How Paul Inducted Pagan Doctrines Into Christianity and Corrupted the True Teachings of Jesus [‘Eesa (alayhissalaam)]

image

                     Paul of Tarsus

There was an apostle, who wrote an epistle,

strange faith did he jostle, and scriptures entwistle.

His doctrines pentacostal, made GOD’s people bristle,
and blapshemy collosal, led to his dismissal.

Apostle, epistle, collossal, dismissal,
His writings bescissel, make faith so afissile.

GOD created man in Adam’s image.
Then the Christians came along and recreated GOD in man’s image.
_Anonymous

Quite a number of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) wish they could Turn you (people) back to infidelity after ye have believed, from selfish envy, after the Truth hath become Manifest unto them: But forgive and overlook, Till Allah brings about His command; for Allah Hath power over all things. (Qur’an Surah Al-Baqarah 2:109)

In the annals of religious history, Paul happens to be a surprise. Why??, he is the only figure to admit to lying and strangely enough, justifying it as well. When the prophets clearly condemned this evil habit, Paul glorified it, and put a new meaning to the ends will justify the means.

During the ministry of Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam), Saul (Paul) was a dedicated member of a powerful, exclusive Jewish sect called Pharisees (ACTS 26:5). Their pretensions to sanctity had labelled them as hypocrites. When these overbearing vainglorious Jews confronted Jesus, he called them:

“You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”
(John 8:44)

Saul, a zealous persecutor of the devoted disciples of Christ, became the first Christian missionary and an Apostle to the Gentiles after converting himself to Christianity by a “vision”, which he claims he had, while on the road to Damascus. The missionary changed his name from Saul to Paul and became the biggest contributor to the Books of the New Testament.

From the above verse, Jesus like many of his predecessors condemned lying, deceit and hypocrisy. Lying is condemned several times throughout the Bible, and deceit by its own nature, is sinful and can only lead to hazardous consequences. What does Peter say in regards to guile (which means cunning, deceit, trickery, treachery)

For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that speak no guile
(1 PETER 3:12)

The verse speaks for itself. One of the factors that hinder mans success in this world and eternal life in the hereafter, is the use of guile. But on his own admittance, what does Paul say?:

But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless being crafty, I CAUGHT YOU WITH GUILE
(2 CORINTHIANS 12:16)

On his own admission, Paul is saying that he uses deception in his modus operandi. In all the new versions of the Bible, the more common term of deceit is replaced instead.

This statement is made long after his conversion to Christianity, in the phase when he supposed to be blessed and righteous, and most importantly of all, being guided by Christ.

For our exhortation [was] not of deceit, nor of uncleanness, nor in guile: (1 Thessalonians 2:3)

Paul now speaks with two tongues, guile he can

But what I do, that will I do, that I may cut off occasion from those which desire occasion;…
(2 CORINTHIANS 11:13)

In the New Revised Standard Version, the verse reads in order to deny an opportunity to those who want an opportunity to be recognized as our equals.. He can’t be any clearer or succinct, If any other Christian group tries to rival Pauls mission, he will seek to utilise means of destroying any opportunity that may arise for his opponents. This goes completely against the morals from what we know of Jesus and the Prophets of age. If Paul believed he had the truth, there would be no need to play games and power struggles, as the truth will always prevail in the end. The use of deceit and craftiness is the mark of the insecure and paranoid, not so certain that his own faith is correct, he had more hope in his will and ways prevailing, rather than the truth of the message of Christ.

For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more
And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them under the Law, that I might gain them that are under the Law;
To them that are without the law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ) that I might gain them that are under the law.
To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
(I CORINTHIANS 9:19-22)

What better illustration of hypocrisy could be given. For the sake of the truth, Paul will use all means of deceit, insincerity, ruse etc in order to gain more followers. Just like his successors today, the missionaries put on a face of every ethnic race. You can see them at many of their websites, to the Muslims; they put themselves under the guise of WORLD VISION and other aid programs, and when they inject the needle, they also try to inject the needle of Christianity along side it. To the Jewish people, the Christian missionaries love Jews, Israel and Zionism (one point that they could never mention to the Muslims), bagels and Seinfeld. This love becomes so much that its insincere face starts to show.

It is the wish of a section of the People of the Book to lead you astray. But they shall lead astray (Not you), but themselves, and they do not perceive!
Sura Al-Imran 3.69

For if the truth of God, hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory: why yet am I also judged as a sinner? (ROMANS 3:7)

Even though Paul admits to lying (like he has in many other places), never how much he tries to defend his actions, the rational spiritual mind will never accept it. Lying is at the root of falsehood, the very element that is completely opposed to truth. The truth is a means to an end. If a Muslim wanted to build a Mosque and he required funding to do so; there are several ways he could go about it. If he decided to rob a bank and used the stolen cash to build the Masjid, all his efforts will be in vain. Allah will never accept it from him, even though the man did it for Allah’s sake. The fact is that the ends don’t justify the means, to get to paradise, you must choose the road that leads to paradise. And deceit is definitely not on that road.

Cursed [be] he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully, …
(Jeremiah 48:10)

ON THE ROAD TO DAMASCUS

The turning point in the life of Paul happens to be his crucial trip from Jerusalem to Damascus. Many would agree that if Paul did see a vision of of Christ, it would leave an undeniable imprint in his mind. And the fact that this is supposedly recorded in the “Book of God”, their should be consistency in the way the incident is narrated. As God is not the author of confusion.

NARRATION 1

And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
(ACTS 9:3-7)

NARRATION 2

And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me.
And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.
And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
And I said, What shall I do, LORD? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.
(ACTS 22:6-10)

NARRATION 3

Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests,
At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.
And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:
But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
(ACTS 26:12-20)

DISCREPANCIES IN THE NARRATIONS

In the first we have a record of Paul’s men, hearing a voice and seeing no man (i.e Jesus). In the second narration, we have Paul claiming that the men saw Jesus, but did not hear a voice. The possibility of Paul manipulating this “event” is clearly revealed in the second narration, we have Paul defending himself before the Hebrew counsel, and twisting the point that his companions saw a light, but did not hear the voice; apperantly adds more credibility to his phenomenal vision. As a voice could be anyones voice for what the Jews care. Yes there is a contradiction, but from what we have seen from the character of Paul, it should not come as a surprise. In the third narration, he omits any mention of the specific incident.

The first and second narration are consistent when it comes to claiming only he fell to the ground when he saw the light. In the third narration, he claims he and his companions fell down. Why the change of retrospect, given the fact that Paul was defending himself in the third narration at the Court of King Agrippa, dramatising the vision by claiming all his men fell to the earth highlighted the desire to show the great impact this event had not just on his life, but those who were in his presence.

What clearly reveals the flaw-ness of his vision, is that in the third narration when addressing King Agrippa and his Gentile court. He makes the claim that in his vision, Jesus told him that he will be Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee. So in effect, Paul is claiming that Jesus sent him to the Gentiles, (possibly in order placate the crowd present). And in the second narration to the Jews, he brings absolutely no mention of this “I’am sending you to the Gentiles” alleged statement that Jesus told him. Why not?, the obvious answer lies in the respective audience being addressed.

In a Court of Law, such contradictory evidence would be held suspect and hence dismissed or cross-examined.

Back to the specific issue of whether the disciples heard the voice or not. The Apologisers for the New Testament, as well as the NIV bible, have tried to cover up the contradiction between Acts 9:7 and 22:9 by translating Acts 9:7, “akouontes men tes phones” (literally “they heard the voice”, but, skewing the words of Acts 22:9, “phonen ouk hakousan” (literally, “they did not hear the voice”) into, “they did not understand the voice”.

And, according to Luke’s own report of Paul, Paul was well familiar with better words for “understanding”. In Acts 28:26,
Paul says,

“In hearing, you shall hear but not understand.”

The Greek work he uses for “understand” is syniete. He also uses the word in Rom 3:11, 15:21, 2 Cor 10:12, and Eph
5:17. Luke also uses this word frequently, Luke 2:50, 8:10 (when Jesus is allegedly concealing his meaning from
folks), Luke 18:34, 24:45, and Acts 28:27 to indicate a lack of understanding. So, if Paul (or Luke) had meant that
Paul’s companions heard the voice but did not understand it, they could have easily chosen to use “syniete” instead, so
that there would have been no question of contradiction in testimony. You’d think this would be important. Could it be possible that Paul fell victim to his own theory

…For Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
2 CORINTHIANS 11:14

Regardless of the voice his campanions heard (and did not hear), there is the issue of the big light that persuaded Paul.

Even before he is told who his Big Light is, Paul addresses it as “lord” (which tends to make the whole account sound rather
contrived). But, Paul already recognises an “Angel of Light” as Satan (see 2 Cor 11:14 above).

And, in fact, an Angel of Light is
identified in Isaiah 14:12 as Tyre the Morning Star, who is the enemy of GOD fallen from heaven for claiming to ascend to
heaven (Tyre is often seen as representative of Satan). So, for Paul to immediately call a Big Light his “lord” is quite telling.

It is too much of a paradox, because the verse prior to the one above (in which he refers to his rivals as discussed earlier). Paul states

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the Apostles of Christ. (2 CORINTHIANS 11:13)

The saint (?) is accusing others of being deceitful while he himself, not only practices deceit, but admits to it as well as takes pride in it. According to this strange mentality, he thinks he can beautify the word “deceit”, and expect everyone to buy into it. The term deceit does not having opposing definitions, i.e., a positive connotation for Paul and a negative one for his competitors.

Who can be more wicked than one who inventeth a lie against Allah, or saith, “I have received inspiration,” when he hath received none, or (again) who saith, “I can reveal the like of what Allah hath revealed”? If thou couldst but see how the wicked (do fare) in the flood of confusion at death! – the angels stretch forth their hands, (saying),”Yield up your souls: this day shall ye receive your reward,- a penalty of shame, for that ye used to tell lies against God, and scornfully to reject of His signs!”
(Al -An’am 6:93)

Yes folks, another surprise is awaiting. What does he do now, he rallies against those who practice deceit in the upcoming verses.

But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:2)

Their throat [is] an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps [is] under their lips:
(Romans 3:13)

Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, (Romans 1:29)

Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds (Colossians 3:9)

Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; (1 Timothy 4:2)

So much for abiding by the “practice what you preach” motto. The whole Bible is full of such verses; to make sure Paul is not alone in this manner. His contemporaries speak

But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
(James 3:14)

I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
(1 John 2:21)

If Paul has a difficult time applying such moral teachings to himself, he should take heed of what Christ’s discpiles warned in the above. And also what the Old Testament, the books he is so fond of quoting when it suits his interests has to say.

Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.
(Psalms 5:6)

His mouth is full of cursing and deceit and fraud: under his tongue [is] mischief and vanity. (Psalms 10:7)

Thou lovest all devouring words, O [thou] deceitful tongue.
(Psalms 52:4)

He that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house: he that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight. (Psalms 101:7)

For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me: they have spoken against me with a lying tongue. (Psalms 109:2)

Thou hast trodden down all them that err from thy statutes: for their deceit [is] falsehood.
(Psalms 119:118)

Deliver my soul, O LORD, from lying lips, [and] from a deceitful tongue.
(Psalms 120:2)

A true witness delivereth souls: but a deceitful [witness] speaketh lies. (Proverbs 14:25)

Bread of deceit [is] sweet to a man; but afterwards his mouth shall be filled with gravel.
(Proverbs 20:17)

Faithful [are] the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy [are] deceitful. (Proverbs 27:6)

Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
(Ecclesiasticus 27:25)

Whoso casteth a stone on high casteth it on his own head; and a deceitful stroke shall make wounds. (Mark 7:22)

PUTTING THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE

Deception was not an uncommon tool of the Paulian church. At first, ‘St.’ Paul considered deception (guile) and flattery to be inappropriate tools for his ministry. Paul grouped Guile with the evils of deceit and uncleanliness, denying to his Thessalonian church that he had used guile on them,

For our urgent request was not of deceit, nor of uncleanness, nor in Guile… For neither at any time used we flattering words, as you all know, nor a cloak of covetousness; God is witness: Nor did we seek glory from men, neither from you nor others, though perhaps we had burdened you… (1st Thessalonians 2:3-6)

“Burdened you” is a euphamism, used often, for “asked you for money”. And, as you will see below, after a few years, ‘St.’ Paul used both flattery and guile in getting his Corinthian church to accept their “burden”.

But, later, writing to the church at Corinth, Paul admits to them that he had used guile (trickery/deception), sending others (such as Titus) instead of himself (whom he knew some of them opposed) to motivate them into a generous state (2 Cor 8:6). How sending others amounted to trickery is not specifically stated… merely that it did. A very likely reason is this: It is known that there was dissent among those in the Corinthian church over which apostle to follow. Not everyone was loyal to St. Paul, or believed in his authority (for one of many examples, see 2 Cor 13:3). Thus, some Corinthians were reluctant to make donations to St. Paul, and he clearly wrote a great deal of the 2nd Corinthians Letter for the express purpose of convincing them of their obligation to give (voluntarily, of course). Whatever the case, Paul admits that he used guile, and associates it with his sending others to them to solicit donations.

For the third time I am planning to visit you; and I will not burden you. For I seek not what is yours (money), but you. For children ought not save up for the parents, but parents for the children. And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you… But be that as it may, I myself did not burden you. Rather, being crafty, I took you in with Guile. But, did I make a profit from you by those whom I sent to you? I chose Titus, and with him I sent a brother. Did Titus make a profit from you?… I fear that, when I arrive… there shall be arguments, jealousies, wraths, strifes, slanderings, whisperings, swellings, and tumults.
(2nd Corinthians 12:14-20)

Ironically, Paul is careful not to mention “beguilings” in his list here. As for flattering words, the entire Letter of 2nd Corinthians is absolutely dripping with phrases saying how proud Paul is of them, how he praises them and boasts of the generosity he expects to receive from them (see 2nd Cor 1:14, 7:4, 7:15, 8:24, 9:2). Paul tells them he has “godly” jealousies for them (2 Cor 11:2). The whole notion of psychological manipulation such as this reeks of guile. And, his boasting has purpose

After flattering the Corinthians with his bragging of them, of their eagerness to give, Paul tries to play on their sense of pride and
embarrassment, playing them against the Macedonian church:

We want you to know about the gifts of God which was shown in the churches of Macedonia: Despite great trial of affliction, the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded in the wealth of their generosity. For they gave to their limit, I assure you, and were willing to give more than their means, and with much appeal they implored us that we accept the hospitality and gifts in ministry to the church leaders. …So, we have urged Titus that he should secure from you this work of grace (giving) as he had already begun to do… See that you excel in this gracious work.
(2 Cor 8:2-7)

We hope that no one will object to the generous gifts that we are arranging… So, give proof, before the churches, of your love and of our boasting of you to these men.
(2 Cor 8:20,24)

For regarding the offering to the church leaders, it is unnecessary for me to motivate you. For I know the eagerness of your mind, for which I boast of you to them of Macedonia… Yet I had sent the others to you instead, for fear that our boasting of you should be unfounded in this respect (that, as I said, you all may be prepared (to give)), for fear that, if by chance some from Macedonia came with me and found you unprepared to give, we would be ashamed (we, and not you, no) due to this confident boasting. (2 Cor 9:1-4)

Guile is certainly deception. Flattery is simply rather shameful. And they lend themselves nicely to each other. But, deception (especially for the sake of proselytising) was to lay the foundation of the European church. And the missionaries of today seem to have no qualms in utilising it. This will be looked at separately later on.

Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.
(PSALMS 32:2)

PAUL WAS INFLUENCED BY SHAITAAN MAR(SATAN/DEVIL)

The Pauline Epistles and the narrative of Acts of the Apostles, present the vast majority of information that we have today on Paul of Tarsus.

Paul is essentially one of the greatest influences on early Christian theology, his struggles, his preaching, his conversion all constitute major plot elements of the early Christian narrative. I would like to begin this exposition by stating that this is not a simple and erratic attack on Paul.

Rather, this is an examination of his statements as recorded in the New Testament, accompanied by commentaries from illustrious Christian exegetes. It is not my intention to hurt the sensitivities of our Christian brethren, but as a Muslim, it is my duty to examine the veracity of the Christian faith which claims to be the truth, above and beyond my own religion of Islam. With that in mind, let’s take a look at what we’ll be seeking to understand:

The New Testament Source.

YHWH/ Christ commands the
Messengers of Satan.

Paul is afflicted by a Messenger of Satan.

Paul writes Epistles while under the influence of the Messenger of Satan.

Paul learns about Christ’s grace through a Messenger of Satan.

The New Testament Source:

Recorded in the Second Epistle to Corinth, we read of an experience that Paul encounters:

Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness. ” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. – 2 Corinthians 12:7-9.

If we were to read from the beginning of this Epistle, we would easily derive the understanding that Paul is being taught a lesson by God. This is in doing so that Paul, can avoid becoming conceited through his own experiences, thus, God has put a ‘thorn in his side’ – a messenger of Satan. This however is not a position unique to Paul, according to the Old Testament, God has, and frequently does, send evil Spirits/ Messengers of Satan to his own people.

YHWH/ Christ Commands the Messengers of Satan:

As the verse itself indicates, it is God who commanded the Messenger of Satan to become a ‘thorn in Paul’s side’. This presents a problem for the Christian faith, specifically because:

How can it be a Messenger of Satan if it is being commanded by God??

Therefore it has to be a Messenger of God as it is abiding by the commands of the Lord.

The Messenger of Satan therefore, according to the Bible is also the Messenger of God.

The question begs itself, if the Messengers of Satan are also the Lord’s messengers, then how can we can distinguish between the messages that the Messengers are bringing, if the messenger is simultaneously under the authority of God and Satan? Paul himself, prayed for God to remove a Messenger of Satan sent by God from tormenting him, but God refused his request. Therefore we have Paul refusing to listen to a Messenger as sent by God to him. This would therefore have to mean that all Messengers of Satan are also Messengers of God.

Paul is Afflicted by the Messenger of Satan:

According to the verse, Paul became tormented by this messenger of Satan:

I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me.

In what exact way the messenger of Satan/ God tormented Paul, is up for much discussion. Various exegetes have derived polarising views on the exact meaning of what the torment could be, however, there are a few general views on this issue. Let’s first read Adam Clarke’s exegesis:

What this thorn in the flesh might be has given birth to a multitude of conjectures:
Tertullian thought it dolor auriculae, the ear ache;Chrysostom , the head ache; Cyprian, carnis et corporismulta ac gravia tormenta, many and grievous bodily torments. I believe the apostle to refer simply to the distresses he had endured through the opposition he met with at Corinth; which were as painful and grievous to him as a thorn in his flesh , or his being bound to a stake;
Therefore we can deduce the torment as given to Paul by the Messenger of Satan as being:

1. Ear aches.
2. Head aches.
3. Bodily torments.
4. Difficulties in preaching.

However, we have a much more detailed and reference list of supposed ailments that could have been what the tormenting was, according to the Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments, he states:

Tertullian thought it was a headache.

Klausner believed it was epilepsy.
Ramsay identified it as recurrent malarial fever.

Chrysostom said it was “all the adversaries of the Word.
John Calvin made it “fleshly temptation.”

Martin Luther considered it “spiritual temptation.”

John Knox decided it was “infirmities of the mind.”

Catholic commentators generally say “lustful thoughts.”

McGarvey: “acute, disfiguring ophthalmia.”

Macknight spoke of some who believed it was “the false teachers.”

Lightfoot suggested “blasphemous thoughts of the devil.”

Alexander was sure it was “Malta fever.” Etc., etc.

Therefore, the ailments can be summarised as such:
1. Bodily.
2. Of the mind.
3. Of the Spirit.

Whichever of these the case may be, the point is that Paul was most definitely indeed, emotionally at pain and suffering from some form of physical impediment, to the extent he could not bare it and called upon God to help him.

Epistles were Written Under the Influence of the Messenger of Satan:

According to verse 14 of the same chapter, Paul continues to preach while under the influence and torment of the Messenger of Satan/ God, the verse reads:

Now I am ready to visit you for the third time

In verse 20, Paul reaffirms that something is not right with him, something is amiss, so he tells the people at Corinth to not expect him to be normal upon his arrival:

you may not find me as you want me to be

Up to this point, Paul has not yet been able to remove the torment/ influence of the Messenger of Satan/ God upon him and he admits in Chapter 13 of the same Epistle that he continues to write while under the influence:

This is why I write these things when I am absent, that when I come I may not have to be harsh in my use of authority— the authority the Lord gave me for building you up, not for tearing you down.

While Paul is under the influence of the messenger of Satan, he continues to write and continues to hold the authority of the Lord.

This brings into validation my earlier argument that since the messenger of Satan was under the authority of the Lord, then it was indeed a messenger of the Lord. What qualified my statement, was that even Paul who was being directly influenced and tormented by the messenger of Satan (the Lord), he persisted in laying claim to God’s authority. Therefore even while under the directives of the messenger of Satan, Paul continued to write to Churches and still carried the ‘authority’ of God. Hence the question begs itself, if this is as the case presents itself, how can we distinguish between the authority of the Lord and the influence of the Messenger of Satan/ the Lord? Paul here, indirectly refers to Satan (who is influencing him presently) as giving him the authority of the Lord!

The Messenger of Satan Teaches Paul, Christ’s Grace:

According to the verse, Paul asks Christ (his God) to remove the influence/ torment of the messenger of Satan. However God’s reply is strange, God says to Paul that the messenger is meant to teach him grace, as only grace an save him from the punishment of the messenger of Satan:

Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, “ My grace is sufficient for you , for my power is made perfect in weakness. ”

Therefore, as the verse clearly demonstrates, the purpose of the messenger of Satan, was to teach Paul of Tarsus the true message of Christ’s grace.

The case henceforth, is that Paul was sent a messenger of Satan, who is truly a messenger of God, to torment Paul. The tormenting could be bodily, of the mind or spiritually, perhaps even a combination of two or all three ailments. Paul received this messenger of Satan because he became prideful (self conceited), the use of the messenger was also to teach Paul grace. A Messenger of Satan was sent to teach Paul the true meaning of grace. Last but not least, Paul was unable to rid himself of this messenger of Satan, who remained with Paul and influenced/ tortured him as he preached and wrote Epistles, which are in today’s Bible.

WHY DID PAUL PREACH TO THE GENTILES (Non-Jews)??

Source: callingchristians.com/2013/01/01/why-did-paul-preach-to-the-gentiles/

At Paul’s time there were two primary groups of which he could have targeted to preach his new self developed brand of soteriology to; the Jews and the Gentiles.

However, as history dictates, Paul chose the gentiles and quickly won favour among their peoples. So much so, that he eventually entitled himself with the position of the ‘Apostle of the Gentiles‘:

For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office – Romans 11:13.

The question therefore begs itself, why did Paul choose to preach to the gentiles over the Jews? After all, he was a Pharisee and would have been familiar with the knowledge, teachings, methodologies and mistakes of his Pharasaic brothers. Thus, he would have been the best person to preach to them his interpretation of soteriology. Yet he did not do so. He left the task to James, Peter and the rest, dubbing them as the ‘super apostles’.

The real reason Paul preached to the gentiles is because they were ignorant. They did not know the Torah. They did not possess intimate knowledge of Judaism, its scripture or its doctrine.

Therefore Paul was not presenting his new religion to his own brethren because they would be able to debunk him. Due to this, logically speaking, he preached to those who would find his new faith appealing. The gentiles would not argue about Christ’s deity, or about the new doctrine of salvation, but the Jews would and vehemently so. Thus the path of least resistance is among the gentiles who would eventually see him as an authoritative figure, as opposed to the Jews who would see him as a heretic and shame him. Yet with the gentiles, he is able to avoid these problems and ascend to power and authority very quickly.

               
                    Anti-Christ Paul     

[Abdullah Smith]

Follow Jesus or Follow Paul??

The New Testament gives us a choice; either we follow Jesus Christ, or the anti-Christ Paul of Tarsus:

Each one demands his followers to accept his teachings:

Be ye followers of me … that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you. (1 Corinthians 11:1)

“If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed” (John 8:31)

Amazing, the former preached against the teachings of Jesus, and the latter, (Jesus) teaches that salvation is only attained by following him. According to Deuteronomy 24:16, Ezekiel 18:20-21, and Micah 6:7-8, a man is responsible for his own sin.

Jesus rejected the Pauline doctrine of “vicarious atonement”. Compare the two passages below:

And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
(Hebrews 9:22)

Jesus was teaching his disciples in the outer court of the
Temple and one of them said unto him: Master, it is said by the priests that without shedding of blood there is no remission. Can then the blood offering of the law take away sin? And Jesus answered: No blood offering, of beast or bird, or man, can take away sin, for how can the conscience be purged from sin by the shedding of innocent blood? Nay, it will increase the condemnation. (Gospel of the Nazorenes, Lection 33, verses 1-2)

Jesus was circumcised, Paul rejected circumcision:

This [is] my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. (Genesis 17:14)

When his son Isaac was eight days old, Abraham circumcised him, as God commanded him. (Genesis 21:4)

And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. (Exodus 12:48)

On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him,
he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived. (Luke 2:21)

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, [and said], Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. (Acts 15:1)

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:19)

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (Matthew 23:23)

The Jewish Law commands the circumcision on the eighth day. The reason why Christians are not circumcised is because they follow Paul. They have broken the covenant of Circumcision according to Jesus himself (5:19)

For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. (Galatians 5:6, KJV)

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor
uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. (NIV)

The Talmud states the following to those who break the Covenant:
“The one who voids the covenant of Abraham has no portion in the world to come (Avot 3:16).

