Category Archives: Christianity/Orientalists

Leviticus 26:1 does not Apply to the Kabah

Some moron pagans allege that Muslims bowing towards the Kabah applies to be “idol-worship” since the OT verse of Leviticus 26:1 prohibits it, but the truth is contrary to the allegation, the following is a brief examination of the verse in question and eventually refutes the whole accusation.

Leviticus 26:1: Nothing to do with Kabah in Makkah.

Leviticus 26:1

26:1 YE SHALL MAKE YOU NO IDOLS nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God.

Analysis:

1. YE SHALL MAKE YOU NO IDOLS

No IDOLS ever exist after the taking back of Makkah by Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. No IDOLS ever exist in Islamic land including Madinah the city of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. No IDOL ever exist in the home of Muslims.
IDOLATORS and IDOLATRY are condemned by Allah. Allah Ta’ala says that idolatry is SATAN’S DOING.

“O you who have attained to faith! Intoxicants, and games of chance, and idolatrous practices, and the divining of the future are but a loathsome evil of Satan’s doing: ’shun it, then, so that you might attain to a happy state!” [Al-Qur’an 5:90]

“And, Lo, [thus] spoke Abraham unto his father Azar: “TAKEST THOU IDOLS FOR GODS? Verily, I see that thou and thy people HAVE OBVIOUSLY GONE ASTRAY!” [Al-Qur’an 6:74]

2. NOR GRAVEN IMAGE

Nor graven image — פסל, phesel; which signifies any image hewn out of wood or stone. (See: http://biblehub.com/commentaries/leviticus/26-1.htm)

There is no SUCH THING IN KABAH AND AFTER ISLAM.

3. NEITHER REAR YOU UP A STANDING IMAGE

Is the rendering of a Hebrew word (matzebah), which is usually and more correctly translated “pillar” or “statue”

THERE IS NO STATUE IN MASJID AL-HARAM OR SURROUNDING KABAH.

4. TO BOW DOWN UNTO IT

When we bow down, our mind is in owe of Allah. We Muslim never bow down to Kabah or the stone. Allah mentioned it only for QIBLA (ORIENTATION/TOWARD) NOT FOR WORSHIP.

“So from wherever you go out [for prayer, O Muhammad] turn your face TOWARD (QIBLA) al-Masjid al-Haram, and indeed, it is the truth from your Lord. And Allah is not unaware of what you do.”   [Al-Qur’an 2:149]

THERE IS NO COMMAND FROM ALLAH TO WORSHIP KABAH OR THE STONE.

5. NEITHER SHALL YE SET UP ANY IMAGE OF STONE IN YOUR LAND, TO BOW DOWN UNTO IT

Any image of stone — אבן משׁכית, Eben mashchith; STONE OF FIGURE, device, or portraiture; or figured stone, or stone of picture, as we read in the margin; like those in use among the Egyptians, which were full of hieroglyphics, expressing some fancied perfections of their gods. Some, without any authority from the original, would render the words, a stone set up. The simply setting up pillars, or even images, WAS NOT PROHIBITED; BUT ONLY THE SETTING THEM UP TO WORSHIP THEM. (See: http://biblehub.com/commentaries/leviticus/26-1.htm)

WE MUSLIMS DO NOT WORSHIP KABAH OR THE STONE.

Therefore, Leviticus 26:1 has simply NOTHING TO DO WITH KABAH INSIDE MASJID AL-HARAM.

Advertisements

Pagan Easter Sunday – Idolatrous Origins of Easter Beliefs, Coloured Eggs, Rabbits, Pig-Eating, Etc

Christians engage in non-scriptural festivities, Easter has got nothing to do with the Bible.   Not only they are celebrating activities that were not scripturally based, in many cases (such as Xmas trees- prohibition is mentioned in Jeremiah 10). In short, they celebrate occult festivities hiding it with the mask of ‘Eesa alayhissalaam (Jesus).

Have you ever wondered where their beliefs come from or why do they do things which they do?? Are Christians attending church for worship or just entertainment purposes only??

The Christians should question why Easter Sunday occurs during spring equinox every year and  what has the spring equinox to do with ‘Eesa alayhissalaam (Jesus)? 

Who taught you to believe chocolate rabbits, colored eggs, hanging plastic eggs on trees, Easter baskets, Easter Bonnets, new clothes, going to church on Easter Sunday and Sunrise Services honor ‘Eesa alayhissalaam (Jesus)? Have you read this in your Bible, or are these just childhood fables that you are passing on to your children?

I expected to find a credible connection between the celebration of Easter Sunday, with all of its trappings, the Bible and Jesus. Easter Sunday has absolutely nothing to do with the either the Bible nor with ‘Eesa alayhissalaam (Jesus) or Christianity.

Once I learned about biology, I really became perplexed, because rabbits are mammals and the only two mammals that lay eggs are platiypus and echidna.  

Christians engage in many paganistic behaviors without having any idea why.  The celebration of Easter Sunday is one of these ritualistic traditions where time has obscured the true reasons and origin for this celebration.

The strategy of the Christian missionaries of past and present was to send missionaries into foreign lands and enslave the minds of the citizens. This is done by replacing “pagan” beliefs with Christian beliefs. The technique is to incorporate Christian beliefs and rituals into their “pagan” beliefs and rename their deities. 

Over time, whichever deity the conquered people were worshiping prior to the arrival of Christian missionaries, the name would be gradually changed, and replaced by the Christian deity known as Jesus, while the “heathens/savages” continued engaging in their “pagan” rituals.

Consequently, the Church replaced the “pagan” ritual of Easter with the Jewish “Passover,” and then changed that into the so-called “Resurrection” of Jesus, while maintaining all of the pagan rituals of coloring eggs, rabbits laying eggs, and eating ham (Pig), etc.

The word “Easter” appears in the Bible only once, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the resurrection of Christ. Acts 12:4 says in reference to Peter’s arrest, “And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.”

Easter always, occur on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox, which can result in a 2-4 week difference in the date, from one year to another.

Christians worship Easter Sunday as the so-called “resurrection day” for Jesus, which has nothing to do with neither ‘Eesa (alayhissalaam) Jesus nor did the resurrection take place.  On the contrary, Biblically speaking, celebrating Easter in actuality is celebrating a pagan ritual.

In an effort to find the definition and origin of Easter, you need to go outside of the Bible, because there is absolutely no information on the definition of Easter in the text of the Bible.

Easter is a Pagan Festival According to the Bible Itself!

I found out that Acts 12:4 referred to the pagan holiday established during the time of Nimrod (Namrud). According to the Bible, Nimrod built the “Tower of Babel” and began worshiping idols, including pagan deities Moloch and the sun-deity known as Baal (Ba’l is mentioned in Qur’an where Hadhrat Ilyas alayhissalaam (Elijah) criticizes his community for worshiping the pagan idol) which were contrary to the teachings of all the Prophets (alayhimussalaam).

An enemy killed Nimrod, and cut his body into fourteen pieces and scattered them throughout his kingdom. This is a plagiarized version of the ancient Egyptian pagan deity Osiris.

Semiramis wanted to deify her son Nimrod, so she created the myth that Nimrod ascended into heaven and became the “Sun-god” and people was to worship him as the god “Baal.”

Since you cannot have a god without a goddess, Semiramis deified herself by saying she ascended to the moon, which has a 28-day cycle and emits an egg at the end of that cycle.  This egg fell to the earth and Semiramis hatched out of it and her name was changed to Ishtar (pronounced Easter); ergo, the “Easter Egg.”

Semiramis/Ishtar/Easter’s hatching occurred after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox, which at the time, occurred during the Jewish “Passover,” and she became the “Goddess of Fertility.”  She was also known as the “goddess of spring” and the “goddess of prostitutes.”

Legend has it that Nimrod sent a “sun-ray” down to earth and immaculately impregnated Semiramis/Ishtar/Easter and she gave birth to their son who she named Tammuz. 

Like Nimrod, Tammuz was also a mighty hunter and he loved rabbits.

While Tammuz was hunting for rabbits a wild boar (pig) killed him. His mother Semiramis/Ishtar/Easter became very distraught and mourned for her dead son Tammuz, as written in Ezekiel 8:4: “Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the Lord’s house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz.”

Semiramis/Ishtar/Easter was walking through the forest mourning her loss, when she found an injured bird, which she healed in honor of her son Tammuz by transforming it into a rabbit.

She then decried that on the anniversary of her son Tammuz’s death, rabbits would lay colorful eggs.

The ancient Babylonians hid these eggs and the children would search for them. Today, children are given Easter baskets, with their colorful grass as symbolic representations of bird nests, or should I say, “Rabbit” nests.

To include adults during the celebration of Easter, naked women were painted, using various pastel colors, then they hid in the forest. Men would go “hunting” for them and when found, they would have sex, resulting in sexual orgies.  This is the origin of buying new Easter Bonnets and clothes for the Easter parade to church.

