 |
|
|
1. Chistianity or Islam, where is the Truth? 2. The History of the Quran and the Injil 3. The Quran Confirms: Today`s Bible is Unchanged 4. Muhammad 5. How Did Jerusalem Come to be so Holy to Moslems? |
|
|
Christianity or Islam, where is the Truth?
By A. Ibrahim
WHAT IS TRUTH?
To find the answer to the "mother of all questions" we have to define what we are actually looking for. Arguably the most famous passage in literature where the question, "What is truth" has been asked is found in the New Testament record of the trial of Jesus:
Pilate asked him, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice."
Pilate asked him, "What is truth?" After he had said this, he went out to the Jews again and told them, "I find no case against him."
(John 18:37-38)
Pilate was sceptical. Very much like in todays post modern society he too was surrounded by a confusing variety of thoughts and opinions in his days of the early first century AD. He found himself tossed about by waves of materialism, idealism, superstition, scepticism and atheism.
The poor man had been confronted with too much "truth." How many philosophies, religions, how many world views claim to be the truth? Pilate knew that in his world of Roman politics and power struggles truth was not what mattered most. However, to people who want to follow God the question of truth is paramount importance.
What is truth anyway? The Hebrew word for "truth" is "'Emeth", which basically translates as "firmness, stability." The Greek word "Aletheia," can be rendered "the unveiled reality lying at the basis of and agreeing with an appearance." (See "The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, edited by Spiros Zodhiates, Th.D., AMG Publishers, Chattanoga, TN 37422, U.S.A., 1990) Truth by nature is exclusive. 3 x 1 always equals 1, it can not also equal 3 at the same time.
FORMULATING A TEST FOR TRUTH OF A WORLD VIEW
Let us consider briefly those tests for truth which have been set forth over the years. As shall be seen they are helpful in some respects but none of them can establish one world view, one systematic analysis and critical examination of life, over another.
Rationalism
It is the view that knowledge is independent of sense experience. Whatever is knowable or demonstrable by human reason is supposed to be true. Since there is no way to logically prove the laws of thought which are used to prove things this test already comes to an end in the beginning. It is circular reasoning to use logic as basis for proving logic. Even in the weak form, that of non contradictoriness, rationalism is insufficient. The fact that something does not contradict itself does not mean it is true. It only means that it is consistent within it's frame work of thought.
Fideism
It this view truth can not be established by reason but must be accepted on faith. Since contrary beliefs are possible it is not really a test but more a claim for truth.
Experientialism
According to this view what can be experienced is true. Since all world views claim to be able to have
special experiences it is also inadequate to establish truth.
Evidentialism
It is the view that what can be verified as a fact is true. While this test, like others, offers some significant contribution, the interpretation of facts depends on the perspective of a world view. If facts gain their meaning by the context, then they can not be used to determine the truth of the context. Evidentialism too leads us into circular reasoning and can therefore not be used to establish the truth of a world view.
Combinationalism, sometimes known as systematic consistency
It involves a combination of some of the previously evaluated and found to be inadequate tests for truth between different world views. In the same way that one defect car will not bring us any further than two defect cars, it will not be helpful in our search for truth.
Pragmatism
It holds that truth can not be thought or felt but it can be discovered by attempting to live it. Truth, according to this school of thought, is not what is consistent or adequate but what is experientially workable. However, since some things seem to work well, such as lying, but are nevertheless wrong, pragmatism, at best, manifests only the application but not the justification of a world view. As a test for truth it needs to be discarded.
Scepticism / Agnosticism
It is the view that, in the light of the above, truth can not be known. Complete scepticism by itself is a statement of truth. As such it is self defeating. Truth can not be denied unless some truth is being confirmed. In the limited form, namely that only some truths can not be known, it is unsuccessful because it does not eliminate the possibility that the truth of a world view can be known.
Undeniability and unafirmability
Whatever is undeniable is true, whether it is definitionally or existentially undeniable. If one view is undeniable, then conversely the other alternative views must be untrue since they are unaffirmable. As an example, a triangle, theoretically, by definition, must have three sides. If we find an existing triangle then it must actually have three sides. We shall now apply this only valid test for truth to the five main world views in order to establish the one which is true.
Deism
It holds that a god made the world but does not intervene in it in miraculous ways. The deistic position is inadequate because it is undeniable that if he has miraculously created the world then the strong possibility of him performing other miracles follows necessarily. It is unaffirmable to state that a god is concerned enough for man to create him but that he would later not intervene on his behalf.
Pantheism
It generally holds that God and the universe are ultimately absolutely identical. Pantheism is not affirmable by man because according to this concept he is not really different from God and therefore can not say, "God is but I am not," since one must exist in order to affirm that one does not exist. If we would be part of God , religious experience and indeed any other meaningful experience which has to be based on something or someone other than one self is impossible. Even those pantheists who allow for some reality to finite man will have to admit that this is a denial of the way man experiences himself. It is self defeating to claim that individual finite selves are less than real because then even statements such as, "pantheism is true" would be impossible.
Panentheism
It is believed that God and the universe are one but that he is, at the same time, greater than the universe. The world is supposedly in God but he also exists beyond the world. God is absolute, eternal, and infinite only in potentiality. However, he is relative and finite in actuality. This bipolar concept of God poses an insolvable problem. How should God be able to actualize his own potentialities? In the same way that this article is not going to be written by itself, an author is needed, someone outside God would be needed to actualize God's potentialities. Panentheism falls to the ground because a finite, changing God would need a infinite, unchanging basis for change since the relative always presupposes the absolute.
Atheism
This view denies the existence of God. As truth it does not measure up because he who says that the world has come into being by mere chance can only make this statement in the overall context of design.
Likewise whether or not something is meaningless can only be decided if meaning exists. In other words one must assume God in order to disprove God. For example, to say that God does not exist because of all the evil in this world is to presuppose the equivalent of God by way of an ultimate standard of justice. Furthermore, contrary to reason, Atheists are forced to believe that something finite, changing and dependant comes from nothing, that matter generated mind and that potentials actualize themselves.
Theism
This only remaining view affirms the existence of one transcendent and personal God who created and is involved with the world from which he is distinct. By the process of elimination Theism would be true since it is the only remaining noncontradictory world view. It also passes the test for truth for the following undeniable positive reasons:
It is undeniable that some things do exist. My nonexistence is logically possible since it is not absolutely necessary. Whatever has the potential not to exist must be caused to exist by another. This process of cause and effect can not go on forever because what receives existence from another can not be the ultimate cause of another's existence. In the beginning it must be based on something independent, a necessary being with pure actuality and no potentiality. If it was not so then even that cause would in reality only be an effect. Therefore a first uncaused cause of my existence exists. This uncaused cause must be infinite and perfect since nothing that is limited can cause itself. This infinitely perfect Being is correctly called "God," the one who is worthy of worship, of an ultimate commitment. Therefore God indeed exists and we do live in a theistic universe. ( For a more detailed reasoning please refer to "Christian Apologetics" by Norman Geisler, Baker Book House, Michigan, 1976, chapters 1-13)
WHERE IS THE TRUTH, IN CHRISTIANITY OR ISLAM?
Both, Christianity and Islam, are expressions of the theistic world view. In order to judge between the different truth claims of these two world religions we need to formulate a different test for truth:
Whatever is systematically consistent in that it explains most facts in the best way, not contradicting itself and in a manner that fits with the overall system will be true.
The test for truth within a world view will therefore not be based on undeniability as was the argument used to establish the truth between different world views. Rather, it will be based on a degree of probability.
Let us start with the most fundamental area where Christians and Muslims are of a different opinion.
What is the purpose of life in Christianity and Islam?
God created mankind for a purpose. The Quran quotes Allah as saying in Surah 51, Al Dhariyat, verse 56:
"I have only created Jinns and men, that they may serve me."
The word "serve", is a translation of the Arabic 'Ibadah," commonly rendered as, "worship." In this verse it means total obedience to Allah's commands. Muslims find their purpose in life by pleasing Allah through obeying his commands. (See "Islam, Beliefs and Teachings" by Ghulam Sarwar, the Muslim Educational Trust, London, 1984, page 15)
According to the Westminster Catechism the purpose of life for Christians is, "to glorify God and to enjoy him forever." This statement is based on verses such as:
Isaiah 43:7: "... every one who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made."
Psalm 37:4: "Take delight in the LORD, and he will give you the desires of your heart."
Whereas Christianity agrees with Islam in so far that one should obey God and in so doing one brings glory, honour to him, the aspect of fellowship with the Almighty is unique only to the God of the Bible! What a wonderful prospect Christians find expressed in the last book of the Bible describing their state in eternity:
"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband;
and I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them;
he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away."
And he who sat upon the throne said, "Behold, I make all things new." Also he said, "Write this, for these words are trustworthy and true."
And he said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the fountain of the water of life without payment.
He who conquers shall have this heritage, and I will be his God and he shall be my son."
(Revelation 21:1-7)
These comforting words are contrasted sharply in the picture the Quran conveys about paradise in Surah 55, Al Rahman. There it is a place overflowing with sensual delights, material riches but where Allah is not there:
"49 Then which of the favors of Your Lord will ye deny? --
50 In them (each) will be two Springs flowing (free);
51 Then which of the favors of Your Lord will ye deny? --
52 In them will be Fruits of every kind, two and two.
53 Then which of the favors of Your Lord will ye deny?
54 They will recline on Carpets, whose inner linings will be of rich brocade: The Fruit of the Gardens will be near (and easy of reach).
55 Then which of the favors of Your Lord will ye deny?
56 In them will be (Maidens), chaste, restraining their glances, whom no man or Jinn before them has touched; --
57 Then which of the favors of Your Lord will ye deny? --
58 Like unto rubies and coral.
59 Then which of the favors of Your Lord will ye deny?
60 Is there any Reward for Good--other than Good?
61 Then which of the favors of Your Lord will ye deny?
62 And besides these two, there are two other Gardens, --
63 Then which of the favors of Your Lord will ye deny? --
64 Dark green in color (from plentiful watering).
65 Then which of the favors of Your Lord will ye deny?
66 In them (each) will be two Springs pouring forth water in continuous abundance:
67 Then which of the favors of Your Lord will ye deny?
68 In them will be Fruits, and dates and pomegranates:
69 Then which of the favors of Your Lord will ye deny?
70 In them will be fair (Companions), good, beautiful; --
71 Then which of the favors of Your Lord will ye deny? --
72 Companions restrained (as to their glances), in (goodly) pavilions; --
73 Then which of the favors of Your Lord will ye deny? --
74 Whom no man or Jinn before them has touched; --
75 Then which of the favors of Your Lord will ye deny? --
76 Reclining on green Cushions and rich Carpets of beauty."
The Quranic view of paradise is already met here on earth by the rich and famous. However, experience shows that they are still not satisfied. The richest man in the world was once asked, "You have got everything one could wish for, is there still something you desire?" "Yes, I want more," was his sad reply.
The greatest need human beings have to live deeply fulfilling lives is never found in sensual delights and materialism alone but in love that expresses itself in caring fellowship. To a certain extent this heart felt need can be met in marriage, family and other relationships. However, since human beings are inclined to selfishness our ultimate need is only met in an imperfect way. Only a personal relationship with God in heaven, as offered in the Bible, can truly satisfy our hearts desire.
In this most fundamental of all issues, the quest for the purpose of life, Christianity is far more systematically consistent then Islam. According to the former, the meaning of life is not only reflected in men's deepest need but also met eventually by God himself in heaven. Christianity as taught in the Bible explains these facts in the best way, not contradicting itself and in a manner that fits with the overall system. It therefore must be true. This does not mean that there is no truth in the Quran. After all, about 75% of it has originated from the Bible even though many of the facts have changed quite considerably. The point is that the Bible alone contains all truth necessary for our salvation and it alone gives the reader instruction on how to live his life in a way pleasing to God.
The test for truth established and applied above will be applied to further areas of disagreement between Muslims and Christians on the following web page:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Abdul_Ibrahim
May prayer is that the attentive reader will be able to come to the right conclusion.
THE HISTORY OF THE QURAN AND THE INJIL
By A. Ibrahim
To study and understand history has always been a vital tool in developing a correct view on a wide variety of matters. In order to confirm the validity of the Injil, which is known as the New Testament, it will be necessary to look at its history and that of the Quran. In the Holy Book of Islam Christians are referred to as the people of the Injil. (Surah 5, Al Ma'idah, 47, all references refer to "The Meaning of The Holy Qur'an by Abdullah Yusuf 'Ali, Amana Publications, U.S.A., 1989) The literal meaning of the word is "Good News," or "Gospel". It is used in three ways:
Firstly, it refers to the Good News that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, on our behalf, and that he rose from the dead. (Mark 14:61-62, Luke 18:31-33, Matthew 26:27)
Secondly, the word "Gospel" has been used to describe the written accounts of Jesus' words and deeds. (e.g.the Gospel of Mattwew, Mark, Luke and John)
Thirdly, the term is used in the Quran to describe what is known to Christians as the New Testament, including the four Gospels already mentioned and the 23 other parts written by some of the early followers of Jesus under the inspiration of God. (Surah 5, Al Ma'idah, 111-113) This becomes clear when one looks at the evidence found in the Quran and in history.
Evidence from the Quran:
Surah 61, Al Saff, 14 mentions true Christians who prevailed in the time of Jesus, in the 1st century AD.
Surah 57, Al Hadid, 27 speaks about true believers in Christ who received their due reward at the beginning of monasticism, in the 4th century AD.
Surah 85, Al Buruj, 4-9 talks about believers who were ready to die for their faith. Hamidullah identifies them in the footnotes to his translation of the Quran as Christians who were persecuted in the sixth century by Dhu Nuwas, a Jewish king of Yemen. S. Abul A'la Maududi and Yusuf Ali also refer to that tragic incident as a possible explanation in the comments on those verses in their translations of the Quran.
Surah 5, Al Ma'idah, 66 mentions that some Jews and Christians were on the right course in Muhammad's (p.b.u.h.) time, the sixth century.
People could only be called "true Christian believers" if they were in possession of the Injil (Gospel), the New Testament given by God, otherwise they would not have been commended as they were. History tells us what was part of it.
Evidence from history:
The 27 parts that together make up the New Testament as we know it today in the twentieth century have been accepted as single letters already by the great majority of the early Christians in the first century AD. In order to be better equipped against false teachings, a list (called "canon") of the 27 books contained in the New Testament was officially approved by the Church in 397 AD at the Third Council of Carthage. ("An Introduction to the New Testament" by D.A. Carson, D.J. Moo, L. Morris, Apollos, 1992, pages 493, 495) It is this whole New Testament teaching that the Christians before and in Muhammad's (p.b.u.h.) time undoubtedly were following. They are described in the Quran verses above as:
-Those "who believed and received their due reward" in the fourth century. -Believers who died for their faith" in the sixth century. -Those who "were on the right course" in the sixth century.
Such favorable terms can only be used for those who followed the complete, unchanged, God given book. Therefore, both, Quran and history, confirm that the Arabic word "Injil" used in the Quran ("Gospel"), is identical with "the New Testament."
The following comparison shows that both, the Muslim and the Christian books, have gone through similar stages of developments. Therefore, if someone assumes that the Injil was changed in the course of time one would have to apply the same skepticism to the Quran as well.
THE BEGINNING OF THE QURAN
Revelations were given to Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) from around 610 AD. until shortly before his death in 632 AD. They lasted about 23 years. ("'Ulum Al-Quran", by Ahmad von Denffer, 1985, pages 54-55)
THE BEGINNING OF THE INJIL
Jesus started his public ministry in about 26 AD. This is known because in Luke 3, verse 1 it is related to the "...fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar..." Secular history verifies that Tiberius had authority in the provinces concerned beginning in 11 AD. (N.I.V. Study Bible, 1985, p.1540. The mentioning of three annual Jewish passover feasts (John 2, 6, 12) leads to the conclusion that he preached and taught for about three years until 29 AD.
MEMORIZATION OF THE QURAN
During the time revelations were received by the prophet of Islam, the Muslims were encouraged to memorize them: "Narrated Uthman bin Affan: The prophet said: 'The most superior among you are those who learn the Quran and teach it.'" (Bukhari, VI, No. 546, all of Bukhari's English translations in this comparison are taken from: "The translation of the meaning of Sahih al-Bukhari", 9 volumes, by Khan Muhammad Mushin, Istanbul, 1978)
"Narrated Abdullah bin Masud: Allah's Apostle said to me: 'Recite for me.' I said: 'Shall I recite it to you although it had been revealed to you?' He said: 'I like to hear from others'..." (Bukhari, VI, No.106)
MEMORIZATION OF THE INJIL
What Jesus said and did was memorized during his public ministry. This can be taken as certain for two reasons:
1. The first followers of Jesus were all Jewish. Jews have a strong tradition of memorizing their Scriptures and the teaching of their rabbi's. The Mishna (rules for right living and a commentary on the Torah) says: "A good pupil is like a plastered cistern that looses not a drop." (Aboth ii,8)
2. The seriousness of Jesus' teaching made a memorization absolutely necessary: "Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?...But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete." (Luke 6, verses 46, 49)
FIRST WRITTEN ACCOUNTS OF THE QURAN
The revelations Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) received were written down during his lifetime on different writing materials. However, they were not bound into one single book. This is confirmed by a report that says "when people came to Medina to learn about Islam, they were provided with copies of the chapters of the Quran, to read and learn them by heart." ("Sahifa Hammam ibn Munabbih," by Hamidullah, 1979, p.64)
FIRST WRITTEN ACCOUNTS OF THE INJIL
What Jesus said and did during his public ministry was also most probably written down during his lifetime. Papias, a hearer of John, one of Jesus' disciples wrote down the following tradition, or Christian Hadith, sometime between 120 and 130 AD: "Matthew compiled the sayings (of Jesus) in the Hebrew language." ("Church History" V.33,4.1, by Eusebius) Furthermore, Luke who wrote his account of the Gospel probably sometimes between 59 - 63 A.D. started of by saying: "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us..." (Luke 1:1)
Therefore it is very likely that the sayings of Jesus were also written down by numerous other peoples during his life time.
MAINLY ORAL TRANSMISSION OF THE QURAN FOR 43 YEARS
The revelations Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) received were passed on mainly orally for 43 years from 610 AD until 653 AD. At that time the Quran was officially written under the command of Uthman. During the first 22 years of this period the prophet of Islam was still alive. In case of doubt his followers could have consulted him immediately. Many of them also memorized the revelations under his personal guidance. More than 20 of those are mentioned by name in the Hadith. Among them were well know persons, such as Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Ibn Masud, Abu Huraira, Abdullah bin Abbas, Abdullah bin Amr bin al-As, Aisha, Hafsa and Umm Salama. ("Itqan" by Suyuti, I, p.124) Others went over the contents of the Quran with the prophet before his death. "Narrated Qatada: I asked Anas bin Malik: 'Who collected the Quran at the time of the prophet?' He replied, 'Four, all of whom were from the Ansar: Ubai bin Ka'b, Muadh bin Jabal, Zaid bin Thabit and Abu Zaid.'" (Bukhari, VI, No.525)
After the prophet's death they could be consulted and correct each other if there was any dispute that arose. Besides that, the tradition of memorizing the Quran has continued for many centuries throughout all generations until today.
