Category Archives: Christianity/Orientalists

Jesus (Nabi ‘Eesa alayhissalaam), Was Neither Killed…Nor Crucified

We have seen that Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) greeted his disciples like a Muslim, by saying: “Peace be unto you”, when he appeared before them after his so-called ‘resurrection’ (John 20:19). Muslims use the same words to greet, (but in Arabic): Assalaamu Alaikum.

We have also seen that the utterances of Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) have been supportive of and predicting about the rise of Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), and through him the belief Islam and the believing nation of Muslims, to which his followers are required to join.

In John 16: 12 & 13, Jesus says:

“I have yet many things to say unto you,

but you cannot bear them now.

Howbeit when he, the spirit of truth, is come,

He will guide you into all truth; ”

In forthcoming posts , will see that this prophecy by Prophet Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) refers to Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), whose arrival his followers were directed to await. The many things that Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) would have liked to tell his followers have not been told to them, not because Jesus did not know them, but only because his followers were not ready to bear them at that time: “….. but you cannot bear them now.

When Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) states “you cannot bear them now”, it only refers to his followers and does not include himself, because he did not say: “WE cannot bear them now”.

Since Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) didn’t count himself among them in this matter, it means he was ready to bear them: the guidance that the expected prophet will bring. He was aware of them and he was ready to bear them. But did he follow in action what he knew and was ready for? Yes. He did much of what a Muslim would do and is expected to do. In fact, this begins to happen even while he anticipates arrest by the Roman rulers.

He comes to know that he will be betrayed by one of his disciples, Judas, into the hands of the Jews, who intended to kill him. Apart from this, the other thing that makes him sorrowful is that he was expecting to do many things that a Muslim does. He was looking forward to the joy of doing all those things; but now his end is staring on the face. He tells his disciples:

“My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch.” 

(Mark 14:34)

The one thing that he can surely do, before he is arrested, is to pray to the Lord as a Muslim prays. So he prays like a Muslim and does prostration (Sajda), touching his forehead to the ground:

“And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed….” (Matthew 26:39) What is his prayer to the Lord? The verse (Matthew 26:39) continues: “…saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as you will.

Mark 14:36 says about his prayer: “And he said, Abba, Father, all things [are] possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what you will.

Luke 22:42 says about Jesus’ prayer: “Saying, Father, if you be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but your, be done.

The common thing observed from the above verses is: Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) prays to the Lord to save him from the anticipated persecution at the hands of the Jews; yet not as Jesus wishes but as the Lord wills. Do you realize what Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) is stating at this moment? He subdues his wishes and submits himself to the will of Allah. In other words, Jesus declares his Islam, submission, at that moment.

 A Muslim is one who has submitted to the will of Allah. Islam means submission (to the will of Allah), while it also means Peace. Thus, by declaring his submission to the will of Allah, Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) declared himself to be a Muslim.

Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the Prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered. ” (2:136)

Thus, Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) practiced Islam, i.e., Submission 

and he got Islam, i.e., Peace. How?

The Bible tells us in Luke 22:43

“ And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.”

This is in appreciation of his act of Submission and as an answer to his prayers. The  strength at that moment but what he needed most desperately was solace and assurance from the Lord that he would be saved from the arrest and wanted the freedom to perform the things he wanted to do as a Muslim.

So, Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) the Muslim (peace be upon him) had prayed in ARABIC: “Yaa Ilaahi, Yaa Ilaahi, Lima Sabaqtanee? ”. Does the phrase sound familiar?? Yes, this is what he asked the Lord at that moment. “O my Lord, O my Lord, Why have you advanced me (in my end)?? ”

Since he wished to do important things which a Muslim must do while he is still alive, the threatened end troubles him. So his prayer: “ O my Lord, O my Lord, Why have you ADVANCED ME? ”

Having not understood what he said, but actually having misunderstood what he said, the writers of the Gospel shifted these words into a situation where it fitted according to their understanding and scheme. The prayer has thus been misunderstood and then quoted out of context.

He did not utter such words at the cross, where he was never taken. They say that Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) said: “Eli, Eli, Lama Sabachtani? That is to say:My God, My God, why have you forsaken me? “(Matthew 27:46)

The above statement attributed to Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) is totally wrong, because:

1. God will never forsake His messenger.

2. Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) , who submits himself to the will of the Lord, will never utter such a
Word.

(Please refer to the three verses quoted above: Matthew 26:39, Mark 14:36 and Luke 22:42)

The prayer of Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) did not go unanswered, but was answered through the angel, which appeared, in order to strengthen him. Luke 22:43: “ And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.

What message did the angel carry from the Lord, in reply to Jesus’ (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) question: “ O my Lord, O my Lord, Why have you advanced me? ”

Let us turn to Qur’an, 3:55:

 “When Allah said: O Jesus! I will complete your (term)

and cause you to ascend unto Me

and cleanse you of those who disbelieve…”

Allah assures that Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) will be saved from the Jews and that his term and what is destined for him is guaranteed for him and that Allah will cause Jesus to ascend unto Him. The Bible agrees that Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) ascended unto heaven (Luke 24:51), but the main dispute is about what happened in between: the alleged crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) .

Allah says in Qur’an that they neither killed him nor crucified him, but it was made to appear so unto them. In many places in Qur’an, it has been mentioned that Jews used to kill the prophets unjustly. But in the case of Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) it vehemently denies that they killed him or that they crucified him. This is because Qur’an will not contain anything except truth.

Surah 4, Verses 157 & 158:

 “and their saying : we killed Christ Jesus, son of Mary, The messenger of Allah – but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but it was made to appear to them so; and those who disagree concerning it are full of doubts; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; For surely they killed him not; but Allah took him up unto Himself; and Allah is ever mighty, wise.”

From the sayings of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), we get a more detailed account. The Muslim belief is that Allah changed the face of the person who betrayed Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) , showing to the rulers the place where he was hiding, into a face resembling Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) . So, they crucified that betrayer instead of Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) .

Let us now do a deeper study of the above verses of Qur’an, so that we may be rightly guided into the truth. Allah says in Qur’an not only that Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) was not killed, but also that he was not crucified, either. Those who do not accept the truth or those who accept only a part of the truth will never get at the truth.

As a result, 

1. those who wish to prove that Jesus was crucified, but did not die at the cross; and

2. those who believe that Jesus was crucified and killed at the cross, have equally failed to convince and provide clear-cut answers to the many points that beg a solution. 

Allah has said: “……and those who disagree concerning it are full of doubts.”

Those who disagree that he was neither killed nor crucified, are full of doubts.

So, before proceeding with our study, let us not disagree and let us not be in doubt any more. But let us fully believe in what Allah, The Exalted, says, so that we may be correctly guided. Allah says to Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), about Qur’an: “And We sent down the Book to you for the express purpose, that you should make clear to them those things in which they differ, and that it should be a guide and a mercy to those who believe.” (Qur’an 16:64)

Allah has said three things about the alleged crucifixion of Jesus:

1. They didn’t kill him.

2. They didn’t crucify him.

3. But it was made to appear to them so.

In the case of an affirmative sentence, like: “They killed him” , there is no doubt. Everything is clear. 1. The Offender 2. The Offence 3. The Offended. But once the word “NOT” comes in and makes it a negative sentence, like: “They DID NOT kill him”, there is a possibility to vary the meaning in three ways by shifting the stress alternatingly on the rest of the three words:

1. “They did not kill him” would mean that somebody else killed him.

2. “They did not kill him” in this context would mean that they just tortured him but did not kill him.

3. “They did not kill him” would mean that they killed somebody else.

We should remember that Qur’an is not denying the events wholesale by saying: “No. Nothing happened. Nobody did anything to anybody.” It is not saying so. Therefore, let us study further and consider for elimination, two out of the three possible variations of the sentence “They did not kill him” mentioned above.

There is no doubt as to The Offender. The Jews themselves claim to have done the deed and we all know of their complicity. Now the doubt remains about Two Things: The Offence and The Offended. About the second possibility that “They did not kill him” would mean that they crucified him but he escaped death, Allah denies that too. The next part of the verse eliminates that possibility by saying: They did not crucify him. Having eliminated the first two possibilities, only the third one survives: “They did not kill him.” Yes, it was not himthat they crucified and killed, but someone else. So, let us write that part of the verse, by putting the stress on the right word:

they did not kill him;

they did not crucify him;

but it was made to appear to them so.

It was made to appear to them that they crucified Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) and killed him. They did not kill nor crucified Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam).

Having fully believed in Allah’s words, let us now move on to find evidence of the truth in The Bible in support of it.

1. First of all, while Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) was awaiting arrest by the soldiers, what he tells his disciples is that

a) “sleep on now, and take rest: it is enough, the hour is come; behold, the son of man is betrayed into the hands of the sinners.” (Mark 14:41)

b) “the son of man is betrayed to be crucified” (Matthew 26:2)

Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) never said he will be crucified, but only reveals the intention with which he will be betrayed: “betrayed to be crucified”.

2. Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) says in Matthew 26:24: “The son of man goes as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born”.

a) About himself, Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) says: “The son of man goes as it is written of him ”; goes and not dies.

b) About the betrayer he says: “it had been good for that man if he had not been born”, a nice way of wishing death for the betrayer.

Even after this curse by the messenger of Allah, is there a way that the betrayer will continue to live?? Thus, in the above verse, it has been determined as to who is destined to go and who is destined to die.

3. The betrayer Judas comes in to identify Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) , when it is dark, along with a large number of soldiers , carrying lanterns, torches and weapons. The stage is perfect for the change of form of the betrayer and the betrayed, as more confusion follows: From Mark 14:44, Matthew 26:48 and Luke 22:47, which are quoted below, it is proved that Judas drew near unto Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) to kiss him, so as to identify him.

Mark 14:44: And he that betrayed him had given them a token, saying, whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he; take him, and lead [him] away safely.

Matt 26:48: Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he: hold him fast.

Luke 22:47: And while he yet spoke, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.

From John 18:3 to 18:6 which is mentioned below, we come to know of another enabling factor:

18:3. Judas, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests, comes inside with lanterns and torches and weapons.

18:4. Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should happen to him, went forth, and said unto them, whom do you seek? 

18:5. They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus says unto them, I am [he]. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. 

18:6. As soon as he had said unto them, I am [he], they went backward, and fell to the ground.

From verse 6 above, we notice one strange thing: as soon as Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) identifies himself, “I am (he)”, the great crowd that had come in falls to the ground. As Judas stood near Jesus (after kissing him) and as the crowd fell to the ground along with the lanterns they brought, the situation was perfect for the exchange of faces, so that those who came to arrest him do not notice it. Then the soldiers, who came to arrest Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) , take away Judas instead, while Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) escapes along with his other disciples, who all fled the scene.

Mark 14:50: And they all forsook him, and fled.

(The readers of Bible normally take it to mean that the disciples forsook Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) and fled. It is shameful to think that all the disciples of Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) forsook him at the most crucial hour of his life. Qur’an testifies that the disciples expressed their belief and loyalty:

But when Jesus sensed disbelief from them, he said: Who will be my helpers in the cause of Allah? The disciples said: We will be Allah’s helpers. We believe in Allah, and bear you witness that we have surrendered (unto Him).” (3:52)

Therefore, it was Judas whom the disciples rightly forsook and all of them fled with Jesus.)

4. Now Judas is caught in an unbelievable situation, which nobody else would have experienced. Even if he tells the truth, nobody will believe it, but only think him to be Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) trying to escape death. So it is better for him that he endures whatever happens. Some verses from the Bible are quoted below, to show how Judas behaves at the trials at the high priest’s place. Whenever you encounter below the name Jesus, in the biblical verses, you have to take it as Judas, so that you may understand what the people on the scene and people in the past 2000 years have failed to comprehend.

John 18:19 to 18:23

18:19 “ The high priest therefore asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his teaching.

18:20 Jesus answered him, I spoke openly to the world; I always taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, where the Jews always meet; and in secret have I said nothing.

18:21 Why ask you me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.

18:22 And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand (or with a rod), saying, Answer you the high priest so?

18:23 Jesus answered him, if I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smite you me? ”

Thus the betrayer-in-a-dilemma Judas speaks evasively. He cannot preach what Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) used to preach in the temple and in the synagogue. He neither has the authority nor the ability to repeat what Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) used to preach. Anyway, he certainly cannot answer them if they question him further in religious matters. Had it really been Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) , he would not have missed the opportunity to tell the priests of his teachings. But here, Judas evades the issue by saying: “I always spoke openly; I said nothing in secret; Ask them which heard me; they know what I said; If I spoke well, why you smite me.” etc.

Matthew 26:

26:62 “And the high priest stood up, and said unto him, Answer you nothing? What is it, which these witness against you?

26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest said unto him, I adjure you by the living God, that you tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God.”

When some false witnesses testify against Jesus (Judas), the high priest begs Judas for an answer. But Judas remains quite. Then what the priest presses Judas to answer is not whether he is guilty or not but “I adjure you by the living God, that you tell us whether you are the Christ”.

So the main question raking their brains is whether this person really is Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) .

26:64 “Jesus said unto him, You have said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth you shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Judas does not say “I am Jesus”, but lets the priest take as true what he thinks, by saying: “You have said” and then continues “Henceforth you shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power” instead of speaking in the first person “henceforth I shall sit at the right hand of Power.”

Then they condemn him to death by holding him guilty of blasphemy. One more thing you must note now is that in this session, the process of disfiguring Judas’ face has slowly begun.

26:67 Then did they spit in his face and buffet him: and some smote him with the palms of their hands (or rods). This is quoted also in Luke 22:64.

5. Peter, who apparently witnessed what happened at the time of arrest, follows Judas to the priest’s hall, so as to see what happens to Judas. The priest’s servants come and question Peter three times whether he is a disciple of that person, (deeming Judas to be Jesus), but he, naturally, denies all the three times, as predicted by Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) . Peter who was very loyal to Jesus and had told Jesus (in Matthew 26:35) “Even if I must die with you, [yet] will I not deny thee.” had to deny the person thrice because he cannot affirm to be the disciple of Judas, whom they deem to be Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) .

6. Another account of the second session with the priests that took place on the day after the arrest, is given in Luke 22:66 to 68 :

22:66: And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying,

22:67 Are you the Christ? Tell us. And he said unto them, if I tell you, you will not believe:

22:68 And if I also ask [you], you will not answer me, nor let [me] go.

Again, they want to know if he is Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) . And he tells them: If I tell you (that I am Judas), you will not believe. And if I ask you (what happened to Jesus), you will not answer me, nor let me go.

7. In the trial that takes place before the governor Pilate, again the dominant question is: Are you the Christ?? And most of the time Judas says: YOU say it. (That is YOUR statement, NOT MINE.) On other occasions, he remains silent like a stone. Please refer Luke 23:3, Mark 15:2, Mark 15:5, Matthew 27:11, Matthew 27:12. Matthew 27:14.

8. Jesus (Judas) is brought for trial before another official Herod:

Luke 23:8 and Luke 23:9:

23:8 And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him.

23:9 Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing.

Poor Herod, he has been longing to witness some of the miracles that he had heard Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) performing. But can Judas perform those miracles? On the other hand, he avoids talking straight to even somebody who is sympathetic and glad to see him, because he is not what Herod deems him to be: he is not Jesus.

9. By talking evasively and at times refusing to talk, Judas somehow managed to avoid being found guilty by the Governor and other officials. But the Jews do not wish to lose face by retreating from the actions already taken to have Jesus killed. Hence, upon their stubborn insistence, he is condemned to be crucified. Before they take him to the cross, more injury is done to him:

Mark 15:19: And they smote him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon him.

Matthew 27:30: And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head.

Please note that after first injuring his FACE, now it is the turn of his HEAD to be injured. Judas is killed at the cross and later on buried. John does not add dramatic words to this scene of crucifixion, but quotes what could be reasonable words from the betrayer, while he dies:

1. “ I thirst! ” (John 19:28)

2. “ It is finished! ” … and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. (John 19:30)

(not the “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit ” kind of stuff! See Luke 23:46).

