammad struck his favorite wife, Aisha, in the chest one evening when she left the house without his permission. Aisha narrates, "He struck me on the chest which caused me pain."

Bukhari (7:72:715) - A woman came to Muhammad and begged her to stop her husband from beating her. Her skin was bruised so badly that she it is described as being "greener" than the green veil she was wearing. Muhammad did not admonish her husband, but instead ordered her to return to him and submit to his sexual desires.

 

Abu Dawud (2141) - "Iyas bin ‘Abd Allah bin Abi Dhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: Do not beat Allah’s handmaidens, but when ‘Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them. Then many women came round the family of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) complaining against their husbands. So the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) said : Many women have gone round Muhammad’s family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you." At first, Muhammad forbade men from beating their wives, but he rescinded this once it was reported that women were becoming emboldened toward their husbands. Beatings are sometimes necessary to keep women in their place.

Abu Dawud (2142) - "The Prophet said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife."

Shalom 

Dr. Max Shimba for Max Shimba Ministries Org

MUSLIM WOMEN: ISLAM’S DOMESTIC ANIMALS

“Now then, O people, you have a right over your wives and they have a right over you. You have [the right] that they should not cause anyone of whom you dislike to tread your beds, and that they should not commit any open indecency (fahishah). If they do, then God permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain from [evil], they have the right to their food and clothing in accordance with custom (bi’l-maruf). Treat women well, for they are [like] domestic animals (‘awan) with you and do not possess anything for themselves. You have taken them only as a trust from God, and you have made the enjoyment of their persons lawful by the word of God, so understand and listen to my words, O people. I have conveyed the Message, and have left you with something which, if you hold fast to it, you will never go astray: that is, the Book of God and the sunnah of His Prophet. Listen to my words, O people, for I have conveyed the message and understand [it]… It was reported [to me] that the people said, “O God, yes.” And the Messenger of God said, “O God, bear witness.”

Reference: Al-Tabari, Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir. The History of al-Tabari. Vol.IX: The Last Years of the Prophet. Translated and annotated by Ismail K. Poonawala. State University of NewYork Press, Albany, 1990. (Pages 112-114. Bold emphasis is mine) 

Eve was created from the rib of Adam but all of humankind is created from the womb of women.  Women therefore deserve equal, if not greater, respect and right than men in society. Reducing women to a vile, psychologically impaired and inferior being to men is a criminal injustice against women's natural place in society. Muhammad, a sex-crazed, brutal, criminal engendered 1,400 years of repression and degradation of billions of Muslim mothers and daughters.  Because these Quranic teachings are eternal, this repression and degradation of both Muslim and kafir women will continue forever.

 

It is important to understand that a Muslim man has the full right to obedience from his Muslim wife including beheading her if she continues to displease him. Verse 4:15 states that a disgraced woman is condemned to a solitary confinement till death. The alternative is the judgment of Allah. The Qur’an is not clear what that judgment of Allah could be. There are various interpretations on this. Therefore, a Muslim man may do to his woman whatever he wishes, including ending her life. 

According to Islam, if a Muslim woman disobeys her husband she is disgraced. Therefore, when a Muslim woman resorts to the Western justice system to seek protection from her menacing husband, she has certainly broken the Islamic tenet of complete surrender to the wishes of her husband. Thus, she has dishonored her husband, his reputation and, most importantly, the Islamic code of conduct for an obedient wife. Therefore, it is not surprising that her husband can end her life islamically, to restore his pride, honor and religious conviction.

 

Please note that in verse 4:34 Allah permits a husband to punish his disobedient wife. It is worthy to observe that this verse says if the husband suspects or fears disobedience and rebellion; that the actual acts might not have taken place. This verse also says that the men are the protectors of women. Thus, islamically, a Muslim wife, foolish enough to seek the protection of man’s law is a clear violation of Quranic injunction of verse 4:34, a challenge to Islam. And, as per the Islamic law, if anyone violates the Quranic command the only punishment is death by beheading. Thus, we may conclude that a Muslim man beheading his wife has acted in the manner that Quran commands him.

 

So vile, depraved, unjust and deplorable are the position and treatment of women in Islamic scriptures and teachings. Allah (the AntiGod) and his messenger Muhammad are male, chauvinist, pigs. A God of Moral Perfection is not a sexist. He believes in the complete equality of men and women. A God permitting the murder of Muslim women and the rape/enslavement of kafir women is not a God but a beast. All these teachings are morally and therefore, not from a God of Moral Perfection and therefore (repeating countless times) being not the teachings of a God of Moral Perfection Islam is totally and completely fraudulent. 