Christians may not have any “portion in the world to come” because they have totally rejected the Message of Jesus, replacing the Gospel with the Gospel of Paul.

“The Christianity which the nations claim to follow is the religion of Paul, who is admittedly the chief and almost the only theologian that the Church recognizes. Because of his betrayal of the Master’s teachings, the vision of true Christianity has been so dimmed that men have been able to defend war and a host of other evils, such as flesh eating and slavery, on the authority of the Bible.” (Christ or Paul? Rev. V.A. Holmes-Gore)

“Let the reader contrast the true Christian standard with that of Paul and he will see the terrible betrayal of all that the Master taught…. For the surest way to betray a great Teacher is to misrepresent his message…. That is what Paul and his followers did, and because the Church has followed Paul in his error it has failed lamentably to redeem the world…. The teachings given by the blessed Master Christ, which the disciples John and Peter and James, the brother of the Master, tried in vain to defend and preserve intact were as utterly opposed to the Pauline Gospel as the light is opposed to the darkness.” (ibid, Rev. V.A. Holmes Gore)

“True Christianity, which will last forever, comes from the gospel words of Christ not from the epistles of Paul. The writings of Paul have been a danger and a hidden rock, the causes of the principal defects of Christian theology.” (Ernest Renan, Saint Paul)

“There is not one word of Pauline Christianity in the characteristic utterances of Jesus…. There has really never been a more monstrous imposition perpetrated than the imposition of Paul’s soul upon the soul of Jesus…. It is now easy to understand how the Christianity of Jesus… was suppressed by the police and the Church, while Paulinism overran the whole western civilized world, which was at that time the
Roman Empire, and was adopted by it as its official faith. (Androcles and the Lion, George Bernard Shaw)

The Christian missionaries today are preaching the Gospel of Paul, and rejecting the Gospel of Jesus. Paul emphasized that salvation is attained through “faith and grace” which is blatantly opposite of what Jesus taught.

“Paul… did not desire to know Christ…. Paul shows us with what complete indifference the earthly life of Jesus was regarded…. What is the significance for our faith and for our religious life, the fact that the Gospel of Paul is different from the Gospel of Jesus?…. The attitude which Paul himself takes up towards the Gospel of Jesus is that he does not repeat it in the words of Jesus, and does not appeal to its authority…. The fateful thing is that the Greek, the Catholic, and the Protestant theologies all contain the Gospel of Paul in a form which does not continue the Gospel of Jesus, but displaces it.” (The Quest for the Historical Jesus, Albert Schweitzer)

“We have already noted that every teaching of Jesus was already in the literature of the day….. Paul, the founder of Christianity, the writer of half the NT, almost never quotes Jesus in his letters and writings.” (Professor Smith in his “The World Religions”, p 330)

Saul/Paul had set out initially to subvert Jesus’ teachings. Later he used his new doctrines to undermine the power of the Jewish church as well as the defied Roman Emperor. Paul sought to torpedo Judaism in its calcified form, its narrow interpretation of the Judaic law. Jesus had initiated this process but did not subvert the law. Paul had no such inhibitions; he rejected wholesale many fundamental laws of God. In the attempt Paul succeeded in undermining both the Jewish and Nazarene teachings.

He steered Christ’s teachings away from monotheism and from the Jews, (the lost sheep of Israel) and directed these teachings in a corrupted form to Non-Jews…As Jesus had not succeeded during his mission in converting the majority of his Jewish brothers and sister to his divinely inspired interpretations of Judaism, Paul ensured that after Jesus had departed, that Jews would not be temped to follow Jesus’ Teachings. To this end, Paul so adulterated Jesus’ life, purpose, mission and claims to make the new dogma (Paul’s version of Jesus’ teachings) repugnant to the Jews. (Farouk Hosein, Fundamentalism Revisited, Eniath’s Printing Company Trinidad, p. 49)

The Jewish Christians reacted strongly to Paul, they rejected his pagan ideas of the “divinity of Christ”, and they rejected the concept of the “divine sonship” of Jesus, whom they regarded as a Prophet and Messenger.

The Jewish Christians rejected Paul’s version of ‘Christ’, to them the ‘Christ’ was anointed and fully human. Many characters in the Bible were called ‘Christ’ (anointed) but they were never divine ‘god-men’. Paul changed the original meaning of this title to make it conform to the Gentile thinking. The Romans considered their Emperors to be the ‘sons of God’, or personages of the sun. Similarly, the Hindus consider their heroes to be the ‘incarnations’ of God.

“A true Jew would have immediately recognized the teaching of Jesus as a reaffirmation of what Moses had taught. But to many a pagan, it must have seemed new and strange and perhaps a little complicated.

Most of the pagans still believed in a multitude of gods who, it was thought, mixed freely with human beings, mated with them, and took part in every sphere of human life. To the common people of Greece, any description of Jesus (made by Paul) must have seemed like a description of one of their gods, and they were probably quite ready to accept Jesus in this capacity. There was always room for one more god. However, the actual teaching of Jesus negated all their gods, since it affirmed the Divine Unity”. (Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, Jesus: Prophet of Islam 1992 edition, p. 62)

Paul’s reasoning had two major consequences. It not only resulted in further changes being made to what Jesus had taught, but also prepared the way for completely changing people’s ideas of who Jesus was. He was being transformed from a man to a conception in people’s minds.

Divinity had been attributed to Jesus even when he was on earth by some of those who marveled at his words and miracles, and who, mistakenly, considered him to be more than a prophet.

Some of his enemies had also spread the rumor that he was the “son of God”, hoping to rouse the orthodox Jew’s anger against him for associating himself with God. Thus, even before he disappeared, there had been a tendency to obscure his true nature and ascribe godhood to Jesus. This imaginary figure of Christ, who apparently had the power to annul what Jesus had previously taught, was clearly no ordinary mortal, and, inevitably, became confused by many with God. Thus, this imaginary figure became an object of worship, and was associated with God. (Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, p. 70)

Maududi alludes to the deification of Jesus by the “Christians”.

The false tendencies, born of centuries of deviations, ignorance and malpractice, now took another form. Though they accepted their Prophets during their lives and practiced their teachings, after their deaths they introduced their own distorted ideas into their religions. They adopted novel methods of worshipping God; some even took to the worship of their Prophets. They made the Prophets the incarnations of God or the sons of God; some associated their Prophets with God in His Divinity. (Towards Understanding Islam, p. 39)

Jesus taught Salvation comes through Faith and Works, Paul distorted it:

Jesus taught salvation is attained by keeping the commandments, physical prayer, fasting, and observing the Law of Moses. Paul neglected these commands and distorted the Path to Salvation preached by Jesus.

Paul said that “salvation comes through faith and grace” which is exactly what the missionaries are saying today. Let us read the words of Jesus.

Fasting is commanded:
Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and
fasting. (Matthew 17:21)

And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting. (Mark 9:29)

Now in the twenty and fourth day of this month the children of Israel were assembled with fasting, and with
sackclothes, and earth upon them. (Nehemiah 9:1)

And in every province, whithersoever the king’s commandment and his decree came, [there was] great mourning among the Jews, and fasting , and weeping, and wailing; and many lay in sackcloth and ashes. (Esther 4:3)

But as for me, when they were sick, my clothing [was] sackcloth: I humbled my soul with fasting; and my prayer returned into mine own bosom. (Psalms 35:13)

When I wept, [and chastened] my soul with fasting, that was to my reproach. (Psalms 69:10)

My knees are weak through fasting; and my flesh faileth of fatness. (Psalms 109:24)

Therefore also now, saith the LORD, turn ye [even] to me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning: (Joel 2:12)

Christians do not fast, Muslims fast during the holy month of Ramadhan, so they must be considered the true followers of Jesus. The (only) excuse Christians have for not fasting is echoing the teachings of Paul, who discarded these laws altogether!

Physical Prayer is commanded:

The Prophets of God prayed with their forehead touching the ground. Likewise, the Muslims also pray in this manner:

And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, (Genesis 17:3)

And I bowed down my head, and worshipped the LORD, and blessed the LORD God of my master Abraham, which had led me in the right way to take my master’s brother’s daughter unto his son. (Genesis 24:48)

And he said, Nay; but [as] captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What
saith my lord unto his servant? (Joshua 5:14)

And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer
and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes: (Daniel 9:3)

And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou [wilt]. (Matthew 26:39)

Paul rejected these laws; he disobeyed the physical prayer to Yahweh. He distorted the prayer and directed it towards His Prophet, Jesus!

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth; (Philemon 2:10)

This verse is absolutely outrageous and repulsive, totally disgusting! The Old Testament teaches that Prayer is due to God alone:

I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth [in] righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. (Isaiah 45:23)

It seems that Christians have abandoned this verse, following the teaching of Paul by worshipping Jesus! According to the Holy Quran, associating partners (in worship) with God is unforgivable:

Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin
Most heinous indeed. (Qur’an 4:48)

In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: “Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every – one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He
createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things.” (Qur’an 5:17)

They do blaspheme who say: “Allah is Christ the son of Mary.” But said Christ: “O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.” Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help. (Qur’an 5:72)

Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth! (Qur’an 5:75)

They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him). (Qur’an 9:31)

Jesus Forbade the Gentiles:

These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Matthew 10:5-6)

But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost
sheep of the house of Israel. (Matthew 15:24)

Paul rejected this command of NOT preaching to the Gentiles, they were restricted. Paul openly preached among the Gentiles, a totally different religion:

For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: (Romans 11:13)

Don’t be like the pagans!

And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. (Matthew 6:7-8)

And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. (Leviticus 20:23)

The Church Father Iranaeus condemned Paul for inventing ‘Christianity’ from pagan beliefs:

Iranaeus believed in One God and supported the doctrine of the manhood of Jesus. He bitterly criticized Paul for
being responsible for injecting doctrines of the pagan religions and Platonic philosophy into Christianity. (Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, Jesus Prophet of Islam, 1992 edition, p. 77)

The pagans used to wear tattoos and eat swine, the unclean pig. The “Christians” are imitating them today:

‘Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD. (Leviticus 19:28)

And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven footed, yet he cheweth not the cud; he [is] unclean to you. No Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they [are] unclean to you. (Leviticus 11:7-8)

The Bible says that decorating trees is PAGAN; this refers to the “Christmas tree”.

For the customs of the people [are] vain: for [one]
cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. (Jeremiah 10:3-4)

Paul corrupted the teachings of Jesus claiming that his supposed “sacrifice on the cross” is the only way to salvation. We have already seen how this concept is false, according to the Bible itself, and the Gospel of the Nazorenes.

After Jesus’s time, there came to be two sects of Christians: those who followed St. Paul (who is the real founder of modern Christianity) and those who followed the Apostles of Jesus. In course of time, the Pauline sect overshadowed the Apostles’ sect. So Paul’s own writings, as well as the Gospels written under his influence, came to be accepted by the later Christian Church as Scripture. The Gospels are Hellenistic religious narratives in the tradition of the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which constituted the “Scriptures” to those Greek-speaking Christians who wrote the four canonical Gospels and who appealed to it, explicitly or implicitly, in nearly every paragraph they wrote. (Randal Helms, Gospel Fictions, p. 16)

The New Testament was written under the influence of Paul, the four Gospel writers were Gentile converts to Pauline Christianity. Hence, there is nothing Jewish about the New Testament, it was solely written for Pauline Christians whose background was pagan.

The Hebrew Scriptures of the Nazarenes and Ebionites were destroyed by the Pauline Church. The original sayings of Jesus were lost forever. The New Testament today exists in Greek, and not Hebrew or Aramaic, the spoken tongues of Jesus.

The Gospel of Matthew seems to be the “most Jewish” book in the New Testament,

Luke was a Gentile and not eye-witness

Mark was Barnabas’s nephew and not eye-witness

John was martyred decades before the Gospel (bearing his name) was even written.

Nevertheless, the four Gospels are NOT mentioned by name before the year 190 CE. We have scholarly quotations to back this claim.

Unfortunately, the sources we have on Jesus are very scarce and scanty, Ignatius (died 110 CE) records the baptism of Jesus but he fails to record any thing else.

The Apostolic Church Fathers never mention the miracles in the Gospels; they fail to mention the four Gospels by name. The story of the “resurrection” (as told in the Gospels) was fabricated later because they fail to record it. The seven epistles of Ignatius fall into the category of silence, they speak nothing about Jesus.

Paul has written his own personal account of the “resurrection” which contradicts the Gospels. In conclusion, the Gospels are fabricated because Philo
Judaeus and many other historians fail to mention their supernatural events.

The New Testament makes it clear that nobody witnessed the “resurrection”, the disciples never witnessed the “resurrection”, they all ‘forsook him and fled’ at Gethsemane.

Paul says Jesus Christ is a mystery!

In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, (Ephesians 3:4)

Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ , for which I am also in bonds: (Colossians 4:3)

According to Paul, Jesus was not a real person; he was a spiritual conception in people’s minds:

Paul’s reasoning had two major consequences. It not only resulted in further changes being made to what Jesus had taught, but also prepared the way for completely changing people’s ideas of who Jesus was. He was being transformed from a man to a conception in people’s minds. (Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, Jesus Prophet of Islam, p. 70)

Paul did not care about the historical Jesus, whom he never met. He transformed Jesus into a ‘god-man’.

His reluctance to say very much at all about Jesus the man, in his letters, he quoted hardly any of the sayings of Jesus, in his apostleship to the Gentiles. Jesus, according to the flesh that is historical Jesus, did not serve his purpose.

Pauline Christology has only minimally to do with the actual historical Jesus. Hence, the faith in Christ as held by primitive preaching led by Paul was something new in comparison with the preaching of Jesus, it was a new type of religion based god-man of Pagan Religion.
(The Hijacking of Christianity, Al Haj A.D. Ajijola, p. 4)

PAUL EXPOSED

As we’ve seen, Paul, the founder of Christianity, rejected the message of Jesus (and everything he stood for) while replacing the Gospel with his own distorted version.

The message of Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) was pure and simple, the complete submission and surrender to God alone. He preached the religion of Islam; he fasted and prayed in the manner taught by the Prophets before him. He abstained from eating pork and drinking wine.

Paul rejected these laws and concocted his own religion, claiming “salvation comes through faith only” (sound familiar?) and not physical action or bodily prayer.

The Bible teaches the exact opposite, the stories of the Prophets teach us that salvation is attained through fasting, physical prayer, and righteous deeds, not just having faith, which is merely an article required in any
organized religion.

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone . (James 2:17)

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? (James 2:21-22)

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only (James 2:24)

For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. (James 2:26)

The Holy Quran harmonizes these verses by teaching that salvation is attained through faith and works:

Those who believe, and do deeds of righteousness, and establish regular prayers and regular charity, will have their reward with their Lord: on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. (Holy Qur’an 2:227)

It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces Towards east or West; but it is righteousness- to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the Allah-fearing. (Holy Qur’an 2:177)

Allah did aforetime take a covenant from the Children of Israel, and we appointed twelve captains among them. And Allah said: “I am with you: if ye (but) establish regular prayers, practice regular charity, believe in my messengers , honor and assist them, and loan to Allah a beautiful loan, verily I will wipe out from you your evils, and admit you to gardens with rivers flowing beneath; but if any of you, after this, resisteth faith, he hath truly wandered from the path or rectitude.” (Holy Qur’an 5:12)

And convey good news to those who believe and do good deeds, that they shall have gardens in which rivers flow; whenever they shall be given a portion of the fruit thereof, they shall say: This is what was given to us before; and they shall be given the like of it, and they shall have pure mates in them, and in them, they shall abide. (Holy Qur’an 2:25)

And when it is said to them: Believe as the people believe they say: Shall we believe as the fools believe? Now surely they themselves are the fools, but they do not know. (Holy Qur’an 2:13)

FASTING:

O you who believe ! fasting is prescribed for you , as it was prescribed for those before you, so that you may guard (against evil). (Holy Qur’an 2:83)

Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. (Matthew 4:1-2)

Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and
fasting. (Matthew 17:21)

PHYSICAL PRAYER:

And when We made the House (at Makkah) a resort for mankind and sanctuary, (saying): Take as your place of worship the place where Abraham stood (to pray). And We imposed a duty upon Abraham and Ishmael, (saying): Purify My house for those who go around and those who meditate therein and those who bow down and prostrate themselves (in worship). (Holy Qur’an 2:125)

Those that turn (to Allah) in repentance; that serve Him, and praise Him; that wander in devotion to the cause of Allah,: that bow down and prostrate themselves in prayer; that enjoin good and forbid evil; and observe the limit set by Allah;- (These do rejoice). So proclaim the glad tidings to the Believers (Holy Qur’an 9:112)

Come, let us bow down in worship , let us kneel before the LORD our Maker; (Psalms 95:6)

And I bowed down my head, and worshipped the LORD, and blessed the LORD God of my master Abraham, which had led me in the right way to take my master’s brother’s daughter unto his son. (Genesis 24:48)

And the people believed: and when they heard that the
LORD had visited the children of Israel, and that he had looked upon their affliction, then they bowed their heads and worshipped. (Exodus 4:31)

And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him , saying, As for Me, behold, My covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. (Genesis 17:1-4)

And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God, Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen. (Revelations 7:11-12)

And Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face before the ark of the Lord until eventide, he and the elders of Israel , and put dust upon their heads. And Joshua said, Alas, O Lord God, wherefore hast Thou at all brought this people over Jordan, to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us? Would to God we had been content, and dwelt on the other side of the
Jordan! (Joshua 7:6-7 )

And Moses and Aaron went from the presence of the assembly unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and they fell upon their faces: and the glory of the Lord appeared unto them. ( Numbers 20:6 )

Jesus (Prophet ‘Eesa alayhissalaam) rejected that salvation can be attained through blood sacrifice and ‘faith only-ism’

I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (Matthew 9:13)

But if ye had known what [this] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. (Matthew 12:7)

” The law teachers and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ chair. This means you’re supposed to observe and follow everything they tell you. But don’t do what they do;
after all, they’re all talk and no action.”  (Matthew 23:2)

Christianity is “all talk and no action” exactly what Christian missionaries are preaching today, the Pauline law of lawlessness! The following verse hammers the nail:

Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9, NIV)

Because if you acknowledge and confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and in your heart believe (adhere to, trust in, and rely on the truth) that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. (The Amplified Bible)

Islam is a Religion of action; Christianity is a religion of fabulous words. It does not have the answers to the problems of mankind. Islam superiorly has the solutions to the problems of mankind, the social corruptions in the society.

Islam demands a very high standard of morality which fixes the problems of the world. It’s is a Challenge to religion; a complete system of Life. The lawlessness of Christianity cannot be denied, since Christianity is based on emotions and not history.

Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) taught the very opposite of what Christianity teaches today. The purpose of Jesus’ mission was to preach the Torah, not to be crucified. He taught salvation came through observing the Law, and not by the ‘eloquent words’ of the later Church. Jesus declared in Matthew 17:21 that salvation is attained through “fasting and prayer”.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets : I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-20)

Jesus replied, “Let us go somewhere else—to the nearby villages—so I can preach there also. That is why I have
come.” (Mark 1:38)

The law of the LORD [is] perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD [is] sure, making wise the simple. (Psalms 19:7)

Blessed [are] the undefiled in the way, who walk in the
law of the LORD. (Psalms 119:1)

Jesus came to uphold the Mosaic Law and restore its teachings which had been discarded; he never founded a new religion. The followers of Jesus regarded him as the ‘new Moses’ sent to the Children of Israel. Jesus declared he was only sent to the Jews.

Paul is the founder of Christianity who established lawlessness; the doctrine of “salvation through faith only” is simply an echoing of Paul’s words and distorted teachings.

Christians are following the anti-Christ without knowing it.

“If Christianity needed an Anti-Christ, they need look no further than Paul”
— The English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

“We have already noted that every teaching of Jesus was already in the literature of the day….. Paul, the founder of Christianity , the writer of half the NT, almost never quotes Jesus in his letters and writings.” (Professor Smith in his “The World Religions”, p 330)

Paul rejected the Jewish Law (Torah) and fabricated a religion called “Christianity” which deviated from the teachings of Jesus, transforming him into a god.

“Although I am free from everyone, I have enslaved myself to all of them in order to win a larger number. To the Jews I behave as a Jew; to those under the Law as one who is under the Law, although I am not under the Law, to gain those who are under the Law. To those who are without law I am without law, although not lawless toward God but committed to Christ’s Law, in order to win those who are without law” (1 Corinthians 9:19)

Paul is a liar, he claims to follow the Law of Christ when the Law of Christ was the observance of the Torah (Matthew 5:17-20) the very Law that he strongly rejected! The hypocrisy of Paul is further exposed in the following verse:

For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my
lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? (Romans 3:7, King James Version)

But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? (English Standard Version)

But if the truth of God through my lie abounded unto his glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? (American Standard Version)

Muhammad Ataur-Raheem comments on the verse above:

“It would seem from this statement that, although he knew he was lying, Paul felt that the means justified the ends, but it is not understood how truth would abound through a lie…
Paul produced a religion which encompassed different contradictory elements. He took the Unitarianism of the Jews and added to it the philosophy of the pagans”. (Jesus: Prophet of Islam, 1992 edition, p. 71)

Paul is the anti-Christ, the supreme liar, the pathological liar, and the corrupter of Jesus’ Gospel. The Jewish Christians (Nazarenes and Ebionites) considered him an ‘apostate’ from Judaism, yet historical accounts say that he was born Gentile.

The author Roshen Enam says:
“Paul abolished the Law, which was followed and preached by Jesus (pbuh), and corrupted the whole religion, giving it a new form. The main ambition behind all this was, in his own words, “to win a larger number” of followers; the followers of a new religion “the Pauline Christianity”. (Follow Jesus or Follow Paul p. 69)

“The message of Christianity is that the Law is a curse. If the Law is a curse, then all that it ordains or prohibits must also be a curse.” (A.D. Ajijola states in his book “The Myth of the Cross”)

Amazingly, Paul went to such extremes that he claimed Jesus destroyed the Jewish Law!
“He (Jesus) brought the hostility to an end, by abolishing the Law of commandments with its regulations”. (Ephesians 2:14)

Needless to say, the passage contradicts Matthew 5:17-20 where Jesus specifically states that he came to preach the Law, not to destroy it.

Paul gave evidence that he was building a new religion, a complete deviation from Jesus’ teachings:

Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation: (Romans 15:20)

What is Paul implying here?? Muhammad Ataur-Raheem gives us the answer:

If Paul had been spreading the original teaching of Jesus, then “another man’s foundation” would have been the same as his. They would both have been involved in building the same structure. The people who were hearing about Jesus, or rather Christ, for the first time from Paul’s lips, had no means of comparing his account with that of the Apostles who still held to Jesus’ teaching. Paul’s version was the only one to which they had access. (ibid, Jesus Prophet of Islam)

Paul was developing a new religion under the doctrines he was fabricating According to Acts, Paul traveled to Arabia for three years:

Paul then left Damascus and, instead of seeking out the company of the other followers of Jesus, went into the Arabian Desert where he remained hidden for three years. It may well have been here that he began to formulate his own version of what Jesus had taught. This involved a rejection of the Jewish Law, which in turn meant his turning away from the fact that throughout his life Jesus had remained a practicing Jew, and always sought to uphold the teachings which Moses had brought before him. (Jesus Prophet of Islam, 1992 edition)

“In the solitude of the Arabian desert, he had marked out a course of action for himself in which he would not accept any interference or advice. Had he discussed this matter with the apostles or taken any of them into his confidence, it would mean a definite setback to his scheme of preaching a modified religion to the Gentiles. The apostles would have very strongly opposed the whole idea, and would have denounced the whole idea as an abomination. There is ample proof provided by the New Testament that the Disciples and the earliest followers of Jesus abhorred the innovations of Paul.
(A.D. Ajijola states in his book “The Myth of the Cross”)

Paul corrupted the Gospel of Jesus and replaced it, as the scholar Albert Schweitzer points out:

What is the significance for our faith and for our religious life, the fact that the Gospel of Paul is different from the Gospel of Jesus? The attitude which Paul himself takes up towards the Gospel of Jesus is that he does not repeat it in the words of Jesus, and does not appeal to its authority…. The fateful thing is that the Greek, the Catholic, and the Protestant theologies all contain the Gospel of Paul in a form which does not continue the Gospel of Jesus, but displaces it.”
(Albert Schweitzer, The Quest for the Historical Jesus)

“The Christian beliefs formulated by St. Paul are unreasonable and repugnant to the conscience of man; such beliefs cannot expect any reasonable allegiance from the advanced nations of the world as it is a religion of primitive people. The whole of modern Christian doctrines was not formulated by Jesus, but by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans where he laid the foundation of Modern Christian doctrines and based his exposition on the heathen practices of his day.” (A.D. Ajijola states in his book “ The Myth of the Cross”)

Paul was disguising the true face of Jesus with a hideous mask; this ‘mask’ later became known as “Christianity”. It is mysterious that Jesus was transformed into God ‘incarnate’ when Moses, his twin predecessor was not.