In any case, secular history makes it clear that Islam spread within its first 25 years of the Hejira (the departure of Muhammad, p.b.u.h. from Mekkah) into many other countries outside Arabia. Damascus and Syria were taken in 13 AH. One year later Muslim armies made inroads into Persia. In 19 AH Egypt fell into Muslim hands. By 25 AH Islamic warfare brought success in Armenia, in northern Turkey. A lot of soldiers and leaders who conquered those far away countries had memorized at least parts of the Quran. They also knew about the historical events with regard to its beginnings. Within a short period of time the revelations Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) received spread in this way from Egypt to Persia and from Turkey to Arabia. Any changes within the Quran would surely have met with fierce opposition from all these parts of the world.
MAINLY ORAL TRANSMISSION FOR OF THE INJIL FOR 29-44 YEARS
The gospel was mainly passed on by oral means for 29 years from 26 AD until 55 AD when it's main teaching was first written down by Paul. This document, or book, is known as "1 Corinthians". (1 Cor. 15, verses 1-8, compare with Jesus' teaching in Matthew 26, verse 27 and Mark 14, verses 61-62 ) Its date is undisputed by all Biblical scholars. "1 Corinthians" is one of 27 parts that together form the New Testament. W.F. Albright, one of the world's best Biblical archaeologists, said: "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about 80 Ad." ("Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands" by Albright, 1955, p.136) Another renowned scholar summarizes that the whole New Testament was written before the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. ("Redating the New Testament" by Robinson, 1976). It is very interesting that those scholars who would disagree with the above conclusions studied the matter on the basis of theories known as "documentary hypothesis" and "form criticism". They both deny vehemently that the Gospel was revealed by God, and that miracles and prophecies can be possible. This is the reason why true Muslims and Christians alike, have to reject their views, also regarding many of the alleged contradictions found in the Bible. Sadly speaking these liberal scholars are mostly referred to by Muslim authors and speakers.
However, all scholars are in agreement that many of the New Testament books were written between 55 and 70 AD. In the light of this evidence the dates of 55 to 70 AD are taken as an average time period wherein the whole New Testament was officially written down. This allows for the balanced conclusion that the Gospel was transmitted predominantly by oral means for a period of 29-44 years.
During the first three years of this time Jesus was still with his followers. In case of doubt they could have consulted him. Afterwards, many of his disciples who memorized what they saw and heard concerning Jesus could remind each other in cases of dispute. In any case, Biblical sources (Acts 2, verses 5-11; 11, verses 19-20; 18 verses 1-2) and secular history make it clear that about 25 years after Jesus started his public ministry, many Christians were found all over the Eastern Mediterranean. They also spread to the West as far as Rome. Any changes to the Gospel would have been met with very fierce opposition from all these different parts of the world.
THE MAN WHO WROTE DOWN THE FIRST OFFICIAL COPY OF THE QURAN
The revelations given to Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) were not written down by himself: "Narrated al Bara: There was revealed 'Not equal are those believers who sit and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah' (Surah 4, Nisaa, verse 95). The prophet said: 'Call Zaid for me and let him bring the board, the ink pot and the scapula bone.' Then he said: 'Write: Not equal are those believers...'" (Bukhari,VI, No.512)
The Quran was written down during the prophets lifetime but only on loose pieces of different material. When at the battle of Yamama in 633 AD a number of Muslims were killed it was feared that part of the revelations might be lost. Therefore, Abu Bakr, the first Muslim leader after Muhammad's (p.b.u.h.) death, asked Zaid ibn Thabit to collect all the different writing materials on which the Quran was written down. This was his reaction: "...By Allah, if he (Abu Bakr) had ordered me to shift one of the mountains it would not have been harder for me than what he had ordered me concerning the collection of the Quran. I said to both of them, 'How dare you do what the prophet has not done?' Abu Bakr said, 'By Allah, it's a good thing'... So I started locating the Quranic material and collecting it from parchments, scapula, leafstalks of date palms and from the memories of men. I found with Khuzaima two verses of Surah Tauba which I had not found with anybody else..." (Bukhari,VI, No.201)
Even though those verses had only been found with one person and only one man, had the sole responsibility to collect the first official Quran, Muslims believe it contained all the revelations given to their prophet.
THE MEN WHO WROTE DOWN THE FIRST OFFICIAL COPIES OF THE INJIL
The message Jesus brought was not written down by himself. As already mentioned, Matthew, one of his disciples wrote down what he said and did in the Hebrew language. These things were also memorized by the followers of Jesus. The first four books of the New Testament contain the words and deeds of Jesus. They were written down by four different authors, Matthew, Mark, Luke (he also wrote "Acts") and John (he also wrote "1,2,3 John" and "Revelation"). These men wrote under God's inspiration (2 Peter 1, verses 20-21) for different communities with different needs. The book of Matthew, for example was originally directed at Jewish readers. The book of Mark on the other hand was written for Gentiles. (see N.I.V. Study Bible, 1985, pages 1439, 1490)
God inspired the authors to write down the known words and deeds of Jesus in their particular fashion, according to the needs of the original recipients of their books. They, like the other writers of New Testament books, Paul, Peter, James and Jude, were either eyewitnesses or had first hand knowledge of Jesus' ministry. The remaining 23 books of the New Testament again addressed different needs. God inspired the authors to comment and elaborate on the words and facts of Jesus' ministry. Muslims and Christians alike believe that inspiration from God comes in different ways but nevertheless in as great a degree, that means, in the same perfect quality. (See also "Dictionary of Islam" by T.P. Hughes, 1988, p.213)
VARIANT READINGS IN THE QURAN
A number of Hadith mention that several of Muhammad's (p.b.u.h.) companions wrote down their own collections of the revelations. ("Itqan I" by Suyuti, p.62)
The most well known among them are: Ibn Masud He claimed to have learned some seventy Surahs directly from the prophet. Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) told other people to learn the Quran from him and three others. (Bukhari, 6, No.521) However, Surah 1, 113 and 114 were missing in his collection. (Fihrist, I, pages 53-57)
Ubay bin Kab The prophet's secretary in Medina. He is one of the other three mentioned above whom the prophet recommended as a teacher of the Quran. His collection contained two additional Surahs and an otherwise unknown verse. ("Itqan I" by Suyuti, p.65; "Masahif" by Ibn Abi Dawud, pages 180-181, also "Geschichte des Quran's" by Noeldeke, pages 33-38) His text was widely used in Syria before the appearance of Uthman's text.
Abu Musa His collection was used by the people of Basra. It was identical with the material of Ubai bin Kab.
These different collections of the Quran contained also many variant readings. More than 1700 are attributed to Ibn Masud alone. ("Materials for the history of the text of the Quran" by A. Jeffry,1937)
Muhammad Hamidullah divides them into four classes in the introduction to his French translation of the Quran (p.XXXIII):
A) Variants caused by a copy mistake. They can be detected easily by comparing with other manuscripts.
B) Variant readings caused by accidentally adopting marginal notes into the text of the Quran.
C) Variations caused by Muhammad's (p.b.u.h.) permission to recite the revelations in different dialects.
D) Variations caused by the fact that the Quran was copied without vowel marks and without dots to distinguish between different letters that were written in the same way. (Only 15 different forms of letters present 28 letters)
Most of the variant readings have very little significance with regard to the meaning of the text. Only a rew present some problems, such as: Surah 5, Maida, verse 63 19 alternate readings have been identified, some of which change the actual meaning of the verse. 14 changes were caused by changing the vowel combinations. In the remaining 5 cases one or two consonants were added. (Ibid, by A. Jeffery, pages 39, 129, 198, 216, 237)
Surah 33, Alizab, verse 6 "The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers..."
"...In some Qiraats, like that of Ubai ibn Kab, occur also the word " and he is a father to them..." ("The Holy Quran" by A. Yusuf Ali, 1975, note 3674)
Only reports in the hadith about these variants have survived. But none of them changes any doctrine of the Quran in the slightest way.
VARIANT READINGS IN THE INJIL
There are about 5500 Greek manuscripts still existent which contain the whole or part of the New Testament. ("Answers to tough questions" By Josh Mc Dowell and Don Stewart, 1980, p.4)
Many of them contain a number of variant readings mostly caused by grammatical differences. They are often spread throughout all of the 5500 manuscripts. That is why a variant spelling of one letter of one word within one verse in 3000 manuscripts is considered to be 3000 variant readings. They are usually printed in the margin of today's translations which are based on manuscripts written from the second to the fourth century AD. All variant readings arising from mistakes that happened in later years have therefore no effect on the present translations. In order to get the right understanding of the problem it also needs to be studied in the context of the whole Injil. The well known textual scholars Westcott and Hort came to the conclusion that only one-sixtieth of all variant readings would rise above "trivialities." This leaves a text 98.33 percent pure. ("General Introduction to the Bible" by N.L. Geisler and W.E. Nix, Moody Press, Chicago, 1986, page 365). A. T. Robertson, another great expert in this field, said, that the real concern is only with a "thousandth part of the entire text." ("An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament" by A.T. Robertson, Broadman, Nashville, 1925, page 22)
Because all manuscripts have been carefully preserved a scholarly study is possible to determine the correct readings. The following criterias are important in this science:
A) The age of the manuscript If a variant occurs in younger manuscripts but is not found in older ones, this shows that it is incorrect.
B) The frequency of variants If a variant reading is only found in a few manuscripts but not in the majority of others it can also be identified as incorrect.
As seen above, most of the variant readings are of very little significance with regard to the meaning of the text. Only a few present some problems, such as:
1 John 5, verses 7,8 This verse, as it appears in some older English versions only, adds some words that speak about the Tri-unity of God. "But the addition is not found in any Greek manuscripts or NT translation prior to the 16th century." (N.I.V. Study Bible, 1985, p. 1913) It was probably a marginal note that was translated by mistake as part of the text.
Mark 16, verses 9-20 These verses summarize the ministry of Jesus. The literal translation of verse 8 reads: "Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone. They were afraid for..." The last word in this verse is a translation from the Greek conjunction "gar". Metzger, a leading scholar in New Testament greek says that in all Greek literature "no instance has been found where "gar" stands at the end of a book." ("Text of the New Testament" by Metzger, pages 226-229)
He lists two possible solutions to this problem: 1) Mark was interrupted in his writing and prevented (maybe by death) from finishing. 2) The last leaf was lost before other copies could be made.
Verses 9-20 therefore present a marginal note that accidentally became part of the text.
John 7, verse 53-8, verse 11 In these verses a woman who has committed adultery is brought before Jesus by Jewish teachers. They want to test how he judges her. "This story may not have belonged originally to the Gospel of John. It is absent from almost all the important early manuscripts, and those that have it sometimes place it elsewhere. But the story may well be authentic." (N.I.V. Study Bible, 1985, p. 1611)
The famous historian Philip Schaff said that none of these variant readings affected "an article of faith or a precept of duty which is not abundantly sustained by other and undoubted passages, or by the whole tenor of Scripture teaching." ("Companion to the Greek Testament and English Version" by Philip Schaff, Harper, New York, 1883, page 177)
OLDEST COPY OF THE QURAN AS KNOWN TODAY
The many variant reading caused Muslim soldiers from Iraq who followed Ibn Masud's collection, and soldiers of Syria who took Ubay's collection to be the correct one, to accuse each other of lying.
Uthman's reaction in 653 AD is recorded in the following Hadith: "Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, 'Send us the manuscripts of the Quran so that we may compile the Quranic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you'. Hafsa sent it to Uthman, Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, Abdullah bin Az-Zubair, Said bin Al-As and Abdur Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, 'In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Quran, then write it in the dialect of Quraish as the Quran was revealed in their tongue.' They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Quranic materials whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burned. Zaid bin Thabit added, 'A verse from Surah 33, Alizab, (verse 23) was missed by me when we copied the Quran and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari...'" (Bukhari, VI, No.510)
In spite of the radical measures taken there still is a verse missing in today's Quran: "Abdullah bin Abbas reported that Umar bin Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allahs messenger and said: 'Verily Allah sent Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) with truth and he sent down the book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down the book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it...I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget) and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the book of Allah, and this go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah...'" (Bukhari, VIII, No.816, Muslim, III, No. 4194)
The verse can not have been abrogated because the messenger of Islam was the only one who was authorized to do so. By the time the problem arose he was dead. The only reference found in today's Quran reads: "The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog each of them with a hundred stripes..." (Surah 24, Nur, verse 2)
Perhaps for reasons such as this Ibn Masud opposed the new official version of the Quran with the following words:
"The Prophet taught me to recite 70 Surahs which I had mastered before Zaid had even become a Muslim. How can you order me to recite the readings of Zaid, when I recited from the very mouth of the Prophet some 70 Surahs? Am I to abandon what I acquired from the very lips of the Prophet?" ("Masahif" by Ibn Abi Dawud)
After having studied the early surviving Quran manuscripts very thoroughly John Gilchrist states: "The oldest manuscripts of the Quran still in existence date from not earlier than about one hundred years after Muhammdad's death." ("Jam' Al-Qur'an", page 153)
He comes to this conclusion because two of the oldest manuscripts, the Samarqand and Topkapi codices are both written in the Kufic script. It "can generally be dated from the late eight century depending on the extent of development in the character of the script in each case." (Ibid. page 146)
OLDEST COPY OF THE INJIL AS KNOWN TODAY
The present translations of the New Testament (the Gospel, Injil) are based on the following, oldest manuscripts:
A) P 75 It is dated around 200 AD and originally contained "Luke" and "John" on 144 pages. 102 pages, that is about 70%, still exist today.
B) P 46 It is also dated around 200 AD and originally contained 10 books of the New Testament, written by Paul. Of the 114 pages 86, that is about 75% still exist today. Translations of the New Testament into Latin and Syriac were made between 150-180 AD. Copies of them from the fourth and fifth century AD exist today. They confirm the 70-75% existing texts of the manuscripts P 75 and P 46. Therefore it is valid to assume that the 25-30% and the rest of the New Testament books which have not survived from around 200 AD, also agreed originally.
C) Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus They are both dated around 350 AD, shortly after the beginning of monasticism, and contain all New Testament books. According to the Quran (Surah 57, Al Hadid, verses 27-28) true Christians were still around at that time. Since one can only be a true Christian if he possesses and lives according to the true teaching of the New Testament, this is further evidence that the two codices remained unchanged. They both confirm the manuscripts P 75 and P 46 and also the Latin and Syriac translations. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are used to translate those parts of today's New Testament which are missing from P 75 and P 46.
The 27 books that together form the New Testament were accepted as authentic by the different, early Christian communities. But because of the fast expansion of Christianity and the growing number of heretic writings (Apocryphals: the prophet of Islam faced the same problem in Musailama who claimed to have received revelations too, see "Dictionary of Islam" by P. Hughes, 1988, p.422) it became necessary to write down officially the names of the New Testament books. There was no need for this process until around the end of the fourth century when the Syriac Church accepted some Apocryphals to be part of the Bible. This happened even though the Peshitta, the Syriac Bible of the second century A.D. did not contain them. Until the end of the fourth century there was common agreement among the Christians as to which books were part of the Gospel.
Sadly, the Roman Catholic Church too accepted some heretic writings as part of the Bible but only in 1563 as a reaction to the Protestant Reformation. By doing so they legitimized their reference to them in desputed doctrinal matters. ("Answers to tough questions", by Josh Mc Dowell, 1980, page 37)
The oldest known copies of almost half of the New Testament that are still in existence, are dated about 200 AD, that is 130-174 years after they were originally written. It is important to realize that all the main Christian doctrines are there in contained! The oldest copy of the complete New Testament (Gospel) which still exists today is dated around 350 AD, that is 280-324 years after it was first written down.
CONCLUSION
The first written accounts of both, the Quran and the Gospel were made during the life of Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) and Jesus respectively. In both cases the transmission took place mainly orally. The Quran was passed on in that way for about 43 years, the Gospel for 29-44 years.
Muslims and Christians alike believe that God inspired their holy book and that He watched over the process when it was memorized and later written down. In spite of numerous variant readings in both books, Muslims and Christians believe that they possess essentially what God had intended them to receive. For good reasons both communities believe that their books had been carefully preserved in the beginning and ever since.
THE QURAN CONFIRMS: TODAY'S BIBLE IS UNCHANGED
By A. Ibrahim
Muslims and Christians believe in the infallibility of the original Biblical manuscripts. But many adherents of Islam think that today's Bible has undergone substantial changes with regard to its early manuscripts and their translated versions. However, the Quran does not support this claim unanimously! In fact it makes it clear that the Bible, known as the Torah and the Injil, was found reliable in Muhammad's (p.b.u.h) time, the sixth century. To prove that the twentieth century Bible is still authentic it only has to be compared with a copy from the sixth century.
All quotations are taken from "The Meaning of the Holy Quran" translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali and published by Armana Corporation, U.S.A., 1989.
Because of a lack of space it has not always been possible to print whole verses. The reader is encouraged to look up the references and their contexts in either the Quran or the Bible.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE QURAN ABOUT THE RELIABILITY OF THE BIBLE
1.)
And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that) was before thee... (Surah 10, Jonah, verse 94)
"Those who have been reading the book from before thee" are Jews and Christians who read the Torah and the Injil (Gospel)! If they were reading corrupted holy books, their minds would have been influenced by many misconceptions. It would therefore make no sense for Allah to command those who are in doubt to ask Jews and Christians who allegedly were mislead by changed Scriptures! In order to follow the mandate in this verse it is absolutely necessary to believe that the Scriptures before Islam are uncorrupted!
Here the question may be asked: "Are what is known as the Torah and the Injil in Muhammad's (p.b.u.h.) time identical with today's Bible that contains the Old and the New Testament?" Regarding the Injil an affirming answer has already been given in "The History of the Quran and the Injil." The Old Testament too is identical with the Torah as seen from the following reasoning:
The Hebrew word "Torah" means literally "law", "instruction". It refers to the revelations given to Moses. "The term was often applied to the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament, e.g. 1 Chronicles 16:40) as a whole; and as the importance of the Prophets and Writings grew, it was sometimes used to describe them all as divinely revealed instructions and traditions." ("Dictionary of Beliefs and Religions" by Rosemary Goring, Wordsworth Editions Ltd, 1995)
Evidence from the Bible
Sometimes when the law is spoken of in the Injil, the New Testament, it is used in the all including sense. In Romans 3 Paul quotes verses from the book of Psalms and from the Prophets but then he concludes in verse 19 with, "what the law (Torah) says..." (See also 1 Cor. 14:21)
Jesus himself referred to the Psalms as "the law (Torah)" in John 10:34. Another example is found in John 12:34 where the Jews speak of verses from Psalms 89:36, Isaiah 9:7, and Daniel 7:14 as "the law (Torah)".
In the Quran too the meaning of "Torah" where all 39 books of the Old Testament are included is used. This becomes clear when one looks at the evidence found in the Quran, and in history:
Evidence from the Quran:
Several verses in the Quran bear witness to the truth that the Torah was unchanged at the time of Jesus.
In Surah 19, Maryam, verse 12, Yahya, who lived at the time of Jesus was told "to take hold of the Book, (the Torah)."
Surah 3, Ali'Imran, verse 48 tells us that Jesus was also taught in the Torah.