Semiramis/Ishtar/Easter mandated that everyone had to fast for forty days prior to the anniversary of Tammuz’s death, which is the Christian pagan ritual of “Lent.”

After the fast, they placed virgins on the altar and the priests had sex with them. These former virgins gave birth nine months later.

Three months after birth, during the first full moon after the Spring Equinox, they brought their newborn babies back to the altar. The priests would then sacrifice these newborn babies in honor of the god Moloch (Allegedly this still occurs annually at the Bohemian grove,, in California, honoring the pagan God moloch, in fact, the American society itself is based on satanic cults and freemasonry and referred in Bible as “Mystery Babylon”).

And use their blood to color Semiramis/Ishtar/Easter’s eggs.  This is the origin of coloring eggs for Easter.

Pig-Consumption on Easter Sunday

At the end of the forty-day fast (Lent), a celebration feast was held and because he was killed by a pig, on Semiramis/Ishtar/Easter Sunday, everyone would hold a feast with ham being the entrée; ergo, this is the origin of the “Easter Ham.”

In addition, they will serve “hot cross buns” in recognition of Tammuz.

Furthermore, because of the love Semiramis/Ishtar/Easter had for Tammuz, everyone had to end their prayer by making the sign of a “t” across their heart, as many Christians still do, believing they are making the sign of the “Cross.”

Finally, because Nimrod was transformed into Baal, the Sun-god, he is celebrated every Easter by Christians during their “Sunrise services,” which is clearly an abomination to the original teachings of ‘Eesa alayhissalaam (Jesus).

The Early Christians Who Believed that ‘Eesa Alayhissalaam (Jesus) Was Saved From Crucifixion

By Abu Zakariya

After the deity of Jesus, the crucifixion is perhaps the most contested issue about his life between Christians and Muslims. Today his death on the cross is taken as an almost indisputable fact of history, to the point where it’s not even questioned. Yet the Qur’an makes the bold claim that he was not crucified. Is it possible that the Qur’an, written some 600 years after Jesus, could be right? This article is going to show that there were in fact early Christian groups who believed that ‘Eesa alayhissalaam (Jesus) was not crucified, just as the Qur’an proclaims.

WHAT ISLAM TEACHES ABOUT THE CRUCIFIXION

This is what the Qur’an says about the crucifixion of Jesus:

They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, though it was made to appear like that to them; those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition: they certainly did not kill him. God raised him up to Himself. God is almighty and wise. [4:157-158]

We can see that the Qur’an states that ‘Eesa alayhissalaam (Jesus) was not crucified; rather it was made to appear so. What “though it was made to appear like that to them” means is a topic of discussion among scholars. A major view is that God gave someone else Jesus’ appearance and it was this other person who was substituted for ‘Eesa alayhissalaam (Jesus) on the cross, causing his enemies to believe that ‘Eesa alayhissalaam (Jesus) was crucified. We find support for this view in the narrations of one of the companions of Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam), Ibn Abbas (Radhiyallahu Anhu). He stated:

“Just before God raised Jesus to the Heavens, Jesus went to his disciples, who were twelve inside the house. When he arrived, his hair was dripping with water (as if he had just had a bath) and he said, ‘There are those among you who will disbelieve in me twelve times after you had believed in me.’ He then asked, ‘Who among you will volunteer for his appearance to be transformed into mine, and be killed in my place. Whoever volunteers for that, he will be with me (in Heaven).’ One of the youngest ones among them volunteered, but Jesus asked him to sit down. Jesus asked again for a volunteer, and the same young man volunteered and Jesus asked him to sit down again. Then the young man volunteered a third time and Jesus said, ‘You will be that man,’ and the resemblance of Jesus was cast over that man while Jesus ascended to Heaven from a hole in the roof of the house. When the Jews came looking for Jesus, they found that young man and crucified him…” [1]

We can see that the Qur’an and other Islamic sources are crystal clear: Allah saved His beloved messenger from the crucifixion. ‘Eesa alayhissalaam (Jesus) was raised up to God, alive and unharmed, where he remains until this day. We find support for the Qur’anic crucifixion narrative in history. There were early Christian groups who denied the crucifixion of Jesus, such as the first century scholar Basilides and his followers, the Basilidians. They believed that ‘Eesa alayhissalaam (Jesus) was saved from the crucifixion and that another, Simon of Cyrene, was crucified in his place:

“The Unborn and Nameless Father seeing their miserable plight, sent his First-born, Nous (and this is the one who is called Christ) to deliver those who should believe in him from the power of the angelic agencies who had built the world. And to men Christ seemed to be a man and to have performed miracles. It was not, however, Christ who suffered, but rather Simon of Cyrene, who was constrained to carry the cross for him, and mistakenly crucified in Christ’s stead…” [2]

The beliefs of Basilides matter because he was living very close to the time of the disciples, and there are even traditions that he got these teachings from disciples of ‘Eesa alayhissalaam (Jesus) such as Peter [3]. From this account we can see that it’s not the Qur’an that invented this claim that ‘Eesa alayhissalaam (Jesus) was saved from the crucifixion, it goes back to the earliest time of Church history.

ANSWERING THE CLAIM THAT SUCH GROUPS WERE HERETICAL

Now, critics tend to discredit groups such as the Basilidians by appealing to the writings of Church Fathers who condemned them as heretical. Sadly, nearly all the writings of such groups have perished, and we mostly know of them through the writings of their opponents. It is a well known fact among historians that Church Fathers would exaggerate to the extreme when writing about other Christian sects with whom they did not agree.

For example, the second century theologian Irenaeus claimed that the followers of Valentinus made indiscriminate copulation not only permissible but a desired act for those who are truly spiritual [4], and that the Carpocratians practiced indiscriminate sex and that their theology compelled them to violate every conceivable moral law and ethical norm [5]. Perhaps the most outrageous example occurs near the end of the fourth century in the writings of the bishop Epiphanius, who in his discussion of a group of Gnostic Christians outlines their beliefs and describes their orgiastic and cannibalistic practices. Epiphanius claimed that they indulged in sumptuous feasts, with married couples separating to engage in sexual intercourse with other members of the community [6]. The couples are alleged to have then collected the semen in their hands and ingested it together while proclaiming, “this is the body of Christ.” The couple also collected and consumed the woman’s menstrual blood, saying “this is the blood of Christ” [7]. If for some reason the women became pregnant, the fetus was allowed to develop until it could be manually aborted. Then, claims Epiphanius, it was dismembered, covered with honey and spices, and devoured by the community as a special meal [8].

With the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library in the 20th century we have been able to study the actual writings of a bewildering variety of Gnostic Christians. A lot of the claims made by the Church Fathers against such groups were proven to be false, as far from condoning, let alone promoting, such outlandish moral behavior, their writings urge and assume just the contrary social and personal ethics. One of the few constants among all the Nag Hammadi writings is their ascetic orientation. Gnostic Christians appear to have believed, as a rule, in punishing the body, not indulging it. They endorsed ascetic lifestyles far from the hedonistic debauchery that the Church Fathers alleged. Apparently then, Gnostics were consistently attacked by orthodox Christians as sexually perverse, not because they actually were perverse but because they were the enemy.

In fact, a lot of what we know about the early Church comes from the third century Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea who pioneered work giving a chronological account of the development of Early Christianity. He is often called the “Father of Church History.” But he is not a reliable source of information as he openly admits to lying in order to propagate what he believes is the truth. In his work, Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel), Book 12, Chapter 31 is titled as follows [9]:

“That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment.”

Eusebius makes it absolutely clear in his teachings that lying is necessary when it comes to the Gospel message. Chapter 31 reads as follows:

“But even if the case were not such as our argument has now proved it to be, if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little use, could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young for their good, is there any falsehood that he could have told more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just, not by compulsion but willingly?”[10]

According to Eusebius it’s okay to lie, it’s okay to hold a false belief, if in the end the lie benefits someone. Eusebius, like most Christians today, held the death and resurrection of Jesus to be an essential belief for salvation. Based on Eusebius’ own principles then, there is no doubt that he would have been willing to lie about other groups who deny the crucifixion in order to protect what he would have seen as an essential truth. For Eusebius, the ends justify the means. It would therefore be difficult to believe that his writings are historically accurate and objective. His representations of competing groups of Christian sects are very likely not impartial.

In summary, we should take any claims of heresy made against early Christian groups who believed that ‘Eesa alayhissalaam (Jesus) was not crucified, with a pinch of salt. History is written by the winners, and much of what we know about these early groups has been painted by their opponents.

DID GOD DECEIVE THE WORLD?

