I have a strory to tell. It starts when i broke up with my ex boyfriend and rebounded with my current husband. i met him and less than 3 months got married to him. i was so eager to make this relationship work that i got an apartment and immediately got pregnant. the catch was he and i were from the same country so our families are somewhat close. once pregnant and making a good salary, he became dependent on me and pushed me to buy all the things in the apartment and do his school (masters) level and if i didnt he would stop speaking to me and become violent with me at any excuse. next, he threatened me to get him his greencard because his status was illegal(please dont ask how he was a student...the system is messed up). i denied him at first but sadly he became more violent, i moved out like he wanted and back with my parents. where i am from there is no such thing as calling the cops on your partner---i was too scared to be alone. i moved back with him and he hit me till i passed out and then made the story up to my parents that i took a knife after him. btw, i am 135 pds, 5'3 he is 200 pds and 6'3. i called his family and they made me feel like a liar and his mom defended him vigorously. i cried and cried and by then had lost 2 pregnancies one by miscarriage, other abortion believing i'd never go back. but i did after feeling alone and worthless. i filed his for his greencard...he told me that that was all he married me for)(and sat. i got PREGNANT again and this time convinced myself that with or without him, i needed a child and even if i left him, i wouldnt have the burden of marrying soon again to have children. recently he got his greencard and i felt and dying. i thought they would never give it to him because he lied and got caught by the interviewer. his greencard is a temporary one and i am 8 months pregnant and living alone right now. i have a few options, i can go to ins and tell them what i am telling you. he currently lives in my apartment and when he did get his greencard, he nor his family thank me. its been atleast 3 months since he has kissed me.
we had an argument about him being on eharmony and he told me to SHUT THE **** up! and that i am insecure because of the way he looks. i realized that he has no respect for women period. he has made me feel so ugly, worthless , defenseless and weak.
honestly, my parents too are going through a separation because my father also has made my mothers life hell. she is out of the country now, so you can understand my loneliness.
what will it take for me to be strong and let this animal go? I cant take antideppressant out of the fear hurting my baby. since marriage, i have not been abe to go pursue my law degree. i feel pathetic. he never will change...only for the worse.
Abusive Husband...another statistic?
Find a women's shelter in your area. Google it. Or, I know it's scary, but call a close friend and ask to stay with her. I know how it feels to be in an abusive relationship. You never think it could happen to you , then it does, and you feel ashamed, like it's your fault. You are not ugly, there is nothing wrong with you. Get out now, and time will eventually heal the hurt. Do it now before you have a chance to change your mind.
Reply:Wow. That is quite a story. I am very sorry your heart has led you to this terrible place. Today, right now, you are starting over your life. Right now. You are going to pack your clothes up and move in with your mother. You could ask him to leave but he won't. Don't tell him where you are going or what you are doing. Do not report him to INS, just leave him alone for the rest of your life. He no longer exists. He is in the past. Understand? You are never going to move on unless you separate yourself and never ever speak to him again. No explanation needed because he will never understand what it means to be human. Then, I want you to start going to church every Sunday, pray every day, and ask God to change you and to change your life. The bottom line is He is the only one who truly loves you and He is all you will ever need. He can fulfill the loneliness and take away all the hurt. He can help you overcome this unhealthy attraction you have for this man. So put your life in the hands of Jesus Christ and let Him make something out of this mess. All you have to do is follow Him. Raise that child so it knows who God is too and doesn't end up like the father. You have a chance here to get away. You know what you have to do now LEAVE!!!!!!!!! And don't look back or speak to this man ever again. Only a court order about his rights as a father do you ever speak to this man. And only then with a judge and lawyer present in a court of law!!!!! But I seriously doubt he will. LEAVE!!!!!!! Go now!!!!!
Reply:Where you are from doesn't sound like where you are at.
At this moment,and I could be wrong but it's sounds as if your in the United States,{green card?}and if this is so then help is available...there are many places that offer comfort and security to battered women anywhere in the States,not to mention the protection from the police without their actual presence,like a restraining order.Girl,it is most certainly evident that you need to get the heck away from this loser,you hit the nail right on the head when you said he would never change and you are right.....I know,been there too,it will get worse.Deny yourself nothing even if it cost you the world with this guy, you deserve to be with someone who will love you and be part of you and this baby life.Set yourself free!!!!!!!!
Reply:There are so many things wrong here I wouldn't know where or how to begin. \
But this I can tell you ....an abusive relationship is bad and you need to do what ever you have to to get away from him and his messed up family. There are women's shelters all over , get on the Internet and find the one closest to you . They will have people there that can and are capable to handle all of your issues . I am sure you aren't bringing them anything they haven't seen before . Most importantly they can help you . They will not judge you .
Please go.
Reply:Is there a battered woman's shelter or hotline where you are? People who are battered like you tend to hang in there. They think things will get better but they never do. You need to meet some other women who have been there and done that who are past where you are at. Get out of this relationship. It is doing you no good.
Reply:What country are you from? Don't you have an older brother, my ex brother in law hit my sister once so I put him in the hospital. He sorta fell down some stairs. He was really nice after that. Pray that he wakes up dead one day.
Reply:GET OUT FAST! WHAT COUNTRY ARE YOU FROM?Look for domestic violence assistance programs. I hope you can gather the courage to flee before he kills you or hurts your children.
Reply:Your right the abuse will increase. I was too in a relationship that was abusive years ago. I went to counseling to work through my feelings about the abuse and why I "thought" I deserved it. (Thats what these scum want you to think) Just remember you are not alone - this happens all the time to millions of women around the world. Just by recognizing the situation has gotten out of control is your first step. Get away, take care of yourself and your baby, get your law degree and everyday you will feel a little stronger and eventually you will see it was him that made you feel weak and helpless. Once you "escape" you won't have someone make you feel like that anymore. You are powerful and hold your future in your hands. And who knows - someday you could meet the man of your dreams that will treat you right- I did - IT CAN BE DONE!
Reply:You need a counselor. Someone that you can truly talk to about why you allow this man to treat you as he does. I'm afraid that you really don't like yourself very much. You must find a way to raise your self esteem. You must realize your own self worth. Look at all of the things that you accomplished to try to make the relationship work. Don't kick yourself because he's no good. Anyone can make a poor choice of a mate. He's the one that is not cut out for marriage. It's not your fault that he hid his true nature from you. Now you need to find a way to keep yourself together for that baby you are having. Don't worry about how he looks outside it's what's inside that counts and he sounds pretty shallow to me. He's a user and that's not what you deserve. You deserve better. You should be treated better and you do not have to accept whatever crumbs of affection he feels like giving you. No one should have to live like that. If you feel as if you have to physically defend yourself from this man it's time to end it. People do not change unless they really want to. He has no reason to. He's getting everything he wants being the way he is.
Reply:Get to a therapist ASAP. Also Find a good church and get closer with God.
God Bless and Best Wishes.
tooth and nail
Monday, May 4, 2009
Military essay!! tell me what you think? tell me what needs to be done?
Military life is much different than civilian life because the military member is subject to orders from their command, they can't necessarily call in sick, or quit, or do many of the things people can do in a civlian job...this can effect the family somewhere along the line.
Military life can be rough, but it is also a very prideful thing to experience. Being a Marine wife, I can honestly say I have never been more proud of someone/something in my life.
Although military life can be rough and it can be challenging when orders sometimes make life seem impossible, the military is also usually pretty great at making sure families are taken care of. There are family readiness programs for each unit, and other things of that nature, plenty of resources for the family if they are ever in need of anything whether during deployments or when the military member is stateside.
More frequent and longer deployments are becoming customary in today’s military. As a result, military families find themselves adjusting their lifestyle to accommodate these changes. In this section you will find information such as; what to expect regarding communicating with the service member during the deployment, who to go to for information or assistance when the service member is gone, what support services are available. Additionally, you’ll find helpful hints on how to prepare for a deployment and the ensuing reunion as well as tips for sending care packages or finding additional daycare. Deployments can put stress on the military family, but utilizing the resources available to you will help you manage the challenges and make the best of the experience.
Military families know that military service is not a job, it’s a lifestyle. For families, military service provides endless opportunities for adventure and learning; however, at the same time families are subject to unique challenges. This section provides information to make the most of the adventure and conquer the challenges. Some feel that one of the greatest benefits of military service is the opportunity to live in other countries.
Here you’ll find information that can help you make the most of the experience. You’ll also find information on topics such as spouse employment, childcare, and housing that can help ease the transition during frequent moves. Additionally, we’ve provided information to help you manage deployments and separation and make the most of the reunion. The easiest way to manage our unique lifestyle is through education and the sharing of resources.
deployments are brief (a few weeks), then you have the 6 month cruises. Those can be difficult but if you talk about it and plan your course of action for bill paying then it can be okay. Yes it can be lonely but if you have friends seek them out do stuff. If you work outside the home then you have a way of occupying your mind. Kids most well never have a problem but it's fun to get ready for mom/dad to come home at the end of a deployment make special treats during send care packages (food on the ships stink) they have access to email so you can send email back and forth (it may be limited depending on where they are.
They talk whenever they have a chance to call you or get on a computer they cant talk about whats going cause someone listens in on all your phone conversations.
wounded servicemembers have wounded families and that the Nation must
ensure the emotional, financial, and readjustment requirements of these families are met. Many
have asked for an easy-to-use guide that would help them navigate the initial stages after a servicemember’s
injury. Differently based on the degree of injury, it is prudent for servicemembers before they deploy to make
families aware of the notification and transition process that will take place should they become wounded.
Military essay!! tell me what you think? tell me what needs to be done?
Its nice to have the military evolve with time. It was hard in the past for the military to gain acceptance of technology. Now its is a must for survival. I remember not to long ago in Desert Shield/Storm that we still had to communicate by postal mail and once in a great while you got to use the SATCOM to call home for about a 10 min conversation. And I thought to myself 'wow this is great, I dont know how they could handle it back in the day'. Now, I am amazed at what technology has done for the morale of todays troops. It is still hard being away from families and friends.
Reply:I am not accusing you of any wrong doing, but some of the information that you have here seems to sound like it came from a Military brochure/booklet of some type. If this is a correct guess you should make a footnote and acknowledge your source.
Overall I think what you have put into this is great!!
Reply:I am a soldier in the British Army - we are fortunate that normally we do 6 month tours - (Iraq 3 times and Afganistan 2) - always think Americans get it a bit rough - a year ! nightmare - dont see my kids often enough must be hard - best of British to your husband - UK/US (Red, White and Blue) these colours don't run
Military life can be rough, but it is also a very prideful thing to experience. Being a Marine wife, I can honestly say I have never been more proud of someone/something in my life.
Although military life can be rough and it can be challenging when orders sometimes make life seem impossible, the military is also usually pretty great at making sure families are taken care of. There are family readiness programs for each unit, and other things of that nature, plenty of resources for the family if they are ever in need of anything whether during deployments or when the military member is stateside.
More frequent and longer deployments are becoming customary in today’s military. As a result, military families find themselves adjusting their lifestyle to accommodate these changes. In this section you will find information such as; what to expect regarding communicating with the service member during the deployment, who to go to for information or assistance when the service member is gone, what support services are available. Additionally, you’ll find helpful hints on how to prepare for a deployment and the ensuing reunion as well as tips for sending care packages or finding additional daycare. Deployments can put stress on the military family, but utilizing the resources available to you will help you manage the challenges and make the best of the experience.
Military families know that military service is not a job, it’s a lifestyle. For families, military service provides endless opportunities for adventure and learning; however, at the same time families are subject to unique challenges. This section provides information to make the most of the adventure and conquer the challenges. Some feel that one of the greatest benefits of military service is the opportunity to live in other countries.
Here you’ll find information that can help you make the most of the experience. You’ll also find information on topics such as spouse employment, childcare, and housing that can help ease the transition during frequent moves. Additionally, we’ve provided information to help you manage deployments and separation and make the most of the reunion. The easiest way to manage our unique lifestyle is through education and the sharing of resources.
deployments are brief (a few weeks), then you have the 6 month cruises. Those can be difficult but if you talk about it and plan your course of action for bill paying then it can be okay. Yes it can be lonely but if you have friends seek them out do stuff. If you work outside the home then you have a way of occupying your mind. Kids most well never have a problem but it's fun to get ready for mom/dad to come home at the end of a deployment make special treats during send care packages (food on the ships stink) they have access to email so you can send email back and forth (it may be limited depending on where they are.
They talk whenever they have a chance to call you or get on a computer they cant talk about whats going cause someone listens in on all your phone conversations.
wounded servicemembers have wounded families and that the Nation must
ensure the emotional, financial, and readjustment requirements of these families are met. Many
have asked for an easy-to-use guide that would help them navigate the initial stages after a servicemember’s
injury. Differently based on the degree of injury, it is prudent for servicemembers before they deploy to make
families aware of the notification and transition process that will take place should they become wounded.
Military essay!! tell me what you think? tell me what needs to be done?
Its nice to have the military evolve with time. It was hard in the past for the military to gain acceptance of technology. Now its is a must for survival. I remember not to long ago in Desert Shield/Storm that we still had to communicate by postal mail and once in a great while you got to use the SATCOM to call home for about a 10 min conversation. And I thought to myself 'wow this is great, I dont know how they could handle it back in the day'. Now, I am amazed at what technology has done for the morale of todays troops. It is still hard being away from families and friends.
Reply:I am not accusing you of any wrong doing, but some of the information that you have here seems to sound like it came from a Military brochure/booklet of some type. If this is a correct guess you should make a footnote and acknowledge your source.
Overall I think what you have put into this is great!!
Reply:I am a soldier in the British Army - we are fortunate that normally we do 6 month tours - (Iraq 3 times and Afganistan 2) - always think Americans get it a bit rough - a year ! nightmare - dont see my kids often enough must be hard - best of British to your husband - UK/US (Red, White and Blue) these colours don't run
Fatima The Daughter of the Prophet Muhammad Her Life, a brief account? Muslim and muslima?
The link between prophethood and Imammah
Fatimah (as) was the only woman connecting prophethood and Imamah and was the link between the two. She was the daughter of the Prophet (sawa), the wife of the first Imam (as) and the mother of the rest of the Imams (as) who descended from her and her husband Ali (as). Allah singled her out with this virtue and peculiarity because she was the most perfect and highest example in purity, sanctity, worship, asceticism and morals.
Al-Kauther
According to some Qur'an commentaries (tafsir), when the Quraysh (tribe) said that the Prophet (sawa) had no offspring, the chapter of al-Kauther was revealed: 'Verily We have given thee the Kauther (Abundance). So pray thou unto thy Lord! And offer sacrifice. Verily, thy enemy shall be the one cut off (in his progeny).' (Qur'an 108:1-3)
'We have given you al-Kauther' means we have given you the abundant good, which shall last throughout your life and after it; therefore, turn your face unto your Lord in prayer, as mention of your name shall never end and your offspring shall never perish; it is those standing against you who are more deserving of this description.
This revelation was given against the backdrop of the pronouncements by some of the Quraysh's most scurrilous men - such as al-'As bin Wa'il, Abu Jahl, 'Uqbah bin Abi Mu'ayt and Ka'b bin al-Ashraf - that the Prophet (sawa) was cut off from male children, after the death of his son al-Qasim. Hence, it is clear that the abundant good - al-Kauther - was pointing to the abundant offspring which the Prophet (sawa) would have through his daughter Fatimah (as), and that this was a reply to those people and their effort to weaken the Prophet's spirits. Supporting our interpretation, al-Tabataba'I, in al-Mizan commentary, said: 'Without that, the words 'Verily, thy enemy shall be the one cut off' would be useless.'
Her childhood
In Fatimah's childhood, there was no place for playing, leisure and purposelessness. Nor were her energies those of a child living a childhood of innocence and simplicity. Rather, hers was the energy of a child who stored within herself a feeling for the role which she should play in the Messenger's life and the suffering and pain which he was facing. It was a childhood with the characteristics of a motherhood, living its spirit and fulfilling its role.
There she was, and having opened her eyes to life, she saw her father (sawa) coming every now and then, weighed down by the pressures, burdens and harm inflicted by the atheists; so she would embrace her father and relieve his pain and take care of him with all kindness.
One day, she saw her father (sawa) in the Holy Mosque of Makkah after the atheists had dumped dirt and rubbish over his back while he was praying to his Lord. She promptly went forward and removed the rubbish with her small hands, expressing her sadness and condolences to him (sawa) with her tears. This is what made her open up to her responsibilities in her early childhood to stand by her father, to take care of him and empathise with him; and he was the one who had lost his mother, and his sympathetic wife. She stood by him when he was challenged with the Message: some called him names, others accused him of being insane, others threw dirt and stones on him; his uncle Abu Lahab crying out: 'No doubt, Muhammad has bewitched you!' But when he returned home, he would be greeted by Fatimah (as), with her sympathy and care, which was not that of a child weeping without awareness..... She was sensing that his pain was also hers and so amassed during her childhood the pain of the Message and pain of the Messenger... And whosoever amasses in their early childhood the awareness of the pain of the Messenger and the Message cannot find time for leisure or playing or purposelessness; playing and purposelessness occur in our lives because of an emptiness, which we are trying to fill.
This was how Fatimah (as) grew up, not like other children, but as a person with mission in her feelings, emotions, opinions and her whole dynamic attitude.
Her relationship with the Prophet (sawa)
Ibn 'Abdul Barr, in al-Istee'ab, narrated - and we would like very much to use it, as it was a Sunni source which represents a neutral source, so that the Shi'ah could not be accused of talking out of emotion - that 'Ayshah said: 'I had not seen any one who was more resembling the Messenger of Allah in his speech, conduct and manners as Fatimah; when she used to enter (his house) he would stand up for her, take her hand and kiss it and make her sit in his sitting place; and when he used to enter (her house) she would stand up for him, take his hand and kiss it and make him sit in her sitting place'.[1]
When we study this text, we can conclude two things: first, the unity and complete merging between Fatimah's personality and her father's, as the person most closely resembling him. This is reflected even in his walking, as seen in many narrations, such as 'Fatimah came and her walk did not fail the walking of the Messenger of Allah (sawa)'; second, the depth of the spiritual relationship between the Prophet (sawa) and Fatimah (as), a relationship which the Prophet (sawa) had with Fatimah (as) alone.
Another narration by al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak states: 'The Messenger of Allah used, when he came back from a battle or journey, to come to the mosque and pray two rak'as to thank Allah..... then would enter to (the house of) Fatimah, then he would come to his wives'.[2]
This meant that Fatimah (as) held the prime place in the relationships between the Prophet (sawa) and other people, including his wives.
In the same book, al-Mustadrak, al-Hakim also narrated: 'The Prophet (sawa), when he used to travel, the last person he would see was Fatimah.' Thus her image would stay in his mind, and the kindness and emotion, with which she used to embrace him, would stay with him in his travel and his memory, to comfort him.
Al-Hakim added: 'And when he returned from a journey, the first person he would see would be Fatimah.'[3]
Historians have said that the Prophet (sawa) did not accept that Fatimah (as) became separated from him even after her marriage and, therefore, did not accept that she lived in a house far away from him, so she lived in the house next to his so that he could enter into her house directly from his.[4]
In al-Isti'ab we read: ''Ayshah was asked: who was the most beloved person to the Messenger of Allah? She replied: Fatimah. I asked: and amongst men? She said: her husband...'[5] This is an important witness by 'Ayshah for Fatimah and Ali (as).
There are many stories from her life which tell how she used to study her father's thoughts to know what he liked and disliked, what opened up his heart and what closed it. An example of this was when he (sawa) came back from a journey and entered her house, looked around a little, then left. Quickly she knew that something bothered the Messenger of Allah (sawa). She thought about it and realised that on the door of her house was a curtain and that she had two bracelets in her hands; she took the curtain down and took off the bracelets and sent them with her sons and said: 'Say greetings to my father and say to him: we have not introduced anything after you except this, it is for you to do with them what you like.' When the Prophet (sawa) heard this, his expression relaxed. He was moved by this generous, wonderful, spiritual gesture by his daughter, and this thoughtful response, and gave these things to the poor, saying: 'She did this! May her father be sacrificed for her! May her father be sacrificed for her! May her father be sacrificed for her! What have the family of Muhammad to do with life: they have been created for the hereafter!'[6]
This is what every girl with a mission should learn, when her father is a man of missionary affiliations and responsibilities; as too should every woman with someone who has a missionary dimension in his life: she should learn not to get too engrossed with her own affairs, but to open herself up to the responsibilities of her father, husband, brother or son so as to join with him in the dynamic movement of responsibility, and not to add to the burdens to his responsibility. For we see many great men, past and present, become burdened by the people who are around them: while when they think in a missionary manner, those around them think only of themselves.
We also learn from Fatimah (as), in her advanced missionary awareness and position, that she was someone who rebelled against her personal needs, however simple, for the sake of her missionary ambitions; she was someone who prioritised in favour of principles over the self. This is what we need to learn, for many of us - men and women alike - fall down when it comes to a choice between the needs of the principle and the needs of the self; we too often choose the self, and may even make a principle of service to the self.
Fatimah al-Zahra (as) was unique in all her behaviour and deeds, even in her sorrow for her beloved, especially during her separation from the Messenger of Allah (sawa).
Historians tell us that, when she went to him as he was dying, she embraced him and he whispered something in her ear which made her weep. Then, when he whispered something that made her laugh, she was asked: 'How quickly (your) laughing after weeping?!' She said: 'I shall not reveal the Messenger of Allah's secret in his life.' So, when she was asked about this after his death, she said: 'He whispered in my ear first that he was going to meet his Lord and that his soul was announced to him (his death), so I wept; then he whispered in my ear again that I was going to be the first of his family to go after him, so I laughed!'[7] Where else would you find a young woman, whatever her love for her father, become happy when he tells her that she is going to be the first to die after him?
What relationship deeper could be than this, and what unity of spirit could be stronger?
Her father's mother!
One of his eternal and most valued utterances in Fatimah's praise is the saying of the Prophet (sawa): 'Fatimah is the mother of her father!'[8]
But, to understand the precise meaning of this statement we should study the life of the Messenger of Allah (sawa) and the hardships and difficulties to which he was subjected from the beginning of his life. He suffered a great deal: from the atheists, to the point that he said: 'No prophet has ever been harmed like I have'[9]; from losing his wife, the Mother of the Believers, Khadijah (as), who was the shelter in which he found refuge in his hardships; from the loss of his uncle Abu Talib, who took care of him and defended him and stood by him. And he suffered before all this, when he lived an orphan.
Thus, when he was moved by Fatimah's feelings and care, he annointed the motherhood in his daughter with the words 'Fatimah is the mother of her father.' It encapsulated all his feeling for the kindness and great heart of his daughter towards the Messenger of Allah (sawa).
So, imagine the great scale of the feeling and kindness of Fatimah (as), which succeeded so well in filling the soul of this great man and made him feel secure... To be a mother for a personality such as the Prophet (sawa) demands from the person who wants to play that role a great deal of effort, energy, heart and soul, and a broad horizon.
The first student
To use today's terminology, Fatimah and Ali (as) were the first students in the boarding school of the Messenger of Allah (sawa). Ali (as) used to sit in Makkah, when the revelation was being revealed to the Prophet (sawa), and Fatimah (as) used to sit as well to read, together with Ali (as), the revelation and listen to the teachings of the Prophet (sawa), as he explained the meanings of the revelations. They, together, would learn what Allah had entrusted to His Prophet with his laws for man. Hence, Fatimah (as) was with Ali (as) in that great prophetic, cultural surge.
One could understand the hadith 'If Ali did not exist, there would have been no match for Fatimah' on intellectual level: that which Fatimah (as) had was not possessed by any one but Ali (as).
Her marriage
Many companions proposed to Fatimah (as), but the Prophet (sawa) kindly turned down their requests, saying: 'I await the order of my Lord'[10] for in Fatimah (as) there was special merit that was not to be found in his other daughters. Fatimah (as) possessed a holy secret, which only Allah Almighty knew; similarly Ali (as) possessed a holy secret, which only Allah knew.
Some asked Ali: 'Why don't you propose to Fatimah?' But he was shy. At last he came to the Prophet (sawa) and talked to him on this matter. In his response, the Prophet (sawa) showed that he was pleased, as if he was waiting for this proposal, even preparing for it. He said to Ali: 'What money have you got?'
Of course he (sawa) knew how much Ali (as) had, for he was the one who brought him up and was with him both at home and away, day and night, in war and peace; nevertheless he asked him: 'What have you got?' Ali replied: 'My sword, shield and the clothes which I wear!' The Prophet (sawa) said: 'You cannot do without your sword with which you defend Islam and remove hardship from the Messenger of Allah, but give me your shield.'[11]
The shield was sold for 500 dirham and this was the marriage gift (mahr) of Fatimah (as), who accepted Ali (as) as her husband.
What we need to understand in this marriage is what is in the hadith that Imam al-Sadiq (as) - or the Prophet (sawa) according to others - said: 'Had it not been that Allah the Most High created the Commander of the Faithful for Fatimah, there would have been no match for her on Earth.'[12]
What was this match that the narration was referring to?
Certainly it was not the match in terms of family, for there was more than one cousin of the Prophet (sawa), but it was a match in soul, mind, intellect and belief. Fatimah (as) was, through her faith, mind, intellect, soul, purity, holy struggle and asceticism, a suitable match for Ali (as), who was at the highest level as far these attributes were concerned. Allah ordered his Messenger (sawa) to marry his daughter to her match and the pure to the pure, because there was more than one point on which they met.
This makes us understand the secret behind the refusal of the Prophet (sawa) to marry Fatimah (as) off to any of the prominent companions. Al-Sadooq tells us, in 'Uyoon Akhbar al-Rida (as), that Ali (as) said: 'The Messenger of Allah (sawa) told me: O Ali! Men from the Quraysh complained about Fatimah ('s marriage) and said: we have asked you for her hand in marriage but you have turned us down and married her off to Ali! I said to them: I swear by Allah that it was not me who turned you down and accepted him, but it was Allah...; (the archangel) Gabriel came down and said: O Muhammad! Allah the Great and Almighty said: If I have not created Ali, there would have been no match for your daughter Fatimah on the face of the Earth.'
Her narration of the hadith
Here are some of her narrations:
1. Al-Qundoozi narrated, in Yenabee' al-Mawaddah, that Fatimah (as) said: 'I heard my father the Messenger of Allah (sawa), in his death illness saying, and the room full with his companions' [i.e. he did not say it in whisper or secretly, but aloud in front of his companions]: O people! I am about to die and I am submitting this speech to you to fulfil my duty towards you - I am leaving for you the book of my Lord the Great the Almighty and my progeny. Then he took the hand of Ali (as) and said: This is Ali with the Qur'an and the Qur'an with Ali shall never separate until they arrive to me at the basin, (and) I shall ask you how you have succeeded me in dealing with them?'[13]
2. In Kanz al-Fawa'id, Fatimah (as) narrated that the Prophet (sawa) said: 'Gabriel informed me that the two angels (appointed to count the deeds) of Ali did not register any sin for Ali since they accompanied him.'[14] This was what distinguished Ali (as) from the rest of the companions of the Messenger (sawa) and this was what made Fatimah (as) defend Ali's right, not because he was her cousin and husband, but because he was the infallible in whom the two angels could not find any sin or bad deed.
3. In another narration, Fatimah (as) said that she went to the Prophet (sawa) and he stretched out a cloth and said 'sit', then al-Hasan (as) came and he said to him 'sit with her', then al-Husain (as) came and he said 'sit with them', then Ali (as) came and he said 'sit with them'; then he gathered up the cloth and closed it upon them and said: 'O Lord! They are from me and I am from them; O Lord! Be satisfied with them as I am satisfied with them.'[15]
His statement 'I am from them' means that the mission of the prophethood, of which he (sawa) was the bearer, would be passed on to Ahlul Bayt (as) after him, and so the Prophet (sawa) would continue to exist through them, and his Message would continue through them. This is the secret behind his satisfaction with them, for he is satisfied with only those whom Allah is satisfied.
4. In another narration, Fatimah (as) brought al-Hasan and al-Husain (as) to the Messenger of Allah (sawa) in his final illness, and said: 'O Messenger of Allah! You have not bequeathed these two anything!' He replied: 'As for al-Hasan, he has my presence and my mastership; as for al-Husain, he has my courage and generosity.'[16]
5. Fatimah (as) said: 'My father the Messenger of Allah (sawa) entered when I had gone to bed to sleep, and said: O Fatimah! Do not go to sleep before doing four things: reciting the whole of the Qur'an, making the Prophets your mediators (with Allah), making the believers satisfied with you and performing the pilgrimage and visit (hajj and 'umrah to Makkah). Then he started praying! So, I stayed in bed until he finished the prayer and said: O Messenger of Allah! You ordered me to do four things which I could not do in this hour! The Messenger of Allah smiled and said: If you recite the Tauheed chapter (al-Ikhlas surah) three times it is as if you have recited the whole of the Qur'an; and if you recite prayers to me and the prophets before me then we shall be your mediators in the Day of Judgment; and if you pray that Allah forgive the believers (say istighfar) they shall be satisfied with you; and if you say: Subhan Allah (praise be to Allah) and al-Hamdu Lillah (gratitude to Allah) and La Ilaha Illa Allah (there is no God but Allah) and Allahu Akbar (God is greatest) as if you have performed the pilgrimage and visit.'[17]
6. She said: 'The Messenger of Allah (sawa) said: Your best of men are those who are the most lenient with people and most generous to their women.'[18]
This means that the best people are those who are most kind to people and most generous to their women, whether daughters, wives or mothers.
Her grievances
The short life of Fatimah (as), which lasted no more than twenty years according to some historians, was filled with much suffering and grave crises. If we talk about the suffering and hardships in her daily living, we also need to talk about what was worse than that: the calamities and grievances which she suffered after the death of her father - something which opened a bleeding wound in the Islamic nation, and which in turn was the cause of the painful wounds that followed - one of the worst of which was the murder of the Master of the Youth of Paradise Imam al-Husain (as) and his progeny in the desert of Kerbala' and the taking of the women and children as captives to al-Sham (Damascus), driven like slaves. These grievances have been narrated by both the Sunnah and Shi'ah, and the numerous narrations which speak about her grievances and injustices coincide, even to the level of mutawatir.[19]
1- The attack on her house
Historians, one of whom is Ibn Qutaybah in al-Imamah wal Siyasah, said that - after the death of the Prophet and al-Saqeefah episode - men came with wood to burn down the house of Ali and Fatimah (as), to threaten them and those whom they considered as opposition, who had gathered at the house of Ali (as). Some said to the leader of the assault: 'O man! In the house is Fatimah!'; and Fatimah was the person whom the Muslims agreed to love and respect, and whose position they agreed to acknowledge, because she was the only daughter that the Prophet (sawa) left when he died, and because she was part of him - what made her angry made him angry and what harmed her harmed him... So, how come you come with fire to burn her house?
But, he replied with his famous statement: 'Even though!'
We regard this as one of the most dangerous utterances, because it means that there are no sacred entities in this house, and so there is nothing to prevent it being burned with its people inside!
This utterance points to the mindset of the people, and what they were prepared to do. However, had they opened the door to dialogue through nice words, they would have found Ali the man of dialogue, as he had always been throughout his life, even after he became a caliph; and they would have found Fatimah a woman of dialogue, because the Qur'an, to which Fatimah above all others adhered most closely to, was the book of dialogue. However, those people had already passed the stage of dialogue by the time they gathered the wood to burn the house of al-Zahra (as). So when in reply to 'In the house is Fatimah', that man said 'Even though!' this represented the ugliest form of injustice to which Fatimah (as) was subjected.
2- Other grievances
There were other events in which she suffered, but they have not always been substantiated fully beyond doubt. Those include the actual burning of the house, the breaking of her rib, the miscarriage, the slapping of her cheek, and the beating of her and others. These are recorded in narrations that may have question marks raised against them, either in their actual text (matn) or in the chain of narrators (sanad), as is the case with many historical narrations.
Therefore, we have raised some queries, as have been raised by some scholars in the past (may Allah be satisfied with them) such as Sheikh al-Mufeed[20] who seems to question the miscarriage issue, even the existence of the pregnancy - although we disagree with him on the latter. However, we do not deny that these events may have taken place - as Sheikh Muhammad Husain Kashif al-Ghita' has done regarding beating her and slapping her cheek[21] because denying requires as much proof as accepting. At any rate, what is definite is that the numerous narrations attain the level of mutawatir as a whole, confirm that there was an assault on her if only by exposing her house, attacking it and threatening to burn it - and this alone should be sufficient to prove the degree of crime which took place. It was a crime that continued to haunt those who committed it, and this was why the first caliph declared as he was dying: 'I wish I had not exposed the house of Fatimah, even if it had declared war on me.'[22]
3- Denying her Fadak
Scholars from the two schools of thought, including al-Suyooti, in their commentary on the verse: 'And give to the near of kin his due' (Qur'an 17:26), said that when this verse was revealed, the Prophet (sawa) gave Fatimah (as) the village of Fadak, which he saw as part of the peace treaty between him and the Jews...[23] It seems that the right of Fatimah (as) to Fadak has always been well known amongst the Muslims throughout history, and hence 'Umar bin 'Abdul 'Aziz, the Umayyad caliph, returned Fadak to Ahlul Bayt.[24] Later, after the first 'Abbasid caliphs had confiscated it again, al-Mahdi returned it once more, then he and Haroon took it back, and it continued to be in their possession until al-Ma'moon became caliph and returned it to the Fatimids.[25]
The proofs to Fatimah's ownership of Fadak were many and clear, and many Muslims gave witness in that regard, including the Commander of the Faithful (as) and Ummu Ayman, but their evidence was refuted![26] There was no counter evidence - except the hadith in which Abu Bakr narrated that the Prophet (sawa) said: 'We, the folk of prophets, do not leave bequests - what we leave is for alms.'[27]
The factors which stood against this counter evidence, in addition to being contradictory to the Qur'an, are:
First: the hadith was narrated by Abu Bakr only, and Fatimah (as), through her stance, denied this hadith;
Second: the Messenger of Allah (sawa) loved Fatimah (as) with the greatest of love, and would protect her from any evil. So how come he did not tell her of this (Islamic) ruling, which was anyway contradictory to the Qur'an, which states that the prophets (as) inherited and bequeathed? How come he did not tell her when the hadith was directly related to her - in fact, she was its most clear manifestation? How come he did not tell his beloved and save her the trouble?
Third: If the Muslims agree that Fatimah (as) is the Doyenne of the Women of the World, how come she tells lies, or talks nonsense or contradicts a hadith of her father (sawa)?
Fourth: The history of prophets (as) did not tell us that they did not bequeath anything, and that what they left was for alms, since if that were the case the followers of other religions would have known.
Fifth: Is it conceivable that Ali (as) would enter into dispute with the people about Fadak, and would accuse them of injustice and treason[28] just to side with his wife?! How come and the Prophet (sawa) said: 'The right is with Ali wherever he goes'[29] and: 'Ali is with the right and the right is with Ali?'[30] And how come Ali does not know that the Prophet (sawa) does not bequeath when he is the gate to the Prophet's City of Knowledge and Wisdom, and who has been with the Prophet (sawa) in a way unparalleled by any other companion?
Sixth: Historians mentioned that Fadak was, in fact, under Fatimah's control and that at the beginning her claim was based on it being a gift from her father (sawa) during her life and therefore did not fall into the category of inheritance.