Numerous verses, such as Surah 34, Saba, verse 31, Surah 35, Fatir, verse 31, attest to the truth that the Torah was uncorrupted in the time of Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) in the sixth century A.D. The Arabic phrase "bain yadaihi" which is used in these references to the Torah literally means "between his hands". Dr. W. Campbell writes in his book "The Quran and the Bible in the light of history and science", (Middle East Resources, 1994, page 37) "...usually it is an idiom for "in his presence", or "in his power", or "in his possession," or "at his disposal..."(see also Surah 34, Saba', verse 12)
In the Quran some Jewish contemporaries of Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) are called "those who guide and do justice in the light of truth," besides many others whose reputation was not so favorable in the sixth century. (Surah 7, Al Araf, verse 159, see also Surah 5, Al Ma'idah, verse 66) The very fact that they were commended so highly shows that they were in possession of the uncorrupted Torah. History tells us what was part of it.
Evidence from history
Like in the case of the Injil, the New Testament, the formation of an official list (canon) of the books that were part of it took a considerable time. When finally an official list was approved it was done so in defense against a growing number of heretical writings. The official list merely confirmed what had been accepted by the Jews centuries before. Then it was unnecessary because there was a common agreement as to which writings were part of the Torah.
After giving nine solid reasons for an early formation of the canon of the Old Testament, the authors of "An Introduction to the new Testament" (by D. Carson, D.J. Moo, L. Morris, Apollos, 1992, pages 491-92) conclude saying, "It appears, then, that there is adequate evidence to support the view that there was a (closed) canon of Scripture to serve as a model in the formation of the New Testament canon. Even if this point be disputed, there is entirely convincing evidence that the Torah (here meaning the Pentateuch) and the Prophets were viewed as closed collections by the first century A.D."
The Illustrated Bible Dictionary (by F.F.Bruce, 1980, IVP, Leicester) concludes an extensive research by saying that the whole Hebrew Bible canon as we know it today existed around 200 B.C.
2.)
All food was lawful to the Children of Israel, except what Israel made unlawful for itself, before the Law (of Moses) was revealed. Say,"Bring ye the Law and study it, if ye be men of truth." (Surah 3, Al-i-'Imran, verse 93)
In this specific incident the Jews are asked to bring their own Law, the Torah. They are commanded by God to study it in order to find the right answer to a particular question. Maududi, the renowned Islamic scholar, said, that it addressed the difference between Muslims and Jews in regard to eating the meat of camels, hares and coneys. In opposition to Islam, Judaism prohibits the eating of them according to today's Torah (Deuteronomy 14:7). "But, the open challenge of the Quran to them to bring the Torah in proof thereof shows that the commandments referred to above did not exist in the Torah at that time and were inserted afterwards; otherwise the Jews would have at once accepted the challenge of the Quran and presented the commandments thereof." (See, "The meaning of the Quran", Vol. I, 12th Edition 1992, by S. Abdul Maududi, Islamic Publications (Pvt) LTD., Pakistan, comment on Surah 6, Al-Anam, verse 145, (hereafter referred to as "Maududi")
This view is problematic because it ignores the fact that today's English translations of the Torah, such as the N.I.V., are based on the Masoretic text the standard edition of the Hebrew Old Testament. It was prepared by Jewish scholars, called Masoretes, mainly from 500 to the 950 A.D. They introduced vowel points into the consonantal (consonants only) Hebrew text. They also studied each letter, word and phrase and wrote marginal notes commenting on proper grammar and spelling. (See, "The World Book Encyclopedia", Volume 2, 1982, U.S.A., page 222b
Furthermore the translators compared it with a number of other sources still in existence today, the most important of which are:
The Dead Sea Scrolls, written in Hebrew at about 100 B.C., discovered in the late 1940's and early 1950's in Palestine. "Among the fragments discovered are complete copies or parts of every Old Testament book except Esther, and the variations in the text after a thousand years of copying are minimal." (See, "Answers to Tough Questions", by Josh Mc Dowell and Don Stewart, 1980, U.S.A.)
The Septuagint, a translation of the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, at about 250 B.C.
The Syriac Peshitta, a translation of the whole Bible into the common language of certain parts of Syria, from either the first or second century A.D.
The Vulgate, the entire Bible translated into Latin at about 400 A.D.
In none of the above sources is Deuteronomy 14:7, the verse under consideration, missing! Looking at all the evidence one can impossibly say that it was missing in the prophet of Islam's time and only later inserted into the text!
3.)
But why do they come to thee for decision, when they have (their own) Law before them?- Therein is the (plain) command of God; yet even after that, they would turn away. For they are not (really) people of faith. (Surah 5, Maida, verse 43)
Maududi comments on this verse: "...sometimes, when their own law did not suit them, they would take their cases to the Holy Prophet in the hope that they might obtain a more favorable decree from him than they could from their own law." (Ibid)
This shows clearly that even corrupted Jews would never change the written Torah! They were only prepared to conceal the meaning of it. In spite of their wickedness, they did not dare to change the written form of the Torah! That is why, according to the Quran, Allah told them to look up their own law in which is the plain command of God!
4.)
Let the People of the Gospel judge by what God hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what God hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel. (Surah 5, Maida, verse 47)
This command is given to Muhammad's (p.b.u.h) contemporaries, it is written in the "present" tense which in the Arabic language can also refers to the future! If the Gospel (Injil) was corrupted at that time then surely Allah would never have asked the people of the Gospel, the Christians, to believe in it!
5.)
If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course: But many of them follow a course that is evil. (Surah 5, Maida, verse 69)
The fact that there were Jews and Christians "on the right course" in Muhammad's (p.b.u.h.) time confirms the Torah and the Gospel to be unchanged in the 6th century A.D.! Certainly, they could never have been described in such an honorable way if they had "stood fast" by corrupted Holy Books!
6.)
Say: "O People of the Book! Ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord...." (Surah 5, Al Ma'idah, verse 68)
7.)
No change can there be in the Words of Allah. This is indeed the supreme Felicity. (Surah 10, Junus, verse 64)
No Muslim would doubt that the Torah and the Injil are words of Allah too! Therefore, it is impossible for man to change them. God has the power to watch over His word and to preserve it.
The passages above attest to the fact that the Bible, consisting the Torah (Old Testament) and the Injil (New Testament) was unchanged and trustworthy in the time of Muhammad (p.b.u.h.), that is in the 6th century A.D!
IS ONLY PART OF THE BIBLE TRUSTWORTHY?
Many Muslims are told that only parts of the Bible remained unchanged. Faith is only put in those statements which are supposed to confirm one's own opinions. Some Jews did the same in the days of Muhammad (p.b.u.h). The verse that was revealed to him on that occasion is still relevant for all those who make the same error:
...Then is it only a part of the Book that ye believe in, and do ye reject the rest? But what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life? - And on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty. For Allah is not unmindful of what ye do. (Surah 2, Baqara, verse 85)
DOES THE QURAN DECLARE THAT THE BIBLE HAS CHANGED?
First of all, it needs to be noted that the Quran nowhere explicitly states the Injil (Gospel) was changed! But what about the Torah? History shows that whenever God revealed Himself, most of His people fell into disobedience after a period of time. So it was with the Jews. In spite of this sad fact there were always, up to this very day, good Jews who remain true to the book God gave them:
Of the people of Moses there is a section who guide and do justice in the light of truth. (Surah 7, A'raf, verse 159)
God's word is truth and good Jews surely would never have changed the meaning or even the words of their Holy Book! Let us now examine what bad Jews did to the Torah:
There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (as they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, 'That is from God,' but it is not from God: It is they who tell a lie against God and (well) they know it! (Surah 3, Al-i-'Imran, verse 78)
In the verse quoted above the Jews are reading parts of their Book wrongly while the written words remain unchanged.
But because of their breach of their Covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard: They change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the Message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them - barring a few - ever bent on (new) deceits: But forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): For God loveth those who are kind. (Surah 5, Maida, verse 13)
The phrase "They change the words from their (right) places" could mean that they tampered with the text of the Book. However, the second possibility, that the true meaning was distorted, not the text itself, (see also Surah 5, Ma'idah, verse 44) will have to be given preference in the light of the wider context (see above) which clearly shows that:
-The unchanged Torah was with the Jews of Muhammad's (p.b.u.h) time. (Surah 5, Al Ma 'idah, verses 43,68)
-It was referred to by the Prophet in matters of dispute. (Surah 3, Ali 'Imran, verse 93)
In Surah 2, Al Baqarah, verses 75-79 (in verse 75 Jews are listening to the Quran being recited); Surah 4, Al Nisa, verse 46;, the Jews are accused of changing, writing down wrongly, what Muhammad (p.b.u.h) said. After checking all these references it becomes clear that the Torah remained unchanged!
WHAT DOES THE HADITH SAY ABOUT THE BIBLE?
For many Muslims the Hadith provides a key to the correct understanding of the Quran. It is therefore most interesting to see what it has to say about the accuracy of the Jewish-Christian Scriptures.
According to a tradition found in Mishkat al-Masabith, Book II, chapter 1, pages 62,63, Muhammad (p.b.u.h) confirms that the Jews and the Christians read the Torah and the Gospel. He does not say anything about them being corrupted!
In Bukhari's chapter "How revelation first began" we read that the prophet of Islam was taken to Khadijah's cousin, Waraqa ben Naufal. He used to translate the Torah and the Gospel as God granted him strength. It does not say that he translated corrupted Holy Books!
In the Mishkat al-Masabith, Book XVI, chapter 1, page 758, we read how Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) judges according to the Torah that is before him without saying anything about it being changed!
Out of the numerous traditions about this subject there is only one reference found in Bukhari, Sahih, Kitab al-Shahada, number 29, which says that the people of the Book changed it's actual text.
It may be possible that individual Jews in Arabia corrupted distinct texts of the Torah. Some Muslims would interpret Surah 2, Baqara, verses 78-79 to refer to the Torah and not to the Quran as mentioned above. But what about all the copies found already in other parts of the world? It is not possible that they have been changed in the same way. Besides that, the Christians who also believe in the Torah of the Jews, were known to be in great opposition to them. How could they have come together to corrupt their common Scriptures?
Therefore, it can be taken as a proven fact that the Bible has not been changed before the time of Muhammad (p.b.u.h). Otherwise God would have demanded to believe in Scriptures that were already corrupted. If we assume that changes were made while or after the prophet's time, we can simply compare a twentieth century copy with one that was written before the sixth century. The result will be that all the teaching remained the same!
HAS THE BIBLE BEEN ABROGATED?
Most of the islamic scholars agree that either the Quran abrogates certain revelations within the Quran only, or, in addition to that also parts of the Sunna.
Other scholars hold the view that the Sunna can abolish the Quran as well as the Sunna. Only a few, among them the Ahmadiyyas, teach that the Quran actually annuls the Bible. (For more details see "'Ulum al-Quran" by Ahmad von Denffer, Islamic Foundation U.K., pages 104-113)
This minority is wrong for two main reasons:
In Surah 5, Al Ma'idah, verse 48 the Quran is spoken of as confirming the Scripture that was before it and as a watcher over it. The Arabic meaning of the word "watch" (Muhaimin) can also be rendered "one who safeguards", "stands witness", "preserves" and "upholds". (See Abdullah Yusuf Ali's footnote) This clearly contradicts the view that the revelations given to the prophet of Islam allegedly abrogated the Bible! If this was the case there would be no need to confirm the Torah and the Gospel or even to watch over them in such a determined way.
In Surah 2, Al Baqarah, verse 106 the principle of abrogation is explained: For every revelation that is abrogated something better or similar is substituted. If this verse would refer to the abrogation of the Gospel through the Quran it would mean that the teaching of the former book would be inferior or at least similar to the latter one.
The essence of Christianity consists of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ which is totally rejected by Islam. (see also 1 Corinthians 15:14) The Bible teaches that through faith in Jesus' work the assurance of forgiveness of sin, of eternal life in God's presence through grace (God's undeserved favor) is available to everyone! He who puts his faith into practice by obeying what the Gospel says will benefit from all these blessings.
Surely this wonderful teaching can not be called inferior or similar to the doctrines of the Quran! There we read about how people may get forgiveness from God through their good works and, if He is willing, by His mercy. Paradise will be a place where God is absent. In Surah 76, Dahr, verse 5 and Surah 56, Waqi'a, verses 35-38 we read that what was forbidden on earth will be legal (drinking of wine, and having sexual relationships with many virgins). The prophet taught a real and literal interpretation of these sensual delights in heaven. (See Sahihu Muslim, Mishkat book 23, chapter 13) It normally can only be entered after having spent some time in hell first.
Furthermore, the minority who says the principle of abrogation given in Surah 2, Al Baqarah, verse 106, applies to the Bible will be left without guidelines as regards to their own book. They will have to depend on a later, unsure historical development about the code of abrogation in order to deal with passages such as:
In Surah 58, Al Mujadilah, verse 12, the believers are commanded to give alms before a private consultation with the Messenger. In verse 13 they are told that it is no longer necessary.
In Surah 33, Al Ahzab, verses 50-51 Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) is allowed to marry and divorce an unlimited number of women. In verse 52 he is prohibited to continue to do so.
In Surah 73, Al Muzzammil, verses 2-4, the prophet of Islam is commanded to spend about half of the night in prayer and reading of the Quran. In verse 20 of the same Surah this is changed into what is easy for him and those who followed his example.
CONCLUSION
The attentive reader is left with a fundamental problem of discrepancy. A number of Biblical teachings (at least as they were believed by some of the prophets contemporaries) are described as erroneous in the Quran. Yet the latter confirms the former to be the unchanged word of God! Surah 4, Nisaa, verse 82 says that the Quran is not from God if one finds discrepancies in it! Furthermore, Muslims who say that the Bible is corrupted also contradict their own book.
Many sincere Muslims who leave room in their hearts for the possibility that they could be wrong in the beliefs they were taught from early childhood, will be left deeply moved after reading this article. It is those Muslims the author of it can identify with. His life too was worked out for him by others. For a number of years he lived more or less comfortably within the boundaries set by people often "in the name of God".
Confronted by many other religions and ideas of how to live a meaningful live he set out to discover the truth for himself. In that process, realizing that it is impossible to detect infinite reality as a finite being, he prayed wholeheartedly, "God if you are there, show me which way is the right one."
A few days later he heard the Eternal One speaking through some passages of the Bible which was given to him by a friend! After confessing his sins he asked Jesus to come in his life and use it for his glory. Since that incredible experience the author's life changed literally like day and night! He now follows Jesus Christ who died for his sins on the cross, who rose again on the third day, who promises eternal life in heaven and who says:
Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. Jeremiah 29:12-13
Whoever comes to me I will never drive away. John 6:37
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the word was God. The word became flesh and made his dwelling among us....He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him....Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God. John 1:1,14,11
The author lovingly pleads with you to pray to God to reveal to you who Jesus really is!
MUHAMMAD
A: Introduction
All of us have had discussions with Muslims concerning our different beliefs. If your experience has been like mine, in order to dialogue convincingly with a Muslim about his beliefs, you have had to bring up the thorny question concerning the foundation for his beliefs. And in order to speak to those foundations, you have had to speak to the issue concerning the founder (as far as the Muslims world is concerned) for those beliefs.
According to Muslim Tradition (as opposed to historical and scientific evidence) Islam was created by Allah, but the final and truest revelations of Islam were "passed down" (Nazil) to humanity via the angel Jibril (Gabriel), to Muhammad. Muhammad, therefore is the final authority for Allah's revelation here on earth.
Consequently, if we are to dialogue with a Muslim it is imperative that we begin with the expounder for their beliefs, Muhammad. It is he who takes on the mantle of the "seal of the prophets," the final and greatest spokesman for God.
But where is the proof for such a title? How is he any different from any other man or thinker or statesman who came before; or after, for that matter? In Isaiah 41:21-23 we find a challenge to those who claim to come in the name of the Lord. Isaiah writes:
"'Present your case,' says the Lord. 'Set forth your arguments,' says Jacob's King. 'Bring in your [proofs] to tell us what is going to happen. Tell us what the former things were, so that we may consider them, and know their final outcome. Or declare to us the things to come, tell us what the future holds, so that we may know you are gods.'
Like Isaiah in his day, we make the same challenge today, asking Muslims to provide us with proof for Muhammad's prophethood. Let us then see the case for their argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B: Is Muhammad a Prophet?
Muslims point to not just one proof but to a number of areas, which they feel, substantiate their claim to Muhammad's prophethood. It would be helpful to look at these areas, and come to some conclusion as to whether they are legitimate claims for his prophethood.
B1: The Muslim Position
The name Muhammad, like Ahmed, means "the Praised One." It is more than likely that this was not his initial name, but was the name attributed to him later on in life once he became the recognized prophet to the Arabs. Scholars believe that his childhood name was "Amin," named after his mother "Amina" who died when he was 6 years old.
His father was called "Abdullah," but Muhammad never knew him as he died before he was born. After the death of his mother Muhammad was brought up by his grandfather, and following his death by his uncle, Abu Talib. In his youth Muhammad travelled widely with camel trading caravans. It is at this point, according to Muslim Tradition, that certain things happened to him which were indicators of his special status among men.
B1i: A supernatural witness points to Muhammad's prophethood
When he was three years old, two angels came and took out his heart from his chest, cleaned it with ice water, put it back and left. In doing so they supposedly prepared him for his mission on earth.
Another story which comes via Muslim Tradition mentions that after the death of his grandfather Abdu-Mutalib, Muhammad went to visit a Catholic monk with his uncle Abu-Talib. It is reported that the monk saw a cloud specifically protect Muhammad from the sun. It was then that he knew that he would be someone special.
At the age of twenty-five he married Khadijah, a widow fifteen years his senior, who was in fact his employer. The marriage was a happy one, and two boys and four girls were born to them, though the two boys did not live to a mature age. Khadija died after twenty-five years of marriage to Muhammad. During that time Muhammad never took another wife.
In 612 C.E. Muhammad became withdrawn and frequently went for meditation to Mt. Hira, which is situated close to Mecca. Here, according to tradition he had his first revelation.
In the Mishkat-ul-Massabih, vol.IV, pp.356-357 we read about this first revelation as reported by Aisha, Muhammad's favorite wife:
"The first revelation which began to be revealed to the Apostle of Allah was a correct dream in sleep. He did not see a dream but it came like the morning dawn. Thereafter loneliness became dear to him and he used to seclude himself to the cave of Hira and engaged therein in deep devotion (and it is divine service) for many nights before he went to his house and provided himself with food therefor. Then he would return to Khadija and take provision for the like of them (nights) until the truth came unto him while he was in the cave of Hira. The angel appeared before him and said, 'Read.' He said, 'I cannot read.' He narrated: Then he took me and pressed me hard till there came great exhaustion on me; thereafter he let me off and said, 'Read.' I replied, 'I cannot read.' Then he took me and pressed me hard for the second time until there appeared a great exhaustion on me; thereafter he let me off. He said, 'Read.' I said, 'I cannot read.' Then he took me and pressed me a third time till there appeared a great exhaustion on me; thereafter he let me off. He said, 'Read in the name of your Lord who created, created man from a clot. Read and your Lord is the Most Generous, who taught with the pen, taught man what he knew not.' Then the prophet returned therewith, his heart was trembling and he went to Khadijah and said, 'Wrap me up, wrap me up.' Then they wrapped him until the dread went away from him.