I have inquired into some of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity; the examination has led me to the conclusion that the dogmas of the Trinity, the Divinity of Jesus, the Divine-Sonship, the Original Sin and Atonement are neither rational nor in conformity with the teachings of Jesus. These dogmas came into being and were due to pagan influences. They show that Christianity has departed considerably from the religion of Jesus.
(A.D. Ajijola states in his book “The Myth of the Cross”)

In the preface to the book Jesus: Prophet of Islam, Muhammad Ataur-Raheem says:

An eminent scholar of Christian history admits that the present-day Christianity is a “mask” on the face of Jesus but goes on to say that a mask worn for a long time acquires a life of its own and it has to be accepted as such. The Muslim believes in the Jesus of history and refuses to accept the “mask”. This, in a nutshell, has been the point of difference between Islam and the Church for the last fourteen hundred years.

“I am convinced that Christianity has indeed misunderstood Jesus and that it needs to make a radical rediscovery of his person and message” (Tom Harper, by Akberally Meherally, Understanding the Bible through Koranic Messages)

A basic contrast between the Old Testament and the teachings of Paul reveal hundreds of contradictions. Paul established his own Church which later became the ‘Roman Catholic Church’ (sound familiar?).

James, the brother of Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam), established the first ‘Church’ at Jerusalem (in 50 CE) before Pauline Christianity existed. It was sadly destroyed by the Pauline Church after the Jewish War (66-70 C.E.) and the Nazarenes were suppressed by the followers of Paul.

The Pauline “Christians” that exist today do not follow Christ, they should be called Paulians. The true Christians were the Nazarenes and Ebionites that no longer exist.

Paul degraded Jesus in the following verses:

Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, (Hebrews 6:1, English Standard Version)

Therefore, leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, (Hebrews 6:1, 21st Century King James Version)

Paul emphasized that Christ was not perfect (na’audhubillah), hence his teachings should be discarded, because according to Paul, they are like ‘filthy and useless rags’ (Isaiah 64:6) and we must excel towards “perfection and maturity”. The deceptive editors changed the English translation of Paul’s damaging words. This outrageous statement has been softened in many other versions of the Bible:

So let us stop going over the basics of Christianity again and again. Let us go on instead and become mature in our understanding. Surely we don’t need to start all over again with the importance of turning away from evil deeds and placing our faith in God. (Hebrews 5:7. New Living Translation)

We must try to become mature and start thinking about more than just the basic things we were taught about Christ. We shouldn’t need to keep talking about why we ought to turn from deeds that bring death and why we ought to have faith in God. (Hebrews 5:7, Contemporary English Version)

The convert to Islam, Dr. Roshan Enam, comments:

“Paul not only distorted the teachings of Jesus Christ (Nabi ‘Eesa alayhissalaam) he even dishonored them; arguing that Jesus gave immature and defective teachings to his followers, and that they were not worth following. Instead, the people should follow the teachings preached by Paul, which according to him, are mature and complete” (Follow Jesus or Follow Paul, p. 38)

As mentioned earlier, Paul established the doctrine of lawlessness, which is the great cause for our social corruptions. The Christian religion gave birth to diseases like fascism and communism:

Christianity has been most prolific of spawning “isms”. Atheism, Communism, Fascism, Totalitarianism, Nazism, Mormonism, Moonism, Christian Scientism and now Satanism. What else will Christianity give birth to? (Deedat, Is the Bible God’s Word?)

Jesus (‘Eesa alayhossalaam) observed the laws of the Torah, but Paul changed the Gospel, corrupting it before it reached Europe.

“Paul deviated people towards lawlessness, through his strange philosophy that, the observance of the Law motivates to sin, thus justifying his innovation regarding the abolition of the Law” (ibid, p. 42)

“…not a single human being will be made righteous in God’s sight through observance of the Law. For through the Law comes the knowledge of sin”. (Romans 3:20)

“Christ has ransomed us from the curse of the Law in as much as He became a curse for us” (Galatians 3:13)

“the Scripture has all men imprisoned under sin” (Galatians 3:22)

What Paul invented was a great misconception. Purpose of revelations from God Almighty is never to mislead the people, or to induce them with sin, instead, they are always for the guidance of mankind. With the same purpose, the Law of commandments were revealed to prophet Moses (Nabi Musa alayhissalaam), and in later age, prophet Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) was to sent to confirm and honor them, and finally to complete them, but not to abolish them (ibid, p. 42)

According to Jesus (Qur’anic ‘Eesa alayhissalaam), the lawless ones will be thrown in Hell. (This includes all Christians)

“So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 13:40-42 New American Standard Bible)

“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE
LAWLESSNESS.’ (Matthew 7:23, New American Standard Bible)

For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. (Mark 9:49)

“So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. (Matthew 23:28)

Christians are indeed hypocrites, they ignore the practical teachings of the Bible and discard the Jewish Law followed by Jesus (Matthew 5:17-20, 23:23) they practice what is called ‘selective morality’ and ignore the teachings of the Gospels, paying close attention to the epistles of Paul (only).

Christians adhering to Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) do not exist:

· Jesus commanded fasting (Matthew 4:2, 6:16) yet Christians do not fast.

· Jesus abstained from eating pork and drinking wine (Leviticus 10:9, 11:7, Matthew 5:17-20) yet Christians practice the exact opposite, they eat pork and drink wine! Paul said it was okay to drink wine 1Timothy 5:23.

· Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day of infancy (Luke 1:59) yet Christians are not circumcised like Jesus. This equates to death penalty (see: Genesis 17:14)

· Jesus established the death penalty for those who abandon his teachings (John 15:6) yet Christians have abandoned his teaching but they are not being punished accordingly! The governments of Christian countries reject the Jewish Law because of the innovations of Paul. (He made everything permissible for them!)

· Jesus observed the Sabbath, (which is Saturday) yet Christians have broken this law by working on the Sabbath. This equates to death penalty (see: Exodus 31:14)

The laws which exist in the “Christian” countries of the West, the laws governing birth and death, the formation and dissolution of marriage, the rights over property within and outside marriage or in the event of divorce or death, adoption and guardianship, commerce, and industry, are not to be found in the gospels. They are not the laws which have been revealed to man by God. They are the fruits of deductive knowledge. They are either inherited from the Roman system of law, or are based on the common practice of people over a long period of time, or are statutes erected and amended in accordance with the democratic method, which is the bequest of the ancient Greeks. No one in today’s courts of law can refer to the gospels as a binding authority in his dealings with another man, and have it accepted.
(Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, Jesus Prophet of Islam, 1992 edition, p. 205)

Jesus said his true followers will enter Paradise, those who follow his teachings.

Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, [then] are ye my disciples indeed; (John 8:31)

But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. (John 10:26-29)

And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. (Matthew 7:26-27)

The outright foolishness of Christians cannot be denied, Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) rebukes today’s ‘adherents’ who boldly call themselves “Christian”.

But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:9)

And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? (Luke 6:46)

“I do not accept praise from men, (John 5:41)

The authentic Hadith says:

I heard the Prophet saying, “Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians praised the son of Mary, for I am only a Slave. So, call me the Slave of Allah and His Apostle.”
Narrated ‘Umar
Bukhari, Muhammad, “Sahih Bukhari”, Kitab Bhavan, New Delhi, India, 1987, translated by M. Khan, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 654.

The Holy Quran says:

Say: “O people of the Book! exceed not in your religion the bounds (of what is proper), trespassing beyond the truth, nor follow the vain desires of people who went wrong in times gone by, – who misled many, and strayed (themselves) from the even way. (Holy Qur’an 5:77)

From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done. (Holy Qur’an 5:14)

The Jews call ‘Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! (Holy Qur’an 9:30)

As stated earlier, the teachings of Jesus were based on the Law, yet the Law is rejected by Christians today, so how could they be called Christians??

Moreover, the “Christians” do not follow the Gospel of Jesus; they follow the Gospel of Paul. The Nazarenes and Ebionties were followers of Jesus’ Gospel, which no longer exists today.

Nevertheless, the “Christians” of today are not implementing the teachings of their “lord and savior” (see John 8:31) The Nazarenes/Ebionites never degraded Jesus by calling him “lord and savior”; they considered him a great Prophet and Messenger.
There is so much diversity and clash, so much chaos, in the Christian Church today that the old idea of a unified or systematic Christian truth has gone. For this, the ecumenical movement is too late. What has happened is that the Christian world has moved into that situation of open variety, of optional alternatives. It would seem no longer possible for anyone to be told or even to imagine that he can be told, what it means or should mean, formally and generically, to be a Christian. He must decide for himself and only for himself (Christianity on Trial, I, Colin Chapman, pp. 51-52)

The act of affirming what is in the Old Testament, and the gospels for that matter, and at the same time affirming belief in the doctrine of Trinity, is perhaps the greatest illustration of the exercise of doublethink within Christianity today. Thus the logic of the established Church’s metaphysic, based on doctrines which were not taught by Jesus, obscures not only the nature of Jesus, but also the Divine Unity. The metaphysic of Christianity today is totally opposed to the metaphysic which Jesus brought. The physical aspect of what Jesus brought, his code of behaviour, is today irrecoverably lost. To live as Jesus lived is to understand his message, yet there is virtually no existing record of how Jesus behaved. And what little knowledge exists is often ignored. The most fundamental act of Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) was that of worship of the Creator, the whole purpose for which man was created. Yet it is evident that no Christian today makes the same acts of worship which Jesus made. Jesus usually prayed in the morning, at mid-day, and in the evening. The exact form of his prayer is no longer extant, but it known that is was based on the prayer which Moses was given. Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) said that he had come to uphold the law and not to destroy it one jot or one tithe. Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) was educated in the synagogue in Jerusalem from the age of twelve. He preached in the synagogue. He used to keep the synagogue clean. No Christian today can be found performing these actions. How many Christians have even been circumcised in the manner that Jesus was? The services now held in today’s churches were developed long after Jesus had disappeared. Many of them come directly from the pagan Greeco-Roman mythological rites. The prayers they use are not the prayers which Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) made. The hymns they sing are not the praises which Jesus sung. Due to the innovations of Paul and his followers, there is no revealed teaching left as to what to eat and what not to eat. Anyone given a “Christian education” today eats what he feels like. Yet Jesus and his true followers only ate kosher meat and were forbidden to eat pig’s flesh. The last meal Jesus is known to have eaten before his disappearance was the Passover meal. No Christian today celebrates this longstanding Jewish tradition to which Jesus so meticulously held.
(Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, Jesus, Prophet of Islam, pp. 199-200)

In the preceding arguments, I have inquired into some of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity; the examination has led me to the conclusion that the dogmas of the Trinity, the Divinity of Jesus, the Divine-Sonship, the Original Sin and Atonement are neither rational nor in conformity with the teachings of Jesus.
These dogmas came into being and were due to pagan influences. They show that Christianity has departed considerably from the religion of Jesus . (A.D. Ajijola states in his book “The Myth of the Cross”)

Unfortunately, the observance of Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) is not possible today because his teachings have been seriously corrupted and altered. The scholars of “Christianity” admit that they do not possess the original manuscripts from which we can derive the authentic words of Jesus. Hence, the only way to follow Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) today is by following Islam:

He who follows Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) automatically follows the true Jesus’ teachings:

“The guidance imparted through the Prophets of the past was not complete. Every Prophet was followed by another who effected alterations and additions in the teachings and injunctions of his predecessors and, in this way, the chain of reform and progress continued. That is why the teachings of the earlier Prophets, after the lapse of time, were lost in oblivion . Obviously there was no need to preserve the earlier teachings when amended and improved guidance had taken their place. At last the most perfect code of guidance was imparted to mankind through Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and all previous codes were automatically abrogated, for it is futile and imprudent to follow an incomplete code when the complete code exists. He who follows Propher Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) follows all the Prophets , for whatever was good and eternally workable in their teachings has been embodied in his teachings. Whoever, therefore, rejects and refuses to follow Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) teachings, and chooses to follow some other Prophet, only deprives himself of that vast amount of useful and valuable instruction and guidance which is embodied in Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) teachings, which never existed in the books of the earlier Prophets and which was revealed only through the Last of the Prophets”
(Towards Understanding Islam, p. 79)

Christian Missionaries using the same tool which Paul used: Deception

Paul has been denounced by theologians and scholars throughout history, the hatred which he incited by his teachings against the Jewish Law, and the political support he gave to the Roman emperors, show how desperate he was to destroy the Nazarene sect, the followers of the early Jesus movement, known as The Way (Acts 9:2, 19:23) Paul’s claim to being Pharisaic is lying of the highest order. Paul was a Gnostic by the style of his own literature! He persecuted the followers of Jesus to please the heart of Popea, but when he failed; he burst into rage, inventing “Christianity” by preaching against the Jewish Law and the doctrines. He produced Christianity for the sole purpose of converting Gentiles. In order to win Gentiles, he became like a Gentile, to win Jews, he became like a Jew. The verse reads:

Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. (1 Corinthians 9:19-21)

This Pauline deceptive tactic is vigorously being used today. In Africa, for example, the mosques are constructed to resemble churches, so Muslims are deceived into entering the church, believing that it’s a mosque.

Building churches that look similar to mosques: Muslims were turned off from entering churches because they looked different, that also made them feel very uncomfortable with them. They also changed the internal structure of the church to look similar to a mosque; the people sit on the floor and in lines.
(Christian Missionaries Sweeping the Islamic World, Sheikh Salman Al-Odeh)

This is practical evidence that Christians follow Paul, not Jesus. The blatant deception to deceive unwary Muslims is directly inspired from 1 Corinthians 9:19-21.

Another example demonstrates how a Christian tries to imitate a fasting Muslim, trying to “win her” in accordance with Paul’s teachings.

I decided to ask Sarah to my fellowship group. But she said no. She didn’t think Christians would accept her. It was important to her that Christians respect her beliefs and get to know her as a person, instead of just dismissing her because she was a Muslim. I decided I would remain her friend and keep telling her about Jesus.

During the term, the Muslim Holy Month of Ramadan began. Sarah explained to me that it was their month of fasting. Suddenly it dawned on me: This was my opportunity to show Sarah I accepted her and really wanted her to know Christ.

“I’m fasting today,” I told Sarah one morning about a week into the fasting period.

“Why?” she asked.

“I just want to fast with you,” I answered.

She stared at me in disbelief. I’ve been told that Muslims often asked their friends to offer encouragement by fasting with them. But at our boarding school, no one wanted to give up their already meager share of food. Sarah had not even asked me. She thought since I was a Christian, I would have nothing to do with a Muslim tradition.

“Why are you fasting with me when you are a Christian?” Sarah asked me later. I told her I didn’t think there was anything wrong with fasting, and I was only doing it to show her that I accepted her and respected her religion.
(Read the story at http://www.christianitytoday.com/cl/2000/001/8.54.html )

The Pagan roots of Christianity cannot be denied, Christians only fast because they want to “win Muslims”. They don’t fast because the Bible commands it.

Muslims are not encouraged to become deceived; they fast only to “win Muslims” is the sheer embodiment of Paul’s teachings. Is there any greater evidence to show they follow Paul, the corrupter of the Gospel??

It was Thomas Jefferson who said: “Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the Gospel of Jesus”.

The Contradictions

(1) Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. (Romans 3:20)

Contradicted by:

For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Romans 2:13)

(2) Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. (Galatians 6:2)

Contradicted by:

For each one should carry his own load. (Galatians 6:5)

(3) For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, (1 Peter 3:18)

Contradicted by:

The wicked is a ransom for the righteous, and the traitor for the upright. (Proverbs 21:18)

(4) Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. (Hebrews 13:4)

Contradicted by:

But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this. (1 Corinthians 7:28)

(5) No man hath seen God at any time . If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. (1 John 4:12)

Contradicted by:

I saw the LORD standing upon the altar: and he said, Smite the lintel of the door, that the posts may shake: and cut them in the head, all of them; and I will slay the last of them with the sword: he that fleeth of them shall not flee away, and he that escapeth of them shall not be delivered. (Amos 9:1)

(6) If I covered my transgressions as Adam, by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom: (Job 31:33)

Contradicted by:

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. (1Timothy 2:14)

* The verse says that Adam sinned, yet the New Testament says that Adam did not sin, but only Eve sinned.

According to Jesus, Paul was a hypocrite:

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites ! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. (Matthew 23:13)

Compared with:

Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, “My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead.” (Acts 23:6)

Paul wants people to be sinners!

I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. 1 Corinthians 7:6-7

Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners— of whom I am the worst. (1 Tim. 1:15)

Paul testifies there is nothing good in him:

More Contradictions

(1) Full God or Emptied God:

“Christ Jesus who, though existing in the form of God, did not consider his equality with God something to cling to, but emptied Himself as he took on the form of a slave” (Philippians 2:6)

Contradicted by:

“For in Him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell (Colossians 1:19)

(2) God or Mediator or None:

“For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5)

Contradicted by:

“But there is no call for an intermediary in case of one, and God is one” (Galatians 3:20)

(3) The Law Abolished or the Law Upheld:

He brought the hostility to an end, by abolishing: the Law of commandments with its regulations” (Ephesians 2:14)

Contradicted by:

Do we then overthrow the Law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the Law.” (Romans 3:31)

(4) Righteousness; with the Law or without the Law:

not a single human being will be made righteous in God’s sight through observance of the Law” (Romans 3:20)

Contradicted by:

For not the hearers of the Law are righteous before God but those who practice the Law will be pronounced righteous” (Romans 2:13)

(5) Salvation; by Confession or by Deeds:

if you confess with your lips the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9)

Contradicted by:

For he (God) will repay according to each one’s deeds; to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life” (Romans 2:6)
(Source: Roshan Enam, Follow Jesus or Follow Paul? p. 65-55)

(6) Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right. (Acts 10:34-35)

Contradicted by:

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation , a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (1 Peter 2:9)

Most Greek-speaking authors heard these traditions in the Aramaic vernacular and committed them to writing in Greek. None of these writings is dated prior to the year 70 C.E.; there is not a single instance in these works where the author has cited an authority for an event or maxim attributed to Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) in order that we might construct a chain of transmission.

Furthermore, even their works have not survived. Thousands of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament were collected, but none of them is older than the fourth century C.E.; rather the origin of most of them does not go beyond the period intervening between the 11th and the 14th centuries.

“The real death of a Prophet consists not in his physical demise but in the ending of the influence of his teachings. The earlier Prophets have died because their followers have adulterated their teachings, distorted their instructions, and besmirched their life-examples by attaching fictitious events to them” (ibid, Maududi, Towards Understanding Islam, p. 57)

“The original copies of the New Testament books have, of course, long since disappeared. This fact should not cause surprise. In the first place, they were written on papyrus, a very fragile and perishable material. In the second place, and probably of even more importance, the original copies of the New Testament books were not looked upon as scripture by those of the early Christian communities.” [George Arthur Buttrick (Ed.), The Interpreter’s Dictionary Of The Bible, Volume 1, pp. 599 (Under Text, NT).]

Paul and his Pagan teachings had nothing at all to do with the Original Message of Jesus

The book of Acts demonstrates that Paul was preaching very similar doctrines to the pagans.

They professed to believe in the blood sacrifice (crucifixion) and resurrection of their own god-men before Paul had arrived, as the following passage indicates:

Therefore he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshipers, and in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there. Then certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him. And some said, “What does this babbler want to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign gods,” because he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection. (Acts 17:17-18)

The Gentiles already knew the stories of dying and rising gods before Paul came to them, he was only recycling the legends of the Mystery Religions.

“The divine teacher is called, is tested by the “adversary”, gathers disciples, heals the sick, preaches the Good News about God’s kingdom, finally runs afoul of his bitter enemies, suffers, dies, and is resurrected after three days. This is the total pattern of the sun god in all the ancient dramas”. (Tom Harper, The Pagan Christ, p. 145)

“A true Jew would have immediately recognized the teaching of Jesus as a reaffirmation of what Moses had taught. But to many a pagan, it must have seemed new and strange and perhaps a little complicated. Most of the pagans still believed in a multitude of gods who, it was thought, mixed freely with human beings, mated with them, and took part in every sphere of human life. To the common people of Greece, any description of Jesus must have seemed like a description of one of their gods, and they were probably quite ready to accept Jesus in this capacity . There was always room for one more god. However, the actual teaching of Jesus negated all their gods, since it affirmed the Divine Unity”. (Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, Jesus: Prophet of Islam 1992 edition, p. 62)

It is commonly supposed that religious honors were paid to the sun as a deity by a few isolated peoples or sects, such as the Parsees and the ancient Ghebers of Persia, and some African tribes. In correction of this view we are prepared to support the declaration that the worship of the Sun-god was quite universal in the ancient world. It ranged from China and India to Yucatan and
Peru. The Emperor and the Mikado, as well as the Incas, and the Pharaohs were Sun-god figures. And is the belief only an empty myth?? So far from being such, it is at once the highest embodiment of religious conception in the spiritual history of the race. Likewise in the ancient Mystery dramas the central character was ever the Sun-god the role being enacted by the candidate for initiation in person. He went through the several initiations as himself the type and representative of the solar divinity in the field of human experience…These Sun-god characters, of none of whom can it be said positively that they were living personages, were, it must be clearly noted, purely typical figures in the national epics of the several nations. (The Great Myth of the Sun-gods, Alvin Boyd Kuhn)

These ‘saviors’ who died and resurrected after three days were symbols of the sun, and these fables (or fairytales) were borrowed by the Church and attributed to Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) after his departure. Thus, Jesus became the Sun of God before the ‘Son of God’, both titles are pagan.
The early Jewish Christians (Nazarenes and Ebionites) did not believe Jesus was God, or the ‘son of God’.

The Christian conception is a distorted one, it teaches that Jesus was crucified on the ‘cross’ for the sins of other men, and resurrected on the third day. This story is not different from what we find in the Mystery Religions.

“The worship of suffering gods was to be found on all sides, and the belief in the torture of the victims in the rites of human sacrifice for the redemption from sin was very general. The gods Osiris, Attis, Adonis,
Dionysos, Herakles, Prometheus, and others, had all suffered for mankind; and thus the Servant of Yahweh was also conceived as having to be wounded for’ men’s transgressions. But as I say, this conception had passed into the background in the days of Jesus”
(The Paganism in Our Christiantiy, Arthur Weigall, 1928, p106)

The Roman/Greek/Egyptian gods were sacrificed for the ‘sins of mankind’ and resurrected on the third day. There is a tradition that Krishna was also crucified (yet upon a tree) to deliver his people from sin. worked the same miracles of dieing and raising, they were both “incarnations” as well.

The true genesis of Pauline Pagan Christianity lies in ancient India. It is the life of Kristna in the Bagavad Gita over 5000 years ago that we can look for the prototype of Christ. We can also find 180 similarities between the life of the Egyptian god Horus in the Book of the Dead, written in 1700BC. Both of these gods reformed the corrupt rule of the priesthood of their time and had them thrown out of the temples and instituted a system of worship and spirituality so pure that we see millions rushing to find these truths today in foreign countries.

When he was sixteen, Krishna left his mother to spread his new teaching throughout India. He spoke out against corruption among the people and the princes, everywhere supported the weak against oppression and declared that he had come to Earth to release people from suffering and sin, to drive out the spirit of evil, and to restore the rule of righteousness. He overcame tremendous difficulties, fought alone against entire armies, performed a wide range of miracles, raised the dead to life, healed lepers, gave sight to the blind and hearing to the deaf, and made the lame walk .

Paul created a doctrine about “salvation through the cross” while discarding the teachings of Jesus in its totality.

He established the falsehood that “faith in the resurrection” is the way to salvation while totally rejecting the sayings of Jesus (Matthew 9:13, 12:7, Hosea 6:6, Micah 8:7-8)

And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. (1 Corinthians 15:14-17)

“…the doctrine of resurrection on which many Christian scholars’ belief hangs, is the sole work of Saint Paul as there is nothing in the teachings of Jesus himself on this issue.”
(Alhaj AD Ajijola, Myth of the Cross,)

The Old Testament teaches that ‘human sacrifice’ is wrong, and the verses Job 7:9, 14:14, Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 deny the resurrection!

[As] the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away: so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no [more]. (Job 7:9)

Christianity Pagan Beliefs Before Jesus

The ‘human sacrifice’ is entirely a pagan ritual which dates back thousands of years. Jesus could not have been a ‘human sacrifice’ on the cross because the practice was pagan and not Jewish. The Jews believed they’d crucified Jesus to prove he was false, yet God saved Jesus from the cross (Psalms 20:6) to disprove the notion that Jesus was accursed (Deu 13:5, 21:23)

The pagans used to sacrifice human beings for the “redemption of sins”. According to the Gospel of the Nazorenes, Jesus rejected the doctrine of vicarious atonement.