A charge sometimes made against the Qur’an is that God ‘deceived’ people with the appearance of the crucifixion. The matter of the crucifixion was controversial in the formative years. The Old Testament prophesied that the Messiah would not be harmed. So, the evidence that ‘Eesa alayhissalaam (Jesus) the Messiah could not be crucified is present within the Bible. Now, if some people of the past didn’t have access to the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah and they thought Jesus was crucified, then according to the Qur’an they would not be blameworthy in the sight of God: “God does not burden any soul with more than it can bear…”   [2:286] Here the Qur’an states that God does not hold people to account for what is beyond their capacity. Now that the final revelation, the Qur’an, has been revealed and clears up the misconceptions about ‘Eesa alayhissalaam (Jesus), people have no excuse for ignorance. The test of life is to see if truth is what matters to you, as opposed to what is convenient or fits your desires, and ultimately you are judged on your honest commitment to follow the truth as it appears to you. It’s important to realise that life is a test. God is testing us in this life to distinguish those who believe from those who disbelieve: “Do the people think that they will be left to say, ‘We believe’ and they will not be tried? But We have certainly tried those before them, and God will surely make evident those who are truthful, and He will surely make evident the liars” [29:2-3]. Such a claim about God deceiving us could be made about anything that seems confusing, contradictory or that needs a bit of investigation.

References

1 – Al-Nasa’i, Al-Kubra, 6:489.

2 – Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book I, Chapter 24, section 4.

3 – Nicholas P. Lunn, The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20, p. 349.

4 – Irenaeus , Against Heresies 1,6,3–4.

5 – Irenaeus , Against Heresies, 1,25,4.

6 – Epiphanius , Panarion 26.4.4.

7 – Epiphanius , Panarion 26.4.5–8.

8 – Epiphanius , Panarion 26.5.4–6.

9 – Accessed June 3rd 2017:

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_12_book12.htm

10 – Accessed June 3rd 2017:

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_12_book12.htm#100

Refutation of the Christian Lie that “Paul is a Prophet in Qur’an”

image

by Ebrahim Saifuddin

The Claim

In all their desperation Christian missionaries have now started to claim that according to the Quran Paul was a prophet of God. Their conclusions are based on conjectures and the misrepresentation of the text of the Qur’an. Simply put, there is not a single place in the Qur’an which even mentions the name “Paul” let alone mentioning him to be a prophet of God.

To make such claims the Christian missionaries run to Tafsir Ibn Kathir. They read out the tafsir by Ibn Kathir regarding the 14th ayah (Verse) of the 36th Surah (Chapter) of the Quran.

Verse under Question:

36:14

إِذْ أَرْسَلْنَا إِلَيْهِمُ اثْنَيْنِ فَكَذَّبُوهُمَا فَعَزَّزْنَا بِثَالِثٍ فَقَالُوا إِنَّا إِلَيْكُم مُّرْسَلُونَ

When We (first) sent to them two apostles, they rejected them: But We strengthened them with a third: they said, “Truly, we have been sent on a mission to you.”  – [Translation: Abdullah Yusuf Ali]

Christian missionaries say that Ibn Kathir says in his Tafsir of the Quran that this verse refers to Paul of Tarsus and thus Paul (Bulus) is one of the Messengers of God according to Islam.

Let’s see whether Ibn Kathir makes such a claim.

Ibn Kathir writes:

“The names of the first two Messengers were Sham`un and Yuhanna, and the name of the third was Bulus, and the city was Antioch (Antakiyah).”

But the question is this Ibn Kathir’s view?

No. This saying is attributed to: Shu`ayb Al-Jaba’i

Ibn Kathir is quoting Shu`ayb Al-Jaba’i. Ibn Kathir has also quoted interpretations of different people as well. He says that according to Ibn Ishaq the names of these three are:

(i) Sadiq

(ii) Saduq

(iii) Shalum

Note: No Bulus (i.e. Paul) mentioned here.

Later on Ibn Kathir in his tafsir refutes this and says that according to the proceeding Qur’anic verses the people were destroyed. Historically there is no evidence that the city of Antioch faced such destruction and thus this cannot even be about the city of Antioch.

Analyzing Some Tafsirs

Now let’s check Qurtubi whom these missionaries have labeled to be “The Number 1 Muslim Imam”.

Qurtubi:

“Tabari mentions: Sadiq Saduq Shalum

Someone else: Shamoun Yuhanna

Al Naqash said: Saman and Yahya – Did not mention Sadiq and Saduq.

According to Qurtubi ‘Eesa Masih (alayhissalaam) (Jesus) sent the first two as messengers to the king of Antioch. To him they said “We are disciples of ‘Eesa”. The king jailed them and whipped them. This news reached ‘Eesa (alayhissalaam) and he sent a third messenger ‘Shamoun Al-Safa’.”

Note: Qurtubi does not mention any Paul (Bulus) either.

We will now check another tafsir

Tafsir Ibn Abbas:

(When We sent unto them twain) two apostles: Simon the Canaanite and Thomas, (and they denied them both, so We reinforced them with a third) We strengthened them with Simon Peter who confirmed the message conveyed by the other two apostles, (and they said; Lo! we have been sent unto you.

Note: No Paul mentioned over there either.

What we have done here is basically refuted the idea that the Tafsirs unanimously agree that one of the three people sent as messengers was Paul. There is a difference of opinion among the scholars of tafsir which is evidence that neither the Qur’an mentions the name of Paul as one of the messengers nor did Prophet Muhammad ever mention his name with regards to this verse.

Does The Verse Really Talk About Messengers (Rasul)?

Now we will go on to refute the idea that the verse is talking of a Rasul of Allah.

The Arabic text of the Qur’an clearly shows the word used for these three to be “mursaloon”. Mursaloon which is the plural of mursal means “sent one”. This word has been highlighted in the concerned verse above.

Rasul (pl. rusul) in Islam has a specific definition.

Generally the word means:ambassador, messenger, envoy, emissary, forerunner, apostle, and courier.

Mursal (pl. mursaloon) means: sent one

This word, in the Qur’an can or can not refer to a prophet of Allah. For example in the Quran we see the following verse:

وَإِنِّي مُرْسِلَةٌ إِلَيْهِم بِهَدِيَّةٍ فَنَاظِرَةٌ بِمَ يَرْجِعُ الْمُرْسَلُونَ

But indeed, I will send to them a gift and see with what [reply] the messengers will return. – [Quran 27:35]

The same word “mursaloon” has been used. So does this mean that the messengers that Bilqis sent were RUSUL?

Another verse of the Quran:

فَلَمَّا جَاء آلَ لُوطٍالْمُرْسَلُونَ

At length when the messengers arrived among the adherents of Lut – [Quran 15:61]

Again the same word “mursaloon” is used. Does this mean that the angels which came to Lut were RUSUL?

Of course the answer to both the questions is “No”. None of them was a rasul but they were only ‘sent ones’. This word  “mursaloon” simply means a messenger and not necessarily RasulAllah

Further Deception by Christian Missionaries

The deceiving nature of these certain Christian missionaries is actually laughable. To support their claim they try to quote another verse from the Qur’an. The translation of that verse is given below:

Muhammad is no more than a Messenger  – [Quran 3:144]

And they say that look Muhammad was also only a messenger like the other three. But if we read the verse of the Qur’an we see that the word used here is “rasul” and not the general term“mursaloon”. A general term for messenger was used for the three people in 36:14 but for Prophet Muhammad the special word“rasul” has been used in this verse.

Further the verse continues:

Many Were the messengers that passed away before him. – [Qur’an 3:144]

This part of the verse talks about the previous rusul of Allah. And in the Arabic text, for them, again the word “rasul” is used and not the common word mursaloon.

Hence clearly the three that the Quran is talking about in Surah Yasin (36) verse 14 were not “rasul” but messengers (the sent ones) sent by Jesus on the directive of Allah.

Let’s give an example to make things clearer. If Allah informs Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) to send Omar (radhiyallahu anhu) to Persia for Da’wah does that not mean that Omar (radhiyallahu anhu) is a messenger (mursaloon)? Of course he is a messenger! But it can never mean that he is a rasul!

Similarly these three were not rasul but were only messengers sent by ‘Eesa alayhissalaam (Jesus) (on the directives of Allah.

Further Evidence

For more evidence we have to read Surah 36 verse 16:

They said: “Our Lord doth know that we have been sent on a mission to you:– [Qur’an 36:16]

This is a significant verse. These three supposed rasul of God go to a city and there they do not say ‘Our Lord sent us on a mission’ but rather say ‘Our Lord knows that we have been sent.’

Clearly when a Rasul of Allah (i.e. Jesus in this case) sends a messenger (i.e. Paul, Shamoun, Yuhanna or any of the other names mentioned by scholars in this case) to another city, God knows that they have been sent. It does not mean that God actually chose them to be rasul and sent them.