Like anyone who had been grabbed by an angel (some traditions say he was grabbed by the throat), he became frightened and ran home to his wife, who had her own rather interesting means of delineating whether he was telling the truth or not. She put him on each of her hips and asked him if he still saw the angel, to which he said yes. Then she disrobed in front of him and asked him again, and when he said no, she then believed he was receiving authentic revelations.
Khadija then took him to a Nestorian monk in Mecca, named Waraqa ibn Nofal, who was translating the book of Matthew into Arabic at the time. He, upon questioning him, confirmed that Muhammad was indeed a prophet. Unfortunately this monk must not have translated Matthew 24:24 by this time. Had he done so, Muhammad may never have taken the route of prophethood.
These above accounts, according to Muslim Tradition, are how Muhammad obtained his authority to begin his ministry, and how he received credibility as a prophet of God, and more than that, as the penultimate prophet of God, the "seal of all the prophets" (according to Sura 33:40).
There are other alleged "proofs" which Muslims point to which substantiate his claim to prophethood:
B1ii: The Illiterate Creator of the Qur'an points to his prophethood
Muslims claim that Muhammad was illiterate. They reason: "How can an illiterate man compose a book like the Qur'an?" By this they imply that the authorship for the Qur'an could not have been done by one who could not read, so consequently its composition is a miracle, since it must have come from Allah. They conclude, therefore, that the miracle of the Qur'an affords Muhammad the right to claim prophethood.
To better understand this argument, we need to refer to the passage which speaks of his illiteracy. In Sura 7:157 we read:
"Those who follow the Apostle, the unlettered prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures); in the Law and the Gospel; for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil: he allows them as lawful what is good."
In order to understand what the words 'unlettered prophet' really mean, we have to take a look at the Arabic text. In the Arabic it says, an-nabiyyal-ummi. Nabi is easy to translate. It means prophet. That is pretty clear. The word 'ummi,' however, is not so clear. To discern its meaning we need to refer to another verse in the Qur'an which uses it. We find it used in Sura 62:2, which says:
"It is He who has sent amongst the Unlettered an apostle from among themselves, to rehearse to them His signs, to sanctify them, and to instruct them in Scripture and Wisdom."
Who are the 'unlettered' in this text? Yusuf Ali's commentary makes it quite clear who these unlettered are. He says in footnote no.5451, "The Unlettered; as applied to a people, it refers to the Arabs, in comparison with the People of the Book, who had a longer tradition of learning, but whose failure is referred to in verse 5 below. As applied to individuals, it means that Allah's Revelation is for the benefit of all men, whether they have worldly learning or not." The word ummiyyun used in Sura 62:2 is the plural form of ummi found in Sura 7:157. Therefore what we find is that the word ummi was used for people who did not have the scriptures, in contrast to the Jews and Christians. To put it simply, they were "unscriptured." Muhammad considered himself to be the prophet to the unscriptured, a prophet to those who had no Book, no revelation; in other words, to the Arabs. Therefore Sura 7:157 cannot be used as proof that Muhammad was illiterate.
What we can say is that more than likely Muhammad was literate. He was responsible for Khadija's caravans, had travelled widely, and must have kept records of his transactions.
The Hadith of Ibn Sa'd alludes to the fact that he wrote. Ibn Sa'd states:
"The prophet, may Allah bless him, fell ill on Thursday. Thereupon he, i.e., Ibn 'Abbas began to weep and say: 'Woe be to this Thursday! What a Thursday.' The illness of the prophet, may Allah bless him, became severe: he said: 'Bring an ink-pot and something [paper or papyrus or any material used for writing] to write on. I shall [write for you] a document and you will never be misguided." (Ibn Sa'd, p.302)
This entire argument, however, is rather moot if one considers that the Qur'an which is in our possession today is not the original revelation which was revealed via Muhammad to his followers. In fact, according to tradition, it is the work of Muhammad's secretary Zaid ibn Thabit, who finally compiled it 14 years after Muhammad's death, during the reign of Uthman. Where, then, is the miracle in that?
From an historical perspective the argument falls even further into disrepute, as many historians believe that very little of the Qur'an was actually written by Muhammad, but was rather the result of an evolving set of polemical writings which became canonized in the 9th-10th century, 200-300 years after the life of Muhammad. Can we claim this a miracle?
The further one uncovers the facts, the further it becomes clear that the Qur'an is not the miracle which Muslims like to point to as proof for Muhammad's credibility as a prophet.
B1iii: Prophesying points to his prophethood
Another proof of his prophethood, according to Muslims, stems from the fact that Muhammad prophesied events in the future, which then came to pass later on. Only a prophet of God could know what was going to happen in the future, and therefore Muhammad must be a prophet. Yet, the only 'real' prophecy recorded, which Muslims attribute to Muhammad is that found in Sura 30:1-4, where it is written:
A.L.M. The Roman Empire has been defeated. In a land close by; but they (even) after (this) defeat of theirs, will soon be victorious. Within a few years. With Allah is the decision, in the past and in the future: on that day shall the Believers rejoice.
This passage refers to the defeat of the Byzantines in Syria by the Persians under Khusran Parvis (in A.D. 615), six years before the Hijra.
The defeat of the Persians should take place soon- "in a small number of years." In light of this prediction, Abu-Bakr undertook a bet with Ubai-ibn-Khalaf that this prediction would be fulfilled within three years. But he was corrected by Muhammad, who stated that the "small number" is between three and nine years (Al-Baizawi).
Muslims tell us that the Byzantines overcame their enemies within seven years. However, the fact is that the Byzantines defeated Persia in AD 628 (Al-Baizawi's commentary). That was twelve years after the prediction of Muhammad. Consequently, this passage does not qualify as a prophecy, particularly as the time between the prophecy and fulfilment was far too short, and in addition the event was easily predictable. The odds were only 50/50.
The other 'prophecies' which Muslims point to refer to Muhammad's victories and those relating to the Qur'an itself. It is nearly impossible to establish whether these prophecies were said before their fulfilment. Besides, like the previous example, they were either easily predictable, or just war- propaganda. In this event George Bush might be called a prophet too, for he predicted that the Gulf-coalition would win the war with Iraq.
B1iv: Miracles point to his Prophethood
Muslims also claim that Muhammad performed miracles, and this is further proof that he was a prophet. Interestingly, despite this claim by Muslims, the Qur'an, whose authority they refer to, denies that Muhammad performed any miracles.
Take for instance Sura 17:90-93. Here Muhammad is challenged to perform miracles to prove his credibility, and he responds by admitting that he is only a man, an apostle. There are other similar Suras which speak about the challenge for a sign by unbelievers, and Muhammad's angry retort that he was merely a "warner," a "guide," and a "bearer of glad tidings." (refer to Suras 2:118-119; 6:37 and 124; 13:7; and 17:59).
The Hadith, on the other hand, reports a number of miracles which Muslims are quick to point to as further proof for Muhammad's authority. In Mishkat IV page 411 we read:
"The prophet was looking while riding upon his mule like one eagerly longing to kill them. He said: 'This was when the blood boiled in veins.' Thereafter he took some pebbles and threw them at the faces of the infidels and then said: 'Be routed, by the Lord Muhammad.'"
And in Mishkat IV pages 419-420 we read:
"Anas reported: A man wrote to the prophet that he turned an apostate from Islam and joined the infidels. The prophet said: 'Verily the earth will not accept him.' Abu Talhah informed me that he had come to the land wherein he died. He found him thrown outside. He said: 'What is the matter with him?' They said: 'They buried him several times but the earth did not accept him.'"
But probably the most popular miracle which has been passed down by the hadith and fomented by Muslims even today, is the splitting of the moon by Muhammad. It is recorded in Sahih Muslim IV, pg.1467:
This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of 'Abdullah b. Mas'ud (who said): We were along with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) at Mina that moon was split up into two. One of its parts was behind the mountain and the other one was on this side of the mountain. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to us: 'Bear witness to this.'"
The splitting up of the moon is not simply a fable from the Hadith, but is alluded to in the Qur'an as well. Sura 54, which is titled "The Moon," begins by saying, "The hour (of judgment) is nigh, and the moon is cleft asunder..." From the context it is obvious that this was meant to be a sign, but people rejected it as such and in their desire to create some supernatural proof for their faith interpreted it word-for-word. Even today you will hear Muslims claim that the American astronauts, upon landing on the moon took pictures of a large crack, or fissure on the moon's surface, which is what remains from Muhammad's split.
These reports, for Christians, sound very much like the legendary stories of the New Testament Apocrypha. Though they are well-meaning reports, they are often very fanciful in character. However, they lack one simple ingredient: authenticity.
The Apocrypha primarily dates from the 2nd century C.E. (i.e. 70-170 years after the death of Jesus). The Hadith, on the other hand, was compiled approximately 250-300 years after the Hijra. Before that time all material and stories were passed down from generation to generation by oral tradition. Is it no wonder, then, that with each passing generation more was added to the story in order to enhance the image and character of the prophet?
Can we, therefore, say that these four proofs put forward by the Muslims give validity to Muhammad's claim as a true prophet? I think not. Yet, according to Muslim Tradition these stories are all that are needed to give Muhammad the title "Rasu- ul-Allah."
I dare to differ. From our discussion above it is clear that the early supernatural witnesses are probably apocryphal additions from later Muslim Traditions, while the claim for Muhammad's illiteracy, though debatable, considering his background and vocation, misses the point entirely, since the Qur'an was never written by him anyway. His claim of prophesying, furthermore, is as valid a claim as either you or I could give, considering he never went beyond a 50/50 odds. And the miracles attributed to him are so incredulous that they speak more to the times of the later tenth century polemical traditions then those of the seventh century Arabic isolation.
Obviously the Muslims will need to come up with better defenses then these for substantiating Muhammad's prophethood. Yet that is not all, for we as Christians are also interested in the question of prophethood. It is and always has been in our best interest to delineate who exactly is a true prophet, for we have been warned to be watchful for false prophets who will come our way (Matthew 24:24). Let's then look at some of the criteria which our scriptures give us for describing a true prophet.
B2: The Christian Position
Let me begin by asking you a question. How would you define a prophet? Better yet, how would you know one if you saw him, or her? Would he or she be someone who is learned, perhaps wearing a beard (if a male), perhaps dressed in a white robe, and carrying a staff, with fiery eyes and booming voice, speaking with "thees" and "thous"? That is how Hollywood has portrayed a prophet. But is this the criteria God has given for a prophet? Is this the type of man God has chosen to represent Him on earth, to carry His message to the world?
What I would like to do now is try to answer the question of who, according to the scriptures, exactly qualifies to be called a prophet? Surely, if God had sent individuals to be His representatives on earth, He would have given us criteria by which we could recognize them, a means by which we could know who truly was His and who truly was not. Let's then go to the scriptures, His revelation to us, to find who God delineates as a true prophet.
B2i: Who qualifies as a true Prophet of God?
"Amos 3:7) "Surely the Sovereign Lord does nothing without revealing His plan to His servants the prophets.
Both Muslims and Christians would agree with this verse from Amos. God uses prophets to fulfil His purposes on earth. At times individuals are used to prophecy specific events (such as Miriam, Balaam, and Saul in the Old Testament, and Anna in the New Testament-Luke 2:36). The office of a prophet, however, is a specific task given to only certain chosen men. Many of us know the names of the more famous prophets, such as: Moses, Abraham, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Yaxya (John the Baptist) and so on... Muslims would add to our list of prophets another name, that of Muhammad, whom they believe is the final and greatest of all prophets. According to the Qur'an, we read:
(Sura Al Ahzab 33:40) "Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets."
Today we need to ask how it is that these men have come to have the office of prophet? What gives them the authority for calling themselves prophet? When we go to the scriptures we find that God delineated as qualifications for the office of prophet four categories:
a prophet must be born in the prophetic race,
he must speak in the name of God,
his message must conform to the message which has gone before, and
there must be verifiable accomplishments to the prophet's predictions.]
Let's go through each of these four categories one-at-a-time.
B2ia: A Prophet must be born in the Prophetic Race
To begin with, a prophet must be born within the line or race of the prophets. The Bible speaks specifically what this line is. In Genesis 12:1-3, we see that this refers to the family of Abraham (see also Galatians 3:8), and then carries on through his son Isaac (Genesis 17:2,7-8,15-21; 21:10-12; 22:2). The Qur'an, in Sura Al 'Ankabut 29:27, also speaks specifically of this prophetic line, saying: "and we bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, and We establish the Prophethood and the Scripture among his seed" (also Sura Al Jathiyah 45:16).
As we continue on in Genesis 25:23,31-33; 26:1-2 we find that the alliance passes to Jacob, who is subsequently named Israel (also Genesis 28:13-15; 32:28). Further on, in Genesis 49:1-4,8-10, this alliance passes on to Judah. In fact, as we continue throughout the Old Testament we find that God's work on earth runs uniquely through the line of Isaac and Jacob. It is their lineage alone that God uses for His work on earth. Even in the Deuteronomy 18 where Moses promises a prophet like unto him, it says specifically that the prophet would come "from among your own brothers," an Israelite of the line of Jacob.
Continuing this theme further we read in 2 Samuel 7:4-16 and Psalms 89:35-38 that God's alliance with humanity passes to David, and is finally fulfilled in Jesus Christ 1,000 years later (see Matthew 22:42).
Nowhere in any of those passages do we find any other line mentioned or acknowledged as being chosen for the office of prophethood.
B2ib: A Prophet must speak in the Name of God (=YAHWEH or JEHOVAH)
Secondly, a prophet of God must speak in the name of God, the unique name which He gave His creation to use. What exactly is that name? Traditionally it was known as the "Tetragrammaton" (YHWH). Today we spell it Yahweh or Jehovah depending on which vowels are used. This is the Hebrew name for God revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai (in Exodus 3), consisting of the four consonants YHWH. We don't know what vowels were used as it was never spoken audibly, due to the fact that it was regarded by the Jews as too sacred a name to be pronounced.
In Exodus 3:1-6, 13-15, where God talks to Moses at the burning bush, we find God referring to Himself as "I am" which in Hebrew means "YAHWEH," or in English The One Who Is. This is very significant. What God is saying here is that this name signifies His complete self-existence, that He has no dependence upon any other. Being self-existent, He cannot but be self- sufficient, and therefore, all-sufficient. No-one can claim to be self-existent but God, and thus no-one can claim this name. It is uniquely His.
God continues by saying that "this is my name for ever," signifying that it is His eternal name, the name which only God can take for Himself, and the name by which the Jews in Egypt would recognize Him (see also Ps.72:17-19 and Rev. 1:8,17).
One can now see why the Jews in Palestine were so angry when Jesus made the same claim, calling Himself the "I am" in John 8:24,58. They naturally picked up stones to kill Him, as He had dared to take this name of God for Himself, and this was blasphemous, a sin which deserved the punishment of death by stoning.
Muslims are not familiar with the historical context of this name, nor the significance of its meaning, therefore they laugh when they hear Jesus referring to Himself as "I am" in John 8. It would be helpful to take them back to the Exodus 3 passage of the burning bush, since it is a story which exists in the Qur'an as well.
If we were to take a survey of the names for God found in the Bible and the Qur'an, we would find a rather interesting contrast. The General name for God in Hebrew is Elohim, which is mentioned 2,550 times. In Arabic it is Allah. The Descriptive name for God in Hebrew is Adonai, meaning Lord, and is mentioned only 340 times. In Arabic the equivalent is Rabb. But the Specific and Personal name for God in Hebrew, the name which God Himself asked Moses to use when referring to Him, is Yahweh, which means "the One who Is." This name is repeated 6,823 times in the Old Testament alone! Look it up for yourself.
(note: in our English translation, Yahweh can be identified easily. Every time the word "LORD" is capitalized, that signifies Yahweh). Thus all of the ancient Biblical prophets speak of God using this name. However, this name for God is not used even once in the Qur'an, and has no equivalent in the Arabic language, the language Muslims claim God speaks.
B2ic: A Prophet's message must conform to previous revelation
A third qualification of a prophet concerns his message. A prophet's message, in order to be credible must conform to the revelation which God had revealed before. God's word must remain consistent, in other words unchanging, otherwise it becomes useless, a tool in the hands of corrupt rulers and would-be prophets, bending and swaying with the whim of succeeding generations.
The unchangeableness of God's word is often repeated in the scriptures. In Deuteronomy 4:1-2; Isaiah 8:20; Matthew 5:17-18; 24:35; and Revelations 22:18-20 we find warnings not to change or delete God's Word. God's Word must remain constant. In Psalms 89:35 we read that God cannot contradict His word.
The Qur'an, as well, agrees with this directive in Suras Al An'am 6:34 and Yunus 10:64. In Sura Qaf 50:28-29 Allah is quoted as saying: "I had already in advance sent you warning; the Word changes not." In fact, the Qur'an claims that it was sent to guard the former revelations (Al Ma'idah 5:47-51). Thus, that which the prophets revealed cannot be contradictory. If it is, it must not be trusted.
There are, however, many Qur'anic stories which contradict the Biblical account (the revelation which came before). We don't have time to go into all of them here, but perhaps it would be helpful to just relate a few of the more relevant ones:
Many contradictions are found concerning Abraham:
Abraham's father is wrongly called Azar, instead of Terah (Al An'am 6:74 vs. Genesis 11:26).
He did not raise his descendants in the valley of Mecca, but in Hebron (Genesis 13:14-18).
His hometown was not called Mecca but Ur in Chaldea. Even the secular-Ebla tablets found in Syria recently give proof for this (see Genesis 11:31).
He wandered through Haran, not Arabia, and he went to Canaan, not to Mecca's valley. The Ebla tablets prove this as well (Genesis 11:31 & 12:5)
He was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac, and not Ishmael, as the Lord was to make His covenant with the Son brought about by His making, and not the son of the Egyptian slave, Hagar (see Genesis 17:18-21 & 22:2).
There is no record that he and Ishmael went to Arabia and built the Ka'ba in Mecca, though he did spend some time in Egypt (Genesis 12:10).
Muslims assume that the Arabs are Ishmael's descendants.
Yet, according to the best historical records, the first father of the Arabs was Qahtan or Joktan. Some of his sons names are still found in geographical locations in Arabia today, names such as Sheba, Hazarmaveth, Ophir, and Havilah.
Furthermore, Abraham's nephew Lot is another ancestor of the Arabs; as is Jacob's twin brother Esau, the father of the Edomites and the Moabites.
Finally, Keturah, Abraham's third wife, had six sons who all became forefathers of Arabs (i.e. Sheba and Dedan, located in Yemen)(Genesis 25).
Other errors are found in the Qur'an which contradict the Biblical account:
In the Qur'an Mary is recorded as the sister of Aaron and the daughter of Imran, as well as the mother of Jesus (Sura Maryam 19:28). Yet, the Mary of the Qur'an depicted as the mother of Jesus is 1,570 years removed from the Mary, the sister of Aaron (also referred to Miriam in the Bible).
Haman, which is not an Egyptian name but Babylonian, is mentioned as the Wazir of the Pharaoh in Suras 28:5; 29:38: 40:25,38, yet the book of Esther correctly lists him as an official of king Xerxes, in Babylon.
The Qur'an presents a confused and often contradictory view of the Holy Spirit. It is called God's own breath (15:29), the angel Gabriel (19:17), and the divine inspiration (16:2).
These are only some of the examples we could give, but they do point out that there are very real problems concerning the conformity of God's revelation relating to these two scriptures.