“The worship of suffering gods was to be found on all sides, and the belief in the torture of the victims in the rites of human sacrifice for the redemption from sin was very general.
(The Paganism in Our Christiantiy, Arthur Weigall, 1928, p106)

Jesus was teaching his disciples in the outer court of the
Temple and one of them said unto him: Master, it is said by the priests that without shedding of blood there is no remission. Can then the blood offering of the law take away sin? And Jesus answered: No blood offering, of beast or bird, or man, can take away sin, for how can the conscience be purged from sin by the shedding of innocent blood? Nay, it will increase the condemnation. (Gospel of the Nazorenes, lection 33)

Blood sacrifice is the oldest and most universal act of piety. The offering of animals, including the human animal, dates back at least twenty thousand years, and, depending on how you read the scanty archaeological evidence, arguably back to the earliest appearance of humanity. Many religions recount the creation of man through the bloody sacrifice of a God-man –a divinity who is torn apart to sow the seeds of humanity. (Patrick
Tierney , The Highest Altar: The Story of Human Sacrifice, quoted in Acharya’s Suns of God)

This is very similar to Christianity, which teaches that Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) was the ‘god-man’ that took away the “sins of mankind”, a doctrine foreign to the Jewish mind!

During the 4th century, the cult Christianity was made the official “religion” of the Roman Empire, and Constantine was the political leader of the Church based in Rome. He introduced the pagan doctrine of ‘trinity’ at the Council of Nicea, and he changed the Sabbath (originally held on Saturday shifted to Sun-day) for the commemoration of the sun-god.

The ancient Christian monuments, from which I have drawn my facts and illustrations, reveal so many obvious adaptations from the Pagan mythology and art, that it became necessary for me to investigate anew the Pagan symbolism: and this will account for the frequent comparisons instituted, and the parallels drawn between Christianity and Paganism. Many of the Pagan symbols, therefore, are necessarily used in this work–such, for instance, as seem to be types of Christian verities, like
Agni, Krishna, Mithra, Horus, Apollo, and Orpheus. Hence I have drawn largely from the most ancient Pagan religions of India, Chaldea, Persia, Egypt, Greece, and Rome, and somewhat from the old Aztec religion of
Mexico. These religions were all, indeed, systems of idolatry, perversions and corruptions of the one primeval truth as held by such patriarchs as Abraham and Job; and yet these religions contained germs of this truth which it became the province of Christianity to develop and embody in a purer system for the good of mankind.

It is a most singular and astonishing fact sought to be developed in this work, that the Christian faith, as embodied in the Apostles’ Creed, finds its parallel, or dimly foreshadowed counterpart, article by article, in the different systems of Paganism here brought under review. (Lundy, quoted in Acharya’s Suns of God)

The earth-shattering statement:
That which is known as the Christian religion existed among the ancients, and never did not exist, from the beginning of the human race until the time when Christ came in the flesh, at which time the true religion, which already existed began to be called Christianity.” (St. Augustine, Retractationes 1.12.3)

“The religion published by Jesus Christ to all nations is neither new nor strange…For though, without controversy we are of late, and the name of Christians is indeed new; yet our manner of life and the principles of our religion have not been lately devised by us, but were instituted and observed….from the beginning of the world, by good men, accepted by God; from those natural notions which are implanted in men’s minds”.
(Eusebius of Caesarea, 260-340 CE)

“The Christian religion contains nothing but what Christians hold in common with the heathen; nothing new” (Greek philosopher Celsus,)
The above quotations are derived from Tom Harper’s book The Pagan Christ. He further states on page 29:

The evidence of close similarities between Christianity and other ancient world faiths is massive, detailed, extremely specific, and quite incredibly far-flung, stretching from the Vedic wisdom of India to the Norse myths of Scandinavia, the legends of the Incas, and the original spirituality of the indigenous peoples of North America.

These are false charges against Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) which Islam clears away. The true version of Jesus can be found in the Holy Qur’an. What the Qur’an says about Jesus is supported by the Bible itself. The Bible requires the acceptance of Islam.

Below are quotations against Paul:

“If Christianity needed an Anti-Christ, they need look no further than Paul”
— The English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

“We have already noted that every teaching of Jesus was already in the literature of the day….. Paul, the founder of Christianity, the writer of half the NT, almost never quotes Jesus in his letters and writings.” (Professor Smith in his “The World Religions”, p 330)

“Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ….. Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ.”
–Will Durant (Philosopher)

“Paul’s words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul- a vast difference.”
–Bishop John S. Spong, Episcopal Bishop of Newark. (Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, p. 104, Harper San Francisco, 1991)

“Paul insists that there is only one ‘gospel of Christ’ (Galatians 1:7), so why did later Christians accept as ‘Scripture’ four written gospels?”
–Graham N. Stanton, “The Gospels and Jesus”, The Oxford Bible Series (1989), p.125

The following quotations are summarized:

I have inquired into some of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity; the examination has led me to the conclusion that the dogmas of the Trinity, the Divinity of Jesus, the Divine-Sonship, the Original Sin and Atonement are neither rational nor in conformity with the teachings of Jesus. These dogmas came into being and were due to pagan influences. They show that Christianity has departed considerably from the religion of Jesus. (The Myth of the Cross, Alhaj A.D. Ajijola)

This mysterious disappearance of Jesus could certainly be put to an advantageous purpose. Moreover, it was commonly known that Jesus was born of a virgin mother though many were skeptical about it. Paul turned all these ideas to his own advantage and concocted the theory of sonship. (ibid, Alhaj A.D. Ajijola)

“Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.”
(Thomas Jefferson, The Great Thoughts by George Sildes,
Ballantine Books, New York, 1985, p.208)

“Where possible he (Paul) avoids quoting the teaching of Jesus, in fact even mentioning it. If we had to rely on Paul, we should not know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the sermon on the mount, and had taught His disciples the ‘Our Father.’ Even where they are
specially relevant, Paul passes over the words of the Lord .”
(Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, p. 171)

“What kind of authority can there be for an ‘apostle’ who, unlike the other apostles, had never been prepared for the apostolic office in Jesus’ own school but had only later dared to claim the apostolic office on the basis on his own authority? The only question comes to be how the apostle Paul appears in his Epistles to be so indifferent to the historical facts of the life of Jesus….He bears himself but little like a disciple who has received the doctrines and the principles which he preaches from the Master whose name he bears.” ( Ferdinand Christian
Baur , Church History of the First Three Centuries)

Paul, not Jesus, was the founder of Christianity as a new religion which developed away from both normal Judaism and the Nazarene variety of Judaism.”
(Hyam Maccoby , Paul: The Mythmaker and the Invention of Chrisianity, p. 16)

“No sooner had Jesus knocked over the dragon of superstition than Paul boldly set it on its legs again in the name of Jesus.” (George Bernard Shaw)

“Paul did not desire to know Christ. Paul shows us with what complete indifference the earthly life of Jesus was regarded…. What is the significance for our faith and for our religious life, the fact that the Gospel of Paul is different from the Gospel of Jesus?
The attitude which Paul himself takes up towards the Gospel of Jesus is that he does not repeat it in the words of Jesus, and does not appeal to its authority…. The fateful thing is that the Greek, the Catholic, and the Protestant theologies all contain the Gospel of Paul in a form which does not continue the Gospel of Jesus, but displaces it.”
(The Quest for the Historical Jesus, Albert Schweitzer,)

“There is not one word of Pauline Christianity in the characteristic utterances of Jesus…. There has really never been a more monstrous imposition perpetrated than the imposition of Paul’s soul upon the soul of Jesus…. It is now easy to understand how the Christianity of Jesus… was suppressed by the police and the Church, while Paulinism overran the whole western civilized world, which was at that time the Roman Empire, and was adopted by it as its official faith.” (George Bernard Shaw, Androcles and the Lion)

“Paul abolished the Law, which was followed and preached by Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam), and corrupted the whole religion, giving it a new form. The main ambition behind all this was, in his own words, “to win a larger number” of followers; the followers of a new religion “the Pauline Christianity”.
(Dr. Roshan Enam, Follow Jesus or Follow Paul, p. 69)

“From the time Jesus left earth to the second half of the Second century, there was a struggle between two factions. One was what one might call Pauline Christianity and the other Judeo Christianity. It was only very slowly that the first supplanted the second, and Pauline Christianity triumphed over Judeo Christianity”.
(Dr. Maurice Bucaille, The Bible, The Quran, and Science, p. 67)

Thus, quite soon after Jesus’s disappearance from earth, there was a definite and widening divergence between the followers of Jesus and the Pauline Church, which was later to become known as the Roman Catholic Church. Differences between the two were not only evident in life-style and belief, but were also clearly delineated geographically. As the Pauline Church grew more established, it became increasingly hostile to the followers of Jesus.
It aligned itself more and more with the rulers of the Roman Empire, and the persecution which to begin with had been directed at all who called themselves Christians, now began to fall mainly on those who affirmed the Divine Unity. Attempts began to be made to change their beliefs and forcefully to remove those who refused to do so, together with the books they used. (Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, Jesus, Prophet of Islam)

Naturally, those who deviated from the teaching of Jesus were prepared to change the Scriptures too, and even introduce false writings in order to support their opinions. (ibid)

The Ebionites were stigmatized by the Church as heretics who failed to understand that Jesus was a divine person and asserted instead that he was a human being who came to inaugurate a new earthly age, as prophesied by the Jewish prophets of the Bible. Moreover, the Ebionites refused to accept the Church doctrine, derived from
Paul, that Jesus abolished or abrogated the Torah, the Jewish law. Instead, the Ebionites observed the Jewish law and regarded themselves as Jews. The Ebionites were not heretics, as the Church asserted, nor ‘re-
Judaizers’, as modern scholars call them, but the authentic successors of the immediate disciples and followers of Jesus, whose views and doctrines they faithfully transmitted, believing correctly that they were derived from Jesus himself. They were the same group that had earlier been called the Nazarenes, who were led by James and Peter, who had known Jesus during his lifetime, and were in a far better position to know his aims than Paul, who met Jesus only in dreams and visions. Thus the opinion held by the Ebionites about Paul is of extraordinary interest and deserves respectful consideration, instead of dismissal as ‘scurrilous’ propaganda — the reaction of Christian scholars from ancient to modern times.
(Hyam Maccoby, The Myth Maker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity)

“Let the reader contrast the true Christian standard with that of Paul and he will see the terrible betrayal of all that the Master taught…. For the surest way to betray a great Teacher is to misrepresent his message…. That is what Paul and his followers did, and because the Church has followed Paul in his error it has failed lamentably to redeem the world…. The teachings given by the blessed Master Christ, which the disciples John and Peter and James, the brother of the Master, tried in vain to defend and preserve intact were as utterly opposed to the Pauline Gospel as the light is opposed to the darkness.”
(Rev. V.A. Holmes-Gore: Christ or Paul? )

“More and more people are now aware that the Christianity they know has little to do with the original teaching of Jesus. During the last two centuries the research of the historians has left little room for faith in the Christian “mysteries”, but the proven fact that the Christ of the established Church has almost nothing to do with the Jesus of history does not in itself help Christians towards the Truth. The present dilemma of the Christians is illustrated by what the Church historians of this present century write”. (Muhammad Ataur – Rahim, Jesus, Prophet of Islam, 1992 edition, p. 13)

Conclusion:

The “Christians” are commanded to follow the Old Testament, the observance of the Torah (Matthew 5:17-2)

The Holy Quran rebukes them for not following the true Gospel of Jesus and discarding the Torah, the Law of Moses which Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) cherished, and Christians reject!

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.” It is the revelation that cometh to thee from thy Lord, that
increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. But sorrow thou not over (these) people without Faith. (Holy Quran, 5:68)

From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the
day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done. (Holy Qur’an 5:14)

Say: “O people of the Book! exceed not in your religion the bounds (of what is proper), trespassing beyond the truth, nor follow the vain desires of people who went wrong in times gone by,- who misled many, and strayed (themselves) from the even way. (Holy Qur’an 5:77)

Seeker of Truth can easily conclude that Christianity and its missionary  promote the Paganic  religion of Paul and not the true teachings of Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam).

Advertisements

Does Islam allow wife-beating?? A response to Anti-Islamists

Regarding an allegation made by anti-islamists, that in Islam, wife beating is permissible

Wife beating anytime and for any reason is never allowed in Islam.

What Muslims may or may not do is another discussion altogether. The teachings of Islam are however clear, and that is the basis upon which Islam has to be judged.

Wife beating is not allowed in Islam!

Before we start, I’d like to first say that because Arabic is a complex language, and because Allah Almighty purposely and carefully chose certain words to be placed in certain Noble Verses, I strongly believe that Allah Almighty allowed for the interpretation of NOT beating wives to be valid. In other words, a Muslim man would not be going against Allah Almighty’s Divine Will if he doesn’t beat his wife, and instead, deserts her by leaving the house and living for instance with his parents for a period of time until the disobedient wife comes back to her senses, which would be as equivalent as the first interpretation, since the end result is the same, which is to discipline the bad wife and to get her back on the Right Path of what makes GOD Almighty satisfied with her.

Let us look at Noble Verses 4:34-36

“(34). Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband’s) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
(35). If ye fear a breach between them twain, appoint (two) arbiters, one from his family, and the other from hers; if they wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation: For Allah hath full knowledge, and is acquainted with all things.
(36). Serve Allah, and join not any partners with Him; and do good- to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbours who are near, neighbours who are strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (ye meet), and what your right hands possess: For Allah loveth not the arrogant, the vainglorious;”

The Arabic word used in Noble Verse 4:34 above is “idribuhunna”, which is derived from “daraba” which means “beat”. The thing with all of the Arabic words that are derived from the word “daraba” is that they don’t necessarily mean “hit”. The word “idribuhunna” for instance, could very well mean to “leave” them. It is exactly like telling someone to “beat it” or “drop it” in English. It has a similar meaning to tap, and not BATTER as Anti-Muslim evil devils allege.

Allah Almighty used the word “daraba” in Noble Verse 14:24

“Seest thou not how Allah sets (daraba) forth a parable? — A goodly Word Like a goodly tree, Whose root is firmly fixed, And its branches (reach) To the heavens”. “daraba” here meant “give an example”. If I say in Arabic “daraba laka mathal”, it means “give you an example”.

Allah Almighty also used the word “darabtum”, which is derived from the word “daraba” in Noble Verse 4:94, which mean to “go abroad” in the sake of Allah Almighty:

“O ye who believe! When ye go abroad (darabtum) In the cause of Allah, Investigate carefully, And say not to anyone Who offers you a salutation: ‘Thou art none of a Believer!’ Coveting the perishable good Of this life: with Allah Are profits and spoils abundant. Even thus were ye yourselves Before, till Allah conferred On you His favours: therefore Carefully investigate. For Allah is well aware Of all that ye do. (The Noble Quran, 4:94)”

So “daraba” literally means “beat”, or “go abroad”, or “give” but not in the sense to give something by hand, but rather to give or provide an example.

Important Note: Notice how Allah Almighty in Noble Chapter (Surah)  He used “daraba (4:34″ and “darabtum (4:94)”, which are both derived from the same root. He used both words in the same Chapter, which tells me that “daraba” in Noble Verse 4:34 means to desert or leave, since that’s what its derived word meant in Noble Verse 4:94. The next section below will further prove my point.

I am sure there are more Noble Verses that used words derived from “daraba” in the Noble Quran, but these are the only ones I know of so far. In the case of Noble Verse 4:34 where Allah Almighty seems to allow men to hit their wives after the two warnings for ill-conduct and disloyalty, it could very well be that Allah Almighty meant to command the Muslims to “leave” the home all together and desert their wives for a long time in a hope that the wives would then come back to their senses and repent.

So it is not the brutal thrashing proposed by non muslims. The word used in the Quran has many meanings which are equally viable.

If we take the meaning of beat for example, it will be as to tap someone or to give them a sign that what they are doing is wrong. It is not to BEAT them up. Its like tapping someone on the shoulder and saying STOP. This is not beating.

If we take the other meanings, it means to remove oneself from their presence. The best example of the teachings of the Quran is Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Any tom dick or harry cant come along and practice Islam how they think it is, and intepret verses how they want – especially not non-muslims who have an anti islamic agenda. If we look at the conduct of the prophet, he NEVER mistreated his wives, which clearly shows the Qur’an does not allow wife beating. He had problems with them just as anyone would, but he did not beat them. If the Quran allows for it, then why wouldnt the prophet of Islam do it??

Noble Verses and Sayings that support the prohibition of any type of wife-beating:

The following Noble Verses and Sayings from the Noble Quran and Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) respectively seem to very well support the above interpretation:

“…Do not retain them (i.e., your wives) to harm them…(The Noble Quran, 2:231)”

“If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband’s part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best; even though men’s souls are swayed by greed. But if ye do good and practise self-restraint, God is well-acquainted with all that ye do. (The Noble Quran, 4:128)”

Narrated Mu’awiyah al-Qushayri radhiyallahu anhu): “I went to the Apostle of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)”

Narrated Mu’awiyah ibn Haydah: “I said: Apostle of Allah, how should we approach our wives and how should we leave them? He replied: Approach your tilth when or how you will, give her (your wife) food when you take food, clothe when you clothe yourself, do not revile her face, and do not beat her. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2138)”

Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) reported Allah’s Apostle (sallallaahu alayhi wasallan) as saying: “He who believes in Allah and the Hereafter, if he witnesses any matter he should talk in good terms about it or keep quiet. Act kindly towards woman, for woman is created from a rib, and the most crooked part of the rib is its top. If you attempt to straighten it, you will break it, and if you leave it, its crookedness will remain there. So act kindly towards women. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 008, Number 3468)”

“O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may take away part of the dower [money given by the husband to the wife for the marriage contract] ye have given them, except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good. (The Noble Quran, 4:19)”

“And among God’s signs is this: He created for you mates from amongst yourselves (males as mates for females and vice versa) that you might find tranquillity and peace in them. And he has put love and kindness among you. Herein surely are signs for those who reflect. (The Noble Quran 30:21)”

“Women impure for men impure. And women of purity for men of purity. These are not affected by what people say. For them is forgiveness and an honorable provision. (The Noble Quran 24:26)”

Narrated Abu Huraira (radhiyallahu anhu): “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘The strong is not the one who overcomes the people by his strength, but the strong is the one who controls himself while in anger. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Good Manners and Form (Al-Adab), Volume 8, Book 73, Number 135)”

Narrated Abu Huraira (radhiyallahu anhu): “A man said to the Prophet , ‘Advise me! ‘The Prophet said, ‘Do not become angry and furious.’ The man asked (the same) again and again, and the Prophet said in each case, ‘Do not become angry and furious.’ (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Good Manners and Form (Al-Adab), Volume 8, Book 73, Number 137)”

Abu Huraira (radhiyallahu anhu) reported: “I heard Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) as saying: One is not strong because of one’s wrestling skillfully. They said: Allah’s Messenger, then who is strong? He said: He who controls his anger when he is in a fit of rage. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Virtue, Good Manners and Joining of the Ties of Relationship (Kitab Al-Birr was-Salat-I-wa’l-Adab), Book 032, Number 6314)”

Allah Almighty loves those who restrain anger: “Those who spend (freely), whether in prosperity, or in adversity; who restrain anger, and pardon (all) men; for Allah loves those who do good. (The Noble Quran, 3:134)”

Linguistic element

The key to the problem is the mistranslation of the two key words nushuz and adriboo. Some of the possible meanings for both the words are given below. Again, the appropriate meaning will depend on the context of the verse.

Nushuz: Animosity, hostility, rebellion, ill-treatment, discord; violation of marital duties on the part of either husband or wife.

Adriboo (root: daraba): to beat, to strike, to hit, to separate, to part.

In the context of the above verse the most appropriate meaning for nushuz is ‘marital discord’ (ill-will, animosity etc), and for adriboo is ‘to separate’ or ‘to part’.

Otherwise, it is inviting the likelihood of a divorce without any reconciliation procedure. Such a step would blatantly contravene the Qur’anic guidance shown in verse 4:35 below. Therefore, a more accurate and consistent translation of the above verse would be:

(4:34) […]as for those women whose animosity or ill-will you have reason to fear, then leave them alone in bed, and then separate; and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not seek a way against them.

The separation could be temporary or permanent depending on the reconciliation procedure. Such as construction is legitimate within the terms of the language and fits in very well with the divorce procedure outlined in the Qur’an (see 8:5).

The verse following the above verse gives further weight to the above translation.

(4:35) And if ye fear a breach between them twain (the man and the wife), appoint an arbiter from his folk and an arbiter from her folk. If they desire amendment Allah will make them of one mind. Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Aware.

Added weight to the meanings outlined above is given by verse 4:128 quoted below. Here, in the case of a man, the same word nushuz is used, but it is rendered as ‘ill-treatment’ as against ‘rebellion’ in the case of a woman as shown earlier in the traditional translation of verse 4:34. One find oneself asking whether since the ill-treatment is on the part of the husband, a process of reconciliation is here to be encouraged!

(4:128) If a wife fears ill-treatment (nushuz) or desertion on her husband’s part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best[…]

This, obviously, is a double standard and the only way to reconcile the meanings of the two verses, in the contexts they are being used, is to accept the meaning of adriboo as: ‘to separate’ or to ‘part’. In this connection I would like to refer the reader to an excellent article by Rachael Tibbet from which I quote:

(a) Qur’anic commentators and translators experience problems with the term Adribu in the Qur’an not just in this verse but in others, as it is used in different contexts in ways which appear ambiguous and open to widely different translations into English. ‘Daraba’ can be translated in more than a hundred different ways.

(b) The translation of adribu as ‘to strike’ in this particular verse (4:34) is founded upon nothing more than:

(i) The authority of hadiths (Abu Dawud 2141 and Mishkat Al-Masabih 0276) that this is what Adribu means in this context.

(ii) The prejudices and environment of the early commentators of the Qur’an which led them to assume that ‘to strike’, given the overall context of the verse, was the most likely interpretation of the many possible interpretations of adribu.

Conclusion: Wife beating is not prescribed in the Qur’an

Warning on Discarding of Salaat

[Shaikh Zakariyya Kandhlawi (rahimahullah)]

image

Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (Radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that he heard the Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wasallam) saying:

There is no place in Islam for a person who does not say his salaat, and there is no salaat without wudhu.”

Hadhrat Abdullah bin Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) also heard the Prophet (Sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) saying, “There is no Islam in a person when there is no salaat by him. The position of salaat in Islam is as the position of the head in a body.”

Let those who do not offer salaat, and not only call themselves Muslims, but also boast of their being champions of the Muslim cause, ponder over these words of the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wasallam).They dream of reviving the past glory of Islam but would not care to know how rigidly the people responsible for that glory stuck to the practices of Islam.

Hadhrat Abdullah bin Abbas (Radhiyallahu anhu) suffered from cataract of the eye. People told him that the disease could be treated but he would have to miss his salaat for a few days. He said: “This is not possible: I have heard
the Prophet (Sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) saying. ‘A person who does not say his salaat shall stand before Allah while Allah shall be angry with him.” The companions of the Prophet would rather like to go blind than to forego salaat (though permissible under such circumstances) even for a few days. When on his last day Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) was stabbed by a Majoos, he often remained unconscious and eventually expired due to excessive bleeding. While on his death-bed. he was made conscious of the approaching salaat hours and he performed salaat in that very condition, and would remark: “There is no lot in Islaam for a person who does not say his salaat.”  These days it is considered unkind and improper to induce the patient or even allow him to say his salaat. What a world of difference is there between the view-points and approach of tlie Muslims of these two ages!

Hadhrat Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu) once requested the Prophet (Sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) to give him a servant. The Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wasallam) said “Here are three slaves; take anyone you like.” Hadhrat Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu) said, “You may kindly choose one for me.” The Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wasallam) pointed towards a certain man and said, “Take this one he is particular about his salaat. But you are not to beat him. We are forbidden to beat one who says salaat.” We, on the other hand, mock at our servant and consider him a liability if he goes for salaat.

Sufyaan Thauri (Rahmatullah alaih), the famous Sufi once fell into a state of ecstasy. He remained in his house for seven days without sleep, food and drink. When his Shaikh was informed of his condition, he inquired if Sufyaan was observing the hours of his salaat. He was told that his salaat was quite regular and safe. At this, the Shaikh remarked, “Glory be to Allah, Who has not allowed the Devil to have an upper hand on him!

[Fadha’il e Namaaz]

Answering Darwinism/Evolution

[By Adnan Oktar (Book: Darwinism refuted)]

                  INTRODUCTION

Anyone who seeks an answer to the question of how living things, including himself, came into existence, will encounter two distinct explanations. The first is “creation,” the idea that all living things came into existence as a consequence of an intelligent design. The second explanation is the theory of “evolution,” which asserts that living things are not the products of an intelligent design, but of coincidental causes and natural processes.