The Last Blow

It has clearly been refuted that according to the Qur’an or the Tafsir Paul was a Rasul of Allah. For the final blow to the deception which the Christian missionaries try to create let us take a look at a hadith of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

There is a clear hadith from the mouth of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam):

Narrated Abu Huraira: I heard Apostle saying, “I am the nearest of all the people to the son of Mary, and all the prophets are paternal brothers, and there has been no prophet between me and him (i.e. Jesus).” – [Sahih Bukhari Vol.4, Book 55, #651] This hadith has also been recorded in Sahih Muslim and Abu Dawud.

Conclusion

The whole idea of Paul being a rasul of God has been defeated in this article.

1) The verse 36:14 does not talk about a rasul but only about mursaloon.

2) Whether the verse in question refers to Paul or not is a matter of interpretation and clearly there are many scholars who don’t even mention Paul’s name in their tafsir of this verse.

3) Ibn Kathir himself refutes the claim of the city being Antioch.

4) According to Sahih Hadith it is clear that between ‘Eesa alayhissalaam (Jesus) and Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) there has been no prophet and hence Paul could have never been a prophet.

5) Even if, for argument’s sake, we would say that according to Ibn Kathir Paul is a Rasul of God, no tafsir can supercede the authentic hadith. This would be Ibn Kathir’s interpretation and Ibn Kathir was a man and not a rasul of God hence his word can never be taken over the word of the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

Who was the First Muslim in the Quran? No Contradiction/Error!

image

[By Yahya Snow]

The Critics allege a contradiction against the Qur’an and ask; who was the first Muslim?

Secular critics such as the sceptics use this claim as well as Christians though I would imagine it was borne out of the Christian camp; it is used in evangelical Christian work such as GJO Moshay’s evangelism [1].

The critics point to two references from the Qur’an, 6:14 and 6:161-163, and claim these references show Prophet Muhammad as the first Muslim and then the critics turns their attention to another verse of the Qur’an (7:143) concerning Musa alayhissalaam (Moses) being the first of the believers. Just to further their agenda they may also highlight other Qur’anic references indicating there were Muslims before Prophet Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and Musa alayhissalaam (Moses) namely the first man Adam (S. 2:30, 34-35, 37) and Ibraheem alayhissalaam (Abraham) as well as other Prophets (S. 4:163, S. 6:84) as believers. However they mainly use the Qur’anic verse about Musa alayhissalaam (Moses) (7:143) and try to put it along side the two concerning Muhammed (6:14 and 6:163) and they then allege contradiction/error.

The Refutation

Quite simply, the Qur’an does not claim Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) nor Musa alayhissalaam (Moses) to be the first ever Muslim. The critic imposes a faulty understanding on the Qur’anic verses and alleges a contradiction when there is no contradiction/error.

Despite this it is still thorough and beneficial to offer explanations in order to clear any confusion as well as help highlight the errors of the critics in the hope they realise their mistakes and abjure themselves and eventually become amongst the guided ones, Insha’Allah

I feel it is logical to begin this simple refutation with analysing the reference concerning Musa alayhissalaam (Moses) and then we shall build upon this in a methodical fashion so the reader can follow with ease. Did the Quran claim Musa alayhissalaam Moses to be the first ever believer?

7:143 sees Musa alayhissalaam (Moses) saying he is the first of the believers. However, we do see that this is true as he (Moses) was the first believer amongst his own people.

7:143. And when Mûsa (Moses) came at the time and place appointed by Us, and his Lord spoke to him, he said: “O my Lord! Show me (Yourself), that I may look upon You.” Allâh said: “You cannot see Me, but look upon the mountain if it stands still in its place then you shall see Me.” So when his Lord appeared to the mountain[], He made it collapse to dust, and Mûsa (Moses) fell down unconscious. Then when he recovered his senses he said: “Glory be to You, I turn to You in repentance and I am the first of the believers.” [2]

Musa alayhissalaam (Moses) does not say he is the first believer ‘ever’. He merely claims he is the first of the believers and knowing the context one understands he is not claiming to be the first ever believer from humankind but the first amongst his people to believe, this is apparent as it is a relative term to the “believers” and situational-context tells us that the believers at the time of Musa alayhissalaam (Moses) were essentially the Children of Israel and thus we realise that Musa alayhissalaam (Moses) is referring to himself as the first to believe amongst the Children of Israel.

The critic fails to mention this and tries to present this verse as meaning Musa alayhissalaam (Moses) is the first ever to believe amongst humanity, this is unfair and misleading on the part of the critic especially considering the word “ever” is not in the verse. There is further clarification of the Arabic phrase of the Quran ascribed to Moses (“awwalu al-mumineena”= “first of the believers”) as there is another reference in the Quran (26:51) where this term comes up and thus explaining the meaning of Musa alayhissalaam (Moses’) statement of being the “first of the believers (“awwalu almumineena”).

So we use a basic principle of Tafsir (explaining the Qur’an) by explaining a verse of the Qur’an (the verse concerning Moses, 7143) by using another part of the Quran (26:51). So what do we learn about the statement of Musa alayhissalaam (Moses) in 7:143 by looking at 26:51?

26:51. “Verily! We really hope that our Lord will forgive us our sins, as we are the first of the believers [in Mûsa (Moses) and in the Monotheism which he has brought from Allâh].” [3]

The context of this verse is Musa alayhissalaam (Moses) going to Fir’awn (Pharaoh) and preaching the Message and with the intention of freeing the enslaved Children of Israel.

The verse (26:51) is teaching us what the sorcerers of the Fir’awn (Pharaoh) said when they realised that Musa alayhissalaam (Moses) and Haroon alayhissalaam (Aaron) were truthful in their preaching. Thus they became the first to believe amongst the people of Fir’awn (Pharaoh) and even use the same expression as Musa alayhissalaam (Moses) “awwala al-mumineena”. It is clear that they are not claiming to be the first ever to believe as Haroon alayhissalaam (Aaron) and Musa alayhissalaam (Moses) (two people who were believers before them) were in front of them delivering the Message to Fir’awn (Pharaoh) and his people and they became believers due to the preaching (miracles) of Moses by the Will of Allah. Therefore we realise the term “awwala al-mumineena” (first of the believers) in the Quran (7:143) does not mean he is the first ever believer but it is a relative term. Thus we realise that both the sayings of Musa alayhissalaam (Moses) (7:143) and the sorcerers (26:51) are relative to their situations and they are clearly not referring to themselves as the first ever believers but it does mean they are the first believers amongst their own people. We also realise the critics build there argument upon faulty information as well as error. So now we know that Musa alayhissalaam (Moses) was not referring to himself as the first ever believer through the information presented.

However, for thoroughness we can use the same method of Tafsir (i.e. ‘explanation of the Quran by the Quran’ [6]) to realise that Musa alayhissalaam (Moses) was speaking relative to his own time and people. We need look no further than the Qur’anic references to Adam (2:30-37) and we deduct that Adam alayhissalaam came before Musa alayhissalaam (Moses) and was a believer therefore believed before Moses so we realise that the Quran is not presenting Musa alayhissalaam (Moses) as the first ever believer but as the first believer relative to the time and place Musa alayhissalaam (Moses) was in (i.e. the first to believe amongst his people). This is basic Tafsir and logic which the critic avoids.

The critics have no authority (Tafsir writers such as Ibn Kathir etc) to support their claims which are merely erroneous self-imposed understandings based on ignorance of context and Tafsir. Now we realise that the Quran did not put forward Musa alayhissalaam (Moses) (or the sorcerers) as the first ever Muslim (s) we still have the question; did the Quran claim Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) as the first ever Muslim? Well let us focus on the references in question.

It is not up for debate whether Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was the first Muslim or not. Quite simply he was the first Muslim in the sense that Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was the first Muslim (i.e. who has submitted to God) amongst his own people (the Quraish) at that particular phase in history. This is completely correct. Hence there is no contradiction as Adam alayhissalaam was the first Muslim ever while Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was the first Muslim amongst his own people.

There are two Qur’anic references (6:14 and 6:162-163) the critics bring up, so it is appropriate to analyse the two references. The first of the Quranic references the critics cite (6:14) shows that Allah instructs Muhammed to “say” (Qul): “Verily, I am commanded to be the first of those who submit themselves to Allâh (as Muslims).”:

6:14. Say (O Muhammad Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam): “Shall I take as a Walî (helper, protector, etc.) any other than Allâh, the Creator of the heavens and the earth? And it is He Who feeds but is not fed.” Say: “Verily, I am commanded to be the first of those who submit themselves to Allâh (as Muslims).” And be not you (O Muhammad Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) of the Mushrikûn [polytheists, pagans, idolaters and disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh]. [4]

We also note the same applies to the second Quranic reference (6:162-163) in that it also begins with Qul (say) and Mohammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is instructed to say: “… I am the first of the Muslims”:

6: 162. Say (O Muhammad Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam): “Verily, my Salât (prayer), my sacrifice, my living, and my dying are for Allâh, the Lord of the ‘Alamîn (mankind, jinns and all that exists). 163. “He has no partner. And of this I have been commanded, and I am the first of the Muslims.” [5]

So we see that Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is being instructed to say these words and we can refer to Von Denffer concerning Qur’anic verses, such as the two cited by the critics (6:14 and 6:162-163), which begin with Qul (say): “More than 200 passages in the Quran open with the word ‘Qul’ (say:), which is an instruction to the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) to address the words following this introduction to his audience in a particular situation…” [7]

So the natural question is who is Muhammed’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) audience for him to say these words to? The audience were the tribe of Quraish. The Quraish were Muhammed’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) people (tribe) [8].Thus they were his foremost audience. Indeed Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was the first Muslim amongst the Quraish who were a Pagan tribe.