B2id: A Prophet's predictions must be verifiable
The final qualification of a prophet deals with the veracity of the prophet's message, whether what he says can be verified. A prophet shows his authenticity by predicting events which can be verified by witnesses. Those predictions which cover the longest duration are the most relevant and valuable for us, and therefore we tend to focus on them. Yet, according to the principle which is announced in Deuteronomy 18:21-22; Isaiah 43:9; and John 13:18-21, it is important that there are other predictions which are short-term, which can be verified by contemporary's of the prophet. These predictions serve to identify him immediately as a prophet, and so give credibility to the longer, future predictions.
When we take the example of Moses, we find that his prediction of the death and defeat of the Egyptian army was immediately fulfilled (Exodus 14:13-14,27-28). The same can be said of the prophet Isaiah, who prophesied that God would hold back the sun for ten steps (or hours) to permit Hezekiah to defeat his Assyrian enemy. It was fulfilled the same day (Isaiah 38:5-8). Another prophecy by Isaiah, concerning the rout of 185,000 of Sennacherib's soldiers came to pass the next morning (in Isaiah 37:21-38).
Imagine if you had been with Moses or Isaiah at the time these prophecies were fulfilled. How would you have felt? I'm sure your estimation for these two men would have increased dramatically. That was one of the reasons for these prophecies. It gave immediate credibility to him who was making the prophecy.
Someone could say that it is simple to predict a victory or defeat of an enemy; as one has a 50% chance of being correct. Therefore other predictions were required to substantiate the claim of the prophet, especially for later generations who did not have the ability to know the prophet first-hand. In Deuteronomy 28:1,15,64-66, and 30:1,4-5, Moses offers a prophecy concerning God's blessings and curses for the Children of Israel, depending on whether they obeyed or not. These curses were fulfilled far into the future, centuries later and consequently did not benefit those who initially heard the prophecy.
A prophecy by Isaiah to Hezekiah, concerning the captivity and enslavement of his descendants by the rulers of Babylon was fulfilled 150 years later, in 606 B.C. (Isaiah 39:6-7).
Even the prophecy concerning the fall of Babylon was fulfilled 200 years later. In fact some believe its fulfilment continues on until today (read Isaiah 13:1,19-20).
Babylon was destroyed in 539 B.C., 200 years after the prophecy was made by Isaiah. Interestingly, however, up until now, 2,500 years later, no-one has ever tried to live there. The Arabs even refuse to stay overnight, yet they know nothing of this prediction since it does not exist in the Qur'an.
Finally we come to another prophecy which some believe is being fulfilled in our lifetime (see Isaiah 11:11-12). This prediction was given by Isaiah in 750 B.C., over 140 years before the first dispersion which occurred in 606 B.C. We know from historical records, and the scriptures that the first return was in 536 B.C. History also tells us that the second dispersion was in 70 C.E., while, according to some, the second return began towards the beginning of this century, in 1900, and continues till today.
These prophecies are especially helpful for us today, thousands of years later, as we, in hindsight can see the authenticity of Moses's and Isaiah's calling. Due to the fact that what they said so long ago has been fulfilled and are even now being fulfilled, what they say on other matters then takes on added credibility, because we know that they are truly men of God, who are being used by Him.
Since God's fingerprint can be evidenced in those fulfilled prophecies, His fingerprint can then be ascribed to the other claims which these men of God assert.
An interesting point needs to be interjected here; why were there so many verifications given by God for Isaiah? The reason must be that he has a unique place among all the prophets, because it is he who predicts, more than any other prophet:
the coming of Jesus (prophesied in Isaiah 7:14 & 9:6, and fulfilled in Matthew 1:22).
It is Isaiah who predicts Jesus's death (prophesied in Isaiah 35:4-5 & 53:1-12, and fulfilled in Luke 7:18-22, 24-27).
And finally, it is Isaiah who predicts Jesus's resurrection (prophesied in Isaiah 53:11, and fulfilled in Luke 18:33; 24:6-7).
There was no doubt that these were truly prophets of God, as they spoke of things which only God could have known, both immediately so that the people of their time could identify them as prophets, and in the long term so that we today can acknowledge the hand of God in their lives and ministry.
B2ii: Which of these Biblical qualifications does Muhammad demonstrate?
The question then must be asked: which of these four Biblical qualifications does Muhammad demonstrate? Was he born in the prophetic race, did he speak in the name of God, did his message conform to the message which had gone before, and was there any verifiable accomplishments to the prophet's predictions?
B2iia: Was he born in the line of the Prophets?
To begin with, we must ask the question whether he was born in the line of the prophets? Sura 29:27 mentions that prophethood and the scriptures came uniquely through the seed of Isaac and Jacob (Sura 45:16 concurs with Sura 29).
There are no Muslims, that I am aware of, who believe Muhammad was a descendant of Isaac. While there is an ongoing discussion concerning the veracity of the claim for Muhammad's descendance through Ishmael, this view is, nonetheless, widely held by Muslims today. Yet, this is a moot point, since according to both the Bible and the Qur'an, all the prophets came in the line of Isaac, fulfilling the promise to Abraham in Genesis 17:20-21, that only through Isaac, and not Ishmael would the alliance with the Lord be fulfilled.
B2iib: Did he speak in the name of "the eternal," YAHWEH?
Secondly, did Muhammad speak in the name of God, using that name which God gave as a signature for His authority, the name Yahweh? Though the term YHWH was used 6,823 times in the Bible, it is not used once in the Qur'an, and perhaps was not even known by Muhammad, since if he was supposedly illiterate in his own language, Arabic, it is hardly likely that he would have been able to read Hebrew.
Yet, is it not curious that Muhammad, the "seal of the prophets," he who was commissioned to bring the 'final revelation' did not even know the name of the God by whom he was commissioned? Is it not also curious that the God of Abraham, Isaac, Moses and David would go to the trouble of revealing His unique name in the Hebrew language, which was then passed down from generation to generation, up to the present day, yet somehow this name was forgotten or never revealed in the language which Muhammad claimed was God's special language, Arabic?
Moses could speak to the Israelites in Egypt with credibility because he spoke in the name of God. Why then did Muhammad presume that the descendants of those Israelites living in Medina would accept him as their prophet if he didn't even know the true name of God?
Would you accept my authority as a teacher of Christian apologetic, if I never once mentioned the name of Jesus, nor even knew that it existed? Of course not!
A prophet, by definition is one who comes with a message which is not his own (the Arabic word for prophet, Rasul means "the sent one"). Consequently, in order to give meaning to the message, there needs to be a sender, a person who created the message, whose signature goes along with the message to identify it as coming from Him. If I did not know who it was who sent me, my message would certainly lose its credibility. If I spoke as a Christian yet did not know the name of Jesus Christ, I would be a pretty miserable creature, and not worthy of my vocation.
In much the same way Muhammad's message completely loses its credibility since he was never even aware of the name of the sender, Yahweh, the One Who Is.
Consequently, if Muhammad did not even know the name of God, nor was God's true name even used in the language of Muhammad, then how could he claim to be truly from God?
B2iic: Did Muhammad's revelation conform to the message which had preceded him?
Thirdly, did Muhammad's revelation conform to the message which had preceded him via the former prophets? We have seen that there are many contradictions between the Qur'an and the Bible, the most damaging of which concern who Jesus is, and the reason for His mission on earth.
Both the Bible and the Qur'an agree that God's word cannot change, and certainly must not contradict that which has gone before. Why then do we find all these contradictions?
If Muhammad is responsible for receiving these contradictory revelations from God, does it not put suspicion on his veracity as a true prophet? Certainly it does. If God had got the story right through the thousands of generations from Abraham to Jesus, with each successive prophet agreeing with and verifying that which had preceded him, then why all of a sudden did God get it so wrong less then 700 years later with the prophet Muhammad?
Neither Muslims nor Christians would blame God for the contradictions. The blame must be placed on the messenger. Either all the previous prophets got it wrong, or the one who came at the end did. It beggars belief to think that for thousands of years the Jewish prophets were consistently revealing corrupted stories which all agreed in content, with not even once trying to correct the seeming errors. Then, finally, the last prophet got it right, and brought the message back to what God had intended all along. It reminds me of the mother, who watching her son in a parade whispers over to her friend, "Oh look, everyone's out of step but my Johnny boy!"
If a prophet's message goes against previous predictions, he then can no longer qualify as a true prophet.
B2iid: Were any of Muhammad's predictions verifiable within his lifetime?
And finally, were any of Muhammad's predictions verifiable within his own lifetime? Although Muhammad, on occasion, predicted the victory of Islam in the battles which were fought in Arabia, there are no other precise predictions which we know of which demonstrate that his authority came from God (the victory of a battle has a 50-50 chance of being correct, or not). In fact, this was a cause for concern even for Muhammad, who, numerous times in the Qur'an mentions the distrust by others of his inability to produce a miraculous sign which would substantiate his authority (see Suras 10:21, 13:7 & 13:27).
There is little evidence from our scriptures which show that Muhammad had authority to claim prophethood. He was not born into the line of Jacob, nor did he speak in the name of Yahweh, nor did his revelations conform to the message which preceded him, and his predictions were not verifiable.
What, then, must be our conclusion? In Matthew 24:24-25 we read "...false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect... See I have told you ahead of time." In Deuteronomy 18:19-22 we find an even stronger warning:
If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death. You may say to yourselves, 'How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?' If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C: Questions concerning Muhammad's Prophethood
In this paper we have been asking the question of whether Muhammad could qualify as a true prophet of God. We posed the Muslim positions that he could: because of the supernatural witness to his prophethood during his early childhood, because of the fact that he delivered the Qur'an though he was illiterate, and because both his prophesies and miracles pointed to his prophethood.
After presenting rebuttals to all four of these positions we followed up with four criteria of our own, taken from scripture, to ascertain what God considers the qualities of the office of a prophet are. These were that he must be born in the prophetic race, that he must speak in the name of Yahweh, that his message must conform to previous revelations, and that his predictions must be verifiable. We concluded that Muhammad could not qualify in any four of these categories.
Now we take that same argument further, and ask some disturbing questions as to whether Muhammad could qualify to be a true prophet of God, not just for the Arabs, but for the world as a whole. We begin, then, with that very point. Was Muhammad called to be a prophet for the whole world, or was his calling only limited to that of Arabia?
C1: Was Muhammad a specific or universal Prophet?
When we read the Qur'an we find that Muhammad understood himself at first to be a warner to Arabia in the succession of the Biblical prophets. It is evident from these passages in the Qur'an that he considered his duty was that of bringing the same message which can be found in the Bible, but now within the Arabic language. The Taurat was a book for the Jews, the Injil a book for the Christians, and now the Qur'an was a book for the Arabs. This was his initial understanding.
Let's look at some of the earlier Suras which seem to point out that Muhammad's specific task was simply to warn, and at the same time reveal Allah's word in the Arabic language.
Sura 2:119: "Verily, We have sent thee in truth as a bearer of glad tidings and a warner: but of thee no question shall be asked of Companions of the Blazing Fire."
Sura 14:4: "We sent an apostle except (to teach) in the language of his (own) people, in order to make (things) clear to them."
Sura 17:93: "Say: 'Glory to my Lord! am I aught but a man, an Apostle?"
Sura 26:195,196: "In the perspicuous Arabic tongue. Without doubt it is (announced) in the mystic Books of former peoples."
Sura 27:91: "For me, I have been commanded to serve the Lord of this City, Him Who has sanctified it and to Whom (belong) all things: and I am commanded to be of those who bow in Islam to Allah's Will,"
Sura 42:7: "Thus have We sent by inspiration to thee an Arabic Qur'an: that thou mayest warn the Mother of Cities and all around her,"
Sura 43:3: "We have made it a Qur'an in Arabic, that ye may be able to understand (and learn wisdom)."
Sura 46:12: "And before this, was the Book of Moses as a guide and a mercy; and this Book confirms (it) in the Arabic tongue; to admonish the unjust, and as Glad Tidings to those who do right."
As we continue on through the Qur'an we find that this position changes. He becomes not just a prophet for the Arabs, with simply an Arabic Qur'an, but enlarges on this idea to now become the universal and the final prophet for all people.
Sura 33:40: "Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Apostle of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets, and Allah has full knowledge of all things."
Sura 34:28: "We have not sent thee but as a universal (Messenger) to men, giving them glad tidings, and warning them (against sin), but most men understand not."
While in Mecca, at least, where the former Suras quoted above were written, Muhammad considered himself as a warner to the Arab peoples. This position contradicts the claim by Muslims today that Muhammad was always a universal messenger for all peoples in all times.
The term "Arabic Qur'an" (in Suras 42:7; 43:3 and 46:12 - above) obviously presupposes that there was at least one other Qur'an. This more than likely is referring to the Hebrew and possibly the Greek "Qur'an" (which are the Old and New Testament). Muslims would not say that they are invalidated by the Arabic Qur'an, but are rather confirmed by it.
There is a problem, however. An Arabic Qur'an was not announced in "the mystic books of the former peoples" (Sura 26:196). To say the least, there is no such book available today which speaks of this "Arabic Qur'an," in contrast to the former "Qur'ans." Neither was it known at the time of Muhammad, as we have many manuscripts in our possession with which to verify if such an announcement had been made.
So, initially Muhammad was only a messenger for the Arab people. He saw the polytheism which were pervasive in Arabia, and sought to eradicate it with the 'messages' he was receiving via the angel Gabriel.
Why then, did he go universal? There are those who believe this probably came about due to his successes on the battle- field. As his prominence grew, so did his authority over people who were not necessarily Arab. In other words, his supernatural monotheistic message, had to keep pace with the natural polytheistic reality on the ground. Suras 33:40 and 34:28 provided him with the authority to do so.
A more likely scenario is that the later redactors of the Qur'an imposed this universal application on Muhammad, once the borders of Islam had reached beyond the Hijaz (Arabia). Without eradicating the Suras which speak of his specific Arabic mission, they simply imposed this new category while applying the law of abrogation to the former Suras.
C2: Was Muhammad a Prophet of the Jews?
The second question we ask is whether Muhammad was a prophet to the Jews? In Medina were a number of Jewish groups called the Kahinan. They were the wealthiest inhabitants of Medina, and lived in fortified forts surrounding the city. There were three principle tribes living in Medina (according to Muslim Tradition): the Kaynuka, the al-Nadir, and the Kurayza. They all had good relations with the Jews of the north (especially in Khaybar).
During his first year in Medina Muhammad devoted considerable attention to the Jewish inhabitants there, describing himself as their prophet, who could be placed in the long line of prophets.
To appease them, he adopted many of their religious observances. Some of these were:
keeping the 10th of Muharram as a fast day, much like the Yom Kippur fast,
performing the 3-daily prayer rituals (versus the two Salats kept by Muhammad before the Hijra, while still in Mecca),
the weekly community worship services in the early afternoons on fridays (following the Jewish Sabbath day of preparation).
Note: This also made common-sense since Friday was the market day, the day when the largest number of people would have been in Medina. And finally:
Muhammad also adopted the north-facing Qibla, the practice of facing Jerusalem when praying.
It soon became clear, however, that the Jews in Medina were not going to accept Muhammad's claim to prophethood. These were for a number of reasons, which we can find in Sura 17:90-93. The Jews would not accept an Arabic speaking prophet. They had never accepted Jesus as a prophet, and he was an Aramaic speaking Jew! So why should they change now? Their principle requests, as we can derive from Sura 17, was that Muhammad present them with a few "superfluous" miracles.
In Sura 3:183 and 184 the Jews ask for a sign similar to that of Elijah for proof of his prophethood. Muhammad retorts that this has always been the way with previous prophets. In Suras 2:118-119; 6:37,124; 13:7; 17:59 the Jews also ask for a sign, to which Muhammad responds that even if a sign were given, like those of the earlier prophets, they would not believe it.
Since Muhammad did not proffer them with a sign, the Jews refused to accept him as their prophet.
The opposition of the Jews of Medina to Muhammad appears to have had a significant impact on the shaping of Islam, for it was precisely at that time and apparently in direct response to the Jews' rejection of him that the nascent Muslim community took on a pronounced national character through the adoption of various elements from ancient Arabian worship. This occurred in the 2nd year of the Hijra, and was signaled by the change of direction for the Qibla. Instead of facing Jerusalem, the prayers were now to be carried out facing Mecca. Here we find a break with Muhammad's Jewish roots, and a symbolic statement that Islam was now venturing on an Arabic course.
This nationalization of Islam gave Muhammad a certain legitimization and broadened his authority in the eyes of the Arab world. Instead of worshipping or adopting a foreign god, which had been the case for most of their pre-Islamic history, Muhammad could now offer a universally accepted god, who was uniquely adapted to the indigenous community. This not only elevated the status of the Arab people, whose allegiance Muhammad needed to continue his military campaigns, but it elevated the status of Muhammad as the mouthpiece of the true God. It also enhanced Muhammad's vision to introduce his heightened concept of god for the whole civilized world.
Muhammad stepped forward as the restorer of the religion of Abraham that had been distorted by the Jews and Christians. Abraham now became the great Hanif and not a Jew or a Christian. He now took the honour as the 'first Muslim,' "a person fully surrendered to the one true God," according to Suras 3:67: 2:135; 3:95; 6:161; 16:123.
Abraham and his son Ishmael, who the rest of the world regarded as having come from Ur of the Chaldeans, were now perceived to be the Arab's direct ancestors, and were now considered to have founded the Meccan sanctuary and the rites celebrated there.
Muhammad's task, therefore, was to restore the ancient rites to their original monotheistic state, as they had been corrupted by the intervening polytheists.
Note: It is highly unlikely that Muhammad was acquainted with the idea of the connection between Abraham and the Ka'ba before the Hijra since this relationship occurs nowhere in the numerous Meccan passages that treat the significance of the Ka'ba. This apparent evolution in Muhammad's theology seems to have been created by his relationship with the Jews.
What then, of the Jews who remained under Muhammad's jurisdiction? They, needless to say, did not accept many of these new revelations concerning their own God. What was to be done with them? Let's see what Muslim Tradition tells us.
In 624 C.E., Muhammad routed a group of 900 Meccans with only a force of 300 at the battle of Badr. This battle became of the utmost significance for the history of Islam. Muhammad saw in the victory a powerful confirmation of his belief in the one true God (Suras 8:17,65; 3:123), and in his own call.
Word got around to the outlying areas of this defeat of the Meccans. Upon his return to Medina, Muhammad began to besiege the outlying Jewish tribe of the Kaynuka (Sura 59:14). Some say that he did so because they had not supported him when he decided to face the Meccans. The Jews were forced to abandon their fort and move north to other Jewish settlements leaving their possessions behind.
In 625 C.E., the Meccans sent a force of 3,000 and defeated Muhammad at the battle of Uhud, wounding Muhammad. But with his eloquence, he endeavored to raise the morale of his followers by exhortations and censure alike (Sura 3:118ff). His authority was inevitably hurt, and he took out much of his anger on the Jewish tribe of Banu 'l-Nadir. They could not withstand his wrath, and he banished them to Khaybar to the north, leaving behind their weapons, gold, and silver which was reserved for Muhammad alone (Sura 59:7ff).