10. The Bible records that Mary (Bibi Maryam), Jesus’ (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) mother, was a witness to the crucifixion.

John 19:25 “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother…. ”

While the Bible records the reaction of every bystander and passer-by, it fails to mention the reaction of Mary (Bibi Maryam) the mother of Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) , because there was no reaction from her worth mentioning. Since she knew that the person on the cross was not Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) , she stood by the cross and just watched the punishment meted out to the betrayer of Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) . Had the person on the cross really been Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) , she would have reacted hysterically. Because it was she who bore Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) with difficulty and delivered him with pains. No mother will be a mute spectator to such an event.

Qur’an records the labour pains of Mary, while she delivered Jesus:

“ And the pangs of childbirth drove her unto the trunk of the palm tree. She said: Oh, would that I had died before this and had become a thing forgotten.” (Qur’an 19:23)

11. The Bible says that Jesus  addressed his mother from the cross as “ Woman! ” (John 19:26). No mean person will address his mother as “Woman! ”. It is only because the person on the cross was Judas and not Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) that he addresses Mary as “ Women! ” Qur’an testifies that Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) was kind to his mother and said from his cradle: “ And (God has made me) dutiful toward her who bore me, and has not made me arrogant, unblest. ” (Qur’an 19: 32)

12. And where is Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) when all this happens. Jesus had predicted, in Matthew 12:40

“for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”

Do you know which is the heart of the earth? Before thinking further, let us consider what is the function of a heart.

It draws blood from other parts of the body for purification and again sends it back to all the parts. Right? Can you think of a place on the earth, which draws people from all parts of the earth and sends them back, too, after purifying them? And that too at a regular interval, just like the heart?

Yes, you guessed it right: it is Makkah.

It is the belief of Muslims that all the prophets wished to be a follower of Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), in preference to be born as a prophet. Only Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) was granted the wish. Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) is expected to descend on the earth again, supported by two angels, during the reign of the expected guided leader Mahdi. Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) will live as one of the followers of Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and follow the Shariah (laws) brought by Prophet Muhammad. Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) knew that he would live as a Muslim when he comes back to the earth. But he could not wait, as we now know, not less than twenty centuries to relish this. So, when he knows that his days in the earth are not many, he formally submits himself to the Lord, starts to pray like a Muslim, does prostration and now goes on a pilgrimage to Makkah. (This may not be the first time Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) is praying like a Muslim. Qur’an records what Jesus spoke from his cradle: “And (God) has made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and has enjoined upon me prayer and almsgiving so long as I remain alive.” (19: 31).

(Earlier, he had prayed to the Lord for the Muslims, in the following manner:

John: 17:20 & 21: 21.

17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me).

And as predicted, he was in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights.

13. THE JEWS IN A DILEMMA:

Now let us imagine the restlessness of the Jews after the soldiers brought Judas, thinking him to be Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) . While, according to them, Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) is in their custody, what happened to their man, Judas? Why did he not turn up to win accolades from them, for the great betrayal he committed, in order to please them. This must have greatly disturbed them. Anyway, where is Judas?

The answer to this was provided to them by the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, and made possible the entry of Peter into the palace.

John 18:15 : And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and [so did] another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.

John 18:16 But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.”

That other disciple sounded the high priest of what happened at the time of arrest, but since it is an unbelievable event for everyone, they wanted to elicit information from Judas and, hence, kept on enquiring Judas, whether he is really Christ. On the basis of the information provided by the other disciple, the high priest’s people tried thrice to rope in Peter for enquiry, by sending female servants to talk to him, but he craftily refused to yield. The Jews were in a terrible dilemma.

1. Now they have to kill a person who co-operated with them against Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) . The fellow is not even trying to save himself, being unable to overcome the humiliation wrought on him by the Lord.

2. If they disclose the truth and spare Judas, they have to bear the shame of having failed to kill Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) . So they decided to kill Judas and claimed to have killed Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) .

Now, they face another problem: How to account for the missing Judas. So, their soldiers removed Judas’ body from the grave, while everybody was observing the Sabbath – (the compulsory Jewish holiday on Saturdays.) Then they disfigure the face more, because that is the only thing that has the resemblance of Jesus. After this is done, he is now perfectly Judas. To account for the injury to the face and the head, they spread the news that is reported in Acts 1:18:

Acts 1:18 Now this man obtained a field with the reward of his iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.”

Is it not enough that they have disfigured his head and face? What is the necessity to cut open his stomach and spread the news that: “ he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.”

So that, because of the nasty stench it would produce, nobody can come near the body and notice or find out the minor injuries that Judas suffered at the cross.

The cause of death should be very apparent from a distance, in order to avoid a close scrutiny by curious people.

The fact that all this was done by the Jews, by bribing the watchmen or the soldiers, is recorded in Matthew 28:11 to 28:15

Matthew 28:11: Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and informed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.

28:12 And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,

28:13 Saying, Say you, His disciples came by night, and stole him [away] while we slept.

28:14 And if this come to the governor’s ears, we will persuade him, and secure you

28:15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.”

And to make it appear that it was really Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) whom they arrested and to make the people believe that Judas was roaming freely after the arrest took place, they spread the lie that he came to the temple and threw back the silver coins he received as bribe from them:

Matthew 27:5: And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.” That this verse is a total lie is borne by the fact that the other accounts talk of Judas falling headlong and his bowels gushing out. (Acts 1:18)

14. In respect of the later events:

a. at the grave where they buried Judas and

b. where Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) meets his disciples, etc.

we find a lot of difference in the narration of Luke, John, Matthew and Mark, just as in respect of the earlier events. It is a waste of time counting and comparing the different and conflicting details. Hence, only those details that are important in view of the truth revealed above are mentioned.

15. a) When Mary Magdalene goes to the grave; she finds that the stone covering the grave of Judas is already removed.

Mark 16:3 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?

16:4 And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.

16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.”

Points to be noted in the above verses:

1. The heavy stone was already rolled away by the soldiers of the governor.

2. People perform the pilgrimage rites in Makkah wearing white clothing.

b) Mary Magdalene sees two angels in white sitting. (John 20:12) Just as the Muslims believe that The Almighty will provide two angels for Jesus’ (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) descent from heaven, when he comes again, similarly these two angels have made possible his pilgrimage to Makkah.

c) Luke 24:4 & 24:5

24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

24:5 And as they were afraid, and bowed down [their] faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?

The two men in shining garments are angels, who refer Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) as the living, and not as the resurrected.

d) John 20:14: “And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.

20:15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? Whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him,” etc.

Points to be noted: She saw Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) standing, and knew not that it was Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) , because she supposed him to be the gardener. She could not recognize Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) , because of the changed face and deemed him to be the gardener because of the simple cloths worn while performing pilgrimage rites. Moreover, he would have had a shaven head, another rite of the pilgrimage.

e) John 20:17 “Jesus saith unto her, touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.”

Things to be noted: 

1. Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) tells her “Touch me not”.

However, when Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) meets his disciples later, he asks them to touch him and handle him, but here he forbids her. The reason: As a good Muslim, he avoids being touched by the lady. 

2. Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) says: ” I am not yet ascended to my Father: ”

That means he knew that he was supposed to ascend only, as the Almighty had already informed him through the angel. His statement shows that he did not expect himself to die, nor resurrect, but only ascend. 

f) The same day evening, Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) appears before his disciples and says: “Peace be unto you”, (i.e., Assalaamu Alaikum,) as a Muslim. . 

g) Luke 24:13 to 24:24 is quoted below. In this event, two disciples walking together while going to a village, are joined by Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) . Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) enquires them as to what they are talking and why they are sad. They narrate the whole story from being condemned to death to the vision of angels at the sepulchre. If it were Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) who suffered all that, then he would not pretend ignorance and listen again to all that which he himself has suffered, as they think. Only because he was absent and went on the pilgrimage to Mecca, he did not know of what happened in his absence and, hence, he is enquiring and listening to the whole story. 

Luke 24:13 And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem [about] threescore furlongs.

24:14 And they talked together of all these things which had happened.

24:15 And it came to pass, that, while they communed [together] and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.

24:16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.

24:17 And he said unto them, What manner of communications [are] these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad?

24:18 And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days?

24:19 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: 24:20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.

24:21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.

24:22 Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulcher;

24:23 And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive.

24:24 And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulcher, and found [it] even so as the women had said: but him they saw not.”

This is another proof that it was Judas who suffered death at the cross.

h) Back in Jerusalem, Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) has another session with the eleven disciples:

1. “Luke 24:36: And as they thus spoke, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and says unto them, Peace [be] unto you.

24:37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.” Having seen the dead body of Judas, they were now 100 % sure of his death. Hence, when Jesus appears there with Judas’ face, they are terrified and affrighted and supposed that they had seen a spirit. 

2. Luke 24:38: “And he said unto them, Why are you troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

24:40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them [his] hands and [his] feet.” 

John repeats similarly in 20:20 :

John 20:20: “And when he had so said, he shewed unto them [his] hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.”

From the above, we can understand fully well, that Jesus’ face is not the identity of the person, at that moment, because it looked like Judas’. Hence, “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself” and “when they saw his hands and his sides they were glad they saw the Lord ”

3. Luke 24:41 “ And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?

24:42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.”

Fish is the only thing that a Muslim can obtain from anyone and eat. The meat of other (permitted) animals and birds should be properly slaughtered in the manner taught by Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and by mentioning the name of Allah over it, while slaughtering. Hence, the other meat cannot be obtained from everybody.

4. John 20:30 “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book.

Most important of which should be: restoration of his face, as it looked before.

The Bible does provide a clue that Jesus’ (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) face was restored to its original appearance, before his ascension unto heaven.

In the verse of John 21:12, which is in the context of the events just before his ascension, it is written:

“ Jesus saith unto them, Come [and] dine. And none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord.” This time, there is no need to see his hands and his feet to know that it is Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) .

Now, it is time to thank the Almighty for opening our eyes to the truth, by accepting Islam. We now know for certain that:

1. There is no one worthy pf Worship except Allah; and

2. Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is a slave and a messenger of Allah and the last of the prophets, whom all the people have to follow. This has been foretold in The Bible.

3. Idols and graven images are forbidden.

4. Allah sent messengers to all nations.

5. Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) too is a slave and a messenger of Allah, but sent only for (the lost sheep of) the house of Israel.

6. Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) is a creation of Allah; he is not His son and has no portion whatsoever in His Sovereignty.

7. Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) was not killed, nor crucified. It was his betrayer who was killed on the cross.

The next time you see a cross, you would know that it is not a sign that relates to Jesus, but something that denotes the punishment his betrayer deserved and got.

But…, should we have a memorial to commemorate the betrayer of a mighty messenger of Allah ?

Qur’an: 5: 83 to 86.

83. When they listen to that which has been revealed unto the messenger, you see their eyes overflow with tears because of their recognition of the truth. They say: Our Lord, we believe; write us down as among the witnesses.

84. How should we not believe in Allah and that which has come unto us of the truth and we hope that our Lord will admit us to the company of the righteous folk.

85. Allah has rewarded them for what they said: Gardens underneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever. That is the reward of the good people.

86. But those who disbelieve and deny Our signs, they shall be companions of hell-fire.

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).

“Jesus Loves All” is a Christian Missionary Deception

Anti-Muslim demagoguery relies on the demonization of the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam), who is characterized by Islam-hating liars as being especially violent and warlike. This propaganda has certainly gained currency in the “Judeo-Zionist-Freemasonic-Christian West”. When it is pointed out that the Biblical prophets–including Moses, Joshua, Samson , Saul , David , among many others–were far more violent and warlike (and even engaged in religiously sanctioned genocide ), anti-Muslim pro-Christian ideologues will respond by disregarding or downplaying the Old Testament and will instead focus on the personality of Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) in the New Testament.

Didn’t Jesus preach nonviolence and “loving one’s enemies”? The anti-Muslim ideologues use this idea to assault the religion of Islam with. For example, the Catholic apologist shaitaan Robert Spencer compares Islam to Christianity by juxtaposing carefully selected quotes from Jesus to Islamic texts. In his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) , Spencer includes a “Muhammad vs Jesus” section. He cites the following sayings of Jesus in the Bible:

“Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”

“If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also”

“Blessed are the peacemakers”

“Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy”

“But love your enemies, and do good”

These so-called “peaceful” verses of the Bible are compared to select battle revealed-Quranic verses. The violent verses of the Bible “don’t count” and are craftily excluded from the comparison (“that’s just the Old Testament!”). To tighten the noose, peaceful verses of the Glorious Qur’an are also excluded from the heavily biased analysis, the shaitaan  gives his evil reason for that: these “don’t count” since they are supposedly from when Muhammad was still in Mecca.

To understand the last point, one needs to have a basic understanding of the Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) biography: he first declared his prophethood in the city of Makkah. Only a very small segment of society accepted him (mostly the weak and poor), whereas the masses–especially the powerful leaders of the city–not only rejected him but actively persecuted him. The chapters of the Qur’an that were revealed during this period are known as the Makkan chapters. Eventually, Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) was commanded by God to fled to the city of Madinah, whose people accepted him as their ruler. He went from persecuted prophet to ruler and commander-in-chief of a fledgling city-state.

The anti-Muslim ideologues claim that the peaceful and tolerant verses of the Qur’an come from when Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) was weak and persecuted in Mekkah. According to this islamophobe Baboon, These verses are “cancelled”, they argue, by the violent-sounding verses in the Medinan chapters.
Robert Spencer writes in his book:

Islamic theology divides the Qur’an into “Meccan” and “Medinan” suras [chapters]. The Meccan ones come from the first segment of Muhammad’s career as a prophet, when he simply called the Meccans to Islam. Later, after he fled to Medina, his positions hardened. The Medinan suras [are]…filled with matters of law and ritual–and exhortations to jihad warfare against unbelievers. The relatively tolerant verses quoted above and others like them generally date from the Meccan period, while those with a more violent and intolerant edge are mostly from Medina.

The Islamophobe deceivers portray Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) as opportunistic:

when he was weak and under the rule of the pagans, he called for peace. Without being in a position of authority, Muhammad was hardly in a position to do otherwise. As soon as he came to power, however, he waged “jihad warfare” (what a strange phrase!) against them. This is why, they argue, the peaceful verses of the Quran simply “don’t count”.

For now, however, we will demonstrate that, using such logic, it is equally possible to invalidate the “peaceful” sayings of Jesus. While he was a persecuted prophet, Jesus advocated nonviolence and peaceful resistance. He was hardly in a position to do otherwise, right? Once in power, however, this changes dramatically and violent warfare becomes the new
modus operandi .

The Messiah

Just as Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) biography can be divided into a Mekkan and Medinan period, so too can Jesus’s (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) lifestory be divided into a First and Second Coming. (Likewise can Moses’ (Musa alaihissalaam) lifestory be divided into pre- and post-Exodus: prior to Exodus, Moses (Musa alaihissalaam) was largely peaceful, but after Exodus, Moses became the leader of the emerging Jewish state–and subsequently engaged in holy wars and even genocide against other nations.)

In the First Coming of Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam), only a small segment of society (mostly from the weak and poor) accepted Jesus, whereas the leaders and authorities persecuted him. During this time period, Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) advised his followers to engage in nonviolent resistance only, perhaps even pacifism. Jesus advised his followers to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” According to the Bible, this didn’t stop his Jewish and Roman persecutors from making an attempt to kill him.

Yet, the Second Coming of Jesus (‘Eesa maseeh alaihissalaam) is a central theological belief of Christianity as well as Islam. When Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) returns to earth, the gloves will be off: no longer will he practice non-violence or pacifism. Enemies will be mercilessly killed, not loved. In this manner, Jesus will fulfill the messianic prophecies found in the Bible–both in the Old and New Testaments. To Christians, Jesus is the Messiah (the Greek word “Christ” has the same meaning as the Hebrew word “Messiah”)–the same Messiah that the Jews had been in anticipation of.