Shalom 

Dr. Max Shimba for Max Shimba Ministries Org

WHY DO THE BIBLE AND THE QURAN NOT AGREE?

 

Despite similarities, stemming from the same subject matter, history and persons mentioned, the Bible and the Quran differ widely on fundamental concepts of faith and practice in religion.

There are at least two possible reasons:

The Bible and the Quran do not stem from the same source, i.e. one of the two, or both, are of human or spiritist origin.

The Bible or the Quran, or both, have undergone editing and consequently the original nature and message has become lost.

In that case one of the two books, or both, contain error and cannot be termed reliable and trustworthy. Both Muslims and Christians are absolutely convinced of the divine origin, reliability and total trustworthiness of their respective book. One (or both) must be false. In that case very many millions of followers of the respective faiths base their hopes for eternity on error or even deception.

Representatives of both faiths have set out to prove their point, but since everyone is already committed to a definite conviction, objectivity is hardly possible. I, as a Christian, most probably am not as objective towards Islam as I should be - and neither will the Muslim reader be unbiased towards the Bible.

Within the framework of these studies we shall look only at scriptural and historical facts that are established, and will not engage in philosophical polemics. We do not want to argue about theological concepts either, but desire rather to discuss those that can be checked tested and verified by anyone, anywhere - provided one is able to turn to the sources mentioned. For that reason an attempt has been made to document all assertions as thoroughly as possible.

In recent years the Quran has undergone a process of spiritualisation. Some Muslims actually use Christian concepts, foreign to Quranic and traditional thinking, and explain that this is the spirit of Islam. These sentiments are difficult to accept unless they can be substantiated in the Islamic literature of old.

Since the Bible existed before the Quran, the difference between the two may be solved by providing:

Evidence that proves that the Quran is based on a false or poor understanding and knowledge of the earlier revelation (God cannot change, and will not give contradictory statements to different prophets!);

Evidence that proves a change was made in the message of the Bible by Jews and/or Christians, with acceptable reasons for doing so.

The Quran repeatedly and emphatically states that the Torah and Gospel - we take this to stand for the Old and New Testaments - are revelations by the same God as the God of the Quran.

What the Quran teaches about the Bible

"Say ye: 'We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Ismail, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses, and Jesus, and that given to all prophets from their Lord: WE MAKE NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ONE AND ANOTHER OF THEM." (S. Baqara 2:136).

"Allah! There is no God but He, - the Living, the Selfsubsisting, Eternal ... He sent down Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) ... as a guide to mankind." (S. Al-i-Imran 3:2-3).

"0 ye who believe! Believe in Allah, and His Apostle - and the scripture which He sent before them". (S. Nisaa 4:136).

"It was We who revealed the Law (to Moses); therein was guidance and light ... if any do fail to judge by the light of what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) unbelievers ... 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 ... a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah. LET THE PEOPLE OF THE GOSPEL JUDGE BY WHAT ALLAH HATH REVEALED THERElN. IF ANY DO FAIL TO JUDGE BY THE LIGHT OF WHAT ALLAH HATH REVEALED, THEY ARE (no better than) THOSE WHO REBEL. Judge. . . what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires ... "(S. Ma-ida 5:44,46,47,49).

"People of the Book! ... Stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that hath come to you from YOUR LORD. It is the revelation that has come to thee from THY LORD." (ibid. vs. 68).

"The Quran is ... a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it". (S. Yi'inus 10:37).

"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 had indeed come to thee from thy Lord." (ibid. vs. 94).

"AND DISPUTE YE NOT WITH THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK ... BUT SAY: WE BELIEVE IN THE REVELATION WHICH HAS COME DOWN TO US AND THAT WHICH CAME DOWN TO YOU". (S. Ankabut 29:46).

"This is a book which We have revealed, bringing blessings, and confirming (the revelations) which came before it: that thou mayest warn the Mother of Cities and all around her." (Sura 6:92).

What else does this mean, than that Mohammed claims to bring revelation to Mecca and the Arabs, confirming and establishing what was sent before him?

"Before thee, also, the apostles We sent were but men, to whom We granted inspiration: If ye realize this not, ASK OF THOSE WHO POSSESS THE MESSAGE (Sura 21:7).

We can clearly see that the Quran presupposes the divine revelation of "the Book" and its unpolluted content at the time of the prophet Mohammed. The Quran criticises, however, the twisting and misinterpretation of "the Book":

"Ye People of the Book! Why do ye clothe truth with falsehood and conceal the truth, while ye have knowledge? (S. Al-i-Imran 3:71).