4- The injustice of history
What great individuals suffer is the injustice of history and of the historians who intentionally hide their names, marginalize their roles and do not take care in registering the particulars of their lives, which are rich in lessons and lively examples that can teach generations throughout time. Fatimah (as) has been one of these victims, for when we study her history, we can find only snapshots of her life with her father the Messenger of Allah (sawa), but with little details. Fatimah (as) is mentioned as a migrant: but nothing much is recorded here except that her name is one of those who migrated after the Prophet (sawa). The irony is that we find history talks extensively about things that are irrelevant to our practical life, such as the celebrations in the heavens when she got married![31]
We know that her life, although short, was full of lessons, teachings, worship and holy struggle. We can say that, in spite of all this historical injustice, what has reached us from her, and about her, is sufficient to give us the highest example and the most complete role model for any Muslim.
5- She died angry with her oppressors
The attack on Fatimah's house, and the threat to burn it and other injustices, did not win the approval of the Muslims in general. This forced the two men who oppressed her to come and request Ali (as) to ask her permission to enter and to try to resolve the matters with her. What was her response?
Ibn Qutaybah, in al-Imamah wal Siyasah, narrates that 'Umar said to Abu Bakr: 'Let's go to Fatimah, for we have made her angry.' So they went together and asked her permission, but she denied it to them. They asked Ali to talk to her, and he did. When they entered and sat, she turned her face to the wall. They greeted her, but she did not answer. Abu Bakr said: 'O you the Messenger of Allah's beloved! I swear by Allah that the kinship of the Messenger of Allah is more beloved to me than my kinship, and you are surely more beloved to me than my daughter 'Ayshah, and I wished the day your father died that I died and did not stay after him... Do you see me, when knowing you and your virtues and honour, denying you your right and inheritance from the Messenger of Allah (sawa)? Except that I heard your father the Messenger of Allah (sawa) saying: We, the folk of prophets, do not leave bequests - what we leave is for alms'.
Fatimah (as) did not comment on the inheritance issue, since she has previously dealt with that in detail in her sermon, but she wanted to establish the proof on the two of them regarding the harm, injustice and wrong-doing to which she was subjected. Hence she said: 'Can I see you if I narrate a hadith from the Messenger of Allah (sawa); you know it, will you do according to it?' They replied: 'Yes'; she said: 'I ask you by Allah, haven't you heard the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (sawa): the satisfaction of Fatimah is my satisfaction and the discontent of Fatimah is my discontent?' They said: 'Yes, we heard it from the Messenger of Allah (sawa)'. She said: 'Therefore, I take Allah and his angels as witnesses that you have made me discontented and have not satisfied me, and when I meet the Prophet I shall complain about you to him!'. Abu Bakr said: 'I take refuge in Allah from his discontent and your discontent O Fatimah!'; but she said: 'I swear by Allah that I shall invoke Allah against you in every prayer I do!'[32]
In another source, she said: 'I ask you by Allah, have you heard the Prophet (sawa) say: Fatimah is part of me and I am part of her; whoever harms her harms me and whoever harms me harms Allah, and whoever harms her after my death it is as if he has harmed her during my life, and who harms her during my life as if he harms her after my death?'. They said: 'O Lord, yes'; she said: 'Gratitude to Allah'. Then she said: 'O Allah! I make you witness, so be witnesses you who are present, that they have harmed me in my life and at my death!'[33]
In this way, and with all strength and courage, Fatimah (as) proved her case and registered that the two of them had made her angry, and hence also the Messenger of Allah (sawa), and above that Allah the Most High. Her anger remained, like a bleeding wound, in the heart of her descendants and followers. When Abdullah bin al-Hasan was asked about Abu Bakr and 'Umar, he said: 'Our mother was a truthful woman and daughter of a sent prophet; she died angry with some people and we are angry because of her anger.'[34]
Her burial, grave and Ali's funeral farewell speech
Her protest did not stop at that; she continued her protest until her death. She asked Ali (as) to bury her at night[35] and that those who oppressed her and confiscated her right should not be present. She wanted to express her protest and opposition to aggression and injustice even after death, and she wanted it to be angry and hurtful, but with wisdom and convincing evidence and strong attitudes. She knew that people would start asking: why would the daughter of the Prophet (sawa) be buried at night? Why did she request that? What was happening? For this had not happened in Islam and everyone was expecting to participate in the funeral of their Prophet's daughter. But they were to find out that she was buried at night, and they would be told that that was her will!
The question spread out amongst Muslims: why? This is what Fatimah (as) wanted, to awaken consciences, and those who had been fooled would know the nature of the conspiracy and what had happened.
Moreover, her will also stated that her grave should be flattened so as to add another proof and witness to the injustice she suffered, and to eternalise her protest upon those who oppressed her...[36]
Ali (as) did exactly what she wanted and buried her at night and effaced her grave. The place of her grave remained unknown, although some narrations by the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (as) say that she was buried in her house, while others say that she was buried in the rauda (garden) which was, according to some scholars, what the Prophet (sawa) meant in his hadith: 'Between my grave and my pulpit a garden from the gardens of paradise.' A third possibility, according to others, is that she was buried in the cemetery of al-Baqee'.[37]
Fatima The Daughter of the Prophet Muhammad Her Life, a brief account? Muslim and muslima?
I like fatima so much. She is an example for all women just with 18 years old.
Thank you for reminder
Reply:Thanks a lot and I never forget her Report It
Reply:Listen, good sir, if you want to spread the glory of your faith, please do so through question and answer format, thanks.
Reply:So is that who Fatima is! So then who's Fatima in the Catholic faith?
Reply:How convoluted, how primitive. My previous impression, though brief, was that Islam believed in one God, not a trinity; clean, simple, easy to understand. Now you have made the whole thing needlessly convoluted and complex. I bet you need grand poobaahs to interpret all of this in the light of current conditions. The Book still does not answer the really practical question about how to program an iPod.
Fatimah (as) was the only woman connecting prophethood and Imamah and was the link between the two. She was the daughter of the Prophet (sawa), the wife of the first Imam (as) and the mother of the rest of the Imams (as) who descended from her and her husband Ali (as). Allah singled her out with this virtue and peculiarity because she was the most perfect and highest example in purity, sanctity, worship, asceticism and morals.
Al-Kauther
According to some Qur'an commentaries (tafsir), when the Quraysh (tribe) said that the Prophet (sawa) had no offspring, the chapter of al-Kauther was revealed: 'Verily We have given thee the Kauther (Abundance). So pray thou unto thy Lord! And offer sacrifice. Verily, thy enemy shall be the one cut off (in his progeny).' (Qur'an 108:1-3)
'We have given you al-Kauther' means we have given you the abundant good, which shall last throughout your life and after it; therefore, turn your face unto your Lord in prayer, as mention of your name shall never end and your offspring shall never perish; it is those standing against you who are more deserving of this description.
This revelation was given against the backdrop of the pronouncements by some of the Quraysh's most scurrilous men - such as al-'As bin Wa'il, Abu Jahl, 'Uqbah bin Abi Mu'ayt and Ka'b bin al-Ashraf - that the Prophet (sawa) was cut off from male children, after the death of his son al-Qasim. Hence, it is clear that the abundant good - al-Kauther - was pointing to the abundant offspring which the Prophet (sawa) would have through his daughter Fatimah (as), and that this was a reply to those people and their effort to weaken the Prophet's spirits. Supporting our interpretation, al-Tabataba'I, in al-Mizan commentary, said: 'Without that, the words 'Verily, thy enemy shall be the one cut off' would be useless.'
Her childhood
In Fatimah's childhood, there was no place for playing, leisure and purposelessness. Nor were her energies those of a child living a childhood of innocence and simplicity. Rather, hers was the energy of a child who stored within herself a feeling for the role which she should play in the Messenger's life and the suffering and pain which he was facing. It was a childhood with the characteristics of a motherhood, living its spirit and fulfilling its role.
There she was, and having opened her eyes to life, she saw her father (sawa) coming every now and then, weighed down by the pressures, burdens and harm inflicted by the atheists; so she would embrace her father and relieve his pain and take care of him with all kindness.
One day, she saw her father (sawa) in the Holy Mosque of Makkah after the atheists had dumped dirt and rubbish over his back while he was praying to his Lord. She promptly went forward and removed the rubbish with her small hands, expressing her sadness and condolences to him (sawa) with her tears. This is what made her open up to her responsibilities in her early childhood to stand by her father, to take care of him and empathise with him; and he was the one who had lost his mother, and his sympathetic wife. She stood by him when he was challenged with the Message: some called him names, others accused him of being insane, others threw dirt and stones on him; his uncle Abu Lahab crying out: 'No doubt, Muhammad has bewitched you!' But when he returned home, he would be greeted by Fatimah (as), with her sympathy and care, which was not that of a child weeping without awareness..... She was sensing that his pain was also hers and so amassed during her childhood the pain of the Message and pain of the Messenger... And whosoever amasses in their early childhood the awareness of the pain of the Messenger and the Message cannot find time for leisure or playing or purposelessness; playing and purposelessness occur in our lives because of an emptiness, which we are trying to fill.
This was how Fatimah (as) grew up, not like other children, but as a person with mission in her feelings, emotions, opinions and her whole dynamic attitude.
Her relationship with the Prophet (sawa)
Ibn 'Abdul Barr, in al-Istee'ab, narrated - and we would like very much to use it, as it was a Sunni source which represents a neutral source, so that the Shi'ah could not be accused of talking out of emotion - that 'Ayshah said: 'I had not seen any one who was more resembling the Messenger of Allah in his speech, conduct and manners as Fatimah; when she used to enter (his house) he would stand up for her, take her hand and kiss it and make her sit in his sitting place; and when he used to enter (her house) she would stand up for him, take his hand and kiss it and make him sit in her sitting place'.[1]
When we study this text, we can conclude two things: first, the unity and complete merging between Fatimah's personality and her father's, as the person most closely resembling him. This is reflected even in his walking, as seen in many narrations, such as 'Fatimah came and her walk did not fail the walking of the Messenger of Allah (sawa)'; second, the depth of the spiritual relationship between the Prophet (sawa) and Fatimah (as), a relationship which the Prophet (sawa) had with Fatimah (as) alone.
Another narration by al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak states: 'The Messenger of Allah used, when he came back from a battle or journey, to come to the mosque and pray two rak'as to thank Allah..... then would enter to (the house of) Fatimah, then he would come to his wives'.[2]
This meant that Fatimah (as) held the prime place in the relationships between the Prophet (sawa) and other people, including his wives.
In the same book, al-Mustadrak, al-Hakim also narrated: 'The Prophet (sawa), when he used to travel, the last person he would see was Fatimah.' Thus her image would stay in his mind, and the kindness and emotion, with which she used to embrace him, would stay with him in his travel and his memory, to comfort him.
Al-Hakim added: 'And when he returned from a journey, the first person he would see would be Fatimah.'[3]
Historians have said that the Prophet (sawa) did not accept that Fatimah (as) became separated from him even after her marriage and, therefore, did not accept that she lived in a house far away from him, so she lived in the house next to his so that he could enter into her house directly from his.[4]
In al-Isti'ab we read: ''Ayshah was asked: who was the most beloved person to the Messenger of Allah? She replied: Fatimah. I asked: and amongst men? She said: her husband...'[5] This is an important witness by 'Ayshah for Fatimah and Ali (as).
There are many stories from her life which tell how she used to study her father's thoughts to know what he liked and disliked, what opened up his heart and what closed it. An example of this was when he (sawa) came back from a journey and entered her house, looked around a little, then left. Quickly she knew that something bothered the Messenger of Allah (sawa). She thought about it and realised that on the door of her house was a curtain and that she had two bracelets in her hands; she took the curtain down and took off the bracelets and sent them with her sons and said: 'Say greetings to my father and say to him: we have not introduced anything after you except this, it is for you to do with them what you like.' When the Prophet (sawa) heard this, his expression relaxed. He was moved by this generous, wonderful, spiritual gesture by his daughter, and this thoughtful response, and gave these things to the poor, saying: 'She did this! May her father be sacrificed for her! May her father be sacrificed for her! May her father be sacrificed for her! What have the family of Muhammad to do with life: they have been created for the hereafter!'[6]
This is what every girl with a mission should learn, when her father is a man of missionary affiliations and responsibilities; as too should every woman with someone who has a missionary dimension in his life: she should learn not to get too engrossed with her own affairs, but to open herself up to the responsibilities of her father, husband, brother or son so as to join with him in the dynamic movement of responsibility, and not to add to the burdens to his responsibility. For we see many great men, past and present, become burdened by the people who are around them: while when they think in a missionary manner, those around them think only of themselves.
We also learn from Fatimah (as), in her advanced missionary awareness and position, that she was someone who rebelled against her personal needs, however simple, for the sake of her missionary ambitions; she was someone who prioritised in favour of principles over the self. This is what we need to learn, for many of us - men and women alike - fall down when it comes to a choice between the needs of the principle and the needs of the self; we too often choose the self, and may even make a principle of service to the self.
Fatimah al-Zahra (as) was unique in all her behaviour and deeds, even in her sorrow for her beloved, especially during her separation from the Messenger of Allah (sawa).
Historians tell us that, when she went to him as he was dying, she embraced him and he whispered something in her ear which made her weep. Then, when he whispered something that made her laugh, she was asked: 'How quickly (your) laughing after weeping?!' She said: 'I shall not reveal the Messenger of Allah's secret in his life.' So, when she was asked about this after his death, she said: 'He whispered in my ear first that he was going to meet his Lord and that his soul was announced to him (his death), so I wept; then he whispered in my ear again that I was going to be the first of his family to go after him, so I laughed!'[7] Where else would you find a young woman, whatever her love for her father, become happy when he tells her that she is going to be the first to die after him?
What relationship deeper could be than this, and what unity of spirit could be stronger?
Her father's mother!
One of his eternal and most valued utterances in Fatimah's praise is the saying of the Prophet (sawa): 'Fatimah is the mother of her father!'[8]
But, to understand the precise meaning of this statement we should study the life of the Messenger of Allah (sawa) and the hardships and difficulties to which he was subjected from the beginning of his life. He suffered a great deal: from the atheists, to the point that he said: 'No prophet has ever been harmed like I have'[9]; from losing his wife, the Mother of the Believers, Khadijah (as), who was the shelter in which he found refuge in his hardships; from the loss of his uncle Abu Talib, who took care of him and defended him and stood by him. And he suffered before all this, when he lived an orphan.
Thus, when he was moved by Fatimah's feelings and care, he annointed the motherhood in his daughter with the words 'Fatimah is the mother of her father.' It encapsulated all his feeling for the kindness and great heart of his daughter towards the Messenger of Allah (sawa).
So, imagine the great scale of the feeling and kindness of Fatimah (as), which succeeded so well in filling the soul of this great man and made him feel secure... To be a mother for a personality such as the Prophet (sawa) demands from the person who wants to play that role a great deal of effort, energy, heart and soul, and a broad horizon.
The first student
To use today's terminology, Fatimah and Ali (as) were the first students in the boarding school of the Messenger of Allah (sawa). Ali (as) used to sit in Makkah, when the revelation was being revealed to the Prophet (sawa), and Fatimah (as) used to sit as well to read, together with Ali (as), the revelation and listen to the teachings of the Prophet (sawa), as he explained the meanings of the revelations. They, together, would learn what Allah had entrusted to His Prophet with his laws for man. Hence, Fatimah (as) was with Ali (as) in that great prophetic, cultural surge.
One could understand the hadith 'If Ali did not exist, there would have been no match for Fatimah' on intellectual level: that which Fatimah (as) had was not possessed by any one but Ali (as).
Her marriage
Many companions proposed to Fatimah (as), but the Prophet (sawa) kindly turned down their requests, saying: 'I await the order of my Lord'[10] for in Fatimah (as) there was special merit that was not to be found in his other daughters. Fatimah (as) possessed a holy secret, which only Allah Almighty knew; similarly Ali (as) possessed a holy secret, which only Allah knew.
Some asked Ali: 'Why don't you propose to Fatimah?' But he was shy. At last he came to the Prophet (sawa) and talked to him on this matter. In his response, the Prophet (sawa) showed that he was pleased, as if he was waiting for this proposal, even preparing for it. He said to Ali: 'What money have you got?'
Of course he (sawa) knew how much Ali (as) had, for he was the one who brought him up and was with him both at home and away, day and night, in war and peace; nevertheless he asked him: 'What have you got?' Ali replied: 'My sword, shield and the clothes which I wear!' The Prophet (sawa) said: 'You cannot do without your sword with which you defend Islam and remove hardship from the Messenger of Allah, but give me your shield.'[11]
The shield was sold for 500 dirham and this was the marriage gift (mahr) of Fatimah (as), who accepted Ali (as) as her husband.
What we need to understand in this marriage is what is in the hadith that Imam al-Sadiq (as) - or the Prophet (sawa) according to others - said: 'Had it not been that Allah the Most High created the Commander of the Faithful for Fatimah, there would have been no match for her on Earth.'[12]
What was this match that the narration was referring to?
Certainly it was not the match in terms of family, for there was more than one cousin of the Prophet (sawa), but it was a match in soul, mind, intellect and belief. Fatimah (as) was, through her faith, mind, intellect, soul, purity, holy struggle and asceticism, a suitable match for Ali (as), who was at the highest level as far these attributes were concerned. Allah ordered his Messenger (sawa) to marry his daughter to her match and the pure to the pure, because there was more than one point on which they met.
This makes us understand the secret behind the refusal of the Prophet (sawa) to marry Fatimah (as) off to any of the prominent companions. Al-Sadooq tells us, in 'Uyoon Akhbar al-Rida (as), that Ali (as) said: 'The Messenger of Allah (sawa) told me: O Ali! Men from the Quraysh complained about Fatimah ('s marriage) and said: we have asked you for her hand in marriage but you have turned us down and married her off to Ali! I said to them: I swear by Allah that it was not me who turned you down and accepted him, but it was Allah...; (the archangel) Gabriel came down and said: O Muhammad! Allah the Great and Almighty said: If I have not created Ali, there would have been no match for your daughter Fatimah on the face of the Earth.'
Her narration of the hadith
Here are some of her narrations:
1. Al-Qundoozi narrated, in Yenabee' al-Mawaddah, that Fatimah (as) said: 'I heard my father the Messenger of Allah (sawa), in his death illness saying, and the room full with his companions' [i.e. he did not say it in whisper or secretly, but aloud in front of his companions]: O people! I am about to die and I am submitting this speech to you to fulfil my duty towards you - I am leaving for you the book of my Lord the Great the Almighty and my progeny. Then he took the hand of Ali (as) and said: This is Ali with the Qur'an and the Qur'an with Ali shall never separate until they arrive to me at the basin, (and) I shall ask you how you have succeeded me in dealing with them?'[13]
2. In Kanz al-Fawa'id, Fatimah (as) narrated that the Prophet (sawa) said: 'Gabriel informed me that the two angels (appointed to count the deeds) of Ali did not register any sin for Ali since they accompanied him.'[14] This was what distinguished Ali (as) from the rest of the companions of the Messenger (sawa) and this was what made Fatimah (as) defend Ali's right, not because he was her cousin and husband, but because he was the infallible in whom the two angels could not find any sin or bad deed.
3. In another narration, Fatimah (as) said that she went to the Prophet (sawa) and he stretched out a cloth and said 'sit', then al-Hasan (as) came and he said to him 'sit with her', then al-Husain (as) came and he said 'sit with them', then Ali (as) came and he said 'sit with them'; then he gathered up the cloth and closed it upon them and said: 'O Lord! They are from me and I am from them; O Lord! Be satisfied with them as I am satisfied with them.'[15]
His statement 'I am from them' means that the mission of the prophethood, of which he (sawa) was the bearer, would be passed on to Ahlul Bayt (as) after him, and so the Prophet (sawa) would continue to exist through them, and his Message would continue through them. This is the secret behind his satisfaction with them, for he is satisfied with only those whom Allah is satisfied.
4. In another narration, Fatimah (as) brought al-Hasan and al-Husain (as) to the Messenger of Allah (sawa) in his final illness, and said: 'O Messenger of Allah! You have not bequeathed these two anything!' He replied: 'As for al-Hasan, he has my presence and my mastership; as for al-Husain, he has my courage and generosity.'[16]
5. Fatimah (as) said: 'My father the Messenger of Allah (sawa) entered when I had gone to bed to sleep, and said: O Fatimah! Do not go to sleep before doing four things: reciting the whole of the Qur'an, making the Prophets your mediators (with Allah), making the believers satisfied with you and performing the pilgrimage and visit (hajj and 'umrah to Makkah). Then he started praying! So, I stayed in bed until he finished the prayer and said: O Messenger of Allah! You ordered me to do four things which I could not do in this hour! The Messenger of Allah smiled and said: If you recite the Tauheed chapter (al-Ikhlas surah) three times it is as if you have recited the whole of the Qur'an; and if you recite prayers to me and the prophets before me then we shall be your mediators in the Day of Judgment; and if you pray that Allah forgive the believers (say istighfar) they shall be satisfied with you; and if you say: Subhan Allah (praise be to Allah) and al-Hamdu Lillah (gratitude to Allah) and La Ilaha Illa Allah (there is no God but Allah) and Allahu Akbar (God is greatest) as if you have performed the pilgrimage and visit.'[17]
6. She said: 'The Messenger of Allah (sawa) said: Your best of men are those who are the most lenient with people and most generous to their women.'[18]
This means that the best people are those who are most kind to people and most generous to their women, whether daughters, wives or mothers.
Her grievances
The short life of Fatimah (as), which lasted no more than twenty years according to some historians, was filled with much suffering and grave crises. If we talk about the suffering and hardships in her daily living, we also need to talk about what was worse than that: the calamities and grievances which she suffered after the death of her father - something which opened a bleeding wound in the Islamic nation, and which in turn was the cause of the painful wounds that followed - one of the worst of which was the murder of the Master of the Youth of Paradise Imam al-Husain (as) and his progeny in the desert of Kerbala' and the taking of the women and children as captives to al-Sham (Damascus), driven like slaves. These grievances have been narrated by both the Sunnah and Shi'ah, and the numerous narrations which speak about her grievances and injustices coincide, even to the level of mutawatir.[19]
1- The attack on her house
Historians, one of whom is Ibn Qutaybah in al-Imamah wal Siyasah, said that - after the death of the Prophet and al-Saqeefah episode - men came with wood to burn down the house of Ali and Fatimah (as), to threaten them and those whom they considered as opposition, who had gathered at the house of Ali (as). Some said to the leader of the assault: 'O man! In the house is Fatimah!'; and Fatimah was the person whom the Muslims agreed to love and respect, and whose position they agreed to acknowledge, because she was the only daughter that the Prophet (sawa) left when he died, and because she was part of him - what made her angry made him angry and what harmed her harmed him... So, how come you come with fire to burn her house?
But, he replied with his famous statement: 'Even though!'
We regard this as one of the most dangerous utterances, because it means that there are no sacred entities in this house, and so there is nothing to prevent it being burned with its people inside!
This utterance points to the mindset of the people, and what they were prepared to do. However, had they opened the door to dialogue through nice words, they would have found Ali the man of dialogue, as he had always been throughout his life, even after he became a caliph; and they would have found Fatimah a woman of dialogue, because the Qur'an, to which Fatimah above all others adhered most closely to, was the book of dialogue. However, those people had already passed the stage of dialogue by the time they gathered the wood to burn the house of al-Zahra (as). So when in reply to 'In the house is Fatimah', that man said 'Even though!' this represented the ugliest form of injustice to which Fatimah (as) was subjected.
2- Other grievances
There were other events in which she suffered, but they have not always been substantiated fully beyond doubt. Those include the actual burning of the house, the breaking of her rib, the miscarriage, the slapping of her cheek, and the beating of her and others. These are recorded in narrations that may have question marks raised against them, either in their actual text (matn) or in the chain of narrators (sanad), as is the case with many historical narrations.
Therefore, we have raised some queries, as have been raised by some scholars in the past (may Allah be satisfied with them) such as Sheikh al-Mufeed[20] who seems to question the miscarriage issue, even the existence of the pregnancy - although we disagree with him on the latter. However, we do not deny that these events may have taken place - as Sheikh Muhammad Husain Kashif al-Ghita' has done regarding beating her and slapping her cheek[21] because denying requires as much proof as accepting. At any rate, what is definite is that the numerous narrations attain the level of mutawatir as a whole, confirm that there was an assault on her if only by exposing her house, attacking it and threatening to burn it - and this alone should be sufficient to prove the degree of crime which took place. It was a crime that continued to haunt those who committed it, and this was why the first caliph declared as he was dying: 'I wish I had not exposed the house of Fatimah, even if it had declared war on me.'[22]
3- Denying her Fadak
Scholars from the two schools of thought, including al-Suyooti, in their commentary on the verse: 'And give to the near of kin his due' (Qur'an 17:26), said that when this verse was revealed, the Prophet (sawa) gave Fatimah (as) the village of Fadak, which he saw as part of the peace treaty between him and the Jews...[23] It seems that the right of Fatimah (as) to Fadak has always been well known amongst the Muslims throughout history, and hence 'Umar bin 'Abdul 'Aziz, the Umayyad caliph, returned Fadak to Ahlul Bayt.[24] Later, after the first 'Abbasid caliphs had confiscated it again, al-Mahdi returned it once more, then he and Haroon took it back, and it continued to be in their possession until al-Ma'moon became caliph and returned it to the Fatimids.[25]
The proofs to Fatimah's ownership of Fadak were many and clear, and many Muslims gave witness in that regard, including the Commander of the Faithful (as) and Ummu Ayman, but their evidence was refuted![26] There was no counter evidence - except the hadith in which Abu Bakr narrated that the Prophet (sawa) said: 'We, the folk of prophets, do not leave bequests - what we leave is for alms.'[27]
The factors which stood against this counter evidence, in addition to being contradictory to the Qur'an, are:
First: the hadith was narrated by Abu Bakr only, and Fatimah (as), through her stance, denied this hadith;
Second: the Messenger of Allah (sawa) loved Fatimah (as) with the greatest of love, and would protect her from any evil. So how come he did not tell her of this (Islamic) ruling, which was anyway contradictory to the Qur'an, which states that the prophets (as) inherited and bequeathed? How come he did not tell her when the hadith was directly related to her - in fact, she was its most clear manifestation? How come he did not tell his beloved and save her the trouble?
Third: If the Muslims agree that Fatimah (as) is the Doyenne of the Women of the World, how come she tells lies, or talks nonsense or contradicts a hadith of her father (sawa)?
Fourth: The history of prophets (as) did not tell us that they did not bequeath anything, and that what they left was for alms, since if that were the case the followers of other religions would have known.
Fifth: Is it conceivable that Ali (as) would enter into dispute with the people about Fadak, and would accuse them of injustice and treason[28] just to side with his wife?! How come and the Prophet (sawa) said: 'The right is with Ali wherever he goes'[29] and: 'Ali is with the right and the right is with Ali?'[30] And how come Ali does not know that the Prophet (sawa) does not bequeath when he is the gate to the Prophet's City of Knowledge and Wisdom, and who has been with the Prophet (sawa) in a way unparalleled by any other companion?
Sixth: Historians mentioned that Fadak was, in fact, under Fatimah's control and that at the beginning her claim was based on it being a gift from her father (sawa) during her life and therefore did not fall into the category of inheritance.
4- The injustice of history
What great individuals suffer is the injustice of history and of the historians who intentionally hide their names, marginalize their roles and do not take care in registering the particulars of their lives, which are rich in lessons and lively examples that can teach generations throughout time. Fatimah (as) has been one of these victims, for when we study her history, we can find only snapshots of her life with her father the Messenger of Allah (sawa), but with little details. Fatimah (as) is mentioned as a migrant: but nothing much is recorded here except that her name is one of those who migrated after the Prophet (sawa). The irony is that we find history talks extensively about things that are irrelevant to our practical life, such as the celebrations in the heavens when she got married![31]
We know that her life, although short, was full of lessons, teachings, worship and holy struggle. We can say that, in spite of all this historical injustice, what has reached us from her, and about her, is sufficient to give us the highest example and the most complete role model for any Muslim.
5- She died angry with her oppressors
The attack on Fatimah's house, and the threat to burn it and other injustices, did not win the approval of the Muslims in general. This forced the two men who oppressed her to come and request Ali (as) to ask her permission to enter and to try to resolve the matters with her. What was her response?
Ibn Qutaybah, in al-Imamah wal Siyasah, narrates that 'Umar said to Abu Bakr: 'Let's go to Fatimah, for we have made her angry.' So they went together and asked her permission, but she denied it to them. They asked Ali to talk to her, and he did. When they entered and sat, she turned her face to the wall. They greeted her, but she did not answer. Abu Bakr said: 'O you the Messenger of Allah's beloved! I swear by Allah that the kinship of the Messenger of Allah is more beloved to me than my kinship, and you are surely more beloved to me than my daughter 'Ayshah, and I wished the day your father died that I died and did not stay after him... Do you see me, when knowing you and your virtues and honour, denying you your right and inheritance from the Messenger of Allah (sawa)? Except that I heard your father the Messenger of Allah (sawa) saying: We, the folk of prophets, do not leave bequests - what we leave is for alms'.
Fatimah (as) did not comment on the inheritance issue, since she has previously dealt with that in detail in her sermon, but she wanted to establish the proof on the two of them regarding the harm, injustice and wrong-doing to which she was subjected. Hence she said: 'Can I see you if I narrate a hadith from the Messenger of Allah (sawa); you know it, will you do according to it?' They replied: 'Yes'; she said: 'I ask you by Allah, haven't you heard the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (sawa): the satisfaction of Fatimah is my satisfaction and the discontent of Fatimah is my discontent?' They said: 'Yes, we heard it from the Messenger of Allah (sawa)'. She said: 'Therefore, I take Allah and his angels as witnesses that you have made me discontented and have not satisfied me, and when I meet the Prophet I shall complain about you to him!'. Abu Bakr said: 'I take refuge in Allah from his discontent and your discontent O Fatimah!'; but she said: 'I swear by Allah that I shall invoke Allah against you in every prayer I do!'[32]
In another source, she said: 'I ask you by Allah, have you heard the Prophet (sawa) say: Fatimah is part of me and I am part of her; whoever harms her harms me and whoever harms me harms Allah, and whoever harms her after my death it is as if he has harmed her during my life, and who harms her during my life as if he harms her after my death?'. They said: 'O Lord, yes'; she said: 'Gratitude to Allah'. Then she said: 'O Allah! I make you witness, so be witnesses you who are present, that they have harmed me in my life and at my death!'[33]
In this way, and with all strength and courage, Fatimah (as) proved her case and registered that the two of them had made her angry, and hence also the Messenger of Allah (sawa), and above that Allah the Most High. Her anger remained, like a bleeding wound, in the heart of her descendants and followers. When Abdullah bin al-Hasan was asked about Abu Bakr and 'Umar, he said: 'Our mother was a truthful woman and daughter of a sent prophet; she died angry with some people and we are angry because of her anger.'[34]
Her burial, grave and Ali's funeral farewell speech
Her protest did not stop at that; she continued her protest until her death. She asked Ali (as) to bury her at night[35] and that those who oppressed her and confiscated her right should not be present. She wanted to express her protest and opposition to aggression and injustice even after death, and she wanted it to be angry and hurtful, but with wisdom and convincing evidence and strong attitudes. She knew that people would start asking: why would the daughter of the Prophet (sawa) be buried at night? Why did she request that? What was happening? For this had not happened in Islam and everyone was expecting to participate in the funeral of their Prophet's daughter. But they were to find out that she was buried at night, and they would be told that that was her will!
The question spread out amongst Muslims: why? This is what Fatimah (as) wanted, to awaken consciences, and those who had been fooled would know the nature of the conspiracy and what had happened.
Moreover, her will also stated that her grave should be flattened so as to add another proof and witness to the injustice she suffered, and to eternalise her protest upon those who oppressed her...[36]
Ali (as) did exactly what she wanted and buried her at night and effaced her grave. The place of her grave remained unknown, although some narrations by the Imams of Ahlul Bayt (as) say that she was buried in her house, while others say that she was buried in the rauda (garden) which was, according to some scholars, what the Prophet (sawa) meant in his hadith: 'Between my grave and my pulpit a garden from the gardens of paradise.' A third possibility, according to others, is that she was buried in the cemetery of al-Baqee'.[37]
Fatima The Daughter of the Prophet Muhammad Her Life, a brief account? Muslim and muslima?
I like fatima so much. She is an example for all women just with 18 years old.
Thank you for reminder
Reply:Thanks a lot and I never forget her Report It
Reply:Listen, good sir, if you want to spread the glory of your faith, please do so through question and answer format, thanks.
Reply:So is that who Fatima is! So then who's Fatima in the Catholic faith?
Reply:How convoluted, how primitive. My previous impression, though brief, was that Islam believed in one God, not a trinity; clean, simple, easy to understand. Now you have made the whole thing needlessly convoluted and complex. I bet you need grand poobaahs to interpret all of this in the light of current conditions. The Book still does not answer the really practical question about how to program an iPod.
Do you believe in jesus christ? believe in him he is the real god?
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
(Romans 6:23)
I will explain the very basic truth of salvation through grace, by using Romans 6:23 as an outline verse. Lets look in depth at each main word used in this verse and see what is being stated here. (Foot Notes)
1) The first word were going to look at is SIN. What is sin? Most people will say sin is something that is bad, but sin is more than just that. Sin is doing what is evil, instead of what is righteous. Sin separates the sinner from God, "But your inquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear." (Isaiah 59:2) Anything that is against God, His will, or His commandments is sin; no matter which way you look at it. So, sin is the opposite of righteousness. So, who has sinned? According to Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned(1) and fall short of the glory of God.” So we all have sinned, no one is innocent. Sure you might say that you have tried to live a good moral life, but have you ever: cussed, hated, lied, stolen, or just even had a bad thought go through your mind at any point in your life? Then you have sinned. “If we say that we have no sin, we decieve ourselves, and the truth is not in us...If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” (1 John 1:8, 10) God is righteous and holy, He can not simply overlook our sin, nor can He sweep it under a rug and pretend He does not see it.
2) The next word were going to look at is WAGES What are wages? Wages are what you earn by doing something, or “a fitting return.” If you go to your job and work then you expect to get paid your wages, right? Well, what if you worked for a full two weeks and when pay day came they said, “Sorry we do not owe you any wages.” This would frustrate you right? Why? Because it is the law that you get you wages, it is automatic. It comes with the job, they have no choice to decide weither or not to give you your wages. The same then is true here, for sin. What are the wages of sin?
3) The wages of sin is DEATH. If sin seperates us from God, and we all have sinned; and the wages of sin is death, what kind of death is this? It is one of eternal seperation from God, which is called hell. Hell is ultimate separation from God, “Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction(2) from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.” (2 Thessalonians 1:9)
This is not good news. If we all have sinned, and the wages of sin is death; and that death leads to hell, then we all are condemned to hell. Man has tried to find his own solution to this problem in many different ways:
A. Good morals. You try to be: honest, truthful, kind, unselfish, compassionate, loving, generous, and try to follow the golden rule. This sounds good, but it does not take away your sins, nor the wages of your sins. In the end your morals will not save you, “But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.” (Isaiah 64:6) “I will declare thy righteousness, and thy works; for they shall not profit thee.” (Isaiah 57:12).
B. Good works: You always give donations to the less unfortunate, and you always help out and get involved in volunteer programs. However, God does not weigh our good (good works) versus our bad (sin) on a balance scale, to decide weither or not we go to heaven or hell. We cannot outweight out our bad (sin) by doing more good (good works). “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and not of yourselves: it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9)
C. Religion/the Law: You go to church every Sunday, you always tithe, your an active church member, you try to follow the ten commandments, and you even read a devotional every night. Man has tried to follow strict laws in order to get into heaven. However, no man has ever been able to this, nor will any ever be able to. “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” (James 2:10) If you have broken even one point of the law (by even the smallest sin), but keep everything else in the law, then you are still guilty of breaking all of the law(3) . “I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ died in vain.” (Galatians 2:21) If the law was capable of saving man, then when Christ died on the cross for us, it would of been pointless.