For a century and a half now, the theory of evolution has received extensive support from the scientific community. The science of biology is defined in terms of evolutionist concepts. That is why, between the two explanations of creation and evolution, the majority of people assume the evolutionist explanation to be scientific.  Accordingly, they believe evolution to be a theory supported by the observational findings of science, while creation is thought to be a belief based on faith.  As a matter of fact, however, scientific findings do not support the theory of evolution. Findings from the last two decades in particular openly contradict the basic assumptions of this theory. Many branches of science, such as paleontology, biochemistry, population genetics, comparative anatomy and biophysics, indicate that natural processes and coincidental effects cannot explain life, as the theory of evolution proposes.

In this section/category, we will analyze this scientific crisis faced by the theory of evolution. This work rests solely upon scientific findings. Those advocating the theory of evolution on behalf of scientific truth should confront these findings and question the presumptions they have so far held. Refusal to do this would mean openly accepting that their adherence to the theory of evolution is dogmatic rather than scientific.

HISTORY OF DARWINISM

Despite having its roots in ancient Greece, the theory of evolution was first brought to the attention of the scientific world in the nineteenth century. The most thoroughly considered view of evolution was expressed by the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, in his Zoological Philosophy (1809). Lamarck thought that all living things were endowed with a vital force that drove them to evolve toward greater complexity. He also thought that organisms could pass on to their offspring traits acquired during their lifetimes.  As an example of this line of reasoning, Lamarck suggested that the long neck of the giraffe evolved when a short-necked ancestor took to browsing on the leaves of trees instead of on grass.

image

This evolutionary model of Lamarck’s was invalidated by the discovery of the laws of genetic inheritance. In the middle of the twentieth century, the discovery of the structure of DNA revealed that the nuclei of the cells of living organisms possess very special genetic information, and that this information could not be altered by “acquired traits.” In other words, during its lifetime, even though a giraffe managed to make its neck a few centimeters longer by extending its neck to upper branches, this trait would not pass to its offspring. In brief, the Lamarckian view was simply refuted by scientific findings, and went down in history as a flawed assumption.

However, the evolutionary theory formulated by another natural scientist who lived a couple of generations after Lamarck proved to be more  influential. This natural scientist was Charles Robert Darwin, and the theory he formulated is known as “Darwinism.”

Charles Darwin based his theory on various observations he made as a young naturalist on board the H.M.S Beagle , which sailed in late 1831 on a five-year official voyage around the world.  Young Darwin was heavily influenced by the diversity of species he observed, especially of the different Galapagos Island finches. The differences in the beaks of these birds, Darwin thought, were a result of their adaptation to their different environments.

After this voyage, Darwin started to visit animal markets in England. He observed that breeders produced new breeds of cow by mating animals with different characteristics. This experience, together with the different finch species he observed in the Galapagos Islands, contributed to the formulation of his theory. In 1859, he published his views in his book The Origin of Species . In this book, he postulated that all species had descended from a single ancestor, evolving from one another over time by slight variations.

What made Darwin’s theory different from Lamarck’s was his emphasis on “natural selection.” Darwin theorized that there is a struggle for survival in nature, and that natural selection is the survival of strong species, which can adapt to their environment. Darwin adopted the following line of reasoning:

Within a particular species, there are natural and coincidental variations. For instance some cows are bigger than others, while some have darker colors. Natural selection selects the favorable traits. The process of natural selection thus causes an increase of favorable genes within a population, which results in the features of that population being better adapted to local conditions. Over time these changes may be significant enough to cause a new species to arise.

image

Charles Darwin developed his theory when science was still in a primitive state. Under primitive microscopes like these, life appeared to have a very simple structure. This error formed the basis of Darwinism.

However, this “theory of evolution by natural selection” gave rise to doubts from the very first:

1-What were the “natural and coincidental variations” referred to by Darwin?? It was true that some cows were bigger than others, while some had darker colors, yet how could these variations provide an explanation for the diversity in animal and plant species??

2-Darwin asserted that “Living beings evolved gradually.” In this case, there should have lived millions of “transitional forms.”  Yet there was no trace of these theoretical creatures in the fossil record. Darwin gave considerable thought to this problem, and eventually arrived at the conclusion that “further research would provide these fossils.”

3-How could natural selection explain complex organs, such as eyes, ears or wings? How can it be advocated that these organs evolved gradually, bearing in mind that they would fail to function if they had even a single part missing?

4-Before considering these questions, consider the following: How did the first organism, the so-called ancestor of all species according to Darwin, come into existence?? Could natural processes give life to something which was originally inanimate??

Darwin was, at least, aware of some these questions, as can be seen from the chapter “Difficulties of the Theory.” However, the answers he provided had no scientific validity.

H.S. Lipson, a British physicist, makes the following comments about these “difficulties” of Darwin’s:

On reading The Origin of Specie s, I found that Darwin was much less sure himself than he is often represented to be; the chapter entitled “Difficulties of the Theory” for example, shows considerable self-doubt.  As a physicist, I was particularly intrigued by his comments on how the eye would have arisen.1

Darwin invested all his hopes in advanced scientific research, which he expected to dispel the “difficulties of the theory.” However, contrary to his expectations, more recent scientific findings have merely increased these difficulties.

The Problem of the Origin of Life

In his book, Darwin never mentioned the origin of life. The primitive understanding of science in his time rested on the assumption that living things had very simple structures. Since mediaeval times, spontaneous generation, the theory that nonliving matter could come together to form living organisms, had been widely accepted. It was believed that insects came into existence from leftover bits of food. It was further imagined that mice came into being from wheat. Interesting experiments were conducted to prove this theory. Some wheat was placed on a dirty piece of cloth, and it was believed that mice would emerge in due course.

Similarly, the fact that maggots appeared in meat was believed to be evidence for spontaneous generation. However,  it was only realized some time later that maggots did not appear in meat Louis Pasteur destroyed the belief that life could be created from inanimate substances. spontaneously,  but were carried by flies in the form of larvae, invisible to the naked eye. Even in the period when Darwin’s Origin of Species was written, the belief that bacteria could come into existence from inanimate matter was widespread.

image

Louis Pasteur destroyed the belief that life could be created from inanimate substances.

However, five years after the publication of Darwin’s book, Louis Pasteur announced his results after long studies and experiments, which disproved spontaneous generation, a cornerstone of Darwin’s theory.

In his triumphal lecture at the Sorbonne in 1864, Pasteur said, “Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment.”2

Advocates of the theory of evolution refused to accept Pasteur’s findings for a long time. However, as scientific progress revealed the complex structure of the cell, the idea that life could come into being coincidentally faced an even greater impasse. We  shall consider this subject in some detail in this book.

The Problem of Genetics

Another subject that posed a quandary for Darwin’s theory was inheritance.  At the time when Darwin developed his theory, the question of how living beings transmitted their traits to other generations—that is, how inheritance took place—was not completely understood. That is why
the naive belief that inheritance was transmitted through blood was commonly accepted. Vague beliefs about inheritance led Darwin to base his theory on completely false grounds. Darwin assumed that natural selection was the “mechanism of evolution.”  Yet one question remained unanswered: How would these “useful traits” be selected and transmitted from one generation to the next? 

At this point, Darwin embraced the Lamarckian theory, that is, “the inheritance of acquired traits.” In his book The Great Evolution Mystery, Gordon R. Taylor, a researcher advocating the theory of evolution, expresses the view that Darwin was heavily influenced by Lamarck:

Lamarckism… is known as the inheritance of acquired characteristics… Darwin himself, as a matter of fact, was inclined to believe that such inheritance occurred and cited the reported case of a man who had lost his fingers and bred sons without fingers… [Darwin] had not, he said, gained a single idea from Lamarck. This was doubly ironical, for Darwin repeatedly toyed with the idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics and, if it is so dreadful, it is Darwin who should be denigrated rather than Lamarck… In the 1859 edition of his work, Darwin refers to ‘changes of external conditions’ causing variation but subsequently these conditions are described as directing variation and cooperating with natural selection in directing it… Every year he attributed more  and more  to the agency of use or disuse… By 1868 when he published Varieties of Animals and Plants under Domestication he gave a whole series of examples of supposed Lamarckian inheritance: such as a man losing part of his little finger and all his sons being born with deformed little fingers, and boys born with foreskins much reduced in length as a result of generations of circumcision.3

However, Lamarck’s thesis, as we have seen above, was disproved by the laws of genetic inheritance discovered by the  Austrian monk and botanist, Gregor Mendel. The concept of “useful traits” was therefore left unsupported. Genetic laws showed that acquired traits are not passed on, and that genetic inheritance takes place according to certain unchanging laws. These laws supported the view that species remain unchanged. No matter how much the cows that Darwin saw in England’s animal fairs bred, the species itself would never change: cows would always remain cows.

image

The genetic laws discovered by Mendel proved very damaging to the theory of evolution.

Gregor Mendel announced the laws of genetic inheritance that he discovered as a result of long experiment and observation in a scientific paper published in 1865. But this paper only attracted the attention of the scientific world towards the end of the century. By the beginning of the twentieth century, the truth of these laws had been accepted by the whole scientific community. This was a serious dead-end for Darwin’s theory, which tried to base the concept of “useful traits” on Lamarck.

Here we must correct a general misapprehension: Mendel opposed not only Lamarck’s model of evolution, but also Darwin’s.  As the article “Mendel’s Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin,” published in the Journal of Heredity , makes clear, “he [Mendel] was familiar with The genetic laws discovered by Mendel proved very damaging to the theory of evolution. The Origin of Species …and he was opposed to Darwin’s theory; Darwin was arguing for descent with modification through natural selection, Mendel was in favor of the orthodox doctrine of special creation.”4

The laws discovered by Mendel put Darwinism in a very difficult position. For these reasons, scientists who supported Darwinism tried to develop a different model of evolution in the first quarter of the twentieth century. Thus was born “neo-Darwinism.”

The efforts of Neo-Darwinism

A group of scientists who were  determined to reconcile Darwinism with the science of genetics, in one way or another, came together at a meeting organized by the Geological Society of  America in 1941.  After long discussion, they agreed on ways to create a new interpretation of Darwinism and over the next few years, specialists produced a synthesis of their fields into a revised theory of evolution.

The scientists who participated in establishing the new theory included the geneticists G. Ledyard Stebbins and Theodosius Dobzhansky, the zoologists Ernst Mayr and Julian Huxley, the paleontologists George Gaylord Simpson and Glenn L. Jepsen, and the mathematical geneticists Sir Ronald  A. Fisher and Sewall Wright.5

To  counter the fact of “genetic stability” (genetic homeostasis), this group of scientists employed the concept of “mutation,” which had been proposed by the Dutch botanist Hugo de Vries at the beginning of the 20th century. Mutations were defects that occurred, for unknown reasons, in the inheritance mechanism of living things. Organisms undergoing mutation developed some unusual structures, which deviated from the genetic information they inherited from their parents. The concept of ” random mutation ” was supposed to provide the answer to the question of the origin of the advantageous variations which caused living organisms to evolve according to Darwin’s theory—a phenomenon that Darwin himself was unable to explain, but simply tried to side-step by referring to Lamarck. The Geological Society of  America group named this new theory,  which was formulated by adding the concept of mutation to Darwin’s natural selection thesis, the ” synthetic theory of evolution ” or the ” ” modern synthesis .” In a short time, this theory came to be known as neo-Darwinism ” and its supporters as “neo-Darwinists. ”

image

The architects of Neo-Darwinism: Theodosius Dobzhansky,
Ernst Mayr, , and Julian Huxley.

Yet there was a serious problem: It was true that mutations changed the genetic data of living organisms, yet this change always occurred to the detriment of the living thing concerned.  All observed mutations ended up with disfigured, weak, or diseased individuals and, sometimes, led to the death of the organism. Hence, in an attempt to find examples of “useful mutations” which improve the genetic data in living organisms, neoDarwinists conducted many experiments and observations. For decades, they conducted mutation experiments on fruit flies and various other species. However, in none of these experiments could a mutation which improved the genetic data in a living being be seen.

Today the issue of mutation is still a great impasse for Darwinism. Despite the fact that the theory of natural selection considers mutations to be the unique source of “useful changes,” no mutations of any kind have been observed that are actually useful (that is, that improve the genetic information). In the following chapter, we will consider this issue in detail.

Another impasse for neo-Darwinists came from . Even in Darwin’s time, fossils were  already posing an important obstacle to the theory. While Darwin himself accepted the lack of fossils of “intermediate species,” he also predicted that further research would provide evidence of these lost transitional forms. However,  despite all the paleontologists’ efforts, the fossil record continued to remain a serious obstacle to the theory. One by one, concepts such as “vestigial organs,” “embryological recapitulation” and “homology” lost all significance in the light of new scientific findings.  All these issues are dealt with more  fully in the remaining chapters of this book.

A Theory in Crisis

We  have just reviewed in summary form the impasse Darwinism found itself in from the day it was first proposed. We  will later start to analyze the enormous dimensions of this deadlock. In doing this, our intention is to show that the theory of evolution is not indisputable scientific truth, as many people assume or try to impose on others. On the contrary, there is a glaring contradiction when the theory of evolution is compared to scientific findings in such diverse fields as the origin of life, population genetics, comparative anatomy,  paleontology, and biochemistry. In a word, evolution is a theory in “crisis.”

image

                 Micheal Denton

That is a description by Prof. Michael Denton, an  Australian biochemist and a renowned critic of Darwinism. In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), Denton examined the theory in the light of different branches of science, and concluded that the theory of natural selection is very far from providing an explanation for life on earth.6 Denton’s intention in offering his criticism was not to show the correctness of another view, but only to compare  Darwinism with the scientific facts. During the last two decades, many other scientists have published significant works questioning the validity of Darwin’s theory of evolution.

In this section, we will examine this crisis. No matter how much concrete evidence is provided, some readers may be unwilling to abandon their positions, and will continue to adhere to the theory of evolution. However, reading this book will still be of use to them, since it will help them to see the real situation of the theory they believe in, in the light of scientific findings.

******************************

1.  H. S. Lipson, “A Physicist’s View of Darwin’s Theory”,
Evolution Trends in Plants, vol.2, No. 1, 1988, s. 6.

2.  Sidney Fox, Klaus Dose. Molecular Evolution and The Origin of Life. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1977. s. 2

3.  Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, London: Abacus, 1984, s. 36- 41

4.  B.E. Bishop, “Mendel’s Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin,” Journal of Heredity 87 (1996): s. 205-213; ayrýca bkz. L.A. Callender, “Gregor Mendel: An Opponent of Descent with Modification,” History of Science 26 (1988): s. 41-75.

5.  Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis . London: Burnett Books, 1985

6.  Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis , Burnett Books, London, 1985.

Reality of Shirk (Polytheism)

[By: Maulana Shah Ismail Shaheed (rahimahullah)]

Shirk  does  not  only  imply  that  an  entity  be  equated  with  Allah  or  be  reckoned  as  His  counterpart, but  it  goes  much  further  to  include  the  things  and  manners  which  Allah  has  peculiarized  to  His Qualities  and  that  represent  the  signs  of  worshipping  and  obeisance  which  He  has  specified  for his  slaves  to  observe  for  Him  Alone.  In  case,  someone  observes  those  signs  and  exhibits  them  in front  of  any  other  entity  whatsoever  other  than  Allah,  such  a  practice  also  lies  within  the definition  of  Shirk:  this  practice  includes  making  prostrations,  sacrificing  an  animal  in  the  Name of  Allah,  making  vows,  calling  upon  Him  in  distress,  considering  Allah  to  be  Himself  present everywhere,  and  maintaining  that  the  others  do  have  a  role  to  play  in  the  matters  of  one’s  fate  and destiny.  All  the  above  are  different  shapes  and  varieties  of  Shirk.  Prostration  is  particularized  to be  performed  for  the  sake  of  Allah  only,  animal  sacrifice  is  done  for  Him  Alone,  vows  are  made to  Him  Alone,  He  is  the  One,  Who,  in  times  of  distress  (situations),  is  called  upon.  He  is  the Omnipotent  and  All-Powerful  and  He  is  the  Supreme  Authority  over  everything.  If  any  of  these qualities  are  ascribed  to  any  other  entity  other  than  Allah,  it  is  known  as  Shirk,  even  if  such  an entity  is  regarded as  inferior  to Allah or  is  reckoned  to  be  a  creature  or  slave  of  Allah.

All  such  beings  and  entities  like  a  Prophet,  saint,  jinn,  Satan,  ghost,  apparition  and  fairy  shall  all be  treated  equally  in  this  matter  and  whoever  considers  them  as  having  Divine  powers  commits an  act  of  Shirk  and  the  doer  of  such  a  thing  will  become  a  Mushrik  (the  one  who  associates partners  with  Allah).  Hence  Allah  has  brought  down  His  wrath  on  the  Jews  and  Christians  too even  though  they  did  not  practice  idolatry,  but  treated  their  Prophets  and  saints  in  a  similar manner  (i.e.  they  attributed  to  them  the  qualities  which  are  purely  Divine  in  nature)  as  Allah  has stated in the following Qur’anic verse:

They  (Jews  and Christians)  took  their  rabbis  and  their  monks  to be  their  lords  besides  Allah,  (by obeying  them  in things  which they  made  lawful  or  unlawful  according  to their  own desires without  being  ordered  by  Allah)  and (they  also took  as  their  lord)  Messiah, son of  Mary, while they  (Jews  and Christians)  were  commanded (in  the  Torah  and the  Gospel)  to worship  none  but One  (God-Allah)  La  ilaha  ilia Huwa  (none  has  the  right  to  be  worshipped but  He).  Praise  and glory  is  to Him, (far  above  is  He)  from  having  the  partners  they  associate  (with Him). (Qur’an 9:31)

It  means  that  even though  they  considered  Allah  as  the  Most  Supreme  Lord,  but  besides  that, they also  gave  their  recognition  to  other  mini-lords,  which  are  their  priests  and  monks.  These  people were  never  instructed  to  commit  such  acts  of  Shirk.  Allah  is  all  Alone  worthy  of  being worshipped.  He  has  no  partners.  Everyone,  whether  big  or  small,  are  none  but  His  helpless slaves. Allah states in one of the verses of the Noble Qur’an:

There  is  none  in the  heavens  and  the  earth but  comes  unto  the  Most  Beneficent  (Allah)  as  a slave.  Verily, He  knows  each one  of  them, and has  counted  them  a  full  counting.  And everyone  of them  will  come  to Him  alone  on the  Day  of  Resurrection (without  any  helper, or  protector  or defender). (Qur’an 19:93-95)

It  means  that  regardless  whether  a  creature  happens  to  be  an  angel  or  a  human  being,  it  carries  a status  of  no  more  than  being  a  slave  before  Allah.  A  slave  lies  under  an  absolute  hegemony  of Allah  and  therefore,  is  completely  helpless  and  powerless.  Everything  lies  under  Allah’s  control. He  gives  nobody  under  anyone’s  control.  Everyone  shall  have  to  appear  in  His  Presence  to account  for  his  deeds.  No  one  will  advocate  for  anyone  there  nor  one  could  lend  his  support  to anyone  else.  There  are  hundreds  of  verses  mentioned  in  this  regard  in  the  Noble  Qur’an  whereas only  we,  as  a  specimen,  have  made  a  mention  of  a  few  of  them.  Whosoever  understands  them clearly,  shall  have  a  clear  understanding  of  the  concept  of  Shirk  and  Tauhid.  In  sha  ‘Allah

CATEGORIES  AND  ASPECTS  OF  SHIRK

It  is  necessary  to  gain  knowledge  about  the  characteristics  which  Allah  has  peculiarised  for Himself  so  that  none  of  them  be  attributed  to  any  other  else.  Such  things  are  countless.  We,  on  our  part,  shall  be  mentioning  some  of  those  things  and  prove  them  in  the  background  of  Qur’an and  Hadith  so that  the  people  may  understand  the  other  pertinent  things  also with their  help.

1.  Shirk  in  knowledge:

The  first  thing  is  that  Allah  is  present  everywhere  by  His  Knowledge  which  means  that  His Knowledge  encompasses  everything.  This  is  why  He  has  a  complete  cognizance  of  everything, every  time,  whether  a  thing  happens  to  be  far  or  near,  hidden  or  apparent,  up  in  the  heavens  or inside  the  earth,  on  the  tops  of  the  mountains  or  at  the  bottom  of  an  ocean.  This  magnificence belongs  to  none  but  Allah.  If  a  person  calls  upon  someone  (by  invoking  his  name)  other  than  Allah,  while  doing  his  everyday  routine  chores,  so  that  the  one  called  upon  may  help  him  obviate his  distress,  or  attacks  an  enemy  by  invoking  his  name,  or  keeps  pronouncing  his  name  on  the beads  of  a  rosary,  or  makes  a  vow  in  his  name  or  conjures  up  his  picture  in  his  imagination  by nursing  a  faith  that  whenever  he  invokes  his  name,  or  think  of  him  vividly  in  his  mind  or contemplate  on his  grave,  he  gains  cognizance  of  him;  none  of  his  affairs  is  hidden  from  him,  and whatever  circumstances  he  goes  through,  namely,  sickness  and  good  health,  abundance  and distress,  life  and  death,  sadness  and  happiness  etc.,  are  all  known  to  him;  any  word  which  his mouth  utters  is  heard  by  him  and  he  knows  about  his  thoughts  and  imaginations.  All  the  above things  and  acts  prove  the  presence  of  the  elements  of  Shirk.  This  is  called  a  Shirk  in    knowledge which  means  one  is  trying  to  prove  that  someone  other  than  Allah  possesses  a  similar  kind  of knowledge  which is  only  the  prerogative  of  Allah.

By  nursing  this  kind  of  faith,  a  man  undoubtedly  turns  into  a  Mushrik  (polytheist)  whether  he nurses  such a  faith in  regard to an  honorable  human being  or  any  of  the  exalted angels, or  whether such  a  knowledge  which  is  attributed  to  him,  happens  to  be  a  personal  one  or  granted  by  Allah. Whatever  the  situation may be, this  is  an absolutely  polytheistic  faith.

2.  Shirk  in  disposing:

Disposing  the  matters  of  the  universe  with  intention,  exercising  authority,  killing  at  will  and resuscitating,  awarding  abundance  and  giving  distress,  giving  healthiness  and  sickness,  giving victory  and  defeat,  succeeding  and  preceding,  fulfillment  of  one’s  desires,  obviating  calamities, providing  help  in  distress  situations  and  whenever  one  stands  in  need  of  it,  are  all  attributed  to Allah and  none  but  Him  Alone.  None  but  Allah can  have  this  magnificence.  A  human  being  or  an angel,  despite  acquiring  great  ranks,  may  never  have  these  characteristics.  A  person  who  seeks  to prove  that  an  entity  other  than  Allah  may  have  an  authority  of  this  nature,  makes  vows  to  this entity  or  makes  an  animal  sacrifice  for  the  purpose  of  fulfillment  of  his  wishes,  and  invokes  it’s name  in  distress  so  that  it  can  obviate  his  troubles,  such  a  person  is  called  ‘Mushrik‘  and  this  kind of  act  is  called  ‘Shirk  in  authority’  or  disposing.  It  means  that  cherishing  a  belief  that  any  entity other  than  Allah  may  have  this  authority,  whether  as  the  one  granted  by  Allah  or  as  one  of  it’s personal  traits,  is  a  polytheistic  faith anyway.

3.  Shirk  in  worship:

Allah  has  particularised  all  acts  of  worship  for  Him  Alone  which  are  defined  as  Ibadat  like prostrating,  bowing,  standing  with  folded  hands,  giving  charity  in  the  Name  of  Allah,  fasting  in His  Name  and  undertaking  long  journeys  to  visit  His  Sacred  House  by  putting  on  such  a  clothing that  the  people  may  distinguish  them  as  the  visitors  of  His  Sanctified  House,  invoking  Allah’s Name  on  the  way,  avoiding  indecent  talk  and  hunting,  circumambulating  His  House  with  an utmost  caution,  making  prostrations  in  its  direction,  carrying  the  animals  of  sacrifice  towards  it, making  vows  there,  putting  a  covering  on  Ka’bah,  making  supplications  while  standing  on  the threshold  of  Ka’bah,  asking  for  the  virtuosities  in  the  religious  as  well  as  worldly  matters,  kissing of  the  Black-Stone,  touching  the  walls  of  Ka’bah  by  one’s  mouth  and  chest,  making  supplications by  getting  hold  of  the  fringes  of  its  covering,  illuminating  its  surroundings,  taking  up  residence there  as  one  of  its  servants,  sweeping  and  cleaning  it,  offer  drinking  water  to  the  pilgrims, providing  water  for  Wudu  (ablution)  and  bathing,  partaking  of  Zamzam  water  by  considering  it  as a  sanctified  act,  getting  oneself  drenched  with  it,  drinking  it  to  one’s  heart  content,  distributing  it among  themselves,  carrying  it  to  be  presented  to  one’s  relatives,  venerating  the  forest  surrounding it, to  refrain from  hunting  there,  not  to  cut  trees  there, not  to  pullout  grass  from  there,  not  to  graze animals  there:  these  are  acts  which  Allah  has  prescribed  for  Muslims  to  be  observed  as  His worship.