"There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (as they read) you would think it is part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book." (S. ibid. vs. 78). (All emphasis in the quotations is my own).

If there is anything that comes out very clearly, it is that the Quran is emphatic that the Torah and the Gospel are revelation from God. This is what Christians believe too. The Quran says in this regard:

"No change can there be in the words of Allah" (Sura 10:64)

"There is none that can alter the words of Allah" (Sura 6:34).

Besides that, history and archaeology prevent one from arguing that the Bible has undergone any change since its official canonisation in A.D. 324. In fact almost all portions of the New Testament in their present form were in general circulation among the churches of the Second Century A.D. It was by general agreement at a Council of the bishops of 318 churches that all these were fully recognized and accepted as Apostolic and inspired. When Mohammed referred to "the Book" or "Taurat" or "Injil", he referred, no doubt, to what was in circulation in Arabia in his day and age. If words mean anything at all, then Mohammed referred to this "Book" (al-Kitab) as revelation. We take this as an established fact on the strength of the above evidence, unless it can be proved wrong.

Why should a Jew or Christian before or after the time of Mohammed be interested in changing God's revelation? Does he want to go to hell?

"I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book; if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." (Revelation 22:18-19).

These are virtually the last verses of the Bible. The only conceivable reason to bring about changes would be that the Quran differs from the "Book". Consequently there are two possibilities: either the Christians refusing to accept the Quran tried to change all similarities between the Bible and the Quran; or Muslims seeing that the "Book" was in contrast to the Quran, expediently claim that the Bible must have been corrupted. The first assumption is against all evidence and logic.

QUESTION: Why do Muslims keep on claiming that the Bible is corrupt? When was the Bible allegedly polluted? Why does the Quran not clearly state that it was polluted?

There are differences between the Bible and the Quran.

The Quran states that both the Torah and Gospel are revealed. But in contrast, it also claims that Jesus was not crucified:

"They (the Jews) 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 ... " (Sura 4:157).

The crucifixion receives the widest attention in the Gospel and was unmistakably prophesied in the Old Testament some 700-1000 years before it happened. See "Christians Answer Muslims", pages 48 ff., 97 ff.

In Sura 19:35 we are informed that

"it beseemeth not God to beget a son"

and near the end of the Quran (Sura 112:3) it says:

"He begetteth not, nor is He begotten",

which is also part of the Rak'at.

This again, is in contrast to the Bible. The words "it is not befitting Allah that He should beget a son" (Sura 19:35 and 92) suggest a physical act, which is as outrageous to Christians as it is to Muslims.

Jesus was born of a virgin. She asked:

" 'How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?' He (an angel) 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.' " (Sura 19:2-21).

This, as in the Bible, does not indicate a begetting act. The whole concept of the "begotten" son is based on a misconception. In the original Greek the word "monogenes" is used, which means "only born". That God by the word of His power was the initiator of the pregancy of Mary is as clearly reflected in the Qur'an (Sura 19:16-22) as it is in the Bible. Even so, Islam assumed the Bible to teach that Jesus was "begotten", i.e. sexually conceived, an act which cannot possibly perceived of God: "It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son", we read. But immediately the biblical position is presented: "Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter, he only says to it 'be', and it is." (Sura 19:35).

A very similar misunderstanding we find in the concept of the "Trinity", which according to the Quran is understood to consist of Jesus and Mary besides God, God being one of three (Sura 5:116). This is in no way in keeping with the biblical texts. Christians believe in what the Bible teaches. In both the Old Testament (B.C.) and the New Testament we know of ONE God only. ("Christians Answer Muslims, pp. 92 ff.). It is a tragedy that many Muslims think that Christians worship three gods. This is indeed not the case.

There are, moreover, many other differences between the Quran and the Bible, which are more of an historical nature than doctrinal:

Noah escaped the flood, but his son drowned (Sura 11:42-46) according to the Quran narrative, but he (Noah) escaped with his wife, three sons and their wives (Genesis 6:7,18) in the Bible.

The angel, announcing the birth of John the Baptist (Yahya) to his father, says:

"We bring thee tidings of a son, whose name shall be John: we have not caused any to bear the same name before him" (Sura 19:7 according to George Sale's translation).

or

"No namesake have We given him aforetime" (according to A.J. Arberry's translation).

or

"that name we have given to none before him" (Palmer's and Rodwell's translation).