D. Philosophy: You can philosophize all day about the world, but it will never save you from your sins. Philosophy will not help you after you die, nor will it change the truth or facts, no matter how good it sounds. It is the eternal things that matter. “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of this world, and not after Christ.” (Colossians 2:8)
“There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.”
(Proverbs 14:12)
None of these ways will work. This is the bad news.
The good news is: “For the wages of sin is death
BUT...”
(You see, it did not stop there, we are left with a way out.)
The Reality of Hell!
4) The first part of the good news is the GIFT. Many people say that a gift is something that is given to you, and it is. It is also something that is given to you freely. You do nothing to earn it, therefore you can do nothing to lose it.
5) So who is this gift from? GOD. God is your creator and is sovereign over all things in heaven and on earth. Since God is sovereign, He did not have to give us this gift, He choose to. He gave it to us out of His unconditional love and own free will. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16) “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 8:5)
6) What is this gift? ETERNAL LIFE. God has given us a gift of eternal life so that we would not perish, and so that we would be with Him eternally. This eternal life with God is called heaven.
7) This gift of eternal life is given through CHRIST JESUS. Jesus is the Son of God. He was incarnated (manifest) into human flesh so that He could pay the price for all of our sins. “In the beginning was the Word (Jesus), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...And the Word was made flesh(4) , and dwelt among us...” (John 1:1, 14)
Fall of Man: The fall of man is a term used to describe what happened when Adam and Eve fell into the devils plan by going against God’s will, which made sin enter into the world of man. When God made Adam and Eve, He did not force them to worship Him or make them as robots, that would always do as they were told. For God to force man to worship and follow Him would be wrong (and useless), and since God is righteous and holy He cannot force man to follow Him. Therefore, He gave man a free-will to choose whether or not to follow Him. God told Adam and Eve that they could eat from the tree of life as much as they wanted, but not to eat from the tree of "knowledge." The devil then lied to Eve and said that if they ate from the tree of life that they would "be like God." "When the woman saw the the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it." (Genesis 3:6) When Adam and Eve did this they went against God's commandment (which is a sin), because they trusted the devil and their own judgment over God's judgment. Because of this, "Man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." (Genesis 3:22) Because Adam and Eve had now sinned against God they could no longer have eternal life in the presence of God, as God had originally gaven them. Since Adam and Eve were now sinful, this sin was passed down through their seed to every man. Since then God has made a way for man to regain his eternal life through his Son Jesus Christ. Just as Adam and Eve had to choose weither or not to follow God, so do you.
Virgin Birth: Jesus was not conceived by man, but by the Holy Spirit through the virgin Mary. Therefore Jesus was without sin(5) , and did not inherit the sin that was handed down through Adam’s seed. “And in the sixth month the angel Ga’bri-el was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Naz’a-reth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast her mind in what manner salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man (she had not slept with a man, she was a virgin)? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also the holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:26-35)
Crucifixion: Because Adam(6) , once a perfect man, lost eternal life for us: Jesus, a perfect man (yet also fully God), could only redeem it for us. This was the Old Law covenant “Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. ” (Deuteronomy 19:21) “Wherefore, as by one man (Adam) sin enetered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned...But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one (Adam) many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.” (Romans 5:12, 15) Since God can not over look the sin that has been carried down through the seed of Adam, all men were condemned. The only way to redeem man righteously in the eyes of God was a sinless sacrifice, since Adam was once sinless. No man could do it because all men have inheritied sin from Adam’s seed, so Christ had to be incarnated into flesh to take the place of man. God did not give us what we deserved, but rather He took our place as a substitute on the cross.
Resurrection: Jesus did this for us willingly and out of His unconditional love for us. “...I lay down my life for the sheep(us)...I lay down my life, that I my might take it again...No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down by myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again...” (John 10:15-18) Jesus said before His crucifixtion(7) , “...Destroy this temple (his body), and in three days I will raise it (his body) up...But he spake of the temple of his body.” (John 2:19, 21) When Jesus was raised from the dead [or resurrected(8)] three days after His crucifixtion, He proved that He was God manifest in the flesh (see John 20:24-29); Therefore proving that He was sinless and had fully paid for the prices of man’s sins on the cross. If Christ were not resurrected from the dead than that means that He was not God manifest in the flesh and therefore was a decendent of Adam and had inherited sin. This would mean that man’s sin was not paid for, and that we would still be condemned for our sin. “And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.” (1 Corinthians 15:17) It is vital that someone believes, trusts, and knows that Jesus died for their sins on the cross, in their place. And that He was raised from the dead three days later. “That if you shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him (Jesus) from the dead, thou shalt be saved” (Romans 10:9)
The Way: When someone prays and confesses to God it should only be done through Jesus. “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:5) The only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ. “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6) “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name (Jesus) under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)
8) What does “In Christ Jesus our LORD” mean? To have Jesus as your Lord you have to have a one on one personal relationship with Him. You have this through prayer and through reading His word (the bible). You also give Him your life, and everything you do is baised on whither it would please Him or not. “And that he (Jesus) died for all, that they live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.” (2 Corinthians 5:15) You also need to have Jesus as your Saviour, as in you confess that you are a sinner and need Him to save you. You do this by believeing, confessing, and accepting in prayer that He died on the cross for you (where He fully paid the prices for your sins, in your place) and was resurrected (was raised from the dead) three days later.
REPENT: When you do these things you must repent of your sins. To repent is to do a 180 degree turn, and be willing to turn completely away from your sins. You hate the sin that is in your life. In other words, you believe in faith that Jesus will give you the grace to hate sin the way He hates it and stop living in a lifestyle of sin (such as drinking alcohol, using drugs, having sex before marriage, etc...) It does not mean that you will not be tempted or that it will be easy. But the Holy Spirit will be in you and will give you the strength to resist temptations. “Submit yourselves therefore unto God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God and he will draw nigh to you.” (James 4:7-8) “...greater is he (God) that is in you, than he (the devil) that is in the world.” (1 John 4:4) However, no matter how strong the Christian, you will sometimes still fall into temptation and sin. This happens because it is man’s nature, “But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.” (James 1:14) Whenever you fall into sin remember, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9) When someone trusts in Christ as their Saviour and follows Him as Lord, they will no longer be a slave to their sin. Sin will no longer be their "Master," but fighting the sin is not a passive act. It takes godly discipline (through reading the Bible, prayer, and Christian fellowship), and the yielding of that person to the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives.
"Jesus answered and said unto him, 'Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God." (John 3:3) You are Born Again when you have honestly in your heart, through prayer, accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour.
If you believe in your heart the things that have been presented to you here, through Scripture, then:
1. Pray to God and confess the things in this prayer, or one similar to it in your own words:
"Dear Lord Jesus,
I know that I am a sinner, and that I need Your forgiveness for my sins.I make a conscious decision to forgive any and all people who have offended me or hurt me (Matt 18:21-35), whether they deserve it or not. I believe that You fully paid the price for my sins when you died for me on the cross, in my place; And that You were resurrected 3 days later. I trust in You as my Saviour from my sins, and I know that I can not save myself. I now invite You fully into every part of my heart and life as my Lord and my Saviour. I trust in You, Jesus, and in You only for my salvation. I want to turn away form my sins with Your help. From now on I will always follow You as the Lord of my life in every thing I do. In the name of the living Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, I pray. Amen."
(God is more concerned about what is in your heart, than which words you use.)
2. If you do not have a bible, buy one (I recommend the King James Version). If you want a free Bible, proceed to the Bible page to download one free of charge. Read every day. I recommend sitting down and planning out a time to dedicate to reading God's Word (the Bible), otherwise it is easy to get caught up in doing things and running out of time. You cannot grow spiritually if you do not spend time in God’s Word. The Word of God is daily spiritual food for your soul, and not cake for speical occasions. I recommend you read the New Testament first, beginning with the Gospel of John.
3. Continue to Pray. Pray everyday. Set aside a time to do this. Mornings seem to be the most beneficial to the whole day. Pray in goods times (thank the Lord) and not only in bad times. Do not just “mouth” the exact same prayer over and over again, pray with your heart.
4. Worship, fellowship, and serve with other dedicated Christians in a church where Christ is preached with honor and glory (Hebrews 10:25). There are many churches out there that claim to be "Christian," and are not Christian at all. So, be sure to test what is taught there by comparing their doctrine with Scripture as the Bereans did in ACTS 17:11. The Scriptures in the Bible are alone God's Word, they are the only Scriptures on which to base beliefs, doctrine, and faith (Revelations 22:18-19). All other books and scripture is man- made, and therefore should not be placed on a level with the inerrant Word of God. Be paitient and let the Holy Spirit lead you to a Biblically based Church that preaches and focuses on Jesus Christ.
5. Represent Christ in your new life by showing your LOVE and concern for others. See Mark 12:28-31, Luke 6:27-36, Romans 13:8-14, and 1 John 3:1-24.
6. Get baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19). This is done in an act of obedience to God's will, which is not a part of one's salvation, but it is a very important step that signifies one's new life for Christ.
7. Tell others about the gospel of Christ.
Foot Notes:
(1) Sin entered the world when Adam and Eve fell into the devils plan by going against God’s will. This is called the “Fall of man.” See Genesis 3:1-24.
(2) The Greek word used here for “destruction” is olthros, which means ruin or destruction. “The fundamental thought is not by any means annhilation, but perhaps corruption, an injurious force, which the subj. exerts or cannot hinder.” The Complete Word Study New Testament, by Spiros Zodhiates, Th. D. (AMG publishers, TN 37422, U.S.A. 1991) p. 940.
(3) Read John 3:1-21 about Nic-o-de’mus, a Phar’isees who Jesus even called “a master of Israel” (John 3:10). However, Nic-o-de’mus still had to be “born again” if he were to see the kingdom of God.
(4) Revelations 19:13 calls Jesus “the Word of God.” Jesus was fully God and fully man, not part man and part God. For more on Jesus’ incarnation to man see: Matthew 1:18-25, John 4:7, Acts 20:28, Philippians 2:5-8, and 1 Timothy 3:16.
(5) Jesus was sinless: Acts 3:14, 2 Corinthians 3:21, Hebrews 4:15, 7:26, 1 Peter 2:22, and 1 John 3:5.
(6) Sin entered the world when Adam and Eve fell into the devils plan by going against God’s will. This is called the “Fall of man.” See Genesis 3:1-24.
(7) Crucifixtion: The action of putting someone to death by nailing them to a cross.
(8) Resurrection: to raise up what was died.
If you still believe that your good works will commend you to Almighty God, please read the following tract entitled "This Was Your Life"
Do you believe in jesus christ? believe in him he is the real god?
The answer to your question is "yes". I believe in Jesus, and I believe he is the Son of God.
I also believe in his commandments to us as Christians. One of those commandments is "Yield unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar and unto God that which belongs to God."
The meaning of this passage is that you obey the rules of the place where you dwell so long as those rules do not conflict with those of God. In this case, your sermon (while I applaud your passion and agree with it) is out of place on an open internet forum. It would be better to pose the question and then invite others to another venue for discussion (perhaps you should start a blog?).
I'm afraid that all this will get you is reported as a spammer and have you banned. It's hard to witness online if you've been banned.
Reply:To Nick C, Shanu, Sonu
The Gospel of John: 1, 1-2. clearly indicates that the Word is part of God and is eternal.
John: 1, 14. clearly states that the Word was made into flesh and dwelt among us.
Christ did not have to write the Gospels. He IS the Gospels.
Gospel = Good News. Report It
Reply:An analogy of the Trinity:
God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are not three seperate entities, but three aspects of the same entity. Just as I am a son to my father, husband to my wife and father to my children. Each aspect has a different purpose and function, but is one being. Report It
Reply:We are but a speck of dust in the Universe.
Something could NOT have been around forever.
If your God would a benevolent he cure this insane world of super rich to abject poverty of barely sustain food and water, and rampant disease.
It makes no since that there would be a builder of a huge Universe take any special attention to us. These basic archaic beliefs that has, for the most part, led us into war
Reply:I used to. Until the "seed of doubt" got planted, I'm more than likely to believe he's either dead or never existed in the first place these days.
Sometimes I want to be a christian, and sometimes I don't want to be, because I don't want to be associated with all the radical types.
Reply:Continue to share the law to bring the sinner to their guilt. The law is a schoolmaster.
Continue to evangelize daily when you can.
Listen to Mark Cahill at http://www.markcahill.org/listen2.html
Reply:I believe that Jesus "MAY" have existed, but as a catholic I don't see him as God, I simply believe he was a man that was vary wise, and gave us a way of life to live by his teachings, if we so choose to, I believe most religious people are fanatically insane when it comes to interpreting the bible.
Reply:Nope. I'm an EX-Christian. I don't believe your God is the real one any more than you believe my Gods, Odin, Thor, Tyr, Heimdall, Forseti, etc.. are real.
Reply:EXACTLY good "Question" or what ever it is. For god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, so that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have ever lasting life. People think that ifyou be "true to yourself" you can enter the kingdom of heaven. But you can only obtain salvation through Christ Jesus our lord and saviour. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the father except through him.
Reply:How many do you think will read even 1/10 of that same old, same old rant ??
Reply:Yes ! I believe in the true living God !
Reply:And I was so worried that I would go an entire day without being spammed. Thanks.
Reply:Thank you for your painstaking efforts to propagate the
theologies of the Church qoting from the Bible which christians
believe to be the word of God,I was a christian who reverted to
Islam the Religion of Gid almighty to worship him amd him alone.I thought it my duty to present the Truth of The Bible for you
all who read it ,not with blind faith but with Logic and reason.
IS THE BIBLE GODS WORD
By Ahmed Deedat
CHAPTER ONE
WHAT THEY SAY
CHRISTIANS CONFESS
Dr. W. Graham Scroggie of the MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE, Chicago, one of the most prestigious Christian Evangelical Mission in the world, answering the question — "Is the Bible the Word of God?" (also the title of his book), under the heading: IT IS HUMAN, YET DIVINE. He says on page 17:
"Yes, the Bible is human, though some, out of zeal which is not according to knowledge, 1 have denied this. Those books2 have passed through the minds of men, are written in the language of men, were penned by the hands of men, and bear in their style the characteristics of men." (Emphasis added).
Another erudite Christian scholar, Kenneth Cragg, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, says on page 277 of his book, "The Call of the Minaret":
"Not so the New Testament3 . . . There is condensation and editing; 4 there is choice, reproduction and witness. The Gospels have come through the mind of the Church behind the authors. They represent experience and history." 5
If words have any meaning, do we need to add another word of comment to prove our case? No! But the professional propagandists, after letting the cat out of the bag, still have the face to try to make their readers believe that they have proved beyond the shadow of any doubt that the Bible is the "irrefragable 6 Word of God." Their semantic gymnastics — equivocating, and playing with words — is amazing!
1. Out of ignorance.
2. The Bible is not Just a Book. It is a selection and compilation of many books.
3. As opposed to the Qur’ân.
4. Another word for Interpolating.
5. Emphasis are mine.
6. Indisputable.
Both these Doctors of Religion are telling us in the clearest language humanly possible that the Bible is the handiwork of man, all the while pretending that the are proving to the contrary. An old Arab saying goes: "IF SUCH ARE THE PRIESTS, GOD BLESS THE CONGREGATION."
With this sort of drivel, the hot-gospeller and the Bible-thumper is "inspired" to harry the "heathen." 1 A theological student — a not-yet-qualified young evangelist — from the University of Witwatersrand, became a frequent visitor to the Newtown Mosque in Johannesburg, with the "noble" thought of "witnessing"2 to the members of its congregation. When I was introduced to him, (and having learnt his purpose), I invited him to lunch at my brother's residence — a stone's-throw from the Mosque. While discussing the authenticity of the Bible over the dinner table and sensing his stubborn dogmatism, I put out a feeler: "Your Professor Geyser, (The Head of the Department of Theology) does not believe the Bible to be the Word of God." Without the slightest surprise he answered, "I know." Now I personally had no knowledge of the Professor's conviction about the Bible. I had only assumed so from a controversy which raged around him about the "Divinity of Christ." 3 He had taken issue with the orthodox believers on this point some years ago. I continued further, saying, "Your lecturer does not believe the Bible as being God's Word." The young evangelist, responded again, "I know" but he continued this time-with the words, "but I believe that it is the Word of God!" There is no real remedy for such people. Even Jesus bewailed this sickness:
"... seeing they see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." (Matthew 13:13)
Al-Qur'an, the Holy Book of God, also condemns this mulish mentality:
These pages are now addressed to those sincerely humble souls, who are genuinely interested in seeking the Light of God, and who wish to be guided by it. As for the other, with a sickness in their souls, the facts presented herein can only increase the disease of their hearts.
1. See "How Lost are the Heathen?" by the same MOODY PRESS of Dr. Scroggie.
2. When the Christian talks of "witnessing" he means propagating, proselytizng, converting.
3. This subject is dealt extensively in the book — "CHRIST IN ISLAM"
CHAPTER TWO
THE MUSLIMS' STANDPOINT
PRESUMPTUOUS CHRISTIANS
Whether Catholic, Protestant or a "Cultist," of the thousand -and - one - sects - and - denominations-of-Christianity, never will you find a missionary who will not, prima facie, presuppose that his potential convert accepts his "Holy Bible" as the book of final authority on every religious opinion? The only answer the prospective proselyte has is to quote verses from the Bible which are contradictory to the missionary's or debate their interpretations.
THE DOGGED QUESTION
When the Muslim proves his point from the Christian's own Holy Scripture, and when the professional priest, parson or predikant cannot refute the arguments — the inevitable Christian evasion is — "DO YOU ACCEPT THE BIBLE AS GOD'S WORD? On the face of it, the question seems to be an easy one, but a simple "Yes" or "No" cannot be given as an answer. You see, one has first to explain one's position. But the Christian will not give one the opportunity. He gets impatient. "Answer — 'Yes or No!' " he insists. The Jews did the same to Jesus two thousand years ago, except that surprisingly he was not strait-jacketed, as is the fashion today!
The reader will readily agree that things are not always either BLACK or WHITE. Between these two extremes there are various shades of GREY. If you say "Yes" to his question, then it would mean that you are prepared to swallow everything HOOK, LINE and SINKER, from Genesis to Revelation from his Bible. If you respond with a "No" he quickly unhooks himself from the facts you have presented, and rallies support from his co-religionists in the audience with; "You see, this man does not believe in the Bible! What right has he to expound his case from our Book?" With this hydra-like somersault he rests content that he has safely evaded the issue. What is the Muballigh1to do? He has to explain his position vis-a-vis the Bible, as he ought to do.
1. MUBALLIGH: The Propagator of Islam
THREE GRADES OF EVIDENCE
We Muslims have no hesitation in acknowledging that in the Bible, there are three different kinds of witnessing recognizable without any need of specialized training. These are:
1. You will be able to recognize in the Bible what may be described as "The Word of God."
2. You will also be able to discern what can be described as the "Words of a Prophet of God."
3. And you will most readily observe that the bulk of the Bible is the records of eye witnessess or ear witnesses, or people writing from hearsay. As such they are the "Words of a Historian"
You do not have to hunt for examples of these different types of evidences in the Bible. The following quotations will make the position crystal clear:
The FIRST Type:
(a) I will raise them up a prophet . . . and I will put my words in ... and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." (Deuteronomy 18:18)
(b) I even, I am the Lord, and beside me there is no saviour." (Isaiah 43:11)
(c) "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the end of the earth: for I am God, and there is non else." (Isaiah 45:22)
Note the first person pronoun singular (highlighted in green) in the above references, and without any difficulty you will agree that the statements seem to have the sound of being GOD'S WORD.
The SECOND Type:
(a) "Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani? . . ." (Matthew 27:46)
(b) "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord:" (Mark 12:29)
(c) "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God." (Mark 10:18).
Even a child will be able to affirm that: Jesus "cried" Jesus "answered" and Jesus "said" are the words of the one to whom they are attributed, i.e. the WORDS OF A PROPHET OF GOD.
The THIRD Type:
"And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he, (JESUS) came, if haply he (JESUS) might find anything thereon: and when he (JESUS) came to it, (Jesus) found nothing but leaves . . ." (Mark 11:13)
The bulk of the Bible is a witnessing of this THIRD kind. These are the words of a third person. Note the underlined pronouns. They are not the Words of God or of His prophet, but the WORDS OF A HISTORIAN.
For the Muslim it is quite easy to distinguish the above types of evidence, because he also has them in his own faith. But of the followers of the different religions, he is the most fortunate in this that his various records are contained in separate Books!
ONE: The first kind — THE WORD OF GOD — is found in a Book called The Holy Qur’ân.
TWO: The second kind — THE WORDS OF THE PROPHET OF GOD, (Muhummed, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) are recorded in the Books of Tradition called The Hadeeth.
THREE: Evidence of the third kind abounds in different volume of Islamic history, written by some of high integrity and learning, and others of lesser trustworthiness, but the Muslim advisedly keeps his Books in separate volumes!
The Muslim keeps the above three types of evidence Jealously apart, in their proper gradations of authority. He never equates them. On the other hand, the "Holy Bible" contains a motley type of literature, which composes the embarrassing kind, the sordid, and the obscene — all under the same cover — A Christian is forced to concede equal spiritual import and authority to all, and is thus unfortunate in this regard.
CHAPTER THREE
THE MULTIPLE BIBLE VERSIONS
It will now be easy for us to analyze a Christian's claim about his Holy Book.
SEPARATING THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF
Before we scrutinize the various versions, let us clarify our own belief regarding the Books of God. When we say that we believe in the Tauraat, the Zaboor, the Injeel and the Qur'an, what do we really mean? We already know that the Holy Qur'an is the infallible Word of God, revealed to our Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhummed Mustapha (Peace be upon him) word for word, through the agency of the Archangel Jibraeel, (known as Gabriel in English), and perfectly preserved and protected from human tampering for the past fourteen hundred years! 1 Even hostile critics of Islam have grudgingly vouched for the purity of the Holy Qur’ân: "THERE IS PROBABLY IN THE WORLD NO OTHER BOOK WHICH HAS REMAINED TWELVE CENTURIES (now fourteen) WITH SO PURE A TEXT." — (Sir William Muir)
The Tauraat we Muslims believe in is not the "Torah" of the Jews and the Christians, though the words — one Arabic, the other Hebrew — are the same. We believe that whatever the Holy Prophet Moses (Peace be upon him) preached to his people, was the revelation from God Almighty, but that Moses was not the author of those "books" attributed to him by the Jews and the Christians. 2
Likewise, we believe that the Zaboor was the revelation of God granted to Hazrat Dawood (David) (Peace be upon him), but that the present Psalms associated with his name are not that revelation. The Christians themselves do not insist that David is the sole author of "his" Psalms.3
1. Whether Muslim or non-Muslim, you do not have lo accept this claim on faith alone. You can verify the fact that Al-Qur’ân is the Word of God. See "AL-QURAN- The Miracle of Miracles";
2- More evidence later on — "Moses not the author of the Biblical "Torah."
3.. Later on you’ll read how Christian "Brains Trust" confess — "Author; Principally David, though there are other writers."
What about the Injeel? INJEEL means the "Gospel" or "good news" which Jesus Christ preached during his short ministry. The "Gospel" writers often mention that Jesus going about and preaching the Gospel (the Injeel):
1. "And Jesus went . . . preaching the gospel . . . and healing every disease among the people." (Matthew 9:35)
2. "... but whosoever shall lose his fife for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it." (Mark 8:35)
3. "... preached the gospel. . ." (Luke 20:1)
The "gospel" is a frequently-used word, but what Gospel did Jesus preach? Of the 27 books of the New Testament, only a small fraction can be accepted as the words of Jesus. The Christians boast about the Gospels according to St. Matthew, according to St. Mark, according to St. Luke and according to St. John, but there is not a single Gospel "according" to (St.) Jesus himself! We sincerely believe that everything Christ (May the peace and blessings of God be upon him) preached was from God. That was the Injeel, the good news and the guidance of God for the Children of Israel. In his life-time Jesus never wrote a single word, nor did he instruct anyone to do so. What passes off as the "GOSPELS" today are the works of anonymous hands!
The question before us is: "Do you accept that the Bible is God's Word?" The question is really in the form of a challenge. The questioner is not simply seeking enlightenment. The question is posed in the spirit of a debate. We have every right to demand in a similar vein — "Which Bible are you talking about?", we may ask. "Why, there is only ONE Bible!" he mutters.
THE CATHOLIC BIBLE
Holding the "Douay" Roman Catholic Version of the Bible aloft in my hand, I ask, "Do YOU accept THIS Bible as the Word of God?" For reasons best known to themselves, the Catholic Truth Society have published their Version of the Bible in a very short, stumpy form. This Version is a very odd proportion of the numerous Versions in the market today. The Christian questioner is taken aback. "What Bible is that?" he asks. "Why, I thought you said that there was only ONE Bible!" I remind him. "Y-e-s," he murmurs hesitantly, "but what Version is that?" "Why, would that make any difference?" I enquire. Of course it does, and the professional preacher knows that it does. He is only bluffing with his "ONE Bible" claim.
The Roman Catholic Bible was published at Rheims in 1582, from Jerome's Latin Vulgate and reproduced at Douay in 1609. As such the RCV (Roman Catholic Version) is the oldest Version that one can still buy today. Despite its antiquity, the whole of the Protestant world, including the "cults"* condemn the RCV because it contains seven extra "books" which they contemptuously refer to as the "apocrypha" i.e. of DOUBTFUL AUTHORITY. Notwithstanding the dire warning contained in the Apocalypse, which is the last book in the RCV (renamed as "Revelation" by the Protestants), it is "revealed":
". . . If any man shall add to these things (or delete) God shall add unto him the plagues written in this Book." (Revelation 22:18-19)
But who cares! They do not really believe! The Protestants have bravely expunged seven whole books from their Book of God! The outcasts are:
The Book of Judith
The Book of Tobias
The Book of Baruch
The Buck of Esther, etc.
* This disparaging title is given by the orthodox to Jehovah's Witnesses, the Seventh Day Adventists and a thousand other sects and denominations with whom they do not see eye to eye.
THE PROTESTANT BIBLE
Sir Winston Churchill has some pertinent things to say about the Authorised Version (AV) of the Protestant Bible, which is also widely known as the "King James Version (KJV)".
"THE AUTHORISED VERSION OF THE BIBLE WAS PUBLISHED IN 1611 BY THE WILL AND COMMAND OF HIS MAJESTY KING JAMES THE 1ST WHOSE NAME IT BEARS TILL TODAY."
The Roman Catholics, believing as they do that the Protestants have mutilated the Book of God, are yet aiding and abetting the Protestant "crime" by forcing their native converts to purchase the Authorised Version (AV) of the Bible, which is the only Bible available in some 1500 languages of the lesser developed nations of the world. The Roman Catholics milk their cows, but the feeding is left to the Protestants! The overwhelming majority of Christians — both Catholics and Protestant — use the Authorised (AV) or the King James Version (KJV) as it is alternatively called.
GLOWING TRIBUTES
First published, as Sir Winston says, in 1611, and then revised in 1881 (RV), and now re-revised and brought up to date as the Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1952, and now again re-re-revised in 1971 (still RSV for short). Let us see what opinion Christendom has of this most revised Bible, the RSV:-
1. "THE FINEST VERSION WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED IN THE PRESENT CENTURY." — (Church of England Newspaper)
2. "A COMPLETELY FRESH TRANSLATION BY SCHOLARS OF THE HIGHEST EMINENCE." — (Times literary Supplement)
3. "THE WELL-LOVED CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AUTHORISED VERSION COMBINED WITH A NEW ACCURACY OF TRANSLATION." — (Life and Work)
4. "THE MOST ACCURATE AND CLOSE RENDERING OF THE ORIGINAL" — (The Times)
The publishers (Collins) themselves, in their notes on the Bible at the end of their production, say on page 10: "THIS BIBLE (RSV), IS THE PRODUCT OF THIRTY-TWO SCHOLARS, ASSISTED BY AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPRESENTING FIFTY CO-OPERATING DENOMINATIONS." Why all this boasting? To make the gullible public buy their product? All these testimonies convince the purchaser that he is backing the right horse, with the purchaser little suspecting that he is being taken for a ride.
"THE WORLD'S BEST SELLER"
But what about the Authorised Version of the Bible (AV), the "World's Best Seller?" These Revisers, all good salesmen, have some very pretty things to say about it. However, their page iii, paragraph six of the PREFACE of the RSV reads;
"THE KING JAMES VERSION (alternative description of AV) HAS WITH GOOD REASON BEEN TERMED 'THE NOBLEST MONUMENT OF ENGLISH PROSE.’ ITS REVISERS IN 1881 EXPRESSED ADMIRATION FOR 'ITS SIMPLICITY, ITS DIGNITY, ITS POWER, ITS HAPPY TURNS OF EXPRESSION ... THE MUSIC OF ITS CADENCES, AND THE FELICITIES OF ITS RHYTHM.’ IT ENTERED, AS NO OTHER BOOK HAS, INTO THE MAKING OF THE PERSONAL CHARACTER AND THE PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS OF THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES. WE OWE TO IT AN INCALCULABLE DEBT."
Can you, dear reader, imagine a more magnificent tribute being paid to the "Book of Books" than the above? I, for one, cannot. Let the believing Christian, now steel himself for the un-kindest blow of all from his own beloved Lawyers of Religion; for in the very same breath they say:
"YET THE KING JAMES VERSION HAS GRAVE DEFECTS." And, "THAT THESE DEFECTS ARE SO MANY AND SO SERIOUS AS TO CALL FOR REVISION . . ." This is straight from the horse's mouth, i.e. the orthodox Christian scholars of "the highest eminence." Another galaxy of Doctors of Divinity are now required to produce an encyclopedia explaining the cause of those GRAVE AND SERIOUS DEFECTS in their Holy Writ and their reasons for eliminating them.
This is a photographic reproduction from the R.S.V. 1971.
CHAPTER FOUR
FIFTY THOUSAND ERRORS (?)
The Jehovah's Witnesses in their "AWAKE!" Magazine dated 8 September, 1957, carried this startling headline — "50000 ERRORS IN THE BIBLE?" (See below for the reproduction).
While I was still formulating the theme of this booklet, I heard a knock at my door one Sunday morning. I opened the door. A European gentleman stood there, grinning broadly. "Good morning'" he said. "Good morning" I replied. He was offering me his "Awake" and "Watchtower" magazines. Yes, a Jehovah's Witness! If a few had knocked at your door previously, you will recognize them immediately. The most supercilious lot of people who ever knocked at people's doors! I invited him in.
As soon as he settled down, I produced the full reproduction of what you see below. Pointing to the monograph at the top of the page, I asked, "Is this your's?" He readily recognised his own. I said, "It says: 50 000 Errors in the Bible, is it true?" "What's that!" he exclaimed. I repeated, "I said, that it says, that there are 50 000 errors in your Bible." "Where did you get that?" He asked. (This was published 23 years ago, when he was perhaps a little nipper) I said, "Leave the fancy talk aside — is this your's?" pointing again to the monograph — "Awake!" He said, "Can I have a look?" "Of course," I said. I handed him the page. He started perusing. They (the Jehovah's Witnesses) are trained. They attend classes five times a week in their "Kingdom Halls." Naturally, they are the fittest missionaries among the thousand -and - one - sects - and - denominations of Christendom. They are taught that when cornered, do not commit yourself to anything, do not open your mouths. Wait for the Holy Ghost to inspire you with what to say.
I silently kept watching him, while he browsed the page. Suddenly he looked up. He had found it. The "Holy Ghost" had tickled him. He began, "The article says that "most of those errors have been eliminated." I asked "If MOST are eliminated, how many remain out of 50000? 5000? 500? 50? Even if 50 remain, do you attribute those errors to God?" He was speechless. He excused himself by suggesting that he will come again with some senior member of his Church. That will be the day!
If I had this booklet ready, I would have offered him, saying — "I would like to do you a favour, give me your name and address, and your telephone number. I will lend you this booklet — IS THE BIBLE GOD'S WORD?" for 90 days. I want a written reply!" If you do this, And a few other Muslims do the same. They and the other missionaries will never darken your doors again. I believe that this publication will prove the most effective talisman to date. Insha-Allah!
This "cult" of Jehovah's Witnesses which is so strong in its condemnation of the orthodox Trinitarians, for playing with the "Word of God," is itself playing the same game of semantic gymnastics. In the article under review — "50000 ERRORS IN THE BIBLE?" — they say: "there are probably 50 000 errors . . . errors that have crept into the Bible text . . . 50000 such serious (?) errors… most of those so-called errors... as a whole the Bible is accurate." (?)
We do not have the time and space to go into the tens of thousands of — grave or minor — defects that the authors of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) have attempted to revise. We leave that privilege to the Christian scholars of the Bible. Here I will endeavour to cast just a cursory glance at a "half-a-dozen" or so of those "minor" changes.
1. "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a VIRGIN shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
(Isaiah 7:14 - AV)
The indispensable "VIRGIN" in the above verse has now been replaced in the RSV with the phrase "a young woman," which is the correct translation of the Hebrew word almah. Almah is the word which has occurred all along in the Hebrew text and NOT bethulah which means VIRGIN. This correction is only to be found in the English language translation, as the RSV is only published in this tongue. For the African and the Afrikaner, the Arab and the Zulu, in fact, in the 1 500 other languages of the world, Christians are made to continue to swallow the misnomer "VIRGIN."
BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE
"Jesus is the only begotten son of God, begotten not made," is an adjunct of the orthodox catechism, leaning for support on the following:
2. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only BEGOTTEN son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16 - AV)
No priest worth his cloth would fail to quote "the only BEGOTTEN of the Father!" when preaching to a prospective convert. But this fabrication — "BEGOTTEN" — has now been unceremoniously excised by the Bible Revisers, without a word of excuse. They are as silent as church-mice and would not draw the reader's attention to their furtive excision. This blasphemous word "BEGOTTEN" was another of the many such interpolations in the "Holy Bible." God Almighty condemned this blasphemy in the strongest terms soon after its innovation. He did not wait for 2000 years for Bible scholars to reveal the fraud.
The Muslim World should congratulate the "Fifty cooperating denominations" of Christendom and their Brains Trust the "Thirty-two scholars of the highest eminence" for bringing their Holy Bible a degree nearer to the Qur-anic truth.
"CHRISTIAN MES-A-MATHICS"
3. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the FATHER,
the WORD, and the HOLY GHOST: and these three are one."
1st Epistle of John 5:7 - AV
This verse is the closest approximation to what the Christians call their Holy Trinity in the encyclopaedia called the BIBLE. This key-stone of the Christian faith has also been scrapped from the RSV without even a semblance of explanation. It has been a pious fraud all along and well-deservedly has it been expunged in the RSV for the English-speaking people. But for the 1499 remaining language groups of the world who read the Christian concoctions in their mother tongues, the fraud remains. These people will never know the truth until the Day of Judgement. However, we Muslims must again congratulate the galaxy of D.D.’s who have been honest enough to eliminate another lie from the English (RSV) Bible, thus bringing their Holy Book yet another step closer to the teachings of Islam. For the Holy Qur'an says:
* Not one in a trinity. Not one in a trinity.