It is important to understand how the concept of Messiah developed. According to the Bible, Moses (Musa alaihissalaam) and his followers fled persecution in Egypt to find refuge in the land of Canaan. They believed that God had bequeathed this land to them, which would come to be known as Israel. Unfortunately, there were already peoples who lived in Canaan, a problem that Moses (Musa alaihissalaam) and his followers rectified via military might. The native Canaanites were subsequently occupied, exterminated, or run off their ancestral lands. When the natives fought back, the Israelites attributed this to their innate and infernal hatred of the Jewish people.

After ruling the “promised land” for a time, the Israelites were themselves conquered by outsiders. The Babylonian Empire captured the Kingdom of Judah and expelled the Jews. Though the Israelites felt no remorse over occupying, slaughtering, and running off the native inhabitants of Canaan, they were mortified when they received similar (albeit milder) treatment. In exile, the Jews prayed for vengeance, as recorded in a divine prayer in the Bible:

Psalm 137:8 O Babylon, you will be destroyed. Happy is the one who pays you back for what you have done to us.

137:9 Blessed is the one who grabs your babies and smashes them against a rock.

(We can hardly imagine the glee that an Islamophobe devil would feel had such a violent passage, one that blesses those who smash infidel babies against rocks, been found in the Qur’an instead of the Bible.)

It was during the time of exile that the Jewish concept of Messiah was first born. Dutch historian Jona Lendering writes:

It was believed that the Messiah (the Anointed One) would receive God’s personal help against the enemies of Israel; the Messiah would defeat the Babylonians and reestablish the Jewish state of Israel. Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, fulfilled this role by conquering Babylon and releasing the Jews from exile. Israel Smith Clare writes:

Prof. Martin Bernal of Cornell University writes:

The first Messiah in the Bible was Cyrus, the king of Persia who released the Jews–at least those who wanted to leave–from Exile in Babylon.

As for this passage in the Bible:

Psalm 137:8 O Babylon, you will be destroyed. Happy is the one who pays you back for what you have done to us.

137:9 Blessed is the one who grabs your babies and smashes them against a rock.

Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible comments on this verse:

The Jews thereby returned to the promised land and rebuilt their nation. According to Jewish tradition, however, this did not last long: the Roman Empire conquered the land, destroyed the Temple, and exiled the Jews once again. As a result, as Lendering puts it, “the old prophecies [about Messiah] became relevant again.” Although in Jewish tradition there is a messiah for each generation, there is also the Messiah, which is what is commonly thought of when we hear the word. The Messiah would fulfill the task of destroying all of Israel’s enemies.

JewFaq.org says of the Messiah, which they spell as mashiach (emphasis is ours):

KosherJudaism.org states:

The Second Coming of Christ
Around 4 B.C., a prophet by the name of Jesus was born. He claimed to be the Messiah, and some Jews followed him. The followers of Christ eventually split into numerous sects, and eventually one triumphed over all others. These became what are today known as Christians. As for the majority of Jews, they rejected Jesus. Why? The Jews rejected (and continue to reject) Jesus because he did not fulfill the prophecies pertaining to the Messiah. How could Jesus be the Messiah when he not only did not defeat or conquer Israel’s enemies, but he never even led an army into a single war? On the contrary, didn’t Jesus preach nonviolence and “loving one’s enemies”?

Instead of rejecting these militaristic aspects of the Messiah, Christians attribute them to Jesus during his Second Coming. No longer will Jesus be a weak and persecuted prophet. Instead, he will hold governmental authority, and is depicted as powerful and mighty. This Jesus will certainly not love his enemies or turn the other cheek to them. In fact, the Bible tells us that Jesus will wage violent warfare against his enemies, and he will mercilessly kill them all.

Many Christians talk about how Jesus Christ will bring peace to the world, once and for all. But they often neglect to mention how this world “peace” is obtained. It is only after slaughtering his opponents and subduing “the nations” (the entire world?) under the foot of the global Christian empire that the world will have “peace”. Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible explains:

In other words, there will be peace for the simple reason that there will be nobody left to fight, all opponents having been slaughtered or subdued. This world “peace” is the same “peace” that any conqueror dreams of: after utterly defeating and conquering all of one’s neighbors and enemies, what is there left but “peace”, insofar as the non-existence of violence? In the accidentally insightful words of the Evangelist Wayne Blank : “Put another way, humans aren’t going to have anything left to fight about.”

Following conquest, a foreign occupier would obviously want the occupied peoples to be peaceful, as this would eliminate the nuisance of having to fight off freedom-fighters. The absence of violence would allow the conquering force to effortlessly sustain its occupation.

The events of the Second Coming of Christ are found in the Bible, including the Book of Revelation–which is the last book in the New Testament. Jesus will “judge and wage war” (Rev. 19:11), his robe will be “dipped in blood” (19:13), and he will be accompanied by “armies” (19:14) with which he will “strike down the nations” (19:15), . Furthermore: “ including “the Gentiles” in general and “the nations that were opposed to him” in specific. This will result in the “utter destruction of all his enemies” In his second coming[,] he will complete their destruction, when he shall put down all opposing rule, principality, and power.”

Once he conquers the infidels, Jesus “will rule them with an iron rod” (19:15). Wayne Blank writes:
Jesus will “will release the fierce wrath of God” (19:15) on them, and “he shall execute the severest judgment on the opposers of his truth” . Because of this, “every tribe on earth will mourn because of him” (Rev. 1:7), and they will “express the inward terror and horror of their minds, at his appearing; they will fear his resentment” . Just as the people of Canaan were terrified by the Israelite war machine , so too would the unbelievers “look with trembling upon [Jesus]” . This is repeated in the Gospels, that “the Son of man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn” (Matthew 24:30).

“All the nations of the world shall wail when he comes to judgment” and the enemies of Jesus “shall mourn at the great calamities coming upon them” .

Far from the meek prophet of the First Coming, Jesus on his return will command a very strong military force that will “destroy[] every ruler, authority, and power”. Not only is this consistent with the legacy of conquests by the Biblical prophets, it is actually a fulfillment or completion of the task that Moses initiated: holy war and conquest in the name of God. In First Corinthians (part of the New Testament) it is prophesied that instead of loving his enemies, Christ will subdue and humble them under his feet:

1 Corinthians 15:24 [Jesus] will turn the Kingdom over to God the Father, having destroyed every ruler and authority and power.

15:25 For Christ must reign until he humbles all his enemies beneath his feet.

Pastor and Biblical scholar Ron Teed explains that Jesus Christ brought “comfort and salvation at His first coming” but will bring “vengeance on God’s enemies” during his Second Coming. There are thus “two comings of Christ, the first to save, the second to judge”–yet in debates with Muslims it seems that Christians play up the First Coming and completely ignore the Second. The popular Teed Commentaries explains how “vengeance” is for Christ’s enemies (the “unbelievers”) and “comfort” only for his followers (the believers):

The Messiah will bring both comfort and
vengeance. He will take vengeance on God’s enemies and bring comfort to His people. This is a summary of the mission of Christ. He brought comfort and salvation at His first coming during His earthly ministry according to Luke…

However, He said nothing of taking vengeance on God’s enemies at that time, for that part of his mission will not be fulfilled till He returns triumphant…

[There are] two comings of Christ, the first to save, the second to judge.

In His First coming He did the things mentioned in Isaiah 61:1-2; in His Second Coming He will do the things in verses 2-3. When He returns He will bring judgment on unbelievers. This will be the day of God’s “vengeance.”

The ever popular Evangelical site GotQuestions.org sums it up nicely:

Jesus’ second coming will be exceedingly violent.
Revelation 19:11-21 describes the ultimate war with Christ, the conquering commander who judges and makes war “with justice” (v. 11). It’s going to be bloody (v. 13) and gory. The birds will eat the flesh of all those who oppose Him (v. 17-18). He has no compassion upon His enemies, whom He will conquer completely and consign to a “fiery lake of burning sulfur” (v. 20).

It is an error to say that God never supports a war. Jesus is not a pacifist.

Will the Real Messiah Please Stand Up?

Whereas the Second Coming of Christ is curiously forgotten in debates with Muslims, it is conveniently remembered during debates with Jews. One of the primary (if not the
primary) functions of the promised messiah in the Judeo-Christian tradition is, after all, vengeance against Israel’s enemies and global dominance. Indeed, the entire concept of Messiah emerged following the conquest of Jewish lands with the subjugation and exile of its inhabitants. The Messiah stood as hope for the redemption of Israel as well as revenge against her enemies.
Jewish polemical tracts against Christians reveal to us how militarism is a fundamental characteristic of the Messiah. The Christian response in turn reveal how Jesus Christ will indeed be militaristic (during his Second Coming). David Klinghoffer, an Orthodox Jewish author, writes in his book Why the Jews Rejected Jesus :

There were certainly those among [Jesus’] followers who saw him as the promised Messiah. This was natural. The first century produced messiahs the way our own time produces movie stars. There was always a hot new candidate for the role emerging from obscurity, whose glory faded either as he was slaughtered by the Romans or as his followers lost interest when he failed to produce the goods promised by the prophets.

“The goods” refer to the military conquest of Israel’s enemies and world domination. The fact that Jesus failed to produce these “goods” proves that he is not the promised messiah. Klinghoffer continues:

Let him do what the “son of man,” the promised Messiah, had been advertised as being destined to do from Daniel back through Ezekiel and Isaiah and the rest of the prophets. Let him rule as a monarch, his kingship extending over “all peoples, nations, and languages.” Let him return the exiles and build the Temple and defeat the oppressors and establish universal peace, as the prophets also said…

Let Jesus come up with the real messianic goods–visible to all rather than requiring us to accept someone’s assurance that, for example, he was born in Bethlehem–and then we’ll take him seriously

This point is reiterated in his book numerous times:

Hearing Jesus preach, a Jew might reasonably have crossed his arms upon his chest and muttered, “Hm, intriguing, but let’s see what happens.” After all, the scriptures themselves common-sensically defined a false prophet as someone whose prophecies fail to come true. According to Deuteronomy, this was the chief test of a prophet.

Klinghoffer writes elsewhere:

The Hebrew prophets describe the elements of a messianic scenario that could not easily be overlooked: an ingathering of the Jewish exiles, the reign of a messianic king, a new covenant with the Jews based on a restored commitment to observance of the commandments, a new Temple, the recognition of God by the world’s peoples. The future Davidic king was expected to radically change the world.

The “radical change” involves the “subjugation” of the nations:

The Messiah would be a military and political leader. Philo, whose views have sometimes been taken as foreshadowing Christian teachings, is clear on this: “For ‘there shall come forth a man’ (Num. 24:7), says the oracle, and leading his host of war he will subdue great and populous nations.”

The Gospel writers thus faced the challenge that Jesus never raised an army, fought the Romans, returned any Jewish exiles, ruled over any population, or did anything else a king messiah would do.

The subjugated nations would then “prostrate” themselves to the Messiah and “serve” him (perpetual servitude?):

The promised royal scion of David, the Messiah, would surely inspire veneration and awe beyond that accorded even to David himself…The nations will “prostrate” themselves before God, says one psalm; but so will they “prostrate” themselves (same Hebrew verb) before the Davidic king , says another psalm…As Daniel puts it…“[The Messiah] was given dominion, honor, kingship, so that all peoples, nations, and languages would serve him.”

Klinghoffer defines the Messiah as he “who conquers and rules the nations and liberates the Jews” and describes him as
“ a mighty warrior”. He rhetorically asks:

Was there in Jewish tradition any room for a dead Messiah? Didn’t Jesus’s death tend to cast doubt on his ability to accomplish all the world-transforming things the Messiah was supposed to do?

Again, the “world-transforming things” include violent holy war against the heathen nations and their subjugation under his rule. Klinghoffer answers his own question:

But was Jesus a ruler over Israel? On the contrary, the younger Kimchi pointed out, “He did not govern Israel but they governed him.”

Christians reply by arguing that Jesus will fulfill these prophecies, just during his Second Coming. The Good News, a Christian magazine with a readership of nearly half a million subscribers, responds to the Jewish criticism by arguing that Jesus returns “a second time” as a “conquering King” who will “slay the great armies of those who opposed Him”.  Jesus will be “the promised Messiah whom the prophets claimed would rule all nations ‘with a rod of iron’” and “all nations would come under His rule”.

Klinghoffer, the Orthodox Jewish interlocutor, cries foul:

Christians respond by saying that “the famously unfulfilled prophecies (for instance, that the messianic era will be one of peace) apply to the second and final act in Jesus’s career, when he returns to earth. This is a convenient and necessary dodge: The Bible itself never speaks of a two-act messianic drama.

The interesting dynamic is thus established: Jews accuse Jesus of not being militaristic enough, and Christian apologists respond by eagerly proving the militaristic nature of Jesus during his Second Coming.

Christians Affirm Militant Old Testament Prophecies

Far from saying “it’s just the Old Testament!”, Christians routinely–and as a matter of accepted fundamental theology–use the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah to validate their belief in Jesus–prophecies that have militaristic overtones. The Book of Isaiah, for example, has numerous prophecies in it that Christians routinely attribute to Jesus Christ. For example:

Isaiah 35:4 Say to those with fearful hearts, “Be strong, do not fear; your God will come, he will come with vengeance; with divine retribution he will come to save you.”

Matthew Henry’s commentary of this verse says:

This will be “a day of vengeance, a year of retribution, to uphold Zion’s cause” (34:8) against the “nations at enmity with the church” and “those found opposing the church of Christ”, which will result in “the destruction of [the church’s] enemies.” Likewise do Christians claim that the Book of Micah foretells the Second Coming of Christ:

Micah 15:5 I will execute vengeance in anger and fury on the heathen, such as they have not heard.

One Biblical commentary helpfully explains this verse:

Christ will give his Son either the hearts or necks of his enemies, and make them either his friends or his footstool.

[NassirH, a reader of our website, astutely commented: I suppose this is what JihadWatch writer Roland Shirk meant when he said “Islam is a religion of fear and force, and its adherents can only be at your feet or at your throat.”]

Another Biblical commentary notes: “Here no mention is made of Mercy, but only of executing vengeance; and that, with wrath and fury.” Yet another states that this is “a prophecy of the final overthrow of all the enemies of pure and undefiled religion” and that this is “a threatening of vengeance to the Heathens” .

When we published articles comparing the Judeo-Christian prophets of the Hebrew Bible to the Prophet Muhammad, an anti-Muslim bigot by the name of Percey (formerly known as Cassidy) claimed that the genocides of the Old Testament were “not supported by Christ’s teachings.” This hardly seems the case, however, when we consider that Jesus will bring to a climax the holy war first initiated by Moses against the enemies of Israel. Jesus will fulfill , not repudiate, Old Testament holy wars against Israel’s foes. In fact, the war will be expanded to heathen nations in general, or at least those that reject Jesus.

Conclusion

We could reproduce violent Christian texts ad nauseum …What is clear is that the Christian conception of Jesus can very easily be characterized as violent. Prof. Melancthon W. Jacobus writes in A Standard Bible Dictionary:

[Jesus] excluded from the Messiah’s character the main elements of the popular ideal, i.e. that of a conquering hero, who would exalt Israel above the heathen, and through such exclusion He seemed to fail to realize the older Scriptural conception. The failure, however, was only apparent and temporary. For in the second coming in glory He was to achieve this work.
Accordingly, His disciples recognized a twofoldness in His Messiahship: (1) They saw realized in His past life the ideal Servant of Jehovah, the spiritual Messiah, the Christ who teaches and suffers for the people, and (2) they looked forward to the realization of the Davidic and conquering Messiah in His second coming in power and glory to conquer the nations and reign over them

How then do we reconcile the seemingly peaceful and pacifist sayings of Jesus with the violent and warlike Second Coming of Christ? There are numerous ways to do this, but perhaps the most convincing is that Jesus’ peaceful and pacifist sayings were directed towards a resident’s personal and local enemies–usually (but not always) referring to fellow co-religionists. It did not refer to a government’s foreign adversaries, certainly not to heathen nations. Prof. Richard A. Horsley of the University of Massachusetts argues:

The cluster of sayings keynoted by “love your enemies” pertains neither to external, political enemies nor to the question of nonviolence or nonresistance…The content of nearly all the sayings indicates a context of local interaction with personal enemies, not of relations with foreign or political foes…

“Love your enemies” and the related sayings apparently were understood by [Jesus’] followers…to refer to local social-economic relations, largely within the village community, which was still probably coextensive with the religious community in most cases…[although sometimes referring] to persecutors outside the religious community but still in the local residential community—and certainly not the national or political enemies.

