======================================================================== WRITINGS OF PETER PETT by Peter Pett ======================================================================== A collection of theological writings, sermons, and essays by Peter Pett, compiled for study and devotional reading. Chapters: 42 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ TABLE OF CONTENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. 00.00. Pett, Peter - Library 2. 01.00. How Do I Go About Studying the Bible? 3. 01.01. Chapter 1. Fifteen Minutes A Day! 4. 01.02. Chapter 2. Putting In The Effort. 5. 01.03. Chapter 3 Using Helps. 6. 02.00. Islam and the Koran 7. 02.01. The Origins Of Islam In Scholarship 8. 02.02. Archaeological Discovery and The Koran 9. 02.03. Different Traditions of and Contradictions 10. 02.04. The Supposed Teaching of the Koran 11. 02.05. What Do Muslims Teach? 12. 02.06. Contra Islam Chapter 1 13. 02.06. Contra Islam Chapter 1 cont'd 14. 02.06. Contra Islam Chapter 2 15. 02.06. Contra Islam Chapter 2 cont'd 16. 02.06. Contra Islam Chapter 3 17. 02.06. Contra Islam Chapter 3 cont'd 18. 02.06. Contra Islam Chapter 4 19. 02.06. Contra Islam Chapter 5 20. 02.06. Contra Islam Chapter 6 21. 02.06. Contra Islam Chapter 7 22. 02.06. Contra Islam Chapter 8 23. 02.06. Contra Islam Chapter 9 24. 02.06. Contra Islam Chapter 10 25. 02.06. Contra Islam Chapter 11 26. 02.06. Contra Islam Chapter 12 27. 02.06. Contra Islam Chapter 13 28. 02.06. Contra Islam Chapter 14 29. 02.06. Contra Islam Chapter 15 30. S. A Rebel Dies. 31. S. A Rich Man Dies 32. S. Can a Man Be Saved and then Lost? 33. S. How Do I Become A Christian? 34. S. Is Conscience the Voice of God? 35. S. Living Utterly For Christ (Ephesians 3.16-19). 36. S. Questions in Luke 37. S. The Big Fool. 38. S. The Search for God 39. S. Warning Passages in Hebrew 40. S. What Does The Bible Teach Us About the Virgin Mary? 41. S. What Is The Minimum Necessary To Be A Christian In Unusual Circumstances 42. S. Why Believe in Jesus? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 1: 00.00. PETT, PETER - LIBRARY ======================================================================== Pett, Peter - Library Pett, Peter - How Do I Go About Studying the Bible? Pett, Peter - Islam and the Koran S. A Rich Man Dies S. Can a Man Be Saved and then Lost? S. Death of a Revolutionary S. How Do I Become A Christian? S. Is Conscience the Voice of God? S. Living Utterly For Christ (Ephesians 3:16-19) S. Questions in Luke S. The Big Fool S. The Search for God S. Warning Passages in Hebrews S. What Does The Bible Teach Us About the Virgin Mary? S. What Is The Minimum Necessary To Be A Christian In Unusual Circumstances S. Why Believe in Jesus S. Why Was Her Baby Like This ======================================================================== CHAPTER 2: 01.00. HOW DO I GO ABOUT STUDYING THE BIBLE? ======================================================================== How Do I Go About Studying the Bible? by Dr Peter Pett BA. BD (Hons - London) DD ======================================================================== CHAPTER 3: 01.01. CHAPTER 1. FIFTEEN MINUTES A DAY! ======================================================================== Chapter 1. Fifteen Minutes A Day! As you are asking this question we will assume that you do not have much knowledge about the Bible. There are many different ways of studying the Bible and we can only offer one or two that people have found helpful. What matters is that you stick at it. Do not try to read too much at a time. It is not how much you read, but what you get from it, that matters. On the other hand do not judge its success by how much you think you have learned. A person’s brain is a wonderful thing. It takes in information and works on it even when we are not aware of it. We may think we have learned nothing but the brain will have taken something from it and even while we are not aware of it will be fitting it in to all the previous information we have learned. I remember vividly when I was first studying Hebrew. Every time I began the next stage I found it almost hopeless. It was just too difficult. I knew that I was never going to be able to understand it. I was almost in despair. Then I would look back to the lesson three weeks before. Now that was not difficult, that was fairly easy. I was surprised how easy and elementary it was. If only the present lesson were as easy. Three weeks later it was! But by then I was in despair about a further section. (Of course there came a time when the basis was there and things became more complicated. But by then the confidence was there as well, so it did not matter quite so much). This is true of most study. It is true of the Bible. We gradually build up knowledge by reading and thinking about it, and by our subconscious turning it over and over, and while at the time it may seem difficult, our brain gradually works it out. But it will not do this if we do not read and think about it. So one important lesson is to keep at it! I am not of course suggesting that you go on reading something that you do not understand at all. You must use your commonsense. When I first became a Christian I had no one to help me in my study. So I sat down and began to read the Gospels. I would read a section through and then go back and go through it bit by bit and think about each verse, skipping the bits I did not understand. I would talk to God about them. I got on fine. There were, of course, bits I found more difficult than others but on the whole I understood it fairly easily and it was a great blessing. Then I moved on to Acts. That was a blessing too. Then I moved on to Romans. A day or so later I was back with the Gospels. (Do not misunderstand me. Romans is a pearl among books. But to me at that time it was pearls before swine). The thing about the Bible is that it is a book which lasts a lifetime. Some parts are more difficult than others. For some we need more help than others. For some we need more background knowledge. So we need to start with the bits we can understand. But we must not stop there. We must gradually build up to reading the more difficult bits until we have read it all. It may take many years, but the important thing is to be persistent. So what you must do is select a method that you think you will find helpful and stick at it. (You do not, of course, only have to use one method, but the important thing is to stick at something and not to get too complicated, otherwise you will give up). Gradually as you begin to store in your mind what you learn you will begin to build up an understanding which will help you with the harder parts. One way to go about it is to select a book and study that book. If you are a young Christian we would recommend beginning with the Gospels. There is nothing more important for us than to have a good grasp of the life and teaching of Jesus. And it is readable. Do not be afraid, to begin with, to skip over parts you are finding too difficult. But you must also determine that one day you will go back and try to understand them by using a good commentary. What matters is that you read, think about it and take in what you can understand (and trust the old brain to do the rest). If you are serious about this you must decide to set apart a time each day in which to read the Bible. You must plan to do it. Good intentions will soon fail. You must say to yourself, I will spend at least fifteen minutes each day reading the Bible (this should later get longer. Reading the Bible is important. And you might then begin having fifteen minutes in the morning, and fifteen minutes in the evening on a different book). And then stick to it. Count your day as a failure if you have not done it. Not everyone can say ‘I will get up at 7.00 am and read the Bible for fifteen minutes.’ But everyone can say at the start of the day, ‘when can I find my fifteen minutes every day for reading the Bible?’ Plan for it and make sure you do it. Different times will suit different people. But make it a principle never to go through a day without spending fifteen minutes reading the Bible. And if you miss one. Well, carry on the next day and determine not to miss one again. If you cannot find fifteen minutes each day for God, then God help you! People find different approaches to this helpful, partly depending on how they find things, but our final aim must be to read the whole Bible. If after ten years you are still only reading selected bits there is something wrong. On the other hand we do not want it to become too great a burden to us or we will give up. Methods to Consider (more than one can be used but choose one as the basic method that you will definitely use every day). 1). Take a book and read it through section by section until you have got through it. Sometimes it may be a small section because there is a lot to think about. At other times it might be a longer section because there is much you cannot understand and have to skip. But don’t worry. Think about what you do understand, while reading the whole section. Then you will feel blessed by what you have understood and you brain will be working on the rest as well. (You can skip lists of names to begin with if you want to. Later they may become interesting). Books to choose to begin with. Mark, Luke, Matthew, John, Acts, Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel. If you can manage it have two sessions a day and read a Gospel, say, in the morning, and an Old Testament book in the evening. But the principle must be ‘AT LEAST FIFTEEN MINUTES A DAY’. 2). Study by subject. Thus you could get a concordance (a book which lists the verses in the Bible for particular words) and go through all the verses which contain the word ‘love’ and so on. Write down the ones which specially speak to you. Also see our site at Bible Help for some elementary basic studies under ‘what the Bible teaches’. 3). Obtain a systematic Bible study course. These are produced for example by Scripture Union, which provide helpful devotional study and a lesson for every day with comment. Make sure that the people you obtain it from believe the Apostles’ Creed. 4). As people advance they sometime find it helpful to split the Bible into 5 or 7 parts (e.g. Genesis to Deuteronomy; Joshua to Esther; Job to Songs of Solomon; Isaiah to Daniel; Hosea to Malachi; The Gospels and Acts; Romans to Revelation - or combine Joshua to Songs of Solomon; Isaiah to Malachi) and read a chapter through from each part every day. The idea is not to study it in depth but to read it through once and leave it to sink into the mind. This is a good idea as long as it is used on top of more detailed study at least once a day. This is not to replace your ‘fifteen minutes’. As you read the Bible you may find some things puzzling. You have to use your commonsense. Not everything can be taken literally, because it was not meant to be taken like that. When Jesus told men that if they sinned with their hand they should cut it off and cast it from them (a personal act, later misinterpreted by Islam), He did not mean it literally. What He meant was that you should treat the sin seriously and make a great effort to ensure that you do not sin in that way again. That you should take firm action against sin. Jesus regularly taught by exaggeration so as to make the lesson vivid. What we must do is ask ourselves what He means. A good practise to begin with is to take the words literally unless it is clear that they are not intended to be taken literally. Remember from this point of view that the Bible does not contradict itself. Gradually, as you understand the Bible more, things will begin to fit together. But we can only take one step at a time. So do not let difficulties upset you. You can always leave them to be solved later. Remember that there are people who have studied the Bible in depth for fifty years and more (and yet they are still learning), and they are satisfied that there are no ‘contradictions’ that cannot be explained once we have all the facts. So keep at it and recognise that all will become clear eventually. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 4: 01.02. CHAPTER 2. PUTTING IN THE EFFORT. ======================================================================== Chapter 2. Putting In The Effort. Well, hopefully you have decided to spend 15 minutes a day on reading the Bible. But if you want to benefit from it you must put in some effort. Firstly we would suggest that you pray to God each time before you read and ask Him to help you to understand it and speak to you through it. And with regard to this we find it a good idea to then read prayerfully and actually talk to God aloud about what you find there as you read it. (This requires a place of privacy for you should not annoy other people). You will be surprised how real and personal this makes it. The next thing we would suggest is that you make sure that you have a pen and paper with you. Now write down any lesson that you have learned. This is important. It helps to concentrate the mind and means that you have to think about it in order to write something down. There are certain questions you might ask yourself. For example: 1). What does this passage teach me about God? 2). What does this passage teach me about Jesus Christ? 3). What does this passage teach me about how I should live my life? 4). What does this passage teach me about my attitude to other people? 5). How does this passage fit in with what I have previously read? 6). Is there a particular emphasis in this passage on some particular truth? 7). What is there in the passage for which I should praise and thank God? Well by now more than fifteen minutes has passed. You see how little time it is really? And now you can follow up question 7 by giving the praise and thanks to God concerning what you have written down. And remember. The benefit you obtain from reading the Bible will not be limited to what you think you have learned from it. Subconsciously much more of it will be at work in your life. Your fifteen minutes is NEVER wasted. You see the Bible was written in such a way that it is its whole message that comes over to you, not just the bit you concentrate on. The niceties may be of importance for being specific about particular doctrines, but it is the whole message that is most important. For what the Bible does is make you aware of God. But you may say, ‘I am finding it difficult to understand the Bible because the language is so difficult.’ OK. Then get an easier translation (but remember that in order to make it easy it is not quite so accurate). One we can especially recommend is TEV (Today’s English Version). Or J B Phillips. Or even The Bible In Basic English for those whose English is not so good. Then as you advance you could get the NIV (New International Version), and so on. And sometimes comparing one translation with another may help in something particularly difficult to understand. It has been well said that in order to benefit the most from the Bible we should ‘read, mark, learn and inwardly digest’. First we read the passage. Then we mark things that of importance. Then we consider them in more detail and learn from them. And then we let our minds meditate on them, thinking about them over again and again. That way we make them a part of us. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 5: 01.03. CHAPTER 3 USING HELPS. ======================================================================== Chapter 3 Using Helps. We live at a time when many helps are available free on the internet. The problem is that there are so many. And we have to be careful, for there are heretical sects who try to present their material as though it were orthodox. We think it is fine and then suddenly, unknown to us, we are being led into false teaching. In the end you must always compare everything against the Bible and make sure that what they are saying is what the Bible says, not what they wish it had said. Books such as Torrey’s Topical Text Book and The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (both obtainable free from various sites) can be invaluable when studying particular subjects or wanting to view comparative Scriptures. These are good because they make us read the Scriptures. Easton’s Bible Dictionary is clearly out of date in some things but it contains a lot of valuable information and again is available free. You will find some help with Bible Problems on our site at Bible Help You will find a good number of commentaries on this site. You will also find connections to Online Bible and Ebible which will both provide free useful aids to be downloadedFor a few other modern commentaries available free see our site on Free Commentaries. But remember. It is not what the writer of the commentary believes that we want to know, it is what the Bible teaches. So if the commentary is not helping you to understand the Bible, try another. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 6: 02.00. ISLAM AND THE KORAN ======================================================================== INFORMATION ON ISLAM AND MUSLIM BELIEF AND THE KORAN by compiled and written by Peter Pett The purpose of this page is not to denigrate Muslims or take up a position of belligerence towards them, but in order that readers may have the opportunity to learn about Muslim belief, not as it is presented by Muslims for the purpose of winning adherents in the West, but the true position as it is revealed in their own writings and history. People may then decide for themselves how much credence they should give to the Koran and to the faith of Islam. We live in a world where the Muslim religion is trying to force itself on our attention, but we must in fact differentiate between the tenets of the Koran, which are certainly partly to blame for the violence and wholesale murder being carried out by extremists, although also recommending peace between men, (the Koran is not consistent), and the ordinary Muslim who wants to live at peace with others. Fortunately not all Muslims feel that they have literally to carry out all that is taught in the Koran. Were they to do so Armageddon would be upon us. The evidence for the fact that there were a number of editions of the Koran is overwhelming, and evidenced in ways that cannot be disputed. For example, quotations from the Koran on coins are dateable and certain, and yet they reveal disparities with the now accepted text of the Koran. Recent archaeological discoveries of ancient manuscripts have also added new light to the subject, and while modern Islam on the whole tries to present a united front on the matter, the ancient Muslim writers were not so reticent as can be discovered below. They clearly stated that there were a number of differing Arabic versions. Muhammad was a man of his times. His knowledge of true Christian doctrine was vague and he gained his knowledge of ‘Christianity’ from people who had strange and naive ideas. Thus he believed that the doctrine of the Triune God was one of the Father, the virgin Mariam and her son ‘Isa born to her by a spirit. This he saw as declaring three gods and rightly rejected as polytheism, rebelling against the idea and proclaiming the One God. But he never came to know of the true Christian doctrine of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, One God in three intercommunicating persona, where the ‘Sonship’ was eternal ‘sonship’. He did not reject it, he never knew it Now that was understandable in view of where he lived in Arabia. What is not understandable is how, if his writings were really verbally inspired by God, God could have got the doctrine of the trinity so wrong. For in that case God also thought the same. It is one thing to claim to have visions and to learn from them. It is another to say that you have direct revelation from God Who has revealed to you the full truth for all time, where in fact what you teach is clearly spoken to counter seventh century heresy and nothing else. Surely God would have dealt with the true issue. As an Arab living in times when his people had been subjugated and left in poverty, it is also understandable that he raised armies and defeated those who had held down his people, and subjugated them in return. What he did in fact was very similar to what the later Crusaders would do. But neither were in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ or the morality of God. They were the behaviour of sinful men. What is not understandable is that he should say that the living God had told him that to kill idolaters who would not convert to Islam was right and proper, that any Muslim who turned from the faith should be killed unless he repented, and that Christians, in order to remain alive, had to pay a head tax to the Muslims, all of which they continue to teach to this day. It may have been good politics, and wealth producing, but it was not a realistic revelation of the true God. This and much more is demonstrated in the literature below on the basis of Muslim literature both ancient and modern. It must be emphasised again that the basis of what is written is the writings of Muslim teachers, for they clearly brought out in those teachings the limitations of their doctrines, and especially that of the verbal inspiration of the Koran, which does not stand up to examination. The reader must judge for him/herself. 1. The Origins Of Islam In Scholarship 2. Archaeological Discovery and The Koran 3. Different Traditions of and Contradictions in The Koran 4. The Supposed Teaching of the Koran Concerning Jesus 5. What Do Muslims Teach? 6. Contra Islam (1) 7. Contra Islam (2) ======================================================================== CHAPTER 7: 02.01. THE ORIGINS OF ISLAM IN SCHOLARSHIP ======================================================================== The Origins of the Koran From: The Origins of the Koran, Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book Ed. Ibn Warraq. Prometheus Books I. Introduction The stereotypic image of the Muslim holy warrior with a sword in one hand and the Koran in the other would only be plausible if he was left handed, since no devout Muslim should or would touch a Koran with his left hand which is reserved for dirty chores. All Muslims revere the Koran with a reverence that borders on bibliolatry and superstition. "It is," as Guillaume remarked, "the holy of holies. It must never rest beneath other books, but always on top of them, one must never drink or smoke when it is being read aloud, and it must be listened to in silence. It is a talisman against disease and disaster." For us in studying the Koran it is necessary to distinguish the historical from the theological attitude. Here we are only concerned with those truths that are yielded by a process of rational enquiry, by scientific examination. "Critical investigation of the text of the Qu’ran is a study which is still in its infancy," wrote the Islamic scholar Arthur Jeffery in 1937. In 1977 John Wansbrough noted that "as a document susceptible of analysis by the instruments and techniques of Biblical criticism [the Koran] is virtually unknown." By 1990, more than fifty years after Jeffery’s lament, we still have the scandalous situation described by Andrew Rippin: I have often encountered individuals who come to the study of Islam with a background in the historical study of the Hebrew Bible or early Christianity, and who express surprise at the lack of critical thought that appears in introductory textbooks on Islam. The notion that "Islam was born in the clear light of history" still seems to be assumed by a great many writers of such texts. While the need to reconcile varying historical traditions is generally recognized, usually this seems to pose no greater problem to the authors than having to determine "what makes sense" in a given situation. To students acquainted with approaches such as source criticism, oral formulaic compositions, literary analysis and structuralism, all quite commonly employed in the study of Judaism and Christianity, such naive historical study seems to suggest that Islam is being approached with less than academic candor. The questions any critical investigation of the Koran hopes to answer are: 1. How did the Koran come to us.?—That is the compilation and the transmission of the Koran. 2. When was it written, and who wrote it? 3. What are the sources of the Koran? Where were the stories, legends, and principles that abound in the Koran acquired? 4. What is the Koran? Since there never was a textus receptus ne varietur of the Koran, we need to decide its authenticity. I shall begin with the traditional account that is more or less accepted by most Western scholars, and then move on to the views of a small but very formidable, influential, and growing group of scholars inspired by the work of John Wansbrough. According to the traditional account the Koran was revealed to Muhammad, usually by an angel, gradually over a period of years until his death in 632 C.E. It is not clear how much of the Koran had been written down by the time of Muhammad’s death, but it seems probable that there was no single manuscript in which the Prophet himself had collected all the revelations. Nonetheless, there are traditions which describe how the Prophet dictated this or that portion of the Koran to his secretaries. The Collection Under Abu Bakr Henceforth the traditional account becomes more and more confused; in fact there is no one tradition but several incompatible ones. According to one tradition, during Abu Bakr’s brief caliphate (632-634), ‘Umar, who himself was to succeed to the caliphate in 634, became worried at the fact that so many Muslims who had known the Koran by heart were killed during the Battle of Yamama, in Central Arabia. There was a real danger that parts of the Koran would be irretrievably lost unless a collection of the Koran was made before more of those who knew this or that part of the Koran by heart were killed. Abu Bakr eventually gave his consent to such a project, and asked Zayd ibn Thabit, the former secretary of the Prophet, to undertake this daunting task. So Zayd proceeded to collect the Koran "from pieces of papyrus, flat stones, palm leaves, shoulder blades and ribs of animals, pieces of leather and wooden boards, as well as from the hearts of men." Zayd then copied out what he had collected on sheets or leaves (Arabic, suhuf). Once complete, the Koran was handed over to Abu Bakr, and on his death passed to ‘Umar, and upon his death passed to ‘Umar’s daughter, Hafsa. There are however different versions of this tradition; in some it is suggested that it was Abu Bakr who first had the idea to make the collection; in other versions the credit is given to Ali, the fourth caliph and the founder of the Shias; other versions still completely exclude Abu Bakr. Then, it is argued that such a difficult task could not have been accomplished in just two years. Again, it is unlikely that those who died in the Battle of Yamama, being new converts, knew any of the Koran by heart. But what is considered the most telling point against this tradition of the first collection of the Koran under Abu Bakr is that once the collection was made it was not treated as an official codex, but almost as the private property of Hafsa. In other words, we find that no authority is attributed to Abu Bakr’s Koran. It has been suggested that the entire story was invented to take the credit of having made the first official collection of the Koran away from ‘Uthman, the third caliph, who was greatly disliked. Others have suggested that it was invented "to take the collection of the Quran back as near as possible to Muhammad’s death." The Collection Under ‘Uthman According to tradition, the next step was taken under ‘Uthman (644-656). One of ‘Uthman’s generals asked the caliph to make such a collection because serious disputes had broken out among his troops from different provinces in regard to the correct readings of the Koran. ‘Uthman chose Zayd ibn Thabit to prepare the official text. Zayd, with the help of three members of noble Meccan families, carefully revised the Koran comparing his version with the "leaves" in the possession of Hafsa, ‘Umar’s daughter; and as instructed, in case of difficulty as to the reading, Zayd followed the dialect of the Quraysh, the Prophet’s tribe. The copies of the new version, which must have been completed between 650 and ‘Uthman’s death in 656, were sent to Kufa, Basra, Damascus, and perhaps Mecca, and one was, of course, kept in Medina. All other versions were ordered to be destroyed. This version of events is also open to criticism. The Arabic found in the Koran is not a dialect. In some versions the number of people working on the commission with Zayd varies, and in some are included the names of persons who were enemies of ‘Uthman, and the name of someone known to have died before these events! This phase two of the story does not mention Zayd’s part in the original collection of the Koran discussed in phase one. Apart from Wansbrough and his disciples, whose work we shall look at in a moment, most modern scholars seem to accept that the establishment of the text of the Koran took place under ‘Uthman between 650 and 656, despite all the criticisms mentioned above. They accept more or less the traditional account of the ‘Uthmanic collection, it seems to me, without giving a single coherent reason for accepting this second tradition as opposed to the first tradition of the collection under Abu Bakr. There is a massive gap in their arguments, or rather they offer no arguments at all. For instance, Charles Adams after enumerating the difficulties with the ‘Uthmanic story, concludes with breathtaking abruptness and break in logic, "Despite the difficulties with the traditional accounts there can be no question of the importance of the codex prepared under ‘Uthman." But nowhere has it yet been established that it was indeed under ‘Uthman that the Koran as we know it was prepared. It is simply assumed all along that it was under ‘Uthman that the Koran was established in its final form, and all we have to do is to explain away some of the difficulties. Indeed, we can apply the same arguments to dismiss the ‘Uthmanic story as were used to dismiss the Abu Bakr story. That is, we can argue that the ‘Uthmanic story was invented by the enemies of Abu Bakr and the friends of ‘Uthman; political polemics can equally be said to have played their part in the fabrication of this later story. It also leaves unanswered so many awkward questions. What were these "leaves" in the possession of Hafsa? And if the Abu Bakr version is pure forgery where did Hafsa get hold of them? Then what are those versions that seemed to be floating around in the provinces? When were these alternative texts compiled, and by whom? Can we really pick and choose, at our own will, from amongst the variants, from the contradictory traditions? There are no compelling reasons for accepting the ‘Uthmanic story and not the Abu Bakr one; after all they are all gleaned from the same sources, which are all exceedingly late, tendentious in the extreme, and all later fabrications, as we shall see later. But I have even more fundamental problems in accepting any of these traditional accounts at their face value. When listening to these accounts, some very common- sensical objections arise which no one seems to have dared to ask. First, all these stories place an enormous burden on the memories of the early Muslims. Indeed, scholars are compelled to exaggerate the putatively prodigious memories of the Arabs. Muhammad could not read or write according to some traditions, and therefore everything depends on him having perfectly memorized what God revealed to him through His Angels. Some of the stories in the Koran are enormously long; for instance, the story of Joseph takes up a whole chapter of 111 verses. Are we really to believe that Muhammad remembered it exactly as it was revealed? Similarly the Companions of the Prophet are said to have memorized many of his utterances. Could their memories never have failed? Oral traditions have a tendency to change over time, and they cannot be relied upon to construct a reliable, scientific history. Second, we seem to assume that the Companions of the Prophet heard and understood him perfectly. Variant Versions, Verses Missing, Verses Added Almost without exceptions Muslims consider that the Quran we now possess goes back in its text and in the number and order of the chapters to the work of the commission that ‘Uthman appointed. Muslim orthodoxy holds further that ‘Uthman’s Quran contains all of the revelation delivered to the community faithfully preserved without change or variation of any kind and that the acceptance of the ‘Uthmanic Quran was all but universal from the day of its distribution. The orthodox position is motivated by dogmatic factors; it cannot be supported by the historical evidence.... (Charles Adams). While modern Muslims may be committed to an impossibly conservative position, Muslim scholars of the early years of Islam were far more flexible, realizing that parts of the Koran were lost, perverted, and that there were many thousand variants which made it impossible to talk of the Koran. For example, As-Suyuti (died 1505), one of the most famous and revered of the commentators of the Koran, quotes Ibn ‘Umar al Khattab as saying: "Let no one of you say that he has acquired the entire Quran, for how does he know that it is all? Much of the Quran has been lost, thus let him say, ‘I have acquired of it what is available’" (As-Suyuti, Itqan, part 3, page 72). A’isha, the favorite wife of the Prophet, says, also according to a tradition recounted by as-Suynti, "During the time of the Prophet, the chapter of the Parties used to be two hundred verses when read. When ‘Uthman edited the copies of the Quran, only the current (verses) were recorded" (73). As-Suyuti also tells this story about Uba ibn Ka’b, one of the great companions of Muhammad: This famous companion asked one of the Muslims, "How many verses in the chapter of the Parties?" He said, "Seventy-three verses." He (Uba) told him, "It used to be almost equal to the chapter of the Cow (about 286 verses) and included the verse of the stoning". The man asked, "What is the verse of the stoning?" He (Uba) said, "If an old man or woman committed adultery, stone them to death." As noted earlier, since there was no single document collecting all the revelations, after Muhammad’s death in 632 C.E., many of his followers tried to gather all the known revelations and write them down in codex form. Soon we had the codices of several scholars such as Ibn Masud, Uba ibn Ka’b, ‘Ali, Abu Bakr, al-Aswad, and others (Jeffery, chapter 6, has listed fifteen primary codices, and a large number of secondary ones). As Islam spread, we eventually had what became known as the metropolitan codices in the centers of Mecca, Medina, Damascus, Kufa, and Basra. As we saw earlier, ‘Uthman tried to bring order to this chaotic situation by canonizing the Medinan Codex, copies of which were sent to all the metropolitan centers, with orders to destroy all the other codices. ‘Uthman’s codex was supposed to standardize the consonantal text, yet we find that many of the variant traditions of this consonantal text survived well into the fourth Islamic century. The problem was aggravated by the fact that the consonantal text was unpointed, that is to say, the dots that distinguish, for example, a "b" from a "t" or a "th" were missing. Several other letters (f and q; j, h, and kh; s and d; r and z; s and sh; d and dh, t and z) were indistinguishable. In other words, the Koran was written in a scripta defectiva. As a result, a great many variant readings were possible according to the way the text was pointed (had the dots added to it). Vowels presented an even worse problem. Originally, the Arabs had no signs for the short vowels: the Arab script is consonantal. Although the short vowels are sometimes omitted, they can be represented by orthographical signs placed above or below the letters—three signs in all, taking the form of a slightly slanting dash or a comma. After having settled the consonants, Muslims still had to decide what vowels to employ: using different vowels, of course, rendered different readings. The scripta plena, which allowed a fully voweled and pointed text, was not perfected until the late ninth century. The problems posed by the scripta defectiva inevitably led to the growth of different centers with their own variant traditions of how the texts should be pointed or vowelized. Despite ‘Uthman’s order to destroy all texts other than his own, it is evident that the older codices survived. As Charles Adams says, "It must be emphasized that far from there being a single text passed down inviolate from the time of ‘Uthman’s commission, literally thousands of variant readings of particular verses were known in the first three (Muslim) centuries. These variants affected even the ‘Uthmanic codex, making it difficult to know what its true form may have been." Some Muslims preferred codices other than the ‘Uthmanic, for example, those of Ibn Mas’ud, Uba ibn Ka’b, and Abu Musa. Eventually, under the influence of the great Koranic scholar Ibn Mujahid (died 935), there was a definite canonization of one system of consonants and a limit placed on the variations of vowels used in the text that resulted in acceptance of seven systems. But other scholars accepted ten readings, and still others accepted fourteen readings. Even Ibn Mujahid’s seven provided fourteen possibilities since each of the seven was traced through two different transmitters, viz, 1. Nafi of Medina according to Warsh and Qalun 2. Ibn Kathir of Mecca according to al-Bazzi and Qunbul 3. Ibn Amir of Damascus according to Hisham and Ibn Dakwan 4. Abu Amr of Basra according to al-Duri and al-Susi 5. Asim of Kufa according to Hafs and Abu Bakr 6. Hamza of Kuga according to Khalaf and Khallad 7. Al-Kisai of Kufa according to al Duri and Abul Harith In the end three systems prevailed, those of Warsh (d. 812) from Nafi of Medina, Hafs (d. 805) from Asim of Kufa, and al-Duri (d. 860) from Abu Amr of Basra. At present in modern Islam, two versions seem to be in use: that of Asim of Kufa through Hafs, which was given a kind of official seal of approval by being adopted in the Egyptian edition of the Koran in 1924; and that of Nafi through Warsh, which is used in parts of Africa other than Egypt. As Charles Adams reminds us: It is of some importance to call attention to a possible source of misunderstanding with regard to the variant readings of the Quran. The seven (versions) refer to actual written and oral text, to distinct versions of Quranic verses, whose differences, though they may not be great, are nonetheless substantial. Since the very existence of variant readings and versions of the Quran goes against the doctrinal position toward the Holy Book held by many modern Muslims, it is not uncommon in an apologetic context to hear the seven (versions) explained as modes of recitation; in fact the manner and technique of recitation are an entirely different matter. Guillaume also refers to the variants as "not always trifling in significance." For example, the last two verses of sura LXXXV, Al Buraj, read: (21) hawa qur’anun majidun; (22) fi lawhin mahfuzun/in. The last syllable is in doubt. If it is in the genitive -in, it gives the meaning "It is a glorious Koran on a preserved tablet"—a reference to the Muslim doctrine of the Preserved Tablet. If it is the nominative ending -un, we get "It is a glorious Koran preserved on a tablet." There are other passages with similar difficulties dealing with social legislation. If we allow that there were omissions, then why not additions? The authenticity of many verses in the Koran has been called into question by Muslims themselves. Many Kharijites, who were followers of ‘Ali in the early history of Islam, found the sura recounting the story of Joseph offensive, an erotic tale that did not belong in the Koran. Hirschfeld questioned the authenticity of verses in which the name Muhammad occurs, there being something rather suspicious in such a name, meaning ‘Praised’, being borne by the Prophet. The name was certainly not very common. However the Prophet’s name does occur in documents that have been accepted as genuine, such as the Constitution of Medina. Most scholars believe that there are interpolations in the Koran; these interpolations can be seen as interpretative glosses on certain rare words in need of explanation. More serious are the interpolations of a dogmatic or political character, which seem to have been added to justify the elevation of ‘Uthman as caliph to the detriment of ‘Ali. Then there are other verses that have been added in the interest of rhyme, or to join together two short passages that on their own lack any connection. Bell and Watt carefully go through many of the amendments and revisions and point to the unevenness of the Koranic style as evidence for a great many alterations in the Koran: There are indeed many roughness of this kind, and these, it is here claimed, are fundamental evidence for revision. Besides the points already noticed—hidden rhymes, and rhyme phrases not woven into the texture of the passage—there are the following abrupt changes of rhyme; repetition of the same rhyme word or rhyme phrase in adjoining verses; the intrusion of an extraneous subject into a passage otherwise homogeneous; a differing treatment of the same subject in neighbouring verses, often with repetition of words and phrases; breaks in grammatical construction which raise difficulties in exegesis; abrupt changes in length of verse; sudden changes of the dramatic situation, with changes of pronoun from singular to plural, from second to third person, and so on; the juxtaposition of apparently contrary statements; the juxtaposition of passages of different date, with intrusion of fare phrases into early verses. In many cases a passage has alternative continuations which follow one another in the present text. The second of the alternatives is marked by a break in sense and by a break in grammatical construction, since the connection is not with what immediately precedes, but with what stands some distance back. The Christian al-Kindi (not to be confused with the Arab, Muslim philosopher) writing around 830 C.E., criticized the Koran in similar terms: Skepticism of the Sources The traditional accounts of the life of Muhammad and the story of the origin and rise of Islam, including the compilation of the Koran, are based exclusively on Muslim sources, particularly the Muslim biographies of Muhammad, and the Hadith, that is the Muslim traditions. The Prophet Muhammad died in 632 C.E. The earliest material on his life that we possess was written by Ibn Ishaq in 750 C.E., in other words, a hundred twenty years after Muhammad’s death. The question of authenticity becomes even more critical, because the original form of Ibn Ishaq’s work is lost and is only available in parts in a later recension by Ibn Hisham who died in 834 C.E., two hundred years after the death of the Prophet. The Hadith are a collection of sayings and doings attributed to the Prophet and traced back to him through a series of putatively trustworthy witnesses (any particular chain of transmitters is called an isnad). These Hadith include the story of the compilation of the Koran, and the sayings of the companions of the Prophet. There are said to be six correct or authentic collections of traditions accepted by Sunni Muslims, namely, the compilations of Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Maja, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, and al-Nisai. Again it is worth noting that all these sources are very late indeed. Bukhari died 238 years after the death of the Prophet, while al-Nisai died over 280 years after! The historical and biographical tradition concerning Muhammad and the early years of Islam was submitted to a thorough examination at the end of the nineteenth century. Up to then careful scholars were well aware of the legendary and theological elements in these traditions, and that there were traditions which originated from party motive and which intended "to give an appearance of historical foundation to the particular interests of certain persons or families; but it was thought that after some sifting there yet remained enough to enable us to form a much clearer sketch of Muhammad’s life than that of any other of the founders of a universal religion." This illusion was shattered by Wellhausen, Caetani, and Lammens who called "one after another of the data of Muslim tradition into question." Wellhausen divided the old historical traditions as found in the ninth- and tenth-century compilations in two: first, an authentic primitive tradition, definitively recorded in the late eighth century, and second a parallel version which was deliberately forged to rebut this. The second version was full of tendentious fiction, and was to be found in the work of historians such as Sayf b. ‘Umar (see above). Prince Caetani and Father Lammens cast doubt even on data hitherto accepted as "objective." The biographers of Muhammad were too far removed from his time to have true data or notions; far from being objective the data rested on tendentious fiction; furthermore it was not their aim to know these things as they really happened, but to construct an ideal vision of the past, as it ought to have been. "Upon the bare canvas of verses of the Koran that need explanation, the traditionists have embroidered with great boldness scenes suitable to the desires or ideals of their paricular group; or to use a favorite metaphor of Lammens, they fill the empty spaces by a process of stereotyping which permits the critical observer to recognize the origin of each picture." As Lewis puts it, "Lammens went so far as to reject the entire biography as no more than a conjectural and tendentious exegesis of a few passages of biographical content in the Quran, devised and elaborated by later generations of believers." Even scholars who rejected the extreme skepticism of Caetani and Lammens were forced to recognize that "of Muhammad’s life before his appearance as the messenger of God, we know extremely little; compared to the legendary biography as treasured by the faithful, practically nothing." The ideas of the Positivist Caetani and the Jesuit Lammens were never forgotten, and indeed they were taken up by a group of Soviet Islamologists, and pushed to their extreme but logical conclusions. The ideas of the Soviet scholars were in turn taken up in the 1970s, by Cook, Crone, and other disciples of Wansbrough. What Caetani and Lammens did for historical biography, Ignaz Goldziher did for the study of Hadith. Goldziher has had an enormous influence in the field of Islamic studies, and it is no exaggeration to say that he is, along with Hurgronje and Noldeke, one of the founding fathers of the modern study of Islam. Practically everything he wrote between roughly 1870 and 1920 is still studied assiduously in universities throughout the world. In his classic paper, "On the Development of Hadith," Goldziher "demonstrated that a vast number of Hadith accepted even in the most rigorously critical Muslim collections were outright forgeries from the late 8th and 9th centuries—and as a consequence, that the meticulous isnads [chains of transmitters] which supported them were utterly fictitious." Faced with Goldziher’s impeccably documented arguments, historians began to panic and devise spurious ways of keeping skepticism at bay, such as, for instance, postulating ad hoc distinctions between legal and historical traditions. But as Humphreys says, in their formal structure, the Hadirh and historical traditions were very similar; furthermore many eighth- and ninth-century Muslim scholars had worked on both kinds of texts. "Altogether, if hadith isnads were suspect, so then should be the isnads attached to historical reports." As Goldziher puts it himself, "close acquaintance with the vast stock of hadiths induces sceptical caution," and he considers by far the greater part of the Hadith "the result of the religious, historical and social development of Islam during the first two centuries." The Hadith is useless as a basis for any scientific history, and can only serve as a "reflection of the tendencies" of the early Muslim community. Here I need to interpose a historical digression, if we are to have a proper understanding of Goldziher’s arguments. After the death of the Prophet, four of his companions succeeded him as leaders of the Muslim community; the last of the four was ‘Ali, the Prophet’s cousin and son-in-law. ‘Ali was unable to impose his authority in Syria where the governor was Mu’awiya who adopted the war cry of "Vengeance for ‘Uthman" against ‘Ali (Mu’awiya and ‘Uthman were related and both belonged to the Meccan clan of Umayya). The forces of the two met in an indecisive battle at Siffin. After ‘Ali’s murder in 661, Mu’awiya became the first caliph of the dynasty we know as the Umayyad, which endured until 750 C.E. The Umayyads were deposed by the ‘Abbasids, who lasted in Iraq and Baghdad until the thirteenth century. During the early years of the Umayyad dynasty, many Muslims were totally ignorant in regard to ritual and doctrine. The rulers themselves had little enthusiasm for religion, and generally despised the pious and the ascetic. The result was that there arose a group of pious men who shamelessly fabricated traditions for the good of the community, and traced them back to the authority of the Prophet. They opposed the godless Umayyads but dared not say so openly, so they invented further traditions dedicated to praising the Prophet’s family, hence indirectly giving their allegiance to the party of ‘Ali supporters. As Goldziher puts it, "The ruling power itself was not idle. If it wished an opinion to be generally recognized and the opposition of pious circles silenced; it too had to know how to discover a hadith to suit its purpose. They had to do what their opponents did: invent and have invented, hadiths in their turn. And that is in effect what they did." Goldziher continues: Official influences on the invention, dissemination and suppression of traditions started early. An instruction given to his obedient governor al Mughira by Muawiya is in the spirit of the Umayyads: "Do not tire of abusing and insulting Ali and calling for God’s mercifulness for ‘Uthman, defaming the companions of Ali, removing them and omitting to listen to them (i.e., to what they tell and propagate as hadiths); praising in contrast, the clan of ‘Uthman, drawing them near to you and listening to them." This is an official encouragement to foster the rise and spread of hadiths directed against Ali and to hold back and suppress hadiths favoring Ali. The Umayyads and their political followers had no scruples in promoting tendentious lies in a sacred religious form, and they were only concerned to find pious authorities who would be prepared to cover such falsifications with their undoubted authority. There was never any lack of these. Hadiths were liable to be fabricated even for the most trivial ritualistic details. Tendentiousness included the suppression of existing utterances friendly to the rival party or dynasty. Under the ‘Abbasids, the fabrications of hadiths greatly multiplied, with the express purpose of proving the legitimacy of their own clan against the ‘Alids. For example, the Prophet was made to say that Abu Talib, father of ‘Ali, was sitting deep in hell: "Perhaps my intercession will be of use to him on the day of resurrection so that he may be transferred into a pool of fire which reaches only up to the ankles but which is still hot enough to burn the brain." Naturally enough this was countered by the theologians of the ‘Alias by devising numerous traditions concerning the glorification of Abu Talib, all sayings of the prophet. "In fact," as Goldziher shows, amongst the opposing factions, "the mischievous use of tendentious traditions was even more common than the official party." Eventually storytellers made a good living inventing entertaining Hadiths, which the credulous masses lapped up eagerly. To draw the crowds the storytellers shrank from nothing. "The handling down of hadiths sank to the level of a business very early. Journeys (in search of hadiths) favored the greed of those who succeeded in pretending to be a source of the hadith, and with increasing demand sprang up an even increasing desire to be paid in cash for the hadiths supplied." Of course many Muslims were aware that forgeries abounded. But even the so-called six authentic collections of hadiths compiled by Bukhari and others were not as rigorous as might have been hoped. The six had varying criteria for including a Hadith as genuine or not—some were rather liberal in their choice, others rather arbitrary. Then there was the problem of the authenticity of the texts of these compilers. For example, at one point there were a dozen different Bukhari texts; and apart from these variants, there were deliberate interpolations. As Goldziher warns us, "It would be wrong to think that the canonical authority of the two [collections of Bukhari and Muslim] is due to the undisputed correctness of their contents and is the result of scholarly investigations." Even a tenth century critic pointed out the weaknesses of two hundred traditions incorporated in the works of Muslim and Bukhari. Goldziher’s arguments were followed up, nearly sixty years later, by another great Islamicist, Joseph Schacht, whose works on Islamic law are considered classics in the field of Islamic studies. Schacht’s conclusions were even more radical and perturbing, and the full implications of these conclusions have not yet sunk in. Humphreys sums up Schacht’s theses as: (1) that isnads [the chain of transmitters] going all the way back to the Prophet only began to be widely used around the time of the Abbasid Revolution—i.e., the mid-8th century; (2) that ironically, the more elaborate and formally correct an isnad appeared to be, the more likely it was to be spurious. In general, he concluded, "NO existing hadith could be reliably ascribed to the prophet, though some of them might ultimately be rooted in his teaching. And though [Schacht] devoted only a few pages to historical reports about the early Caliphate, he explicitly asserted that the same strictures should apply to them." Schacht’s arguments were backed up by a formidable list of references, and they could not be dismissed easily. Here is how Schacht himself sums up his own thesis: It is generally conceded that the criticism of traditions as practiced by the Muslim scholars is inadequate and that, however many forgeries may have been eliminated by it, even the classical corpus contains a great many traditions which cannot possibly be authentic. All efforts to extract from this often self-contradictory mass an authentic core by "historic intuition"… have failed. Goldziher, in another of his fundamental works, has not only voiced his "sceptical reserve" with regard to the traditions contained even in the classical collections [i.e., the collections of Bukhari, Muslim, et al.], but shown positively that the great majority of traditions from the Prophet are documents not of the time to which they claim to belong, but of the successive stages of development of doctrines during the first centuries of Islam. This brilliant discovery became the corner-stone of all serious investigation… This book [i.e., Schacht’s own book] will be found to confirm Goldziher’s results, and go beyond them in the following respects: a great many traditions in the classical and other collections were put into circulation only after Shafi‘i’s time [Shafi‘i was the founder of the very important school of law which bears his name; he died in 820 C.E.]; the first considerable body of legal traditions from the Prophet originated towards the middle of the second [Muslim] century [i.e., eighth century C.E.], in opposition to slightly earlier traditions from the Companions and other authorities, and to the living tradition of the ancient schools of law; traditions from Companions and other authorities underwent the same process of growth, and are to be considered in the same light, as traditions from the Prophet; the study of isnads show a tendency to grow backwards and to claim higher and higher authority until they arrive at the Prophet; the evidence of legal traditions carries back to about the year 100 A.H. [718 C.E.]... Schacht proves that, for example, a tradition did not exist at a particular time by showing that it was not used as a legal argument in a discussion which would have made reference to it imperative, if it had existed. For Schacht every legal tradition from the Prophet must be taken as inauthentic and the fictitious expression of a legal doctrine formulated at a later date: "We shall not meet any legal tradition from the Prophet which can positively be considered authentic." Traditions were formulated polemically in order to rebut a contrary doctrine or practice; Schacht calls these traditions "counter traditions." Doctrines, in this polemical atmosphere, were frequently projected back to higher authorities: "traditions from Successors [to the Prophet] become traditions from Companions [of the Prophet], and traditions from Companions become traditions from the Prophet." Details from the life of the Prophet were invented to support legal doctrines. Schacht then criticizes isnads which "were often put together very carelessly. Any typical representative of the group whose doctrine was to be projected back on to an ancient authority, could be chosen at random and put into the isnad. We find therefore a number of alternative names in otherwise identical isnads." Shacht "showed that the beginnings of Islamic law cannot be traced further back than to about a century after the Prophet’s death." Islamic law did not directly derive from the Koran but developed out of popular and administrative practice under the Ummayads, and this "practice often diverged from the intentions and even the explicit wording of the Koran." Norms derived from the Koran were introduced into Islamic law at a secondary stage. A group of scholars was convinced of the essential soundness of Schacht’s analysis, and proceeded to work out in full detail the implications of Schacht’s arguments. The first of these scholars was John Wansbrough, who in two important though formidably difficult books, Quaranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation (1977) and The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation History (1978), showed that the Koran and Hadith grew out of sectarian controversies over a long period, perhaps as long as two centuries, and then was projected back onto an invented Arabian point of origin. He further argued that Islam emerged only w hen it came into contact with and under the influence of Rabbinic Judaism—"that Islamic doctrine generally, and even the figure of Muhammad, were molded on Rabbinic Jewish prototypes." "Proceeding from these conclusions, The Sectarian Milieu analyses early Islamic historiography—or rather the interpretive myths underlying this historiography—as a late manifestation of Old Testament ‘salvation history.’" Wansbrough shows that far from being fixed in the seventh century, the definitive text of the Koran had still not been achieved as late as the ninth century. An Arabian origin for Islam is highly unlikely: the Arabs gradually formulated their creed as they came into contact with Rabbinic Judaism outside the Hijaz (Central Arabia, containing the cities of Mecca and Medina). "Quranic allusion presupposes familiarity with the narrative material of Judaeo-Christian scripture, which was not so much reformulated as merely referred to.... Taken together, the quantity of reference, the mechanically repetitious employment of rhetorical convention, and the stridently polemical style, all suggest a strongly sectarian atmosphere in which a corpus of familiar scripture was being pressed into the service of as yet unfamiliar doctrine." Elsewhere Wansbrough says, "[The] challenge to produce an identical or superior scripture (or portion thereof), expressed five times in the Quranic text can be explained only within a context of Jewish polemic." Earlier scholars such as Torrey, recognizing the genuine borrowings in the Koran from Rabbinic literature, had jumped to conclusions about the Jewish population in the Hijaz (i.e., Central Arabia). But as Wansbrough puts it, "References in Rabbinic literature to Arabia are of remarkably little worth for purposes of historical reconstruction, and especially for the Hijaz in the sixth and seventh centuries. Much influenced by the Rabbinic accounts, the early Muslim community took Moses as an exemplum, and then a portrait of Muhammad emerged, but only gradually and in response to the needs of a religious community. This community was anxious to establish Muhammad’s credentials as a prophet on the Mosaic model; this evidently meant there had to be a Holy Scripture, which would be seen as testimony to his prophethood. Another gradual development was the emergence of the idea of the Arabian origins of Islam. To this end, there was elaborated the concept of a sacred language, Arabic. The Koran was said to be handed down by God in pure Arabic. It is significant that the ninth century also saw the first collections of the ancient poetry of the Arabs: "The manner in which this material was manipulated by its collectors to support almost any argument appears never to have been very successfully concealed." Thus Muslim philologists were able to give, for instance, an early date to a poem ascribed to Nabigha Jadi, a pre-Islamic poet, in order to "provide a pre-Islamic proof text for a common Quranic construction." The aim in appealing to the authority of pre-Islamic poetry was twofold: first to give ancient authority to their own Holy Scripture, to push back this sacred text into an earlier period, and thus give their text greater authenticity, a text which in reality had been fabricated in the later ninth century, along with all the supporting traditions. Second, it gave a specifically Arabian flavor, an Arabian setting to their religion, something distinct from Judaism and Christianity. Exegetical traditions were equally fictitious and had but one aim, to demonstrate the Hijazi origins of Islam. Wansbrough gives some negative evidence to show that the Koran had not achieved any definitive form before the ninth century: Schacht’s studies of the early development of legal doctrine within the community demonstrate that with very few exceptions, Muslim jurisprudence was not derived from the contents of the Quran. It may be added that those few exceptions are themselves hardly evidence for the existence of the canon, and further observed that even where doctrine was alleged to draw upon scripture, such is nor necessarily proof of the earlier existence of the scriptural source. Derivation of law from scripture... was a phenomenon of the ninth century....A similar kind of negative evidence is absence of any reference to the Quran in the Fiqh Akbar I…. The latter is a document, dated to the middle of the eighth century, which was a kind of statement of the Muslim creed in face of sects. Thus the Fiqh Akbar I represents the views of the orthodoxy on the then prominent dogmatic questions. It seems unthinkable had the Koran existed that no reference would have been made to it. Wansbrough submits the Koran to a highly technical analysis with the aim of showing that it cannot have been deliberately edited by a few men, but "rather the product of an organic development from originally independent traditions during a long period of transmission." Wansbrough was to throw cold water on the idea that the Koran was the only hope for genuine historical information regarding the Prophet; an idea summed up by Jeffery, "The dominant note in this advanced criticism is ‘back to the Koran.’ As a basis for critical biography the Traditions are practically worthless; in the Koran alone can we be said to have firm ground under our feet." But as Wansbrough was to show: "The role of the Quran in the delineation of an Arabian prophet was peripheral: evidence of a divine communication but not a report of its circumstances.... The very notion of biographical data in the Quran depends on exegetical principles derived from material external to the canon." A group of scholars influenced by Wansbrough took an even more radical approach; they rejected wholesale the entire Islamic version of early Islamic history. Michael Cook, Patricia Crone, and Martin Hinds writing between 1977 and 1987 regard the whole established version of Islamic history down at least to the time of Abd al-Malik (685-705) as a later fabrication, and reconstruct the Arab Conquests and the formation of the Caliphate as a movement of peninsular Arabs who had been inspired by Jewish messianism to try to reclaim the Promised Land. In this interpretation, Islam emerged as an autonomous religion and culture only within the process of a long struggle for identity among the disparate peoples yoked together by the Conquests: Jacobite Syrians, Nestorian Aramaeans in Iraq, Copts, Jews, and (finally) peninsular Arabs. The traditional account of the life of Muhammad and the rise of Islam is no longer accepted by Cook, Crone, and Hinds. In the shore but pithy monograph on Muhammad in the Oxford Past Masters series, Cook gives his reasons for rejecting the biographical traditions: False ascription was rife among the eighth-century scholars, and...in any case Ibn Ishaq and his contemporaries were drawing on oral tradition. Neither of these propositions is as arbitrary as it sounds. We have reason to believe that numerous traditions on questions of dogma and law were provided with spurious chains of authorities by those who put them into circulation; and at the same time we have much evidence of controversy in the eighth century as to whether it was permissible to reduce oral tradition to writing. The implications of this view for the reliability of our sources are clearly rather negative. If we cannot trust the chains of authorities, we can no longer claim to know that we have before us the separately transmitted accounts of independent witnesses; and if knowledge of the life of Muhammad was transmitted orally for a century before it was reduced to writing, then the chances are that the material will have undergone considerable alteration in the process. Cook then looks at the non-Muslim sources: Greek, Syriac, and Armenian. Here a totally unexpected picture emerges. Though there is no doubt that someone called Muhammad existed, that he was a merchant, that something significant happened in 622, that Abraham was central to his teaching, there is no indication that Muhammad’s career unfolded in inner Arabia, there is no mention of Mecca, and the Koran makes no appearance until the last years of the seventh century. Further, it emerges from this evidence that the Muslims prayed in a direction much further north than Mecca, hence their sanctuary cannot have been in Mecca. "Equally, when the first Koranic quotations appear on coins and inscriptions towards the end of the seventh century, they show divergences from the canonical text. These are trivial from the point of view of content, but the fact that they appear in such formal contexts as these goes badly with the notion that the text had already been frozen." The earliest Greek source speaks of Muhammad being alive in 634, two years after his death according to Muslim tradition. Where the Muslim accounts talk of Muhammad’s break with the Jews, the Armenian version differs strikingly: The Armenian chronicler of the 660s describes Muhammad as establishing a community which comprised both Ishmaelites (i.e., Arabs) and Jews, with Abrahamic descent as their common platform; these allies then set off to conquer Palestine. The oldest Greek source makes the sensational statement that the prophet who had appeared among the Saracens (i.e., Arabs) was proclaiming the coming of the (Jewish) messiah, and speaks of the Jews who mix with the Saracens, and of the danger to life and limb of falling into the hands of these Jews and Saracens. We cannot easily dismiss the evidence as the product of Christian prejudice, since it finds confirmation in the Hebrew apocalypse [an eighth-century document, in which is embedded an earlier apocalypse that seems to be contemporary with the conquests]. The break with the Jews is then placed by the Armenian chronicler immediately after the Arab conquest of Jerusalem. Although Palestine does play some sort of role in Muslim traditions, it is already demoted in favor of Mecca in the second year of the Hegira, when Muhammad changed the direction of prayer for Muslims from Jerusalem to Mecca. Thereafter it is Mecca which holds center stage for his activities. But in the non-Muslim sources, it is Palestine which is the focus of his movement, and provides the religious motive for its conquest. The Armenian chronicler further gives a rationale for this attachment: Muhammad told the Arabs that, as descendants of Abraham through Ishmael, they too had a claim to the land which God had promised to Abraham and his seed. The religion of Abraham is in fact as central in the Armenian account of Muhammad’s preaching as it is in the Muslim sources; but it is given a quite different geographical twist. If the external sources are in any significant degree right on such points, it would follow that tradition is seriously misleading on important aspects of the life of Muhammad, and that even the integrity of the Koran as his message is in some doubt. In view of what was said above about the nature of the Muslim sources, such a conclusion would seem to me legitimate; but it is fair to add that it is not usually drawn. Cook points out the similarity of certain Muslim beliefs and practices to those of the Samaritans (discussed below). He also points out that the fundamental idea developed by Muhammad of the religion of Abraham was already present in the Jewish apocryphal work called the Book of Jubilees (dated to c. 140-100 B.C;), and which may well have influenced the formation of Islamic ideas. We also have the evidence of Sozomenus, a Christian writer of the fifth century who "reconstructs a primitive Ishmaelite monotheism identical with that possessed by the Hebrews up to the time of Moses; and he goes on to argue from present conditions that Ishmael’s laws must have been corrupted by the passage of time and the influence of pagan neighbors." Sozomenus goes on to describe certain Arab tribes who, on learning of their Ishmaelite origins from Jews, adopted Jewish observances. Again there may have been some influence on the Muslim community from this source. Cook also points out the similarity of the story of Moses (exodus, etc.) and the Muslim hijra. In Jewish messianism, "the career of the messiah was seen as a re-enactment of that of Moses; a key event in the drama was an exodus, or flight, from oppression into the desert, whence the messiah was to lead a holy war to reconquer Palestine. Given the early evidence connecting Muhammad with Jews and Jewish messianism at the time when the conquest of Palestine was initiated, it is natural to see in Jewish apocalyptic thought a point of departure for his political ideas." Cook and Patricia Crone had developed these ideas in their intellectually exhilarating work Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World (1977). Unfortunately, they adopted the rather difficult style of their "master" Wansbrough, which may well put off all but the most dedicated readers; as Humphreys says, "their argument is conveyed through a dizzying and unrelenting array of allusions, metaphors, and analogies." The summary already given above of Cook’s conclusions in Muhammad will help non-specialists to have a better grasp of Cook and Crone’s (henceforth CC) arguments in Hagarism. It would be appropriate to begin with an explanation of CC’s frequent use of the terms "Hagar," "Hagarism," and "Hagarene." Since a part of their thesis is that Islam only emerged later than hitherto thought, after the first contacts with the older civilizations in Palestine, the Near East, and the Middle East, it would have been inappropriate to use the traditional terms "Muslim," "Islamic," and "Islam" for the early Arabs and their creed. It seems probable that the early Arab community, while it was developing its own religious identity, did not call itself "Muslim." On the other hand, Greek and Syriac documents refer to this community as Magaritai, and Mahgre (or Mahgraye) respectively. The Mahgraye are the descendants of Abraham by Hagar, hence the term "Hagarism." But there is another dimension to this term; for the corresponding Arabic term is muhajirun; the muhajirun are those who take part in a hijra, an exodus. "The ‘Mahgraye’ may thus be seen as Hagarene participants in a hijra to the Promised Land; in this pun lies the earliest identity of the faith which was in the fullness of time to become Islam." Relying on hitherto neglected non-Muslim sources, CC give a new account of the rise of Islam: an account, on their admission, unacceptable to any Muslim. The Muslim sources are too late, and unreliable, and there are no cogent external grounds for accepting the Islamic tradition. CC begin with a Greek text (dated ca. 634-636), in which the core of the Prophet’s message appears as Judaic messianism. There is evidence that the Jews themselves, far from being the enemies of Muslims, as traditionally recounted, welcomed and interpreted the Arab conquest in messianic terms. The evidence "of Judeo-Arab intimacy is complemented by indications of a marked hostility towards Christianity." An Armenian chronicle written in the 660s also contradicts the traditional Muslim insistence that Mecca was the religious metropolis of the Arabs at the time of the conquest; in contrast, it points out the Palestinian orientation of the movement. The same chronicle helps us understand how the Prophet "provided a rationale for Arab involvement in the enactment of Judaic messianism. This rationale consists in a dual invocation of the Abrahamic descent of the Arabs as Ishmaelites: on the one hand to endow them with a birthright to the Holy Land, and on the other to provide them with a monotheist genealogy." Similarly, we can see the Muslim hijra not as an exodus from Mecca to Medina (for no early source attests to the historicity of this event), but as an emigration of the Ishmaelites (Arabs) from Arabia to the Promised Land. The Arabs soon quarreled with the Jews, and their attitude to Christians softened; the Christians posed less of a political threat. There still remained a need to develop a positive religious identity, which they proceeded to do by elaborating a full-scale religion of Abraham, incorporating many pagan practices but under a new Abrahamic aegis. But they still lacked the basic religious structures to be able to stand on their two feet, as an independent religious community. Here they were enormously influenced by the Samaritans. The origins of the Samaritans are rather obscure. They are Israelites of central Palestine, generally considered the descendants of those who were planted in Samaria by the Assyrian kings, in about 722 B.C.E. The faith of the Samaritans was Jewish monotheism, but they had shaken off the influence of Judaism by developing their own religious identity, rather in the way the Arabs were to do later on. The Samaritan canon included only the Pentateuch, which was considered the sole source and standard for faith and conduct. The formula "There is no God but the One" is an ever-recurring refrain in Samaritan liturgies. A constant theme in their literature is the unity of God and His absolute holiness and righteousness. We can immediately notice the similarity of the Muslim proclamation of faith: "There is no God but Allah." And, of course, the unity of God is a fundamental principle in Islam. The Muslim formula "In the name of God" (bismillah) is found in Samaritan scripture as beshem. The opening chapter of the Koran is known as the Fatiha, opening or gate, often considered as a succinct confession of faith. A Samaritan prayer, which can also be considered a confession of faith, begins with the words: Amadti kamekha al fatah rahmeka, "I stand before Thee at the gate of Thy mercy." Fatah is the Fatiha, opening or gate. The sacred book of the Samaritans was the Pentateuch, which embodied the supreme revelation of the divine will, and was accordingly highly venerated. Muhammad also seems to know the Pentateuch and Psalms only, and shows no knowledge of the prophetic or historical writings. The Samaritans held Moses in high regard, Moses being the prophet through whom the Law was revealed. For the Samaritans, Mt. Gerizim was the rightful center for the worship of Yahweh; and it was further associated with Adam, Seth, and Noah, and Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac. The expectation of a coming Messiah was also an article of faith; the name given to their Messiah was the Restorer. Here we can also notice the similarity of the Muslim notion of the Mahdi. We can tabulate the close parallels between the doctrines of the Samaritans and the Muslims in this way: ---- MOSES---------EXODUS------PENTATEUCH----------MT. SINAI/GERIZIM--------SHECHEM ----Muhammad----- Hijra---------------Koran---------------------Mt. Hira--------------------Mecca Under the influence of the Samaritans, the Arabs proceeded to cast Muhammad in the role of Moses as the leader of an exodus (hijra), as the bearer of a new revelation (Koran) received on an appropriate (Arabian) sacred mountain, Mt. Hira. It remained for them to compose a sacred book. CC point to the tradition that the Koran had been many books but of which ‘Uthman (the third caliph after Muhammad) had left only one. We have the further testimony of a Christian monk who distinguishes between the Koran and the Surat al-baqara as sources of law. In other documents, we are told that Hajjaj (661-714), the governor of Iraq, had collected and destroyed all the writings of the early Muslims. Then, following Wansbrough, CC conclude that the Koran, "is strikingly lacking in overall structure, frequently obscure and inconsequential in both language and content, perfunctory in its linking of disparate materials and given to the repetition of whole passages in variant versions. On this basis it can be plausibly argued that the book [Koran] is the product of the belated and imperfect editing of materials from a plurality of traditions." The Samaritans had rejected the sanctity of Jerusalem, and had replaced it by the older Israelite sanctuary of Shechem. When the early Muslims disengaged from Jerusalem, Shechem provided an appropriate model for the creation of a sanctuary of their own. The parallelism is striking. Each presents the same binary structure of a sacred city closely associated with a nearby holy mountain, and in each case the fundamental rite is a pilgrimage from the city to the mountain. In each case the sanctuary is an Abrahamic foundation, the pillar on which Abraham sacrificed in Shechem finding its equivalent in the rukn [the Yamai corner of the Ka’ba] of the Meccan sanctuary. Finally, the urban sanctuary is in each case closely associated with the grave of the appropriate patriarch: Joseph (as opposed to Judah) in the Samaritan case, Ishmael (as opposed to Isaac) in the Meccan. CC go on to argue that the town we now know as Mecca in central Arabia (Hijaz) could not have been the theater of the momentous events so beloved of Muslim tradition. Apart from the lack of any early non-Muslim references to Mecca, we do have the startling fact that the direction in which the early Muslims prayed (the qibla) was northwest Arabia. The evidence comes from the alignment of certain early mosques, and the literary evidence of Christian sources. In other words, Mecca, as the Muslim sanctuary, was only chosen much later by the Muslims, in order to relocate their early history within Arabia, to complete their break with Judaism, and finally establish their separate religious identity. In the rest of their fascinating book, CC go on to show how Islam assimilated all the foreign influences that it came under in consequence of their rapid conquests; how Islam acquired its particular identity on encountering the older civilizations of antiquity, through its contacts with rabbinic Judaism, Christianity (Jacobite and Nestorian), Hellenism and Persian ideas (Rabbinic Law, Greek philosophy, Neoplatonism, Roman Law, and Byzantine art and architecture). But they also point out that all this was achieved at great cultural cost: "The Arab conquests rapidly destroyed one empire, and permanently detached large territories of another. This was, for the states in question, an appalling catastrophe." In Slaves on Horses: The Evolution of the Islamic Polity (1980), Patricia Crone dismisses the Muslim traditions concerning the early caliphate (down to the 680s) as useless fictions. In Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam (1987), she argues that many so-called historical reports are "fanciful elaborations on difficult Koranic passages." In the latter work, Crone convincingly shows how the Koran "generated masses of spurious information." The numerous historical events which are supposed to have been the causes of certain revelations (for example, the battle of Badr, see above), "are likely to owe at least some of their features, occasionally their very existence, to the Quran." Clearly storytellers were the first to invent historical contexts for particular verses of the Koran. But much of their information is contradictory (for example, we are told that when Muhammad arrived in Medina for the first time it was torn by feuds, and yet at the same time we are asked to believe that the people of Medina were united under their undisputed leader Ibn Ubayyl), and there was a tendency "for apparently independent accounts to collapse into variations on a common theme" (for example, the large number of stories which exist around the theme of "Muhammad’s encounter with the representatives of non-Islamic religions who recognize him as a future prophet"). Finally, there was a tendency for the information to grow the further away one went from the events described; for example, if one storyteller should happen to mention a raid, the next one would tell you the exact date of this raid, and the third one would furnish you even more details. Waqidi (d. 823), who wrote years after Ibn Ishaq (d. 768), will always give precise dates, locations, names, where Ibn Ishaq has none, accounts of what triggered the expedition, miscellaneous information to lend color to the event, as well as reasons why, as was usually the case, no fighting took place. No wonder that scholars are fond of Waqidi: where else does one find such wonderfully precise information about everything one wishes to know? But given that this information was all unknown to Ibn Ishaq, its value is doubtful in the extreme. And if spurious information accumulated at this rate in the two generations between Ibn Ishaq and Waqidi, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that even more must have accumulated in the three generations between the Prophet and Ibn Ishaq. It is obvious that these early Muslim historians drew on a common pool of material fabricated by the storytellers. Crone takes to task certain conservative modern historians, such as Watt, for being unjustifiably optimistic about the historical worth of the Muslim sources on the rise of Islam. And we shall end this chapter on the sources with Crone’s conclusions regarding all these Muslim sources: [Watt’s methodology rests] on a misjudgment of these sources. The problem is the very mode of origin of the tradition, not some minor distortions subsequently introduced. Allowing for distortions arising from various allegiances within Islam such as those to a particular area, tribe, sect or school does nothing to correct the tendentiousness arising from allegiance to Islam itself. The entire tradition is tendentious, its aim being the elaboration of an Arabian Heilgeschichte (salvation history), and this tendentiousness has shaped the facts as we have them, not merely added some partisan statements we can deduct. Editorial Note Most of the articles in this collection were originally published more than fifty years ago (and a couple date to the nineteenth century), when there was little consistency in the way Arabic terms were transliterated into English. Thus, the name of Islam’s holy book was variously written as Kortan, Kur’an, Quran, Qur’an, Coran, etc., and the name of Islam’s Prophet was transliterated as Mahomet, Mohammed, Muhammad, etc. To leave the diverse forms of these names, and many other Arabic terms, would confuse the reader; in some cases it might even obscure the fact that two authors are discussing the same person or text. Therefore, the original spellings have been changed where necessary to make them conform to modern usage and to ensure that a consistent spelling is used in every article. Accordingly, Islam’s sacred book is always referred to by its most recognizable form—Koran (even though Qur’an is preferred by scholars and is closer to the actual Arabic pronunciation). The name of Islam’s founder is consistently spelled Muhammad. Arabic names that used to be transliterated with an o will be spelled with a u, e.g, ‘Uthman, ‘Umar (not Othman, Omar). The symbol ‘ is used to express Arabic ain, the symbol ’ expresses Arabic hamca. Other diacritical marks have been eliminated since they mean little or nothing to nonspecialists and specialists already know the original Arabic to which the transliteration refers. The term "Prophet" with a capital "p," when used by itself, refers to Muhammad, in contrast to the same word with a lowercase "p," which refers to prophets from other religions. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 8: 02.02. ARCHAEOLOGICAL DISCOVERY AND THE KORAN ======================================================================== New Archaeological Discoveries Re Islam Researchers with a variety of academic and theological interests are proposing controversial theories about the Koran and Islamic history, and are striving to reinterpret Islam for the modern world. This is, as one scholar puts it, a "sensitive business" by Toby Lester Toby Lester is the executive editor of Atlantic Unbound, the Atlantic Monthly Web site. IN 1972, during the restoration of the Great Mosque of Sana’a, in Yemen, laborers working in a loft between the structure’s inner and outer roofs stumbled across a remarkable gravesite, although they did not realize it at the time. Their ignorance was excusable: mosques do not normally house graves, and this site contained no tombstones, no human remains, no funereal jewelry. It contained nothing more, in fact, than an unappealing mash of old parchment and paper documents -- damaged books and individual pages of Arabic text, fused together by centuries of rain and dampness, gnawed into over the years by rats and insects. Intent on completing the task at hand, the laborers gathered up the manuscripts, pressed them into some twenty potato sacks, and set them aside on the staircase of one of the mosque’s minarets, where they were locked away -- and where they would probably have been forgotten once again, were it not for Qadhi Isma’il al-Akwa’, then the president of the Yemeni Antiquities Authority, who realized the potential importance of the find. Al-Akwa’ sought international assistance in examining and preserving the fragments, and in 1979 managed to interest a visiting German scholar, who in turn persuaded the German government to organize and fund a restoration project. Soon after the project began, it became clear that the hoard was a fabulous example of what is sometimes referred to as a "paper grave" -- in this case the resting place for, among other things, tens of thousands of fragments from close to a thousand different parchment codices of the Koran, the Muslim holy scripture. In some pious Muslim circles it is held that worn-out or damaged copies of the Koran must be removed from circulation; hence the idea of a grave, which both preserves the sanctity of the texts being laid to rest and ensures that only complete and unblemished editions of the scripture will be read. Some of the parchment pages in the Yemeni hoard seemed to date back to the seventh and eighth centuries A.D., or Islam’s first two centuries -- they were fragments, in other words, of perhaps the oldest Korans in existence. What’s more, some of these fragments revealed small but intriguing aberrations from the standard Koranic text. Such aberrations, though not surprising to textual historians, are troublingly at odds with the orthodox Muslim belief that the Koran as it has reached us today is quite simply the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God. The mainly secular effort to reinterpret the Koran -- in part based on textual evidence such as that provided by the Yemeni fragments -- is disturbing and offensive to many Muslims, just as attempts to reinterpret the Bible and the life of Jesus are disturbing and offensive to many conservative Christians. Nevertheless, there are scholars, Muslims among them, who feel that such an effort, which amounts essentially to placing the Koran in history, will provide fuel for an Islamic revival of sorts -- a reappropriation of tradition, a going forward by looking back. Thus far confined to scholarly argument, this sort of thinking can be nonetheless very powerful and -- as the histories of the Renaissance and the Reformation demonstrate -- can lead to major social change. The Koran, after all, is currently the world’s most ideologically influential text. Looking at the Fragments THE first person to spend a significant amount of time examining the Yemeni fragments, in 1981, was Gerd-R. Puin, a specialist in Arabic calligraphy and Koranic paleography based at Saarland University, in Saarbrücken, Germany. Puin, who had been sent by the German government to organize and oversee the restoration project, recognized the antiquity of some of the parchment fragments, and his preliminary inspection also revealed unconventional verse orderings, minor textual variations, and rare styles of orthography and artistic embellishment. Enticing, too, were the sheets of the scripture written in the rare and early Hijazi Arabic script: pieces of the earliest Korans known to exist, they were also palimpsests -- versions very clearly written over even earlier, washed-off versions. What the Yemeni Korans seemed to suggest, Puin began to feel, was an evolving text rather than simply the Word of God as revealed in its entirety to the Prophet Muhammad in the seventh century A.D. Since the early 1980s more than 15,000 sheets of the Yemeni Korans have painstakingly been flattened, cleaned, treated, sorted, and assembled; they now sit ("preserved for another thousand years," Puin says) in Yemen’s House of Manuscripts, awaiting detailed examination. That is something the Yemeni authorities have seemed reluctant to allow, however. "They want to keep this thing low-profile, as we do too, although for different reasons," Puin explains. "They don’t want attention drawn to the fact that there are Germans and others working on the Korans. They don’t want it made public that there is work being done at all, since the Muslim position is that everything that needs to be said about the Koran’s history was said a thousand years ago." To date just two scholars have been granted extensive access to the Yemeni fragments: Puin and his colleague H.-C. Graf von Bothmer, an Islamic-art historian also based at Saarland University. Puin and Von Bothmer have published only a few tantalizingly brief articles in scholarly publications on what they have discovered in the Yemeni fragments. They have been reluctant to publish partly because until recently they were more concerned with sorting and classifying the fragments than with systematically examining them, and partly because they felt that the Yemeni authorities, if they realized the possible implications of the discovery, might refuse them further access. Von Bothmer, however, in 1997 finished taking more than 35,000 microfilm pictures of the fragments, and has recently brought the pictures back to Germany. This means that soon Von Bothmer, Puin, and other scholars will finally have a chance to scrutinize the texts and to publish their findings freely -- a prospect that thrills Puin. "So many Muslims have this belief that everything between the two covers of the Koran is just God’s unaltered word," he says. "They like to quote the textual work that shows that the Bible has a history and did not fall straight out of the sky, but until now the Koran has been out of this discussion. The only way to break through this wall is to prove that the Koran has a history too. The Sana’a fragments will help us to do this." Puin is not alone in his enthusiasm. "The impact of the Yemeni manuscripts is still to be felt," says Andrew Rippin, a professor of religious studies at the University of Calgary, who is at the forefront of Koranic studies today. "Their variant readings and verse orders are all very significant. Everybody agrees on that. These manuscripts say that the early history of the Koranic text is much more of an open question than many have suspected: the text was less stable, and therefore had less authority, than has always been claimed." Copyediting God BY the standards of contemporary biblical scholarship, most of the questions being posed by scholars like Puin and Rippin are rather modest; outside an Islamic context, proposing that the Koran has a history and suggesting that it can be interpreted metaphorically are not radical steps. But the Islamic context -- and Muslim sensibilities -- cannot be ignored. "To historicize the Koran would in effect delegitimize the whole historical experience of the Muslim community," says R. Stephen Humphreys, a professor of Islamic studies at the University of California at Santa Barbara. "The Koran is the charter for the community, the document that called it into existence. And ideally -- though obviously not always in reality -- Islamic history has been the effort to pursue and work out the commandments of the Koran in human life. If the Koran is a historical document, then the whole Islamic struggle of fourteen centuries is effectively meaningless." The orthodox Muslim view of the Koran as self-evidently the Word of God, perfect and inimitable in message, language, style, and form, is strikingly similar to the fundamentalist Christian notion of the Bible’s "inerrancy" and "verbal inspiration" that is still common in many places today. The notion was given classic expression only a little more than a century ago by the biblical scholar John William Burgon. The Bible is none other than the voice of Him that sitteth upon the Throne! Every Book of it, every Chapter of it, every Verse of it, every word of it, every syllable of it ... every letter of it, is the direct utterance of the Most High! Not all the Christians think this way about the Bible, however, and in fact, as the Encyclopaedia of Islam (1981) points out, "the closest analogue in Christian belief to the role of the Kur’an in Muslim belief is not the Bible, but Christ." If Christ is the Word of God made flesh, the Koran is the Word of God made text, and questioning its sanctity or authority is thus considered an outright attack on Islam -- as Salman Rushdie knows all too well. The prospect of a Muslim backlash has not deterred the critical-historical study of the Koran, as the existence of the essays in The Origins of the Koran (1998) demonstrate. Even in the aftermath of the Rushdie affair the work continues: In 1996 the Koranic scholar Günter Lüling wrote in The Journal of Higher Criticism about "the wide extent to which both the text of the Koran and the learned Islamic account of Islamic origins have been distorted, a deformation unsuspectingly accepted by Western Islamicists until now." In 1994 the journal Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam published a posthumous study by Yehuda D. Nevo, of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, detailing seventh- and eighth-century religious inscriptions on stones in the Negev Desert which, Nevo suggested, pose "considerable problems for the traditional Muslim account of the history of Islam." That same year, and in the same journal, Patricia Crone, a historian of early Islam currently based at the Institute for Advanced Study, in Princeton, New Jersey, published an article in which she argued that elucidating problematic passages in the Koranic text is likely to be made possible only by "abandoning the conventional account of how the Qur’an was born." And since 1991 James Bellamy, of the University of Michigan, has proposed in the Journal of the American Oriental Society a series of "emendations to the text of the Koran" -- changes that from the orthodox Muslim perspective amount to copyediting God. Crone is one of the most iconoclastic of these scholars. During the 1970s and 1980s she wrote and collaborated on several books -- most notoriously, with Michael Cook, Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World (1977) -- that made radical arguments about the origins of Islam and the writing of Islamic history. Among Hagarism’s controversial claims were suggestions that the text of the Koran came into being later than is now believed ("There is no hard evidence for the existence of the Koran in any form before the last decade of the seventh century"); that Mecca was not the initial Islamic sanctuary ("[the evidence] points unambiguously to a sanctuary in north-west Arabia ... Mecca was secondary"); that the Arab conquests preceded the institutionalization of Islam ("the Jewish messianic fantasy was enacted in the form of an Arab conquest of the Holy Land"); that the idea of the hijra, or the migration of Muhammad and his followers from Mecca to Medina in 622, may have evolved long after Muhammad died ("No seventh-century source identifies the Arab era as that of the hijra"); and that the term "Muslim" was not commonly used in early Islam ("There is no good reason to suppose that the bearers of this primitive identity called themselves ’Muslims’ [but] sources do ... reveal an earlier designation of the community [which] appears in Greek as ’Magaritai’ in a papyrus of 642, and in Syriac as ’Mahgre’ or ’Mahgraye’ from as early as the 640s"). Hagarism came under immediate attack, from Muslim and non-Muslim scholars alike, for its heavy reliance on hostile sources. ("This is a book," the authors wrote, "based on what from any Muslim perspective must appear an inordinate regard for the testimony of infidel sources.") Crone and Cook have since backed away from some of its most radical propositions -- such as, for example, that the Prophet Muhammad lived two years longer than the Muslim tradition claims he did, and that the historicity of his migration to Medina is questionable. But Crone has continued to challenge both Muslim and Western orthodox views of Islamic history. In Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam (1987) she made a detailed argument challenging the prevailing view among Western (and some Muslim) scholars that Islam arose in response to the Arabian spice trade. Gerd-R. Puin’s current thinking about the Koran’s history partakes of this contemporary revisionism. "My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad," he says. "Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants." Patricia Crone defends the goals of this sort of thinking. "The Koran is a scripture with a history like any other -- except that we don’t know this history and tend to provoke howls of protest when we study it. Nobody would mind the howls if they came from Westerners, but Westerners feel deferential when the howls come from other people: who are you to tamper with their legacy? But we Islamicists are not trying to destroy anyone’s faith." Not everyone agrees with that assessment -- especially since Western Koranic scholarship has traditionally taken place in the context of an openly declared hostility between Christianity and Islam. (Indeed, the broad movement in the West over the past two centuries to "explain" the East, often referred to as Orientalism, has in recent years come under fire for exhibiting similar religious and cultural biases.) The Koran has seemed, for Christian and Jewish scholars particularly, to possess an aura of heresy; the nineteenth-century Orientalist William Muir, for example, contended that the Koran was one of "the most stubborn enemies of Civilisation, Liberty, and the Truth which the world has yet known." Early Soviet scholars, too, undertook an ideologically motivated study of Islam’s origins, with almost missionary zeal: in the 1920s and in 1930 a Soviet publication titled Ateist ran a series of articles explaining the rise of Islam in Marxist-Leninist terms. In Islam and Russia (1956), Ann K.S. Lambton summarized much of this work, and wrote that several Soviet scholars had theorized that "the motive force of the nascent religion was supplied by the mercantile bourgeoisie of Mecca and Medina"; that a certain S.P. Tolstov had held that "Islam was a social-religious movement originating in the slave-owning, not feudal, form of Arab society"; and that N.A. Morozov had argued that "until the Crusades Islam was indistinguishable from Judaism and ... only then did it receive its independent character, while Muhammad and the first Caliphs are mythical figures. "Morozov appears to have been a particularly flamboyant theorist: Lambton wrote that he also argued, in his book Christ (1930), that "in the Middle Ages Islam was merely an off-shoot of Arianism evoked by a meteorological event in the Red Sea area near Mecca." Not surprisingly, then, given the biases of much non-Islamic critical study of the Koran, Muslims are inclined to dismiss it outright. A particularly eloquent protest came in 1987, in the Muslim World Book Review, in a paper titled "Method Against Truth: Orientalism and Qur’anic Studies," by the Muslim critic S. Parvez Manzoor. Placing the origins of Western Koranic scholarship in "the polemical marshes of medieval Christianity" and describing its contemporary state as a "cul-de-sac of its own making," Manzoor orchestrated a complex and layered assault on the entire Western approach to Islam. He opened his essay in a rage. He claimed that the Orientalist enterprise of Qur’anic studies, whatever its other merits and services, was a project born of spite, bred in frustration and nourished by vengeance: the spite of the powerful for the powerless, the frustration of the "rational" towards the "superstitious" and the vengeance of the "orthodox" against the "non-conformist." At the greatest hour of his worldly-triumph, the Western man, coordinating the powers of the State, Church and Academia, launched his most determined assault on the citadel of Muslim faith. All the aberrant streaks of his arrogant personality -- its reckless rationalism, its world-domineering phantasy and its sectarian fanaticism -- joined in an unholy conspiracy to dislodge the Muslim Scripture from its firmly entrenched position as the epitome of historic authenticity and moral unassailability. The ultimate trophy that the Western man sought by his dare-devil venture was the Muslim mind itself. In order to rid the West forever of the "problem" of Islam, he reasoned, Muslim consciousness must be made to despair of the cognitive certainty of the Divine message revealed to the Prophet. Only a Muslim confounded of the historical authenticity or doctrinal autonomy of the Qur’anic revelation would abdicate his universal mission and hence pose no challenge to the global domination of the West. Such, at least, seems to have been the tacit, if not the explicit, rationale of the Orientalist assault on the Qur’an. Despite such resistance, Western researchers with a variety of academic and theological interests press on, applying modern techniques of textual and historical criticism to the study of the Koran. That a substantial body of this scholarship now exists is indicated by the recent decision of the European firm Brill Publishers -- a long-established publisher of such major works as The Encyclopaedia of Islam and The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition -- to commission the first-ever Encyclopaedia of the Qur’an. Jane McAuliffe, a professor of Islamic studies at the University of Toronto, and the general editor of the encyclopedia, hopes that it will function as a "rough analogue" to biblical encyclopedias and will be "a turn-of-the-millennium summative work for the state of Koranic scholarship." Articles for the first part of the encyclopedia are currently being edited and prepared for publication later this year. The Encyclopaedia of the Qur’an will be a truly collaborative enterprise, carried out by Muslims and non-Muslims, and its articles will present multiple approaches to the interpretation of the Koran, some of which are likely to challenge traditional Islamic views -- thus disturbing many in the Islamic world, where the time is decidedly less ripe for a revisionist study of the Koran. The plight of Nasr Abu Zaid, an unassuming Egyptian professor of Arabic who sits on the encyclopedia’s advisory board, illustrates the difficulties facing Muslim scholars trying to reinterpret their tradition. THE Koran is a text, a literary text, and the only way to understand, explain, and analyze it is through a literary approach," Abu Zaid says. "This is an essential theological issue." For expressing views like this in print -- in essence, for challenging the idea that the Koran must be read literally as the absolute and unchanging Word of God -- Abu Zaid was in 1995 officially branded an apostate, a ruling that in 1996 was upheld by Egypt’s highest court. The court then proceeded, on the grounds of an Islamic law forbidding the marriage of an apostate to a Muslim, to order Abu Zaid to divorce his wife, Ibtihal Yunis (a ruling that the shocked and happily married Yunis described at the time as coming "like a blow to the head with a brick"). Abu Zaid steadfastly maintains that he is a pious Muslim, but contends that the Koran’s manifest content -- for example, the often archaic laws about the treatment of women for which Islam is infamous -- is much less important than its complex, regenerative, and spiritually nourishing latent content. The orthodox Islamic view, Abu Zaid claims, is stultifying; it reduces a divine, eternal, and dynamic text to a fixed human interpretation with no more life and meaning than "a trinket ... a talisman ... or an ornament." For a while Abu Zaid remained in Egypt and sought to refute the charges of apostasy, but in the face of death threats and relentless public harassment he fled with his wife from Cairo to Holland, calling the whole affair "a macabre farce." Sheikh Youssef al-Badri, the cleric whose preachings inspired much of the opposition to Abu Zaid, was exultant. "We are not terrorists; we have not used bullets or machine guns, but we have stopped an enemy of Islam from poking fun at our religion.... No one will even dare to think about harming Islam again." Abu Zaid seems to have been justified in fearing for his life and fleeing: in 1992 the Egyptian journalist Farag Foda was assassinated by Islamists for his critical writings about Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, and in 1994 the Nobel Prize-winning novelist Naguib Mahfouz was stabbed for writing, among other works, the allegorical Children of Gabalawi (1959) -- a novel, structured like the Koran, that presents "heretical" conceptions of God and the Prophet Muhammad. Deviating from the orthodox interpretation of the Koran, says the Algerian Mohammed Arkoun, a professor emeritus of Islamic thought at the University of Paris, is "a very sensitive business" with major implications. "Millions and millions of people refer to the Koran daily to explain their actions and to justify their aspirations," Arkoun says. "This scale of reference is much larger than it has ever been before." Muhammad in the Cave MECCA sits in a barren hollow between two ranges of steep hills in the west of present-day Saudi Arabia. To its immediate west lies the flat and sweltering Red Sea coast; to the east stretches the great Rub’ al-Khali, or Empty Quarter -- the largest continuous body of sand on the planet. The town’s setting is uninviting: the earth is dry and dusty, and smolders under a relentless sun; the whole region is scoured by hot, throbbing desert winds. Although sometimes rain does not fall for years, when it does come it can be heavy, creating torrents of water that rush out of the hills and flood the basin in which the city lies. As a backdrop for divine revelation, the area is every bit as fitting as the mountains of Sinai or the wilderness of Judea. The only real source of historical information about pre-Islamic Mecca and the circumstances of the Koran’s revelation is the classical Islamic story about the religion’s founding, a distillation of which follows. In the centuries leading up to the arrival of Islam, Mecca was a local pagan sanctuary of considerable antiquity. Religious rituals revolved around the Ka’ba -- a shrine, still central in Islam today, that Muslims believe was originally built by Ibrahim (known to Christians and Jews as Abraham) and his son Isma’il (Ishmael). As Mecca became increasingly prosperous in the sixth century A.D., pagan idols of varying sizes and shapes proliferated. The traditional story has it that by the early seventh century a pantheon of some 360 statues and icons surrounded the Ka’ba (inside which were found renderings of Jesus and the Virgin Mary, among other idols). Such was the background against which the first installments of the Koran are said to have been revealed, in 610, to an affluent but disaffected merchant named Muhammad bin Abdullah. Muhammad had developed the habit of periodically withdrawing from Mecca’s pagan squalor to a nearby mountain cave, where he would reflect in solitude. During one of these retreats he was visited by the Angel Gabriel -- the very same angel who had announced the coming of Jesus to the Virgin Mary in Nazareth some 600 years earlier. Opening with the command "Recite!," Gabriel made it known to Muhammad that he was to serve as the Messenger of God. Subsequently, until his death, the supposedly illiterate Muhammad received through Gabriel divine revelations in Arabic that were known as qur’an ("recitation") and that announced, initially in a highly poetic and rhetorical style, a new and uncompromising brand of monotheism known as Islam, or "submission" (to God’s will). Muhammad reported these revelations verbatim to sympathetic family members and friends, who either memorized them or wrote them down. Powerful Meccans soon began to persecute Muhammad and his