THE ASCENSION
One of the most serious of those "grave defects" which the authors of the RSV had tried to rectify concerned the Ascension of Christ. There have been only two references in the Canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and of John to the most stupendous event in Christianity — OF JESUS BEING TAKEN UP INTO HEAVEN. These two references were obtained in every Bible in every language, prior to 1952, when the RSV first appeared. These were:
4a. "So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was TAKEN UP INTO HEAVEN, and sat down at the right hand of God." (Mark 16:19)
4b. "While he blessed them, he parted from them, and was CARRIED UP INTO HEAVEN." (Luke 24:51)
Now please look at the image below, which is a photocopy where the quotation 4a above ought to appear. You will be shocked to note that Mark 16 ends at verse 8, and after an embarrassing expanse of blank space the missing verses appear in "small print" as a footnote at the bottom of the page. If you can lay your hands on a RSV 1952, you will find the last six words of 4b above, i.e. "AND WAS CARRIED UP INTO HEAVEN" replaced by a tiny "a" to tell you to see the footnote if you please, where you will find these missing words. Every honest Christian has to admit that he does not consider any footnote in any Bible as the word of God. Why should the paid servants of Christianity consign the mightiest miracle of their religion to a mere footnote?
From the Chart — "The Origin and Growth of the English Bible" — appearing below, you will note that all the Biblical "Versions" prior to the Revised Version of 1881 were dependent upon the ANCIENT COPIES — those dating only five or six hundred years after Jesus. The Revisers of the RSV 1952, were the first Bible scholars who were able to tap the "MOST Ancient Copies" fully, dating three and four centuries after Christ. We agree that the closer to the source the more authentic is the document. Naturally "MOST" Ancient deserves credence more than mere "ANCIENT." But not finding a word about Jesus being "taken up" or "carried up" into heaven in the MOST ANCIENT manuscripts, the Christian fathers expurgated those references from the RSV 1952.
THE DONKEY CIRCUS
The above facts are a staggering confession by Christendom that the "inspired" authors of the Canonical Gospels did not record a single word about the ASCENSION of Jesus- Yet these "inspired" authors were unanimous in recording that their Lord and Saviour rode a donkey into Jerusalem as his mission drew to a close.
“ . . . And they sat him thereon." (The Donkey) (Matt. 21:7)“ . . . And he sat upon him." (The Donkey) (Mark 11:7)
“ . . . And they set Jesus Thereon." (The Donkey) (Luke 19:35)“ . . . Jesus ... sat thereon:" (The Donkey) (John 12:14)
Could God Almighty have been the author of this incongruous situation — going out of His Way to see that all the Gospel writers did not miss their footing recording of His "son's" donkey-ride into the Holy City — and yet "inspiring" them to black-out the news about His "son's" heavenly flight on the wings of angels?
NOT FOR LONG!
The hot-gospellers and the Bible-thumpers were too slow in catching the Joke. By the time they realised that the corner-stone of their preaching — THE ASCENSION OF JESUS — had been undermined as a result of Christian Biblical erudition, the publishers of the RSV had already raked in a net profit of 15 000 000 dollars! (Fifteen Million). The propagandists made a big hue and cry, and with the backing of two denominational committees out of the fifty, forced the Publishers to re-incorporate the interpolations into the "INSPIRED" Word of God in every new publication of the RSV after 1952, the expunged portion was "RESTORED TO THE TEXT."
It is an old, old game. The Jews and the Christians have been editing their "Book of God" from its very inception. The difference between them and the ancient forgerers is that the ancient forgers did not know the art of writing "prefaces" and "footnotes", otherwise they too would have told us as clearly as our modern heroes have about their tampering, and their glib excuses for transmuting forged currency into glittering gold.
"MANY PROPOSALS FOR MODIFICATION WERE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE BY INDIVIDUALS AND BY TWO DENOMINATIONAL COMMITTEES ALL OF THESE WERE GIVEN CAREFUL ATTENTION BY THE COMMITTEE.
"TWO PASSAGES, THE I LONGER ENDING OF MARK (16:9-20) . . . AND LUKE 24:51 ARE RESTORED TO THE TEXT." (Preface — Collins' pages vi and vii)
"Why 'restored'"? Because they had been previously expunged! Why had the references to the Ascension expunged in the first place? The MOST Ancient manuscripts had no references to the Ascension at all. They were interpolations similar to 1 John 5:7 about the Trinity. (Refer to the earlier example 3). Why eliminate one and re-instate the other? Do not be surprised! By the time you lay your hands on a RSV, the "Committee" might also have decided to expunge the whole of their invaluable Preface. The Jehovah's Witnesses have already eliminated 27 revealing pages of their FOREWORD to their "New World Translation of the CHRISTIAN GREEK SCRIPTURES," (this is their way of saying — New Testament).
ALLAH IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE
The Rev. C. I. Scofield, D. D. with a team of 8 Consulting Editors, also all D.D.’s in the "Scofield Reference Bible" thought it appropriate to spell the Hebrew word "Elah" (meaning God) alternatively as "Alah" The Christians had thus swallowed the camel — they seemed to have accepted at last that the name of God is Allah — but were still straining at the gnat by spelling Allah with one "L"! (Photographic reproduction of the Bible page showing the word "ALAH" is preserved here for posterity below). References were made in public lectures to this fact by the author of this booklet. Believe me, the subsequent "Scofield Reference Bible" has retained word for word the whole commentary of Genesis 1:1, but has, by a clever sleight-of-hand, blotted out the word "Alah" altogether. There is not even a gap where the word "Alah" once used to be. 1 This is in the Bible of the orthodox! One is hard pressed to keep up with their Jugglery.
1. See "WHAT IS HIS NAME" for more information on this Biblical omission of the word Allah. Under the section of "Now you see it, now you don’t".
CHAPTER FIVE
DAMNING CONFESSIONS
Mrs. Ellen G. White, a "prophetess" of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, in her Bible Commentary Vol. 1, page 14, has this confession to make about the fallibility of the "Holy Bible."
"THE BIBLE WE READ TODAY IS THE WORK OF MANY COPYISTS WHO HAVE IN MOST INSTANCES DONE THEIR WORK WITH MARVELLOUS ACCURACY. BUT COPYISTS HAVE NOT BEEN INFALLIBLE, AND GOD MOST EVIDENTLY HAS NOT SEEN FIT TO PRESERVE THEM ALTOGETHER FROM ERROR IN TRANSCRIBING."
In the following pages of her commentary, Mrs. White testifies further: "I SAW THAT GOD HAD ESPECIALLY GUARDED THE BIBLE" (from what?) "YET WHEN COPIES OF IT WERE FEW, LEARNED MEN HAD IN SOME INSTANCES CHANGED THE WORDS, THINKING THAT THEY WERE MAKING IT PLAIN, WHEN IN REALITY THEY WERE MYSTIFYING THAT WHICH WAS PLAIN, BY CAUSING IT TO LEAN TO THEIR ESTABLISHED VIEWS, WHICH WERE GOVERNED BY TRADITION."
DEVELOPED SICKNESS
The mental malady is a cultivated one. This authoress and her followers can still trumpet from roof tops that "Truly, the Bible is the infallible Word of God." "Yes, it is adulterated, but pure" "It is human, yet divine." Do words have any meaning in their language? Yes, they have in their courts of law, but not in their theology. They carry a "poetic license" in their preaching.
THE WITNESSES
The most vociferous of all the Bible-thumpers are the Jehovah's Witnesses. On page 5 of their "FOREWORD" mentioned earlier, they confess:
"IN COPYING THE INSPIRED ORIGINALS BY HAND THE ELEMENT OF HUMAN FRAILTY ENTERED IN, AND SO NONE OF THE THOUSANDS OF COPIES EXTANT TODAY IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE ARE PERFECT DUPLICATES. THE RESULT IS THAT NO TWO COPIES ARE EXACTLY ALIKE" Now you see, why the whole "foreword" of 27 pages is eliminated from their Bibles. Allah was making them to hang themselves with their own erudition.
POT-LUCK
Out of over four thousand differing manuscripts the Christians boast about, the Church fathers just selected four which tallied with their prejudices and called them Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. We will deal with each of them in their proper place. Here/ let us go over the conclusion of the Jehovah's Witnesses' research as recorded in the now expunged Foreword:
"THE EVIDENCE IS, THEREFORE, THAT THE ORIGINAL TEXT Of THE CHRISTIAN GREEK SCRIPTURES 1 HAS BEEN TAMPERED WITH, THE SAME AS THE TEXT OF THE LXX THE SAME AS THE TEXT OF THE LXX2 HAS BEEN,"
Yet this incorrigible Cult has the effrontery to publish 9 000 000 (Nine Million) copies as a First Edition of a 192-page book entitled — "Is the Bible REALLY the Word of God?" We are dealing here with a sick mentality, for no amount of tampering, as they say, will "APPRECIABLY AFFECT THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE BIBLE" (?). This is Christian logic.
1. New Testament.
2. "LXX" meaning Seventy, is the JWs alternative title of the Old Testament Do not be mystified; they have a habit of calling a simple four letter word, a "tetragrammaton." meaning Seventy, is the JWs alternative title of the Old Testament Do not be mystified; they have a habit of calling a simple four letter word, a "tetragrammaton."
A PATIENT HEARING
Dr. Graham Scroggie in his aforementioned book, pleads, on page 29. for the Bible:-
"AND LET US BE PERFECTLY FAIR AS WE PURSUE THE SUBJECT (Is the Bible the Word of God?). BEARING IN MIND THAT WE ARE TO HEAR WHAT THE BIBLE HAS TO SAY ABOUT ITSELF. IN A COURT OF LAW WE ASSUME THAT A WITNESS WILL SPEAK THE TRUTH, AND MUST ACCEPT WHAT HE SAYS UNLESS WE HAVE GOOD GROUNDS FOR SUSPECTING HIM, OR CAN PROVE HIM A LIAR. SURELY THE BIBLE SHOULD BE GIVEN THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, AND SHOULD RECEIVE A LIKE PATIENT HEARING."
The plea is fair and reasonable. We will do exactly as he asks and let the Bible speak for itself.
In the first five books of the Bible — Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy — there are more than 700 statements which prove not only that God is NOT the Author of these books, but that EVEN Moses himself had no hand in them. Open these books at random and you will see:
• "And the Lord said unto him. Away, get thee down . . ."
• "And Moses said unto the Lord, the people cannot come. . ."
• "And the Lord said unto Moses, Go on before the people . . ."
• "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying . . ."
• "And the Lord said unto Moses, Get down, charge the . . ."
It is manifest and apparent that these are NEITHER the Words of God NOR of Moses. They indicate the voice of a third person writing from hearsay.
MOSES WRITES HIS OWN OBITUARY?
Could Moses had been a contributor to his own obituary before his demise? Did the Jews write their own obituaries? "So Moses . . . DIED . . . And he (God Almighty) BURIED HIM (Moses) ... he was 120 years old when he DIED ... And there arose not a prophet SINCE in Israel like unto Moses …" (Deut. 34:5-10). We will analyze the rest of the Old Testament presently from other angles.
CHAPTER SIX
THE BOOK CHRISTENED "THE NEW TESTAMENT"
WHY "ACCORDING TO?"
What about the so-called New Testament? 1 Why does every Gospel begin with the introduction — ACCORDING TO ... ACCORDING TO ... (See below). Why "according to?" Because not a single one of the vaunted four thousand copies extant carries its author's autograph! Hence the supposition "according to!" Even the internal evidence proves that Matthew was not the author of the first Gospel which bears his name.
"And as Jesus passed forth thence, HE (JESUS) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and HE (JESUS) saith unto HIM (MATTHEW), follow ME (JESUS) And HE (MATTHEW) arose, and followed HIM (JESUS)." (Matthew 9:9)
1. The "so-called," because nowhere does the "New Testament" calls itself the New Testament, and nowhere the Old Testament calls itself the Old Testament. And also the word "Bible" is unknown within the pages of the Bible. God forgot to give a title to "HIS" books!
Without any stretch of the imagination, one can see that the "He's" and the "Him's" of the above narration do not refer to Jesus or Matthew as its author, but some third person writing what he saw and heard — a hearsay account. If we cannot even attribute this "book of dreams" (as the first Gospel is also described) to the disciple Matthew, how can we accept it as the Word of God?
ST. MATHEW 9 Mathew Called 9.And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man named Mathew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, follow me. And he arose, and followed him."HE" AND "HIM" NOT MATHEW!
"HE" AND "HIM" NOT JOHN!ST. JOHN 1935. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. ST. JOHN 21 24. This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. The Conclusion25. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
We are not alone in this discovery that Matthew did not write the "Gospel according to St. Matthew" and that it was written by some anonymous hand. J. B. Phillips concurs with us in our findings. He is the paid servant of the Anglican Church, a prebendary of the Chichester Cathedral, England. He would have no reason to lie or betray to the detriment of the official view of his Church! Refer to his introduction to the "Gospel of St. Matthew" (reproduced here below). Phillips has this to say about its authorship.
"EARLY TRADITION ASCRIBED THIS GOSPEL TO THE APOSTLE MATTHEW, BUT SCHOLARS NOWADAYS ALMOST ALL REJECT THIS VIEW." In other words, St. Matthew did not write the Gospel which bears his name. This is the finding of Christian scholars of the highest eminence — not of Hindus, Muslims and Jews who may be accused of bias. Let our Anglican friend continue: "THE AUTHOR, WHOM WE STILL CAN CONVENIENTLY CALL MATTHEW" "Conveniently" because otherwise everytime we made a reference to "Matthew" we would have to say — "THE FIRST BOOK OF THE NEW TESTAMENT" Chapter so and so, verse so and so. And again and again "The first book . . ." etc. Therefore, according to J. B. Phillips it is convenient that we give the book some name. So why not "Matthew?" Suppose its as good a name as any other! Phillips continues: "THE AUTHOR HAS PLAINLY DRAWN ON THE MYSTERIOUS 'Q' WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN A COLLECTION OF ORAL TRADITIONS." What is this "mysterious 'Q'?" "Q" is short for the German word "quella" which means "sources." There is supposed to be another document — a common source — to which our present Matthew, Mark and Luke had access. All these three authors, whoever they were, had a common eye on the material at hand. They were writing as if looking through "one" eye. And because they saw eye to eye, the first three "Gospels" came to be known as the Synoptic Gospels.
WHOLESALE CRIBBING
But what about that "inspiration" business? The Anglican prebendary has hit the nail on the head. He is, more than anyone else, entitled to do so. A paid servant of the Church, an orthodox evangelical Christian, a Bible scholar of repute, having direct access to the "original" Greek manuscripts, let HIM spell it out for us. (Notice how gently he lets the cat out of the bag): "HE (Matthew) HAS USED MARK'S GOSPEL FREELY" which in the language of the school-teacher — "has been copying WHOLESALE from Mark!" Yet the Christians call this wholesale plagiarism the Word of God?
Does it not make you wonder that an eye-witness and an ear-witness to the ministry of Jesus, which the disciple Matthew was supposed to be, instead of writing his own first hand impressions of the ministry of "his Lord" would go and steal from the writings of a youth (Mark), who was a ten year old lad when Jesus upbraided his nation? Why would an eye-witness and ear-witness copy from a fellow who himself was writing from hearsay? The disciple Matthew would not do any such silly thing. For an anonymous document has been imposed on the fair name of Matthew.
PLAGIARISM OR LITERARY KIDNAPPING
Plagiarism means literary theft. Someone copies ad verbatim (word for word) from another's writing and palms it off as his own, is known as plagiarism. This is a common trait amongst the 40 or so anonymous authors of the books of the Bible. The Christians boast about a supposedly common cord amongst the writers of the 66 Protestant booklets and the writers of the 73 Roman Catholic booklets called the "Holy Bible." Some common cord there is, for Matthew and Luke, or whoever they were, had plagiarised 85% word for word from Mark! God Almighty did not dictate the same wordings to the synoptists (one-eyed). The Christians themselves admit this, because they do not believe in a verbal inspiration, as the Muslims do about the Holy Qur’ân. 1
This 85% plagiarism of Matthew and Luke pales into insignificance compared to the literary kidnapping of the authors of the Old Testament where a hundred percent stealing occurs in the so-called Book of God. Christian scholars of the calibre of Bishop Kenneth Cragg euphemistically calls this stealing, "reproduction"2 and take pride in it.
1. See "AL-QURAN — The Miracles of Miracles" (coming soon)
2. See beginning of chapter one for the full quotation.
PERVERTED STANDARDS
Dr. Scroggie (referred to earlier on) most enthusiastically quotes in his book Scroggie (referred to earlier on) most enthusiastically quotes in his book1 a Dr. Joseph Parker for his unique eulogy of the Bible:
"WHAT A BOOK IS THE BIBLE IN THE MATTER OF VARIETY OF CONTENTS! . . . WHOLE PAGES ARE TAKEN UP WITH OBSCURE NAMES, AND MORE IS TOLD OF A GENEALOGY THAN OF THE DAY OF JUDGMENT. STORIES ARE HALF TOLD, AND THE NIGHT FALLS BEFORE WE CAN TELL WHERE VICTORY LAY. WHERE IS THERE ANYTHING" (in the Religious Literature of the world) "TO CORRESPOND WITH THIS?" A beautiful necklace of words and phrases undoubtedly! It is much ado about nothing, and rank blasphemy against God Almighty for authorising such an embarrassing hotch potch. Yet the Christians gloat over the very defects of their book, like Romeo over the "mole" on Juliet's lip!
1. "Is the Bible the Word of God?" by the Moody Press. by the Moody Press.
NOTHING LESS THAN 100%
To demonstrate the degree of plagiarism practised by the "inspired" Bible writers, I asked my audience during a symposium at the University of Cape Town conducted between myself and Professor Cumpsty the Head of the Department of Theology on the subject "Is the Bible God's Word?" to open their Bibles.
Some Christians are very fond of carrying their Bibles under their arms when religious discussions or debates take place. They seem to be utterly helpless without this book. At my suggestion a number of the audience began ruffling the pages. I asked them to open chapter 37 in the "Book of Isaiah." When the audience was ready, I asked them to compare my "Isaiah 37" with their "Isaiah 37" while I read, to see whether they were identical. I began, readingly slowly. Verses 1, 2, 4,10, 15, and so on, until the end of the chapter. I kept on asking after every verse if what I had been reading, was identical with the verses in their Bibles. Again and again they chorused — "Yeh!", "Yeh!". At the end of the chapter with the Bible still open in my hands at the place from which I had been reading, I made the Chairman to reveal to the audience that I was not reading from Isaiah 37 at all but from 2 KINGS 19! There was a terrible consternation in the audience! I had thus established 100% plagiarism in the "Holy Bible." (See below)
In other words, Isaiah 37 and 2 Kings 19 are identical word for word. Yet they have been attributed to two different authors, centuries apart, whom the Christians claim have been inspired by God.
Who is copying whom? Who is stealing from whom? The 32 renowned Bible scholars of the RSV say that the author of the Book of Kings is "UNKNOWN!" See later on for a reproduction from the RSV by "Collins'". These notes on the Bible were prepared and edited by the Right Rev. David J. Fant, Litt. D., General Secretary of the New York Bible Society. Naturally, if the Most Reverend gentlemen of Christiandom had an iota of belief about the Bible being the Word of God, they would have said so, but they honestly (shamefacedly?) confess: "Author — UNKNOWN!" They are prepared to pay lip service to Scriptures which could have been penned by any Tom, Dick or Harry and expect everyone to regard these as the Word of God — Heaven forbid!
100% PLAGARISM
II KINGS 19ISAIAH 37
AND it came to pass. when king Hez-e-ki'-ah heard it, that he rent his clothes, and covered himself with sackcloth, and went into the house of the lord.2 And he sent E-li'-a-kim. which was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and the 'elders of the priests, covered with sackcloth, to Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz.3 And they said unto him. Thus saith Hez-e-ki'-ah, This day is a day of trouble, and of rebuke, and blasphemy : for the children are come to the birth, and there is not strength to bring forth.5 So the servants of king Hez-e-ki'-ah came to Isaiah.10 Thus shall ye speak to Hez-e-ki'-ah king of Judah, saying. Let not thy God in whom thou trustest deceive thee, saying. Jerusalem shall not be delivered into the hand of the king of Assyria.11 Behold, thou hast heard what the kings of Assyria have done to all lands, by destroying them utterly: and shalt thou be delivered?12 Have the gods of the nations delivered them which my fathers have destroyed; as Gozan, and Ha-ran. and Rezeph. and the children of Eden which were in Thel'-a-sar?14 And Hez-e-ki'-ah received the letter of the hand of the messengers. and read it: and Hezekiah went up into the house of the lord, and spread it before the lord;15 And Hez-e-ki'-ah prayed before the lord, and said. O lord God of Israel, which dwellest between the cher'-u-bims. thou art the God. even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth, thou hast made heaven and earth. 36 So Sen-nach'-er-ib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned, and dwelt at Nin'-e-veh.37 And it came to pass. as he was worshipping in the house of Nis'-roch his god, that A-dram'-me-lech and Sha-re'-zer his sons smote him with the sword: and they escaped into (he land of Armenia. And E-sar-had'-don his son reigned in his stead.AND it came to pass. when king Hez-e-ki'-ah heard it, that he rent his clothes, and covered himself with sackcloth, and went into the house of the lord.2 And he sent E-li'-a-kim. who was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and the elders of the priests covered with sackcloth, unto Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz.3 And they said unto him. Thus saith Hez-e-ki'-ah, This day is a day of trouble, and of rebuke, and of blasphemy: for the children are come to the birth, and there is not strength to bring forth.5 So the servants of king Hez-e-ki'-ah came to Isaiah.10 Thus shall ye speak to Hez-e-ki'-ah king of Judah. saying. Let not thy God. in whom thou trustest, deceive thee, saving, Jerusalem shall not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria.11 Behold, thou hast heard what the kings of Assyria have done to all lands by destroying them utterly; and shall thou be delivered?12 Have the gods of the nations delivered them which my fathers have destroyed, as Gozan, and Har-an. and Rezeph. and the children of Eden which were in Te-las'-sar?14 And Hez-e-ki'-ah received the letter from the hand of the messengers, and read it: and Hezekiah went up unto the house of the lord, and spread it before the lord.15 And Hez-e-ki'-ah prayed unto the lord, saying,16 O lord of hosts. God of Israel. that dwellest between the cher'-u-bims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth.37 So Sen-nach'-er-ib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned. and dwelt at Nin'-e-veh.38 And it came to pass. as he was worshipping in thc_house of Nis'-roch his god, that A-dram'-me-lecb and Sha-rc'-zcr his sons smote him with the sword; and they escaped into the land of Armenia: and E'-sar-had'-don his son reigned in his stead.
These verses are culled from the Authorised Version, but you will find the same in every Version.
NO VERBAL INSPIRATION
(For a complete list of all the books of the Bible and their authors, avail yourself of the "Collins'" R.S.V. 'with' its annotations). What have Christian scholars to say about the "Book of Isaiah?" They say: "MAINLY CREDITED TO ISAIAH. PARTS MAY HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY OTHERS" In view of the confessions of Bible scholars, we will not take poor Isaiah to task. Can we then nail this plagiarism on the door of God? What blasphemy! Professor Cumptsy confirmed at question time, at the end of the aforementioned symposium that the "Christians do not believe in a verbal inspiration of the Bible" So God Almighty had not absent-mindedly dictated the same tale twice! Human hands, all too human, had played havoc with this so-called Word of God — the Bible. Yet, Bible-thumpers will insist that "every word, comma and full stop of the Bible is God's Word!"
CHAPTER SEVEN
THE ACID TEST
How do we know that a book claimed to be from God is really the Book of God? One of the tests, out of many such tests, is — that a Message emanating from an Omniscient Being MUST be consistent with itself. It ought to be free from all discrepancies and contradictions. This is exactly what the LAST TESTAMENT, the Book of God says:
GOD OR THE DEVIL?
If God Almighty wants us to verify the authenticity of His Book (The Holy Qur’ân) with this acid test, why should we not apply the very same test to any other Book claiming to be from Him? We do not want to bamboozle anybody with words as the Christians have been doing. It would be readily agreed from the references, I have given from Christian scholars, that they have been proving to us that the Bible is NOT the Word of God, yet making us believe that they have actually convinced us to the contrary.
A classic example of this sickness was in evidence again only "yesterday" The Anglican synod was in session in Grahamstown. The Most. Rev. Bill Burnett, the Archbishop was preaching to his flock. He created a confusion in his Anglican community. An erudite Englishman, addressing a group of learned English priests and bishops, in their own mother-tongue — English, which his learned colleagues drastically misunderstood: to such an extent that Mr. McMillan, perhaps also an Anglican, the Editor of an English daily — "The Natal Mercury" dated December 11, 1979, had this to say about the confusion the Archbishop had created among his own learned clergy:
"ARCHBISHOP BURNETTS REMARKS AT THE SYNOD WERE HARDLY A MODEL OF CLARITY AND WERE WIDELY AND DRAMATICALLY MISINTERPRETED BY MANY OF THOSE PRESENT."
There is nothing wrong with English as a language, but can't you see that the Christian is trained in muddled thinking in all matters religious. The "bread" in his Holy Communion is not "bread" but "flesh?" The "wine" is "blood?" "Three is one?" and "Human is Divine?" But don't make a mistake, he is not that simple when dealing with the earthly kingdom, he is then most precise. You will have to be doubly careful when entering into a contract with him! He can have you sold out, without you realising it.
The examples that I shall furnish in substantiating the points I have raised about the contradictions in the so-called Book of God, would be found so easy even for a child to follow and understand. See below.
II SAMUEL 24 The NumberingAND again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
While the author of Samuel 24 above, makes God the boss of the situation, the author of Chronicles below gives credit to the Devil.
I CHRONICLES 21The NumberingAND SATAN stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
Apart from showing allegiance to God as is noted elsewhere, the Devil (Satan) is also given his due. This dichotomy on the part of the author of Chronicles reminds one of the story of the old woman who lit one candle to St. Michael and another to the devil. St. Michael was trampling underfoot, so that whether she went to Heaven or Hell, she would have a friend. This Chronicles fellow, made sure that he had a friend at court Above, as well as a friend at court Below. He wanted to have it both ways, or wanted to have his cake and eat it too.
You will observe that the authors of the books of "Chronicles" and of "Samuel" are telling us the same story about David taking a census of the Jews. Where did David get his "inspiration" to do this novel deed? The author of 2 Samuel 24:1 says that it was the "LORD" God who MOVED (RSV: "incited") David, but the author of 1 Chronicles 21:1 says that it was "SATAN" who PROVOKED (RSV: "incited") David to do such a dastardly thing! How could the Almighty God have been the source of these contradictory "INSPIRATIONS?" Is it God or is it Satan! In which religion is the DEVIL synonymous with GOD? I am not talking about "Satanism" a recent fungus growth of Christianity, in which ex-Christians worship the Devil. 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?
The "Holy Bible" lends itself to all kinds of contradictory interpretations. This is the Christian boast! "SOME CLAIM AND RIGHTLY SO, THAT BIBLICAL PASSAGES HAVE BEEN CONTINUOUSLY MISUSED AND MISAPPROPRIATED TO JUSTIFY ALMOST EVERY EVIL KNOWN TO MAN" (From: "The Plain Truth" an American-based Christian Journal under the heading: "THE BIBLE — World's Most Controversial Book." (July 1975).
WHO ARE THE REAL AUTHORS?
As further evidence will be adduced from "Samuel" and "Chronicles" I deem it advisable first to determine their authors instead of suspecting God of those books' incongruities. The Revisers of the RSV say:
(a) SAMUEL: Author "Unknown" (Just one word)
(b) CHRONICLES: Author "Unknown, probably collected and edited by Ezra."
We must admire the humility of these Bible scholars, but their "possiblys" "probablys" and "likelys" are always construed as ACTUALLY'S by their fleeced sheep. Why make poor Ezra or Isaiah the scapegoats for these anonymous writers?
WHAT DID THE LORD DECREE 3 YEARS FAMINE OR 7 YEARS FAMINE?
II SAMUEL 24:1313.So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? Or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue, thee?
I CHRONICLES 21:1111. So Gad came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee 12. Either three years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;
If God is the Author of every single word, comma and full-stop in the Bible, as the Christians claim, then is He the Author of the above arithmetical discrepancy as well?
THREE OR SEVEN?
Note the reproduction of above. Compare both the quotations. 2 Samuel 24:13 tells us — "So Gad came to David, AND TOLD HIM, and said unto him . . ." These words are repeated word for word in 1 Chronicles 21:11, except the redundant "AND TOLD HIM" is removed! But while trimming the useless phrase, the author also pruned the time factor from "SEVEN" years to "THREE" years. What did God say to Gad — Three or Seven years plague — "on both your houses?"
EIGHT OR EIGHTEEN?
See below. Compare the two quotations. 2 Chronicles 36:9 tells us that JEHOIACHIN was "eight" years old when he began to reign, while 2 Kings 24:8 says that he was "eighteen" when he began to reign. The "unknown" author of KINGS must have reasoned that what possible "evil" could a child of eight do to deserve his abdication, so he generously added ten years to make JEHOIACHIN mature enough to become liable to God's wrath. However, he had to balance his tampering, so he cut short his reign by 10 days! Add TEN years to age and deduct TEN days from rule? Could God Almighty say two widely differing things on the same subject?
HOW OLD WAS JEHOIACHIN? 8 OR 18?
Between Eight and Eighteen years, there is a gap or difference at a full 10 years. Can we say (God forbid!) that the all-knowing Almighty could not count, and thus did not know the difference between 8 and 18? If we are to believe in the Bible as the Word of God, then the Dignity and Status of the Lord Almighty will hit an all-time low!
II CHRONICLES 36 9. Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.
II KINGS 24 8. Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mothers name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
CAVALRY OR INFANTRY?
Compare the two quotations on page 40. How many chariot riders did David slay? Seven hundred or seven thousand? And further, did he slay 40000 "HORSEMEN" or 40000 "FOOTMEN?" The implication in the conflicting records between 2 Samuel 10:18 and 1 Chronicles 19:18 is not only that God could not discern the difference between hundreds and thousands, but that He could not even distinguish "CAVALRY" from "INFANTRY!" It is obvious that blasphemy masquerades in the Christian dictionary as "inspiration!"
700 or 7 000?
It is certainly naught for Bible-lovers' comfort that a whole nought (0) was either added to 700, or subtracted from 7 000, thus making the confused Biblical Mathematics even more confounded!*
II SAMUEL 10 18. And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen, and smote Shobach the captain of their host, who died there.
I CHRONICLES 1918. But the Syrians fled before Israel: and David slew of the Syrians seven thousand men which fought in chariots, and forty thousand footmen, and killed Shophach the captain of the host.
* The remarks on the Zero will be discussed soon.
GOD CONFUSED BETWEEN "CAVALRY" AND "INFANTRY" ?
As for the "inspired writers" of the Bible not knowing the difference between "footmen" and "horsemen," is all the more serious because God himself here stands accused, as a source of that "inspiration" for not knowing the difference between cavalry and infantry. Or is it possible that the Syrians who fled before Israel were centaurs (i.e. a race of creatures with the body and legs of a horse and the torso, head and arms of a man), is it possible that these "creatures" had suddenly stepped out of Classical Mythology to bemuse the all too gullible authors.
PRACTICAL HOMEWORK
Solomon is his glory began building a royal palace for himself which took him thirteen years. We learn this from the 1st Book of Kings, chapter 7. You remember Dr. Parker's boast (earlier on) about "whole pages being taken up by obscure names?" Well, for sheer puerility you cannot beat this chapter 7 and Ezekiel chapter 45. You owe it to yourself to read it just once in your lifetime. After that, you will really appreciate the Holy Qur’ân! Reproduced below, you will read the passages for your boring pleasure. Obtain your own Bible and colour code it for easy reference. You may colour the various references from this booklet in your Bible: "Yellow" for all contradictions; use "Red" for pornographic passages; and "Green" for sensible, acceptable quotations as the ones I have mentioned at the beginning of this essay — that is words that you can effortlessly recognize as being those of God and His Holy Messengers. With just this preparation, you will be ready to confute and confuse any missionary or Bible scholar that comes your way! "IF WE PERSPIRE MORE IN TIMES OF PEACE, WE WILL BLEED LESS IN TIMES OF WAR." (Chiang Kai-Shek)
GOD, AS BUILDER, ENGINEER AND CRAFTSMAN (IF YOU HAVE PATIENCE, READ
THIS CHAPTER AND COMPLETE THE REST OF THE CHAPTER IN YOUR BIBLE)
7 But Solomon took "thirteen years to build his own house; so he finished all his house. 2Chr 8:1 2. He also built the "House of the Forest of Lebanon; its length was one hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits, with four rows of cedar pillars, and cedar beams on the pillars. 2 Chr 9:16 • About 150 feet3. And it was paneled with cedar above the beams that were on forty-five pillars, fifteen to a row.4. There were windows with beveled frames in three rows, and window was opposite window in three tiers.5. And all the doorways and doorposts had rectangular frames; and window was opposite window in three tiers.6. He also made the Hall of Pillars: its length was fifty cubits, and its width thirty cubits; and in front of them was a portico with pillars, and a canopy was in front of them.7. Then he made a hall for the throne, the Hall of Judgment. where he might judge; and it was paneled with cedar from floor toceiling. Lit. floor of the upper level8. And the house where he dwelt had another court inside the hall, of like workmanship. Solomon also made a house like this hall for Pharaoh's daughter, whom he had taken as wife.9. All these were of costly stones hewn to size, trimmed with saws. inside and out. from the foundation to the eaves, and also on the outside to the great court.10. The foundation was of costly stones, large stones, some ten cubits and some eight cubits.11. And above were costly stones, hewn to size, and cedar wood.12. The great court was enclosed with three rows of hewn stones and a row of cedar beams. So were the inner court of the house of the lord "and the vestibule Of the temple. 1 Kin. 6:36 * John 10:2313 Now King Solomon sent and brought Hiram from Tyre.14. "He was the son of a widow from the tribe of Naphtali, and "his father was a man of Tyre, a bronze worker; he was filled with wisdom and understanding and skill in working with all kinds of bronze work. So he came to King Solomon and did all his work. 2 Chr. 2:14 • 2 Chr. 4:1615. And he cast "two pillars of bronze, each one eighteen cubits high, and a line of twelve cubits measured the circumference of each. Fashioned • Jer 52:2116. Then he made two capitals of cast bronze, to set on the tops of the pillars. The height of one capital was five cubits, and the height of the other capital was five cubits.