Also we realise his immediate audience resided in Makkah as these two Quranic references are form the Makkan period, this shows that Muhammed’s audience was the Pagan Arabs of Makkah and the foremost of these Pagans in Makkah was his own people, the Quraish tribe. Thus we realise that Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was to teach the Pagan audience in Makkah that he was the first Muslim. This was the context and we realise it is relative to the Quraish and thus refers to him being the first Muslim from amongst the Pagans of Quraish. Note he was not instructed to say this to Adam alayhissalaam or earlier Prophets nor was he instructed to say this to the whole of humanity but he was instructed to say it “to his audience” (pg78) who were primarily the Quraish. How the critic misses this context is not worth too much thought at this juncture, the fact of the matter is that the critics completely miss the context and thus fall into error and onto the thorny path of misleading others with their erroneous claims.

Even not knowing the context one can realise that Qur’an is not referring to Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) as the first ever Muslim as the Qur’an does not qualify it with the word ‘ever’! However there is further unscholarly work on the part of the critic as the context is again realised through the rest of the verse (6:14): And be not you (O Muhammad (lsallallaahu alayhi wasallam) of the Mushrikûn [polytheists, pagans, idolaters and disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh]. [4]

This shows that Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was instructed by Allah through the Quran to speak relatively to his people who were idolaters/disbelievers (Quraish) Interestingly enough 6:163 uses a similarly structured term as the verse concerning Musa alayhissalaam (Moses) (7:143, “awwala almumineena”), thus we can deduce that “Awwalul-muslimeen” is not a term used by the Qur’an referring to the first ever Muslim and thus the context needs to be applied. The context shows that Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is the first Muslim relative to his own time and place i.e. the first Muslim amongst his immediate audience (the Quraish) who were the Mushrikun. It is disheartening to see the critics would overlook scholarship of explaining the Quran in favour of their own shoddy, misleading methodology of imposing their own understanding on the Quranic verses they choose to use. If they had an ounce of scholarship they would realise that their own warped understanding should not be imposed upon the Quran as there is a clear methodology to explain (tafsir) the Quran.

To further pour humiliation and refutation on the critic’s claims we can refer to the two undisputed modes of explaining the Quran; “Naturally, the explanation of the Quran by the Quran and the explanation of the Quran by the Prophet are two highest sources for tafsir, which cannot be matched nor superseded by any other source”. [6]

So let us use the Qur’an to explain the Qur’an as “many of the questions which may arise out of a certain passage of the Qur’an have their explanation in other parts of the very same book, and often there is no need to turn to any sources other than the word of Allah, which in itself contains tafsir”. [6]

Strangely and worryingly enough we see the critics ignoring the use of the Qur’an and the Hadith (of the Prophet Muhammed) in favour of their own views. This is intellectual savagery and quite frankly a butchering of the science of tafsir. Now we know the two primary methods of explaining the Qur’an are the Qur’an and the Hadith (of the Prophet). So if we use the Qur’an we realise that Mohammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is not being put forward as the first ever Muslim as the Quran (elsewhere) refers to earlier Prophets who are believers. Hence we realise that the Quranic references (6:163, 6:14) do not teach us that Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is the first ever Muslim.

Now to use the other form of Tafsir we need not look further than these hadith (from the Prophet Muhammed (Sahih Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 290, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 555 and Volume 1, Book 5, Number 277) to realise that the Muslims (including Muhammed) never believed Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was the first Muslim ever as he mentions other prophets in the past tense and through the text we realise these prophets are indeed believers who came before Muhammed’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) time, and these Prophets (who were believers) existed before Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) on this earth and believed before Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) as Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had not even been born at the time. So this highlights that the Qur’an is not teaching us that the Prophet Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is the first ever Muslim contrary to the fanciful claims of the critics.

To further highlight the misleading vehicle which is the critic’s claim we can look to the authoritative Tafsir (explanations) of the relevant verses by the early Muslim scholars, strikingly enough; none of them hold the belief of the critics! So, in essence, the critic abandons scholarship, reasoning and research in favour of their own clouded, ignorant and embarrassing methodology in order to level an accusation of contradiction/error at the Qur’an. This leads them to arguing a false point and attributing their own inexact, ignorant and distorted views on the Qur’an and claiming a non-existent contradiction.

The fact remains the Qur’an does not put either Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) or Musa alayhissalaam (Moses) forward as the first ever Muslim. Nor does the Qur’an put forward Ibraheem alayhissalaam (Abraham) or anybody after the time of Adam alayhissalaamas the first Muslim. The Qur’an does not explicitly tell us who the first ever Muslim was but we can deduce it was Adam alayhissalaam.

Thus it becomes clear that there is no contradiction in the Qur’an and we realise that the critics essentially show themselves to be unscholarly in omitting the context or not knowing the context and thus rendering their work misleading, confusing and full of error.

It is thoroughness to mention the other references a critic may bring up despite these other references not impacting upon what has been mentioned above, however it is still beneficial to know what the critic may bring up such as 2:132, this Qur’anic reference does not mention anybody as a first Muslim/believer here but critics would bring this up to show Abraham and Jacob to be Muslims (i.e. Muslims before Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). This still does not impact on anything said earlier as the critic argues a straw man and claim the Qur’an states something which it does not. I stress again; the Qur’an does mention Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) or Musa alayhissalaam (Moses) as being the first EVER Muslims. The context of the Quran is clear, they (Musa and Muhammad) are the first to believe amongst their people.

The critic also cites Qur’anic references about Adam (2:30-37). Despite these references not exactly saying Adam was the first Muslim we still know by the way of context and deduction that Adam was the first believer in God amongst mankind. This does not impact on the reference concerning Musa alayhissalaam (Moses) (7:143) who was the first of the believers amongst his own people and nor does it impact on the references about Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) (6:14 and 6: 161-163) who was commanded to be and indeed was the first to submit to Allah amongst his own Pagan people (Quraish)

The other citations (S. 4:163, S. 6:83-87) the critic may bring forth highlight to us that there were a number of guided people (Messengers) before Muhammed. This is the Muslim believe, all Muslims are aware of this so it should be realised by the critic that this is not new information to the Muslim. It is also important to reiterate; none of this impacts on the fact that Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and Musa alayhissalaam (Moses) were the first to believe amongst their own people and not the first to believe (ever) amongst human kind.

Also the more astute critics may point to the religion of Hanif and followers of the Abrahamic traditions of the past, however the teachings of Ibraheem alayhissalaam (Abraham) (and Ishmael) became diluted with the gradual introduction of innovations, superstitions and idol-worship. Eventually ‘idolatry spread all over Makkah’ and thus the people left the Abrahamic teachings [9]. This was many years prior to Muhammed’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) time so this does not impact on what has been said earlier either. There are traditions of four friends who rejected the idol-worshipping of Makkah and went out in search of an alternative, this does not impact on the fact that Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was the first Muslim amongst the Quraish either.

Finally, after showing the critics to be wrong, it is worthy of mention to bring up the concerted efforts of critics in the past in order to find a critical claim of contradiction/error to stick (concerning the Holy Qur’an) despite their past work and the work of their contemporaries we see that they have failed and not found anything which people can honestly call a contradiction in the Qur’an, all this despite their best efforts.

Of course Allah knows best and we ask Allah do guide and help us further. Aameen.