This is consistent with the ruling given by the Evangelical site
GotQuestions.org , which permits governments to wage war whilst forbidding individuals from “personal vendettas”:

God has allowed for just wars throughout the history of His people. From Abraham to Deborah to David, God’s people have fought as instruments of judgment from a righteous and holy God. Romans 13:1-4 tells us to submit ourselves to government authorities and that nations have the right to bear the sword against evildoers, both foreign and domestic.

Violence occurs, but we must recognize the difference between holy judgment on sin and our own personal vendettas against those we dislike, which is the inevitable outcome of pride

As for the “turning the other cheek” passage, it is known that the slap on the cheek that was being referred to here was in that particular culture understood as an insult, not as assault. The passage itself has to do with a person responding to a personal insult, and has nothing to do with pacifism. In any case, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary clarifies: “Of course, He applied this to personal insults, not to groups or nations.”

Some Christians maintain that fighting the enemies on the battlefield does not exclude loving them. This begs the question: how absolutely irrelevant is this strange form of “love” for enemies that does not proscribe killing them?

Whatever the reason for the contradiction between loving enemies on the one hand and killing them on the other, the point is that the comparison between a supposedly peaceful Jesus and “violent” Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) is not just a vapid oversimplification but pure falsity. It is only through a very selective and biased analysis–a carefully crafted comparison between the most peaceful sounding verses of the New Testament (a handful of quotes from Jesus that constitute a small fraction of the Bible overall) with the most violent sounding verses of the Quran.

Anything that doesn’t fit this agenda simply “doesn’t count” (and indeed, the anti-Muslim pro-Christian readers will furiously rack their brains to figure out ways to make the violent Jesus verses “not count”). The Islamophobic logic is thus: If we exclude all violent verses from the Bible and all the peaceful verses from the Quran, then aha! See how much more violent the Quran is compared to the Bible! Anti-Muslim Christians scoff at Islam and exalt their religion by informing Muslims of how Jesus, unlike Muhammad, loved his enemies. Let the Muslims reply back ever so wryly: Jesus loved them so much that he kills them.

Addendum I:

Anti-Muslim Christians often chant “Muhammad was a prophet of war, whereas Jesus was the Prince of Peace”. A few points about this are worthy of being mentioned: First, Muhammad never used the title “prophet of war” nor is this mentioned in the Quran or anywhere else. In fact, one of the most common epithets used for Muhammad, one found in the Quran no less, was “A Mercy to All Humanity”.

Jesus, on the other hand, will be a “Warrior King” and a “Conquering King.” Should it then be “Muhammad is A Mercy to All Humanity, whereas Jesus is the Warrior King”?

As for Jesus being the Prince of Peace, this epithet comes from Isaiah 9:6:

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

9:7 There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace. He will rule with fairness and justice from the throne of his ancestor David for all eternity.

The passionate commitment of the LORD of Heaven’s Armies will make this happen.

One Christian website paraphrases this succinctly: “Israel’s enemies will be destroyed. Peace will flow to the four corners of the earth, as the Prince of Peace rules and reigns.” Again, this is the “peace” that conquerers dream of. Jesus is the Prince of Peace because he declares war, slaughters and subjugates all possible enemies to the point where nobody is left to fight, and voila! there is peace!
This brings us to the commonly quoted (and oft-debated) verse of the Bible, in which Jesus says:

Matthew 10:34 Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Most debates focus on whether or not the word “sword” here is metaphorical or not. Leaving aside the fact that even if this is a metaphor it is certainly a very violent sounding one, it would actually behoove us to focus on the word “peace” in this verse. Jesus told the Jews: “do not think I have come to bring peace on earth” as a way to explain his failure to produce “the goods”: “ the Jews believed that when the Messiah comes, there would be a time of world peace. ” Naturally, this world “peace” would be brought about through war. Of course, in his Second Coming will Jesus bring this “peace on earth” (and by “peace”, what is meant is war, slaughter, and subjugation). As we can see, this verse confirms the militant nature of the Messiah (and thus Jesus), regardless of if it is metaphorical or not.

Addendum II:

Here is another hotly debated verse, in which Jesus says:

Luke 19:27 But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and kill them in my presence.

Robert Spencer dismisses this verse, saying: “These are the words of a king in a parable.” Yes, this was a parable that Jesus told his disciples. But what was his intention in narrating this parable? Gill’s Explanation to the Entire Bible explains that it was to explain what will happen to the Jews “when Christ shall come a second time”: Jesus will “destroy the Jewish nation” for rejecting him “and then all other enemies will be slain and destroyed” as well.

Death and destruction will be the fate of whoever does not accept Jesus’ reign as Warrior King.
This was hardly an innocuous story. It reminds us of a scene in the movie Gladiator when the evil Roman emperor Commodus tells his nephew a story about an “emperor” who was betrayed by his sister (“his own blood”) and how he “struck down” her son as revenge. (Watch it here.) The story was a thinly veiled threat, as was Jesus’ parable.

One can only hardly imagine how Islamophobes like Robert Spencer would react had it been the Prophet Muhammad who had used such a violent parable, threatening to return to earth in order to “slay” anyone who “did not want me to reign over them”! This would certainly “count” since all violence in the Quran “counts” whereas whatever is peaceful in the Quran “doesn’t count”, and whatever is violent in the Bible “doesn’t count” and whatever is peaceful in the Bible “counts”. Heads I win, tails you lose.

A Comparative Study on the Status of Women According to the Judeo-Christian Scriptures and The Holy Qur’an

[By Dr. Sherif Abdel Azeem]

In the  West, Islam is  believed to be the  symbol  of  the  subordination  of  women  par  excellence.  In  order  to  understand  how firm  this  belief  is,  it  is  enough  to  mention  that  the  Minister  of  Education  in  France,  the land  of  Voltaire,  had  ordered  the  expulsion  of  all  young  Muslim  women  wearing the  veil  from  French  schools!  A  young  Muslim  student  wearing  a  headscarf  is  denied  her right  of  education  in  France,  while  a  Catholic  student  wearing  a  cross  or  a  Jewish  student wearing  a  skullcap  is  not.  The  scene  of  French  policemen  preventing  young  Muslim women  wearing  headscarves  from  entering      their  high  school  is  unforgettable.  It inspires  the  memories  of  another  equally  disgraceful  scene  of  Governor  George  Wallace of  Alabama  in  1962  standing  in  front  of  a  school  gate  trying  to  block  the  entrance  of black  students  in  order  to  prevent  the  desegregation  of  Alabama’s  schools.  The  difference between  the  two  scenes  is  that  the  black  students  had  the  sympathy  of  so  many  people  in the  U.S.  and  in  the  whole world.  President  Kennedy  sent  the  U.S. National Guard to  force the  entry  of  the  black  students.  The  Muslim  girls,  on  the  other  hand,  received  no  help from  any  one.  Their  cause  seems  to  have  very  little  sympathy  either  inside  or  outside France.  The  reason  is  the  widespread  misunderstanding  and  fear  of  anything  Islamic  in the  world  today.  What intrigues the most is this question. Do  Judaism,  Christianity,  and  Islam  have  the  same  conception  of  women?? Are they  different  in  their  conceptions?? Do  Judaism  and  Christianity,  truly,  offer  women  a better treatment than Islam does??  What is the Truth??

It  is  not  easy to search for and find answers  to these  difficult questions. The  first difficulty is  that  one  has  to  be  fair  and  objective  or,  at  least,  do  one’s  utmost  to  be  so.  This  is  what Islam  teaches.  The  Qur’an  has  instructed  Muslims  to  say  the  truth  even  if  those  who  are very  close  to  them  do  not  like  it:

  “Whenever  you  speak,  speak  justly,  even  if  a  near relative   is  concerned”  (6:152) 

“O  you  who  believe  stand  out  firmly  for  justice,  as witnesses  to  Allah,  even  as  against  yourselves,  or  your  parents  or  your  kin,  and  whether  it be (against) rich or poor” (4:135).

My  goal  from this post is  only to  vindicate  Islam  and  pay  a  tribute,  long  overdue  in  the  West,  to  the  final  truthful Message  from  Allah to  the  human  race.  my  concern  in this article,  mainly,  the  position  of  women  in  the three  religions  as  it  appears  in  their  original  sources  not  as  practised  by  their  millions  of followers  in  the  world  today.  Therefore,  most  of  the  evidence  cited  comes  from  the Qur’an Kareem,  the  sayings  of  Prophet  Mohammed (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) ,  the  Bible,  the  Talmud,  and  the  sayings  of some  of  the  most  influential  Church  Fathers  whose  views  have  contributed  immeasurably to  defining  and  shaping  Christianity.  This  interest  in  the  sources  relates  to  the  fact  that understanding  a  certain  religion  from  the  attitudes  and  the  behaviour  of  some  of  its nominal  followers  is  misleading.  Many  people  confuse  culture  with  religion,  many  others do not know what their religious books are saying, and many others do not even care.

EATING FROM THE TREE OF JANNAH. WAS IT  JUST HAWWA’s (radhiyallahu anha) (Biblical Eve) FAULT??

The  three  religions  agree  on  one  basic  fact:  Both  women  and  men  are  created  by  Allah (God), The  Creator  of  the  whole  universe.  However,  disagreement  starts  soon  after  the  creation of the  first  man,  Adam (alaihissalaam),  and the first  woman,  Eve (Ammi Hawwa radhiyallahu anha).  The  Judaeo-Christian conception  of the creation  of  Adam  (alaihissalaam) and  Eve  (Hawwa radhiyallahu anha) is  narrated  in  detail  in  Genesis  2:4-3:24.  God prohibited  both of  them  from  eating  the  fruits  of  the  forbidden  tree.  The  serpent  seduced  Eve (Hawwa radhiyallahu anha) to  eat  from it  and  Eve (Hawwa radhiyallahu anha),  in  turn,  seduced  Adam (alaihissalaam) to  eat  with  her.  When  God  rebuked  Adam  for  what  he did,  he  put  all  the  blame  on  Eve, “The  woman  you  put  here  with  me  –she  gave  me  some fruit  from  the  tree  and  I  ate  it.” Consequently,  God  said  to  Eve:  “I  will  greatly  increase your  pains  in  childbearing;  with  pain  you  will  give  birth  to  children.  Your  desire  will  be for  your  husband  and  he  will  rule  over  you.”   To  Adam  He  said:  “Because  you  listened  to your  wife  and  ate  from  the  tree  ….  Cursed  is  the  ground  because  of  you;  through  painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life…”

The  Islamic  conception  of  the  first  creation  is  found  in  several  places  in  the  Quran,  for example:

“O  Adam (alaihissalaam) dwell  with  your  wife  in  the  Garden  and  enjoy  as  you  wish  but approach  not  this  tree  or  you  run  into  harm  and  transgression.  Then  Satan  whispered  to them  in  order  to  reveal  to  them  their  shame  that  was  hidden  from  them  and  he  said:  ‘Your Lord  only  forbade  you  this  tree  lest  you  become  angels  or  such  beings  as  live  forever.’ And  he  swore  to  them  both  that  he  was  their  sincere  adviser.  So  by  deceit  he  brought them to their  fall: when  they tasted the  tree their  shame became manifest to them  and they began  to  sew  together  the  leaves  of  the  Garden  over  their  bodies.  And  their  Lord  called unto  them:  ‘Did  I  not  forbid  you  that  tree  and  tell  you  that  Satan  was  your  avowed enemy?’  They  said:  ‘Our  Lord  we  have  wronged  our  own  souls  and  if  You  forgive  us  not and bestow not upon us Your Mercy, we shall certainly be lost’ “(7:19:23).

A  careful  look  into  the  two  accounts  of  the  story  of  the  Creation  reveals  some  essential differences.  The  Qur’an,  contrary  to  the  Bible,  places  equal  blame  on  both  Adam (alaihissalaam) and  Eve (Hawwa radhiyallahu anha) for  their  mistake.  Nowhere  in  the  Qur’an  can  one  find  even  the  slightest  hint  that  Eve (Hawwa radhiyaĺahu anha) tempted  Adam (alaihissalaam)  to  eat  from  the  tree  or  even  that  she  had  eaten  before  him.  Eve  in  the Qur’an  is  no  temptress,  no  seducer,  and  no  deceiver.

  Moreover,  Eve (Hawwa radhiyallahu anha)  is  not  to  be  blamed for  the  pains  of  childbearing.  Allah,  according  to  the  Qur’an,  punishes  no  one  for  another’s faults.  Both  Adam (alaihissalaam) and  Eve (Hawwa radhiyallahu anha) committed  a  sin  and  then  asked  Allah  for  forgiveness  and  He forgave them both.

The  image  of  Eve (Hawwa radhiyallahu anha) as  temptress  in  the  Bible  has  resulted  in  an  extremely  negative  impact on  women  throughout  the  Judaeo-Christian  tradition.  All  women  were  believed  to  have inherited  from  their  mother,  the  Biblical  Eve,  both  her  guilt  and  her  guile.  Consequently, they  were  all  untrustworthy,  morally  inferior,  and  wicked.  Menstruation,  pregnancy,  and childbearing  were  considered  the  just  punishment  for  the  eternal  guilt  of  the  cursed female  sex.  In  order  to  appreciate  how  negative  the  impact  of  the  Biblical  Eve  was  on  all her  female  descendants  we  have  to  look  at  the  writings  of  some  of  the  most  important Jews  and  Christians  of  all  time.

  Let  us  start  with  the  Old  Testament  and  look  at  excerpts from  what  is  called  the  Wisdom  Literature  in  which  we  find:  “I  find  more  bitter  than death  the  woman  who  is  a  snare,  whose  heart  is  a  trap  and  whose  hands  are  chains.  The man  who  pleases  God  will  escape  her,  but  the  sinner  she  will  ensnare….while  I  was  still searching  but  not  finding,  I  found  one  upright  man  among  a  thousand  but  not  one  upright woman among them all” (Ecclesiastes 7:26-28).

In  another part  of the  Hebrew literature which is found  in the  Catholic  Bible  we  read: “No wickedness  comes  anywhere  near  the  wickedness  of  a  woman…..Sin  began  with  a  woman and  thanks  to  her  we  all  must  die” (Ecclesiasticus  25:19,  24). 

Jewish  Rabbis  listed  nine curses inflicted on women as a  result of  the  Fall:   “To the  woman He  gave nine  curses  and death:  the  burden  of  the  blood  of  menstruation  and  the  blood  of  virginity;  the  burden  of pregnancy;  the  burden  of  childbirth;  the  burden  of  bringing  up  the  children;  her  head  is covered  as  one  in  mourning;  she  pierces  her  ear  like  a  permanent  slave  or  slave  girl  who serves her master; she is not to be believed as a witness; and after everything–death.”

2. To  the  present  day,  orthodox  Jewish  men  in  their  daily  morning  prayer  recite “Blessed  be God  King  of  the  universe  that  Thou  has  not  made  me  a  woman.” The  women,  on  the other  hand,  thank  God  every  morning  for  “making  me  according  to  Thy  will.” 

3  Another prayer  found  in  many  Jewish  prayer  books:  “Praised  be  God  that  he  has  not  created  me  a gentile.  Praised  be  God  that  he  has  not  created  me  a  woman.  Praised  be  God  that  he  has not created me an ignoramus.” 