GOD, AS LAND SURVEYOR AND ARCHITECT (IF YOU HAVE PATIENCE, READ THIS CHAPTER AND COMPLETE THE REST OF THE CHAPTER IN YOUR BIBLE)
45 "Moreover, when you "divide the land by lot into inheritance, you shall set apart a district for the lord, a holy portion of the land; its length shall be twenty-five thousand cubits, and the width ten thousand. It shall be holy throughout its territory all around. Ezek 47:22 - Ezek 48:8,92. "Of this there shall be a square plot for the sanctuary, "five hundred by five hundred rods, with fifty cubits around it for an open space. Ezek. 42.203. "So this is the district you shall measure: twenty-five thousand cubits long and ten thousand wide; in it shall be the sanctuary. The Most Holy Place.4 "It shall be a holy portion of the land, belonging to the priests, the ministers of the sanctuary, who come near to minister to the lord; it shall be a place for their houses and a holy place for the sanctuary. Ezek. 48:10.115. "An area twenty-five thousand cubits long and ten thousand wide shall belong to the Levites, the ministers of the temple; they shall have twenty chambers as a possession.6. "You shall appoint as the property of the city an area five thousand cubits wide and twenty-five thousand long, adjacent to the district of the holy portion; it shall belong to the whole house of Israel. Ezek. 48:25 7. ""The prince shall have a portion on one side and the other of the holy district and the city's property; and bordering on the holy district and the city's property, extending westward on the west side and eastward on the east side, the length shall be side by side with one of the tribal Portions, from the west border to the east border. Ezek. 48:218. "The land shall be his possession in Israel; and "My princes shall no more oppress My people, but they shall give the rest of the land to the house of Israel, according to their tribes." Ezek 22:279. Thus says the Lord god: "Enough, O princes of Israel! Remove violence and plundering, execute justice and righteousness, and stop dispossessing My people." says the Lord god.10. "You shall have just "balances, a just ephah, and a just bath. Lev. 19:3611. "The ephah and the bath shall be of the same measure, so that the bath contains one-tenth of a homer, and the ephah one-tenth of a homer; their measure shall be according to the homer.12. "The shekel shall be twenty gerahs; twenty shekels, twenty-five shekels, and fifteen shekels shall be your mina. Ex. 30:1313. "This is the offering which you shall offer: you shall give one-sixth of an ephah from a homer of wheat, and one-sixth of an ephah from a homer of barley.. ""The prince shall have a portion on one side and the other of the holy district and the city's property; and bordering on the holy district and the city's property, extending westward on the west side and eastward on the east side, the length shall be side by side with one of the tribal Portions, from the west border to the east border. Ezek. 48:218. "The land shall be his possession in Israel; and "My princes shall no more oppress My people, but they shall give the rest of the land to the house of Israel, according to their tribes." Ezek 22:279. Thus says the Lord god: "Enough, O princes of Israel! Remove violence and plundering, execute justice and righteousness, and stop dispossessing My people." says the Lord god.10. "You shall have just "balances, a just ephah, and a just bath. Lev. 19:3611. "The ephah and the bath shall be of the same measure, so that the bath contains one-tenth of a homer, and the ephah one-tenth of a homer; their measure shall be according to the homer.12. "The shekel shall be twenty gerahs; twenty shekels, twenty-five shekels, and fifteen shekels shall be your mina. Ex. 30:1313. "This is the offering which you shall offer: you shall give one-sixth of an ephah from a homer of wheat, and one-sixth of an ephah from a homer of barley.
HOW HYGIENIC?
Now, look below and note that the author of 1 Kings 7:26 has counted 2 000 baths in Solomon's palace, but the author of 2 Chronicles 4:5 increases the kingly count by 50% to 3 000! What extravagance and error in the "Book of God?" Even if God Almighty had nothing else to do, would He occupy Himself "inspiring" such trivial contradictory nonsense to the Jews? Is the Bible God's Book? Is it the Word of God?
THE DIFFERENCE 2 000 and 3 000 IS ONLY 50% EXAGGERATION!
I KINGS 7 26. And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths..
II CHRONICLES 45. And the thickness of it was an handbreadth, and the brim of it like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies; and it received and held three thousand baths.
Whether it is witting or unwitting, the "inspired" writer's singular inability to grasp the difference between 2 000 and 3 000 is unforgivable. It is an obvious contradiction. "AND NO MIRACLE WOULD PROVE THAT TWO AND TWO MAKES FIVE, OR THAT A CIRCLE HAS FOUR ANGELS; AND NO MIRACLES, HOWEVER NUMEROUS COULD REMOVE A CONTRADICTION WHICH LIES ON THE SURFACE OF THE TEACHINGS AND RECORDS OF CHRISTIANITY." — (Albert Schweizer), from his book: "In Search of the Historical Jesus." Page 22.
PILED CONTRADICTIONS
Before I conclude this series of contradictions, let me give you just one more example. There are hundreds of others in the Bible. See below. It is Solomon again. He really does things in a big way. The ex-Shah of Iran was a nursery kid by comparison! The author of 2 Chronicles 9:25 gives Solomon one thousand more stalls of horses than the number of baths he had given him. "And Solomon had FOUR thousand stalls for horses ..." But the author of 1 Kings 4:26 had real kingly thoughts about his royal patron. He multiplied Solomon's stalls by 1 000% — from 4 000 to 40000 stalls of horses! Before some glib evangelist draws the wool over your eyes that the difference is only a nought, a zero — "0"; that some scribe or copyist had inadvertently added a zero to 4 000 to make it 40 000, let me tell you that the Jews in the time of Solomon knew nothing about the zero — "O"! It was the Arabs who introduced the zero to the Middle East and to Europe centuries later. The Jews spelt out their figures in words in their literary works and did not write them in numerals. Our Question is — Who was the real author of this staggering discrepency of 36000? Was it God or man? You will find these references and many more allied facts in a very comprehensive book — "THE BIBLE — Word of God or Word of Man?" by A. S. K. Joommal.
II CHRONICLESCHAPTER 9 25. And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
I KINGS CHAPTER 4 26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
The Difference between 4 thousand
and 40 thousand is only 36 OOO!
The Jews did not use The "0" (Zero)
in the Old Testament between 4 thousand
and 40 thousand is only 36 OOO!
The Jews did not use The "0" (Zero)
in the Old Testament
CHAPTER EIGHT
MOST OBJECTIVE TESTIMONY
The Christian propagandist is very fond of quoting the following verse as proof that his Bible is the Word of God.
"All scripture IS given by inspiration of God, and IS profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (2 Timothy 3:16 — AV by Scofield)
Note the "IS’s" in capitals. Rev. Scofield is telling us silently that they do not occur in the original Greek. "THE NEW ENGLISH BIBLE," translated by a committee representing the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, the Methodist Church, the Congregational Church, the Baptist Union, the Presbyterian Church of England, etc., etc., and the BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY has produced the closest translation of the original Greek which deserves to be reproduced here:
"EVERY INSPIRED SCRIPTURE HAS ITS USE FOR TEACHING THE TRUTH AND REFUTING ERROR, OR FOR REFORMATION OF MANNERS AND DISCIPLINE IN RIGHT LIVING." (2 Timothy 3:16)
The Roman Catholics in their "Douay" Version, are also more faithful to the text than the Protestants in their Authorised Version (AV). They say: "ALL SCRIPTURE, INSPIRED OF GOD, IS PROFITABLE TO TEACH, TO REPROVE, TO CORRECT . . ."
We will not quibble with words. Muslims and Christians are agreed that whatever emanates from God, whether through in inspiration or by revelation, must serve one of four purposes:-
1. It must either teach us DOCTRINE;
2. REPROVE us for our error;
3. Offer us CORRECTION;
4. Guide us into RIGHTEOUSNESS.
I have been asking learned men of Christianity for the past forty years, whether they can supply a FIFTH "peg" to hang the Word of God on. They have failed signally. That does not mean that I have improved upon their performance. Let us examine the "Holy Bible" with these objective tests.
NOT FAR TO SEEK
The very first book of the Bible — Genesis — provides us with many beautiful examples. Open chapter 38 and read. We are given here the history1 of Judah, the father of the Jewish race, from whom we derive the names "judea" and "Judaism." This patriarch of the Jews got married and God granted him three sons, Er, Onan and Shelah. When the first-born was big enough, Judah had him married to a lady called Tamar. "BUT ER, JUDAH'S FIRST-BORN WAS WICKED IN THE SIGHT OF THE LORD; AND THE LORD SLEW HIM.'' (Genesis 38:7). Under what heading, from the above four principles of Timothy will you place this sad news? The second — "REPROVE" is the answer. Er was wicked so God killed him. A lesson for all, God will destroy us for our wickedness. REPROOF!
Continuing with this Jewish history, according to their custom, if a brother died and left no offspring, it was the duty of the other brother to give "seed" to his sisters-in-law so that the deceased's name might be perpetuated. Judah, in honour of this custom, orders his second son Onan to do his duty. But Jealousy enters his heart. It will be his seed but the name will be his brother's! So at the critical moment "HE SPILLED IT ON THE GROUND . . . AND THE THING HE DID DISPLEASED THE LORD: WHEREFORE HE SLEW HIM ALSO." (Genesis 38:9-10). Again, where does this slaying fit into Timothy's tests? "REPROOF!" is the answer again. No prizes are offered for these easy answers. They are so basic. Do wrong and bear the consequence! Onan is forgotten in the "Book of God," but Christian sexologists have immortalized him by referring to "coitus interruptus," as Onanism2 in their "Books of Sex."
Now Judah tells his daughter-in-law, Tamar, to return to her father's house until his third son Shelah attains manhood, when she will be brought back so that he can do his duty.
1. You remember Dr. Kenneth Cragg in his "Call of the Minaret" and his "HISTORY." See full quotation on page one. This is that "history."
2. "ONANISM:" Now immortalized in the Oxford Dictionary.
A WOMAN'S REVENGE
Shelah grows up and is, perhaps, married to another woman. But Judah had not fulfilled his obligation to Tamar. Deep in his heart he is terrified. He has already lost two sons on account of this "witch," — "LEST PERADVENTURE HE (Shelah) DIE ALSO, AS HIS BRETHERN DID." (Genesis 38:11). So Judah conveniently forgets his promise. The aggrieved young lady resolves to take revenge on her father-in-law for depriving her of her "seed" right. Tamar learned that Judah is going to Timnath to sheer his sheep. She plans to get even with him on the way. She forestalls him, and goes and sits in an open place en route to Timnath. When Judah sees her, he thinks she is a harlot because she has covered her face. He comes up to her and proposes — "ALLOW ME TO COME IN UNTO THEE; AND SHE SAID WHAT WILT THOU GIVE ME, THAT THOU MAYEST COME IN UNTO ME?" He promises that he would send her a goat kid from his flock. What guarantee could she have that he would send it? What guarantee did she require, Judah queried. "His ring, his bracelet and his staff" is the ready answer. The old man hands these possessions to her, and "CAME IN UNTO HER, AND SHE CONCEIVED BY HIM." (Genesis 38:16-18).
THE MORAL LESSON
Before we seek the heading from Timothy 3:16, under which to categorize this filthy, dirty story from the "Book of God," I am tempted to ask, as you would be tempted to ask: what is the moral (?) lesson that our children will learn from Tamar's sweet revenge? Of course we do tell our children, fables, not really for their entertainment value, but that through them some moral may be imparted." The Fox and the Grapes,'' "The Wolf and the Lamb,'' "The Dog and his Shadow," etc. However simple or silly the story, a moral is aimed at.
'CHRISTIAN PARENTAL DILEMMAS'
Dr. Vernon Jones, an American psychologist of repute, carried out experiments on groups of schoolchildren to whom certain stories had been told. The heroes of the stories were the same in the case of the different groups of children, but the heroes behaved contradictorily to each group. To one group "St. George," slaving the dragon emerged a very brave figure, but to another group, fleeing in terror and seeking shelter in his mother's lap. "THESE STORIES MADE CERTAIN SLIGHT BUT PERMANENT CHANGES IN CHARACTER, EVEN IN THE NARROW CLASSROOM SITUATION,'' concluded Dr. Jones.
How much more permanent damage the rapes and murders, incests and beastialities of the "Holy Bible" has done to the children of Christendom, can be measured from reports in our daily newspapers. If such is the source of Western morality, it is no little wonder, then, that Methodists and Roman Catholics have already solemnized marriages between HOMOSEXUALS in their "Houses of God." And 8000 "gays" (an euphemistic term for sodomites) parade their "wares" in London's Hyde Park in July 1979, to the acclaim of the news and TV media. 1
You must get that "Holy Bible" and read the whole chapter 38 of Genesis. Mark in "red" the words and phrases deserving this adornment. We had reached verse 18 in our moral (?) lesson — "AND SHE CONCEIVED BY HIM."
1. Ever since then, the major cities of the Western World; be it London, New York, San Francisco, Sydney, Paris etc hold annual gay parades (Mardi Gras), with now, public turnouts bringing in children as spectators. Australia prides itself in having Sydney being declared the gay capital of the world.
CAN'T HIDE FOR EVER
Three months later, as things were bound to turn out, news reached Judah that his daughter-in-law, Tamar, had played the "harlot" and that she was with "CHILD BY WHOREDOM AND JUDAH SAID, BRING HER FORTH, AND LET HER BE BURNT." (Genesis 38:24). Judah had deliberately spurned her as a "witch" and now he sadistically wants to burn her. But this wiley Jewess was one up on the old man. She sent the "ring," the "bracelet," and the "staff'' with a servant, beseeching her father-in-law to find the culprit responsible for her pregnancy. Judah was in a fix. He confessed that his daughter-in-law was more "RIGHTEOUS" than himself, and "HE KNEW HER AGAIN NO MORE." (verse 26). It is quite an experience to compare the choice of language in which the different Versions describe the same incident. The Jehovah's Witnesses in their "New World Translation" translate the last quotation as — "HE HAD NO FURTHER INTERCOURSE WITH HER AFTER THAT." 1 This is not the last we will hear about in the "Book of God" of this Tamar whom the Gospel writers have immortalized in their "Genealogy of their Lord."
1. The Jehovah's Witness Version is more explicit in its choice of words. It does not hesitate to call a spade a spade! Compare Ezekiel 23 with any other Version, and see the difference.
INCEST HONOURED
I do not want to bore you with details, but the end verses of Genesis 38 deal with a duel in Tamar's womb: about the twins struggling for ascendancy. The Jews were very meticulous about recording their "first borns." The first born got the lion's share of their father's patrimony. Who are the lucky winners in this prenatal race? There are four in this unique contest. They are "PHAREZ and ZARAH of TAMAR by JUDAH.'' How? You will see presently. But first, let us have the moral. What is the moral in this episode? You remember Er and Onan: how God destroyed them for their several sins? And the lessons we have learnt in each case was "REPROOF'' Under what category of Timothy will you place the incest of Judah, and his illegitimate progeny? All these characters are honoured in the "Book of God" for their bastardy. They become the great grandfathers and great grandmothers of the "only begotten son of God'(?) See Matthew 1:3. In every Version of the Bible, the Christians have varied the spelling of these characters' names from those obtained in the Old Testament (Genesis chapter 38) with those contained in the New Testament (Matthew chapter 1) to put the reader off the scent. From PHAREZ in the "Old" to PARES in the "New,'' and ZARAH to ZARA and TAMAR to THAMAR, But what about the moral? God blesses Judah for his incestuous crime! So if you do "evil" (Er), God will slay you; if you spill "seed" (Onan), God will kill you, but a daughter-in-law (Lamat) who vengefully and guilefully collect her father-in-law's (Judah's) "seed" is rewarded. Under what category will the Christians place this "honour" in the "Book of God?" Where does it fit? Is it Your ...
1. DOCTRINE?
2. REPROOF?
3. CORRECTION? or
4. INSTRUCTION INTO RIGHTEOUSNESS?
Ask him who comes and knocks at your door — that professional preacher, that hot-gospeller, that Bible-thumper. Here, he deserves a prize if he can grant an explanation for the correct answer. There is none born who can justify this filth, this pornography under any of the above headings. But a heading has to be given. It can only be recorded under — "PORNOGRAPHY!"
BAN THE BOOK!
George Bernard Shaw said that "THE MOST DANGEROUS BOOK (the Bible) ON EARTH, KEEP IT UNDER LOCK AND KEY." Keep the Bible out of your children's reach. But who will follow his advice? He was not a "B.A., 1 a "reborn" Christian.
According to the high moral scruples of the Christian rulers of South African, who have banned the book, "Lady Chatterley's Lover,'' because of a "tetragrammaton" — a four-letter word, they would most assuredly have placed a ban on the "Holy Bible" if it had been a Hindu religious Book, or a Muslim religious Book. But they are utterly helpless against their own "Holy Book," their "SALVATION" depends upon it!
Reading Bible stories to children can also open up all sorts of opportunities to discuss the morality of sex. An unexpurgated Bible might get an X-rating from some censors,The PLAIN TRUTH October 1977
1. "B.A." short for "born again" it is a new sickness. It destroyed the "SUICIDE CULT" of Rev. Jim Jones, in Jonestown, Guyana.
DAUGHTERS SEDUCE THEIR FATHER
Read Genesis 19, verses 30 to the end and mark again in "red" the words and phrases deserving this honour. Do not hesitate and procrastinate. Your "coloured" Bible will become a priceless heirloom for your children. I agree with Shaw, to keep the Bible "under lock and key,'' but we need this weapon to meet the Christian challenge. The Prophet of Islam said that "WAR IS STRATEGY,'' and strategy demands that we use the weapons of our enemy. It is not what we like and what we do not like. It is what we are forced to use against the "ONE BOOK" (Bible) professors, who are knocking at our doors with "the Bible says this" and "the Bible says that." They want us to exchange our Holy Qur'an for their "Holy Bible." Show them the holes in the "holiness" which they have not yet seen. At times these zombies pretend to see the filth for the first time. They have been programmed with selected verses for their propagation.
To continue: the "history" has it that, night after night, the daughters of Lot seduce their drunken father with the noble (?) motive of preserving their father's "seed." "Seed" figures very prominently in this "Holy Book": forty seven times in the little booklet of Genesis alone! Out of this another incestuous relationship come the "Ammonites" and the "Moabites," for whom the God of Israel was supposed to have had a special compassion. Later on in the Bible we learn that the Jews are ordered by the same compassionate God to slaughter the Philistines mercilessly — men, women and children. Even trees and animals are not to be spared, but the Amonites and the Moabites are not to be "distressed" or "meddled" with because they are the seed of Lot! (Deuteronomy 2:19)
No decent reader can read the seduction of Lot to his mother, sister or daughter, not even to his fiancee if she is a chaste and moral woman. Yet you will come across perverted people who will gorge this filth. Tastes can be cultivated!
Read again and mark Ezekiel 23. You will know what colour to choose. The "whoredoms" of the two sisters, Aholah and Aholibah. The sexual details here puts to shame even the unexpurgated edition of many banned books. Ask your "born again" Christian visitors, under what category will they classify all this lewdness? Such filth certainly has no place in any "Book of God."
Al-Haj A.D. Ajijola in his book — "The Myth of the Cross" gives a masterly expose of the fallacy of the Bible as well as of the crucifixion, in short, of the whole of Christianity. No student of comparative religion can afford to be without this publication and "THE BIBLE: Word of God or Word of Man?" mentioned earlier on.
CHAPTER NINE
THE GENEALOGY OF JESUS
Watch now how the Christian fathers have foisted the incestuous progenies of the Old Testament upon their Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, in the New Testament. For a man who had no genealogy, they have manufactured one for him. And what a genealogy! Six adulterers and offsprings of incest are imposed upon this holy man of God. Men and women deserving to be stoned to death according to God's own law, as revealed through Moses, and further to be ostracised and debarred from the House of God for generations. 1
1. "The bastard shall not enter the congregation of the Lord even unto the tenth generation." (Deut. 23:2 — AV). The "Witnesses" have been hyper sensitive to this word. Swallowing the camel and straining at the gnat!
IGNOBLE ANCESTRY
Why should God give a "father" (Joseph) to His "son" (Jesus)? And why such an ignoble ancestry? "This is the whole beauty of it" says the pervert. "God loved the sinners so much that he disdaineth not to give such progenitors for His 'son. "
ONLY TWO COMMISSIONED
Of the four Gospel writers, God "inspired" only two of them to record the genealogy of His "son." To make it easy for you to compare the "fathers and grandfathers" of Jesus Christ in both the "inspired" lists, I have culled the names only, minus the verbiage. See below. Between David and Jesus, God "inspired" Matthew to record only 26 ancestors for His "son." But Luke, also "inspired," gathered up 41 forefathers for Jesus. The only name common to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH and that, too, a "supposed" father according to Luke 3:23 (AV). This one name is glaring. You need no fine-tooth comb to catch him. It is Joseph the carpenter. You will also easily observe that the lists are grossly contradictory. Could both the lists have emanated from the same source, i.e. God?
GENEALOGY FROM DAVID TO JESUS
FULFILLING PROPHECY?
Matthew and Luke are over-zealous in making DAVID the King, the prime ancestor of Jesus, because of that false notion that Jesus was to sit on the "THRONE OF HIS FATHER DAVID" (Acts 2:30). The Gospels belie this prophecy, for they tell us that instead of Jesus sitting on his father's (David's) throne, it was Pontious Pilate, a Roman Governor, a pagan who sat on that very throne and condemned its rightful (?) heir (Jesus) to death. "Never mind,'' says the evangelist, "if not in his first coming, then in his second coming he will fulfill this prophecy and three hundred others beside" But with their extravagant enthusiasm to trace the ancestry of Jesus physically to David, (for this is actually what the Bible says — THAT OF THE FRUIT OF HIS (David's) LOINS, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH" (literally, not metaphorically Acts 2:30), both the "inspired" authors trip and fall on the very first step.
Matthew 1:6 says that Jesus was the son of David through SOLOMON, but Luke 3:31 says that he (Jesus) was the son of David through NATHAN. One need not be a gynecologist to tell that by no stretch of the imagination could the seed of David reach the mother of Jesus both through Solomon and Nathan at the same time! We know that both the authors are confounded liars, because Jesus was conceived miraculously, without any male intervention. Even if we concede a physical ancestry through David, both authors would still be proved liars for the obvious reason.
BREAKING PREJUDICE
As simple as the above logic is, the Christian is so emotionally involved that it will not penetrate his prejudiced mind. Let us give him an identical example, but one where he can afford to be objective.
We know from history that Muhammed the Prophet of Islam, was the son of Abraham through ISHMAEL, so if some "inspired" writer came along and tried to palm off his "revelation" to the effect that Muhummed was the son of Abraham through ISAAC, we would, without any hesitation, brand such a writer as a liar, because the seed of Abraham could never reach Amina (Muhummed's mother) through Ishmael and through Isaac at the same time! The differences of lineage between these two sons of Abraham is the difference between the JEWS and the ARABS.
In the case of Muhummed, we would know then that anyone who says that Isaac is his progenitor, was a liar. But in the case of Jesus both Matthew and Luke are suspect. Until the Christians decide which line of ancestors they prefer for their "god," both Gospels will have to be rejected. Christendom has been battling tooth and nail with these genealogies for the past 2000 years, trying to unravel the mystery. They have not given up yet. We admire their perseverance. They still believe that "TIME WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM." Perhaps another 2000 years?!
"THERE ARE CLAIMED CONTRADICTIONS THAT THEOLOGIANS HAVE NOT RESOLVED TO EVERY ATHEIST'S SATISFACTION. THERE ARE TEXTUAL DIFFICULTIES WITH WHICH SCHOLARS ARE STILL WRESTLING. ONLY A BIBLE ILLITERATE WOULD DENY THESE AND OTHER PROBLEMS" "The Plain Truth," July 1975.
THE SOURCE OF LUKE'S "INSPIRATION"
We have already nailed 85% of Matthew and Luke to Mark or that "mysterious 'Q''’. 1 Let us now allow Luke to tell us who "inspired" him to tell his "most excellent Theophilus" (Luke 1:3) the story of Jesus. See below for Luke's preamble to his "Gospel." He tells us plainly that he was only following in the footsteps of others who were less qualified than himself, others who had the temerity to write accounts of his hero (Jesus). As a physician, as against fishermen and tax collectors, he was no doubt better equipped to create a literary masterpiece. This he did, because "IT SEEMED GOOD TO ME ALSO" to "PUT IN ORDER." These are his prominent Justifications over his predecessors.
FORASMUCH as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2. Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and
ministers of the word;
3. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4. That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou has been instructed.
Luke 1:1-4
In the introduction to his translation of the "Gospel of St Luke" A Christian scholar, J. B. Phillips, has this to say — "ON HIS OWN ADMISSION LUKE HAS CAREFULLY COMPARED AND EDITED EXISTING MATERIAL, BUT IT WOULD SEEM THAT HE HAD ACCESS TO A GOOD DEAL OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL, AND WE CAN REASONABLY GUESS AT SOME OF THE SOURCES FROM WHICH HE DREW." And yet you call this the Word of God?! Obtain "The Gospels in Modern English" in soft cover by 'FONTANA' publications. It is a cheap edition. Get it quickly before the Christians decide to have Phillips' invaluable notes expunged from his translation! And do not be surprised if the authors of the RSV also decide to eliminate the "Preface" 2 from their translation. It is an old, old habit. As soon as those who have vested interests in Christianity realize that they have inadvertently let the cat out of the bag, they quickly make amends. They make my current references "past" history overnight!
1. Refer to Chapter Six.
2. Refer to Chapter Three.
THE REMAINING GOSPEL
Who is the author of "The Gospel of St. John?" Neither God nor St. John! See what "he" (?) says about it "himself" (?) on page 58 — John 19:35 and 21:24-25. Who is his "HE" and "HIS" and "THIS?" A-N-D, his "WE KNOW" and "I SUPPOSE." Could it be the fickle one who left him in the lurch in the garden, when he was most in need, or the fourteenth man at the table, at the "last Super," the one that "Jesus loved?" Both were Johns. It was a popular name among the Jews in the times of Jesus, and among Christians even now. Neither of these two was the author of this Gospel. That it was the product of an anonymous hand, is crystal clear.
WATCH THE PRONOUNS!
ST. JOHN 19
35. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
WHO IS "HE" AND "HIS"?
ST. JOHN 21
24. This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things:
and we know that his testimony is true.
WHO IS "WE"?
The Conclusion
25. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should
be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books
that should be written. Amen. WHAT AN EXAGGERATION!
WHO IS "I"?
AUTHORS IN A NUTSHELL
Let me conclude this "authorship" search with the verdict of those 32 scholars, backed by their 50 co-operating denominations. God had been eliminated from this authorship race long ago. In the RSV by "Collins," invaluable notes on "The Books of the Bible" are to be found at the back of their production. I am reproducing only a bit of that information on below. We start with "GENESIS" — the first book of the Bible. The scholars say about its "AUTHOR": "One of the 'five books of Moses'." Note the words "five books of Moses" are written in inverted commas — " " This is a subtle way of admitting that this is what people say — that it is the book of Moses, that Moses was its author, but we (the 32 scholars) who are better informed, do not subscribe to that tittle-tattel.
The next four books, "EXODUS, LEVITICUS, NUMBERS and DEUTERONOMY": AUTHOR? "Generally credited to Moses."
This is the same category as the book of Genesis.
Who is the author of the book of "JUDGES?" Answer: "Possibly Samuel."
Who is the author of the book of "JOSHUA?" Answer: "Major part credited to Joshua."
Who is the author of "RUTH?" Answer: "Not definitely known" AND
Who is the author of:
1ST SAMUEL?............ Answer: Author "Unknown"
2ND SAMUEL........... Answer: Author "Unknown"
1ST KING?................. Answer: Author "Unknown"
2ND KING?............... Answer: Author "Unknown"
1st CHRONICLES? …. Answer: Author "Unknown, probably …"
2st CHRONICLES? …. Answer: Author "Likely collected …"
THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE
GENESIS AUTHOR One of the "five books of Moses." EXODUS AUTHOR Generally credited to Moses. LEVITICUS AUTHOR Generally credited to Moses. NUMBERS AUTHOR Generally credited to Moses. DEUTERONOMY AUTHOR Generally credited to Moses. JOSHUA AUTHOR. Major part credited to Joshua. JUDGES AUTHOR. Possibly Samuel, RUTHAUTHOR. Not definitely known, perhaps Samuel. FIRST SAMUEL AUTHOR. Unknown. SECOND SAMUEL AUTHOR. Unknown. FIRST KINGSAUTHOR. Unknown. SECOND KINGS AUTHOR. Unknown. FIRST CHRONICLES AUTHOR. Unknown, probably collected and edited by Ezra. SECOND CHRONICLES AUTHOR. Likely collected and edited by Ezra. EZRA AUTHOR. Probably written or edited by Ezra. ESTHER AUTHOR. Unknown. JOB AUTHOR. Unknown. PSALMS AUTHOR. Principally David,though there are other writers. ECCLESIASTES AUTHOR. Doubtful, butcommonly assigned to Solomon. ISAIAH AUTHOR. Mainly creditedto Isaiah. Parts may have beenwritten by others. JONAH AUTHOR. Unknown. HABAKKUK AUTHOR. Nothing known of the place or time of his birth.
The above facts are from Collins' R.S.V. 1971. Pages 12-17.
And so the story goes. The authors of these anonymous books are either "UNKNOWN" or are "PROBABLY" or "LIKELY" or are of "DOUBTFUL" origin. Why blame God for this fiasco? The Long-suffering and Merciful God did not wait for two thousand years for Bible scholars to tell us that He was not the Author of Jewish peccadilloes, prides and prejudices; of their lusts, wranglings, jealousies and enormities. He said it openly what they do:-
We could have started the thesis of this book with the above Qur'anic verse and ended with it, with the satisfaction that God Almighty had Himself delivered His verdict on the subject — "Is the Bible God's Word?", but we wished to afford our Christian brethern an opportunity to study the subject as objectively as they wished.2Allowing believing Christians, "reborn" Christians, and their own Holy Book the Bible to testify against their "better" judgement.
What about the Holy Qur’ân? Is the Qur’ân the Word of God? The author of this humble publication has endeavoured to answer this question in a most scientific manner in his book "AL'QUR'AN — The Miracle of Miracles" available absolutely free of charge from the "Centre" on request.
1. "THE BIBLE" - "The World's Best Seller!" the Publishers of the RSV made a net profit of 15 000 000 dollars on the first edition alone' "What a miserable price in exchange for eternity!"
2. See Dr Scroggie's plea in chapter 5.
EPILOGUE
The reader must by now be convinced, that is if he has an open mind, that the Bible is not what it is claimed to be by the protagonists of Christianity.
For nearly four decades people have asked me as to how I have such an "in depth" knowledge of the Bible and Christianity.
Frankly speaking my present position as a Muslim "expert" on Judaism and Christianity is not of my own volition. I have been forced into being what I am.
EARLY PROVOCATION
It was in 1939 when I was working as a shop assistant at Adams Mission near a Christian seminary by that name; producing preachers and priests, that I and my fellow Muslim workers were the target of young aspiring men of the cloth. Not a day passed when these young Christians did not harass me or my brothers-in-faith, through insults which they piled on Islam, the Holy Prophet and the Qur’ân.
Being a sensitive young man of 20, I spent sleepless nights in tears for not being able to defend the one dearer to me than my own life, that mercy unto all mankind— Muhummed P.B.U.H.
I resolved to study the Qur’ân, the Bible and other literature. My discovery of the book — "IZHARUL HAQ" was the turning point in my life. After a short while I was able to invite the trainee missionaries of Adams Mission College and cause them to perspire under the collar until they developed a respect for Islam and its Holy Apostle.
MUSLIMS UNDER CONSTANT ATTACK
It made me ponder as to how so many unwary Muslims are being constantly assaulted by Christian evangelists who carry out a door to door campaign, and being invited in by the proverbially hospitable Muslim, I thought of how the merciless missionary munched the samoosas and punched the wind out of the Muslim with snide remarks against his beliefs.
Determined to bring home to the Muslims their right to defend themselves and to arm them with enough knowledge to counter the hot gospeller, the door to door pedlar of Christianity and the shameless insulter of Islam and its Holy Apostle; I humbly undertook to deliver lectures to show the Muslim masses that they had nothing to fear from the assaults of the Christians.
My lectures were also an invitation to the Christians to witness the truth of Islam and the fabrications which had penetrated the true teachings of Jesus (P.B.U.H).
ATTACK NOT NEW
Christian Missionaries in the past hundred years and more have challenged Muslims on many aspects and quite a number of these challenges have, to my knowledge, gone answered or have been partly answered. Perhaps by the will of Allah my contribution in this field can also be answers or part answers to the challenges of the detractors of Islam. It is of supreme importance that we do not go by default.
One such challenge comes to mind viz. Geo G. Harris the author of "How to lead Muslims to Christ". This missionary who tried to convert the Muslims of China says in the usual arrogant and condecending manner of the Westerner on page 19 under the heading — "THE THEORY OR CHARGE OF CORRUPTION."
"WE NOW COME TO THE MOST SERIOUS CHARGE BY THE MOSLEM WORLD, AGAINST OUR CHRISIIAN SCRIPTURES. THERE ARE THREE ASPECTS OF THIS CHARGE.
1. That the Christian scriptures have been so changed and altered that they bear little, if any, resemblance to the glorious Injil praised in the Qur’ân. This can be answered by the asking of one of the following questions: Wherein have these been so changed or altered? Can you obtain a copy of a true Injil and show it that I may compare it with mine? At what date in past history was the unaltered Injil in circulation?
2. That our Gospels have suffered corruption. The following five questions are definite and we have a perfect right to ask them;
(a) Was such corruption or alteration intentional?
(b) Can you point out in my Bible one such passage?
(c) How did this passage read originally?
(d) When, by whom, how or why was it corrupted or altered?
(e) Was such, corruption of the text or of the meaning?
3. That our Gospels are "faked" substitutes for the original Injil. Or that our Gospels are the handiwork of men, not the noble Injil which descended upon Jesus. A little questioning will usually reveal the true situation, that usually the Moslem making the charge is woefully ignorant of the Bible or New Testament as it actually existed in the past or exists today.
BEFORE GOING ON TO THE LATTER HALF OF THIS DISCUSSION, A REMINDER IS IMPORTANT THAT AS SOON AS THE OBJECTOR IS WILLING TO SENSE THE FLIMSINESS OF SUCH A CHARGE WE SHOULD PRESS HOME SOME TEACHING FROM OUR SCRIPIURES, THAT OUR EFFORT MAY BE POSITIVE AND NOT NEGATIVE."
HAVE MUSLIMS THE ANSWER?
Have we as Muslims no answers for these questions? If you, gentle reader have read this book you will admit that Ceo G. Harris has no feet to stand on. I have been able to give actual pages from the Bible to disprove his assertions.
MUSLIMS CHALLENGED
On page 16 of Geo G. Harris' book he teaches his comrades a basic missionary rule in order to corner the Muslim prospective:
"In this chapter it is assumed that the question of the authenticity and genuineness of our scriptures has been raised by the Mohammedan. When this is the case, before we undertake defense of our position we should bear in mind a basic rule. THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS WITH THE MOSLEM." 1
Praise be to Allah that in my 40 years of disproving the authenticity of the Bible which the Christians have so boldly asked for, I have been able to win the day.
Remember, we Muslims do not go door to door peddling our religion. Whereas Christians of different denominations encroach upon our privacy and peace and take advantage of our hospitality to harass the unwary Musalman.
Those who are afraid to project the truth when they are provoked by these Christians, who even go to the extent of insulting our beloved Nabee Muhummed (S.A.W.) should re-examine their Eemaan.
The lectures I hold are to sound out these slinking missionaries who "attack" the home and hearth of the unsuspecting Muslim who goes about minding his own business.
The lectures are also aimed at restoring the damaged dignity of the Muslim who has been ruffled by the ruthless attacks of the Christian pedlar. Ask the poor Muslims of Chatsworth, Hanover Park or Riverlea2 as to how they are subjected to the tyrany of certain missionaries.
If this humble little contribution of mine "Is the Bible God's Word?" finds a place in the Muslim home as a bulwark against the missionary menace my effort would be amply rewarded.
A greater reward would be if even one sincere disciple of Jesus (on whom be peace) were to be led to the truth and be removed from fabrications and falsehood.
The greatest reward of course lies with Allah Almighty whom I supplicate for guidance and mercy and pray and crave that He accepts my effort which I dedicate to Him in all humility.
may Allah the almight guides us all to his worship.
Reply:I believe in Jesus as a beloved Prophet of God, as a human who was sent to his people in order to guide them. I do not believe that he's God or God's Son.
How come no one has ever been able to find logical reasons to explain the concept of Trinity?
You gave me verses from the Bible, supporting your point of view.
Mind if I give you verses from my Holy Quran, supporting my view as well? Here:
Quran, 4:171: "O People of the Book (i.e., Christians and Jews)! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His messengers. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs."
5:73: "They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them."
5:75: "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!"
5:77: "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."
So, sir, do you see why I (a Muslim) don't believe that Jesus is God or God's son? Because I believe my Faith is 100% correct, and I try to follow it always to the best of my ability. I'm not asking you to believe the same thing I'm believing, but I'm just helping you realize that people have their own Faith and have reasons for doing so--just as you have your reason.