Now,  if  a  person  makes  a  bow  or  prostration  before  the  grave  of  a  Prophet,  saint,  ghost, apparition,  jinn,  fairy  or  any  of  the  real  or  fake  graves  or  a  specified  place  inside  a  tomb,  or  a certain  sign  or  house,  or  a  Eucharist  and  coffin;  observes  fast  in  their  names;  stands  in  front  of them  with  folded  hands;  makes  offerings  to  them  or  hoisting  a  flag  in  their  name  or  walking backwards  (with  a  reverse  motion  of  feet);  kisses  a  grave  or  undertakes  a  long  journey  to  visit graves  and  other  places;  lights  earthen  lamps  there  or  makes  arrangements  for  illuminating  them; or  puts  coverings  on  their  walls  or  offers  a  sheet  as  a  covering  on  the  grave,  manually  fanning  the air  by  hand (by   using  a  Morchhal, a  fanning  contrivance);  erects  a  tent  there;  kisses  it’s  threshold; offers  supplications  there  with  folded  hands;  asks  for  the  fulfillment  of  wishes  there;  serves  the shrine  by  becoming  its  servant  and  venerates  the  forest  around  it:  anyone  doing  any  of  the  above acts  commits  a  clear  and manifest  Shirk.

In  brief,  all  the  above  acts  and  the  alike,  are  called  “Shirk  in  worship.”  It  implies  paying  one’s respect  to  an  entity  other  than  Allah  in  a  manner  which  is  prescribed  for  Allah  Alone  either  by believing  that  this  particular  entity  is  personally  entitled  to  such  a  veneration  or  by  believing  that Allah  becomes  pleased if  any  of  these  entities  are  held  in  high  esteem  or  with the  blessing  of  their veneration,  troubles  are  warded  off  and  done  away  with.  Whatever  may  be  the  case,  such  faith  is purely  polytheistic  in  its  nature.

4.  Shirk  in  one’s  daily routine  chores:

Allah  the  Exalted  has  taught  His  slaves  the  norms  of  respect  to  the  effect  that  they  should remember  Allah  while  performing  their  everyday  worldly  chores  and  pay  Him  their  tributes  for the  enhancement  of  their  Faith  and  to  secure  Allah’s  blessing  in  day-to-day  assignments.  These norms  include:  (1)  making  vows  to  Allah  and  calling  upon  Him  Alone  whenever  a  catastrophe befalls  his  slave;  (2)  invoking  His  Name  for  His  blessing  whenever  commencing  an  assignment; (3)  slaughtering  animals  to  express  one’s  gratitude  to  Allah  in  the  case  of  having  been  blessed with  a  child;  (4)  giving  one’s  children  such  names  as  Abdullah,  Abdur-Rahman,  Ilahi  Bakhsh, Allah  Diya,  Amatullah,  Allah  Di  etc.;  (5)  taking  out  a  small  portion  of  the  crop  produce  and giving  it  away  in  the  Name  of  Allah;  (6)  apportioning  some  of  the  fruits  to  His  name  out  of  the total  produce;  (7)  specifying  some  of  the  animals  and  allocating  them  for  the  purpose  of  sacrifice in  the  Name  of  Allah;  (8)  treating  the  animals  which  are  carried  to  the  House  of  Allah  with  due respect  by  neither  riding  them  nor  mounting  any  load  on  them;  (9)  observing  Divine  Instructions in  the  manners  concerning  food  and  dress;  (10)  restricting  oneself  to  the  use  of  permissible  things only  and  avoiding  the  ones  that  are  not  allowed;  (11)  considering  that  all  the  different  conditions and  situations  which  one  comes  across  in  this  world,  like  expensive  and  inexpensive  rates  and prices,  health  and  sickness,  victory  and  defeat,  succeeding  and  preceding,  sadness  and  happiness, are  all  commanded  by  Allah;  (12)  pronouncing  a  standard  formula  of  In  Sha’  Allah  while  making an  intention  to  perform  an  assignment;  (13)  pronouncing  the  Name  of  Allah  the  Exalted  One  in such  a  manner  that  His  Greatness  is  conspicuously  highlighted  and  one’s  slavery  is  clearly exhibited,  by  using  such  words  like,  our  Rabb,  our  Master,  our  Creator  or  Ma’bud  (the  object  of our  worship)  etc.;  (14)  in  case  a  need  arises  on  a  certain  occasion  to  administer  an  oath  at  all, undertaking  an oath only  in  the  Name  of  Allah.

These  and  the  other  similar  things  have  been  singled  out  by  Allah  as  His  own  and  personal prerogative  for  the  sake  of  His  veneration  and  magnificence.  Anybody  showing  such  kind  of respect  to  an  entity  other  than  Allah,  commits  Shirk;  as  for  example:  making  a  vow  to  it  with  the intention  of  facilitating  a  difficult  assignment;  giving  one’s  children  names  like  AbdunNabi, Imam  Bakhsh,  Peer  Bakhsh  etc.;  apportioning  part  of  the  produce  of  one’s  farm  or  orchard  to  it’s name;  separating  part  of  the  fruits  and  keeping  them  aside  (in  the  name  of  a  deity)  immediately after  they  are  picked  up  from  trees  and  then  only  putting  the  rest  to,  one’s  use;  dedicating  some animals  from  among  the  whole  herd  to  a  deity  and  then  treating  those  animals  with  respect  by  not removing  them  from  the  fodder  and  water  and  not  to  strike  them  with  stick  or  stone;  observing customs  and  traditions  in  terms  of  dress  and  food  to  the  effect  that  a  specified  group  of  people should not  eat  such and such food and should not  wear  such and such dress;  attributing  the  virtues and  evils  of  the  world  to  them  by  making  such  statements  that  as  long  as  that  particular  person has  been  cursed  by  that  particular  deity,  he  has  gone  mad  or  that  certain  person  has  turned  into  a handicapped  person  due  to the  fact  that  he  was  driven away  by  that  deity  or  by  saying  that  as  long as  that  person  was  blessed  by  a  certain  saint,  he  is  now  on  a  flood  tide  of  success;  or  that  famine was  wrought  by  that  star  or  by  observing  that  this  assignment  was  not  accomplished  as  long  as the  same  was  commenced  at  a  certain  time  and  on  a  certain  date  or  by  observing  that  if  Allah  and His  Prophet  will  it,  one  would  be  coming;  or  by  saying  that  it  will  happen  if  one’s  religious mentor  wishes  it  to  take  place  or  using  such  adjectives  like,  the  Sustainer,  Independent,  Lord  of lords,  the  Master  of  the  universe  or  the  King  of  kings  etc.;  the  undertaking  of  an  oath  in  the  name of  the  Prophet  or  the  Qur’an  or  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) or  an  Imam,  or  a  religious mentor  or  their  graves  or  one’s  own  self  etc. All  the  above  practices  generate  Shirk  which  is  called  a  ‘Shirk  in  day-to-day  chores’,  which implies  paying  one’s  respect  to  an  entity  other  than  Allah  exactly  in  the  same  manner  as  the  one prescribed  for  Allah.

Tafsir of Surah Al Baqarah | Verses 1 to 7

             SURAH AL BAQARAH
                     ( The Cow )
MADINITE                        286 VERSES

image

The  name  and  the  number  of  verses , According  to  the  ahadith  of  the  Holy  Prophet (sallallaahu  alayhi wasallam) and  the reports  relating  to  his  blessed  Companions,  the  name  of  this  Surah  is Al-Baqarah.  The  riwayah  or  narration  which  prohibits  this  name  is  not authentic  (Ibn  Kathir).  It  comprises  of  286  verses,  6201  words  and  25500 letters  (Ibn  Kathir).

The  period  of  revelation

The  Surah  is  Madinite  –  that  is  to  say,  it  was  revealed  at  Madinah after  the  Hijrah;  some  of  the  verses  included  here  were  revealed  at Makkah  at  the  time  of  the  last  Hajj  of  the  Holy  Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam), but,  in accordance  with  the  terminology  of  the  commentators,  they  too  are regarded  as  Madinite.  This  is  the  longest  Surah  in  the  Holy  Qur’an. It  was  the  first  Surah  to  be  revealed  at  Madinah,  but  different  verses were  revealed  at  different  times,  covering  quite  a  long  period  so  much so  that  the  verses  with  regard  to  riba  (interest  or  usury)  were revealed  in  the  last  days  of  the  Holy  Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),  after  the conquest  of  Makkah.  Actually,  the  verse:

Fear  the  day  when  you  will  return  to  Allah  (2:281), is  the  very  last  verse  of  the  Holy  Qur’an to  be  revealed  –  this  happened on  the  10th  of  Dhu al-Hijjah  10 A.H.,  when  the  Holy  Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  was in  the  course  of  performing  his  last  Hajj,  and  only  eighty  or  ninety days  later  he  departed  from  this  world,  and  the  process  of  Divine Revelation  came  to  an  end  for  ever.  (Qurtubi)

The  Merits  of  Surah Al-Baqarah

It  is  not  only  the  longest  Surah  in  the  Holy  Qur’an,  but  also contains  quite  a  large  number  of  injunctions.  The  Holy  Prophet has said:  “Make  a  habit  of  reading  the  Surah  Al-Baqarah,  for  reading  it brings  down  on  you  the  barakah  or  blessings  of  Allah,  and  neglecting  it is  a  matter  of  regret,  and  a  misfortune.  And  men  of  falsehood  cannot overcome  it”.  Al-Qurtubi cites  the  blessed  Companion  Mu’awiyah  (radhiyallahu anhu) to the  effect  that  the  men  of  falsehood  referred  to  here  are  sorcerers,  and the  implication  is  that  one  who  keeps  reading  this  Surah  becomes immune  to  the  effect  of  black  magic  (Qurtubi, from  Muslim,  a.  narrated  by  Al Umamah  Bahili).  The  Holy  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) has  also  said  that  Satan flees  from  the  house  in  which  this  Surah  is  read  or  recited.  (Ibn  Kathir from  Hakim)  Another  hadith  says  that  this  Surah  is  the  apex  of  the  Holy Qur’an,  and  that  a  retinue  of  eighty  angels  had  accompanied  each  of its  verses  when  it  was  revealed  (Ibn  Kathir from  Musnad  Ahmad)  The blessed  Companion  Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) reports  from  the  Holy Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) that  there  is  a  verse  in  this  Surah  which  enjoys  a superiority  over  all  the  other  verses  of  the  Holy  Qur’an,  and  that  verse is  the  Verse  of  the  Kursi  (Ayat  al-Kursi 2:255) (Ibn  kathir from  Tirmidhi) The blessed  Companion  Abdullah  ibn  Mas’ud  says  that  ten  verses  of  this Surah have  such  an  efficacy  that  if  one  recites  them  at  night,  neither Satan  nor jinn  would  enter  one’s  house,  nor  would  one  and  one’s  family be  afficted  with  illness  or  calamity  or  sorrow  that  night,  and  that  if they  are  recited  over  a  man  suffering  from  a  fit  of  madness,  his condition  will  improve.  The  ten  verses  are  these:  the  first  four verses of  the  Surah, three  verses  in  the  middle  (that is,  the Ayat  al-kursi, and the  two  following  verses), and  the  last  three  verses  of  the  Surah.

This  Surah  enjoys,  with  regard  to  its  contents  as  well,  a  special distinction.  Ibn  al-‘Arabi reports  from  his  elders  that  in  this  Surah there  are  one  thousand  injunctions,  one  thousand  prohibitions,  one thousand  subtle  points  of  wisdom,  and  one  thousand  parables  and references  to  historical  events  (Qurtubi and  Ibn  Kathir). That  is  why  the great  Caliph  ‘Umar  (radhiyallahu anhu) spent  twelve  years  in  learning  and meditating  over  this  Surah,  and  the  blessed  Companion  Abdullah  ibn ‘Umar  spent  eight  years  to  learn  it. (Qurtubi)

As  we  have  said,  the  Surah  Al-Fatihah  is  the  gist  and  the  essence of  the  Holy  Qur’an.  It  deals  with  three  basic  themes  –  firstly,  the affirmation  of  Allah  as  the  Lord  (Rabb) of  the  universe;  secondly,  the affirmation  that  Allah  alone,  and  none  else,  is  worthy  of  being worshipped;  thirdly,  the  prayer  for  guidance.  Thus,  the  Surah Al-Fatihah  ends  with  the  request  for  the  straight  path,  and  the  whole of  the  Qur’an  is,  in  fact,  an  answer  to  this  request  –  that  is  to  say,  the man  who  seeks  the  straight  path  will  find  it  only  in  the  Holy  Qur’an.

Hence  it  is  that  the  Surah  Al-Fatihah  is  immediately  followed  by the  Surah  Al-Baqarah  which  begins  with  the  words, “That  is  the Book”,  indicating  that  this  book  is  the  straight  path  one  has  been seeking  and  praying  for.  Having  defined  the  nature  and  function  of  the Holy  Qur’an, the  Surah  proceeds  to  state  in  a  very  brief  manner  the basic  principles  of  the  Islamic  faith  –  namely,  oneness  of  God, prophethood  and  hereafter  (Risalah,  Akhirah).  These principles  have  been  presented  in  detail  at  the  end  of  the  Surah.  In  between,  the  Surah  lays  down  the  basic  principles,  and  sometime  even secondary  rules  in  detail,  for  providing  guidance  to  man  in  all  spheres of  life,  modes  of  ‘ibadah  (worship),  ethics,  individual  and  social behaviour,  economic  relationships,  ways  and  means  of  improving oneself  externally  and  internally.

                        Verses  1  –  7

image

                    TRANSLATION

With  the  name  of  Allah, The  All-Merciful, the  Very-Merciful.

Alif.  Lam.  Mim.  That  Book  has  no  doubt  in  it  –  a  guidance  for  the  God-fearing,  who  believe  in  the unseen,  and  are  steadfast  in  salah,  and  spend  out  of what  We  have  provided  them; and  who  believe  in  what has  been  revealed  to  you  and  what  has  been  revealed before  you,  and  do  have  faith  in  the  Hereafter.  It  is these  who  are  on  guidance  given  by  their  Lord;  and  it  is just  these  who  are  successful. (Verses 1-5)

The  Surah  begins  with  the  Arabic  letters  Alif,  Lam  and  Meem (equivalents  of  A,  L  and  M).  Several  Surahs  begin  with  a  similar combination  of  letters,  for  example,  Ha Meem,  or  Alif,  Lam,  Meem,  Sad. Each  of  these  letters  is  pronounced  separately  without  the  addition  of  a  vowel  sound  after  it.  So,  the  technical  term  for  them  is (Muqatta’at:  isolated  letters).

According  to  certain  commentators,  the  isolated  letters  are  the names  of  the  Surahs  at the  beginning  of  which  they  occur.  According to  others,  they  are  the  symbols  of  the  Divine  Names.  But  the  majority of  the  blessed  Companions  and  the  generation  next  to  them,  the Tabi’in,  and  also  the  later  authoritative  scholars  have  preferred  the view  that  the  isolated  letters  are  symbols  or  mysteries, the meaning  of which  is  known  to Allah  alone  or  may  have  been  entrusted  as  a  special secret  io the Holy  Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) not  to  be  communicated  to anyone  else.  That  is  why  no  commentary  or  explanation  of  these letters  has  at  all  been  reported  from  him.  The  great  commentator Al-Qurtubi has  adopted  this  view  of  the  matter,  which  is  summarized below:

“According  to  ‘Amir  al-Sha’bi, Sufyan  al-Thawri ,masters  of  the  science  of  hadith, and  many every  revealed  book  contains  certain secret  signs  and  symbols  and  mysteries  of  Allah;  the  isolated  letters too  are  the  secrets  of  Allah  in  the  Holy  Qur’an,  and  hence  they  are among  the  (Mutashabihaat: of  hidden  meaning),  the  meaning  of which  is  known  to  Allah  alone,  and  it  is  not  permissible  for  us  even  to enter  into  any  discussion  with  regard  to  them.  The  isolated  letters  are not,  however,  without  some  benefit  to  us.  Firstly,  to  believe  in  them and  to  recite  them  is  in  itself  a  great  merit.  Secondly,  in  reciting  them we  receive  spiritual  blessings  from  the  unseen  world,  even  if  we  are not  aware  of  the  fact.  Al-Qurtubi adds:  “The  Blessed  Caliphs  Abu Bakr,  ‘Umar,  ‘Uthmaan  and  ‘Ali, and  most  of  the  Companions  like ‘Abdullah  ibn  Mas’ud (radhiyallahu anhum),  firmly  held  the  view  that  these letters  are  the  secrets  of  Allah,  that  we  should  believe  in  them  as having  descended  from  Allah  and  recite  them  exactly  in  the  form  in which  they  have  descended,  but  should  not  be  inquisitive  about  their meanings,  which  would  be  improper”.  Citing  al-Qurtubi and  others, Ibn Kathir too  prefers  this  view.  On  the  other  hand,  interpretations  of the  isolated  letters  have  been  reported  from  great  and  authentic scholars.  Their  purpose,  however,  was  only  to  provide  symbolical interpretation,  or  to  awaken  the  minds  of  the  readers  to  the  indefinite possibilities  of  meanings  that  lie  hidden  in  the  Holy  Qur’an,  or just  to simplify  things;  they  never  wished  to  claim  that  these  were  the meanings  intended  by  Allah  Himself.  Therefore,  it  would  not  be justifiable  to  challenge  such  efforts  at  interpretation  since  it  would  go against  the  considered  judgment  of  veritable  scholars.

The  sentence  “That  Book  has  no  doubt  in  it”  raises  a  grammatical and  exegetical  problem,  for  the  first  phrase  in  the  Arabic  text  reads  as : Dhalikal kitaab.  Now,  the  word  dhalika  (that) is  used  to  point out  a  distant  thing,  while  the  word  kitab  (book) obviously  refers  to  the Holy  Qur’an  itself,  which  is  present  before  us.  So,  this  particular demonstrative  pronoun  does  not  seem  to  be  appropriate  to  the situation.  There  is,  however,  .a  subtle  indication.  The  pronoun  refers back  to  the  prayer  for  the  straight  path  made  in  the  Surah al-Fatihah, implying  that  the  prayer  has  been  granted  and  the  Holy  Qur’an  is  the answer  to  the  request,  which  gives  a  detailed  account  of  the  straight path  to  those  who  seek  guidance  and  are  willing  to  follow  it.

Having  indicated  this,  the  Holy  Qur’an  makes  a  claim  about  itself: “There  is  no  doubt  in  it”.  There  are  two  ways  in  which  doubt  or suspicion  may  arise  with  regard  to  the  validity  or  authenticity  of statement.  Either  the  statement  itself  is  erroneous,  and  thus  becomes subject  to  doubt;  or,  the  listener  makes  a  mistake  in  understanding  it. In  the  latter  case,  the  statement  does  not  really  become  subject  to doubt,  even  if  someone  comes  to  suspect  it  out  of  a  defective  or distorted  understanding  –  as  the  Holy  Qur’an  itself  reminds  us  later  in the  same  Surah :’If  you  are  in  doubt …”  (2:23). So,  in  spite  of  the  doubts  and  objections  of  a  thousand  men  of  small  or  perverse understanding,  it  would  still  be  true  to  say  that  there  is  no  doubt  in this  book  –  either  with  regard  to  it  having  been  revealed  by  Allah,  or with  regard  to  its  contents.

“A guidance  for  the  God-fearing”:  The  Arabic  word  for  the God-fearing  is  Muttaqeen, derived  from  Taqwa  which  literally  means “to fear,  to  refrain  from”,  and  in  Islamic  terminology  it  signifies  fearing Allah  and  refraining  from  the  transgression  of  His  commandments.  As for  the  Holy  Qur’an  being  a  guidance  to  the  God-fearing,  it  actually means  that  although  the  Holy  Qur’an  provides  guidance  not  only  to mankind  but  to  all  existents  in  the  universe,  yet  the  special  guidance which  is  the  means  of  salvation  in  the  other  world  is  reserved  for  the God-fearing  alone.  We  have  already  explained  in  the  commentary  on the  Surah  “Al-Fatihah” that  there  are  three  degrees  of  divine  guidance –  the  first  degree  being  common  to  the  whole  of  mankind  and  even  to animals  etc.,  the  second  being  particular  to  men  and jinns,  and  the third  being  special  to  those  who  are  close  to  Allah  and  have  found  His favour,  the  different  levels  of  this  last  degree  being  limitless.  It  is  the last  two  degrees  of  guidance  which  are  intended  in  the  verse  under discussion.  With  regard  to  the  second  degree,  the  implication  is  that those  who  accept  the  guidance  will  have  the  hope  of  being  elevated  to the  rank  of  the  God-fearing.  With  reference  to  the  third  degree,  the suggestion  is  that  those  who  are  already  God-fearing  may  receive further  and  limitless  guidance  through  the  Holy  Qur’an.  This explanation  should  be  sufficient  to  remove  the  objection  that  guidance is  needed  much  more  by  those  who  are  not  God-fearing,  for  now  we know  that  the  specification  of  the  God-fearing  does  not  entail  a  denial of  guidance  to  those  who  not  possess  this  qualification.

The  next  two  verses  delineate  the  characteristic  qualities  of  the God-fearing,  suggesting  that  these  are  the  people  who  have  received guidance,  whose  path  is  the  straight  path,  and  that  he  who  seeks  the straight  path  should  join  their  company,  adopt  their  beliefs  and  their way  of  life.  It  is  perhaps  in  order  to  enforce  this  suggestion  that  the Holy  Qur’an,  immediately  after  pointing  out  the  attributes  peculiar  to the  God-fearing, proceeds  to  say:

It  is  these  who  are  on  guidance  given  by  their  Lord,  and  it  is just  these  who  are  successful.

The  delineation  of  the  qualities  of  the  God-fearing  in  these  two verses  also  contains,  in  essence,  a  definition  of  Faith  (‘Iman) and  an account  of  its  basic  tenets  and  of  the  fundamental  principles  of righteous  conduct: ,

Who  believe  in  the  unseen,  and  are  steadfast  in  Salah  and spend  out  of  what  We  have  provided  them.

Thus,  the  first  of  the  two  verses,  mentions  three  qualities  of  the God-fearing  –  belief  in  the  unseen,  being  steadfast  in  Salah,  and spending  in  the  way  of  Allah.  Many  important  considerations  arise  out of  this  verse,  the  most  significant  being  the  meaning  and  definition  of ‘Iman  (Faith).

         Who  are  the  God-fearing

The  Definition  of  Iman

The  Holy  Qur’an has  provided  a  comprehensive  definition  of  ‘Iman in  only  two  words ”Believe  in  the  unseen”.  If  one  has  fully understood  the  meanin;  of  the  words  ‘Iman and  Ghayb,  one  will  have also  understood  the  essential  reality  of  ‘Iman.

Lexically,  the  Arabic  word  ‘Iman signifies  accepting  with  complete certitude  the  statement  made  by  someone  out  of  one’s  total  confidence and  trust  in  him.  Endorsing  someone’s  statement  with  regard  to sensible  or  observable  facts  is,  therefore,  not  ‘Iman.  For  example,  if  one man  describes  a  piece  of  cloth  as  black,  and  another  man  endorses  the statement,  it  may  be  called  Tasdiq (confirmation)  but  not  ‘Iman, for such  an endorsement  is  based  on  personal  observation,  and  does,  in  no way,  involve  any  confidence  or  trust  in  the  man  who  has  made  the statement.  In  the  terminology  of  the  Shari’ah, ‘Iman  signifies accepting  with  complete  certitude  the  statement  made  by  a  prophet only  out  of  one’s  total  confidence  and  trust  in  him  and  without  the need  of  personal  observation.’

As  for  the  word  Ghaib, lexically  it  denotes  things  which  are  not known  to  man  in  an  evident  manner,  or  which  are  not  apprehensible through  the  five  senses.  The  Holy  Qur’an  uses  this  word  to  indicate  all the  things  which  we  cannot  know  through  the  five  senses  or  through reason,  but  which  have  been  reported  to  us  by  the  Holy  Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). These  include  the  essence  and  the  attributes  of  Allah,  matters pertaining  to  destiny,  heaven  and  hell  and  what  they  contain,  the  Day of  Judgment  and  the  things  which  happen  on  that  Day,  divine  books, all  the  prophets  who  have  preceded  the  Holy  Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) in short,  all  the  things  mentioned  in  the  last  two  verses  of  the  Surah Al-Baqarah. 

Thus,  the  third  verse  of  the  Surah  states  the  basic  creed of  the  Islamic  faith  in  its  essence,  while  the  last  two  verses  provide  the details. So,  belief  in  the  unseen  ultimately  comes  to  mean  having  firm  faith in  everything  that  the  Holy  Prophet  has  taught  us  –  subject  to  the necessary  condition  that  the  teaching  in  question  must  have  come down  to  us  through  authentic  and  undeniable  sources.  This  is  how  the overwhelming majority  of  Muslim  scholars  generally  define  ‘Iman (see al-‘Aqidah  al-Tahawiyyah,  ‘Aqa’id  al-Nasafi  etc.).