The  Biblical  Eve  has  played  a  far  bigger  role  in  Christianity  than  in  Judaism.  Her  sin  has been  pivotal  to  the  whole  Christian  faith  because  the  Christian  conception  of  the  reason for  the  mission  of  Jesus  (Qur’anic ‘Eesa alaihissalaam)  on  Earth  stems  from  Eve’s  disobedience  to  God.  She  had sinned  and  then  seduced  Adam  to  follow  her  suit.  Consequently,  God  expelled  both  of them  from  Heaven  to  Earth,  which  had  been  cursed  because  of  them.

  They  bequeathed their  sin,  which  had  not  been  forgiven  by  God,  to  all  their  descendants  and,  thus,  all humans  are  born  in  sin.  In  order  to  purify  human  beings  from  their  ‘original  sin’,  God  had to  sacrifice  Jesus,  who  is  considered  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  on  the  cross.  Therefore,  Eve  is responsible  for  her  own  mistake,  her  husband’s  sin,  the  original  sin  of  all  humanity,  and the  death of  the Son  of God.  In  other words,  one woman  acting  on her  own caused  the fall of  humanity!

5  What about  her  daughters?? They are sinners  like her  and have to  be treated as  such.  Listen  to  the  severe  tone  of  Paul  in  the  New  Testament:  “A  woman  should learn  in  quietness  and  full  submission.  I  don’t  permit  a  woman  to  teach  or  to  have authority  over  a  man;  she  must  be  silent.  For  Adam  was  formed  first,  then  Eve.  And Adam  was  not  the  one  deceived;  it  was  the  woman  who  was  deceived  and  became  a sinner” (I  Timothy  2:11-14).

Tertullian  was  even  more  blunt  than  Paul,  while  he  was  talking  to  his  ‘best  beloved sisters’  in  the  faith,  he  said:  “Do  you  not  know  that  you  are  each  an  Eve?  The  sentence  of God  on  this  sex  of  yours  lives  in  this  age:  the  guilt  must  of  necessity  live  too.  You  are  the Devil’s  gateway:  You  are  the  unsealer  of  the  forbidden  tree:  You  are  the  first  deserter  of the  divine  law:  You  are  she  who  persuaded  him  whom  the  devil  was  not  valiant  enough to  attack.  You  destroyed  so  easily  God’s  image,  man.  On  account  of  your  desert  even  the Son of God had to die.”

Augustine  was  faithful to the legacy  of his predecessors,  he wrote  to a friend:  “What is the  difference  whether  it  is  in  a  wife  or  a  mother,  it  is  still  Eve  the  temptress  that  we  must beware  of  in  any  woman……I  fail  to  see  what  use  woman  can  be  to  man,  if  one  excludes the  function  of  bearing  children.” 

Centuries  later,  Thomas  Aquinas  still  considered women  as  defective:  “As  regards  the  individual  nature,  woman  is  defective  and misbegotten,  for  the  active  force  in  the  male  seed  tends  to  the  production  of  a  perfect likeness  in  the  masculine  sex;  while  the  production  of  woman  comes  from  a  defect  in  the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence.”

Finally,  the  renowned  reformer  Martin  Luther  could  not  see  any  benefit  from  a  woman but  bringing  into  the  world  as  many  children  as  possible  regardless  of  any  side  effects:  “If they  become  tired  or  even  die,  that  does  not  matter.  Let  them  die  in  childbirth,  that’s  why they are there”

Again and again  all women  are denigrated  because of  the  image  of  Eve  the temptress,  thanks  to  the Biblical Genesis  account. 

To  sum  up,  the  Judaeo-Christian  conception  of women  has  been  poisoned  by  the  belief  in  the  sinful  nature  of  Eve  and  her  female offspring.

If  we  now  turn  our  attention  to  what  the Noble Qur’an  has  to  say  about  women,  we  will  soon realize  that  the  Islamic  conception  of  women  is  radically  different  from  the  Judaeo-Christian  one.  Let  the  Qur’an the Word of Allah Ta’ala speak  for  itself: 

“For  Muslim  men  and  women,  for  believing men  and  women,  for  devout  men  and  women,  for  true  men  and  women,  for  men  and women  who  are  patient,  for  men  and  women  who  humble  themselves,  for  men  and women  who  give  in  charity,  for  men  and  women  who  fast,  for  men  and  women  who guard  their  chastity,  and  for  men  and  women  who  engage  much  in  Allah’s  praise–  For them  all  has  Allah  prepared  forgiveness  and  great  reward”  (33:35). 

“The  believers,  men and  women,  are  protectors,  one  of  another:  they  enjoin  what  is  just,  and  forbid  what  is evil,  they  observe  regular  prayers,  practise  regular  charity,  and  obey  Allah  and  His Messenger.  On  them  will  Allah  pour  His  Mercy:  for  Allah  is  Exalted  in  power,  Wise” (9:71).

  “And  their  Lord  answered  them:  Truly  I  will  never  cause  to  be  lost  the  work  of any  of  you, Be  you a  male  or  female, you are  members one  of another” (3:195).

“Whoever works  evil  will  not  be  requited  but  by  the  like  thereof,  and  whoever  works  a  righteous deed  -whether  man  or  woman-  and  is  a  believer-  such  will  enter  the  Garden  of  bliss” (40:40).

“Whoever  works  righteousness,  man  or  woman,  and  has  faith,  verily  to  him/her we  will  give  a  new  life  that  is  good  and  pure,  and  we  will  bestow  on  such  their  reward according to the best of their actions” (16:97).

It  is  clear  that  the  Qur’anic  view  of  women is  no different  than that of  men. They, both, are Allah’s  creatures  whose  sublime  goal  on  earth  is  to  worship  their  Lord,  do  righteous  deeds, and  avoid  evil  and  they,  both,  will  be  assessed  accordingly.  The  Qur’an  never  mentions that  the  woman  is  the  devil’s  gateway  or  that  she  is  a  deceiver  by  nature.  The  Qur’an,  also, never  mentions  that  man  is  God’s  image;  all  men  and  all  women  are  his  creatures,  that  is all.  According  to  the  Qur’an,  a  woman’s  role  on  earth  is  not  limited  only  to  childbirth.  She is  required to  do  as  many  good  deeds  as  any  other  man is required  to  do.  The  Qur’an  never says  that  no  upright  women  have  ever  existed.  To  the  contrary,  the  Qur’an  has  instructed all  the  believers,  women  as  well  as  men,  to  follow  the  example  of  those  ideal  women such  as  the  Virgin  Mary  and  the  Pharoah’s  wife:

  “And  Allah  sets  forth,  As  an  example  to those  who  believe,  the  wife  of  Pharaoh:  Behold  she  said:  ‘O  my  lord  build  for  me,  in nearness  to  you,  a  mansion  in  the  Garden,  and  save  me  from  Pharaoh  and  his  doings  and save  me  from  those  who  do  wrong.’

And  Mary  the  daughter  of  Imran  who  guarded  her chastity  and  We  breathed  into  her  body  of  Our  spirit;  and  she  testified  to  the  truth  of  the words of her  Lord and of  His  revelations  and was one  of the  devout” (66:11-13).  

What is the West?? The Origins and Definition of Western Civilisation

[By Abdullah al Andalusi]

Introduction: Why is it important to understand and define ‘The West’??

The term ‘The West’, ‘The Western world’ and ‘Western culture’ are used quite widely by ‘Western’ politicians, media and academics to refer to the very specific phenomena of ‘Western Civilisation’. Most people who use the term ‘the West’, do so intuitively, and generally agree on who are the main Western countries and states.

However, there are times when some people challenge the label ‘the West’, and seek to dismiss its use – especially when faced with arguments criticising ‘The West’ for its collective history of colonial abuses, ongoing foreign military interventions, and the endless stream of cultural products it exports aggressively across the world.

Generally, most people would agree that England, France, Germany, USA, Canada and Australia are Western countries, while countries such as Nigeria, Turkey and South Korea are ‘Westernised’. Obviously ‘The West’ doesn’t just mean europe, otherwise Australia and USA wouldn’t be included – and Russia would be included.

But what does ‘Western’ mean, where did the term come from, and what definitive criteria can be use to determine what is ‘Western’, ‘Westernised’ and ‘non-Western’?
An understanding of the origins of the West, and what defines it, will decisively help to ascertain and predict its character and behaviour.

The Origins of the West: The Roman Empire

The discussion about the West begins with the Roman Republic (509BC-27BC). The Roman republic lasted until 27BC when its republican political system of elected representatives and unelected aristocrats was overturned by the rise to power of the military general Octavian who became Rome’s first Emperor, transforming Rome into an Empire. The Roman Republic already controlled many provinces around the Mediterranean that it had conquered before it transformed into an Empire. This is because Rome under elected representatives was no less warlike than when ruled under Emperors, in fact probably more so before the imperial period [1].

Between 274–148 BC, the Roman Republic never had a year where it wasn’t at war with other states – including against other republics, like Carthage.

While Western Civilisation certainly arose in Europe, many falsely assume that Western Civilisation is based upon the lands occupied by the Roman Empire, but this is historically inaccurate. The Romans didn’t see themselves as a european empire but more of an mediterranean empire (the word ‘mediterranean’ means in Latin: ‘middle of the Earth’). Rome wasn’t exactly European as there were many places in Europe that were unconquered and uncivilised to them, like the north western european territories outside roman control – which were populated by peoples the romans considered barbarians like Caledonia (Scotland), Hibernia (Ireland), or in the north, like Scatinavia (Scandinavia) and in the east, like Magna Germania (Germany/Poland). Furthermore, the Roman Empire was not a european Empire because it had numerous middle-eastern and north African possessions which were integral parts of it

image

The Roman Empire’s territories do not correspond with the modern ‘West’, nor Europe. The seeds of Western civilisation wouldn’t start in Europe, but in the middle-east. Rome’s acquisition of a middle-eastern province it called Judea, would later see the rise of an obscure middle-eastern religious sect that would later be called Christianity – which would have a seminal role in the creation of Western civilisation.

The Roman Occupied Province of Judea and Judaism

Roman Judea was situated upon the area formerly occupied by the Biblical Ancient Kingdom of Israel (1050–931 BC).

The Kingdom of Israel comprised the 12 tribes of Israel, a nation led out of slavery in Egypt, according to the Tanakh (Jewish scriptures/Old Testament for Christians) and the Quran, who were favoured by God to bear witness of monotheism to the world and righteousness under the law of Moses.

There are a number of archeological and biblical sources for the history of the 12 tribes of Israel, but dates and events are still speculative. However, what the Tanakh teaches, is that Moses took the 12 tribes of Israel out of Egypt and into the wilderness of Sinai. The 12 tribes constitute the 12 clans originating from the 12 sons of Prophet Jacob (Yaqub [a.s.]), who was given the name Israel [2].

While in the wilderness, Moses conveyed the Law of God he received from revelation (called the Law of Moses , or Mosaic Law ) and decreed the building of a mobile tent-shrine to the one God – the Tabernacle. Moses’ teachings are alleged to be incorporated into the ‘5 books of Moses’ (called the
Torah by Jews . The books that would come later would record the stories of Prophets, the history of the tribes of Israel, and the Prophetic kings that came after Moses. These texts would be gathered and added to the 5 books of Moses, and later called the Tanakh by Jews, or the Old Testament by Christians).

The 12 tribes were promised by Moses the land of Canaan (modern day Lebanon and Palestine) except [3] the Philistine city states (modern day Gaza) [4].

The Conquest of Canaan and the era of Judges

After 40 years of waiting in the wilderness as nomads and growing in strength, the death of Moses saw the 12 tribes begin a successful conquest of Canaan led by Joshua, who was given the title ‘Judge’ in the Tanakh. Each tribe was given an area to settle – except the tribe of Levi, who were to be the priest caste for the other tribes, and would dwell in the cities being paid a tithe by the others. The 12 tribes lived under a loose confederation under successive leaders called ‘Judges’ but were more than judges in the legal sense, and were considered as Prophets in the Tanakh. Judges arose amongst the 12 tribes to unite them to fight external enemies, and sometimes they would arise to revive Mosaic law and monotheism in the face of lapses by the 12 tribes.

Due to border wars with the Philistines, the loose confederation of 12 tribes demanded a King over them, and were united into the Kingdom of Israel by Prophet Samuel (a.s.) under the King Saul (1050BC). Saul was later deposed by the Prophet Samuel due to allegedly not following God’s commands, and was replaced as King by David (1010BC), from the Israelite tribe of Judah.

The Jewish Concept of the Kingdom of God

The lands of Israel were described in the Tanakh as ruled by God, who would be its King [5]. During the time of the Judges, the Judges would direct the tribes of Israel by God’s judgements. After the beginning of kingship, the King was considered the deputy of God, and would rule Israel on His behalf according to Mosaic law. Courts would be set up and to judge by Mosaic law [6]- where even the King would be held accountable and deposed upon serious breach.

Mosaic law was a complete way of life for its time, guiding personal spiritual rituals, personal virtues to economic transactions, structure of Jewish society, laws and state. The Jewish understanding of the Kingdom of God, was an earthly Kingdom that established justice and the worship of God on earth.

The Prophet Kings of Israel
King David (Dawud alaihissalaam.) conquered the city of Jebus from the Jebusite tribe of Canaan [7], after which it is eventually renamed Jerusalem (as well as ‘The City of David’, and ‘Zion’) . After the passing of David, his son, Solomon [Sulayman alaihissalaam] becomes king of the Kingdom of Israel (970BC to 931BC), and builds its temple to the One god in Jerusalem. The Kingdom of Israel continued until Solomon’s (Sulayman alaihissalaam) death (931BC), where it split, with 10 tribes forming the northern Kingdom of Israel (centered around their capital of Samaria) and two tribes, the tribes of Benjamin and the dominant tribe of Judah forming the southern Kingdom of Judah (with the tribe of Levi, or Levites, moving to them shortly after), centered around their capital of Jerusalem.

image

The Northern kingdom of Israel was eventually conquered by the Assyrian Empire (720BC), and is portrayed in the Tanakh as being conquered as divine retribution for its sins and turning to idolatry. It’s ten tribes were exiled by the Assyrians and became known as the ‘ten lost tribes of Israel’ .

It was from the remaining Kingdom of Judah, which was dominated by the Judah Tribe, that the word ‘Judaism’ and ‘Jew’ originate from, i.e. the religion of the people of Judah.

Destruction of the Kingdom of Judah and the beginning of the era of Occupation

The Babylonians eventually conquered the Assyrians, and then took the southern kingdom of Judah in 587BC – destroying the first temple of Solomon – and taking the Jewish population as slaves into exile in Babylon.

The Babylonians were then conquered in turn by the Achaemenid Persians under ‘Cyrus the Great’ (539BC), who allowed the Jews to return back to Canaan and rebuild their (second) temple in Jerusalem. The Jews were given the region around Jerusalem as an autonomous region within the Achaemenid Persian empire, called Yehud Medinata. The Persians were then in turn conquered by Greeks led by Alexander III of Macedon, or ‘Alexander the great’ (331BC) which spread Greek culture (called Hellenism by historians) and Greek language throughout the eastern part of the mediterranean and the middle east, which would later have a decisive impact on creating the borders of Western civilisation .

Alexander’s greek empire split after his death (323BC) and was divided by his generals. Alexander’s General Seleucus eventually took control of the area from modern day Turkey and the Levant (Palestine/Syria) to modern-day Pakistan. This would be the later called the Seleucid Empire. It would clash with Rome in greece, and later crumble and fall to Parthian Persians invading from the East.

Under Seleucid rule, there were many Jews who adhered to the laws of Moses and the belief in one God, and strongly preserved the teachings of their ancestors against the ‘modern’ pagan Hellenism that dominated the Middle-East and eastern mediterranean. However, many Jews became Hellenised and adopted Greek culture, and even greek pagan religions.