Peace and blessings of God be upon you!
Reply:There is some power beyond the reach of the man which nobady has the second thought.But it need not be Jesus Christ It may be somebady else for somebody.So do your work sincerely with the belive in god or almighty without any expectaions
Reply:please don't bother about any specific yes or no. we like to hear ,see or live the lives of heros .it is quite possible that they may come from various fields but the fact is we follow them in every way possible . Jesus had shown us the way to live. it is not not the easy life but you get through trials if you follow him .that makes you a better person . it is all that i care for .him being a god or human does not make any difference to me for i love him for the idea his instills in me .
Reply:I believe there was once a holy man called Jesus but he wasn't a god. He was a normal man like Buddha or the prophets Moses, Mohammed and John the Baptist.
(Romans 6:23)
I will explain the very basic truth of salvation through grace, by using Romans 6:23 as an outline verse. Lets look in depth at each main word used in this verse and see what is being stated here. (Foot Notes)
1) The first word were going to look at is SIN. What is sin? Most people will say sin is something that is bad, but sin is more than just that. Sin is doing what is evil, instead of what is righteous. Sin separates the sinner from God, "But your inquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear." (Isaiah 59:2) Anything that is against God, His will, or His commandments is sin; no matter which way you look at it. So, sin is the opposite of righteousness. So, who has sinned? According to Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned(1) and fall short of the glory of God.” So we all have sinned, no one is innocent. Sure you might say that you have tried to live a good moral life, but have you ever: cussed, hated, lied, stolen, or just even had a bad thought go through your mind at any point in your life? Then you have sinned. “If we say that we have no sin, we decieve ourselves, and the truth is not in us...If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” (1 John 1:8, 10) God is righteous and holy, He can not simply overlook our sin, nor can He sweep it under a rug and pretend He does not see it.
2) The next word were going to look at is WAGES What are wages? Wages are what you earn by doing something, or “a fitting return.” If you go to your job and work then you expect to get paid your wages, right? Well, what if you worked for a full two weeks and when pay day came they said, “Sorry we do not owe you any wages.” This would frustrate you right? Why? Because it is the law that you get you wages, it is automatic. It comes with the job, they have no choice to decide weither or not to give you your wages. The same then is true here, for sin. What are the wages of sin?
3) The wages of sin is DEATH. If sin seperates us from God, and we all have sinned; and the wages of sin is death, what kind of death is this? It is one of eternal seperation from God, which is called hell. Hell is ultimate separation from God, “Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction(2) from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.” (2 Thessalonians 1:9)
This is not good news. If we all have sinned, and the wages of sin is death; and that death leads to hell, then we all are condemned to hell. Man has tried to find his own solution to this problem in many different ways:
A. Good morals. You try to be: honest, truthful, kind, unselfish, compassionate, loving, generous, and try to follow the golden rule. This sounds good, but it does not take away your sins, nor the wages of your sins. In the end your morals will not save you, “But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.” (Isaiah 64:6) “I will declare thy righteousness, and thy works; for they shall not profit thee.” (Isaiah 57:12).
B. Good works: You always give donations to the less unfortunate, and you always help out and get involved in volunteer programs. However, God does not weigh our good (good works) versus our bad (sin) on a balance scale, to decide weither or not we go to heaven or hell. We cannot outweight out our bad (sin) by doing more good (good works). “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and not of yourselves: it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9)
C. Religion/the Law: You go to church every Sunday, you always tithe, your an active church member, you try to follow the ten commandments, and you even read a devotional every night. Man has tried to follow strict laws in order to get into heaven. However, no man has ever been able to this, nor will any ever be able to. “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” (James 2:10) If you have broken even one point of the law (by even the smallest sin), but keep everything else in the law, then you are still guilty of breaking all of the law(3) . “I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ died in vain.” (Galatians 2:21) If the law was capable of saving man, then when Christ died on the cross for us, it would of been pointless.
D. Philosophy: You can philosophize all day about the world, but it will never save you from your sins. Philosophy will not help you after you die, nor will it change the truth or facts, no matter how good it sounds. It is the eternal things that matter. “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of this world, and not after Christ.” (Colossians 2:8)
“There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.”
(Proverbs 14:12)
None of these ways will work. This is the bad news.
The good news is: “For the wages of sin is death
BUT...”
(You see, it did not stop there, we are left with a way out.)
The Reality of Hell!
4) The first part of the good news is the GIFT. Many people say that a gift is something that is given to you, and it is. It is also something that is given to you freely. You do nothing to earn it, therefore you can do nothing to lose it.
5) So who is this gift from? GOD. God is your creator and is sovereign over all things in heaven and on earth. Since God is sovereign, He did not have to give us this gift, He choose to. He gave it to us out of His unconditional love and own free will. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16) “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 8:5)
6) What is this gift? ETERNAL LIFE. God has given us a gift of eternal life so that we would not perish, and so that we would be with Him eternally. This eternal life with God is called heaven.
7) This gift of eternal life is given through CHRIST JESUS. Jesus is the Son of God. He was incarnated (manifest) into human flesh so that He could pay the price for all of our sins. “In the beginning was the Word (Jesus), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...And the Word was made flesh(4) , and dwelt among us...” (John 1:1, 14)
Fall of Man: The fall of man is a term used to describe what happened when Adam and Eve fell into the devils plan by going against God’s will, which made sin enter into the world of man. When God made Adam and Eve, He did not force them to worship Him or make them as robots, that would always do as they were told. For God to force man to worship and follow Him would be wrong (and useless), and since God is righteous and holy He cannot force man to follow Him. Therefore, He gave man a free-will to choose whether or not to follow Him. God told Adam and Eve that they could eat from the tree of life as much as they wanted, but not to eat from the tree of "knowledge." The devil then lied to Eve and said that if they ate from the tree of life that they would "be like God." "When the woman saw the the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it." (Genesis 3:6) When Adam and Eve did this they went against God's commandment (which is a sin), because they trusted the devil and their own judgment over God's judgment. Because of this, "Man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." (Genesis 3:22) Because Adam and Eve had now sinned against God they could no longer have eternal life in the presence of God, as God had originally gaven them. Since Adam and Eve were now sinful, this sin was passed down through their seed to every man. Since then God has made a way for man to regain his eternal life through his Son Jesus Christ. Just as Adam and Eve had to choose weither or not to follow God, so do you.
Virgin Birth: Jesus was not conceived by man, but by the Holy Spirit through the virgin Mary. Therefore Jesus was without sin(5) , and did not inherit the sin that was handed down through Adam’s seed. “And in the sixth month the angel Ga’bri-el was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Naz’a-reth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast her mind in what manner salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man (she had not slept with a man, she was a virgin)? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also the holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:26-35)
Crucifixion: Because Adam(6) , once a perfect man, lost eternal life for us: Jesus, a perfect man (yet also fully God), could only redeem it for us. This was the Old Law covenant “Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. ” (Deuteronomy 19:21) “Wherefore, as by one man (Adam) sin enetered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned...But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one (Adam) many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.” (Romans 5:12, 15) Since God can not over look the sin that has been carried down through the seed of Adam, all men were condemned. The only way to redeem man righteously in the eyes of God was a sinless sacrifice, since Adam was once sinless. No man could do it because all men have inheritied sin from Adam’s seed, so Christ had to be incarnated into flesh to take the place of man. God did not give us what we deserved, but rather He took our place as a substitute on the cross.
Resurrection: Jesus did this for us willingly and out of His unconditional love for us. “...I lay down my life for the sheep(us)...I lay down my life, that I my might take it again...No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down by myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again...” (John 10:15-18) Jesus said before His crucifixtion(7) , “...Destroy this temple (his body), and in three days I will raise it (his body) up...But he spake of the temple of his body.” (John 2:19, 21) When Jesus was raised from the dead [or resurrected(8)] three days after His crucifixtion, He proved that He was God manifest in the flesh (see John 20:24-29); Therefore proving that He was sinless and had fully paid for the prices of man’s sins on the cross. If Christ were not resurrected from the dead than that means that He was not God manifest in the flesh and therefore was a decendent of Adam and had inherited sin. This would mean that man’s sin was not paid for, and that we would still be condemned for our sin. “And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.” (1 Corinthians 15:17) It is vital that someone believes, trusts, and knows that Jesus died for their sins on the cross, in their place. And that He was raised from the dead three days later. “That if you shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him (Jesus) from the dead, thou shalt be saved” (Romans 10:9)
The Way: When someone prays and confesses to God it should only be done through Jesus. “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:5) The only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ. “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6) “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name (Jesus) under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)
8) What does “In Christ Jesus our LORD” mean? To have Jesus as your Lord you have to have a one on one personal relationship with Him. You have this through prayer and through reading His word (the bible). You also give Him your life, and everything you do is baised on whither it would please Him or not. “And that he (Jesus) died for all, that they live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.” (2 Corinthians 5:15) You also need to have Jesus as your Saviour, as in you confess that you are a sinner and need Him to save you. You do this by believeing, confessing, and accepting in prayer that He died on the cross for you (where He fully paid the prices for your sins, in your place) and was resurrected (was raised from the dead) three days later.
REPENT: When you do these things you must repent of your sins. To repent is to do a 180 degree turn, and be willing to turn completely away from your sins. You hate the sin that is in your life. In other words, you believe in faith that Jesus will give you the grace to hate sin the way He hates it and stop living in a lifestyle of sin (such as drinking alcohol, using drugs, having sex before marriage, etc...) It does not mean that you will not be tempted or that it will be easy. But the Holy Spirit will be in you and will give you the strength to resist temptations. “Submit yourselves therefore unto God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God and he will draw nigh to you.” (James 4:7-8) “...greater is he (God) that is in you, than he (the devil) that is in the world.” (1 John 4:4) However, no matter how strong the Christian, you will sometimes still fall into temptation and sin. This happens because it is man’s nature, “But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.” (James 1:14) Whenever you fall into sin remember, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9) When someone trusts in Christ as their Saviour and follows Him as Lord, they will no longer be a slave to their sin. Sin will no longer be their "Master," but fighting the sin is not a passive act. It takes godly discipline (through reading the Bible, prayer, and Christian fellowship), and the yielding of that person to the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives.
"Jesus answered and said unto him, 'Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God." (John 3:3) You are Born Again when you have honestly in your heart, through prayer, accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour.
If you believe in your heart the things that have been presented to you here, through Scripture, then:
1. Pray to God and confess the things in this prayer, or one similar to it in your own words:
"Dear Lord Jesus,
I know that I am a sinner, and that I need Your forgiveness for my sins.I make a conscious decision to forgive any and all people who have offended me or hurt me (Matt 18:21-35), whether they deserve it or not. I believe that You fully paid the price for my sins when you died for me on the cross, in my place; And that You were resurrected 3 days later. I trust in You as my Saviour from my sins, and I know that I can not save myself. I now invite You fully into every part of my heart and life as my Lord and my Saviour. I trust in You, Jesus, and in You only for my salvation. I want to turn away form my sins with Your help. From now on I will always follow You as the Lord of my life in every thing I do. In the name of the living Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, I pray. Amen."
(God is more concerned about what is in your heart, than which words you use.)
2. If you do not have a bible, buy one (I recommend the King James Version). If you want a free Bible, proceed to the Bible page to download one free of charge. Read every day. I recommend sitting down and planning out a time to dedicate to reading God's Word (the Bible), otherwise it is easy to get caught up in doing things and running out of time. You cannot grow spiritually if you do not spend time in God’s Word. The Word of God is daily spiritual food for your soul, and not cake for speical occasions. I recommend you read the New Testament first, beginning with the Gospel of John.
3. Continue to Pray. Pray everyday. Set aside a time to do this. Mornings seem to be the most beneficial to the whole day. Pray in goods times (thank the Lord) and not only in bad times. Do not just “mouth” the exact same prayer over and over again, pray with your heart.
4. Worship, fellowship, and serve with other dedicated Christians in a church where Christ is preached with honor and glory (Hebrews 10:25). There are many churches out there that claim to be "Christian," and are not Christian at all. So, be sure to test what is taught there by comparing their doctrine with Scripture as the Bereans did in ACTS 17:11. The Scriptures in the Bible are alone God's Word, they are the only Scriptures on which to base beliefs, doctrine, and faith (Revelations 22:18-19). All other books and scripture is man- made, and therefore should not be placed on a level with the inerrant Word of God. Be paitient and let the Holy Spirit lead you to a Biblically based Church that preaches and focuses on Jesus Christ.
5. Represent Christ in your new life by showing your LOVE and concern for others. See Mark 12:28-31, Luke 6:27-36, Romans 13:8-14, and 1 John 3:1-24.
6. Get baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19). This is done in an act of obedience to God's will, which is not a part of one's salvation, but it is a very important step that signifies one's new life for Christ.
7. Tell others about the gospel of Christ.
Foot Notes:
(1) Sin entered the world when Adam and Eve fell into the devils plan by going against God’s will. This is called the “Fall of man.” See Genesis 3:1-24.
(2) The Greek word used here for “destruction” is olthros, which means ruin or destruction. “The fundamental thought is not by any means annhilation, but perhaps corruption, an injurious force, which the subj. exerts or cannot hinder.” The Complete Word Study New Testament, by Spiros Zodhiates, Th. D. (AMG publishers, TN 37422, U.S.A. 1991) p. 940.
(3) Read John 3:1-21 about Nic-o-de’mus, a Phar’isees who Jesus even called “a master of Israel” (John 3:10). However, Nic-o-de’mus still had to be “born again” if he were to see the kingdom of God.
(4) Revelations 19:13 calls Jesus “the Word of God.” Jesus was fully God and fully man, not part man and part God. For more on Jesus’ incarnation to man see: Matthew 1:18-25, John 4:7, Acts 20:28, Philippians 2:5-8, and 1 Timothy 3:16.
(5) Jesus was sinless: Acts 3:14, 2 Corinthians 3:21, Hebrews 4:15, 7:26, 1 Peter 2:22, and 1 John 3:5.
(6) Sin entered the world when Adam and Eve fell into the devils plan by going against God’s will. This is called the “Fall of man.” See Genesis 3:1-24.
(7) Crucifixtion: The action of putting someone to death by nailing them to a cross.
(8) Resurrection: to raise up what was died.
If you still believe that your good works will commend you to Almighty God, please read the following tract entitled "This Was Your Life"
Do you believe in jesus christ? believe in him he is the real god?
The answer to your question is "yes". I believe in Jesus, and I believe he is the Son of God.
I also believe in his commandments to us as Christians. One of those commandments is "Yield unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar and unto God that which belongs to God."
The meaning of this passage is that you obey the rules of the place where you dwell so long as those rules do not conflict with those of God. In this case, your sermon (while I applaud your passion and agree with it) is out of place on an open internet forum. It would be better to pose the question and then invite others to another venue for discussion (perhaps you should start a blog?).
I'm afraid that all this will get you is reported as a spammer and have you banned. It's hard to witness online if you've been banned.
Reply:To Nick C, Shanu, Sonu
The Gospel of John: 1, 1-2. clearly indicates that the Word is part of God and is eternal.
John: 1, 14. clearly states that the Word was made into flesh and dwelt among us.
Christ did not have to write the Gospels. He IS the Gospels.
Gospel = Good News. Report It
Reply:An analogy of the Trinity:
God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are not three seperate entities, but three aspects of the same entity. Just as I am a son to my father, husband to my wife and father to my children. Each aspect has a different purpose and function, but is one being. Report It
Reply:We are but a speck of dust in the Universe.
Something could NOT have been around forever.
If your God would a benevolent he cure this insane world of super rich to abject poverty of barely sustain food and water, and rampant disease.
It makes no since that there would be a builder of a huge Universe take any special attention to us. These basic archaic beliefs that has, for the most part, led us into war
Reply:I used to. Until the "seed of doubt" got planted, I'm more than likely to believe he's either dead or never existed in the first place these days.
Sometimes I want to be a christian, and sometimes I don't want to be, because I don't want to be associated with all the radical types.
Reply:Continue to share the law to bring the sinner to their guilt. The law is a schoolmaster.
Continue to evangelize daily when you can.
Listen to Mark Cahill at http://www.markcahill.org/listen2.html
Reply:I believe that Jesus "MAY" have existed, but as a catholic I don't see him as God, I simply believe he was a man that was vary wise, and gave us a way of life to live by his teachings, if we so choose to, I believe most religious people are fanatically insane when it comes to interpreting the bible.
Reply:Nope. I'm an EX-Christian. I don't believe your God is the real one any more than you believe my Gods, Odin, Thor, Tyr, Heimdall, Forseti, etc.. are real.
Reply:EXACTLY good "Question" or what ever it is. For god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, so that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have ever lasting life. People think that ifyou be "true to yourself" you can enter the kingdom of heaven. But you can only obtain salvation through Christ Jesus our lord and saviour. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the father except through him.
Reply:How many do you think will read even 1/10 of that same old, same old rant ??
Reply:Yes ! I believe in the true living God !
Reply:And I was so worried that I would go an entire day without being spammed. Thanks.
Reply:Thank you for your painstaking efforts to propagate the
theologies of the Church qoting from the Bible which christians
believe to be the word of God,I was a christian who reverted to
Islam the Religion of Gid almighty to worship him amd him alone.I thought it my duty to present the Truth of The Bible for you
all who read it ,not with blind faith but with Logic and reason.
IS THE BIBLE GODS WORD
By Ahmed Deedat
CHAPTER ONE
WHAT THEY SAY
CHRISTIANS CONFESS
Dr. W. Graham Scroggie of the MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE, Chicago, one of the most prestigious Christian Evangelical Mission in the world, answering the question — "Is the Bible the Word of God?" (also the title of his book), under the heading: IT IS HUMAN, YET DIVINE. He says on page 17:
"Yes, the Bible is human, though some, out of zeal which is not according to knowledge, 1 have denied this. Those books2 have passed through the minds of men, are written in the language of men, were penned by the hands of men, and bear in their style the characteristics of men." (Emphasis added).
Another erudite Christian scholar, Kenneth Cragg, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, says on page 277 of his book, "The Call of the Minaret":
"Not so the New Testament3 . . . There is condensation and editing; 4 there is choice, reproduction and witness. The Gospels have come through the mind of the Church behind the authors. They represent experience and history." 5
If words have any meaning, do we need to add another word of comment to prove our case? No! But the professional propagandists, after letting the cat out of the bag, still have the face to try to make their readers believe that they have proved beyond the shadow of any doubt that the Bible is the "irrefragable 6 Word of God." Their semantic gymnastics — equivocating, and playing with words — is amazing!
1. Out of ignorance.
2. The Bible is not Just a Book. It is a selection and compilation of many books.
3. As opposed to the Qur’ân.
4. Another word for Interpolating.
5. Emphasis are mine.
6. Indisputable.
Both these Doctors of Religion are telling us in the clearest language humanly possible that the Bible is the handiwork of man, all the while pretending that the are proving to the contrary. An old Arab saying goes: "IF SUCH ARE THE PRIESTS, GOD BLESS THE CONGREGATION."
With this sort of drivel, the hot-gospeller and the Bible-thumper is "inspired" to harry the "heathen." 1 A theological student — a not-yet-qualified young evangelist — from the University of Witwatersrand, became a frequent visitor to the Newtown Mosque in Johannesburg, with the "noble" thought of "witnessing"2 to the members of its congregation. When I was introduced to him, (and having learnt his purpose), I invited him to lunch at my brother's residence — a stone's-throw from the Mosque. While discussing the authenticity of the Bible over the dinner table and sensing his stubborn dogmatism, I put out a feeler: "Your Professor Geyser, (The Head of the Department of Theology) does not believe the Bible to be the Word of God." Without the slightest surprise he answered, "I know." Now I personally had no knowledge of the Professor's conviction about the Bible. I had only assumed so from a controversy which raged around him about the "Divinity of Christ." 3 He had taken issue with the orthodox believers on this point some years ago. I continued further, saying, "Your lecturer does not believe the Bible as being God's Word." The young evangelist, responded again, "I know" but he continued this time-with the words, "but I believe that it is the Word of God!" There is no real remedy for such people. Even Jesus bewailed this sickness:
"... seeing they see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." (Matthew 13:13)
Al-Qur'an, the Holy Book of God, also condemns this mulish mentality:
These pages are now addressed to those sincerely humble souls, who are genuinely interested in seeking the Light of God, and who wish to be guided by it. As for the other, with a sickness in their souls, the facts presented herein can only increase the disease of their hearts.
1. See "How Lost are the Heathen?" by the same MOODY PRESS of Dr. Scroggie.
2. When the Christian talks of "witnessing" he means propagating, proselytizng, converting.
3. This subject is dealt extensively in the book — "CHRIST IN ISLAM"
CHAPTER TWO
THE MUSLIMS' STANDPOINT
PRESUMPTUOUS CHRISTIANS
Whether Catholic, Protestant or a "Cultist," of the thousand -and - one - sects - and - denominations-of-Christianity, never will you find a missionary who will not, prima facie, presuppose that his potential convert accepts his "Holy Bible" as the book of final authority on every religious opinion? The only answer the prospective proselyte has is to quote verses from the Bible which are contradictory to the missionary's or debate their interpretations.
THE DOGGED QUESTION
When the Muslim proves his point from the Christian's own Holy Scripture, and when the professional priest, parson or predikant cannot refute the arguments — the inevitable Christian evasion is — "DO YOU ACCEPT THE BIBLE AS GOD'S WORD? On the face of it, the question seems to be an easy one, but a simple "Yes" or "No" cannot be given as an answer. You see, one has first to explain one's position. But the Christian will not give one the opportunity. He gets impatient. "Answer — 'Yes or No!' " he insists. The Jews did the same to Jesus two thousand years ago, except that surprisingly he was not strait-jacketed, as is the fashion today!
The reader will readily agree that things are not always either BLACK or WHITE. Between these two extremes there are various shades of GREY. If you say "Yes" to his question, then it would mean that you are prepared to swallow everything HOOK, LINE and SINKER, from Genesis to Revelation from his Bible. If you respond with a "No" he quickly unhooks himself from the facts you have presented, and rallies support from his co-religionists in the audience with; "You see, this man does not believe in the Bible! What right has he to expound his case from our Book?" With this hydra-like somersault he rests content that he has safely evaded the issue. What is the Muballigh1to do? He has to explain his position vis-a-vis the Bible, as he ought to do.
1. MUBALLIGH: The Propagator of Islam
THREE GRADES OF EVIDENCE
We Muslims have no hesitation in acknowledging that in the Bible, there are three different kinds of witnessing recognizable without any need of specialized training. These are:
1. You will be able to recognize in the Bible what may be described as "The Word of God."
2. You will also be able to discern what can be described as the "Words of a Prophet of God."
3. And you will most readily observe that the bulk of the Bible is the records of eye witnessess or ear witnesses, or people writing from hearsay. As such they are the "Words of a Historian"
You do not have to hunt for examples of these different types of evidences in the Bible. The following quotations will make the position crystal clear:
The FIRST Type:
(a) I will raise them up a prophet . . . and I will put my words in ... and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." (Deuteronomy 18:18)
(b) I even, I am the Lord, and beside me there is no saviour." (Isaiah 43:11)
(c) "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the end of the earth: for I am God, and there is non else." (Isaiah 45:22)
Note the first person pronoun singular (highlighted in green) in the above references, and without any difficulty you will agree that the statements seem to have the sound of being GOD'S WORD.
The SECOND Type:
(a) "Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani? . . ." (Matthew 27:46)
(b) "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord:" (Mark 12:29)
(c) "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God." (Mark 10:18).
Even a child will be able to affirm that: Jesus "cried" Jesus "answered" and Jesus "said" are the words of the one to whom they are attributed, i.e. the WORDS OF A PROPHET OF GOD.
The THIRD Type:
"And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he, (JESUS) came, if haply he (JESUS) might find anything thereon: and when he (JESUS) came to it, (Jesus) found nothing but leaves . . ." (Mark 11:13)
The bulk of the Bible is a witnessing of this THIRD kind. These are the words of a third person. Note the underlined pronouns. They are not the Words of God or of His prophet, but the WORDS OF A HISTORIAN.
For the Muslim it is quite easy to distinguish the above types of evidence, because he also has them in his own faith. But of the followers of the different religions, he is the most fortunate in this that his various records are contained in separate Books!
ONE: The first kind — THE WORD OF GOD — is found in a Book called The Holy Qur’ân.
TWO: The second kind — THE WORDS OF THE PROPHET OF GOD, (Muhummed, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) are recorded in the Books of Tradition called The Hadeeth.
THREE: Evidence of the third kind abounds in different volume of Islamic history, written by some of high integrity and learning, and others of lesser trustworthiness, but the Muslim advisedly keeps his Books in separate volumes!
The Muslim keeps the above three types of evidence Jealously apart, in their proper gradations of authority. He never equates them. On the other hand, the "Holy Bible" contains a motley type of literature, which composes the embarrassing kind, the sordid, and the obscene — all under the same cover — A Christian is forced to concede equal spiritual import and authority to all, and is thus unfortunate in this regard.
CHAPTER THREE
THE MULTIPLE BIBLE VERSIONS
It will now be easy for us to analyze a Christian's claim about his Holy Book.
SEPARATING THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF
Before we scrutinize the various versions, let us clarify our own belief regarding the Books of God. When we say that we believe in the Tauraat, the Zaboor, the Injeel and the Qur'an, what do we really mean? We already know that the Holy Qur'an is the infallible Word of God, revealed to our Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhummed Mustapha (Peace be upon him) word for word, through the agency of the Archangel Jibraeel, (known as Gabriel in English), and perfectly preserved and protected from human tampering for the past fourteen hundred years! 1 Even hostile critics of Islam have grudgingly vouched for the purity of the Holy Qur’ân: "THERE IS PROBABLY IN THE WORLD NO OTHER BOOK WHICH HAS REMAINED TWELVE CENTURIES (now fourteen) WITH SO PURE A TEXT." — (Sir William Muir)
The Tauraat we Muslims believe in is not the "Torah" of the Jews and the Christians, though the words — one Arabic, the other Hebrew — are the same. We believe that whatever the Holy Prophet Moses (Peace be upon him) preached to his people, was the revelation from God Almighty, but that Moses was not the author of those "books" attributed to him by the Jews and the Christians. 2
Likewise, we believe that the Zaboor was the revelation of God granted to Hazrat Dawood (David) (Peace be upon him), but that the present Psalms associated with his name are not that revelation. The Christians themselves do not insist that David is the sole author of "his" Psalms.3
1. Whether Muslim or non-Muslim, you do not have lo accept this claim on faith alone. You can verify the fact that Al-Qur’ân is the Word of God. See "AL-QURAN- The Miracle of Miracles";
2- More evidence later on — "Moses not the author of the Biblical "Torah."
3.. Later on you’ll read how Christian "Brains Trust" confess — "Author; Principally David, though there are other writers."
What about the Injeel? INJEEL means the "Gospel" or "good news" which Jesus Christ preached during his short ministry. The "Gospel" writers often mention that Jesus going about and preaching the Gospel (the Injeel):
1. "And Jesus went . . . preaching the gospel . . . and healing every disease among the people." (Matthew 9:35)
2. "... but whosoever shall lose his fife for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it." (Mark 8:35)
3. "... preached the gospel. . ." (Luke 20:1)
The "gospel" is a frequently-used word, but what Gospel did Jesus preach? Of the 27 books of the New Testament, only a small fraction can be accepted as the words of Jesus. The Christians boast about the Gospels according to St. Matthew, according to St. Mark, according to St. Luke and according to St. John, but there is not a single Gospel "according" to (St.) Jesus himself! We sincerely believe that everything Christ (May the peace and blessings of God be upon him) preached was from God. That was the Injeel, the good news and the guidance of God for the Children of Israel. In his life-time Jesus never wrote a single word, nor did he instruct anyone to do so. What passes off as the "GOSPELS" today are the works of anonymous hands!
The question before us is: "Do you accept that the Bible is God's Word?" The question is really in the form of a challenge. The questioner is not simply seeking enlightenment. The question is posed in the spirit of a debate. We have every right to demand in a similar vein — "Which Bible are you talking about?", we may ask. "Why, there is only ONE Bible!" he mutters.
THE CATHOLIC BIBLE
Holding the "Douay" Roman Catholic Version of the Bible aloft in my hand, I ask, "Do YOU accept THIS Bible as the Word of God?" For reasons best known to themselves, the Catholic Truth Society have published their Version of the Bible in a very short, stumpy form. This Version is a very odd proportion of the numerous Versions in the market today. The Christian questioner is taken aback. "What Bible is that?" he asks. "Why, I thought you said that there was only ONE Bible!" I remind him. "Y-e-s," he murmurs hesitantly, "but what Version is that?" "Why, would that make any difference?" I enquire. Of course it does, and the professional preacher knows that it does. He is only bluffing with his "ONE Bible" claim.
The Roman Catholic Bible was published at Rheims in 1582, from Jerome's Latin Vulgate and reproduced at Douay in 1609. As such the RCV (Roman Catholic Version) is the oldest Version that one can still buy today. Despite its antiquity, the whole of the Protestant world, including the "cults"* condemn the RCV because it contains seven extra "books" which they contemptuously refer to as the "apocrypha" i.e. of DOUBTFUL AUTHORITY. Notwithstanding the dire warning contained in the Apocalypse, which is the last book in the RCV (renamed as "Revelation" by the Protestants), it is "revealed":
". . . If any man shall add to these things (or delete) God shall add unto him the plagues written in this Book." (Revelation 22:18-19)
But who cares! They do not really believe! The Protestants have bravely expunged seven whole books from their Book of God! The outcasts are:
The Book of Judith
The Book of Tobias
The Book of Baruch
The Buck of Esther, etc.
* This disparaging title is given by the orthodox to Jehovah's Witnesses, the Seventh Day Adventists and a thousand other sects and denominations with whom they do not see eye to eye.
THE PROTESTANT BIBLE
Sir Winston Churchill has some pertinent things to say about the Authorised Version (AV) of the Protestant Bible, which is also widely known as the "King James Version (KJV)".
"THE AUTHORISED VERSION OF THE BIBLE WAS PUBLISHED IN 1611 BY THE WILL AND COMMAND OF HIS MAJESTY KING JAMES THE 1ST WHOSE NAME IT BEARS TILL TODAY."
The Roman Catholics, believing as they do that the Protestants have mutilated the Book of God, are yet aiding and abetting the Protestant "crime" by forcing their native converts to purchase the Authorised Version (AV) of the Bible, which is the only Bible available in some 1500 languages of the lesser developed nations of the world. The Roman Catholics milk their cows, but the feeding is left to the Protestants! The overwhelming majority of Christians — both Catholics and Protestant — use the Authorised (AV) or the King James Version (KJV) as it is alternatively called.
GLOWING TRIBUTES
First published, as Sir Winston says, in 1611, and then revised in 1881 (RV), and now re-revised and brought up to date as the Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1952, and now again re-re-revised in 1971 (still RSV for short). Let us see what opinion Christendom has of this most revised Bible, the RSV:-
1. "THE FINEST VERSION WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED IN THE PRESENT CENTURY." — (Church of England Newspaper)
2. "A COMPLETELY FRESH TRANSLATION BY SCHOLARS OF THE HIGHEST EMINENCE." — (Times literary Supplement)
3. "THE WELL-LOVED CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AUTHORISED VERSION COMBINED WITH A NEW ACCURACY OF TRANSLATION." — (Life and Work)
4. "THE MOST ACCURATE AND CLOSE RENDERING OF THE ORIGINAL" — (The Times)
The publishers (Collins) themselves, in their notes on the Bible at the end of their production, say on page 10: "THIS BIBLE (RSV), IS THE PRODUCT OF THIRTY-TWO SCHOLARS, ASSISTED BY AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPRESENTING FIFTY CO-OPERATING DENOMINATIONS." Why all this boasting? To make the gullible public buy their product? All these testimonies convince the purchaser that he is backing the right horse, with the purchaser little suspecting that he is being taken for a ride.
"THE WORLD'S BEST SELLER"
But what about the Authorised Version of the Bible (AV), the "World's Best Seller?" These Revisers, all good salesmen, have some very pretty things to say about it. However, their page iii, paragraph six of the PREFACE of the RSV reads;
"THE KING JAMES VERSION (alternative description of AV) HAS WITH GOOD REASON BEEN TERMED 'THE NOBLEST MONUMENT OF ENGLISH PROSE.’ ITS REVISERS IN 1881 EXPRESSED ADMIRATION FOR 'ITS SIMPLICITY, ITS DIGNITY, ITS POWER, ITS HAPPY TURNS OF EXPRESSION ... THE MUSIC OF ITS CADENCES, AND THE FELICITIES OF ITS RHYTHM.’ IT ENTERED, AS NO OTHER BOOK HAS, INTO THE MAKING OF THE PERSONAL CHARACTER AND THE PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS OF THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES. WE OWE TO IT AN INCALCULABLE DEBT."
Can you, dear reader, imagine a more magnificent tribute being paid to the "Book of Books" than the above? I, for one, cannot. Let the believing Christian, now steel himself for the un-kindest blow of all from his own beloved Lawyers of Religion; for in the very same breath they say:
"YET THE KING JAMES VERSION HAS GRAVE DEFECTS." And, "THAT THESE DEFECTS ARE SO MANY AND SO SERIOUS AS TO CALL FOR REVISION . . ." This is straight from the horse's mouth, i.e. the orthodox Christian scholars of "the highest eminence." Another galaxy of Doctors of Divinity are now required to produce an encyclopedia explaining the cause of those GRAVE AND SERIOUS DEFECTS in their Holy Writ and their reasons for eliminating them.
This is a photographic reproduction from the R.S.V. 1971.
CHAPTER FOUR
FIFTY THOUSAND ERRORS (?)
The Jehovah's Witnesses in their "AWAKE!" Magazine dated 8 September, 1957, carried this startling headline — "50000 ERRORS IN THE BIBLE?" (See below for the reproduction).
While I was still formulating the theme of this booklet, I heard a knock at my door one Sunday morning. I opened the door. A European gentleman stood there, grinning broadly. "Good morning'" he said. "Good morning" I replied. He was offering me his "Awake" and "Watchtower" magazines. Yes, a Jehovah's Witness! If a few had knocked at your door previously, you will recognize them immediately. The most supercilious lot of people who ever knocked at people's doors! I invited him in.
As soon as he settled down, I produced the full reproduction of what you see below. Pointing to the monograph at the top of the page, I asked, "Is this your's?" He readily recognised his own. I said, "It says: 50 000 Errors in the Bible, is it true?" "What's that!" he exclaimed. I repeated, "I said, that it says, that there are 50 000 errors in your Bible." "Where did you get that?" He asked. (This was published 23 years ago, when he was perhaps a little nipper) I said, "Leave the fancy talk aside — is this your's?" pointing again to the monograph — "Awake!" He said, "Can I have a look?" "Of course," I said. I handed him the page. He started perusing. They (the Jehovah's Witnesses) are trained. They attend classes five times a week in their "Kingdom Halls." Naturally, they are the fittest missionaries among the thousand -and - one - sects - and - denominations of Christendom. They are taught that when cornered, do not commit yourself to anything, do not open your mouths. Wait for the Holy Ghost to inspire you with what to say.
I silently kept watching him, while he browsed the page. Suddenly he looked up. He had found it. The "Holy Ghost" had tickled him. He began, "The article says that "most of those errors have been eliminated." I asked "If MOST are eliminated, how many remain out of 50000? 5000? 500? 50? Even if 50 remain, do you attribute those errors to God?" He was speechless. He excused himself by suggesting that he will come again with some senior member of his Church. That will be the day!