In 627 C.E. Muhammad managed to keep an army of 10,000 Meccans at bay by building a trench around Medina (referred to as the "Battle of the Trench." Once the frustrated Meccans finally left, Muhammad declared war on the last Jewish tribe in Medina, the Kurayza. Unlike the other Jewish families before them, they were given no clemency. According to Ibn Hisham, all the men, numbering between 600-900 were beheaded and their property was divided among the Muslims, while the women and children were taken as captives (for further reading, refer to Christians Ask Muslims by Gerhard Nehls).
The expulsion or elimination of these three Jewish tribes brought Muhammad closer to his goal of organizing an umma strictly on a religious basis. Many Muslims today contend that the Kurayza brought upon themselves their own destruction, as they were treacherous towards Muhammad and refused to accept his authority. According to the Qur'an, however, their only sin was that they "defied God and his messenger" (Sura 59:4). They were eliminated, it seems, simply because they remained neutral.
Note: If we take the annihilation of the Kurayza tribe as a precedent, considering it was given authority by Muhammad himself, is it no wonder that so many non-Muslims in the world today shudder with apprehension at the thought of a Muslim domination of their state? Muslims will speak often of the rights of the non-believers within a Muslim Khilafa, yet, when observing the above examples, one wonders where those rights begin and the 'rights for self-expression' end? Is this why propagation of one's belief is illegal in many Muslim lands today? Will blasphemy also be prohibited, and punishable by death?
The question which we asked was whether Muhammad was a prophet of the Jews? We see that initially he attempted to be their prophet, incorporating many of their religious practices into those of his own. We would expect a prophet to do this.
They demanded that he prove his prophethood with signs. The Qur'an contends that these were of a miraculous nature. We have no way of knowing if this was all that they asked. It is likely that the Jews would have wanted to know whether his prophecies corroborated with those of their own.
It is obvious from the historical account, as well as the Qur'anic account that Muhammad was not able to provide either of the two, and consequently he was rejected by the Jews.
Instead of changing his beliefs, Muhammad decided to fight against the Jews. This we see vividly through his expulsions and executions of the three major tribes of Medina, using them as a scapegoat for the defeat of Uhud. What is more significant, however, is that all their riches were taken by himself and his followers. These were the wealthiest inhabitants of Medina, therefore, by taking their possessions they not only enriched Muhammad, but enhanced his image amongst the other Arabs.
Because of his actions, it is quite likely that Muhammad would not be acknowledged as a prophet of the Jews, both then in Medina, and currently today in the 20th century. It also now helps us to understand the great gulf which exists between Jews and Muslims currently.
C3: Was Muhammad a Prophet to the Christians?
We now come to the Christians. Was Muhammad a prophet to the Christians? Initially, according to Muslim Tradition, the Christians carried favour with Muhammad. We can see this attitude in Sura 5:82-86.
In this passage Muhammad mentions that the Jews and pagans were the furthest from the believers, while the Christians were "the nearest among them in love..." This, according to Sura 5, was because they were men of learning who had renounced the world and were not arrogant (possibly referring to the Monks whom Muhammad had contact with earlier in his life). He goes on to say that when the Christians heard his message they accepted it with tears, and immediately counted themselves amongst the believers.
Obviously, we would have a problem with this definition of a Christian. What Muhammad is speaking of here are not Christians, as we know them, but individuals who have either conceded to him out of fear for their lives, or have converted out of Christianity and become Muslims. It would be difficult to believe that Christians could make such statements about their beliefs towards Muhammad and still call themselves Christians. These individuals have truly rejected their earlier faith.
The supposed affinity with Christians was, nonetheless, short-lived. The Qur'an gives the impression that there was a gradual deterioration in the Muslims relationship towards the Christians, in Sura 57:27. Those who followed Jesus the son of Mary had been called on "to seek for the Good pleasure of Allah," but, according to this Sura, they soon became rebellious transgressors.
If we were to read other Suras which pertained to Jews and Christians, it soon becomes evident that both the Jews and Christians were both considered little more than enemies of the unbelievers. They were only acceptable to Muhammad once they had acknowledged him as a prophet (Sura 5:86). In fact there are specific Suras which warn the believers not to acquaint themselves with the Christians and Jews, warning that the Christians are only interested in converting the believers to their own beliefs. Consider these:
Sura 2:120: "Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion. Say: 'The Guidance of Allah, that is the (only) Guidance.' Wert thou to follow their desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither Protector nor Helper against Allah."
Sura 3:28: "Let not the Believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers; if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah; except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (to remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah."
Sura 5:54: "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors; they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust."
With quotes like the above, is it possible for us to contend that Muhammad was the prophet of the Christians? It is highly doubtful. It seems that Muhammad, and those who follow him can only accept Jews and Christians if they first renounce their beliefs and follow Muhammad as the final prophet. This is not an accommodation at all but rather a threat, and finally a denunciation of all that the Jews and Christians cherish dearly.
C4: Was Muhammad the Seal of the Prophets?
We now come to the question of whether Muhammad had the right to claim to be the greatest of all the prophets, the final revelation of God, by whom all other prophets were to be measured.
For most Christians the very question is sparked with controversy, as it assumes that Muhammad can be deemed a legitimate prophet. There are few Christians who would make this claim. For argument's sake, however, let's assume that Muhammad did have the right to claim prophethood. Could he be the seal of the prophets; that is the greatest of all the prophets? Does he have the character to make such a claim?
The Qur'an is very clear that he does. In Sura 33:40 we read, "Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets, and Allah has full knowledge of all things."
C4i: What about Jesus?
How, as Christians are we to answer that claim? What the Qur'an is saying, in essence, is that Muhammad has a standing with God which is superior to that of even Jesus. We know that the Qur'an does not attribute divinity to Jesus, but considers him merely as a prophet. Yet, in the pages of both the Qur'an and the Bible Jesus enjoys a uniqueness that elevates Him above all other prophets. The Qur'an is replete with attributes of Jesus which are absent in all other prophets:
He was born of a virgin (Suras 19:16-34; 21:91)
He was uniquely holy, pure or faultless, according to Sura 19:19.
Note: In Yusuf Ali's translation Jesus is referred to as "holy;" in Arberry's translation He is referred to as "pure," and in Pickthall's He is referred to as "faultless".
C4ii: What about the other Prophets?
Contrast this claim with the examples of the other prophets. We know that in the Bible all of the prophets were weak and sinful. Not one could stand up to the same standard which Jesus fulfilled. The Qur'an also recounts many sins of the prophets. Note the following:
Adam
In Sura 20:119 disobeyed his Lord and so sinned. In Sura 2:33 we find that Adam violated the prohibition to refrain from eating of the tree. The blame according to the following verse (34) is placed on Satan, but nonetheless Adam is charged with the sin. Then finally, in Sura 7:23 Adam and Eve ask for forgiveness for their wrongdoing.
Noah
In Sura 71:24-28 we find Noah cursing the infidels, asking God to annihilate them all, and then asks for forgiveness for his request. Noah in Sura 11:47-49 requests that God forgive his illegitimate son Canaan, and is rebuked by God for requesting it, implying a reprimand and threat to Noah. Noah's subsequent request for pardon is proof of his guilt.
Abraham
Abraham is ascribed a number of sins in the Qur'an, such as idolatry (Sura 6:77), doubting (2:263), deceit (Sura 37:39), and divination (Sura 37:86). These Suras show that Abraham worshiped the planets, questioned the might of God, lied several times, and consulted the stars.
Lot
Lot is charged with failing to rely upon the Lord in Sura 22:82, when the people of Sodom refused the gift of his two daughters instead of the angels.
Aaron
Aaron is charged with going-along with the Israelites in building the golden calf, and therefore having done evil in Moses's absence (Suras 7:146-151 and 20:86-96).
Moses
Moses was charged with ordering two golden cherubim to be fashioned in Sura 2:248. He is charged with murder, and the need for forgiveness in Sura 28:14-15. He allows sorcerers to practice their magic in Sura 26:42, and He asks forgiveness from God for his anger in Sura 7:147-150.
David
David asks forgiveness from the Lord for his sin (which alludes to his taking of Uriah's wife, Bathsheba) in Sura 38:20-24.
Solomon
Solomon asks for forgiveness for letting horses cloud out his devotion to his Lord in Sura 38:30-34.
We can therefore say that even the Qur'an shows categorically that the prophets have all sinned, proving that, unlike Jesus, they were fallible. It is true that we have to look hard to find these sins (i.e, the Qur'an only alludes to David's sin, rather then emphatically pronouncing what the sin was in Sura 38), but the Qur'anic accounts do admit that God's holy emissaries were less then perfect. Jesus alone stands apart as "faultless."
Note: It is important to remember that their sins are all in the realm of personal weaknesses, while their infallibility comes about when conveying divine revelations. In such instances they make no mistakes. It is this factor which seems to confuse so many Muslims, possibly because of their view of Nazil revelation, attributed to the Qur'an.
Jesus is the only one who is both infallible during his life, and when conveying divine revelations. There is no recorded evidence in the Bible or the Qur'an of Jesus sinning, both privately or publicly.
C4iii: What about Muhammad?
But what about Muhammad? If he is the Seal of the prophets, he should have a better record then those which are mentioned above. As the greatest of all prophets his life should be exemplary. But is it? Let's find out:
C4iiia: Muhammad's concessions to people
God sent His prophets to nations which committed many sins. Although these prophets were also sinners, they never compromised with those to whom they were sent. Prophets like Elijah and Micah, though they were faced with formidable odds (i.e. 400 false prophets, their king and people) they never shifted from their position, nor did any seek to present a message to satisfy the expectations of their audience.
Muhammad was altogether different. Ibn Abbas broke with the restriction of having sex with his wife when he first awoke, which was a law instigated by Muhammad, and therefore, asked forgiveness from Muhammad, who, receiving Sura 2:183 suddenly allows men to now do that which before was prohibited.
Muhammad legalized Muta marriages (marriages of pleasure) for his followers during the battle of Khaybar and Fath (Al- Bukhari's "al-Jami' al-Sahih, pg.423). He then prohibits it during the battle of Wadaa, because he believed it now resembled fornication (Imam Muslim's "al-Jami' al-Sahih" pg.130-131).
The Satanic Verses found in Sura 53:19-20 which speak about the goddesses Allat, Manat and Al Uzza were recognized by Muhammad during a dispiriting time in Mecca. When he mentioned them, the Meccans rejoiced and joined him in prayer. Then, supposedly Gabriel told him later to change this revelation.
C4iiib: Muhammad's sexuality
The sexuality of Muhammad is a rather contentious area for most Muslims who believe that the sexual rules practiced by Muhammad and his followers were simply a fact of those days in which he lived, and we must see him within that context.
The argument by Muslims is that during the "Holy Wars" when many men were killed, polygamy, for instance, was a justifiable provision for the widows. Yet, according to notes in "Sahih Muslim" III, pg.941, in all the 82 hostilities during the lifetime of Muhammad, only 259 Muslims lost their lives. Muhammad moved to Mecca with 10,000 men. How many of them would have had a chance of marrying even one widow? 2%! (current figures show an over-abundance of males due to amnio-synthesis tests, because of the girls who are aborted as a result of the findings: 20 million extra boys in China)
So what must we say about polygamy?
We are reminded of the words of Jesus who said, "He who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery" (Luke 16:18).
Because polygamy excludes devoted love, for love between the sexes is exclusive, it is degraded in essence to mere sexual fulfilment. No woman who loves her husband and wishes to be fully loved in return, can tolerate a partner (why else was Hafsa so upset with Muhammad when he took the Copt Mary to her bed?).
Take for instance a report from Aisha, Muhammad's favorite wife (recorded in Mishkat 1, pg.210, and noted in the Hadiths collected by al-Bukhari and Muslim). This report quotes her as saying: "I used to backbite those (females) who offered themselves for the Messenger of Allah. So I asked: Does a woman offer herself? Then the Almighty Allah revealed: you (Muhammad) may put off whom you please of them, you may take to you whom you wish, and if you desire any whom you have separated, no blame attaches to you (from Sura 33:51). It seems to me that your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire."
There is a further aspect: monogamy gives recognition, status and integrity to a woman. It is simplistic to argue that a polygamous society makes prostitution unnecessary. What about sexual fulfilment for the woman who has to share her husband with other wives? And what about the men who surely have to go without wives, because someone else (usually an older and thus richer man) has more than one?
When we look at the life of Muhammad we find an even larger emphasis on sex, and the fulfilment of carnal desires. Consider the following examples:
Thirteen Wives
A Muslim man is permitted to marry up to four wives (excluding concubines) according to Sura 4:3. Muhammad had lived 25 years married to his first wife Khadija. After her death, which roughly coincided with the Hijra to Medina, he married about thirteen wives (the exact number is still debated). All except Aisha were widows or divorcees.
It is recorded in Sura 33:50, "O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers, and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Mecca) with thee; and any believing woman, who dedicates her soul to the Prophet, and if the Prophet wishes to wed her-this only for thee, and not for the believers (at large)..."
This Sura gives Muhammad an unlimited number of women who lived in and around him, yet set strict restrictions on the other believers.
Zainab
Zainab was the wife of his adopted son Zaid. When Zaid realized that Muhammad wanted her he divorced her so that Muhammad could have her. Sura 33:36-38 speaks of this affair (read).
Preference
In Sura 33:51 we read, "Thou mayest put off whom thou wilt of them, and whom thou wilt thou mayest take to thee; and if thou seekest any thou hast set aside there is no fault in thee. So it is likelier they will be comforted, and not sorrow, and every one of them will be well-pleased with what thou givest her."
According to Al-Hasan, this phrase means "that the Lord (may He be praised and exalted) allowed Muhammad to abandon or to sleep with any of his women, according to his wish." Muhammad bestowed his love on Aisha, Hafsa, Um Salama and Zainab constantly and equally, and deferred the turn of five of his women (Ummu Habiba, Maymuna, Sawda, Juwayrid, and Safiyya). These he would visit according to whim (al-Zamakhshari's commentary on the verse).
Mary
According to tradition, Muhammad would take a rota with his wives, sleeping with each in their turn. One night, during Hafsa's turn, she asked to visit her father, and Muhammad granted her request. While she was gone, however, Muhammad took Mary the Coptic slave-girl and slept with her in Hafsa's bed. Hafsa returned, was enraged, and confronted Muhammad. He promised (on oath) not to touch Mary again if she would keep this a secret, and then promised that her father Umar would be his successor after Abu Bakr (according to al-Sira al- Halabiyya, vol.2).
Hafsah, however, told Aisha of the incident, and for a full month Muhammad had no dealings with any of his wives, living with Mary alone. Aisha berated Muhammad for his deceit, whereupon Muhammad was finally given the vision recorded in Sura 66:1, in order to defend himself (Mizanu'l Haqq, pg.330 and Mishkat II, pgs.680-681) (read Ali's version of 66:1, plus footnotes).
This Sura says, "O prophet, why forbiddest thou what God has made lawful to thee, seeking the good pleasure of thy wives...?" Based on this ayya it seems that God is in the business of not only getting Muhammad out of his 'jams', but that God justifies unfaithfulness and deceit as well.
Aisha
According to Sahih Muslim (pg.716) Aisha reported that Muhammad married her when she was seven years old, and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, along with her dolls. When Muhammad died she was only eighteen.
Zealousness
There are many accounts of Muhammad's prowess with women. The traditions maintain that his marriages were primarily an act of compassion towards the widows whom he married. The evidence seems to say differently.
According to Al-Bukhari (1 pg.165) "the prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number. I asked Anas, 'Had the prophet the strength for it?' Anas replied, 'We used to say that the prophet was given the strength of thirty (men). And Sa'id said on the authority of Qatada that Anas had told him about nine wives only (not eleven)."
Ibn Sa'd backs this up as well where he states (1 pg.438) "The apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, said: Gabriel brought a kettle from which I ate and I was given the power of sexual intercourse [equal] to forty men."
It is odd that God would allow one of His prophets, the recipient of revelations, to indulge in lust and revel with women at his pleasure. Muhammad embraced those who captivated his mind and heart with their beauty, such as Aisha and Zainab, and treated the rest poorly.
Do we find any of the other prophets so obviously controlled by sex, or even engaged in this sort of lifestyle? Of course not! We would be appalled if a prophet would allow his carnal desires to so completely control him that he would even use the Word of God to escape from difficult circumstances (such as we noted with Zainab or the incident with Hafsa and Aisha).
C4iiic: Muhammad's elevation
Looking at the "revelations" of the Qur'an and the Hadith Traditions, we cannot fail to see that a number of statements deal with personal advantages and give Muhammad a particular status which is far beyond any other prophet's.
We are told that all believers were to follow his example. Malek-b-Anas reported a defective tradition where Muhammad is purported to say, "I leave with you two things; as long as you hold fast by them both, you will never be misguided; the book of Allah and the Sunnah of his messenger (the copying of the lifestyle of Muhammad)" (from Mishkat 1, pg.159)
Abu Hu'airah reported that the messenger of Allah said, "Every one of my followers will enter Paradise except he who refused." He was questioned, "And who has refused (truth)?" He said, "Whoever obeys me shall enter paradise, and whoever disobeys me has refused" (from Mishkat 1, Pg.173). Now not only must we obey God, but it is requisite that we obey Muhammad in order to enter paradise!
The Qur'an also assumes a high regard for Muhammad as the supreme example in Sura 33:21, saying, "Ye have indeed in the Apostle of Allah a beautiful pattern of (conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the praise of Allah." Later, in ayya 36 a reprimand is given for any who question the prophet's authority, equating his authority with that of Allah, "It is not fitting for a believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Apostle, to have any option about their decision. If anyone disobeys Allah and His Apostle, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path."
C4iiid: Muhammad's sin
Our final category asks whether Muhammad, unlike Jesus (Sura 19:19), ever sinned. Can the same be said of Muhammad that was said of Jesus? I believe not!
The Qur'an admits that the sins of Muhammad were many and that they weighed heavily on him. Sura 94:1-3 speaks of this when it says: "Have We not expanded thee thy breast? And removed from thee they burden, the which did gall thy back?" These verses indicate that Allah had to remove Muhammad's burdens (sin) from his back. Muslims contend that these sins were committed before he became a prophet (before 610). We need only refer to Sura 48:2 which says in reference to Muhammad, "Allah may forgive thee thy faults of the past and those to follow..." indicating that even after the Sura was delivered Allah expected him to sin.
In Suras 40:55 and Sura 47:19 we find written, "...and ask forgiveness for thy fault..." This seems straightforward, until you read Yusuf Ali's note at the bottom (4428), which explains that due to the prophet's responsibilities he asks forgiveness in a representative capacity. Leaving Yusuf Ali's "eisegesis" aside it seems evident that Muhammad, a weak and sinful man, pales in comparison to Jesus, the sinless and perfect incarnate God Himself.
As an outside observer, we find it incredulous that Muhammad is permitted to live outside of the very rules which he has ordained for the believers (i.e. permitted to marry more than four wives, or permitted to marry the wife of his adopted son, or permitted to consummate a marriage to a girl of only nine).
Yet, according to Islam, he is, at the same time, the absolute example of which all believers are to model. One is left with a set of contradictions: How are we to follow the model of a prophet who himself abrogates the very parameters which he has set for us to live by? To follow his example would contravene his laws. If a person is asked to follow a certain leader, they would weigh up the 'pros and cons' before reaching a decision. But when truth and eternal life are involved, expediency on temporal issues no longer applies. So when we are told to follow in the footsteps of a spiritual leader, our confidence must not be emotional alone; our confidence must be rational.