small band of devoted followers, whose new faith rejected the pagan core of Meccan cultural and economic life, and as a result in 622 the group migrated some 200 miles north, to the town of Yathrib, which subsequently became known as Medina (short for Medinat al-Nabi, or City of the Prophet). (This migration, known in Islam as the hijra, is considered to mark the birth of an independent Islamic community, and 622 is thus the first year of the Islamic calendar.) In Medina, Muhammad continued to receive divine revelations, of an increasingly pragmatic and prosaic nature, and by 630 he had developed enough support in the Medinan community to attack and conquer Mecca. He spent the last two years of his life proselytizing, consolidating political power, and continuing to receive revelations. The Islamic tradition has it that when Muhammad died, in 632, the Koranic revelations had not been gathered into a single book; they were recorded only "on palm leaves and flat stones and in the hearts of men." (This is not surprising: the oral tradition was strong and well established, and the Arabic script, which was written without the vowel markings and consonantal dots used today, served mainly as an aid to memorization.) Nor was the establishment of such a text of primary concern: the Medinan Arabs -- an unlikely coalition of ex-merchants, desert nomads, and agriculturalists united in a potent new faith and inspired by the life and sayings of Prophet Muhammad -- were at the time pursuing a fantastically successful series of international conquests in the name of Islam. By the 640s the Arabs possessed most of Syria, Iraq, Persia, and Egypt, and thirty years later they were busy taking over parts of Europe, North Africa, and Central Asia. In the early decades of the Arab conquests many members of Muhammad’s coterie were killed, and with them died valuable knowledge of the Koranic revelations. Muslims at the edges of the empire began arguing over what was Koranic scripture and what was not. An army general returning from Azerbaijan expressed his fears about sectarian controversy to the Caliph ’Uthman (644-656) -- the third Islamic ruler to succeed Muhammad -- and is said to have entreated him to "overtake this people before they differ over the Koran the way the Jews and Christians differ over their Scripture." ’Uthman convened an editorial committee of sorts that carefully gathered the various pieces of scripture that had been memorized or written down by Muhammad’s companions. The result was a standard written version of the Koran. ’Uthman ordered all incomplete and "imperfect" collections of the Koranic scripture destroyed, and the new version was quickly distributed to the major centers of the rapidly burgeoning empire. During the next few centuries, while Islam solidified as a religious and political entity, a vast body of exegetical and historical literature evolved to explain the Koran and the rise of Islam, the most important elements of which are hadith, or the collected sayings and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad; sunna, or the body of Islamic social and legal custom; sira, or biographies of the Prophet; and tafsir, or Koranic commentary and explication. It is from these traditional sources -- compiled in written form mostly from the mid eighth to the mid tenth century -- that all accounts of the revelation of the Koran and the early years of Islam are ultimately derived. "For People Who Understand" ROUGHLY equivalent in length to the New Testament, the Koran is divided into 114 sections, known as suras, that vary dramatically in length and form. The book’s organizing principle is neither chronological nor thematic -- for the most part the suras are arranged from beginning to end in descending order of length. Despite the unusual structure, however, what generally surprises newcomers to the Koran is the degree to which it draws on the same beliefs and stories that appear in the Bible. God (Allah in Arabic) rules supreme: he is the all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-merciful Being who has created the world and its creatures; he sends messages and laws through prophets to help guide human existence; and, at a time in the future known only to him, he will bring about the end of the world and the Day of Judgment. Adam, the first man, is expelled from Paradise for eating from the forbidden tree. Noah builds an ark to save a select few from a flood brought on by the wrath of God. Abraham prepares himself to sacrifice his son at God’s bidding. Moses leads the Israelites out of Egypt and receives a revelation on Mount Sinai. Jesus -- born of the Virgin Mary and referred to as the Messiah -- works miracles, has disciples, and rises to heaven. The Koran takes great care to stress this common monotheistic heritage, but it works equally hard to distinguish Islam from Judaism and Christianity. For example, it mentions prophets -- Hud, Salih, Shu’ayb, Luqman, and others -- whose origins seem exclusively Arabian, and it reminds readers that it is "A Koran in Arabic, / For people who understand." Despite its repeated assertions to the contrary, however, the Koran is often extremely difficult for contemporary readers -- even highly educated speakers of Arabic -- to understand. It sometimes makes dramatic shifts in style, voice, and subject matter from verse to verse, and it assumes a familiarity with language, stories, and events that seem to have been lost even to the earliest of Muslim exegetes (typical of a text that initially evolved in an oral tradition). Its apparent inconsistencies are easy to find: God may be referred to in the first and third person in the same sentence; divergent versions of the same story are repeated at different points in the text; divine rulings occasionally contradict one another. In this last case the Koran anticipates criticism and defends itself by asserting the right to abrogate its own message ("God doth blot out / Or confirm what He pleaseth"). Criticism did come. As Muslims increasingly came into contact with Christians during the eighth century, the wars of conquest were accompanied by theological polemics, in which Christians and others latched on to the confusing literary state of the Koran as proof of its human origins. Muslim scholars themselves were fastidiously cataloguing the problematic aspects of the Koran -- unfamiliar vocabulary, seeming omissions of text, grammatical incongruities, deviant readings, and so on. A major theological debate in fact arose within Islam in the late eighth century, pitting those who believed in the Koran as the "uncreated" and eternal Word of God against those who believed in it as created in time, like anything that isn’t God himself. Under the Caliph al-Ma’mun (813-833) this latter view briefly became orthodox doctrine. It was supported by several schools of thought, including an influential one known as Mu’tazilism, that developed a complex theology based partly on a metaphorical rather than simply literal understanding of the Koran. By the end of the tenth century the influence of the Mu’tazili school had waned, for complicated political reasons, and the official doctrine had become that of i’jaz, or the "inimitability" of the Koran. (As a result, the Koran has traditionally not been translated by Muslims for non-Arabic-speaking Muslims. Instead it is read and recited in the original by Muslims worldwide, the majority of whom do not speak Arabic. The translations that do exist are considered to be nothing more than scriptural aids and paraphrases.) The adoption of the doctrine of inimitability was a major turning point in Islamic history, and from the tenth century to this day the mainstream Muslim understanding of the Koran as the literal and uncreated Word of God has remained constant. Psychopathic Vandalism? GERD-R. Puin speaks with disdain about the traditional willingness, on the part of Muslim and Western scholars, to accept the conventional understanding of the Koran. "The Koran claims for itself that it is ’mubeen,’ or ’clear,’" he says. "But if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn’t make sense. Many Muslims -- and Orientalists -- will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Koranic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Koran is not comprehensible -- if it can’t even be understood in Arabic -- then it’s not translatable. People fear that. And since the Koran claims repeatedly to be clear but obviously is not -- as even speakers of Arabic will tell you -- there is a contradiction. Something else must be going on." Trying to figure out that "something else" really began only in this century. "Until quite recently," Patricia Crone, the historian of early Islam, says, "everyone took it for granted that everything the Muslims claim to remember about the origin and meaning of the Koran is correct. If you drop that assumption, you have to start afresh." This is no mean feat, of course; the Koran has come down to us tightly swathed in a historical tradition that is extremely resistant to criticism and analysis. As Crone put it in Slaves on Horses, The Biblical redactors offer us sections of the Israelite tradition at different stages of crystallization, and their testimonies can accordingly be profitably compared and weighed against each other. But the Muslim tradition was the outcome, not of a slow crystallization, but of an explosion; the first compilers were not redactors, but collectors of debris whose works are strikingly devoid of overall unity; and no particular illuminations ensue from their comparison. Not surprisingly, given the explosive expansion of early Islam and the passage of time between the religion’s birth and the first systematic documenting of its history, Muhammad’s world and the worlds of the historians who subsequently wrote about him were dramatically different. During Islam’s first century alone a provincial band of pagan desert tribesmen became the guardians of a vast international empire of institutional monotheism that teemed with unprecedented literary and scientific activity. Many contemporary historians argue that one cannot expect Islam’s stories about its own origins -- particularly given the oral tradition of the early centuries -- to have survived this tremendous social transformation intact. Nor can one expect a Muslim historian writing in ninth- or tenth-century Iraq to have discarded his social and intellectual background (and theological convictions) in order accurately to describe a deeply unfamiliar seventh-century Arabian context. R. Stephen Humphreys, writing in Islamic History: A Framework for Inquiry (1988), concisely summed up the issue that historians confront in studying early Islam. If our goal is to comprehend the way in which Muslims of the late 2nd/8th and 3rd/9th centuries [Islamic calendar / Christian calendar] understood the origins of their society, then we are very well off indeed. But if our aim is to find out "what really happened," in terms of reliably documented answers to modern questions about the earliest decades of Islamic society, then we are in trouble. The person who more than anyone else has shaken up Koranic studies in the past few decades is John Wansbrough, formerly of the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies. Puin is "re-reading him now" as he prepares to analyze the Yemeni fragments. Patricia Crone says that she and Michael Cook "did not say much about the Koran in Hagarism that was not based on Wansbrough." Other scholars are less admiring, referring to Wansbrough’s work as "drastically wrongheaded," "ferociously opaque," and a "colossal self-deception." But like it or not, anybody engaged in the critical study of the Koran today must contend with Wansbrough’s two main works -- Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation (1977) and The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation History (1978). Wansbrough applied an entire arsenal of what he called the "instruments and techniques" of biblical criticism -- form criticism, source criticism, redaction criticism, and much more -- to the Koranic text. He concluded that the Koran evolved only gradually in the seventh and eighth centuries, during a long period of oral transmission when Jewish and Christian sects were arguing volubly with one another well to the north of Mecca and Medina, in what are now parts of Syria, Jordan, Israel, and Iraq. The reason that no Islamic source material from the first century or so of Islam has survived, Wansbrough concluded, is that it never existed. To Wansbrough, the Islamic tradition is an example of what is known to biblical scholars as a "salvation history": a theologically and evangelically motivated story of a religion’s origins invented late in the day and projected back in time. In other words, as Wansbrough put it in Quranic Studies, the canonization of the Koran -- and the Islamic traditions that arose to explain it -- involved the attribution of several, partially overlapping, collections of logia (exhibiting a distinctly Mosaic imprint) to the image of a Biblical prophet (modified by the material of the Muhammadan evangelium into an Arabian man of God) with a traditional message of salvation (modified by the influence of Rabbinic Judaism into the unmediated and finally immutable word of God). Wansbrough’s arcane theories have been contagious in certain scholarly circles, but many Muslims understandably have found them deeply offensive. S. Parvez Manzoor, for example, has described the Koranic studies of Wansbrough and others as "a naked discourse of power" and "an outburst of psychopathic vandalism." But not even Manzoor argues for a retreat from the critical enterprise of Koranic studies; instead he urges Muslims to defeat the Western revisionists on the "epistemological battlefield," admitting that "sooner or later [we Muslims] will have to approach the Koran from methodological assumptions and parameters that are radically at odds with the ones consecrated by our tradition." Revisionism Inside the Islamic World INDEED, for more than a century there have been public figures in the Islamic world who have attempted the revisionist study of the Koran and Islamic history -- the exiled Egyptian professor Nasr Abu Zaid is not unique. Perhaps Abu Zaid’s most famous predecessor was the prominent Egyptian government minister, university professor, and writer Taha Hussein. A determined modernist, Hussein in the early 1920s devoted himself to the study of pre-Islamic Arabian poetry and ended up concluding that much of that body of work had been fabricated well after the establishment of Islam in order to lend outside support to Koranic mythology. A more recent example is the Iranian journalist and diplomat Ali Dashti, who in his Twenty Three Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammed (1985) repeatedly took his fellow Muslims to task for not questioning the traditional accounts of Muhammad’s life, much of which he called "myth-making and miracle-mongering." Abu Zaid also cites the enormously influential Muhammad ’Abduh as a precursor. The nineteenth-century father of Egyptian modernism, ’Abduh saw the potential for a new Islamic theology in the theories of the ninth-century Mu’tazilis. The ideas of the Mu’tazilis gained popularity in some Muslim circles early in this century (leading the important Egyptian writer and intellectual Ahmad Amin to remark in 1936 that "the demise of Mu’tazilism was the greatest misfortune to have afflicted Muslims; they have committed a crime against themselves"). The late Pakistani scholar Fazlur Rahman carried the Mu’tazilite torch well into the present era; he spent the later years of his life, from the 1960s until his death in 1988, living and teaching in the United States, where he trained many students of Islam -- both Muslims and non-Muslims -- in the Mu’tazilite tradition. Such work has not come without cost, however: Taha Hussein, like Nasr Abu Zaid, was declared an apostate in Egypt; Ali Dashti died mysteriously just after the 1979 Iranian revolution; and Fazlur Rahman was forced to leave Pakistan in the 1960s. Muslims interested in challenging orthodox doctrine must tread carefully. "I would like to get the Koran out of this prison," Abu Zaid has said of the prevailing Islamic hostility to reinterpreting the Koran for the modern age, "so that once more it becomes productive for the essence of our culture and the arts, which are being strangled in our society." Despite his many enemies in Egypt, Abu Zaid may well be making progress toward this goal: there are indications that his work is being widely, if quietly, read with interest in the Arab world. Abu Zaid says, for example, that his The Concept of the Text (1990) -- the book largely responsible for his exile from Egypt -- has gone through at least eight underground printings in Cairo and Beirut. Another scholar with a wide readership who is committed to re-examining the Koran is Mohammed Arkoun, the Algerian professor at the University of Paris. Arkoun argued in Lectures du Coran (1982), for example, that "it is time [for Islam] to assume, along with all of the great cultural traditions, the modern risks of scientific knowledge," and suggested that "the problem of the divine authenticity of the Koran can serve to reactivate Islamic thought and engage it in the major debates of our age." Arkoun regrets the fact that most Muslims are unaware that a different conception of the Koran exists within their own historical tradition. What a re-examination of Islamic history offers Muslims, Arkoun and others argue, is an opportunity to challenge the Muslim orthodoxy from within, rather than having to rely on "hostile" outside sources. Arkoun, Abu Zaid, and others hope that this challenge might ultimately lead to nothing less than an Islamic renaissance. THE gulf between such academic theories and the daily practice of Islam around the world is huge, of course -- the majority of Muslims today are unlikely to question the orthodox understanding of the Koran and Islamic history. Yet Islam became one of the world’s great religions in part because of its openness to social change and new ideas. (Centuries ago, when Europe was mired in its feudal Dark Ages, the sages of a flourishing Islamic civilization opened an era of great scientific and philosophical discovery. The ideas of the ancient Greeks and Romans might never have been introduced to Europe were it not for the Islamic historians and philosophers who rediscovered and revived them.) Islam’s own history shows that the prevailing conception of the Koran is not the only one ever to have existed, and the recent history of biblical scholarship shows that not all critical-historical studies of a holy scripture are antagonistic. They can instead be carried out with the aim of spiritual and cultural regeneration. They can, as Mohammed Arkoun puts it, demystify the text while reaffirming "the relevance of its larger intuitions." Increasingly diverse interpretations of the Koran and Islamic history will inevitably be proposed in the coming decades, as traditional cultural distinctions between East, West, North, and South continue to dissolve, as the population of the Muslim world continues to grow, as early historical sources continue to be scrutinized, and as feminism meets the Koran. With the diversity of interpretations will surely come increased fractiousness, perhaps intensified by the fact that Islam now exists in such a great variety of social and intellectual settings -- Bosnia, Iran, Malaysia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, the United States, and so on. More than ever before, anybody wishing to understand global affairs will need to understand Islamic civilization, in all its permutations. Surely the best way to start is with the study of the Koran -- which promises in the years ahead to be at least as contentious, fascinating, and important as the study of the Bible has been in this century. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 9: 02.03. DIFFERENT TRADITIONS OF AND CONTRADICTIONS ======================================================================== THE QURAN IN ISLAM By Goldsack INTRODUCTION The foundation of Islam is the Quran. Muslims treat this book with the most profound respect, and give it many high titles. Chief amongst these may be mentioned the names "Furqan," the Distinguisher; "Quran Majid," the Glorious Quran; "Quran Sharif," the Noble Quran; and "Al Kitab," the Book. It is the universal belief of Muslims that the Quran is the uncreated word of God, which He sent down to His servant Muhammad through the medium of the angel Gabriel. Many hold the language of the Arabic Quran to be unequalled anywhere in literature, and Muhammad himself challenged the unbelievers to produce another like it in these words : - "If you are in doubt concerning that revelation which we have sent down to our servant, produce a chapter like it, and call upon your witnesses besides God, if you say truth." (Sura Bakr, verse 23.) There can be no doubt that the language of the Quran (in Arabic) is in places exceedingly beautiful, and Muslims the world over love to recite it in a low monotonous chant. The feat of memorizing the whole is still regarded as both praiseworthy and meritorious. The contents of the Quran are exceedingly varied; but it may be noted that the Jewish and Christian religions occupy a large amount of attention. The many references to these earlier faiths are instructive, and go to show that Muhammad did not so much represent himself as the founder of a new system as the promulgator of that faith which was held in the beginning by Abraham himself. Muhammad’s references to the Jewish and Christian scriptures also go to show that in the Quran he did not so much claim to supersede those books as to ’confirm’ and substantiate them. Verses to this effect may he found all over the Quran; indeed the most extravagant praise is bestowed upon both Taurat and Injil, and these books are ever held up as worthy of faith and obedience. It thus becomes a matter for surprise that, in spite of this fact, modern Muslims almost invariably speak of the Jewish and Christian scriptures as ’corrupted’, and therefore unworthy of serious attention to-day. The reason for this attitude is obvious; for careful comparison of the Christian and Muslim scriptures shows that the Quran, which claims to ’confirm’ the preceding scriptures, in reality differs very much from them. Muslims have thus been driven to the expedient of denying the integrity of the Taurat and Injil in order to explain away this discrepancy. The question as to whether the Quran has been corrupted since the time when the prophet of Arabia captivated the Arabs by his eloquence, seems never to have been seriously considered by modern Muslims; yet the slightest acquaintance with Arabic history and literature reveals the fact that the present Quran is far indeed from being a complete and accurate copy of that Quran which Muhammad taught his followers. In the following pages we shall proceed to establish the fact from reliable Muslim authorities, and shall show that, fact, the present Quran has been so mutilated and corrupted since the time of Muhammad that it can no longer be relied upon as an accurate and complete record of what he taught. Muhammad did not give forth the whole of the Quran at one time but it was recited piecemeal as circumstances demanded, over a period of some twenty-three years. Even then, his immediate disciples did not commit the whole to writing ; some portions were memorized, others were transcribed upon ’palm leaves, leather, slabs of stone,’ etc. ; yet discrepancies soon arose, and from the traditions we learn that within a comparatively short time serious differences arose in the reading of the Quran, differences by no means confined to pronunciation as some would have us believe. In the well-known book of traditions, the Mishkat-al-Musabih in the chapter called Fajail-ul-Quran we read : - “Umr-ibn-al-Khatab said, ’I heard Hisham-ibn-Hakim ibn-Hijami reading Sura Furqan in a different way from that which I was accustomed to do ; but the prophet had taught me this Sura. Then I wished to immediately forbid him, but allowed him to read to the end. Then I seized his dress, and took him to the prophet, and said, Oh prophet of God; I heard this man reading Sura Furqan in another way; he read it differently from what you taught me. Then the prophet said to me, ’Let him go.’ He then told him to read. He then read in the manner which I had heard. Upon that the prophet said; It has been revealed in this way.’ Again he said to me, ’Do you read also.’ Then when I had read, he said, ’It was revealed in this way also; the Quran was revealed in seven readings, read it in the way which is easy to you’." There are many traditions relating to this seven-fold reading of the Quran, and Muslim scholars have tried in various ways to explain its significance, but without success. The differences which existed in these seven different readings of the Quran were certainly very serious ; for in a tradition recorded by Nisai we learn that ’Umr boldly accused Hisham of falsehood, and asserted that he had read many words in his recitation of the Quran which be had never learned from the prophet. In another tradition, recorded by Muslim, we learn that Ibn-Kab, one of the most famous of the Quran readers, heard two men reciting the Namaz in a reading different from his own. Upon reference being made to the prophet, the latter pronounced both correct, "upon which," says Ibn-Kab "such a revolt arose in my heart as had not existed since the times of ignorance." From these various traditions it is clear that even during the lifetime of the prophet the Quran was being read in various mutually conflicting ways. So grave were the differences that quarrels soon arose; for the inhabitants of Hims stood by the reading of Al-Miqdad-ibn-al-Aswad; the Kufites by that of Ibn-Mas’ud; the Busrites by that of Abu-Musa, and so on. But it would be a mistake to suppose that these differences simply consisted in the recitation of the Quran in the various dialects of Arabia, as some would have us believe; for there is ample evidence to show that the differences extended far deeper. Indeed we learn from the Itqan that the two men mentioned above, ’Umr and Hisham, were both of the same tribe, the Quraish, so that a supposed difference of dialect does not account for the difference recorded above. In succeeding chapters we shall show how serious these differences were, and shall relate some of the means adopted for their suppression. CHAPTER II THE RECENSIONS OF ABU-BAKR AND ’USMAN From the third chapter of the Mishkat we learn that for some time after the death of the prophet, the Quran continued to be preserved in the memories of the people, and was still recited in various conflicting ways; but in the famous battle of Yamamah a great number of the Quran reciters were slain. Then ’Umr, fearing lest another battle should still further reduce the number of those able to recite the Quran, so that much of it might be lost, came to Abu-Bakr and importuned him to order the Quran to be collected into one book. At first Abu-Bakr objected. "How can I do a thing which the prophet has not done?" he asked ; but at last, yielding to the entreaties of ’Umr, the Khalif gave orders to Zaid-ibn-Sabit, who had been an amanuensis of the prophet, to search out the Quran and bring it all together. This the latter did, "collecting it from leaves of the date, white stones, and the hearts of men. This copy of the Quran was given to the Khalif Abu -Bakr, after whose death it passed into the possession of the Khalif ’Umr, who in turn gave it into the keeping of his daughter Hafsa, one of the widows of Muhammad. This valuable tradition of Al-Bukhari makes it clear that Abu-Bakr, for the first time, collected the whole Quran into one book; but he apparently made no critical study of the text with a view to reducing the various readings to one uniform standard. On the contrary we learn from Al-Bukhari that within a short period the discrepancies and contradictions which existed in the various readings of the Quran became of a still graver nature; until at last the Khalif ’Usman took steps to allay the doubts which began to arise in the minds of the people. The means which ’Usman adopted were drastic in the extreme, and simply consisted in transcribing one complete copy of the Quran, and then burning all other copies For this purpose the Khalif appointed a committee, with Zaid at its head, to do the work. In the case of any difference of opinion Zaid, who was a native of Medina, had to give way, and the final decision lay with the Quraish members of the revision committee, or with the Khalif himself. A significant illustration of the latter’s interference is given in one of the traditions. It was the Khalif’s expressed desire to preserve the Quran in the Quraish dialect, the dialect of the prophet himself. It is recorded that ’Ali wished to write -- with -- the others preferred -- as --; but ’Usman decided in favour of the latter as being according to the Quraish dialect. But it so happens that the word is not an Arabic word at all, but was borrowed by Muhammad with many other words from the Rabbinical Hebrew! It is simply the Hebrew for ’ark,’ and is so introduced into the story of Moses in Sura XX. This little incident will serve to show how far the compilers of the Quran were successful in preserving the book in the Meccan dialect, the language of Gabriel and of Muhammad. We now give below the tradition concerning ’Usman’s recension of the Quran as recorded by Al-Bukhari, so that the reader may see for himself the serious condition of the Quranic text at that time, and may judge of the extraordinary and arbitrary methods adopted by ’Usman for its rectification. Anas-ibn-Malik relates : ’Huzaifah came to ’Usman, and he had fought with the people of Syria in the conquest of Armenia; and had fought in Azurbaijan with the people of ’Iraq, and he was shocked at the different ways of people reading the Quran, and Huzaifab said to ’Usman, "O ’Usman, assist this people before they differ in the Book of God, just as the Jews and Christians differ in their books." Then ’Usman sent a person to Hafsa, ordering her to send those portions which she had, and saying, "I shall have a number of copies taken, and will then return them to you." And Hafsa sent the portions to ’Usman, and ’Usman ordered Zaid-ibn-Sabit, Abdullah-ibn-az-Zuhair, Said-iba-Alas and Abd-ibn-al-Haris-ibn-Hisham; and he said to the three Quraishites, "When you and Zaid-ibn-Sabit differ about any part of the reading of the Quran, then do ye write it in the Quraish dialect, because it came not down in the language of any tribe but theirs." Then they did as ’Usman had ordered; and when a number of copies had been taken, ’Usman returned the leaves to Hafsa. And ’Usman sent a copy to every quarter of the countries of Islam, and ordered all other leaves to be burnt. And Ibn-Shahab said, "Kharijah, son of Zaid-ibn-Sabit, informed me saying, ’I could not find one verse when I was writing the Quran, which I had heard from the prophet; then I looked for it, and found it with Khuzaimah, and I entered it into Sura Al-Ahzab’." From this tradition, recorded by Bukhari, we learn several important facts. Thus it is clear that when ’Usman perceived with dismay that the differences in the reading of the Quran were becoming more and more serious day by day, he ordered Zaid and three others to again compile an authoritative edition of the Quran. The fact that these scholars had to consider a variety of readings, to weigh their authority, and, if necessary, discard them in favour of the Meccan readings shows to what an extent corruptions had crept into the text. Having completed his recension, ’Usman then collected all the copies of the older editions he could find, and burnt them. He then ordered a number of copies to be made from the new edition, and distributed them through-out the Muslim world. From this narrative it is clear that the Quran compiled under the direction of ’Usman, and still current, differed very materially from the readings which were current in different parts of Arabia at that time: otherwise it is inconceivable that the Khalif should have taken the trouble to collect and burn them in the manner recorded by Bukhari. The result is that Muslims to-day are shut up to the arbitrary edition circulated by ’Usman, and are quite unable by critical study to arrive at any satisfactory decision as to how far ’Usman’s recension agreed with that compiled under the direction of Abu-Bakr, or with the various Quranic readings current in Arabia. This at least we know, that the Shiahs have constantly charged ’Usman with suppressing and altering various passages of the Quran favourable to ’Ali and his family. Thus in the book ’Faniki-kitab-Debistan’ it is written, " ’Usman burnt the Quran, and excised from it all those passages in which was related the greatness of ’Ali and his family." Shiah books quote numerous passages which have been altered in this way, but for which this little book contains no room. The reader may find them in the writings of Ali-ibn-Ibrahim-ul-Qumi, Muhammad-Ya’qub-ul-Kulaini, Shaikh-Ahmad-ibn-’Ali-Lalit-ul-Tabrasi and Shaikh-Abu-Ali-ul-Tabrasi. This two-fold witness of the Shiahs on the one hand, and of Bukhari on the other, leaves no room for doubt that the Quran which we possess to-day is far indeed from being free from corruptions and omissions. Further, from the significant fact that ’Usman burnt all the copies of the Quran which he could find, and circulated only the one copy compiled by himself, we learn that he, at any rate, did not accept the story of the ’seven readings,’ nor credit the prophet with having called seven mutually conflicting readings of the Quran equally correct. The fact is, any unbiased study of the whole story makes it clear that, not Muhammad, but his immediate followers circulated the story which attributed to him such a foolish statement in order that Muslims should not stumble at the astounding sight of a Quran, sent down from God, appearing in different contradictory texts. Additional light is shed upon this subject by tradition of ’Ali, which runs thus, "At the time that Abu-Bakr became Khalif, ’Ali was sitting in his house. When the former came to visit him, ’Ali addressed him thus, ’I saw that people were adding to the word of God, and I resolved in my mind that I would never wear my outer cloth again, except at the time of Namaz, until I had collected the word of God’." These various traditions make it perfectly clear that the differences in the reading of the Quran were by no means confined to pronunciation, but that certain persons were in the habit of ’adding’ words of their own at the time of reciting the Quran. From Islamic history we learn that ’Ali did actually carry out his intention of making a collection of the Quran ; and it is a matter for sincere regret that ’Ali’s compilation is not to be found to-day. That it would have differed materially from the present Quran is practically certain; for it is recorded that when ’Umr asked him to lend his copy in order that other copies might he compared with it, he refused, saying that the Quran he possessed was the most accurate and perfect, and could not he submitted to any changes and alterations which might be found necessary in the other copies. He further said that he intended to hand down his copy to his descendants to be kept until the advent of the Imam Mahdi. CHAPTER III THE READING OF IBN-MAS’UD Amongst the many proofs of the corruption of ’Usman’s Quran may be mentioned the facts connected with the edition of Ibn Mas’ud. In the 20th Chapter of the 24th portion of the Mishkat-ul-Musahib a tradition of the prophet is recorded, in which he named ten of his most prominent and faithful followers, and assured his hearers that the salvation of these ten was assured. These ten names are famous in history as, ’Asharah Mubashsharah,’ ’the ten who received glad tidings.’ Of these ten Abdulla-ibn-Mas’ud was one. He is described as a great scholar and friend of the prophet. In the Mishkat a tradition of Muhammad is recorded to this effect, "Abdulla-ibn-’Umr related that the prophet (upon whom be blessing and peace) said, Learn the Quran from these four, Abdulla-ibn-Mas’ud, Salim-mula-ibn-Hazifa, Ubi-ibn-Kab, and M’aj-ibn-Jabal’." From this tradition, which could be supplemented by others to the same effect, it is clear that Ibn Mas’ud was a faithful disciple of the prophet, and had carefully and perfectly learned the Quran from his master. There is a tradition in the collection of Muslim to the effect that Ibn-Mas’ud once said, "I swear by the name of the one God that there is no Sura in the book of God which I do not know, and concerning the revelation of which I am ignorant; nor is there a single verse which I do not know." In another tradition Ibn-Mas’ud is reported as saying, "The companions of the prophet well know that I know the Quran better than they all." There is also a tradition recorded by ’Umr to this effect, "The prophet of God (on whom be blessing and peace) ’said, ’Let him who wishes to read the Quran as it was sent down, read according to the reading of the son of the mother of Abd (i.e., Abdulla-ibn-Mas’ud)’." From the cumulative evidence of these different traditions it is clear that the Quran reading of Ibn-Mas’ud was seen as the correct one, and that, at that time at least, it was free from additions or corruptions. Yet the astounding fact confronts us that Ibn-Mas’ud was a bitter opponent of ’ Usman’s recension of the Quran; that he, in fact, not only refused to have anything to do with it but consistently refused to hand over his own copy to the Khalif. Not only so, but when the latter gave orders for the collection and destruction of all copies of the Quran except his own, Ibn-Mas’ud immediately advised his own disciples, the people of Iraq, to hide their copies of the Quran, and not to give them over to destruction, in these words, "O people of Iraq, hide your Qurans, and shut them up under lock and key." It is recorded that the Khalif forcibly seized and burnt Ibn-Mas’u-d’s Quran, and so unmercifully chastised the companion of the prophet that he died a few days later from the beating he received. But the significant fact remains that Ibn-Mas’ud not only refused to give up his perfect copy of the Quran in favour of an arbitrary compilation made by ’Usman, but also urged his disciples to continue reading his own edition. The whole narrative makes it clear that ’Usman’s Quran differed very considerably from the reading which Ibn-Mas’ud had learnt from the prophet; for on no other hypothesis can the former’s unmerciful treatment of this great theologian be explained. We shall have occasion, later on in this little book, to point out some of the grave differences between the readings of Ibn-Mas’ud and ’Usma~n; it must suffice here to remind the reader that Ibn-Mas’ud’s Quran contained neither’ Sura Fatiha, nor Suras Talaq and Nas. One cannot but wonder at the temerity of the Khalif in thus destroying the very Quran which the apostle himself had taught men to follow, and in substituting another which differed seriously from it. In spite of the drastic measures adopted by ’Usman for the suppression of all other copies of the Quran except his own, the reading of Ibn-Mas’ud continued for many years to be preserved amongst his followers, the people of Iraq. Thus in the year 378 of the Hegira a copy of Ibn-Mas’ud’s Quran was discovered at Bagdad, which proved, on examination, to differ materially from the editions then current. It was at once burnt midst the acclamations of the deluded people. Not only, however, did ’Usman’s Quran differ from the accurate copy of Ibn-Mas’ud, but it differed also from the previous recension which had been made by Abu-Bakr. In the traditions it is related that Abu-Bakr’s Quran remained, at his death, in the custody of Hafsa, his daughter, but upon the death of the latter, Merwan the Governor of Medina, demanded the copy from her brother, Ibn-’Umr, and immediately burnt it, saying, "If it be published abroad, people finding differences will again begin to doubt." Thus we see that the Quran current all over the Islamic world to-day agrees neither with that of Abu-Bakr, nor with that of Ibn-Mas’ud, nor with that, now unfortunately lost, which was collected by ’Ali. The current Quran is, in fact, mutilated and corrupted to such an extent, as we shall further prove in subsequent pages, that it is no longer worthy of faith and acceptance as the complete Quran taught in the beginning by Muhammad himself. CHAPTER IV THE TESTIMONY OF IMAM HUSAIN CONCERNING THE VARIOUS READINGS OF THE QURAN We saw in the preceding chapters that the Khalif ’Usman shocked at the grave differences which had crept into the reading of the Quran, applied a drastic remedy by compiling one authoritative copy, and then burning all the rest. But even these measures were ineffectual; and in spite of ’Usman’s recension, the ’seven readings,’ at least in a modified form, still continued to exist. These various readings are known as the ’Haft Qira’at’, and the readers, through whom these various readings have been handed down, are known as Qaris. Some were natives of Mecca, some of Medina, some of Kufa, and some of Syria; and the different readings of the Quran continue to be known by the names of those who gave them currency. Thus the reading current in India is known as that of ’Asim, or of Hafaz, his disciple; whilst the qira’at current in Arabia is that of Nafi, a native of Medina. Jalalud-din, on the other hand, in his famous commentary, follows the qira’at of the Qari Imam-Abu-’Umr. Many of the differences are merely in pronunciation, but in not a few cases grave differences in meaning still exist. Thus in sura Fatiha the Qaris Ya’qub, ’Asim, Kisa’i and Khalaf-i-Kufi approve of the reading (m¯alik); whereas every other Qari reads (malik). We will now fulfil our promise to give specific examples of the many differences which exist even in the present text of the Quran; though the reader should bear in mind the fact that even if that were now perfect, it would signify little, seeing that ’Usman’s recension itself has been proved untrustworthy. Before giving detailed examples of the present corruption of the Quranic text, however, we here quote some pregnant remarks upon the subject from the introduction to the famous commentary of Imam Husain. The great commentator writes thus, "And as the readings which are authorized to be read are various, and their difference in letters and words innumerable, trustworthy readings according to Bakr, approved by Imam ’Asim, prevalent in this country and reliable, are inserted in these pages (of this commentary). And a few such passages, which, on account of the difference, entirely alter the meaning of the Quran, and opposed by Hafaz, are also referred to." From these candid remarks of the great commentator Kamal-ud-din Husain it is clear that a number of various readings still exist in the Quran, and that in words and letters ’innumerable’ corruptions have crept into the text. Not only so; but the great scholar freely confesses that in a number of cases the meaning of the Quran is quite altered thereby. The Imam further informed us that various readings are current in different countries, some of which are trustworthy, whilst others are not. Others of the readings to be referred to by him, he tells us, are opposed to the reading of Hafaz, that is, of the reading current in India to-day; but which reading, of all these conflicting copies, really represents the original Quran circulated by ’Usman, not to speak of that Quran taught by Muhammad himself, neither Imam Husain nor any other Muslim scholar is able to tell us. One thing however is certain these discrepancies do exist, and thereby prove incontestably that the boasted Divine protection of the Quran, as a matter of fact, does not exist. A study of the Traditions throws considerable light upon this perplexing problem, and shows how many of these differences arose; whilst the total disappearance of whole verses and Suras is also largely accounted for by a reference to the same authorities. Thus in a tradition preserved by ’Umr we read, ’Umr said, "Hisham read certain verses in Sura Furqan which the prophet had not taught me. I said, ’Who taught you this Sura?’ He said, ’The Prophet of God.’ I said, You lie, the prophet of God never taught it to you thus’." As a matter of fact Islamic history contains many references to the various readings of the Quran. Thus we read that a certain Quran reader named Ibn-Sanabud was once reading the Quran in the great Mosque of Bagdad; but his reading not agreeing with the reading of that place, he was severely beaten and cast into prison, and only released upon his renouncing the reading with which he was familiar. These various readings differed not only in pronunciation, but in a number of cases the whole meaning of the Quranic passage was altered. We now proceed to give a few examples of such passages, which are referred to by Husain, Baizawi and other learned Muslim authorities in their writings. In the celebrated commentary of Imam Husain we read that in the first ruku of Sura Ambiya the current reading is, "He (Muhammad) said, My Lord knows;" but according to the reading of Bakr we should read, "Say thou (O, Muhammad), My Lord knows." Here we have a concrete example of a serious difference in the text of the Quran, which totally alters the meaning of the passage. According to the one reading God addresses the prophet, and orders him to say, "My Lord knows," whilst in the other, the prophet is represented as affirming in his reply to the unbelievers that, "My Lord knows." From a host of others we quote one more example from the same authority. In the first ruku of Sara Azhab we read, "The prophet is nigher to the true believers than their own souls, and his wives are their mothers." But the Imam Saheb tells us that according to the copy of Ubi and the reading of Ibn-Mas’ud we should read several additional words in this passage, viz., "and he (Muhammad) is their father." The reader will now perceive why Ibn-Mas’ud refused to give up his Quran to the Khalif ’Usman; and, remembering the high encomiums passed upon the former’s Quran by the prophet himself, will readily believe that these words have disappeared from the present Quran. If, then, our Islamic brethren, in spite of these undoubted defects in their sacred book, can still continue to read and believe in the same, upon what process of reasoning, we ask, do they object to read the Injil because, as they think, it has been altered in some places? CHAPTER V THE TESTIMONY OP KAZI BAIZAWI CONCERNING THE VARIOUS READINGS OP THE QURAN Those who have read the commentaries of the famous Islamic scholar Kazi Baizawi well know that he, also, has pointed out many variations in the different copies of the Quran. We give below a few examples from the writings of this well-known commentator. It is a matter for surprise that in the very first chapter of the Quran, a chapter the excellences of which Muslim writers are never tired of relating, and which every good Muslim should repeat in his daily prayers, a number of various readings exist, and have caused no little perplexity to Islamic scholars. Thus we learn from the Kazi that in verse 5 in some copies we have -- whilst in others the word is spelt -- . Yet it is perfectly certain that both readings cannot be correct. Again, in verse 6 of the same Sura, Baizawi tells us that the words (Sirat allazina anamta alaihim) have in some copies of the Quran been changed to (Sirat man anamta alaihim). What, then, becomes of the supposed freedom of the Quran from corruption, in view of such facts; and where, we ask, is the much vaunted Divine protection of the Quran? Is it not perfectly clear that in some copies the word (allazina) has either been changed to (man); or else in other copies the original word (man) has been corrupted into (allazina)? Again, Baizawi tells us, in the eighth verse of the same Sura a serious variation of reading occurs. According to Baizawi the current reading (la azzalina) has been, in some copies, changed to (ghair azzalina). Granting that in these examples the meaning has not been altered to any extent, the fact still remains that certain words have been substituted for others in this important Bura of the Quran. Both were not in the original copies. In the twenty-first verse of Sura Bakr, Kazi Baizawi points out another important corruption of the text. The received reading is (abdena) "our servant;" but Baizawi tells us that in some copies the word appears in the plural as, (abadena), "our servants." In the latter case, the whole verse would read thus: "If ye be in doubt concerning that (revelation) which we have sent down unto our servants," thus making others besides Muhammad the recipients of the Quranic revelation. In the fifth verse of Sura Nisa another important corruption of the Quranic text is to be seen. Baizawi tells us that in this verse the words (fan anastum) "If you see," have in some copies been altered to (fan ahastum) "If you know." Such corruptions of the Quranic text are numerous, and prove beyond question that the text of the Quran is far from perfect. Indeed, as we shall afterwards prove, it has been so corrupted and mutilated that the present edition is absolutely untrustworthy as a complete copy of that Quran which the prophet of Arabia taught his followers. In the fifteenth verse of Sura Nisa, Baizawi points out another grave variation in the different copies of the Quran,which is worthy of notice. It is there written "and he has a brother or a sister." But the Kazi informs us that, according to the readings of Ubi and Zaid-ibn-Malik two other words should be added to those quoted, viz., "from a mother." In his comment upon the passage Baizawi himself explains it as having this meaning. Thus the illustration before us affords an interesting example of the way in which various readings sometimes come into existence through the insertion of marginal explanatory words into the text itself for the purpose of rendering the meaning more lucid. The ninety-first verse of Sura Maida furnishes another example of the corruption of the text of the Quran. It is there written that the expiation of an oath should be the feeding of ten poor men, but if the offender has not wherewith to carry out this demand of the law, he may fast three days instead. Thus in the current copy of the Quran we read, "three days’ fast." But the famous legist Abu Hanifa reads an additional word here, so that the offender should be made to fast "three days together." Thus Abu Hanifa reads, ‘This variation in the reading is a most serious one, for it touches, and alters, the very laws of Islam.’ Thus Abu Hanifa and all his followers teach a three-days’ continuous fast; whilst Baizawi and others look upon this teaching as false, and opposed to the Quran. Who is to say, after this lapse of time, which reading represents that of the original Quran? In the 154th verse of Sura Anam the current Quran reads, "Truly this is my way"; but Baizawi here quotes two readings which differ from this text. In the first we read, "This is your Lord’s way," and in the second, "This is thy Lord’s way." The reader will observe that in the second and third readings here quoted by Baizawi, one word is missing altogether, whilst two other words and have been added. Little wonder is it that ’Usman, shocked at the many discrepancies, which, as early as his time, appeared in the reading of the Quran, should seek to reduce them all to one uniform text ; it is as little a matter for surprise that the Khalif failed so ignominiously to effect his purpose. Many of these corruptions of the Quranic text bear upon their face the evidence of the clumsy hand of the forger; and reveal, by their very nature, the reason for their existence. Thus in Sura T. H. we read, "He (Aaron) said, O my mother’s son." But in Sura Araf, verse 149, we find only "He said, my mother’s son." A close examination of these passages shows that in the first the usual interjection of address which accompanies the vocative, viz., is properly present, but is absent from the second. Thus it becomes clear that, in order to preserve the elegance and beauty of the language of the Quran, the usual interjection of address should be added to the second passage also. Now Baizawi makes it clear that this has actually taken place, and that some good Muslims, in order to remove this reproach from the Quran, have actually added the necessary word in their copies of the Quran. Thus Baizawi tells us that Ibn-Amar, Hamza, Kisai and Abu-Bakr read in this place "O, my mother’s son." Either our inference is correct, or else we must assume that the word ’O’ is correctly found in the copies of the scholars mentioned, but has, like many other words, been lost from the current copy of the Quran; in either case we have here a striking example of the uncertainty which surrounds the present text of that book. Again in Sura Jonas, verse 92, we have a striking example of ’tahrif lafzi’ or corruption of the text of the Quran. It is there written that the death of Pharoah in the Red Sea remained as a ’sign’ for the warning and instruction of all who should come after him. Thus in the current Quran we read, "A sign for those who come after thee." But Baizawi tells us that some copies of the Quran read, "A sign for Him who created thee." Here the meaning of the Quran is entirely altered; and the perplexed Muslim must ever remain in ignorance as to which of these rival readings represents the original Quran. Yet another extraordinary variation of reading is found in verse 36 of Sura Kahaf. In current copies of the Quran the passage reads, "But God is my Lord, and I will not associate any with my Lord." But the Kazi tells us in his commentary that in some copies the passage reads thus, "But God is my Lord; but we are not God; He only is our Lord." Comment on this extraordinary corruption of the Quranic text would be superfluous. The reader may judge for himself. Another serious wilful corruption of the Quran is made evident by Kazi Baizawi’s comment on verse 38 of Sura Y.S. The passage alluded to runs thus, "And the sun hasteneth to his place of rest." No educated Muslim believes that the sun moves by day, and rests during the time we call night; but a liberal view of this passage would suggest that it simply speaks in popular language, and does not attempt to impart scientific truth. But some zealous followers of the prophet, not content with this explanation and seeking to remove a fancied imperfection from the pages of the Quran, have adopted the drastic expedient of adding a word to the passage. Thus Baizawi informs us that in some copies of the Quran the word "No" is added in this place, so that the meaning becomes: the sun has no place of rest! Before we conclude this chapter we shull give yet one more example of the corruption of the text of the Quran as furnished by Kazi Baizawi. In the first verse of Bura Kamar the current Quran reads, "The hour approacheth ; and the moon hath been split in sunder." It is well known that controversy long and bitter has taken place between different sections of Muslims over the meaning of this passage. Some affirm that we have here clear testimony to a wonderful miracle performed by Muhammad in the splitting of the moon. Others, instead, contend that the whole passage has a future signification, and that all that the passage teaches is that at the judgment day the moon will be split asunder. What was needed to make the passage undoubtedly refer to a past event was the addition of some word having that meaning. Now, strange to relate, Baizawi tells us that precisely this has taken place and in some copies the word "now" or "just now" appears; so that the passage reads "the moon has now been split asunder." Is it not clear as the day that some Muslim controversialists, in order to fortify their own opinion, and at the same time glorify the prophet, have here inserted in their copies of the Quran this word ? If this inference, to which we are surely shut up, be correct, does not the whole incident throw a lurid light on the treatment to which the scriptures of Islam have been subjected in the past; and does it not show the baselessness of the extravagant claims which are sometimes made by Muslims regarding the integrity of the Quranic text? Examples similar to those given above could be multiplied. Space, however, will not permit of further illustration here. We have shown enough to prove to every unprejudiced and open-minded reader that the Quran has been greatly corrupted, and that Sunni and Shiah alike agree in affirming that numerous differences exist in different copies. Many reliable scholars even admit that in many cases the text of the Quran has been wilfully corrupted by unscrupulous Muslims. Thus Baizawi, Malam and Abul Fida all refer to one such person Abdulla-ibn-Zaid-ibn Sarih by name. He was, they tell us, an amanuensis of the prophet, and used to maliciously alter various passages of the Quran. But not only is the text of the Quran, as it exists to-day, open to serious doubt; and not only do innumerable varieties of reading exist with respect to the present text; but we shall now proceed to prove from reliable Muslim sources that large portions of the original Quran are missing altogether from the present copies; that, in fact, the present Quran only represents a portion - and that corrupted - of the original book which was delivered by Muhammad to his followers. CHAPTER VI THE TESTIMONY OP THE TRADITIONS TO THE QURAN The reader will remember that the Khalif ’Usman collected one copy of the Quran, and then burnt all the rest. He then circulated his own compilation throughout the Muslim world. This action of the Khalif has ever since been condemned in the strongest terms by the Shiahs, who affirm that many passages referring to ’Ali and his family have been expunged from the Quran. A complete chapter of the Quran, now absent from the present copies, and containing many references to the supremacy of ’Ali, may still be seen. It is called "Two lights," by which Muhammad and ’Ali are meant. The reader may find this remarkable Sura quoted in full in pages 11-13 of the book "Tahqiq-al-Iman." It is most probable that this Sura was present in ’Ali’s copy of the Quran; but unfortunately that is no longer available. The Shiahs, however, believe that when Al Mahdi, the last Imam, appears, the complete Quran will once again be given to the world. Any study of the traditions makes it clear that, in the time of Muhammad, the Quran was very much larger than it is to-day. Thus a tradition of Abi-Abdulla recorded by Hasham-ibn-Shalam relates that, "There were 17,000 verses in that Quran which Gabriel delivered to Muhammad, upon whom be blessing and peace." But according to Baizawi the present Quran only contains 6,264 verses; so that we learn from this important tradition, which is supported by others to the same effect, that the present Quran is only about two-thirds the size of the original volume! In another tradition it is recorded that, "Muhammad-ibn-Nasar heard from him (Abi-Abdulla). He said, In Sura Lam Yakin there were (once) the names of seventy Quraish, and the names of their fathers." A search reveals the fact that this list of names has disappeared absolutely from the present copy of the Quran. The obvious explanation is that they formed a part of that large portion of the Quran which has been lost, and which is referred to in the tradition quoted above. In the famous book called Itqan, and written by Jalal-ud-Din, it is stated that there once existed a verse in Sura Akhrab in which the punishment for adultery was laid down. This famous verse, which is known as ’Ayat Al-Rajam’, is referred to frequently in the traditions, and there is not the slightest doubt that it once formed a part of the Quran. The passage in the Itqan referred to above runs thus, "In it (Sura Akhrab) was Ayat Al-Rajam. He (Ibn-Kab) said, ’and what is Al-Rajam?’ He (Ibn-Jish) said, ’If any married man or woman commit adultery, stone them’." This verse is not found in the present copies of the Quran; yet the evidence that it really formed a part of the original book is overwhelming. For instance, it is stated that ’Umr knew it to be a genuine part of the Quran, but as he was unable to find any Quran reader to substantiate his opinion, he refused to incorporate it in the book. In the work Kitab-fatah-al-Bari it is written, “Umr said, He had evidence that Ayat Al-Rajam was a part of the Quran; but on his own unsupported testimony he did not (dare to) put it in the book." These traditions show us that the present ideas of the marvellous power of memory said to be possessed by men (Hafiz) of the prophet’s day need to be seriously modified; for here we have an undoubted verse of the Quran for the authenticity of which not a single Hafiz could be found to vouch. There is, however, more than one tradition which records the testimony of Ayesha, the favourite wife of the prophet, with reference to this verse. One tradition runs thus, "Ayesha said that the Sura Akhrab which she was reading was incomplete. In the time of the prophet it contained two hundred verses. And when ’Usman wrote the Quran, he accepted nothing except what he found authenticated, and in it was Ayat Al-Rajam." This testimony of the favourite wife of the prophet fully substantiates the statements made above as to the incompleteness of the present copy of the Quran; for whereas Ayesha tells us that in the time of Muhammad Sura Akhrab contained two hundred verses, the present Quran only contains seventy-three. Ayesha further adds her testimony to ’Umr’s to the fact that Ayat Al-Rajam once existed in this Sura; but, needless to say, no trace of it can be found in the present current edition of the Quran. Another tradition, recorded in Kitab Muhajarat explains the disappearance of this celebrated verse. It is there recorded that, "Ayesha said, Ayat Al Rajam and Ayat Rajaeta were sent down and committed to writing; but the paper was underneath my seat; and when the prophet (upon whom be blessing and peace) died, and we were busy with his funeral, a goat entered (the house) and ate it up "! We do not care to comment further upon this verse. The reader must either be devoid of all literary sense, or blinded by prejudice, if he fails to see how such facts as we have recorded above absolutely shatter all claims to a Divine protection of the Quran. Lest this language should be deemed exaggerated, we quote a few more traditions from reliable authorities, which will enable the reader to see that we are only stating plain facts. There is a well-known tradition of Ibn-’Umr’s to the following effect, "Ibn-’Umr said, Let no one of you say, ’I have the whole Quran’. That which is known is not the whole, for a great part has been taken from it; but say, I have that which has been saved (made manifest) from it." Yet another tradition runs to this effect, "Ibn-Jish said, Ibn-Kab said, ’How many verses are there in Sura Akhrab?’ I said, ’Seventy-two or seventy-three.’ He said, ’Sura Akhrab was (once) equal to Sura Bakr’." This well-known tradition is found in the famous work of Jalal-ud-Din Seyuti, known as the Itqan. It tells us that Sura Akbrab, now containing seventy-two or seventy-three verses, was once equal to Sura Bakr which contains two hundred and eighty six verses. Thus it is seen that from this one Sura alone over two hundred verses have absolutely disappeared. There is also a well-known tradition of Ibn-Abbas to the effect that, “He (Ibn-Abbas) said, ’I asked Ali-ibn-Abi Talib, why was not the Bismilla written in Sura Barat’. He said, ’Because the Bismilla is for faith, but Sura Barat was sent down for the sword (war). And there is a tradition from Malik that when the first portion of Sura Barat was destroyed, then the Bismilla was lost with it; but if it had been proved, then verily it would have been equal in length to Sura Bakr’." In the traditions collected by Muslims, in the book Al-Jakat there is a tradition to the effect that a Quran reader named Abu-Musa-Ashari addressing a number of Quran readers at Busra said, "We used to read a Sura equal in length and threatenings to Sura Barat, then I forgot it wholly except one verse.....and we also used to read another Sura that was equal to one of the Musabbehat; so I forgot that too, saving one verse which I recollect." Needless to say, none of these chapters appears in ’Usman’s collection. In the history of the famous traditionist Al-Bukhari another tradition affirms the total loss of a large number of verses from Sura Akhrab. It runs as follows, "And Bukhari has written in his history a tradition from Hazifta that he said, I was reading Sura Al-Akhrab before the prophet, but I forgot seventy verses from it, and I did not obtain them (again)." Yet one other tradition deserves to be inserted here before we bring this account to a close. It concerns, not the past, but the future history of the Quran It is related from Ibn Maja (Chapter Jahab-al-Quran and Al-Alam) as follows: "Hazifta ibn-Iman said, The prophet of God (on whom be blessing and peace) said, Islam will become worn out like the hem of an old garment, until (at last) people will not know what is the meaning of fasting, or prayer, or sacrifice or almsgiving; and in one night the word of God (Quran) will disappear, and not a single verse of it will be left upon the Earth." We do not intend to comment further on the traditions we have quoted above. They are sufficient to reveal to every open-minded truth-seeker the present condition of the Quranic text. Muslims are generally taught to believe that the Quran has been Divinely protected from all change. Indeed the Quran itself makes this weighty claim in these words: We have surely sent down the Quran, and we will certainly preserve the same (from corruption)". Whilst in another place we read, "This book, the verses whereof are guarded against corruption is a revelation from the wise and knowing God." The same preposterous claim is made in the traditions; and in the book Fazail-ul-Quran we read, "Even if the Quran were cast into the fire, it would not be burned"! Let the reader judge of the value of these claims for the integrity of the Quran in the light of the testimony from Muslim authors which has been adduced in this account, and he will see that in claiming to be Divinely protected from all change the Quran condemns itself, and proves its human origin. The reader desiring further information on this important topic may procure from the Panjab Tract Society, Lahore, the following Urdu publications Hidayat-ul-Muslimin, Minar-ul-Haqq, Mizan-ul-Haqq, Tahqiq-ul-Iman, Tabrifi-i-Quran and Tawil-ul-Quran. Let the reader, then, with all earnestness, pursue the study of this all-important subject; for those whose opinions and comments we have quoted are the foremost of the scholars of Islam, and their testimony cannot lightly be set aside. We have seen what men like Kazi Baizawi, Imam Husain, Muslim, Bukhari and Jallal-ud-Din have to say with regard to the Quran. We have seen how, even in the life-time of Muhammad himself, grave differences arose in the various readings of the Quran; we have traced the history of the unsuccessful attempts made to reduce them all to one uniform text; we have noted how gravely the recension of ’Usman differed from that of Abu Bakr and the copy of Ibn-Ma’sud; and we have seen, upon the testimony of the greatest commentators of the Quran how the present text contains "innumerable " differences of reading, many of which entirely alter the meaning of the passages concerned; and, finally, we have noted the consensus of testimony, afforded by the traditions, to the fact that large portions of the Quran have disappeared altogether. Such being the case, surely it is the highest wisdom for Muslims to turn to that scripture in the hands of the ’People of the Book’ which Muhammad himself commanded men to believe and follow. Manifestly they were uncorrupted at the time of the Arabian preacher, as his repeated references to them clearly show; and that they have not been corrupted since that time is equally certain; for copies still exist in the great Museums of Europe which were written long before the time of Muhammad, and these agree with the Gospels current to-day. Let the reader, ere he closes this account, consider carefully the Quranic passage which adorns the title page. It is there written, "Ask those who are acquainted with the scripture, if ye know not." Then is it not your highest wisdom, O Muslim reader, to follow this teaching of the Quran, and seek in the Gospels the way of eternal life? Not only are Muslims in general thus advised to seek a solution of their doubts by a reference to Christians; but the Quran pictures Muhammad himself as receiving the same admonition. In Sura Jonas, verse 92, it is written, "If thou art in doubt concerning that which we have sent down unto thee (O Muhammad), ask them who are reading the Book before thee." We have seen, in the preceding pages, that there is ample reason to doubt the testimony of the Quran as it exists to-day ; let Muslims then, with fearless resolution, turn to the Gospels and learn from them of the wonderful love of God as revealed in Christ Jesus. Jesus Himself said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away; but my words shall not pass away." It is in the Injil that we have the perfect revelation of the character and will of God; it is in the Injil that we find revealed the way of eternal life; for it is there we learn that God so loved the world that He gave the Lord Jesus Christ, that whosoever believeth on Him might not perish, but have everlasting life. Reader, listen to the loving invitation of the Saviour Himself, "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." ======================================================================== CHAPTER 10: 02.04. THE SUPPOSED TEACHING OF THE KORAN ======================================================================== ‘Isa, the Muslim Jesus by Dr Mark Durie "The word Christian is not a valid word, for there is no religion of Christianity according to Islam". — www.answering-christianity.com 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). (Editors’ Note: So in the view of Islam all historical documents were fakes, the Torah, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Prophetic Writings and the New Testament. The latter replacing the true teaching of Jesus within twenty years without anyone, especially the disciples, noticing! Everyone everywhere was busy faking while the truth did not survive anywhere. To lose one prophetic writing could be seen as careless, to lose them all surely impossible. What of those who were set to protect them, especially the disciples (whom they claim were Muslims), and what of the supposed watchfulness of Allah over the truth? If someone can believe this they can believe anything. And they have to). The Biblical prophets were all Muslims (according to 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). (Editor’s note: So all Jesus teaching about knowing the Father and believing in Him has to be dismissed. The most remarkable teaching found in the world has to be treated as a fake). ‘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). (Editor’s note: And it all got lost, just like that. It should, however, be noted that Muhammad recommended the people of his day to consult these books. He seems not to have been aware that they had been lost! See for example: "Say ye: We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, 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." (Surah al-Baqara 2:136) "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 therein. 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." (Surah Ma-ida 5:47,49,50,52) "Say: we believe in the revelation which has come down to us and that which came down to you." (Surah al-Ankabut 29:46) End of note). 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, Muslims now teach that 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’Amos 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). (Editor’s note: The consequence of all this would be that ‘Isa’s teaching was so ineffectual that it was totally forgotten, while the remarkable teaching found in the Gospels, which demands someone like Jesus the Messiah, sprang up from nowhere without divine assistance). 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 , 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 2:19 a) (Editor’s Note: It is not surprising that Muhammad rejected his own version of the doctrine of the Trinity which included the Father, Mary and their son Jesus. He clearly thought of it in very literalistic and naive human terms which no one could have accepted). The story of the ‘two horned one’ (Al-Kahf 18:82 cf also Daniel 8:3, Daniel 8:20-21) 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 version of the 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. (Editor’s note: So it is clear that Muhammad had some garbled information which he put together in writing his account with no ability to distinguish fact from fiction). 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. Allah 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." (Editor’s note: We note how quickly Christians must have lost it. Even though we are told that the disciples of Jesus were Muslims they were seemingly ineffective in preserving the traditions of Islam. They just disappeared before the Gospels could be written, and no one took any notice of what they had to say on the matter. Does this seem even faintly credible?) 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, for example, 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 removes all the evidence that He ever lived, and calls it lies. Ed). 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 are 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. (Editors note; And the conclusion must be that whoever ‘Isa was he was not Jesus in any way). ======================================================================== CHAPTER 11: 02.05. WHAT DO MUSLIMS TEACH? ======================================================================== The Basic Ideas of ‘Islam’ (which means ‘Submission’). Muslims see all religions in the light of how they are presented in the Koran. On the whole they do not study other religions so as to find out what they genuinely teach, but accepting the Koran’s version of them, judge them on that basis. They have thus a very strange idea of what other religions, and especially Christians, teach. Although now that they are mixing with the West some of their propagators are trying to understand it better, they do it in a vague kind of fashion. But their tendency is to totally misrepresent what it teaches, preferring to knock down a cruder version of it, whether deliberately or accidentally. Mohammad had heard certain stories related to Christianity and clearly confused them. Thus he confused the account of Zechariah receiving news in the Temple of the birth to his wife of a son, John the Baptist, and thought it related to the birth of Jesus. He also obtained some of his ideas, possibly from travelling storytellers, by hearsay, and these were partly taken at some point from the fake pseudo-Gospels of the second century AD onwards (that Jesus spoke at birth, that he turned clay birds into real ones, and so on). If he met people who claimed to be Christians they were clearly ill-taught and naive. Mohammad could not read or write. But these contacts stirred his latent ‘prophetic’ spirit and he began to have vivid experiences in which he felt that God was speaking to him However if it really was God who gave him the revelation surely He would have known what real Christians believed, and Mohammad’s view of what they believed was naive in the extreme. We can understand Mohammad getting the wrong idea, but his ideas were supposed to be given to him by God and his angel in a way that was without error. Did not God then know what the orthodox Christian view was? He certainly gathered a very naive and earthy view of the doctrine of the Trinity. He was seemingly totally unaware of the actual teaching of true Christians about the oneness of God, and the pre-existence of Jesus as the Son from eternity, and instead thought that Christians believed in three gods, and that those three gods were the Father, the virgin Mariam (actually Miriam, for they relate her to Aaron and Moses) and their son ‘Isa, who until that time had had no pre-existence, and was produced from the virgin Mariam by a created ‘spirit’. Thus from what he learned from the storytellers ‘Isa (Jesus) did not exist until he was born as a man through Mariam. There is no wonder that he found it difficult to accept this rather crude idea (as he saw it) of another god being born long after creation, and along with Mariam joining a family of gods. It was polytheism, not Christianity. So what he rightly rejected was the heresy that had grown up that saw the Virgin Mary as in some way divine, and the consequence that followed it. Sadly he never heard the real teaching of Christianity about the Triune God, Who was God from all eternity and consisted of three inter-personal, and inter-communciating, relationships within the Godhead. As the Athanasian Creed reads, "We worship one God in threeness and Threeness in Unity; neither dividing the substance nor confusing the persona (inter-personal and inter-communicating ‘persona’ but not individual persons)." And as Paul says, ‘For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live’ (1 Corinthians 8:5-6; cf. Ephesians 4:4-6). We will now consider some of what he said about Jesus. And remember it was supposed to be God Who was saying this. In the following quotes what is in brackets and italics are our notes. (The Birth of ‘Isa (Jesus)). (Allah approaches Zachariah and tells him that he will, instead of a child from his wife, have a special child born from a virgin mother, his protégé Mariam. Compare Luke 1:5-25 of the birth of John the Baptiser, and Luke 1:26-45 of the birth of Jesus, which he telescopes together, as possibly the storyteller had also done). Quote. Mariam "19.2": A mention of the mercy of your Lord to His servant Zakariya. "19.3": When he called upon his Lord in a low voice, "19.4": He said: My Lord! surely my bones are weakened and my head flares with hoariness, and, my Lord! I have never been unsuccessful in my prayer to Thee: "19.5": And surely I fear my cousins after me, and my wife is barren, therefore grant me from Thyself an heir, "19.6": Who should inherit me and inherit from the children of Yaqoub, and make him, my Lord, one in whom Thou art well pleased. "19.7": O Zakariya! surely We give you good news of a boy whose name shall be Yahya: We have not made before anyone his equal. "19.8": He said: O my Lord! when shall I have a son, and my wife is barren, and I myself have reached indeed the extreme degree of old age? "19.9": He said: So shall it be, your Lord says: It is easy to Me, and indeed I created you before, when you were nothing. "19.10": He said: My Lord! give me a sign. He said: Your sign is that you will not be able to speak to the people three nights while in sound health. "19.11": So he went forth to his people from his place of worship, then he made known to them that they should glorify (Allah) morning and evening. (Comments are now made on the coming birth of the child. We should note here that he was to die and be raised to life). "19.12": O Yahya! take hold of the Book with strength, and We granted him wisdom while yet a child "19.13": And tenderness from Us and purity, and he was one who guarded (against evil), "19.14": And dutiful to his parents, and he was not insolent, disobedient. "19.15": And peace on him on the day he was born, and on the day he dies, and on the day he is raised to life (Mariam goes aside to have the child). "19.16": And mention Mariam in the Book when she drew aside from her family to an eastern place; (The angel appears to her) "19.17": So she took a veil (to screen herself) from them; then We sent to her Our spirit, and there appeared to her a well-made man. "19.18": She said: Surely I fly for refuge from you to the Beneficent God, if you are one guarding (against evil). "19.19": He said: I am only a messenger of your Lord: That I will give you a pure boy. "19.20": She said: When shall I have a boy and no mortal has yet touched me, nor have I been unchaste? "19.21": He said: Even so; your Lord says: It is easy to Me: and that We may make him a sign to men and a mercy from Us, and it is a matter which has been decreed. (The child is born and speaks to his mother and comforts her). "19.22": So she conceived him; then withdrew herself with him to a remote place. "19.23": And the throes (of childbirth) compelled her to betake herself to the trunk of a palm tree. She said: Oh, would that I had died before this, and had been a thing quite forgotten! "19.24": Then (the child) called out to her from beneath her: Grieve not, surely your Lord has made a stream to flow beneath you; "19.25": And shake towards you the trunk of the palmtree, it will drop on you fresh ripe dates: "19.26": So eat and drink and refresh the eye. Then if you see any mortal, say: Surely I have vowed a fast to the Beneficent God, so I shall not speak to any man today. (Mariam brings her child to the people). "19.27": And she came to her people with him, carrying him (with her). They said: O Mariam! surely you have done a strange thing. "19.28": O sister of Haroun! your father was not a bad man, nor, was your mother an unchaste woman. (In justifying herself Mariam points to her baby who miraculously gives a full explanation of the situation). "19.29": But she pointed to him. They said: How should we speak to one who was a child in the cradle? "19.30": He said: Surely I am a servant of Allah; He has given me the Book and made me a prophet; "19.31": And He has made me blessed wherever I may be, and He has enjoined on me prayer and poor-rate (Editors note: money set aside for the poor) so long as I live; "19.32": And dutiful to my mother, and He has not made me insolent, unblessed; "19.33": And peace on me on the day I was born, and on the day I die, and on the day I am raised to life. (A comment saying that Allah could not have a son born at this time long after creation, and born at this time to be a god). "19.34": Such is ‘Isa, son of Mariam; (this is) the saying of truth about which they dispute. "19.35": It beseems not Allah that He should take to Himself a son, glory to be Him; when He has decreed a matter He only says to it "Be," and it is. End of quote. So Mohammad had no real conception of what Christians actually teach or believe in, no conception that they taught the eternal pre-existence of the Son, and no idea at all about what the Bible speaks of when it speaks of ‘the Spirit of God’ which in all cases refers to God directly in action. He confused the Spirit with angels. He thought that the idea was that a new god had come into being who had been born to Mariam, who was also to be seen as a goddess. Mohammad further thought that ‘Isa’s (Jesus’) mother Mariam was the daughter of ‘Imran, (Âl ’Imran 3:34,35) — compare the Amram of Exodus 6:20 — and the sister of Haroun (Aaron, and thus of Moses). (Mariam 19:28 above). She was looked after by Zachariah (father of John the Baptist) who because his wife was barren was told that instead of a son to him a miraculous son would be born to Mariam (Âl ’Imran 3:36) while still a virgin (Al-An’Amos 6:12; Mariam 19:19-21) Mariam gave birth to ‘Isa alone in a desolate place under a date palm tree. (Mariam 19:22ff). It is thus also clear that he had no realisation of the time that had passed between Moses and the birth of Jesus. So he thought that ‘Isa would propagate what he saw as the fairly recently given Torah of Moses. Jesus would , of course, proclaim and expand on the Torah, but not as Mohammad intended it. (Quote). The Family of Imran (Al Imran).. The birth of Miriam "3.35": When a woman of Imran said: My Lord! surely I vow to Thee what is in my womb, to be devoted (to Thy service); accept therefore from me, surely Thou art the Hearing, the Knowing. "3.36": So when she brought forth, she said: My Lord! Surely I have brought it forth a female -- and Allah knew best what she brought forth -- and the male is not like the female, and I have named it Mariam, and I commend her and her offspring into Thy protection from the accursed Shaitan (Satan). (She was seemingly looked after by Zechariah in the Temple where she was miraculously fed by Allah. Instead of a child to Zechariah Allah will give a child to the virgin Mariam). "3.37": So her Lord accepted her with a good acceptance and made her grow up a good growing, and gave her into the charge of Zakariya; whenever Zakariya entered the sanctuary to (see) her, he found with her food. He said: O Marium! whence comes this to you? She said: It is from Allah. Surely Allah gives to whom He pleases without measure. "3.38": There did Zakariya pray to his Lord; he said: My Lord! grant me from Thee good offspring; surely Thou art the Hearer of prayer. "3.39": Then the angels called to him as he stood praying in the sanctuary: That Allah gives you the good news of Yahya verifying a Word from Allah, and honorable and chaste and a prophet from among the good ones. "3.40": He said: My Lord! when shall there be a son (born) to me, and old age has already come upon me, and my wife is barren? He said: even thus does Allah what He pleases. "3.41": He said: My Lord! appoint a sign for me. Said He: Your sign is that you should not speak to men for three days except by signs; and remember your Lord much and glorify Him in the evening and the morning. "3.42": And when the angels said: O Mariam! surely Allah has chosen you and purified you and chosen you above the women of the world. "3.43": O Mariam! keep to obedience to your Lord and humble yourself, and bow down with those who bow. "3.44": This is of the announcements relating to the unseen which We reveal to you; and you were not with them when they cast their pens (to decide) which of them should have Mariam in his charge, and you were not with them when they contended one with another. "3.45": When the angels said: O Mariam, surely Allah gives you good news with a Word from Him (of one) whose name is the Messiah, ‘Isa son of Mariam, worthy of regard in this world and the hereafter and of those who are made near (to Allah). "3.46": And he shall speak to the people when in the cradle and when of old age, and (he shall be) one of the good ones. "3.47": She said: My Lord! when shall there be a son (born) to I me, and man has not touched me? He said: Even so, Allah creates what He pleases; when He has decreed a matter, He only says to it, Be, and it is. "3.48": And He will teach him the Book and the wisdom and the Tavrat (the Torah) and the Injeel (the Evangel/Gospel). What her son ‘Isa (Jesus) is to accomplish "3.49": And (make him) an apostle to the children of Israel: That I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, that I determine for you out of dust like the form of a bird, then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird with Allah’s permission and I heal the blind and the leprous, and bring the dead to life with Allah’s permission and I inform you of what you should eat and what you should store in your houses; most surely there is a sign in this for you, if you are believers. "3.50": And a verifier of that which is before me of the Taurat (Torah) and that I may allow you part of that which has been forbidden to you, and I have come to you with a sign from your Lord therefore be careful of (your duty to) Allah and obey me. "3.51": Surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serve Him; this is the right path. ‘Isa appoints disciples. "3.52": But when ‘Isa perceived unbelief on their part, he said Who will be my helpers in Allah’s way? The disciples said: We are helpers (in the way) of Allah: We believe in Allah and bear witness that we are submitting ones. "3.53": Our Lord! we believe in what Thou hast revealed and we follow the apostle, so write us down with those who bear witness. "3.54": And they planned and Allah (also) planned, and Allah is the best of planners. Allah raises ‘Isa up to His presence. In view of 19.15 and 19.33 it would seem that this was after dying. "3.55": And when Allah said: O ‘Isa, I am going to terminate the period of your stay (on earth) and cause you to ascend unto Me and purify you of those who disbelieve and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve to the day of resurrection; then to Me shall be your return, so I will decide between you concerning that in which you differed. "3.56": Then as to those who disbelieve, I will chastise them with severe chastisement in this world and the hereafter, and they shall have no helpers. "3.57": And as to those who believe and do good deeds, He will pay them fully their rewards; and Allah does not love the unjust. "3.58": This We recite to you of the communications and the wise reminder. "3.59": Surely the likeness of ‘Isa is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, Be, and he was. "3.60": (This is) the truth from your Lord, so be not of the disputers. (End of quote). So Mohammad had heard that Jesus taught the Torah and gathered disciples, and he had heard of the resurrection in vague form but did not understand it. He describes the doctrine of the Trinity as follows: Quote. "4.171": O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, ‘Isa son of Mariam is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Mariam and a spirit (Ruh) from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector. "4.172": The Messiah does by no means disdain that he should be a servant of Allah, nor do the angels who are near to Him, and whoever disdains His service and is proud, He will gather them all together to Himself. End of quote. And again Quote "5.72": Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah, He is the Messiah, son of Mariam; and the Messiah said: O Children of Israel! serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Surely whoever associates (others) with Allah, then Allah has forbidden to him the garden (Paradise), and his abode is the fire; and there shall be no helpers for the unjust. "5.73": Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one God, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve. "5.74": Will they not then turn to Allah and ask His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. "5.75": The Messiah, son of Mariam is but an apostle; apostles before him have indeed passed away; and his mother was a truthful woman; they both used to eat food. End of quote And again Quote "5.116": And when Allah will say: O ‘Isa son of Mariam! did you say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah. End of quote So Mohammad is rightly appalled at the thought that Mariam and her son should be put on the same level as Allah so that there are three gods. He had clearly heard of heretical Christians who worshipped the Father, the Virgin Mary and her son Jesus as three Gods in a kind of divine family which came into existence after the time of Moses. He was right in what he rejected. Where he was led astray was in not knowing that this was not what Christians really believed, or what Jesus taught. He did not realise that the doctrine of the Triune God was of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, One God through all eternity. Now we can understand a Mohammad who had met heretical Christians or had listened to storytellers thinking like this, but certainly we cannot understand the living God thinking like this, and yet their claim is that Mohammad received this as a direct revelation from Allah. It is quite clear therefore that that claim is wrong. He goes on to speak of the life of Jesus which he learned from stories taken partly from the Gospels and partly from the peudo-Gospels of 2nd century AD and later. He again refers to the giving of life to clay birds (from the pseudo gospels), and then to the miraculous feeding, although not appreciating its significance. "5.110": When Allah will say: O ‘Isa son of Mariam! Remember My favor on you and on your mother, when I strengthened you, I with the holy Spirit, you spoke to the people in the cradle and I when of old age, and when I taught you the Book and the wisdom and the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Evangel/Gospel); and when you determined out of clay a thing like the form of a bird by My permission, then you breathed into it and it became a bird by My permission, and you healed the blind and the leprous by My permission; and when you brought forth the dead by My permission; and when I withheld the children of Israel from you when you came to them with clear arguments, but those who disbelieved among them said: This is nothing but clear enchantment. "5.111": And when I revealed to the disciples, saying, Believe in Me and My apostle, they said: We believe and bear witness that we submit (ourselves). "5.112": When the disciples said: O ‘Isa son of Mariam! will your Lord consent to send down to us food from heaven? He said: Be careful of (your duty to) Allah if you are believers. "5.113": They said: We desire that we should eat of it and that our hearts should be at rest, and that we may know that you have indeed spoken the truth to us and that we may be of the witnesses to it. "5.114": ‘Isa the son of Mariam said: O Allah, our Lord! send down to us food from heaven which should be to us an ever-recurring happiness, to the first of us and to the last of us, and a sign from Thee, and grant us means of subsistence, and Thou art the best of the Providers. "5.115": Allah said: Surely I will send it down to you, but whoever shall disbelieve afterwards from among you, surely I will chastise him with a chastisement with which I will not chastise, anyone among the nations. "5.116": And when Allah will say: O ‘Isa son of Mariam! did you say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah, he will say: Glory be to Thee, it did not befit me that I should say what I had no right to (say); if I had said it, Thou wouldst indeed have known it; Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I do not know what is in Thy mind, surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things. "5.117": I did not say to them aught save what Thou didst enjoin me with: That serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord, and I was a witness of them so long as I was among them, but when Thou didst cause me to die, Thou wert the watcher over them, and Thou art witness of all things. "5.118": If Thou shouldst chastise them, then surely they are Thy servants; and if Thou shouldst forgive them, then surely Thou art the Mighty, the Wise. End of quote Mohammad was right in suggesting that Jesus would reject such a crude idea of the Trinity. The naive heresy of the worship of Mary produced a sad harvest. Islam’s Teaching on Sin and Human Nature. In contrast to the Biblical description of the predicament of mankind as being tainted by sin Muslims deny that human beings are born with a sinful nature. Abdullah Yusuf Ali in his book, The Holy Qur’an: Text, Translation and Commentary comments on Surah 30:30 as follows, ‘As turned out from the creative hand of God, man is innocent, pure, true, free, inclined to right and virtue, and endued with true understanding about his own position in the Universe and about God’s goodness, wisdom and power. That is his true nature ... But man is caught in the meshes of customs, superstitions, selfish desires, and false teaching.’ Hammudah Abdalati (Islam in Focus) confirms this, ‘The idea of Original Sin or hereditary criminality has no room in the teachings of Islam. Man, according to the Qur’an (30:30) and to the Prophet, is born in a natural state of purity or fitrah, that is, ‘Islam’ or ‘submission’ to the will and law of God. Whatever becomes of man after birth is the result of external influence and intruding factors ... Sin is acquired not inborn, emergent not built-in, avoidable not inevitable.’ Surah 30.29-30 reads Quote. "30.29": Nay! those who are unjust follow their low desires without any knowledge; so who can guide him whom Allah makes err? And they shall have no helpers. "30.30": Then set your face upright for religion in the right state -- the nature made by Allah in which He has made men; there is no altering of Allah’s creation; that is the right religion, but most people do not know -- End quote Salvation in Islam Islam on Salvation. Good and Bad Works. Logically related to their view of human nature is the teaching of the Koran that the ultimate question for human destiny is whether one’s good deeds are greater than one’s evil deeds. Quote 7.8-9 And the weighing on that day (Day of Resurrection) will be the true (weighing). So as for those whose scale (of good deeds) will be heavy, they will be the successful (by entering Paradise). And as for those whose scale will be light, they are those who will lose their own selves (by entering Hell) because they denied and rejected Our Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations). (Qur’an 7:8-9) 21.47 And We shall set up balances of justice on the Day of Resurrection, then none will be dealt with unjustly in anything. And if there be the weight of a mustard seed, We will bring it. And Sufficient are We to take account. (Qur’an 21:47) End of quote So it is ultimately a man’s own righteous deeds that determine his eternal state of happiness or harm. Thus Muslims reject the idea of Jesus’ atoning work on the cross, as well as the historical reality that Jesus even died on a cross. They do not consider such atonement necessary. Now it will be apparent that Islam teaches what a good many ordinary people believe, and that is that they are not really born sinful, and that when they stand before God their good deeds and their bad deeds will be weighed, and if the good are heavier they will be fine (and they always assume that their good deeds will be the heavier). It is the same belief as that held by many Egyptians in the times of the Pharaohs. For the fact is that Islam concentrates on the need to keep the Law of God as contained in the Koran. It is a religion of works. There is no thought of a Redeemer or Saviour. All is concentrated on submission to the teaching of the Koran. But the Bible is more realistic. It states that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23), and that there is none righteous, no not one (Romans 3:10), and that the fact that all men die shows that all are tainted with sin (Romans 5:12-21) and need to be ‘saved’. And it speaks of One Who came to save men from their sins and make them right with God. It speaks of a Saviour. The Death of Jesus. The Koran denies that Jesus died at the hands of the Jews. Describing a potted history of Israel it says Quote (The Making of the Covenant at Sinai) "4.154": And We lifted the mountain (Sainai) over them at (the taking of the covenant) and We said to them: Enter the door making obeisance; and We said to them: Do not exceed the limits of the Sabbath, and We made with them a firm covenant. Israel’s Breaking of the Covenant and Slaying of the Prophets "4.155": Therefore, for their breaking their covenant and their disbelief in the communications of Allah and their killing the prophets wrongfully and their saying: Our hearts are covered; nay! Allah set a seal upon them owing to their unbelief, so they shall not believe except a few. Israel’s Calumny On Mariam "4.156": And for their unbelief and for their having uttered against Mariam a grievous calumny. Israel’s Claim To Have Killed Jesus "4.157": And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, ‘Isa son of Mariam, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure. "4.158": Nay! Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty, Wise. End quote What this means is not clear. Muslims have interpreted it to mean that Jesus was not crucified. All it may however mean is that it was not the Jews who killed Him but the Romans. But if Jesus did not die for our sins and rise again we are without hope. Muslims seek to rob us of the glory of our Saviour. The People of the Book. The following passages in the Surahs show the Surahs as telling Jews and Christians to read their own writings in order to learn the truth. But modern Islam claims that all those writings had already been corrupted. How then could the Surahs tell them to read them in order to learn the truth? It is clear that when the Surahs were written the Christian and Jewish writings (the Old and New Testament) were seen as uncorrupted and thus as telling the truth. And today we have manuscripts from long before the time of Mohammad which carry the same message word for word as today’s texts of the Gospels. Thus Muslims contradict their own Surahs when they say that the Gospels have been corrupted. "Say ye: We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, 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." (Surah al-Baqara 2:136) "It was We who revealed the Taurat (Torah - 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 Mariam, confirming the Taurat (Torah - Law) that had come before him: We sent him the Injeel (Gospel/Evangel): Therein was guidance and light ... a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah. Let the people of the Injeel (Gospel/Evangel) judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. 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." (Surah Ma-ida 5:47,49,50,52) "Say: we believe in the revelation which has come down to us and that which came down to you." (Surah al-Ankabut 29:46). The Koran. Muslims now teach that the Koran in its entirety has been preserved without error from the time of Mohammad. However, this was not what the early Muslim teachers said. They made it quite clear that there were a number of differing versions of the Koran, and that they differed quite specifically. Mohammad wrote nothing down. Pious followers eventually wrote his words down as they had remembered them and there were a number of different versions. And coinage of the time which has on it quotations from the Koran also differ in their quotations from the modern Koran. Furthermore recently discovered manuscripts from those early days show quite clearly that there are discrepancies between copies. It is quite obvious therefore that these claims are unjustified. (See for this our other articles on The Origins of the Koran and Archaeological Discovery and the Koran and Different Traditions of and Contradictions in the Koran). The Distinctive Attitudes of Jesus and Mohammad. We only have to look at the approach to life of Jesus and Mohammad to realise the great difference between them. Jesus disapproved of violence in matters of religion and refused to allow His followers to engage in it. The activities of the Crusaders would have been just as abhorrent to Jesus as they were to Muslims. Equally the violent behaviour of the Muslims would also have been abhorrent to Him. He taught that men should love their enemies (behave towards them for their good even when their enemies were doing the opposite) and should bless those who cursed them, and do good to those who hated them. Mohammad in the end is represented as having taught the slaying of all who would not turn to Islam. This, of course, appealed to the savage tribespeople among whom he lived, as it sadly appeals to many of them today. Compare Jesus teaching, ‘It has been said, You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy, but I say to you, Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.’ (Matthew 5:43-44) with that of Mohammad Quote "2.193": And fight with them ======================================================================== CHAPTER 12: 02.06. CONTRA ISLAM CHAPTER 1 ======================================================================== Contra Islam Chapter One The Apostate - Relinquishing the Faith Regardless of whether the Muslim embraces Christianity (as is happening today with millions of the Indonesians) or becomes an atheist, Islamic law declares that he must be killed. Also, anyone who rejects any of the basic ordinances of Islam or insults the prophet or the Qur’an (as Salman Rushdie did) will be regarded as an apostate and must be killed. It is well-known that all Muslim scholars agree upon these points without exception. They also avow that the prophet Muhammad said it, and they practice it with those who relinquish Islam and become apostate. The scholars also teach that this is what all the Caliphs (Muhammad’s successors) did after him. Contemporary scholars declare without any shame that the Muslim’s freedom to change his faith is non-existent and is not recognized by Islam. Contemporary Scholars The Azhar University in Egypt It is well-known that Egypt is the largest Arab/Islamic country in the world. The University of Azhar has been regarded through the years as the Mineret (light) of Islam for the entire Islamic world. The Legislative committee at the Azhar issued "The Bill of Legal Punishments. This book has been sent to all the Mosques in the West accompanied by a descriptive memorandum for these laws. The legislative committee requested Muslims to implement these penalties and comply with Islamic law. This bill was written both in Arabic and in English. It deals with the penalties imposed by Islamic law such as amputation of the thief’s hand and the scourging of the wine drinker. However, we would like to deal here with the penalty for the apostate who relinquishes the Islamic faith. Provisions Specific to Apostasy The "Bill of Legal Punishments" says (p.12), "A person guilty of apostasy (man or woman) shall be put to death if repentance is not made within the period allowed which shall not exceed sixty days. Repentance of a person who commits apostasy more than twice shall not be accepted. "An apostate is that Muslim who has renounced the faith of Islam irrespective of his adoption of another creed. "The crime of apostasy is committed in the following ways: making an explicit statement or committing an act definitely indicating renunciation of Islam, denial of essential tenets of the faith, bringing into ridicule through word or action, the Gracious Koran." On page 30, we find this explanatory note: "The ordained penalty for apostasy is based on the Sunnahh. The prophet, peace be on him, said, ‘One who changes his faith is to be killed’ (al Bukhari). It is also narrated by Al Dar Qutni that when a woman called Umm-Marwan had renounced Islam, the Prophet ordered that if she failed to repent she should be put to death. The rightly guided Caliphs continued this practice. It is fully known that Abu-Bakr the truthful fought against those who had deserted from the religion of Islam and killed many. The Gracious Companions were of the same view, and a consensus emerged on this issue." These are the verdicts of the contemporary Azhar scholars. They are the most knowledgeable people in the laws of the Islamic traditions of Muhammad and the actions taken by his successors. The Scholars of Saudi Arabia In one of his speeches which was published by the Tunisian newspapers, the former President of that country assaulted the Qur’an and said it is full of contradictions. He also said that Muhammad was a desert man who wrote myths in the Qur’an. The Saudi scholars wrote a book in which they threatened him. On the cover of the book, the following was printed: "From the publications of the Islamic League of the Madina Munawwara in Saudi Arabia: "The Verdict of Islam: ‘To him who alleged that the Qur’an is contradictory and includes some myths, who described the apostle Muhammad to imply that he was inflicted with vices or one who attacked his message...’ In page 13 of this book, Sheikh ’Abdul-’Aziz, along with all the Sheiks of Saudi Arabia, said: "The verdict of Islam is to sentence to death anyone who commits such things. Thus the president Abu Ruqayba must haste to repent." They assured him (pages 14 and 15) that all Muslim scholars have agreed that anyone who does these things must be killed. They said this is also the opinion of the heads of the four major Islamic schools. The major Islamic schools are the Shafi’i, Malik, Abu Hanifa, and Ahmad. It is well-known that the former president of Tunisia did not change his liberal opinions regarding Muhammad and the Qur’an which he mentioned in his speeches. It is public knowledge in Tunisia that it is forbidden for a man to marry more than one woman. Thus, Western society should not have been surprised when Khomeini ordered the execution of Rushdie because this is the opinion of all Muslim scholars as well as the heads of the four leading schools. The Egyptian State Assembly: The Highest Judicial Authority On August 6, 1977, the most prestigious newspaper in Egypt, al-Ahram, published the following statement: "The state assembly has approved a bill to enact the penalty for apostasy. The apostate who intentionally relinquishes Islam by explicit declaration or decisive deed must be put to death. Apostasy is established by one confirmation or by the testimony of two men. The apostate is forbidden to administer his properties. He will be given 30 days to repent before the execution of the sentence of death. But if one converted to Christianity was 10-14 years old, he will only be scourged fifty times." This law has not been implemented in Egypt up to now. This is because of the objection of some liberal, enlightened writers such as Mustafa Amin who published an article in the Akhbar newspaper during the same month, in which he said, "We have to think one thousand times before we approve such a law because any divine religion does not need a gallows to protect it. It does not need a sword to cut off the necks of those who disagree with it." Mustafa Amin is a very famous person in all the Arab world for his noble character, knowledge, and boldness, but he does not know (or maybe he does know) that the religion of Islam surely does need a gallows to protect it because the law of apostasy is an Islamic law. The most astonishing part of the statement of the Egyptian state assembly is this: "The apostasy is established by the testimony of two men." Yet it is possible that two Muslim men may come forward and testify that they heard such-and-such a Christian man saying, "I am converted to Islam and I testify that Muhammad is the apostle of God." They may say that while actually the man has never made that claim. Still, the testimony of the Muslim witness will be accepted. In this case, that poor man has no choice but either to embrace Islam or be put to death. It is a detestable law which is rejected by the Egyptian government (they do not implement it) though many Muslims in Egypt have already become Christians. This is because the government is a secular government and not an Islamic one, but the government is subject to increasing pressure, day after day, from the terroristic Islamic forces. What Happens To Muslims in Egypt Who Become Christians In January of 1986, the Egyptian authorities arrested eight people (males and females) whose ages ranged from 20-30 years. The charge was that they had embraced Christianity several years before. Eight months later, they were released from jail after their story was publicized in many of the Western newspapers and magazines. What is important to us here is that while the eight Christians were in prison, a Muslim leader wrote to the government demanding that they execute them—not just keep them under arrest. On the second of July 1986, "The Islamic Light" newspaper which is published by the Ahrar party (the freemen party), said in an article titled, "Point of Absurdity": "Two things we find absurd. The first one is that the Egyptian church is demanding their immediate release and has contacted the International Amnesty Committee to convey its indignation for the imprisonment of eight people because of their apostasy from Islam. The second thing which we call absurdity is that the Egyptian government was content to arrest them only. It was supposed to execute Islamic law upon them; namely, death if they do not repent. The government must make this clear to all the world and be proud of this law because it is God’s verdict. " Maybe such a verdict honors this newspaper, but it does not honor the Egyptian government. It does not even honor her to hold them in jail; that is why she released them. This is not God’s verdict, my friend. God is love and respects man’s decisions. God wants to set you free from your delusions in order to bring you to the light of the truth. What really amazes us is the common impression that God is vindictive like the law would imply. What adds to our amazement is that the name of the newspaper is "The Journal of Light" and the name of your party is "The Party of the Freemen." What light and what freedom are these? This Islamic law is a shame! The United States—Land of Freedom and Human Rights— and the United Nations The Muslim Youth in New York publish a weekly Islamic magazine called al-Tahrir ("Liberation"). In its issue of February 5, 1983, the chief editor wrote an article under the title, "The Symptoms of Apostasy in the Islamic Society". On page 15, he said: "The apostate is not only the person who relinquishes Islam and embraces another religion, but the symptoms of apostasy are many, and those who practice them are regarded as infidels and apostate and deserve to be killed. The symptoms of apostasy are: when the ruler does not govern by God’s law (most of the Muslim rulers do that), or when the ruler derides some aspect of the religion or one of the Islamic laws as the ex-president of Egypt, al-Sadat, did when he said that the dress of the Muslim women is like a tent. "Another symptom of apostasy is that a Muslim believes in the Qur’an only and rejects tradition; namely, the sayings and deeds of Muhammad (the Sunnahh) and attacks the apostle Muhammad by any insult or criticism of the Qur’an. Also among the symptoms of apostasy is the promotion of mottoes which may contradict the Qur’an, such as the mottoes of nationalism, patriotism, and humanism! Anyone who calls for these mottoes is regarded as an infidel and an apostate and deserves to be killed if he does not repent. Also, anyone who believes in Masonianism. " We respond by saying that the writer is right according to the Islamic tenets, but what is the view of the American police of these claims and of this newspaper, especially since many Iranians and Arabs in the U.S. have become Christians and American citizens. They are under the threat of death in accordance with the Islamic law. The Former Scholars Without exception, all the former scholars agree on depriving any person the right of freedom to change his religion and they call for the death penalty for anyone who does so. I have chosen the most important and famous scholars—those who are acknowledged by all Muslims. The Imam al-Shafi’i In his book, "The Ordinances of the Qur’an" (part 1, p. 289), he remarks: "If someone becomes a Muslim then apostatizes, he would be asked to repent; if he does not repent, he should be killed." Al-Shafi’i is one of the four founders of the jurisprudence schools who (the Saudi scholars said) have agreed that the apostate must be put to death. Ibn Hazm In Vol. 4, p. 316 of his volume, "The Sweetened" (Al Muhalla), Ibn Hazm says: "Any of the infidels who said, ‘There is no God but God, and Muhammad is the apostle of God’, he became a Muslim obligated to Islamic laws. If he rejected that later on, he would be subject to death. But if he was one of the people of the Book (namely, from the Jews or Christians), in order to become a Muslim, he must say, ‘I have embraced Islam.’ Then he becomes a Muslim obligated to the Islamic laws. If he rejected them, he would be killed." Ibn Taymiyya This famous scholar, who is called Sheikh al-Islam, says under the title of the law pertaining to the apostate, "The Muslim who does not pray must be ordered to pray; if he refuses to pray, he must be put to death, because he would be an infidel and apostate, according to the scholars and Imams, even if he said that Muhammad is the apostle of God, and even if he was convinced of the purposes of prayers" (Vol. 35, pp. 105-106). In Vol. 32, pp. 276 and 279, he addresses this matter, namely, the killing of one who abandoned prayers. Then he speaks to husbands: "If a wife abstain from praying, she would be asked to repent. The husband may scourge her to repent, otherwise she must be killed." It is well-known that the majority of Muslims do not pray the daily five prayers, especially t he wives who do not have enough time to do so. Thus, in this case, if the husband is a true Muslim, he would beat his wife to force her to pray, and if she declined to obey he must condemn her to death! God, have mercy upon us! This judgment is not the verdict of Ibn Taymiyya only, but (as he frequently claimed), it is a verdict which all the scholars and Imams recognize. Actually our research has led us to believe Ibn Taymiyya’s claim. In part 11, Vol. 8, Ibn Hazm in his book, "al-Muhalla" ("The Sweetened", p. 378), repeats the same words and declares to us that this is also the opinion of the Shafi’i and Malik, both of whom emphasize that the one who abandons prayers and does not repent must be killed. Sahih of Muslim (Vol. 1, p. 267 ) indicates that this is also the view of ’Ali Ibn Abi Talib. Yet Abu Hanifa has a slightly different opinion. He says that the one who ignores prayer will not be killed but must be scourged until he repents. If he does not repent, he must be continuously, beaten even if he dies under the punishment. From the Inception of Islam Sayings of Muhammad and His Successors Prophet of Mercy and Freedom We have already seen how the scholars of the Azhar based their resolution concerning the death penalty of the apostate on Muhammad’s saying: "Who relinquishes his faith, kill him." This is quoted on the authority of Ibn ’Abbas as it is recorded in Sahih of al-Bukhari (part 9, p. 19). Not only al-Bukhari but the following scholars also ascribe this famous statement to Muhammad! ° Ibn Hazm, pp. 129 and 401, part 8 Vol. 11 ° Ibn Hisham, p. 284, part 3, of Muhammad’s biography, al rawd al-Anaf. ° Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, p. 45, part 5 of his book Zad al-Ma’ad in which he asserts that Muhammad uttered these words and condemned anyone who relinquished his faith. Other statements by Muhammad Related to this Issue: In a very famous declaration, Muhammad defines three cases in which a Muslim must be killed: "The blood of the Muslim is not lawful [to be shed] except in three cases: Infidelity after faith, adultery after marriage, and killing a soul without any right." What is important to us here is his phrase "Infidelity after faith." If you ask me who claimed that Muhammad said this, I will respond: All former and contemporary scholars, without exception, attest to that. When ’Uthman Ibn ’Affan, the third caliph and the husband of Ruqayya the daughter of Muhammad, was besieged by some famous Muslim companions of the apostle, he reminded them of Muhammad’s sayings and asked them: "For which of these three reasons do you intend to kill me?" and "Am I not the prince of believers?" Yet they killed him. Among those who were involved in his assassination were Muhammad Ibn Abu Bakr El Seddik and ’Ammar Ibn Yasir. (Refer to the Chronicle of al-Tabari Vol. 2, p. 669, and all the books of the Islamic history such as the "Chronicle of the Caliphs" by the as-Suyuti and Ibn Kathir). This statement is also recorded in the following: ° Sahih of Muslim Vol. I, p. 267 (the interpretation of Nawawi). ° Shafi’i, "The Ordinances of the Qur’an", part 2, p. 46. ° Ibn Hazm, part 11, Vol. 8, p. 377 and restated also on p. 400. ° The Sheikh Shaltute in his famous book, "Islam: a Dogma and a Law", p. 322. ° Dr. Afifi ’Abdul-Fattah, in his widespread book, "The Spirit of the Islamic Religion", p. 408. It is obvious then, that this statement is well documented and unquestionably ascribed to Muhammad. It is also well-known that the Sahih of al-Bukhari has recorded in part 9, p. 18 that: "The apostate has to be killed based on God’s saying in the Qur’an: ‘And whosoever of you turns from his religion and dies disbelieving..."’ (the Chapter of Cow: 217). Deeds of Muhammad, Prophet of Mercy and Freedom The Supreme committee of law in the Azhar mentioned that a woman by the name of Um Mirwan relinquished her Islamic faith. Muhammad ordered her to repent or to be killed. Islamic history books record also that when Muhammad conquered Mecca, he sentenced to death all who apostatized or insulted him (refer to the Chronicles of Tabari, part II, p. 160 and Ibn Hisham part 4, pp. 15, 16 in "The Biography of the Prophet"). Muhammad’s Companions and Successors: What Did They Do? Mu’adh Ibn Jabal and the Jewish Man He was one of Muhammad’s greatest companions among the "helpers." Even Muhammad himself said, "Learn (to take) the Qur’an from four (people): Mu’adh Ibn Jabal and ..." (refer to the Bukhari, part 6). The following terrifying incident is recorded in the Sahih of al-Bukhari (part 9, p. 19): "Mu’adh Ibn Jabal went to visit Abu Musa the governor of Yemen. He offered him a cushion to sit on. A man tied with ropes was there. Mu’adh asked Abu Musa: ‘What is this?’ He answered, ‘This man was a Jew, then he was converted to Islam, later he apostatized and turned a Jew again.’ Mu’adh said to him: ‘I will never even sit down on a cushion until this man is put to death. (This is) the verdict of God and His apostle.’ (The governor) ordered him to be killed. (Only after that) Abu Mu’adh sat." Here we see a Jewish man who was converted to Islam and later was convinced that he made a mistake. Thus, he returned to his old faith and was tied with ropes like an animal. Then Mu’adh came in and refused to sit down on a cushion unless this man was put to death immediately; so they executed him. Then, and only then, Mu’az sat, ate and drank with Abu Musa who felt at peace with himself because he believed that he had implemented the command of God and His apostle, Muhammad. His apostle and the lord of the messengers, the prophet of mercy and freedom, said, "Whosoever relinquishes his faith, kill him." Ali Ibn Abi Talib and Some Christians This brutal man used to burn apostates whether they were alive or dead. He was the cousin of Muhammad and his son-in-law. He was Muhammad’s favorite friend and one of the ten to whom Muhammad granted paradise. Muhammad reared him before and after the death of his father and said that Ali was the best one to judge according to Islamic law. Now let us see what was recorded about Ali Ibn Abi Talib, the fourth Caliph, who is admired by both the Shi’ites and Sunnis. In his eighth volume, part eleven of his book, "The Sweetened", Ibn Hazm says (page 189), "Ali brought apostates and burned them. When Ibn ’Abas received the news he said: ‘If it were me instead of (him), I would not have burned them but I would rather have killed them in another way because the apostle of God said: "Whosoever relinquishes his faith, kill him.""’ This same incident is recorded in Sahih of al-Bukhari (part 9, page 19). Ibn Hazm (in the same previous source, p. 190) also relates what ’Ali did to some ex-Muslims who were converted to Christianity. He narrates the following three episodes: Ibn Hazm says: "They brought an old man to ’Ali who was originally a Christian, then embraced Islam, and later reconverted to Christianity. ’Ali told him: ‘Maybe you apostatized to Christianity in order to acquire an inheritance, and after that you would come back to Islam.’ The (old man) said: ‘No.’ ’Ali asked him: ‘Maybe you apostate to Christianity in order to get married to a Christian girl and after that you would return to Islam.’ The old man said: ‘No.’ ’Ali told him: ‘Then, re-embrace Islam.’ The old man said: ‘No, not before I meet Christ.’ ’Ali ordered him (to be killed). They beheaded him. "Another Muslim apostatized and became a Christian. ’Ali ordered him to repent but he refused. ’Ali killed him and did not deliver his corpse to his family. They offered him a lot of money (to do so), but ’Ali refused and burned the corpse. "Another man from the tribe of bany ’Ijl became a Christian. They brought him to ’Ali chained in irons. ’Ali talked to him for a long time. The man said to him: ‘I know that Isa (Jesus) is the son of God.’ Ali stood up and stepped on him. When the people saw that, they, too, stood up and stepped on him. Then ’Ali told them: ‘Kill him.’ They killed him. Then ’Ali ordered them to burn him." For God’s sake, ’Ali! Is it because the minds of those men (young and old) have been convinced by Christianity that you ordered them to change their convictions? When they refused to do so you tortured them ... or killed them ... or burned them. ’Uthman Ibn ’Affan He is the third Caliph and the husband of Raqiyya and then om Kalthom, the daughters of Muhammad. He is also one of the ten to whom Muhammad granted paradise. Someone came to ’Uthman and conveyed to him that some people from Iraq had apostatized. ’Uthman wrote to the governor there and ordered him to command them to repent and re-embrace Islam. If they refused to do so, they all were to be killed. Some of them were actually killed because they refused to return to Islam, while others yielded and returned to Islam because of fear (refer to Ibn Hazm, part 11, p. 190). Abu Bakr and the Wars of Apostasy All the civilized world along with people of free conscience regard these wars as tyrannical, savage and barbaric. Wars which were waged without any justification. The world will always wonder what the crime of these poor Arab tribes was and what they did that made Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, wage such long and brutal wars against them, killing tens of thousands of people. All Muslims are quick to answer that Abu Bakr was carrying out Muhammad’s orders, as he himself claimed, because these Arab tribes deserted Islam as soon as Muhammad died. Therefore, the fight with them was inevitable. Advanced countries and free human beings do not comprehend or accept this answer which ignores the simplest principles of human rights and personal freedom to believe in the religious doctrine of their choice. If the reader were given the opportunity to read any of the Islamic history books, he would discover by himself the outrageous brutality which was committed in these wars. Multitudes were massacred, and the survivors were forced to re-embrace Islam and pay alms to Abu Bakr El Seddik, the father of A’isha wife of Muhammad. Of course, Abu Bakr was the first to whom Muhammad granted paradise. He said about him, "Abu Bakr is the most favorite to me among men, and his daughter A’isha is the most beloved among women." The wars of apostasy are taught in all the schools of Arab and Islamic countries for all famous Islamic chroniclers such as the Tabari, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Kathir and Suyuti recorded them in detail. In the Chronicles of the Tabari (part 2, pp. 258, 272), we read that Abu Bakr used to tell those whom he sent to fight the apostatized tribes: "Call them to re-embrace Islam; if they refuse, do not spare any one of them. Burn them with fire and kill them with force and take the women and children as prisoners of war." Abu Bakr frequently re-iterated these famous words to Muslim warriors ’Umar Ibn al-Khattab used to tell him that some of the tribes had returned to Islam, but they refused to pay him alms. They said that alms should be paid only to Muhammad, though they were ready to return to Islam. Abu Bakr would respond: "By God, if they refrain from giving me a rope which they used to pay to the apostle of God, I will fight them for refusing" (refer to p. 175 of Vol. I of Sahih of Muslim, interpretation of the Nawawi. Also refer to any book about the wars of the apostasy). There is a most important contemporary book which was published by the Azhar University, entitled, "The khulafa’ al-Rashidun" ("The Rightly Guided Caliphs") by Dr. Abu Zayd Shalabi, professor of Islamic civilization at the College of Arabic language . The book was published in 1967. The author presented detailed information about the Wars of Apostasy which covered 20 pages (pp. 41-60). We would like to quote the following here: "Abu Bakr sent eleven Muslim generals against eleven cities to fight the apostates. Many were forced to re-embrace Islam. Among those countries were Bahrin which was invaded by al-’Ala’ Ibn al-Hadrami, and Yemen which was attacked by Suwayd Ibn Maqrin. Kalid Ibn al-Walid went to fight against Tulayha, the tribe of Bany Asad and its neighboring Arab tribes." Then, Abu Zayd comments on these wars on page 60: "The victories gained by Muslims in the wars of apostasy had one very significant result: These victories deterred anyone who intended to apostatize from Islam." The point, then, Dr. Shalabi, is that by threat of death, Islam attempted to keep people against their will, in the realm of Islam. Aren’t you also ashamed to record in your book, that by means of offensive wars, Islam spread all over the Middle East! Does not that motivate you to re-examine your religion? Your logic is very strange. These wars deterred anyone who intended to relinquish Islam because he would face the same fate which other Arab tribes had faced. Yet the people of Indonesia will not be deterred or intimidated; their civilized government protects them. They come to Christ by the millions and we pray that you, too, will come. Ibn Hisham Ibn Hisham, in "Muhammad’s Biography "(Al-Sirat El Nabawia, part 4, p. 180 ), says: "When Muhammad died, most Meccans were about to turn away from Islam and wanted to do so. Suhayl Ibn ’Amru stood up and said: ’Anyone who relinquishes Islam, we will cut his head off.’ People changed their minds and were afraid." This was in regard to Meccans, but the majority of the Arab tribes actually turned away from Islam. Abu Bakr fought them. The ruthlessness of Khalid Ibn al-Walid was very apparent. Dr. Abu Zayd said about Khalid Ibn al-Walid that he was the one who gouged out the eyes of apostates. Still, there are important questions in this regard which beg our attention and they are: Why did the Arabs become apostate after the death of Muhammad? Why did the Meccans intend to turn away from Islam? The familiar answer is that they had embraced Islam under the threat of the sword because Muhammad forced them to choose between Islam or death. There are two important questions to which a large number of people would like to have answers. The First Question How Do Muslims Justify Killing Apostates? The assassination of an apostate (one who turns away from his faith) is considered to be a breach of freedom of religious belief as well as an obvious contradiction of the International Declaration of Human Rights (item 18) which most of the Arab countries have signed. What do contemporary Muslim scholars say about this serious matter? The scholars of Kuwait and Qatar dealt with this question. The weekly Kuwaiti Magazine, "The Islamic Society" in its issue of April 17,1984, p. 26 said: "Somebody may say: ‘Do you want to deny freedom to people?’ We say to him: ‘If what is meant by freedom is to disbelieve in God’s religion, or the freedom of infidelity and apostasy, then that freedom is abolished and we do not recognize it; we even call for its eradication, and we strive to oppress it. We declare that publicly and in daylight"’ (Quoted from Dr. Taha Jabir’s article). Then Dr. Jabir goes on to explain that Islam does not acknowledge this sort of freedom at all; namely, the freedom of apostasy. He then begins (on page 26) to criticize Islamic governments which allow the media means to make apostasy easier, to regard it as a personal right to anyone who seeks it. The International Declaration of Human Rights In order to understand the response of Islam to this declaration, let us go to another Arab Islamic country. Dr. Ahmad from Qatar has a response to this declaration. Dr. Ahmad is a contemporary Muslim scholar and a reputed professor of Islamic law at the University of Qatar. In 1981, he published a famous book under the title, "Individual Guarantees in Islamic Law". If we turn to pages 15 and 16 of this book, we find him saying: "Item 18 of the International Declaration of Human Rights states that each individual has the full right to change his faith or to relinquish it as he wishes in order to protect the freedom of thought and the freedom of belief. We wonder if this freedom of changing one’s faith would be conducive to harm him along with others? Or even if the purpose of changing the faith is to sow the seeds of riots and spread viciousness in the land or to waver the faith from the hearts of others?" What did you mean, Dr. Ahmad, when you said: "Even if changing one’s faith would be conducive to harm one’s self?" Is this your personal point of view or is it the point of view of the person himself? Why do you impose your personal point of view on all people—because you think that it is a sound view? You believe that relinquishing Islam causes harm to the person who does it, but this is your own conviction. What if somebody else believes differently and is convinced that to continue as a Muslim will bring him harm? If for his own welfare, he wants to be converted to Christianity and to believe in the One who died for him so that he may live a life of peace, joy, love and holiness, why do you come to that person and tell him, "We forbid you! We do not grant you the freedom to change your faith. If you do that, we will kill you lest you harm yourself!" Maybe it was for this reason that Muhammad, Ali and ’Uthman killed the apostates and Abu Bakr fought those who turned away from Islam, killing tens of thousands ... "lest they harm themselves" ! In regard to your statement that the one who relinquishes his faith will shake faith in the hearts of others: this has nothing to do with his conviction. It is their problem with their own creed and not with him. He is seeking his own spiritual welfare and is persuaded to embrace another religion. Maybe it is better for those people to doubt their faith or even to have it uprooted from their hearts, because it may be a mere fruitless illusion which would lead to destruction. There is something called human rights, Dr. Ahmad. That is, a man has the right to be freely and intellectually convinced to embrace the creeds he wants and to worship God according to his own persuasion. The civilized countries as well as the United Nations have acknowledged that, ignoring of course, the command of your prophet: "Whoever changes his faith, kill him!" You said that the apostate spreads viciousness in the land. Does the one who is converted to the Christianity with its noble spiritual principles included in the Gospel spread corruption on earth, or is it the one who holds to Islam that kills those who change their faith? Christianity is clearly manifest in the Gospel. It calls us to worship the one God and it emphasizes love—even for our enemies. It calls for a life of holiness and peace. The Second Question How Can Muslims Deny the Compulsion of Force? Most often Muslims who really desire to know the truth and who believe that their faith respects man’s freedom, cite the Qur’anic phrase, "There is no compulsion in faith" as an evidence to their claim. Those people do not know its meaning as it was interpreted by the Muslim scholars. We have already seen that Islam states that the apostate must be killed, but in order to understand the meaning of "There is no compulsion in faith," refer to the answers of the contemporary and former scholars of Islam. The Sheikh Muhammad Mutawilli al-Sha’rawi He is one of the most famous contemporary scholars in Egypt. Millions of people in the Islamic world watch his television programs as he constantly attacks Christianity. He claims that Christians are infidels, and he stirs Muslims in Egypt to attack Christian churches, burn them and kill the infidels. Local Egyptian newspapers and magazines report this, too. I have not met this man nor have I watched his program, but I have read all of his books. In one of his famous books, "You Ask and Islam Answers", I found the following (page 52 of part 2): "Some ask: How does Islam say that there is no compulsion in faith, and yet it commands the killing of the apostate? We say to them: You are free to believe or not to believe, but once you embrace the faith you are not free (anymore) and you should be bound to Islam otherwise you will suffer punishment and the restrictions, among them is the killing of the apostate; that is, there is no compulsion in embracing the faith but, if you do, you are not free to relinquish it." Sha’rawi’s statement is in full conformity with the law of killing the apostate. It acknowledges the law and validates it. In his interpretation of this verse, Ibn Hazm, al-Baydawi agrees fully with the Sha’rawi. A man (be he a Christian or a Jew) is free to believe or disbelieve; that is, he has the option either to accept Islam or to pay the poll tax. If he is not religious, he is not free to choose another religion, but must become a Muslim. Ibn Hazm remarks that: "It was truly related to us that Muhammad used to force the Arab pagans to embrace the faith. He used to give them the option either to accept Islam or death. That is forcing people to accept Islam (refer to Vol. 8, part 11, p. 196, "The Sweetened" Al Mohalla)." What is of greatest significance to us in the Sha’rawi’s claim is that whoever believes in Islam does not have freedom to relinquish it, otherwise he must be put to death. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 13: 02.06. CONTRA ISLAM CHAPTER 1 CONT'D ======================================================================== "The apostate has to be killed based on God’s saying in the Qur’an: ‘And whosoever of you turns from his religion and dies disbelieving..."’ (the Chapter of Cow: 217). Deeds of Muhammad, Prophet of Mercy and Freedom The Supreme committee of law in the Azhar mentioned that a woman by the name of Um Mirwan relinquished her Islamic faith. Muhammad ordered her to repent or to be killed. Islamic history books record also that when Muhammad conquered Mecca, he sentenced to death all who apostatized or insulted him (refer to the Chronicles of Tabari, part II, p. 160 and Ibn Hisham part 4, pp. 15, 16 in "The Biography of the Prophet"). Muhammad’s Companions and Successors: What Did They Do? Mu’adh Ibn Jabal and the Jewish Man He was one of Muhammad’s greatest companions among the "helpers." Even Muhammad himself said, "Learn (to take) the Qur’an from four (people): Mu’adh Ibn Jabal and ..." (refer to the Bukhari, part 6). The following terrifying incident is recorded in the Sahih of al-Bukhari (part 9, p. 19): "Mu’adh Ibn Jabal went to visit Abu Musa the governor of Yemen. He offered him a cushion to sit on. A man tied with ropes was there. Mu’adh asked Abu Musa: ‘What is this?’ He answered, ‘This man was a Jew, then he was converted to Islam, later he apostatized and turned a Jew again.’ Mu’adh said to him: ‘I will never even sit down on a cushion until this man is put to death. (This is) the verdict of God and His apostle.’ (The governor) ordered him to be killed. (Only after that) Abu Mu’adh sat." Here we see a Jewish man who was converted to Islam and later was convinced that he made a mistake. Thus, he returned to his old faith and was tied with ropes like an animal. Then Mu’adh came in and refused to sit down on a cushion unless this man was put to death immediately; so they executed him. Then, and only then, Mu’az sat, ate and drank with Abu Musa who felt at peace with himself because he believed that he had implemented the command of God and His apostle, Muhammad. His apostle and the lord of the messengers, the prophet of mercy and freedom, said, "Whosoever relinquishes his faith, kill him." Ali Ibn Abi Talib and Some Christians This brutal man used to burn apostates whether they were alive or dead. He was the cousin of Muhammad and his son-in-law. He was Muhammad’s favorite friend and one of the ten to whom Muhammad granted paradise. Muhammad reared him before and after the death of his father and said that Ali was the best one to judge according to Islamic law. Now let us see what was recorded about Ali Ibn Abi Talib, the fourth Caliph, who is admired by both the Shi’ites and Sunnis. In his eighth volume, part eleven of his book, "The Sweetened", Ibn Hazm says (page 189), "Ali brought apostates and burned them. When Ibn ’Abas received the news he said: ‘If it were me instead of (him), I would not have burned them but I would rather have killed them in another way because the apostle of God said: "Whosoever relinquishes his faith, kill him.""’ This same incident is recorded in Sahih of al-Bukhari (part 9, page 19). Ibn Hazm (in the same previous source, p. 190) also relates what ’Ali did to some ex-Muslims who were converted to Christianity. He narrates the following three episodes: Ibn Hazm says: "They brought an old man to ’Ali who was originally a Christian, then embraced Islam, and later reconverted to Christianity. ’Ali told him: ‘Maybe you apostatized to Christianity in order to acquire an inheritance, and after that you would come back to Islam.’ The (old man) said: ‘No.’ ’Ali asked him: ‘Maybe you apostate to Christianity in order to get married to a Christian girl and after that you would return to Islam.’ The old man said: ‘No.’ ’Ali told him: ‘Then, re-embrace Islam.’ The old man said: ‘No, not before I meet Christ.’ ’Ali ordered him (to be killed). They beheaded him. "Another Muslim apostatized and became a Christian. ’Ali ordered him to repent but he refused. ’Ali killed him and did not deliver his corpse to his family. They offered him a lot of money (to do so), but ’Ali refused and burned the corpse. "Another man from the tribe of bany ’Ijl became a Christian. They brought him to ’Ali chained in irons. ’Ali talked to him for a long time. The man said to him: ‘I know that Isa (Jesus) is the son of God.’ Ali stood up and stepped on him. When the people saw that, they, too, stood up and stepped on him. Then ’Ali told them: ‘Kill him.’ They killed him. Then ’Ali ordered them to burn him." For God’s sake, ’Ali! Is it because the minds of those men (young and old) have been convinced by Christianity that you ordered them to change their convictions? When they refused to do so you tortured them ... or killed them ... or burned them. ’Uthman Ibn ’Affan He is the third Caliph and the husband of Raqiyya and then om Kalthom, the daughters of Muhammad. He is also one of the ten to whom Muhammad granted paradise. Someone came to ’Uthman and conveyed to him that some people from Iraq had apostatized. ’Uthman wrote to the governor there and ordered him to command them to repent and re-embrace Islam. If they refused to do so, they all were to be killed. Some of them were actually killed because they refused to return to Islam, while others yielded and returned to Islam because of fear (refer to Ibn Hazm, part 11, p. 190). Abu Bakr and the Wars of Apostasy All the civilized world along with people of free conscience regard these wars as tyrannical, savage and barbaric. Wars which were waged without any justification. The world will always wonder what the crime of these poor Arab tribes was and what they did that made Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, wage such long and brutal wars against them, killing tens of thousands of people. All Muslims are quick to answer that Abu Bakr was carrying out Muhammad’s orders, as he himself claimed, because these Arab tribes deserted Islam as soon as Muhammad died. Therefore, the fight with them was inevitable. Advanced countries and free human beings do not comprehend or accept this answer which ignores the simplest principles of human rights and personal freedom to believe in the religious doctrine of their choice. If the reader were given the opportunity to read any of the Islamic history books, he would discover by himself the outrageous brutality which was committed in these wars. Multitudes were massacred, and the survivors were forced to re-embrace Islam and pay alms to Abu Bakr El Seddik, the father of A’isha wife of Muhammad. Of course, Abu Bakr was the first to whom Muhammad granted paradise. He said about him, "Abu Bakr is the most favorite to me among men, and his daughter A’isha is the most beloved among women." The wars of apostasy are taught in all the schools of Arab and Islamic countries for all famous Islamic chroniclers such as the Tabari, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Kathir and Suyuti recorded them in detail. In the Chronicles of the Tabari (part 2, pp. 258, 272), we read that Abu Bakr used to tell those whom he sent to fight the apostatized tribes: "Call them to re-embrace Islam; if they refuse, do not spare any one of them. Burn them with fire and kill them with force and take the women and children as prisoners of war." Abu Bakr frequently re-iterated these famous words to Muslim warriors ’Umar Ibn al-Khattab used to tell him that some of the tribes had returned to Islam, but they refused to pay him alms. They said that alms should be paid only to Muhammad, though they were ready to return to Islam. Abu Bakr would respond: "By God, if they refrain from giving me a rope which they used to pay to the apostle of God, I will fight them for refusing" (refer to p. 175 of Vol. I of Sahih of Muslim, interpretation of the Nawawi. Also refer to any book about the wars of the apostasy). There is a most important contemporary book which was published by the Azhar University, entitled, "The khulafa’ al-Rashidun" ("The Rightly Guided Caliphs") by Dr. Abu Zayd Shalabi, professor of Islamic civilization at the College of Arabic language . The book was published in 1967. The author presented detailed information about the Wars of Apostasy which covered 20 pages (pp. 41-60). We would like to quote the following here: "Abu Bakr sent eleven Muslim generals against eleven cities to fight the apostates. Many were forced to re-embrace Islam. Among those countries were Bahrin which was invaded by al-’Ala’ Ibn al-Hadrami, and Yemen which was attacked by Suwayd Ibn Maqrin. Kalid Ibn al-Walid went to fight against Tulayha, the tribe of Bany Asad and its neighboring Arab tribes." Then, Abu Zayd comments on these wars on page 60: "The victories gained by Muslims in the wars of apostasy had one very significant result: These victories deterred anyone who intended to apostatize from Islam." The point, then, Dr. Shalabi, is that by threat of death, Islam attempted to keep people against their will, in the realm of Islam. Aren’t you also ashamed to record in your book, that by means of offensive wars, Islam spread all over the Middle East! Does not that motivate you to re-examine your religion? Your logic is very strange. These wars deterred anyone who intended to relinquish Islam because he would face the same fate which other Arab tribes had faced. Yet the people of Indonesia will not be deterred or intimidated; their civilized government protects them. They come to Christ by the millions and we pray that you, too, will come. Ibn Hisham Ibn Hisham, in "Muhammad’s Biography "(Al-Sirat El Nabawia, part 4, p. 180 ), says: "When Muhammad died, most Meccans were about to turn away from Islam and wanted to do so. Suhayl Ibn ’Amru stood up and said: ’Anyone who relinquishes Islam, we will cut his head off.’ People changed their minds and were afraid." This was in regard to Meccans, but the majority of the Arab tribes actually turned away from Islam. Abu Bakr fought them. The ruthlessness of Khalid Ibn al-Walid was very apparent. Dr. Abu Zayd said about Khalid Ibn al-Walid that he was the one who gouged out the eyes of apostates. Still, there are important questions in this regard which beg our attention and they are: Why did the Arabs become apostate after the death of Muhammad? Why did the Meccans intend to turn away from Islam? The familiar answer is that they had embraced Islam under the threat of the sword because Muhammad forced them to choose between Islam or death. There are two important questions to which a large number of people would like to have answers. The First Question How Do Muslims Justify Killing Apostates? The assassination of an apostate (one who turns away from his faith) is considered to be a breach of freedom of religious belief as well as an obvious contradiction of the International Declaration of Human Rights (item 18) which most of the Arab countries have signed. What do contemporary Muslim scholars say about this serious matter? The scholars of Kuwait and Qatar dealt with this question. The weekly Kuwaiti Magazine, "The Islamic Society" in its issue of April 17,1984, p. 26 said: "Somebody may say: ‘Do you want to deny freedom to people?’ We say to him: ‘If what is meant by freedom is to disbelieve in God’s religion, or the freedom of infidelity and apostasy, then that freedom is abolished and we do not recognize it; we even call for its eradication, and we strive to oppress it. We declare that publicly and in daylight"’ (Quoted from Dr. Taha Jabir’s article). Then Dr. Jabir goes on to explain that Islam does not acknowledge this sort of freedom at all; namely, the freedom of apostasy. He then begins (on page 26) to criticize Islamic governments which allow the media means to make apostasy easier, to regard it as a personal right to anyone who seeks it. The International Declaration of Human Rights In order to understand the response of Islam to this declaration, let us go to another Arab Islamic country. Dr. Ahmad from Qatar has a response to this declaration. Dr. Ahmad is a contemporary Muslim scholar and a reputed professor of Islamic law at the University of Qatar. In 1981, he published a famous book under the title, "Individual Guarantees in Islamic Law". If we turn to pages 15 and 16 of this book, we find him saying: "Item 18 of the International Declaration of Human Rights states that each individual has the full right to change his faith or to relinquish it as he wishes in order to protect the freedom of thought and the freedom of belief. We wonder if this freedom of changing one’s faith would be conducive to harm him along with others? Or even if the purpose of changing the faith is to sow the seeds of riots and spread viciousness in the land or to waver the faith from the hearts of others?" What did you mean, Dr. Ahmad, when you said: "Even if changing one’s faith would be conducive to harm one’s self?" Is this your personal point of view or is it the point of view of the person himself? Why do you impose your personal point of view on all people—because you think that it is a sound view? You believe that relinquishing Islam causes harm to the person who does it, but this is your own conviction. What if somebody else believes differently and is convinced that to continue as a Muslim will bring him harm? If for his own welfare, he wants to be converted to Christianity and to believe in the One who died for him so that he may live a life of peace, joy, love and holiness, why do you come to that person and tell him, "We forbid you! We do not grant you the freedom to change your faith. If you do that, we will kill you lest you harm yourself!" Maybe it was for this reason that Muhammad, Ali and ’Uthman killed the apostates and Abu Bakr fought those who turned away from Islam, killing tens of thousands ... "lest they harm themselves" ! In regard to your statement that the one who relinquishes his faith will shake faith in the hearts of others: this has nothing to do with his conviction. It is their problem with their own creed and not with him. He is seeking his own spiritual welfare and is persuaded to embrace another religion. Maybe it is better for those people to doubt their faith or even to have it uprooted from their hearts, because it may be a mere fruitless illusion which would lead to destruction. There is something called human rights, Dr. Ahmad. That is, a man has the right to be freely and intellectually convinced to embrace the creeds he wants and to worship God according to his own persuasion. The civilized countries as well as the United Nations have acknowledged that, ignoring of course, the command of your prophet: "Whoever changes his faith, kill him!" You said that the apostate spreads viciousness in the land. Does the one who is converted to the Christianity with its noble spiritual principles included in the Gospel spread corruption on earth, or is it the one who holds to Islam that kills those who change their faith? Christianity is clearly manifest in the Gospel. It calls us to worship the one God and it emphasizes love—even for our enemies. It calls for a life of holiness and peace. The Second Question How Can Muslims Deny the Compulsion of Force? Most often Muslims who really desire to know the truth and who believe that their faith respects man’s freedom, cite the Qur’anic phrase, "There is no compulsion in faith" as an evidence to their claim. Those people do not know its meaning as it was interpreted by the Muslim scholars. We have already seen that Islam states that the apostate must be killed, but in order to understand the meaning of "There is no compulsion in faith," refer to the answers of the contemporary and former scholars of Islam. The Sheikh Muhammad Mutawilli al-Sha’rawi He is one of the most famous contemporary scholars in Egypt. Millions of people in the Islamic world watch his television programs as he constantly attacks Christianity. He claims that Christians are infidels, and he stirs Muslims in Egypt to attack Christian churches, burn them and kill the infidels. Local Egyptian newspapers and magazines report this, too. I have not met this man nor have I watched his program, but I have read all of his books. In one of his famous books, "You Ask and Islam Answers", I found the following (page 52 of part 2): "Some ask: How does Islam say that there is no compulsion in faith, and yet it commands the killing of the apostate? We say to them: You are free to believe or not to believe, but once you embrace the faith you are not free (anymore) and you should be bound to Islam otherwise you will suffer punishment and the restrictions, among them is the killing of the apostate; that is, there is no compulsion in embracing the faith but, if you do, you are not free to relinquish it." Sha’rawi’s statement is in full conformity with the law of killing the apostate. It acknowledges the law and validates it. In his interpretation of this verse, Ibn Hazm, al-Baydawi agrees fully with the Sha’rawi. A man (be he a Christian or a Jew) is free to believe or disbelieve; that is, he has the option either to accept Islam or to pay the poll tax. If he is not religious, he is not free to choose another religion, but must become a Muslim. Ibn Hazm remarks that: "It was truly related to us that Muhammad used to force the Arab pagans to embrace the faith. He used to give them the option either to accept Islam or death. That is forcing people to accept Islam (refer to Vol. 8, part 11, p. 196, "The Sweetened" Al Mohalla)." What is of greatest significance to us in the Sha’rawi’s claim is that whoever believes in Islam does not have freedom to relinquish it, otherwise he must be put to death. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 14: 02.06. CONTRA ISLAM CHAPTER 2 ======================================================================== Chapter Two Offensive War to Spread Islam Muhammad and his successors initiated offensive wars against peaceful countries in order to impose Islam by force as well as to seize the abundance of these lands. Their objective was to capture women and children and to put an end to the poverty and hunger from which Arab Muslims suffered. So, Islam was imposed upon Syria, Jordan, Palestine (Jerusalem), Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Iran, all of North Africa, some parts of India and China, and later Spain. Undoubtedly, the concept of an offensive war to spread the faith is a genuine Islamic concept; it is known as a Holy War for the sake of God. We will see what Muslim scholars have explicitly determined that this is the essence of Islam. They also indicate that if sufficient military power is available to Islamic countries, they ought to attack all other countries in order to force them to embrace Islam, or pay the poll tax and be subject to Islamic rule. Muhammad (as well as all the Caliphs who succeeded him) called for holy wars . All scholars and lawyers acknowledge that. Those who say that the Islamic wars were always defensive do not understand Islam and have not read sufficient history. It should be evident that offensive wars to spread Islam are the heart of the entire religion of Islam. They embody the meaning of "Striving for the cause of God"—holy war to make the Word of God supreme over the whole world. Our study will be filled with objective quotes from the statements of scholars, along with a throng of true stories. The Sayings and Deeds of Muhammad and His Companions One of Muhammad’s popular claims is that God commanded him to fight people until they become Muslims and carry out the ordinances of Islam. All Muslim scholars without exception agree on this. Muhammad said: "I have been ordered by God to fight with people till they bear testimony to the fact that there is no God but Allah and that Mohammed is his messenger, and that they establish prayer and pay Zakat (money). If they do it, their blood and their property are safe from me" (see Bukhari Vol. I, p. 13). Scholars understood this claim to mean the waging of offensive wars against unbelievers in order to force them to embrace Islam as individuals or communities. This is exactly what Muhammad himself did in carrying out God’s commandment to him. Azhar’s Scholars in Egypt In his book, "Jurisprudence in Muhammad’s Biography", the Azhar scholar, Dr. Muhammad Sa’id Ramadan al-Buti says the following (page 134, 7th edition): "The Holy War, as it is known in Islamic Jurisprudence, is basically an offensive war. This is the duty of Muslims in every age when the needed military power becomes available to them. This is the phase in which the meaning of Holy War has taken its final form. Thus the apostle of God said: ‘I was commanded to fight the people until they believe in God and his message ..."’ Dr. Buti deduces from Muhammad’s statement that this is the concept of offensive war—this is Holy War as it is known in Islamic jurisprudence. Notice by his statement also that this matter is a duty incumbent on every Muslim in every age. The time will come when East and West, as well as politicians and military personnel all over the world will realize that the real military danger is the Islamic community. When the needed military power becomes available to them, they will wage wars and invade other countries ! Saudi Scholars In his book, "The Method of Islamic Law", Dr. Muhammad al-Amin clearly indicates: "No infidel [unbeliever] should be left on his land as it is denoted from Muhammad’s statement: ‘I was commanded to fight the people¼ ’" This claim by Muhammad and its generally-accepted meaning are recorded not only by these contemporary scholars in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but are also quoted in the following sources: ° The Sahih of al-Bukhari, part I, p. 13. ° The Sahih of Muslim, part I, p. 267 (The Interpretation of the Nawawi). ° The Commentary of Ibn Kathir, p. 336 ° The Muhalla (the Sweetened), Vol. 4, p. 317 ° "The Ordinances of the Qur’an" by al-Shafi’i, p. 51, part II (on the authority of Abu Huraira). ° Mishkat of al-Masabih, part 1, p. 9. Almost all major Islamic references have quoted this statement because it is one of the most famous sayings of Muhammad which he followed and which he commanded his followers to implement. Many provocative and painful events were inflicted on individuals and tribes in the course of Muhammad’s life. Muhammad, as we will see, used to exhort his followers: "Invitation first (that is, call them first to embrace Islam). If they refuse, then war." In other words, he told his followers not to kill anybody unless you first invite him to embrace Islam. Only if he rejects it, must he be killed. This is evident in the story of Abu Sufyan: When Muhammad and his followers were about to attack Mecca to subjugate it to Islam, his adherents arrested Abu Sufyan, one of Mecca’s inhabitants. They brought him to Muhammad. Muhammad told him: "Woe to you, O Abu Sufyan. Is it not time for you to realize that there is no God but the only God?" Abu Sufyan answered: "I do believe that." Muhammad then said to him: "Woe to you, O Abu Sufyan. Is it not time for you to know that I am the apostle of God?" Abu Sufyan answered: "By God, O Muhammad, of this there is doubt in my soul." The ’Abbas who was present with Muhammad told Abu Sufyan: "Woe to you! Accept Islam and testify that Muhammad is the apostle of God before your neck is cut off by the sword." Thus he professed the faith of Islam and became a Muslim. There are many sources which record this story: ° Ibn Hisham, part 4, p. 11 ("Biography of the Prophet’) ° "The Chronicle of the Tabari", part 2, p. 157 ° Ibn Kathir, "The Prophetic Biography", part 3, p. 549, and "The Beginning and the End" ° Ibn Khaldun, the rest of part 2, p. 43 and on ° Al-Sira al-Halabiyya, Vol. 3. p. 18 ° Al Road Al Anf, part 4, p. 90, by Al Sohaily It is also mentioned and attested to by contemporary scholars such as Dr. Buti in his book, "The Jurisprudence of Muhammad’s Biography", p. 277. He repeated it on page 287 because such stories incite the admiration of the Buti and bring him joy. Yet Dr. Buti feels that some people will protest, especially liberals and the civilized international society, who believe that faith in a certain creed ought not to be imposed by the threat of death. Therefore, he said (p. 287) the following: "It may be said, ‘What is the value of a faith in Islam which is a result of a threat? Abu Sufyan, one moment ago, was not a believer, then he believed after he was threatened by death.’ We say to those who question: ‘What is required of an infidel or the one who confuses other gods with God, is to have his tongue surrender to the religion of God and to subdue himself to the prophethood of Muhammad. But his heartfelt faith is not required at the beginning. It will come later."’ This is God in Islam, my dear friends—a God who is satisfied with the testimony of the tongue of a person who is under the threat of death. But "the heartfelt faith" will come later! The important thing is to increase the number of Muslims either by threat or by propagation! Dr. Buti was more than frank, and we would like to thank him for that, yet we would like to tell him that Christianity rejects the testimony of the mouth if it does not stem from faith that is rooted in the heart first. In Christianity, a person has sufficient time to think quietly before he makes his decision, as the Gospel says: "Let each be fully convinced in his own mind" (Romans 14:5). God reveals His attitude in the Bible when He says: "My son, give me your heart" (Proverbs 23:26). When the Ethiopian eunuch expressed his desire to be baptized, the evangelist Philip told him: "If you believe with all your heart, you may" (Acts 8:37). God even rebukes the people of Israel and says: "These people draw near to Me with their mouths and honor Me with their lips, but have removed their hearts far from Me" (Isaiah 29:13). The story of Abu Sufyan reveals clearly that Muhammad does not care much about the faith of the heart, especially at the beginning, as Dr. Buti suggests. What is really important is that professing faith is a natural response to the threat of death. The threat is very clear: Testify that Muhammad is the apostle of God or you will be beheaded. The story concludes: Abu Sufyan professed the testimony of "truth" immediately! In his book, "The Biography of the Apostle", part 4, Ibn Hisham says (page 134): "Muhammad sent Khalid Ibn al-Walid to the tribe of the children of Haritha and told him: ‘Call them to accept Islam before you fight with them. If they respond, accept that from them, but if they refuse, fight them.’ Khalid told them: ‘Accept Islam and spare your life.’ They entered Islam by force. He brought them to Muhammad. Muhammad said to them: ‘Had you not accepted Islam I would have cast your heads under your feet"’ (refer to page 134, and also see Al Road Al Anf, part 4, pp. 217, 218. You will find the same incident). We see in this story the main Islamic concept: First, an invitation to accept Islam, then war against those who refuse to do so. This was Muhammad’s order to Khalid Ibn al-Walid. It is also noteworthy to examine Ibn Hisham’s statement that "they entered Islam by force." Muhammad himself told them later: "Had you rejected Islam, I would have beheaded you and cast your heads under your feet." This was an undisputed threat: Either they accepted Islam or they would have been beheaded. The brutal irony is that he uttered these words with ruthlessness and relentlessness instead of congratulating them on their new faith! What a strange man who failed to show any love or genuine compassion. His act was an act of a first-class terrorist. He did not congratulate them because he knew that they entered Islam by force. Is this man really the prophet of freedom, compassion, and human rights? Listen carefully! These oppressive attitudes and actions are as clear as the sun on a bright summer day. Muhammad’s words are self-explanatory: "Had you not accepted Islam I would have beheaded you and cast your heads under your feet!" What human rights! What compassionate, kind, meek and noble characters! Undoubtedly, this alone is enough to uncover the dreadful dark side of Muhammad’s character and his religion. Azhar scholar Dr. Buti adds on p. 263 of his book: "The apostle of God started to send military detachments from among his followers to the various Arab tribes which were scattered in the Arab Peninsula to carry out the task of calling (these tribes) to accept Islam If they did not respond, they would kill them. That was during the 7th Higira year. The number of the detachments amounted to ten." Would God’s help be sought, Oh Muhammad, to fight peaceful tribes whose only crime was that they could not believe that you are an apostle of God? Satan (not God) assists wicked people to commit these things! No wonder all these tribes so quickly became apostate and relinquished Islam after the death of Muhammad. Abu Bakr Al Sadiq waged the aforementioned wars to force them to re-embrace Islam. Dr. Buti states this in chapter six of his book, under the title, "New Phase of the Mission". He quotes a statement made by Muhammad which proves that those wars were offensive wars. Muhammad said, "From now on, they will not invade you, but you will invade them." Now let us see what Muhammad’s followers did who implemented the same principle: Ali Ibn Abi Talib In his book, "The Biography of the Prophet" (part 3, p. 113), Ibn Hisham relates this episode: "Ali Ibn Abi Talib encountered a man called ’Umru and told him, ‘I indeed invite you to Islam.’ ’Umru said, ‘I do not need that.’ ’Ali said, ‘Then I call you to fight.’ (This was the same policy Muhammad used with those who rejected his invitation.) ’Umru answered him, ‘What for my nephew? By God, I do not like to kill you.’ ’Ali said, ‘But, by God, I love to kill you"’ (see Al Road Al Anf part 3, p. 263). It is obvious from the dialogue that ’Umru does not like fighting because he does not want to kill ’Ali while he is defending himself. He wonders, "What for? I do not want to embrace Islam." But ’Ali says to him, "By God I love to kill you," and he did kill him. We would like to conclude these stories by relating another moving episode which the Muslim Chroniclers recorded, among them, Isma’il Ibn Kathir in his book, "The Prophetic Biography" (part 3, p. 596). Ibn Kathir says that Muhammad’s followers met a man and asked him to become a Muslim. He asked them, "What is Islam?" They explained that to him. He said, "What if I refuse it? What would you do to me?" They answered, "We would kill you." Despite that, he refused to become a Muslim and they killed the poor man after he went and bade his wife farewell. She continued to weep over his corpse for days until she died of grief over her slain beloved who was killed for no reason. Dr. ’Afifi Abdul-Fattah On the cover of his famous book, "The Spirit of Islamic Religion," which was reprinted more than nine times, it says the following, "It has been revised by the committee of Azhar scholars with introductions made by the greatest Muslim professors and judges of Islamic legal courts." On page 382 Dr. ’Afifi says: "Islam has approved war so that the Word of God becomes supreme. This is war for the cause of God (Holy War). Muhammad, therefore, sent his ambassadors to eight kings and princes in the neighborhood of the Arab Peninsula to call them to embrace Islam. They rejected his call. Thus, it became incumbent on the Muslims to fight them." On page 384, we read the following: "Islamic law demands that before Muslims start fighting infidels (unbelievers), they first deliver the message of Islam to them. It was proven that the prophet never fought people before he called them to embrace Islam first. He used to command his generals to do so also." Dr. ’Afifi (along with the Azhar scholars who revised his book) boasts that the prophet never fought anybody before he called them to Islam first! Those people fail to realize that human rights emphasize that when you call people to embrace any religion and they refuse to do so, you must leave them alone! You are not to fight them in order to force them to accept the new religion as Muhammad and his followers did. We did not say that Muhammad did not call them to believe in Islam first. We acknowledge that, but we blame him because whenever they rejected his invitation, he fought and killed them Are these the human rights? Don’t you understand, Dr. ’Afifi? Do Muhammad’s teachings make you so blind that you fail to see the simplest principles of human rights? Do you not respect man’s freedom to believe in whatever he wants? Muhammad had the right to call people to embrace Islam and to commission Khalid along with his followers to carry out this task; but he did not have the right to kill them if they refused to accept Islam. Dr. ’Afifi says that eight kings and princes declined to accept Muhammad’s mission; thus it was incumbent on the Muslims to fight them. We ask him: Why it was incumbent on them to fight those kings and princes? Is their refusal to accept Islam a reason for the Muslims to fight them? "Yes!" This is what all Muslim scholars say, without exception. Let the people of the West and of the East ponder these events which took place in the course of Islamic history and during the life of Muhammad and after his death. Beware, nations of the world, for any strong Islamic country would implement the same policy of war to obey God’s order and his messenger! ! The Saudi Scholars In his book, "The Methodology of Islamic Law", Dr. Muhammad al-Amin says (page 17): "God had made it clear to us that (we should) call for acceptance of Islam first, then wage war. It is not admissible to wage war before extending the invitation to embrace Islam first, as the Qur’an says. ‘We verily sent our messenger with clear proofs and revealed to them the scripture and the balance, that mankind may observe right measure, and he revealed iron, wherein is mighty power and uses for mankind and that Allah (God) may know him who helps Him and his messengers—Allah is strong, Almighty"’ (Surah Iron 57:25). Thus, God’s words are, "We sent down iron, which has powerful might", followed His saying, "We have sent our apostles with signs." This denotes that if the signs and books fail, then unleash the sword against them, as the Muslim poet said, "The Book (Qur’an) offers guidance, and he who does not turn away (from evil) by the guidance of the book, He will be kept straight by the squadrons." The reader may be confused and want to inquire about Muhammad’s policy in spreading his mission. They may question his orders to his generals and his explicit attitude towards Abu Sufyan and say, "These attitudes prove to us that Islam forces people to accept it. The case is not limited to ignoring people’s freedom and confiscating their properties only or sentencing the apostate to death, but it also calls for slaying whoever rejects Islam. What is the opinion of the scholar about that? Is force used as compulsion in accepting this religion?" The Muslim scholars say, "Yes." There is compulsion used in accepting Islam, but this applies only to pagans and those who are irreligious. For Christians and Jews, the orders are to fight them and subject them to the ordinances of Islam, making them pay a poll-tax. In this case, they are spared death and are allowed to keep their faith. They are not forced to embrace Islam because they have three options—become Muslims, fight, or pay the poll-tax. The irreligious have two options only: death or Islam. This is what the Muslim scholars say, and the Qur’an itself teaches the same. Ibn Hazm and al-Baydawi In volume 8, part 11, on page 196 Ibn Hazm remarks decisively, "The prophet Muhammad did not accept from the Arab heathens less than Islam or the sword. This is compulsion of faith. No compulsion in faith (or religion) applies only to Christians or Jews because they are not to be forced to embrace the religion. They have the option either to embrace Islam, the sword, or to pay the poll-tax. In this case they can keep their own faith. It was truly said on the authority of the apostle of God that there is no compulsion in the faith. "When the sacred months elapse, kill those who associate other gods with God, wherever you find them" (Surah 9:5). The Imam al-Baydawi offers us (page 58 of his commentary) exactly the same interpretation. Abu Bakr El Sadiq In Al Road Al Anf (part 4, p. 240), Ibn Hisham indicates that Abu Bakr (the daily companion of Muhammad and among the first who believed in him) used to converse with Ibn Abu Rafi al-Ta’i and to say to him: "God—to whom belong the might and exaltation—has sent Muhammad with this religion for which he fought until people entered this religion by hook or by crook." This phrase, I believe, is self-explanatory—"by crook" ! The Imam al-Shafi’i In his famous book, "The Ordinances of Qur’an" (page 50 of the second part), the Shafi’i says: "The apostle of God defeated the people until they entered Islam by hook or by crook." Again we have this clear declaration—"by crook". This is what actually happened. The Qur’an Exposes the Aggressive Nature of Islam The Qur’anic verses reveal to us the aggressive, hostile nature of the Islamic mission and of Muhammad. The Qur’an includes verses pertaining to fighting against infidels, as well as other verses related to Holy War against Christians and Jews. Pertaining to the Infidels "But when the sacred months elapse, then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them and seize them, besiege them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war). But if they repent and establish regular prayers, and practice regular charity, then open the way for them for Allah is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful" (Surah 9:5). How did Muslim scholars and chroniclers interpret this verse in order to understand what Muhammad did after the conquest of Mecca and its occupation? The Jalalan In this commentary, which was published by the Azhar in 1983 (page 153), the authors say decisively, "The chapter of Repentance was revealed to raise the level of security which the infidels enjoyed because Muhammad had earlier made a covenant with them not to kill them. After that, this verse was given (9:5) in order to free God and Muhammad from any covenant with the infidels. It gives them four months in which they will be protected, but by the end of the four months (the end of the grace period), the order comes: Kill the infidels wherever you find them. Capture them, besiege them in their castles and fortresses until they are forced to accept Islam or be killed." As you see, this verse was inspired in order to free Muhammad (and God) from any peaceful and protective covenant which Muhammad made with the people of Mecca, as if the covenant were shameful behavior from which Muhammad (and his God) must free themselves. Nothing remains after that, except the pledge of war and massacre, as Ibn Hisham says later. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya’s book was published in Saudi Arabia (second edition) in 1981. In part 5, p. 90, this famous scholar tells us the following: "When the prophet migrated from Mecca to Medina, God ordered him to fight those who fought him only. Then when the chapter of Repentance was revealed, God commanded His prophet to fight anyone who did not become a Muslim from among the Arabs, whether (that person) fought him or not. He did not command him to take the poll-tax from infidels." This means that Arabs did not have a choice. They either had to embrace Islam or die by the sword. It is obvious then that God (according to the above interpretation) had ordered His prophet to fight anyone from among the Arabs who refused to become a Muslim whether he fought against Muhammad or not. This is overt aggression and unjustified attack against peaceful people. Ibn Hisham: - Al Sohaily In his book, "al-Rawd al-Anaf" which is the most famous book about Muhammad’s life (part 4, p. 194), we read the following text: "When Muhammad conquered Mecca and the Arabs realized that they were not able to wage war against Muhammad, they accepted the Islamic faith. But some of the infidels continued to be as they were. (They used to make pilgrimages also because this practice was in vogue among the people hundreds of years before Muhammad). Then suddenly Muhammad sent someone to announce to the Tribe of Quraysh that no pilgrimage would be allowed for the infidels after that year (9H); none would enter paradise unless he were a Muslim. Muhammad was going to give the infidels a respite for four months, and after that there would not be a covenant except the covenant of the sword and war (lit: piercing and the strike of the sword). After this period, people entered Islam by hook or by crook, and anyone who did not become a Muslim fled the Arabian Peninsula." Ibn Hisham already quoted Muhammad’s famous words: "No two religions are to exist in the Arab Peninsula" (pp. 50, 51). Ibn Kathir, Al-Baydawi-al-Tabari (The Pillars of Islam) Isma’il Ibn Kathir reiterates the above interpretation on page 336 of his commentary. He also asserts that this verse (9:5) is the verse of the sword which abrogated any previous covenant between the prophet and the infidels. On pp. 246 and 247, the Baydawi borrows Ibn Kathir’s explanation and indicates to us the four months which were Shawal, Dhu al-Qu’da, Dhu al-Hijja and Muharram. The Baydawi adds that after the elapse of these four months, the infidels must be taken as prisoners lest they enter Mecca. In this case, they don’t have any choice except either to embrace Islam or to be killed. Al Tabari said the same words and the same explanation on p. 206, 207 of his commentary dar-el-Sheroq. Dr. Muhammad Sa’id al-Buti We would like to conclude our discussion about this verse by referring to the opinion of one of the most eminent scholars of Azhar and the Islamic world. In his book, "The Jurisprudence of the Biography", he says, "The verse (9:5) does not leave any room in the mind to conjecture about what is called defensive war. This verse asserts that Holy War which is demanded in Islamic law, is not defensive war (as the Western students of Islam would like to tell us) because it could legitimately be an offensive war. That is the apex and most honorable of all Holy wars" (pp. 323, 324). Dr. Sa’id, I wish that Westerners would actually believe your statement! I wish that Western people would drop any notion that Holy war is a defensive war! You really astonish me, though, because you regard the offensive war designed to spread the faith to be legal as if you had never heard of an agency in New York called the United Nations or of human rights. You even say that offensive war is "the apex and the most honorable Holy War" among all wars! Pertaining to the People of the Book Explicitly and shamelessly, the Qur’an declares (Chapter of Repentance, 9:29), "Fight against those who have been given the scripture but believe not in Allah nor the last day, and who forbid not that which Allah has forbidden by His messenger, and who follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute willingly, being brought into submission" (p. 182, English copy by Saudi Arabian scholars). Muslim scholars have agreed on the interpretation of this transparent verse by which all the Muslim warriors were guided in their offensive, violent wars against peaceful people. The Baydawi In his book, "The Lights of Revelation", a commentary on the Qur’an, he remarks, "Fight Jews and Christians because they violated the origin of their faith and they do not believe in the religion of the truth, namely Islam, which abrogated all other religions. Fight them until they pay the poll-tax with submission and humiliation" (page 252). The Tabari On page 210, the Tabari declares in his commentary that this verse is referring in particular to the people of the Book and has direct relation to the preceding verse (9:28). He said that the reason for the revelation of this verse (9:29) was that God had prohibited infidels from coming to the mosque for pilgrimage any more. They used to come with food and to trade. Muslims said, "Then, where we can get food?" They were afraid of poverty; thus God gave this verse so that they could collect money (the poll-tax)from the people of the Book. This same interpretation is also found in the "Biography of the Apostle" by Ibn Hisham (p. 104 in part 4), and in the Jalalan. The rest of the scholars agree upon this interpretation. I would like to quote here the text of the two verses (9:28-29) because they really complement each other. The Qur’an says: "O ye who believe! Truly the pagans are unclean, so let them not approach the sacred Mosque after this year, and if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you (if He wills) out of His bounty for Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise ... fight against the people of the Book ...." (to the end of verse 29). The Tabari adds: "The meaning of the Qur’anic statement: ‘... until they pay the poll-tax with submission and humiliation’ (literally: to pay by hand and with forced submission) is that the Muslim will receive the tax imposed on Christians and Jews while he is sitting and they are standing. He will take it from their own hands since the Christian or the Jew should not send the money with a messenger but come himself and stand to pay it to the Muslim who will be sitting. The saying, ‘with forced submission’, also means with humiliation" (page 210). The Jalalan (Al Suyti and ’Al Mahally) On page 156, we find the same words and interpretation stated by the Tabari. Then he adds: "The order to fight the people of the Book is because they do not prohibit what the apostle had forbidden such as wine." Then he explains the humiliating procedure by which Christians have to pay the poll-tax—exactly as the Tabari described it. Ibn Hisham Al Sohaily In his book, "The Biography of the Apostle" (Al Road Al Anf, part 4, p. 201), Ibn Hisham repeats the above-mentioned quotation and adds, "The poll-tax is to be paid by the Christian or the Jew forcibly and submissively. It is to spare their lives; that is, they pay it in lieu of being killed because if they did not pay it, they would be killed unless they intended to become Muslims, then they would be exempted from paying it." The Shafi’i: Lastly, we would like to refer to the Shafi’i’s statement in his book, "The Ordinances of the Qur’an" (part 2, p. 50), "The apostle of God killed and captured (many) of the people of the Book until some of them embraced Islam, and he imposed the poll-tax on some others." For God’s sake, Muhammad! You killed and captured Jews and Christians, who believe in one God—the followers of Moses and Jesus—and forced them either to embrace Islam or to pay the poll-tax! In the same book and part, the Shafi’i summarizes the entire situation, whether in relation to infidels or to the people of the Book. He says, "From idolaters and those who associate other gods with God, the poll-tax is not to be accepted. Either they believe in Islam or be killed, but the people of the Book can pay the poll-tax with submission and humiliation whether they are Arabs or non-Arabs" (pp. 52,53). The Shafi’i adds in the same source (pp. 62-64) saying, "When the people of Islam became strong enough, God revealed the chapter of Repentance and ordained the fight against the people of the book until they pay the poll-tax." If the reader wonders why, I would remind him of what the Tabari and Ibn Hisham said—Muslims were afraid of poverty and they wanted to acquire properties and bounties. Thus the Qur’an explained, "If you fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you if He wills, out of His bounty...Fight... the people of the Book... until they pay the poll-tax." Isn’t this the same as crimes committed by bandits and pirates? Yet, this is exactly what Muhammad used to do. On various occasions, Muhammad himself attacked the caravans (or he would order his followers to do so) to plunder them. In short, Islamic law calls for the death penalty for apostates and forces peaceful infidels (unbelievers)either to accept Islam or be killed. If they are the people of the Book, they have a choice either to be killed, to become Muslims, or to pay the poll-tax in humiliation. Where are human rights? Where is respect for the individual’s freedom to choose the faith he wants? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 15: 02.06. CONTRA ISLAM CHAPTER 2 CONT'D ======================================================================== Where are human rights? Where is respect for the individual’s freedom to choose the faith he wants? Contemporary Muslim Scholars Concur on the Principle of Offensive War In addition to the foregoing quotations, I would like to add some statements which may have more bearing for international readers. I will include many other declarations quoted from publications of the Liberation Party in Jerusalem as made by another Muslim scholar. "The Jurisprudence of the Biography" by al-Buti (7th ed.) published by the Azhar in Egypt This book was revised by Al Azhar, so it is accepted by all Muslims and is well-known all over the Islamic world. It deals with Muhammad’s biography, interprets it and comments on the most famous events of his life. The author states (page 324) that the offensive war is legal. He literally uses these words, "The concept of Holy War in Islam does not take into consideration whether (the war is) a defensive or an offensive war. Its goal is the exaltation of the Word of God and the construction of Islamic society and the establishment of God’s Kingdom on Earth regardless of the means. The means would be offensive warfare. In this case it is the apex, the most noble Holy War. It is legal to carry on a Holy War." The implications are plain enough—there is no need for comment. Then he adds on p. 242, "Defensive warfare in Islam is nothing but a phase of the Islamic mission which the prophet practiced. After that, it was followed by another phase; that is, calling all people to embrace Islam so that nothing less would be acceptable from atheists and those who associate other deities with God than that they embrace Islam. Also, nothing would be acceptable from the people of the Book except conversion to Islam or being subjugated to Muslim rule. In addition, there is the command to fight anyone who attempts to stand in its way. Now, after the domination of Islamic rule is in place, and its mission complete, it is meaningless (in regard to Holy War) to (talk about) defensive wars, as some of the researchers do. Otherwise, what does Muhammad’s statement mean (as it is related by the Bukhari), ‘They would not invade you, but you invade them ’?" It is obvious that defensive warfare was a temporary phase in Muhammad’s strategy. After that, a second phase followed which was offensive war, a legal tool for holy war. In this phase, people were not left to enjoy their status quo, but were invaded and they suffered the horrors of the war, though they did not attempt to start a war or to invade the Muslims. It is as Muhammad said: "They will not invade you, but you are those who will invade them." Why? Is it an order to impose Islam on infidels or to kill them? Or (as is the case with the people of the Book) are they either to accept Islam, fight a war, or surrender and pay the poll-tax with humiliation? This is an explicit declaration and Dr. Buti does not hide the truth. To the contrary, he boasts of it and asserts that it is wrong to regard Islamic wars as defensive wars. He insists that this is a false concept which some researchers have reiterated along with Western nations in order to halt the Islamic march. Let the entire world listen to the opinion of one of the most famous Muslim scholars from the Azhar University as he demands the resumption of war to conquer the world. He says (pages 265 and 266), "The concept by which the mission directed itself from the beginning of Muhammad’s migration to Medina to the Hudaybiyya treaty, was simply a defensive phase of the plan. During this stage, the prophet did not initiate an attack or start an invasion, but after the treaty of Hudaybiyya, the prophet intended to enter a new, essential phase in accordance with Islamic law. This was the phase of fighting those who heard the message but arrogantly rejected it. This phase, by the act of Muhammad and his word, has become a legal decree, according to Muslims in every age until the day of resurrection!" I wonder, "Why should Muhammad fight them? Is it because they rejected his faith that he should fight with them?" The Azhari scholar answers, "Yes, because they arrogantly refused to believe in him, so he added that this new stage of war; that is, the phase of fighting unbelievers. This came after the completion of the defensive period which followed the treaty of Hudaybiyya. It has become (according to Muslims) legal in every age until the day of resurrection." Dr. Buti continues: "...This is the concept which professional experts of thought attempt to conceal from the eyes of Muslims by claiming that anything that is related to a holy war in Islamic law is only based on defensive warfare to repel an attack" (page 266). Many have thought as much, but it is obvious from this statement that defensive warfare is an attempt made by Western thinkers to hide from the eyes of Muslims the reality of offensive warfare. If we wonder why Western thinkers do that, Dr. Buti answers this question on the same page 266 saying, "It is no secret that the reason behind this deception is the great fear which dominates foreign countries (East and West alike) that the idea of Holy War for the cause of God would be revived in the hearts of Muslims, then certainly, the collapse of European culture will be accomplished. The mind set of the European man has matured to embrace Islam as soon as he hears an honest message presented. How much more will it be accepted if this message is followed by a Holy War?" Have European, American and Eastern people—as well as the governments of the World—read these obvious words? We have been led to believe that Muhammad and his followers only waged defensive wars. Yet here they declare that defensive warfare was a temporary strategy at the beginning of Islam. Six years after Muhammad’s departure from Mecca to Medina, a new phase has begun; namely, offensive warfare. Muslims are concerned that the popular notion that Islamic wars were nothing more than defensive wars is a deception invented by the people of the West to divert Muslims away from allowing the dream of Holy War to be revived in their hearts. The West is afraid that the Islamic dream would set off a holy, offensive war in order to establish God’s state on Earth (an Islamic government) and to make God’s word supreme. Then Western civilization would collapse. There is no need to comment further on these statements, but I would like to tell Dr. Buti something: If the mind set of the European man is potentially ready to embrace Islam, it is because he is not exposed to the reality of Islam or who Muhammad really was. Only such books as ours will remove the Islamic deceptive veils. If real Islam is truly exposed, it will be eradicated not only in Europe, America, Asia and Africa, but also in Arab countries as well. People will re-examine the reality of this religion and the prophethood of this Arabic man called Muhammad. We tell you, Dr. Buti, that powerful foreign countries are not afraid of Arab countries and Islamic states which do not have modern technology because one strong foreign country can annihilate all these countries. If the state of Israel alone is able to exhaust all the Arab countries, how much more can other powerful foreign countries do so? If foreign countries claim that Islamic wars were defensive wars, that is because they have been deluded and have believed the deception, but praise be to God for people like you who expose the ugly truth to them. You have demonstrated to them that holy war in Islam is a continuing ideal which will last to the day of resurrection. It is a plan in which it is incumbent on all Muslims to fight (in the cause of God) those who reject Islam. This concept started in the sixth year of the Hegira and continues to the present. As Dr. Buti endeavors to justify the principle of offensive warfare, he remarks that offensive war is the most noble of all wars and the verses (chapter 9:29 and 9:5) do not leave any room in the imagination for defensive warfare. He addresses his readers, "You may wonder now: Where is the wisdom of forcing infidels and their associates to embrace Islam? How could the mind set of the twentieth century understand such matters? The answer is: We wonder where the wisdom is when the state forces an individual to be subjugated to its system and philosophy despite the freedom he possesses? How can it be reasonable for the state to have the right to subjugate its citizens to the laws, principles, and ordinances it enacts, while the creator of all does not have the right to subjugate them to His authority and to convert them from every creed or faith to His religion?" (pages 266 and 267). I would like to ask you, Dr. Sa’id El Buti, you who are a contemporary scholar at the Azhar University: How can people of the twentieth century understand and accept your logic of imposing a certain religion on a person with the death penalty as the only alternative? Would it not be more reasonable for Muslims to understand and accept the concept of human rights and the freedom to embrace the creed a person wishes to believe, in accordance with his conviction? We take into consideration your circumstances and we understand that you would be likely to defend Islam and the Qur’an. You would be likely to defend Muhammad’s behavior, sayings and all that his companions and successors did, but let me tell you that twentieth century thinking rejects your attitude. On the other hand, who told you that the state and its rulers have the right to impose regulations and systems on their citizens as they wish? Don’t you know that the people of modern countries in Europe and America vote on the constitution they feel is appropriate for them? They even elect their rulers as well as the people’s assemblies, such as parliament. The people in these democratic countries have the authority to remove the leaders of the state if they fail to act in accordance with their constitutions which were established by free elections and public vote. Maybe you are comparing yourself to the governments of underdeveloped countries (like most of the Arab and Islamic countries) which are characterized by the rule of one individual, tyranny, terrorism and the neglect of human rights. Woe to the one who opposes the ruler or dares to change his Islamic religion! Some Islamic countries subject him to Islamic law, and carry out the orders of Muhammad and his successors by sentencing him to death immediately. Other countries are content to put him in jail and torment him for a while. Dr. Sa’id, what makes you think that God’s character is similar to the character of the rulers of these tyrannical states? We pray that the time will come when there is freedom for evangelism and the preaching of the Gospel in the Arab world for the benefit of the Arab people—first and last. We also pray that the rulers of the Arab countries will become like Gorbachev, the former ruler of Russia, who guaranteed religious freedom and opened wide the door of human rights and individual freedom. God (the only eternal, true God) is not the one who exists in your mind or the one about whom Muhammad preached, but He is the God of love and freedom. He is the God of Christian revelation. The true God is not a God who demands that a poll-tax be paid to Muhammad, or a God of capturing women and children, or of slaughtering the men of peaceful towns if they do not become Muslims Yours is an imaginary God who does not exist. The true God says, "Let the one who thirsts, come. And the one who desires, let him take the water of life freely" (Revelation 22:17). He also says, "Ho! Everyone who thirsts, Come to the waters; And you who have no money, "Come, buy and eat ... let your soul delight itself in abundance" (Isaiah 55:1-2). Arab Scholars in Jerusalem "The Book of the Islamic State" by Taqiy al-Din al-Nabahan was published in 1953. It encapsulates the entire issue in simple, plain style and in explicitly few words. It will suffice to quote four self-explanatory paragraphs which need no comment because they are obvious. On pages 112, 113, and 117, Taqiy al-Din says, "The foreign policy of Islamic states must be to carry the Islamic mission to the world by way of holy war. This process has been established through the course of the ages from the time the apostle settled down until the end of the last Islamic state which was ruled by Islamic law. This process has never been changed at all. The apostle Muhammad, from the time he founded the state in the city Yathrib, prepared an army and began holy war to remove the physical barriers which hinder the spread of Islam. "He subdued the tribe of Quraysh as a body, along with other similar groups until Islam prevailed all over the Arabian peninsula. Then the Islamic state started to knock at the doors of other states to spread Islam. Whenever it found that the nature of the existing system in these states was a barrier which prevented the spread of the mission, they saw it as inevitable that the system be removed. So holy war continued as a means of spreading Islam. Thus by holy war, countries and regions were conquered. By holy war, kingdoms and states were removed and Islam ruled the nations and peoples. "The glorious Qur’an has revealed to Muslims the reasons for fighting and the ordinance of holy war and it declares that it is to carry the message of Islam to the entire world. There are several verses which command the Muslims to fight for the cause of Islam. Therefore, carrying the Islamic mission is the basis on which the Islamic state was established, the Islamic army was founded, and holy war was ordained. All the conquests were achieved accordingly. Fulfilling the Islamic mission will restore the Islamic state to the Muslims." Then he adds on pages 113, 114, and 115, "If holy war is the established, unchangeable means of spreading Islam, then political activities become a necessity before initiating the fight. If we besiege the infidels, we would call them to embrace Islam first. If they accept Islam, they become part of the Islamic community, but if they reject Islam, they have to pay the poll-tax. If they pay it, they spare their blood and properties, but if they refuse to pay the poll-tax, then fighting them becomes lawful." Readers, please note that these same words and principles are confirmed by all the Muslim scholars who are well acquainted with the saying and deeds of Muhammad and his successors. On pages 115 and 116 Taqiy al-Din indicates again this historical statement, "The Islamic system is a universal system, thus it was natural that it would spread, and natural that countries would be conquered. Here the apostle is receiving from Muslims the pledge of ’aqaba the Second, making a pact with him to fight all people. Those Muslims were the core of the army of the Islamic state whose military task was to carry the Islamic mission. The apostle of God had designed the plan of conquest before his death, then after him, his successors undertook the responsibility of implementing this plan when they started conquering the countries. Later, the Islamic conquests followed successively on this basis. People’s resistance or rejection does not matter because the Islamic system is for all people in all countries." Let the reader ponder these words and judge for himself. "People’s resistance or rejection does not matter because Islam is for all people"; namely, by force, conquest, and war. But I would like to state here that Christianity is also a universal system, and it is for all people. Christ said, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature..." (Mark 16:15). Anyone who believes will be saved and whoever does not believe, God will judge. Christ did not say, "Go into the world and preach. Whoever believes becomes one of us, and whoever does not believe should pay the poll-tax to the Christian army or be put to death." He did not say that! This is a crucial difference, my dear reader, between Christ and Muhammad, between Christianity and Islam. The Bloody History of Islam Having surveyed the incidents which took place during the life of Muhammad, it is appropriate to mention the events which occurred after his death and how the Caliphs who succeeded him carried out the same Muhammadic principle and the Qur’anic instructions The history of Islam talks to us with two bloodied hands—first is the blood of peaceful people who safely inhabited the land until they were invaded by the Muslim armies which marched from the Arab Peninsula after the death of Muhammad. In the name of spreading the religion, they killed millions of people, and in the name of exalting the word of God, they plundered properties and divided the "booty" of women and children among themselves, the same as Muhammad did in the course of his campaigns. These Arab Islamic armies obeyed Muhammad’s orders and the Qur’anic commands. They believed that spreading Islam and taking the material abundance came from God. The Qur’an explicitly says, "Allah promises you much booty (spoils of war) that you will capture" (Chapter 48:20). Muslim scholars do not negate these historically confirmed facts, but rather they brag about them, and their books (both old and modern) are filled with the details of these events. They mention them with pride, and they are glad to explain and demonstrate how the Arab Islamic armies attacked all the Persian lands and part of the Byzantine territories and occupied them. They could tell you how these armies took over Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Egypt, Iraq, Turkey, and, of course, Libya and all of Africa until the Muslim army reached the borders of China and the regions of Iran. Even Spain had fallen into their hands for hundreds of years. They proceeded then toward France, but they were stopped in the battle of Tours at the hands of Charles Martel. These wars were offensive wars of the first degree. Islam dominated these countries. Nowadays, all Muslim countries belong to the under-developed third world. Before we let the Muslim chroniclers narrate to us what happened, it is fit here to clarify a very significant issue about which many people inquire. The Cross Denounces the Crusades These were bitter wars led by the princes of Europe for a period of time without any justification except ruthlessness of the heart and faithlessness of those leaders, who (despite their claims that they were attempting to deliver the Christians in the Islamic East from the persecution of the Muslims) were not true believers in Christ or in His teachings. Where in the Gospel do we find any call for war? In this study, we compare Christ with Muhammad, the Gospel with the Qur’an, the sublime teaching of Christianity with the clear teachings of Islam. Did Christ lead any war to spread the faith, to divide the booty and to capture women to enslave them for himself and for his followers? Did Christ order His followers to do so? Did he order Peter to sheath his sword when he unsheathed it and struck the servant of the Jewish high priest when Christ’s enemies hastened to arrest him? Did Christ’s successors and disciples wage wars and march into battle to take poll-taxes and to spread Christianity? These are the conclusive questions which reveal the difference between Christ and Muhammad, between Christianity and Islam. If some Christians came after hundreds of years had elapsed and committed such detestable things, Christ and Christianity would certainly denounce such deeds. On the other hand, the Islamic wars were waged by Muhammad himself, then by his relatives and companions who lived with him day after day and to whom he promised paradise. The other important thing is that they were executing the unequivocal teachings of both Muhammad and the Qur’an which we mentioned previously in this chapter. We have many books which all talk thoroughly and in detail about the offensive wars. The most famous of these books is "The Chronicles of Al-Tabari, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Kathir" and "The History of the Caliphs" by the Suyuti. The entire Islamic world relies on these books. Among the contemporary scholars who rely on these sources and quote from them is Dr. Abu Zayd Shalabi, professor of civilization at the Azhar University. His respected book, "al-Khulafa’ al-Rashidun" The Rightly Guided Caliphs", or successors) from which we quoted when we discussed the wars of apostasy, examines these things. We have selected a few quotations from these sources and references because they almost all repeat each other. These events are well-known and confirmed by all Muslims. They are taught in the public schools in all the Islamic countries, especially in the Arab world. "The Rightly Guided Caliphs" by Dr. Abu Zayd Shalabi Dr. Abu Zayd Shalabi discusses the Islamic wars which were initiated by the four caliphs who succeeded Muhammad and who, at the same time, are his favored relatives. These caliphs are: Abu Bakr, ’Umar, ’Uthman and ’Ali. Muhammad married ’Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr, and Hafesa, daughter of ’Umar. ’Uthman married Ruqayya, the daughter of Muhammad, then after her death, he married her sister Um Kalthum. ’Ali was married to Muhammad’s youngest daughter, Fatima al-Zahra. On pages 35-38, Dr. Abu Zayd remarks, "Muhammad had prepared an army to invade the borders of Syria. When Muhammad died Abu Bakr sent an army headed by Usama Ibn Zayd and ’Umar Ibn al-Khattab. The army marched towards southern Palestine and invaded some parts of the land, frightened the people and captured some booty." At the beginning of page 70, Dr. Abu Zayd talks about the Islamic conquests and indicates that at the inception of the year 12 of Hajira, Abu Bakr ordered Khalid Ibn al-Walid to invade Persian lands and to seize the ports near Iraq. Khalid marched with the army, but before he started the war, he sent his famous message to Hermez, one of the Iraqi generals, "Embrace Islam, or pay the poll-tax, or fight." The Hermez declined to accept any of these terms but war. The Persians were defeated in this battle and Khalid seized the booty and sent Abu Bakr one-fifth of the spoils of war, exactly as they were accustomed to send to Muhammad. One-fifth of the booty belonged to God and to Muhammad. Abu Bakr presented Khalid with the Hermez’s tiara which was inlaid with gems. Dr. Abu Zayd says the value of the gems amounted to 100,000 dirham (p. 73). After that, the successful, savage invasions continued against other countries which could not repel the forces of Islam. This Azhar scholar tells us that in the battle of Alees which took place on the border of Iraq, Khalid killed 70,000 people! He was so brutal in his attack that the nearby river was mixed with their blood (p. 75). On p. 77, Dr. Abu Zayd mentions another country which surrendered to Khalid. Khalid demanded that they pay 190,000 dirhams. When he attacked Ayn al-Tamr in Iraq, its people took shelter in one of the fortresses. Khalid laid siege to the fortress and forced them to come out. He killed all of them mercilessly. They had done nothing against him or against the Muslims except that they refused to embrace Islam and to recognize Muhammad as an apostle of God. The Muslims seized all that they found in the fortress along with forty young men who were studying the Gospel. Khalid captured them and divided them among the Muslims (refer to p. 81). It is well-known that Khalid Ibn al-Walid was a very brutal, vicious man. His relentlessness made ’Umar Ibn al-Khattab ask Abu Bakr to kill him or at least to depose him because he killed another Muslim in order to marry his wife! Abu Bakr did not listen, but when ’Umar became the second caliph, he deposed him immediately This was ’Umar’s opinion about Khalid. Yet, to Muhammad, the prophet of Muslims, Khalid was one of the best among his relatives and warriors. On page 134, Abu Zayd relates that when Khalid besieged another town called Qinnasrin which belonged to the Byzantine Empire, its people were so afraid that they hid themselves from him. He sent them a message in which he said: "Even if you hide in the cloud, God will lift us up to you or He will lower you down to us." They asked for a peace treaty, but he refused and killed them all. Then he eradicated the town. These are the words of Dr. Abu Zayd which we faithfully relay to you. Dr. Abu Zayd continues to list the names of the towns and the regions which the Islamic army invaded after the fall of ’Ain al-Tamr. He says: "By the end of the year 12, Hajira Abu Bakr became interested in Syria (Al Sham). He issued orders to four of his great generals and designated for each one of them a country which he was given to invade. He assigned Damascus to Yazid, Jordan to Sharhabil, Homs to Abu ’Ubayda and Palestine to ’Umru Ibn al-’As. We wonder: Are these wars defensive wars or are they definitely offensive wars and unjustified military invasions? Abu Bakr’s era ends during the famous battle of Yarmick in which tens of thousands were slain for no reason except to impose religion by force, capturing women and plundering the properties. Muslims claim that Abu Bakr died from eating poisoned food a few months before. When ’Umar was elected to the Caliphate, he deposed Khalid Ibn al-Walid and replaced him immediately with Abu ’Ubayda. The Caliphate (ruling period) of ’Umar Ibn al-Khattab The Invasion of Persia ’Umar Ibn al-Khattab sent Sa’d Ibn Abi Waqqas to invade Persia. He camped in al-Qaddisia near the river Euphrates. Dr. Abu Zayd narrates for us a very important incident (pages 117-118) which we would like to examine. The author says: "Sa’d sent some of his followers (among them the Mu’man Ibn Maqrin to Yazdagird, one of the Persian generals) who asked him, ‘What enticed you and brought you to invade us?’ (Ibn Maqrin) said to him, ‘Choose for yourself either Islam or the poll-tax or the sword.’ The Persian general became very angry and said to him, ‘Had it not been (the custom that messengers should not be killed), I would have killed you. Go; you have nothing to do with me."’ Ibn Khaldun confirms this incident in the end of the second volume of his famous history book (pages 94-96). He says, "Rustan, the Persian general, said to one of Sa’d’s messengers, ‘You were poor and we used to provide you with plenty of food. Why do you invade us now?"’ It was obvious that the Persians had never thought to invade the Arabs, but they used to send them plenty of food because of the poverty of the Arab peninsula. Never-the-less, the Arabs seized the opportunity to invade Persia after they realized that the Persians had been weakened by its wars with the Byzantine Empire and their own internal problems. Thus, they repaid compassion with wickedness and goodness with evil. The question which the Persian general Sa’d asked was a logical one, "Why do you attack us? Did we mistreat you?" The answer was also very clear, "You have three options!" Dr. Abu Zayd says on in p. 123: "Sa’d seized (after the battle of Qadisiyya) all that was in the treasury of Khusro of money and treasure. It was so plentiful that each Arab horseman received 12,000 dirham." The Invasion of Damascus On pages 131 and 132 of the same book, "The Rightly Guided Caliphs," the author indicates, "Abu ’Ubayda marched towards Damascus and besieged it for seventy nights. He cut off all supplies while its inhabitants were pleading for help and assistance. Then Khalid attacked the city and massacred thousands of people. (They were forced) to ask for a peace treaty. Abu ’Ubayda turned over the rule of Damascus to Yazid and ordered him to invade the neighboring (cities). He attacked Sidon, Beirut, and others." The Attack on Jerusalem On pages 136 and 137, we read about the attack of ’Umru Ibn al-’as on Jerusalem. He besieged it for four months. Then its Christian inhabitants agreed to pay the poll-tax and to surrender to ’Umar Ibn al-Khattab, the caliph. ’Umar made the trip to Jerusalem and laid the foundation of the mosque. With that, the conquest of Syria was accomplished, but as the pestilence (plague) raged, many of the high-ranking generals of the Islamic army died, among them Abu Ubayda, Yazid and Sharahbil. The Invasion of Wealthy Egypt On pages 141 and 142, the author narrates how the invasion and occupation of Egypt were accomplished. Among the justifications which ’Umru Ibn al-’As presented to ’Umar which convinced him to allow ’Umru to attack Egypt were the following: "Egypt’s abundance and yields are plentiful. The conquest of Egypt would gain for the Muslims a foothold in Syria and make it easier for them to invade Africa to spread Islam." It is important to mark ’Umru’s statement that "Egypt’s abundance and yields are plentiful." Eventually Egypt and Africa were both conquered. On pages 145 and 146, the professor of civilization at the Azhar relates how ’Umru besieged the Fortress of Babylon (south of ancient Egypt) for a full month, and that he said to the messengers of the Muqawqis, the governor of Egypt, "There is nothing between us and you except three things: (1) Embrace Islam, become our brethren and you will have what we have and you will be subjected to what we are subjected (in this case they would pay alms to the treasury of the state). (2) If you refuse that, you are obligated to pay tribute with humiliation. (3) War. "The Muqawqis attempted to offer them something different, but they rejected it. At last, after a fight, he accepted the second condition, namely to pay tribute and to be subjugated to Islamic rule. The Muslims entered Egypt. " On page 147 and 148 Abu Zayd describes the conquest of Alexandria and denies that the Muslims burned the famous library of Alexandria. Yet he admits that many chroniclers have mentioned that ’Umar Ibn al-Khattab ordered ’Umru to burn it entirely. After the conquest and the occupation of Egypt, the author says (page 151) that ’Umru wanted to secure this conquest from the west by conquering Tripoli of Libya, and from the south by seizing Ethiopia. Thus at the close of the year 21 H. as Ibn Khaldun and Yaqut al-Kindi remarked (that is in the first half of the year 643 A.D. as Ibn al Athir and other chroniclers said), "’Umru marched on with his horsemen towards Tripoli." On page 153 he adds: "’Umru besieged Tripoli for a month. It was a well-fortified city. At last a group of Muslims infiltrated the city and fought some of the Byzantines who soon fled. ’Umar entered the city and captured all that was in it, then he assailed the city of Sabra without warning and conquered it by force. He seized all that could be seized from it. Then he sent his army to Ethiopia, but he failed to enter it and suffered great losses. The skirmishes continued until a peace treaty was signed during the time of ’Uthman Ibn ’Affan." Are these wars considered defensive? What is an offensive war then? During the Caliphate of ’ Uthman Ibn ’Affan On pages 167 and 168, the book tells us: "’Uthman ordered ’Abdalla Ibn Abi al-Sarh to invade Africa, then he sent Abdalla Ibn al-Zubayr. They slaughtered thousands of the people among them their king, Jayan, and they captured booty." These are the words of Dr. Abu Zayd in his famous book, "The Rightly Guided Caliphs". We have quoted him word for word. Let the reader ponder these words and judge for himself. What is the crime of these people, whether in Africa or Syria or Egypt or in other countries? Muslims say—That was for the exaltation of God’s word. God the compassionate, the Merciful! The Wars to spread Islam On pages 66 and 67 Dr. Abu Zayd confesses clearly, "The thing which compelled Abu Bakr to invade Persia and the Byzantine Empire was not to seize their abundance, but rather to spread Islam. This claim is based on evidence that the generals of the Islamic armies used to call the countries to embrace Islam before they started fighting them. Khalid Ibn al-Walid sent a message to the princes of Persia saying: "After all, accept Islam and you will be safe, or pay the tribute; otherwise I will come to you with a people who desire death as you desire drinking wine." Yes and no, Dr. Abu Zayd! Yes, we accept your confession that the war was to spread Islam. We agree that spreading Islam was an essential incentive for war. We are content with your unequivocal confession in regard to this matter. We have written these pages in order to denote these facts and nothing more—to prove that Islam was spread by sword and that the Islamic wars were offensive wars. Your confirmation and faithful narration of history in "The Rightly Guided Caliphs" have helped us to prove this fact. Thank you. Yet, we disagree with you when you claim that material abundance was not another reason for these wars. We will not allow you to conceal this obvious fact because you yourself have unintentionally alluded to it when you listed the reasons for the invasion of Egypt—among them were "the abundance of Egypt and its yields". More than that, ponder what the Qur’an says in Chapter 48 :20: "Allah (God) promises you much booty that you will capture" (Qur’an). Or let us listen to Muhammad’s explicit statement in which he (after exhorting his warriors to fight bravely) promised the plunder of the country. Did you forget, Dr. Abu Zayd, what Muhammad said? Let me remind you. Muhammad said, "You see, God will soon make you inherit their land, their treasures and make you sleep with their women" (Lit: make their women’s beds for you). These plain, disgraceful words are recorded by Ibn Hisham on page 182 Vol. II, of his famous book, "Al Rod Al Anf", which all the researchers regard as a reliable reference. Thus, when Muslims invaded a certain land incited by the desire to possess the land, treasures, and women, they were actually fulfilling God’s promise as it was stated in the Qur’an and in Muhammad’s pledge. "The Beginning and the End," by Ibn Kathir (vol. 7) We would like to quote a few incidents from this book by Ibn Kathir who is one of the ancient Muslim scholars and chroniclers and a reliable source for all students of Islamic history. On page 2, we read the following, "At the inception of the year 13 of the Hajira, Abu Bakr was determined to draft soldiers to send them to Syria in compliance with the words of the Qur’an: Fight... those who were given the Scripture (Chapter 9:9); and also follow the example of the apostle of God who gathered the Muslims together to invade Syria before his death." He also adds on page 9: "When Abu Bakr sent Khalid to Iraq, Abu Hurayra, who was one of Muhammad’s companions, he used to exhort Muslims to fight by telling them: ‘Hasten to the Houris’ (fair, black-eyed women)." Those Houris are the nymphs of paradise who are particularly designated for the enjoyment of Muslims. "‘The Blood of the Byzantine is more delicious’, Khalid said!" On page 10, Ibn Khathir tells us that when the Byzantine leaders rejected Islam or paying tribute, Khalid told them, "We are people who drink blood. We were told that there is no blood that is more delicious than the blood of the Byzantines." Such words well suit people like Khalid, Muhammad’s beloved friend and relative. On page 13 we read the following, "Gregorius, one of the great princes of the Byzantines, said to Khalid: ‘What do you call us for?’ Khalid answered him: ‘That you testify that there is no God but the only God and that Muhammad is His messenger and apostle, and to acknowledge all that Muhammad received from God (namely pilgrimage, fasting of Ramadan, etc.).’ Gregorius said to him: ‘And if these are not accepted?’ Khalid responded, ‘Then pay the tribute.’ Gregorius said to him: ‘If we do not give the tribute?’ Khalid said: ‘Then war!"’ Ibn Kathir acknowledges (on page 21) that when the Muslims conquered Damascus, they seized St. John’s church and converted it into the largest mosque in Damascus today (The Umayyad Mosque). On page 55, we read also about the invasion of Jerusalem. On page 123, he states, "Umar Ibn al-Khattab wrote to Abdil-Rahman Ibn Rabi’a ordering him to invade the Turks (Turkey today)." The Second Invasion of Africa In page 165 Ibn Kathir records for us that: "The second invasion of Africa was accomplished because its people broke their pledge. That was in year 33 of the Hajira (The Moslem Calendar)." Of course, the people of Africa broke the pledge because that pledge was imposed on them by force in lieu of death. Yet Muslims killed thousands of them. Ibn Kathir already mentioned in page 151 that, "’Uthman Ibn ’Affan ordered ’Abdalla Ibn Sa’d to invade Africa. [He told him] ‘If you conquer it take 1/25 of its booty.’ ’Abdalla Ibn Sa’d marched towards it at the head of an army of 20,000 soldiers. He conquered it and killed multitudes of people from among its inhabitants until the remnant were converted to Islam and became subject to the Arabs. ’Abdalla took his portion of the booty as ’Uthman told him, then he divided the rest." How unfortunate were the African people! They were invaded by the Arabs who killed thousands of them, divided the booty, and forced the remnant to embrace Islam. When they broke the pact, the Muslims attacked them again. But are the black African people the only unfortunate people? Or are all the people of Jordan, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Libya, all the Arab tribes, Spain, even the people of China and India, Cyprus and the Kurds, all the unfortunate peoples? All of these are unfortunate nations who became the victims of Islamic Law which detests human rights and persistently ignores their freedom. The Invasion of Cyprus and the Kurds Ibn Kathir tells us that in the year 28 of the Hajira, the conquest of Cyprus was accomplished after ’Abdulla Ibn al-Zubayr slaughtered a multitude of people—as usual. Ibn Khaldun also tells the story of the Kurds. In page 124 of Vol. II, he says, "Muslims met a number of Kurds. They called them to embrace Islam or pay the tribute. When they refused to do so they killed them and captured their women and children, then divided the booty." As we see, Ibn Khaldun along with Ibn Kathir, al-Tabari and other chroniclers, ancient and contemporary such as Dr. Abu Zayd, recorded all the Islamic historical events in detail. Moreover, on every occasion Arab newspapers allude boastfully to these memorial episodes of Islamic history and shed light on these savage, wild offensive wars. For instance, we read in the prestigious Ahram newspaper which is published in Egypt, the following, "During the era of the Caliph ’Umar Ibn ’Abdul-’Aziz, Ibn Qutayba in the year 88H, he invaded some of the neighboring countries of Iran such as Bukhara, and Samarq and marched close to the Chinese border" (refer to the Ahram, Mary 26, 1986, p. 13). In his book, "The Beginning and the End" (part 9), Ibn Kathir narrates in detail the history of this belligerent general, Ibn Qutayba. He records the story of his campaigns and refers to his biography. We would like to conclude this chapter with a brief summary which Taqiy al-Din al-Nabahani presents in his book, "The Islamic State" (pp. 121 and 122). He summarizes the history of Islamic offensive wars against the neighboring peaceful countries by saying, "Muhammad had begun to send troops and initiate campaigns against the Syrian borders such as the campaign of Mu’ta and Tabuk. Then the rightly guided caliphs ruled after him and the conquest continued. (The Arabs) conquered Iraq, Persia, and Syria whose faith was Christianity and which were inhabited by the Syrians, Armenians, some Jews and some Byzantines. Then Egypt and North Africa were conquered. When the Umayyad took over after the rightly guided caliphs, they conquered the Sind, Khawarizm, and Samarqand. They annexed them to the lands of the Islamic state." According to all Muslim chroniclers, it is well documented that Armenia and Morocco were conquered during the era of ’Abdul-Malik Ibn Marwan. When his son, al-Walid, assumed the throne, he invaded India and Andalusia. Also, Dr. ’Afifi Abdul-Fattah, the Muslim scholar, encapsulates the whole principle in a few explicit, straightforward words, as he says (page 382 of his famous book "The Spirit of the Islamic Religion"), "Islam has acknowledged war in order to exalt the word of God. This is a fight for God’s cause." He also adds in p. 390, "Before the Islamic state declares war against another state, it should give (the other state) the choice between Islam, tribute or war." We need not say anything more than that. Maybe this is what Muslims mean when they say, "We believe in human freedom and man’s right to choose according to his own will! We present him with three options, and he has the right to choose as he wishes — either to become a Muslim and pay alms to the Caliph of the Muslims, or pay the tribute and submit to Islamic rule, or we kill him." Let the reader ponder the Muslim contradiction that a man has the right to choose whatever he wants within the Islamic context of individual freedom. Conclusion These are the Islamic offensive wars, my dear reader. We have already surveyed the Qur’anic verses which were expounded by both the great ancient and the contemporary Muslim scholars. We also alluded to the sayings of Muhammad, his own deeds and his orders to his companions, relatives and successors. We witnessed the bloody events of Islamic history narrating for us what Muslims did after the death of Muhammad and how they carried out his orders and the commandments of the Qur’an—how they fought with the People of the Book, the Jew and the Christian, until they paid tribute with humiliation and defeat. We have witnessed how they plundered the lands, killed the unfortunate, and captured women and children for no reason. Moreover, we have already discussed all the matters pertaining to the death penalty of an apostate who dares to relinquish the Islamic faith and to embrace another religion, or to become an atheist. We also referred to an abundance of evidences and interpretations of Muslim scholars along with the deeds and sayings of Muhammad in this respect. He himself gave orders to kill anyone who is an apostate from Islam such as Umm Mirwan as the Azhar and all the Chroniclers denoted, and all those apostates who fled to Mecca. Regarding offensive wars or imposing the Islamic religion on people by war, Muhammad said: "I was commanded to fight people until they say there is no God but the only God, and Muhammad is the apostle of God, and they perform all the Islamic ordinances and rituals." We also examined Muhammad’s attitude towards the apostate. He made it clear that the apostate must be sentenced to death. He said about those who relinquish Islam: "Whoever changes his faith...kill him!" Muhammad indicated that is it unlawful to shed the blood of a Muslim except in three cases: Unbelief after belief, adultery after integrity (or being married) and killing a soul without any right. The first case refers to the death penalty of the apostate and the oppression of his freedom and right to embrace any religion other than Islam Those are the clear claims of the Islamic religion as well as of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, who always uttered at the beginning of every prayer or sermon, the following phrase, "In the name of Allah—the Compassionate, the Merciful!" We talked about individual freedom and human rights! This is the prophet of freedom, mercy, tolerance and human dignity! Has the veil been removed? Is the deception over? Judge for yourself. Section Two The Veil of Equality and Justice Muslim propagandists take advantage of the fact that Westerners do not read Arabic and therefore (out of ignorance) do not know the reality of Islamic faith as recorded in the books of Muslim scholars. Therefore, Muslim missionaries roam across Europe and America, East and West, writing a throng of books, declaring with a loud voice: "How great Islam is! It is the religion of social justice, equality, women’s rights and dignity." Many naive and superficial people believe these claims and are deceived by this message, but this deceit should end. This veil should be removed. We have found in Muhammad’s sayings (as well as of those of all Muslim scholars - intentionally or unintentionally - that both Islam and Muhammad discriminate between human beings. It matters whether they are males or females, Muslims or non-Muslims. We even find discrimination between Muslims because slavery (as we will see) is an Islamic principle. Slavery in Islam has regulations and laws which differ from those for freemen, the masters. Actually, Muhammad, his wives, his successors, companions and his relatives owned slaves—males and maids. We can list the names of Muhammad’s slaves: men and women, whites and blacks, and we will show that Muhammad himself was a slave merchant especially after he claimed to be a prophet. After reading these pages it should become very evident to all (including the most fanatical and tenacious Muslim) that Islam is a religion of social injustice, inequality, and racial discrimination. Before we start our discussion, it is relevant to quote one verse from the Holy Gospel which emphasizes equality in Christianity, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). ======================================================================== CHAPTER 16: 02.06. CONTRA ISLAM CHAPTER 3 ======================================================================== Chapter Three The Status of Women in Islam Some mistakenly believe that Islam honors women and dignifies them for the simple reason that they have not read the Qur’anic verses, and the sayings of Muhammad and all Muslim scholars concerning women. Thus they take at face value all the claims of Muslim missionaries in this respect. We seek to excuse those who have converted to Islam and are deceived because no one would expect a religion which claims to be divine (at the same time) to treat women so disgracefully. We found on the other hand, some thinkers (even among Muslim Arabs) who have realized that women are not treated equal to men in Islam, though only a few of them occasionally dare to claim that publicly. Still, since their knowledge of Muhammad’s sayings and the commentaries of the scholars is limited, they present a few examples related only to the subjects of polygamy (marrying four women) and easy divorce. Therefore, we seek to discuss here several issues to clarify the point under discussion and to remove the deceitful veil of Islam concerning women. The Qur’an Commands Men To Beat Women While the New Testament commands men to love their wives and even to sacrifice their own lives for their sake as Jesus gave His life for us (Ephesians 5:1-33), we see that the Qur’an plainly and disgracefully commands men to beat their women as soon as they show any sign of disobedience to man’s authority and orders. It states in Chapter 4:34: "As for these from women, fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart and scourge them." Without any exception, all the Qur’anic expositors agree upon the meaning of this verse because it is so obvious. In their famous commentary, page 69, the Jalalan said: "Those of you who are afraid of their disobedience which symptoms become evident to you, threaten them with the fear of God and banish them to beds apart and scourge them." The Zamakhshari reiterates the same opinion (al-Kash-Shaf Vol. 1, p. 524). Both Imam Baydawi (p. 111), and Al-Tobari (p.92) repeat the same explanation. If we also search Ahkamal-Qur’an (the Ordinances of the Qur’an) by the Imam Shafi’i (Vol. 1, p.211), we read: "In case of a husband’s ill-treatment [of his spouse], the Qur’an permits reconciliation of the spouses and arbitration, but in the case of the wife it allows scourging her." At the inception of Islam, we come across a very famous incident which all the Muslim chroniclers record (refer to Imam al-Nawawi: Riyad al-Salihin, "The Orchards of Righteous Men", p. 107-108), "Umar Ibn al-Khattab came to Muhammad saying, ‘Women have dared to disobey husbands.’ He allowed their husbands to scourge them. Many women approached Muhammad complaining against their husbands because Muhammad received a verse for the Qur’an which commands their husbands to scourge them." In the Kash-shaf (the revealer) of al-Zamakhshari (Vol. 1, p. 525), we read the following, "On the authority of Muhammad (peace and blessing of Allah be upon him), he said: ‘Hang up your scourge in a place where your wife (or wives) can see it.’ Also, on the authority of Asmaa the daughter of Abu Bakr El Sedik: "I was the fourth wife (among four) of al-Zabayr Ibn al-Awwam. Whenever he became angry at one of us he struck us with a hook rod until it was broken." This hemistich was composed by al-Zabayr: "If it were not for her children, I would have hit her." The command to scourge women is repeated in Sahih al-Bukhari, "The Sound Tradition of al-Bukhari" (Vol. 7, p. 100). Ponder for a moment over Muhammad’s order to the husband: "Hang up your scourge where your wife can see it." This is intimidation and threat, as if a husband were telling his wife: "Beware of disobedience, for this is the scourge which is ready to fall upon you!" There is no security or love in Muhammad’s words or in the deeds of al-Zobayer Ibn al-Awwam, who was a relative of Muhammad, one of his companions, and one of those models whom every Muslim imitates and vies with all over the world. He was one of the ten whom Muhammad assured of paradise and one of the six whom Umar recommended for the Caliphate. This man used to scourge his wife until the wooden hook was broken, as Asmaa (the daughter of Abu Bakr El Sedik who was one of his four wives) tells us. Is there greater wife abuse than that? Contemporary Scholars All contemporary scholars attest to this fact which is obvious in the Qur’an. In the book, "You Ask and Islam Answers" (p. 94 for example), Abdul-latif Mushtahiri says, "If admonishing and sexual desertion fail to bring forth results and the woman is of a cold and stubborn type, the Qur’an bestows on man the right to straighten her out by way of punishment and beating provided he does not break her bones nor shed blood. Many a wife belongs to this querulous type and requires this sort of punishment to bring her to her senses!" In his book, "The Individual Guarantee In the Islamic Law" (p. 63), Ahmad Ahmad, a professor at the college of Law at the University of Qatar, denotes the following under the title of "Family Problems’ Solution", "If a woman is afraid that her husband may turn away from her or detest her, she will hasten to bring understanding and reconciliation. But if the husband is afraid that his wife may rebel against him, he hastens to bring mutual understanding by means of exhortation, then by abandonment of the bed, then by the scourging which deters." Did you read it?—"By the scourging which deters" This is if the symptoms of disobedience became apparent exactly as the Jalalan, Baydawi, Zamakhshari have said and as the Saudi scholars indicated in Al-Muslimun magazine in its issue of March 17, 1989 (page 12). I can also easily list dozens of references, both ancient and contemporary, which explain this verse (4:34). Actually, it does not need any exposition because it is self-explanatory—"and scourge them." It is evident that Christian countries regard wife abuse as a crime punishable by law because nature itself (as well as the simplest human principle) teaches us that it is not permissible for a man to beat an animal—much less his wife! Yet according to the Islamic faith and by distinct orders issued by the Qur’an and Muhammad, a man is allowed to scourge his wife with a peaceful conscience because he is carrying out God’s command as recorded in the Qur’an. "God the compassionate, the Merciful" and the Glorious Qur’an—and Muhammad, the prophet of mercy and humanity who claimed that he honored women, yet said: "Hang up your scourge where your wife can see it." The Story of Job and his Wife in the Qur’an In Chapter 38:44, the Qur’an declares that God has commanded righteous Job to beat his wife. We read: "And (it was said unto him), ‘Take in thine hand a branch and smite therewith and break not thine oath."’ All Muslim scholars agree on the exposition of this verse. Both Jalalan (page 383), and Baydawi (page 604) say: "When Job’s wife was slow (to do something for him) one day, he swore to scourge her one hundred times. God told him, ‘Do not break .... oath, but take a bundle of grass in your hand or rods to beat her up with."’ The Jalalaan say that Job took one hundred sticks and scourged her once. The Baydawi says that Job’s wife’s name is Liyya, daughter of Jacob or Rahmeh, daughter of Aphraim, son of Joseph. Who among us would believe this ridiculous story of the Qur’an about Job, the righteous man, who was famous for his patience? Who among us would believe that God encouraged him to beat his wife with a bundle of grass or sticks so that he would not break his oath? Forcing the Virgin to Marry Most people believe that this was merely a detestable habit practiced by some Arabs and Muslims who lived in some underdeveloped countries. However, we must realize that this practice has its roots deep in Islamic law and that it is a principle applied by Muslim scholars. Yet, I myself have read this ordinance in the main sources of Islam acceptable to all Muslim commentators. Let us study together the ordinances and the statements of scholars of exposition and the Islamic law. Ibn Timiyya and Ibn Hazm, Famous Legists Muslims regard Ibn Timiyya as the Sheikh of Islam. He truly is. He is the author of great many huge volumes on various subjects If we open Vol. 32, pp. 29 and 30, we read, "Even if the virgin is an adult, her father may force her to get married. This is in accordance with Malek Ibn Ons, al-Shafi and Ibn Hanbal’s." On page 39, he also states: "The young virgin can be forced by her father to get married without being consulted." This is the verdict of Ibn Timiyya who was joined by some great Legists such as the Shafii, Malek, Ibn Hanbal, and the professors of Islamic law at the inception of Islam in Mecca and Medina. Most Arabs and most Islamic countries embrace their teaching. Actually, if we study Malek Ibn Ons book (Vol. 2, p. 155), we read, "A father can force his virgin daughter, his maid-slave and his male-slave to get married." What is Ibn Hazm’s opinion concerning the daughter’s marriage? How can we ignore the opinion of the chief Legists of Islam in this respect? It is well known that Ibn Hazm also composed huge volumes of books on various topics on which all contemporary Muslim scholars rely because he is one of the greatest scholars of the Islamic law through the ages. In his sixth volume, part 9 of his book al-Muhalla ("The Sweetened", pp. 458-460), he says, "A father may give his consent to have his young virgin daughter married without obtaining her permission, for she does not have a choice, exactly as Abu Bakr El Sedick did to his daughter, Aisha, when she was six years old. He married her to the prophet Muhammad without her permission." Then Ibn Hazm adds: "Even if she was deflowered (previously married and divorced, or a widow) as long as she is young and has not reached the legal age, her father may force her to marry without obtaining her permission." As long as she is a virgin or just still young, she can be forced to get married without her consent. These are unequivocal, plain words. "Without her consent", and "does not have any choice." These are cruel, hard words and iniquitous Islamic principles which the free human conscience utterly rejects and detests because it is related to the most important subject in the girl’s life, that is, her body and her future. If enrolling in a certain school or seeking employment for a particular job, even buying a house or a car, should be in accordance with person’s choice, how much more should choice control the issue of a girl’s marriage? We acknowledge that a girl should consult with her parents in this matter, and their duty is to offer their sound opinions to protect her interest and future, but we cannot understand or even imagine that a father may force her to get married to a man she does not know and has never met. This is Islam! These are not just mere words. This is actually what happened to the prophet of Islam because Abu Bakr, El Sedick who was Muhammad’s friend, wed him to his daughter, Aisha, when she was six years old, though the actual marriage took place when she was nine years old, according to all the Muslim scholars and Chroniclers, without exception. Even Aisha related the story of her marriage, which we will review shortly. The difference in their ages was 45 years! Muhammad at that time was 54 years old, the age of her grandfather, but what is significant for us now is not the great difference in age, but rather Aisha’s marriage without her permission. Even she was taken by surprise when she found out about it. What about a son? In part nine, page 462, Ibn Hazm stresses that it is not permissible for the father to force his son to get married. The reader may be interested to read the text recorded in Sahih Muslim (Vol. 3, p. 577) with the commentary of al-Nawawi, because this book is a basic, indispensable book. Aisha said, "The messenger of God betrothed me when I was six years old and then married me when I was nine years old." In another story, he married her when she was seven years old. This is a clear text which makes it permissible for a father to make his daughter marry without obtaining her permission. All Muslims consent to that, and she did not have the option of nullifying this marriage which her father planned. This is according to Malek, al-Shafi’i and the rest of Hedjaz legists. This was from Sahih Muslim, and a similar text is reiterated several times in Sahih al-Bukhari, part 7. The Temporary Contractual Marriage What a disgraceful and degrading thing a temporary, contractual marriage is for a woman! This is something which Muhammad made lawful according to all the scholars and chroniclers without exception. What an insult to a woman whom Muhammad stripped of her humanity and dignity in order to become a mere instrument for man’s enjoyment! Can contemporary Muslim scholars who would die defending Islam answer this specific question and tell us why Muhammad allowed men to have sexual relationships with women merely for the sake of enjoyment? According to Muhammad’s statement, it could be for some money, or a dress, as Muhammad said to his followers, then he could desert her, leaving her without any rights. What is the difference between this and adultery and debauchery? Could Muhammad and the scholars solve this problem by calling it a temporary marriage or marriage of enjoyment? Muhammad made it lawful for his followers at first, then prohibited it! Then he made it legal again! Therefore, as soon as he died, the most famous Muslim scholars and relatives of Muhammad (such as Abdulla Ibn -Abbas and Ibn Mas’ud) made it lawful It was also in practice during the era of Abu Bakr and Umar, as is recorded in Sahih Muslim. At present, the Shi’ite sects are accustomed to it and practice it in different parts of the world because the Shi’ite leaders claim it. There are more than one hundred million Shi’ites worldwide. Ibn Abbas, who defends the legality of the temporary marriage of enjoyment and its continued practice, is well known among all the Muslim scholars. He occupied a very esteemed position with Muhammad and the caliphs who used to seek his legal opinion and call him the interpreter of the Qur’an. Sahih al-Bukbari In part 7, page 37, we read the following, "While we were in the army, Allah’s Apostle came to us and said, ‘You have been allowed to have pleasure (Muta), so do it.’ If a man and a woman agree to marry temporarily, their marriage should last for three nights, and if they want to continue, they may do so." There is also a very famous story related to us by Ibn Mas’ud and recorded in all the Islamic sources. We will allude to some aspect of it as it as mentioned in al-Bukhari, part 7, pp. 8,9, (also in section 6 of the interpretation of Sura, Chapter, "The Table," p.66- Arabic edition). Ibn Mas’ud said, "We used to participate in holy battles led by Allah’s Apostle and we had no wives with us. At that time, he allowed us to marry women with a temporary contract and recited to us this verse, ‘Oh you who believe, make not unlawful the good things which Allah (God) has made lawful for you"’ (5:87). This famous story is recorded also in Zad al-Ma’ad by Ibn Qayyimal-Jawziyya (part 5, p. 111). In Sahih Muslim, exposition of Nawawi (Vol. 3 pp. 553, 554), he indicated that Muhammad had allowed his followers to have sexual intercourse with women for a dress ! Sahih Muslim It was proven that contractual marriage was permissible at the beginning of Islam. It used to be practiced during a journey or a raid, or when it was "necessary" and there was a lack of women. In one of Ibn Abu’Umar’s episodes, it said that it was admissible at the inception of Islam, especially when "there was a need for it". Also, we read the following, "The contractual marriage was lawful before the campaign of Khaybar; then it became unlawful in the day of the campaign. Then it was made lawful again in the day of Mecca’s conquest. After three days, it was prohibited. The episodes concerning the lawfulness (of the contractual marriage) in the day of the conquest are not ambiguous and it is not permissible to forfeit it. There is nothing that may inhibit the repetition of practicing the contractual marriage again, and God is the omniscient, and the scholars have agreed to regard the contractual marriage as a temporary legal marriage, which does not entail any inheritance. The separation occurs as soon as the date of the agreement expires, and it does not require any legal divorce. Ibn’Abbas used to preach its lawfulness" (pp. 553,554 volume 3 Sahih Moslem). Actually Sahih of Muslim (in the same volume 3) records for us what Muhammad’s followers did when he allowed them to practice this. They used to meet a woman who belonged to one of the tribes (children of Amir) and attempt to seduce her by offering her either a dress or some dates or flour (p. 556). They spent three days with the harlot. Also sahih of Muslim describes for us in detail some moral scandals of which Muhammad approved. It also recounts that Muhammad himself used to bring the women to his followers or send a heralder to proclaim that it is permissible to sign contractual marriages (p.555 Vol. 3). Ismail Ibn Kathir In his famous book, "The Prophetic Biography", he tells us the following in part 3: "The prohibition of the contractual marriage took place in the day of the Khaybar campaign. Yet it had been established in Sahih of Muslim that Muhammad allowed them again to (sign) a contractual marriage in the Day of Mecca’s conquest. Then he prohibited it. The Shafi’i said: ‘I do not know any other thing which was made lawful, then prohibited, then made lawful again, then unlawful except the contractual marriage, which was prohibited in the year in which Mecca was conquered, then after that it became lawful"’ (pp. 365,366). Ibn Hisham recorded the same text in part 4, p.55. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya In part 3, pp. 459, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya repeated this same statement of al-Shafi’i. He also said on p.345: "After the death of Muhammad, Ibn’Abbas made it lawful when there was a need for it. He used to say that the apostle prohibited it when it was dispensable, but it was made lawful when it became a necessity." He also says on p.46 1: "Ibn Mas’ud said: ‘I made it lawful when it became indispensable for a man."’ Imam al-Baydawi He agrees with all the above in his famous book, "The Interpretation of the Baydawi". He says, "The purpose of the contractual marriage is the mere pleasure of intercourse with a woman, and her own enjoyment in what she has given" (p. 108). I believe that all those scholars were very lucid in their statements and it is sufficient for us. They are Ibn’Abbas, Ibn Mas’ud, Sahih al Bukhari, sahih Muslim, Ibn Hisham Ibn Kathir, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya and al-Imam al-Baydawi. Those scholars are recognized by all. Muslims and all contemporary scholars agree absolutely. The Contemporary Scholars 1. The Saudi scholars: In the context of their interpretation of the Sahih al Bukhari (Vol. 7, p.36), they indicate: "Nikah-al-Muta (marriage of pleasure) means temporary marriage for a limited period of time. This type of marriage was allowed in the early days of Islam." 2. In his book, "Nur al-Yaqin" ("The Light of Certainty"), the Sheikh al-Khudary says, "The contractual marriage, which was a marriage for a definite time, had been practiced since the inception of Islam" (p. 207). 3. The scholar Musa al-Musawi In his famous book, "The Shi’ites and the Reformation", he lucidly tells us: "All the legists believe that Muhammad made this matter lawful at the inception of Islam" (p. 108). 4. The current Sheikh of Islam, Muhammad Mutawalli al-sha-rawi, indicates in his book, "al-Fatawi" ("The Legal Opinions"), "The Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, leading other scholars, mentioned that contractual marriages were made lawful by the prophet and they were not abolished nor rescinded, but many scholars said that this matter was abolished later and that Muhammad, after making it lawful for a particular time during Islamic history, prohibited it" (p. 26). We say to Dr. Musawi and to Sheikh al-Sha’rawi: Your statement that all the legists believe that Muhammad made it lawful at the inception of Islam is sufficient for us. This statement and this acknowledgment are what we want the reader to know. It is evident, however, that the scholars who said that this practice was not abolished or prohibited were among the most esteemed scholars such as Ibn’Abbas, Ibn Mas’ud, and the Imam Fakhr al-Razi. In his book, "The History of Islamic Law", Dr. Ahmad Shalabi states that Ibn’Abbas said that it is possible to allow contractual marriages when they are necessary (p. 190). Ibn Kathir also emphasizes in his book, "al-Bidaya Wa al-Nihaya" ("The Beginning and the End"), Vol. 8, p.300, that Ibn’Abbas was of the opinion that contractual marriage should be made lawful. In his Sahih, al-Bukhari records this dialogue, "I heard Ibn Abbas when he was asked about Muta (pleasure) with women, and he permitted this kind of marriage. Only a slave of his said to him, ‘That is only when it is badly needed and women are scarce.’ At that Ibn Abbas said, ‘Yes"’ (Vol. 7, p. 37). Who is Ibn Abbas? All the scholars acknowledge that he is of the opinion that the contractual marriage should be made lawful when it is needed, and he believes that its ordinance is still applicable and has not been abolished. If we open Vol. 8 of Ibn Kathir’s book, "al-Bidaya We al-Nihaya" (pp. 295-307), we come across ample references pertaining to Ibn’ Abbas’ highly esteemed status among Muhammad’s relatives and companions in regard to his knowledge and thought. We would like to allude briefly to some of what is said about him. Ibn Kathir says: "Ibn ’Abbas is the most knowledgeable person among the people as to what God has revealed to Muhammad. Umar Ibn al-Khattab used to say that the interpreter of the Qur’an is Ibn’Abbas. He was accustomed to telling him: ‘You have acquired a knowledge which we never received. You are the most expert in the book of God"’ (pp. 299, 300). Ibn’Abbas was the official legist of the Islamic law during the era of ’Umar Ibn al-Khattab, and ’Uthman Ibn ’Affan. When he died, Muhammad’s friend said, "This nation has been afflicted with an incurable tragedy because Ibn’Abbas was the most knowledgeable among the people. We always needed him from sunrise to sunset." These references to Ibn’Abbas, Muhammad’s cousin, are sufficient to convince the most skeptical of the importance of Ibn’Abbas’ status. It is well known that the argument of Ibn’ Abbas was strong and it was conclusive to the continuation of the practice of temporary contractual marriage because Muhammad made it lawful then unlawful, then he made it lawful again when it was necessary. Yet, even if we assume that Ibn’Abbas (who was the most knowledgeable among people of what God had revealed to Muhammad) was mistaken, as well as Ibn Mas’ud al-Razi and many other scholars, and that Abu Bakr was also wrong since he allowed people to practice this matter during his reign; even if we assume that Muhammad made it unlawful permanently after he made it permissible, and that all those people were wrong, we still have this pressing, unanswerable question: Why did Muhammad make this disgraceful matter lawful in the first place; i.e., adultery and immorality? Why, even for a short period of time, would he legalize prostitution and call it contractual marriage? Why did Muhammad tell his followers, "Make an agreement with any woman to make love to her for three days, then give her compensation, such as a robe." His companions did so. Later, Muhammad prohibited it, then made it lawful again according to the need! We would like to refer to Dr. Musa al Musawi’s statement in his book, "The Shi’ites and The Reformation", in which he says: "This contractual marriage contains a license for licentiousness and degradation of woman’s dignity, the thing which we do not find even among permissive societies in ancient and modern history" (p. 109). Then he adds (p. III), concerning the characteristics of this marriage: "This marriage is carried out without a witness. The period of this marriage could be a quarter of an hour, or a day, or any period of time. In it, it is permissible for a man to have collectively an unaccountable number of women at the same time. The woman may not inherit her husband’s possessions, and a man does not give alimony to the spouse. Divorce is also carried out without a witness. This marriage is nothing but a license to practice sex provided that the woman is not married to another man." Dr. Musa has a Ph.D. in Islamic law from the University of Tehran He taught Islamic philosophy and was elected as President of the Supreme Counsel of West America. Of course, Dr. Musawi’s criticism of the contractual marriage is appropriate. He indicates that this type of marriage has been abolished, yet he acknowledges (p.108 of his book) that all the scholars and legists without exception say that Muhammad made it lawful for his companions from the very beginning. My friend, we had to discuss the issue of contractual marriage, or "legal prostitution" (as some would like to call it) in detail, but this prolongation is significant because this is an important matter for our practical life. It is also related to the dignity of women and reveals Muhammad’s view of women as being nothing more than tools for pleasure. Fire In Hell—Most Of Its Inhabitants Are Women Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, expresses clearly that most of those who enter hell are women, not men. None of the scholars deny these statements. We will quote only contemporary Azhar scholars of Egypt. In the "Liwa al-Islami" magazine which was issued on August 13, 1987, under the title, "Women In Tradition", we read the following: "The apostle of God said: ‘Oh assembly of women, give charity, even from your jewelry, for you (comprise) the majority of the inhabitants of hell in the day of resurrection’" (p. 21). Of course, the Azhar scholars are the people most acquainted with Muhammad’s sayings. Ancient Scholars These scholars are quoted from Sahih of al-Bukhari (Vol. 7, p.96), "Muhammad said: ‘I saw Paradise and I stretched my hand to pluck a bunch of grapes, then I saw Hell (fire), and I have never before seen such a horrible sight as that the majority of its dwellers were women.’ The people asked, ‘O Allah’s apostle, what is the reason for that?’ He replied, ‘Because of their ungratefulness.’ It was said, ‘Do they disbelieve in Allah (God)?’ He replied, ‘They are not thankful to their husbands and they are ungrateful for the favors done to them. Even if you do some good to one of them all your life when she sees some harshness from you she will say, "I have never seen any good from you."’" The same text is repeated in Vol. 1, p.83. In Vol. 7 of the same book (p.94), Muhammad says, "I stood at the gate of the fire and saw that the majority of those who entered it were women." In the Mishkat al-Masabih (p. 14), we encounter the following exciting episode about Muhammad who, when met by some women, had the following conversation (Mishkat al Masabih p. 14), "Allah’s messenger went out to the place of worship and he passed by the women and said to them, ‘O women, give charity, for I have been shown that the majority of the inmates of Hell are amongst you.’ They said: ‘Allah’s Apostle, wherefore?’ He said, ‘It is because of the fact that you curse one another very much and show ungratefulness to your husbands."’ It seems that Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, utters meaningless statements because who can say that only women curse each other? Do not men behave the same way in their quarrels? Do not men kill each other in bitter wars? Who said that only women, if they suffer from their husband’s abuses, forget all the good characteristics of their spouses? Do not men cheat on their wives, abandon them and divorce them for the most insignificant reasons or for no reason at all? Do not Muslim men marry two, three, even four wives at a time, causing deep psychological pain and material loss for their wives? It is nonsense to say that the majority of the people in the fires of hell are women because they curse each other and they do not acknowledge the merits of their of husbands! It is nonsense to make these accusations or to label women in general. Even if Muhammad had painful experiences with his various wives so that he almost divorced them (as we will see), he still should not have issued verdicts against all women. How miserable women are in Muhammad’s view! He orders men to scourge them, forces young girls to marry against their will, and exploits single women as tools of pleasure. He also declares that the majority of people in hell are women! "Women Are Short Of Faith And Intelligence"— Muhammad Said The Egyptian contemporary scholar Sheikh al-Sha’rawi stresses the fact that Muhammad uttered this statement. This is recorded in Vol. 4, p.21 of his famous book, "You Ask And Islam Answers". Al-Sha’rawi, who is regarded as the Sheik of Islam, relies on the former recognized scholars. We encounter the following dialogue in the Sahih of al-Bukhari (Vol. l, p. 83) and in the Mishkat al-Masabih (p.15) which took place between Muhammad and some women: "Muhammad said: ‘I have seen that you, in spite of being deficient in mind and religion, rob even a wise man of his senses.’ They said: ‘Allah’s messenger, where lies our deficiency of reason and faith?’ He said: ‘Is not the evidence (testimony) of a woman equal to half the evidence of a man?’ They said: ‘Yes.’ He said: ‘This is because of the deficiency of your minds (mental status). Is it not a fact that when you enter the period of menses, you neither observe prayer nor observe fast?’ They said, ‘Yes.’ Then he said: ‘This is the deficiency in your faith."’ "Women are short of faith and intelligence!" A strange statement uttered by Muhammad which is an obvious insult to the women who asked him! Why, Why, Muhammad? He responds with the above-mentioned, weird reasons. If God does not command women to fast or to pray during their menstrual period, why should He regard this matter as a lack of faith and religion? Is it because they obey God’s orders? Or is prayer a mere physical exercise of standing up and prostrating? Or is it a matter of lifting the heart up to God at any time? What about the woman’s testimony in court? According to Islamic law, the testimony of a woman is equal to one half of a man’s testimony. This is one of the incomprehensible, unjustifiable Qur’anic laws which is regarded as another insult to women. If Muhammad attempted to justify this on the basis of women’s lack of faith and intelligence, it would be an excuse which is worse than an offense. Thus, when Muhammad tried to justify his attitude, he really rendered women another insult especially by claiming that a woman is equal to half a man. A Female Inherits Only Half Of A Male’s Portion A female inherits only half of a male’s portion and her testimony is regarded as half a man’s testimony. Though the general public is not aware of this fact, the Qur’anic text is very blunt concerning this matter, and is also acknowledged by all the Muslim scholars without exception. First, concerning an inheritance, The Qur’an clearly indicates: "Allah chargeth you concerning your children—to the male a portion equivalent to that of two females" (Chapter 4: 11). This is in regard to a man’s offspring, whether they are males or females. The same concept is applied to the brothers and sisters of a deceased person. The Qur’an says: "If there be brethren - men and women - unto the male, the equivalent of the portion of two females" (Surah 4: 176). This matter is a well-known fact and practiced all over the Islamic world. Al-Bukhari, al-Jalalan and al-Baydawi The Bukhari alluded to it (part 6, p.55), as well as the Jal-alan in their famous commentary (p.65). We read: "A male may have the portion of two females if they are related to each other. He takes half of the inheritance and the two females take the other half. If the male has one sister only, she takes one-third of it and he takes two-thirds" (p.65). On page 66, the Jalalan says: "If he leaves his parents an inheritance, his mother takes one-third and the father two-thirds." Al-Baydawi (page 104) and the rest of the scholars follow the same interpretation which is based on the indisputable Qur’anic verse. The Contemporary Scholars 1) In his book, "Islam in the Face of Modern Challenges", Abu al-a’la al-Mawdudi states conclusively: "There is no room in Islam for the idea that a woman’s portion of an inheritance be equivalent to the man’s portion. The prohibitory reason is one of decisive Islamic laws" (p.264). The Sheikh al-Sha’rawi He also acknowledges this fact in part II of his book, "You Ask and Islam Answers": "The portion for a woman from an inheritance is half of the man’s portion because a woman is not responsible for her livelihood but rather the man is the responsible one (p 39, part 2). French Philosopher, Roge Jaroudi Even the French philosopher, Roge Jaroudi, who was converted to Islam reiterates in the magazine, "The League of the Islamic World" (the issue of February/March, 1984), the same logic of al-Sha’rawi. Jaroudi says: "Concerning the inheritance, it is true that the female inherits half of the portion her brother inherits, but in view of that, the responsibility of taking care of her falls on her brother’s shoulder" (p.39). Dr. Ahmad Shalabi repeated the same meaning in his book, "The History of Islamic Legislation" (p. 137). The statement of al-Sha’rawi and the French philosopher that a woman should inherit half of the portion because man is the one who bears responsibility for her livelihood is a meaningless and unacceptable justification because it is very possible that a woman may be much more in need of the money than her brother. Why should she receive only half of what her brother inherits from his parents? Is it not possible that the sister may be married to a poor man and have many children, while her brother may be a rich businessman or single without responsibilities? Even if the sister is still single, why should her brother receive double her portion from the inheritance and have control over her expenditures? He may spend the money on his own pleasures while his sister could be wiser and more prudent than her brother, who may be younger than she. These situations happen daily in Arab and Islamic countries. Any man takes twice what his sister receives. The only reason for it is the inequality between females and males. Why does this happen? Al-Mawdudi tells us it is because this is one of the decisive Islamic laws based on an indisputable Qur’anic verse in the Chapter of Women. This is the inequality of unfair Islamic law. Secondly, what about a woman’s testimony before the court and in business contracts? In the Chapter of the Cow (282), we read: "From among your men, two witnesses, and if two men be not at hand then a man and two women of such as you approve as witnesses, so that if the one erreth (through forgetfulness) the other will remember (and we read about what Muhammad said about the testimony of a woman)." The Ancient Scholars Scholars have agreed upon the interpretation of this verse which is recorded in the chapter of the Cow concerning the testimony of women because it is very conspicuous and unquestionable. We would like to refer briefly here to the statements of al-Baydawi and the Jalalan. The Jalalan says (on page 41): "There must be two adult free Muslim witnesses. If they are not available then (let it be) a man and two women. (The reason for having) numerous women is that if one of them forgot something because of lack of intelligence, the other one would remind her." These are the same words of Muhammad and the Qur’an. On page 64, the Baydawi says: "The two men must be two free Muslims, or one man and two women. (The reason for having) numerous women is because of their lack of intelligence and to obtain accurate information." But the statement of the Jalalan and Bawdawi that the witness should be "two free Muslims" is because Islam does not accept the testimony of non-Muslims or slaves, as we will see later. Nobody denies this about Islam, including all the Azhar scholars as well as the Saudi and Pakistani scholars. Among them, the Grand Imam Dr. Mahmud Shaltut emphasizes this point in his book, "Islam: A Dogma And A Law" (p.237). In its February/March, 1985 issue (p.17), the magazine, "The League of the Islamic World", records for us an incident which took place in Pakistan during the enactment of some of the Islamic laws. The magazine says: "Three groups of women demonstrated against the new law which gives women only half of the men’s rights when they sign business contracts. These groups which are located in Lahore in Pakistan, say that this law, derived from Islamic Law, intends to insult women and debase their dignity." It is obvious that any intelligent, thinking man who enjoys a sensitive conscience would object to this unfair Islamic law, just as these female groups objected. How could a woman’s testimony be regarded as half of a man’s testimony in court and when signing business contracts? The same magazine also published on the same page, the response of Dr. Aly Farrukha, Director of Islamic Studies in Chicago, in which he says: "The issue of a woman’s testimony in court is a divine order which necessitates that a woman who is a witness should be accompanied by another woman in order to remind her if she forgets (some details) and to correct her if she makes an error. This verdict does not intend to insult women but rather to help them." This is the conclusion of Dr. Farruka, who senses that this law really does insult women, but tries to defend Muhammad, the Qur’an and Islamic law. However, the insult is inevitable and there is no way to avoid it. The statement of Dr. Aly that there is a need for two women in opposition to one man in the case of testimony in order to help the women not to forget or to be corrected if she makes an error, is a polite statement, though it does not negate that in Islam, women are treated as second class and cannot be trusted to be accurate when witnessing in court. Actually Muhammad was more pointed than Dr. Aly Farrukha. He expressed his opinion without any vagueness. He says that the reason that a woman’s testimony is regarded as equal to one half of a man’s testimony is not to help her but because she is short of intelligence! Men Belong To A Higher Level Than Women—They Are Better Than Women While the Bible assures us in 1 Corinthians 11:11 that man is not less than woman and woman is not less than man, the Qur’an declares to us in Chapter 2:22 that men are a degree above women. It also says in Chapter 4:34: "Men are in charge of women because Allah has made the one of them excel the other." Of course, we do not believe that the God of "equality among people" says that men surpass women. If the reader wonders what these Qur’anic verses mean and why Islam says that men are a degree above women and they are better than them, we would like to refer him to the answer of the Muslim scholars. The Ancient Scholars On page 79, the Jalalan says: "Men have been given authority over women to discipline and control them by the merits of knowledge, intelligence and custody, etc., which God bestowed on some over others." In his commentary, page 111, the Baydawi says: "God preferred man over woman, and the reason for the bestowing of this verse (4:34) is a well-known episode which says that a man from the helpers beat his wife, whose name was Habiba, the daughter of Zayd. Her father took her to the apostle of God (to complain). Muhammad said: "Let us punish him." But God sent down this verse 4:34. The woman returned home without having her husband punished. Muhammad said: ‘I intended to do something (that is, to punish the man), but God willed otherwise, and what God wills is better.’" This famous incident was the reason God sent down this verse which prefers men to women and prohibits the retribution of men if they abuse their wives. This episode is mentioned also in the commentary of the Jalalan (page 69) as well as in the suyuti’s book, "Reasons for Sending the Verses From God" (Asbab al-Nuzul, p.75). Suyuti tells us that the women said to Muhammad: "My husband beat me and left some marks on my face. In spite of that, the man was not punished though Muhammad wanted to do so but the just God, the God of equality, declined and did not allow Muhammad to punish the man for abusing his wife." What a compassionate God who sympathizes with relentless men! Is this the God who honors women? This God revealed a verse which confirms that men are better than women and above them by one degree, and that they have the right to discipline them. However, what concerns us here is to stress the point that the Qur’an says that men are a degree above women and better than them. The Contemporary Scholars It is sufficient here to quote the Azher scholars: Mrs. Iman Kamil corresponded with the Azhar scholars and Sheikhs inquiring about this critical subject in order to comprehend the meaning of the verse under discussion (4:34). The following is her question and the answer she received as they were published in "Liwa al-Islamic"("The Islamic Banner")in its issue of July 4, 1985, page 6. The question was: "What is the interpretation of the Qur’anic verse: ‘Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God preferred in bounty one of them over another?"’ The answer of the Azhar scholars was: "Abu al-Hasan al-Basri said: ‘A woman came to the prophet complaining against her husband, who slapped her face. The apostle of God said: "(He must be) punished." But God sent down this verse, and the woman returned home empty-handed.’ The meaning of his saying: ‘Manager’ is that a man is the woman’s lord and her disciplinarian whenever she disobeys him. God has explained that the reason for this lordship is that men excel women." What more can be said after this issue has become so obvious? The reader can easily discern if God is the one who composed it to please the powerful men among his followers. The Gospel in various places indicates that man is the head of the woman; that is, he sacrifices himself for her sake as Christ is the head of the church; that is, He gave himself for it. But it is obvious from the comment of the ancient scholars as well as the Azhar scholars that Islam does not penalize a man when he abuses his wife because men are superior to women! The story is well known, and it was cited by all the Muslim scholars without exception. The Muhallil—Men Who Make Something Lawful Who is a Muhallil? A person who marries a divorced woman even for one night in order to make it possible for her ex-husband to reinstate her. The Qur’an, as well as Muhammad say clearly that if a man divorces his wife, he can reinstate her, but if he said to her: "You are divorced three times" or if he divorces her three times, he would not be able to get her back easily. In order to reinstate her, she has to get married to another man and have sex with him at least once before the second man divorces her, then she can go back to her first husband. This practice is in vogue all over the Islamic world and is practiced whenever there is a need for it because there is a well-known Qur’anic verse on this subject. Was this the verdict of Muhammad and the Qur’an? Muhammad not only supported it, but even ordered a woman to practice it if she wished to go back to her first husband. It is recorded in an episode which all Muslim scholars acknowledge as authentic. But let us first scrutinize the Qur’anic verse. It is recorded in the Sura of Cow: "And if he divorced her, then she is not lawful unto him thereafter until she has wed another husband" (Surah 2:230). This second husband is called by Islam "The Muhallil" because he makes the woman lawful to go back to her ex-husband by marrying her for only one night, then later divorcing her so that she can go back to her first husband. All the scholars agree on this interpretation of that verse. An example is found in the Zomokchory (Vol. 1, p.368, Alkashaf), Jalalan (page 32), and al-Baydawi (page 50). The Baydawi says plainly that a real marriage (not a marriage in name only) must take place between the Muhallil and the wife. Also, the Baydawi recounts for us the famous episode which occurred between Muhammad and the wife of Rafa’a. This incident is recorded in most of the Islamic books such as Asbab al-Nuzl by al-Suyuti (pages 45,46), also Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya alluded to it several times in part 5 of his book, "Zad al-Ma’ad". In part seven (page 136) Sahih al-Bukhari quoted it several times. This is the story as it is recorded in the Shih and other books: "The wife of Rifa’a Al-Qurazi came to Allah’s apostle and said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle, Rifa’a divorced me irrevocably. Afterward, I married Abdul-Rahman bin Az-Zubair, who proved to be impotent.’ Allah’s apostle said to her, ‘Perhaps you want to return to Rifa’a? Nay, you cannot, until you and Abdul-Rahman consummate your marriage.’" In his book, "Asbab al-Nuzul" (p.46), the Suyuti states that this woman came to Muhammad and told him: "‘Abdul-Rahman (the Muhallil whom she wed after she was divorced) has divorced me without having any sexual intercourse with me. May I go back to my ex-husband?’ Muhammad said to her: ‘No, that is not permissible until Abdul-Rahman has sex with you first, then you may go back to Rafa’a."’ This incident is confirmed and recorded in al-Baydawi, al-Suyuti, al-Bukhari and the rest of the sources. Al-Bukhari mentions another similar story in which the woman receives the same answer from Muhammad because the order of the Qur’anic verse is very plain: "... until she has wed another husband." We wonder (and the free human conscience wonders with us) if there is more insult and more humiliation to the dignity and honor of a woman and her husband than this? Muhammad is supposed to either allow her to return to her husband, Rafa’a, or to stay away from him, but to impose such a condition on her is to humiliate her, her husband and children, for who is the man who would allow such things to happen to his divorced wife? Or is there a respectable woman who would be inclined to carry out such a practice? The contemporary scholars who defend this verdict argue that Muhammad enacted this law to make it difficult for a husband to divorce his wife three times. A man, according to Islamic law, may divorce his wife by saying: "You are divorced... you are divorced... you are divorced" or "You are divorced by three" in a moment of anger which he later regrets and makes every effort to restore her for himself and her children. Of course, she would like to go back to her husband and her children who might be still very young or teenagers. Thus, is it comprehensible, according to all standards of mercy, chastity, purity and dignity of a woman, her husband and children, for Muhammad to state that it is not permissible for her to return to her husband and children unless she has sexual intercourse at least once before she is restored to her husband and children. Would the reader agree with this verdict imposed on a mother, wife or daughter? Oh God have mercy on these people and protect them from the laws of the Islamic religion. You may say, "All the evidence which you have presented concerning the alleged claim that Islam honors women is sufficient to remove this deceptive veil. Muhammad’s perspective towards women has become very apparent. Why do you want to present additional arguments?" True, the aforementioned issues are sufficient, but after you read the following discussions, the picture will become even clearer concerning this vital and basic issue in every religion, that is women. Polygamy, Mistresses and Concubines The Islamic religion is very lenient when it comes to the issue of marriage and divorce which causes serious emotional, psychological and economic disasters to women, in order to satisfy man’s desires. The Qur’an allows a man to be married to four women at the same time. If he wishes to marry other women, all he has to do is to divorce one of them and to replace her with another. Several verses emphasize this point. However, the reader might not be aware that the Qur’an allows a man to own as many women as he wants in addition to the four legal wives; that is, he is permitted to have concubines, mistresses and maid-slaves. In this respect, Ibn Hazm indicates (Vol. 6, part 9, pp. 441 and 467) that, "No one is allowed to wed to more than four women, but he is permitted however, in addition to them. to buy (women), as many as he wants." Thus, we are going to see that Muhammad, his successors and his relatives owned (in addition to their many wives) concubines and maid-servants who were taken as prisoners of war or purchased. They had sexual intercourse with them as they willed. This is, of course, in addition to the contractual marriages which Muhammad permitted when it was "necessary". A Muslim is not allowed lawfully to have more than four wives at the same time. Only Muhammad had the right to marry as many as he wanted because this was one of his distinctive privileges because he was a prophet and an apostle! There are various indisputable verses which the angel Gabriel supposedly revealed to Muhammad, allowing him to enjoy this status; however, we will confine our study to the general practice of polygamy and easy divorce. The Qur’anic Verses And The Comments Of The Scholars The Sura of the Parties: 50 The Qur’an stresses that it is lawful for a man to have several wives and to own concubines. The Qur’an says, "We are aware that we enjoined on them (the believers) concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess." We read the same text in Sura of Women: 3 and Sura of the Believers: 5 which indicates: "The captive from war that your right hand possessed" (Sura 4:3). War bounties, whether they were women or children or money, used to be distributed among Muslim fighters after Muhammad received one-fifth. Therefore, most Muslims (led by Muhammad the prophet) had many captive women who were regarded as owned slaves and concubines. It happened that in one of the invasions (Awtas Hunayn) that some Muslim warriors among Muhammad’s companions captured some women whose husbands were still alive. Some Muslims refrained from having sex with them out of shame, but Muhammad told them that it was lawful for them to sleep with them because they were what "their right hand possessed". Then God sent a Qur’anic verse (chapter 4:24) making it lawful. In regard to the concubines, the Baydawi, on page 102 says: "A man is not forced to treat the concubines equally as he is obliged to do with the (legal) wives." A little provision (food and clothes) were sufficient. The Jalalan says on page 64: "The maid-slaves do not have rights as the wives." If we examine the volumes of Ibn Timiyya, we read in volume 32, p.7 I the following plain text: "It is lawful for a Muslim to (have sex) with as many as he wishes of those whom his right hand possesses, but he is allowed to wed four women only. Yet, God has bestowed on the apostle of God (enough) strength to marry more than four women. Also God allowed him to marry without paying a dowry. Muslims are not prohibited from having more than four concubines provided that no two sisters are among them." This is similar to the above mentioned quotation from Ibn Hazm. In the same volume (page 89), Ibn Timiyya says boastfully, "Islam has made it lawful to its followers to have sex through marriage as well as with what the right hand possesses, while (for Jews and Christians) they may have sex through marriage only. They are not (allowed to have sex with) what their hand possesses. The beginning of slavery were the captives of war. "The war bounty has not become lawful for any nation except the nation of Muhammad by the evidence of sound tradition. Muhammad said, ‘God has preferred me over the prophets by making the bounties of war lawful to me. This was not made lawful to anyone before me."’ In this respect, the Gospel is very clear and denotes that a man must have only one wife on whom he bestows all his love. Therefore, we read: "Let every man have his own wife and let every woman have her own husband ... let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence and likewise also the wife unto the husband" (1 Corinthians 7:2-3). To be wed to one woman is a natural thing because God created Adam then one Eve. He did not create four women for Adam plus a number of concubines. Some famous men of the Old Testament such as Solomon, wed many women, but that was against God’s plan. God regarded that as a perversion from the right worship, and admonished him for his sins. God did not allow this practice in the Holy Scriptures, whether in the Old Testament or in the Gospel. If some biblical characters deviated from God’s plan, they committed a sin, and they were subject to God’s disciplinary action—they harvested problems. This took place before Christ, but after the coming of Christ we do not know about any of God’ s men who married more than one women or who had concubines or who was allowed to divorce his wife to replace her with whomever he wanted until the rise of Muhammad and the inception of Islam. The Harmful Consequences of Polygamy The consequences of polygamy such as jealousy, envy, quarrels, and conflict among the wives are evident. A woman has to wait for several days for her turn to enjoy the love and the care of her husband; that is, if he has preserved some of his love for her and for the children. A man who has four wives and numerous concubines begets, of course, many children. So what can he do to please all of them? Muhammad himself was the first to know the nature of the quarrels which take place among the various wives as the result of his personal experiences with his wives, who used to join forces against him (Bukhari part 3, p. 204). Later, we will discuss Muhammad’s wives’ conspiracies, especially those of A’isha. This particular problem made Muhammad express his displeasure to his son-in-law, Ali Ibn Abi Talib, who was married to Fatima, Muhammad’s daughter, when he wished to marry a second wife besides Fatima. This incident is recorded by all the chroniclers such as Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (part 5, p. 117); Ibn Hisham (part 4, p. 114); as well as al-Bukhari, who mentioned it twice (part 7, pp. 115 and 152). Let us read together what is recorded in the Bukhari: "I heard Allah’s apostle who was in the pulpit saying ’Bano-hisham bin Al-Mughira have requested me to allow them to marry their daughter to Ali bin Abi Taleb, but I do not give them permission and will not give permission unless Ali divorces my daughter because Fatima is a part of my body, and I hate what she hates to see and what hurts her." So Muhammad knew well that marrying more than one woman hurts the first wife. Then, why did he wed so many women causing so much harm to each one of them? Why did he permit Muslims to practice polygamy? Ali’s incident is rather strange, but it also reveals Muhammad’s consuming selfishness. According to the account of Ibn Hisham, the girl’s name whom Ali intended to marry was Juwayriyya. Muhammad used to encourage people to practice polygamy. Bukhari tells us (Vol. 7, p. 124) that Muhammad, while talking to a man, discovered that he had just married a divorced woman. He told him to find himself another virgin girl. It is obvious that polygamy was the rule practiced by Muhammad’s successors and companions. For example, Umar Ibn al-Khattab married seven women in the course of his life (including those whom he divorced), in addition to two maid-slaves who were called Fakhiyya and Lahiyya. Uthman Ibn Affan was wed to eight women. After the death of Fatima, Ali Ibn Abi Talib (to whom Muhammad denied permission to marry a second wife beside Fatima) married ten women and housed nineteen concubines and maid-slaves for a total of 29 women. This is Ali, the cousin of Muhammad and the fourth Caliph who assumed power after the death of Uthman. When we indicate the number of wives as seven, ten, etc., we do not mean that those men housed them at the same time because it was not admissible for any Moslem to have more than four wives at any given time, but these men would "taste" the beauty of a woman and then plan to enjoy the "taste" of another woman without any regard to the feelings of the first wife. If it was necessary, he would divorce her for no reason but to be able to get married to another woman without exceeding a total number of four wives. This situation accurately applies to al-Hasan Ibn Ali, of whom Muhammad said that he is the master of the youth of paradise. This Hasan (Muhammad’s grandson) during the course of his life, married seventy women and begot thirty-one children. Sometimes he used to divorce two women in a day. Even his father urged the residents of Iraq not to marry their daughters to him because he was a man who constantly divorced his wives, but the Kufa’s people continued to marry their daughters to him hoping that their daughters would bear children who would be descendants of the prophet Muhammad. All these episodes are recorded in the biographies, such as the Bidaya and the Nihaya, by Ibn Kathir, V. VII and VIII; also, the Chronicles of the Caliphs, by Suyuti, who indicated that the Hasan was accustomed to divorcing four women and marrying another four instead. He also mentioned that the number of maid-slaves during the era of Yazid Ibn Abd-ul-Malik was in the hundreds, and grew into the thousands during the time of the Abbasid Caliphs. Al-Mutawakki, one of the Abbasid Caliphs, housed about four thousand maid-slaves. The reader can refer to the "Book of Al-Aghani" ("The Book of Songs") by al-Isfahani; the "Akhbar al-Msa" ("The Necklace of the Dove") by Ibn Hazm, and "al-Imta wa al-Mu’anasa" ("Entertainment and Friendly Sociability") by Abu Hayyan al-Tawhidi to obtain more information. In Vol. VIII of his book, Ibn Kathir reports that al-Mughira Ibn Shu’ba (who was one of Muhammad’s greatest friends and the ruler over some Islamic districts) had been wed to three hundred women! The Qur’an states clearly that a woman is like a piece of property which a husband can replace easily. The Qur’an says in Sura of Women (20): "If you wish to exchange one wife for another and you have given unto one of them a sum of money take nothing from it." What a glorious Qur’an and what a merciful God is Allah! This is the only condition for the replacement: If a man intends to replace a woman with another, he is not allowed to take from the first woman an object or money he has already given her at the time of the marriage. No other conditions are stated. A man is free to divorce his wife for a reason or for no reason, and at any time he wishes And he has the right (if he divorces his wife) to reinstate her without her permission during a certain period of time (several months) as long as there are no other conditions pronounced in the marriage contract. In volume 32, p. 238, Ibn Timiyya taught that men can divorce their wives, but that women are not allowed to divorce their husbands. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya emphasizes in his book, "Zad al-Ma ad" (part 5, page 278) that the knot of marriage is in the hand of the man and only he has the right to divorce. The Easiness of Divorce Divorce in Islam is made very easy. By uttering the phrase, "You are divorced," the divorce takes place. In part 7, page 145 of al-Bukhari we read, " A man can suddenly tell his wife, ‘I am not in need of you.’ Then the verdict is to be given according to his intention." Most often, that wife would need his support and help, but that is no concern of Islamic law as long as the man does not need that wife. Thus, the Qur’an says: "It is no sin for you if you divorce women" (Sura 2:236). [Comment: The above and the next one and a half paragraphs are NOT correct and unjust. The above verse continues "before consummation or fixation of their dower; but bestow on them (a suitable gift) .." Clearly, this partial quotation is out of context. The reality in Islamic countries may well be as bad as described below, but this cannot be based on this quotation from the Qur’an. Read everything in this book "Behind the Veil" with much caution. Much is good resource material, but too often it is twisting the meaning of the text. (Jochen Katz)] Most probably the man felt bored with that wife or he lusted after another woman who was younger and more beautiful. Since he was not able to support two women at the same time, he divorced one to marry the other. If the great men of Islam, the famous companions of the prophet and the Caliphs did so, what remained for the public but to follow the example of those great men of their religion in dealing with the matters of marriage and divorce? The Qur’an allows this easy divorce. It does not impose certain conditions or limits on this painful action which causes a great deal of suffering among women, treating her as if she were a piece of furniture. Let us listen to the al-Bukhari as he explains to us (Part VII, pages 145-146) how this easy divorce takes place: "If a man says to his wife, ‘Go to your family,’ then his intention is to be taken into consideration. Or if someone says to his wife, ‘If you become pregnant, then you are divorced thrice’; then, if her pregnancy becomes apparent, she will be regarded as divorced irrevocably! If he wants her back she must marry another man first." It is that easy for a man to divorce his wife if he wishes, even if she does not commit any wrongdoing. This often happens in Arab and Islamic countries without any regard to the woman’s dignity. The husband says: "If this thing does not happen, my wife is divorced by three". These things actually happen, as the Bukhari said, and the wife finds herself divorced for reasons entirely unknown to her, because every divorce is lawful (except the divorce made in drunkenness) according to the Muslim scholars. As long as the husband was not drunk when he made the divorce, even if it was in a moment of anger, that divorce becomes lawful (refer to Bukhari, part VII, p. 145). The Azhar scholars, when they were asked about that, gave the same answer: Every divorce is admissible except the divorce made by a drunkard. What a joke! Or what a tragedy! Daily Arabic newspapers are filled with such tragic news and the courts are overloaded with thousands of divorce suits which causes the eviction of children and wives who are helpless and dependent mainly on their husbands. This tragic situation made an Egyptian Muslim lady, Dr. Nawal Sa’dawi (the great Egyptian writer and thinker), voice her objection loudly during a dialogue between her and the Azhar scholars by saying: "I want to say that a Christian wife enjoys a secure married life compared to the Muslim woman because she is not afraid of a surprise divorce made by her husband in a day and a night" (Refer to al-Liwa al- Islami newspaper, issued on July 9,1987, page 6 ). You are right Dr. Sadawi! You are acknowledging the truth as you describe the status of women in Islam. Your words have powerful effect because you are a Muslim and a woman also. But what could the Sheiks of Azhar tell you if this is the law of Islam and if Muhammad himself was allowed to divorce all his wives in one day and claimed that he received (through Gabriel) a verse inspired by God in which he threatened them. The verse: "It may happen that His Lord—if he (the prophet) divorced you—will give him in your stead wives better than you" (Chapter 66:5). What could the Azhar Sheikhs tell you if Muhammad himself had actually divorced one of his wives by telling her, "Go to your people?" She was the daughter of June, as the Bukhari remarked (page 131 of Vol. VII). He also divorced Hafasa, daughter of Umar Ibn al-Khattab, then brought her back, as well as his wife Sawda (daughter of Zam’a), then restored her to his household after she asked for his mercy, telling him: "I will give up my day (that is the day he allocated to Sawda) to A’isha," as we read in the "Book of Women of the Prophet "("Nisa’ al-Nabi") by Bint al-Shati (p. 125 and p.66 regarding Hafsa and Sawda). This same author, who is a contemporary Muslim scholar and writer, said: "When Muhammad intended to divorce Sawda or when he actually divorced her, she received the news with utmost bewilderment, and she almost fainted. She wept in the presence of Muhammad and said: ‘Keep me and I assign the right of my night and day to your young wife A’isha’ (p.66); he agreed. It is well known that this Sawda had served Muhammad very well and was very good to him and no one had accused her of any wrongdoing. But because of lack of beauty, he intended to divorce her." ======================================================================== CHAPTER 17: 02.06. CONTRA ISLAM CHAPTER 3 CONT'D ======================================================================== Divorce in Christianity In spite of escalating problems, and regardless of the nature of numerous causes (such as sickness or barrenness), it is not permissible for a divorce to take place among true Christians who learn from the Lord the meaning of love and humility. A conflict may exist, and the husband may lose his temper for all of us are human beings subject to making mistakes. We may scream or show anger or encounter conflicts, yet a true Christian will never think of divorce. Divorce does not exist in the dictionary of relationships between Christian couples. The Christian wife can rest at peace concerning her future because the church will not allow her husband to divorce her except in one case; namely, adultery. In this case, Christ himself gives the man or the woman the right to divorce the guilty party and remarry another person. Yet even this circumstance is almost non existent among true Christians. In case of genuine repentance, the innocent party is encouraged to show forgiveness and shun a divorce. However, the innocent party has the right to divorce and to remarry whether this innocent party is a man or a woman. In the Gospel, we read the following dialogue between Christ and some of the Pharisees from among the Jewish religious leaders: "The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?’ And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning "made them male and female," and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh"? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate"’ (Matthew 19:4-6). Christianity does not say that "divorce is lawful but unfavorable," but rather that it is unlawful and is not allowable except for adultery. That is because the interests of the spouse, the children and society are above all other considerations and greater than any marital conflict. It is supposed that problems, struggles (whatever they are) can be solved by prayer, humility, and a deeper relationship with the Lord. God is able to sow love in human hearts, give the ability for forbearance and He is capable of changing the most wicked man or woman because Christianity believes in the experience of spiritual new birth and the work of the Spirit of God. Divorce in the West...In the East It is obvious that the percentages of divorce in Europe and America is very high, but it is also obvious that most of those who divorce their spouses are (at best) nominal Christians who have not committed their lives to Christ. Christ and the Gospel are very clear in this regard. The Gospel is not guilty because of some practices of westerners, such as sexual corruption and the increasing number of divorces. We do not blame Islam or the Qur’an for things committed by Muslims which are against their religion. We are examining Islam as it is manifested in the Qur’an and practiced by Muhammad and Muslim scholars. When we discuss Christianity, we quote Gospel references and Christ’s life. Certainly, there is sexual corruption in the East, though it is practiced in secrecy. Westerners, in this case, relinquish hypocrisy. They don’t seem to care what other people may say against them, contrary to Easterners. If we take a quick glimpse at the Christian East, we will realize the rarity of divorce eases. I have lived dozens of years in Arab countries, especially in Egypt which has a population of thirteen million Christians, and yet I have heard about only one divorce in the Christian community. Westerners must recognize this fact in order to learn from the Eastern Christians this Christian biblical principle. Of course, premarital sexual relationships (which are in vogue in the West) are not practiced among Christian Easterners. It is possible to say that in the Christian East there is one divorce for every one hundred thousand marriages! Yet even if a divorce takes place (whether in the East or in the West), the door of repentance is open to anyone who is ready to repent because every sin is forgivable if it is accompanied by repentance. I would like to urge the leaders of Islamic and Arabic countries to enact laws and restrictions to solve marital problems, similar to those laws practiced by Tunisia, which do not allow polygamy or easy divorce—in order to protect the wife and the children from eviction and agony. If Muhammad and the Qur’an have failed to do so, the leaders of Arab and Islamic states are able to pass laws to protect women and children (and thus, the entire society) from tragedies and fragmentation. If these states would allow opportunity for the Gospel to be preached through radio and television. most of the problems of society would diminish because many Muslims would become Christians. A Woman is the Husband’s Slave His Captive! Readers may wonder if this is true. Is it possible that Islam and Muhammad say that a woman is a man’s slave—his captive? Yes, my dear reader, this is a fact which no Muslim scholar denies. Let us scrutinize this matter which is really amazing when we read Muhammad’s unquestionable statements. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya In Zad al-Ma’ad (part V, p. 189), we read: "In sound tradition, Muhammad called woman a ‘aniya’. The ‘ani’ is a prisoner of war (or captive). The duty of the captive is to serve his master. There is no doubt that marriage is a sort of slavery as some of the former scholars indicated: Marriage is slavery, thus let each one of you be sure of the man to whom you would like to enslave your daughter." This text tells us that according to sound Hadith (approved by all scholars), Muhammad said so. Therefore, scholars emphasize that a father must choose a good man for his daughter because marriage is slavery. Ibn Qayyim states also (part V, page 188), "A woman must serve her husband because he has already paid the dowry, and if a man served his wife at home he would commit a grave sin." Ibn Timiyya (Sheikh al-Islam) He was very plain when he discussed this issue. In Vol. 32, p.262, Ibn Timiyya unquestionably agrees with the statement of the former scholars that marriage is slavery. He states that Umar Ibn al- Khattab himself is the one who uttered those words. Also, on pages 305-307, he remarks, "If a woman said to her husband, ‘Divorce me’ and he responded by saying, ‘I divorce you,’ then this divorce is final and irrevocable for the husband because it is regarded a ransom by which a woman redeems herself from her husband, as a captive redeems herself from captivity. It is also permissible for any person to redeem the wife, as in the case of the redemption of the captive. As it is admissible for anyone to pay a ransom to the master of a slave to set him free, it is also allowable for a woman to set herself free from the slavery of the husband. The purpose of that is to disclaim the ownership and slavery of the woman in order to be free from his slavery, as in the case of freeing the slave and redeeming the captive." Ibn Timiyya has repeated several times the phrase that the relationship of a wife to her husband is like a slave to his master—or like a prisoner of war. Imam al-Nawawi In his book, "Ryad al-Salihin" ("The Orchards of the Righteous Men", p 107), he repeats Muhammad’s statement that "women are captives in your hands." He also adds: "The apostle of God here likens the woman as she comes under the authority of her husband to a captive; and Muhammad uttered these words in his address to men in the farewell year." These are the words of Muhammad himself concerning women, and these are the declarations of three of the greatest Muslim scholars: Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Ibn Timiyya and the Imam al-Nawawi. These three confirm, according to tradition, that Muhammad is the one who said that a woman is like a prisoner and a slave to a man. Thus a woman is not only less than a man by a degree, and enjoys only half of his rights, but she is less than him by dozens of degrees. She holds the status of a slave or a captive. A Donkey and a Dog This is exactly what A’isha said to the great Caliphs and companions when she remarked: "You have put us on the same level with a donkey and a dog." The question is why did A’isha make this statement to those great companions and scholars of the time of Muhammad. A’isha said that to Ali Ibn Abi Talib, Abdalla Ibn Abbas, Abu-zarr, Abu Hurayra, Anas Ibn Malik and others on whose authority most of Muhammad’s Hadith and interpretations of the Qur’an were handed down. Why did you say that A’isha? She said it because those pillars of Islam assured people that Muhammad said that if a man is praying and a donkey, a dog, or a woman passes in front of him, his prayer will not be acceptable, and he has to perform ablution (washing) again and repeat his prayer. None of the scholars question this matter which is repeated daily—whenever a woman passes in front of a man while he is praying or if a dog or a donkey walks in front of him. In this case, he has to wash himself again and repeat his prayer; otherwise his prayer will not be counted. Ibn Hazm Confirms and Quotes In his book, "al-Muhalla", "The Sweetened" (part 4, p. 8), Ibn Hazm says: "A prayer is rescinded by a dog, whether it is passing by or not, and by a woman and a donkey!" At the beginning of page 9, Ibn Hazm emphasizes that all the great companions of the prophet without exception attested to that. Then he records for us (page 11) that A’isha told them: "You have put us on the same level with a donkey and a dog." Why is it that if a man passes in front of a praying man his prayer is not repealed, while if a woman walks in front of him, the prayer must be repeated? Why is the presence of a woman regarded as similar to the presence of a donkey or a dog? The above-mentioned discussion does not need more comment. Women are the Cause of Evil Omen It is obvious that Sahih of al-Bukhari is a source upon which all of the Islamicists depend whenever they want to learn Muhammad’s Hadith (sayings), and consequently, to know Islamic laws and ordinances which the Qur’an doesn’t mention. If we open part VII of Sahih of al-Bukhari which is translated into English (page 21), we read: "Allah’s apostle said: ‘Evil omen is in the woman, the house and the horse."’ On the same page (21), we encounter the interpretation of the above statement as follows: "The evil omen of a woman is her bad character". The reader may wonder (if there is such a thing as an "evil omen") why it is said then that a woman who has bad character is the cause. Why it is not said that a bad person (in general, whether a male or female) may cause an evil omen; that is if there is such a thing as an evil omen since we do not believe in the existence of evil omen among true believers. Why is it always a woman? If a woman walks in front of a man while he prays, he has to repeat his prayer because it does not count. Since a woman has bad character, she causes an evil omen. In the first case, Muhammad equates her with a donkey and a dog. In the second case, he reduces her to the level of a horse and a house. The woman! Always the woman! She is always persecuted in Islam. Even Muhammad believed that the majority of the people in hell are women, as it was revealed to him. Women have Crooked Characters All the scholars confirm that Muhammad said that women have crooked characters. He also said that a husband should not attempt to straighten his wife of the perversity. He must enjoy her though she is still subject to this waywardness. In Sahih of al-Bukhari (part 7, p. 80) the following is recorded, "Allah’s Apostle said: ‘The woman is like a rib: if you try to straighten her, she will break; so if you want to get benefit from her, do so while she still has some crookedness."’ Also in "Riyadh al-Salihim" by Imam al-Nawawi (p. 106), we find a quote by Sahih of Muslim, "Muhammad said, ‘A woman was created from a crooked rib; thus she would never be straightened by any means. If you enjoy her, you do that along with her crookedness and if you endeavor to straighten her, you will break her, and breaking her is divorcing her."’ We have here two questions: First, why is the woman the one who is crooked? Muhammad answers: "Because she is created from a crooked rib!" Is it possible that man is free from any crookedness? Can we not find one thousand women who would say, "My husband has many detestable characteristics. He is always drunk, gambling, or violent and abusive." Why is it always the woman who is crooked? Then there is the other question which we cannot avoid: If there is a crookedness in a woman, why does the husband not attempt to straighten her in humility, love, prayer and understanding? Why does he have to leave her on her own without rendering any help lest the crooked rib breaks; namely, to be divorced? Why all this ill-advice by Muhammad? Do prophets tell the husband to scourge his wife or forsake her on the one hand and urge him to leave her alone with her crookedness on the other? Muhammad himself told his wives upon occasion that he would divorce them and replace them with other women. The Sheikh al-Sharawi, the contemporary Sheikh of Islam in Egypt, acknowledges in his book, "You Ask and Islam Answers" (part II, p. 5) that Muhammad said this, but the Sharawi tries intelligently to justify Muhammad’s statement by saying that Muhammad meant that the woman usually shows compassion and is bent over her child like a crooked rib! If this is what Muhammad meant, then how are we to interpret his saying she will never be straightened by any means, it is impossible to change her, and men should not attempt to do so because that will be conducive to divorce, but they should rather enjoy women along with their crookedness? Is this crookedness a virtue, like showing tenderness towards a child? Crookedness is something bad and difficult to change or straighten. The Sharawi also interprets Muhammad’s testimony that women lack intelligence and faith as being not required to perform all the duties and ordinances of the religion; they lack faith by way of commission! We tell him: Do they lack intelligence by way of commission also? What about their testimony being regarded equal to a half man’s testimony? Is that by way of commission also or lack of intelligence so that if one of them forgot something the other one would remind her? ! Women are Harmful to Men This is another statement which all the scholars agree that Muhammad uttered against women. In part 7, p.22 of Sahih al-Bukhari, we read, "The prophet said: ‘I have not left any affliction more harmful to men than women."’ The Imam al-Nawawi in his book, "Riyadh al-Salihin" (p. 110), reiterates that these words were spoken by Muhammad. Of course, Christianity rejects such statements and disapproves of all these accusations against women. Lastly, we have to ask: If this was Muhammad’s view of women, why then, did he possess so many wives, concubines and prisoners of war? Conclusion This is the true status of women according to Muhammad and to Islam. We have presented this discussion so that no one will say that Islam honors females, whether they are daughters, single or married. ° We have seen that the father has the right to force a daughter to marry without her permission. She does not have any choice. ° Muhammad made it lawful for a man to have sexual relationships with a single woman in lieu of some presents, then leave her without any rights. This is what is called in Islam "contractual marriage". ° As for married women, the mother of children, Muhammad, in the Qur’an, commanded men to scourge them (if they show any sign of disobedience) if instruction, admonishing, and abandoning their beds fail to bring forth any results. Scholars say that scourging should not lead to breaking bones, but to be a deterring element. A man scourged his wife and left some marks on her face. When she complained to Muhammad, he refrained from punishing him and claimed to have received a verse in which he declared that men are above women and better than them. Men are their custodians, entitled to discipline them and to deter them by punishment and beating. ° We also see that a married woman is a slave to her husband; she is his captive, his prisoner because marriage is a type of slavery. Muhammad himself, the prophet of freedom, equality and honoring of women said so, as well as Umar Ibn al-Khattab. We also discussed polygamy and how a man is allowed to marry as many as many as four women at the same time, in addition to what he owns of maid-slaves. ° We have examined also the issue of easy divorce and replacement of wives as it is manifested clearly in the Qur’anic verses and exemplified by the behavior of Muhammad, the Caliphs and the companions. This divorce drives away the woman and her children and propagates corruption in society. Islam does not enforce any restriction or limitation against it (as Christianity does) to protect women, children and society. If a man divorced his wife by uttering three times, "You are divorced," then he wished to restore her and she agrees to do so, Muhammad insists that she should get married to somebody else first and actually have sexual intercourse; then she could go back to her first husband and her children as Rafa’a’s wife did when she wanted to return to her ex-husband. Muhammad told her that she had to have an actual marriage and full sexual intercourse with her new husband, Abdul Rahman, before she could return to her first husband. Muhammad relied on a clear text "revealed" to him through Gabriel the angel for this judgment. He said it was revealed that the divorced wife is not lawful for the first husband until she marries another man (Chapter 2:230). ° Women in general (as Muhammad declared) are the majority of the people in hell on the day of judgment. ° They are the cause of evil omens. ° They lack intelligence and faith. ° In regard to inheritance, they are entitled only to one-half of the man’s rightful inheritance. ° Her testimony in courts and business contracts is equal to one-half of the man’s testimony and value. ° Muhammad also said that women possess sinister characters. ° Lastly, if a woman walks in front of a man while he is praying, she will invalidate his prayer and he has to repeat it. Muhammad said that a prayer would be nullified if a donkey, a dog or a woman pass in front of the praying man. The greatest among the companions, such as Ibn Abbas, Abu Zarr, Abu Hurayra, as well as the Caliphs (like Ali Ibn Abi Talib) have confirmed these statements. All Muslims know who these famous personalities are and what position they occupy in transmitting the Hadiths. Such abuses made A’isha scream in their faces, "You have put us on the same level with a donkey and a dog!" ======================================================================== CHAPTER 18: 02.06. CONTRA ISLAM CHAPTER 4 ======================================================================== Chapter Four Discrimination Between a Muslim and a Non-Muslim In this short life, love is the most significant element. It is the most important thing to God. Christianity in its essence reveals to us God’s love as well as the thoughts of His heart; a heart which is aflame with love for mankind. For this reason, Christ came to our earth. However, we must take note that love has varying degrees, levels, and phases. The most excellent degree and the highest level of love is the life of unconditional giving and sacrifice which we observe in Christianity from Christ Himself, who gave Himself for our sake. He also called upon us to give ourselves for the sake of others. The Gospel says: "By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren" (1 John 3:16). This is the highest degree—the highest expression of love. The lowest degree of love is nondiscrimination, justice and equality among people. This is the simplest fact of love. Its primary principle is to respect the other person in his capacity as a person, not to persecute or humiliate him, and not to harm him. If any one of these occurs, then love is non-existent and the person who commits such wickedness walks in darkness and does not know God, the only living God. God, in essence, is love. The Gospel indicates with finality: "He who does not love does not know God, for God is love" (1 John 4:8). When we discussed human rights in chapter one, we said that Islam and Muhammad do not have even one drop of love for others. Anyone who denies his faith, whether he is an old man or a weak woman, is subject to death, even a person such as Um Marawan, whom Muhammad ordered to re-embrace Islam or be killed. If the non-Muslim is an atheist, he will be offered two options—Islam or death. If he is a Jew or a Christian, he will be presented with three options—Islam, death, or paying the head tax and humiliation We will talk more about the ill treatment of non-Muslims In the previous pages, we have seen how women were persecuted, humiliated and inhumanely treated. We will also discuss the poor treatment of slaves. Frankly, Islam is devoid of the simplest facet of love. Non-Muslims in Islamic Society Muslim propagandists use an attractive motto which says that Islam is the religion of justice and equality. It is the religion of freedom and women’s dignity, they say, but this cannot be proved by mere talk and a loud voice, especially among Occidentalists who do not know the reality of Islam. It is also true that even most Arabs don’t know the truth about Islam. However, a case is proved by presenting facts and empirical evidence. When we discussed the issue of women and removed the beautiful (but deceptive) veil of Social Equality, we revealed the ugly face of Islam. Muslim propagandists claim that Islam is the religion of equality and justice! Where do you get that idea? Show us! How could that be if Islam says that Christians whose lands are invaded by Muslims and conquered by force are not allowed to build new churches or even to renovate the destroyed ones? This was what Islam said, and this was the verdict of Umar Ibn al-Khattab who was known as the Just Caliph, as he was called by Muslims. Tell us where equality is if a non-Muslim’s testimony is not acceptable or even allowed in court against Muslims or even against other non-Muslims, as the most famous Muslim scholars indicate? And of course, non-Muslims do not have the right to assume leading jobs in the state. Tell us where the justice and equality is in Islam when a Muslim’s life is spared even if he kills a Christian intentionally while a Muslim may only be required to die if he assassinates another Muslim. The reason, as Muhammad said is that "only Muslims’ blood is regarded equal." Thus, no Muslim should be killed for murdering a non-Muslim. If Muhammad says-according to all scholars-that "only Muslims’ blood is equal" (have the same value), we have the right to ask, "Where, then, is equality?" Muhammad says to us, "I meant the equality between a Muslim and another Muslim and not between a Muslim and a non-Muslim." On the other hand, we will see that if a non-Muslim merely curses a Muslim, he must either be sentenced to death or be converted to Islam! However, if a Muslim murders a non-Muslim, he will only pay a fine. Abu Al-Ala Al-Mawdudi’s View: Discrimination is Necessary! In his book, "Rights of Non-Muslims in Islamic States" which has been translated into many languages, this great scholar asserts that we should distinguish between the rights of non-Muslims and the rights of Muslims. On pp. 2-3, Abu Ala al-Mawdudi says: "An Islamic state ... is by its very nature bound to distinguish between Muslims and non-Muslims, and, in an honest and upright manner, not only publicly declares this state of affairs but also precisely states what rights will be conferred upon its non-Muslim citizens and which of them will not be enjoyed by them." Now let us analyze the rights which are not supposed to be conferred on non-Muslims We will witness the worst practices of racial discrimination and religious segregation. A Muslim Must Not Be Sentenced To Death For Murdering A Non Believer Muhammad himself gives justification for this. He says only Muslims’ have blood that is alike; thus a Muslim should not be put to death for murdering a non-Muslim but must pay a blood feud to the family of the murdered man. As expected, the great Muslim legists and scholars such as Ibn Timiyya, Ibn Hazm, Al-Shafii, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Al-Jalalan, Al-Bukhari and Muslim agree on this important point. Ibn Timiyya Ibn Timiyya emphasizes forcefully in Volume 14, "Nothing in the law of Muhammad states that the blood of the disbeliever is equal to the blood of the Muslim because faith is necessary for equality. The people of the Covenant (Jews or Christians) do not believe in Muhammad and Islam, thus their blood and the Muslim’s blood cannot be equal. These are distinctive texts which indicate that a Muslim is not to be put to death for (murdering) one of the people of the covenant or an unbeliever, but a free Muslim must be killed for a free Muslim, regardless of the race" (Vol. 14, p. 85). He reiterates the same statement (Vol. 20, p. 282) that a Muslim must not be killed for one of the people of the covenant; that is, a Christian or a Jew The Imam al-Shafii In section one of "Ahkam al-Qur’an" ("The Ordinances of the Qur’an", page 275), he says: "A Muslim is not to be killed for an unbeliever". Then he says (page 284), "If a believer murders an unbeliever, he has to pay blood feud to the Jew or Christian which is one-third of the blood feud of the believer, though Malik says it must be one half." Ibn Timiyya inclines towards Malik’s opinion and indicates (Vol. 20, p. 385) that: "The blood feud should be one half because this is what was transmitted by tradition about the prophet Muhammad and as the Sunnis said also." Whether the blood feud is one third or one half is not important. What really matters is that a Muslim is not to be put to death for a non-Muslim. Despite the disagreement among the Muslim scholars about the actual amount of the blood feud to be paid, the important thing is that the blood feud of the unbeliever is less than the blood feud of the believer, and that a Muslim is not to be put to death for a non-Muslim. Of course, if a Muslim murders another Muslim, the murderer must be sentenced to death because he assassinated another Muslim. According to al-Shafii, in this case the victim’s relatives have the option either to accept a blood feud or to kill the criminal. However, if the murdered is non-Muslim, his relatives have no choice but to accept the blood feud ("The Ordinances of the Qur’an", Sect. I, pp. 180, 279). Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya In his book, "Zad-al-Maad" (Sec. III, p.124), he says: "Muslim blood is alike (has the same value). A Muslim is not to be put to death for killing an unbeliever." "Sahih" of Al-Bukhari and" Sahih of Muslim" These are two authorized books acknowledged by all Islam scholars pertaining to Muhammad’s sayings. We read in Part 9 of al-Bukhari’s book (p. 16,) "A Muslim is not to be sentenced to death for an unbeliever." He stresses that this is also the opinion of Ali Ibn Abi Talib. In "Sahih of Muslim" interpreted by Nawawi (Part 4, p. 244), we read, "A Muslim is not to be sentenced to death for one of the people of the covenant nor for a free man or a slave." The Jalalan In their famous commentary, in the context of their interpretation of Sura the Women, the Jalalan clearly and distinctly states the following (p. 178), "On the topic of punishment, whether or not a man embraces the same religion will be considered. Thus a Muslim is not to be sentenced to death, even if he is a slave and the victim was a free man—not a Muslim. It is obvious from these words that there is discrimination between a slave and a freeman. What matters to us is that if a Muslim slave murdered a non-Muslim freeman, he is not to be sentenced to death because he is a Muslim and the murdered man is a non-Muslim. These are the scholars who have quoted the words of Muhammad himself in this regard: Ibn Timiyya, Shafii, al-Jalalan, Ibn-Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Sahih of Muslim and Sahih of al-Bukhari. They are more acquainted with his sayings and | traditions than anyone else. Ibn Hazm In part Twelve of Vol. 8 (page 39), he asserts and demonstrates by practical and empirical examples the same opinion we have already observed. He indicates, "If one of the people of the covenant murdered another one of the people of the covenant, and then the murderer was converted to Islam, he would not be subject to punishment based on the prophet Muhammad’s saying, "A Muslim is not to be sentenced to death for an unbeliever." But if the injured was converted to Islam, and died as a Muslim, the murderer must be sentenced to death because believers’ blood is alike. If a Muslim injures a non-Muslim intentionally, he is not to be punished because the injured is a non-Muslim, based on the Qur’anic verse. But if the injured confessed Islam and then died, the Muslim must be punished." It is obvious here that Ibn Hazm relies on Muhammad’s sayings and does not present his own personal opinion. He explains how a murderer can spare himself punishment, even if he is not a Muslim. He offers him an easy way to escape by embracing Islam after he murders his non-Muslim friend ! In other words, Islam tells a murderer frankly, "Confess: ‘There is no God, but God and Muhammad is the apostle of God’ and you spare yourself the sentence of death because you became a Muslim, and in this case you will only pay a fine.’’ Places Of Worship Are Not Allowed To Be Built Or To Be Renovated Or To Be Rebuilt If They Are Destroyed Can the reader believe this unjust verdict? This is practiced in countries which were originally Christian such as Syria and Egypt. These countries had been invaded and occupied by Muslims and tom by war. Because of the attitude of Islam against the Christian places of worship, we discover obvious persecution and inequality. Umar Ibn al-Khattab Muslims claim that Umar was the most just Caliph. The title, "just", is his famous attribute. He was the second Caliph and the father of Hafasa, Muhammad’s wife. He was also one of the greatest companions of Muhammad who was responsible for enacting legislation because he received it directly from Muhammad. Muhammad himself used to say, "Take as examples those who come after me—Abu Bakr and Umar" (Ibn Timiyya Vol. 28, p. 651 as well as other sources). Now what did Umar Ibn al-Khattab say? Ibn Hazm, Ibn Timiyya and all the Chroniclers assert that when Umar signed the peace treaty with the Christians of Syria, he dictated some conditions to be carried out by the Muslim governors throughout the conquered Christian countries. One of these conditions was that Christians were prohibited from building a monastery or a church, and from rebuilding those that were destroyed even the cell of a monk (Ibn Hazm, Vol. 4, part 7, p.346). This same words (uttered by Umar) are quoted also by Ibn Timiyya (Vol. 28, p.652). In his above-mentioned book, Abu al-ala al-Mawdudi, the contemporary scholar, says (page 28), "In lands owned by Muslims, the non-Muslims are not entitled to build new places of worship." That refers to the countries which Muslims possessed by war. Christians are not permitted to build new churches in them. It happened that a ruined church was actually renovated, but what was the punishment? Ahmad Ibn Timiyya, the Sheikh of Islam and the Mufti of Muslims in his time, was asked about this matter (Vol. 28, p. 648). "Question: A Christian priest lives in a house next to a site on which there is a ruined church without a roof. The priest bought the site and renovated it and made the church part of the building in which he gathered people (to pray). Is he allowed to do so? "Answer: He does not have the right to do so even if there were the ruins of an old church because Muslims had conquered these places by force and possessed the churches, and it is permissible for them to destroy them according to Muslim scholars. Therefore, all those who helped him must be punished, and the Christian priest’s blood must be shed and his properties must be confiscated according to some legists because he violated the terms imposed on them by Muslims. " Ibn Timiyya’s words are very clear. He says that it is not permissible to renovate a ruined church. Notice also Ibn Timiyya’s statement that all the scholars agree on the permissibility of Muslims destroying churches in countries which they conquer by war. Pertaining to the death sentence inflicted upon anyone who builds a church, this verdict is voiced by Umar Ibn al-Khattab after he imposed his terms on the Christians. Umar told them, "Anyone who violates such terms will be unprotected. And it will be permissible for the Muslims to treat them as rebels or dissenters namely, it is permissible to kill them" (Ibn Timiyya Vol. 28:652). Concerning demolishing the churches or confiscating them, Abu Ala al-Mawdudi in his above-mentioned book (p. 11), indicates, "Muslims have the right to confiscate places of worship in such towns as have been taken by storm." Another Important question reveals strange historical and eccentric events which took place in Cairo, Egypt. In the same volume of Ibn Timiyya (Vol. 28, p. 632), we find the answer to the following question "Question: If Christians claim that the churches which had been closed by the rulers were unjustly closed and they have the right to re-open them, and if they made their request to the rulers, should the rulers approve their case? Re-opening those churches may incur a change in the hearts of Muslims in all the earth because Christians will rejoice and will be pleased to go to churches. This will cause annoyance to the righteous Muslims and others so that they invoke God against whoever allowed that and assisted it. Answer: Ibn Timiyya, the Mufti of the Muslims responded to this question at the beginning of page 634. He said, "Praise be to God: The allegation of Christians that Muslims were unjust to them by closing their churches is contrary to the consensus of Muslims because Muslim Scholars who belong to the four schools of Abu Hanifa, Malik Al-Shafii and Ahmaad as well as others of the Imam, such as Sufyan al-Thawri, al-Uzai, al-Laith Ibn sad and others, and before them some of the companions (of the prophet) and their successors, have consented that the Muslim Imam, even if he destroyed every church in the conquered land by war (such as Egypt, Iraq, and Syria) that would not be regarded as injustice done by him, but rather he must be obeyed in that. If Christians refuse to accept the verdict of the governor, they would be violating the covenant, and their blood and their properties become lawful (to the Muslims). "It is well known that Umar Ibn al-Khattab made it a condition that Christians are not to build a church even in a land that was conquered through a peace treaty. If they had a church and the Muslims erected a city, the Muslims have the right to confiscate the church. Even if there were churches on the lands of Cairo before it was built, the Muslims would have the right to seize them after the erection of the city, because the city which is inhabited by Muslims who own mosques in it should be free of tokens of ungodliness, churches or anything similar. "Because of the same principle, the prophet said: ‘Expel the Jews and Christians from the Arab peninsula.’ So no Jews were left in Khaybar. The prophet (until then) had agreed to keep them there after he invaded Khaybar and conquered it. Later, he gave his order to expel the Jews and Christians from all the Arab peninsula. That happened after the Muslims began to inhabit it. Thus, some rulers such as Umar Ibn Abdul-Aziz and Harun al-Rashid and others used to demolish the Christian churches to support God’s cause. May (God’s) support and victory be upon them ! " We have quoted the text of Ibn Timiyya word for word, as we usually do. Do these words need any comment? The matter is very clear and the reader can re-read these words. Sheikh al-Islam here clearly states all the historical facts, and the consensus of all the scholars, and the companions (Muhammad’s friends) who call for the abolishment of the churches and prohibition of building a new church. Only during a weakened Islam when the rulers did not apply the Islamic law were some churches were built, but in case of a strong ruler, such as Umar Ibn Abdul-Aziz and Harun al-Rashid and others, God’s order was carried out and churches were demolished! Whenever Christians refused to obey the order, their blood and properties became lawful to Muslims. What an insult and injustice! Yet in spite of that they talk boastfully about justice and equality! Even during the time of the Caliph Umar Ibn al-Khattab, the Muslims confiscated the largest church in Damascus and converted it into a mosque which is now called the "Amawi Mosque" (Ibn Kathir, Part 7, p. 21). The Inadmissibility of the Testimony of the People of the Covenant This simply means that a non-Muslim (whether they are Jews or Christians) is not allowed to give his testimony in any matter in a court. Basically, their testimony is not acceptable because they are not Muslims. Is it possible that an entire society does not accept the testimony of its citizens because they are not Muslims? How then, can court cases be justly conducted, and where is equality? My dear reader, this is Islamic law which does not comprehend the meaning of equality. Equality in Islam is delusion and deception. Islam is nothing but the religion of inequality. The Sayings of Muslim Scholars and Legists All Muslim scholars agree on this matter. I have chosen to show you the greatest and the most famous from among them, such as al-Bukhari, al-Shafi’i, Ibn Hazm, Ibn Timiyya and Malik Ibn Ons. Malik Ibn Ons In Vol. 5, Section 13, p. 156, we read the following plain statement, "Non-Muslims’ testimony is not permissible at all, even against each other! Of course, their testimony is not allowable against Muslims but Muslim testimony against them is acceptable." Concerning non-Muslim women he says also, "The testimony of the women of the people of the covenant is not permissible even in birth! But the testimony of the women of Muslims is acceptable provided two women testify. One woman’s testimony is not acceptable" (p. 157). The statement is very clear. Christian or Jewish testimonies are not acceptable, even against each other. Their women’s testimony is not acceptable even in matters of birth! The Imam Al-Shafi’i In his famous book, "The Ordinances of the Qur’an" ("Ahkam Al-Qur’an", Part 2, p.142), Al-Shafi’i says, "The testimony of the people of the covenant is not permissible . The witness must be one who belongs to our religion and he must be a freeman not a slave. Testimony is acceptable only from our freeman who belongs to our religion." This is an unquestionable statement—The witness must be a Muslim, a freeman not a slave. The Bukhari In Part 3, p.237 of the Sahih, the Bukhari indicates, "Polytheists are not to be asked for a testimony or anything else. The testimony of the people of other religions against each other is not allowable, based on the Qur’anic saying: ‘We caused enmity among them,’ and because the prophet Muhammad said: ‘Do not believe the people of the Book."’ That is, a Christian cannot testify against another Christian, according to al-Bukhari, one of the most famous scholars of Islam. He quotes a verse from the Qur’an which says that God has caused enmity to prevail among Christians, thus their testimony is not acceptable against each other—as if there is no hostility, homicide, war and destruction among Muslims! Then the Bukhari cites Muhammad’s saying: "Do not believe the people of the book." The non-Muslim’s testimony is not acceptable. Ibn Hazm In Vol. 6, Part 9, pp. 405-408, Ibn Hazm remarks, "The testimony of a Christian or a Jew is not permissible unless a Muslim man dies in a foreign land void of Muslims! Apart from this, the testimony of a Jew or a Christian is not acceptable against another Muslim or even against a Jew or a Christian like him." In order to authenticate his statement Ibn Hazm quotes the most famous among the companions of Muhammad, such as Ibn Abbas and Abu Musa, as well as some of Muhammad’s wives. Ibn Timiyya In Vol. 14, p. 87, Ibn Timiyya indicates plainly and decisively: "The testimony of the people of the covenant is not admissible." I believe the texts quoted from the works of these prestigious Muslim authorities are sufficient to clarify this point. Otherwise, tell us, my dear Muslim friend, who are more famous than al-Bukhari, Malik, Ibn Timiyya? If you want to know the opinion of the Imam Abu Hanifa, he also declared that the testimony of a non-Muslim is not allowed against a Muslim. He agrees with all other scholars in this matter, but he adds that the testimony of a non-Muslim against another non-Muslim like him may be admissible because all of them are ungodly men. The rest of the scholars (without exception) disagree with him in this matter. The Prohibition Against Employing non-Muslims There exists a prohibition against employing non-Muslims in certain jobs, such as management positions. All scholars and legists of Islamic law agree on this view. Umar Ibn Al-Khattab, (the "Just" Caliph) In Vol. 28, pp. 643, 644 Ibn Timiyya narrates the following significant events: "Khalid Ibn Al-Walid wrote to Umar Ibn Al-Khattab saying: ‘In Syria there is a Christian secretary who is in full charge of accounting the taxes.’ Umar wrote to him: ‘Do not use him.’ Khalid answered: ‘He is indispensable and if we do not put him in charge of it, the treasury will be lost.’ Umar responded again: ‘Do not use him."’ It was quoted in Sahih Al-Bukhari that Muhammad said, "‘I will not ask the assistance of a polytheist.’ "One day, Abu Musa Al-Ashari came to Umar while he was in the mosque to lay before him the income of Iraq. Umar was pleased with the outcome and said: ‘Summon your secretary to read it for me.’ Abu Musa told him: ‘He would not enter the mosque because he is a Christian.’ Umar attempted to scourge Abu Musa with a whip. Had it touched him, it would have hurt him and Umar said: ‘Do not honor them after God has humiliated them. Do not believe them after God has disbelieved them"’ (Ibn Timiyya, Vol. 28). Based on Ibn Timiyya’s volumes, it is well known that Umar Ibn al-Khattab used to command the Muslims and their governors saying, "Humiliate the Christians." This is the second Caliph who succeeded Abu Bakr. He refused to let Khalid appoint a Christian to take care of the taxes in spite of Khalid’s evaluation that no one knew better than he. When he also discovered that Abu Musa had employed a Christian to oversee the accounts of Iraq, he scourged him with a whip. Then Ibn Timiyya adds in the same volume (p. 646), "Some who were less qualified than the Christians were appointed; that would be more useful to Muslims for their religion and earthly welfare. A little of what is lawful will be abundantly blessed, and abundance of what is unlawful will be wasted." Ibn Timiyya meant here that regardless of how little the qualification of a Muslim, God will bless it because employing a Muslim is lawful; and no matter how great the qualification of a Christian, employing him is an unlawful matter which God has forbidden. Of course, it is not allowed that any Christian be appointed to a position of leadership All scholars agree on that. Ibn Hazm says, "No one but a mature, sane Muslim should assume the office of judge" (Vol. 6, part 9, p.363). Umar Ibn al-Khattab said; "No one of them should hold a position in which he can have power over a Muslim." Contemporary Scholars—The Azhar Scholars of Egypt It is sufficient to quote the Azhar Scholars of Egypt and the Mawdudi of Pakistan. Dr. Abdul Moumin says, "All Muslims Jurists agree that a judge should be a Muslim and it is forbidden for a non-Muslim to be a judge according to the Qur’anic verse, ‘There is no authority of the infidels over the Muslims.’ Judgment is considered authority and judgment requires that the judge be a mature and wise Muslim. In addition, a non-Muslim should be humiliated as an infidel, whereas the position of judge requires respect, and he is ineligible even to be a witness." This article is from the "Journal of the Administration of Governmental Judicial Cases" (1979 July-September) concerning the general rules prohibiting non-Muslims from being judges in court according to Qur’anic verses and Islamic teachings. This article was written by Dr. Badr El Deen Abdel Moumin, teacher at the international university of Al-Azhar. The Journal is published by the Egyptian Government. This Islamic law is not applied now in Egypt, but it is an Islamic law according to the Qur’an and Muhammad’s teaching. The Mawdudi In his previous book, "Rights of Non Muslims in Islamic State", the Mawdudi says, "They cannot become members of the Council and they do not have the right to participate in electing members to these positions" (Arabic version, p.31). Also, in his book, "Islam and Encountering the Challenges", the Mawdudi also says, "Non-Muslim sects must not be made equal to Muslims in political rights; even the right of election is prohibited for non- Muslims" (p. 268). On the same page, the Mawdudi asserts that non-Muslims do not have the right to propagate their religion in Muslim lands. It is apparent to everyone, therefore, that the position of a judge is prohibited for a non-Muslim or a woman because Muhammad said plainly, "May God curse the people who appoint a woman to govern them" (Bukhari, Volume 6, p. 10, and Volume 9, p. 70). What a significant saying of Muhammad! This is a tradition upon which scholars rely. It is even known to the ordinary man. This is why some Kuwaiti and Saudi newspapers warned the people of Pakistan against electing Mrs. Buto to be Prime Minister of Pakistan. Pakistani officials said that there is nothing in their constitution which prohibits it. The People of the Covenant are Subject to the Qur’an In Vol. 6, part 9, p. 425, Ibn Hazm reiterates these auspicious words, "The Jew and the Christian and the Magian are to be judged by the laws of the people of Islam in everything, whether they like it or not, whether they come to us or not. It is unlawful to refer them to the law of their faith. There is a verse in the Qur’an which says to Muhammad, ‘If they come to you, pass arbitrary judgment among them or turn away from them.’ Another verse was inspired which abrogated this verse. It says, ‘Pass your judgment on them according to what God revealed to you.’ This is what Ibn Abbas has said." In his book, "The Islamic State" (p. 105), Taqiy al-Din al-Nabahani of Jerusalem attests to Ibn Hazms’s statement: "The Islamic state was carrying out the laws of Islam in the Countries which were subject to its authority. It used to implement the ordinances, and apply the punishments as well as the business deals and to administer the people’s matters according to Islamic principles. Scholars of the foundation of jurisprudence believed that the one who was addressed by legal ordinances must comprehend the message, whether he is a Muslim or non-Muslim—all who embrace Islam and those who do not yield to its ordinances." The important thing here is that Muslims attacked Christian lands and occupied them, then they imposed Islamic law on Christian inhabitants! ! The Remainder of Umar’s Terms We have already mentioned that Umar Ibn Al-Khattab made it mandatory that Christians not build a new church or renovate any of the ruined churches. Now let us complete the study of the restrictions which Umar imposed on Christians as they are recorded in the same reference (Ibn Timiyya, Vol. 28, and Ibn Hazm, Vol. 4). Umar says, "Christians should not hinder any Muslim from staying in their churches for three days during which they offer them food and serve the Muslims. They ought to give them their seats if the Muslims wish to sit down. Christians should not resemble Muslims in anything, such as their dress, tiaras, turbans or shoes or parting of the hair. They should not ride a donkey with a saddle. They must shave their foreheads. They should not display any of their (religious) books on the streets of the Muslims. They should not bury their dead next to Muslims and must not read loudly in their churches. They should not mourn loudly over their dead. They should not buy slaves who fall under the portion of Muslims Not one of them should assume any position by which he has any authority over a Muslim. If they infringe any of these terms, they lose the right of protection and it is admissible for the Muslims to treat them as people of rebellion and quarrel; that is, it is permissible to kill them. Head tax must be imposed on them, free men as well as the slaves, male or female, poor and rich and on the monks" (cited from Ibn Hazm). Ibn Timiyya asserts that these are the conditions which Umar Ibn al-Khattab actually made. He completely agrees with Ibn Hazm because this is the history of Islam. When Umar made a peace treaty with the Christians of Syria, he offered them these terms in a clear document. Sufyan al-Thawri who is one of the ancient Muslim scholars and chroniclers acknowledged by all Muslims, attests to this. Ibn Timiyya adds in the same volume (page 654): "These terms are constantly renewed and imposed on the Christians by any one of the Muslim rulers who, God may be exalted, has bestowed on him success, as Umar Ibn Abdul-Aziz did during his reign, who strictly followed the path of Umar Ibn al-Khattab. Harun Al-Rashid, Jafar al-Mutawakkil and others renewed them and ordered the demolishing of the churches which ought to be demolished, like the churches of the entire Egyptian lands." Ibn Timiyya recorded the above after he praised the rulers who carried out these terms which Umar Ibn al-Khattab, father of Hafasa, wife of Muhammad and the second Caliph who succeeded Aby Bakr a imposed on Christians. Ibn Timiyya declares to us (Vol. 28, p.654): "These terms are mentioned by the chief scholars who belong to the acknowledged schools. They alluded to the fact that the Imam ought to oblige the people of the book to subjugate them to these terms [because Muhammad said many times, ‘Follow Abu Bakr and Omar!’]." Ibn Timiyya also indicated that Umar Ibn al-Khattab said about the people of the covenant, "Humiliate them," because the Qur’an said distinctly that they should pay the head tax with humiliation (9:29). 1. These unjust humiliating terms imposed on Christians are acknowledged not only by Ibn Timiyya and Ibn Hazm but also by the chief scholars (who belong to the four schools which are followed by the majority of the Muslims) among them Sufyan al-Thawri, who is one of the great companions and chroniclers. These terms were not only carried out during the era of Umar Ibn al-Khattab but were implemented by many Arab Muslim rulers during their occupation of the lands of Christian people. 2. After Umar Ibn Al-Khattab presented these terms to the inhabitants of Syria and Damascus, he told them plainly: "If any Christian violates any of these terms, it will be permissible to kill him." Imagine the extent of the relentlessness and injustice of this verdict. This means that if a Christian dressed like a Muslim, it would be permissible to kill him. If he refused to host the Muslims in the church for three days, or if he did not move from his seat to let the Muslim sit in his place, he could be killed. Also, if Christians pray loudly in the churches or mourn loudly over their dead, or if one of them renovated a ruined church he would be killed. What a just man, Umar Ibn Khattab! As all Muslims say about him, "The Just Caliph!" A Christian Is Condemned To Death If He Curses A Muslim Who can believe this matter? No one, unless he reads it clearly in Ibn Hazm’s book (Vol. 8, part 11, p. 274). He said: "It is mandatory to kill anyone of the people of the Covenant who curses a Muslim, whether he is a Jew or a Christian because God says, ‘Pay the tribute readily, being brought low [humiliated]’" (9:29). "That is humiliation. If anyone violates this principle by cursing a Muslim, he must be killed or taken into captivity. His properties become lawful for Muslims nor does it matter whether the person who did it was a man or a woman. If any one of them cursed a Muslim, he would have no choice but either to embrace Islam or be killed" (p. 274). Ibn Hazm (page 275) added, "Of course, if a Muslim curses another Muslim like him, he would only be whipped." Ibn Timiyya states that in general, any Christian who curses a Muslim must be killed immediately (Vol. 28:668). It is easy for the reader to imagine all the situations in which a Christian who is humiliated in his own land might get angry, react impulsively, and curse a Muslim. However, if he does, there is nothing left for him but to accept Islam or to be killed, as Ibn Hazm indicated! What a merciful religion! A religion of equality and love and understanding—and justice! Before we conclude this discussion, we would like to mention briefly three specific things out of dozens of other issues. What we have already discussed is sufficient for anyone who is interested in knowing the facts about equality and justice as they are practiced by Muhammad and Islam. It is enough to remove this veil, yet there are three more things: 1. If a Christian father executed or arranged a marriage for his Muslim daughter (even with her approval) that marriage is not permissible and is void because the rather is a Christian and she is a Muslim - even if the daughter approved of it (Malik Ibn Anas, Vol. 2, part 4, p. 176). That is, the father cannot be the legal guardian of his Muslim daughter even if she herself wants it! A Muslim who is a stranger to her will become her legal guardian! 2. Muhammad said, "Do not meet Jews or Christians with greetings. If you ever meet them in the street, force them to the narrowest part of it" (refer to Sahih of Muslim, "Interpretation of Nawawi", Vol. 5, p. 7; also Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya: Zad al-Ma’ad, Part 2, pp. 424, 425). This is a well-known statement of Muhammad. 3. Last, we would like to state here a remark made by one of the contemporary Muslim scholars, Dr. Ahmad ’Umar Hashim, in which he reveals the real face of Islam. He says, "Islam does not prohibit [Muslims] from conducting business with non-Muslims, but Islam prohibits hearty friendships because hearty friendship should only be between a Muslim and his brother Muslim" (Al-Liwa al-lslami, issue no. 153 - Al Azhar). What a sad statement! Yet, this is not foreign to Islam and, of course, Al Azhar knows exactly what Islam does and does not prohibit. You may have a Muslim friend who tells you that Muhammad said of the people of the Book, "They enjoy the privileges we enjoy and they are subject to the duties to which we are subject." What does this statement mean? How does it agree with what we have already had which reveals clearly that there is a striking discrimination between the Muslim and the non-Muslim? Besides, we have seen that the people of the Book are subject to ill-treatment and contempt. The answer is very simple. Muhammad spelled out this statement about the people of the Book provided that they became Muslims like them. In this case, they would be treated as Muslims without any discrimination and they would be subject to the same privileges and duties as other Muslims because they have become Muslims. If they do not embrace Islam, they will be subject to the head tax and all the terms which ’Umar Ibn al-Khattab mentioned in his document. It is relevant here, my friend, to know the situation concerning to which the above statement refers because many Muslims wrongly believe that it means equality between Muslims and non-Muslims. They Have the Rights and Duties We Have If we open the "Biography of the Prophet" ("Al-Road Al Anf", Ibn Hisham and Al-Sohaly, part 4, p. 216), we read that Muhammad sent a letter to some of the Byzantines who accepted Islam saying, "From Muhammad, the Apostle of God: I received what you have sent and I became aware of your acceptance of Islam and your fight against the infidels. You have to practice praying, pay the alms and give one-fifth of the bounty to God and to His apostle. Any one of the Jews or Christians who accepts Islam will enjoy the same rights we enjoy and will be subject to the same duties to which we are subject. But anyone who holds fast to his faith must pay the head tax." What is important to us in this quotation is not Muhammad’s request that they send him one fifth of the bounty which was captured during their raids, but rather his plain statement that anyone who embraces Islam will have the same rights and will be subject to the same duties imposed on the Muslims. Those who hold fast to their own religion must pay the head tax (the tribute). This is what is recorded in Ibn Hisham’s biography which has become the most authoritative source about Muhammad’s life. If we examine the "Chronicle of al-Tabari" (Part 2, pp. 145-196), we see the same principle. Muhammad himself says, "Whoever prays our prayer is a Muslim, and will enjoy the same rights as Muslims and be subject to the same duties. But those who reject (Islam) must pay the head tax." In Part One, we discussed the wars which Muslims waged in order to spread Islam and indicated that ’Amru Ibn al-’As, when he invaded Egypt, said to Maquqas who was the ruler at that time, "If you accept Islam you will become our brothers, enjoying the same rights as we do and subject to the same duties to which we are subject" ("al-Khulafa al-Rashidun" by Dr. Abu Zayd Shalabi, p. 145). ======================================================================== CHAPTER 19: 02.06. CONTRA ISLAM CHAPTER 5 ======================================================================== Chapter Five Slavery in Islam All the ancient as well as the contemporary scholars acknowledge the fact of slavery in Islam and clarify the status of slaves. I have chosen the opinions of the most famous scholars to shed light on their position. The Scholars of al-Azhar in Egypt In his book, "You Ask and Islam Answers", Dr. ’Abdul-Latif Mushtahari, the general supervisor and director of homiletics and guidance at the Azhar University, says (pp. 51,52), "Islam does not prohibit slavery but retains it for two reasons. The first reason is war (whether it is a civil war or a foreign war in which the captive is either killed or enslaved) provided that the war is not between Muslims against each other - it is not acceptable to enslave the violators, or the offenders, if they are Muslims. Only non-Muslim captives may be enslaved or killed. The second reason is the sexual propagation of slaves which would generate more slaves for their owner." The text is plain that all prisoners of war must either be killed or become slaves. The ancient scholars are in full agreement over this issue, such as Ibn Timiyya, Ibn Hisham, Malik etc. Ibn Timiyya says (Vol. 32, p. 89), "The root of the beginning of slavery is prisoners of war; the bounties have become lawful to the nation of Muhammad." Then (Vol. 31, p. 380), he indicates clearly and without shame, "Slavery is justified because of the war itself; however, it is not permissible to enslave a free Muslim. It is lawful to kill the infidel or to enslave him, and it also makes it lawful to take his offspring into captivity. In Part 4, p. 177 of the "Prophet Biography" (Al-Road Al-Anf’), Ibn Hisham says, "According to Islamic law concerning prisoners of war, the decision is left to the Muslim Imam. He has the choice either to kill them or to exchange them for Muslim captives, or to enslave them. This is in regard to men, but women and children are not permitted to be killed, but must be exchanged (to redeem Muslim captives) or enslaved - take them as slaves and maids." This is the statement of Ibn Hisham, on whom all Muslims and students of Muhammad’s biography rely. Of course, these matters which Ibn Hisham recorded used to take place continuously in all of Muhammad’s wars and invasions. All of Muhammad’s people (his wives, and Muhammad himself) owned many slaves - males and females. In his campaign against the children of Qurayza (the Jewish tribe), Muhammad killed all the males (700-900) in one day. Then, he divided the women and the children among his people. The Caliphs across the ages followed Muhammad’s footsteps and enslaved (by hundreds and thousands) men and women who were captured in wars. Many of them were Persians and Byzantines. All the Islamic Chroniclers without exception have recorded these facts. The way Arab Muslims invaded Africa and killed and enslaved Africans is a well-known, historical fact. In Vol. 2, Part 3, p. 13, Malik Ibn Anas repeated the same text as did Ibn Hisham who is also quoted by Ibn Timiyya, and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya in his book, "Zad al-Ma’ad" (part 3, p. 486). All of them taught the same principle and said the same words. This question was delivered to Ibn Timiyya who was Mufti of Islam (Vol. 31, pp. 376, 377), "A man married a maid-slave who bore him a child. Would that child be free or would he be an owned slave?" Ibn Timiyya says emphatically, "Her child whom she bore from him would be the property of her master according to all the Imams (heads of the four Islamic schools of law) because the child follows the (status) of his mother in freedom or slavery. If the child is not of the race of Arabs, then he is definitely an owned slave according to the scholars, but the scholars disputed (his status) among themselves if he was from the Arabs - whether he must be enslaved or not because when A’isha (Muhammad’s wife) had a maid-slave who was an Arab, Muhammad said to A’isha, `Set this maid free because she is from the children of Ishmael.’" Then Ibn Timiyya states (Vol. 31, p. 380) that the legist Abu Hanifa says, "Muhammad is an Arab; thus it is not admissible to enslave Arabs because of the nobility of this race since Muhammad is from them." Yet other scholars disagree with him, emphasizing that Muhammad (in one of his campaigns) enslaved Arabs, too. However, it is evident from Muhammad’s traditions that he regarded Arabs to be the most noble race, especially the Quraysh, his tribe. His famous saying (that the caliphs must be elected from the Quraysh tribe) is acknowledged by all translators of the tradition without exception. He should have told A’isha, "Set her free because she is a human being like you. It is not important whether she is a descendant of Ishmael or of Isaac!" Islam Encourages Muslims to Keep Slaves - No Liberation All Muslim scholars acknowledge that Islam has retained the principle of slavery, though some of them claim that Islam encourages the liberation of slaves. Maybe some of Muhammad’s sayings and a few Qur’anic verses indicate so, yet from a practical point of view, we realize that the liberation of slaves was a rare occurrence. The reason is well known. Neither Muhammad nor his wives or companions were a good example in this regard. Sometimes, Muhammad used to talk about the merits of liberating a slave, yet he himself owned dozens of slaves and maid-slaves. However, we encounter a strange opinion spelled out by Muhammad’s wives and his friends in which he encourages them to retain their slaves. In Vol. 33, p. 61 Ibn Timiyya says, "Anyone who says, `If I do so (such a thing), every slave I own will become free’ is not obligated by his oath and he can redeem his oath by any means and retain his slaves. (He can do that) by fasting a few days or by feeding some hungry people." On the same page Ibn Timiyya stresses that this is what all Muhammad’s friends said (such as Ibn ’Abbas and Ibn ’Umar) as well as his wives (such as Zaynab, A’isha, and Um Salama). Is the liberation of slaves a bad thing so that it is possible for a man who swears he will liberate his slaves to renounce his oath and retain them? It should be said that whoever takes an oath to free his slaves if so and so happens, is obliged to fulfill his oath and liberate his slaves, but we see that Muhammad’s wives, his great companions and his relatives say something different according to the testimony of Ibn Timiyya. The Qur’an itself (in several places) approves of slavery and assures the Muslim the right to own dozens of male and female slaves either by purchasing them or as bounty of war. The Qur’an talks about the possession of slaves as "the possession of their necks" (Chapter 58:3, Surah Al-Mujadilah). Slaves of Muhammad - Prophet of Freedom and Equality! Muhammad himself owned numerous slaves after he proclaimed himself to be a prophet. I would like here to quote Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya who is one of the greatest scholars and chroniclers of Islam. In his book, "Zad al-Ma’ad" (Part I, p. 160), he says, "Muhammad had many male and female slaves. He used to buy and sell them, but he purchased (more slaves) than he sold, especially after God empowered him by His message, as well as after his immigration from Mecca. He (once) sold one black slave for two. His name was Jacob al-Mudbir. His purchases of slaves were more (than he sold). He was used to renting out and hiring many slaves, but he hired more slaves than he rented out. This trading used to take place in the slave market in the Arab Peninsula and in Mecca. Muhammad was accustomed to sell, purchase, hire, rent, and to exchange one slave for two. Thus, he had an increasing number of slaves, especially after he claimed to be a prophet, and after his immigration from Mecca to escape death at the hand of his tribe Quraysh. Also, the slaves of Muhammad and his followers were constantly increasing as the result of those who were captured in wars and not only by purchase. This should alert those who have accepted Islam - the Muslims of New York, Chicago, Georgia, Detroit, Los Angeles as well as all the Africans and all Muslims of the world. Even among the Arabs are Muslims who are not aware of these facts concerning Muhammad. Sadly, this is only a small part of the facts of which they are unaware concerning Muhammad. The Names of Muhammad’s Slaves A) Male Slaves: Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya relies always on the prophet’s biographies written by great ancient scholars. Therefore, he is regarded by Muslims as an authority, a primary source and a leader among the students of the Islamic religion. This scholar tells us in his book, "Zad al-Ma’ad" (part 1, pp. 114, 115, and 116), the following, "These are the names of Muhammad’s male slaves: Yakan Abu Sharh, Aflah, ’Ubayd, Dhakwan, Tahman, Mirwan, Hunayn, Sanad, Fadala Yamamin, Anjasha al-Hadi, Mad’am, Karkara, Abu Rafi’, Thawban, Ab Kabsha, Salih, Rabah, Yara Nubyan, Fadila, Waqid, Mabur, Abu Waqid, Kasam, Abu ’Ayb, Abu Muwayhiba, Zayd Ibn Haritha, and also a black slave called Mahran, who was re-named (by Muhammad) Safina (`ship’). He himself relates his own story; he says: "The apostle of God and his companions went on a trip. (When) their belongings became too heavy for them to carry, Muhammad told me, `Spread your garment.’ They filled it with their belongings, then they put it on me. The apostle of God told me, `Carry (it), for you are a ship.’ Even if I was carrying the load of six or seven donkeys while we were on a journey, anyone who felt weak would throw his clothes or his shield or his sword on me so I would carry that, a heavy load. The prophet told me, `You are a ship"’ (refer to Ibn Qayyim, pp. 115-116; al-Hulya, Vol. 1, p. 369, quoted from Ahmad 5:222). The story shows their ruthlessness and does not need explanation or clarification. The ill treatment Muhammad and his companions made of Mahran is very repulsive. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya is not the only one who recorded this episode and the list of names of Muhammad’s slaves. The Tabari also (in his Chronicles, Volume 2 p. 216, 217, 218) presents us with these accounts. No one among the contemporary Muslim leaders denies these matters, especially if he is faced with the Tabari’s and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya’s records. Still, in regard to Muhammad’s slave Zayd Ibn Haritha, Muhammad set him free and adopted him, then he married him to his (Muhammad’s) cousin Zaynab. Later Zayd divorced her after he realized that Muhammad was captivated by her. The scandalous story is documented by verses in the Qur’an, and Muslim scholars admit it. B) Maid Slaves: In this same Section (One, p. 116), Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya as well as other Muslim authors of chronicles recorded the list of names of Muhammad’s maid-slaves. They are Salma Um Rafi’, Maymuna daughter of Abu Asib, Maymuna daughter of Sa’d, Khadra, Radwa, Razina, Um Damira, Rayhana, Mary the Coptic, in addition to two other maid-slaves, one of them given to him as a present by his cousin, Zaynab, and the other one captured in a war. The Status of the Slave Under Islam’s Unjust Laws Let us survey together some strange things embraced by Muhammad and Islam pertaining to slaves. Then let us shed some light on the attitude of Christianity towards this issue. The Freeman Should Not Be Killed For A Slave The Qur’an as well as Muslim scholars are explicit in this regard The Qur’an (the Chapter of the Cow:178) shamelessly says, "O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered - the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female." The reader does not need the interpretations of the scholars to understand these explicit words which indicate that the freeman should be killed only for another freeman, a slave for a slave, and a female for a female. Still, I promised to stick to the interpretations of the great expositors of these Qur’anic verses from among the Muslim scholars because they are more knowledgeable of their Book and its verses. We rely on their interpretations and not on our own. In the commentary of the Jalalan (p. 24), we read the following regarding the above mentioned verse, "The same punishment was imposed on believers and what is similar to the act of the crime in the case of a homicide, by virtue of description or actuality. A freeman should be killed for another freeman but not for a slave, a female for a female, but a Muslim (even if he is a slave) must not be killed for an infidel, even if that infidel is a freeman." What kind of equality is this between human beings! To explain the aforementioned verse (2:178), the Baydawi relates what really happened with the prophet Muhammad, Abu Bakr and ’Umar. This is recorded in his book entitled, "The Commentary of al-Baydawi". On p. 36, we read, "The Shafi’i and Malik prohibit the killing of a freeman if he slays his slave or other men’s slaves. This is because ’Ali Ibn Abi-Talib mentioned that a man had killed his slave and Muhammad scourged him only; he did not kill him. It was related on the authority of Muhammad that he said a Muslim should not be killed for a non-Muslim, nor a freeman for a slave; also because Abu Bakr and ’Umar Ibn al-Khattab did not kill a freeman for a slave. (This was said) in the presence of all Muhammad’s companions, and no one disapproved or objected to it." These are the verses of the Qur’an and this is the attitude of Muhammad himself as well as Abu Bakr and ’Umar after him. The Muslim legists The Shafi’i, Malik and Ibn Timiyya, pronounce the same principle as in the Qur’an (2:187). The Imam Shafi’i tells us plainly and decisively in Part I of his book, "Ahkam al-Qur’an" ("The Ordinances of the Qur’an", p. 275), "A man is not to be killed for his slave nor the freeman for a slave." On the same page he adds, "A believer is not to be killed for a non-believer, nor a man for his son, or a man for his slave or for a woman." What justice! What equality! Then he adds, "The freeman is not to be killed for a slave according to the scholars." Malik Ibn Anas was asked: "What is the punishment of a master who beats his slave to death?" He answered: "Nothing!" (Vol. 6, Part 15, p 164). In Vol. 28, p. 378, Ibn Timiyya also says: "What we mentioned in regard to the believers whose blood is treated equally is restricted to the free Muslim against another free Muslim." I do not have better witnesses in this regard than these scholars: Abu Bakr, ’Umar, ’Ali and Muhammad’s deeds, and all great, popular Muslim scholars. A Slave Is Not Entitled To Property Or Money Ibn Hazm says in Vol. 6, Part 9, "The slave is not permitted to write a will when he dies, nor can he bequeath (anything) because his entire possessions belong to his master." In part I, p. 180 of his book, "The Ordinances of the Qur’an", the Shafi’i also says, "The Qur’anic verse; `Marry of the women who seem good to you, two or three or four are meant for the freeman only and not for the slaves because he says in it that the one who acts fairly is the person who owns money and slaves do not own money."’ He also indicates in Part II, p. 21, "The owned one does not have money." Besides, according to the Islamic law, all Muslims receive portions of war bounty except slaves and women. Malik Ibn Anas says (Vol. 2, Part 3, pp. 33,34), "Slaves and women do not have any portion in the bounty." This is true even if they have been fighting with the rest of the Muslims. In Part III of the "Prophetic Biography" (p. 386), Ibn Kathir says, "The slave does not get anything from the bounty whether the bounty is money or women." The Testimony Of The Slave Is Not Admissible In Vol. 35, p. 409 Ibn Timiyya remarks, "The Shafi’i, Malik, and Abu Hanifa, who are the legists of Islam, assert that the testimony of the slave is not acceptable." If we also turn the pages of the "Ordinances of the Qur’an" by the Shafi’i (part II, p. 142), he determines, "The witnesses must be from among our freeman, not from our slaves, but from freeman who belong to our religion! " The testimony of a Jew or a Christian is not acceptable, as we have mentioned before, even if justice would be hindered for lack of their witness. This is not important. In his "Sahih" (Part III, p. 223), Al-Bukhari remarks, "The testimony of a slave is not acceptable in marriages." What is the meaning of the Shafi’i’s statement, "A witness should not be from our possessed slaves." Does not Mr. Shafi’i know that God only is the One who owns people? How dare he utter the phrase, "our possessed slaves." There Is No Punishment For One Who Makes False Accusation Against Slaves It is well known that if a Muslim falsely accuses another free Muslim and slanders his honor, he will be punished by being flogged with eighty lashes. This is what happened when some of Muhammad’s companions and relatives accused A’isha, his wife, of adultery with one of the young men because they stayed behind after the departure of the caravan, then later in the morning they arrived together. Muhammad ordered each one of them flogged with eighty lashes. But if a Muslim calumniates a slave, he would not be punished. This is the opinion of all the scholars. For instance (Vol. 8, Part II, p. 27 1), Ibn Hazm asserts that this is the opinion of Abu Hanifa, Shafi’i, Malik, and Sufyan al-Thawri and not only his own opinion. This is what the Sharawi shamelessly remarks, "Female slaves are deprived of dignity and subject to abuse because they are not `an honor’ to anyone (that is, they are not free, respectable women who belong to a free man). These are the same words reiterated by the Shafi’i (Part I, p. 307) in his book, `Ahkam of the Qur’an’; thus a female slave must not be veiled. When- ever Muhammad took a woman as a captive, if he imposed the veil on her, Muslims would say he took her as a wife, but if he left her unveiled they would say, `He owned her as a slave’; that is, she became a property of his right hand." A good example is the incident of Safiyya, daughter of Hay, who was taken as a bounty in the war of Khaybar. All the chronicles (as well as the biographies without exception) have recorded, "We wonder why it is said about women and girls that they are of `shed dignity’." The Shafi’i and the Sharawi state this word for word. Is it necessary for us to repeat that Islam sheds the dignity of man under the pretense that he is a slave, that she is a woman, or that he is a non-Muslim? On Matters Of Sex And Marriage - and About Black Slaves 1. The Slave cannot choose for himself. This was confirmed by all the Muslim scholars on the authority of Muhammad. In Vol. 6, Part 9, p. 467, Ibn Hazm said, "If a slave gets married without the permission of his master, his marriage will be invalid and he must be whipped because he has committed adultery. He must be separated from his wife. She is also regarded as an adulteress because Muhammad said, `Any slave who gets married without the approval of his master is a prostitute.’" The same text is quoted by Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (Part 5, p. 117 of "Zad al-Maad"), as well as Ibn Timiyya (Vol. 32, p. 201). Malik Ibn Anas relates (Vol. 2, Part 4) more than that. He says (pp. 199, 201, 206), "The slave does not get married without the approval of his master. If he is a slave to two masters, he has to obtain the approval of both men." 2. The male slave and the female slave are forced to get married. Malik Ibn Anas says explicitly, "The master has the right to force his male or female slave to marry without obtaining their approval" (Vol. 2, p. 155). Ibn Hazm says that Sufyan al-Thawri, too, has said that the master has the right to force his male or female slave to marry without securing their approval (Vol. 6, Part 9, p. 469). Ibn Timiyya is of the same opinion. I must not fail in this regard to mention that Malik Ibn Ons, who (after agreeing with the other scholars that the master has the right to force his male or female slave to get married) added, "The master does not have the right to force the female slave to wed to an ugly black slave if she is beautiful and agile unless in case of utmost necessity" (refer to Ibn Hazm, Vol. 6, Part 9, p. 469). We wonder here, what did Malik Ibn Anas mean when he said, "An ugly black slave"? Is a man valued on the basis of the color of his skin? Do you say that, O Malik Ibn Anas, and you are one of the great four legists? Or is a man valued on the basis of his personality, reasoning, and heart? We also have the right to wonder why Mihran, the black slave, suffered the humiliation afflicted on him by Muhammad and his companions when they made him carry their belongings in the burning desert while Muhammad was saying to him, "Carry them, for you are a ship." Thus he became known by that surname. Did they not have dozens of other slaves? Muhammad even discriminated (in Islam) between a black dog and a white dog! Yet, what concerns us here is what I pointed out about slaves in general, their masters treat them as if they are not human beings who have feelings, desires and self-will. Let us continue our discussion in order to have a more complete picture about how the Islamic religion abuses the dignity of men and women under the pretense that they are slaves and not free human beings. 3. The Arab freeman does not marry a slave unless it is inevitable: In Vol. 31, p. 383, Ibn Timiyya says, "It is not permissible for the Arab freeman to marry an owned slave unless it is inevitable, such as being unable to get married to a free woman. If it happened and he were wed to a slave, her children would be slaves, too, because they follow (the status) of the mother in slavery." Malik Ibn Anas notes, "It is not allowable for a man to wed a slave besides his freewoman wife. In this case, his wife has the right to divorce him. Likewise, if he marries a freewoman while he is already married to a slave and he fails to tell her so, the freewoman has the right to leave him" (Malik, Vol. 2, p. 204). I do not have any comment on these strange principles, yet I wonder why an Arab freeman cannot marry a slave. Is not he a man and she a woman? And why (if it is inevitable that he should marry her) should all her descendants be slaves? These are iniquitous and ruthless ordinances. It is obvious that Muhammad failed to change the traditions of the tribal society of the pre-Islamic period. Most Arab Muslims had slaves. His companions, wives and he himself owned and retained dozens of them. He bought more after he claimed his prophethood and declared his message - the message or equality, and freedom, and human rights! What Would Happen If A Freewoman Married Her Slave? She might be an open-minded woman who did not discriminate between one man and another. Thus she might have fallen in love with her slave who also loved her and they intended, officially, to get married. What is the attitude of Islam in this case? If something like that took place in Islamic society, it would be a disaster! Let us see the reaction of Umar Ibn Khattab in these situations. In Vol. 8, Part 11, pp. 248, 249, Ibn Hazm remarks, "A woman was wed to her male slave. Umar intended to stone her, but instead he made them separate and sent the slave to exile. He told the woman, `It is unlawful for you to get married to your owned slave!’ Another woman got married to her slave. Umar scourged her with a whip and forbade any man to marry her. Another time, a freewoman came to Umar and told him, `I am not a pretty woman and I have a slave to whom I would like to get married.’ Umar refused to do so. He whipped the slave and ordered him to be sold in a foreign country. He told the woman, `It is unlawful for you to get married to what your right hand owns. Only men have the right to get wed to what their right hand owns. Even if you set him free in order to marry him and he becomes a freeman, the manumission will be invalid and the marriage is not valid."’ Is there any comment on the ruthlessness of this second caliph who was Muhammad’s father-in-law and one of the ten to whom Muhammad promised paradise? He is one of the two whom Muhammad requested the people to follow as a model when he declared, "Emulate Abu Bakr and Umar." Yet Umar was a tyrant, a ruthless man without a heart who attempted to stone a woman for no reason except she married a man who was her slave. He also scourged another woman, forbidding any other man to marry her, and beat and exiled a slave. And when a third woman wanted to free her slave in order to marry him and live happily together, especially after she lost hope in getting married to a freeman, Islam and Umar intervened and said, "No, this is not permissible." He scourged the slave and sold him into a foreign country. By that, he became an example of relentlessness, a hard heart, and detestable oppression. In matters of sex and marriage, Ibn Timiyya states: "The one who owns the mother also owns her children. Being the master of the mother makes him the owner of her children whether they were born to a husband or they were illegitimate children. Therefore, the master has the right to have sexual intercourse with the daughters of his maid-slave because they are his property, provided he does not sleep with the mother at the same time" (Vol. 35, p. 54). The Value Of The Slave - What Is His Price In Dinars? "If an owned slave assaults somebody and damages his property, his crime will be tied to his neck. It will be said to his master, `If you wish, you can pay the fine for the damages done by your slave or deliver him to be sentenced to death.’ His master has to choose one of the two options - either the value of the slave and his price or the damage the slave has caused" (Vol. 32, p. 202, Ibn Timiyya). Is this how the value of a man is calculated? If the loss amounted, for example, to 600 dinars and the value of the slave in the estimation of the master did not exceed more than 400 dinars because he was sick or weak, his master would, in this case, deliver him to be killed! We have looked at six points concerning the status of slaves in the Islamic religion. Actually, any one point, if we ponder it, is sufficient to clarify the truth. It reveals to us how human dignity is crushed in the practice of slavery. From the very beginning, we referred to the principle of slavery as it is manifested in this religion, and we have listed the names of Muhammad’s slaves, the master and the "apostle of God!" The Position of Christianity - the Teaching of the Gospel Christianity is very decisive in this matter. The words and the spirit of the Gospel are very clear. From the very beginning, we have used a fundamental principle in this study and research; namely, the comparison must always be between the Gospel and the Qur’an - Christianity as religion and teachings and Islam as religion, in order to see which one of the two reveals the thoughts of the true, living God. Also, the comparison should be between Muhammad, his life and his sayings on the one hand, and Christ, His life and teachings on the other. If we were to find (for example) some Europeans or Americans who allowed themselves to acquire slaves, we should not blame Christianity for that because we must realize that the Gospel teaches something different. We see that Jesus and His disciples did not possess slaves. We do blame Islam in this regard because Muhammad himself acquired male and female slaves by dozens. All his friends, his wives and most Muslims of his time and after owned slaves. The Qur’an encourages that and the scholars do not negate it. We blame Islamic thought and the behavior of Muhammad in regard to this matter and other issues recorded in the most authentic Islamic sources. We should not, in any subject, dwell on the behavior of some Christians or some Muslims but rather try to examine the attitude of Islamic thought (or Christian thought) toward the issues under discussion. Some people, for instance, believe that a man like Khomeini is an extremist because of Islam, the religion of tolerance, love, and reason. We, for our part, feel surprised to hear that, because who says that this statement is true? Islam is not the religion of tolerance, love, or reason. Not at all! Islam is the exact opposite of this claim. Did we not see that this religion humiliates and persecutes women and non-Muslims as well as waging offensive wars and encouraging Muslims to kill apostates? Is Muhammad, who ordered the killing of a woman who insulted him, the prophet of tolerance? Why should we blame Khomeini when he issued an order to kill Rushdie? Does not Rushdie (according to the law of Islam and Muhammad, not the law of the United Nations) deserve death for attacking the Qur’an, Muhammad and his wives? Khomeini was never radical; he was always a true student of Muhammad. He intended to enforce the Islamic laws and to fight nations which do not comply with them - such as Iraq (even though Islam is its official religion). When Muslims kill one another, it is because Muhammad’s friends and disciples did so immediately after his death, each one of them trying to force his friend to go in the right way. Khomeini is a true Muslim who follows Muhammad and his friends. Thus, we hear about "exporting the Islamic revolution" to other countries. All these things are compatible with the views of Muhammad and the rightly guided Caliphs who succeeded him such as Abu Bakr, Umar and Ali. When Khomeini slaughtered his opponents, he was following the footsteps of Ali who killed the dissenters, like Talha, Al Zubair and Al Khwareg, even though they were faithful Muslims. Now, what does the New Testament say about slaves? If we turn in the pages of the New Testament we read these verses: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). Christ was always warning his disciples and all believers from calling themselves masters. He said to them: "But you, do not be called `Rabbi’ [master]; for One is your Teacher [master], the Christ, and you are all brethren" (Matthew 23:8). "But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself will be abased (humbled); and he who humbles himself will be exalted" (Matthew 23:12). By these last words Christ has turned over all the feeble human standards - The "... greatest among you shall be your servant." How profound and deep are these wonderful words! This truth is clearly taught in the New Testament by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It happened that there was a slave called Onesimus who ran away from his master, Philemon. Onesimus met the apostle Paul in Rome and was converted to Christianity. Paul sent him back to Philemon with a very impressive letter which is included in the New Testament and in which we read these shining words, "I am sending him back. You therefore receive him, that is, my own heart. Receive him ... no longer as a slave but ... as a beloved brother, ..., both in the flesh and in the Lord" (Chapter 1). Paul, Peter and the rest of the disciples did not have the authority to abolish slavery within the Roman Empire. Paul was not one of the Roman governors, but a fugitive and a persecuted man. Later he and most of the disciples were killed at the hands of the Romans along with thousands of their Christian brothers. Muhammad and his successors were rulers and could have outlawed slavery. Instead, they retained it and kept their slaves. In another letter, Paul urged the Christians to "give your servants what is just and fair" (Colossians 4:1). The text emphasizes these two words - brotherhood and justice - because there is neither slave nor freeman, but all are one in Christ. Egyptian history relates a story about a courageous man who stood in front of his tyrannical rulers who mistreated people and wondered in agony, "Why have you enslaved people whose mothers gave birth to them as free persons?" This brave man did not know that he was addressing multitudes of people across the ages, whether ruthless Westerners in Europe and America or the prophet of Islam himself who failed to liberate the slaves because he himself had acquired dozens of them. Christian religious leaders such as John Wesley and William Wilberforce boldly condemned slavery in Europe and sent strong messages to the rulers of Europe and America. They led the movement of slaves’ liberation during the day of Abraham Lincoln. Now there are multiplied black men who hold various positions of honor and respect in America. They teach in colleges and universities. They sit on the bench of the courts of the land-even the Supreme Court. They are freely elected to local, county, state and federal positions. They hold high military offices. They build their own fortunes with which they do as they wish. They freely marry and raise their families without fear. This is what Jesus taught - "There is no difference ...." Section Three The Veil of Divine Inspiration of the Qur’an Our Muslim brothers believe that the Qur’an is the book of God and that it pre-existed with God from eternity. They believe God then revealed it to Muhammad by the arch-angel Gabriel on different occasions through the course of several years. This was Muhammad’s claim which he related to them. At first, Muhammad was not sure of this process; he was unsure and afraid to make such claims. Later, however, he became very sure. For now, however, we would like to shed some light on the Qur’an and its contents in order to reveal the amazing truth to our brethren, the Muslims, few of whom have read what the great authors of Islam have said about the Qur’an. They would also be very surprised to discover that Muhammad’s companions as well as the rightly guided Caliphs said that some parts of the Qur’an were lost. Moreover, the Qur’an was subjected to perversion and alteration and Muhammad’s companions disagreed over some chapters of the Qur’an, some verses and their meanings. It is almost impossible for Muslims to imagine such things about their book which they dearly regard and respect. The sacred halo which encompasses the Qur’an must be dispelled and the veil which covers its face must be removed. If this disturbs and annoys Muslims, it will also help them to wake up from the slumber of their delusion which does not benefit them at all, but rather hurts them instead Those who love the truth and would like to worship the only true God faithfully and truthfully will be filled with real joy. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 20: 02.06. CONTRA ISLAM CHAPTER 6 ======================================================================== Chapter Six Scientific Errors of the Qur’an We will start by pointing out the Qur’an’s scientific, historical, and grammatical errors, namely those which deviate from the well-known rules of Arabic grammar. Muslims believe that the inimitability of the Qur’an is found in the eloquence and excellence of the Arabic language in which it is written; thus, it is impossible for them to imagine that the language of the Qur’an is full of errors. First, however, we will be content to allude to three scientific errors pertaining to the sun, earth and the two phenomenon of thunder and lighting. The Sun In plain words, the Qur’an says that one of the righteous men of God’s servants saw the sun set in a certain place of the earth—in particular a well full of water and mud. There, this man found some people. Let us read what is recorded in the Qur’an (chapter "the Cave", verse 86), "When he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring and found a people thereabout. We said: ‘O Dhul-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness"’ (Surah 18:86). Lest I failed to understand what the Qur’an meant by these strange words, I referred to the famous students of the Qur’an as well as to the ancient scholars. I discovered that all of them concurred with this rendering and said that Muhammad’s friends inquired about the sunset and that he gave them that answer. All the scholars such as the Baydawi, Jalalan, and Zamakhshari confirm it. The Zamakhshari remarks in his book, "the Kash-shaf", "Abu Dharr (one of Muhammad’s close companions) was with Muhammad during the sunset. Muhammad asked him: ‘Do you know, O Abu Dharr where this sets?’ He answered: ‘God and His apostle know better.’ Muhammad said: ‘It sets in a spring of slimy water"’ (3rd Edition, Volume 2 p. 743,1987). In his book, "The Lights of Revelation" (p. 399), the Baydawi indicates, "The sun sets in a slimy spring; that is, a well which contains mud. Some of the readers of the Qur’an read it, ‘...a hot spring’, thus the spring combines the two descriptions. It was said that Ibn ’Abbas found Mu’awiya reading it (as) hot. He told him, ‘It is muddy.’ Mu’awiya sent to Ka’b al-Ahbar and asked him, ‘Where does the sun set?’ He said in water and mud and there were some people. So he agreed with the statement of ibn al-’Abbas. And there was a man who composed a few verses of poetry about the setting of the sun in the slimy spring." The Jalalan (p. 251) says that the setting of the sun is in a well which contains a murky mud. We found the same interpretation and text in the Tabari’s commentaries (p. 339) as well as in "Concise Interpretation of the Tabari" (p. 19 of part 2) in which he remarks that the well in which the sun sets "contains lime and murky mud". These are the comments of the pillars of Islam and the intimate companions of Muhammad such as ibn Abbas and Aba Dharr. Also it is obvious from the Qur’an (chapter 36:38) that the sun ran then settled down. The verse says: "And the sun runs on into a resting place." On page 585, the Baydawi says, "The sun runs in its course to a certain extent then it stops. It is similar to the passenger’s repose after he completes his journey" (refer also the book of al-Itqan by the Suyuti, p. 242). This is the story of the setting of the sun in the well and its course as a passenger! The Phenomena of Thunder and Lightning It is common knowledge, as scientists teach, that thunder is a sound caused by the impact between electrical charges found in the clouds. Yet Muhammad, the prophet of Muslims, has a different opinion in this matter. He claims that the thunder and the lightning are two of God’s angels—exactly like Gabriel! In the Qur’an there is a chapter under the title of "Thunder" in which it is recorded that the thunder praises God. We might think that it does not mean that literally because thunder is not a living being—although, spiritually speaking, all of nature glorifies God. The expounders of the Qur’an and its chief scholars, however, insist that Muhammad said that the thunder is an angel exactly like the angel Gabriel. In his commentary (p. 329), the Baydawi comments on verse 13 of chapter of the Thunder, "Ibn ’Abbas asked the apostle of God about the thunder. He told him, ‘It is an angel who is in charge of the cloud, who (carries) with him swindles of fire by which he drives the clouds."’ In the commentary of the Jalalan (p. 206), we read about this verse: "The thunder is an angel in charge of the clouds to drive them." Not only ibn ’Abbas asked Muhammad about the essence of the thunder, but the Jews did too. In the book, "al-Itqan" by Suyuti (part 4, p. 230), we read the following dialogue: "On the authority of Ibn ’Abbas, he said the Jews came to the prophet (peace be upon him) and said, ‘Tell us about the thunder. What is it?’ He told them: ‘It is one of God’s angels in charge of the clouds. He carries in his hand a swindle of fire by which he pricks the clouds to drive them to where God has ordered them.’ They said to him, ‘What is this sound that we hear?’ He said: ‘(It is) his voice (The angel’s voice)."’ The same incident—the question of the Jews and Muhammad’s answer are mentioned by most scholars. Refer, for instance, to al-Sahih al-Musnad Min Asbab Nuzul al-Ayat (stories related to the verses of Qur’an, p. 11) and al-Kash-shaf by the Imam al-Kamakhshari (part 2, pp. 518, 519). He reiterates the same story and the same words of Muhammad. Thus, the incident is in vogue among all Muslim scholars, and the story and the dialogue between Muhammad and the Jews is well-known. We have mentioned what the Baydawi, Jalalan, Zamakhshari, Suyuti, and ibn ’Abbas have said. We do not know (among the ancient scholars) any who are more famous than these. Concerning lighting, Muhammad affirms that it is an angel like the thunder and like Gabriel and Michael. On page 230 of the above references, Suyuti alludes to it. Also on page 68 of part 4 of the "Itqan", the Suyuti records for us the names of the angels, which are: "Gabriel, Michael, Harut, Marut, the Thunder and the Lightning (He said) that the lightning has four faces." The Suyuti listed all these under the sub-title, "The names of God’s Angels". He also indicated that Muhammad said that the lightning is the tail end of an angel whose name is Rafael (refer to part 4, p. 230 of the Itqan). The Earth Several thousand years ago, the Holy Bible clearly recorded that the earth is round and that it is hung on nothing. "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22). "He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing" (Job 26:7). Yet, the Qur’an challenges these established scientific facts. In many places, it alludes to the fact that the earth is flat and its mountains are like poles which create a balance so that the Earth does not tilt. Let us consider what the Qur’an says about the Earth: In chapter 88:17,20, it is recorded, "Will they not regard the camels how they are created...and the Earth how it is spread?" In page 509, the Jalalan says, "In his phrase, ‘how it is spread’, he denotes that the earth is flat. All the scholars of Islamic law agree upon this. It is not round as the physicists claim." The Qur’anic teaching is obvious from the comment of Jalalan that "the earth is flat and not round as the scientists claim". What made Jalal al-Din say so is that the Qur’an hints in many chapters that the earth is flat(refer to 19:6, 79:30, 18:7, and 21:30). Also the Qur’an indicates that: "We have placed in the earth firm hills lest it quake so as not to sway and hurt people" (21:31). Scholars who agree upon the meaning of this verse believe as the Jalalan states (pp. 270-271), "God has founded firm mountains on earth lest it shake people." On page 429, al-Baydawi says, "God has made firm mountains on earth lest it sway people and quake. He also made heaven as a ceiling and kept it from falling down!" The Zamakhshari agrees with the above authors and reiterates the same words (refer to Zamakhshari part 3, p. 114). In the Qur’an (chapter 50:7), we find another verse which carries the same meaning, "And the earth have we spread out, and have flung firm hills therein" (Surah Qaf: 7). This is accompanied by the same comment by the above Muslim scholars (refer to Jalalan, p. 437; Baydawi, p. 686, Tabari, p. 589, and Zamakhshari, part 4, p. 381). All of them assure us that "if it were not for these unshakable mountains, the earth would slip away." Zamakhshari, the Baydawi and the Jalalan say: "God has built heaven without pillars but He placed unshakable mountains on Earth lest it tilts with people." Concerning chapter 50:7, the Suyuti says that scholars indicate that "Qaf is a mountain which encompasses the entire earth" (refer to Itqan, part 3, p. 29). Qaf is an Arabic L like K. These are the comments of the ancient Muslim scholars word for word. Even some Saudi scholars wrote a book a few years ago to disprove the spherical aspect of the earth and they claimed that it is a myth, agreed with the above mentioned scholars, and said we must believe the Qur’an and reject the spherical aspect of the earth. It is also well-known that the Qur’an proclaims that there are seven earths—not just one (refer to the commentary of the Jalalan, p. 476, al-Baydawi, p. 745 as they interpret chapter 61:12, Surah Divorce: 1 2). It is very clear that the sun does not traverse the heaven and set down in a murky, muddy well, or slimy water, or a place which contains both of them as the Baydawi, Zamakhshari, and the Qur’an remark. Nor is the earth flat and the mountains the pillars and the towerings which prevent the earth from moving as the Qur’an and the scholars said. Nor is there a mountain which encompasses the whole earth—nor are there seven earths. Neither is the lightning an angel whose name is Rafael, nor is the thunder an angel. It never happened that the angel Gabriel inspired Muhammad to write a complete chapter about his friend the angel thunder! The thunder and lightning are natural phenomena and not God’s angels like Michael and Gabriel as the prophet of Islam claims. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 21: 02.06. CONTRA ISLAM CHAPTER 7 ======================================================================== Contra Islam (2) Chapter Seven Historical Errors of the Qur’an Historical errors are so many in the Qur’an that we cannot cover them all, but we will be content to point out some very obvious examples: The Crucifixion of Christ The Qur’an explicitly denies that Jesus was crucified. It claims that the Jews became so confused that they crucified somebody else instead who had the likeness of Christ. It is recorded in the Qur’an 4:15, "They slew him not nor crucified but it appeared so unto them." In his commentary on this verse al-Baydawi said (p. 135), "A group of Jews cursed Christ and his mother. He invoked evil on them and, may He be exalted, turned them into monkeys and swine. The Jews gathered together to kill him, but God, may He be exalted, informed him (Jesus) that He was going to lift him up to heaven. Thus, (Jesus) said to his companions, `Who would like to have my likeness cast on him and be killed and crucified, then enter the paradise?’ One of them volunteered (to do so) and God cast on him Christ’s likeness. He was then arrested, crucified and killed. It is also said that (the crucified one) was a traitor who went with the mob to guide them to Christ (he meant Judas), thus God cast on him the likeness of Jesus and he was arrested, crucified and killed." Al- Baydawi is not the only one who records these mystical stories, but all Muslim scholars who attempt to interpret the above verse, plainly state that Jesus was not crucified. The Qur’an has ignored not only the records of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and the rest of the New Testament, but also all the other chroniclers. It ignores the history of the Roman Empire which documented that a Jewish man by the name of Jesus was crucified during the time of Pilate the Pontius, the Roman Governor who gave way to the demands of the chief priests of the Jews. It is well known that Christ’s trial took place in front of the chief priests and the Roman Governor. It is also common knowledge that the arrested man did not remonstrate and say, "I am not Christ, I am Judas who wanted to betray Him and give Him away to you." All Jesus’ words on the cross denote that He was Christ, especially His statement, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do" (Luke 23:34). Jesus Himself told His disciples that He must be delivered to the chief priests and be crucified, then He would rise from the dead on the third day. Christ Himself foretold that and the crucifixion was fulfilled according to the many prophecies recorded in the Old Testament which predicted His crucifixion centuries before. Christ came to accomplish God’s plan for man’s salvation. Therefore, it is not reasonable that six hundred years after Christ’s crucifixion, a man should appear and declare to the world (ignoring all the historical evidence) that the one who was crucified was not Christ. This is similar to a man who comes hundreds of years from now to tell us that the one who was assassinated in the twentieth century was not Martin Luther King (or John F. Kennedy or Zia al-Haqq) but rather someone else who looked like him. Of course, nobody would believe him, even if he claimed that the angel Gabriel (or the thunder angel) revealed it to him. The Virgin Mary In many places, the Qur’an mentions Mary as the sister of Moses and Aaron and the daughter of Imran. The Qur’an has confused Jesus’ mother with Aaron’s sister because both of them carry the same name, though there are several centuries between them. The Qur’an indicates that Mary (Christ’s mother) had a brother whose name was Aaron (chapter 19:28) and a father whose name is Imran (chapter 66:12). Their mother was called "the wife of Imran" (chapter 3:35) which eliminates any doubt that it confuses Mary, mother of Jesus, with Mary, sister of Aaron. Muslim scholars acknowledge what happened and they are confused and fail in their desperate attempts to justify this grave error. Their contradictory interpretations fail to help them to find a solution to this dilemma. Let us examine these interpretations to see these conflicting views. In the context of his comment on the Qur’anic statement that Mary is Aaron’s sister (which is recorded in chapter 19:28), al-Baydawi (p. 405) said, "Oh, sister of Aaron (the prophet). And she was an offspring of some of those who were with him who belonged to the same class of brotherhood. It was also said that she was one of Aaron’s descendants though there were a thousand years between them. It was said too, that he (Aaron) was a righteous or a wicked man who lived during their time (time of Mary). They likened her to him to ridicule her or to insult her." Yet Baydawi’s statement is repealed by the Qur’an because the Qur’an did not refer to a moral relationship but stressed the literal meaning. If the Qur’an had meant to elevate Mary to the same level of Aaron, the prophet, or to the status of a daughter of Imran, why then did it mention that her mother was the wife of Imran as it is recorded in chapter 3:35? It is very obvious that the matter was either confused in the mind of Muhammad or of Gabriel, the angel! It is not acceptable that the Qur’an intended to say that Mary enjoys the same status as a sister of Aaron and a daughter of Imran. Therefore it is impossible to treat Mary (the mother of Jesus) as if she were the sister of Aaron and Moses. The contemporary scholar who translated the Qur’an which was authorized by the Saudi authorities said (in the introduction of page 47 of chapter of the Family of Imran), "Al Imran takes its title from v. 32, where `the family of Imran’ (the father of Moses) occurs as a generic name for all the Hebrew prophets from Moses to John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. This with the mention of the mother of Mary as `the wife of Imran’ (v. 34) and the words `sister of Aaron’ addressed to Mary (XIX.28) have given rise to a charge of anachronism. Some say that the prophet confused Mary, the mother of Jesus, with Mary, the sister of Moses. Most Muslims believe (on the authority of the Qur’an) that the grandfather of Jesus Christ was named `Imran’ which may also have been the name of the father of Moses. In Surah XIX 28 where Mary is addressed as `sister of Aaron’, they hold the ancestral sense to be the more probable, while denying that there is any reason to suppose that the virgin Mary had not a brother named Aaron." Thus, they fail to explain to us why the Qur’an said that the mother of Mary was the wife of Imran, especially if the Qur’an intended (as they say) to show the moral relationship only. It is an obvious historical mistake, my dear reader, because Mary had no brother named Aaron. Alexander the Great It is amazing to see the Qur’an talking about Alexander the Great as if he were a righteous man and a teacher, though it is well-known that the Greek, Alexander, was idolatrous and claimed to be the son of Amun, the God of Egypt. If the reader wonders where it is recorded in the Qur’an that Alexander was a righteous man, we would refer him to the chapter of the Cave 18:83-98 where we encounter sixteen verses which talk about this military general. These verses explicitly say that God assisted him, guided him and removed all obstacles from his way in order that he could accomplish his plans and fulfill his desires. They indicate that Alexander was the one who reached the place of the sunset and found it set down in a well of water and mud. They claim that he encountered some people and God gave him the option to torment them, to kill them or to take them captive, call them to the faith and to lead them in a straight path. These comments are expressed by all the scholars without any exception (refer to Baydawi, p. 399, al-Jalalan, p. 251, al-Tabari, p. 339, al-Zamakhshari, part 2 of al-Kash-shaf, p. 743). If we do not refer to these great expounders of the Qur’an to whom, then, shall we refer? The Greek Alexander was not a righteous servant of God as the Qur’an said, but he was a licentious, belligerent, idolatrous man. He did not have any relationship with God and God never asked him to guide people and to teach them the faith. Other Historical Errors Does the reader believe that Abraham did not offer Isaac, but Ishmael, as a sacrifice? This is what all Muslim scholars say. Do you know that the Qur’an claims that Haman was pharaoh’s prime minister even though Haman lived in Babylon one thousand years later? Yet the Qur’an says so. The Qur’an says that the one who picked Moses from the river was not his sister but his mother (28:6-8), and that a Samaritan was the one who molded the golden calf for the children of Israel and misguided them, and the golden calf was lowing (refer to chapter 20:85-88) though it is well-known that Samaria was not in existence at that time. The Samaritans came after the Babylonian exile. How could one of them have made the golden calf for the people of Israel? Concerning the birth of Christ, the Qur’an teaches that the Virgin Mary gave birth to him under the shade of a palm tree and not in a manger of sheep (refer to Mary 19:23). The Qur’an ignores all the documented historical evidence available to all people across the ages and brings us new discoveries! The Qur’an claims (Chapter 2:125-127) that Abraham and Ishmael, his son, are the ones who built The Ka’ba in Mecca in Saudi Arabia. The late Dr. Taha Husayn (the most famous professor of Arabic literature in Egypt) acknowledges that the information recorded in the Qur’an pertaining to the construction of Ka’ba at the hand of Abraham and Ishmael is not historically documented. He said: "The case of this episode is very obvious because it is of recent date and came into vogue just before the rise of Islam. Islam exploited it for religious reasons" (quoted in Mizan al-Islam by Anwar al-Jundi, p. 170). This declaration invoked the rage of the Muslim scholars against him. The former president of Tunisia did the same thing when he stated that the Qur’an contains mythical stories. Muslim scholars revolted against him and threatened to kill him because these are Muhammad’s orders - kill anybody who insults the Qur’an. So what could Taha Husayn or Abu Ruqayba [better known in the West as Bourgiba] (or we) do if the Qur’an rejects the most scientifically documented historical stories? Are we supposed to shut up our mouth and close our minds lest we be killed? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 22: 02.06. CONTRA ISLAM CHAPTER 8 ======================================================================== Chapter Eight Qur’anic Language and Grammatical Mistakes Our Muslim brethren say that the eloquence of the Qur’an, the supremacy of its language and the beauty of its expression are conclusive evidence that the Qur’an is the Word of God because the inimitability of the Qur’an lies in its beautiful style of the Arabic language. We acknowledge that the Qur’an (in some of its parts and chapters) has been written in an eloquent style and impressive words. This fact is beyond any doubt and anyone who denies that does not have any taste for the Arabic language. Yet, on the other hand, we say that there are many clear language errors in other parts of the Qur’an pertaining to the simplest principles of style, literary expression and the well-known grammatical rules of the Arabic language and its expression. We even find in the Qur’an many words which do not have any meaning and are not found in any language. There is also a great deal of vocabulary which no one can understand. Muhammad’s companions themselves have acknowledged that, as we will see, but before we examine all these issues, I would like to clarify two important points. First, from a linguistic point of view, the eloquence of any book cannot be an evidence of the greatness of the book and proof that it was revealed by God, because what is important to God is not to manifest His power in the eloquence of style and the expressive forcefulness of the classical Arabic language, but rather to embody His power in the sublime spiritual meaning contained in that book which will lead the people to a high spiritual level which enables them to live together in peace and love. It helps them to enjoy an internal profound joy and spiritual, psychological fullness—abundant life. God does not care to teach the people of the Earth the rules and the principles of the Arabic language. God is not a teacher of a fading classical Arabic language, but the true living God is our spiritual leader in life of love and joy. Is the content of the Qur’an properly fit to be ascribed to God? All that we intend to do here is to determine that eloquence of style is not always an evidence that the words uttered come from heaven or that the one who has spoken them is a prophet. The German poet Schiller is not a prophet, and the Iliad and the Odessa are not composed by a prophet but rather by a Greek poet. The masterpieces of Shakespeare’s poems and plays in English literature which are translated and published more than the Qur’an by ten fold have not compelled the British to say that the angel Gabriel is the one who revealed them to Shakespeare. The second very significant point is that the eloquence of the Qur’an and the supremacy of the classical Arabic language in which the Qur’an is written have created difficulty in reading and understanding, even for the Arabs themselves. So what would we say about the non-Arabs even if they learn the Arabic language? The Qur’an will continue to be a problem for them because it is not sufficient for a person to learn the Arabic language to be able to read the Qur’an. He also has to study the literature of the Arabic language thoroughly. Thus, we find that the majority of Arabs themselves do not understand the classical language of the Qur’an which contains hundreds of words which confused Muhammad’s companions who mastered the language but failed to explain their meanings, along with many other words which even Muhammad’s companions could not comprehend. Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti composed at least one hundred pages in part II of his famous book, "The Itqan", to explain the difficult words included in the chapters of the Qur’an, under the title "The Foreign words of the Qur’an". The vocabulary of the classical Arabic language and some of its expressions are not in use anymore among the Arabs. The language itself was so diversified that the Shafi’i was led to say, "No one can have a comprehensive knowledge of the language except a prophet" (Itqan II: p 106). The question which imposes itself on us is: What advantage do the people of the world get out of the Book of God if it is written in a difficult language which makes it impossible for Arabs (even Muhammad’s companions and his relatives) to comprehend it? Does God write a book in which people do not comprehend the meaning of many words included in the text, especially when the scholars insist that the Qur’an must be read only in Arabic? In his book al-Itqan, Al Suyuti says, "It is utterly inadmissible for the Qur’an to be read in languages other than Arabic, whether the reader masters the language or not, during the prayer time or at other times, lest the inimitability of the Qur’an is lost. On the authority of the Qaffal (one of the most famous scholars of jurisprudence, fundamentals and exposition), reading the Qur’an in Persian cannot be imagined. But it was said to him, ‘Then no one will be able to interpret the Qur’an.’ He said, ‘It is not so, because he will bring forth some of God’s purposes and will fail to reveal others, but if somebody wants to read it in Persian he will never bring forth (any) of God’s purposes."’ This is why non-Arabs repeat the Qur’anic text without understanding it, because they utter it in Arabic. The same words have been repeated in Dr. Shalabi’s book (p. 97), "The History of Islamic Law". He also adds, "If the Qur’an is translated into a non-Arabic language, it will lose its eloquent inimitability. The inimitability is intended for itself. It is permissible to translate the meaning without being literal." The same principle is followed by those who worked on the English authorized translation. They said (page iii), "The Qur’an cannot be translated—that is the belief of traditional Sheikhs (religious leaders). The Arabic Qur’an is an inimitable symphony, the very sounds of which move men to tears and ecstasy." This is true. If the Qur’an were translated literally into English, for example, it would lose its linguistic beauty, and could not then be compared to any other book in English, French, or German literature. In addition, a person might wonder how the many incomprehensible Arabic words could be translated. The other question which confronts us is this, Does God belong to the Arabs only? If His book can only be in Arabic, then it is written only to the Arabs and it should not be read except in Arabic as the scholars claim as if God were an Arabic God. Thus, the scholars prohibit praying to God in any other language than Arabic in all mosques. It is also required that the call for prayers and the confession of faith which attests that the man is a Muslim must be uttered in Arabic because Muhammad (the prophet of Islam) said that Arabic is the language of paradise and the Arabs are the best nation created among peoples. Among the famous prophetic traditions which Muhammad said to the Muslims is, "Love the Arabs for three (things): Because I am an Arab, the Qur’an is in Arabic and the language of the people of the paradise is Arabic" (refer to al-Mustadrak by the Hakim, and Fayd al-Ghadir). Let us now examine the failure of the Arabic language in which the Qur’an is written, and limit ourselves to the following points: The Original Qur’anic Text Was Without Diacritical Points, Vocalization, And Some Of Its Letters Are Omitted. We will attempt to explain this problem to the English reader as plainly as possible. We hope he will find it exciting and interesting. The Arabic reader knows fairly well that the meanings of the words require the use of diacritical points above or below the letters, otherwise it becomes very difficult (if not impossible) to comprehend their meanings. Vocalization also is very significant in the field of desinential inflection, along with writing all the letters of the word without omitting any of them. Thus, the reader of the Arabic language cannot believe or imagine that the Qur’an was written originally without these significant requirements, but let us assure you that this is a historical fact, well-known and acknowledged by all Muslim scholars without any exception. We will also see that there is a large number of words about which the scholars could not agree as to their meanings. One simple example helps us to visualize the nature of the problem. Let us take the Arabic letter "ba". By changing the diacritical points, we get three different letters—"ta", "ba", and "tha". So when these letters are written without the diacritical points, it becomes difficult for the reader to know the word that is intended. Examine the following word. Look thoroughly at the diacritical points (I repent), (plant), (house), (girl) (abided). Another example (rich), (stupid), and so on. Without these diacritical points it is very hard to distinguish the words from each other. Thus, the meaning differs from one word to another depending on the place of these diacritical points. Many of the Arabic alphabets require the presence of the diacritical point to differentiate between one alphabet and another and hence between one word and another. Now let us quote the Muslim scholars who have the final word in these matters. 1) In his famous book, "The History of Islamic Law" (p.43), Dr. Ahmad Shalabi, professor of Islamic history and civilization remarks, "The Qur’an was written in the Kufi script without diacritical points, vocalization or literary productions. No distinction was made between such words as ‘slaves’, ‘a slave’, and ‘at’ or ‘to have’, or between ‘to trick’ and ‘to deceive each other’, or between ‘to investigate’ or ‘to make sure’. Because of the Arab skill in Arabic language their reading was precise. Later when non-Arabs embraced Islam, errors began to appear in the reading of the Qur’an when those non-Arabs and other Arabs whose language was corrupted, read it. The incorrect reading changed the meaning sometimes." The same statement is made by Taha Husayn in "Taha Husayn" (p. 143), by Anwar al-Jundi. Then Dr. Ahmad alluded to those who invented the vocalization and diacritical points and applied them to the Qur’anic text many years after Muhammad’s death such as Abu al-Aswad al Du’ali, Nasr ibn ’Asim and al-Khalil ibn Ahmad. He also added (on the same page) that "without these diacritical points, a man would believe that verse 3 of the chapter, ‘The Repentance’, would mean that God is done with the idolaters and His apostle— free from obligation to the idolaters and His apostle—while the real meaning of the verse is that God and His apostle are done with the idolaters—free from further obligation to the idolaters. Now the question we would like to ask Dr. Ahmad and all those wise men: Why was not the Qur’an revealed to Muhammad in a perfect Arabic language complete with the literary indicators and the diacritical points lest a difference or change of meaning occur? If a student of Arabic writes an essay in Arabic without the diacritical points would the teacher give him more than zero? The answer is known to two hundred million Arabs. The second question is: Did God inspire those who added the diacritical points and the vocalization through an angel, for example, to eliminate the different meanings on which the scholars disagree? Who instructed Nasr ibn ’Asim, Abu al-Aswad al Du’ali and Khalil ibn Ahmad to undertake this serious task and create the diacritical points and the vocalization for the Qur’anic text? Was it not more appropriate that Muhammad himself or some of his successors or companions like ibn ’Abbas and ibn Mas’ud should accomplish this work? Yet al-Suyuti himself tells us that ibn Mas’ud was not pleased with that (refer to "Itqan", part 2, p. 160), nor were other leading companions and scholars such as ibn Sirin and the Nakha’i. 2) Ibn Timiyya, Sheik of the Muslims (vol. XII, p. 101), tells us, "The companions of Muhammad had never used the diacritical points or the vocalization for the Qur’an. For each word, there were two readings—either to use (for instance) ‘ya’ or ‘tah’ in such words as ‘they do’ or ‘you do’. The companion did not forbid one of the readings in favor of the other, then some successor of the companions began to use the diacritical points and vocalization for the Qur’an." On pp. 576 and 586, he adds, "The companions (Muhammad’s friends) did not vocalize or provide diacritical points for the letters of the Qur’anic copies which they wrote, but later during the last part of the companions’ era, when reading errors came into being, they began to provide diacritical points for the copies of the Qur’an and to vocalize them. This was admissible by the authority of the majority of the scholars, though some of them disliked it. The truth is, it should not be disliked because the situation necessitated it, and the diacritical points distinguish the letters from each other while vocalization explains the grammatical inflection." There is a candid acknowledgment from ibn Timiyya that diacritical points are required, but did not God and His angel Gabriel along with Muhammad and his successors know about this problem? The simplest principles of sound Arabic language demand that words should have diacritical points and their letters should be written in complete form. Didn’t they know that disagreements among Muslim scholars would take place and that they would fight among themselves and that even death would result from the differences in reading the Qur’anic text? Didn’t they know also that the differences in meaning of the Qur’anic vocabulary would be decisive in the interpretation and judgments of Islamic law? It is surprising that such things had not occurred to the mind of God, Gabriel, Muhammad, and the companions and the caliphs; then, three persons come later and insert these changes into the Qur’anic text. Yet, what is really more surprising is that when the companions discovered the differences in the readings of the Qur’anic text (as Ibn Timiyya says), they did not have any objection against any of the different readings and they did not prohibit either one. The justification for that was that Muhammad himself had acknowledged the presence of seven different readings, not just two readings as was clearly stated in the Sahih al-Bukhari, (vol. 6, p. 227). This fact is common knowledge among all the scholars. 3) Jalal-al-Din al-Suyuti In his famous book, "al-Itqan Fi Ulum al-Qur’an" ("Adjusted Qur’anic Science"), al-Suyuti reiterates (part four, p. 160) the same words of ibn Timiyya which had been quoted by Dr. Ahmad Shalabi about those who invented the diacritical points and the vocalization of the words. He also said that some of the scholars detested that, as we mentioned before. There the Suyuti presents (part four, pp. 156,157) a list of words which could be read differently. One of them is the reading by which the Qur’an was written, though Muhammad himself had accepted and acknowledged both readings. In part one, p. 226 of "The Itqan", the Suyuti makes an important declaration in which he says that the difference in reading has led to differences in Islamic law. He illustrated that by the following example: He indicated that some scholars demanded of the worshipper that he wash himself again (the ablution) before he prays if he shook hands with a woman. Yet other scholars require him to do so only in case of sexual intercourse and not just because he shook hands with her or touched her hand. The reason for this disagreement is ascribed to one word found in the Chapter of Women (verse 43) and whether it has a long vowel a or not. The Jalalan (p. 70) and the Baydawi (p. 113) record for us that both ibn ’Umar and al-Shafi’i seriously disagree with ibn ’Abbas in the way they interpret this verse because ibn ’Abbas insisted that the meaning intended here is actual intercourse while the former said no, it is enough for a man to touch the skin of a woman or her hand to require having his ablution (washing) repeated. In four full pages (226-229), the Suyuti stated that the many arguments and various interpretations pertaining to the above word have brought about different ordinances. When we read the commentary of the Jalalan or the Baydawi, we realize that whenever they come across certain words which could be read in more than one form they say: This word is read in two different forms. Before conclude this part, let me call attention to the following everyday story: A man was asking about the place of two verses in the Qur’an. He was told that he could locate them in the Chapters of Resurrection and the Hypocrites. He made every effort to find these two chapters but in vain. Then he was told that the Chapter of Resurrection is number 75 and the chapter of the Hypocrites is number 63. He told them that chapter 75 is named "The Value" and chapter 63 is named or called "The Spenders". They told him you say so because you read them without the letter A (long vowel A) His logical answer was: "I have read them in exactly the form in which they were written without the long vowel A. Why should I add the long vowel A to the words of the Qur’an which would change the meaning?" My dear English reader have you recognized the purpose of the above paragraph? Is the word "reply" the same as "replay"? There are dozens of words like that in the Qur’an, even some of the titles of the Qur’anic chapters have been written without the long vowel A. For example, the word "masajid" (mosques) is written "masjid" (a mosque), and "sadaqat" (charities) as "sadaqta" (you said the truth). The meaning (as you see) has been completely changed, as Dr. Ahmad Shalabi and Suyuti remarked. Meaningless Qur’anic words All Muslim scholars acknowledge that the Qur’an contains words which even Muhammad’s relatives and companions have failed to understand. In his book, "The Itqan" (part 2, p. 4), the Suyuti states clearly, "Muhammad’s companions, who are genuine Arabs, eloquent in language, in whose dialect the Qur’an was given to them, have stopped short in front of some words and failed to know their meanings, thus they said nothing about them. When Abu Bakr was asked about the Qur’anic statement ‘and fruits and fodder’ (8:31), he said, ‘What sky would cover me or what land would carry me if I say what I do not know about the book of God?’ ’Umar ibn al-Khattab read the same text from the rostrum, then he said, ‘This fruit we know, but what is fodder?’ Sa’id ibn Jubair was asked about the Qur’anic text in chapter 13 of Mary. He said, ‘I asked ibn ’Abbas about it, but he kept silent."’ Then the Suyuti indicated that ibn ’Abbas said that he does not know the meanings of some of the Qur’anic verses (like these in Chapter 69:36, 9:114 and 18:9). I have quoted the Suyuti’s text word for word, and stated the confession of ibn ’Abbas who is interpreter of the Qur’an and legal jurist of the caliphs for whom Muhammad pleaded with God to enlighten his mind to comprehend the meaning of the Qur’an. Also, who was closer to Muhammad, my dear Muslim, than Abu Bakr and Umar, the first two caliphs along with ibn ’Abbas? All of them failed to comprehend many of the Qur’anic verses. Therefore, the Suyuti warns that anyone who attempts to conceive the meanings of these words will suffer complete failure. Then he mentions that the caliphs and ibn ’Abbas, themselves, did not know their meanings. Of course, he was right, because if those great leaders had failed to know their meanings, who would? Certainly, those intimate companions of Muhammad asked him about the meanings of those obscure words, but it is clear enough that Muhammad himself failed to know their meanings, otherwise he would have explained them to his companions as he did on several other occasions. In addition to these ambiguous words there are at least 14 other words or symbols which are recorded at the introductory part of 29 Qur’anic chapter. These codes are entirely ambiguous. Also four of these codes are titles for four chapters; therefore, four Qur’anic chapters have meaningless titles. These chapters are chapter Taha, ya sin, Sad, and Qaf. When the Jalalan attempted to expound the meanings of these 14 obscure words and the titles of these chapters, they said, "God alone knows His own intention." I am stating these words for the benefit of the reader as they are recorded in the authorized English translation of the Qur’an. "Aim-Alr-Almus-Hm" means nothing in any language! Is it a characteristic of Arabic eloquence to have meaningless words and titles of complete chapters which no body can comprehend? The Qur’an says woe to anyone who asks for the meaning! The Qur’an acknowledges that there are meaningless words. In chapter of Family of ’Umran: 7, it indicates that there are allegorical verses which "no one knoweth how to explain save God." The Qur’an does not tell us why these words have been recorded in the Qur’an if no one knows their meaning. In his book, "The Itqan" (part 3, p. 3), the Suyuti refers to the above verse, then he remarks, "The Qur’an is divided into sound, intelligible (verses) and obscure, unintelligible (verses). The obscure (verses) are only known to God such as the detached alphabets at the beginning of the chapters." On pp. 5 and 6, the Suyuti asserts that the majority of the companions and the successors of the companions, especially the Sunnis (among them ibn ’Abbas himself) affirm that there are words of which no one knows the interpretation save God only. It is worthwhile mentioning here that anyone who attempted to comprehend the meaning of those words or any of the obscured verses was severely punished. On pp. 7 and 8 (part 3 of "The Itqan"), the Suyuti records for us a moving episode about a person called Sabigh who wanted to inquire about these same Qur’anic interpretations ’Umar Ibn al-Khattab severely punished him on successive days until he was almost killed due to head injuries. This is "the just ’Umar", as they call him. The Qur’an Gives The Antonym (opposite) Meaning Of Words And Phrases This fact is well-known to all scholars. It clearly reveals that the Arabic language of the Qur’an is not always sound as some believe. In the second part of "The Itqan", the Suyuti speaks explicitly about things which no one expected to find in the Qur’an. Actually, these defects are not supposed to occur in any standard Arabic book which complies with the rules and characteristics of the Arabic language. On page 135, the Suyuti says, "The word ‘after’ has been mentioned twice in the Qur’an so as to mean ‘before’, as in this saying, ‘We have written in the psalms (the scripture) "after the reminder" (21:105) while He meant "before."’ Also in this saying, ‘The earth "after" that He has extended (79:30) while he meant "before" and not "after" because the earth was created first "before" and not "after" He created the heavens,’ as Abu Musa indicated." These are the actual words of Suyuti. The question now is: Does this linguistic defect conform to any language in the world? Does this comply with the characteristics of writing and the artistic, eloquent style of Arabic language? Is it proper, in the Qur’anic style to write "after" when you mean "before"? How can the reader know the correct meaning since it is common knowledge that "after" and "before" are opposite words? Is it sensible that the angel Gabriel meant to say "before" but he instructed Muhammad to write "after"? It is difficult for us to believe that. This problem is not confined to one word because the Suyuti provides us with eight pages (Itqan, part 2, pp. 132-139) full of similar examples found in the Qur’an in which, according to the interpreters of the texts, the Qur’an meant the opposite meaning than the literal meaning of the expression. There is no connection between the literal meaning and the meaning intended by the Qur’an. Let us examine together some of the examples the Suyuti presented to us in his book, the Itqan, part 2, (A) "The Qur’an means, ‘Do not those who believe know that had Allah willed, He could have guided all mankind’, but he said, ‘Do not those who believe despair!’ instead of writing ‘know’ as he meant" (see Thunder: 31). Is "despair" the same as "know"? (B) "The Qur’an says in chapter 2:23, ‘... your martyrs’, but it means here, ‘ ... your partners’ (p. 133). After the Suyuti made this remark, he commented, "The martyr is supposed to be the person who is killed, or the one who testifies concerning people’s matters, but here it means ‘your partners."’ (C) "In chapter Joseph: 20 the word ‘Bakhs’ (too little) is meant to be ‘haram’ (forbidden, sacred) contrary to the usual meaning" (p. 132). (D) "In chapter Mariam (Mary):46 the phrase, ‘I certainly will stone you’ is interpreted to mean, ‘I certainly will curse you’, and not, ‘I certainly will kill you’ as its literal meaning suggests" (p. 133). Let the reader decide for himself as he examines these illustrations. Why the Qur’an did not say: "Do not know those who believe.. " instead of "do not the believers give up all hope..." Is "despair" the same as knowledge? And if the Qur’an intended to say, "Did not ... know" would it be recorded as to mean "to give up all hope?" The same thing could be said about "too little" and "martyrs " Does not each word have a different meaning than the meaning indicated by the Qur’an? Is it one of the prerogatives of the language to use a word which has a different connotation than the intended meaning? Let us state another illustration from "The Itqan" (part 3, p. 251) where the Suyuti says, "In chapter the (Rahman):6, The Qur’an says: ‘The "Nagm" stars and the trees bow themselves.’ Here the Qur’an does not mean by ‘the stars’ the heavenly stars but the plants which do not have trunk. This is the far-fetched intended meaning." We would like to state here that there is no one who would imagine or expect this meaning. Even the Saudi scholars who translated the Qur’an into English (p. 590) understood the word ‘Nagm’ ("star") to mean a heavenly star—and stated it as such. Thus, even the Saudi translators of the Qur’an could not imagine that the Qur’an has meant by the word "Nagm" ("star"), the plants which do not have trunks. I, myself had some doubts about the Suyuti’s explanation and thought maybe it was the Suyuti’s fault and not the Qur’an’s, or the Saudi scholars. Why should we attack the Qur’an and blame it for the Suyuti’s error? Therefore, as a candid researcher, I decided to examine the interpretations of the former Muslim scholars to be sure of the proper interpretation. I referred to the Baydawi’s commentary (p. 705) and found him in full harmony with the Suyuti’s interpretation who stressed that this word alludes to the plants which sprang from the earth without a trunk. The same interpretation is found in the Jalalan (p. 450). In Al-Kash-shaf (part 4, p. 443), the Zamakh-Shari agreed with the mentioned scholars and remarks, "And the ‘star’ which is a plant which springs from the earth without a trunk such as the herbs, for the trees do have trunks." Thus, let the Saudi scholars correct the translation errors of the Qur’an, along with another error (as the Suyuti comprehended it) though they are right in their interpretation of it: The word "amid most" (chapter 2:143) means - according to Suyuti - righteous or just people (p. 251 also refer to the Baydawi p. 29 and Tabari 24). Thus Suyuti says, "The conspicuous meaning of the word suggests the (idea) of intermediary, while the intended meaning is ‘righteous’ and this is the far-fetched meaning." Another example in which the English translator was proper. The Qur’an says in chapter 57:29: "Lest the people of the book may know." This is the literal translation of the phrase. The word means (in both Arabic and English) "lest" while the intended meaning is that they may know (refer to the commentary of Jalalan p. 459). The translators of the Qur’an correctly translated it as "that they may know" which is opposite to the literal meaning of the word in Arabic. Yet, before we conclude the discussion of this point, I would like to share with the readers another strange phrase which illustrates the above mentioned point even more clearly. In chapters 75: 1,2 and 90:1, the Qur’an repeats the phrase: "I do not swear..." This is the literal translation of the phrase, but the interpreters and the translators of the Qur’an insist that the meaning is: "I do call...," or "No, I swear" indicating that the word "do not" is redundant, and when He said, "I do not swear", he meant, "I swear" (refer to the Jalalan, p. 493, 511; Al-Kash-shaf, part 4, p. 658, 753; and Baydawi, pp. 772, 799). The Qur’an says, "I do not swear by the Day of Resurrection" "I do not swear by the reproachful soul" "I do not swear by this city" While he meant (according to all Muslim scholars) that He does swear by the above three things. The Zamakhshari noted that some had objected to that, and they have the right to object to this confusion, but others said that the pre-Islamic, great poet Emro Al-Qays used to do so. In the Qur’an There Are Omitted Words, Incomplete Phrases, and Errors In The Structure Of Sentences This is strange and unjustifiable. Why should many words or even completed phrases be omitted confusing the meaning? In his book, "The Itqan", the Suyuti has discussed this matter and pointed to many omitted letters or words and sentences. He devoted ten pages of part 3, (pp. 181-192) to listing ample examples of which I quote but a few of them. A) "We read in chapter (Surah) 22:32: ‘It is from the piety of hearts.’ The Suyuti says it should have been written this way, ‘Its glorification comes from the deeds of those of piety of hearts."’ B) "Also, in chapter 20:96, the Qur’an says, ‘So I took a handful (of dust) from the footprint of the apostle.’ The Suyuti says: It is supposed to be written as such: ‘...from the footprint of the hoof of the apostle’s mare"’ (refer to p. 191) C) Among the many striking examples of the omission of various sentences is what we read in chapter 8:45,46. The Suyuti comments in p. 192, "The verse: ‘Send ye me oh righteous Joseph...’ means, ‘Send ye me to Joseph to ask him for the interpretation of the dream.’ So he did. He came to him and said, ‘O, righteous Joseph...."’ In the Qur’an just two words at the beginning are written and two words at the end and all the words in-between are omitted! Let the reader decide for himself if it is possible to comprehend the intended meaning, having all these words omitted from the verse until it becomes entirely meaningless. Other Language Errors In Sentence Structure It is appropriate to refer to Muslim scholars when a person wants to study and comprehend the Qur’an. They are well acquainted with the principles of the Arabic language and the Qur’an. There is none better than the Suyuti, Baydawi, Tabari, Jalalan, and Zamakh-Shari who are great, recognized scholars and linguists quoted by the Azhar scholars in Egypt as well as the Saudi scholars. The American, European and Orientalist, with all due respect, do not understand the Qur’anic language like those great Muslim scholars. The Suyuti (part 3, p. 33), quoting several great Muslim scholars, says, "The Qur’anic verse: ‘Let not their wealth nor their children astonish thee! Allah purposeth only to punish them in the world’ (chapter 9:85). It actually means: ‘Let not their properties and children astonish you on this Earth because God purposes to torment them in eternity."’ Let the reader notice that there is no mention of eternity in the verse. In pp. 34 and 35, the Suyuti remarks: "The intended original word order of (the Qur’anic) text: ‘Have you seen the one who made his God (the object of) his compassion?’ (25:34) is to be read, ‘... who made his compassion his God’ and not, ‘... his God (the object of) his compassion’, because ‘who made his God (the object) of his compassion’ is not blame- worthy." In page 328, the Suyuti says that, "There are many verses in the Qur’an which were revealed without any connection to the verses which proceeded or preceded them, such as what we read in chapter 75:13-19 because the entire chapter talks about the states of resurrection. But these verses were revealed because Muhammad used to hastily move his tongue when dictating the Qur’anic revelation. Some Muslims said that part of the chapter has been dropped, because these verses are not relevant to this chapter at all." We conclude our discussion of this part by pointing to the boring repetition of certain phrases by which the Qur’an is characterized. The phrase, "O which of your Lord’s bounties will you deny?" is repeated thirty-one times in a chapter in which there are no more than 78 verses (chapter 75). The story of Noah is repeated in 12 chapters. Abraham’s story is repeated in 8 chapters along with the episode of Lot. Moses’ story is repeated in 7 chapters, Adam’s in 4 chapters, and John’s in 4 chapters. Moses’ conversation with pharaoh is repeated in 12 chapters. Certainly these stories differ drastically from the stories recorded in the Old Testament. There are approximately 15-20 grammatical errors found in the Qur’an which cannot be denied by those who master Arabic grammar This has created a heated argument because these grammatical errors are not expected in a book which Muslims claim is dictated by God and its inimitability lies in its perfect Arabic language. Thus, how can the Qur’an include grammatical mistakes which a junior high school student who has a basic background in Arabic would not make? If anyone of the Arab readers wishes to expand his knowledge of these errors, we would like to refer him to the following Qur’anic verses: Chapters 2:177; 3:39; 4:162; 5:69; 7:16; 20:63; 21:3; 22:19; 49:9 and 63:10. As an illustration, we refer to one example which is found in chapter 20:63. The Qur’an says, "These two are certainly magicians"—Inna Hazan Sahiran. The correct grammar must say, Inna Hazyn Sahiran. According to Arabic grammar, these two must be in the accusative case after "Inna", but they are stated in the nominative case which is completely wrong. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 23: 02.06. CONTRA ISLAM CHAPTER 9 ======================================================================== Chapter Nine Capricious Revelation of the Qur’an The Qur’anic verses were revealed according to the caprices of Muhammad, his companions and his wives. Muslim scholars believe that knowing the reasons for the revelation of the Qur’anic verses is very important and indispensable in comprehending the verses. The Suyuti wrote a full book concerning this fact. He called it, "The Core of Transmitted Traditions for the Reasons for the Revelations". In the book, "the Itqan" (part I, p. 82), he explains the significance of this matter to the greatest Muslim scholars, as it is the basis for understanding various verses which have been revealed after a certain incident or after a question was directed to Muhammad. The Suyuti recorded for us several examples to prove that it was impossible to understand some verses unless the reasons for their revelation were known. This fact is confirmed not only by the former scholars but also by the Azhar and contemporary scholars (refer, for example, to Ahmad Shalabi’s book, "The History of Islamic Law" (p. 36) and the "Legal Opinion" of Sheikh Kishk. In the next few pages, we are going to discuss only two issues. First, we look at how the angel Gabriel used to comply immediately with the wishes of Muhammad’s companions and his wives who used to instruct God and His Angel in what verses He must reveal to Muhammad. ’Umar ibn al-Khattab played an outstanding role in this area. Secondly, a throng of verses have been revealed for worthless reasons which do not interest anybody. There is a third issue which we will study in another chapter in which we will see how the angel Gabriel used to comply with Muhammad’s personal desires and fulfill all his wishes even if these wishes did not conform to the simplest principle of chastity, purity, and mercy. Even his wife ’Aisha told him: " I see that your Lord hastes to comply with your passion, O Muhammad," as the Bukhari record in his Sahih, part 6, p. 147. The Angel Gabriel Complies With The Wishes Of Muhammad’s Companions We have already mentioned that ’Umar ibn al-Khattab played a major role in have the revelation which descended upon Muhammad This is the claim of ’Umar and the scholars and not the claim of the author of this book. Whenever ’Umar wanted something Muhammad answered, "Yes, God has already sent Gabriel who revealed to me this matter which ’Umar had requested" Even the inspiration, sometimes, was revealed using the same words and vocabulary of ’Umar. Thus, ibn ’Umar said, as the Suyuti mentioned, "God has placed the truth on Umar’s tongue and on his heart" (The Itqan, part I, p. 99). On the same page, we find a statement which affirms ibn ’Umar’s claim about his father. The Suyuti tells us: "The Bukhari and others have recorded that ’Umar ibn al-Khattab said, ‘I have concurred with my Lord or My Lord has concurred with me in three (things): I said, O, apostle of God I wish we would take the site of Abraham as a place of prayer! The verse came down: And take ye the site of Abraham as a place of prayer (2:125). Then I said, O, apostle of God: Your women are visited by the righteous and the debauchee. I wish you would command them to stay behind a veil! So the verse of the veil came down. (When) the apostle’s wives joined forces against him, I told them: It may be if he divorced you (all) that Allah will give him in exchange consorts better than you.’ These exact words were bestowed in chapter 66:5." It is common knowledge among all Muslims that the above verses which Muslims claim are inspired by God were really uttered by ’Umar. In addition to the Bukhari (Sahih, p. 6, p. 24), other scholars (without exception) confirm that (refer to Baydawi, p. 26; Jalalan, p. 18; Zamakh-shari in the Kash-shaf, part I, p. 310; Sahih al-Musnad, p. 13; and Asbabal-Nuzul by Suyuti, p.24). The Baydawi, for instance tells us on p. 26: "Musnad took ’Umar’s hand and told him, ‘This is the site of Abraham.’ ’Umar said, ‘Shouldn’t we take it as a place of prayer?’ Muhammad said to him, ‘God has not commanded me to do so.’ But hardly the sun set when the inspired verse was given, ‘And take the site of Abraham as a place of worship."’ That is, the wish of ’Umar was immediately fulfilled within a few hours. Muhammad had already commanded his followers to worship toward Jerusalem for the sixteen months before this verse. Another incident in which ’Umar was involved is an anecdote mentioned by most Muslim scholars and recorded for us by Suyuti in his book, "The Reasons For Verses Of Qur’an" (Asbab al-Nuzul, p. 31). The Suyuti says: "During Ramadan, (the fasting month) Muslim’s were accustomed to eat, drink and have intercourse with women if they are not sleeping. After they sleep and wake up they abstain. ’Umar had an intercourse with (one of his women) after he woke up from his sleep. He went to the prophet and told him what happened to him. God sent down this verse, ‘It is made lawful for you to go unto your wives on the night of the fast"’ (2:187). This story is recorded not only by the Suyuti but by all the scholars also (refer, for instance, to the Bukhari, part 6, p. 31; Zamakh-shari in his book al-Kash-Shaf part I, p. 337; the Baydawi, p. 39; the Jalalan p. 26, and the Sahih al-Muswad p. 17). In this episode, we find ’Umar ibn al-Khattab does not like to refrain from sexual intercourse with his wife during the fasting month and after sleeping. Therefore, after he and other Muslim men violated the commandment, Muhammad found that he did not have a choice but either to punish and to reprove them or to rescind the order by claiming that Gabriel had come down to him with the above mentioned verse. Muhammad chose the latter to appease ’Umar and his friends. The Suyuti also relates to us another incident about ’Umar. In page 100, part 2 of his book, the Itqan, he says: "A Jew encountered ’Umar ibn al-Khattab and told him, ‘Gabriel, whom your (prophet) mentions, is our foe.’ ’Umar said, ‘Who is an enemy to Allah and His angels and His messengers, to Gabriel and Michael, to, Allah is an enemy to disbelievers."’ This statement was later revealed, word for word, to Muhammad (chapter 2:98) and became a verse in the Qur’an (refer to the Suyuti). Yet these incidents did not involve ’Umar only. Ibn Maktum (for instance) who was a blind man and one of Muhammad’s companions was another person to whom the Bukhari referred. In part 6, p. 227, the Bukhari conveys the following episode: "When this verse came: ‘Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and are not wounded, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah’ (4:95). Muhammad said: ‘Summon Zayd and let him sit down.’ Then he told him: ‘Write’, and he dictated the above verse to him. ’Umru ibn Maktum who was blind, was sitting behind the prophet. (Ibn Maktum) said: ‘O, apostle of God, I am a blind man! How can I go to fight? I have a handicap.’ Then, the following (phrase) was added to the above mentioned verse: ‘Other than those who have a handicap"’ (Part 6, p. 227). It is as if God only realized the illegitimacy of His request after ’Umru ibn Maktum, Muhammad’s friend, pointed it out. Then God revealed the additional phrase. Muhammad asked Zayd to rewrite the verse and to include the addition. This episode has been recorded not only by the Bukhari but by other scholars such as Baydawi (p. 123), Zamakh-shari in the Kash-Shaf (part I, p. 555); Suyuti in the Itqan (p. 98); Asbab al-Nuzul (p. 88); and the Sahih al-Muswad (p. 53). The Baydawi remarks clearly on p. 123: "Zayd ibn Thabit said: ‘This verse was sent down without the phrase "other than those who have a handicap". Ibn Maktum said: ‘How could that be and I am blind?’ The inspiration came upon the apostle of God in the assembly. His thigh fell on my thigh in such a way that I feared that it would break it. Then, the (inspiration) departed and he said: ‘Zayd, write—other than those who have a handicap."’ In my opinion, dear reader, Muhammad did not have to pretend that God had revealed this additional phrase to him because it is not necessary and it is implicitly understood. God, indeed, would not obligate a blind man to go to war, but it seems that Muhammad believed it important to add these words in order to please ibn Maktum. If God had intended these words to be part of the verse, He would have mentioned them from the beginning. God does not need to learn from Muhammad’s friend in order to change His opinion or to alter the verse. Of Abdullah ibn Sa’d, too, in "Asbab al-Nuzul" (pp. 120-121), the Suyuti writes: "’Abdul ibn Sa’d used to write for the prophet (like Zayd). When the prophet dictated, ‘God is oft-mighty and oft-wise’, he would write instead, ‘God is oft-forgiving and compassionate.’ Then he would read it to the prophet who would approve it by saying, ‘Yes... they are the same.’ Ibn Sa’d relinquished Islam and returned to Quraysh. He said, ‘If God has inspired Muhammad, He has also inspired me. If God sends down His revelation to him, He also sends it down to me. Muhammad said, "...oft-mighty, oft-wise" and I said, "...oft-forgiving, compassionate".’" The Baydawi and the Imam Tabari agree with the Suyuti and both of them record the same episode (refer to the Tabari, p. 152, and his comment on chapter 6:93). It is very important to state here that this verse (6:93) which was given to Muhammad without any justification proves that Abdulla was right in his claim. This verse reveals the truth about Muhammad and his claim concerning revelations from God. Don’t you see that ’Abdulla was right? If Muhammad himself approved the change which ’Abdulla made in the verse, why should Gabriel become angry at ’Abdulla and accuse him in another verse? Muhammad used to say "oft-mighty, wise", and he would write "oft-forgiving, compassionate", then he would show it to Muhammad who would approve it. Therefore he was right when he said, "If God inspires Muhammad, he inspires me also." Still, when ’Abdulla disclosed the matter, relinquished Islam and departed, Muhammad uttered this verse (6:93) to curse him, and issued ’Abdulla’s death warrant. Concerning this matter, Qadi (Judge) ’Ayyad, in his famous book, "The Healing" (Shifa) remarks, "’Abdulla ibn Sa’d said, ‘I used to divert Muhammad the way I wanted. He used to dictate to me "...oft-mighty, wise" and I would say "oft-knowing, compassionate" Then he would say, "Yes... It is correct". At the end, he said to me, "Write as you wish!"’" On page 184, the Imam Baydawi records another incident in which ’Abdulla ibn Sa’d was involved. We quote it as it is record- ed. The Baydawi says (p. 184), " ’Abdulla ibn Sa’d was one of the prophet’s scribes when the verse, ‘We have created man from scion of mud’ was revealed, and Muhammad continued until he uttered, ‘...and then we made a different creature.’ ’Abdulla said with wonder, ‘May God be blessed. Who is the best creator.’ Muhammad said, ‘Write it, this is how it was given to me.’ ’Abdulla became suspicious and said, ‘If Muhammad is true, then I receive the inspiration as he receives it, and if he is false, then I say as he says."’ Thus, we have the verse recorded in chapter (Sura), "The Believers" (23:14), "This is how it has been inspired to Abdulla, not Muhammad! !" Sa’d Ibn Moaz in the book, the Itqan (part I, p. 100), the Suyuti says, "When Sa’d ibn Ma’adh heard what was said against Aisha, he said, ‘Glory to Allah! This is a serious slander!’ (Sura 24:16). It was set down as such in the Qur’an." This verse was not revealed by Gabriel but was uttered by Sa’d ibn Moaz when some of Muhammad’s companions accused Aisha (Muhammad’s wife) of adultery, among them Muhammad’s cousin who was the sister of Zaynab one of his other wives. On the same page, the Suyuti records verse 3:140 which was uttered by a woman, as well as verse 3:144 which was spoken by Mas’ab ibn al-Zubayr in the war of ’Uhud. Women...Muhammad’s wives How Muhammad (I mean Gabriel) used to fulfill the desires of Muhammad’s wives! In part I, p. 97, the Suyuti indicates in the Itqan that, "Um Salma, Muhammad’s wife said to him, ‘O, apostle of God, I do not hear that God has mentioned anything for the immigrant women.’ Then God sent down, ‘And their Lord has accepted of them and answered them, "Never will I suffer to be lost the work of any of you"’ (Sura 3:195).’ Um Salma also said, ‘O apostle of God, you always mention men and ignore women.’ Then the verse was sent down, ‘For Muslim men and Muslim women....’ (33:35)." The Baydawi (pp. 100 and 558), the Zamakh-shari in the Kash-shaf (part I, p. 490), the Jalalan (p. 353) on the authority of Um ’Amara, and the Sahih al-Musnad (p. 120), confirm the exposition of these verses as they were interpreted by the Suyuti. On page 558, the Baydawi says, "The prophet’s wives told him, ‘O apostle of God, God has mentioned men with good things, do not we women have anything good in us to be mentioned?’ Then the verse in the chapter of Parties was sent down—the above mentioned verse." The same text is recorded in Asbab al-Nuzul by the Suyuti (pp. 69 and 219). There is a very significant question which we cannot ignore, neglect or avoid, "Did not God know that mentioning women in the Qur’an is very important until Muhammad’s wives such as Um Salma and Um ’Amara complained? Why did Gabriel reveal these verses only after the women complained and after Muhammad’s wives expressed the necessity for them?" The question is very plain and the answer is very clear also! The angel had nothing to do with these matters. Um Salma said to her husband Muhammad, ‘I do not hear any mention of women.’ Muhammad asked Gabriel to let her hear the mention of women, so the verses in Sura of the Parties: 35 and in Sura of the Family of Imran: 195 were given. Aisha (Muhammad’s most beloved wife whom he married when she was nine years old and he was 54 years old) had an influence on the inspiration of many verses. It is sufficient here to allude to one episode. Muhammad was on his way back from one of his raids accompanied by Aisha. Aisha lost her necklace on the way. Now let Aisha relate the story, "One of my necklaces fell in the desert while we were entering Medina. The apostle of God halted and made his camel kneel down. He alighted and rested his head on my lap sleeping. Abu Bakr came and kicked me severely and told me, ‘You delayed the people because of a necklace!’ He also said, ‘O daughter, in every journey you cause trouble to people.’ When we woke up in the morning, we could not find water for ablution before the time of prayer. The verse in Sura of the Table was given in which permission was given to wash with sand instead of water when there is no water. Abu Bakr told me, ‘You are a blessed woman.’ Then Usayd ibn Hadir said, ‘O, family of Abu Bakr, God has blessed people through you!"’ This episode is mentioned in "Asbab al Zuyul" (p. 101) by Suyuti. It is also recorded by al-Bukhari in his Sahih (part 4, p. 64) and the Commentary of the Jalalan (p. 89). This is a famous story. In order to justify Aisha’s behavior lest her father and the rest of the Muslims become angry because she delayed them in the desert (as well as the lack of water), Muhammad claimed that God told him that they can wash with sand instead of water before they pray. We don’t know what type of ablution is this, when a person performs this ritual by using sand! It is common knowledge that Muhammad himself did this several times, as the Bukhari and the rest of the scholars indicate. The scholars say, "May God bless Aisha because for her sake God allowed Muslims to use sand for ablution before prayer whenever they could not find water." We would like to conclude this point by conveying a moving story as it is recorded in the "Biography of the Apostle" by ibn Hisham (part III, p. 23) as well as by the rest of the Muslim religious scholars such as al-Jalalan, al-Baydawi, and al-Bukhari. This episode is a famous one and is the reason behind the bestowing of a well-known verse. Ibn Hisham says, "The (military) company of Abdulla ibn Jahsh and some Muslims who joined him attacked some people from the tribe of Quraysh and killed them. They took their bounties. When they came to Muhammad, he told them, ‘I did not command you to fight during a sacred month,’ and he refused to take from the bounty the fifth of the mules and the two prisoners. Quraysh said, ‘Muhammad and his followers made it lawful for themselves to shed blood and seize properties and capture men during the sacred months.’ (The Arabs had previously agreed to abstain from fighting during certain months. When Muslims expressed their discontent for that, especially when Muhammad himself loathed that disgraceful thing and refused to take from the bounty, God spoke to His apostle saying, ‘They ask you about the sacred month (if) fighting is allowable. Say in it there is a great fight?’ The Muslim invaders rejoiced when this verse was given and Muhammad took the bounty." We wonder how this happened. When Muhammad himself conquered Mecca, he commanded the Muslims to kill the infidel if they refused to believe, but only after the elapse of the sacred months (9:5). Yet here, when he saw that his followers were discontent and that might create a certain crisis among them, he was forced to claim that Gabriel had gave him a verse which made war during the sacred months allowable, as if war were a good and necessary matter. Verses Sent Down For Strange And Trivial Reasons A puppy which entered the prophet’s home: This episode is recorded in the Commentary of the Baydawi (p. 802); the "Itqan", by the Suyuti (part I, p. 92), and Asbab al-Nuzul (p. 299). This narrative is related to us because the infidel said that inspiration had departed from Muhammad and his God had deserted him. The Suyuti says, "Khawla, Muhammad’s servant said, ‘A puppy entered under the bedstead in the prophet’s home and died. For four days the inspiration ceased to descend on Muhammad. He said to me what happened in the house of the apostle of God to make Gabriel cease to come to me?’ I told myself, ‘What if I neatly prepared and swept the house?’ I swept under the bedstead and brought out the puppy. The prophet came in with a trembling beard, for whenever inspiration descends on him he would be taken by a seizure. God sent down at that time five verses from the Surah (chapter) of Duha." It is well-known that the chapter of Duha is made up of only eleven verses. God sent half of it to assure Muhammad that He had not abandoned him. Infidels claimed that God had deserted Muhammad because inspiration ceased to descend upon him because a puppy entered his home and died under the bedstead. Gabriel, as the Bukhari recorded, had already told Muhammad that he would not enter a house which has a dog or a picture. The Suyuti stated that Muslim religious scholars (among them Abu Hajr) said that the story of Gabriel’s hesitancy to enter Muhammad’s house because of the puppy is very famous. But the truth of the matter is that it is difficult to comment on these stories which all Muslim scholars confirm. What can a person say about such a story? Would God really delay His revelation to a prophet because of a dead puppy? Besides, did not Muhammad leave his home more than once during this period? Why then God did not give His revelation to Muhammad while he was away from his home? There are many such stories in the Islamic episodes. I would like to relate to you three more distinctive ones. The Red Velvet In the Asbab-al-Zuyul (p. 65), the Suyuti says, "Verse 161 of chapter 3, which states, ‘No prophet could ever be false to his trust,’ was given because a red velvet was missed after the War of Badr. Some people said, ‘Maybe the apostle of God took it.’ Thus, God revealed this verse to acquit the apostle... ibn ’Abbas said so." The Baydawi in (page 94), the Zamakh-shari in the Kash-shaf (part I, p. 475) agree with the Suyuti and state the same reason. The Zamakh-shari adds, "Maybe this verse was sent down after the War of Uhud, when some worriers deserted their sites and came to him (Muhammad) requesting their booties. They said, ‘Maybe the apostle would not divide the booties equally as he did in the Day of Badr.’ The apostle told them, ‘Did you think that we could be false to our trust and would not give you your share?"’ The Pretty Women Worshippers In the reasons for the revelation of Qur’anic verses (Asbab al-Nuzul) (p. 159), the Suyuti says, "Ibn ’Abbas said, ‘There was a woman who prayed behind the apostle of God. She was one of the prettiest women, thus some people stepped forward to be in the first row lest they see her; others lingered behind in back rows in order to look at her from under their armpits whenever they prostrated themselves.’ So God sent down verse 24 of chapter 15: ‘And verily we know the eager among you and verily we know the laggards.’ Someone asked Suhayl ibn Hanif about this verse if it was sent down in relation to fighting in the cause of Allah, he said, ‘No, but it was sent down in relation to rows of prayer."’ As usual the Baydawi (p. 342) confirms this interpretation and indicates that some Muslims lagged to gaze at the pretty woman, thus this verse was revealed. Also the Zamakh-shari in the Kash-shaf agrees with both the Suyuti and Baydawi. Many other scholars and chroniclers (on the authority of the ibn ’Abbas) such as Tirmadhi, Nisa’i, ibn Maja, and Imam al-Tabari assert this episode (refer to al-Kash-shaf, part 2, p. 576). Give Room to Others, Says Gabriel! On page 265 of Asbab al-Nuzul, the Suyuti says that whenever the Muslims saw a man coming to sit among them in the assembly of the apostle, they kept back their places and refused to make room for him, thus the verse was sent down, "O, ye who believe! When it is said make room in assemblies, then make room" (58:11). Indeed the Baydawi (page 722) along with the Zamakh-shari (part 4, p. 492 of the Kash-shaf) agree with the Suyuti in the interpretation of this verse. The simple, but essential question which we would like to ask is, "Was it necessary for Gabriel to come down from heaven to reveal to Muhammad so many verses for such trivial things? Was not Muhammad himself able to teach Muslims to be unselfish and to make room for their brothers in the assemblies so they can sit like the rest of them? Could not Muhammad exhort the Muslims not to stand behind pretty woman during the time of prayer to gaze at her? Or could not he say to the woman to go and pray in another place designated for women? Was this such as obtrusive problem that it required Gabriel to descend from heaven bearing a revelation from God?" Regarding the red velvet which was missed in the day of Badr, couldn’t Muhammad tell the Muslims, "Shame on you! How could you accuse me of stealing and still claim that you believe in God and His apostle?" ======================================================================== CHAPTER 24: 02.06. CONTRA ISLAM CHAPTER 10 ======================================================================== Chapter Ten The Abrogator and Abrogated Qur’anic Verses In chapter 2:106, the Qur’an plainly indicates, "Such of our revelation as we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof." In their interpretation of this verse (p. 16), the Jalalan say that God’s intention for this verse is, "To eliminate the ordinance of the verse either with its wording or to keep the wording and eliminate the ordinance, or we make you O, Muhammad, to forget it; namely, we will remove it from your heart" (p. 16). The Baydawi says in p. 22, "This verse was given because the Jews and the infidels said that Muhammad ordered his followers to do something, then He prohibited them from it and commanded them to do something opposite to it. Abrogation means eliminating reading it as an act of worship or eliminating the ordinance inferred from it, or both of them. To forget it means to remove it from hearts." Refer also to the Zamakh-shari in "al-Kash-shaf" (part I, p. 303). In part 3, p. 59 the Suyuti says, "Abrogation means the removal as it is mentioned in chapter Haj: 52, and it means alteration." In his book, "The History of Islamic Law" (p. 115), Dr. Shalabi states, "The abrogation is to rescind something and replace it with something else, as ibn Hazm said. Muslims in general have consented that abrogation has taken place in the Qur’an as it is clearly indicated in the sound verses." This statement means that Muhammad was accustomed to stating something to his followers with the claim that it was revealed to him through the angel Gabriel, then later (maybe after a few hours), he would tell them that God had invalidated it. Thus the infidels used to say, "Muhammad utters something today and abolishes it tomorrow" (refer to Zamakh-shari, part I, p. 303). In Asbab al-Nuzul, p. 19, the Suyuti says that, "Ibn ’Abbas himself said, ‘Sometimes the revelation used to descend on the prophet during the night and then he forgot it during daytime, thus God sent down this verse: 2:106." Is it acceptable or sensible to think that God changes His mind during the night? Ibn ’Abbas is not the only one who insists on that because ibn ’Umar says, "Two men read a Sura which the apostle of God had taught them, yet one night they rose up to pray but they failed to remember one word of it. The next morning, they went to the apostle of God and related it to him. He told them, ‘It is one of those, which have been abrogated, thus, forget about it.."’ (Refer to the Itqan, 3:74). Such strange behavior led the infidels to say that Muhammad is a calumniator and he does not receive inspiration from God for he changes his mind whenever he wishes or says, "I forgot the verse because God made me forget it and it was abrogated". Thus, a verse was written in the Qur’an referring to this debate which was waged between Muhammad and the infidel. The verse says, "And when we put one revelation in place of another revelation—and Allah knows best what He reveals— they say, ‘To! thou art but inventing"’ (16:101). In his above-mentioned book, Dr. Shalabi attempts to defend the concept of abrogation. He remarks, "God changes His ordinances according to the change of time and circumstances, therefore, the abrogation and the giving of one verse instead of the verses of the Qur’an took place" (p. 116). The reader can easily realize that this defense is meaningless and will not suffice because circumstances do not change drastically in a few night hours as ibn ’Abbas has claimed when he said that the verse would be received during the night and abrogated in daytime. Dr. Shalabi, in the context of his defense, says, "Most of what was alluded to in the abrogated verses was intended to lighten (the ordinances)" (p. 117). In part 3, p. 69 of the" Itqan", the Suyuti refers to the same reason. It is left to the reader to answer this question, "Did God not know the circumstances of His worshippers and their abilities so that He made it a habit to decree an ordinance or dictate an order, then change His mind and replace it immediately the next day with a lighter command or an easier commandment?" The fact is that Muhammad has failed to comprehend his followers’ circumstances, thus he used to order something, then change it the next day whenever he found it too difficult to be implemented. For example, the Qur’an says, "O prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be twenty steadfast among you, they shall overcome two hundred and if there be a hundred steadfast among you, they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve. Now has Allah lightened your burden for he knows that there is weakness in you. So if there is among you one hundred who are steadfast, they shall overcome two hundred." This verse always confuses Muslims when they fight Israel in their efforts to liberate Palestine and the mosque (Al Aqusa). The verses say that Allah lightened your (task) for He knows that there is a weak spot in you! Did God not know that each one of them had a weak spot before He told them that "each one of you can vanquish ten"? God had to change His mind and say that "each one of you can vanquish two" only. The Suyuti says, "When God imposed on them that each one of them should fight ten, it became a burden and an unbearable (task) for them. Thus, God removed the burden from them and each one was (requested) to fight two men." (Asbab al-Nuzul, p. 134). Both Baydawi (p. 244), and Dr. Shalabi (p. 117) agree with him. Another illustration on this "lightening" is found in Sura 73:1,2,20. "O thou wrapped up in your raiment, keep vigil the night long save a little" (73:1,2). "Allah measures the night and the day. He knows that you count it not and turns unto you in mercy. Recite, then of the Qur’an why it is easy for you" (73:20). On p. 117, 123, Dr. Shalabi along with Suyuti says, "The Qur’anic verse: ‘Stand (to pray) by night, but not all night’ was abrogated by the end of the Sura; then was abrogated again by (the implementation) of the five prayers." The entire Sura is only 20 verses. Its beginning is abrogated by its end, and its end is replaced by the injunction of the five prayers; that is, the Abrogator has been abrogated. In relation to this verse the Jalalan say (p. 491), "When God imposed the night prayers, Muslims’ feet swelled as they stood during the night (for prayer); thus, God lightened it for them by saying, ‘Pray as much as you are able."’ Did God not know that this ordinance was going to be difficult for Muslims? Why did He not tell them that from the beginning before their feet became swollen? A third illustration relevant to this discussion is the Qur’anic saying, "Fear Allah as He should be feared" (3:102). This commandment is abrogated by His saying, "Fear God as much as you are able to do so" (64:16). This is the claim of the Muslim scholars (refer to Suyuti in Asbab al-Nuzul, p. 277; Jalalan pp. 53, 473, Dr. Shalabi, p. 122). On p. 53, the Jalalan say, "On the authority of Sa’id ibn Jubayr, he said, when the verse ‘Fear God as He should be feared’ was sent down, it became very hard for the people to do so; therefore, God bestowed, in order to lighten on the people, ‘Fear God as much as you can."’ The question is now why did God send down this abrogating verse after Muslims said to the apostle of God, "Who can do that?" Why, only after this objection, was this easy verse was sent down to abrogate the first one? I believe that these illustrations are sufficient to prove the points under discussion. If anyone is interested to know more about this subject, we would refer him to the books of Suyuti and many other authors. They are filled with such examples. Two Reasons: Lightening And Forgetting We believe that the reason behind the concept of abrogation is that Muhammad intended to make the performing of the Islamic rites and worship easier on his followers and to obtain their approval and satisfaction with his teachings. If he decreed something which later seemed to be too difficult for them to implement and they remonstrated against it, he would "lighten" it immediately and claim that God had ordered him to rescind what he previously uttered, and all the verses he recited were replaced by new ones. Whenever he forgot what he related to his followers, he spared himself the embarrassment by claiming that God had abrogated what he conveyed to them before. There is no doubt that Muhammad tended to forget. This is clear from the above illustrations and the incidents recorded in the Sahih of the Bukhari, (part 3, p. 223, and part 8, p. 91). The Bukhari says, "Aisha said, The prophet heard a man reciting in the mosque. He said, ‘May God have mercy on him, he has reminded me of such and such verses which I dropped from Sura so and so."’ So Muhammad sometimes used to forget some verses and his friends had to remind him of them, but whenever he did not find anybody to remind him, he claimed that they had been abrogated. We saw this before when two of his followers came to him to help them to remember some of the verses which he had taught them. Muhammad told them these verses had "... been abrogated, forget about them!" So abrogation in the Qur’an was the result of forgetfulness or to lighten the task for the Muslims. Forgetfulness is plainly mentioned in the verse we quoted at the beginning of this discussion (Sura 2:106) and it was interpreted by Muslim religious scholars who affirmed that God used to make Muhammad forget and remove from his heart what he had revealed to him before as ibn ’Abbas, who was among Muhammad’s closest friends, admits to us. Surely none of us believes that God suffers a wavering mind and changes his opinion in a few hours. We can believe that Muhammad himself was subject to forgetfulness and made it a habit to change his mind in order to please his followers. Types of Abrogation Without exception, all Muslim religious scholars state that abrogation not only includes the abolishing, dropping or replacing of a verse by another verse but it also includes abolishing a provision of the verse without eliminating its wording or text from the Qur’an. Refer to Shalabi (p. 119), the" Itqan" (part 3, p. 63), ibn Hazm in "The Nasikh and the Mansukh" and others. Throughout three pages, the Suyuti provides us with many examples, but Dr. Shalabi, who is the professor of Islamic history tends not to agree with him on some of these examples. He says, "I have a personal inclination to say that not so many abrogations took place in the Qur’an" (p. 118). We do not really care whether the abrogated verses are many or few, what we do care for is the concept itself. We wonder if the provision of the verse is abrogated or abolished why its text should continue to be placed in the Qur’an and to be read. The Suyuti attempts to answer this question by saying, "... so as Muslims will be rewarded whenever they read it" (part 3, p. 69). It is as if the rest of the Qur’an were not sufficient reading for obtaining the reward, or as if the reward is acquired by more reciting even if they are verses whose provisions are abolished and are not in effect anymore! ! We have already mentioned some examples pertaining to this type of abrogation, yet it is appropriate to allude to all the verses which call for peace and forgiveness of the infidel here. These verses are all abrogated by other verses which call for war. All religious Muslim scholars attest to this fact as we mentioned in chapter one. Thus, no one should believe that the Qur’an calls for peace because all these ‘peaceful’ verses are recorded in it. All of them are abrogated as all the Muslim scholars attest. The Suyuti says in this respect, "The order for Muslims to be patient and forgiving was issued when they were few and weak, but when they became strong, they were ordered to fight and the previous verses were abrogated" (part 3, p. 61). Ibn ’Arabi said, "The verse of the ‘sword’ has abrogated 124 verses" (p. 69). What is the second type of abrogation? It is a very strange type of abrogation, stranger than the previous one because it abrogates its recitation and retains its provision; that is, it keeps it in effect. If you wondered and asked what is the wisdom of that, you will find that the Suyuti himself asked the same logical question and endeavored to answer it. In part 3, p. 72, he says "The recitation of some verses is abrogated though their provisions are retained. Some people in this respect, asked a question, ‘What is the wisdom in abolishing the recitation and retaining the provision? Why was not the recitation retained so that the implementation of the provision and the reward of reciting it will be combined?’ Some have answered, ‘That is to show the extent of this nation’s obedience without any preference to seek a determined path"’ (Al Itqan . Refer also to Kishk legal opinions, part 4, p. 64. Sheik Kishk admitted this strange type of abrogation). The Suyuti throughout these pages, presents many illustrations for this strange type of abrogation. It is obvious that it is utterly meaningless to abrogate and abolish a certain verse and to retain its provisions. Concerning the subject of obedience, this could be manifested in many ways apart from this strange matter. In his illustrations which the Suyuti quoted, he relied on ’Umar ibn al-Khattab’s sayings. Other Strange Things Related To Abrogation 1) The abrogator precedes the abrogated In part 3, p. 69 the Suyuti remarks, "In the Qur’an there is no abrogator (verse) without being preceded by an abrogated (verse) except in two verses, and some added a third one, while others added a fourth verse" (Al Itqan). Then the Suyuti recorded these verses. We tell him that even if there is only one verse (not four) this matter is incomprehensible and unacceptable. Why should an abrogating verse (with which Muslims are to comply) precede the abrogated verse? How would an abrogating verse abolish something which is not yet in existence, then later, the abrogated verse is revealed and recorded in the Qur’an? Why should it be recorded if it is already abrogated? 2) In part 3, p. 70, the Suyuti himself admits to this odd and amazing situation. He indicates, "One of the wonders of abrogation is a verse in which its beginning has been abrogated by its end. There is nothing like it. It is (placed) in the Sura of the Table 105." This is Suyuti’s statement which I quoted word for word. 3) Muhammad’s traditions (sayings and deeds) abrogate the Qur’an. The majority of Muslim religious scholars confirm that this truly took place and there is no room to deny it. One illustration would be the stoning of the married adulterer. The Qur’an talks only about scourging and exiling the adulterer, yet Muhammad himself stoned some adulterers. Thus, stoning the married adulterer (male or female) and not flogging them, has become Islamic law. The reason for that is that Muhammad said and did so. Therefore, the Suyuti (part 3, p. 60), as well as Dr. Shalabi (p. 121), has said that Muhammad’s traditions abrogate the Qur’an. This is also the opinion of ibn Hazm and al-Shafi’i. In this regard Dr. Shalabi says (page 121), "God is the source of the ideas whether they are included in the Qur’an or in one of Muhammad’s Ahadith (traditions) which is inspired (by God) and not recorded in the Qur’an." We believe that such things conform to sound Islamic thought because such events did take place as we mentioned before, but we cannot understand why these inspired traditions which Muhammad received have not been recorded in the Qur’an. Thus, such verses would abrogate other verses, especially since the Qur’an says, "We do not abrogate a verse without revealing a better one or something like it." Nor do we understand the saying, "... we will reveal a better one," for is there better than the word of God? We understand that there could be something like it, but better? This is something we cannot comprehend or understand. Before we conclude the subject of abrogation in the Qur’an there are two things which are worth mentioning: First, the disagreement among Muslim religious scholars in regard to the abrogated verses despite the seriousness and importance of this matter. The Suyuti and Dr. Shalabi (along with all Muslim scholars and chroniclers) agree on a very significant dialogue which took place between ’Ali ibn Abi Talib and one of the jurisprudents which demonstrates the importance of knowing the abrogating and the abrogated verses. On page 120, Dr. Shalabi says, "Ibn Hazm talks about the necessity of knowing the abrogating and the abrogated (verses) in the Qur’an, and that this knowledge is a necessary condition of legal personal opinion (al-ijtihad). It was related that the Imam ’Ali saw Sa’id ibn al-Hasan presiding in his capacity as a judge in Kufa (Iraq). He asked him, ‘Do you know the abrogating and the abrogated (verses)?’ The judge answered, ‘No.’ He then told him, ‘You have perished and make (others) to perish."’ No doubt that if the judge does not know the abrogating and the abrogated (verses), he may issue his sentence based on an abolished ordinance. A Muslim may ask what is wrong with that? The problem and the crux of the matter is that no one knows exactly what the abrogating and the abrogated (verses) are. Scholars disagree on pinpointing the abrogated (verses). In page 118, Dr. Shalabi says, "Some scholars like ibn Hazm in his book, ‘The Abrogating and Abrogator’ (verses), have exaggerated (the issue of) abrogation to an extent which is unacceptable even to linguistic taste. He examined the Qur’an chapter by chapter and showed the abrogating and the abrogated in each of them. We disagree with him in this procedure." Then, in the same book, "The History of Islamic Law", he says, "We have to pinpoint the abrogating and the abrogated verses to be a ray of light for the students of the history of Islamic law. We will quote the Suyuti because he was sparing in his call for abrogation. He inclines toward rejecting excessive abrogation. Though the Suyuti believes that the abrogated verses are twenty, still we do not agree with him on all of them." So what can the students of the Islamic law and the judges like the judge of Kufa do? Ibn Hazm has recorded many abrogating and abrogated verses, then the Suyuti came after him and eliminated many of them and ended with only twenty verses. Later, Dr. Shalabi indicated that he disagreed even with the Suyuti on some of them. The disagreement on this matter is not a simple issue. It is very serious because knowing these verses is a basic condition in applying Islamic law and in the science of jurisprudence, as Dr. Shalabi indicated. It is well known that the "Ijtihad" (deduction of a legal opinion) is the third source of the Islamic law after the Qur’an and the tradition according to all Muslim scholars (refer to p. 24). That was the trend during the time of Muhammad, the companions and the Caliphs—the Qur’an first, then tradition, then the Itjihad (refer to p. 156). Secondly: God abrogates any desire Satan frames in the heart and the tongue of Muhammad. This means that Satan has the power to infuse certain verses in what Muhammad claims to be an inspiration from God. Satan was able to place on Muhammad’s tongue certain words by which he praised the pagans’ gods. This incident is confirmed and recorded by Suyuti, Jalalan, ibn Kathir (part 3, p. 229), Baydawi, Zamakhshari, ibn Hisham, and even ibn Abbas himself along with the rest of the companions. It is all recorded in the Qur’an, chapter 22:52, "Never sent we a messenger or a prophet before you but when he recited the message Satan proposed (opposition) in respect of that which he recited thereof but Allah abolishes that which Satan proposes." The Suyuti says in Asbab of the Nuzul (p. 184), "Muhammad was in Mecca. He read the chapter of the Star. When he uttered, ‘Have you seen the Lat, the ’Uzza, and the other third Manat?’, Satan instilled in his tongue, ‘These are the exulted idols (daughters of God) whose intercession is hoped.’ The infidels said that Muhammad had mentioned their gods with good words. Then when he prostrated, they prostrated, too. Thus, the above verse 22:52 was not inspired." On page 282 of the Commentary of the Jalalan, we read the same interpretation, and the Jalalan added, "Gabriel came to Muhammad after that and told him that Satan had thrust these words into his tongue. Muhammad became sad, then Gabriel delivered this verse to him to comfort him." This verse, as the Jalalan remarked, comforted Muhammad because it revealed that all the prophets and the apostles who came before Muhammad had experienced this trial and not just Muhammad. It is obvious here that this is false and spurious because no one ever heard that any of the apostles or the prophets had been exposed to such trials in which Satan made them utter what they proclaimed to be a revelation from God, then they later claimed it was Satan and not God who revealed it to them. If we refer to the commentary of the Baydawi (p. 447), we find that he agrees with the Suyuti and Jalalan and adds, "Muhammad desired that a Qur’an which brings his people closer to God and does alienate them may be bestowed on him; thus, Satan ill-whispered these words to him." In his book, "The Kash-shaf’, the Zamakh-shari (part 3, pp. 164, 165), asserts that, "This episode which Muhammad experienced is common knowledge and unquestionable, and is related to us by the companions of Muhammad." Thank you, Mr. Zamakh-shari! It is appropriate here to refer to ibn Hisham’s statement in his book, "The Prophetic Biography". This book relies on the testimonies of Muhammad’s companions. It is also the major source for all Muslims who always quote it. In part 2, p. 126, ibn Hisham says, "When some Muslims immigrated to Ethiopia, they received the news that the inhabitants of Mecca had accepted them. They returned to find that it was false news The reason was that the apostle of God, as he was reading the chapter of Star (53:19, 20), mentioned the idols of Mecca. Satan instilled in his recitation their praises and he (Muhammad) acknowledged their intervention. The infidels were overjoyed and said, ‘He mentioned our idols (gods) with good words.’ Then God sent down this verse (22:52). Gabriel told Muhammad, ‘I did not bring to you these verses (about the idols)."’ No one can accuse Salman Rushdi, in regard to the Satanic verses, of making false claims against Islam and the Qur’an because this incident is acknowledged by all Muslim scholars along with Muhammad’s companions and his relatives, especially ibn ’Abbas himself. If we cannot comprehend how God abrogates what He Himself has inspired, we can easily understand that He abrogates what Satan utters as is recorded in verse (22:52). Yet, we have here two important questions: First, how was Satan able to distort the inspiration and to deceive Muhammad so that he told the people that these were God’s words, then later he reversed himself and told them, "No, Satan was the one who ill-whispered to me with these words?" Muslims believe that prophets and apostles are infallible—in matters of inspiration, at least. The second question is also very important. How was Satan able to imitate the Qur’anic text with its Arabic eloquence and profound diction? If the Arabic reader re-read Satan’s words to Muhammad he should immediately realize that they possess the same Qur’anic literary characteristics, eloquence and style. It is impossible to distinguish them from the rest of the Qur’anic verses. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 25: 02.06. CONTRA ISLAM CHAPTER 11 ======================================================================== Chapter Eleven The Contradictions of the Qur’an Christian orientalist researchers allude to dozens of Qur’anic contradictions. They indicate that there are many contradictory verses in the Qur’an. Maybe they are right. Yet, here we are going to examine only a few of these contradictions mentioned by these orientalists, mainly because we would like to quote Muslim scholars, as we agreed upon at the beginning of the book. It is sufficient that these Muslim scholars acknowledge the existence of these contradictions even though they attempted to justify them. Their justifications proved to be feeble, as the reader will soon discover Also, they completely ignored some other contradictions. However, concerning the contradictions to which they produced some sensible justifications, we will accept what they offer since we are bound to recognize their interpretations of the Qur’an. Still, we believe that the refutations of the Orientalist researchers are more convincing in many cases. Never-the-less, we will continue to employ the same strategy we have been applying since the beginning of this study. We will cite Muslim scholars and refer the reader to their views. The First Contradiction In several verses the Qur’an indicates that it was revealed in the Arabic tongue; that is, in the Arabic language (refer to 14:4; 29:192-195; 13:37; 42 7; 39:28, and 43:3). Yet, in at least two plain verses, the Qur’an commands the deletion of any dialect other than the Arabic language in the Qur’anic text (16:103; 41:44). In his book, "The Itqan" (part 2, p. 105), the Suyuti tells us that many scholars (among them the Shafi’i, ibn Jarir al-Tabari) Their claim is based on these verses. In his book, "al-Risala", edited by Ahmad Shakir (p. 41), the Shafi’i says, "It is said, ‘What is the proof that the Book of God is in the Arabic language without being mixed with any (foreign words)?’ The proof is the Book of God itself." Then the Shafi’i quoted the above mentioned verses (16:103 and 41:44). The Shafi’i want to defend these verses but he is not able to ignore the facts which all Muslim scholars verify along with the companions and the legists such as ibn ’Abbas, Mujahid, ibn Jubayr, ’Akrama, and ’Ata. Also included in this group is the Suyuti as well as other scholars like Dr. Muhammad Rajab who expressed his views in "Solidarity" (al-Tadamun) magazine (April, 1989 issue). In his book, "The Itqan" (part 2, pp. 108-119), the Suyuti lists 118 non-Arabic words recorded in the Qur’an. Ibn ’Abbas, himself (along with other great Companions) asserts that some Qur’anic words are Persian, Ethiopian and Nabatean (p. 105). Dr. Bayyumi also confirms the Suyuti’s opinions and views. Faced with these contradictions what does the Suyuti say to justify them? He says in p. 106, "The existence of a few non-Arabic words does not make the Qur’an non-Arabic as the verses indicate." And we say to Suyuti: "We know that the Qur’an is an Arabic book, but the Qur’an denies that it contains non-Arabic words (refer to verses 16:103; 41:44). It is obvious that this is a contradiction, especially since there are about 118 non-Arabic words—not just five or ten words. The simple explanation for this contradiction is that Muhammad himself did not know that the origin of the words he employed in the Qur’an were non-Arabic. He was not aware that some of them were Persian, Ethiopian, Berber, Turkish and Nabatean; thus, he claimed that the entire Qur’an was revealed in pure Arabic language! The Second Contradiction In part 3, p. 83 of "The Itqan", the Suyuti designated many pages under the title, "What is Mistaken For a Contradiction in the Qur’an." He remarks that there is something in the Qur’an to which ibn ’Abbas stopped short of giving any answer. A man told him that one verse in the Qur’an mentions that the length of the day of resurrection is one thousand years and another verse says it is 50 thousand years (al-Sayda: 5 and al-Ma’arij: 4). Ibn ’Abbas said, "These are two days which God—may He be exalted—has mentioned in His book, and God knows best." This is an honest acknowledgment by ibn ’Abbas without any attempt of justification. When ibn Musayyib, one of the great companions, was asked about these two days and why they contradict each other, he said, "Ibn ’Abbas avoided talking about them and he is more knowledgeable than me." Yet we find some contemporary scholars who endeavor to justify this contradiction and claim that they are more knowledgeable than ibn ’Abbas! ! The Third Contradiction In the same part (p. 79), the Suyuti says that the Qur’an states in chapter 6:22-23 that in the day of judgment, infidels attempt to conceal some thing from God while in chapter 4:42 the Qur’an contradicts that and indicates that they do not conceal anything from God. The Suyuti tries to justify this contradiction by saying that ibn ’Abbas was asked about it and he answered that they conceal it by their tongues but their hands and their limbs admit it. Yet the question is still without answer because if their hands admit it in spite of themselves, it should not be said that they did not conceal any fact from God because they did try to hide, but their hands gave it away, as ibn ’Abbas says. The Fourth Contradiction In chapter, "al Waqiha," the Qur’an talks about those who are destined to enter paradise. It states in verses 13 and 14 that the majority will be from the nations who came before Muhammad and the minority will be from peoples who believed in Muhammad. But in the same chapter (verses 39 and 40), it is said that the majority will be from those people who came before and after Muhammad also. This is a contradiction in the same chapter. Verse 14 says, "... a few of those of later time", but in verse 40, the Qur’an says just the opposite, "... a multitude of those of later time." I have tried to limit this discussion by quoting the interpretations of these verses by Muslim scholars, but they never presented any clear cut justification for this obvious contradiction (refer to the commentary of the Baydawi, p. 710; Zamakh-Shari in his Kash-Shaf, part 4, p. 458; and the Jalalan, p. 453). All of them just say that "... the formers are the nations from Adam to Muhammad and the latters are the people of Muhammad." Thus, one time the Qur’an remarks, "A minority from others," then it says "a majority or multitude from others." This is an obvious contradiction observed by many and no one has found any refutation against it among Muslim scholars. The Fifth Contradiction Pertaining to marriages, it is clear that the Qur’an calls for the possibility of marrying four women at the same time. In Chapter 4:3, "But if ye fear that you shall not treat them fairly, then only one." But in Chapter 4:129, we read, "You will not be able to deal equally between your wives however much you wish to do so." In his book, "The Itqan", the Suyuti says, "In the first verse we understand that fairness is possible while in the second, we perceive that fairness is not possible" (Itqan, part 3, page 85). Actually, from the Qur’anic point of view as well as according to Muhammad and the rest of the Muslims, "fairness is possible" to be practiced by the evidence that they got (and still get) married to four women. Even Muhammad’s companions and his successors did so. Therefore, "fairness" seemed to be possible for them because it is not reasonable that all of them, including ’Umar, ’Ali, ’Uthman and Muhammad violated the Qur’anic teaching. Then why does the Qur’an say in chapter 4:129 that "fairness" is not possible? This is an obvious contradiction which Muslim scholars, among them the Suyuti, realized and comprehended. In order to solve the problem, the Suyuti argued, "The first verse (meant) fairness in regard to fulfilling the pledges while the second verse is related to the heart’s inclination and it is not within the ability of a man to be fair in this matter." The Jalalan (page 82) and Baydawi (page 130) agree with him. The Baydawi reiterates the same statement and adds, "Muhammad himself was fair with his women in the matter of human rights, but in the inclination of the heart, he used to say to God, ‘Forgive me in regard to that over which I have no control.’" Because Muhammad, according to all the scholars, favored A’isha over the rest and he did not harbor any inclination toward Sawda bint Zamea. The Zamakh-shari asserts Muhammad’s favoritism for A’isha and states that some people have interpreted the second verse to mean that you cannot be fair in love. Sheik Kashkak indicates in his book of "Opinions" (part 5, page 52), that some favoritism is permissible! Yet, the Zamakh-shari gives another significant opinion when he explicitly says in the Kash-shaf (part 1, pages 568 and 69), "God has relieved you of (implementing) complete fairness to that which you are able to carry out because it is obligatory to treat the women equally in dividing their portions, expenses and pledges and many other things hardly uncountable. It is something which is beyond (human) ability even if they all were beloved. How would the situation be if the heart inclined toward but some of them!" Then the Zamakh-shari indicated, "The second verse which indicated that you will not be able to be fair" could mean "to be fair in love" as in what happened to Muhammad and A’isha. Yet, we understand from Zamakh-Shari’s statement that "fairness" is not possible in division of portions, financial support, and pledges even if they were all beloved. How much harder it would be if the man’s heart was inclined to some of them more than others. He said what is really required is to abstain from being fully inclined toward one woman which would be conducive to neglecting the rest of them. Zamakh-Shari’s interpretation here is fully in congruence with the remainder of the verse. Muslim scholars cited Muhammad as an example, and the issue became more complicated, for what would happen to the poor wife if her husband devoted his love to another wife? She cannot object because, based on the Qur’anic text and by the example set by Muhammad, her husband is innocent of any wrongdoing. The Qur’an asserts that you cannot, from an emotional point-of-view, treat women justly, and Muhammad himself has rejected the request of his daughter, Fatima, to treat all his wives alike and not to bestow on A’isha, his favorite spouse, more than the rest of them. He expressed his favoritism publicly several times. He planned to divorce Sauda (one of his other wives). Some said he already did then he reinstated her when she agreed to relinquish her night for A’isha. What a pity for the Muslim women! Western orientalists also say that the Qur’an contradicts itself when it alludes to the creation of earth and heaven by saying on the one hand that heaven was created after the earth (many verses) then on the other hand, in one verse, it says the earth was created after the heavens. We have not used this but have attempted and continue to attempt to quote only the Muslim scholars such as Suyuti, Baydawi, Jalalan, and Zamakh-Shari, who endeavor to explain these verses to negate any contradiction against the proper usage of the language, such as by saying the word ‘after’ means ‘before’. Or, as we read in Sura 90:1, they said that God does not swear in the sacred land (that is, Mecca), then in Sura 95:3 we see Him swearing in Mecca the sacred land. The contradiction between these two verses is evident, yet the Suyuti (along with other scholars) denied that there is any contradiction because the word ‘no’ in Chapter 90 is redundant. It is not intended to negate but to affirm!! The Suyuti mentioned this issue among many others, under the title, "What Was Mistaken to be Contradiction." He summarizes the opinions of the scholars in response to this criticism by saying: "The people did not reject what you rejected because the Arabs may use ‘not’ in the context of their conversation and abolish its meaning." ======================================================================== CHAPTER 26: 02.06. CONTRA ISLAM CHAPTER 12 ======================================================================== Chapter Twelve The Perversion of Qur’an and the Loss of Many Parts of It On page 131 of his book, "El-Sheaa and Correction", the contemporary Muslim scholar, Dr. Mosa-El-Mosawy, makes this frank confession, "Those who adopt the notion of the perversion of the Qur’an are present among all different Islamic groups, but the majority of them come from the El-Sheaa scholars." Perversion of Qur’an is an unimaginable notion to the lay Muslim because the Scholars of Islam are hiding this truth from being published or becoming known. Of course, we weren’t just satisfied with what Dr. El-Mosawy has already mentioned, but we went back to the most popular ancient scholars and to Muhammad’s relatives and companions to investigate this notion concerning the perversion and loss of several parts of the Qur’an because those are the trustworthy people regarding the history and development of Islam. Upon examining the testimonies of these great companions, the answer was positive. They clearly stated that perversion and loss of large fragments of the Qur’an did occur. Let us scrutinize their testimony in order to present to deluded Muslims the truth as it is proclaimed by their trusted spiritual leaders and scholars. The deceptive veil must be removed so people can see the true face of the Qur’an. ’Ibn Umar al-Khattab explicitly admits, "Let no one of you say that he has acquired the entire Qur’an for how does he know that it is all? Much of the Qur’an has been lost, thus let him say, ‘I have acquired of it what is available"’ (Suyuti: Itqan, part 3, page 72). A’isha (also page 72) adds to the story of ibn Umar and says, "During the time of the prophet, the chapter of the Parties used to be two hundred verses when read. When Uthman edited the copies of the Qur’an, only the current (verses) were recorded" (73 verses). The same statement is made by Ubay ibn Ka’b, one of the great companions. On page 72, part 3, the Suyuti says, "This famous companion asked one of the Muslims, ‘How many verses in the chapter of the Parties?’ He said, ‘Seventy-two or seventy-three verses.’ He (Ubay) told him, ‘It used to be almost equal to the chapter of the Cow (about 286 verses) and included the verse of the stoning.’ The man asked, ‘What is the verse of the stoning?’ He said, ‘If an old man or woman committed adultery, stone them to death."’ This same story and same dialogue which took place between the companion and one of the Muslims is recorded by Ibn Hazm (volume 8, part 11, pages 234 and 235). Then Ibn Hazm said, "’Ali Ibn Abi Talib said this has a reliable chain of authority (The Sweetest [Al Mohalla] vol. 8.)." The Zamakh-shari also cited it in his book, "al-Kash-Shaf’ (part 3, page 518). These are unquestionable statements made by the pillars of the Islamic religion who transmitted Muhammad’s sayings and biography, "The Tradition", and who interpreted the Qur’an— among them Ibn ’Umar, A’isha, Ubay Ibn Ka’b and ’Ali Ibn Abi Talib. Ibn ’Umar states that a large part of the Qur’an was missed. A’isha and Ubay Ibn Ka’b assert that dozens of verses from the "Chapter of the Parties" have been lost. ’Ali confirms that, too. In regard to this particular verse, the following incident is recorded in "The Itqan" by Suyuti (part 1, page 168), "During the collection of the Qur’an, people used to come to Zayd Ibn Thabit (with the verses they memorized). He shunned recording any verse unless two witnesses attested to it. The last verse of chapter of Repentance was found only with Khuzayma Ibn Thabit. Zayd said, ‘Record it because the apostle of God made the testimony of Khuzayma equal to the testimony of two men.’ ’Umar came with the verse of the stoning but it was not recorded because he was the only witness to it." One can only wonder and ask, "Does ’Umar need another witness to agree with him? Would he lie to God and the Qur’an? Because of that, ’Umar said after that, "If it were not that people would say, "Umar has added to the book of God’, I would have recorded the verse of the stoning" (part 3, page 75 of the Itqan). Refer also to skiek Kishk’s book (part 3, page 64). Another confession by A’isha: "Among the (verses) which were sent down, (the verse) of the ten breast feedings was abrogated by (a verse which calls for five breast feedings. The apostle of God died and this verse was still read as part of the Qur’an. This was related by Abu Bakr and ’Umar" (refer to Suyuti’s qan, part 3, pages 62 and 63). Events Which Led To The Loss Of Some Verses A Domesticated Animal Eats Qur’anic Verses In his book (volume 8, part II, pages 235 and 236), Ibn Hazm says plainly, "The verses of stoning and breast feeding were in the possession of A’isha in a (Qur’anic) copy. When Muhammad died and people became busy in the burial preparations, a domesticated animal entered in and ate it." A’isha herself declared that and she knew exactly what she possessed. Also, Mustafa Husayn, who edited and reorganized the book, "al-Kash-shaf" by the Zamakh-Shari, asserts this fact in page 518 of part 3. He says that the ones who related this incident and said that a domesticated animal ate the verses were reliable persons among them ’Abdulla Ibn Abi Bakr and A’isha herself. This same story has been mentioned also by Dar-al-Qutni, al-Bazzar and al Tabarani, on the authority of Muhammad Ibn Ishaq who heard it from ’Abdulla who himself heard it from A’isha. Professor Mustafa indicates that this does not negate that the abrogation of these verses may have occurred before the domesticated animal ate them. Why then did ’Umar want to record the verse of the stoning in the Qur’an if its recitation was abrogated? And why did people used to read the verses of the breast-feeding? And, if Muhammad died while these verses were still recited who abrogated them? Did the domesticated animal abrogate them? It is evident that this really did occur according to the witness of the companions, Muslim scholars, and A’isha herself. Other Matters Which Were Lost, Not Recorded And Altered In part 3, page 73, the Suyuti said, "Hamida, the daughter of Abi Yunis, said, ‘When my father was eighty years old, he read in the copy of A’isha, "God and His angels bless (literally pray for) the prophet Oh ye who believe, bless him and those who pray in the first rows." Then she said, "That was before ’Uthman changed the Qur’anic copies.""’ On page 74, we read, "Umar said to ’Abdul-Rahman Ibn ’Oaf, ‘Didn’t you find among the verses that we received one saying, "Strive as you strove at the first?" We do not locate it (any more).’ ’Abdul-Rahman Ibn ’Oaf told him, ‘This verse has been removed among those others which were removed from the Qur’an."’ It is well known that ’Abdul-Rahman Ibn ’Oaf was one of the great companions and was among those who were nominated for the caliphate. Also, on the same page (74, of part 3) of "The Itqan", we read, "Maslama al-Ansar said to the companions of Muhammad, ‘Tell me about two verses which have not been recorded in the Qur’an which ’Uthman collected.’ They failed to do so. Maslama said, ‘Oh, ye who believed and immigrated and fought for the cause of God by (sacrificing) your properties and yourselves, you received the glad tidings, for you are prosperous. Also, those who sheltered them, aided them and defended them, against whom God (revealed) His wrath, no soul knows what is awaiting them as a reward for what they did."’ Throughout pages 73 and 74 of part 3, the Suyuti records for us all the remarks made by Muhammad’s companions in regard to the unpreserved Qur’anic verses which the readers failed to find in the Qur’an which ’Uthman collected and which is currently in vogue. It is worthwhile to notice that we only quote the testimonies of the most reliable authorities whose witness is highly regarded and cited by all the scholars and students of the Qur’an such as ’Ali, ’Uthman, Abu Bakr, A’isha (Muhammad’s wife), Ibn Mas’ud, and Ibn ’Abbas. In the context of expounding the Qur’an, these scholars are always quoted to shed light on the events which took place during the time of Muhammad. No one could interpret the tenets of Islam better than these scholars could. If we ponder the first part of "The Itqan", by the Suyuti, we read (page 184), "Malik says that several verses from chapter 9 (Sura of Repentance) have been dropped from the beginning. Among them is, ‘In the name of God the compassionate, the Merciful’ because it was proven that the length of Sura of Repentance was equal to the length of the Sura of the Cow." This means that this chapter has lost 157 verses. Also (page 184), the Suyuti tells us that the words, "In the name of God the compassionate, the merciful" were found in the chapter of Repentance in the Qur’anic copy which belonged to Ibn Mas’ud which ’Uthman confiscated and burned when the current Qur’an was edited. Not only verses have been dropped, but also entire chapters have been abolished from the ’Uthmanic copy which is in the hands of all Muslims today. The Suyuti and other scholars testify that the Qur’anic copies of both Ubay and Ibn Mas’ud include two chapters called "The Hafad" and "the Khal"’. They both are located after the chapter of "the ’Asr" (103) (refer to pp. 182 and 183 of part one of the gn). He also indicates that the Qur’anic copy of ’Abdulla-Ibn Mas’ud does not contain the chapter of "The Hamd" and "The Mu’withatan" (Surah 113, 114). On page 184, the Suyuti tells us that Ubay ibn Abi Ka’b recorded in his Qur’anic copy two chapters that start with, "Oh God, we ask for your assistance," and "Oh God, you whom we worship." These are the two chapters of "The Hafad" and "The Khal’. " On page 185, the Suyuti assures us on the authority of the most famous companions of the prophet that ’Ali ibn Abi Talib was aware of these two chapters. ’Umar ibn al-Khattab was accustomed to read them after his prostration. The Suyuti records them in their entirety on page 185. They are available to any Arab who wishes to read them. Then, the Suyuti adds that the two chapters are found in the Qur’anic copy of ibn ’Abbas also. What more we should say after we heard the testimonies of ibn ’Abbas, ’Umar, ’Ali, ibn Mas’ud and ibn Abi Ka’b Talib? It is evident that the Qur’an once included these two chapters. If the reader asks, "What do you mean by saying ‘...the Qur’anic copy of ibn ’Abbas’, or ‘... the copy of ibn Mas’ud ... A’isha’, etc.? Were there many different Qur’anic copies?’ I will not supply the answer, but I leave that to the Muslim scholars and chroniclers as we examine how the Qur’anic copies were burned and only one universal copy was kept. The Collection Of The Qur’an And The Fierce Dispute Among The Scholars And The Companions Among the greatest events which took place during the reign of ’Uthman ibn ’Affan, third caliph after Muhammad, is the collection of the Qur’an. It is appropriate here to record briefly the story of the first collection of the Qur’an which occurred during the time of Abu Bakr after the death of Muhammad. All chroniclers, without exception, have never questioned the authenticity of the incident (refer to "The Itqan" of Suyuti, part 1, page 165, Dr. Ahmad Shalabi, pp. 37 and 38, al-Bukhari, part 6, page 477). What did the Bukhari say in this regard? "’Umar said to Abu Bakr, ‘I suggest you order that the Qur’an be collected.’ Abu Bakr said to him, ‘How can you do something which Allah’s messenger did not do.’ Then Abu Bakr accepted his proposal and came to Zayd and said to him, ‘You are a wise young man and we do not have any doubts about you. So you should search for the fragments of the Qur’an and collect it.’ Zayd said, ‘By Allah if they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains it wouldn’t have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur’an."’ The question which presents itself is, why did not Muhammad give orders to collect the Qur’an? Why did not the angel Gabriel suggest to him to do such an important task to avoid the disagreement, dispute, and the fight which spread among the people? He could have avoided the debate about the chapters and the verses of the Qur’an which raged among the great scholars. Secondly, why did Zayd consider the task of collecting the verses of the Qur’an more difficult than removing a mountain? There is no answer for the first question. Of course, Gabriel was supposed to order Muhammad to collect the Qur’an while he was still alive in order to save his people from the disputes and fights. The answer for the second question is evident because a great number of the reciters and the memorizers of the Qur’an had already been killed in the wars of the apostasies, especially in the battle of Yamama. So, how could Zayd collect the Qur’an thoroughly? Removing a mountain is much easier, as he said. Now what happened during the time of ’Uthman? In his book "The History of Islamic Law" (page 38), Dr. Ahmad Shalabi says, "The Qur’an was collected and entrusted to Hafsa. It was not proclaimed among people until the era of ’Uthman ibn ’Affan. Huthayfa, one of Muhammad’s companions who fought in Armenia and Adharbijan, said to ’Uthman, ‘The Muslims disagree on the (correct) reading of the Qur’an and they fight among themselves.’ ’Uthman ordered Zayd ibn Thabit and the other three to collect the Qur’an in one copy. After they accomplished that, ’Uthman gave the order to bum the rest of the Qur’anic copies which were in the hands of Muhammad’s companions. That was in the year 25 H." All Muslim scholars concur—such as Al-Bukhari (part 6, page 225), Suyuti in "The Itqan" (part 1, page 170), and Ibn Kathir in "The Beginning and the End" (part 7, page 218) in which he remarks, "’Uthman burned the rest of the copies which were in the hands of the people because they disagreed on the (correct) reading and they fought among themselves. When they came to take ibn Mas’ud’s copy to bum it, he told them, ‘I know more than Zayd ibn Thabit (whom ’Uthman ordered to collect the copies of the Qur’an).’ ’Uthman wrote to ibn Mas’ud asking him to submit his copy for burning." When ibn Mas’ud said that he was more knowledgeable than Zayd, his claim was not questioned because he was a very reliable person. In part 7, page 162 of his book, "The Beginning and the End", ibn Kathir said about him that he used to teach people the Qur’an and the traditions. Some even thought that he was a member of Muhammad’s family because he had easy access to Muhammad’s assembly while Zayd was still young. The Bukhari comments (part 6, page 229) that Muhammad prompted his adherent to learn the Qur’an from four people, among them ibn Mas’ud Zayd was not mentioned among them. Yet, when ’Uthman asked Zayd to collect the Qur’an, he did not add ibn Mas’ud to the committee. A contemporary scholar, Sheikh Kishk, remarks in his book, "Legal Opinions" (part 1, page 102), "The four most important commentators are ibn ’Abbas, ibn Mas’ud, ’Ali ibn Abi Talib and ’Ubay ibn Ka’bal-Ansari." So ibn Mas’ud is one of the four great expounders of the Qur’an and Zayd ibn Thabit did not enjoy the same prestige of ibn Mas’ud. It was common knowledge that both ibn Mas’ud and ibn Ali Ka’b were accustomed to write the two chapters of the Hafad and the Khal’ which are now eliminated from the current Qur’an which Zayd collected. Ibn Mas’ud asserts that the chapter of the praise and the Mu’withatan are not part of the Qur’an (refer to "The Itqan" by Suyuti, part 1, pp. 221, 222). Despite that, Zayd recorded them. It was a strange thing, ’Uthman’s order to burn the companions’ copies. If we question that, we will be inclined to believe that these copies differed from the Qur’anic copy which Zayd edited and compiled, otherwise ’Uthman would not have burned them. This is not the conclusion of the author, but it is the opinion of many great contemporary Muslim scholars, among them Ibrahim al-Abyari, who expressed his view in his book, "The History of the Qur’an" (3rd print, 1982, page 107). He plainly says, "There were also other copies of the Qur’an such as the copy of Abi Musa al-Ash’ari, al-Maqdad ibn al-Aswad, and Salim the client of Abi Huthayfa. There were differences between those copies, differences which Huthayka attested to it. That frightened ’Uthman, thus he issued an order to collect the Qur’an because the Kufis followed the copy of ibn Mas’ud; the Syrians the copy of ibn Abi Ka’b; the people of Basra, the copy of Musa al-Ash’ari; the Damascenes, the copy of ibn Maqdad." On page 41, he adds: "Ibn Qutayba says that the differences between the recitations of the various Qur’anic copies may include the meaning also." Also on page 109, he says: "When Abu Bakr and ’Umar assigned Zayd ibn Thabit to compile the Qur’an, there was a previous compilation of the Qur’an made by a group of the greatest companions such as ’Ali ibn Abi Talib, ibn Mas’ud and ibn ’Abbas and others." The Muslim has the right to wonder and to ask why Abu Bakr and ’Umar took the trouble to do that when ibn Mas’ud and ibn ’Abbas who were (according to Muhammad) the most knowledgeable people in the Qur’an, had already accomplished it? Why did they not at least add them to the committee or solicit their opinions? In regard to the copy of ’Ali ibn Abi Talib, the Imam Khu’i tells us in his book, "al-Bayan" (page 222), the following: "The existence of Imam ’Ali’s copy is an unquestionable matter. All scholars admit it and say that it contains additions which are not found in the current Qur’an. These additions are under the title of ‘The Revelation of God for the Explanation of the Intended’ (purpose)." The Imam Khu’i is one of the greatest scholars among the Shi’ites. He drew his information from what the Imam al-Tabari had recorded in his book, "’al-Ihtijaj"’ ("Apology") (refer to Dr. Musa, The Shi’ites and the Reformation, pp. 132,133). Dr. Musa also indicates: "Our scholars and legists infer from an episode recorded by the Tabari in the book of al-Ihtijaj about the existence of a Qur’anic copy compiled by the Imam ’Ali. This episode tells that ’Ali said to Talha (one of Muhammad’s relatives and companions) that every verse God bestowed upon Muhammad is in my possession, dictated to me by the apostle of God and written by the script of my hand, along with exposition of every verse and all the lawful and unlawful (issues)." Dr. Musa tells us, that despite the fact that he studied Islam and jurisprudence under the direction of the Imam al-Khu’i, he was involved in a fierce argument in regard to this serious matter. But we will tell Dr. Musa that all the Shi’ites and their scholars (whose total number is more than one hundred fifty million Muslims scattered all over the Islamic countries) believe this. Even Sheikh Kishk who was one of the Sunnis’ scholars, repeats similar statements in his book, "Legal Opinions" (part 1, page 103). He says, "’Ali remarked, ‘Ask me about the book of God. I swear to God that there is no verse which I do not know whether it was sent down at night or during time, or on a plain or on a mountain."’ He also states similar words about ibn Mas’ud. In spite of that, ’Ali ibn Mas’ud and ibn Abi Ka’b had been disqualified from contributing to the compilation of the Qur’an and their copies were neglected, though they were the most important expounders of the Qur’an along with ibn ’Abbas. It is ’Ali’s copy which contains additional material lacked in the current Qur’an and includes revelations from God for explaining the intended purposes. This is what happened in the course of the compilation of the Qur’an during the time of ’Uthman ibn ’Affan. Thus, it is no wonder that ibn Kathir explicitly mentions that Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr, the righteous, and the brother of A’isha, Muhammad’s wife had participated with ’Ammar ibn Yasir, one of the famous companions, in the assassination of ’Uthman, reiterating, "You have altered God’s book" (refer to the Bidaya and The Nihaya, part 7, page 185). On page 166, ibn Kathir records that a large number of the reciters of the Qur’an used to curse ’Uthman and encouraged people to revolt against him. The question is, "Why do the reciters of the Qur’an do that and why does ibn Kathir vow that ibn Abi Bakr said that to ’Uthman? Did ’Uthman really change the copies of the Qur’an as Hamida daughter of Abi Yunis testified along with the rest of the great companions whom we mentioned? Yes indeed! The Dispute Among The Companions And The Seven Readings Of The Qur’an On the authority of all the scholars, the Suyuti tells us that the most eminent companions disagreed on the number of chapters of the Qur’an and their verses. They disagreed on the order of the chapters. He listed for us the order of the chapters in ’Ali’s and ibn Mas’ud’s copies (refer to the Itqan, part 1, pp. 176 and 189). He tells us that the multitude of scholars said that the order of the chapters was the outcome of the companions’ opinion and they disagreed about that among themselves. The Suyuti admits on this page that both ’Ali and ibn Mas’ud each owned his own copy. Also Ubay ibn Ka’b possessed his own, too. He regarded the dispute over the verse, "In the name of God the Compassionate and Merciful", a striking example about the dispute between the most eminent companions and the scholars. Some said that it is not one of the Qur’anic verses, so ibn ’Abbas told them that they eliminated 114 verses from the Qur’an because it was repeated 114 times. The Zamakh-shari, who recorded this incident in the Kash-shaf (part 1, pp. 24-26) states that those who denied these verses were ibn Mas’ud himself, Abu Hanifa, Malik and all the reciters and legists of Medina, Basra and Syria. Imam Malik used to say, "This verse should not be read aloud or privately because it is not part of the Qur’an. Sheikh Kishk agrees with the Zamakh-shari in this matter and confirms that a dispute has resulted among the greatest scholars because of this verse. Some famous scholars such as the Qurtubi and ibn ’Arabi are of the same opinion as Malik that this verse is not of the Qur’an (refer to "Legal Opinions" of the contemporary Egyptian scholar Sheikh Kishk, part 9, pp. 41-47). Of course, this verse is included in all the chapters of the Qur’an except the chapter of the Repentance. The reason for that is a very significant story which reveals that the compilation of the Qur’an and the order of the chapters are the product of human effort in compliance with the order of ’Uthman. In his "Itqan" (part 1, pp. 172,173), the Suyuti tells us: "Ibn ’Abbas said to ’Uthman, ‘What made you combine the chapter of the Anfal and the chapter of Tawba (repentance) without separating them by the verse, "In the name of God the compassionate, the Merciful"? (And why) did you put them among the seven long (chapters)?’ ’Uthman said, ‘The chapters used to be bestowed upon the apostle of God. The chapter of Anfal was among the early ones which were revealed in Medina and the chapter of Repentance was among the last revealed. Its story was similar to the early story (of the Anfal), so I thought that it was part of it. Then the apostle of God died without showing us that it was part of the (Anfal); thus, I combined them and did not write between them the verse, "In the name of God the Compassionate, the Merciful", and it is among the long ones."’ The order and organization of the Qur’an depended on ’Uthman’s view as he admitted himself to ibn ’Abbas. This time ’Uthman’s opinion was wrong. The Suyuti tells us in "The Itqan" (part 1, page 195) that a dispute broke out among the scholars because of this verse which was revealed in some of the seven readings but not in all of them. You may wonder what "the seven readings" are, and what we mean when we say that the Qur’an was sent down in "seven letters" (readings). We would briefly answer this question before we move to the last subject in this chapter which is the religious teachings, the mythical episodes and the meaning of the chapters included in the contents of the Qur’an. The Seven Letters (Readings) Of The Qur’an Both former and latter Muslim scholars agree on this issue. They all relied on Muhammad’s famous statements which Bukhari and others recorded, as well as an incident which is frequently quoted by most of these scholars. The incident took place between ’Umar ibn al-Khattab and one of the great companions by the name of Hisham ibn al-Hakam in which Muhammad was the arbitrator. Muhammad’s Statements Muhammad said: "Gabriel made me read in (one dialect), I consulted with him again and continued asking for more (dialectical reading) and he continued to add to that until I finished with seven readings" (refer to Bukhari, part 6, page 227, and "The Itqan", part 1, page 131). The Suyuti tells us that this admission is quoted in al-Bukhari, and Sahih of Muslim on the authority of ibn ’Abbas. Also, ibn ’Abbas indicated to us (part 1, page 132) that Muhammad said, "My Lord told me to read the Qur’an in one dialect. I sent back and asked Him to make it easy for my people. He answered me (saying), ‘Read it in two dialects.’ I requested of him again, thus he sent to me (saying), ‘Read it in seven dialects."’ "Gabriel and Michael visited me. Gabriel sat at my right side and Michael at my left side. Gabriel said (to me), ‘Read the Qur’an in one dialect.’ Michael said, ‘Add (more dialects)’ until he reached seven dialects." These are Muhammad’s statements, but before we allude to the meaning of the seven letters (readings) as they were recorded by Muslim scholars, let us look at the incident which took place between ’Umar and Hisham (part 6, page 482 of al-Bukhari). Umar ibn Al-Khattab said, "I heard Hisham ibn Hakim reciting Al-Furqan and I listened to his recitation and noticed that he recited in several different ways which Allah’s messenger had not taught me. I was about to jump on him during his prayer and when he had completed his prayer, I put his upper garment around his neck and seized him by it and said, ‘Who taught you this Surah which I heard you reciting?’ He replied, ‘Allah’s Messenger taught it to me.’ I said, ‘You have lied for Allah’s Messenger has taught it to me in a different way.’ So I dragged him to Allah’s Messenger and said to him, ‘I heard this person reciting Surah Al-Furqan in a way which you haven’t taught me.’ Allah’s Messenger said, ‘It was revealed in both ways. This Qur’an has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite out of it whichever way is easier for you."’ Refer also to Dr. Shalabi’s book (page 40) along with other major sources, for all of them have recorded this story. It is very interesting to notice that Muhammad, the prophet, approved the readings of both of them in spite of the obvious differences between them which provoked ’Umar and forced him to treat Hisham brutally and pull him by his clothes. The Meaning Of The Seven Letters (Readings) The Suyuti says in "The Itqan" (part 1, pp. 131-140), scholars have argued among themselves about the meaning of the seven letters Some like ibn Qutayba said that there is a difference in the meaning and not only in the usage of the vocabulary or the dialect. For some words, the meaning may change according to the vocalization of the word. The verb may be in the past tense or imperative as we find in chapter Saba’: 19; or it depends on the word’s diacritical points which incur a change in the meaning; or whether a phrase was added or deleted from the verse; or if a word is replaced by another. These are the views of ibn Qutayba who is one of the most famous scholars of his time. Ibn al-Jazri agrees with him and admits that the meaning changes from one reading to another. The Suyuti states that Muslim scholars have said so because of the incident which occurred between ’Umar and Hisham ibn Hakeem, because both of them belonged to the same tribe of Quraysh and used the same dialect. It is impossible to say that ’Umar disapproved Hisham’s dialect. This denotes that the Seven Letters do not mean mere difference in the dialect of the Arab tribes, otherwise ’Umar would not have objected to Hisham’s reading (refer to Suyuti, part 1, page 136). Yet some other scholars such as al-Tabari argue that the difference is only in the vocabulary. One scholar agrees with the Tabari who said that ibn Mas’ud used to read: "‘Every time the (lightning) shines, they walk therein’ (chapter 2:20). Yet other times, he may read, ‘Passed through or went forward’; that is, stating the same meaning but using different vocabularies." It is obvious to the reader that the differences between the seven readings include the meaning and the vocabulary because both ’Umar and Hisham belonged to the same tribe which speaks the same dialect. Yet they differed in their reading of the verses because the Qur’an was given without any vocalization or diacritical points, as the scholars indicated. In this case, it is inevitable that the meaning be exposed to change and disruption as ibn Qutayba, ibn al-Jazri and others mentioned and demonstrated by definite examples. It is evident then that there are seven different dialects in the Qur’anic text. That created a dilemma for Muslim scholars. Even Suyuti himself alluded (page 136) to the fact that this issue has created a doubt in the minds of the scholars because the seven dialects required Gabriel to deliver each verse seven times. Scholars’ Admission Of A Strange Thing In his "Itqan" (paragraph 1, page 137), the Suyuti remarks, "A great scholar, that is the Mawardi, said that Muhammad had permitted the reading (of the Qur’an) on the basis of any of the Seven Letters as it happened in the episodes of ’Umar. He also allowed replacing a letter with another letter." The Suyuti also says on (pages 141,142), "The multitude of the scholars and the legists said that the ’Uthmanic Qur’an was (written) in accordance to one letter (dialect) only." On pages 170 and 171, the Suyuti adds: "When the lads and their teachers fought against each other during the era of ’Uthman due to the difference in reading (the Qur’anic text), he (’Uthman) standardized the reading and made people recite it accordingly because he was afraid of riots since the Iraqis and the Damascenes disagreed on the dialect. But before that, the Qur’anic copies (used to be read) on the basis of the Seven Letters in which the Qur’an was given." Let us now examine what Dr. Shalabi said in this regard. In his book, "The History of Islamic Law" (pp. 40-41), he remarks: "’Uthman wanted to have a standardized text read by all Muslims, but, after the era of ’Uthman, Muslims began again to read the Qur’an based on the Seven Letters as they used to do before. Each country followed the dialect of a famous reciter whom it trusted. Then public opinion settled on the Seven Readings taken from the most eminent reciters who were Nafi’, Ibn Khathir, Abu ’Umar, Ibn ’Amir, ’Asim, Hamza and the Kisa’i. Egypt, for instance, followed the reading of Hafas who learned it from ’Asim." Such circumstances created a problem for many Muslims who were seeking a solution. One of the inquirers asked Sheikh Kishk a question which this scholar attempted to answer in his book, "Legal Opinions" (part 1, pp. 113 and 114). The question was, "I heard a reciter reading the Qur’anic text, ‘O ye who would believe even if a godless messenger brought you news, be cautious.’ He read it, ‘Investigate’ instead of, ‘Be cautious’. I ask for a clarification for this reading and other similar verses." Sheikh Kishk answers: "The reading of the reciter, ‘Investigate’, is a correct famous reading which has been handed down (to people). Hamza, Kasa’i and Khalaf followed it. These three were among the ten on whom the Muslims relied that their reading is correct. The Qur’anic copies to which the inquirer referred, do not contain this reading. Thus, the reading is correct because the Qur’anic copies with which (the inquirer) is acquainted have the diacritical points based on the recitation of Hafas. If the Qur’an, in our time was written according to the recitation of Hamza or the reading of any of those who were with him, the diacritical points would be congruent with the reading of (Hafas). "Maybe, there are Qur’anic copies which are written in the same pattern as this reading, yet the point to be taken into account is the authenticity of the chain of authority and its uninterrupted succession. All these readings proved to be correct and they were handed down uninterrupted. If the noble inquirer had pondered a little, he would have found that the formation of the word lends itself to be read in two ways based on the difference in the diacritical points. This is one of the secrets of the ’Uthmanic copy because during the era of the caliph ’Uthman ibn ’Affan, there was no vocalization or diacritical points." Despite this answer, the question which is still without explanation is, "In which dialect was the Qur’an given to Muhammad? In which dialect were the tablets when it was still with God? Was there one Qur’an or seven Qur’ans with seven dialects? What did Sheikh Kishk (and his prophet Muhammad) mean when he said all the dialects and all the meanings are correct?" ======================================================================== CHAPTER 27: 02.06. CONTRA ISLAM CHAPTER 13 ======================================================================== Chapter Thirteen The Content of the Qur’an In this part, we are going to discuss two issues, the mythical episodes and the religious teachings. We will be brief, otherwise we would need to write another book to deal with the strange, unacceptable things contained in the Qur’an which no sensible person believes. Our main aim is to remove this deceptive veil from the face of the Qur’an. First: Some Names Of Qur’anic Chapters And Mythical Episodes We have already mentioned that there are some chapters in the Qur’an whose names have no meaning. These chapters are: 20, 36, 38, 50, and 68. No one knows what Taha, Yasin, Sad, Qaf, or Nun mean. Mostly, they are mere letters and not words as to say, for instance, Chapter N, Chapter S, Chapter Y. Would that mean anything in English? All the Muslim scholars have indicated that they do not know the meanings of the names of these chapters. God only knows (refer to the Jalalan). On the other hand, the meanings of the names of the rest of the chapters are understood and familiar although there are very strange names linked to a mythical episode which is meaningless, as we will see. It should be noted that some of the Qur’anic chapters carry the names of insects or animals such as the chapters of the Cow, Ants, Spider, Elephant, Bee and the Cattle. We do not find in the Bible, for example, books with such names as "The Book of the Lion" or "The Bat" or "The Buffalo" or "The Book of the Serpent". We also find in the Qur’an some chapters entitled, "Chapter of the Afternoon", or "The Dawn", or "The Night", or "Morning". Moreover, there are strange stories which were the reasons behind these given names. Also, we are going to relate some stories recorded in the Qur’an which are only fit to be narrated by grandparents to children as part of folklore. 1. The Chapter Of The Ants (27:17-19) In this chapter, the Qur’an says: "And there were gathered together unto Solomon his armies of the Jinn and humankind and of the birds and they were set in the battle order. Till, when they reached the valley of the Ants, an ant exclaimed, ‘O Ants! Enter your dwellings lest Solomon and his armies crush you.’ And Solomon smiled, laughing at her speech." This is the reason why this chapter is entitled, "The Ant". All scholars (without exception) present this episode as it is recorded. They acknowledge that it is supernatural, yet it truly happened with Solomon, the Wise (refer to Baydawi, page 501; the Jalalan, p. 316,317). When Qatada, one of Muhammad’s companions, came to Iraq, he was surrounded by some Muslims who inquired of him about this episode. The Imam Abu Hanifa who was still a lad, asked him, "Was the ant of Solomon male or female?" He answered, "It was a female." This is what Zamakh-shari has recorded. He even mentioned that the ant which warned its friends was called Tahina and Solomon heard her when he was still three miles away. In order to have a fuller picture of the story, let us read the rest of the episode and see what happened to Solomon (chapter 27:20-22). "And Solomon sought among the birds and said, ‘How is it that I see not the hoopoe, or is he among the absent? I verily will punish him with hard punishment or I verily will slay him or he verily shall give me a plain excuse.’ But he was not long in coming and he (the hoopoe) said to Solomon, ‘I have found out a thing that you apprehended not and I come unto you from Sheba with sure tidings."’ So Solomon sent the hoopoe to the Queen of Sheba and her people to preach to them about the oneness of God. Muslim commentators (without exception) confirm this interpretation. Of course, the Bible records for us that the Queen of Sheba came to visit Solomon. After she observed the wisdom of Solomon and of his servants, she believed in the God of Israel, but there is no mention of a military battle between Solomon’s soldiers of vultures and Jinn and the kingdom of ants, or of the hoopoe, the teacher and the preacher! 2. The Chapter Of The Prophets (21:81, 82) "And unto Solomon we subdued the wind in its raging. It set by his command toward the land which we had blessed. And of the evil ones (demons) subdued we unto him some who dived for pearls for him and did other works." All scholars agree on the interpretations of these verses. God utilized the winds to obey Solomon’s orders. Thus, they some- times blew smoothly and sometimes they raged like a strong storm whenever he wanted them to carry him fast for a long distance. God even utilized the demons to dive deep in the sea to bring forth treasures of precious stones. They were sometimes ordered to construct cities and palaces, and to invent some progressive handicrafts. These same words are recorded also in another place in the Qur’an. The expounders presented the same interpretation for these verses (refer to Baydawi, page 435; Jalalan, page 274; Zamakh-shari in The Kash-shaf, part 3, page 130). Of course, the Azhar scholars along with the Saudi scholars agree with the former scholars concerning the subject of the ants, the hoopoe, and the exploitation of the wind and demons to serve Solomon. For example, Sheikh Sha’rawi (the most famous preacher in the Islamic world today) asserts that this story undoubtedly happened and that God subjected the Jinn to Solomon in order to refurbish the earth and for the benefit of the people (refer to the "Legal Opinions", page 422). 3. The Chapter Of The Jinn Or Jan (17:1) Since we have mentioned the Jinn, it is inevitable that we allude to the chapter of the Jinn. "Say, O Muhammad, it is revealed unto me that a company of the Jinn gave ear and they said, ‘Lo, it is a marvelous Qur’an."’ All Muslim scholars, in the context of their exposition of those verses, say that God foretold this matter to Muhammad which was invisible to the eyes of Muhammad. As Muhammad was praying the morning prayer and reading the Qur’an beside a palm tree near Mecca, a party of Jinn (who were Satan’s soldiers) heard him. When they returned to their own people, they told them, "We have heard eloquent, well-styled words, and we have to repent and believe and never worship Satan again or be subservient to him." They were between three and ten persons. The Baydawi says that the Jinn are beings which are made mostly of fire or wind, or else they are mere spirits or human souls which departed from their bodies (refer to Baydawi, page 763; Jalalan, page 488; Zamakh-shari, part 4, page 623). The Bukhari assures us that they were demons who listened to the Qur’an being recited by Muhammad during the dawn prayer while he was on his way to Suq ’Ukadh. They were moved by what they heard, and recanted. This is the testimony of ibn ’Abbas himself (refer to the Sahih of the Bukhari, part 6, page 200). This same story of the Jinn listening to Muhammad and repenting is found in the chapter of the Ahqaf. Both Kishk and Sheikh Sha’rawi agree with the former scholars and do not question their interpretation (refer to the "Legal Opinions" by Sheikh Kishk, part 1, page 20). 4. Chapter Of The Elephant This chapter could have been called the chapter of the gravel or the vultures, but it was called the chapter of the Elephant simply because the vultures carried the gravel and threw it at the elephants and their riders who marched towards Mecca to invade the Ka’ba. We read in the Qur’an the following: "Hast thou not seen how your lord dealt with the owners of the elephants? Did he not bring their stratagem to naught, and send against them swarms of flying creatures which pelted them with stones of baked clay." All Muslim scholars affirm that this event took place many years before the proclamation of Muhammad’s prophethood. Some said maybe during the time of his birth. What really happened was that Abraha, king of Yemen, constructed a church in San’a. An Arab man came and defiled the church and did some damage to it. Abraha decided to demolish the Ka’ba which was a sacred site for the heathen people of Quraysh and the site of their annual pilgrimage before Islam. Abraha headed the invasion operation along with his generals who rode on elephants. It was said that there was a huge, strong elephant called Mahmud. God sent black or green birds to attack the invading army. Each bird carried one piece of gravel in his beak and two in his claws and hit the owners of the elephants. They claim that each piece of gravel penetrated the head of a man and exited from the backside (anus - lower opening of the rectum). On each piece of gravel was written the name of the victim. Abraha suffered a violent death (refer to the Zamakh-shari in the Kash-shaf, part 4, page 797; Baydawi, page 811;Jalalan, page 519; also the "Prophet’s Biography" by ibn Hisham, part 1, pages 38 and 39). The Qur’an does not tell us why God sent these vultures to assist the heathens against the Christians. The Qur’an was content to record the episode of this battle between the vultures and the elephants. Thus, a chapter in the Qur’an was inspired under the title of Chapter of the Elephant. 5. The Chapter Of The Cave Why was it called by this strange name? The answer is simple. Some lads (accompanied by their dog) entered a cave and slept for three hundred and nine years! The story is recorded in the Qur’an in seventeen verses (18:9-25). The Qur’an clearly relates this story and all Muslim scholars agree on its interpretation. They said that God forbade the sun to hurt them, and he used to turn them from one side to the other so the ground would not erode their flesh. Their dog whose name was Qatmir, laid down stretching its legs. The lads who entered the cave were seven. Their names were Yamlikha, Makshalmina, Mashilmina, Martush, Darnush, Shadhinush, along with a shepherd They were from the city of Ephesus. (This information is related to us by the Baydawi, page 390; Jalalan, pp. 244, 245, and the Zamakh-shari in the "Kash-shaf", part 2, page 703.) Contemporary scholars verify this information. Before we conclude the episode of the chapter of the Cave, it is appropriate to allude to the story of Moses, the Whale, the ship and the lad. This strange story is also recorded in the chapter of the cave (l8:60-82) The gist of the story as it is stated in the Qur’an is that God disagreed with Moses who claimed that he was the most knowledgeable person. He told him that he has a servant "whose name is Khadr who is more knowledgeable than you. Take with you a whale and go to the confluence of the two seas. When the whale departs from you, you will find him (the man)." Moses did so and found the man. Moses told him, "I will be submissive and obedient to you." The Khadr took Moses and sailed in a ship which belonged to some poor people who toiled hard in the sea. This man, Khadr, caused the boat to spring a leak big enough to sink it. When Moses complained, the Khadr told him, "We had agreed that you would never complain. I will show you in the end that I am more knowledgeable than you are." Moses kept silence. Then they met a young boy who was playing with his friends. The Khadr seized him and violently killed him by smashing his head against the wall, the Zamakh-shari remarked. Moses objected to that, then he apologized to the Khadr. Later, the Khadr started to explain to Moses the implication of his behavior. He said, "I sank the ship because there was a wicked king who was intending to confiscate it by force. And I killed the lad because he was going to cause his righteous parents much hardship by his atheism." This strange story is meaningless, because this poor lad was guilty of no crime that he should be brutally killed by a man of whom God boasted. God said to Moses that the Khadr was "my righteous servant and he is more knowledgeable than you". Did he foretell the future and know that this lad was going to create a lot of problems for his devout parents? Would this be a justification for his death or should it be a cause for his guidance and repentance? This baffling issue made some people ask ibn ’Abbas, "Is it permissible for the Khadr to do that to the lad?" He answered that the apostle of God himself said, "Yes." He also added that this is lawful to anyone if he can foretell what this lad is going to do in the future (refer to Baydawi, page 396; Bukhari, part 6, pp. 111, 112; Jalalan, page 250; and the Zamakh-shari in the "Kash-shaf", part 2, page 736). The Bukhari insists that the Khadr seized the lad and pulled his head off, separating it from his body. We have already discussed the story of Alexander the Great who had located the sun’s setting place which is recorded in this same chapter (the Cave). 6. The Chapter Of The Cow In this lengthy chapter, there are at least four mythical stories recorded. We will briefly examine them as evidence of the lack of authenticity of the Qur’an. A. Jews Transformed Into Apes God transformed these Jews into apes because they disobeyed His commandment and went to catch fish on a Saturday. These Jews inhabited a coastal city (refer to Chapter 2:65). The Qur’an says: "And you know of those of you who broke the Sabbath, how we said unto them, ‘Be apes, despised and hated!"’ The interpretation of the expositors of the Qur’an is in full agreement with the content of these verses (refer to the Baydawi, page 14; Jalalan, pages 10, 11; Zamakh-shari, part 1, page 286). We also read the same incident in chapter 7:163-166 and in chapter 5:60 in which these Jews were transformed into apes and swine. B. Two Angels Teach People Magic This story is among the strangest episodes recorded in chapter 2. Who would believe that God would send two angels in order to tempt people to see whether they would be seduced into learning magic or not? Muslim scholars indicate that these two angels were called Harut and Marut and the incident took place in Babylon. They used to warn people not to learn magic "... because it is ungodly, but if this is your desire, then we will teach you." Thus, people started to learn how to cause separation between a husband and wife by employing magic (refer to the commentary of the Jalalan, page 15; The Baydawi, page 21; Zamakh-shari in the "Kash-shaf", part 1, page 301). Contemporary scholar Sheikh Sha’rawi states in his "Legal Opinions" (part 1, page 42) that this incident of separation between a husband and wife really happened by the power of magic performed by these two angels. Sha’rawi says: "One of the characteristics of the Jinn is the ability of transformation. It is possible for a Jinn to take the image of an ape (and superimpose) himself on the face of a woman. Thus, her husband would hate her. Also, Satan can transform himself into a beast (and superimpose) himself on the face of a husband which would make her turn against her husband." C. Should Angels Prostrate Themselves Before Man? The Qur’an says yes, and God Himself commanded them to do so; therefore, they all prostrate themselves before man except Satan who refused to obey. We read in the Qur’an (2:34), "And when we said unto the angels, ‘Prostrate yourselves before Adam,’ they fell prostrate, all save Iblis (Satan). He demurred through pride, and so became a disbeliever." The reason for all that is an obscure, meaningless story recorded in chapter 2:30-34: "And he taught Adam all the names, then showed them to the angels saying, ‘Inform me of the names of these if you are truthful.’ They said, ‘Be glorified! We have no knowledge saving that which Thou has taught us. Lo! Thou, only thou, are the Knower, the wise"’ (2:3 1 -32). We wonder why it would be a crime if the angels did not know the names of the animals. What merit does Adam have if God secretly taught him these names? Does this justify God’s command to the angels to prostrate themselves to Adam? It is well known that the Bible teaches us that such worship should be only to God. We do not believe this story and this dialogue between God and the angels, especially since the angels’ words proved to be true and they manifested their knowledge of the future. Man defiled the earth and shed blood since the time of Cain, son of Adam, who killed his brother. Adam himself disobeyed his Lord and did not deserve worship from the holy angels—no respect or adoration, but only reproach even though he knew all the names. D. The Cow And The Dead Man. This episode is clearly taught in the Qur’an (2:67-73). Muslim commentators indicate that a righteous Israeli old man had a son who was assassinated by his cousins in order to get his inheritance. They dumped his corpse at the city gate. No one knew who had killed him. God told Moses, "Slay a cow and hit the dead man by a part of it (its tongue, or thigh, or ear) as the scholars say." When Moses did so, the deceased rose up and told them who had killed him, then he immediately died again (refer to the commentary of the Baydawi, pp. 14,15; the "Kash-shaf" by the Zamakh-shari, part 1, page 289; and the Jalalan, page 11). Indeed, we do not find this story in the biblical records of the Old Testament. 7. Chapter Of al-Hujarat (The Private Apartment) There is no mythical story in this chapter, but the reason for naming it is somewhat amusing and does not entail the need to receive an inspired chapter under this title. Those who translated the Qur’an into English indicate that this name was given to this chapter because of the following verse: "Lo those who call you (Muhammad) from behind the private apartments, most of them have no sense" (49:4). Now, what is the interpretation of this verse? The Baydawi says (page 683), "What is meant by ‘Private rooms,’ is ‘the women of the prophet Muhammad.’ It is tantamount to his being in seclusion with the women and their calling to him from within their private quarters. Either they came into them (private rooms) room by room or they (the women) scattered themselves among these rooms calling for him." We read the same words in the "Kash-shaf" of the Zamakh-shari (part 4, page 357), also in the commentary of the Jalalan (page 435). They said, "Each one of his women called from behind (inside) her room in a voice filled with harshness and estrangement." These are the statements of the scholars who interpreted this verse. Does this personal, private, insignificant matter require that Gabriel inspire a chapter under the title, "The Private Rooms"; that is, the private rooms of Muhammad’s wives? 8. The Chapter Of Yunis It is sufficient to quote verses 90 and 91 of this chapter. The Pharaoh, while he was sinking in the sea, said, "I have believed in God," but God did not accept his repentance, and told him, "Do you say this now because you are drowning?" The commentators tell us that Muhammad’s companions, such as ibn ’Umar and ibn ’Abbas, have said that Muhammad himself told them: "Gabriel told me, ‘I wish you had seen me taking mud from the sea to close up Pharaoh’s mouth lest he believe and be reached by God’s mercy’ (refer to Jalalan, page 179; Zamakh-shari, part 2, page 368, and others). Undoubtedly, this story is mythical, because if Pharaoh intended to believe, God would have accepted his repentance immediately and there is no need for the angel Gabriel to hasten to take a handful of sea mud to close Pharaoh’s mouth so that he would not make a confession of faith and be pardoned. God does not send his angels to do such wicked things. We believe Muhammad’s companions and ibn ’Abbas who claimed that Muhammad related that to them. They cannot lie in such matters, especially since Muhammad warned them that whoever "lies and claims things which I do not do, or says things which I did not say, will occupy his seat in hell". We believe the companions in all that they convey to us on the authority of Muhammad, but we cannot believe Muhammad’s claim that Gabriel had told him that he closed Pharaoh’s mouth. The one who prevents people from believing is Satan—not an angel of God. Second: God In The Qur’an God in the Qur’an is not the God of love, the God of the Christian revelation and the Holy Gospel. It is as if God (six hundred years after the birth of Christ) has deteriorated. After He had been full of love and affection, He has become a relentless, wrathful God. You can search the heart of this God of Islam, but you will never find the flowing, loving feelings which were clearly manifest in Jesus Christ. Let us now probe the most significant characteristics of God as they are revealed in the Qur’an. There us no doubt, the Qur’anic God differs from the God of the Gospel. The Gospel’s God is real while the other is illusive, non-existent. We have already alluded to God’s command recorded in the Qur’an when we discussed human rights and women’s status, non-Muslims classification and the enslavement of man to his fellow man. Yet, here we would like to magnify a very salient concept; that is, the concept of love. The God of the Qur’an lacks the element of love. The Qur’an records ninety-nine attributes of God which do not include the attribute of love although among these attributes are some which repeatedly contain the same inference, but love is not one of them. Indeed, some of these attributes indicate that God is merciful, yet you do not find mercy expressed on the pages of the Qur’an, in the life of Muhammad or among his companions. If mercy had ever been practiced in Muhammad’s life or in the life of his companions, this would have been the exception and not the rule. The rule was the application of relentless brutality and barbarism. There is no substitute for the word love. Love is stronger and richer than mercy. We do not say that a husband bestows mercy on his wife. We say he loves her. Likewise, we do not say (even when it is fitting to say) that a mother bestows her mercy on her children, but rather that she loves them. Love is a word rich with the meanings of sacrifice and giving. Love is a warm expression elevating human relationships to the highest summit of healthy growth. The Qur’an is empty of this word whether in its relationship to man or in the area of human relationships. God (in the Qur’an) does not liken himself to a Father who loves His spiritual children, the believers, as stated in the Gospel, but rather as a fearful master. People are but mere slaves who must always live in fear of Him. Now let us survey some Qur’anic verses and vivid samples from the lives of the most devout Muslim believers. 