The end of occupation, and the establishment of the Kingdom of Judea

In 167BC, the Seleucid King Antiochus IV Epiphanes ordered that non-Hellenised Jews were forbidden from practicing their religion, laws and culture, and were ordered to adopt Hellenistic religion, customs and laws. This caused a revolt amongst Jews, called the Maccabean Revolt, which lasted 7 years and pitted Jews against collaborators amongst the ‘Hellenised Jews’ and and Seleucid authorities. The revolt eventually lead to a victory from the Jewish forces, and the establishment of the Kingdom of Judea (160BC-63BC). Hellenistic Pagan temples were torn down and the temple of Solomon was cleansed of idolatry and re-dedicated to the one God (which Jews still celebrate today as Hanukkah) [8].

The Kingdom of Judea was independent for almost 100 years and expanded its borders during this time. However, Hellenism still was a potent political and cultural force, and Jewish society was split into a number of factions or political parties, with some based upon the preservation of Jewish tradition and the rejection of hellenism, and others who had a mild accommodation to hellenistic culture and philosophy. The three main factions were the Pharisees (Jewish traditionalists), Sadducees (aristocratic and inclined to hellenist philosophy, which, for example, denied the existence of an afterlife) and the Essenes (ascetics) [9].

Beginning of the Roman Occupation of Judea

In 63BC a civil war in the Kingdom of Judea allowed the Roman Republic an excuse to intervene.

Jerusalem was then conquered by the Roman general ‘Pompey the Great’ in 63BC, and the Kingdom of Judea became a client state of Rome with puppet figurehead rulers (known to be oppressive and silence political dissent), like King Herod. In 6BC, the puppet ruler Archelaus was made ruler of Judea by Roman approval, but was even more unpopular than his predecessors. This led to Rome deposing the ruler and turning the Kingdom of Judea into a Roman province under direct Roman rule from 6AD onwards.

Roman occupation and taxation caused the rise of two new factions, the Zealots (followers of Pharisee intent, but actively opposed to Roman occupation and paying taxes to them), and another faction faction or group, known as the Sicarii (Greek, ‘dagger men’), a group of violent individuals, who undertook extreme violent actions against Romans and Jews identified as tax collectors and collaborators.

The Coming of Hadhrat ‘Eesa (alaihissalaam) (Jesus)

The factionalism between the Jewish movements increased, and over the centuries since the time of Solomon (Sulayman alaihissalaam) the understanding of Judaism had become stale, with blind adherence to doctrines and laws of Moses, lacking nuance and subtlety in places. The laws of personal conduct and jurisprudence had over the centuries become overly-complex and prescriptive, becoming cumbersome and leading to contradictions beyond the law’s original intent. On the other extremes, many Jews had succumbed to greek philosophy and adopted corruptions into Jewish theology (like denial of an afterlife or a continuing soul), while others adopted asceticism and complete separation from worldly life.

Into this milieu came Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam), an alleged carpenter by trade, and raised in Nazareth (Galilee, north of Judea). He claimed receipt of divine revelation and that he was the prophesied Messiah (from Hebrew, ‘anointed one’) that would come and lead Israel to follow the commands of God, establish justice and vanquish its enemies. It is believed he (alaihissalaam) preached throughout Judea, correcting the superficial and over-complicated understanding and practice of the law held by the Pharisees, returning the understanding to the original practice of the time of Musa (alaihissalaam) (Moses).

Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) also is alleged to have argued against the corrupt greek-influenced theology of the Sadducees, and lived a life amongst the community and not separate from it, like the Essenes.

However, although it is believed by many historians today that Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) was executed by Romans at the initiation of Jewish colonial authorities, however the New Testament’s collection of books and the Qur’an declares that he was seen alive and well after his alleged crucifixion (the Qur’an argues he wasn’t killed). According to both sources, Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) was later raised up to heaven and believed will return to fulfill his mission in the future.

Since the raising up of Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) from the earth, (speculated around 27AD), the disciples of Jesus [‘Eesa alaihissalaam) formed a Council in Jerusalem, capital of the roman province of (occupied) Judea.

These individuals were considered practicing Jews for all intents and purposes and some historians go as far as to call them, at this juncture, a sect of Judaism. This Jewish sect followed the teachings of Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) which attested that the promised Jewish Messiah had come, and were devout Jews adhering to the laws of Moses (Musa alaihissalaam). They became known by others Jews as the ‘ Notzrim’ (Hebrew: Nazarenes, the people of Nazareth, or ‘Nazoraioi’ in Greek).

The decline of the Nazarenes and the birth of Roman/Hellenic Christianity

After the disappearance of Jesus (‘Eesa Maseeh alaihissalaam), Saul of Tarsus, arose to prominence in the new Jewish sect of Nazarenes. Known later as “St Paul”, Saul was a rabbinical student, tent maker and Roman citizen . He was a follower of the Jewish Pharisee school of thought, who initially persecuted the Nazarenes, but later claimed he had a vision of Jesus and converted to the new sect on the way to Damascus.

Paul’s charisma combined with his Roman citizenship and knowledge of Greek, Roman culture and Greek philosophy, allowed him to take a leading role in preaching to Gentiles (i.e. non-Jews) and he described himself as ‘a Messenger to the gentiles’ [10]. Paul preached a message to gentiles of faith and spirituality, but played down the importance of the law of Moses (Musa alaihissalaam) – which guided Jews in their personal, social and political lives.

Some scholars would later argue that Paul attempted to make the teachings of Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) more appealing to Gentiles, by not requiring any strict rules. Furthermore, Paul preached a decidedly passive and submissive doctrine, commanding people to pay their taxes to Rome, that Israelites be apolitical and wait for the return of Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam), and for slaves to be obedient to their masters without complaint. Paul’s ‘interpretation’ on the new sect of Judaism would be more preferable to the Romans and Greeks than the Mosaic social and political way of life that had been causing Jewish uprisings against Roman occupation.

Paul’s ‘Kingdom of God’ would no longer be an earthly kingdom, as Moses (Musa alaihissalaam) understood it, but Paul would reinterpret it to be purely a ‘spiritual kingdom’ that exists only in ‘hearts’ and in the future world of the coming of Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam).

It is recorded in the works of Paul, a new Greek-based name for followers of the new Jewish sect: Christians (Greek: Christianoi , followers of Christ , the Greek word for Messiah [11]).

Paul’s virtual abrogation of the law of Moses (Musa alaihissalaam), saw him come to blows with the council of Jerusalem over whether the Law of Moses (Musa alaihissalaam) should be followed by Gentiles or not. His teachings were notably submissive to the current political authorities, and his ‘understanding’ of the teachings of Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) became the most influential, despite Paul never having known Jesus or learned from his companions. Centuries later, 14 of the 27 books of the modern Christian New Testament would be composed entirely of his alleged writings alone. He died in Rome, having supported Peter in setting up a Christian community there.

A number of Jewish revolts against Rome rule failed, leading to the destruction of the second temple in 70AD by the Romans. 60 years later another failed and disastrous Jewish revolt called the Bar Kokhba revolt (132 AD – 135 AD) led to the Romans destroying the province of Judea, killing and exiling many of the jewish inhabitants. The Romans then renamed Judea to an ancient name for the region ‘Palaestina’, and merged the Roman province of Judea with the Roman province of Syria to create a new province called ‘Syria Palaestina‘. At the decree of Emperor Hadrian, Jews were banned from the city of Jerusalem, which was rebuilt and renamed ‘Aelia Capitolina’ and became a purely pagan capital.

After the destruction of Judea in 130AD, the character of Christianity became dominated by non-Jewish (Gentile) communities of Christian believers called ‘churches’ (from Greek ‘Ecclesia’: assembly) who were spread throughout the areas of the Mediterranean.

After 130AD, the centre of gravity of Christianity shifted from Jerusalem to the Church in Rome, which began to rise in prominence due to being in the capital of the Roman Empire. The Christian community in Rome was founded allegedly by Peter (a disciple of Jesus [‘Eesa alaihisalaam]who is reported to have come to Rome, and was killed by Emperor Nero around 67AD) and later supported by Paul.

However, Christianity began to be viewed with distrust throughout the Roman Empire, leading to many persecutions and killings of Christians lasting on-and-off for over two hundred years.

Christians were suspected of not being loyal to Rome and the Emperor, not participating the Roman political system or military, and holding ideas that threatened traditional roman values and beliefs.

During this time, the beliefs of Christian communities were written down, with each community writing its own version of Jesus’s (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) teaching and life – called Gospels (Greek: Evangelion, good news), other writings included history of the companions of Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) or the early churches, and other writings featuring visions later Christians claim they had received about the future (called Apocalyses from the Greek word for ‘revelation’).

Centuries later, these Gospels would be gathered up, with some being discarded, and others being chosen depending on whether or not they agreed with Christian beliefs held by the majority (who were Pagan Greeks/Romans).

Eventually these were compiled into a compilation later to be called ‘the New Testament’ (The Jewish Tanakh was then referred to as the Old Testament).

The Roman Empire Adopts Christianity

Eventually, Christianity persisted through the persecutions and continued to spread to the point it was patroned by the Roman Emperor Constantine – some historians say as a means to supplant his rivals, and use it to enforce order in a declining empire. Constantine issued the edict of Milan, in 313AD officially granting tolerance of Christianity.

Eventually, after support from following Christian emperors, under Emperor Theodosius I, in 380AD, Christianity was declared the only legitimate religion of the Roman Empire, and therefore the ‘Catholic ‘ Church (from Greek: katholikos, universal). In the years that followed, many pagans were forced to convert to Christianity or lose their positions, be threatened, or even killed.

The Christian Church at this point wasn’t hierarchical or strictly unified. It was composed of a scattered collection of Christian communities (churches) in different areas of the Roman Empire, each led by its own Bishop (from Greek ‘epískopos’, meaning overseer or guardian) and following various gospels or other writings.

Whenever a matter of doctrine or dispute was to be decided, the Roman emperor would summon the bishops of all the areas within the Roman empire to attend a council or synod, where each matter would be decided by voting. The Council of Nicaea in 325AD was one such example, convened by Constantine to decide the question of the divinity of Jesus by putting it to a vote, resulting in a majority voting for Jesus being declared one with God, and God himself, despite being opposed by a minority (an example of democracy in theology).

The Split of the Roman Empire into East and West

The adoption of Christianity did not prevent the continuingly endless civil wars, succession crises, constant barbarian invasions and gradual economic decline that wrecked the Roman Empire. After the death of Emperor Theodosius I, in 395AD, the Roman Empire split into two.

The Western half being roughly composed of Latin speakers, and the Eastern half of Greek speakers.

image

The Eastern Roman Empire remained, and was later called by historians, the Byzantines, because Emperor Constantine moved the Roman capital to former Greek city of Byzantium, rebuilt it and renamed it Constantinople.

Despite this, the Eastern Roman Empire regarded themselves simply as ‘Romans’ and they viewed their lands as the continuing Roman Empire.

The Western Roman Empire continued to decline, and retreated from its northern territories in europe. The empire lasted (officially) until 4 September 476AD, when Rome was conquered and sacked by a barbarian invasion force led by Odoacer, which deposed the Roman emperor.

The traditions and practices of the West and Eastern churches would later gradually diverge over time, with communication becoming increasingly difficult and theological disagreements would arise due to translation differences, becoming more acute with the decline of the use of Latin and Greek in both areas.

In the wake of the collapse of the Roman Empire, the tribes and nomadic hordes of Scatinavia and Germania, the Franks, Visigoths, Vandals, Lombards and Saxons burst into former Roman lands, rampaged and conquered and established a patchwork of new fiefdoms and kingdoms. The relatively uneducated and unsophisticated barbarian tribes couldn’t repair roman technology or buildings, and left them to slowly crumble. The places of learning fell into disrepair and the technological know-how of the romans was lost, which heralded in the what historians would call the european ‘Dark Ages’ . The Dark Ages were not a product of Christianity as some modern day Secularists falsely misrepresent, but rather the Dark Ages were an obvious and natural result of the collapse of the (Christian) Roman Empire and the usurpation of its lands by barbarian tribes!

The Eastern Roman Empire didn’t fall, and therefore managed to preserve all the learning and technology from the Roman Empire and never suffered under a ‘dark age’. The Dark Ages would only descend upon the remains of the Western Roman Empire setting the scene for what would come next.

The split in the Roman Empire into a Western Latin speaking half, and an Eastern Greek speaking half would set the course for the creation of the modern “West”. The surviving remnant of the fall of Rome, the Church of Rome would operate within the latin speaking half and cause subsequent transformations using a radically altered religion that was taken from the Middle-East into Europe and transformed into a hybrid of ancient semitic beliefs and Greeco-Roman philosophy and mythology.

This hybrid religion would then create a historical peculiarity over the next 1,000 years that would form Western Civilisation and make it distinct from all others.

Now, we look at what happened after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and how the last surviving institution, the Roman Church was vaulted into ascendency by the unwitting activity of a new rising civilisation – Islam.

The clash of the West European Christian Tribes with the Islamic Civilisation, would unleash forces that led to the birth of the West as a distinct civilisation. The rise of Islam would create the West.

The Fall of the Western Roman Empire and the ‘Barbarian’ Colonisation of Europe

The Western Roman Empire was crumbling economically and militarily, and began to withdraw from many areas of the Empire, in many places it ceded areas to barbarian tribes for settlement instead of resisting. However it was a matter of time before the complete collapse of the Western Roman Empire came.

After the sack of Rome to Alaric and his gothic army in 410AD, the city of Rome remained, although only a pale shadow of its former esteem.

The Gothic armies of Odoacer (a former Roman officer) deposed the last Western Roman Emperor in 476AD and Odoacer was declared first (‘Barbarian’) King of Italy. This formally ended the Western Roman Empire.

With the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe was overrun with barbarian tribes, from Germania – the Franks, the Lombards, the Visigoths, the Saxons, the Frisians and the Angles and Danes from Scandinavia.

image

The native Gauls and Celts who had previously lived throughout western Europe under Roman power were christian and many Christian communities of the Western Roman Empire survived and adapted to their new pagan overlords (although some of the tribes were nominally Christian).

image

Later on, the Eastern Roman Empire under Emperor Justinian (ruled 527AD-565AD) attempted to reconquer all the former Western Roman areas into a reunited Roman Empire, which met with some success, but eventually shrank back due to overstretched resources.

However, the Eastern Roman Empire managed to retain Rome, leaving a small garrison force to protect it. The city of Rome looked to the Eastern Roman Empire for its protection against the european barbarians. The Bishop of Rome attended the councils and synods of his fellow Bishops in the Eastern Roman Empire (who each head churches in Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople), but this didn’t last long.

The Rise of Islam & the Breakaway of the Church of Rome

Pressured by constant wars against the Persian Sassanid Empire and the invading Bulgars, the rise of Islam and the military defeats of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) armies, shrivelled up the Eastern Roman Empire, losing it North Africa, Egypt, the Levant and the islands of the mediterranean. Constantinople barely resisted a number of sieges by Caliph Muawiyah, relying on ‘greek-fire’ flamethrowers to fend off the Muslim forces.

The pressure of the barbarian Lombards invasions of Italy, and the loss of a significant amount of provinces to the Islamic Caliphate created a weakness and inability in the Eastern Roman Empire to protect the Italian peninsula. This prompted the Bishop of Rome to look towards the new germanic tribal overlords of Europe for protection. If the rise of the Islamic Caliphate hadn’t conquered the lands dominated by the Eastern Roman Empire, history would have taken a completely different turn.

The Roman Catholic Church finds new patrons

With the Roman Church free of the Eastern Roman Empire’s control, it used Rome as a base of operations to send missionaries and resources from the Catholic Church to convert the invading pagan tribes to Christianity and set up new communities and expand existing ones – leading to new Bishops and Churches being established throughout Europe. This task was made easier due to the fact that many of the invading tribes were already (nominal) Christians, and had earlier become Christian due to awe at the power and civilisation of the former Roman Empire.