That presupposes as deep a study of the quality of the life of the example as possible. One should not give a deaf ear to negative reports, provided they are substantiated. Also one should not explain away possible flaws. But most of all one must have a fixed standard by which to measure right and wrong, good and evil. As Christians we use the standard that is found in the Bible. Ultimately, our concept of what is moral and what is immoral will find its root there.
We are deeply interested in the question of true prophethood. It is and always has been in our best interest to delineate who exactly is a true prophet, for we have been warned to be watchful for false prophets who will come our way (Matthew 24:24).
In light of that we ask whether Muhammad follows the standards by which he has set for himself; and we find him to be wanting. The historical record shows us that he abrogated his call to the Jews when he exiled them from Medina and executed the males of the Kurayza tribe. His claim to be the Seal of the prophets rings hollow in light of his carnal inadequacies, especially in comparison with the other prophets who preceded him.
Finally we ask whether Muhammad fits the pattern of a prophet which we find in our own scriptures. That is the true test for us as Christians. From our study last week it was easy to ascertain that Muhammad failed in this category as well. What remains is to deal with one last area, the claim by Muslims that Muhammad was promised by the prophets who preceded him, and that these prophecies can be found in their writings. It is that area which we will take up next in order to conclude this study.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D: Were there prophecies concerning Muhammad?
We now come to this third and final category in our paper where we ask the question of whether the former prophets ever spoke about Muhammad? To begin with, let's ask that question of Moses, and see whether Muhammad is spoken of in the Taurat.
Let's begin with a hypothetical situation. For instance, what would you say if I were to stand up and claim that I was the final prophet, in a long line of prophets; that whatever I said came straight from God, and therefore was to be believed as authoritative? You would obviously question my credentials as a spokesman from God; as a prophet. With a name like Joseph Smith, the same name as the founder of Mormonism, I wouldn't be the first to make this claim. And like him, all I would have to do is write a book which prescribed a new way of life, a new revelation for humanity, and then look around for some disciples who would believe me willingly.
There is another prophet who made such a claim, one who came a few hundred years before my namesake; you all know him as Muhammad, born in 570 C.E.
At the onset he received visions via the angel Gabriel in the Hira cave, outside Mecca, when he was 40 years old. Interestingly, it was his Nestorian Christian uncle who first told him that his visions were authoritative. Yet initially there were few people who took him seriously, or believed in him as a prophet. In fact, when he finally fled to Medina 8 years later, in 622 C.E. (known as the Hijra), he had less then 100 followers with him (not even a good-sized church by today's standards).
It was only when he attained political power, which afforded him economical might and control, that he was taken seriously, from a religious standpoint. This was especially so following the battle of Badr, when he turned against the Jews in Medina, with whom he had earlier made security alliances.
One might say, then, that his religious credibility was in direct proportion to his political ascendancy, culminating in his triumphal entry into Mecca 8 years later, after which a true theocracy was instilled, which by its very nature neutralized any criticism or suspicion of his religious credibility.
Because of his power-base in Medina and Mecca, Muhammad's authority was in no doubt 1,300 years ago, but it is in doubt today. There are many who are now asking where exactly Muhammad received his authority as a prophet? Previous prophets were authoritative first of all because they belonged to the line of prophets (the Israelite tribe), and secondly, because what they revealed coincided with what had been revealed before; and indeed, continued the same theme, which was: the promise of a Messiah who would come to save the world from sin, and thereby bring God's children back in relationship with Him.
Yet, when we look at the revelations which Muhammad gave the world, we find many contradictions with the scriptures which preceded him. Some of the more common ones you know quite well:
the claim that Ishmael instead of Isaac was the son who was to be sacrificed by Abraham, and the two of them then building the Ka'ba in Mecca
the erroneous burial account of Abel by Cain
the rather humorous account of king Solomon meeting the queen of Sheba by talking to a Hoopoo bird
the miraculous birth of Jesus, which according to the Qur'an took place under a palm tree
and even the story of Jesus speaking as a baby
and later breathing life into birds of clay.
But probably the most damaging contradictions in the Qur'an is 7. its refusal to accept not only the doctrine of the Trinity, but to reject the divinity of Jesus as well as his crucifixion and resurrection. These are absolutely central to the Biblical testimony.
Because so much of that which is important is at a variance with that which came before one has to ask for proof of his authority in making such claims. And this is being done today. It is for this reason that Muslims are attempting to come up with a ready defense.
Initially, Muslims held the view that the differences between the Bible and the Qur'an could be blamed on the Jews and Christians, who, they believed, conspired to corrupt their scriptures in order to reject the claims of the prophet of Islam. One must ask how the Jews and Christians would have known what to change considering they would have had to do their work hundreds of years before the arrival of the Qur'an, as we have thousands of manuscripts which predate the Qur'an in our possession today, all of which remain true to the scripture which we hold in our hands today.
The Qur'an itself, in Suras 5:47-51, 6:34, and 10:64 say that God cannot change his word, and that the Qur'an was sent to guard the former revelations. Thus many Muslim scholars have been forced to deny the possibility of corruption in the Word of God contained in the Bible. Consequently, they have turned their endeavors in other directions, looking for predictions of Muhammad within those preceding scriptures. And it is this assertion which concerns us here.
The Muslim Agenda
Muslims will point out that in the Qur'an there are two ayas (verses) which speak of a prediction of Muhammad in the Taurat and the Injil (the Torah and the Gospels). They are:
Sura 7:157: "Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Taurat and the Injil..."
Sura 61:6:"Jesus son of Mary said: O Children of Israel! Lo! I am the messenger of Allah unto you, confirming that which was (revealed) before me in the Taurat, and bringing good tidings of a messenger who cometh after me, whose name is Ahmad (the Praised One)."
These two ayas say specifically that Muhammad was referred to in both the Taurat and the Injil (the Torah and the Gospel). Our concern here is to ascertain whether this is true, whether there are any predictions concerning Muhammad outside the Qur'an?
In other words, we are interested in finding out whether there is any evidence that the previous Jewish and Christian scriptures spoke about his coming?
Most Muslims believe that in the Taurat (specifically in Deuteronomy 18:18) there is reference to the prophecy which the Qur'an speaks of in Sura 7:157 and Sura 61:6 concerning Muhammad. So it is to that passage that we will first focus our enquiry.
D1: Is there a prediction of Muhammad in Deuteronomy 18?
In Deuteronomy 18:18 we read:
"I (the LORD) will raise up for them a Prophet like you (Moses) and he will tell them everything I command him."
D1i: Comparison: Who is the prophet like Moses?
Our inquiry here is to ascertain what evidence supports the Muslim claim that it is Muhammad who is "a Prophet like you [Moses]." Is it he who is referred to in these verses? If it is then this would contradict the claim by Christians that the verse refers to the prophet Jesus, the promised Messiah.
In order to support their claim, Muslim apologists have tried to write a list of criteria pertaining to Moses and Muhammad, saying that: both were married and had children, both led battles, and both were leaders, etc... What they fail to take into consideration is that any prophet could claim many of these parallels for himself.
A handier tool would be to identify those comparisons which Moses fulfilled which are unique to his ministry, and which would, therefore, be unique to him who is: "a prophet like you (Moses)." In other words, compare apples with apples.
D1ii: Contrast: This prophet cannot be Muhammad
Can we, therefore, say that Muhammad is the promised one, this "prophet like Moses"? From what we have just read, we find that Muhammad was not born in the prophetic line of Moses, had no personal relationship with God, nor was he established in authority by God, as were both Moses and Jesus.
More importantly, the mission of Muhammad was nothing like that of Moses and Jesus, for it was Moses and Jesus who offered themselves as a sacrifice for the sins of their people (Exodus 32:30-32; Deuteronomy 34:10-12; and Matthew 26:28).
Most significantly, however, is the fact that, beginning with Moses and concluding with Jesus, the means of forgiveness and reconciliation with God were brought about (Leviticus 4:2; 6:24,25; 14;13 and Hebrew 19:22). This is the real criteria for "a prophet who is like you (Moses)." Many prophets can claim to be like Moses from the standpoint of human reasoning. Only one can claim to be like Moses from the standpoint of God's reasoning. His desire to save mankind, which Moses first began by bringing the Children of Israel out of captivity from Egypt, and which Jesus finally accomplished by bringing all believers out of captivity from sin 2,000 years ago.
D1iii: Consideration: This prophet must be Jesus:
Muhammad can never claim to parallel the essential and unique aspects of Moses' ministry on earth, as Jesus can. Those who worked alongside Jesus, and who predated Muhammad by nearly 700 years came to this same conclusion. Consider the following witnesses from John and Luke:
John 1:45: "We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law."
John 5:46: "If you believed Moses you would believe me [Jesus], for he wrote about me."
John 6:14: "Surely this [Jesus] is the prophet who is to come into the World."
Acts 3:22: "Moses said, 'The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people...'." (i.e. own brothers=sons of Israel.)
D1iv: Conclusion: Without a prediction where is Muhammad's authority?
In order to prove that Muhammad was a true prophet, the Qur'an stipulated that in the Taurat and the Injil predictions concerning him could be found (Refer to Suras 7:157 and 61:6 above). Yet we find none of these prophecies in either the Taurat, or the Injil (i.e. John 16:7 which we will deal with later). What does this say for the authority of Muhammad?
At the heart of the argument, for a Muslim, is the desire to find any external predictions for the coming of Muhammad in the Taurat and the Injil (as referred to in Sura 7:157). Without it, the only criteria for Muhammad's authority is the Qur'an; while the only authority for the Qur'an is Muhammad. This is circular reasoning, which is not a valid scholarly argument. Since the evidence for any prediction by Moses concerning Muhammad does not exist in the Taurat, this creates a problem for Muslims who must produce external criteria for the authenticity of their prophet.
Without it, Muhammad has no outside evidence to prove his prophethood. Furthermore, the Qur'an itself claims, in Sura 29:27, that prophethood belongs solely to the line of Isaac and Jacob, to which Muhammad has no part.
Consequently, the authority for the beliefs of over one billion Muslims then hangs on the single testimony of one finite man. (note: a man who himself admits his lack of power in Sura:Ta Ha 20:49, and his sinfulness in Sura: Ghafir 40:55, in contrast with the claim by Jesus to have all power in Matthew 28:18, and to be without sin in I Peter 2:22, which we also find in Sura 19:19).
As we read these verses and consider what has been written, it is easy to conclude that this prophecy by Moses in Deuteronomy 18 can only belong to Jesus the Christ. It is He who was born in the line of Moses, and it is He who had a relationship with God, as He was God. It was He who was established in authority with God, and it was He who, like Moses, offered Himself as a sacrifice for the sins of others (in His case for all of humanity). It is this last criteria which sets these two off from the rest. Only Moses and Jesus had the unique mission: to bring about a renewal of relationship with God; the one, Moses, out of the captivity of slavery in Egypt, and the other, Jesus, out of the captivity of sin in our hearts, for eternity.
D2: Are there further predictions of Muhammad in the Old Testament?
We now come to the question of whether there are any other predictions of Muhammad in the Old Testament? According to Muslims there are a number of other instances where their prophet can be found. We need to know how to answer them on these issues as well.
D2i: Do we find Muhammad in the Old Testament?
According to Suras 7 and 61 Muhammad is supposedly predicted somewhere in the former scriptures (i.e. Taurat). For a long time now, Muslims have tried desperately to find these predictions for their prophet in those scriptures which preceded the Qur'an (the Taurat, Zabuur and the Injil), but to no avail. It is ironic that Muslims are now compelled by their own scripture to establish the credibility of their prophet in the Old Testament, the very book which they claim elsewhere to be corrupted and of no real worth.
Muslims and Christians alike agree that Christ's coming was predicted often in the Old Testament. Yet, if God had intended to send another prophet far greater than He, we should naturally find predictions concerning him there as well. Yet, none are to be found. Therefore, without a prediction the sole criteria for Muhammad's authority rests entirely on the Qur'an, whose sole authority rests on Muhammad, and for obvious reasons this is unworkable.
D2ii: Muslims find Muhammad in the Old Testament
Due to the predicament which Muslims find themselves in, they have, after a hurried perusal of our Bible, come forward with a series of twelve passages from the Old Testament which they believe point to Muhammad. Outside of the Deuteronomy 18 passage (dealt with above), all of these passages, which supposedly refer to a messenger, falls into four general categories.
This person is someone who used the sword (Psalm 45:2-5; 149; Isaiah 63).
However, when we read further, the context in these passages clearly points out that the sword-wielder is not only God, but the Creator, the Lord of Israel and the Lord of Hosts. I know of few Muslims who would be willing to equate these titles with Muhammad.
This person is someone whose life-style parallels that of Muhammad's day (i.e rides a camel, lives in a desert) (Isaiah 21:7 and 53).
Yet the context again refers to both a messenger from Babylon, and a servant who was crushed, pierced, and wounded for others, hardly analogous to Muhammad's life.
This person is someone whose geographical location coincides with that of Muhammad (Deuteronomy 33:2; Isaiah 63; Habakkuk 3:3).
Yet the Mount Paran which they claim to be in Mecca is rather on the Sinai Peninsula, while Bozrah is not Basrah, but modern-day Al-Busairah, situated in Edom, south of the Dead Sea.
In Habbakuk 3:3 we read, "God comes from Teman." Muslims maintain that Teman refers to Islam. To be consistent they must also adhere to the other prophecies concerning Teman. In Jeremiah 49:7 God questions whether there is any wisdom in Teman. Verse 20 says the people of Teman will be aghast at their fate. Ezekiel 25:13 promises that God will lay waste the people of Teman, and God will send fire and consume them (Amos 1:12), and there will be no survivors (Obadiah 8-10). This would suggest that there is no wisdom in Islam, and that there awaits all Muslims a destruction by fire which will consume them!
Fortunately for the Muslims, we know that this fate has no place in reality. For when we refer to the Biblical account we find that Teman is not Islam at all, but a town close to Jericho, in the territory of Edom.
This person is someone whose name has a common root to that of Muhammad.
In Genesis 49:8-10 it is Judah; in the Song of Solomon 5:16 it is Ahmad; and in Haggai 2:7 it is Hemdah. This fourth category needs further discussion as it is adhered to more resolutely by the Muslims as real proof for a prediction than the others.
D2iii: Names which point to Muhammad:
Muslims believe that all of these three passages use names which can be translated as "praise" (Judah, Ahmad, and Hemdah), and are semantically similar to "Muhammad," which means "the praised one." However, in Arabic the verb "Hamada" (to praise) is the root for many words, yet one does not find Muslims substituting "Muhammad" and "Hamada" interchangeably.
Take for instance the very first Sura of the Qur'an. In the second ayya (verse) we find, "Praise (al-hamadi) be to Allah." Do we dare change this to Muhammad? Of course not! That is sacrilege!
In Haggai 2:7 Muslims believe "Hemdah" (the desire of nations) comes from the same root as the word "Muhammad." Yet they must certainly cringe when this word is again used in Daniel 11:37 to refer to a person "desired by women" who is a false god of the heathen.
D2iv: Song of Solomon 5:16
But perhaps the best example to illustrate the difficulty in exchanging one word for another is found in the Song of Solomon, chapter 5, verse 16. In this passage Muslims claim that the Hebrew word "Machmad" (altogether lovely) can be translated "praise" or "Ahmad." Following is the text of the passage as translated in the New International Version Bible:
"His mouth is sweetness itself; he is altogether lovely. This is my lover, this my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem."
The book of Song of Solomon is a poetic love story between the Beloved and her Lover. It is a piece that explores the beauty of a marriage relationship between a king and his wife.
Muslims believe that the adjectival clause "altogether lovely" can be changed to a proper noun, "Muhammad." The text should then read, when translated into English:
"His mouth is sweetness itself; he is Muhammad. This is my lover, this my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem."
This rendering, however, begs a number of difficult questions according to the context of the entire book.
Who are the daughters of Jerusalem? Did Muhammad ever court one of his many wives in Jerusalem?
If this is Muhammad, which of his wives is speaking? Was Muhammad ever married to a dark woman he wooed from Lebanon?
Did Muhammad ever claim kingship?
What, then, is this prophecy saying? The underlined words in the text above are the English renderings of the Hebrew word, machmad. Strong's concordance defines machmad as: desire, desirable thing, a pleasant thing.
So, can Machmad signify Muhammad? Wise men allow that when one verse is in doubt it is justified to explain one passage of the Bible by another. The word machmad appears twelve more times in the Old Testament. Since Muslims are so intent on finding the name of Muhammad in the Hebrew word "machmad," it is important that they remain consistent. Therefore, we have printed these twelve prophetic verses below and leave it to you to ascertain whether they fit. Note that we have been consistent in now translating this word as the long-neglected "proper noun" which they claim it to be.
1 Kings 20:6: "Yet I will send my servants to thee tomorrow about this time, and they shall search thy house, and the houses of thy servants; and it shall be, [that] whatever is Muhammad in thy eyes, they shall take [it] in their hand, and carry [it] away."
2 Chronicles 36:19: "And they burnt the house of God, and broke down the wall of Jerusalem, and burnt all its palaces with fire, and destroyed all its Muhammad vessels."
Isaiah 64:11: "Our holy and our beautiful house, where our fathers praised thee, is burned with fire: and all our Muhammad things are laid waste."
Lamentations 1:10: "The adversary hath spread out his hand upon all her Muhammad things: for she hath seen [that] the nations entered into her sanctuary, whom thou didst command [that] they should not enter into thy congregation."
Lamentations 1:11: "All her people sigh, they seek bread; they have given their Muhammad things for food to relieve the soul: see, O LORD, and consider; for I am become vile."
Lamentations 2:4: "He hath bent his bow like an enemy: he stood with his right hand as an adversary, and slew all [that were] Muhammad to the eye in the tabernacle of the daughter of Zion: he poured out his fury like fire."
Ezekiel 24:16: "Son of man, behold, I take away from thee the Muhammad of thy eyes with a stroke: yet neither shalt thou mourn nor weep, neither shall thy tears run down."
Ezekiel 24:21: "Speak to the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will profane my sanctuary, the excellence of your strength, the Muhammad of your eyes, and that which your soul pitieth; and your sons and your daughters whom ye have left shall fall by the sword."
Ezekiel 24:25: "Also, thou son of man, [shall it] not [be] in the day when I take from them their strength, the joy of their glory, the Muhammad of their eyes, and that on which they set their minds, their sons and their daughters." Hosea 9:6: "For, lo, they are gone because of destruction: Egypt shall gather them up, Memphis shall bury them: the Muhammad [places] for their silver, nettles shall possess them: thorns [shall be] in their tabernacles."
Hosea 9:16: "Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay [even] the Muhammad [fruit] of their womb."
Joel 3:5: "Because ye have taken my silver and my gold, and have carried into your temples my Muhammad things."
If this mutilation of Scripture seems to you ridiculous, it is meant to be as it shows the quality of the theory behind such an idea.
When taken to its logical conclusion it makes a mockery of Hebrew grammar. Why should an adjectival clause be translated a proper noun? Machmad already has a proper noun counterpart, but more closely related to the clause -- Chemdan (or Hemdan), the eldest son of Dishon of Anah the Horite. If machmad should have been written as a proper noun the author would have written Chemdan.