References

[1] Anatomy of the Quran by G.J.O Moshay Chick Productions 2007 pg 116

[2] 7:143 Translation and explanation of The Noble Quran In the English Language, A Summarized Version of At-Tabari, Al-Qurtubi and Ibn Kathir with comments from Sahih Al-Bukhari By Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, Ph.D. and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan

[3] 26:51 Translation and explanation of The Noble Quran In the English Language, A Summarized Version of At-Tabari, Al-Qurtubi and Ibn Kathir with comments from Sahih Al-Bukhari By Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, Ph.D. and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan

[4] 6:14 Translation and explanation of The Noble Quran In the English Language, A Summarized Version of At-Tabari, Al-Qurtubi and Ibn Kathir with comments from Sahih Al-Bukhari By Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, Ph.D. and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan

[5] 6:162-163 Translation and explanation of The Noble Quran In the English Language, A Summarized Version of At-Tabari, Al-Qurtubi and Ibn Kathir with comments from Sahih Al-Bukhari by Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, Ph.D. and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan

[6] Ulum al Quran, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Quran by Ahmad Von Denffer, The Islamic Foundation 2003 pg 124

7. Ulum al Quran, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Quran by Ahmad Von Denffer, The Islamic Foundation 2003 pg 78

8. Islam A Short History by Karen Armstrong, Phoenix Press, 2001, pg 3

9. Ar-Raheequl-Makhtum by Safi-ur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, Darussalam, 2002 pg 45

The “Sibghatullah,” Or The Baptism With The Holy Spirit And With Fire

One of the few religious phenomena I have not been able to explain is this: How is it that the well-known Saba’ites (Sabians), so predominant in the Arabian peninsula and Mesopotamia, did not embrace Christianity if the Prophet Yahya (alayhis salaam) John the Baptist, had really and openly declared and presented ‘Eesa Maseeh alayhissalaam (Jesus) as the “more powerful” Prophet than himself, and the Messiah whose shoes he was not worthy to unloose? If, as foretold by Yahya alayhis salaam (John), ‘Eesa alayhissalaam (Jesus) was the Prophet of Allah who came to baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire the myriads whom he “dyed” in the water of the Jordan and elsewhere, why did not Prophet Jesus baptize them instantly with the Spirit and with fire and then purge of idolatry all the lands promised by Allah to the seed of Prophet Ibraheem (Abraham) and establish the Kingdom of God by force and fire? It is absolutely inconceivable that the disciples and the believers in the divine mission of Yahya alayhissalaam (John) should not follow Jesus if he had been presented to the public as his Lord or Superior on the spot. The followers of John might have been excused for their refusal to enter into the Christian Church if Jesus Christ had come, say, a century later than the Baptist, but happily such was not the case. They were both contemporaries and born in the same year. They both baptized with water unto repentance, and prepared their penitent converts for the Kingdom of God that was approaching but not established in their time.

The Sabaites, the “Dyers” or “Baptists,” were the faithful adherents of Yahya alayhissalaam (John). They may have fallen into error and superstition; but they knew perfectly well that it was not ‘Eesa alayhissalaam (Jesus) who was intended in the prophecy of their Prophet. They embraced Islam when Prophet Muhammad came. The people of Harran in Syria are not – as they have been supposed to be – the remnant of the old Saba’ites. In the promised lands only three non-Muslim religions were recognized and tolerated by the Qur’an, namely, Judaism, Christianity, and Sabianism. It is stated that the Harranians pretended to be the remnant of the old Saba’ites, and they were, therefore, permitted to practice their peculiar religion without molestation by the Turkish Government.

The Christian conception of the Holy Spirit is entirely different from the Islamic and the Jewish. The Holy Spirit is not a divine person with divine attributes and functions not belonging to this or that other divine persons of a triple god. The Christian belief that this same holy ghost, the third divine person, descends from his (or her, or its) heavenly throne at the bidding of every priest – in his daily celebration of some sacrament – to consecrate its elements and change their essence and qualities into some supernatural elements is extremely repugnant to the religious sentiments of every Unitarian, whether Jew or Muslim. Nothing could horrify a Muslim’s feeling more than the belief that the Holy Spirit – always at the intervention of a priest – changes the water of baptism into the blood of a crucified god and blots out the so-called original sin; or a belief that the magic operation upon the material elements of the Eucharist transubstantiates them into the blood and body of an incarnate god. These beliefs were absolutely opposed to the teachings of the Old Testament and a falsification of the real doctrine of John and Jesus. The Christian assertion that the Holy Spirit at the incantations of a priest, fills certain individuals and sanctifies them, but does not guarantee their impeccability and ignorance, is meaningless. We are told that Hananiah (Ananias) and his wife Shapirah were baptized, which is to say filled with the Holy Ghost. They were thus inspired by the third divine person to sell their field and to place its price in cash at the feet of the Apostle Peter, but at the same time were seduced by the devil to conceal a portion of the money. The consequence was that the unfortunate communist couple were stricken dead miraculously (Acts v).

Think of the belief that the third person of the trinity descends upon men, sanctifies them, and then allows them to fall into error, heresy, and atheism, and abandons them to commit murderous wars and massacres. Is this possible? Can the devil seduce a man filled with and guarded by the Holy Ghost and change him into a demon? The Holy Qur’an is very expressive on this point. Allah says to the devil: “He said: ‘This is for Me the Right Path over My worshipers, you have no power over My worshipers, except the sinners who follow you…'” [Ch.15:41-42 Qur’an]

We cannot believe, nor even imagine for a moment, that a worshiper of God, a righteous believer who has received the Spirit of sanctification, can fall into a deadly sin and perish in Hell. No, a holy person, so long as he is in this material world, is to combat and struggle against sin and evil; he may fall, but he will rise again and shall never be abandoned by the pure Spirit that guards him. True repentance is the work of the good Spirit that lives in us. If a Christian is baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire, in the sense which the book of the “Acts of the Apostles” describes and the Churches accept, then every baptized Latin, Greek, or Abyssinian must not only become a sinless saint but also a linguist and a polyglot prophet!

The truth is that the Christians have not a definite or precise conception about the Holy Spirit filling a baptized Christian. If it is God, then how dare the devil approach, tempt, and seduce the hallowed or rather defied man? And, besides, what is more serious is: How can the devil chase away the Holy Ghost and settle himself in the heart of a baptized heretic or atheist? On the other hand, if the Holy Spirit means the Archangel Gabriel (Jibreel alayhis salaam) or some other angel, then the Christian Churches roam in a desert of superstition; for an angel is not omni-present. If this Spirit that purifies and fills a baptized Christian is God Himself, for such is their belief in the third person of the Trinity, then all the baptized Christians ought to claim themselves divine or deified!

Then there is a Protestant conception of the Holy Spirit, which (or who (1)) fills the hearts of those who, at the highest excitement and ecstasy during an inflammatory sermon of an ignorant or learned haranguer, believe themselves to become “new-born”; yet many among them slide back and become what they were before, rogues and swindlers!

————Footnote (1) The Holy Spirit, in all the Christian literature of diverse languages, has not a fixed gender. He, she, it, are all commonly used as the personal pronouns for the Holy Ghost. ————- End of footnote

Now before I come to explain, according to my humble understanding, the spiritual and fiery baptism, I wish to admit and confess that there are many pious and God-fearing persons among the Jews and the Christians. For however their religious views and beliefs may differ from ours, they love their God and do good in His name. We cannot comprehend and determine the dealings of God with the peoples of different religions. The Christian conception of the Deity is only an erroneous definition of the true God in whom they believe and love. If they extol ‘Eesa alayhissalaam (Jesus) and deify him, it is not that they wish to dishonor God, but because they see His beauty in that Ruh-Allah (the “Spirit of God,” i.e. Jesus). They certainly cannot appreciate the Messengerhood of Prophet Muhammad, not, because they deny his unparalleled service to the cause of Allah by inflicting the greatest blow on the devil and his cult of idolatry, but because they do not understand as he did the true nature of the mission and person of ‘Eesa alayhissalaam (Jesus). Similar reasoning may be put forward with regard to the attitude of the Jews towards Prophet Jesus and Prophet Muhammad. Allah is Merciful and Forgiving!

The Holy Spirit, with the definite article “the,” means a special angelic Gabriel, or any one of the numerous “pure” spirits created by Allah, and appointed to perform some particular mission. The descent of the Holy Spirit upon a human person is to reveal to him the will of Allah, and to make him a prophet. Such a one can never be seduced by the satan.

What is known as “baptism” before the era of Prophet Muhammad is called “Sibghatullah”, namely, the religious indelible marking mentioned in the Qur’an which Prophet Muhammad brought is explained to us by the Divine Revelation only in one verse of Al-Qur’an: Ch 2:138

“The (religious indelible) marking (of the believers) of Allah. And who marks better than Allah? And for Him we are worshipers.”

Muslim commentators rightly understand the word “Sibghat,” not in its literal signification of “dyeing,” but in its spiritual or metaphorical sense of “religion.” This Qur’anic verse cancels and abolishes the religions of the “Sab’utha” and of the “Ma’muditha” or both the Saba’ites and the Nasara. “Sibghatullah” is the religious indelible marking of the believers of Allah, not with water, but with the Holy Spirit and fire! The religion professed by any of the companions of the Prophet of Allah in the first years of the Hijrat is to-day professed in its entirety by every Muslim. This cannot be said of the baptismal religion. More than sixteen Ecumenical Councils have been summoned to define the religion of Christianity, only to be discovered by the Synod of the Vatican in the nineteenth century that the mysteries of the “Infallibility” and the “Immaculate Conception” were two of the principal dogmas, both unknown to the Apostle Peter and the Blessed Virgin Mary! Any faith or religion dependent upon the deliberations and decisions of General Synods – holy or heretical – is artificial and human. The Religion of Islam is the belief in One God (Allah) and absolute resignation to His Will, and this faith is professed by the angels in the heavens and by the Muslims on earth. It is the religion of sanctification and of enlightenment, and an impregnable bulwark against idolatry. Let us develop these points a little further.