The Bishops and clergy preserved Western Roman language (Latin) and a lot of Roman administrative methods, laws and codes. They offered their assistance and giving them religious-approved authority to the rule over the new Christian tribal kings and chiefs in return of protection and patronage. Over time, the invaders were latinised and their languages changed under the tutelage of Bishops and clergy who preserved many aspects of late Roman culture. This led to the adoption of many latin words into the languages of these new Christian tribes – leading to the languages that would eventually become French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, English and German. Eventually, conquest and increasing wealth from settlement and sedentary life led to the rise of bigger kingdoms in Western Europe.

In 800 AD,  Pope Leo III crowned the highly successful Frankish King, Charlemagne, as ‘Holy Roman Emperor’, conveying upon the church of Rome, the ability to spiritually approve and make Kings and heirs to the Roman Empire itself (which was strongly protested by the Empress Irene of the Eastern Roman Empire, and her successor Emperor Nikephoros I, who viewed themselves to be the only true continuation of the Roman Empire).

Charlemagne’s Frankish empire, called the Carolingian Empire – spanned modern-day France, Germany and Northern Italy, and had become powerful patrons of Roman Christianity, fighting Muslims in Spain (with limited results), conquering the Lombards in Italy, and forcing the Saxons in Germania to convert to Christianity or face death.

image

The Carolingian Empire lasted until 846AD where it split into three parts between three sons of Frankish Emperor Louis ‘the Pious’ (840AD), Western Francia, Northern Italy and the third Kingdom over the area where is now modern Germany.

image

The Frankish Kingdom ruling over the area where is now modern-day Germany (shown in pink on the picture above), expanded somewhat and later became another revived ‘Holy Roman Empire’ under King Otto I in 962AD (lasting in very different forms up until 1809).

While Bishops and Churches of the Eastern Roman Empire were puppets of the Emperor and lacked independence, however, the new political independence of Rome and its Church from the shrinking Eastern Roman Empire allowed the Bishop of Rome to act independently and decide theological doctrines outside of Eastern Imperial control. This would eventually lead to a schism between the Christian communities under the influence of the Roman Church (the churches of Western europe) and the prominent christian communities under the rule of the Eastern Roman Emperor.

Over the years many Bishops of Rome began increasingly claiming that they possessed preeminent authority in all earthly and spiritual matters – arguing that the foundation of christian communion (i.e. The Christian ‘ Ummah’), was upon St. Peter, who they argued was given the ‘keys to the Kingdom of Heaven’ [12]. The Bishops of Rome argued they were the direct successors of St. Peter, and therefore only they were inheritors to the same ‘powers’ and ‘authority’ allegedly first conveyed to St. Peter – possessing ‘rightful’ leadership of all the Christian communities throughout the world.

In the past, the Bishops of all the most prominent Christian communities were called ‘Popes’ (Greek: Father), however, the Bishop of Rome would now (according to itself) be the only one that could be called
Pope . In essence, the Bishop of Rome, gradually claimed pre-eminence until it declared that the Bishop of Rome alone could unilaterally decide Christian doctrine, rites, creed and canon law without strictly needing councils or synods.

In 1054, Pope Leo IX sent Cardinal Humbert to deliver a decree to the head Bishop (Patriarch) of Constantinople, Michael Cærularius. The decree not only claimed the supreme authority of the Pope of Rome, but also claimed that the Roman emperor Constantine had in centuries past ‘donated’ the Roman Empire to the Church of Rome (this was based upon an inauthentic and possibly deliberately forged document called ‘the donation of Constantine’). The mission ended badly and the decree was rejected and the Cardinal excommunicated (i.e takfir) the Eastern Christian Patriarch. This was met in response by a mutual excommunication from the Patriarch against Pope Leo IX. This began the West-East schism creating what is known today as the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Christendom – The first Consciousness of Western Civilisation

Conversion to Christianity from amongst the pagan european tribes had already begun under Roman Imperial rule from 4th century and continued progressively until 14th century.

However, it was the Roman Catholic encounter with Islam that would change Western Roman Christians forever, and inadvertently create the beginning of Western Civilisation as a separate civilisation all of its own.
The Roman Catholic Churches control over the tribes and kingdoms increased over time, but politically their patrons and influence were faced with an enemy it couldn’t easily conquer – the Islamic Civilisation.

Everywhere the Catholic Church looked, whether to the West in Iberia (modern-day spain/portugal), Sicily, North Africa, the Eastern Levant and beyond, all it could see was the lands of Islam.

This created a call of unity by the Catholic Church, to all Catholic Christians, would slowly gather pace around 11th century, leading to a new purpose for war, a Crusade from Latin cruciata , past participle of cruciare “to mark with a cross,”) against the ‘infidel’.

The settled tribes of Western europe had by now become established kingdoms and had warred against eachother. The creation of a new kind of war, a war based upon their Catholic Christian identity, and blessed by their religion, created a new awareness and consciousness in the world that had now become a distinct civilisation –
Christendom.

From [Pope] Gregory VII [d.1058AD] onward, christianitas and related words occurred much more frequently, and it is in that period that the term began to achieve its “true significance.” The heyday of christianitas coincided with the rise of the papal monarchy, and the idea of Christendom finally “triumphed” under the pontificate of [Pope] Innocent III [d.1216AD], perhaps the mightiest of papal monarchs.
This idea lay at the center of Innocent’s political outlook and actions. One finds the full articulation of the notion of christianitas in crusading chronicles, where the word was in common use. This is understandable once we realize that the concept of Christendom was the first to take shape among the various preconditions of the crusading movement—as well as the last to vanish. A precondition of the crusade, the concept of Christendom was realized with the crusade. The launching of the crusade can be seen as marking the symbolic point when Christendom became “a living reality,” when it was transformed into what could be called a society.
“Christendom (and the idea of Christendom) found its most potent expression in the crusade; the crusade exalted Christendom, carried it to its highest point of fervor.” Christendom and the crusade came into existence together: They were “made together, in a reciprocal creation.” (13)

It comes as no surprise then, that the earliest surviving record we have today of the use of the word ‘christianitatis’ to mean ‘Christendom’ as the dominions of (Roman Catholic) Christians, occurs in a chronicle of an unnamed crusading warrior from the first Crusade:

“Turci inimici Dei et sanctae christianitatis” [The (Muslim) Turk is an enemy of God and Holy Christendom] (14)

In effect, the medieval Catholic Church created Christendom by radicalising the Catholic Christian peoples of Europe against Islam.
Up until now, the Catholic Church’s political power was limited to only rubber stamping Catholic kings and rulers and demanding their christian populations obey them.

However, the call to crusade and the ability to regularly launch wars under its instigation – attracting volunteers from both the peasant and noble classes across the Catholic kingdoms – gave the church a degree of ascendency over all the Catholic Kings. The new consciousness and civilisation of Christendom that spanned the Western European kingdoms and transcended their borders, would now be led by the Catholic Church.

The first incarnation of the something approximating the modern-day West, and its precursor, was ‘Christendom’. This concept referred to all lands dominated or ruled over by Christians from the Western Roman Church, Roman Catholicism, and did not generally include the Eastern Orthodox Church or lands of its followers.

As Europe came into the 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th centuries, the Swedes, and Danes converted to Catholic Christianity as did the rest of Scandinavia and eastern Germany. Viking raiders settled in west Francia on condition of converting to Christianity, andwere called Normans (from latin Normanni, from the old Frankish word Nortmann, which mean ‘North men’). The region is now called Normandy.

Further East, the Slavs and peoples of Novgorod (later Russia) converted to Eastern Orthodox Christianity.

image

The region in the above illustration, marks the schism between the West Roman Church (Roman Catholicism) and the Eastern Roman Church (Eastern Orthodox Christianity).

The Catholic Kingdoms of Denmark, Poland and Sweden (and two Germanic Knight orders) launched crusades in the 13th-14th century to spread Christianity and force convert the Pagans to the East, however Catholic crusades weren’t only reserved for pagans and Muslims. Pope Gregory IX endorsed Northern Crusades in 1242 against the Eastern Orthodox Christian Kingdom of Novgorod (modern day Russia), which ended in defeat for the Catholics. These campaigns are now called the ‘Northern Crusades’.

The lands under control of Roman Catholic Christians by 14th century, or Christendom , set the basis the region that would be later collectively called ‘the West’, and form the lands whose descendants would later be called ‘Westerners’.

A Brief Note on Eastern Roman Empire and the Islamic Civilisation’s Perspective towards Christendom

Since the split of the Roman Empire into two parts, the Eastern Roman Empire had always referred to the other half as fellow Romans. When the Western Roman Empire was overrun by barbarians, the barbarians were obviously not considered Romans, but after the later latinisation of their culture due to the work of the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Roman Empire called them ‘Latinikoi’ (Greek: Latins ). It should be borne in mind, that the Eastern Roman Empire considered only themselves as the surviving continuation of the Roman Empire, and called themselves ‘Rhomaioi’ (Greek: Roman). The new ‘Latins’ of the West, were merely viewed as latinised barbarians who ruled over the conquered lands they took from the Roman Empire, and inherited and imitated some of the old culture from a dead part of the Roman Empire mixed with their own – and so could never truly be Roman themselves.

The Islamic Civilisation had conquered the germanic tribe Visigoths and ended their occupation of Iberia, but later encountered border clashes with the Catholics of Asturias in the mountainous area of northern Iberia (Al Andalus). Muslims had also fought against Normans invading Sicily. However, Muslims of the time did not perceive of Christendom as a united force, nor a separate civilisation.

This was going to change after the Crusades, when Muslims observed Christians from all over Western europe were flocking into armies directed at the Islamic Levant. But this didn’t prompt Muslims to lump all Christians together – they still differentiated between Eastern Romans, native Middle Eastern Christians, and the warlike newcomers from Western Europe.

The Christian Eastern Romans were simply called ‘Al Rum’ and their Greek language was called ‘Al Rumi’, and the Christians living in Islamic lands were simply called ‘Christians’ or Nassara (Arabic for Nazarenes).

The closest name invented by Muslims for the people of Christendom (Western European Catholics), was a word coined from their most prominent and most encountered ethnic group, Al Franji (Arabicised word for Franks). This was probably because the Frankish empires of Europe were the most prominent Catholic power for most of the middle ages, and to Muslims, were the most prominent of the people they encountered from that region

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

[1] For more information about the aggressive expansionism of the Roman Republic, and a philosophical discussion on why republics are prone to war, read ‘Imperialism In Republican Rome: 327-70 B.C’ (1985, William V. Harris)

[2] The true meaning of the name is disputed amongst historians. Some think it means to ‘rule by God’s authority’, others think it refers to something along the lines of ’success given by God’, or ‘prevailed by God’.

[3] The Philistines are absent on the list of tribes that were commanded to be destroyed by the 12 tribes of Israel (Deuteronomy 7:1, 20:17 )

[4] The modern word Palestine is speculated to be derived from Philistine or the Ancient Egyptian word ‘Peleset’ (1100BC-800BC) as the oldest word for south part of Canaan.

[5] “(God’s) throne, to be king for the Lord thy God” (2 Chron. 9:8; 1 Chron. 28:5; 29:23)

[6] Exodus 18:13-26, Deuteronomy 1:9-16, Deuteronomy 17:8-20

[7] 1 Chronicles 11:4-5

[8] 2 Maccabees 6:1–11 (Tanakh/Old Testament, Bible)

[9] For more information, read the account of Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 18:1: http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-18.htm

[10] Romans 15:16

[11] This term is derived from the Greek translation of the Hebrew work Messiah Christós, the anointed one

[12] Matthew 16:13-19 (New Testament, Bible)

[13] Crusading Peace Christendom, the Muslim World, and Western Political Order, Tomazˇ Mastnak, 2002

[14] Gesta Francorum VI,xiii.

The Christian/Gregorian Calendar and its Pagan roots

I would like to bring to light the origins of the Christian calendar, in order to reveal their pagan roots. My purpose is twofold;

1) To help the Christians by showing them how far off from the Worship of the One True God they are, In shaa’Allah (God Willing), and

2) It is also a warning to all Muslims of the implications of celebrating said holidays, as well as adhering to the Christian calendar in the so-called spirit of
“Good Will” with the Christians.

This seems to be ever more prevalent today as Muslims are integrating with western ideologies not only in the Americas, but also much of Europe. So with that let examine where exactly these concepts originated from, and if in fact they had anything at all to do with Prophet Jesus (‘Eesa Alaihissalaam).

I wish to address the Christian calendar and its “pagan” origins. The majority of the western world follows the “solar calendar” as was implemented by the Christian
Church centuries ago. It should be noted, however, that at one time the Christians, like the Muslims and Jews, followed the “lunar calendar” . Today, Muslims and Jews still adhere to the “lunar calendar” , whereas the rest of the world, with a few exceptions, adhere to the “solar calendar” .

Before we begin though, I would like to point out that the
“solar calendar” is somewhat imperfect. It is this imperfection that causes the addition of an extra day in February every four years. This is called a “Leap Year” . I will not be discussing astronomy here however, but rather the origins of the “solar calendar” and nothing more.

When civilization was still young, and before people knew any better, the most brilliant object they could see was the sun. They thought the sun was God and as such worshipped it. This pagan idea remained with the Christians when they changed the Jewish Sabbath (Saturday) to the Christian day of rest
(Sunday) . The Christians called this rest day “Sun-day” , a day dedicated to the Roman sun-god that I mentioned earlier. This pagan idea also had an influence on the names of the months as we shall now explore;

JANUARY
The Roman year originally began in March, but when the calendar was revised by the Christian Pope Gregory the 13 th, January was made the first month in dedication of “JANUS”, a Roman god who was represented as having two faces, one looking backward and the other forward.

Pope Gregory the 13th took this into consideration when making January the first month of the year because it suggested both looking back and looking forward.

FEBRUARY
February was named after “FEBRUA”, the Roman feast of purification. Before Julius Caesar, it was the last month of the year but it was placed as the second month on the Roman calendar and the Christians did likewise in their calendar.

MARCH
“MARS”, the Paganic god of war, gave his name to the month of March, for the Romans considered it a noisy and blustering month. When they went to war, they carried a cage full of chickens, which was sacred to “MARS”. Before the battle, they offered corn to the chickens. If the chickens rejected the corn, the Romans feared defeat. If, however, the chickens ate the corn, the Romans were confident of victory.

APRIL
The month of April, which heralds the spring season in the northern hemisphere, takes the name “The Opener” from nature’s opening “Omnia Aperit”, which is Latin for “It Opens All Things”. It was named as such because it is during this month, in the northern hemisphere, that the earth awakens from its winter sleep. The buds appear and bloom in the branches. The birds rejoice and it is heard in their songs. Oddly enough, this is also the time of the year of the Pagan-Roman-Christian Easter celebrations.

MAY
May was dedicated to and received its name from “MAIA”, a female worshipped as a goddess, whose father was “ATLAS”. The whole weight of the world was supposed to have rested on the shoulders of “ATLAS”. Of his seven daughters, “MAIA” was considered to be the most famous because of her beauty and her lovely figure. Her son “MERCURY” became the winged messenger of the gods. Christians now consider May to be the month of “MARY”(ra), the mother of Prophet Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam). It is easy to see the similarities between Maia and Mercury to that of Mary(ra) and Jesus(as)which the Pagan-Christians mixed.

JUNE
June was considered by the Romans as the month of roses. It was dedicated to “JUNO”, the jealous, but so-called wife of the Paganic Roman god “JUPITER”.

“JUNO” is represented in her statues and pictures driving in a chariot drawn by peacocks.

JULY
The Pagan King, Julius Caesar, considered to be one of the greatest men of his time, gave his own name to July. He ordered the seventh month to be named after him.

Pope Gregory the 13 th held Julius Caesar in high esteem and as such his name was carried over unchanged into the Gregorian calendar.

AUGUST
August owes its name to the nephew of Julius Caesar, “AUGUSTUS”, who was first named “OCTAVIUS”. In order to flatter him, the people around him changed his name to Augustus, which means “Noble”. However, since July had 31 days and August only 30 days, the Romans took a day from September and placed it in August, fearing that Augustus might be jealous of Julius Caesar’s extra day in the month of July.

SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, DECEMBER
The name September comes from the Latin word for seventh, as do the names October, November and December, which means eight, ninth and tenth respectively. These months kept their names from the time when the year began in March, before the time of Julius Caesar and was adopted into the Gregorian calendar. Oddly enough, December is also the birth month of the Roman sun-god which also influenced the decision to make January the first month of the “new” Christian calendar. The events of the birth of the Roman sun-god has now become Christian dogma as pertaining to the birth of Prophet Jesus(‘Eesa Alaihissalaam).

The authority to proclaim new moons, change the system, resided with the Caesar
his seat of power ruled, and he was the priest of Janus.

Pontifex Maximus – Etruscan meaning highest priest, bestowed on Caesar as the head of the Pontifical College of Priests of Janus

Cardinals – Latin ‘cardo’ meaning hinge. They assisted the priest of Janus in opening ‘the door’ to the Elysian Fields, the Pagan ‘Heaven’.

so Caesar was the gateway to the after-life for a Roman pagans.

First, the Julian Calendar, then in 1582 Pope Gregory implemented a 10-day adjustment to the calendar designed by Sosigenes for that year. This was obeyed by the ‘papal states’ but the rest of the western world remained on the former timetable, until the time of Benjamin Franklin that the rest of society came into line with Rome. So now, we now have the Gregorian Calendar.

The power of the Caesars had been handed/inherited down to the Popes and Pagan-Christianity.

First, popes were called the Bishop of Rome, and then they used the Caesar’s title, “papal”, a Mithraic title. – therefore, the Caesar now is the Pope.

Days too are named after the Pagan fake deities!

Sunday – dies solis , day of the sun:

Since Babylon was established, pagans have worshipped the sun.
Baal, Shamash, Moloch, Ahura-Mazda, Dagon, Sol, Marduk, Mithras, Krishna, Amon-Ra, Aton, Woden(Odin), Zeus, Deus, and the Druid/Teutonic ‘God’. This began with the first king Nimrod.

In 321 CE, Constantine I, gave the term Sun-Day, which he called Sol Invictus Mithras (day of the unconquerable sun, Mithras). This was a Universal Edict. Romans considered anyone who did not worship the sun to be an atheist and a traitor, since Caesar was the sun enthroned in a man.

Mondaythe Day-of-the-Moon:

To the Romans, lunae dies
Moon was identified with Artemis (Diana) – Artemis is depicted with the crescent moon beneath her feet as if riding in a boat – exactly as you will see Mary in Roman Catholic illustrations.

Tuesday – Tyr’s Day – day of Tiu:

Teutonic Druid – Celtic idol,The Druids still worship the sun at Stonehenge every summer solstice.
Tyr or Tiu, was the Paganic Norse deity of war, considered the son of Odin(Woden). The French call this day Mardi (Mar’s Day), after Mars – the Roman deity of war.
French celebrate Mardi Gras – ‘fat Tuesday’ – bearing the name of the Roman deity.

WednesdayWodin, Odin’s Day

Considered highly skilled in magic, this Celtic deity was, to the Teutonic pagans, the husband of Freya, or Frigga. The Romans honoured Mercury on this day, calling it Mercurii dies (Mercury’s Day).

This mid-week evening was highly regarded as a night of majik – the Druids met to hold hands in a circle, chant, enchant, cast spells and do it while surrounding a burning cross – the symbol of Wodin (Odin)cross with the circle – the sun.

The Druids were very nationalistic, so it was difficult for Rome to conquer them. The only way Christianity could win them over was to absorb their culture. This is called inculturation.

Syncretism – the attempt to reconcile or combine differing beliefs in philosophy or religion by uniting them – mixes two or more behaviors together, re-inventing the meaning “on the surface”.
(syncretism – from “syn-together” and French “cretin – idiot” , from Swiss French “crestin”)

Thursday – the Celtic Thor’s Day – the deity of thunder and son of Woden and Freya:

The same as Taranus, Thor was associated with thunder.

The Dutch donder, or Germanic donder – one of Santa’s reindeer.
The Romans honoured Jupiter on this day, which was originally IU-PITAR, meaning Jovis-father.

“Jove” – Zeus. The Altar of Zeus, used at every Olympic game is lit by a torch. The altar is T-shaped – Thor’s emblem was the hammer, secretly interpreted as the letter T – harkening back to Tammuz (Babylonian Duzu), – the son of Nimrod and Semiramis.

Friday – Old English Frigedaeg – Frey Day or Frigga Day

Frigga –wife of Woden. The Greeks honoured Aphrodite on this day, and the Romans venerated Venus(Astarte). This day was the Egyptians day of Isis – depicted with the symbol of the fish on her head. The fish symbol pre-dates the Egyptians coming from the Phoenician/Philistine cult of Dagon. (Judge 16:23, 1Sam5:2).
Dag is Hebrew for fish and Latin – Pisces. Chosen by the pagans for fertility symbol because fish lays thousands of eggs.

The Greek word ichthys(ikhthus) doesn’t mean Christ, but fish.

Saturday – the Greco-Roman Day of Saturn

Saturn was the Romans deity of agriculture – Greeks is ‘Cronus’
This day was dedicated to Saturnus – the big party at the end of the Roman year at the Solstice, Saturnalia.

Also Sater Day – SATYR – a goat-legged half man with horns and pointed ears, was believed to be a drunken lecherous demon with an abnormal sexual appetite. (Observe the western culture’s weekend parties now – the satyr profile: drunkenness, orgiastic revelry, mischievousness)

Though the Gregorian calendar came into force long after the birth of Prophet Jesus(Nabi ‘Eesa alaihissalaam), the Christian church was reluctant to sever its ties, its links and its umbilical cord from its idolatrous, pagan past.

It is little wonder that Israel Zangwill, a Jewish author in his book “Children of the Ghetto”, summed up this phenomenon with these words;

“Scratch the Christian and you will find the pagan-spoiled.”

The hypothesis of Christianity History itself indicates on the outset that as the Pagans were absorbed into Christianity, it was the policy to accept everything they were accustomed to celebrating also.

Let’s hear it directly from the Catholic organization itself; the Catholic Cardinal John Henry Newman’s book, The Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, published in 1878, states in chapter 8: “The rulers of the Church from early times were prepared, should the occasion arise, to adopt, to imitate, or to sanctify the existing rites and customs of the population, as well as the philosophy of the educated class. The use of temples and those dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasion with branches of trees (wreaths), incense, lamps, candles, votive offerings on recovering from illnesses, holy water, holy days and seasons (the entire Church calendar), use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the ring in marriage, chants, the Kyrie Eleison — are all of Pagan origin, and sanctified by adoption into the Church.”

There you have it. But, you may ask, “If Easter was a Pagan festival celebrating the impregnation of ‘Mother Earth’, how did it get mixed up with Christianity??”

The present-day “Roman-Christianity’s” “Pagan Connection” started with one man more than any other. In 325 CE, the Roman Emperor Constantine I convened what is now called the Nicene Council, gathering 220 elders (bishops) together, in order to unify basic doctrines (teachings), and establish common practices. This “universalizing” produced the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). The Latin word “Catholic” means universal. There was no “Catholic” on planet Earth prior to this Council. The only Council mentioned in the Writings conducted by the first Nazarenes is mentioned at Acts 15, the purpose of which was to determine how to accommodate Roman Pagan practices and rituals into the true teachings of ‘Eesa (alaihissalaam)(Biblical Jesus).

In order to blend practices into universal (Pagan) behavior, the Shabbat (Sabbath) was abolished , along with Passover and other annual observances which even Prophet ‘Eesa (alaihissalaam) observed. This was a prophecy revealed to Prophet Daniel (Arabic Daanyal alaihissalaam).

In the prophecy, four “beasts” or kingdoms would arise, which are clearly (1) Babylon, (2) Media- Persia, (3) Greece, and (4) Rome.

At Dani’el 7:25, the 4th beast is clearly described:

“The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on Earth (Rome). It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole Earth, trampling it down and crushing it. The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom (Caesars/Khasars/Kaisers/Czars ~ Julius Caesar up to Constantine). After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones (Constantine “fused” the sun worshippers with the Nazarene writings, and was not of the family name “Caesar”); he will subdue three kings. He will speak against the Most High, and oppress His saints, and try to change the set times and the law”.

The changing of the “set times” (or seasonal appointments decreed at Deut. 16 and Lev. 23) were wiped-out and replaced with Pagan observances, imposed by a Pagan king,namely Constantine.

HYPOTHESIS

Due to compromise, syncretism, ignorance, confusion, and the intentional deceit of humanity by fallen spatial beings, mythological Pagan designs were assimilated into the lives of most every person. Unwittingly, Christianity has embraced ancient Babylonian customs rooted in sun worship. The customs were re-invented so as to have different meanings, yet behind them remain the cunning ruses of an ancient spatial being, who seeks to be worshipped by means of trickery, perpetrated upon everyone alive. There is so much Paganism active in cultures today, there can be no doubt that it was deceitfully placed into our traditions in the name of so-called “Western Culture & trends” , then through fraud and disguise and vulgarity obscured with new meanings. This camouflaged Paganism pollutes and rots the spiritual condition of all mankind, which was later injected to other parts of the world through missionaries,crusades, Britishers, imperialists etc.

Again I remind the reader that my only wish was to show the extent in which paganism has crept into the lives of Christians and much of the world over the centuries. While there is no obligation of the part of non-Muslims to relinquish their following of the “Gregorian Calendar” , it is incumbent upon all who profess Islam as religion and call themselves Muslims to adhere solely to the “Islamic Calendar” and not allow yourselves to become influenced with the “Christian Sun-Calendar”
which, without question, has its roots in “paganism” . As Muslims, and Christians for that matter, we must strive to everything in our power to please Almighty God, and to avoid such idolatrous practices, focusing all our worship to the One True Allah, to Whom all Praise is due.

Christians must come to realize that any celebrations that have become ritualistic dogma over the centuries were never promulgated by Prophet Jesus(Qur’anic ‘Eesa alaihissalaam), nor were they practiced by him. Prophet Jesus’(‘Eesa alaihissalaam) sole purpose was to propagate “monotheism” , and to even attribute these “pagan” concepts to this great messenger of Almighty  Allah would only serve to further dishonour him.

As a Muslim, it is my duty and obligation to transmit this information to the best of my ability, and it is a task I take quite seriously. I pray that my efforts are not in vain with respect to not only our Christian counterparts, but to my Muslim brothers and sisters as well who find themselves partaking of “holiday cheer” , contrary to Islamic teachings.

Does the Qur’an say that the Sun sets in Murky water?? An analysis

One of the top-ten questions hurled at Muslims in any debate against Christians is about the following verse of the Holy Qur’an about Zulqarnain;

ﺣَﺘَّﻰ ﺇِﺫَﺍ ﺑَﻠَﻎَ ﻣَﻐْﺮِﺏَ ﺍﻟﺸَّﻤْﺲِ ﻭَﺟَﺪَﻫَﺎ ﺗَﻐْﺮُﺏُ ﻓِﻲ ﻋَﻴْﻦٍ ﺣَﻤِﺌَﺔٍ

“Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found
(wajada) it set in a spring of murky water: “ (Qur’an 18:86)

They say, the verse clearly says that sun sets in the murky water and needless to say it is blunder and proves that Qur’an is not the word of God

What does the Qur’an actually say??

Had the Qur’an actually said what they make it say, their conclusion would have been logical only. But they err in understanding the verse in the very first place.

1- The word used by the Qur’an :

I have given the translation of Abdullah Yusuf Ali above. The word he translated as “found” is ﻭﺟﺪ i.e. ‘ wajada.’ This word is used to describe the perception. See the proof from the Edward William Lane’s Lexicon.

image

And further he writes;

image

Edward William Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon p. 2924

So the word ‘ wajada ’ refers to perception through any one of the five senses.

2- Qur’an uses the wording from Zulqarnain’s perspective:

What we find is that Qur’an has used the word from the perspective of Zulqarnain and merely describes his perception and how it appeared in his sight.

And the description is very much valid for on a shore that is how sunset actually seems. May be the following image helps a bit.

image

3- We Muslims have always understood the verse like this :

Someone may argue, the above explanation is the concoction of modern Muslim apologists and the verse reads as the skeptics say because early Muslims never knew the scientific facts about the cosmos as they are known today.
In Tafsir Jalalayn co-authored by al-Suyuti (d. 911 A.H.) and al-Mahalli (d. 864 A.H.)(rahimahumullah), we find the following words;

ﻭﻏﺮﻭﺑﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺭﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻦ

“… its setting in a spring is [described as seen] from the perspective of the eye.”

Before them Ibn Kathir (d. 774 A.H.) (rahimahullah) wrote :

ﺭَﺃَﻯ ﺍﻟﺸَّﻤْﺲَ ﻓِﻲ ﻣَﻨْﻈَﺮِﻩِ ﺗَﻐْﺮُﺏُ ﻓِﻲ ﺍﻟْﺒَﺤْﺮِ ﺍﻟْﻤُﺤِﻴﻂِ، ﻭَﻫَﺬَﺍ ﺷَﺄْﻥُ ﻛُﻞِّ ﻣَﻦِ ﺍﻧْﺘَﻬَﻰ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﺳَﺎﺣِﻠِﻪِ، ﻳَﺮَﺍﻫَﺎ ﻛَﺄَﻧَّﻬَﺎ ﺗَﻐْﺮُﺏُ ﻓِﻴﻪِ، ﻭَﻫِﻲَ ﻟَﺎ ﺗُﻔَﺎﺭِﻕُ ﺍﻟْﻔَﻠَﻚَ ﺍﻟﺮَّﺍﺑِﻊَ ﺍﻟَّﺬِﻱ ﻫِﻲَ ﻣُﺜَﺒَّﺘَﺔٌ ﻓِﻴﻪِ ﻟَﺎ ﺗُﻔَﺎﺭِﻗُﻪُ

“… he saw the sun as if it were setting in the ocean. This is something which everyone who goes to the coast can see: it looks as if the sun is setting into the sea but in fact it never leaves its path in which it is fixed.”

And even before him Nasiruddin al-Baydhawi (d. 691 A.H.) (rahimahullah) said:

ﻭﻟﻌﻠﻪ ﺑﻠﻎ ﺳﺎﺣﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻴﻂ ﻓﺮﺁﻫﺎ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺇﺫ ﻟﻢ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻄﻤﺢ ﺑﺼﺮﻩ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺀ ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻗﺎﻝ } ﻭَﺟَﺪَﻫَﺎ ﺗَﻐْﺮُﺏُ { ﻭﻟﻢ ﻳﻘﻞ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﻐﺮﺏ

“Perhaps he reached shore of an ocean and saw it like that as there was nothing in his sight except water and for this reason it is said, “and he perceived it to set”, and not that it actually sets.” (Anwar al-Tanzil wa Asrar al-Tawil 4/14)

I hope all this detail leaves no ambiguity.

LET’s LOOK AT WHAT THEIR BOOKS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT SUN SET!

In the Bible we have something interesting on these lines. Talking about the two mountains, Gerizim and Ebal, the Book of Deuteronomy tells us;

“Are they not on the other side Jordan, by the way where the sun goeth down , in the land of the Canaanites, which dwell in the campaign over against Gilgal, beside the plains of Moreh?” (KJV, Deuteronomy 11:30)

Now the question is if the sun actually goes down?? Certainly not! There is no doubt the verse simply refers to how humans perceive it and calling it a scientific error is nothing but sheer cunningness.

But the point here is, why adopt double standards?? Why do the liar evil missionaries divorce with the common sense when they speak about Islamic texts?? Because they are jealous of Islam and our Holy Book, just because it upholds the truth and calls them towards the truth?? Seems so!

Don’t they follow or heed the words of Prophet Jesus(‘Eesa Maseeh alaihissalaam)which can be quoted from their own books??:

“Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” (KJV, Matthew 7: 1-2)

Sure they don’t heed it!

Indeed Allah knows the best!