D2v: The problem with this exercise
This claim is quite similar to the issue of the paraclete in the book of John (which we will refer to later). Many Muslims contend that it is another prophecy of Muhammad. Yet this prophecy in John 14 and 16 has been shown for what it is - a prophecy of the Spirit of God. We find it peculiar that Muslims will, in one text, base their claim on the meaning of one word at the expense of its pronunciation (paracletos versus periclytos) and yet with another text base their claim on the pronunciation of a single word at the expense of its meaning (desire versus praise)!
If these techniques of hermeneutics are just, then wouldn't it be quite in line to expect to find as a substitute for the word paracletos a prophet named "Perry Clinton," whose name really means "the desired one?" Absurd? Yes! That is the point. Using this technique one can conjure up a prophecy for nearly any prophet one happens to fancy, or even make up one on the whim.
Conversely, a Hindu could claim that in Sura 30:1, the word "al-rum" (for Romans), which can be written "Ram," must be referring to the Hindu God "Rama."
A further irony in this whole exercise is that Muhammad is not even the name which the prophet grew up with. According to Muslim tradition, in his youth Muhammad was called Amin, a common Arab name meaning "faithful, or trustworthy." Amin was his given name, a masculine form from the same root as his mother's name "Amina."
We understand the desire by Muslims to find any prophecy which will give credence to Muhammad, for without it Muhammad has no outside evidence to prove his prophethood. That then leaves the authority for the beliefs of over one billion Muslims hanging on the single testimony of just one finite man. We ask, however, that Muslims not twist or attack the scriptures in order to gain their own agenda. We are constantly amazed that Muslims should be at once both critics and stewards of the Holy Scriptures of Christians and Jews. It would be better to be of one mind.
If Muslims firmly believe the scriptures are inadequate then they should behave as such and abstain from picking and choosing what they like from what they deem a hopelessly inadequate book. We will not insult them for bravely allying with other enemies of the Bible. But it is hypocrisy to use data from a book they claim is crude and inferior to support an already illogical argument.
If we truly believe the scriptures and desire to find prophecies within them, then we need to read them all and learn with an open mind. We need to truly submit ourselves to the authoritative and COMPLETE teachings of Scripture as has been diligently preserved throughout the ages.
D3: Is there a prophecy of Muhammad in the Injil?
We now come to the final claim by Muslims, that a prediction of Muhammad can be found in the Injil, in other words in the New Testament.
D3i: Parakletos or Periklytos?
The two ayas quoted at the beginning of this lecture speak of a prophet or messenger who will be described in the Taurat and Injil, who can neither read nor write, who will come after Jesus, and will be called Ahmed. Attempts have been made by Muslims since the middle of the 10th century to quote definite verses from the Bible which speak of Muhammad; verses such as Genesis 16:9-12; 17:20-21; 21:21 and Deuteronomy 33:2,12. These are easily defendable, and need little of our time.
Another scripture which is often quoted by Muslims as the definitive proof of a prediction concerning Muhammad is that found in the New Testament in John 14:16 and John 16:7. These are the passages which we will deal with here.
Let's open to those passages. (Read John 14:16 and 16:7)
The problem comes with the word "Counsellor". All the misunderstanding which separates Jews, Christians and Muslims come from the manner in which one pronounces or writes parakletos, which the translators of the gospel have rendered as "counsellor." There are two popular spellings of this word, the one parakletos and the other periklytos.
Muslims, aware that the original New Testament was written in Greek, choose the latter spelling, periklytos, which in Greek is translated as 'glorious', over parakletos which means 'counsellor', or 'lawyer'.
On the strength of the Qur'anic text Muslims claim that John 14:16 and 16:7 are predictions of the coming of Muhammad, as the word periklytos (glorious), refers to the Ahmad spoken of in Sura 61:6, a form of the name Muhammad, since both mean "the Praised one".
D3ii: Greek language confirms parakletos
What the Muslims have tried to do with this word is to replace the vowels as they see fit (replacing the a-a-e-o in parakletos with e-i-y-o in periklytos). In Hebrew and Arabic, where the vowels are not included in the words, there is room for debate as to which vowels the author intended (such as YHWH), however, this is not so in Greek, as the vowels are clearly written in all Greek texts.
Abdullah Yusuf Ali in his footnotes in the Qur'an referring to this passage says: "Our doctors contend that Paracletos is a corrupt reading for Periklytos, and that in their original saying of Jesus there was a prophecy of our Holy Prophet Ahmad by name" (pg. 1461, note no.5438).
D3iii: Greek manuscripts confirm parakletos
It would have been helpful if Ali and his learned "doctors", before making such an erroneous claim, had referred to existing manuscripts (MSS) which are easily accessible for examination (including two of the oldest, the Codex Siniaticus and the Codex Alexandrinas, both in the British Museum in London).
There are more than 70 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in existence today, dating from before the time of Muhammad, and not one of them use the word periklytos! All use the word parakletos. In fact the word periklytos does not even appear at all in the Bible!
D3iv: Therefore Muhammad could not be the parakletos
So why do Muslims continue to cling to the erroneous rendering of this word? Obviously, as we have mentioned before, Yusuf Ali and his friends have a deep desire to find any prediction for the coming of Muhammad in the Taurat and Injil. Not only does the Qur'an mention that the predictions exist, but more damaging for today, without it the sole criteria for Muhammad's authority takes on an invalid circular reasoning, which goes something like this: Muhammad receives his authority from the Qur'an, which receives its authority from Muhammad, who receives his authority from the Qur'an...so on and so forth. There is no outside authority which can provide him with the credibility he needs.
The evidence for any prediction by Jesus concerning Muhammad just does not exist in the Injil, creating a problem for Muslims who must, therefore, produce some further external criteria for the authenticity of their prophet. It's an unenviable task, one which I wouldn't want to have to do myself.
D3v: So who is the parakletos?
A further problem for the Muslim exists once they open to the verses in question. John 14:16 says: "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counsellor (parakletos) to be with you for ever." Most Muslims quote only the first half of this verse, as well as John 16:7, and then shut the Bible.
What they fail to realize is that, as is the case in most pieces of literature, it is dangerous to read any verse or phrase without looking at the context first.
When we continue reading beyond chapter 14:16 and chapter 16:7, we find that Jesus predicts the specific details of the arrival and identity of the parakletos. Therefore, according to the context of John 14 & 16 we find that:
Jesus said the parakletos is not a human being:
14:16: "he will be with you for ever" (a human doesn't live forever)
14:17: "he will be the spirit of truth" (a human is distinct from spirit)
14:17: "the world neither sees him..." (a human is visible)
14:17: "...nor knows him" (a human would be known by others)
14:17: "and he will be in you" (a human cannot be within others)
Jesus said that the parakletos has a specific mission; to point to Jesus:
14:26: "whom the Father will send in my (Jesus') name"
14:26: "will remind you everything I (Jesus) have said to you"
16:8: "he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin..."
16:14: "He will bring glory to me (Jesus)..."
Finally, Jesus said that the parakletos is a spirit:
14:17: "the Spirit of Truth"
14:26: "the Counsellor (parakletos), the Holy Spirit"
D3vi: The answer is the Holy Spirit, who arrived 50 days later
It is clear from the context that no human prophet or angelic being can qualify as the parakletos. Consider what these verses say: He will be with them forever, not seen, nor known, yet within others, and will set about reminding the people of what Jesus did, while bringing glory to Jesus. There is only one being who qualifies in all these areas, the Holy Spirit of the Injil, whom Jesus pointedly identifies as the parakletos. He fulfills all the above requirements.
In Acts 1, Jesus, just before He was to be taken up into heaven, and 40 days after He had first promised the Holy Spirit, again spoke about this "gift":
v.4: "wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about"
v.5: "in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."
It is obvious that this counsellor, of whom Jesus speaks is indeed the Holy Spirit, who came in power, 50 days after these promises were given to the disciples; on the day of Pentecost (which is translated as the 50th day), and 570 years before the birth of Muhammad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E: Conclusion
So what have we learned? We began this paper by asking whether Muhammad could qualify as a true prophet of God. We presented the Muslim positions, positing that they claimed his prophethood due to the supernatural witness to his prophethood during his early childhood, as well as the fact that he delivered the Qur'an, though he was illiterate, and because both his prophesies and miracles pointed to his prophethood.
We then gave rebuttals to all four of these positions and followed up with four criteria of our own, concluding that Muhammad could not qualify in any four of these categories.
Following that we took the question further by asking whether Muhammad's message was for Arabs alone, or whether it was universal. Though verses can be found in the Qur'an which maintain both positions, we determined that this particular revelation had possibly evolved and followed the natural polytheistic reality on the ground at that time.
We asked whether Muhammad could be a prophet to the Jews and Christians, and came away bruised and battered from the violence with which he enjoined those two groups.
From there it was only natural to ask whether Muhammad could be understood as the seal of the prophets? In comparing him with Jesus and the former prophets we soon found that he didn't even come close. Not only did he concede his revelations to the people around him, but he had an enormous sexual appetite, while elevating himself almost on par with Allah. And finally, he, himself, realized that he had sinned and needed forgiveness.
In all these categories Muhammad failed to persuade us that he could legitimately claim to be a prophet of God. But our enquiry was still not finished. We needed to ascertain if others had spoken previously about this prophet who was yet to come.
In Suras 7:157 and 61:6 we read of a prophet, Ahmad (or Muhammad), who was revealed beforehand in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injil (Gospel). Because these Suras are included in the "eternal and perfect" authority for Muslims, it is imperative, therefore, that these passages be found, since without them, Muhammad has no outside evidence to prove his prophethood, other than himself.
Muhammad's word worked fine in the heady days of the seventh century, where no-one dared counter his claim to prophethood, and where convenient revelations "descended" regularly to give him credibility before his people. But today, outside the realm of Islamic jurisdiction, and on the heels of an invigorated and ongoing literary criticism, the critics demand more proof. Without it the authority for the beliefs of over one billion Muslims then hangs on the single testimony of this one finite man, Muhammad. And many of those beliefs go diametrically against the intrinsic revelations espoused in the scriptures which preceded him, the very scriptures which Muslims must now use to find a prediction for their prophet in order to give him credibility.
There are, however, no passages in the Taurat or the Injil which speak of him, not one.
Muslims will certainly come forward and point to the passages in Deuteronomy 18, or the Song of Solomon 5:16, or John 14 and 16 as the one's which refer to Ahmad, or Muhammad. Yet, are they? Can this prophet like Moses, the promised one, this counsellor, be a mere human or a mere prophet; or is He more than that? Is He not God Himself, in the form of a man, or, as we found in John, in the form of the Holy Spirit?
As we read these verses and consider what has been said here, it will be good to feel encouraged that we do indeed serve the true God, who chooses to reveal Himself clearly and simply, from Genesis through to Revelation, and chooses to be in relationship with us as His creatures, by coming to us as a man in the line of Moses, while still relating to us by means of His Holy Spirit, mediating Christ in us.
Because Muslims do not understand God within these parameters, it is no wonder that they are confused to find that it is Jesus and not Muhammad who is prophesied to carry on the mission of reconciliation, and that it is the Holy Spirit who has been promised to continue that same mission today, right here and right now, until we will all be with Him together for eternity; providing we believe.
How Did Jerusalem Come to be so Holy to Moslems?
(why and when the myth of al-Aqsa was created?)
Muhammad, the Prophet, hardly made any innovations when he established
Islam. He used the hallowed personages, historic legends and sacred sites
of Judaism, Christianity, and even paganism, by Islamizing them. Thus,
according to Islam, Abraham was the first Moslem and Jesus and St. John
(the sons of Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aron) were prophets and
guardians of the second heaven. Many Biblical legends ("asatir
al-awwalin"), which were familiar to the pagan Arabs before the dawn of
Islam, underwent an Islamic conversion and the Koran as well as the Hadith
(the Islamic oral tradition), are replete with them.
The practice of Islamization was performed on places as well as persons:
Mecca and the holy stone, al-Ka'bah, were holy sites of the pre-Islamic
pagan Arabs. The Umayyads' Mosque in Damascus and the Great Mosque of
Istanbul were built on the sites of Christian-Byzantine churches which
were converted into mosques, good examples of Islamic treatment of
sanctuaries of other faiths.
Jerusalem underwent the same process: at first Muhammad attempted to
convince the Jews near Medina to join his young community, and in order to
persuade them, he established the direction of prayer (kiblah) to be to
the north, towards Jerusalem, like the Jews; but after he failed in this
attempt he fought the Jews, killed many of them, and turned the kiblah
southward, to Mecca. His abandonment of Jerusalem explains the fact that
this city is not mentioned in the Koran even once. After Palestine was
occupied by the Moslems, its capital was in Ramlah, 30 miles to the west
of Jerusalem, since this city meant nothing to them.
Islam rediscovered Jerusalem 50 years after Muhammad's death. In 682 CE,
'Abd allah ibn al-Zubayr rebelled against the Islamic rulers in Damascus,
conquered Mecca and prevented pilgrims from reaching Mecca for the Hajj.
'Abd al-Malik, the Umayyad Calif, needed an alternative site for the
pilgrimage and settled on Jerusalem which was under his control. In order
to justify this choice, a verse from the Koran was chosen (sura 17, verse
1) which states (trans. by Majid Fakhri): "Glory to Him who caused His
servant to travel by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque,
whose precincts We have blessed, in order to show him some of Our Signs,
He is indeed the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing."
The meaning ascribed to this verse is that "the furthest mosque"
(al-masjid al-aqsa) is in Jerusalem and that Muhammad was conveyed there
one night (although at that time the journey took three days by camel), on
the back of al-Buraq, his magical horse with the head of a woman, wings of
an eagle, the tail of a peacock, and whose hoofs reach to the horizon. He
tethered the horse to the Western Wall of the Temple Mount and from there
ascended to the seventh heaven together with the angel Gabriel. On his way
he met the prophets of other religions who are the guardians of heaven:
Adam, Jesus, St. John, Joseph, Seth, Aaron, Moses and Abraham who
accompanied him on his way to the seventh heaven, to Allah, and who
accepted him as their master. (see the commentary of Al-Jalalayn on this
verse). Thus Islam tries to gain legitimacy over other, older religions,
by creating a scene in which the former prophets agree to Muhammad's
mastery, thus making him Khatam al-Anbiya' ("the Seal of the Prophets").
The strange thing here is that this fantastic story contradicts a number
of the tenets of Islam: How can a man of flesh and blood ascend to heaven?
How can a mythical creature carry a mortal to a real destination?
Questions such as these have caused orthodox Moslem thinkers to conclude
that the whole story of the nocturnal journey was a dream of Muhammad's.
Thus Islam tried to "go one better" than the Bible: Moses "only" went up
to Mt. Sinai, in the middle of nowhere, and drew close to heaven, whereas
Muhammad went all the way up to Allah, and from Jerusalem itself.
So why shouldn't we also believe that the al-Aqsa mosque is in Jerusalem?
One good reason is that the people of Mecca, who knew Muhammad well, did
not believed this story. Only Abu Bakr, the first Calif, believed him and
thus was called "al-Siddiq" ("the believer"). The second reason is that
Islamic tradition itself tells us that al-Aqsa mosque is near Mecca on the
Arabian peninsula. This was unequivocally stated in "Kitab al-maghazi", a
book by the Moslem historian and geographer al-Waqidi (Oxford UP, 1966,
vol. 3, pp. 958-9). According to al-Waqidi, there were two "masjeds"
(places of prayer) in al-gi'ranah, a village between Mecca and Ta'if. One
was the "the closer mosque" (al-masjid al-adana) and the other was "the
further mosque" (al-masjid al-aqsa), and Muhammad would pray there when he
went out of town.
This description by al-Waqidi was not "convenient" for the Islamic
propaganda of the 7th century. In order to establish a basis to the
awareness of the "holiness" of Jerusalem in Islam, the Califs of the
Ummayid dynasty invented many "traditions" upholding the value of
Jerusalem ("fadha'il bayt al-Maqdis"), which would justify pilgrimmage to
Jerusalem to the faithful Moslems. Thus was al-masjid al-aqsa
"transported" to Jerusalem. It should be noted that Saladin also adopted
the myth of al-Aqsa and those "traditions" in order to recruit and inflame
the Moslem warriors against the Crusaders in the 12th century.
Another aim of the Islamization of Jerusalem was to undermine the
legitimacy of the older religions, Judiaism and Christianity, which
consider Jerusalem to be a holy city. Thus Islam is presented as the only
legitimate religion, taking the place of the other two because they had
changed and distorted the Word of God, each in its turn. (About the
alleged forgeries of the Holy Scriptures, made by Jews and Christians, see
the third chapter of: M. J. Kister, "haddithU 'an banI isra'Il wa-la
haraja", IOS 2 (1972), pp. 215-239. Kister quotes dozens of Islamic
sources).
Though Judaism and Christianity can exist side by side in Jerusalem, Islam
regards both of them as a betrayal of Allah and his teachings, and has
done and will do all in its power to expel both of them from the city. It
is interesting to note that this expulsion is retroactive: The Islamic
announcers of the Palestinian radio stations keep claiming that the Jews
never had a temple on the Temple mount and certainly not two temples.
Where, according to them, did Jesus preach?
Arafat, himself a secular person (ask the Hamas), is doing today exactly
what the Califs of the Umayyad dynasty did: he is recruiting the holiness
of Jerusalem to serve his political ends. He must not give control of
Jerusalem over to the Jews since according to Islam they are impure and
the wrath of Allah is upon them (al-maghdhoub 'alayhim, Koran, sura. 1,
verse 7, see al-Jalalayn and other commentaries; Note that verse numbers
may differ slightly in different editions of the Koran). The Jews are the
sons of monkeys and pigs (s. 5, v. 60). (For the idea that Jews are
related to pigs and monkeys see, for example, Musnad al-Imam Ahmad ibn
Hanbal, (Beyrut 1969) vol. 3, p. 241. See also pages 348, 395, 397, 421,
and vol. 6, p. 135.) The Jews are those who distorted the holy writings
which were revealed to them (s. 2, v. 73, s. 3, v. 72) and denied God's
signs (s. 3, v. 63). Since they violated the covenant with their God (s.
4, v. 154), God cursed them (s. 5, v. 16) and forever they are the
inheiritors of hell (s. 3, v. 112). So how can Arafat abandon Jerusalem to
the Jews?
The Palestinian media these days is full of messages of Jihad calling to
broaden the national-political war between Israel and the Palestinians
into a religious-Islamic war between the Jews and the Moslems. READ THEIR
LIPS: for them Christianity is as good as Judaism, since both of them lost
their right to rule over Jerusalm. Only Islam, Din al-Haqq ("the Religion
of Truth") has this right, and forever (shaykh 'Ikrima Sabri, the mufti of
Jerusalem, in Friday's khutbah 4 weeks ago, Sawt falastin, the PA official
radio).
Since the holiness of Jerusalem to Islam always was and still is no more
than a politically motivated holiness, Arafat is putting his political
head on the block should he give it up. Must the whole world bow down to
myths concocted by Islam, long after Jerusalem is, and has been, the true
center of Judaism and Christianity? Should UN forces be sent to the Middle
East just because Arafat recycles the Umayyads' political problems, or
even Muhammad's dreams about Jerusalem?
Dr. M. Kedar,
Dept. of Arabic, Bar-Ilan University,
52900 Ramat-Gan,Israel
Phone+Fax: 972 9 7449162
email: [email protected]
|