1. In chapter "The Believers" (: 60), we read the following: "And those who give that which they give with hearts afraid because they are about to return unto their lord." Muhammad himself spared us the trouble of interpreting this verse because he himself explained it. In Baydawi (page 457), Jalalan (page 288), and in the "Kash-shaf" of the Zamakh-shari (part 3, page 192), we read: "A’isha said, ‘O, apostle of God, is the one who is afraid of God the one who commits adultery, steals, drinks wine, thus he is afraid of punishment?’ Muhammad told her, ‘No, O daughter of Sedik, he is the one who prays, fasts and gives alms, thus he is afraid that God may not accept these things from him."’ We wonder where then is the sense of security and peace of mind. Where is the assurance and the guarantee concerning eternal life? How can peace fill the Muslim’s heart? How can his soul rejoice and his spirit be filled with joy if he does not know whether God is going to accept his acts of fasting, praying and his almsgiving or not? Therefore, all Muslims suffer from fear because whatever they do of good deeds, their hearts will constantly be subjected to fear, according to the Qur’anic text and the interpretation of Muhammad himself. We do not find among the chapters of the Qur’an and their verses one clear verse which offers a life of joy. There is no love and joy. Of course, we do not hear melodies of rejoicing bursting out of the hearts and mouths of the Muslim worshippers who gather in the mosques, but rather you see grim faces, especially those who are the most devout and those who are the most acquainted with the fundamentals of their religion, the interpretation of the Qur’anic verses and Muhammad’s expositions. The reason is because they are not sure of what to expect after death. The future of their eternal life is obscure and their God does not guarantee them anything. The first person we quote is Abu Bakr Al Sedik, who said that there is no certainty with God. Abu Bakr (the first Caliph) is regarded by all Muslims as one of the best Muslims if not the best. Even Muhammad acknowledged that Abu Bakr Al Sedik was the closest to him. Therefore, the Muslims elected him as caliph after the death of Muhammad. Abu Bakr always believed in Muhammad and in all that he uttered. He used to obey him blindly. When Muhammad suffered from a sickness which caused his death, he ordered Abu Bakr to lead the Muslims in prayer. What did Abu Bakr Al Sedik say about God? "I swear to God that I do not feel safe from God’s cunning (deceitfulness) even if one of my feet is already inside paradise" (refer to the successors of the Apostle, Khalid Muhammad Khalid, page 114). What a striking acknowledgment uttered by Abu Bakr the caliph of the Muslims and the father of A’isha, wife of Muhammad! "I do not feel safe from God’s cunning even if one of my feet is already inside paradise". Maybe God would deceive him and push that foot outside of paradise because He changed His mind. There is no other meaning of this statement. This is not surprising, O, Abu Bakr, because the God of Islam and Muhammad as well as of the Qur’an, as you well know, does not bestow on the believer any assurance concerning eternity. He is not at all the God of the Christian revelation whom we know and experience, enjoying His love—with whom we have a personal relationship based on spiritual love because He is our heavenly father. When we ponder the life of both Rabi’a al-’Adawiyya and Hasan al-Basri who both are renowned among Muslim circles so that students used to come from all of the Islamic world to learn from them and to receive instruction, we find that both of them lived in fear of God. Dr. Su’ad ’Abdul-Razzak says: "Rabi’a al-’Adawiyya asked al-Hasan al-Basri and said to him, ‘What does a scholar say when asked, "If I die and the people are called in the day of resurrection (to be divided in two groups), one group to go to paradise and the other to be sent to hell, in which group will I be?" He said to her, "This is concealed, and nobody knows what is concealed except God""’ (p. 44). On page 87, we also read that whenever death was mentioned in the presence of Rabi’a al-’Adawiyya, she would shiver and faint. On pages 84 and 85 of the same book, we read: "Rabi’a al-’Adawiyya’s life bore the stamp of sadness and fear; and Hasan al-Basri was heading the group of the fearful devout. Sadness dominated his life. He increasingly (spent his time) in mourning. He made mourning a norm for all people. He used to believe that the Qur’an is the key to permanent sadness. He was accustomed to saying, ‘O, son of Adam, I swear to God, if you had read the Qur’an and believed in it, your sadness would have been prolonged, and your fear would have been stronger. You mourning in the world would have been excessive.’ The people of Basra said about him, ‘Every time we see him, he looks as if calamity has recently befallen him."’ We have to remember that al-Hasan al-Basri received his religious education from the companions (refer to "Itqan", part 4, page 21l). Those people understood Islam and they knew that the Qur’an is the key to abiding sadness. Whoever reads it and believes it will be subject to ever-increasing sadness, fear and mourning. On the other hand, the word Gospel, which we will discuss later, means "glad tidings" and "good news" which makes people full of joy, happiness and abiding peace. These are living examples drawn from the lives of Rabea al-’Adawiyya, al-Hasan al-Basri and Abu Bakr Al Sedik who said when resurrection, paradise, and hell were mentioned in his presence, "I wish I were a tree eaten by an animal; I wish I had never been born" (refer to Jalalan, page 45 1). This is the same Abu Bakr who remarked, "I do not feel safe from God’s cunning." But, there is more than that about God in the Qur’an. God is depicted in the Qur’an as if He purposed the destruction of all people. He says, for example, "I indeed will fill hell with both people and jinn." In another verse, He indicates: "And if your lord willed, all who are in the earth would have believed together" (Yunis: 99). On the other hand, the Gospel declares clearly that God does will that all people be saved. God is not the cause for the eternal damnation of any man. He does not will that. God forbid! The only reason for man’s eternal damnation is his own rebellious will and his unrepentant heart. This fact is repeated dozens of times in the Gospel. This is contrary to the Qur’an which indicates that God does not will the salvation of all people. Had He willed it, then all who inhabited the earth would have believed in Him. Such a God is not the God whom Jesus Christ proclaimed to us. In addition to the above, the Qur’an presents God to us a God who plots against man to destroy him. If you do not believe it, turn with me to the Qur’an to read a quotation from the "Chapter of the Isra" ("The Night Journey") 17:16: "And when we would destroy a township, we send commandment to its folk who live a life of ease and afterwards they commit abomination therein, and so the word of doom has its effect and we annihilate with complete annihilation." The reader should notice that God did not eradicate the town because it was filled with so much wickedness that He found himself obliged to destroy it against His will. Rather the Compassionate, the Merciful God purposed and determined to annihilate it. Therefore, He laid down a very well planned plot. He ordered its sumptuous residents to live a licentious life, thus it becomes subject to damnation. He ordered its affluent residents to commit debauchery! What a holy order! Lastly, we say that God has disclosed his heart’s desire when He referred to hell in the chapter Mariam: 71. He said, "Not one of you but will pass through it." People asked whether this verse refers to the wicked or includes all men; and what does the phrase ‘passing through it’ mean? In "Itqan" (part 4, page 237), the Suyuti tells us that Muhammad himself has answered this question and said: "There is no righteous or debaucher who would not enter hell." We do not understand the reasoning which causes God to send even the righteous to hell. Then the verse continues, "But we (God) shall save those who guarded against evil." Sheikh Kishk asserts Suyuti’s claim that Muhammad said that all people (the righteous and the debaucher) will "pass through it" or "enter it" (refer to "Legal Opinions", part 6, page 41). This is the God of the Qur’an, my dear reader. He is indeed a fearful God who cannot be trusted; who wills and plans to annihilate people to fill hell with them. He is a God with whom nobody can feel safe, even the most devout person (like Abu Bakr) lest He does not accept him as Muhammad said. This is the acknowledgment of many great Muslims who experience this fear in their relationship with God and according to what they understood from Muhammad and the Qur’an. What a difference between this God and the God of the Gospel which was said of Him: "God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). Third: Content of Paradise Since we have alluded to eternal life, it is appropriate to examine the image of paradise in the Qur’an. What did Muhammad say about Paradise? How it was depicted in the Qur’an in clear verses? Paradise in the Qur’an is a place full of beautiful women and seducing virgins, grapes, and pomegranates. Yes, it is a place filled with fruits, meats, wine and honey for everlasting feasts. Also its inhabitants wear silk and splendid clothes. This is the picture of paradise which is presented to us by the Qur’an, Muhammad, and most of the former and later Muslim scholars. It is feasible here to cite one example from among the dozens of Qur’anic verses which give us an accurate description of the Qur’anic paradise (refer to the following chapters and verses: 47:15, 87:31-33, 56:35-37, 56:22-23, 36:55-56, 55:56, 37:41-49). Of course, the expounders agree on the interpretation of these verses. Refer, for instance, to the Jalalan (page 328), or any other commentary you like. In chapters 68:31-33 and 55:56, we are presented with the houris, who are assigned to fulfill men’s sexual pleasures. These houris are always virgins. Their sexual relationship with men does not affect their virginity. Every time men approach them, they find them always virgins. Their breasts are not hanging down loose. They are always firm. They do not age beyond thirty-three years of age. They are white with black, wide, charming eyes. Their skin is smooth. Women who died old on earth will be re-created virgins for the enjoyment of men. Read the following commentaries—Al Glalan (p. 328, pp. 451-453, p. 499), Al Baydawy (pp. 710, 711, 781), Al Zumakhary (part 4, pp. 690,453, 459-462). This is Muhammad’ s own description of Paradise (refer to the commentary of the Baydawi, pp. 710, 711 and 781; the Zamakh-shari in ‘Kash-shaf’, part 4, pp. 453, 459-462, and 690; and the Jalalan, pp. 451-453, 499). You may also refer to any other major commentary because all Muslim expositors re-iterate the same thing. But as we read chapter Yasin: 55-56, we encounter some strange and shameful matters: "Lo those who merit Paradise this day are happily employed (working) they and their wives, in pleasant shade, on thrones reclining." Ibn ’Abbas himself acknowledged that their ‘business’ is to deflower the virgins (refer to Zamakh-shari, part 4, page 21; Jalalan, page 372, and "Women of the Paradise" by Muhammad Abu al-’Abbas, page 54). This is the mission of the believers in paradise. Is it any wonder that many people embrace Islam seeking to enjoy this imaginary paradise by which Muhammad deceived the Arabs, thus they entered God’s religion by groups? Arabs sought this alluring life in the desert. They missed the fruit, pure water, fresh milk, beautiful white women whose skin is not browned by the heat of the desert sun. This is paradise as it is depicted in the Qur’an. In his book, "Legal Opinions", Sheikh Sha’rawi exposed Islam and Muhammad when he said on page 36: "The apostle of God was asked, ‘Will we have sexual intercourse in paradise?’ He said, ‘Yes, I swear by the One who holds my soul in His hand that it will be a vigorous intercourse, and as soon as the man departs from her (the houri) she will again become immaculate and virgin."’ On page 148, the Sha’rawi says: "The apostle of God, Muhammad, said, ‘Every morning one hundred virgins will be (the portion) of each man."’ On page 448, he states that: "The houris in paradise are white with big eyes." He also indicates on pp. 265 and 266: "Her (the houri, the virgin) two breasts are like the cone; that is, they are not hanging loose." On page 191, the Sha’rawi says that if a woman got married to more than one man either because her husband died or she was divorced, she would be given the right in paradise to choose one of them. Yet a man in paradise has the right to have dozens of the houris. It is not a secret that the Lord Christ (to Him be all glory), when He was asked the same question, said: "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven" (Matthew 22:1-46). In his "Legal Opinions" (part 6, page 42), Sheikh Kishk remarks: But in the case of the houris, they are a blessed favor from God bestowed on his servants who sincerely worshipped Him. They are added to the man’s believing women for his enjoyment, as the texts record. But concerning women, Muhammad said, ‘Any woman who believed in God and died before she was married, God will marry her to the best of the devout."’ When I singled out both Sheikh Sha’rawi and Sheikh Kishk, I did so because of their reputation as famous scholars whose knowledge in the fundamentals of Islam is highly recognized and trusted by millions of Muslims all around the world. In his famous book, "The Women of The People of Paradise; their Classifications, and Beauty", Muhammad ’Ali Abu al-’Abbas (a contemporary Muslim scholar) wrote about one hundred pages in which he specified these matters in detail. This book is a current book published in 1987. The author encourages young men to be practicing Muslims in order to acquire all the available women in paradise, food, drinks, and clothes. On page 33, he himself says, "We pray to God that He may grant us the pleasure of virgin women of paradise because the virgin has a sweeter mouth, and is more desirable in bed, than the deflowered woman." On page 41, he says that Muhammad, the apostle of God, said: "Every man of the people of paradise is given the power of a hundred men for eating, drinking, intercourse and sexual desire" (The Qurtubi in his book al-Tadhkira). He also said that the apostle of God indicated that: "Whoever wears silk on earth will never wear it in eternity; and whoever drinks wine on earth will never drink it in eternity" (page 40, also al-Qurtubi in the al-Tadhkira). The Tirmadhi also mentioned (part 7, page 161 of his book) that the apostle of God said: "The martyr will be married to seventy-two wives of the houris. He has the right to intercede for seventy of his relatives" (page 44). Muhammad, the apostle of God, was asked about the meaning of the Qur’ans words, "good dwellings in paradise of Eden." Muhammad replied, "The dwellings are palaces made of pearl. In each palace there are seventy mansions. In each mansion there are seventy houses. In each house there is a bed. On each bed there are seventy sheets of different colors. On each sheet there is a nymph wife (houri) and in each house there are seventy tables, and on each table there are seventy kinds of food" (Volume 4, page 537 of "The Revival of Religious Science"—The Ghazali). These are quotations from Muhammad’s sayings and interpretations. No wonder, then, a Muslim wishes to fight against Christians and Jews (infidels) and die as a martyr in order to get married to seventy-two women. In his Sahih (part 4, page 142; part 7, page 47, and part 9, page 50), the Bukhari records this incident in which Muhammad related to the Muslims that when he ascended to Paradise on the back of the Buraq, he saw a beautiful, young girl beside a palace. When he asked the angel about it, the angel answered, "The palace and the girl are for ’Umar ibn al-Khattab." Muhammad turned away because he remembered ’Umar’s jealousy toward his women. When Muhammad related this incident to his companions, ’Umar started to cry, saying, "Would I feel jealous of you 0, the apostle of God!" This is Muhammad who deceived his Arab people and promised them they would be rewarded with houris (refer also to Sahih of Muslim, volume 5). ======================================================================== CHAPTER 28: 02.06. CONTRA ISLAM CHAPTER 14 ======================================================================== Chapter Fourteen Some Ordinances and Laws of the Qur’an and Islam Pilgrimage Is A Pagan Practice All Muslims agree that the practice of pilgrimage existed before the rise of Muhammad by hundreds of years. The people of Quraysh (along with pagan Arabs) were accustomed to celebrating the pilgrimage. Even Muhammad himself did so before he claimed to be a prophet. After he installed himself as the apostle of God, he and his followers continued to perform the pilgrimage’s rites with the polytheistic pagans. He did not change many things (refer to Jawami’ al-Sira al-Nabawiyya "Prophet’s Biography" by ibn Hazm, page 14. Also "Islam: A Creed and A Law" by the Imam Mahmud Shaltut, pp. 113-115). Almost every major Islamic history book documents these facts. Even after the conquest of Mecca, the pilgrimage has become one of the pillars of Islam. Muhammad banned the Arab polytheists from the Hajj after the year of the conquest. They were given four months either to embrace Islam or be killed, as we stated in chapter one. After that, Muhammad made very slight changes in the ceremonial rituals of the pilgrimage although he destroyed all the idols of the Ka’ba. Yet Muhammad himself continued to practice many paganistic rituals. He did not abolish them nor reject them. That created some consternation among his followers who expected him to uproot these idolatrous rudiments. Some Pagan Rituals Muslims continued to practice some of the pre-Islamic, pagan rituals such as running between the two hills of Safa and Marwa or kissing the Black Stone. In the first case, Arab polytheists were accustomed to running between the two hills to glorify the idols which they erected and called them Isaf and Na’ila. When Muhammad destroyed the idols, Muslims were ashamed to continue this practice, and asked Muhammad about it. Soon, he claimed that a Qur’anic verse was given to him in which this practice was re-ordained. On page 33, of his commentary, the Baydawi says this in the course of his interpretation of chapter 2:158. Muslim scholars generally agree with the Baydawi (the Jalalan, page 22, Zamakh-shari in his "Kash-shaf", part 1). The Bukhari, for instance, remarks: "One of the companions said to Anas ibn Malik, ‘Did you use to hate running between the Safa and Marwa?’ He said, ‘Yes, because it was part of the pre-Islamic rituals until God gave Muhammad this verse and proclaimed that it was also one of God’s ceremonial rites"’ (refer to Sahih of al-Bukhari, volume 2, page 195). We also read in the Sahih of Muslim: "Adherents of the prophet, (when) they were still in the pre-Islamic period, used to come up to visit two idols, Isaf and Na’ila, then they would go and run between Safa and Marwa, then they would have their hair cut. When Islam was established, they hated to run between them, but God sent down this verse (2:158), thus they ran (between them)" (refer to Sahih of Muslim, volume 3, page 411). Ibn ’Abbas himself said: "The demons in the Jahiliyya used to circumnavigate all night around these two mountains. The idols (were erected) between them. When Islam came, they (Muslims) said, ‘O, apostle of God, we would never run between the Safa and Marwa because this is an unfavorable matter which we were accustomed to do in the Jahiliyya.’ Thus, God gave this verse" (refer to Asbab al-Nuzul by Suyuti, page 27). So, this "unfavorable matter" was strongly related to idolatry, but even so, Muhammad refused to abolish it and several Qur’anic verses were given to confirm it. Muhammad himself performed it and Muslims are still practicing it today. The Kissing of the Black Stone This famous meteorite is one of the Ka’ba’s stones. The idolatrous were accustomed to worshipping it and kissing it. When Islam was established, Muhammad did not abolish this practice, but rather he himself performed it and commanded his followers to do so, in spite of their surprise and objection. In his Sahih (part 2, page 183), al-Bukhari records a famous statement made by ’Umar ibn al-Khattab which demonstrates the confusion of the Muslims. The Bukhari says: "When ’Umar ibn al-Khattab reached the Black Stone, he kissed it and said, ‘I know that you are a stone that does not hurt or benefit. If I had not seen the prophet kiss you, I would have not kissed you."’ All scholars (ancient and contemporary) confirm that this statement is uttered by ’Umar (refer to Sahih of Muslim, volume 3, page 406, and "Islam: A creed and a Law" by Imam Shaltut, page 122). It is well known that Muslim pilgrims jostle around to kiss it as Muhammad and his companions did before them. Because of such crowding, the pilgrims suffer a large number of serious casualties. Sheikh Sha’rawi says: ‘The kissing of the meteorite is a firm practice in Islamic law because Muhammad did it. You must not ask about the wisdom behind that because this rite is (an expression) of worship in spite of the obscurity of its wisdom" (refer to "Legal Opinions", part 3, page 167). This was his answer to the Muslim youths who asked, "What is the wisdom of kissing the meteorite?" Other Rituals Of Pilgrimage To be brief, we state that in addition to the kissing of the meteorite and running between the Safa and Marwa, the Muslim pilgrim has to make the trip to mount ’Arafa. Hundreds of thousands attempt to climb this mountain, but many suffer hardship which results in many casualties because they hasten toward it in a disorderly manner as they do when they jostle around the meteorite. Climbing this mountain is one of the most important rituals of the pilgrimage. Even Muhammad used to say, "’Arafa is the Hajj (pilgrimage)." After that, they go to another mountain called the Muzdalifa. Then, on the tenth day of the pilgrimage, they go to Mina and they start casting pebbles. They also have their hair cut or shortened (having it cut is better) provided that the barber starts from the right side of the head, because Muhammad did so. After that, they slay their sheep. Some prefer to offer these sacrifices before the day of Mina because these sacrifices pile up in Mina. Some are forced to donate money instead of sacrificing sheep contrary to the advice of Muslim scholars who believe that such acts abolish one of the rudiments of the pilgrimage and create a dispute among Muslims. (Refer to "Rudiments of the Hajj" by Imam Shaltute; Sahih of the Bukhari, part 2, Sahih of Muslim, volume 3, and any other source about the rudiments of the Hajj.) The Hajj (Pilgrimage) by Substitution This may invoke the surprise of the reader, yet it is true and confirmed by Muslim scholars who assert that Muhammad himself allowed the Hajj by substitution. In the Bukhari (part 2, page 163), it is recorded that a Muslim asked Muhammad if it is possible to make the pilgrimage in lieu of his father. He said to him, "Yes, make the pilgrimage in lieu of your father." In "Legal Opinions" of the Sheikh al-Sha’rawi, page 188, we read: "A woman asked Muhammad the prophet if she could make the pilgrimage in lieu of her mother who died before she was able to make the pilgrimage. He said to her, ‘Yes, do so.’ He also allowed another man to make the pilgrimage in place of his relative whose name was Bashrama." When Sheikh Kishk was asked plaintively (part 3, page 113 of his "Legal Opinions"), "Is it admissible for (a man) to make the pilgrimage in lieu of either a dead or a living person?" He answered, "Yes, it is admissible." Therefore, the pilgrimage is not a personal worship, but an ordinance which a Muslim has to perform, or (in some cases) have performed for him. It is worthwhile to note that fasting, like pilgrimage, can be performed by substitution. Ibn ’Abbas relates that to us: "A man came to the prophet and told him this story: ‘O apostle of God, my mother died without fulfilling her fasting, can I perform it in her place?’ The apostle of God asked him, ‘In your view, if your mother had a debt, would you pay it for her?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ The prophet told him, ‘The debt of God is more deserving of payment"’ (refer to ibn ’Abbas, by ’Abdul-’Aziz al-Sha nnawi, page 133). Fasting, then, is a mere ritual which a Muslim has to perform even after death! In the above-mentioned book, Muhammad said that: "The Black Stone was whiter than milk when it descended (from heaven) but, the sins of children of Adam have blackened it" (refer to page 142). The Rewards Of Pilgrimage In the same previous source, ibn ’Abbas asserts that Muhammad used to say that the pilgrim who rides his animal on his way to Mecca, gains seventy merits for every step his animal makes. But, if he comes walking, he will gain seven hundred merits of the Sacred Mosque for every step he makes. It was asked of him, "What are the merits of the Sacred Mosque?" He answered, "Every merit is equal to one hundred thousand merits." We need not be surprised to see Muslims strive to perform the pilgrimage and compete to kiss the black stone or climb the mount of ’Arafa or to circumnavigate around the sacred sites of Mecca in order to obtain hundreds of thousands of merits which will wipe out their misdeeds. Ablution and Prayer It is well known that every Muslim has to pray five times a day. These are memorized prayers and must be uttered in Arabic. Originally, according to the Islamic Hadith and the testimony of Muhammad himself, God intended to impose on Muhammad and his followers praying fifty times a day instead of five, but Moses warned him and urged him to go back and negotiate with God to reduce the number to five. God approved that in the end. This incident took place during the time of the Night Journey and the Ascension. Muhammad claimed that Gabriel the angel came to him and made him ride an animal called the Buraq (an animal between a donkey and a mule). It took him first to Jerusalem, then to heaven where he experienced many things, among them the reduction of the number of prayers. Most Muslim scholars, early and late, believe that Muhammad experienced this supernatural event in flesh. A whole chapter was inspired in which the entire story was recorded. It tells us how Muhammad traveled from Mecca to Jerusalem in a few hours where he met all the prophets and led them in prayer, then he ascended to heaven on the back of this animal. Our main concern is to re-examine the story of the reduction of the number of daily prayers. This incident is recorded in all the reliable Islamic sources, among them, "The Prophetic Biography" by ibn Hisham (part 2, page 9), Al-Sira al-Halabiyya (volume 2, page 132), also in the Sahih of the Bukhari (part 1, page 98). The story tells us: "The apostle of God said, ‘Then I came back and passed by Moses who asked me, "How many times a day does God require you to pray?" I said fifty prayers a day. He said, "Prayers are a heavy (task) and your people are still weak. Go back to your Lord and ask Him to lighten for you and for your people." I returned and asked my Lord (to do so). This matter was repeated several times until (God) imposed five prayers a day. Then I went back to Moses who told me the same as before. I said to him, "I have already returned to Him (several times) and asked that. I am embarrassed before Him, thus I am not going to (go back to Him)." So anyone who performs these five prayers will have the reward of fifty prayers"’ (refer to ibn Hisham). Ablution With Water Or Sand The Qur’an says: "If you find not water then go to clean high ground and rub your faces and your hands with some of it" (5:6). Before every prayer, each Muslim has to perform his ablution with water; that is, he has to wash his hands, feet, face and ears. If he does not find water he must use sand ... yes, the sand of the desert. Don’t think this is a printing error! Without exception, all Muslim scholars confirm this because of that very famous incident which happened to A’isha, wife of Muhammad and led the angel to deliver verse 6 of chapter 5. We spoke of this story earlier. We do not understand this command. Is it cleansing or dirtying? Is this the religion of purification as they claim? Yet, this practice is acknowledged by all Muslims, even a clear Qur’anic verse alluding to it. The Bukhari set aside an entire chapter to discuss it (refer to part 1, page 91). The prophet, as the Bukhari, tells us, used to plunge his hands in the sand or wipe his face and palms with it (refer to part 1, page 93), and ordered his followers to do the same. The same statement is found in the Sahih of Muslim (volume 1, page 663). Indeed, ablution results in great reward, no matter if the ablution is performed with water or sand. Muhammad said: "Whoever performs the ablution, his sins will depart from his body, they even come out from under his nails, and his former and later iniquities are forgiven" (refer to the "Riyad of the Salihin" by Imam al-Nawawi as quoted from Sahih of Muslim, chapter "The Merits of Ablution," page 312). The Ablution Spoiled and The Prayer Made Void This is a very important matter because it shows that prayer in Islam is not a personal relationship and a loving conversation between man and his God, as is manifested in Christianity. It is a mere ritual and the fulfillment of an order. Would the reader imagine that if a Muslim has performed the rites of ablution and bathing and is almost through with his prayer that this prayer will be nullified and his remuneration will be taken away, if a donkey, or a dog or a woman passes in front of him? He has to bathe or to perform the ablution anew and to repeat the prayers. We wonder and ask, "What does it mean to have the prayer invalidated? Has his conversation with God been erased? Are not prayers a conversation with God, being in His holy presence in full submission of the heart and mind? What does it mean that he has to repeat his prayer? Are prayers just uttering memorized words, or are they heartfelt fellowship? What effect does a dog or a donkey or a woman have if any of them passes in front of the worshipper?" Muhammad says that the prayer will be defiled and invalidated. We have already alluded in chapter two of this book to the references related to this subject in the context of our discussion of the status of women in Islam. We also stated A’isha’s answer to the prophet’s companions when they pointed to this issue after they vowed that they heard those words from the lips of Muhammad. She told them, "You have equated us with a dog and a donkey." Yet, what is significant for us here, is that prayers in Islam are external practice and not internal worship. They are outward bearing, not essence. Muhammad assures us that there is another reason for nullifying the ablution, that is breaking wind. Can the reader imagine that? In his Sahih, the Bukhari assures us that Muhammad made these statements while he was talking about ablution (refer to part 1, page 46). He said: "The Apostle of God said, ‘God does not accept the prayer of one who breaks wind until he performs the ablution anew."’ We don’t see why some gases nullify ablution and prayer! We have already mentioned that anyone who touches a woman’s hand after ablution, has to perform it again even if he spent five minutes in carrying out this ritual. Certain Times In Which Prayer Is Forbidden Muhammad forbade Muslims from praying to God at sunrise or sunset, that is, from dawn until sunrise or afternoon until sunset. If you ask for the reason, the prophet of the Muslims tells you, "Satan at this time brings his head closer to the sun so those prostrate to it become infidels." All these strange things are confirmed by Muhammad’s followers (refer to Sahih of Muslim, volume 2, pp. 476-486 under the title, "The Times in which Praying is Forbidden"). We do not understand these things because Christ taught us in the Gospel that we ought to pray all the time. Also we read, "Pray without ceasing." It is permissible for the believer to pray anytime he wishes. He can enter his own room and close the door to pray to his Heavenly Father as Christ commanded us. Yet, Muhammad forbade the Muslims to pray at particular times such as sunrise or sunset because Satan brings his head close to the sun during these times! Reward And Punishment Regarding Friday Praying One Friday, Muhammad was addressing the Muslims. A caravan of camels arrived from Syria and most of the audience left him except for twelve men. Thus, a Qur’anic verse was given which says, "Whenever they had (an opportunity) for trade or entertainment, they hastened to it and left you standing alone" (refer to Sahih of Muslim, volume 2, page 514). Thus, Muhammad promised many great rewards for those who pray the Friday prayer. Ibn ’Abbas quotes Muhammad as saying: "Bathing on Friday atones for sins, and walking to the mosque (on Friday) is like working twenty years. If the Muslim completes the Friday prayer, he will receive a reward equal to one hundred years of work" (refer to ibn ’Abbas by ’Abdul-’Aziz al-Shannawi, page 121). What a strange claim ! It is also recorded in Sahih of Muslim, volume 2, page 510: "Whoever performed the ablution, then attended the Friday prayers and listened (to the sermon), all his sins he would commit between that Friday and the following Friday would be forgiven including three more days." What an easy way to obtain forgiveness! But the one who neglects prayers is regarded as an apostate, and must be killed if he does not repent as we mentioned in chapter one. This is related to us by Muslim scholars such as ibn Hazm, ibn Timiyya, Imam al-Shafi’i and Malik, on the authority of Muhammad who said so. But Imam Abu Hanifa, who was more merciful than the rest, said, "He must not be killed, but should be beaten and thrown in jail until he prays, otherwise, he must be continuously beaten until he prays even if his beating results in his unintentional death." In regard to this subject, the Azhar scholars have published many important statements ascribed to Muhammad in the Egyptian Magazine, "The Liwa’ al-Islami", issue of 12/31/1987. They claim that Muhammad said: "The one who neglects to pray will die thirsty, hungry, humiliated and his grave will become so narrow that it will press his ribs tight until they break. A snake called the ‘Bald Brave’ will be set on him to beat him in the grave until he plunges into the ground seventy cubits. Then, (the snake) will pull him by his face to the fire of hell." Are these not meaningless words uttered by Muhammad? The irony is that these great scholars have believed and accepted these claims. Yet, what makes it worse is that the one who abandons his prayers is subject to death, or in the best case, he will be beaten and jailed. Some scholars quoted Muhammad, saying: "Whoever neglects part of the prayer will complete them after his death on a mountain of fire." Some Statutes And Penalties Of Islamic Law The Penalty Of The Thief Islamic law is very clear about this crime. It says that a thief’s hand must be cut off. This sentence is based on an explicit Qur’anic text which says: "As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah." (Refer to chapter "The Table": 38.) All legists confirm that Muhammad has endorsed this penalty. They all quote his statement: "A hand is cut off if he steals (anything) that costs one-fourth of a dinar and over. May God curse the thief. If he steals an egg, his hand must be cut off, or if he steals a rope, his hand must be cut off" (refer to Sahih of the Bukhari, part 8, pp. 199-201). On these same pages, the Bukhari assures us that A’isha, Muhammad’s wife, and the rest of his companions have said that Muhammad used to cut off a thief’s hand if he stole a shield which cost three dirhams (refer to Sahih of Muslim, volume 4, page 258 and on; ibn Timiyya, volume 8, page 331, ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya in Zad of al-Ma’ad, part 5, page 49; The Baydawi, page 149; The Jalalan, page 93, and the Zamakh-shari in the Kash-shaf, part 1, page 612). The Azhar scholars have been very explicit about this. In "The Statute of Legal Penalties", we turn to page 5 to read: "A person found guilty of theft shall be punishable as follows: 1 - amputation of the right hand for the first offense, 2 - amputation of the left foot for the second offense, 3 -imprisonment till the time of evident repentance for subsequent offenses." On the same page, the Azhar scholars remark that there are cases in which the penalty is not to be carried out. These cases are: "When theft occurs in a public place during its hours of activity or in a place to which the culprit had free access unless stolen property is found in his possession." In his book, "Zad of the Ma’ad" (part S, page 50), ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya says that the embezzler and the thief who steals fruit are not subject to the penalty of the Islamic law. He adds that Muhammad had commanded that they drop the penalty against them. There are two illogical elements in this Islamic law concerning the penalty of the thief. Muhammad’s claim that the embezzler or the thief who robs public property, are not subject to the penalty, is meaningless. There is no law in any country of the world which endorses such an unjust, irrational, and illogical statement. Why should an embezzler not be punished? We do not find any answer for that. Why should a father not be punished if he robs his son? It is possible that the son is a diligent person who is responsible for his wife and children while his father is a reckless and extravagant man who wastes his money on his own pleasures. Why then should he and other relatives who rob their own kin, not be punished? When Muhammad said to someone, "You and your property belong to your father," he was stating a meaningless verdict because each person lives an independent life and has his own distinctive entity. What about the larceny of the public property? It is evident that the thief must be punished. This is the opinion of the Imam Malik, but all other scholars disagree with him on the basis of Muhammad’s deeds and sayings. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya tells us that Muhammad issued an order in which he dropped the penalty against the plunderer, the embezzler, and the traitor of the trust (refer to part 5, page 50). Obviously, the relentlessness of Islamic law and Muhammad’s attitude are evident. Is it reasonable that a man’s hand is not worth more than a quarter of a dinar, or three dirhams, or an egg? Would it not be more fair that the punishment be in proportion to the crime? Should Muhammad cut off the hand of a man whether he steals an egg or a shield? What logic or sensible person would accept that? Is it fair that a person be disabled to work or to be productive and inflicted with a permanent handicap because of such a simple matter? Also, does he have the right to replace it with an artificial hand or not? Contemporary scholars disagree on this problem. More than that, it was Muhammad’s habit to cut off the thief’s hand and to hang it around his neck to make an example of him, to humiliate him, and as a warning to other people (refer to ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya in Zad of al-Ma’ad, part 5, pp. 52, 56). Ibn al-Jawziyya also mentioned that Muhammad ordered the death of a thief after he stole for the fifth time (part 5, page 56). Moving Stories The following famous moving stories are recorded by most Muslim scholars. One is a story of a woman who was accustomed to borrowing things and failing to return them. So, Muhammad cut off her hand in spite of the intercession of his companions (refer to the Bukhari, part 8, page 199). Another story related by the majority of the scholars who said: "A man stole the gown of Safwan while he was in the mosque. Safwan, who was one of Muhammad’s famous companions, arrested him and brought him to Muhammad. Muhammad ordered his hand to be cut off. Safwan shouted with surprise, ‘Because of my gown you cut off his hand? I give it to him free.’ Muhammad said to him, ‘That would only have been possible before you brought him to me.’ Muhammad ordered his hand to be cut off immediately" (refer to ibn Timiyya, volume 28, page 311; ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, part 5, page 51 of Zad of the Ma’ad). Is it fair, then, after Safwan has given up his gown and presented it to the thief as a gift, that Muhammad still cut off the thief’s hand instead of reducing his punishment? What does it matter if Safwan did that before he brought the thief to Muhammad or afterward? He waived his right, what more is needed? If someone claims that this is God’s right and the cutting off of the hand is a must, then the question is, why did Muhammad tell Safwan that waiving of punishment would have been possible before he brought him before Muhammad? What eccentric behavior! If somebody steals a gown or an egg, they cut off his hand, but the one who loots public property and embezzles the state’s treasury is not subjected to the punishment. This is iniquitous law devoid of rationale and fairness! Other Strange Things Islam allows the beating of the accused, if he acts suspiciously. Muhammad himself whipped and jailed a defendant before the charge was proven true against him (refer to ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, part 5, page 56). Such a practice is left in the hands of the plaintiff who decides whether to request the whipping of the suspect or not. But if the plaintiff demanded the beating of the suspect and it was proven that he was innocent, then the plaintiff (the owner of the stolen property) would be beaten. Muhammad himself did so and told the accusers, "If you wish me to beat them (the suspects), I will do so, and if your property is found with them, then let it be. Otherwise, I will flog your backs as I flogged their backs." They asked him, "Is this your verdict?" He said, "(It is) God’s verdict and His apostle’s" (refer to ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, part 5, pp. 52, 53, under the title, "Testing the Suspect by Beating Him’). We do not believe that this is God’s decree as Muhammad claims because God does not punish a man before he is proven guilty. Neither God nor a free, just society would accept this. Such abuse is the reason behind the torture inflicted on the defendants in the Arabic and Islamic countries in order to force them to confess to crimes they never committed. What an intolerant law, an unforgiving religion ... and an unmerciful prophet! The Drunkard The punishment of the drunkard is to be flogged forty times, and to be killed if he is arrested drunk for the fourth time. This is according to Islamic law and to actions and sayings of Muhammad. In the book of "A Proposal For The Law Of Legal Penalties" which was published by the Azhar (page 27), we read: "Whipping is approved by a saying of the prophet, peace be on him, narrated by Abu Daud and others, ‘Whip those who drink wine."’ This same book describes (page 8) the flogging procedure as follows: "The punishment of whipping shall be inflicted by means of a knotless whip of medium length and a single tip after stripping the convict of such clothing as may prevent pain to the body. Strokes must be divided all over the body; regarding women, the strokes may only be on her back and shoulders." It is very evident that the Islamic Tradition has a significant role in the implementation of Islamic Law since it records all the sayings and the deeds of Muhammad. It explained, interpreted and demonstrated some essential elements of worship which the Qur’an either did not deal with, or was brief. Because of its role, the Hadith’s books (Sahih of Bukhari, Sahih of Muslim and other books which collected or recorded the Islamic Tradition) occupy a very important place in Islam. Most of these traditions are handed down to us by Muhammad’s companions, his wives—A’isha in particular—as well as others who lived around Muhammad. Without the information we obtain from the Traditions, it would be impossible to construct a detailed system of worship, procedure of pilgrimage, list of unlawful food, or laws of inheritance. Many of the religious penalties, such as the punishment of the drunkard, the punishment of the married adulterer, are not mentioned in the Qur’an but uttered by Muhammad (refer to the "History of the Islamic Law" by Dr. Ahmad Shalabi, pp. 142-153). Dr. Shalabi asserts that the Islamic Tradition is a basic source of Islamic law, not because it explains new ordinances which are not mentioned in the Qur’an only, but also because in it Muhammad expounded the Qur’anic verses and the reasons for their revelation. All contemporary scholars agree with Dr. Shalabi. Let us now examine the implementation of the penal code on the drunkard as it is recorded in the Sahih of the Bukhari which is regarded by all scholars as the most important book about Islamic Tradition. Beating with Brutality and Savagery In his book, part 8, pp. 196, 197, the Bukhari says: "The prophet’s custom was to beat the drunkard with palm branches and sandals. When a drunkard was brought to him, he ordered his companions to beat him with their hands, sandals and robes. One of Muhammad’s companions by the name of al-Sa’ib ibn Yazid says, ‘We used to bring the drunkard before the apostle of God and during the caliphate of Abu Bakr and in the first stage of the caliphate of ’Umar, and we would beat him with our hands, sandals and robes. During the last part of ’Umar’s caliphate, he ordered us to flog him eighty times"’ (refer to ibn Timiyya, volume 28, page 336; and the book of the Sunna and its Significance, by Dr. M. Yusuf, page 29). What brutality to see Muhammad and his followers rise against the drunkard to beat him altogether at the same time with their sandals and hands with the poor man agonizing in the middle. Later, during the last days of ’Umar, the penalty of the drunkard was eighty lashes and not forty. Likewise, ’Ali ibn Abi Talib sometimes used to lash the drunkard either forty times or eighty. It is no secret that Muhammad really did whip anyone who drank even a drop of any intoxicating drink. Yes, even one drop! This was confirmed by all the scholars when Muhammad was asked about wine as a medicine. He said, "No, it is its own malady and can never be a remedy" (refer to ibn Timiyya, volume 28, page 339, and Sahih of Muslim, volume 4, page 666). More Than Flogging This is true, because Muhammad said, "If someone drinks wine, lash him, if he drinks again, lash him, if he drinks for the third time, lash him, but if he drinks for the fourth time, kill him" (refer to ibn Timiyya, volume 28, page 336). On page 347, ibn Timiyya tells us that: "Some people came to Muhammad and told him, ‘We use a drink made of wheat to protect us against the cold of our country.’ Muhammad said, ‘If it intoxicates (you), shun it.’ He was told that the people would not relinquish it. Muhammad said, ‘If they do not relinquish it, then kill them."’ So, the penalty was (and still is) to lash and even kill anyone who drinks any intoxicating drink, even if it is used moderately or in a small amount as a protection against cold. What a law! If somebody steals an egg or anything which costs a quarter of a dinar, they cut off his hand. If that is repeated for five times, they kill him. If someone drinks even one drop of wine, they brutally beat him with sandals, palm branches, and hands. If he repeats that four times, they kill him. Despite that they tell us this is the justice and the wisdom of Islamic law. They also tell us that Islam is the religion of forgiveness, and Muhammad is the prophet of mercy. Can we believe that the one who hangs the amputated hand of the thief around his neck, then orders his followers to parade him around, is the prophet of mercy? Such an act makes our bodies quiver, our souls feel disgusted and our free consciences rebel, especially if the defendant was punished before he was proven guilty as Muhammad said and did. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 29: 02.06. CONTRA ISLAM CHAPTER 15 ======================================================================== Section Four Chapter Fifteen Facts About Christianity One God, The Holy Trinity A Christian is one who believes in one God who has no equal in glory or in authority. It is natural to believe in one God since the universe itself has no need except for one, almighty, omniscient God, the God of love and justice. In fact, Christ confirmed that God is one God and so did all the disciples and apostles who wrote the New Testament books as they were moved by God’s Holy Spirit. Christ said, "The Lord is one" in Mark 12:29. James, the apostle, said, "You believe that there is one God. You do well" (James 2:19), and Paul, the apostle, said, "For there is one God" (1 Timothy 2:5). There are clear evidences of the oneness of God in Christianity. As to the subject of the Trinity, it is a different issue that does not contradict or disprove the fact of the absolute oneness of God since the Trinity explains and clarifies the nature of this oneness of God. It is impossible to believe that the oneness of God is an abstract as is the oneness of material things such as a pen or a chair. It is certain that the oneness of God is a universal, comprehensive oneness. Regarding the number, it is absolutely sure that our God is one with no partner and no one equal to Him. God can never be three gods or the third of three gods, God forbid. This one God is alive in His Holy Spirit and not dead. He is speaking in His Word (Logos) and reasoning in His Wisdom. Christ is called, "The Word of God" (John 1:1-51) and "The Wisdom of God" (Proverbs 8:1-36). The fact that man himself is a body, a reasoning soul, and a spirit does not disprove that he is one and not three! Just so, God is one but He has a Spirit and a mind; i.e., understanding and wisdom. In fact, the existence of this one God is of His own doing; i.e., spontaneous—that is why we call him "The Father". He is alive in His own Spirit who is called "The Holy Spirit". This great one God is reasoning in His Wisdom and speaking in His Word who is called "The Son." "The Trinity" is 1 x 1 x 1 and not 1 + 1 + 1. What Does The Term " Son Of God" Mean? As Christians, we say that Christ is God the Son and this expression has a simple, spiritual meaning (not a carnal, physical one) since it is impossible to conceive that God has a wife. God chose to incarnate Himself in Jesus who said, "A body You have prepared for Me" (Hebrews 10:5). The expression, "Son of God", means that Christ shares the spiritual nature and character of God. It is obvious that Christ led an absolutely perfect life, which is why no one can object to the statement that Christ has the character and nature of God. As evidenced early, Christ never sinned, has never yielded to the temptations of Satan, nor has God ever said to Him, "I have taken away your sins that have bent your back" as Muhammad claimed that God said to him. In addition to that, He was born of a virgin and He ascended to heaven as the living Lord. What a wonderful life is His! Moreover, His life was unusually great and His miracles were amazingly wrought. His authority extended even to the realm of nature as it was claimed in the Qur’an in the Table Surah 5:110 (Al-Maeda) that Christ created birds out of clay; i.e., a living creature. Here, Muhammad inadvertently witnesses to the deity of Christ, for who can create but God Himself? This is a special characteristic limited to God alone since God is the only creator. This is Christ and this is the meaning of Christ, the "Son of God." New Birth and Highest Moral Standard for Life In Christianity, you will discover wonderful doctrines and principles that at first seem to be unusual and difficult to understand, yet you will discover later on how simple and practical they are. One who believes in these precious doctrines and principles and submits himself completely into the hands of God will have a wonderful, exciting experience called, "being born again" (John 3:1-18). His heart will also be filled with inner power as well as real joy and peace, and consequently he will experience a personal, living relationship with God as he discovers the meaning of his own life. No longer will he need to be frightened of eternity that comes after this short life is over now. Death becomes "gain" as Paul the Apostle said in Php 1:21. Referring to Christ, the Gospel says, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name" (John 1:12). Christianity teaches that when one becomes a child of God, he experiences the new birth and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. So, in the new birth, God implants anew nature into the inner being of man, a nature which man has never had before. In addition, God sends His Spirit to indwell man’s heart as he receives Christ into his life. In fact, one needs to accept Christ as the incarnate Word of God who died on the cross to save him from sins and ascended to heaven. Such a relationship with God is man’s dire need. In order to have spiritual union, fellowship and love between man and his God, we must have God’s Holy Spirit who is the agent of the new birth. Moreover, the Holy Spirit gives us inner power and leads us into a life of joy and happiness as well as a life of knowing God personally, not as a master but as a father. Assurance of eternal life after death is a gift of the Holy Spirit to the believing heart. It is difficult to describe all the spiritual and psychological blessings which one will experience as a result of belief in the God of Christian revelation—accepting Christ as personal Savior. May the reader experience all these blessings. In Christianity, God gives man everything. His indwelling Holy Spirit embraces him in a wonderful way even to the extent of total union between God and man in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ (John 17:1-26). As a matter of fact, God in Christianity is not a remote, silent God but He is a caring, loving God who united Himself with us through Jesus Christ. Christ is known as the Son of God as well as the Son of Man. In taking on "the likeness of men" (Php 2:7), He became fully man and fully God. Through His Spirit, man is able to experience a glorious life and every day, he can enjoy personal, inner fellowship with God, man’s heavenly Father. Day after day as he grows in grace and knowledge, the Christian experiences more power in his life and becomes able to express and convey love to all those around him. The life of holiness and purity becomes his normal pattern of life as well as having genuine love and inexpressible joy, even amidst all situations and hardships (2 Peter 1:3-4). The Cross In fact, the cross is not merely a historic event but it is the purpose for which Christ came to our world as He mentioned frequently, "The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28). So, the cross is the key to understanding the books of the Old Testament which are full of prophecies about the cross which were written thousands of years before Christ—such as Psalms 22:1-31 and Isaiah 53:1-12. It is well known that David’s psalms and the Pentateuch were available to many people in different parts of the world long before the coming of Christ. In Christ, the prophecies were fulfilled, including all those concerning His crucifixion. "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8) "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3:16). The cross is the evidence that God loves us and without the cross, we would not have comprehended the meaning of love or recognized its standard which is to sacrifice for those whom we love (Galatians 5:22-25). Without the cross, there would be no perfect example to teach us the great meaning of sacrificial living. Not only do we have forgiveness for our sins in the cross since Christ redeemed us and was punished for us, but we also have power to enable us to lead a life of wonderful ideals. The Bible says, "Knowing this that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin" (Romans 6:6). The "old man" is that sinful nature within us which is inclined to selfishness, egocentricity as well as deviation from God’s love. It is only in the cross that one can experience victory over this "old man", a corrupted heart and a sin-driven soul. Because He is God and man, our old nature was crucified with Him, and we are enabled to experience victory. Jesus was crucified as a man like us for He had identified Himself with our humanity So we died in Him and we rose with Him as the Bible says, Moreover, the Bible teaches us that we are seated with Him in heavenly places. What a wonderful high position it is! Therefore, our behavior and conduct must be heavenly (Colossians 3:1-10). These are profound truths of Christianity which proclaim that the loving God indwells us and empowers us in our daily life. Thus, our spiritual desires are fulfilled as a result of our union with God (Ephesians 5:18, Galatians 5:16). What more does one need than union with God, receiving God’s Holy Spirit, and being filled with Him? My friends, in Christianity God has given us everything, even His own Spirit (2 Peter 1:3-4). We need only to open our hearts to God’s wonderful love which was manifested to us when He came to our world in the person of Jesus Christ, accomplished our redemption; indwelling, enabling, and empowering us through His Holy Spirit, equipping us through His Word. Anyone who knows who God really is, will offer himself to God to enjoy being present in the bosom of the loving Father—the God of love, tenderness and compassion Verses From the Bible It is time now for us to conclude this book with verses from the Bible so that the reader may realize that there is no other book deeper or sweeter than the Bible. The Bible is the sole and only revelation of God in our world. Unlike all other books, the Bible has spread to all parts of the world in all the languages of mankind. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 6:23). "For God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). "That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved" (Romans 10:9). Peace, Joy and Pleasure Are Found in God "In Your presence is fullness of joy; At Your right hand are pleasures forevermore" (Psalms 16:11). "I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, My soul shall be joyful in my God; for He has clothed me with the garments of salvation, He has covered me with the robe of righteousness" (Isaiah 61:10). "Rejoice in the Lord always. Again I will say, rejoice! Let your gentleness be known to all men. The Lord is at hand. Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God; and the peace of God which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus" (Php 4:4-7). "My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials" (James 1:2). A Life of Love "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven" (Matthew 5:43-45). "By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth" (1 John 3:16, 1 John 3:18). Prayer and Fasting "And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the comers of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, they have their reward. But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door. pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly" (Matthew 6:5-6). "When you fast, do not be like the hypocrites, with a sad countenance. For they disfigure their faces that they may appear to men to be fasting" (Matthew 6:16). A Life of Holiness "As He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, because it is written, ‘Be holy for I am holy"’ (1 Peter 1:15-16). "And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit" (Ephesians 5:18). "Whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28). "The women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation" (1 Timothy 2:9). God’s Providence "The very hairs of your head are all numbered" (Matthew 10:30). "The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He makes me to lie down in green pastures; He leads me beside the still waters, He restores my soul; He leads me in the paths of righteousness For His name’s sake" Psalms 1:1-3). With these words of this beautiful psalm, we conclude this book. May God bless you. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 30: S. A REBEL DIES. ======================================================================== A Rebel Dies. He’d played his cards and lost, He admitted that. The mighty power of Rome had proved too much, And he was crucified. But this! To see those snivelling, wretched Sadducees, Standing to watch him die. It was too much. He turned his head and cursed, Regretting it. The curse sent shooting agony along his spine, Tortured by pain, he longed for death to come, That he might know an end to bitter woe. Those nails! They wrenched his hands and tore his bleeding feet, Causing him agony. He cursed again. Alright. He’d played and lost, But others would play and win, Why didn’t Messiah come? For surely now was time for God to act, He couldn’t leave them in that wretched state, Abandoned now to fate. God? That was the mystery. Where was He, didn’t He care? Leaving His people in their misery, Where was He? He groaned once more in pain. Then turned. What was that noise below? Another wretch to die in agony? Another victim of the power of Rome? By Heaven! If God Himself should come, Those Roman brutes would crucify Him too, Helped by those wretched Sadducees. He gave a laugh. And harsh and cruel was the sound of it. This was no God, he’d seen this man before, Behind the blood and sweat he knew the face. The Galilean peasant preaching love, And healing men, relieving them of pain. What irony! So now they had him too? So whether men supported love or hate, It mattered not to those who ruled the world. They died for it. Well, this would change his tune. Poor fool. He’d thought that love could win, When only brutal force held any hope. To smash the foe and grind him to the ground, That was the way. No other way would do. He winced once more. Again his treacherous legs had given way, Wracking his body tortured with the cramp. Tearing his hands, and causing agony. Those nails. Could nothing save him from this grievous pain? Why couldn’t he die and end his hopeless life? How long must this go on? He turned his head and stared. How strange, he thought. The peasant too hangs there in agony, And yet, Instead of cursing seems in earnest prayer. What good will that do here? His God has clearly now forsaken Him He prays too late. He should have thought of that, Before. But wait. He’s going to speak, now we shall know his worth. Let’s see what maledictions he can raise, To curse his foes. This should be good. There is no place here for his words of love. Now we will hear of judgment from his lips, On those who treat him so. What manner of man is this? Whoever heard such words in such a place? Father, forgive they know not what they do? His mind has clearly gone, his brain has too. Who is this father he is speaking of? Whoever heard of praying for one’s foes? How sad that such a man, should end like this. In hopelessness and woe. One thing’s for sure. It doesn’t seem to move the Sadducees, They still gaze up and yell and scream at him. And rant and sneer, and throw it in his face. What’s this they say? If you’re Messiah come down from the cross, Then we’ll accept and listen to your words, Believe for sure. Messiah, eh? So that’s why he is there? Its certainly time God sent Messiah down, But when he comes he won’t appear like this. Messiah, eh? That’s good, “Say, man, Why not get down, and save yourself? And me.” He turned and looked at me. Those eyes. No one has ever looked at me like that before. So full of love that tore my very heart, And when I’d mocked him too. What grace. It makes me feel ashamed of what I said, It makes me want to ask his pardon, too. But what’s the use? For now my life is through. They mock him still. ‘You said your kingdom was not of this world, Come down you self-appointed king, come down, Return here now you self-appointed fool,’ Well, they may mock. But one thing now I know. That man has peace and calm in suffering, That’s new to me, And love beyond degree. A kingdom up in Heaven? Then he is fit for it, would God I were. If only I could enter there with him. What joy would fill my heart, ev’n in this pain, And yet, it cannot be. And yet, by Heaven, What’s happened to me I must be going mad, For I have never thought this way before, This peasant here has touched my very soul. What can I do? His eyes have pierced my very heart and being, I feel ashamed of what my life has been, The hatred in my heart. Its just as though, Some power is flowing from that peasant’s soul, To seek to make me pure, as pure as him, As pure as driven snow. I must take care. For if I don’t he’ll have me praying next, And who that knew me ever would believe, That I’d do that? This cross has dulled my brain. A kingdom up in Heaven? Then there can ne’er be hope for one like me, For I have lived each day to please myself, With never thought for God or for His ways. It cannot be. Yet when he prayed, He prayed that God would e’en forgive his foes He prayed for them and wouldn’t he pray for me? What’s this? That other fellow on his other side, Is mocking him and jeering in his face, ‘Why don’t you save yourself and save us too?’ I say, Don’t mock this man like that, We suffer rightly, we deserve our fate, But he has done no wrong. What can I do? He looked at me again, I saw his eyes, They seem to pierce within my very soul, They seem to plead with me to follow him. Mayhap he is a king. What shall I say? I cannot ask that I shall be forgiven, I cannot ask that I should go to Heaven, Perhaps though when he takes his place above, He will remember me. I’ll ask for that, I dare not ask for more. What could He mean? I asked Him ‘Lord, will you remember me, When to your kingdom soon you enter in, When you receive your throne?’. And he replied, With voice so firm, so strong and vibrant too, As though it were an angel spoke from heaven, ‘Today you shall share Paradise with me.’ I feel as though, The guilt of years has fallen from my soul, That some almighty power has wrought within, That I am whole, though broken on this tree. And I am free, To meet my God today, without a fear, To meet my God today, with heart prepared, Because He spoke theword. I saw Him go. He bowed His head and yielded up His soul. And ev’n in death His triumph was made known, Showing to all He was in truth a King, And as for me, They broke my legs, and left me there to die, It mattered not, for in my heart ‘twas known, That God had come and played His cards, and won. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 31: S. A RICH MAN DIES ======================================================================== LAZARUS ‘Father, why is that beggar there? Sat at our gate, Covered in rags and sores? Hungry, Forlorn. I don’t like him. I caught him last night, Looking in. You should have seen his face, His eyes filled with hunger, His body trembling, Wistful, Longing to be fed. Can’t you do something?’ ‘It’s not my business. Why can’t they look after him? I pay my tithes,’ That covers charity. Besides, It’s only laziness, Why doesn’t he get a job? Do something, Lift himself up? It’s men like him disturb the country, Zealots, Rebels, Ruining life for all. No point in helping him, Throwing away our money, He’d misuse it, Waste it. Don’t bother with him my son, Go to bed.’ ‘Father, I had a dream last night. I saw the beggar, Dead, Borne by angels, Clothed in glistening white. And father, I saw you too, Oh father, I cannot bear it, I saw you, Dead, Buried, Filled with anguish, Seeing the water you refused to him, Yet waterless, Thirsty, Crying out, Hopeless.’ ‘Don’t be afraid, my son. Others are worse than I. They turn away from millions, I from one. They see them on TV, In newspapers, Magazines Then turn and cast it off, Forget, Or send a pittance, Soothing conscience, Costing nothing. Three hundred million people ever hungry, Five hundred thousand dying every day, Dying, And they let them die. If there is hope for them, why should I fear, Who only turn away, From one?’ ‘So just enjoy yourself, We’ll go on holiday, Get away, Spend our money, Insure our future, Buy a bigger house, A car, Go out for dinner, Spoil ourselves. We give our tithes to God, Enjoy the rest, And let the beggar die.’ The beggar died, The rich man also died ---. See Luke 16:19-31. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 32: S. CAN A MAN BE SAVED AND THEN LOST? ======================================================================== Can a Man Be Saved and then Lost? by Peter Pett We are always a little concerned at glib phrases like ’once saved, always saved’ because they carry within them the grave danger of complacency. While we believe the statement is in fact true we must always enter the firm caveat, ’as long as a person is really saved’, and the only final test of that from the Bible’s point of view is to be found in their subsequent lives. For when Jesus Christ saves someone that salvation is effective. ‘If any man is in Christ Jesus he is a new creature, old things pass away and verything becomes new’ (2 Corinthians 5:17). We do not by this wish to throw doubt on a person’s faith, but the Bible does not just look on salvation as being a fire insurance. Being saved is not all about escaping Hell. It is about wanting to be transformed and made like Christ. In the Bible salvation is a mighty activity of God which does not fail in its purpose. It is true that it saves us from Hell, but it also saves us from ourselves. Thus it teaches different aspects of ’salvation’. · 1). It speaks of those who have been saved once and for all, ‘the ‘having been saved ones’ (aorist tense). This refers to one act of Christ which is complete for ever. As their Saviour Christ has chosen them and called them to Himself and they are now safe in Him. Their lives are ’hid with Christ in God’. · 2). It speaks of those who have been saved and are therefor now saved (perfect tense). Here there is the twofold thought of what Christ has done in the past (He has saved them) and of what is true now, they are saved. They are safe in His hands and He will never let them go. · 3). It speaks of those who ‘are being saved’ (present tense). This is because when Christ reaches out and saves someone it is with the purpose of them being fully saved. Having provided them with overall forgiveness He now carries out the process of making them totally free from sin. This is a lifelong work as they are ‘changed from glory into glory’ (2 Corinthians 3:18) and is only completed when they are presented perfect before Him, not only in status but in reality. · 4). It speaks of those who will be saved (future tense). This is looking forward to that day when they will be presented perfect before Him. Let us consider the Scripture references for this.. Verses in which it speaks of ‘having been saved’ include Titus 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:9 (aorist tense, something that has happened once for all). Verses which speak of having been saved and therefore now being saved include Ephesians 2:5; Ephesians 2:8 (perfect tense, something that has happened in the past the benefit of which continues to the present time). It is a result of being incorporated into Christ by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:12-13). This is what is in mind when we say a person has been ‘saved’. But the Bible also speaks of us as those who "are being saved" in, for example, 1 Corinthians 1:18; 2 Corinthians 2:15; (present tense - a process going on). And it speaks of those who ‘will be saved’ in 1 Corinthians 3:15; 1 Corinthians 5:5; 2 Corinthians 7:10; 1 Thessalonians 5:9; 2 Thessalonians 2:13 (future tense - something yet to happen - and equivalents). In other words, when God ‘saves’ someone they are saved once and for all, and it is fully effective. But if it is genuine it means that it will then result in a process by which they are being ‘changed from glory into glory’(2 Corinthians 3:18), with the final guarantee of a completed process. If the salvation is not progressing, even though slowly, then its genuineness must be questioned. The Saviour does not fail in His work. Consider a man drowning at sea, in a fierce storm, clinging to a life raft with one hand, his other arm broken and trailing behind, and both his legs paralysed, having been many hours in the freezing water and suffering from hypothermia, more dead than alive. Then along comes the life boat and drags him out and he gasps, hardly able to speak because of the seriousness of his condition, "I am saved". Well, it is true. He is no longer doomed. But he has a long way to go. He would not have much confidence in his salvation if they put him to one side in the bow of the boat, with the waves lashing over him, and said to him, "Well, you’re saved now", and then went off and played cards and then practised turning the lifeboat over. His confidence and dependence lie in a fully trained and capable crew who are dedicated to warming him up, treating him and getting him to hospital so that he can be fully restored. So as they get to work on him, wrapping him in a blanket and gently warming his frozen limbs, trying to set his broken arm and doing everything else necessary to restore him to some kind of normality, he can begin to have hope and think gratefully to himself, "I am being saved". But he may well still be aware of the winds howling round, and the boat heaving in the heavy seas, and the pain and agony of his limbs, and he may then look forward and think, "I will soon be saved". If those crewmen, and the ambulance waiting for him on shore on that terrible night, can be so dedicated, can we think that the One Who died on a cross for us on an even more terrible night, can be less dedicated? He does not just want us in the lifeboat. He wants us fully restored. And that is what He is determined to have. And we can be sure that the Good Shepherd and the Great Physician will not fail in His task. But if we want to be saved it is full salvation that we must want! We cannot say, ‘Lord, save me, but leave me as I am’. This salvation is entered into by an act of faith and commitment. As we genuinely recognise our need to be saved (in every way) from sin we commit ourselves completely to the One Who Saves (the Saviour), and trust Him to carry out the work, knowing that once He has begun the good work He will carry it out to the end (Php 1:6). We are then ‘saved’, and have entered the process of ‘being saved’. Notice that the act of commitment being described is not speaking of our commitment to do certain things, as though we could somehow merit salvation. It is an act of commitment of ourselves into His saving mercy and power as we admit that we cannot save ourselves. The Bible speaks of ‘sanctification’ in a similar way. To sanctify means ‘to set apart for a holy purpose, to make holy’ and from the Christian point of view that means to make "God-like in purity, goodness and love". This is something only God can do for us. The Bible tells us that once He has made us His Own, we are put in the position of ‘having been sanctified’ (aorist tense, once for all - 1 Corinthians 1:30; 1 Corinthians 6:11), and therefore ‘set apart’ for God once for all. This is because we are made holy ‘in Christ’ with Christ’s holiness, and thus covered with His purity. This is why we can approach God so confidently. It has put us in a state whereby we ‘are sanctified’ and accepted as holy in His presence - Acts 20:32; Acts 26:18; Romans 15:16; 1 Corinthians 1:2; Hebrews 10:10 (perfect tense - ‘having been sanctified and therefore now are sanctified’ - past happening which continues to the present). But the result of being put in this position is that we will now be ‘in process of being sanctified’ (set apart by being made holy) by Christ Jesus and the Spirit. The purity of Christ, which has been set to our account, must now become an actuality. We must therefore go through the process of ‘being set apart for God’ by being constantly changed by the Spirit (present tense - Hebrews 2:11; Hebrews 10:14; compare Romans 6:19; Romans 6:22; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; 2 Thessalonians 2:13). If we are His He will carry out this work in us. This is the same process as salvation from a slightly different point of view. We are saved through God’s work of sanctification, which like salvation is ours by faith. In contrast being "justified", i.e. ‘put in the right with God’, can only have happened in the past tense for the Christian. The verb is dikaioo, the oo ending showing that it means ‘counted as righteous’, a judicial position before God, rather than ‘made righteous’, a factual experience of being changed. It has happened once for all (Aorist tense- Romans 5:1; Romans 5:9; 1 Corinthians 6:11; 8.30; 1 Corinthians 10:10; Galatians 2:16; Titus 3:7). The result is that we ‘are justified’ (present passive - Romans 3:24; Romans 3:28) - standing in the right with God through His grace ( His undeserved favour and love). But as James makes clear, this standing must result in good works (James 2:24). In the end it is these which, although they cannot put us in the right with God, are the necessary fruit of justification. Good works do not cause us to be justified, but they are the necessary consequence of being justified. To quote John Calvin, ‘we are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is not alone’. That is why Isaiah constantly parallels His coming in salvation and His coming in righteousness. He comes as Saviour not only to clothe us in His righteousness and but also to make us righteous (see Ezekiel 36:25-27). And how are we put in the right by God? By faith (Romans 5:1). The same act of commitment to Christ that saves us also puts us in a position of being justified, of being accepted as righteous by God. And what is the basis of our justification? We are "justified freely by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus" (Romans 3:24). God can declare us righteous, and still remain righteous Himself, because of the propitiating work of the crucified and risen Christ "through His blood" i.e. by the shedding of His blood for us (Romans 3:25; Romans 3:28). Yet even justification has its future tense. "By your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned" (Matthew 12:37). A man who has been justified will produce the fruit in his life that evidences the fact. By this we are not ‘accounted as righteous’ but shown to be righteous, at least to a degree. This demonstrates that when God saves He does so once for all, but that the test of this is that it continues to the present time and is going on at the moment as an ongoing process. We can then be sure of its final completion. If the work of salvation is not happening within, resulting in a changed life and a tenderer conscience, it must be questioned whether the person is within God’s process of salvation. Paul had nothing but condemnation for those who thought that ‘being saved’ meant they could behave how they liked (Romans 3:8). (It must, however, be pointed out that we are not necessarily the best judges of whether we are improving. The more we advance in Godliness, and the nearer we get to God, the more sinful we feel ourselves to be. That is why Paul thought of himself as the ‘chief of sinners’ (1 Timothy 1:15). Our confidence must be in the One to whom we have committed ourselves, not in our feelings. It is others who will testify to the change that has taken place in our lives). This guarantee of salvation is confirmed specifically in a number of verses. In Php 1:6 Paul speaks of "Being confident of this very thing, that He Who has begun a good work in you, will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ". Php 2:13 adds, "For it is God Who is at work within you to will and to do of His good pleasure". In both cases the assumption is that God’s work will produce results, slowly but surely, because it is He who is doing it. Compare also 1 Corinthians 1:8-9, ‘He will confirm you to the end that you may be unreproveable in the Day of our Lord Jesus Christ. GOD IS FAITHFUL through Whom you were called to share all things in common with our Lord Jesus Christ’. All the emphasis is on what God will do. This aspect of the security of the Christian in Christ is found in the words of Jesus. In John 10:28, Jesus summarises the Christian’s position in these words. "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me, and I give to them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them from My hand". This verse is packed through with certainty. The gift of ‘eternal’ life, the safety in His hand, and the guarantee that they will never be allowed to wander away and perish. They may sometimes wander for a while, but if they are truly His, He will seek them until He finds them (Luke 15:4). He is the Shepherd, and He will keep them. This is His promise. But notice the test of whether we are His sheep. His sheep hear His voice and follow Him. This is a continual process. We become His sheep when we hear His voice (through the Bible or through a preacher) and respond. We can be confident that we are His sheep if we know that we genuinely want Him to save us, and we demonstrate it when we go on responding, not perfectly, but definitely. We can have no sense of security away from the Shepherd. Paul had no doubt of his safety in Christ. "I know Whom I have believed", he said, "and am confident that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him against that day" (2 Timothy 1:12). Jude gives the same assurance to us. "To Him Who is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy" (Jude 1:24). So our confidence lies in the fact that it is God Who is doing the work and not us. It may at times appear slow, but it is certain. And because of this certainty we must put every effort into our part. "Energise out your own salvation with greatest care (fear and trembling), for it is God Who works in you (making you) to will and to do of His good pleasure" (Php 2:12-13). A godly Christian was once asked, ‘Do you believe in the perseverance of the saints?’, and he replied, ‘No. I believe in the perseverance of the Saviour.’ And that is the right emphasis. Paul’s confidence did not make him complacent. In 1 Corinthians 9:27 he points out "I run, not doubting, I fight, not uselessly. I keep my body under control, and bring it into subjection, lest by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be rejected after testing". These were not the words of someone fearing failure, they were the words of one confident of success and determined to keep it that way. And when he is describing to Christians the resurrection body in 2 Corinthians 5:1-5, he enters the caveat "on condition that you are not found naked" (i.e. guilty and laid bare before God because of unforgiven sin). He would not allow presumption. But he constantly stressed the faithfulness of God to His own. In the same way John’s messages to the seven churches in the book of Revelation (Revelation 1:1-20, Revelation 2:1-29, Revelation 3:1-22) warn the members of those churches quite strongly that they must set right what is wrong, and he distinguishes clearly between genuine Christians and those who are playing at it. Those who are true Christians must be overcomers, progressing in the Christian life, and not those who sit back and wait for the falsity of their profession to be revealed. Note finally Who it is Who saves us. It it ‘the Lord Jesus Christ’. Do you thinks that such a One can fail in His set purpose? But some foolishly talk of having Jesus as Saviour and not as Lord. That is like saying that we can have the car without the engine. Jesus Christ IS Lord. We cannot have the Lord Jesus Christ without His Lordship. It is as Lord that He comes to be our Saviour. And if we deny that we deny Him. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 33: S. HOW DO I BECOME A CHRISTIAN? ======================================================================== How Do I Become A Christian? by Dr. Peter Pett The most important thing to remember about becoming a Christian is what it really involves. It does not involve ‘becoming religious’ or following certain religious rules. Nor does it come about through undergoing a religious ceremony such as baptism. Rather it involves coming to know a Person personally. The truth is that until you have come to know Jesus Christ personally you cannot be a Christian, for to become a Christian involves receiving Jesus Christ into your life to be your Saviour, Lord and Strengthener. It involves Jesus Christ coming to live within you so that He can live out His life through you. That being so it cannot be brought about by undergoing any particular religious ritual, nor simply by joining a church. Nor can it be brought about by making an effort to live a good life. All these things may be good in themselves but they cannot make you a Christian. How then can I receive Jesus Christ into my life? The first step necessary in receiving Jesus Christ into your life is to recognise that you are a sinner, and that you need a Saviour. The Bible gives us no grounds for doubting this, and it leaves us without excuse because it declares, ‘All have sinned and come short of the glory of God’ (Romans 3:23). Notice how sin is defined here. It is to come short of the holiness and purity of God. It is to come short of God’s goodness. Can anyone of us doubt that we fall short of this standard? Everyone of us has to admit that we have done things that we should not have done, and that we have failed to do things that we should have done. Consequently we know that we are sinners. The next step is to recognise that because you are a sinner you come under the condemnation of God. The Bible says that, ‘God has fixed a day when He will judge the world in righteousness (that is, in terms of God’s purity and goodness) by that Man Whom He has ordained’ (Acts 17:31), and that ‘it is appointed to man once to die, and after that the judgment’ (Hebrews 9:27). And in the judgment the question that will be asked is, ‘did you come short of the glory of God?’ No excuse will be accepted. The only question then will be as to whether you ever failed. For as James puts it, ‘Whoever keeps the whole Law, and yet offends in one point, he is guilty of all’ (James 2:10). If I am brought before a judge the question will not be about how good I have been, or whether I am better than someone else. The only question will be as to whether I am guilty of the crime I am charged with. And as far as God is concerned that crime is coming short of His divine standard, coming short of what He is, and on those terms we all stand guilty as charged. And the consequence of this is that we would suffer eternal death, for ‘the wages of sin is death’ (Romans 6:23). To put it another way God has said, that He will, ‘inflict vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord’ (2 Thessalonians 1:8-9). Now on these terms (and as far as God is concerned they are the only terms on which God will deal with us) we are all sinners, and we all come under judgment. So the only question that now arises is as to how we can escape God’s righteous judgment? And the answer lies in what Jesus Christ has done for us. For the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ ‘Himself bore our sins in His own body on the cross’ (1 Peter 2:24). In other words He took the consequences of our sin upon Himself. Or to put it another way, He ‘suffered once, the Righteous One for the unrighteous, that He might bring us to God’ (1 Peter 3:18). Because He has died for us we can be forgiven. Paul agrees with this for he says, ‘He Who knew no sin was made sin for us, in order that we might be made as righteous as God in Him’ (2 Corinthians 5:21). That means that as a result of coming to Jesus Christ we can be counted as righteous in God’s sight. How then do I gain this benefit for myself? The answer is by receiving Jesus Christ into my life. ‘To as many as received Him to them gave He the right to become children of God, even to those who truly believe in His Name’ (John 1:12). In order to become a Christian we must open up our lives and ask our LORD Jesus Christ into our lives. And once He comes to live within us He becomes our Saviour. He cleanses us from sin, He clothes us in His righteousness, and He puts a new life within us. This is made clear in Revelation 3:20 where Jesus said to all of us, “Look I am standing at the door and knocking, if any man will hear My voice and open the door, I will come into Him and sup with Him and He with Me’. So becoming a Christian is all about opening our lives to Jesus Christ so that He can come within us and live through us. In order to become A Christian we can pray something like this, ’Lord Jesus Christ, I confess to you that I am a sinner and worthy of God’s condemnation. But you bore my sins in your own body on the cross. Thank you for dying for me and for my sins. Please cleanse me from all my sins and come into my life so that I might die to my sins and so that you may come and live out your life through me. I want you to enter my life as both Saviour and Lord. Thank you Lord, Amen.’ ======================================================================== CHAPTER 34: S. IS CONSCIENCE THE VOICE OF GOD? ======================================================================== Is Conscience the Voice of God? by Peter Pett Some people try to argue that morality is simply a human convenience which enables us to live together in comparative harmony. In other words, that it is simply relative, and that there are no absolute standards. Indeed, if people reject a belief in God, I do not see how they can say anything else. Unless there is ultimately a law-giver who will call to account, why should people observe moral standards more than is necessary to achieve co-existence? The question can, in fact, be taken even further. Why should they observe moral standards at all? This has always been a problem for the atheistic philosopher. The interesting thing, though, is that even though they view ethics as relative, there are very few who will come out openly and admit what the significance of that is. They still wish to be considered respectable. To be fair, we must go further. They are often decent people and being aware of what facing up to the full facts would mean, they try to find a way round them. They are aware that other people KNOW that morals are important (although they may not know why) and would not look favourably on a theory that rejected morals altogether. So they try to build up a theory that somehow reinstates morals on a different basis. But the truth of the matter is that they are ‘cheating’. It is because they are aware of a moral sense that they take up this position. It is not logically justifiable. When Hitler chose to send millions of people to the gas chamber, and to destroy the Jewish race and enslave millions of all races, was he wrong? The atheist can say that he was going against the view of the majority of people and that it was not very pleasant. He can say that most decent people would be against it. He can say that it is against the views of what he would call civilised society. He can say that it did not contribute to maximum human happiness. And if that is what he means by wrong, he can say it was wrong. But that is not genuine morality. It was equally open to Hitler to say that he disagreed with the views of the majority of ‘decent’ people, that he did not accept the dictates of ‘civilised’ society, that he was only interested in the happiness of his own people, and that it seemed to him of benefit to the society in which he lived to do these things. He could argue that he was following out the rule of the survival of the fittest. Indeed, that is what he DID claim. And what can the atheistic philosopher reply (unless of course he agrees with him). He can only say ‘the majority is against you’. But we all know that the majority is not always right. Why should Hitler obey the majority? He may have come out of things better if he had. But if we do not believe in a law-giver and absolute morality we cannot say that he was morally wrong in the sense in which most people mean morally wrong. We can only say that he was ill-advised and had unpopular views. (Not all evil men have had their come-uppance in this life). This was the problem that Bertrand Russell could not escape (in another context). He admitted that there were some things he had to agree were wrong in themselves. One example he gave was that of particularly vicious cruelty to children. He admitted that there was no way that he could state that that was anything but wrong in the fullest sense of the word. But by doing so he gave the game away. Fortunately for him he was so clever that he soon diverted people’s minds away to other subtle arguments so that they forgot that he had destroyed his whole position. The truth is you cannot logically argue for relative morality if you accept something is absolutely wrong as he did. We can argue all we like that ‘evolution’ has instilled this view into us. But that does not make it right. It only makes it a convenient accident (some people who want to ignore morals would argue that it was an inconvenient accident, the consequences of which they were escaping ). It gives morality no authority. Yet I have never met anyone who was not aware of the difference betwen right and wrong as a concept in its own right. Even evil men become laden with guilt, and no one shouts louder for his ‘rights’ than an atheist. The truth is we all know the difference between something being right and wrong for its own sake, or being merely ‘wrong’ because it did not fit in with most people’s ideas. We know that being ‘morally wrong’ means more than just not fitting in with our views, or the views of society. And we know, as Bertrand Russell did that some things are morally wrong in themselves. The test of morality comes when we are faced up with doing something which we know to be ‘right’ even though we may not want to do it and certain members of society disagree with us. We know we have to do it because our conscience tells us so. But what is this conscience, and why should we obey it? It is, of course, taking the easy way out just to say that it is the voice of God. It is considerably more complicated than that. But if it is not something with absolute authority why should we obey it? And if it is only the product of evolution it does not have that authority. Evolution cannot give ‘authority’ to anything or anyone (unless it is transformed into a sort of deity). Can conscience really ‘make cowards of us all’ if it has no substantial basis? It is true that if we are prepared to say that conscience is simply an accident of nature, and that therefore there is no logical reason why we should have to obey it, we can retain an atheistic standpoint. But we must never then go on to say that something is right or wrong without qualifying it and saying we mean ‘not convenient’, or ‘not in accord with the view of the majority. To be logical we must take up the position I have outlined earlier of stating that Hitler and child torturers are not wrong, they are just a little different in their views from the majority. There can be no condemnation, just disapproval. Of course a lot of people do live as though morality does not matter for quite some of the time, but there always comes a time when they are aware of feeling guilty, and knowing why they are feeling guilty, when they become aware that what they have been doing is wrong. This can especially be awakened when they come in contact with some great moral teacher. When Confucius, and Socrates, and Jesus, and others, taught, men responded to that teaching and became morally aware. And though ‘evil’ men did away with many of them because at the time it conflicted with their interests, the view of the majority has been that those evil men were wrong. And it is probably true to say that, given a different perspective, those same men would have accepted the general viewpoint. It was only because they were caught up in the circumstances of the time and their own self interest that they were unable (or unwilling) to stand back and say, ‘What these good men say is right’. The problem with Socrates and Jesus was that they could always make men aware of the falsity of their own position and that was why such men hated them. It was because their moral sense had been awakened, and then quenched for the sake of convenience, that they put them to death. The fact that we cannot make a list of things which are ‘absolutely’ right which all men would agree with does not negate this position. Moral decisions are complicated as we all know. But all societies have looked on murder within their own society as wrong, unless there was some specific reason to justify it (and the need to ‘justify’ it illustrates the fact). All men are aware that the interests of others must be taken into account in their strata of society. They may limit those to whom they owe that responsibility by taking a ‘view’ of those outside the sphere of their own circles which writes them off as not quite human, or by not thinking of it at all, but once they are faced up to the question (and sadly how rarely that happens) they will generally accept that their position is not justifiable, or take an irrational viewpoint so that they can continue to hold their position and still feel morally justified. How often such men have used the false argument of ‘the will of God’ to justify their position. But why did they want to justify their position in the first place? Because they were trying to pacify their consciences. (We must not blame God for this. He has ordained that men be free to make their own choices. He cannot be blamed because they misuse that ability, unless of course we want Him to take our freewills away as well). History is full of examples where men and women have acted honourably in a way that was against their best interests simply because of what they believed was ‘right’ (and illogically some of them have been atheists, which demonstrates how their moral goodness can triumph against their very beliefs). This was why Kant argued that the fact that men were aware that there was often something that they ‘ought to do’, even though it could not be demonstrated rationally, demonstrated that there must be a law-giver. Why else should they be bound by the moral ‘ought’? Conscience is often an inconvenience but few men can avoid it all the time (and it is not very pleasant to meet people like that, - even if they exist, and that is questionable). Even the vilest of men try to ‘justify’ themselves in order to soothe their consciences. But where did it come from? It does not encourage the survival of the fittest, it is often very inconvenient, and many have died because they held fast to it. There is no sensible natural explanation of it. The animal world gets on well enough without it. Yet even when we try to get away from it, it hunts us down in the end. There is absolutely no reason why it should have arisen through ‘evolution’ (except by accident,and if that is true why should we not try to get rid of it when it can hinder our general well-being?). The only really logical position, if we are going to maintain that it is a ‘good thing’, is to accept that it was instilled into us in some way by a moral governor, one who had the interests of goodness at heart. We may try to rationalise the position because we do not want to believe this, by all kinds of dodges of the intellect, but underneath morality has us in its grip and we find that we cannot escape it absolutely. It just is not possible to be someone who only argues things on the basis of rational thought, thus escaping conscience. It may work some of the time, but like Bertrand Russell we must in the end admit that it goes further than that. That in fact conscience, and right and wrong, are in some way above reason. And that can only lead us back to God. It may be that someone will say, ‘what about the evils brought into the world by religion?’, and I would agree with you, but that tells us more about the men who do such things than about God. I will happily guarantee you one thing. You will never be able to show me anyone who has brought misery and suffering into the world by a sensible following of the teachings of Jesus Christ. And if you immediately bristle in disagreement, please be kind enough to Email me and tell me WHICH TEACHING OF JESUS CHRIST THEY WERE FOLLOWING. (I am not talking about the teaching of churches. That is another matter. True Christianity is obeying the teaching of Jesus Christ. That is what I stand by, and that is, if you are fair and reasonable, what you must consider when passing your judgment on Jesus. Do not blame Him because people misuse and twist things, and use His reputation to try to justify their own wrongdoing). ======================================================================== CHAPTER 35: S. LIVING UTTERLY FOR CHRIST (EPHESIANS 3.16-19). ======================================================================== Living Utterly For Christ (Ephesians 3:16-19). by Dr. Peter Pett In Ephesians 3:16-17 Paul’s prayer for God’s people was that ‘out of the riches of His glory’, they should be ‘strengthened with might by the Spirit in the inner man’, and the purpose of it was that ‘Christ might dwell in our hearts by faith’ (Ephesians 3:16-17). Note first the prime Source. It was ‘out of the riches of His glory’. There is no stinting there. It tells us that God will act out of the fullness of His glory in order to bring about what is described. That is, that all the glory and power of the Almighty Father is to be at work in it. Now think about that! If you go to the warehouses of the greatest stores in the world, and then add together all that is in them, what they contain is as nothing compared with this. If you consider the mighty power of the exploding H Bomb, or even more the explosion of a super nova, they are as a drop in the ocean compared with the riches of His glory. All the wealth of all the banks in the world pale into insignificance when compared with them. ‘The riches of His glory’ are all-embracing, all-providing, unfathomable and unending, and yet from these He resources us. Note also the Means. It is by the mighty power of His all-powerful Spirit working within the ‘inward man’ of each believer. Can you imagine any greater power than that? An irresistible power that nothing can restrain, coming like a mighty rushing river which the wind of the Lord drives (Isaiah 59:19). And it is linked with the power of the Almighty Father. And together They are at work in each believer, ‘working within us to will and to do of His good pleasure’ (Php 2:13). Should we not then expect dynamic results? And then we come to the Result, and what a glorious result it is. It is to have Christ dwelling in our hearts by faith. Now in Scripture the ‘heart’ is the source of all man’s activity, of all His ‘willing’ and all his ‘doing’. And the idea is therefore not that Christ should be tucked away in our hearts where we can simply think about Him when we want to, but that all our willing and all our doing should be done by the indwelling Christ. That He should be living out as He will through us. For it tells us that Christians, having received into their lives the Risen Christ, are to allow Him to live out His life through him or her, as the Father acts out of the riches of His glory, and the Spirit moves in His mighty power. That surely means that we can no longer live to ourselves, that we can no longer seek to control our own lives, but that we must live to Him Who died for us and rose again (2 Corinthians 5:15). You will notice that the idea here is of a clear take-over. No quarter is given. There are no half measures. The old ‘driver’ is to be moved out, indeed is to die. And a new Driver is to take over having possession of all the controls, and having complete control over our lives. It is no longer we who are to be the Driver, we are to become new co-drivers with Christ, and our bodies are to become the car. And we must respond to His every movement. As Paul put it we must ‘put off the old man who directed our former manner of life’, and, being renewed in the spirit of our minds, must ‘put on the new man’ who according to God’s plan ‘has been created in righteousness and true holiness’ (Ephesians 4:22-24). This new man is ourselves as indwelt by Christ. For ‘if any man is in Christ he is a new creature, old things have passed away, all has become new’ (2 Corinthians 5:17). Thus we must crucify the flesh with its affections and desires Galatians 5:24), and being led by the Spirit, walk step by step with the Spirit (Galatians 5:25) so that the life of the indwelling Christ might be lived out through us. What an exciting prospect this is, but how all-demanding. There is no room here for our will to be in conflict with His will. We have to submit to a full take-over. From now on it is to be His will, and His will alone that directs our lives. Yet this is not to lose our wills, it is simply to do what we ought to do, to align our will with His. But because we are so sinful we do not want this. We try to cling on to this old life. We want Christ to save us, but not to change us too much. But this is not acceptable to God. The whole purpose of our salvation is that we might be ‘crucified with Christ’ (Galatians 2:20). It is that we might be dead to sin, but alive unto God, through Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 6:11). It is that we might become holy, and unblameable and unreproveable in His sight (Colossians 1:22; 1 Thessalonians 3:13). So each of us is called on of our own free wills to climb on to the cross and die there. Like the exasperated driving instructor Christ is saying to us, ‘move over’. And the result will be that then we will truly live. But it will no longer be we who live. It will be Christ Who lives in us. And the life that we now live in our bodies will be by faith in the Son of God Who loved us and gave Himself for us (Galatians 2:20). We will be taken up with that love and our self-surrender will therefore be complete. We will recognise that we are rooted and grounded in His love. All the fertilisers in the world cannot produce a soil like this. And in the environment of that love as it feeds and sustains us we will be made strong with all His people to lay hold of its length and breadth and depth and height, with the result that we will go on to know in experience the love of Christ which passes all knowledge and to be filled with all the fullness of God (Ephesians 3:17-19). You see so much of our problem as we live our lives is that we do not appreciate that love. Somehow in our petty, earthly lives we get caught up in all kinds of things, and are too busy to appreciate His love. But let it once dawn upon us and nothing will matter more to us than to please Him and live for Him with all our hearts. We will present our bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is the reasonable way in which we should serve, not being conformed to this world, but being transformed by the renewing of our minds, that we may prove what is the good, acceptable and perfect will of God (Romans 12:1-2). The true test of love in any marriage is that each wants what the other longs for. Our desire is to please the one we love. And thus the true test of our love for Christ is that we want what He longs for. And as we have seen what he longs for has been made clear. His longing is that He night live through us, that He might make Himself known to the world through us, that we might be the channels of what he is to the world.. So the question that each of us must answer is a simple one. Will I let Christ begin to live out His life though me today? Will I recognise that in accepting His death for me, that death that reveals the greatness of His love, I have accepted the necessity for me to die with Him, and must therefore reckon myself to be dead to sin, but alive to God through Jesus Christ your Lord (Romans 6:11)? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 36: S. QUESTIONS IN LUKE ======================================================================== Questions in Luke Luke 2:48 Jesus was without sin. How then was it right for him to remain in Jerusalem without telling his parents, especially in the light of the commandment to honour our parents? Mary’s question suggests that Jesus’ behaviour actually hurt her. For Jesus His prime meaning and purpose in life, and central to all His thought and actions, was, as a human being, to learn the truth about God in order to prepare Himself for the ministry that He knew was coming. From his earliest days God revealed it in His heart. He made use of the synagogue and the Scriptures that could be read there. That was what His growing in wisdom included. And His father and mother knew about that. Thus if ever He was away from home for a long time, they knew where to find Him. But when they did send for Him He always responded to their call. Then when He was reaching adulthood (at twelve/thirteen Jews in Jesus’ day were seen as becoming adults) He came to Jerusalem with His family to where the great men of learning were. To Him this was an opportunity to learn from the great teachers in order to prepare Himself for the future ministry of which He was becoming more and more aware as He grew up. He knew therefore that He must make the most of this opportunity and He expected His father and mother to understand that too. Thus in His view, if they wanted Him, they should have known where to look for Him. But He was now an adult. He was no longer under constant supervision. He was free to do His own thing. And He was determined to learn as much as He could. So while the other young men of His age were enjoying the festival, He was in the Temple, listening., questioning and learning. Notice what it says about the parents. ’They thought that He was in the company’. That would have been inexcusable of them if they had still seen Him as a child. But now that He was recognised as a grown up he had freedom of action, and as an adult, they no longer mollycoddled Him. They therefore recognised He had a right to such freedom of action, and within reason to do what He wished. And He quite reasonably expected that they would recognise this and that if they wished to ensure His company they would not return home without ensuring that He was with them (remember He was now an adult). And if they did not then He would make His own way back. Thus in obedience to His Father He went to the Temple and sat at the feet of the great teachers learning and asking questions of such depth that they all marvelled. If there was any failure it was on His parents side. However, they had presumed that He would know when it was time (their time) to return to Galilee along with the other pilgrims, and had recognised that the way that He chose to make His way back was up to Him. Thus they had probably not told Him when they were going and had not checked that their son was in the band making for Galilee. But when they could not find Him they panicked. They had failed to recognise that one such as He must make the most advantage of an opportunity that He would rarely have. And then they blamed Him for it as people will when they have done wrong and are feeling guilty. His mother especially should have known for she had been made aware that He had a special mission. She had long pondered it in her heart. She should have recognised that He could not miss this great opportunity which He would not often have. We must keep in mind that Jesus was now of age in Jewish eyes. He was a ’grown up, an adult’. So while to some extent accountable to His parents, as all Jewish men were, (because His parents were heads of the family), He had a new freedom to do His own thing, to make His own choices. He was no longer a boy. When He returned to Galilee was His own decision. Thus His acting independently like this was part of His new status. It was to be expected. And there was no reason at all why He should not return home with another party, or why His parents should have worried about Him. After all, knowing that He was especially chosen by God they should have recognised that God would look after Him. But He had not disappeared in such a way that no one would know where to look. They could always find Him. And indeed events show that they did know where to find Him. If His mother was hurt it was not the fault of Jesus, but because like many mothers she could not let Him grow up. He was a grown up man (in Jewish eyes) doing what He knew He had to do. But his mother was like many human mothers. She could not let her son be grown up. She still wanted her baby. She had, however, to learn that now that He was an adult other things must come first in His life. Even though it hurt her a little. Then when she expressed her hurt He gently said to her, "Did you not recognise that I must be about My Father’s affairs?" (Literally ‘in the things/house of My Father’). She should have known. She should have recognised it. He was a boy no longer. But for a while she had forgotten that He was now an adult. It was a simple mistake to make, but He was not to blame for that. The failure was hers not His. She had not yet learned to give Him up. Most mothers make the same mistake with their firstborn sons. They would understand. It is hard to give up your son if you are a mother but you do have to do it. Later in life He would again be challenged by His mother and would again have to be rebuked. (Mark 3:21; Mark 3:31-35). She still could not let go. She thought that she knew best. But His ministry had to come first. He must live His life as God wanted Him to. And again He had to gently rebuke her. He was no longer her dependent child. He belonged to the world. And she must recognise it. And that was also true that year in Jerusalem. Sometimes we too have to hurt the ones we love because the demands of God come first and they do not understand. They try to hinder us. We must not do it lightly, but nevertheless we must sometimes do it when it is the Father’s will. There is nothing sinful in that as long as we do it reasonably. And what Jesus did was perfectly reasonable in Jewish eyes. If Mary had asked His uncle what to do about it, His uncle would have said, ’He’s grown up now. You must let Him find things out for Himself, and learn to look after Himself.’ And that is what He was doing. Luke 2:52 Tells us that Jesus grew in wisdom. How can an omnipotent God grow in wisdom? This verse suggests that Jesus was learning - how is that possible - He was God? It is of course impossible for us to fully understand what was involved in the incarnation, in Jesus becoming flesh and dwelling amongst us. But the verse mentioned helps us to understand it. Jesus did not come to walk among us simply as God in a human body. He became man. He refused to call on His divine powers and knowledge and limited Himself to human powers in association with His Father, otherwise how could He be tempted in all points like we are? (Hebrews 4:15). His great temptations were to utilise His divine powers to make His life and mission easier and He rejected them (Luke 4:1-13). He cast out evil spirits by the power of the Spirit of God (Matthew 12:28). He healed by calling on His Father. Thus He was not born as a baby with encyclopaedic knowledge and full awareness of Heaven, (no human brain could absorb such knowledge), He was born with a human brain that had to learn and develop as ours do. He did not utilise His divine mind. He deliberately blanked it off. He had to learn to walk and talk. He had to read and study the Scriptures in order to learn about God’s ways. He had to interpret them by the Spirit and learn God’s ways from them. He had to follow His conscience in discerning right from wrong. He had to pray and let His Father speak to Him as he faced the issues of life, whether large or small. Thus did He experience life as a man. But because he was born free from the taint of sin, because He was born in full fellowship with the Father and the Spirit, He walked from the beginning without sin and made His choices and lived His life in obedience to the prompting of the Father. He only called on powers which would have been available to all men had they been free from sin and had they fully trusted the Father. When He suffered on the cross He faced it using only His human powers, and the sustenance He could draw from the Father. And as man He truly died. (As God He could not die). Thus we can never turn to God and say life is not fair. If we do not utilise the powers that He had it is because we have failed and sinned, not because we could not have done so. They are all there available to those who walk as He walked, but we do not do so. Luke 7:1-10. In Luke’s account the centurion never meets Jesus personally but sends messengers instead, but in the corresponding passage in Matthew (Matthew 8:5-13), the centurion does speak to Jesus directly. How are we reconcile this difference? Furthermore in Luke 7:3 Jesus is asked to come to the centurion’s home and heal his servant which Jesus proceeds to do but in Luke 7:6 Jesus is asked not to come any more. If the centurion believed that Jesus could heal his slave without being present, why ask him to come in the first place? What is more in Matthew, Jesus actually never travelled to the centurion’s home, because the centurion told him there and then that it was unnecessary (Luke 8:8) If we read Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-10 together side by side, these two parallel accounts seem to conflict. This is because the careful historian Luke enquires as to the exact details from eyewitnesses and writes them out. But Matthew give us a more ’popular’ account. He wants to get over the point vividly. He was quite possibly absent at the time the event occurred and was told about it. (’Do you know what happened. This centurion sent to Jesus -- and do you know what he said --’ ). Luke’s is literally true. Matthew’s uses a straightforward literary device to simplify it and bring home the personal faith of the centurion. It is a well known literary device to personalise in this way. For example we may say that Nebuchadnezzar invaded and destroyed Jerusalem. But was Nebuchadnezzar actually there? Probably not. He ’went’ through his armies, probably himself staying at his headquarters further to the north, and he certainly had himself no part in actually destroying Jerusalem. He would not soil his hands with such a thing. It was best left to servants. The account has been personalised. The actions of his servants are seen as being his actions. And this is a regular feature of historical writings. It is not unusual. It is common practise. This is the technique that Matthew uses. He simplifies the story by omitting the secondary characters. The centurion came to Jesus (through his servants). The words to Jesus were spoken by him (through his servants). Jesus reply went back to him (via his servants). But all that was done and said was the action of the centurion for he instigated what happened, he was responsible for what happened, and they were his words that were passed on to Jesus. In other words he did it (through his servants), just as Nebuchadnezzar invaded Jerusalem through his servants. Matthew just personalises it. But there is no doubt that Matthew’s account brings things more alive and concentrates on the central character. It brings out more his faith (which was the point of the story when it was passed on). We actually, as it were, get to know the centurion in a way we would not through Luke’s account because it is more direct. If we are being pedantic we would say that Matthew was not strictly historically correct, and we would be both right and wrong. As an exactly literal description of what happened and who was directly responsible in person at each point in time Matthew’s account is a failure. It would not have done in a court of law. But as an explanation of what essentially happened it was a masterpiece. It was made more vivid by avoiding the secondary characters. When you read the newspapers you will often find that they cut corners in this way. If they pedantically went into full detail about everything they would lose many of their readers. What they want to get over is what is essential. And that is what Matthew did as well. Of course it is always possible that the centurion, waiting anxiously at home, did at some point follow up his servants and arrive in person. It is possible that having sent his servants with a message he turned up in person with the same message because he was so anxious. He would not be the first person to do such a thing. And thus Jesus might have said the same thing twice, once because of the servants’ words and again at the centurion’s own words, but I think the first suggestion is probably nearer to the facts. In either case, however, the accounts got over the essential truth. But then we have the question as to why, if the centurion knew that Jesus could heal at a distance, he did not just send to Him to ask Him to do it. Luke gives us the answer. The centurion did believe that Jesus could heal at a distance. What he did not know was whether this fervent Hebrew prophet would do it for a ’hated’ Roman centurion. So he asked people whom he felt would have some influence to go and persuade Jesus. Then when he learned that the appeal had been successful through a fast messenger who said ’He’s coming’, he sent the second message. This is extremely likely given the state of things at the time. You and I know that Jesus would respond to such an appeal but to a Roman officer who often had to deal with Jewish crowds and even fervent religious figures, in a heavy-handed way, and knew their feelings towards him, the case would not be quite so obvious. He handled the matter diplomatically. And in fact Jesus never went to the house in either story. In Luke 9:45 Luke said that the disciples did not understand what Jesus was telling them because it was "hidden from them". Is this just an expression to mean that they didn’t understand Him, or does it mean that someone or something was concealing the truth from them? When Jesus used the passive tense it was regularly a way by which He referred to the activity of God. Thus when He said, ’Blessed are the pure in heart’ He meant ’God blesses the pure in heart’. This was actually a feature of Jewish apocalyptic literature around the time of Jesus. And it prevented the need to use the name of God unnecessarily (something the Jews sought to avoid doing). However, that was not seen as necessary in the Gentile world and Luke was a Gentile. So here he may simply be using a Gentile idiom to express an observable fact without being specific about the source. When he said ’it was hidden from them’ he was describing the observable fact. How or why he did not deal with. However this question does arise again and again elsewhere. When man is ’blind’ from birth what is the cause of it (John 9:1-2)? How do we explain the evils in the Universe? Now in the last analysis the Jews believed that everything that happened was of God. He was sovereign over the universe. Who could resist His will? (Romans 9:9). And of course that is true. He is the prime cause of all simply because nothing that happens can happen without His yes or no. But that does not mean that we should see God as deliberately bringing such things about. He has put us in a world where we can make choices, and we are responsible for our own choices. When God hardened Pharaoh’s heart Pharaoh had already done a good job of it himself. It was not God who was to blame for his hardened heart it was Pharaoh. But once Pharaoh’s stance was determined by himself God made use of it to bring about the deliverance of His people. When men do not see truth it is because their hearts and minds are sinful, and prejudiced, and unwilling to accept the truth (and also because the ’god of this world blinds the minds of those who do not believe’ - 2 Corinthians 4:4). What God ’does’ is refuse to intervene. By doing so He chooses to leave them in their darkness. But He is never directly responsible for it, and indeed offers them mercy freely if they will repent and come to Him. If I leave my car somewhere and someone bumps into it there is a sense in which I am responsible. If I had not left it there no one could have bumped into it. But unless I have left it in some dangerous or forbidden place no one in their right mind would try to put the blame on me if someone crashed into my parked car. The difference between my action and God’s actions is that I had no way of knowing what would happen. But God does know what will result from His actions. And so in a sense He is responsible for all that happens. But He has made us people who are free to make choices. Unless He were to make us all automatons people will continue to make wrong choices. Thus in one sense He is responsible for their wrong choices (He made them with freewill) and yet in another sense He is not (they have freewill). What even God cannot do is make men with total freewill and then make them do what He wants. That is a contradiction in terms, a logical impossibility. This is why Isaiah can say, ’And He said, Go and tell this people, "Hear indeed, but do not understand, see indeed, but do not perceive. Make the heart of this people fat, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes, lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart and turn again and be healed". (Isaiah 6:9-10). Now what did Isaiah do to achieve this? How did Isaiah make their hearts fat, and their ears heavy, and their eyes shut? He did it by preaching the truth to them. And as he did so their hearts were so sinful that they became more fat, more deaf, more blind. They closed their hearts. And so we could say that Isaiah had made them more fat, more deaf, more blind, and had closed their hearts. But that was not what he wanted to do, it was simply what God saw as the inevitable result. The offer that was open to them to turn and be healed was there all the time. And had they wished to turn and be healed they could have done so. No one stopped them but themselves. However the effect of trying to help them resulted in them getting worse. Was that Isaiah’s fault? Yes and no. But he was not blameworthy. And the same applies here in Luke’s Gospel. What Jesus was saying was hidden from them because of their sinful minds that would not accept what they did not like to hear. Luke 12:50. Why does Jesus use the word "Baptism"? It clearly refers to His coming suffering, but why is that a "Baptism"? The answer to this is fairly straightforward. The word baptizo is a standard word in Greek and means ‘a drenching, an overwhelming’. It is we who give it a specialist meaning. Jesus was thus here expecting to be ’overwhelmed’ in suffering. Luke 12:57-59. Why does Jesus here talk about us being dragged off before the courts? Jesus is in fact using the picture of a debtor who is dragged before the courts because he refuses to discuss his problems with his creditor. These verses bring out an important principle. There are two attitudes we can take when faced with controversial situations, one is to dig our feet in and fight to the very end, the other is to compromise and be reasonable. The former has through the ages caused family feuds, vendettas and death, or in lesser cases wasted huge amounts of time and encouraged hostility, the latter has enabled people to live together in harmony and has prevented people wasting their lives on trifles. This was Jesus way of teaching tolerance and a willingness to accept that both sides in an argument usually have some right on their side. As always there are exceptions where it does not apply, but it is a good principle of life. However it also has a further significance here. Jesus was indicating that we (and Israel) are debtors to God. If we are wise therefore we will seek to become reconciled to Him before the Day of Judgment when it will be too late. Now mercy is available. Then all we can expect is the full wrath of the Law. Luke 16:8-9 How do we explain these verses? How could Jesus commend an unrighteous steward? How can Christians use unrighteous wealth? How can it be used to make friends in eternal habitations? The basic teaching of the passage is that we should use our possessions wisely. There is disagreement about what the steward was actually doing, or indeed what ‘unrighteous’ steward means. It may simply mean a steward who looked after ‘unrighteous mammon’, that is one who was worldly wise and thought only of this world. Possibly he had overcharged in order to cream off the top for himself, and was now foregoing his own part of the deals, thus getting quicker payment. Perhaps he had charged huge penalties for late payment, and was excusing them as long the debt was paid quickly (such huge penalties were common practise). Perhaps it was a way of making sure that payment actually came in by giving a big discount on goods which he had sold at a huge profit. His inefficient management (wasting of goods) would then partly be because previously no cash was actually being received. It was all debt. But the point that is really being made is that from being lazy and careless he had suddenly become business-wise and energetic. He had revealed his astuteness. Money flowed in and his master was pleased. Now, says Jesus, you should be like him. Not careless with your possessions but using them to win friends in the right place, in Heaven. It is the same thing as saying ’lay up for yourselves treasure in Heaven, where the moth cannot spoil it and the thieves cannot get at it’. The ’mammon of unrighteousness’ simply indicates wealth which would be built up by a person using his time and energy in the wrong way, to gain wealth rather than to be a blessing to people. It need not necessarily be dishonest, just worldly (and therefore disobedient to God). They must now change and actually use their wealth in order to bless people. Those who were most likely to be humble, contrite, and faithful to God were often thought of as ’the poor’. For they were the ones who were not grasping and greedy and using wrong methods of obtaining wealth for themselves. So by blessing the poor they would be winning friends whom they would meet in Heaven. Verse 9 really says ’use your possessions in such a way as to gain friends in Heaven. A time will come when you will die and leave your possessions behind. Then it will be no good to you. But if you have used it to be a blessing to God’s true people then when you reach Heaven you will find many friends whom you have won.’ He then adds, ’be faithful in little things and then you will be faithful in big things’. So we should not wait until we are very rich before we become generous. We must commence our generosity now, so that in the future when all is known we will gain our own reward by seeing what a blessing it has been. Luke 17:6 Jesus says "if you faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ’Be uprooted and planted in the sea’ and it will obey you". What point is Jesus trying to make here? Are we to take this literally? Are there any biblical examples that demonstrate Jesus’ statement in practise? We must remember that Jesus often taught by using exaggeration and humour in his illustrations. Compare the speck and the builder’s beam in a man’s eye (Matthew 7:3-5). The disciples were rightly concerned by their lack of faith. But Jesus was pointing out that they should not concentrate their attention on the smallness of their faith. It was not great faith that was needed. What was needed was a little faith in a great God. And once they began to exercise that it would grow. Why even faith as small as a mustard seed, the smallest of seeds known to them in Palestine, could enable amazing things if utilised in accordance with God’s purposes. Then He gave the example of the mulberry tree, which they could no doubt all see close by. It was a joke with a point. No one would want to transfer a mulberry tree to the depths of the sea. To plant a tree in the sea is a ludicrous idea. Jesus was only thinking of somewhere that was a distance away and hard to reach. But, He pointed out, it would only require small faith. What mattered was the greatness of the One in whom that faith was exercised. It would also require a great God. So they must not look at their faith but at the God in Whom they believed. Then their small faith would be sufficient, and like a mustard seed would grow. No one ever probably tried to do this literally. In that sense it never happened in practise. For no one with faith would want to do such a foolish thing. Instead they demonstrated their faith by the great feats they finally achieved. It was a faith resulting from the greatest miracle of all, the resurrection. It is unbelieving man who looks for spectacular miracles, not those who trust their God.. However having said all that it did happen. Scripture often uses the growth of trees to symbolise the growth of nations. This type of mulberry tree was strong and sturdy, the equivalent of the cedar of Lebanon and the oak of Bashan. It could thus be seen as the equivalent of the Kingly Rule of God (see Ezekiel 17:22-24). The sea often represented the tumult of the nations. Thus in the end Jesus may well have been saying here, one day you will by faith uproot the tree of the Kingly Rule of God and plant it among the nations. In Luke 18:35-43 Jesus encounters one blind man as he approaches Jericho. In the parallel accounts in Matthew (Matthew 20:29-34) and Mark (Mark 10:46-52), Jesus is said to have encountered this man as he was leaving Jericho, and furthermore, while Matthew tells us that Jesus in fact healed two blind men, not one. Firstly we must remember that there were two Jerichos. One on the ancient site famous for its defeat by Joshua and the new town nearby built in the Herodian era. If Luke as a Greek historian is thinking of drawing near to the new modern town and Matthew and Mark, as Jews, saw Him as having passed by the old town, much more important to Jews, there is no problem. In view of what would have been the undoubted popularity of the story of ancient Jericho it is very unlikely that the site of ancient Jericho would have been forgotten. Others have however suggested that the man first of all cried to Jesus (unheard by Jesus but heard by many while He was approaching Jericho, that the man, realising that Jesus would soon be leaving Jericho arranged to be led to the road out of the town (where Jesus spent at least a day) and that therefore the second appeal came as Jesus was leaving Jericho. In each case the accounts are abbreviated. However while this is a reasonable suggestion the first seems more likely. With regard to the number of beggars it is probably safe to say that Jesus healed a number of beggars there. There would be any number of beggars sitting there, some blind, some lame, some diseased, for it was a favourite spot for catching the Passover pilgrims once they had passed over Jordan. Matthew always had an eye for the finer details. He was there and remembered it well. And the fact that Bartimaeus’ approach drew along with him a second blind beggar, possibly the one he had sat next to and chatted with, is not at all unlikely. He saw them as two acting together. Mark was writing from what Peter had constantly retold about the incident. And there all the attention had been on Bartimaeus. The fact that his name was known would suggest that he later became a prominent member of the early church which would explain why he was selected for mention. These differences are in fact evidence that the stories were not just copied from each other but were in the end three individual accounts. Luke 18:6-8. 1. In Luke 18:6 Jesus says God will bring justice to his "chosen ones" who cry out to him. The question is who are God’s chosen ones and how does one become a chosen one? The phrase implies that God has chosen some to whom he will listen and therefore by implication won’t listen to anyone else. Does the word chosen have a different meaning to what we understand in the modern world? 2. In Luke 18:8 Jesus says that God will bring quick justice for his chosen ones and will not put them off. When I read this my immediate thought was about all the Christian martyrs and other believers who have been persecuted for their faith. Surely these people would have prayed for justice. How does this verse apply in such circumstances? 3. A final question relates to the second half of Luke 18:8 where Jesus where Jesus is speaking about his second coming. The question is how does this statement connect with the content of Luke 18:1-7? Also what does his question mean? This is one of the more enigmatic statements of Jesus but its meaning and purport is clear. The ’elect’ were the true people of God in the Old Testament as opposed to just Israel in general. They were what are often called ’the remnant’ (see Isaiah 6:13 where they are called ’the holy seed’), those who were faithful to God and His covenant. Israel themselves recognised that there were the true and false among the people of Israel. See for example Psalms 1 which makes this clear. Not all outward Israel were the true people of God. For ’the elect’ in the Old Testament see Isaiah 42:1; Isaiah 45:4, both of which referred to the true Israel, the Israel within Israel, although especially referring to the One Who would come Who would sum up Israel in Himself as the perfect Servant (depicted in Isaiah 53:1-12). See also for the elect Isaiah 65:9; Isaiah 65:22. Paul stresses these ’elect ones’ in his argument in Romans 9:1-33, Romans 10:1-21, Romans 11:1-36. See Romans 11:5, Romans 11:7. Peter also declared that Christians were God’s elect (1 Peter 1:10). See also Paul in Romans 8:33; Colossians 3:12; 1 Thessalonians 1:4; 2 Timothy 2:10. So ’the chosen ones’ are the people of God (Mark 13:20; 2 Thessalonians 2:13) ). In one sense you cannot become a chosen one. You either are or are not. If you are a true Christian you already are, for true Christians were ’chosen in Him before the foundation of the world’ (Ephesians 1:4). And all who truly come to Christ were included within that choice. Thus Jesus could speak of those who were ’given to Him by the Father’ (John 6:37; John 10:29) and that only those who were His sheep would come to Him (John 10:16; John 10:26-28). It is part of the mystery of God. On the other hand anyone can become a chosen one. All they have to do is believe on Jesus Christ and become His disciples. With regard to the lesson of the parable Jesus was saying that when those who are His own call on God He always hears them It may not always seem like it but He does. But note that it says He is ’longsuffering over them’. God keeps in mind all that is done to His people but He does not always act immediately. He gives time, giving the opportunity for their adversaries to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). There was a particularly evil man in the days of the early church. Women shivered when they heard his name. Children cried and fled to their mothers’ arms. Even their husbands looked at each other grimly. He went everywhere killing Christians and hauling them into grim prisons. He was the terror of the church. And yet of all who built up and sustained the early church he was the greatest. His name was Saul which was changed to Paul. God was longsuffering, for Paul was a chosen one (Acts 9:15-16). So God even wants to give His enemies the opportunity of repentance. There have been many examples like Paul through the ages. But when He does act on behalf of His own God will avenge them speedily. Swift justice will come on those who have persecuted the people of God, unless they repent. There was delay because God is merciful and the number of His martyrs must be complete (see Revelation 6:9-11). So the speedily does not mean shortly, it means that when He acts His action will be swift following His period of longsuffering. The following verse is then more difficult. Jesus was pointing out that persecution would be so fierce that Christians would be made to wonder whether any would be left at all when Jesus returned. Certainly the emperor Diocletian persecuted the Christians and celebrated the fact that he had wiped out Christianity. Thus this was a warning of how necessary it was to keep the faith in times of persecution. He was saying, ’God will revenge His own, but the question is will they still be there?’ Either because they have all been slain or because they have backslidden. Those who have died will of course be safe. Not a hair of their head will perish (Luke 21:18). But what of the remainder? It is a question not a statement. It is the choice of Christians whether it will be true or not. It is up to them. This is typical of the Scriptures. One moment it speaks majestically of God’s elect, and then it warns of how important it is to keep the faith in the face of all that comes. It is the expression of certainty followed by encouragement and exhortation. In Peter’s words we must make our calling and election sure (2 Peter 1:10). Luke 21:1-38. In Luke 21:7, the disciples ask Jesus when the temple will be destroyed as Jesus had predicted it would be in Luke 21:6. But if the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD His response in Luke 21:8-11 don’t seem to leave enough time. Given that Jesus died in about 33 AD, that would leave 37 years for all the events describe in Luke 21:8-11 to have taken place, including the "great signs from heaven". How then can we explain what specific events Jesus is talking about in these verses (especially how is answer relates to the disciple’s question), and particularly what the "great signs from heaven" were? Furthermore, in Luke 21:16 Jesus says that some of the disciples will die for their faith, yet in Luke 21:18 he says not a hair of their head will perish. What in these terms does Luke 21:18 mean? Here Jesus was answering the question as to when the destruction of the temple would take place. You must remember that like many Jews the Apostles were expecting a cataclysmic end to things. And here, having been told that the Temple would be destroyed, they wanted to know what signs would herald the destruction of the temple (all Jews loved signs from Heaven). So Jesus replied, not by giving a date which was not His purpose, but by demonstrating that many things must happen before that event took place. He wanted them to know that Messiahs and false prophets would come before that day, that great wars could happen, and would happen, without it signifying the destruction of the temple. That other cataclysmic events such as famine, pestilence and earthquakes could also happen without signifying the end. In the Roman world the 1st century AD was in fact seen as a century of catastrophes. Tacitus spoke about it with foreboding. There was a great famine in the reign of Claudius, and there were many smaller famines. There was a huge earthquake around 60 AD, and there were many smaller earthquakes. There were many wars. But Jesus did not want His disciples to see every catastrophe as a signal of the end. There was much to happen in Judea before the destruction of the temple. The Gospel had to be spread. There would be fierce persecution for Christians. The Gospel would also reach to every part of the Roman world and even beyond. So He warned of all these things and added ’but the end is not yet’. The one sign that would herald the destruction of the temple was when Jerusalem itself was surrounded by invading Roman legions. All these things did happen within that comparatively short period. (Paul could speak of the Gospel as having gone out into all the world - Romans 1:8. It is a matter of language). However there is no reason why we should say that Luke 21:8-19 had to happen before Luke 21:20-24. They could well happen while the Jews were scattered among the Gentiles (Luke 21:1-24). And these things did continue to happen. Great signs were constantly seen in the heavens. The ancients looked for them far more than we do. Comets, shooting star, conjunctions of planets were all treated very seriously by ’experts’ whose lifetime study was the heavens. But they too did not signal the end. So whereas modern Christians try to interpret every major thing that happens as a signal of the end (and have been doing so for two hundred years and more) Jesus warned of the opposite. All these spectacular things were not to be seen as signs of the destruction of the temple. Or of the end. They were simply signs along the way. So the verses you speak of were a deliberate attempt to warn the disciples not to be too taken up with signs, especially sign of the end. ’Not a hair of your head will perish’ basically meant that when they went into eternity they would be completely whole. Not a single hair would be out of place. They may be martyred, they may be burned, they may be executed, they may be crucified, their bodies might be ground to powder and thrown into the sea or into a river. But they would come through in one piece, as though untouched. For they would have a new spiritual body that was perfect in all its functions and appearance. When Christians were martyred in the second century BC there persecutors burned their bodies and ground their bones to powder so as to ensure that they would not be in a condition to be resurrected. But it was futile. They would be resurrected in as perfect condition as any other. They would be presented before God without blemish. That was what Jesus promised. Luke 21:25-33 Here Jesus is talking to the disciples about his final return on the last day. In the midst of this he tells them that "this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened" (Luke 21:32). Clearly Jesus has not returned as yet, while ‘that generation, in the way in which we understand the meaning of the word, has passed away. How are we to explain what Jesus meant when He used the term "generation"? We must note carefully the main purpose of the passage. Both Mark and Luke begin by stressing that the main purpose of the discourse was to talk about the coming destruction of the temple. (We must recognise that to them this was a question about a most stupendous event. It was cataclysmic. It was almost beyond the realms of belief. To us it refers to an event in history that we do not consider all that important. But it is their point of view from which we have to see things. The temple destroyed? Surely not? When?). So the question was ’when shall these things be?’ They therefore saw ’these things’ as referring to the destruction of the temple and what accompanied it. And ‘these things’ would then be pointers or ’the sign’ to the fact that Jesus coming could then happen at any time (Mark 13:29). But Mark then specifically says that Jesus said that He did not know the time of His coming (Mark 13:32). Now if someone speaks of ’these things’ as happening within a generation but says that there is one event about which he does not know the timing at all most reasonable people would recognise that they had to exclude the last event from the meaning of ’these things’ for which a time is given. So Jesus is saying ’all these things will happen within a generation, that is apart from my coming which I do not yet know the timing of’. Matthew adds at the beginning the question, ’what shall be the sign of your coming?’ (Matthew 24:3) and in fact all three do also deal with that question, but Mark and Luke show where the concentration of the passage lies, in the things that lead up to the destruction of the temple. So all those things did happen within that generation, even though the more general ones have continued to happen since, as we would expect. But Jesus did not say that He would come within that generation. He said that He did not then know when that would be. Others have pointed out that the word for ’generation’ can also mean ’race’ and suggest that He means that the Jews will not cease to be recognised as an independent people, but there is no indication in the account that that was a question at issue. Others still have suggested that that ’this generation’ is the generation in which the final events would take place (‘these things being Luke 21:25-28) and not the generation at the time when Jesus was speaking. Luke 22:3 Luke says that "Satan entered Judas" before he went to the chief priests to betray Jesus. What does this mean? Is it to be taken literally (demonic possession), because if so, should Judas bear any responsibility for his actions? If it is a figure of speech, what precisely is its meaning? There are different aspects of the work of Satan. He works on believers by suggestions in the mind and has to be resisted by wearing the whole armour of God (Ephesians 6:10-18) and by constant submission to God (James 4:7-8). He can attack them through other people who are more under his control (1 Peter 5:8-9). He has greater ability to influence those who are not believers and therefore do not have the same protection as believers (e.g. 2 Corinthians 4:4; Acts 26:18). However a limit is placed on Satan and his minions beyond which he cannot go except by invitation (compare Job 1:1-22, Job 2:1-13; Genesis 6:1-4 with Jude 1:6; 1 Peter 3:19; 2 Peter 2:4). A different situation takes place when a person becomes subject to demon possession. This can occur where a person opens him or herself to Satan and they become possessed. But this cannot just happen to anyone whatever they do. It happens to persons who open themselves in some way to such things by probing into the world of spirits by occult means, including ouija boards, palmistry, fortune-telling, planchet boards, divination, being a medium, involvement with spiritualism, total submission to evil, witchcraft and devil worship and so on. It can also happen through participation in idolatry which is a form of the occult (1 Corinthians 10:20), and especially by a deliberate making of the mind blank seeking some special ’spiritual’ experience or revelation. No Christian should ever make his mind deliberately blank. When Satan entered into Judas we are not told exactly what was involved, but it was only because he had opened himself in some way that he did what he did. It was inevitable that with Jesus present Satan should seek out those who could be ’got at’ to help him destroy Him. Judas became his willing tool and was therefore totally to blame for the consequences. It was only when he had become totally involved in his evil that Satan entered him. (Luke 22:31). A number of problems are often seen here in that the verse suggests that Satan asks God for permission to do destructive things, and obtains that permission. Does not the evidence of destructive things in our world prove that God does grant Satan that permission, which seems astonishing knowing that God loves us and wants us to repent. Clearly in Peter’s case, Satan was not granted his request, but perhaps a similar request had been made about Judas, where the request was granted. Why was Peter so blessed and Judas not? Why did Jesus not pray for Judas as he did Peter? (Luke 22:32). We could also ask, why did God ever allow Satan and his minions to remain alive when they first sinned? We could ask, why did God ever allow Satan to tempt Adam? We could ask, why did God allow Adam to stay alive once he had sinned? We could ask why God allowed Noah and his family to survive the flood. Why not just take him up to Heaven, even though he was not sinless?. We could ask why mankind was not cut off at its roots? Why not start again? When we look at the awfulness of history we could ask, why has God not blasted the human race time and again? We are not pawns. We are main players. We each do evil within our spheres. We cannot blame Satan for what we all do. He can tempt and deceive us but he cannot make us do things. We choose to do them ourselves. We could ask why God allows us to remain alive in view of all the sin we do. And in each case we have to answer that we do not know. There are some things that are outside our knowledge. We think we are very knowledgeable with our great knowledge of science. But in fact we know very little, and even much of that is total guesswork. What is clear is that God, having created, has allowed creation, first that of angels, and then that of men, to go on through history without in depth interference. Free will has been allowed its rein. Life for all has been allowed to go on. God allows Satan do what he wants to do, within limits. He allows you to do what you want to do, within limits. Both are given freedom within their limits. The Bible tells us little about the angels. Apart from a few glimpses, that world is not seen as being our business. But whilst each remains in its own sphere God has allowed survival and activity for both good and evil. It was only when the angels sought to overstep their sphere that God acted to prevent them (Genesis 6:1-4; Jude 1:6; 2 Peter 2:4). But do not see it as a battle between Satan and God. There is no battle. Satan can be no more effective against God than we can. Nevertheless neither he nor us are pawns. We all choose to act in the way we do. Satan is very powerful humanly speaking but he can simply operative within his sphere. Yet like us Satan believes that he can thwart God. (He is as foolish as we are). He thought he could do it at the cross where he was totally deceived. He actually strove to bring about the very thing that will finally destroy him. How foolish can that be? And so does man believe that he can thwart God. Both in their own spheres somehow think that they can avoid God’s final judgment, that they can combat God. It was not Satan who persecuted the people of God through the ages. It was man. Satan may have used a certain influence but he cannot force man to do evil. He can only suggest it. And both are in the wrong. Satan is as deceived as we are. Why does God allow us to do destructive things and seemingly get away with it? Why does God allow puny man to shake his fist in the face of God. Apart from the fact that He recognises the childishness of man we do not know. What we do know is that God is allowing His purposes to go forward through history in all spheres, and that one day all will be finalised. Meanwhile He allows man’s inhumanity to man, He allows Satan’s enmity against those who serve God, He allows Satan’s minions a certain sway. But there is a limit on all. If they pass that limit He acts. He allows powerful men on earth to oppose those who know God, those who believe. Why? Because in the end He knows that it will achieve the final good. There was a great deal of difference between Peter and Judas. Peter was weak, but true. He failed but repented. He was a coward but not a knave. Judas on the other hand chose the way of betrayal. He was not true. He positively sought the death of Jesus. His heart had passed beyond the hope of mercy. Like Pharaoh he had ’hardened his heart’ until it was too hard to be moved. He had blasphemed against the Holy Spirit. Both exercised their freewill in different directions. God allowed Peter to be tested. He allowed him to be made a fool. But He knew that it would be good for him and would help to purify his life. He knew that it would make Peter a better and a greater man. And He allowed him to be sifted and to fall, but prayed that meanwhile he would be strengthened. And as ever a limit was put on what Satan could do. The same applied with Job. The question you must ask is, would Peter or Job have chosen a different way once they knew all the facts? And the answer is that they would not. They would have acknowledged that what God allowed was right, both because of the benefit they then received, and because of the blessing it would bring to His people. But for Judas Jesus’ prayer would not have availed. Judas did not want to do God’s will. Judas’ mind was set to do evil. We cannot doubt that Jesus prayed for Judas, and learned from His Father that there was no hope for Judas. He had gone too far. His heart was totally wrong within him. The same is true of the human race. God allows it to sin within its limits, and those limits go very far. It is not a question of playing games, it is a question of allowing evil to survive for a time in all spheres, and allowing it to act within its sphere. It is a question of not interfering with freewill. Then man can have no excuse. Theoretically God could step in every time an act of evil was planned. He could cause you to freeze every time you contemplated sin. He could do the same in the world. But the world would cease to function. You would cease to function. God allows Satan a certain rein. He allows you a certain rein. Satan cannot manipulate man. He can only seek to lead him astray and use him when he responds to Satan. We cannot manipulate each other. We can only try to do so. And we do. Why should He destroy the one and not the other? And one day He will bring an end to it all. Meanwhile He is acting through the ages to bring His chosen ones to Himself in order that out of the whole maelstrom of evil good may come. And that is the Gospel. Luke 23:39-43. Some see this passage as difficult because they cannot see how it reconciles with the parallel accounts in Matthew and Mark. In those two gospels the two criminals beside Jesus hurl insults upon him. In Luke only one criminal behaves in this manner whilst the other seems to have more of a developed understanding of who Jesus is than his own disciples. We must therefore ask, a) How do we account for the differences between Luke and the other synoptic gospels in this passage? b) How do we explain the amazing and knowledgeable faith of the repentant criminal, especially if he had been abusing Jesus? c) Is the first criminal not expressing faith when he asks Jesus if he is the Christ and believes that he has the ability to save them all? He does have a complaining attitude, but so too did many of the Psalmists when they cried out to God in their suffering. Why then was he not heard, while the other thief was? In answering this question we must first imagine the situation. Two men were crucified along with Him. Both were revolutionaries, both hated the Romans and were looking forward to a leader Messiah who would raise the people against the Romans and give assistance to people like them in their fight. Both were thus Jewish enthusiasts. Both had probably taken in the teachings of Daniel. Possibly this had inspired their revolutionary zeal. And here was this man whom many who stood by the cross were deriding because they said that He had claimed to be the Messiah. Both almost certainly knew who He was humanly speaking. They knew He had been a prophet and had gone around teaching. They knew that at times people had tried to persuade Him to take the reins of kingship. They may even have tried to persuade Him themselves. They knew that He had always refused. And yet here He had finished up as they had in spite of His unwillingness to rebel as they had. They thought bitterly that if He had spoken out the crowds may well have followed Him. Then the numbers of the revolutionaries would have been much greater. Perhaps they might have had a chance. Thus they saw Him as partly responsible for their own position. That was why they rebuked Him. And at first both were involved. Both were looking for someone to blame. But Jesus answered no word. He took all in silence. One revolutionary saw it as admission of guilt, as an admission of failure, and went on cursing his tormentors, the crowd and Jesus. But the other saw something deeper. As he moaned in his agony He watched this man whom all were insulting, and at whom all were shrieking, whom he himself had been yelling at, and something spoke in his heart. Many a preacher of the Gospel has experienced this kind of thing. Many at first railing, but one or two then seeing some truth in what they heard and ceasing to rail and beginning to listen. Did something of what he had earlier seen of the ministry of Jesus, some earlier teaching, come back to him? Possibly. But even more there spoke to him the dignified silence of this man, and the look on His face, and the love in His eyes. He was led like a lamb to the slaughter and as a sheep before his shearers is dumb so He opened not His mouth. This man hanging on the cross somehow, almost impossibly, even while hanging there seemed in control. He spoke no curses. He spoke only forgiveness to His persecutors. He committed His mother to another. Nothing but love and compassion flowed from Him. He even looked at the two who tormented Him from their own crosses with nothing but love. And a great awe filled him. There was something here that he did not understand but which spoke volumes to him. He knew that in His heart this man was not afraid. And as he watched it dawned on him that this man was not afraid because He knew where He was going. He knew that for Him death was not the end. He knew that He was going to God. That He was going to His kingdom. Had not Daniel said it much earlier. In the times of bitter persecution at the end the persecuted would be raised to shine as the stars for ever (Daniel 12:2-3). And in the wretchedness of his own heart he knew that that was true of this man, and he believed. He who had fought for an earthly kingdom now remembered the heavenly rewards offered to the faithful. And he so wished they were for himself. In his own way he had tried to be faithful. And it was now clear to him that this man did know that they were for Him. That He was not afraid because He knew His destiny. And so he begged that this great martyr would remember him when God raised Him up, would possibly mention his name to God as one who tremblingly believed and had done what he could even if he had been mistaken. He hoped that it might then bring him some relief. But he could hardly have expected the reply he received. ’Today you will be with me in Paradise’. Thus the railing thief had become the penitent thief, and now became the saved thief. We do not know the full facts but what we do know is that the Holy Spirit had gradually led this man to sufficient understanding to believe sufficiently to be saved. And that explains the difference. In order to be saved what is required is a very little knowledge of the Saviour and a huge change of heart.. Perhaps what had happened was unknown to Matthew and Mark. But Luke had found a source who could tell him about it and that was what he wrote down. Possibly it was the man’s own godly mother who was also there at the cross and whose very prayers for her wayward son were being effective. Jesus’ death, and way of dying, no doubt had many different effects on many people. This was one. I am not sure that his understanding was as deep as many think it was. Every Jew knew about the coming kingdom. Every Jew knew about the resurrection of the righteous. This Jew had simply come across One for Whom it was clearly going to be true. And he hoped that a word from this strange but godly prophet might help him at the judgment. The first thief was very different. He continued to rail at what he saw as a failed Messiah, an earthly Messiah. No illumination filled his heart. His thoughts went no further. He thought of Him as someone who just possibly might be able to do something extraordinary and get them all down from the cross (everyone knew that Jesus had done extraordinary thins in His life). But there was no movement in his heart. No sense of response. No awareness of his need before God. No repentance. He just cursed to the end. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 37: S. THE BIG FOOL. ======================================================================== The Big Fool. by Peter Pett Do you know the story about the rich man who, after much hard work and ‘using’ of people, to say nothing of bankrupting quite a few, was able to look round at his achievements and say, “Well, I’ve just made my financial men give account and I reckon I’ve about got enough. Now I’ll sit back and rest and enjoy myself with boats, birds and beer”? That night a voice said to him, “You big fool. Tonight you are going to die. Now YOU have to give account to God” That was a story Jesus told. The truth is none of us ever know when we will have to meet God, so isn’t it sensible to be ready? But being ready means a life time commitment. Not to the church, nor to religion, but to Jesus Christ Himself. You see when He was crucified it was instead of you. He was there because of what you have done (or failed to do). He, the one who had not experienced sin, was made sin for you, so that you can be put right with God. But He rose again. Now He waits for you believe His word, commit your life to Him and give Him permission to change it as He sees fit. Why don’t you let Him? ======================================================================== CHAPTER 38: S. THE SEARCH FOR GOD ======================================================================== The Search for God. by Peter Pett This guidance is intended for anyone who has a genuine desire to find the truth about God. If you simply wish to argue, or are so sure that you are right that no evidence would be of any use, then it is not for you. But if you genuinely want to know then read on. The first thing we must recognise is that nothing can be proved about anything, if by that we mean absolute proof. David Hume argued a long time ago that we cannot have absolute certainty that even we exist. All we can be certain of, he claimed, is that there are ‘perceptions’ going on. The inference was that our idea of our own existence is just an interpretation from the fact of those perceptions. It took the brilliance of Kant to demonstrate that this was not quite true. He pointed out that there was something that connected up the perceptions. Consider it this way. When I see a cat with a dog running behind it, that is a perception. When I say the dog is chasing the cat, that demands an extra something that connects the perceptions. As a number of us might come to different conclusions, this shows a number of entities who connect perceptions in different ways. Thus we exist. But it is interesting that this is not scientific proof. It is a rational conclusion based on experience and testimony. Scientifically we cannot prove that we exist! We have just demonstrated that our ‘minds’ do exist, but that is something science cannot even begin to prove. Of course, this immediately ties in with what we thought all along. “Why!” we now say, “I knew that I must exist, even though I could not prove it.” But is ‘science’ somehow different. Surely here we have absolute proof? Again it was David Hume who pointed out that the basic principle on which science is based, which is the hypothesis of cause and effect, is totally unprovable. No one, he pointed out, has ever seen a cause or an effect. All they have seen is two things happening at the same time. They infer that one causes the other, but if the opposite were in fact the case there would not be anything different about the perception, so how can we say which is true? Or that one affects the other? All we can say is that they happen together. (This is a very brief summary of his argument. If you are sceptical about his view you should read his argument). So science is based on something that is invisible and totally unprovable. Something that has to be ‘accepted by faith’. The reason that we are so sure that cause and effect is a true representation of reality, of course, is that we are often the cause of something and we know from experience that we have caused it to happen. But this is not based on scientific evidence, only on an inference from our own experience. How do we know that our ‘causing’ something to happen is not just our interpretation of the pattern of things? How do we know that we are not just caught up in a chain of cause and effect of which we are the effect? That is what the pre-determinist says. If we say, “It is because I willed to do it”, we are introducing free will, something outside the chain of cause and effect, and admitting that something from outside can affect the chain, which is not itself within the realm of science. But more of that another time. Another factor we should consider is that science is based on observations. But how much of what we observe exists in itself, and how much is the result of what we ‘read in’ to ‘reality’. Scientists tell me that my desk is not brown, it only appears brown to me because my senses receive the reflection of light waves at a certain angle and interpret them as a brown colour. Those who are colour blind will see it differently. They also tell me it is not solid, but made up of atoms which mainly consist of space. But my senses tell me it is brown and solid. Who is right? The fact is that science today is not on the whole based upon observations, but on interpretations of observations. It deals with things that cannot be observed at all. But if it is true that things that seem external are not what they seem, how do I know that my desk exists at all? If one observation is what my senses read into what I ‘observe’ why should not the remainder be so? So if my own existence can be questioned, and science is shown to be dependent for its basis on inference, I really cannot expect to find that the existence of God can be ‘proved’ without question. Indeed people who ask for such proof usually mean what they call ‘scientific proof’ (although we have shown that that does not exist). That is , of course, ridiculous. If God could be proved scientifically He would be a part of the material universe, and therefore not God at all. The truth is that we accept our own existence and so called ‘scientific facts’ on the basis of inference and experience. They fit into the picture and appear to work. We must approach the search for God in the same way. What evidence then is there for the existence and nature of God? There are a number of avenues that we need to consider. 1) The evidence of existence - where we came from, and what we are. Can it really be true that we are the result of blind coincidence? Can we really believe that non-animate, non-rational, everlastingly existent matter produced our minds, our intelligence, and even our aesthetic enjoyment? And can we sensibly believe in matter that is everlasting? If it is everlasting it is at the end of infinity. But that is nonsense. The problems of time and space and matter must make us recognise that we are dealing with things that even Einstein could not comprehend. There must surely be something greater ‘outside’ it all, which is its source.. 2) The evidence of design in the universe. Is it really possible to argue sensibly that the world with its intricacies of patterns, with so many ‘coincidences’ that all happened at the right time in the right way, with so much that fits in and with so much that contributes to the enjoyment of our existence, all resulted from the accidental explosion of accidental matter? That there are billions of universes ‘out there’, not only half formed, but in a state such that they will never be formed. I would suggest that the inference that there is ‘someone’ who was in control and brought our situation about, is a thousand times more likely. 3) The evidence of conscience - which in some sense can be seen as ‘the voice of God’. How do we explain man’s awareness of right and wrong, not just as the idea of what is useful or not useful to enable us to live together, but as an absolute, so that there are some things that we can say are morally right in themselves, whatever attitude society takes at a particular point in time. (It is interesting that no one makes a greater fuss about his ‘rights’ than an atheist!) If morals are merely relative, they are not morals at all, but appendages which suit our convenience, rules for living together which we find helpful, but which anyone has a right to ignore if he will take the consequences that society imposes. They are convenient. But in our most inward being we know it is not true that morals are just a convenience. We know the difference between what is ‘right’ because it contributes to our welfare, and what is right in itself. When Hitler ordered the massacre of millions of human beings in the most dreadful circumstances, we cannot accept that it was just that he had another viewpoint which conflicted with ours, that what he was doing was not morally wrong but merely unacceptable, because it did not fit in with our idea of things. We know that he was morally wrong. But as Kant pointed out, the corollary of this is that there exists one who will call to account, a lawgiver and judge. Otherwise how can this conception of morality be meaningful? Our knowledge of right and wrong, imperfect though it may be, demands a moral source. 4) The evidence of our nature as it reaches out for the infinite. Why does man reach out for God at all? Why does the question of His existence have such an importance, deep down, for the vast majority of people, at least on occasions? Why do men get this sense of the infinite at various times in their experience? Do we not all know deep within that there must be some meaning to life? That it cannot just be an empty and futile experience in which we simply try to ‘make the most of it’and grab what enjoyment we can, and the devil take the hindmost? Why is it that those who find the deepest satisfaction are those who do find such meaning in existence. Why is it that we are that way? To suggest that man believes in God because he wants someone to look after him or because he is somehow frightened of the unknown, is contrary to all the evidence of how man’s belief in God developed. Men took risks because they believed God had spoken to them, and not vice versa. God made demands that were costly, and they responded. The idea that God ‘would look after them’ was a concept that arose when the impact of religion was weak, and was soon proved wrong as the Old Testament prophets pointed out continually. When men only look to God from fear, or because they hope to gain something, it is a recognised sign of the deterioration of a religion, not its basis. Man reaches out to God because there is something within him which cries out for satisfaction, for fulfilment, something which can only be found in God. 5) The evidence of the experience of God of men through the ages. We can look back at writings of different religions and find that within them there have been those who have had special experiences of the infinite. This does not necessarily make the religion they were involved in right, it means that their experiences have transcended their religious background. Often it has resulted in a ‘new’ religion which for a time has transformed its adherents. It is interesting that, apart from Jesus, the greatest moralists have not embraced ‘accepted’ religion. Confucius mocked the Chinese gods. Buddha taught enlightenment. His later followers were the ones who introduced the idols, and made him into an idol! Buddha’s concern was the search for the infinite. We can say quite definitely that men have often experienced God in spite of their religion, not because of it. And when we look at the religions we can often see why. But it is these men we look back to when we genuinely begin to seek the truth about God. It is vital religion, not decaying religion, that proves the existence of God. 6) The supreme evidence - the life and teaching of Jesus. How can He be explained without admitting the existence of God? I challenge anyone to try genuinely to make the attempt to really immerse themselves in the moral teachings of Jesus and not recognise his supreme superiority in the moral field. I do not ask anyone to accept ‘the Christian religion’. That is expressed in a multiplicity of ways, some good and some bad. I ask them to consider Jesus. No wars have ever been started by following the teaching of Jesus. Those who have truly followed him have relieved suffering, not caused it. It is when men lose sight of Jesus and get caught up in their own opinions and desires that war and strife and misery occurred. It is my genuine conviction that no one can read the life of Jesus with a sincere desire to know the truth and fail to recognise his genius and his ‘otherness’ - in the way he handled difficult questions, in the way he changed people’s attitudes with a ‘simple’ story, in the way he got to the root of men’s hypocrisy, in his gentleness with the needy, especially with sinners who were ready to turn from their sin, in his reinterpretation of ‘old’ truths in a way that undoubtedly imroved them. Jesus comes over to the genuine reader as a giant among men. But that leaves us with a problem. For while he revealed himself to be supremely sane and wise, he also made statements that revealed him to be more than just another teacher. These were not added on by later believers. They are an essential part of his teaching. The sermon on the mount, that pearl of wisdom and beauty, has interwoven within its finest parts claims of his uniqueness. Men should rejoice to be persecuted and reviled for HIS sake. He claimed the right to say, “I say to you” when interpreting and expanding what men saw as God’s revealed truth. He pointed out elsewhere that he was greater than Solomon, and greater than the prophet Jonah, and people did not laugh. He stated that he would judge the world, that he would come in glory and be seated on a glorious throne. He stated that God was ‘his own Father’ which the listeners recognised as a claim to deity. He claimed that through the Spirit of God he had authority over spiritual powers of evil. These claims were not made in the bald way that would have been the case if someone had added them later. They come over naturally and with force. He waited patiently for the time when his disciples, after much gentle guidance, recognised him as the ‘Son of the living God’. He knew it had to be something that established itself in their hearts, otherwise it would have been a nine day wonder. When he could have saved himself at his trial by denying the charge that he was ‘the Christ, the Son of God’, he instead agreed and pointed out that they would yet see him seated in power and ‘coming on the clouds of heaven’. Once you have absorbed his life and teaching, then you can ask yourself - ‘Was he mad and deluded? Or am I willing to face up to the clear alternative - he is my Lord and my God. The fact of the matter is that if you wish to know God you must seek Him through Jesus. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 39: S. WARNING PASSAGES IN HEBREW ======================================================================== Warning Passages in Hebrew - What Do Hebrews 6:4 etc and Hebrews 10:26 etc Teach Us? By Dr Peter Pett BA BD(Hons-London) DD There are differences of opinion among Christians on this question with many good Christians holding each position. See on the subject our article on eternal security. There we express our concern that such glib phrases as ’once saved, always saved’ give false confidence to some who may not genuinely be saved. That is not to say that it is not true, for if salvation is genuine then it continues to the end, because the saving is done by One Who cannot fail, but it must be revealed by its fruits. There will probably be hiccups. But in the end the work will be accomplished if it is His work, and that will finally be revealed in a godly life and continuation in the faith. Hebrews 6:4 is a case in point. The early church had seen a steady stream of Jews enter the Christian church. They were different from other converts because they came from a God-given religion and enjoyed belief in a God-given word. Up to this time their faith had been the true faith, and Christ-approved. But now they had entered into a new understanding and had been baptised as Christians showing they were testifying that they had found something even better, a more full faith, a better sacrifice, a fulfilment of all the Old Testament promises. There was no way back for they now knew that what they had trusted in had not only been temporary and replaced but had been fulfilled into something better. The old was now finished except as illustrating the new. For them it was no longer valid. Now some were slipping back to Judaism, and while claiming to believe in the same God and to believe in the same Scriptures (the Old Testament), they were openly rejecting Christ and His cross and therefore God’s final revelation of Himself. It was a crucial moment for the early church. The uniqueness of Christ Himself was at stake. These Jews who had joined the Christian church were now reverting back to Judaism and putting Christ and His truth to shame. The question was, was this a genuine option from God’s viewpoint? And would others now follow? This is what the writer is guarding against. Notice first the illustration (Hebrews 6:7-8). The rain came down and watered the ground. Some ground was filled with seeds, but some ground was filled only with weeds. It is the nature of the ground that is prominent. Some seed-bearing, some weed-bearing. The grain did not become weeds, the weeds had always been weeds, for the ground that bore them was barren ground. Only time however revealed the difference between the quality of the ground. The writer and his readers were all aware of the parable of the sower (Mark 4:3-20). Some seed was sown on good ground, and because the ground was good it finally prospered. Others fell on bad ground and as a result either did not grow or finally withered. And the seed was the word of God. The same idea is in mind here. Note that all the ground is depicted as receiving ’the blessing of God’, the rain. Whether good or bad ground, the blessing fell on it. However some of the ground, which ’received the blessing of God’, the rain, did not prosper like the other - the rain produced grain in some because it was grain-bearing ground, but other ground, receiving the same blessing, produced weeds because it was weed-bearing ground. Had it been good ground it would have produced grain. What was in it was bad because of the nature of the ground, so that its fruit was bad, despite the blessing of God. This demonstrated the nature of the ground. It was bad ground. It would never become fruit bearing. It did not later become false, it was always so. It might appear promising, but it could only produce weeds. It was barren ground and had always been so. This is true both here and in the parable of the sower (Mark 4:3-20). So it was with those of whom the writer speaks. Outwardly they had had the benefits of ’rain’. All received ’the blessing of God’. They enjoyed the outward influences which would finally determine what kind of ground they were. They were enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift and shared in the Holy Spirit, experienced the goodness of God’s word and the powers of the coming age, but they then permanently ‘fell away’. They were proved to be bad ground. The question is as to whether they had ever become genuine Christians. Some would argue that the descriptions are so strong that they can only refer to a genuine Christian experience. This then leads them to argue against eternal security. But it is difficult to see how a genuine Christian whose life has truly been renewed by the Spirit of God can be thought of as ground that has always been bad. Others would however say that, in the light of other Scriptures, and of the illustration both here and in the parable of the sower, this must be interpreted as a picture of men being brought under the strongest influence of Christian power and teaching without actually ever becoming grain-bearing, but rather remaining as weed-bearing because of what by nature they were and always would be. In those early days when the presence of the Spirit was so strongly felt among believers and the contrast between Christians, and non-Christian pagans and Jews, was so strong, the church may well have described the effects of seekers coming under the influence of the Spirit-filled church in this way. They are enlightened as they hear the new teaching, their eyes are in a sense opened. The word of God is pressed home on their hearts. Intellectually they become aware of the new truth. Furthermore they enjoy being part of the Spirit-filled group of believers, sharing in the result of His influence and the wonder of accompanying miracles, enjoy the goodness of God’s word and feel its powerful influences, the ‘power of the age to come’, outwardly rejoicing in their ’experiences’. Indeed they are baptised because outwardly they have aligned themselves with Christ and His church, and all they have shared. But because their hearts are hard (bad ground) their response is not genuine, and so they finally fall away. They fail to respond because they are weed-bearing and not grain-bearing. They are like those of whom Jesus spoke when He described the seed that fell on stony ground. They flourish for a while and then wither away. The writer then gives a solemn warning. When men who have known such a vivid awareness of the truth deliberately turn back from it because they cannot stand the heat of persecution (not the same thing as struggling with doubts and not being sure of their position), and go deliberately back to the old ways, openly rejecting Christ and bringing deliberate shame on His name in spite of what they, in their hearts, know to be the truth, they harden their own hearts. They are in danger of what Jesus described as the ‘blasphemy against the Holy Spirit’. And by doing so they reveal what they are. Note that this ‘blasphemy against the Holy Spirit’ was spoken of in a context where Jesus was, by His power and authority over evil spirits, revealing that He was there in the power of God. Those to whom He spoke were faced with undeniable truth which their own teaching witnessed to, but there was a danger that they were rejecting it, not because they were in doubt or could not understand, but because they were hardening their hearts through unwillingness to believe the truth. It was not that they could not accept Jesus, it was that they would not. They realised that if they did much of what they believed and did would have to change. This reluctance, Jesus pointed out, was dangerous. They were in danger of hardening their own hearts to such an extent that they could not repent. (He says they are in danger of it, He does not say that they had actually at that point done so). The writer here pictures this vividly. These people he was speaking to were from a people (the Jews) who had chosen to crucify Jesus. By being baptised they had declared against that verdict. Now by returning to Judaism they were aligning themselves with that verdict and crucifying Jesus again and submitting Him to shame and humiliation. And these were not just people struggling mentally between two sets of belief, an old and a new, vacillating and not sure as to which was true, but a people who were deliberately turning their backs on what they knew to be true because they could not face the consequences of their belief. They were deliberately hardening their own hearts and closing their minds because of their fear of the consequences. They were deliberately testifying against Jesus and setting their minds against Him in order to save themselves. And notice the final consequence. ‘It is impossible to renew them again to repentance’. It is not saying that God will not receive them if they repent. Whoever repents and calls on the name of Christ will be saved. No, these men can never be brought to repentance. They are in danger of hardening their hearts to such an extent that the thought of returning to Christ will never come to them. He will have been shut out completely. (Thus if there are those who are fearful that they have committed a similar apostasy and yet long to return to Christ, they are not in this position for they are clearly ‘repenting’. Thus their hearts are not so hardened that they cannot repent). This hardening of the heart is illustrated elsewhere. In Exodus we read that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. And he did this so that Pharaoh and his people might learn a lesson. But it was not irrevocable. There was always for him, up to a certain point of time, a way of repentance. However there came the day when he began to ‘harden his own heart’. He had been faced with unquestioned, miraculous proof of the power of God but he was deliberately closing his mind and heart against it. Gradually the way that had been open ceased to be open. His heart became hardened beyond repentance by his own action. As mentioned above the Pharisees had been in the same danger. They had seen unquestioned, miraculous proof of the power of God. There was a stirring within them. In their hearts they knew what it must mean. The One Whom they were facing was here in God’s power with God’s authority. But some did not want to believe it. They hardened their hearts. They did not want their old ways to be disturbed. They did not want their own failures to be shown up. They were in danger of doing what Pharaoh had done, hardening themselves to such an extent that change was impossible. It was not doubt that was in mind, it was deliberate rejection of what they knew to be the truth. That, warned Jesus, could make their position irreversible. So it is, the writer says, with these people he is speaking to (he has already warned them against hardening their hearts - Hebrews 4:5-11). They are faced with the truth. They have beheld wonderful things. They have seen and understood God’s good news. They have witnessed the miraculous power of God amongst them in a very vivid way. And now they are in the same danger as Pharaoh was and the Pharisees were, of rejecting what they know to be true, not because they have doubts but because they do not now want the light because of its consequences, it will result in persecution and hardship. They are in danger of hardening their hearts against truth revealed in such a way that it is undoubted. In a sense this is hypothetical, as it was in the case of Jesus’ words to the Pharisees. He is warning of what might happen not of what has happened. But what happened to Pharaoh warns that the hypothetical can become real. Some Pharisees did choose to harden their hearts so that eventually they became unable to repent. Men can so harden their own hearts so that they can no longer repent (have a change of mind and heart). Thus he wants his readers to know that this is what they are in danger of. If they do so finally harden their hearts there will be no way back, not because God will not accept their repentance, but because they will not be able to repent. They will be totally hardened. That is why the writer finishes up by saying that he expects better of his readers, ’things that accompany salvation’, i.e. perseverance. He expects them to show that they are grain-bearing ground not weed-bearing ground. That is what ‘accompanies salvation’, for ’by their fruits you will know them’. Those who irrevocably turn back do but prove that they were never ‘good ground’ after all. They were never true Christians. For had they been so their ground would have been made ‘good’ and would finally produce fruit. The case is similar in Hebrews 10:26. When these people were committed Jews, and members of the old revealed religion, they could go to the Temple whenever they wilfully sinned and offer sacrifices. There was a God-provided sacrifice for sin available. But once they had come to the place where they had been faced with the one sacrifice for all, Jesus Christ, Whose death had replaced the old sacrifices, they could no longer return to the old sacrifices. They now no longer had any sacrifice for wilful sin available other than Christ. They were now enlightened. There was no going back to the old ways. It was now Christ or judgment. So by seeking to go back they now trample Christ underfoot and shame Him. Seemingly they had outwardly entered under the new covenant in His blood by baptism, thus their turning back was an outward profaning of the blood of the covenant (the blood of Christ). In the eyes of all they had been ‘sanctified’, set apart as Christ’s, by the blood of the covenant. Like the vessels and accoutrements in the Temple they were proclaimed to belong only to God for His use. But now they were turning their backs on their commitment and thus bringing shame on Christ. This was especially important at this juncture when the church was still in its infancy. It was important for it to be seen that whereas the old God-given faith had been perfectly satisfactory in its provision, it no longer provided an alternative for those who were aware of something better. It was now Christ or judgment. There was now no other sacrifice for sin that sufficed, ‘there remains no longer a sacrifice for sins’ (although it had once sufficed). No other sacrifice for sin now remained. They could not safely go back to the old ways. They could not return to the blood of the old covenant, and find it sufficient. They went back to their doom, for by doing so they were rejecting the blood of the New Covenant to which their old faith had pointed, the faith which the New Covenant had done away with by fulfilling it. Fully enlightened they could now not go back to the way which had sufficed when they were not enlightened. For them that could no longer work. It was to blaspheme the very God that they claimed to worship, and there was the grave danger that by doing so they would harden their hearts beyond repentance. But the writer was convinced that his readers were not of this kind. They had genuine faith, the faith that persevered. They were ’good ground’, and so they would produce genuine fruit and go on. For them there could be no final going back. We do not know whether any did go back, but if they did so it demonstrated that they were not, and had never been, good ground. They were the stony ground of which Jesus Himself had warned. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 40: S. WHAT DOES THE BIBLE TEACH US ABOUT THE VIRGIN MARY? ======================================================================== What Does The Bible Teach Us About the Virgin Mary? by Dr. Peter Pett The New Testament first reveals the Virgin Mary to us as a virgin through whom Jesus Christ was born (Luke 1:27). She is declared to be someone who has found favour with God (Luke 1:28, Luke 1:30) and as a result had been chosen to bear the Messiah so that He would be truly human (Luke 1:31-33). The human side of Jesus came from Mary, the divine side from the Holy Spirit. Thus while the One Whom she bore was God, His Godhead did not come into being through the human process of birth. That is why the early fathers preferred ’theotokos’ (God-bearer) to the phrase which was so open to misunderstanding, that of ’mother of God’. That she was a good woman is unquestioned, and she is revealed as ‘prophesying’ (Luke 1:46-55). Elizabeth spoke well when she called her ‘blessed among women’ (Luke 1:42), and even ‘the mother of my Lord’ (Luke 1:43), but she was there thinking in Messianic terms not in terms of divinity. We should note that the angel said that the holy child to be born of her was to be called ‘the Son of God’ (Luke 1:35). In Scripture Jesus is never called the son of Mary, nor is she ever called the mother of Jesus. He addresses her as ‘woman’ or ‘lady’ (John 2:4). The desire to be the mother of the Messiah was common to large numbers of women in Palestine. Thus the choosing of Mary did indeed demonstrate that God was blessing her. But we must not read into that more than the fact that it was a great privilege for her. When dealing with such an unusual situation words have to be used with care. It is true that Mary was the mother of Jesus, and that Jesus was God, but to call her the mother of God is to be in danger of assuming what was not true. She was so in the sense that the One she bore, and was mother to, was also God. But she was not the mother of His divinity which existed long, long before ever she was born. This is actually stated by Pope John. "Mary’s divine motherhood refers only to the human begetting of the Son of God but not, however, to his divine birth. The Son of God was eternally begotten of God the Father, and is consubstantial with him. Mary, of course, has no part in this eternal birth. However, the Son of God assumed our human nature 2,000 years ago and was conceived by and born of Mary." The only quibble we have with this is the final statement, for ‘the son of God’ was not conceived by Mary. It was the human nature that was conceived by Mary, as Pope John had already made clear, and as he had in fact agreed when he stated ‘Mary has no part in this eternal birth’. It is a pity that loose language muddles the idea by careless application. Thus the early church, when discussing the matter at the council of Ephesus (431 AD), came to the decision that she should not be called ‘the mother of God’, but rather the ‘God-bearer’ (theotokos). But even this carries with it the danger of seeing Mary as in some way bringing God into the world, whereas it was the Holy Spirit Who brought God into the world, in union with the human being that was conceived by Mary. Mary could not in any way conceive divine spirit, who was eternal, only the human being with whom that divine spirit was inseparably connected in two natures. Scripture reveals that Mary’s faith fluctuated as does the faith of all human beings. We read that after his birth and what the shepherds said ‘Mary kept all these sayings, pondering them in her heart’ (Luke 2:19). She was not sure what it all meant, but constantly thought about it. When she and Joseph took Jesus up to Jerusalem and on their beginning their journey back home discovered that Jesus was not with them, they returned to Jerusalem and sought Him. They found Him in the temple listening to the great teachers, and asking them questions. When Mary rebuked Him He replied, ‘How is it that you looked for me? Did you not realise that I must be about the things of my Father?’ And they did not understand the saying which He spoke to them (Luke 2:41-51). It is clear that she was still very puzzled about the future of Jesus. His parents naturally saw Him as a normal child as her rebuke reveals. However, she remembered what He had said and would no doubt understand better after His resurrection. The next mention of Mary is when He began His ministry in Galilee and went to the wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11). When the wine ran out, which was a real social disaster for the people involved who were no doubt well known to Mary, she naturally went to Jesus her son with the problem. Where else would a woman go if her husband was dead but to her eldest son? But Jesus clearly realised that she was expecting Him to do some ‘wonder’, and He said to her, ‘Lady, what is there to you and to me? My hour has not yet come.’ By this He was warning her that she must not interfere in the ministry that was to be His. He was not here to use His powers for personal things. But Mary recognised from His words that He would do something, and so told the servants to do whatever He asked. We have an indication here that at this time Mary believed that He was the coming Messiah Who would bring food and wine to His people, a common view of the Messiah, and that He could therefore in some way produce wine for the wedding. Therefore why should He not do so at this moment of great need for their friends? Jesus in return wanted her to know that she must not try to influence His decisions as the Messiah. He alone must decide His way. His ways were not her ways, (nor anyone else’s). Thus when He does what He does, it was not because of her request but because He recognised from it an opportunity to reveal His Messiahship in a veiled way. But Mary’s confidence in His Messiahship was not sufficient for her next test. When the great teachers came down from Jerusalem and began to attack her son’s claims she came with her other sons and wanted to see Him (Mark 3:31). We must probably tie this up with Mark 3:21 which indicates that all Jesus’ ‘friends’ (that is, His intimates who lived in and around Nazareth) were concerned because he was neglecting food because of the great crowds that He had to deal with, and thought that He was behaving strangely, saying ‘He is beside Himself’, that is, He is not behaving normally. But however that might be it is clear that there is intended to be a distinction here between Mary and her sons on the one hand, and those who were following Jesus on the other. Mary and her sons were on the ‘outside’ (Mark 3:31). His followers were on the inside. And it is equally clear that Jesus was saying that Mary and his brothers must not interfere with His ministry. Indeed now that He was fulfilling His ministry it was those who gathered to hear Him and learn from Him who had taken the place of His mother and His brothers (Mark 3:24). They were His brother, and His sister and His mother (Mark 3:25). If Mary and His brothers wanted any part in Him they must become His followers and share Him with all His followers. But it is clear that they did not do so, and Mary is never included among those who followed Jesus while He was ministering. This may have been because she had younger children to look after, or simply because her response to His ministry had cooled. But, however we interpret this incident it is clear that Jesus did not see His mother as having any special spiritual status. It was rather His followers who had special spiritual status. In Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3 the crowds who listen to Jesus (not His followers) refer to Mary and his brothers as someone known to them. There is never any indication in such references that his ‘brothers’ were any other than brothers of the whole blood, and therefore children of Mary. Jesus was Mary’s ‘firstborn’ and there is never any suggestion that Joseph had another wife. And besides, if Jesus was not Joseph’s firstborn then He was not strictly heir to the throne of David. The only other mention of Mary in the Gospels is when she was present at the cross (John 19:25). As his mother we would have expected her to be there whatever her beliefs. And there Jesus committed her into John’s care (John 19:26-27) addressing her as ‘lady’. What this meant is made clear. John took her into his home and family (John 19:27). Thus it was not seen by John as having any theological significance. It was a matter of protection. It might have been temporary due to her weak state, or more permanent, but if the latter it might suggest that her other sons were too young to be able to care for her. If her other sons were older than Jesus it is difficult to see why Jesus did what He did, or that they would have allowed John to take her permanently into his home. But in all this we must recognise that during Jesus’ ministry there is no hint that His mother Mary was a follower of Jesus or was found with Him anywhere but at the cross. This fact is emphasised by Luke in that after Jesus’ resurrection both Mary and her sons are referred to as believers (Acts 1:14). Clearly then if they had been before His death Luke would have mentioned this somewhere. It is difficult to think that he could constantly list women who followed Jesus without referring to her if she had been with them. See for example Luke 8:3. It is significant that Mary is never mentioned in the letters of Paul or the other Apostles. If the later exalted views of Mary had been held by the Apostles this is quite frankly incredible. But the truth is that such ideas about Mary began to rear their heads in the second century AD. Such ideas were inevitable given the propensity of some men to seek a mother figure, and especially a mother goddess. 1) Does the Bible Teach that We Can Ask Mary To Intercede For Us? The idea of praying to God through Mary was unknown in the first Christian centuries. The New Testament makes clear that we are to approach the Father through Jesus, making our requests ’for His sake’, or ’in His name’ (Matthew 18:20; John 14:13-14). It is He who ever lives to intercede on our behalf in Heaven (Hebrews 7:25). In the Scriptures, while Mary was recognised as a good woman she was only seen as that, and at times had to be gently rebuked because of her misunderstanding (John 2:4). Jesus makes clear that her motherhood does not give her a special position in things pertaining to the Kingdom of God (Mark 3:31-35). Indeed Jesus clearly states ’my mother and my brethren are those who hear the word of God and keep it’ (Luke 8:21). Nowhere is she given a position of authority or influence. She is the mother of Jesus but nowhere described as the mother of God and indeed in later centuries there was a bitter dispute over this question, and it was accepted that she should be called theotokos (God-bearer) rather than mother of God. This in recognition of the fact that the One she bore was also God, but that the divine was not conceived by her. There was no suggestion that she held a special place of influence with God. It will be noted that in the scene in Heaven in Revelation 4:1-11 & Revelation 5:1-14 there is no hint of Mary. She was simply numbered along with everyone else with the whole of creation who worshipped God. We must therefore respect her deeply as the one through whom God was pleased to bring His Son into the world, sympathise with her misunderstandings as understandable in a puzzled mother, and honour her later dedication to the Christian church. What we should not do is consider her as one who somehow has a special place in Heaven whereby she is able to confer favours. Like all of us she was saved through the blood of Christ and found forgiveness in His name. She shares with all ‘saints’ (and that word includes us if we are Christians) the benefits from the merits of His death and resurrection and intercession. Like us she is a supplicant and worshipper, and not a dispenser of grace. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 41: S. WHAT IS THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO BE A CHRISTIAN IN UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES ======================================================================== Reply to a Question on What is a Christian. by Dr. Peter Pett Dear Ben, You have asked an interesting question. What makes someone a Christian? For centuries people who have declared themselves Christians have equally certainly declared that others were not Christians, and the others have returned the compliment. What then is the certain test? What is the minimum level of knowledge and response necessary to make a person so? It is not an easy question to answer. The simple answer, of course, is ‘to believe in Jesus’. That is what Scripture says. "To those who received Him to them He gave the right to become the children of God, even to those who believed on His name" (John 1:12). But certainly what is required is more than intellectual belief (see John 2:23-25). When Jesus speaks of ‘believing’ He clearly means a genuine response of the heart to Him and His teachings, a response that changes lives. As He said elsewhere, "by their fruits you will know them" (Matthew 7:16-20). So there is no doubt that without such a response there can be no acceptance by God, and where there is such a response who will deny the privilege of salvation? Certainly not God. But while the belief must not be just an intellectual belief, but a response to a Person and His teachings, what is the minimum intellectual content required for that belief to be genuine? While there are some who confidently assert a number of doctrines that they suggest are necessary to salvation they do so on their own authority, for Jesus Himself made the simple claim that all that was needed was a genuine belief in Him that produced a change of heart and response to Him and His teachings. Notice the combination. It was not enough just to accept His teachings in a general way. He challenged men to recognise in Himself the One uniquely come from God. The thief on the cross was a wrongdoer and knew little about Jesus (Luke 23:40-43). But on his cross he recognised that here was One sent from God Who in some way could offer him mercy. We must probably accept that he had earlier heard Jesus’ teaching, and had indeed refused to respond to it (otherwise he would not have been there). But now with his life almost gone he responded, and learned that his salvation was assured. Are we to believe that he accepted the full divinity of Christ? The answer is almost certainly no. Such a question would hardly have sprung to his mind. Did he understand the mystery of the atonement? Again the answer is no. Little had yet been said of such a mystery. But he recognised that Jesus was from God in some special way, and was able to offer him forgiveness and salvation, and in a genuine response he accepted it. Missionaries on the mission field, contending with minds which found Christian concepts difficult to grasp, have recognised that they must not be too dogmatic before allowing baptism as a confirmation that converts have passed from past darkness into the life of Christ, otherwise they would exclude those whose response was genuine. If those people recognised the ‘otherness’ of Jesus and that He had died on the cross for them, and responded to His words in their lives, who could deny them acceptance by God, even though their theology was still in primitive form? When the early church of the third and fourth centuries was torn by the question of whether Jesus was ‘fully divine’ the vast majority believed the answer was no, that in some way He was inferior to the Father (although of a high and unique status). Yet these were men who had suffered terrible torture for their faith in Christ, and who bore the visible scars and mutilations inflicted by those who sought to turn them from Christ. They lived for Him, and were ready to suffer and die for Him. Was their theological misunderstanding enough to separate them from the Christ they loved and even worshipped? Surely the answer must be no. They did recognise the ‘otherness’ of Jesus, and that He had died for them, and they had responded to Him. Their faith was genuine, it was only their understanding that was limited. We can search the literature of the early church and we will find that, once the Apostles had gone, even their teachers had an inadequate understanding of the doctrines of the Gospel. We must remember that early Christians were in the main illiterate. They could not read the Scriptures, and in the vast majority of cases even where they could, they had little or no access to what were scarce resource. Bibles were expensive and not just available to anyone, even where they were available. Usually a church would have only a small part of the Bible (there were large numbers of scrolls required, or large quantities of skins). So they were very dependent on the spoken word. We have only to read the teachings of early Christian teachers such as Ignatius of Antioch and even Irenaeus (the most Biblical of them all) to recognise that their knowledge was inadequate, clearly because they were unable to enjoy the study of the word of God in the in depth way that we can enjoy today. They did what they could with what they had to hand. Ignatius was writing on his journey to terrible martyrdom. His faith and commitment to Christ were unquestionable. His recognition that Jesus Christ as God had died for Him is certain. But his theology was less so. So those early Christians unquestionably did not fully understand the intricacies of doctrine that Christians argue about today. They were not in a position to do so. They grasped certain basic truths of a limited nature, and in their response to Christ and His ‘otherness’ and to His death and teachings, and to the word of God in so far as they knew it, they were surely ‘saved’. We need to remember it is not we who determine who God will accept. His is the decision, and we try to make it at our peril. We rightly try to safeguard what we consider to be the truth, and stand firmly for it, but we should beware of demanding from people what God does not specifically require, and making it a condition of salvation. Almost certainly many today who have ‘sound ideas’ will be rejected because their response to Jesus and His teachings was not equally sound. As Jesus Himself said, He will ask them, “Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not do the things which I say?” They will be known by their fruits. It is not enough just to believe a body of doctrine. There must be a responsive life. ‘Will there be Roman Catholics in Heaven?’ you ask. Within this church are a large multitude of people, many of whom are very simple in their ideas, who have little knowledge of evangelical doctrine. Yet they know of Christ, and recognise His otherness and that He died for them, and many love and worship Him and genuinely seek to respond to Him and to His teachings. They do not understand the complexities that have led astray the better educated. Will God reject those whose heart and reponse is genuine because they are a little mixed up in their doctrines? Is it a statement of belief that God judges men by, or a genuine response to such truth as they know when it includes that Jesus is the Son of God and died for them? Notice we do not suggest that all Roman Catholics are Christians. There are those who trust solely in the church, or in doctrines and ideas that are palpably false, whose very belief closes their minds and hearts from response to Christ. And this may well exclude a large number of Roman Catholics (and others also) from God’s saving mercy, because it is outward not inward. But it is God Who will decide the genuine response of the heart, not us. And it is a brave man (or a foolish one) who makes the decision for Him. Will there be Mormons in Heaven? Again we suggest that among those who are bound up in its false teachings there are some simple souls who have made a genuine response to Christ and His teachings in spite of the falsity of Mormonism. Is it God or man who would exclude such from his mercy? Yet this does not mean that what Roman Catholics or Mormons teach is the full truth. Only that there are those who among them, in spite of the lack within those teachings, find their way to a genuine response to Christ. Men can believe many wrong things, and still be saved, otherwise none of us would be saved. But we have no confidence in the salvation of any who do not fully respond to Christ and His teachings in so far as they know them. ’What about Muslims?’ you ask. Here we are on more difficult ground. They do not accept the ‘otherness’ of Christ, seeing Him only as a prophet whom they virtually ignore. But Romans 2:14-16 may indicate that there is hope for those who have never really been taught about Christ but who through Muslim (and other) teaching find a genuine response to God and His truth. We do not suggest that they will be a numerically large number, nor would we dogmatically assert what their position is, but we recognise that it is God Who will decide and not us. However what is certain is that we must do our utmost to help them to faith in Christ, for whatever the possibilities, we can have confidence in nothing less. Salvation is in the end found in Christ through the benefits of His death. And we can be equally sure that any who are truly faced up with Christ and reject Him will by it be condemned. Indeed the fact is that whenever a church asserts itself to be the only church through which salvation can be found, they act with blasphemy. God is not so resticted. But there may be many in those churches whom God can reach. We are right to seek to understand and present the truth as we see it, but we must beware of doing God’s selective work for Him. In the end we must stand by this. Those who genuinely believe in and respond to the otherness of Christ and to his teachings, recognising that through His work on the cross He has somehow made a way of access to God, will find acceptance with Him. We must be concerned to ensure that our faith is not just a bundle of doctrines, but such a genuine response. Then we can have confidence in our salvation. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 42: S. WHY BELIEVE IN JESUS? ======================================================================== Why Believe in Jesus? by Peter Pett We have four writings written in the first century which tell us about Jesus and what he did and taught. It is quite clear from these writings that Jesus taught in a deliberate way to aid the memory as most teaching in those days was carried in the memory. This meant that people’s memories were far, far better than they are today. Furthermore the nature of Christ’s teachings were such that they would be constantly repeated thus reinforcing the memory. History demonstrates that people under such constraints had a remarkable ability to maintain the accuracy of what they passed on. Furthermore Jesus teaching was outstanding. Had it been subject to change its purity would have been lost, so that the fact that this has not happened demonstrates how carefully it was remembered. We do not know at what time it was first written down, but as Mark’s complete Gospel was released before 70AD he would certainly have begun recording the matter it contains far earlier. There are good reasons for thinking that he obtained a large part of his subject matter from Peter. There are now indications that Matthew’s Gospel was in writing by 60AD, this would of necessity back date Mark’s finished Gospel to before then as Matthew clearly drew on Mark, and given the time lapse necessary before Mark’s work would come to Matthew’s attention this would date Mark’s work much earlier. However anyone who seriously examines the teaching of Jesus as contained in the Gospels can hardly fail (unless their moral sensitivities are totally dulled) to be impressed both by its breadth, and its uniqueness. These were not just commonplaces! Jesus brought a new dimension to morality. It is irrelevant whether by carefully sifting the teachings of 1000 years we can find the occasional parallel to some of Jesus teachings. We would expect this. After all morality had exercised men’s minds from time immemorial.But nowhere do we find anyone who had the same breadth of vision, and who expounded so much so succintly. The point about Jesus is that he can be known in depth because he revealed the reality about himself through his words. The more we study his teaching the more we have to stand back and admire him, and recognise he was incomparable. Furthermore there can be no serious doubt that his teachings changed world history, and for the good. History itself demonstrates the fact. He is not to blame because people tried to take the credit of his name but ignored his teachings. He must not be judged by so-called followers, who often used him as an excuse for furthering their own ends, He must be judged on what he said, and the impact that it has made through history. So able a judge as Mahatma Ghandi declared his teaching to be incomparable. Had it not been for the inconsistencies of so-called Christians whom he knew, he would probably himself have taken the name of Christian, as Sadhu Sundar Singh did. When someone in ignorance dismisses the teaching of Jesus, he or she merely demonstrate their own inadequacy. It has long been recognised by men of all ages, whether Christian or not, that they were supreme and incomparable in the moral sphere. Yet if we are not to be inconsistent we must recognise that along with his moral supremacy, Jesus quietly and firmly revealed himself as someone come from God, someone unique, someone with special authority from God, someone who himself would judge the world. He showed clearly that he held a position with God that no other had, and his life and teaching back up his claims. he left no doubt as to his unique relationship with ’his father’ using a uniquely personal term which his listeners immediately recognised as a claim to equality with God. That is why he could say that men stood judged by their attitude towards him. The failure to recognise God in what he was and did could only happen to those whose minds were closed. The trouble is that so few even make the effort to test this out by a detailed examination of his life and teaching. If there are those who would know The Truth let them make that study. Forget the background. Forget the miracles. Consider him in all his glory, enter into his thinking, absorb his character. It will not be long before you say, "My Lord and my God". ======================================================================== Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/writings-of-peter-pett/ ========================================================================