This is incorrect. Johanan, the Hebrew form of John (Jahveh's Gift) was quite a common name, mentioned in the Old Testament. Yusuf Ali in his translation transliterates this statement therefore as "on none by that name have We conferred distinction before." His explanation:

"... for we read of a Johanan ... in II Kings 25:23."

Is a "translator" allowed to change a text like this to correct an error?

Abraham was the son of Azar in Sura 6:74 and the son of Terah in Genesis 11:27. Who would change a name from early history at random? What purpose would it serve? None. Only an error can be responsible. Does Azar stand for Eliezer? He is mentioned in Genesis 15:2 as a servant of Abraham.

Worse differences occur in the narrative about Moses. We are rightly told that Imran (Biblical Amram) was the father of Moses, Aaron and Miriam (by implication in Suras 19:28, 66:12, 20:25-30).

But that this Miriam (or Mary) is the mother of Jesus (who was actually born 1500 years later!) is rather unlikely.

The explanation offered by Yusuf Ali that she and her cousin Elizabeth were called "sisters of Aaron", because they were (in the case of Mary, "presumably": comm. 375) of a priestly family, is rather vague. The phrase, it is suggested, was derived from Luke 1:5, where Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, being of priestly descent, was called "of the daughters of Aaron". What Yusuf Ali does not explain, is that the father of Aaron and Mary, the mother of Jesus, happens to be Imran according to the Quran. This, no doubt, shows human error which can hardly be regarded as a copying mistake. It is based on lack of knowledge of, or information about, the Bible.

That Moses was adopted by Pharaoh's wife (Sura 28:9) is contradicted by Exodus 2:10, where he was adopted by Pharaoh's daughter (otherwise he would also have been adopted by Pharaoh himself).

Moses' wife - we understand from the context (in Sura 28:22-28), that this must be Zipporah the daughter of Jethro - was given to Moses in exchange for 8-10 years' service. The Bible does not account for this (Exodus 2:16-22). We are, however, strongly reminded of Genesis 29:18 where Jacob pledges to serve Laban 7 years in exchange for Rachel. This was approximately 220 years prior to the time of Moses. Again we should like to inquire what possible purpose could any man have in changing the words of the Bible in historical narratives like these? Or could it have been Mohammed who confused some the stories he had heard?

The same applies to the statement that Haman was a servant of Pharaoh. According to the Quran, he is ordered by Pharaoh to light a kiln to bake bricks out of clay to "build me a lofty palace" (Sura 28:38, Yusuf Ali); or "high tower that I may ascend unto the God of Moses" (G. Sales); or "a tower, that I may reach the avenues of the heavens and ascend unto the God of Moses" (by Palmer and Rodwell); or "and make me a tower that I may mount up to Moses' god" (by Arberry).

We do recall the building of the tower of Babel in the Bible. But this event in Genesis 11 occurred 750 years before the time of Pharaoh in Exodus, and Haman (Book of Esther) lived 1100 years after Pharaoh. Yusuf Ali suggests (comm. 3331) that this refers to another Haman, but there is none other by that name in the Bible. We find it strange that Yusuf Ali in contrast to all other translators, speaks of a lofty palace, rather than a tower. Did he want to obscure the obvious similarities, which are embarrassing because they are historical misfits?

In the Bible (Judges 7) we read how God made Gideon select his small army of 300 from 32,000 men, for a special task. In Sura 2:249 we read of a very similar event, but this time under King Saul. Yusuf Ali in his commentary is aware of this, and remarks "as Gideon did before Saul" (comm. 284). This deed of Saul's is not found in the Bible and we take it to be another error.

Muslims believe that Ishmael was the son to be offered by Abraham on the altar. The Bible states that it was Isaac. This incidence highlights the whole concept of sacrifice, where a wide difference between the two Books can be detected.

Idu'l-Azha is based on Sura 22:34-37 where it says, inter alia:

"We have appointed for every nation a holy rite that they may mention Allah's name over such beasts of the flocks as He has provided them ... And the beasts of sacrifice - We have appointed them for you as among Allah's waymarks; therein is good for you ... The flesh of them shall not reach Allah, neither their blood (!). But godliness from you shall reach Him."

The Christian reader immediately notices in the above a total contradiction of the Biblical message.

"Where I see the blood, I will pass over you." (Exodus 12:13).

These are the words of God to Moses and the Jews after telling them that by applying the blood of a sacrifice to the lintels and doorposts of their homes, their families would escape the judgment of God that would strike Egypt.

"The life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life." (Leviticus 17:11).

This is a concise statement, representing the very heart of the Law given to Moses. Although this ultimately points to the sacrifice of Jesus, who ratified all the offerings presented by the people under the Old Covenant, the demand of God still stands:

"Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 9:22).