The spiritual indelible marking is the direct work of Allah Himself. As a fuller or a laundress washes the linen or any other object with water; as a dyer tints the wool or cotton with a tincture to give it a new hue; and as a indelible marking blots out the past sins of the true penitent believer, so does Allah Almighty mark, not the body, but the spirit and the soul of him whom He mercifully directs and guides unto the Holy Religion of Islam. This is the “Sibghatullah,” the marking of Allah, which makes a person fit and dignified to become a citizen of the Kingdom of Allah and a member of His religion. When the Angel Gabriel communicated the Word of Allah for the first time to Prophet Muhammad, he (Prophet Muhammad) was invested with the gift of prophecy. His spirit was purified and magnified with the Holy Spirit to such a degree and extent that sever times the Angel Gabriel opened his chest and heart and washed it, thereby removing any bases for the whispering of satan. Once when he was a child playing in the desert, and one in Ka’ba before his ascent, and to the extent that when he in his turn pronounced that Word to those whose spirit Allah pleased to guide were also purified, marked. They, too, thus became holy officers in the new army of the faithful Muslims. This spiritual marking does not make the Muslims prophets, sinless saints, or miracle-mongers. For after the Revelation of the Will and Word of Allah in the Holy Qur’an there is the end of the prophecy and of revelation. They are not made sinless saints because their piety and good works would not be the outcome of effort and struggle against evil, and therefore not justly meritorious. They are not appointed to become workers of supernatural miracles because they have a firm and sound faith in their Creator, Allah.

Further, this “Sibghatullah” makes the true Muslims grave, constant in their duties to Allah and towards their fellowmen, especially towards their families. It does not move them to the folly of believing themselves holier than their co-religionists, and so to arrogate the post of pastorship to themselves over others as if they were their flocks and herds. Fanaticism, religious conceit, and the like are not operations of the Holy Spirit. Every Muslim receives at his creation the same “Sibghatullah,” the same religion and spiritual religious indelible marking, and has to run the race of his short earthly life to the best of his ability and effort in order to win the crown of glory in the next world. Every Muslim needs only education and religious training in accordance with the wisdom of the Word of God. But he needs not the intercession of a priest, sacrament, or saint. Every enlightened believer can become an Imam (leader of prayer), missionary, preacher according to his learning and religious zeal, not for vain glory or lucrative gain.

In short, every Muslim, whether at his birth or at his conversion, is marked spiritually, and becomes a citizen of the Kingdom of God, a free man, and possesses equal rights and obligations, according to his ability, virtue, knowledge, wealth, rank.

Yahya alayhissalaam (John the Baptist) ascribes this spiritual and igneous marking to the Great Prophet of Allah, not as a divine being, God, or son of God, but as a holy agent, and as an instrument through which this divine marking was to be operated. Prophet Muhammad delivered the Message of Allah which was His Word; he led the prayers, administered the Divine service, and fought the holy wars against the unbelievers and the idolators to defend his cause. But the success and the victory achieved was God’s. In the same way Yahya alayhissalaam (John) preached and baptized, but the contrition, penance, and the remission of sins could only be done by God. The Prophet Yahya alayhissalaam (John)’s prediction that “he who comes after me is more powerful than I; he will baptize (mark) you with the Spirit and with fire” is quite intelligible, because only through Prophet Muhammad this spiritual marking was given and performed.

It is to be remarked that the form and material of this marking is altogether Divine and supernatural. We feel and see the effect of an invisible but real cause which accomplishes that effect. There is no longer water as the material, nor a marker to officiate at the ritual or the form. It is Allah who, through the Spirit, works it out. The materials of the “Sibghatullah” in the words of the Marker are the Holy Spirit and fire. The form exclusively belongs to Allah. We cannot attribute to the Almighty any form of operation except His Word “Kun” – “Be!” – and His command is obeyed or created. The result is that a Muslim becomes sanctified, enlightened, and an equipped soldier to fight the Satan and his idolatry. These three effects of the “Sibghatullah” deserve a serious consideration and study. Their exposition is but brief.

1) The Holy Spirit, whether the Archangel Gabriel or another of the created Superior Spirits, by the command of God sanctifies the spirit of a Muslim at his birth or conversion – as the case may be; and this sanctification means:

Engraving a perfect faith in the One true God. The “Subghatu ‘I-Lah” makes the spirit of a true Muslim believe in the absolute Oneness of Allah, to rely upon Him, and to know He alone is his Master, Owner, and Lord. This faith in the true God is manifest in every person who professes himself a Muslim. The mark and the evidence of this ingrained faith in a Muslim shines brilliantly when he affirms, “Ana muslim, Alhamud li ‘l-Lahi (“I am Muslim; praised be Allah!”). What is more impressive and singularly obvious a sign of a Holy belief than the hatred and repugnance which a Muslim feels against any other object of worship besides God? Which of the two is holier in the Sight of Allah: he who worships his Creator in a simple building of the Mosque, or he who worships the fourteen pictures and images representing the scenes of the crucifixion in a building whose walls and altars are adorned with the idolatrous statues, its ground covering the bones of the dead, and its dome decorated with the figures of angels and the saints? The sanctification by the Holy Spirit and fire which God works upon the spirit of a Muslim is that He impregnates and fills it with love for, and submission to, Him. An honorable husband would rather divorce his beloved wife than see her sharing his love with any other man. The Almighty will cast away any “believer” who associates any other object or being with Him. The Muslim’s love for Allah is not theoretical or idealistic but practical and real. He will not hesitate for a moment to expel from his house his wife, son, or friend if he should blaspheme the Holy Name or Person. A pagan or a person of an other religion may show a similar furious zeal for his object of worship. But that love which is shown for the One True God is Holy and sanctified; and such love can only exist in the heart of a Muslim. Those auspicatory and doxological formulae “Bismi ‘l-Lahi” and “Alhamdu li ‘l-Lahi,” which mean, respectively, “In the Name of Allah” and “Praised be Allah” at the beginning and the end of every action or enterprise, are the most sincere expressions of the purified Muslim spirit impressed and inebriate with the “Love of God” that transcends and excels every other love. These ejaculations are not artificial or hypocritical expressions in the mouths of Muslims, but they are the prayer and the praise of the indelibly marked spirit that resides in his body. And if a Christian and a Jew are imbued with the same faith and devotion, and if their soul does effuse those expressions that the spirit of a Muslim does, then he is a Muslim though he knows it not.The indelible marking of sanctification which the “Sibghatullah” inspires in the spirit of a Muslim, besides faith and love, is a total submission and resignation to the Holy Will of Allah. This absolute submission emanates not only from belief and love, but also from a holy fear and from a deep respect so latent in the soul and spirit of every true believer.

Such are the principal characteristics of the spiritual indelible marking, and nowhere are they manifest but among the adherents of Islam. Yahya alayhissalaam (John the Baptist), ‘Eesa alayhissalaam (Jesus Christ) and his apostles believed in, loved, and feared the same Allah as every Muslim does according to the degree of the Divine Grace and Mercy. The Holy Spirit, or as known in Islam as the Purified Spirit, meaning Angel Gabriel himself, who, also holds the rank of Messenger, is also too a creature and loves and fears Allah whom you and I do.

2) The second sign of the spiritual indelible marking is enlightenment. The true knowledge of Allah and of His Will, so much as men are enable to possess, can only and exclusively be seen in Muslims. This knowledge sparkles dazzlingly in the countenance and the general behavior of every Muslim. He may not comprehend the Essence of God, just as a child cannot understand the nature and the qualities of his parents; yet a baby recognizes its mother among all other women. The analogy is by far below the reality, and the comparison infinitely inferior between an enlightened good Muslim in relation to his Creator and a baby crying after its own good mother. Every Muslim, however ignorant, poor, and sinful, sees the signs of Allah in every phenomenon of the nature. Whatever befalls him, in happiness or misery, Allah is in his mind. The Muslim call to prayer is a living witness of this enlightenment. “There is no object of worship besides Allah,” is an eternal protest against all those who associate with Him other objects unworthy of worship. Every Muslim confesses: “I bear witness that Allah is the only Being worthy of worship.”

In this respect I may hint at the fact that the human soul is quite different from the human spirit. It is this holy spirit that enlightens the soul and implants in it the knowledge of truth. It is again the evil spirit that induces the soul to error, idolatry, and ungodliness.