If I had this booklet ready, I would have offered him, saying — "I would like to do you a favour, give me your name and address, and your telephone number. I will lend you this booklet — IS THE BIBLE GOD'S WORD?" for 90 days. I want a written reply!" If you do this, And a few other Muslims do the same. They and the other missionaries will never darken your doors again. I believe that this publication will prove the most effective talisman to date. Insha-Allah!
This "cult" of Jehovah's Witnesses which is so strong in its condemnation of the orthodox Trinitarians, for playing with the "Word of God," is itself playing the same game of semantic gymnastics. In the article under review — "50000 ERRORS IN THE BIBLE?" — they say: "there are probably 50 000 errors . . . errors that have crept into the Bible text . . . 50000 such serious (?) errors… most of those so-called errors... as a whole the Bible is accurate." (?)
We do not have the time and space to go into the tens of thousands of — grave or minor — defects that the authors of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) have attempted to revise. We leave that privilege to the Christian scholars of the Bible. Here I will endeavour to cast just a cursory glance at a "half-a-dozen" or so of those "minor" changes.
1. "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a VIRGIN shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
(Isaiah 7:14 - AV)
The indispensable "VIRGIN" in the above verse has now been replaced in the RSV with the phrase "a young woman," which is the correct translation of the Hebrew word almah. Almah is the word which has occurred all along in the Hebrew text and NOT bethulah which means VIRGIN. This correction is only to be found in the English language translation, as the RSV is only published in this tongue. For the African and the Afrikaner, the Arab and the Zulu, in fact, in the 1 500 other languages of the world, Christians are made to continue to swallow the misnomer "VIRGIN."
BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE
"Jesus is the only begotten son of God, begotten not made," is an adjunct of the orthodox catechism, leaning for support on the following:
2. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only BEGOTTEN son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16 - AV)
No priest worth his cloth would fail to quote "the only BEGOTTEN of the Father!" when preaching to a prospective convert. But this fabrication — "BEGOTTEN" — has now been unceremoniously excised by the Bible Revisers, without a word of excuse. They are as silent as church-mice and would not draw the reader's attention to their furtive excision. This blasphemous word "BEGOTTEN" was another of the many such interpolations in the "Holy Bible." God Almighty condemned this blasphemy in the strongest terms soon after its innovation. He did not wait for 2000 years for Bible scholars to reveal the fraud.
The Muslim World should congratulate the "Fifty cooperating denominations" of Christendom and their Brains Trust the "Thirty-two scholars of the highest eminence" for bringing their Holy Bible a degree nearer to the Qur-anic truth.
"CHRISTIAN MES-A-MATHICS"
3. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the FATHER,
the WORD, and the HOLY GHOST: and these three are one."
1st Epistle of John 5:7 - AV
This verse is the closest approximation to what the Christians call their Holy Trinity in the encyclopaedia called the BIBLE. This key-stone of the Christian faith has also been scrapped from the RSV without even a semblance of explanation. It has been a pious fraud all along and well-deservedly has it been expunged in the RSV for the English-speaking people. But for the 1499 remaining language groups of the world who read the Christian concoctions in their mother tongues, the fraud remains. These people will never know the truth until the Day of Judgement. However, we Muslims must again congratulate the galaxy of D.D.’s who have been honest enough to eliminate another lie from the English (RSV) Bible, thus bringing their Holy Book yet another step closer to the teachings of Islam. For the Holy Qur'an says:
* Not one in a trinity. Not one in a trinity.
THE ASCENSION
One of the most serious of those "grave defects" which the authors of the RSV had tried to rectify concerned the Ascension of Christ. There have been only two references in the Canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and of John to the most stupendous event in Christianity — OF JESUS BEING TAKEN UP INTO HEAVEN. These two references were obtained in every Bible in every language, prior to 1952, when the RSV first appeared. These were:
4a. "So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was TAKEN UP INTO HEAVEN, and sat down at the right hand of God." (Mark 16:19)
4b. "While he blessed them, he parted from them, and was CARRIED UP INTO HEAVEN." (Luke 24:51)
Now please look at the image below, which is a photocopy where the quotation 4a above ought to appear. You will be shocked to note that Mark 16 ends at verse 8, and after an embarrassing expanse of blank space the missing verses appear in "small print" as a footnote at the bottom of the page. If you can lay your hands on a RSV 1952, you will find the last six words of 4b above, i.e. "AND WAS CARRIED UP INTO HEAVEN" replaced by a tiny "a" to tell you to see the footnote if you please, where you will find these missing words. Every honest Christian has to admit that he does not consider any footnote in any Bible as the word of God. Why should the paid servants of Christianity consign the mightiest miracle of their religion to a mere footnote?
From the Chart — "The Origin and Growth of the English Bible" — appearing below, you will note that all the Biblical "Versions" prior to the Revised Version of 1881 were dependent upon the ANCIENT COPIES — those dating only five or six hundred years after Jesus. The Revisers of the RSV 1952, were the first Bible scholars who were able to tap the "MOST Ancient Copies" fully, dating three and four centuries after Christ. We agree that the closer to the source the more authentic is the document. Naturally "MOST" Ancient deserves credence more than mere "ANCIENT." But not finding a word about Jesus being "taken up" or "carried up" into heaven in the MOST ANCIENT manuscripts, the Christian fathers expurgated those references from the RSV 1952.
THE DONKEY CIRCUS
The above facts are a staggering confession by Christendom that the "inspired" authors of the Canonical Gospels did not record a single word about the ASCENSION of Jesus- Yet these "inspired" authors were unanimous in recording that their Lord and Saviour rode a donkey into Jerusalem as his mission drew to a close.
“ . . . And they sat him thereon." (The Donkey) (Matt. 21:7)“ . . . And he sat upon him." (The Donkey) (Mark 11:7)
“ . . . And they set Jesus Thereon." (The Donkey) (Luke 19:35)“ . . . Jesus ... sat thereon:" (The Donkey) (John 12:14)
Could God Almighty have been the author of this incongruous situation — going out of His Way to see that all the Gospel writers did not miss their footing recording of His "son's" donkey-ride into the Holy City — and yet "inspiring" them to black-out the news about His "son's" heavenly flight on the wings of angels?
NOT FOR LONG!
The hot-gospellers and the Bible-thumpers were too slow in catching the Joke. By the time they realised that the corner-stone of their preaching — THE ASCENSION OF JESUS — had been undermined as a result of Christian Biblical erudition, the publishers of the RSV had already raked in a net profit of 15 000 000 dollars! (Fifteen Million). The propagandists made a big hue and cry, and with the backing of two denominational committees out of the fifty, forced the Publishers to re-incorporate the interpolations into the "INSPIRED" Word of God in every new publication of the RSV after 1952, the expunged portion was "RESTORED TO THE TEXT."
It is an old, old game. The Jews and the Christians have been editing their "Book of God" from its very inception. The difference between them and the ancient forgerers is that the ancient forgers did not know the art of writing "prefaces" and "footnotes", otherwise they too would have told us as clearly as our modern heroes have about their tampering, and their glib excuses for transmuting forged currency into glittering gold.
"MANY PROPOSALS FOR MODIFICATION WERE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE BY INDIVIDUALS AND BY TWO DENOMINATIONAL COMMITTEES ALL OF THESE WERE GIVEN CAREFUL ATTENTION BY THE COMMITTEE.
"TWO PASSAGES, THE I LONGER ENDING OF MARK (16:9-20) . . . AND LUKE 24:51 ARE RESTORED TO THE TEXT." (Preface — Collins' pages vi and vii)
"Why 'restored'"? Because they had been previously expunged! Why had the references to the Ascension expunged in the first place? The MOST Ancient manuscripts had no references to the Ascension at all. They were interpolations similar to 1 John 5:7 about the Trinity. (Refer to the earlier example 3). Why eliminate one and re-instate the other? Do not be surprised! By the time you lay your hands on a RSV, the "Committee" might also have decided to expunge the whole of their invaluable Preface. The Jehovah's Witnesses have already eliminated 27 revealing pages of their FOREWORD to their "New World Translation of the CHRISTIAN GREEK SCRIPTURES," (this is their way of saying — New Testament).
ALLAH IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE
The Rev. C. I. Scofield, D. D. with a team of 8 Consulting Editors, also all D.D.’s in the "Scofield Reference Bible" thought it appropriate to spell the Hebrew word "Elah" (meaning God) alternatively as "Alah" The Christians had thus swallowed the camel — they seemed to have accepted at last that the name of God is Allah — but were still straining at the gnat by spelling Allah with one "L"! (Photographic reproduction of the Bible page showing the word "ALAH" is preserved here for posterity below). References were made in public lectures to this fact by the author of this booklet. Believe me, the subsequent "Scofield Reference Bible" has retained word for word the whole commentary of Genesis 1:1, but has, by a clever sleight-of-hand, blotted out the word "Alah" altogether. There is not even a gap where the word "Alah" once used to be. 1 This is in the Bible of the orthodox! One is hard pressed to keep up with their Jugglery.
1. See "WHAT IS HIS NAME" for more information on this Biblical omission of the word Allah. Under the section of "Now you see it, now you don’t".
CHAPTER FIVE
DAMNING CONFESSIONS
Mrs. Ellen G. White, a "prophetess" of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, in her Bible Commentary Vol. 1, page 14, has this confession to make about the fallibility of the "Holy Bible."
"THE BIBLE WE READ TODAY IS THE WORK OF MANY COPYISTS WHO HAVE IN MOST INSTANCES DONE THEIR WORK WITH MARVELLOUS ACCURACY. BUT COPYISTS HAVE NOT BEEN INFALLIBLE, AND GOD MOST EVIDENTLY HAS NOT SEEN FIT TO PRESERVE THEM ALTOGETHER FROM ERROR IN TRANSCRIBING."
In the following pages of her commentary, Mrs. White testifies further: "I SAW THAT GOD HAD ESPECIALLY GUARDED THE BIBLE" (from what?) "YET WHEN COPIES OF IT WERE FEW, LEARNED MEN HAD IN SOME INSTANCES CHANGED THE WORDS, THINKING THAT THEY WERE MAKING IT PLAIN, WHEN IN REALITY THEY WERE MYSTIFYING THAT WHICH WAS PLAIN, BY CAUSING IT TO LEAN TO THEIR ESTABLISHED VIEWS, WHICH WERE GOVERNED BY TRADITION."
DEVELOPED SICKNESS
The mental malady is a cultivated one. This authoress and her followers can still trumpet from roof tops that "Truly, the Bible is the infallible Word of God." "Yes, it is adulterated, but pure" "It is human, yet divine." Do words have any meaning in their language? Yes, they have in their courts of law, but not in their theology. They carry a "poetic license" in their preaching.
THE WITNESSES
The most vociferous of all the Bible-thumpers are the Jehovah's Witnesses. On page 5 of their "FOREWORD" mentioned earlier, they confess:
"IN COPYING THE INSPIRED ORIGINALS BY HAND THE ELEMENT OF HUMAN FRAILTY ENTERED IN, AND SO NONE OF THE THOUSANDS OF COPIES EXTANT TODAY IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE ARE PERFECT DUPLICATES. THE RESULT IS THAT NO TWO COPIES ARE EXACTLY ALIKE" Now you see, why the whole "foreword" of 27 pages is eliminated from their Bibles. Allah was making them to hang themselves with their own erudition.
POT-LUCK
Out of over four thousand differing manuscripts the Christians boast about, the Church fathers just selected four which tallied with their prejudices and called them Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. We will deal with each of them in their proper place. Here/ let us go over the conclusion of the Jehovah's Witnesses' research as recorded in the now expunged Foreword:
"THE EVIDENCE IS, THEREFORE, THAT THE ORIGINAL TEXT Of THE CHRISTIAN GREEK SCRIPTURES 1 HAS BEEN TAMPERED WITH, THE SAME AS THE TEXT OF THE LXX THE SAME AS THE TEXT OF THE LXX2 HAS BEEN,"
Yet this incorrigible Cult has the effrontery to publish 9 000 000 (Nine Million) copies as a First Edition of a 192-page book entitled — "Is the Bible REALLY the Word of God?" We are dealing here with a sick mentality, for no amount of tampering, as they say, will "APPRECIABLY AFFECT THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE BIBLE" (?). This is Christian logic.
1. New Testament.
2. "LXX" meaning Seventy, is the JWs alternative title of the Old Testament Do not be mystified; they have a habit of calling a simple four letter word, a "tetragrammaton." meaning Seventy, is the JWs alternative title of the Old Testament Do not be mystified; they have a habit of calling a simple four letter word, a "tetragrammaton."
A PATIENT HEARING
Dr. Graham Scroggie in his aforementioned book, pleads, on page 29. for the Bible:-
"AND LET US BE PERFECTLY FAIR AS WE PURSUE THE SUBJECT (Is the Bible the Word of God?). BEARING IN MIND THAT WE ARE TO HEAR WHAT THE BIBLE HAS TO SAY ABOUT ITSELF. IN A COURT OF LAW WE ASSUME THAT A WITNESS WILL SPEAK THE TRUTH, AND MUST ACCEPT WHAT HE SAYS UNLESS WE HAVE GOOD GROUNDS FOR SUSPECTING HIM, OR CAN PROVE HIM A LIAR. SURELY THE BIBLE SHOULD BE GIVEN THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, AND SHOULD RECEIVE A LIKE PATIENT HEARING."
The plea is fair and reasonable. We will do exactly as he asks and let the Bible speak for itself.
In the first five books of the Bible — Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy — there are more than 700 statements which prove not only that God is NOT the Author of these books, but that EVEN Moses himself had no hand in them. Open these books at random and you will see:
• "And the Lord said unto him. Away, get thee down . . ."
• "And Moses said unto the Lord, the people cannot come. . ."
• "And the Lord said unto Moses, Go on before the people . . ."
• "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying . . ."
• "And the Lord said unto Moses, Get down, charge the . . ."
It is manifest and apparent that these are NEITHER the Words of God NOR of Moses. They indicate the voice of a third person writing from hearsay.
MOSES WRITES HIS OWN OBITUARY?
Could Moses had been a contributor to his own obituary before his demise? Did the Jews write their own obituaries? "So Moses . . . DIED . . . And he (God Almighty) BURIED HIM (Moses) ... he was 120 years old when he DIED ... And there arose not a prophet SINCE in Israel like unto Moses …" (Deut. 34:5-10). We will analyze the rest of the Old Testament presently from other angles.
CHAPTER SIX
THE BOOK CHRISTENED "THE NEW TESTAMENT"
WHY "ACCORDING TO?"
What about the so-called New Testament? 1 Why does every Gospel begin with the introduction — ACCORDING TO ... ACCORDING TO ... (See below). Why "according to?" Because not a single one of the vaunted four thousand copies extant carries its author's autograph! Hence the supposition "according to!" Even the internal evidence proves that Matthew was not the author of the first Gospel which bears his name.
"And as Jesus passed forth thence, HE (JESUS) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and HE (JESUS) saith unto HIM (MATTHEW), follow ME (JESUS) And HE (MATTHEW) arose, and followed HIM (JESUS)." (Matthew 9:9)
1. The "so-called," because nowhere does the "New Testament" calls itself the New Testament, and nowhere the Old Testament calls itself the Old Testament. And also the word "Bible" is unknown within the pages of the Bible. God forgot to give a title to "HIS" books!
Without any stretch of the imagination, one can see that the "He's" and the "Him's" of the above narration do not refer to Jesus or Matthew as its author, but some third person writing what he saw and heard — a hearsay account. If we cannot even attribute this "book of dreams" (as the first Gospel is also described) to the disciple Matthew, how can we accept it as the Word of God?
ST. MATHEW 9 Mathew Called 9.And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man named Mathew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, follow me. And he arose, and followed him."HE" AND "HIM" NOT MATHEW!
"HE" AND "HIM" NOT JOHN!ST. JOHN 1935. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. ST. JOHN 21 24. This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. The Conclusion25. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
We are not alone in this discovery that Matthew did not write the "Gospel according to St. Matthew" and that it was written by some anonymous hand. J. B. Phillips concurs with us in our findings. He is the paid servant of the Anglican Church, a prebendary of the Chichester Cathedral, England. He would have no reason to lie or betray to the detriment of the official view of his Church! Refer to his introduction to the "Gospel of St. Matthew" (reproduced here below). Phillips has this to say about its authorship.
"EARLY TRADITION ASCRIBED THIS GOSPEL TO THE APOSTLE MATTHEW, BUT SCHOLARS NOWADAYS ALMOST ALL REJECT THIS VIEW." In other words, St. Matthew did not write the Gospel which bears his name. This is the finding of Christian scholars of the highest eminence — not of Hindus, Muslims and Jews who may be accused of bias. Let our Anglican friend continue: "THE AUTHOR, WHOM WE STILL CAN CONVENIENTLY CALL MATTHEW" "Conveniently" because otherwise everytime we made a reference to "Matthew" we would have to say — "THE FIRST BOOK OF THE NEW TESTAMENT" Chapter so and so, verse so and so. And again and again "The first book . . ." etc. Therefore, according to J. B. Phillips it is convenient that we give the book some name. So why not "Matthew?" Suppose its as good a name as any other! Phillips continues: "THE AUTHOR HAS PLAINLY DRAWN ON THE MYSTERIOUS 'Q' WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN A COLLECTION OF ORAL TRADITIONS." What is this "mysterious 'Q'?" "Q" is short for the German word "quella" which means "sources." There is supposed to be another document — a common source — to which our present Matthew, Mark and Luke had access. All these three authors, whoever they were, had a common eye on the material at hand. They were writing as if looking through "one" eye. And because they saw eye to eye, the first three "Gospels" came to be known as the Synoptic Gospels.
WHOLESALE CRIBBING
But what about that "inspiration" business? The Anglican prebendary has hit the nail on the head. He is, more than anyone else, entitled to do so. A paid servant of the Church, an orthodox evangelical Christian, a Bible scholar of repute, having direct access to the "original" Greek manuscripts, let HIM spell it out for us. (Notice how gently he lets the cat out of the bag): "HE (Matthew) HAS USED MARK'S GOSPEL FREELY" which in the language of the school-teacher — "has been copying WHOLESALE from Mark!" Yet the Christians call this wholesale plagiarism the Word of God?
Does it not make you wonder that an eye-witness and an ear-witness to the ministry of Jesus, which the disciple Matthew was supposed to be, instead of writing his own first hand impressions of the ministry of "his Lord" would go and steal from the writings of a youth (Mark), who was a ten year old lad when Jesus upbraided his nation? Why would an eye-witness and ear-witness copy from a fellow who himself was writing from hearsay? The disciple Matthew would not do any such silly thing. For an anonymous document has been imposed on the fair name of Matthew.
PLAGIARISM OR LITERARY KIDNAPPING
Plagiarism means literary theft. Someone copies ad verbatim (word for word) from another's writing and palms it off as his own, is known as plagiarism. This is a common trait amongst the 40 or so anonymous authors of the books of the Bible. The Christians boast about a supposedly common cord amongst the writers of the 66 Protestant booklets and the writers of the 73 Roman Catholic booklets called the "Holy Bible." Some common cord there is, for Matthew and Luke, or whoever they were, had plagiarised 85% word for word from Mark! God Almighty did not dictate the same wordings to the synoptists (one-eyed). The Christians themselves admit this, because they do not believe in a verbal inspiration, as the Muslims do about the Holy Qur’ân. 1
This 85% plagiarism of Matthew and Luke pales into insignificance compared to the literary kidnapping of the authors of the Old Testament where a hundred percent stealing occurs in the so-called Book of God. Christian scholars of the calibre of Bishop Kenneth Cragg euphemistically calls this stealing, "reproduction"2 and take pride in it.
1. See "AL-QURAN — The Miracles of Miracles" (coming soon)
2. See beginning of chapter one for the full quotation.
PERVERTED STANDARDS
Dr. Scroggie (referred to earlier on) most enthusiastically quotes in his book Scroggie (referred to earlier on) most enthusiastically quotes in his book1 a Dr. Joseph Parker for his unique eulogy of the Bible:
"WHAT A BOOK IS THE BIBLE IN THE MATTER OF VARIETY OF CONTENTS! . . . WHOLE PAGES ARE TAKEN UP WITH OBSCURE NAMES, AND MORE IS TOLD OF A GENEALOGY THAN OF THE DAY OF JUDGMENT. STORIES ARE HALF TOLD, AND THE NIGHT FALLS BEFORE WE CAN TELL WHERE VICTORY LAY. WHERE IS THERE ANYTHING" (in the Religious Literature of the world) "TO CORRESPOND WITH THIS?" A beautiful necklace of words and phrases undoubtedly! It is much ado about nothing, and rank blasphemy against God Almighty for authorising such an embarrassing hotch potch. Yet the Christians gloat over the very defects of their book, like Romeo over the "mole" on Juliet's lip!
1. "Is the Bible the Word of God?" by the Moody Press. by the Moody Press.
NOTHING LESS THAN 100%
To demonstrate the degree of plagiarism practised by the "inspired" Bible writers, I asked my audience during a symposium at the University of Cape Town conducted between myself and Professor Cumpsty the Head of the Department of Theology on the subject "Is the Bible God's Word?" to open their Bibles.
Some Christians are very fond of carrying their Bibles under their arms when religious discussions or debates take place. They seem to be utterly helpless without this book. At my suggestion a number of the audience began ruffling the pages. I asked them to open chapter 37 in the "Book of Isaiah." When the audience was ready, I asked them to compare my "Isaiah 37" with their "Isaiah 37" while I read, to see whether they were identical. I began, readingly slowly. Verses 1, 2, 4,10, 15, and so on, until the end of the chapter. I kept on asking after every verse if what I had been reading, was identical with the verses in their Bibles. Again and again they chorused — "Yeh!", "Yeh!". At the end of the chapter with the Bible still open in my hands at the place from which I had been reading, I made the Chairman to reveal to the audience that I was not reading from Isaiah 37 at all but from 2 KINGS 19! There was a terrible consternation in the audience! I had thus established 100% plagiarism in the "Holy Bible." (See below)
In other words, Isaiah 37 and 2 Kings 19 are identical word for word. Yet they have been attributed to two different authors, centuries apart, whom the Christians claim have been inspired by God.
Who is copying whom? Who is stealing from whom? The 32 renowned Bible scholars of the RSV say that the author of the Book of Kings is "UNKNOWN!" See later on for a reproduction from the RSV by "Collins'". These notes on the Bible were prepared and edited by the Right Rev. David J. Fant, Litt. D., General Secretary of the New York Bible Society. Naturally, if the Most Reverend gentlemen of Christiandom had an iota of belief about the Bible being the Word of God, they would have said so, but they honestly (shamefacedly?) confess: "Author — UNKNOWN!" They are prepared to pay lip service to Scriptures which could have been penned by any Tom, Dick or Harry and expect everyone to regard these as the Word of God — Heaven forbid!
100% PLAGARISM
II KINGS 19ISAIAH 37
AND it came to pass. when king Hez-e-ki'-ah heard it, that he rent his clothes, and covered himself with sackcloth, and went into the house of the lord.2 And he sent E-li'-a-kim. which was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and the 'elders of the priests, covered with sackcloth, to Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz.3 And they said unto him. Thus saith Hez-e-ki'-ah, This day is a day of trouble, and of rebuke, and blasphemy : for the children are come to the birth, and there is not strength to bring forth.5 So the servants of king Hez-e-ki'-ah came to Isaiah.10 Thus shall ye speak to Hez-e-ki'-ah king of Judah, saying. Let not thy God in whom thou trustest deceive thee, saying. Jerusalem shall not be delivered into the hand of the king of Assyria.11 Behold, thou hast heard what the kings of Assyria have done to all lands, by destroying them utterly: and shalt thou be delivered?12 Have the gods of the nations delivered them which my fathers have destroyed; as Gozan, and Ha-ran. and Rezeph. and the children of Eden which were in Thel'-a-sar?14 And Hez-e-ki'-ah received the letter of the hand of the messengers. and read it: and Hezekiah went up into the house of the lord, and spread it before the lord;15 And Hez-e-ki'-ah prayed before the lord, and said. O lord God of Israel, which dwellest between the cher'-u-bims. thou art the God. even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth, thou hast made heaven and earth. 36 So Sen-nach'-er-ib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned, and dwelt at Nin'-e-veh.37 And it came to pass. as he was worshipping in the house of Nis'-roch his god, that A-dram'-me-lech and Sha-re'-zer his sons smote him with the sword: and they escaped into (he land of Armenia. And E-sar-had'-don his son reigned in his stead.AND it came to pass. when king Hez-e-ki'-ah heard it, that he rent his clothes, and covered himself with sackcloth, and went into the house of the lord.2 And he sent E-li'-a-kim. who was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and the elders of the priests covered with sackcloth, unto Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz.3 And they said unto him. Thus saith Hez-e-ki'-ah, This day is a day of trouble, and of rebuke, and of blasphemy: for the children are come to the birth, and there is not strength to bring forth.5 So the servants of king Hez-e-ki'-ah came to Isaiah.10 Thus shall ye speak to Hez-e-ki'-ah king of Judah. saying. Let not thy God. in whom thou trustest, deceive thee, saving, Jerusalem shall not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria.11 Behold, thou hast heard what the kings of Assyria have done to all lands by destroying them utterly; and shall thou be delivered?12 Have the gods of the nations delivered them which my fathers have destroyed, as Gozan, and Har-an. and Rezeph. and the children of Eden which were in Te-las'-sar?14 And Hez-e-ki'-ah received the letter from the hand of the messengers, and read it: and Hezekiah went up unto the house of the lord, and spread it before the lord.15 And Hez-e-ki'-ah prayed unto the lord, saying,16 O lord of hosts. God of Israel. that dwellest between the cher'-u-bims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth.37 So Sen-nach'-er-ib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned. and dwelt at Nin'-e-veh.38 And it came to pass. as he was worshipping in thc_house of Nis'-roch his god, that A-dram'-me-lecb and Sha-rc'-zcr his sons smote him with the sword; and they escaped into the land of Armenia: and E'-sar-had'-don his son reigned in his stead.
These verses are culled from the Authorised Version, but you will find the same in every Version.
NO VERBAL INSPIRATION
(For a complete list of all the books of the Bible and their authors, avail yourself of the "Collins'" R.S.V. 'with' its annotations). What have Christian scholars to say about the "Book of Isaiah?" They say: "MAINLY CREDITED TO ISAIAH. PARTS MAY HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY OTHERS" In view of the confessions of Bible scholars, we will not take poor Isaiah to task. Can we then nail this plagiarism on the door of God? What blasphemy! Professor Cumptsy confirmed at question time, at the end of the aforementioned symposium that the "Christians do not believe in a verbal inspiration of the Bible" So God Almighty had not absent-mindedly dictated the same tale twice! Human hands, all too human, had played havoc with this so-called Word of God — the Bible. Yet, Bible-thumpers will insist that "every word, comma and full stop of the Bible is God's Word!"
CHAPTER SEVEN
THE ACID TEST
How do we know that a book claimed to be from God is really the Book of God? One of the tests, out of many such tests, is — that a Message emanating from an Omniscient Being MUST be consistent with itself. It ought to be free from all discrepancies and contradictions. This is exactly what the LAST TESTAMENT, the Book of God says:
GOD OR THE DEVIL?
If God Almighty wants us to verify the authenticity of His Book (The Holy Qur’ân) with this acid test, why should we not apply the very same test to any other Book claiming to be from Him? We do not want to bamboozle anybody with words as the Christians have been doing. It would be readily agreed from the references, I have given from Christian scholars, that they have been proving to us that the Bible is NOT the Word of God, yet making us believe that they have actually convinced us to the contrary.
A classic example of this sickness was in evidence again only "yesterday" The Anglican synod was in session in Grahamstown. The Most. Rev. Bill Burnett, the Archbishop was preaching to his flock. He created a confusion in his Anglican community. An erudite Englishman, addressing a group of learned English priests and bishops, in their own mother-tongue — English, which his learned colleagues drastically misunderstood: to such an extent that Mr. McMillan, perhaps also an Anglican, the Editor of an English daily — "The Natal Mercury" dated December 11, 1979, had this to say about the confusion the Archbishop had created among his own learned clergy:
"ARCHBISHOP BURNETTS REMARKS AT THE SYNOD WERE HARDLY A MODEL OF CLARITY AND WERE WIDELY AND DRAMATICALLY MISINTERPRETED BY MANY OF THOSE PRESENT."
There is nothing wrong with English as a language, but can't you see that the Christian is trained in muddled thinking in all matters religious. The "bread" in his Holy Communion is not "bread" but "flesh?" The "wine" is "blood?" "Three is one?" and "Human is Divine?" But don't make a mistake, he is not that simple when dealing with the earthly kingdom, he is then most precise. You will have to be doubly careful when entering into a contract with him! He can have you sold out, without you realising it.
The examples that I shall furnish in substantiating the points I have raised about the contradictions in the so-called Book of God, would be found so easy even for a child to follow and understand. See below.
II SAMUEL 24 The NumberingAND again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
While the author of Samuel 24 above, makes God the boss of the situation, the author of Chronicles below gives credit to the Devil.
I CHRONICLES 21The NumberingAND SATAN stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
Apart from showing allegiance to God as is noted elsewhere, the Devil (Satan) is also given his due. This dichotomy on the part of the author of Chronicles reminds one of the story of the old woman who lit one candle to St. Michael and another to the devil. St. Michael was trampling underfoot, so that whether she went to Heaven or Hell, she would have a friend. This Chronicles fellow, made sure that he had a friend at court Above, as well as a friend at court Below. He wanted to have it both ways, or wanted to have his cake and eat it too.
You will observe that the authors of the books of "Chronicles" and of "Samuel" are telling us the same story about David taking a census of the Jews. Where did David get his "inspiration" to do this novel deed? The author of 2 Samuel 24:1 says that it was the "LORD" God who MOVED (RSV: "incited") David, but the author of 1 Chronicles 21:1 says that it was "SATAN" who PROVOKED (RSV: "incited") David to do such a dastardly thing! How could the Almighty God have been the source of these contradictory "INSPIRATIONS?" Is it God or is it Satan! In which religion is the DEVIL synonymous with GOD? I am not talking about "Satanism" a recent fungus growth of Christianity, in which ex-Christians worship the Devil. 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?
The "Holy Bible" lends itself to all kinds of contradictory interpretations. This is the Christian boast! "SOME CLAIM AND RIGHTLY SO, THAT BIBLICAL PASSAGES HAVE BEEN CONTINUOUSLY MISUSED AND MISAPPROPRIATED TO JUSTIFY ALMOST EVERY EVIL KNOWN TO MAN" (From: "The Plain Truth" an American-based Christian Journal under the heading: "THE BIBLE — World's Most Controversial Book." (July 1975).
WHO ARE THE REAL AUTHORS?
As further evidence will be adduced from "Samuel" and "Chronicles" I deem it advisable first to determine their authors instead of suspecting God of those books' incongruities. The Revisers of the RSV say:
(a) SAMUEL: Author "Unknown" (Just one word)
(b) CHRONICLES: Author "Unknown, probably collected and edited by Ezra."
We must admire the humility of these Bible scholars, but their "possiblys" "probablys" and "likelys" are always construed as ACTUALLY'S by their fleeced sheep. Why make poor Ezra or Isaiah the scapegoats for these anonymous writers?
WHAT DID THE LORD DECREE 3 YEARS FAMINE OR 7 YEARS FAMINE?
II SAMUEL 24:1313.So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? Or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue, thee?
I CHRONICLES 21:1111. So Gad came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee 12. Either three years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;
If God is the Author of every single word, comma and full-stop in the Bible, as the Christians claim, then is He the Author of the above arithmetical discrepancy as well?
THREE OR SEVEN?
Note the reproduction of above. Compare both the quotations. 2 Samuel 24:13 tells us — "So Gad came to David, AND TOLD HIM, and said unto him . . ." These words are repeated word for word in 1 Chronicles 21:11, except the redundant "AND TOLD HIM" is removed! But while trimming the useless phrase, the author also pruned the time factor from "SEVEN" years to "THREE" years. What did God say to Gad — Three or Seven years plague — "on both your houses?"
EIGHT OR EIGHTEEN?
See below. Compare the two quotations. 2 Chronicles 36:9 tells us that JEHOIACHIN was "eight" years old when he began to reign, while 2 Kings 24:8 says that he was "eighteen" when he began to reign. The "unknown" author of KINGS must have reasoned that what possible "evil" could a child of eight do to deserve his abdication, so he generously added ten years to make JEHOIACHIN mature enough to become liable to God's wrath. However, he had to balance his tampering, so he cut short his reign by 10 days! Add TEN years to age and deduct TEN days from rule? Could God Almighty say two widely differing things on the same subject?
HOW OLD WAS JEHOIACHIN? 8 OR 18?
Between Eight and Eighteen years, there is a gap or difference at a full 10 years. Can we say (God forbid!) that the all-knowing Almighty could not count, and thus did not know the difference between 8 and 18? If we are to believe in the Bible as the Word of God, then the Dignity and Status of the Lord Almighty will hit an all-time low!
II CHRONICLES 36 9. Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.
II KINGS 24 8. Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mothers name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
CAVALRY OR INFANTRY?
Compare the two quotations on page 40. How many chariot riders did David slay? Seven hundred or seven thousand? And further, did he slay 40000 "HORSEMEN" or 40000 "FOOTMEN?" The implication in the conflicting records between 2 Samuel 10:18 and 1 Chronicles 19:18 is not only that God could not discern the difference between hundreds and thousands, but that He could not even distinguish "CAVALRY" from "INFANTRY!" It is obvious that blasphemy masquerades in the Christian dictionary as "inspiration!"
700 or 7 000?
It is certainly naught for Bible-lovers' comfort that a whole nought (0) was either added to 700, or subtracted from 7 000, thus making the confused Biblical Mathematics even more confounded!*
II SAMUEL 10 18. And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen, and smote Shobach the captain of their host, who died there.
I CHRONICLES 1918. But the Syrians fled before Israel: and David slew of the Syrians seven thousand men which fought in chariots, and forty thousand footmen, and killed Shophach the captain of the host.
* The remarks on the Zero will be discussed soon.
GOD CONFUSED BETWEEN "CAVALRY" AND "INFANTRY" ?
As for the "inspired writers" of the Bible not knowing the difference between "footmen" and "horsemen," is all the more serious because God himself here stands accused, as a source of that "inspiration" for not knowing the difference between cavalry and infantry. Or is it possible that the Syrians who fled before Israel were centaurs (i.e. a race of creatures with the body and legs of a horse and the torso, head and arms of a man), is it possible that these "creatures" had suddenly stepped out of Classical Mythology to bemuse the all too gullible authors.