It is a misjudgment of God's holiness and man's sinful nature to assume that our good deeds will ever be able to compensate for the evil in our lives.

The origin of Idu'l-Azha can be traced back to the year when, a few months after the Hejira, Mohammed observed the Jews of Medina celebrating the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16) and he saw the role that sacrifice played among the people of the Book, the Jews. A Tradition records that Mohammed asked them why they kept the fast. He was informed that it was a memorial to the deliverance of Israel under Moses from the hands of the Egyptians.

"We have a greater right in Moses than they" said Mohammed and fasted with the Jews, commanding his followers to do the same.

The following year the initially friendly atmosphere between the Muslims and Jews had deteriorated and with it the Qibla was changed from Jerusalem to Mecca. Mohammed and his followers did not participate in the "Yom Kippur" (Day of Atonement) celebrated then. Instead, he instituted the Idu'l-Azha. He killed two young goats, one for himself and his family and one for the people (See Leviticus 16), still remaining true to Biblical demands. Idolatrous Arabs had been performing the annual Hajj to Mecca at this time of the year. The sacrifice of animals was also part of their ceremonial, so the institution of Idu'l-Azha may be seen also as a well-timed token of goodwill towards the Arabs of Mecca.

Although there is no reference in the Quran to the fact, it is generally accepted by Muslims that this feast was instituted to commemorate Abraham's sacrifice of his son Ishmael on Mount Mina near Mecca.

The reason for the above assumption is as follows: if Abraham's "only son" (Genesis 22:2) was offered, Isaac could not have been born at that stage, for Ishmael could not have been the only son anymore. But Genesis 22:2 is quite clear on this point. It actually states the name Isaac. In Sura 37:100-111 the story of the sacrifice of Abraham's son is recorded without naming the son: "We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear". Although this Sura deviates somewhat from the Biblical narrative, the event of the sacrifice is reported. As a parallel passage we should mention Sura 11:71, where, however, the chronology of the event has been somewhat mixed up.

The reference in Sura 37 culminates in the words:

"We ransomed him (the son) with (another) momentous (or noble) sacrifice." (My emphasis).

The Islamic concept that Ishmael was on the altar can be supported only by the Traditions (Yusuf Ali Commentary, note 4096, 4101) ("Dictionary of Islam", page 219). Bearing everything in mind we are tempted to conclude that the Islamic view is motivated by expediency.

Regarding the meaning of the sacrifice (Qurban = "approaching near", to whom? How? Why?), 

Muslims deny any implication of Biblical concepts whatsoever; we hold that this is not legitimate, since we are dealing with Biblical narrative and content. To the Muslim the Qurban is merely a remembrance rite to make one think of Ishmael. But even in the Quran, although denied in other passages (Sura 22:37), the issue is clear: "Ransomed by sacrifice"! Liberated from death by someone else stepping in, a momentous, noble sacrifice to redeem Isaac (or Ishmael, if you wish).

Here is Biblical ground. Here is the pointer to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. He became the momentous noble sacrifice to die in our stead! 

Today Idu'l-Azha is a feast of rejoicing. But the sacrifice is not interpreted as being a ransom! Muslims claim that Abraham took Hagar and Ishmael, as a baby yet unweaned, to Paran (believed by Muslims to be near Mecca). This clashes with the Genesis account in the following respects:

a)Hagar and Ishmael were sent away, unaccompanied by Abraham, when

b)Isaac had already been born, i.e. Ishmael was at least 14 years old (and not weaned!).

c)Paran is not near Mecca but is south of Israel in the Sinai Peninsula.

We noted that in Genesis 22:2 Isaac is called Abraham's only son. This is biologically incorrect, but legally correct, for it obviously refers to:

i)the covenant bearer (Genesis 21:12); and

ii)Abraham's marriage to Sarah (Hagar was Abraham's concubine)

A Muslim may contend that the given Quranic text is "nazil", or has come as revelation from heaven: God knows about the matter and it need not have been reported in the Bible for Him to know. Of course God knows all things, past present and future. He revealed many events of the future comprehensively through the prophets in the Bible to demonstrate His authorship, and every reader is able to check and test if the facts reveal the divine imprint. But judging unemotionally, just guided by the evidence, Christians fail to see any divine imprint in the Quran. See pp. 39 ff.

QUESTION: How can one, in the light of the opening text of this chapter, account for these differences?

Shalom 

Dr. Max Shimba for Max Shimba Ministries Org