According  to  this  definition,  ‘Iman signifies  faith  and  certitude, and  not  mere  knowledge.  For,  a  mental  knowledge  of  the  truth  is possessed  by  Satan  himself,  and  even  by  many  disbelievers  –  for example,  they  knew  very  well  that  the  Holy  Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was truthful  and  that  his  teachings  were  true,  but  they  did  not  have  faith in  him  nor  did  they  accept  his  teachings  with  their  heart,  and  hence they  are  not  Muslims.

The  Meaning  of  ‘Establishing’ Salah . 

The  second  quality  of  the  God-fearing  is  that  they  are  “steadfast in  the  prayer.”  The  verb  employed  by  the  Holy  Qur’an  here  is
yuqimoona  (generally  rendered  in  English  translations  as  “they which  comes  from  the  word  Iqamah  signifying  “to straighten  out”).  So,  the  verb  implies  not  merely  saying  one’s  prayers, but  performing  the  prayers  correctly  in  all- possible  ways  and observing  all  the  prescribed  conditions,  whether  obligatory  (Fard) or necessary  (Wajib) or  commendable  (Mustahabb). The  concept  includes regularity  and  perpetuity  in  the  performance  of  Salah  as  also  an inward  concentration,  humility  and  awe.  At  this  point,  it  may  be  noted that  the  term  does  not  mean  a  particular  salat,  instead,  it  includes  all fardwajib  and  nafl  prayers.

Now  to  sum  up  –  the  God-fearing  are  those  who  offer  their  prayers regularly  and  steadfastly  in  accordance  with  the  regulations  of  the shariah,  and  also  observe  the  spiritual  etiquette  outwardly  and inwardly.

Spending in  the  way  of  Allah:  Categories

The  third  quality  of  the  God-fearing  is  that  they  spend  in  the  way of alms-giving.  The  correct  position  in  this  respect,  which  has  been  adopted by  the  majority  of  commentators,  is  that  it  includes  all  the  forms  of spending  in  the  way  of  Allah,  whether  it  be  the fard  (obligatory) Zakat or  the  Wajib  (necessary)  alms-giving  or  just  voluntary  and  nafl (supererogatory) acts  of  charity.  For,  the  Holy  Qur’an  usually  employs the  word  Infaq  with  reference  to  nafl  (suspererogatory) alms-giving  or in  a  general  sense,  but  reserves  the  word  Zakat  for  the  obligatory : “Spend  out  of  what  We  have provided  them”  inspires  us  to  spend  in  the  way  of  Allah  by  drawing our  attention  to  the  fact  that  anything  and  everything  we  possess  is  a gift  from  Allah  and  His  trust  in  our  hands,  and  that  even  if  we  spend all  our  possessions  in  the  way  of  Allah,  it  would  be  proper  and just  and no  favour  to  Him.  But  Allah  in  His  mercy  asks  us  to  spend  in  His  way “out  of’  what  he  has  provided  –  that  is,  only  a  part  and  not  the whole.

Among  the  three  qualities  of  the  God-fearing,  faith  is,  of  course, the  most  important,  for  it  is  the  basic  principle  of  all  other  principles, and  no  good  deed  can  find  acceptance  or  validity  without  faith.  The other  two  qualities  pertain  to  good  deeds.  Now,  good  deeds  are  many; one  could  make  a  long  list  of  even  those  which  are  either  obligatory  or necessary.  So,  the  question  arises  as  to  why  the  Holy  Qur’an  should  be content  to  choose  for  mention  only  two  –  namely,  performing  Salat  and spending  in  the  way  of  Allah.  In  answering  this  question,  one  could say  that  all  the  good  deeds  which  are  obligatory  or  necessary  for  man pertain  either  to  his  person  and  his  body  or  to  his  possessions.  Among the  personal  and  bodily  forms  of  ‘Ibadat  (acts  of  worship),  the  most important  is  the  Salah.  Hence  the  Holy  Qur’an  mentions  only  this form  in  the  present  passage.  As  for  the  different  forms  of  ‘Ibadat pertaining  to  possessions,  the  word  Infaq  (spending) covers  all  of  them. Thus,  in  mentioning  only  two  good  deeds,’the  Holy  Qur’an  has  by implication  included  all  the  forms  of  worship  and  all  good  deeds.  The whole  verse,  then,  comes  to  mean  that  the  God-fearing  are  those  who are  perfect  in  their  faith  and  in  their  deeds  both,  and  that  Islam  is  t,he sum  of  faith  and  practice.  In  other  words,  while  providing  a  complete definition  of  ‘Iman  (Faith), the  verse  indicates  the  meaning  of  Islam  as well.  So,  let  us  find  out  how  ‘Im&  and  Islam  are  distinct  from  each other.

The  distinction  between  ‘Iman and  Islam

Lexically, ‘Iman  signifies  the  acceptance  and  confirmation  of something  with  one’s  heart,  while  Islam  signifies  obedience  and submission. ‘Iman  pertains  to  the  heart;  so does  Islam,  but  it  is  related to  all  the  other  parts  of  the  human  body  as  well.  From  the  point  of view  of  the  Shari’ah,  however,  ‘Iman  is  not  valid  without  Islam,  nor Islam  without  ‘Iman.  In  other  words,  it  is  not  enough  to  have  faith  in Allah  and  the  Holy  Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) in  one’s  heart  unless  the tongue  expresses  the  faith  and  also  affirms  one’s  allegiance  and submission.  Similarly, an  oral  declaration  of  faith  and  allegiance  is  not valid  unless  one  has  faith  in  one’s  heart.

In  short,  ‘Iman,  and  Islam  have  different  connotations  from  the lexical  point  of  view.  It  is  on  the  basis  of  this  lexical  distinction  that the  Holy  Qur’an  and  Hadith  refer  to  a  difference  between  the  two. From  the  point  of  view  of  the  Shari’ah,  however,  the  two  are inextricably  linked  together,  and  one  cannot  be  valid  without  the  other –  as  is  borne  out  by  the  Holy  Qur’an  itself.

When  Islam,  or  an  external  declaration  of  allegiance,  is  not accompanied  by  ‘Iman  or  internal  faith,  the  Holy  Qur’an  terms  it  as Nifaq  (hypocrisy),  and  condemns  it  as  a  greater  crime  than  an  open rejection  of  Islam:

Surely  the  hypocrites  will  be  in  the  lowest  depths  of  Hell. (14:145)

In  explanation  of  this  verse  let  us  add  that  so  far  as  the  physical  world goes,  we  can  only  be  sure  of  the  external  state  of  a  man,  and  cannot know  his  internal  state  with  any  degree  of  certainty.  So  in  the  case  of men  who  orally  declare  themselves  to be  Muslims  without  having  faith in  their  heart,  the  shariah  requires  us  to  deal  with  them  as  we  would deal  with  a  Muslim  in  worldly  affairs;  but  in  the  other  world  their  fate would  be  worse  than  that  of  the  ordinary  disbelievers.  Similarly,  if iman or  acknowledgment  in  the  heart  is  not  accompanied  by  external affirmation  and  allegiance,  the  Holy  Qur’an regards  this  too  as  kufr  or rejection  and  denial  of  the  Truth  –  speaking  of  the  infidels,  it  says:

They  know  him  (that  is,  the  Holy  Prophet  sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) as they  know their  own  sons (2:146);

or  in  another  place: 

as Their  souls  knew  them  (the signs  sent  by  Allah) to  be  true, yet they  denied  them  in  their  wickedness  and  their  pride. (27:14)

My  respected  teacher,  ‘Allamah  Sayyid  Muhammad  Anwar  Shah used  to  explain  it  thus  –  the  expanse  which  ‘Iman  and  Islam  have  to cover  in  the  spiritual journey  is  the  same,  and  the  difference  lies  only in  the  beginning  and  the  end;  that  is  to  say,  ‘Iman  starts  from  the heart  and  attains  perfection  in  external  deeds,  while  Islam  starts from external  deeds  and  can  be  regarded  as  perfect  when  it  reaches  the heart. To  sum  up,  Iman  is  not  valid,  if  acknowledgment  in  the  heart  does not  attain  to  external  affirmation  and  allegiance;  similarly,  Islam  is not  valid,  if  external  affirmation  and  allegiance  does  not  attain  to confirmation  by  the  heart.  Imam  Ghazzali and  Imam  Subki (rahimahumullah) both  have arrived  at  the  same  conclusion,  and  in  Musamarah, Imam  Ibn al-Humam  reports  the  agreement  of  all  the  authentic  scholars  in  this respect2

… who  believe  in  what  has  been  revealed  to  you  and  in  what  has been  revealed  before  you,  and  do  have  faith  in  the  Hereafter.

This  verse  speaks  of  some  other  attributes  of  the  God-fearing,  giving  certain  details  about  faith  in  the  unseen  with  a  special  mention  of faith  in  hereafter.  Commenting  on  this  verse.  the  blessed  Comnanions ‘Abdullah ibn  Mas’ud  and  ‘Abdullah  ibn  ‘Abbas (radhiyallahu anhum),  have said  that  in  the  days  of  the  Holy  Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) God-fearing  Muslims were  of  two  kinds,  –  those  who  used  to  be  associators  and  disbelievers but  accepted  Islam,  and  those  who  used  to  be  among  the  people  of  the book (that  is,  Jews  and  Christians) but  embraced  Islam  later  on;  the preceding  verse  refers  to  the  first  group,  and  this  verse  to  the  second. Hence  this  verse  specifically  mentions  belief  in  the  earlier  Divine Books  along  with  belief  in  the  Holy  Qur’an,  for,  according  to  the hadith, people  in  the  second  group  deserve  a  double  recompense, firstly,  for  believing  in  and  following  the  earlier  Books  before  the  Holy Qur’an came  to  replace  them,  and  secondly,  for  believing  in  and following  the  Holy  Qur’an  when  it  came  as  the  final  Book  of  Allah. Even  today  it  is  obligatory  for  every  Muslim  to  believe  in  the  earlier Divine  Books  except  that  now  the  belief  has  to  take  this  form: everything  that  Allah  has  revealed  in  the  earlier  Books  is  true (excepting  the  changes  and  distortions  introduced  by  selfish  people), and  that  it  was  incumbent  upon  the  people  for  whom  those  Books  had been  sent  to  act  according  to  them,  but  now  that  all  the  earlier  Books and  Shari’ahs  have  been  abrogated,  one  must  act  according  to  the  Holy Qur’an  alone.3

An  argument  to  the  Finality  of  Prophethood

The  mode  of  expression  helps  us  to  infer  from  this  verse  the fundamental principle  that  the  Holy  Prophet  Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is  the  last  of  all  the  prophets,  and  the  Book  revealed  to  him  is  the  final revelation  and  the  last  Book  of  Allah.  For,  had  Allah  intended  to reveal  another  Book  or  to  continue.  The  mode  of  revelation  even  after the  Holy  Qur’an,  this  verse,  while  prescribing  belief  in  the  earlier Books  as  necessary  for  Muslims,  must  also  have  referred  to  belief  in the  Book  or  Books  to  be  revealed  in  the  future.  In  fact,  such  a statement  was  all  the  more  needed,  for  people  were  already  familiar with  the  necessity  of  believing  in  the  Torah,  the  Evangile  and  the earlier  Books,  and  such  a  belief  was  in  regular  practice  too,  but  if prophethood  and  revelation were  to  continue  even  after  the  Holy Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) ,  it  was  essential  that  the  coming  of  another prophet  and  another  book  should  be  clearly  indicated  so  that  people were  not  left  in  doubt  about  this  possibility.  So,  in  defining ‘Iman, the Holy  Qur’an  mentions  the  earlier  prophets  and  the  earlier  Books,  but does  not  make  the  slightest  reference  to  a  prophet  or  Book  to  come “after  the  last  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  .  The  matter  does  not  end  with  this  verse. The  Holy  Qur’an  touches  upon  the  subject  again  and  again  in  no  less than  forty  or  fifty  verses,  and  in  all  such  places  it  mentions  the prophets,  the  Books  and  the  revelation  preceding  the  Holy  Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) nowhere  is  there  even  so  much  as  a  hint  with  regard  to  the  coming of  a  prophet  or  of  a  revelation  in  the  future,  belief  in  whom  or  which should  be  necessary.  We  cite  some  verses  to  demonstrate  the  point:

And  what  We  have  sent  down  before  you.  (16:43)

And  We  have  certainly  sent  messengers  before  you”.  (4038)

And  certainly  before  you  We  have  sent  messengers. (20:47)

And  what  was  revealed  before  you.  (4:60)

And  it  has  certainly  been  revealed  to  you  and  to  those  who have  gone  before  you  …  (39:65)

Thus  He  reveals  to  you  and  He  revealed  to  those  who  have gone  before  you.  (42:3)

Fasting  is  decreed  (literally, written)  for  you  as  it  was  decreed for  those  before  you.  (2:183)

Such  was  Our  way  with  the  messengers  whom  We  sent  before you.  (17:77)

In  these  and  similar  verses,  whenever  the  Holy  Qur’an  speaks  of the  sending  down  of  a  Book  or  a  revelation  or  a  prophet  or  a messenger,  it  always  attaches  the  conditional  phrase,  Min  qabl (before)  or  Min  Qablik (before  you),  and  nowhere  does  it  employ  or suggest  an  expression like  min  ba’d  (after  you). Even  if  other  verses  of the  Holy  Qur’an  had  not  been  explicit  about  the  finality  of  the prophethood  of  Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and  about  the  cessation  of  revelation, the  mode  of  expression  adopted  by  the  Holy  Qur’an  in  the  present verse  would  in  itself  have  been  sufficient  to  prove  these  points.

The  God-fearing have  Faith  in  the  Hereafter

The  other  essential  quality  of  the  God-fearing  mentioned  in  this verse  is  thht  they  have  faith  in  Aakhirah (the  Hereafter).  Lexically the  Aakhirah  signifies  ‘that  which  comes  after  something’;  in  the present  context,  it  indicates  a  relationship  of  contrast  with  the physical  world,  and  thus  signifies  the  other  world  whlch  is  beyond physical  reality  as  we  know  it  and  also  beyond  the  sensuous  or rational  perception  of  man.  The  Holy  Qur’an  gives  to  the  Hereafter other  names  too  –  for  example,  Dar  al-Qarar  (the  Ever-lasting  Abode), Dar  al-Hayawan  (the  Abode  of  Eternal  Life)  and  Al-‘Uqba  (the Consequent).  The  Holy  Qur’an  is  full  of  vivid  descriptions  of  the Hereafter,  of  the  joys  of  heaven  and  of  the  horrors  of  hell.  Although faith  in  the  Hereafter  is  included  in  faith  in  the  unseen  which  has already  been  mentioned,  yet  the  Holy  Qur’an  refers  to  it  specifically because  it  may,  in  a  sense,  be  regarded  as  the  most  important  among the  donstitutive  elements  of  faith  in  so  far  as  it  inspires  man  to translate  faith  into  practice,  and  motivates  him  to  act  in  accordance with  the  requirements  of  his  faith.  Along  with  the  two  doctrines  of  the Oneness  of  God  and  of  prophethood,  this  is  the  third  doctrine  which  is common  to  all  the  prophets  and  upon  which  all  the  Shari’ah  are agreed.4

Faith  in  the  Hereafter: A  revolutionary  belief

The  belief  in  the  Hereafter,  among  Islamic  doctrines,  is  the  one whose  role  in  history  has  been  what  is  nowadays  described  as revolutionary,  for  it  began  with  transmuting  the  morals  and  manners of  the  followers  of  the  Holy  Qur’an,  and  gradually  gave  them  a  place  of distinction  and  eminence  even  in  the  political  history  of  mankind.  The reason is  obvious.  Consider  the  case  of  those  who  believe  that  life  in  ‘ the  physical  world  is  the  only  life,  its  joys  the  only  joys  and  its  pains the  only  pains,  whose  only  goal  is  to  seek  the  pleasures  of  the  senses and  the  fulfilment  of  physical  or  emotional  needs,  and  who  stubbornly refuse  to  believe  in  the  life  of  the  Hereafter,  in  the  Day  of  Judgment and  the  assessment  of  everyone’s  deeds,  and  in  the  requital  of  the deeds  in  the  other  world.  When  such  people  find  the  distinction between  truth  and  falsehood,  between  the  permissible  and  the forbidden,  interfering  with  tne  hunt  for  the  gratification  of  their desires,  such  differentiations  naturally  become  intolerable  to  them.

Now,  who  or  what  can  effectively  prevent  them  from  committing crimes?  The  penal  laws  made  by  the  state  or  by  any  other  human authority  can  never  serve  either  as  real  deterrents  to  crime  or  as agents  of  moral  reform.  Habitual  criminals  soon  grow  used  to  the penalties.  A  man,  milder  or  gentler  of  temperament  or  just  timid,  may agree  to  forego  the  satisfaction  of  his  desires  for  fear  of  punishment, but  he  would  do  so  only  to  the  extent  that  he  is  in  danger  of  being caught.  But  in  his  privacy  where  the  laws  of  the  state  cannot  encroach upon  his  freedom  of  action,  who  can  force  him  to  renounce  his pleasures  and  accept  the  yoke  of  restraints?  It  is  the  belief  in  the Hereafter — and  the  fear  of  Allah,  and  that  alone,  which  can  bring  man’s private  behaviour  in  line  with  his  public  behaviour,  and  establish  a harmony  between  the  inner  state  and  the  outer.  For  the  God-fearing man  knows  for  certain  that  even  in  the  secrecy  of  a  well-guarded  and sealed  room  and  in  the  darkness  of  night  somebody  is  watching  him, and  somebody  is  writing  down  the  smallest  thing  he  does.  Herein  lies the  secret  of  the  clean  and  pure  society  which  arose  in  the  early  days of  Islam  when  the  mere  sight  of  a  Muslim,  of  his  manners  and  morals, was  enough  to  make  non-believers  literally  fall  in  love  with  Islam.  For true  Faith  in  the  Hereafter,  certitude  must  follow  Oral  Affirmation.

Before  we  proceed,  we  may  point  out  that  in  speaking  of  faith  in the  hereafter  as  one  of  the  qualities  of  the  God-fearing,  the  Holy Qur’an does  not  use  the  word  yu’minuna  (believe)  but  the  word yuqimuna  (have  complete  certitude), for  the  opposite  of  belief  is  denial, and  that  of  certitude  is  doubt  and  hesitation.  Thus,  we  find  a  subtle suggestion  here  that  in  order  to  attain  the  perfection  of  Iman  it  is  not enough  to  affirm  the  hereafter  orally,  but  one  must  have  a  complete certitude  which  leaves  no  room  for  doubt  –  the  kind  of  certitude  which comes  when  one  has  seen  a  thing  with  one’s  own  eyes.  It  is  an essential  quality  of  the  God-fearing  that  they  always  have  present before  their  eyes  the  whole  picture  of  how  people  will  have  to  present themselves  for judgment  before  Allah  in  the  hereafter,  how  their  deeds will  be  assessed  and  how  they  will  receive  reward  or  punishment according  to  what  they  have  been  doing  in  this  world.  A  man  who amasses wealth  by  usurping  what  righfully  belongs  to  others,  or  who gains  petty  material  ends  by  adopting  unlawful  means  forbidden  by Allah,  may  declare  his  faith  in  the  hereafter  a  thousand  times  and  the Shari’ah  may  accept  him  as  a  Muslim  in  the  context  of  worldly concerns,  but  he  does  not  possess  the  certitude  which  the  Holy  Qur’an demands  of  him.  And  it  is  this  certitude  alone  which  transforms human  life,  and  which  brings  in  its  wake  as  a  reward  the  guidance and  triumph  promised  in  verse  5  of  this  Surah:

It  is  these  who  are  on  guidance  given  by  their  Lord;  and  it  is just  these  who  are  successful.

                            Verses  6-7

image

image

Surely for  those  who  have  disbelieved, it  is  all  the  same whether  you  warn  them  or  you  warn  them  not:  they would  not  believe.  Allah  has  set  a  seal  on their  hearts and  on  their  hearing,  and  on  their  eyes  there  is  a covering;  and for  them  there  lies  a  mighty  punishment. (Verses  6-7)

After  affirming  the  Holy  Qur’an  as  the  Book  of  Guidance  and  as being  beyond  all  doubt,  the  first  five  verses  of  the  present  Surah  refer to  those  who  derive  full  benefit  from  this  Book  and  whom  the  Holy Qur’an  has  named  as  Mu’mineen  (true  Muslims)  or  Muttaqun  (the God-fearing),  and  also  delineate  their  characteristic  qualities  which distinguish  them  from  others.  The  next  fifteen  verses  speak  of  those who  refuse  to  accept  this  guidance,  and  even  oppose  it  out  of  sheer spite  and  blind  malice.  In  the  time  of  the  Holy  Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) there  were  two  distinct  groups  of  such  people.  On  the  one  hand  were those  who  came  out  in  open  hostility  and  rejection,  and  whom  the  Holy Qur’an  has  termed  as  kafirun  (disbelievers); on  the  other  hand  were those  who  did  not,  on  account  of  their  moral  depravity  and  greed,  had even  the  courage  to  speak  out  their  minds  and  to  express  their disbelief  clearly,  but  adopted  the  way  of  deceit  and  duplicity.  They tried  to  convince  the  Muslims  that  they  had  faith  in  the  Holy  Qur’an and  its  teachings,  that  they  were  as  good  a  Muslim  as  any  and  would support  the  Muslims  against  the  disbelievers.  But  they  nursed  denial and  rejection  in  their  hearts,  and  would,  in  the  company  of disbelievers,  assure  them  that  they  had  nothing  to  do  with  Islam,  but mixed  with  Muslims  in  order  to  deceive  them  and  to  spy  on  them.  The Holy  Qur’an  has  given  them  the  title  of  Munafiqun  (hypocrites).  Thus, these  fifteen  verses  deal  with  those  who  refuse  to  believe  in  the  Holy Qur’an  –  the  first  two  are  concerned  with  open  disbelievers,  and  the other  thirteen  with  hypocrites,  their  signs  and  characteristics  and their  ultimate  end.

Taking  the  first  twenty  verses  of  this  Surah  together  in  all  their detail,  one  can  see  that  the  Holy  Qur’an  has,  on  the  one  hand,  pointed out  to  us  the  source  of  guidance  which  is  the  Book  itself,  and,  on  the other,  divided  mankind  into  two  distinct  groups  on  the  basis  of  their acceptance  or  rejection  of  this  guidance  –  on  the  one  side  are  those  who have  chosen  to  follow  and  to  receive  guidance,  and  are  hence  called Mu’minun  (true Muslims)  or  Muttaqun  (the  God-fearing); on  the  other side  are  those  who  reject  the  guidance  or  deviate  from  it,  and  are hence  called  Kafirun  (disbelievers)  or  Munafiqun  (hypocrites). People of  the  first  kind  are  those  whose  path  is  the  object  of  the  prayer  at  the end  of  the  Surah  Al-Fatihah, the  path  of  those  on whom  You  have  bestowed  Your  grace”,  and  people  of  the  second  kind are  those  against  whose  path  refuge  has  been  sought  “Not  of  those  who  have  incurred  Your  wrath,  nor  of  those  who have  gone  astray. This  teaching  of  the  Holy  Qur’an  provides  us  with  a  fundamental principle.  A  division  of  mankind  into  different  groups  must,  in  order  to be  meaningful,  be  based  on  differences  in  principle,  not  on considerations  of  birth,  race,  colour,  geography  or  language.  The  Holy Qur’an has  given  a clear  verdict  in  this  respect:

“It  was  He  that  created  you:  yet  some  of  you  are  disbelievers and  some  of  you  are believers”  (64:2).

As  we  have  said,  the  first  two  verses  of  this  Surah  speak  of  those disbelievers  who  had  become  so  stubborn  and  obstinate  in  their  denial and  disbelief  that  they  were  not  prepared  to  hear  the  truth  or  to consider  a  ciear  argument.  In  the  case  of  such  depraved  people,  the usual  way  of  Allah  has  always  been,  and  is,  that  they  are  given  a  certain  kind  of  punishment  even  in  this  world  –  that  is  to  say,  their hearts  are  sealed  and  their  eyes  and  ears  stopped  against  the  truth, and  in  so  far  as  truth  is  concerned  they  become  as  if  they  have  no mind  to  think,  no  eyes  to  see  and  no  ears  to  listen.  The  last  phrase  of the  second  verse  speaks  of  the  grievous  punishment  that  is  reserved for  them  in  the  other  world.  It  may  be  observ;d  that  the  prediction that:  “they  shall  not  believe”  is  specifically  related  to  those disbelievers  who  refused  to  listen  to  the  Holy  Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  and who,  as  Allah  knew,  were  going  to  die  as  disbelievers.  This  does  not apply  to  disbelievers  in  general,  for  there  were  many  who  later accepted  Islam.