3) The “Sibghatullah” is that Divine marking with fire which arms and equips the Muslim to become a bulwark against error and superstition, chiefly against idolatry of every kind. It is this mark of fire that melts the soul and spirit of a Muslim, thus separating its golden substance from the rubbish and ordure. It is the Power of God which strengthens and consolidates the connection between Him and the believing worshiper, and arms him to fight for the religion of God. The fervor and the zeal of the Muslim for Allah and His Religion is unique and holy. The savages also fight for their fetishes, the heathen for their idols, and the Christians for their cross; but what a contrast between these unworthy object of worship and the God of Islam!

In conclusion, I must draw the attention of my Muslim brethren to think who they are; to remember the favors of Allah; and to live accordingly.

Refuting the Judeo-Christian Insult On Ishmael (Isma’eel Alayhissalaam) That He Was a “Wild Ass” Man

Brief Philological Analysis on the term “Wild Ass” in Genesis 16:12

By Brother Eric bin Kisam

Many christians see Muslims, Arabs, and what is happening in the east as a direct fulfilment to Genesis 16 11-12 by deeming all Prophet Ishmael (Ar. إسماعيل‎ Ismā’eel) descendants  i.e. Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, the Arabs and Muslims in one derogatory category “wild ass of men”.

As a result they develop a racist view and built-in hatred towards Arabs and Muslims for centuries since the spread of Islam, through the middle ages until modern day phenomenon known as Islamophobic prevalent in ‘Christian’ nations these days. Moreover fundamentalist and evangelical christians seem to love to ridicule muslims and Prophet Muhammad ﷺ based on the understanding from this passage in the Hebrew Bible,.

We try to briefly examine, was Prophet Ishmael (ص) really a ‘Wild Ass’ Man (Astaghfirullah) or Is it a deliberate character assassination due to the enmities which arose in Prophet Abraham’s extended family contributed to the translation of Gen 16:12?

Genesis 16:11-12

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר לָהּ֙ מַלְאַ֣ךְ יְהוָ֔ה הִנָּ֥ךְ הָרָ֖ה וְיֹלַ֣דְתְּ בֵּ֑ןוְקָרָ֤את שְׁמוֹ֙ יִשְׁמָעֵ֔אל כִּֽי־שָׁמַ֥ע יְהוָ֖ה אֶל־עָנְיֵֽךְ

And the angel of the LORD said unto her: ‘Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son; and thou shalt call his name Ishmael, because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.

וְה֤וּא יִהְיֶה֙ פֶּ֣רֶא אָדָ֔ם יָד֣וֹ בַכֹּ֔ל וְיַ֥ד כֹּ֖ל בּ֑וֹוְעַל־פְּנֵ֥י כָל־אֶחָ֖יו יִשְׁכֹּֽן

And he shall be a wild ass of a man (pere’āḏām): his hand shall be with every man, and every man’s hand with him; and he shall dwell in the face of all his brethren.’

If we look for the direct arabic cognate for the hebrew פֶּ֣רֶא pere in arabic it is  فَرَاء fara

LANE Arabic-English Lexicon  give the following entry for فَرَاء

افراء. (M, K.) Hence the saying, كل الصيد فى جوف الفرا [Every kind of game is in the belly (or might enter into the belly) of the wild ass];

This archaic saying which has been recorded in the hadith of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ indicates the nuance of the term “wild ass” it denotes superiority as what the saying mean is every animal is inferior to the wild ass, as though the wild ass were a carnivore able to devour whatever it chooses.

However there are several roots in Hebrew that begin with the two consonants פ and ר (P and R) and  interestingly those are connected with the concept of fertility and fruits of nature. Obviously such concepts in Hebrew like in other languages are also used figuratively: the Hebrew פֶּ֣רֶא pere can also be from the same root with the word פָּרָא para meaning “fruit”.

This option is very much possible since the hebrew text did not use vocalisation from the beginning and diacritical markings was introduced later.

The usage of word פָּרָא mis found in Hosea 13:15 , we read:

…כִּ֣י ה֔וּא בֵּ֥ן אַחִ֖ים יַפְרִ֑יאיָב֣וֹא קָדִים֩ ר֨וּחַ יְהוָ֜המִמִּדְבָּ֣ר

Though He will be the most fruitful (yaphri) of all his brothers, the east wind–a blast from the LORD–will arise in the desert.

Here in the above passage יַפְרִ֑יא yaphri , the stem could be פרא (p-r -‘) as well as  פרה (p-r -h)

Something fruitful makes much more sense if instead of “wild ass human being” it may simply be another way of stating what appears unambiguously in Genesis 17:20,

וּֽלְיִשְׁמָעֵאל֮ שְׁמַעְתִּיךָ֒ הִנֵּ֣ה ׀ בֵּרַ֣כְתִּי אֹתֹ֗ו וְהִפְרֵיתִ֥יאֹתֹ֛ו וְהִרְבֵּיתִ֥י אֹתֹ֖ו בִּמְאֹ֣ד מְאֹ֑ד שְׁנֵים־עָשָׂ֤ר נְשִׂיאִם֙ יֹולִ֔יד וּנְתַתִּ֖יו לְגֹ֥וי גָּדֹֽול׃

And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful(wehiphreithi) and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation.

Having thus dealt with those possible hebrew roots Genesis 16:12 should read:

And he shall be a fruitful man: his hand shall be with every man, and every man’s hand with him; and he shall dwell in the face of all his brethren.’

Note:
Some Christian/jews translation render בַכֹּ֔ל bekol to “against every man” this is dishonest because nothing in the original text indicate as such , בַ is simply “with”

Septuagint Translation of Genesis 16:12

Interesting to observe that Septuagint version for the term “wild ass of a man” is ἔσται ἄγροικος ἄνθρωπος estai agroikos anthrōpos

We read

12 οvτος ἔσται ἄγροικος ἄνθρωπος αἱ χεῖρες αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ πάντας, καὶ αἱ χεῖρες πάντων ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν, καὶ κατὰ πρόσωπον πάντων τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτοῦ κατοικήσει.

Septuagint specialist Robert J. V. Hiebert, Ph.D. renders the greek phrase ἔσται ἄγροικος ἄνθρωποςestai agroikos anthrōpos , as  “he shall be a rustic man ” this means a countrymen living in the rural areas or wilderness [4]

This translation reflects a slightly different reading from the Hebrew פּרא to possibly hebrew variant of בָּרָא bar’

Strong’s Concordance

bar: (an open) field

Original Word: בָּרָא

Part of Speech: Noun Masculine

Transliteration: bar

Phonetic Spelling: (bar)

Short Definition: field

Here the word field possibly refer to Vorlage reading ברא means “country”.

Interestingly enough Greek text suggest that it is the land which is wild rather than the man i.e. Ishmael.

If the Vorlage of the Septuagint had ברא, instead of the Masoretes פּרא, two Arabic cognates are of great interest.

The first is بَرّ (barra) Which means

“devoted and righteous [towards his father or parents, and towards God and all kind of good and affectionate and gentle in behaviour, towards his kindred; and kind, or good, in his dealings with strangers” (Lane Lexicon).

So the angel’s announcement to Hagar that her son would become البر (the righteous) may well have assured her that her son would show her due filial piety and manifest godly devotion. Such a prediction would have been a welcomed promise.

This makes more perfect sense than the angel would announce to her that her son would become a “wild ass” who would continually fight with his brothers such as the predominant christian and jewish translations.

Second, Arabic cognate برأ (bara’) which means

“free, secure, safe, free from disease, distress or debt” (Lane Lexicon),

This could provide further insight into what may well have been a double entendre in the original tradition. For the slave woman to be promised that her son would be free would have been great news, helping her make her own bondage bearable.

The angel’s word to Hagar that Ishmael would be פּרא may not have been understood by Hagar as meaning “an onager man” or “wild ass human being.”

In conclusion

Brief philological analysis of the Hebrew texts of Genesis 16:12 using possible Hebrew roots and definitions, most of which have survived as cognates in classical Arabic. These include:

ברא “forest, wilderness, country”

בר “filial piety, kind to strangers, devotion to God”

ברא “free, secure, safe”

פּרא “to bear fruit, to have progeny”

Now it becomes a little easier to understand just what the angel said to Hagar and what it was that the narrator actually said about Ishmael. Far from being negative, derogatory, or racist, the words about Ishmael and the Ishmaelites in Genesis were laudatory and compatible with the divine promise to Abraham that, through his progeny, “all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen 12:3).

References

[1] “ISHMAEL: A PEACE MAKER: GENESIS 16:10 –12” (.pdf) THOMAS F. McDANIEL Ph.D., Professor Emeritus

[2] Arabic-English Lexicon by Edward William Lane  (London: Willams & Norgate 1863)

[3] .Net Bible Study Tool

[4] A New English Translation of the Septuagint. 01 Genesis