What  is  Kufr ?  (Infidelity)

As  for  the  definition  of  kufr  (disbelief),  we  may  point  out  that lexically  the  word  means  to  hide,  to  conceal.  Ingratitude  is  also  called kufr,  because  it  involves  the  concealing  or  the  covering  up  of  the beneficence  shown  by  someone.  In  the  terminology  of  the  Shari’ah, kufr  signifies  the  denial  of  any  of  those  things  in  which  it  is  obligatory to  believe’.  For  example,  the  quintessence  of  ‘Iman as well  as the  very basis  of  the  Islamic  creed  is  the  requirement  that  one  should  confirm with  one’s  heart  and  believe  with  certitude  everything  that  the  Holy Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) has  brought  down  to  us  from  Allah  and  which has  been  established  by  definite  and  conclusive  proof;  therefore,  a  man who  has  the  temerity  to  question  or  disregard  even  a  single  teaching  of this  kind  will  be  described  as a  kafir  (disbeliever  or  infidel).

The  meaning of  ‘Indhar’ (warning) by  a  Prophet

In  translating  the  first  of  these  two  verses,  we  have  used  the English  verb  ‘to  warn’  for  the  Arabic  word  Indhar.  This  word  actually signifies  bringing  news  which  should  cause  alarm  or  concern,  while Ibshar  signifies  bringing  good  news  which  should  make  people  rejoice. Moreover,  Indhar  is  not  the  ordinary  kind  of  warning  meant  to frighten  people,  but  one  which  is  motivated  by  compassion  and  love, just  as  one  warns  one’s  children  against  fire  or  snakes  or  beasts. Hence  a  thief  or  a  bandit  or  an  aggressor  who  warns  or  threatens others  cannot  be  called  a  indhar (warner).  The  latter  is  a  title specially  reserved  for  the  prophets (alayhissalaam)  for  they  warn  people against  the  pains  and  punishments  of  the  other  world  out  of  their compassion  and  love  for  their  fellow  men.  In  choosing  this  title  for  the prophets,  the  Holy  Qur’an  has  made  the  subtle  suggestion  that  for those  who  go  out  to  reform  others  it  is  not  enough  merely  to  convey  a message,  but  that  they  must  speak  to  their  listeners  with  sympathy, understanding  and  a  genuine  regard  for  their  good. In  order  to  comfort  the  Holy  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) the  first  of  these verses  tells  him  that  some  of  the  disbelievers  are  so  vain,  arrogant  and opinionated  that  they,  in  spite  of  recognizing  the  truth,  stubbornly persist  in  their  refusal  and  are  not  prepared  to  hear  the  truth  or  to  see obvious  proofs,  so  that  all  the  efforts  he  makes  for  reforming  and converting  them  will  bear  no  fruit,  and  for  them  it  is  all  one  whether he  tries  or  not. The  next  verse  explains  the  reason,  that  is,  Allah  has  set  a  seal  on their  hearts  and  ears,  there  is  a  covering  on  their  eyes,  all  the  avenues of  knowing  and  understanding  are  thus  closed,  and  now  it  would  be futile  to  expect  any  change  in  them.  A  thing  is  sealed  so  that  nothing may  enter  it  from  outside; the  setting  of  a  seal  on  their  hearts  and  ears also  means  that  they  have  altogether  lost  the  capacity  for  accepting the  truth. The  Holy  Qur’an  describes  the  condition  of  these  disbelievers  in terms  of  their  hearts  and  ears  having  been  sealed,  but  in  the  case  of the  eyes  it  refers  to  a  covering.  The  subtle  distinction  arises  from  the fact  that  an  idea  can  enter  the  heart  from  all  possible  directions  and not  from  one  particular  direction  alone,  and  so  can  a  sound  enter  the ears;  an  idea  or  a  sound  can  be  blocked  only  by  sealing  the  heart  and the  ears.  On  the  contrary,  the  eyes  work  only  in  one  direction,  and  can see  only  the  things  which  lie  in  front  of  them;  if  there  is  a  covering  on them,  they  cease  to  function.  (See Mazhari)

Favour  withdrawn  by Allah  is  a  punishment

These  two  verses  tell  us  that  the  other  world  is  the  place  where  one would  receive  the  real  punishment  for  one’s  disbelief  or  for  some  of one’s  sins.  One  may,  however,  receive  some  punishment  for  certain sins  even  in  this  world.  Such  a  punishment  sometimes  takes  a  very grievous  form  –  that  is,  the  divine  favour  which  helps  one  to  reform oneself  is  withdrawn,  so  that,  ignoring  how  one’s  deeds  are  to  be assessed  on  the  Day  of  Judgment,  one  keeps  growing  in  disobedience and  sin,  and  finally  comes  to  lose  even  the  awareness  of  evil.  In delineating  such  a  situation  certain  elders  have  remarked  that  one punishment  for  an  evil  deed  is  another  evil  deed  which  comes  after, and  one  reward  for  a  good  deed  is  another  good  deed  which  comes after.  According  to  a  Hadith,  when  a  man  commits  a  sin,  a  black  dot appears  on  his  heart;  this  first  dot  disturbs  him  just  as  a  smudge  on  a white  cloth  is  always  displeasing  to  us;  but  if,  instead  of  asking  Allah’s pardon  for  the  first  sin,  he  proceeds  to  commit  a  second,  another  dot shows  up,  thus,  with  every  new  sin  the  black  dots  go  on  multiplying till  the  whole  heart  turns  dark,  and  now  he  can  no  longer  see  good  as good  nor  evil  as  evil,  and  grows  quite  incapable  of  making  such distinctions.  The  Holy  Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  added  that  The  Holy Qur’an  uses  the  term  Ra’n  or  Rain  (rust)  for  this  darkness:  as  in Mishkat  from  the  Musnad  of  Ahmad  and  Tirmidhi.

No  But  what  they  did  has  rusted  their  hearts  (83:14)

According  to  another  authentic  Hadith  reported  by  Tirmidhi  from the  blessed  Companion  Abu  Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu)  the  Holy  Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallan) has  said,  “When  a  person  commits  a  sin,  his  heart  grows  dark, but  if  he seeks  Allah’s  pardon,  it  becomes  clear  again”.  (See Qurtubi)

It  should  be  carefully  noted  that  in  announcing  that  it  is  all  one whether  the  Holy  Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) warns  the  disbelievers  or  not, the  Holy  Qur’an  adds  the  condition  ‘Alaihim  (for  them), which  clearly indicates  that  it  is  all  one  for  the  disbelievers  alone,  and  not  for  the Holy  Prophet (sallallaahu for  he  would  in  any  case  get  a  reward  for bringing  the  message  of  Allah  to  his  fellow-men  and  for  his  efforts  to teach  and  reform  them.  That  is  why  there  is  not  a  single  verse  in  the Holy  Qur’an which  should  dissuade  the Holy  prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) from calling  even  such  people  to  Islam.  From  this  we  may  infer  that  the man  who  strives  to  spread  the  Word  of  Allah  and  to  reform  his fellow-men  does  always  get  a  reward  for  his  good  deed,  even  if  he  has not  been  effective.

A  doubt  is  removed

We  may  also  answer  a  question  which  sometimes  arises  in connection  with  the  second  of  these  two  verses  that  speaks  of  the hearts  and  the  ears  of  the  disbelievers  having  been  sealed  and  of  their eyes  being  covered.  We  find  a similar  statement  in  another  verse  of  the Holy  Qur’an: 

But  what  they  did  has  rusted  their  hearts.  (83:14)

which  makes  it  plain  that  it  is  their  arrogance  and  their  evil  deeds themselves  that  have  settled  dn  their  hearts  as  a  rust.  In  the  verse under  discussion,  it  is  this  very  rust  which  has  been  described  as  ‘a seal,’  or  ‘covering’ .  So,  there  is  no  occasion  here  to  raise  the  objection that  if  Allah  Himself  has  sealed  their  hearts  and  blocked  their  senses, they  are  helpless  and  cannot  be  held  responsible  for  being  disbelievers, and  hence  they  should  not  be  punished  for  what  they  have  not themselves  chosen  to  do.  If  we  consider  the  two  verses  (2:7  and  83:14) together,  we  can  easily  see  why  they  should  be  punished  –  in  adopting the  way  of  arrogance  and  pride  they  have,  wilfully  and  out  of  their  own choice,  destroyed  their  capacity  for  accepting  the  truth,  and  thus  they themselves  are  the  authors  of  their  own  ruin.  But  Allah,  being  Creator of  all  the  actions  of  His  creatures,  has  in  verse  2:7  attributed  to Himself  the  setting  of  a  seal  on  the  hearts  and  the  ears  of  the disbelievers,  and  has  thus  pointed  out  that  when  these  people  insisted, as  a  matter  of  their  own  choice,  on  destroying  their  aptitude  for receiving  the  truth,  Allah  produced,  as  is  His  way  in  such  cases,  the state  of  insensitivity  in  their  hearts  and  senses.

******************************

Footnotes:

1. It  would  be  helpful  to  note  that  in  the  everday  idiom  of  the  West,  and  even in  modern  social  sciences,  “faith”  has  come  to  mean  no  more  than  an intense  emotional  state  or  “a  fixed  emotion”.  As  against  this,  the  Islamic conception  of  ‘Iman  is  essentially  intellectual,  in  the  original  signification of  “Intellect” which  the  modern  West  has  altogether  forgotten.

2.  Today  one  finds  a  very  wide-spread  confusion,  sometimes  amounting  to  a total incomprehension,  with  regard  to  the  distinction  between  Islam  and ‘Iman,  essentially  under  the  influence  of  Western  modes  of  thought  and behaviour  and,  to  be  more  specific, that  of  the  ever-proliferating  Protestant sects  and  schools  of  theology.  Since  the  middle  of  the  19th  century  there have  sprouted  in  almost  every  Muslim  country  a  host  of  self-styled Reformists,  Revivalists,  Modernists  et  al,  each  pretending  to  have understood  the  “real”  Islam  for  the  first  time,  and  each  adepting  an extremist,  though  untenable,  posture  with  regard  to  Islam  and  ‘Iman.  On the  one  hand,  we  have  people  claiming  that  Islam  is  only  a  matter  of  the “heart”  (a  word  which  has  during  the  last  four  hundred  years  been  used  in the  West  as  an  equivalent  of  “emotion”  or,  worse  still,  of  “emotional agitation”)  or  of  “religious  experience”  (a  very  modish  term  brought  into currency  by  William  James).  As  a  corollary,  they  stubbornly  refuse  to  see the  need  for  a  fixed  ritual  or  an  ethical  code,  all  of  which  they  gladly  leave to  social  exigency  or  individual  preference.  They  base  their  claims  on  the unquestioned  axiom  that  religion  is  “personal” relationship  between  the individual  and  “his”  God.  It  is  all  too  obvious  that  this  genre  of  Modernist “Islam”  is  the  progeny  of  Martin  Luther  with  cross-pollination  from Rousseau.  On  the  other  hand,  we  have  fervent  and  sometimes  violent champions  of  Islam insisting  a  merely  external  performance  of  rituals  – more  often  on  a  mere  conformity  to  moral  regulations,  and  even  these,  of their  liking.  They  would  readily  exclude,  and  are  anyhow  indifferent  to,  the internal  dimension  of  Islam.  A  recent  modification  of  this  stance  (in  the wake  of  a  certain  Protestant  pioneering,  it  goes  without  saying) has  been  to replace  divinely  ordained  rituals  by  acts  of  social  service  or  welfare,  giving them  the  status  and  value,  of  acts  of  worship.  Counselling  on  divorce, abortion,  premarital  sex  and  the  rest  of  the  baggage  having  already  become a  regular  part  of  the  functions  of  a  Protestant  cl’ergyrnan,  it  would  not  be too  fond  to  expect,  even  on  the  part  of  our  Modernists,  the  speedy  inclusion of  acts  of  entertainment  as  well.  There  is  still  another  variety  of deviationists,  more  visible  and  vociferous  than  the  rest,  and  perhaps  more pervasive  and  pernicious  in  their  influence,  finding  easy  credence  among  a certain  section  of  Muslim  with a  sloppy  western-style  education.  While dispensing  with  the  subtle  distinctions  between  Islam  and  ‘Iman,  they reduce  Islam  itself  to  a  mere  system  of  social  organization,  or  even  to state-craft.  According  to  their  way  of  looking  at things,  if  Muslims  fail  to  set up  a  social  and  political organization  of  a  specified  shape,  they  would  cease to  be  Muslims.  Applied  to  the  history  of  Islam,  this  fanciful  notion  would lead  to  the  grotesque  conclusion  that  no  Muslim  had  ever  existed. These  are  only  a  few  examples  of  the  intellectual  distortions  produced  by refusing  to  define  Islam  and  ‘Iman  clearly  and  ignoring  the  distinction between  the  two.  Contrary  to  all  such  modernizing  deviations,  Islam  in  fact means  establishing  ‘a  part~cular relationship  of  obedience  and  servitude with  Allah  This  relationship  arises  neither  out  of  vague  “religious experiences”  nor  out  of  social  regimentation;  in  order  to  attain  it,  one  has  to accept  all  the  doctrines  and  to  act  upon  all  the  commandments  specified  In the  Holy  Qur’an,  the  Hadith  and  the  Shari’ah.  These  doctrines  and commandments  cover  all  the  spheres of  human  life,  individual  or  collective, right  up  from  acts  of  worship  down  to  social,  political  and  economic relations  among  men,  and  codes  of  ethics  and  behavlour,  morals  and manners,  and  their  essential  purpose  is  to  produce  in  man  a  genuine attitude  of  obedience  to  Allah.  If  one  acts  according  to  the  Shari’ah  one,  no doubt,  gains  many  worldly  benefits,  individual  as  well  as collective.  These benefits  may  be  described  as  the  raison  d’etre  of  the  commandments,  but are  in  no  way  their  essential  object,  nor  should  a  servant  of  Allah  seek  them for  themselves  in  obeying  Him,  nor  does  the  success  or  failure  of  a  Muslim as  a  Muslim  depend  on  attaining  them.  When  a  man  has  fully  submitted himself  to  the  commandments  of  Allah  in  everything  he  does,  he  has already  succeeded  as  a  Muslim,  whether  he  receives  the  related  worldly benefits  or  not

3.  Exactly  as  predicted  by  a  Hadith,  today  we  see  all  around  us  a proliferation  of  “knowledge” and  of  “writing”. One  of  the  dangerous  forms the  process  has  taken  is  the  indiscriminate  translation  at  least  into European  languages  and  the  popularization  of  the  sacred  books  of  all possible  religious  and  metaphysical  traditions  –  not  only  the  Hindu,  the Chinese  or  the  Japanese,  but  also  the  Shamanic  or  the  Red  Indian.  The lust  for  reading  sacred  books  has  virtually  grown  into  a  mania,  specially among  the  modern  young  people  with  their  deep  sense  of  being  uprooted and  disinherited,  and  all  considerations  of  aptitude  have  been contemptuously  set  aside.  In  these  circumstances,  Muslims  with  a Western  orientation  are  naturally  impelled  to  ask  themselves  as  to  what they  can  or  should  make  of  such  books  which  sometimes  seem  to  offer similarities  and  parallels  to  the  Holy  Qur’an  itself,  and  more  often  to  the Sufi  doctrines.  The  problem  has  already  attained  noticeable  proportions, for  in  1974  the  government  of  Turkey  found  it  necessary  to  ban  the  entry of  certain  Hindu  sacred  books  like  the  Bhagavadgita  and  Upanishads. The  correct  doctrinal  position  in  this  respect  is  that  it  is  obligatory  for every  Muslim,  as  an  essential  part  of  the  Islamic  creed,  to  believe  in  all the  prophets  and  messengers  of  Allah  and  in  the  Divine  Books  (not  in their  distorted  forms,  but  as  they  were  originally  revealed)  that  have specifically  been  mentioned  by  their  names  in  the  Holy  Qur’an,  and  also to  believe  that  Allah  has  sent  His  messengers  and  His  books  for  the guidance  of  all  the  peoples  and  all  the  ages,  and  that Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is the  last  prophet  and  the  Holy  Qur’an  the  final  Book  of  Allah  which  has come  down  to  replace  the  earlier  Books  and  Shari’ahs.  As  to  the  question of  the  authenticity  and  divine  origin  of  a  particular  book  held  in reverence  by  an  earlier  religion  or  metaphysical  tradition,  a  Muslim  is not  allowed  to  affirm  such  a  claim  unequivocally,  nor  should  he unnecessarily  reject  such  a  possibility.  In  so  far  as  contents  of  the  book concerned  agree  with  what  the  Holy  Qur’an  has  to  say  on  the  subject,  we may  accept  the  statement  as  true,  otherwise  spiritual  etiquette  requires an average  muslim  to  keep  quiet  and  not  meddle  with  things  which  he  is not  likely  to  understand.  As  for  reading  the  sacred  books  of  other traditions,  it  should  be  clearly  borne  in  mind  that  a  comparative  study  of this  nature  requires  a  very  special  aptitude  which  is  extremely  rare,  and hence  demands  great  caution.  A  cursory  reading  of  sacred  books, motivated  by  an  idle  curiosity  or  by  a  craze  for  mere  information,  may very  well  lead  to  an  intellectual  disintegration  or  to  something  still worse,  instead  of  helping  in  the  “discovery  of  the  truth”  and  the acquisition  of  “peace”  which  a  comparative  study  is  widely  supposed  to promise.  Even  when  the  aptitude  and  the  knowledge  necessary  for  the task  is  present,  such  a  study  can  be  carried  out  only  under  the supervision  of  an  authentic  spiritual  master.  In  any  case,  we  cannot insist  too  much  on  the  perils  of  the  enterprise

4.  There  is  a  deplorable  misconception  with  regard  to  the  Hereafter,  quite wide-spread  among  those  who  are  not,  or  do  not  want  to  be,  familiar  with the  Holy  Qur’an  and  who  have  at  the  same  time  been  touched  by  the rationalism,  materialism  and  libertarianism  of  the  Western  society,  which makes  them  cherish  certain  mental  and  emotional  reservations  at  least about  the  horrors  of  hell,  if  not  about  the joys  of  heaven.  Some  of  them  have gone  to  the  preposterous  length  of  supposing  that  these  are  the  inventions of  the  ‘Ulama’  whom  they  describe  as  ‘abscurantists’  –  of  course,  in  the jargon  of  the  Western  Reformation  and  of  the  so-called  Enlightenment. They  ignore  the  obvious  fact  that  faith  in  the  Holy  Qur’an  necessitates  faith in  every  word  of  the  Holy  Qur’an,  and  that  it  is  not  possible  to  affirm  one part  of  the  Book  while  denying  another  and  yet  remain  a  Muslim  :  “What,  do  you  believe  in  one  part  of  the  Book  and  deny another?”(2:85)  Moreover,  these  enlightened  Muslims  have  never  made  a serious  attempt  to  take  into  account  the  complex  historical  factors  that  led to-the  rise  of  the  Enlightenment  in  Europe,  nor  the  meaning  of  the subsequent  development  in ethical  ideas.  We  may,  therefore,  ave a  few  and very  brief  indications.  There  has  been  no  dearth,  even  in  the  hey-day  of  the Enlightenment,  of  thinkers  who  have  had  no  scruples  in  dispensing  with ethics  altogether  which  they  look  upon  as  superstition  or  tyranny  and hence  a  blight  for  the  human  personality. But  even those  thinkers  who  have  recognised  the  indispensable need  for  regulations  and  rules,  if  not  principles,  for  human  conduct  in  order to  preserve  social  order  or  to  make  social  life  possible,  have  in  general  had no  qualms  about  discarding  the  very  idea  of  divine  sanction  –  despite  the intimation  of  Voltaire,  the  arch-priest  of  relationalism,  that  man  would have  to  invent  God,  even  if  He  did  not  exist.  As  to  the  nature  and  origin  of the  ethical  regulations  and  the  sanction  behind  them,  Western  thinkers have  from  time  to  time  tried  to  promote  various  agencies  –  the  sovereign state,  social  will  or  convention  or  custom,  the  supposedly  pure  and  innocent nature  of  man  himself  with  its  capacity  for  self-regulation,  and  finally biological  laws.  The  second  half  of  the  twentieth  century  has  witnessed  the withering  away  of  all  these  ethical  authorities  which  has  left  the  modern man  without  even  a  dim  prospect  of  constructing  a  new  illusion.  It  is  only in  this  perspective  that  one  can  properly  consider  the  significance  of  the belief  in  the  hereafter  for  human  society.

Abul A’la Maududi Mocks the Sunnah

[By Maulana Yusuf Ludhianvi (rahimahullah)]

Criticism on ‘Sunnah’:

The practices of Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) have been divided by the Ulama into two categories viz. Sunnan-e-Huda (those aspects relating to Deen which are essential to follow) and Sunnan-e-A`diya (personal habits which do not constitute a Shar`i command), although these acts are not compulsory to follow, taking heed of them is indeed a means of great fortune. If we find ourselves unable to imitate Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) we should realize that the reason is not because his lifestyle is unworthy of following, but it is due to the deficiency of our capabilities.

Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) is the beloved leader of the Ummah. Every act of the beloved is beneficial. Hence to adopt his way is a declaration of true love. Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) is the embodiment of all virtue, having been protected from all evil by Allah.

Consequently imitating his example can be regarded as a means of achieving great virtue and a protection from evil. Imaam Ghazaali (rahmatullah alayh) states:

“Actual good fortune lies in following Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) in every movement. Accordingly all actions are of two types; firstly, worship such as Salaah, fasting, Hajj, Zakaat, etc. Secondly, habits like eating, drinking, sleeping etc. It is essential for Muslims to follow Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) in both types of acts….” [Tableegh-e-Deen, page 39]

Subsequently to deriving the Shar`i and logical proofs for following the Sunnah in general habits, Imaam Ghazaali (rahimahullah) states:

“Whatever we have mentioned was for encouraging the adoption of the Sunnah in general habits. Concerning those acts connected to worship, and whose rewards have been mentioned abundantly, the disregarding of such acts without a valid excuse can be due only to hidden disbelief or open stupidity.” [Page 42]

Contrary to this, Maududi has mocked the Sunnah of our Nabi (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam). He states that most pious people have the misconception that regarding the following of Nabi (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) and the Salf-e-Saaliheen is as follows:

“Just like the clothes they wore, we must wear, we must eat the type of food they ate, just as they conducted themselves in their personal lives we must imitate them precisely in the same way.”

According to Maududi, this type of imitation is incorrect, the correct way according to him is:

“This method of following which has been thrust upon the minds of religious Muslims for centuries is in reality completely contrary to the spirit of Islam. Islam never taught us to be living replicas of the past, nor to stage a drama of ancient civilization.” [Tafheemaat, page 209/210]

Undoubtedly to benefit from the technologies of modern times is not sinful. By remaining within lslaamic limits, it is permissible to adopt new ways of conducting our social relations. But to express the dress and manners of our beloved Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) in such despicable words as “ancient relics” and “a drama of ancient civilization” is not only contrary to the expression of love, but is also removed from the necessities of showing honour to the noble Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam).

This Philosophy of Maududi is also strange:

“Islam does not give us a form, Instead it gives us a spirit. Due to changes in time and place, all the different forms which will be created till Qiyaamah, should be filled with the very same spirit.”

In other words, according to Maududi, the Islamic form is unnecessary . He could create any form he chooses, but by filling it with an Islamic spirit he could make it acceptable to Islam. I fail to see in which factory this Islamic spirit is made. Based on this logic, Maududi has also created two categories of the cinema – Islamic and un-Islamic.

If the Islamic spirit is blown into the cinema, it becomes Islamic. This is the understanding of Islam and the value of the Sunnah in his view.

Fourthly, because he only believes in the Islamic spirit, the Islamic form is an innovation in his opinion.

According to this philosophy, Rasulullaah’s (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) external Sunnah becomes a Bid`ah (innovation). He writes:

“I regard the terms ‘uswah’ (example), ‘Sunnah’, ‘Bid`ah’ (innovation) etc. as misunderstood, in fact they are distortions of Deen. Your belief of maintaining a long beard like Rasulullah’s (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) means that you regard it as a Sunnah which the Messengers came to establish. I not only regard this definition of Sunnah as incorrect, but I perceive this to be a form of Bid`ah and a form of changing the Deen, having disastrous consequences in the past and in the future as well.” [Rasaail Wa Masaa`il page 307]

Maududi has committed two errors here. One is that he has rejected the keeping of beard as Sunnah, by naming it a habit, whereas Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) has proclaimed it an unanimous Sunnah of all Messengers. The Ummah has been given clear instructions to follow it. That is, to oppose the way of the kuffaar. Hence to regard it as a Sunnan-e-Adiyah (habit) and to aver that to refer to it as a Sunnat of the Deen is audacious.

The second mistake made by Maududi is that he avers Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) has commanded the lengthening of the beard, but he did not specify any length. Hence according to him the beard has no prescribed length, whereas this is incorrect because Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) has commanded the lengthening of the beard but never gave a command of clipping it. Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) permitted the Sahaabah to maintain the beard at a length of one fist. If a shorter beard had been permissible he would have allowed it. Consequently none of the jurists have permitted clipping the beard shorter than one-fist length.

Maududi not only rejects this unanimous Sunnah, but mocks it by calling it a distortion. Can a person who is so daring regarding the rejection of the Sunnah be worthy of being given the status of an Aalim?