PRACTICAL HOMEWORK
Solomon is his glory began building a royal palace for himself which took him thirteen years. We learn this from the 1st Book of Kings, chapter 7. You remember Dr. Parker's boast (earlier on) about "whole pages being taken up by obscure names?" Well, for sheer puerility you cannot beat this chapter 7 and Ezekiel chapter 45. You owe it to yourself to read it just once in your lifetime. After that, you will really appreciate the Holy Qur’ân! Reproduced below, you will read the passages for your boring pleasure. Obtain your own Bible and colour code it for easy reference. You may colour the various references from this booklet in your Bible: "Yellow" for all contradictions; use "Red" for pornographic passages; and "Green" for sensible, acceptable quotations as the ones I have mentioned at the beginning of this essay — that is words that you can effortlessly recognize as being those of God and His Holy Messengers. With just this preparation, you will be ready to confute and confuse any missionary or Bible scholar that comes your way! "IF WE PERSPIRE MORE IN TIMES OF PEACE, WE WILL BLEED LESS IN TIMES OF WAR." (Chiang Kai-Shek)
GOD, AS BUILDER, ENGINEER AND CRAFTSMAN (IF YOU HAVE PATIENCE, READ
THIS CHAPTER AND COMPLETE THE REST OF THE CHAPTER IN YOUR BIBLE)
7 But Solomon took "thirteen years to build his own house; so he finished all his house. 2Chr 8:1 2. He also built the "House of the Forest of Lebanon; its length was one hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits, with four rows of cedar pillars, and cedar beams on the pillars. 2 Chr 9:16 • About 150 feet3. And it was paneled with cedar above the beams that were on forty-five pillars, fifteen to a row.4. There were windows with beveled frames in three rows, and window was opposite window in three tiers.5. And all the doorways and doorposts had rectangular frames; and window was opposite window in three tiers.6. He also made the Hall of Pillars: its length was fifty cubits, and its width thirty cubits; and in front of them was a portico with pillars, and a canopy was in front of them.7. Then he made a hall for the throne, the Hall of Judgment. where he might judge; and it was paneled with cedar from floor toceiling. Lit. floor of the upper level8. And the house where he dwelt had another court inside the hall, of like workmanship. Solomon also made a house like this hall for Pharaoh's daughter, whom he had taken as wife.9. All these were of costly stones hewn to size, trimmed with saws. inside and out. from the foundation to the eaves, and also on the outside to the great court.10. The foundation was of costly stones, large stones, some ten cubits and some eight cubits.11. And above were costly stones, hewn to size, and cedar wood.12. The great court was enclosed with three rows of hewn stones and a row of cedar beams. So were the inner court of the house of the lord "and the vestibule Of the temple. 1 Kin. 6:36 * John 10:2313 Now King Solomon sent and brought Hiram from Tyre.14. "He was the son of a widow from the tribe of Naphtali, and "his father was a man of Tyre, a bronze worker; he was filled with wisdom and understanding and skill in working with all kinds of bronze work. So he came to King Solomon and did all his work. 2 Chr. 2:14 • 2 Chr. 4:1615. And he cast "two pillars of bronze, each one eighteen cubits high, and a line of twelve cubits measured the circumference of each. Fashioned • Jer 52:2116. Then he made two capitals of cast bronze, to set on the tops of the pillars. The height of one capital was five cubits, and the height of the other capital was five cubits.
GOD, AS LAND SURVEYOR AND ARCHITECT (IF YOU HAVE PATIENCE, READ THIS CHAPTER AND COMPLETE THE REST OF THE CHAPTER IN YOUR BIBLE)
45 "Moreover, when you "divide the land by lot into inheritance, you shall set apart a district for the lord, a holy portion of the land; its length shall be twenty-five thousand cubits, and the width ten thousand. It shall be holy throughout its territory all around. Ezek 47:22 - Ezek 48:8,92. "Of this there shall be a square plot for the sanctuary, "five hundred by five hundred rods, with fifty cubits around it for an open space. Ezek. 42.203. "So this is the district you shall measure: twenty-five thousand cubits long and ten thousand wide; in it shall be the sanctuary. The Most Holy Place.4 "It shall be a holy portion of the land, belonging to the priests, the ministers of the sanctuary, who come near to minister to the lord; it shall be a place for their houses and a holy place for the sanctuary. Ezek. 48:10.115. "An area twenty-five thousand cubits long and ten thousand wide shall belong to the Levites, the ministers of the temple; they shall have twenty chambers as a possession.6. "You shall appoint as the property of the city an area five thousand cubits wide and twenty-five thousand long, adjacent to the district of the holy portion; it shall belong to the whole house of Israel. Ezek. 48:25 7. ""The prince shall have a portion on one side and the other of the holy district and the city's property; and bordering on the holy district and the city's property, extending westward on the west side and eastward on the east side, the length shall be side by side with one of the tribal Portions, from the west border to the east border. Ezek. 48:218. "The land shall be his possession in Israel; and "My princes shall no more oppress My people, but they shall give the rest of the land to the house of Israel, according to their tribes." Ezek 22:279. Thus says the Lord god: "Enough, O princes of Israel! Remove violence and plundering, execute justice and righteousness, and stop dispossessing My people." says the Lord god.10. "You shall have just "balances, a just ephah, and a just bath. Lev. 19:3611. "The ephah and the bath shall be of the same measure, so that the bath contains one-tenth of a homer, and the ephah one-tenth of a homer; their measure shall be according to the homer.12. "The shekel shall be twenty gerahs; twenty shekels, twenty-five shekels, and fifteen shekels shall be your mina. Ex. 30:1313. "This is the offering which you shall offer: you shall give one-sixth of an ephah from a homer of wheat, and one-sixth of an ephah from a homer of barley.. ""The prince shall have a portion on one side and the other of the holy district and the city's property; and bordering on the holy district and the city's property, extending westward on the west side and eastward on the east side, the length shall be side by side with one of the tribal Portions, from the west border to the east border. Ezek. 48:218. "The land shall be his possession in Israel; and "My princes shall no more oppress My people, but they shall give the rest of the land to the house of Israel, according to their tribes." Ezek 22:279. Thus says the Lord god: "Enough, O princes of Israel! Remove violence and plundering, execute justice and righteousness, and stop dispossessing My people." says the Lord god.10. "You shall have just "balances, a just ephah, and a just bath. Lev. 19:3611. "The ephah and the bath shall be of the same measure, so that the bath contains one-tenth of a homer, and the ephah one-tenth of a homer; their measure shall be according to the homer.12. "The shekel shall be twenty gerahs; twenty shekels, twenty-five shekels, and fifteen shekels shall be your mina. Ex. 30:1313. "This is the offering which you shall offer: you shall give one-sixth of an ephah from a homer of wheat, and one-sixth of an ephah from a homer of barley.
HOW HYGIENIC?
Now, look below and note that the author of 1 Kings 7:26 has counted 2 000 baths in Solomon's palace, but the author of 2 Chronicles 4:5 increases the kingly count by 50% to 3 000! What extravagance and error in the "Book of God?" Even if God Almighty had nothing else to do, would He occupy Himself "inspiring" such trivial contradictory nonsense to the Jews? Is the Bible God's Book? Is it the Word of God?
THE DIFFERENCE 2 000 and 3 000 IS ONLY 50% EXAGGERATION!
I KINGS 7 26. And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths..
II CHRONICLES 45. And the thickness of it was an handbreadth, and the brim of it like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies; and it received and held three thousand baths.
Whether it is witting or unwitting, the "inspired" writer's singular inability to grasp the difference between 2 000 and 3 000 is unforgivable. It is an obvious contradiction. "AND NO MIRACLE WOULD PROVE THAT TWO AND TWO MAKES FIVE, OR THAT A CIRCLE HAS FOUR ANGELS; AND NO MIRACLES, HOWEVER NUMEROUS COULD REMOVE A CONTRADICTION WHICH LIES ON THE SURFACE OF THE TEACHINGS AND RECORDS OF CHRISTIANITY." — (Albert Schweizer), from his book: "In Search of the Historical Jesus." Page 22.
PILED CONTRADICTIONS
Before I conclude this series of contradictions, let me give you just one more example. There are hundreds of others in the Bible. See below. It is Solomon again. He really does things in a big way. The ex-Shah of Iran was a nursery kid by comparison! The author of 2 Chronicles 9:25 gives Solomon one thousand more stalls of horses than the number of baths he had given him. "And Solomon had FOUR thousand stalls for horses ..." But the author of 1 Kings 4:26 had real kingly thoughts about his royal patron. He multiplied Solomon's stalls by 1 000% — from 4 000 to 40000 stalls of horses! Before some glib evangelist draws the wool over your eyes that the difference is only a nought, a zero — "0"; that some scribe or copyist had inadvertently added a zero to 4 000 to make it 40 000, let me tell you that the Jews in the time of Solomon knew nothing about the zero — "O"! It was the Arabs who introduced the zero to the Middle East and to Europe centuries later. The Jews spelt out their figures in words in their literary works and did not write them in numerals. Our Question is — Who was the real author of this staggering discrepency of 36000? Was it God or man? You will find these references and many more allied facts in a very comprehensive book — "THE BIBLE — Word of God or Word of Man?" by A. S. K. Joommal.
II CHRONICLESCHAPTER 9 25. And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
I KINGS CHAPTER 4 26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
The Difference between 4 thousand
and 40 thousand is only 36 OOO!
The Jews did not use The "0" (Zero)
in the Old Testament between 4 thousand
and 40 thousand is only 36 OOO!
The Jews did not use The "0" (Zero)
in the Old Testament
CHAPTER EIGHT
MOST OBJECTIVE TESTIMONY
The Christian propagandist is very fond of quoting the following verse as proof that his Bible is the Word of God.
"All scripture IS given by inspiration of God, and IS profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (2 Timothy 3:16 — AV by Scofield)
Note the "IS’s" in capitals. Rev. Scofield is telling us silently that they do not occur in the original Greek. "THE NEW ENGLISH BIBLE," translated by a committee representing the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, the Methodist Church, the Congregational Church, the Baptist Union, the Presbyterian Church of England, etc., etc., and the BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY has produced the closest translation of the original Greek which deserves to be reproduced here:
"EVERY INSPIRED SCRIPTURE HAS ITS USE FOR TEACHING THE TRUTH AND REFUTING ERROR, OR FOR REFORMATION OF MANNERS AND DISCIPLINE IN RIGHT LIVING." (2 Timothy 3:16)
The Roman Catholics in their "Douay" Version, are also more faithful to the text than the Protestants in their Authorised Version (AV). They say: "ALL SCRIPTURE, INSPIRED OF GOD, IS PROFITABLE TO TEACH, TO REPROVE, TO CORRECT . . ."
We will not quibble with words. Muslims and Christians are agreed that whatever emanates from God, whether through in inspiration or by revelation, must serve one of four purposes:-
1. It must either teach us DOCTRINE;
2. REPROVE us for our error;
3. Offer us CORRECTION;
4. Guide us into RIGHTEOUSNESS.
I have been asking learned men of Christianity for the past forty years, whether they can supply a FIFTH "peg" to hang the Word of God on. They have failed signally. That does not mean that I have improved upon their performance. Let us examine the "Holy Bible" with these objective tests.
NOT FAR TO SEEK
The very first book of the Bible — Genesis — provides us with many beautiful examples. Open chapter 38 and read. We are given here the history1 of Judah, the father of the Jewish race, from whom we derive the names "judea" and "Judaism." This patriarch of the Jews got married and God granted him three sons, Er, Onan and Shelah. When the first-born was big enough, Judah had him married to a lady called Tamar. "BUT ER, JUDAH'S FIRST-BORN WAS WICKED IN THE SIGHT OF THE LORD; AND THE LORD SLEW HIM.'' (Genesis 38:7). Under what heading, from the above four principles of Timothy will you place this sad news? The second — "REPROVE" is the answer. Er was wicked so God killed him. A lesson for all, God will destroy us for our wickedness. REPROOF!
Continuing with this Jewish history, according to their custom, if a brother died and left no offspring, it was the duty of the other brother to give "seed" to his sisters-in-law so that the deceased's name might be perpetuated. Judah, in honour of this custom, orders his second son Onan to do his duty. But Jealousy enters his heart. It will be his seed but the name will be his brother's! So at the critical moment "HE SPILLED IT ON THE GROUND . . . AND THE THING HE DID DISPLEASED THE LORD: WHEREFORE HE SLEW HIM ALSO." (Genesis 38:9-10). Again, where does this slaying fit into Timothy's tests? "REPROOF!" is the answer again. No prizes are offered for these easy answers. They are so basic. Do wrong and bear the consequence! Onan is forgotten in the "Book of God," but Christian sexologists have immortalized him by referring to "coitus interruptus," as Onanism2 in their "Books of Sex."
Now Judah tells his daughter-in-law, Tamar, to return to her father's house until his third son Shelah attains manhood, when she will be brought back so that he can do his duty.
1. You remember Dr. Kenneth Cragg in his "Call of the Minaret" and his "HISTORY." See full quotation on page one. This is that "history."
2. "ONANISM:" Now immortalized in the Oxford Dictionary.
A WOMAN'S REVENGE
Shelah grows up and is, perhaps, married to another woman. But Judah had not fulfilled his obligation to Tamar. Deep in his heart he is terrified. He has already lost two sons on account of this "witch," — "LEST PERADVENTURE HE (Shelah) DIE ALSO, AS HIS BRETHERN DID." (Genesis 38:11). So Judah conveniently forgets his promise. The aggrieved young lady resolves to take revenge on her father-in-law for depriving her of her "seed" right. Tamar learned that Judah is going to Timnath to sheer his sheep. She plans to get even with him on the way. She forestalls him, and goes and sits in an open place en route to Timnath. When Judah sees her, he thinks she is a harlot because she has covered her face. He comes up to her and proposes — "ALLOW ME TO COME IN UNTO THEE; AND SHE SAID WHAT WILT THOU GIVE ME, THAT THOU MAYEST COME IN UNTO ME?" He promises that he would send her a goat kid from his flock. What guarantee could she have that he would send it? What guarantee did she require, Judah queried. "His ring, his bracelet and his staff" is the ready answer. The old man hands these possessions to her, and "CAME IN UNTO HER, AND SHE CONCEIVED BY HIM." (Genesis 38:16-18).
THE MORAL LESSON
Before we seek the heading from Timothy 3:16, under which to categorize this filthy, dirty story from the "Book of God," I am tempted to ask, as you would be tempted to ask: what is the moral (?) lesson that our children will learn from Tamar's sweet revenge? Of course we do tell our children, fables, not really for their entertainment value, but that through them some moral may be imparted." The Fox and the Grapes,'' "The Wolf and the Lamb,'' "The Dog and his Shadow," etc. However simple or silly the story, a moral is aimed at.
'CHRISTIAN PARENTAL DILEMMAS'
Dr. Vernon Jones, an American psychologist of repute, carried out experiments on groups of schoolchildren to whom certain stories had been told. The heroes of the stories were the same in the case of the different groups of children, but the heroes behaved contradictorily to each group. To one group "St. George," slaving the dragon emerged a very brave figure, but to another group, fleeing in terror and seeking shelter in his mother's lap. "THESE STORIES MADE CERTAIN SLIGHT BUT PERMANENT CHANGES IN CHARACTER, EVEN IN THE NARROW CLASSROOM SITUATION,'' concluded Dr. Jones.
How much more permanent damage the rapes and murders, incests and beastialities of the "Holy Bible" has done to the children of Christendom, can be measured from reports in our daily newspapers. If such is the source of Western morality, it is no little wonder, then, that Methodists and Roman Catholics have already solemnized marriages between HOMOSEXUALS in their "Houses of God." And 8000 "gays" (an euphemistic term for sodomites) parade their "wares" in London's Hyde Park in July 1979, to the acclaim of the news and TV media. 1
You must get that "Holy Bible" and read the whole chapter 38 of Genesis. Mark in "red" the words and phrases deserving this adornment. We had reached verse 18 in our moral (?) lesson — "AND SHE CONCEIVED BY HIM."
1. Ever since then, the major cities of the Western World; be it London, New York, San Francisco, Sydney, Paris etc hold annual gay parades (Mardi Gras), with now, public turnouts bringing in children as spectators. Australia prides itself in having Sydney being declared the gay capital of the world.
CAN'T HIDE FOR EVER
Three months later, as things were bound to turn out, news reached Judah that his daughter-in-law, Tamar, had played the "harlot" and that she was with "CHILD BY WHOREDOM AND JUDAH SAID, BRING HER FORTH, AND LET HER BE BURNT." (Genesis 38:24). Judah had deliberately spurned her as a "witch" and now he sadistically wants to burn her. But this wiley Jewess was one up on the old man. She sent the "ring," the "bracelet," and the "staff'' with a servant, beseeching her father-in-law to find the culprit responsible for her pregnancy. Judah was in a fix. He confessed that his daughter-in-law was more "RIGHTEOUS" than himself, and "HE KNEW HER AGAIN NO MORE." (verse 26). It is quite an experience to compare the choice of language in which the different Versions describe the same incident. The Jehovah's Witnesses in their "New World Translation" translate the last quotation as — "HE HAD NO FURTHER INTERCOURSE WITH HER AFTER THAT." 1 This is not the last we will hear about in the "Book of God" of this Tamar whom the Gospel writers have immortalized in their "Genealogy of their Lord."
1. The Jehovah's Witness Version is more explicit in its choice of words. It does not hesitate to call a spade a spade! Compare Ezekiel 23 with any other Version, and see the difference.
INCEST HONOURED
I do not want to bore you with details, but the end verses of Genesis 38 deal with a duel in Tamar's womb: about the twins struggling for ascendancy. The Jews were very meticulous about recording their "first borns." The first born got the lion's share of their father's patrimony. Who are the lucky winners in this prenatal race? There are four in this unique contest. They are "PHAREZ and ZARAH of TAMAR by JUDAH.'' How? You will see presently. But first, let us have the moral. What is the moral in this episode? You remember Er and Onan: how God destroyed them for their several sins? And the lessons we have learnt in each case was "REPROOF'' Under what category of Timothy will you place the incest of Judah, and his illegitimate progeny? All these characters are honoured in the "Book of God" for their bastardy. They become the great grandfathers and great grandmothers of the "only begotten son of God'(?) See Matthew 1:3. In every Version of the Bible, the Christians have varied the spelling of these characters' names from those obtained in the Old Testament (Genesis chapter 38) with those contained in the New Testament (Matthew chapter 1) to put the reader off the scent. From PHAREZ in the "Old" to PARES in the "New,'' and ZARAH to ZARA and TAMAR to THAMAR, But what about the moral? God blesses Judah for his incestuous crime! So if you do "evil" (Er), God will slay you; if you spill "seed" (Onan), God will kill you, but a daughter-in-law (Lamat) who vengefully and guilefully collect her father-in-law's (Judah's) "seed" is rewarded. Under what category will the Christians place this "honour" in the "Book of God?" Where does it fit? Is it Your ...
1. DOCTRINE?
2. REPROOF?
3. CORRECTION? or
4. INSTRUCTION INTO RIGHTEOUSNESS?
Ask him who comes and knocks at your door — that professional preacher, that hot-gospeller, that Bible-thumper. Here, he deserves a prize if he can grant an explanation for the correct answer. There is none born who can justify this filth, this pornography under any of the above headings. But a heading has to be given. It can only be recorded under — "PORNOGRAPHY!"
BAN THE BOOK!
George Bernard Shaw said that "THE MOST DANGEROUS BOOK (the Bible) ON EARTH, KEEP IT UNDER LOCK AND KEY." Keep the Bible out of your children's reach. But who will follow his advice? He was not a "B.A., 1 a "reborn" Christian.
According to the high moral scruples of the Christian rulers of South African, who have banned the book, "Lady Chatterley's Lover,'' because of a "tetragrammaton" — a four-letter word, they would most assuredly have placed a ban on the "Holy Bible" if it had been a Hindu religious Book, or a Muslim religious Book. But they are utterly helpless against their own "Holy Book," their "SALVATION" depends upon it!
Reading Bible stories to children can also open up all sorts of opportunities to discuss the morality of sex. An unexpurgated Bible might get an X-rating from some censors,The PLAIN TRUTH October 1977
1. "B.A." short for "born again" it is a new sickness. It destroyed the "SUICIDE CULT" of Rev. Jim Jones, in Jonestown, Guyana.
DAUGHTERS SEDUCE THEIR FATHER
Read Genesis 19, verses 30 to the end and mark again in "red" the words and phrases deserving this honour. Do not hesitate and procrastinate. Your "coloured" Bible will become a priceless heirloom for your children. I agree with Shaw, to keep the Bible "under lock and key,'' but we need this weapon to meet the Christian challenge. The Prophet of Islam said that "WAR IS STRATEGY,'' and strategy demands that we use the weapons of our enemy. It is not what we like and what we do not like. It is what we are forced to use against the "ONE BOOK" (Bible) professors, who are knocking at our doors with "the Bible says this" and "the Bible says that." They want us to exchange our Holy Qur'an for their "Holy Bible." Show them the holes in the "holiness" which they have not yet seen. At times these zombies pretend to see the filth for the first time. They have been programmed with selected verses for their propagation.
To continue: the "history" has it that, night after night, the daughters of Lot seduce their drunken father with the noble (?) motive of preserving their father's "seed." "Seed" figures very prominently in this "Holy Book": forty seven times in the little booklet of Genesis alone! Out of this another incestuous relationship come the "Ammonites" and the "Moabites," for whom the God of Israel was supposed to have had a special compassion. Later on in the Bible we learn that the Jews are ordered by the same compassionate God to slaughter the Philistines mercilessly — men, women and children. Even trees and animals are not to be spared, but the Amonites and the Moabites are not to be "distressed" or "meddled" with because they are the seed of Lot! (Deuteronomy 2:19)
No decent reader can read the seduction of Lot to his mother, sister or daughter, not even to his fiancee if she is a chaste and moral woman. Yet you will come across perverted people who will gorge this filth. Tastes can be cultivated!
Read again and mark Ezekiel 23. You will know what colour to choose. The "whoredoms" of the two sisters, Aholah and Aholibah. The sexual details here puts to shame even the unexpurgated edition of many banned books. Ask your "born again" Christian visitors, under what category will they classify all this lewdness? Such filth certainly has no place in any "Book of God."
Al-Haj A.D. Ajijola in his book — "The Myth of the Cross" gives a masterly expose of the fallacy of the Bible as well as of the crucifixion, in short, of the whole of Christianity. No student of comparative religion can afford to be without this publication and "THE BIBLE: Word of God or Word of Man?" mentioned earlier on.
CHAPTER NINE
THE GENEALOGY OF JESUS
Watch now how the Christian fathers have foisted the incestuous progenies of the Old Testament upon their Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, in the New Testament. For a man who had no genealogy, they have manufactured one for him. And what a genealogy! Six adulterers and offsprings of incest are imposed upon this holy man of God. Men and women deserving to be stoned to death according to God's own law, as revealed through Moses, and further to be ostracised and debarred from the House of God for generations. 1
1. "The bastard shall not enter the congregation of the Lord even unto the tenth generation." (Deut. 23:2 — AV). The "Witnesses" have been hyper sensitive to this word. Swallowing the camel and straining at the gnat!
IGNOBLE ANCESTRY
Why should God give a "father" (Joseph) to His "son" (Jesus)? And why such an ignoble ancestry? "This is the whole beauty of it" says the pervert. "God loved the sinners so much that he disdaineth not to give such progenitors for His 'son. "
ONLY TWO COMMISSIONED
Of the four Gospel writers, God "inspired" only two of them to record the genealogy of His "son." To make it easy for you to compare the "fathers and grandfathers" of Jesus Christ in both the "inspired" lists, I have culled the names only, minus the verbiage. See below. Between David and Jesus, God "inspired" Matthew to record only 26 ancestors for His "son." But Luke, also "inspired," gathered up 41 forefathers for Jesus. The only name common to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH and that, too, a "supposed" father according to Luke 3:23 (AV). This one name is glaring. You need no fine-tooth comb to catch him. It is Joseph the carpenter. You will also easily observe that the lists are grossly contradictory. Could both the lists have emanated from the same source, i.e. God?
GENEALOGY FROM DAVID TO JESUS
FULFILLING PROPHECY?
Matthew and Luke are over-zealous in making DAVID the King, the prime ancestor of Jesus, because of that false notion that Jesus was to sit on the "THRONE OF HIS FATHER DAVID" (Acts 2:30). The Gospels belie this prophecy, for they tell us that instead of Jesus sitting on his father's (David's) throne, it was Pontious Pilate, a Roman Governor, a pagan who sat on that very throne and condemned its rightful (?) heir (Jesus) to death. "Never mind,'' says the evangelist, "if not in his first coming, then in his second coming he will fulfill this prophecy and three hundred others beside" But with their extravagant enthusiasm to trace the ancestry of Jesus physically to David, (for this is actually what the Bible says — THAT OF THE FRUIT OF HIS (David's) LOINS, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH" (literally, not metaphorically Acts 2:30), both the "inspired" authors trip and fall on the very first step.
Matthew 1:6 says that Jesus was the son of David through SOLOMON, but Luke 3:31 says that he (Jesus) was the son of David through NATHAN. One need not be a gynecologist to tell that by no stretch of the imagination could the seed of David reach the mother of Jesus both through Solomon and Nathan at the same time! We know that both the authors are confounded liars, because Jesus was conceived miraculously, without any male intervention. Even if we concede a physical ancestry through David, both authors would still be proved liars for the obvious reason.
BREAKING PREJUDICE
As simple as the above logic is, the Christian is so emotionally involved that it will not penetrate his prejudiced mind. Let us give him an identical example, but one where he can afford to be objective.
We know from history that Muhammed the Prophet of Islam, was the son of Abraham through ISHMAEL, so if some "inspired" writer came along and tried to palm off his "revelation" to the effect that Muhummed was the son of Abraham through ISAAC, we would, without any hesitation, brand such a writer as a liar, because the seed of Abraham could never reach Amina (Muhummed's mother) through Ishmael and through Isaac at the same time! The differences of lineage between these two sons of Abraham is the difference between the JEWS and the ARABS.
In the case of Muhummed, we would know then that anyone who says that Isaac is his progenitor, was a liar. But in the case of Jesus both Matthew and Luke are suspect. Until the Christians decide which line of ancestors they prefer for their "god," both Gospels will have to be rejected. Christendom has been battling tooth and nail with these genealogies for the past 2000 years, trying to unravel the mystery. They have not given up yet. We admire their perseverance. They still believe that "TIME WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM." Perhaps another 2000 years?!
"THERE ARE CLAIMED CONTRADICTIONS THAT THEOLOGIANS HAVE NOT RESOLVED TO EVERY ATHEIST'S SATISFACTION. THERE ARE TEXTUAL DIFFICULTIES WITH WHICH SCHOLARS ARE STILL WRESTLING. ONLY A BIBLE ILLITERATE WOULD DENY THESE AND OTHER PROBLEMS" "The Plain Truth," July 1975.
THE SOURCE OF LUKE'S "INSPIRATION"
We have already nailed 85% of Matthew and Luke to Mark or that "mysterious 'Q''’. 1 Let us now allow Luke to tell us who "inspired" him to tell his "most excellent Theophilus" (Luke 1:3) the story of Jesus. See below for Luke's preamble to his "Gospel." He tells us plainly that he was only following in the footsteps of others who were less qualified than himself, others who had the temerity to write accounts of his hero (Jesus). As a physician, as against fishermen and tax collectors, he was no doubt better equipped to create a literary masterpiece. This he did, because "IT SEEMED GOOD TO ME ALSO" to "PUT IN ORDER." These are his prominent Justifications over his predecessors.
FORASMUCH as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2. Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and
ministers of the word;
3. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4. That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou has been instructed.
Luke 1:1-4
In the introduction to his translation of the "Gospel of St Luke" A Christian scholar, J. B. Phillips, has this to say — "ON HIS OWN ADMISSION LUKE HAS CAREFULLY COMPARED AND EDITED EXISTING MATERIAL, BUT IT WOULD SEEM THAT HE HAD ACCESS TO A GOOD DEAL OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL, AND WE CAN REASONABLY GUESS AT SOME OF THE SOURCES FROM WHICH HE DREW." And yet you call this the Word of God?! Obtain "The Gospels in Modern English" in soft cover by 'FONTANA' publications. It is a cheap edition. Get it quickly before the Christians decide to have Phillips' invaluable notes expunged from his translation! And do not be surprised if the authors of the RSV also decide to eliminate the "Preface" 2 from their translation. It is an old, old habit. As soon as those who have vested interests in Christianity realize that they have inadvertently let the cat out of the bag, they quickly make amends. They make my current references "past" history overnight!
1. Refer to Chapter Six.
2. Refer to Chapter Three.
THE REMAINING GOSPEL
Who is the author of "The Gospel of St. John?" Neither God nor St. John! See what "he" (?) says about it "himself" (?) on page 58 — John 19:35 and 21:24-25. Who is his "HE" and "HIS" and "THIS?" A-N-D, his "WE KNOW" and "I SUPPOSE." Could it be the fickle one who left him in the lurch in the garden, when he was most in need, or the fourteenth man at the table, at the "last Super," the one that "Jesus loved?" Both were Johns. It was a popular name among the Jews in the times of Jesus, and among Christians even now. Neither of these two was the author of this Gospel. That it was the product of an anonymous hand, is crystal clear.
WATCH THE PRONOUNS!
ST. JOHN 19
35. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
WHO IS "HE" AND "HIS"?
ST. JOHN 21
24. This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things:
and we know that his testimony is true.
WHO IS "WE"?
The Conclusion
25. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should
be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books
that should be written. Amen. WHAT AN EXAGGERATION!
WHO IS "I"?
AUTHORS IN A NUTSHELL
Let me conclude this "authorship" search with the verdict of those 32 scholars, backed by their 50 co-operating denominations. God had been eliminated from this authorship race long ago. In the RSV by "Collins," invaluable notes on "The Books of the Bible" are to be found at the back of their production. I am reproducing only a bit of that information on below. We start with "GENESIS" — the first book of the Bible. The scholars say about its "AUTHOR": "One of the 'five books of Moses'." Note the words "five books of Moses" are written in inverted commas — " " This is a subtle way of admitting that this is what people say — that it is the book of Moses, that Moses was its author, but we (the 32 scholars) who are better informed, do not subscribe to that tittle-tattel.
The next four books, "EXODUS, LEVITICUS, NUMBERS and DEUTERONOMY": AUTHOR? "Generally credited to Moses."
This is the same category as the book of Genesis.
Who is the author of the book of "JUDGES?" Answer: "Possibly Samuel."
Who is the author of the book of "JOSHUA?" Answer: "Major part credited to Joshua."
Who is the author of "RUTH?" Answer: "Not definitely known" AND
Who is the author of:
1ST SAMUEL?............ Answer: Author "Unknown"
2ND SAMUEL........... Answer: Author "Unknown"
1ST KING?................. Answer: Author "Unknown"
2ND KING?............... Answer: Author "Unknown"
1st CHRONICLES? …. Answer: Author "Unknown, probably …"
2st CHRONICLES? …. Answer: Author "Likely collected …"
THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE
GENESIS AUTHOR One of the "five books of Moses." EXODUS AUTHOR Generally credited to Moses. LEVITICUS AUTHOR Generally credited to Moses. NUMBERS AUTHOR Generally credited to Moses. DEUTERONOMY AUTHOR Generally credited to Moses. JOSHUA AUTHOR. Major part credited to Joshua. JUDGES AUTHOR. Possibly Samuel, RUTHAUTHOR. Not definitely known, perhaps Samuel. FIRST SAMUEL AUTHOR. Unknown. SECOND SAMUEL AUTHOR. Unknown. FIRST KINGSAUTHOR. Unknown. SECOND KINGS AUTHOR. Unknown. FIRST CHRONICLES AUTHOR. Unknown, probably collected and edited by Ezra. SECOND CHRONICLES AUTHOR. Likely collected and edited by Ezra. EZRA AUTHOR. Probably written or edited by Ezra. ESTHER AUTHOR. Unknown. JOB AUTHOR. Unknown. PSALMS AUTHOR. Principally David,though there are other writers. ECCLESIASTES AUTHOR. Doubtful, butcommonly assigned to Solomon. ISAIAH AUTHOR. Mainly creditedto Isaiah. Parts may have beenwritten by others. JONAH AUTHOR. Unknown. HABAKKUK AUTHOR. Nothing known of the place or time of his birth.
The above facts are from Collins' R.S.V. 1971. Pages 12-17.
And so the story goes. The authors of these anonymous books are either "UNKNOWN" or are "PROBABLY" or "LIKELY" or are of "DOUBTFUL" origin. Why blame God for this fiasco? The Long-suffering and Merciful God did not wait for two thousand years for Bible scholars to tell us that He was not the Author of Jewish peccadilloes, prides and prejudices; of their lusts, wranglings, jealousies and enormities. He said it openly what they do:-
We could have started the thesis of this book with the above Qur'anic verse and ended with it, with the satisfaction that God Almighty had Himself delivered His verdict on the subject — "Is the Bible God's Word?", but we wished to afford our Christian brethern an opportunity to study the subject as objectively as they wished.2Allowing believing Christians, "reborn" Christians, and their own Holy Book the Bible to testify against their "better" judgement.
What about the Holy Qur’ân? Is the Qur’ân the Word of God? The author of this humble publication has endeavoured to answer this question in a most scientific manner in his book "AL'QUR'AN — The Miracle of Miracles" available absolutely free of charge from the "Centre" on request.
1. "THE BIBLE" - "The World's Best Seller!" the Publishers of the RSV made a net profit of 15 000 000 dollars on the first edition alone' "What a miserable price in exchange for eternity!"
2. See Dr Scroggie's plea in chapter 5.
EPILOGUE
The reader must by now be convinced, that is if he has an open mind, that the Bible is not what it is claimed to be by the protagonists of Christianity.
For nearly four decades people have asked me as to how I have such an "in depth" knowledge of the Bible and Christianity.
Frankly speaking my present position as a Muslim "expert" on Judaism and Christianity is not of my own volition. I have been forced into being what I am.
EARLY PROVOCATION
It was in 1939 when I was working as a shop assistant at Adams Mission near a Christian seminary by that name; producing preachers and priests, that I and my fellow Muslim workers were the target of young aspiring men of the cloth. Not a day passed when these young Christians did not harass me or my brothers-in-faith, through insults which they piled on Islam, the Holy Prophet and the Qur’ân.
Being a sensitive young man of 20, I spent sleepless nights in tears for not being able to defend the one dearer to me than my own life, that mercy unto all mankind— Muhummed P.B.U.H.
I resolved to study the Qur’ân, the Bible and other literature. My discovery of the book — "IZHARUL HAQ" was the turning point in my life. After a short while I was able to invite the trainee missionaries of Adams Mission College and cause them to perspire under the collar until they developed a respect for Islam and its Holy Apostle.
MUSLIMS UNDER CONSTANT ATTACK
It made me ponder as to how so many unwary Muslims are being constantly assaulted by Christian evangelists who carry out a door to door campaign, and being invited in by the proverbially hospitable Muslim, I thought of how the merciless missionary munched the samoosas and punched the wind out of the Muslim with snide remarks against his beliefs.
Determined to bring home to the Muslims their right to defend themselves and to arm them with enough knowledge to counter the hot gospeller, the door to door pedlar of Christianity and the shameless insulter of Islam and its Holy Apostle; I humbly undertook to deliver lectures to show the Muslim masses that they had nothing to fear from the assaults of the Christians.
My lectures were also an invitation to the Christians to witness the truth of Islam and the fabrications which had penetrated the true teachings of Jesus (P.B.U.H).
ATTACK NOT NEW
Christian Missionaries in the past hundred years and more have challenged Muslims on many aspects and quite a number of these challenges have, to my knowledge, gone answered or have been partly answered. Perhaps by the will of Allah my contribution in this field can also be answers or part answers to the challenges of the detractors of Islam. It is of supreme importance that we do not go by default.
One such challenge comes to mind viz. Geo G. Harris the author of "How to lead Muslims to Christ". This missionary who tried to convert the Muslims of China says in the usual arrogant and condecending manner of the Westerner on page 19 under the heading — "THE THEORY OR CHARGE OF CORRUPTION."
"WE NOW COME TO THE MOST SERIOUS CHARGE BY THE MOSLEM WORLD, AGAINST OUR CHRISIIAN SCRIPTURES. THERE ARE THREE ASPECTS OF THIS CHARGE.
1. That the Christian scriptures have been so changed and altered that they bear little, if any, resemblance to the glorious Injil praised in the Qur’ân. This can be answered by the asking of one of the following questions: Wherein have these been so changed or altered? Can you obtain a copy of a true Injil and show it that I may compare it with mine? At what date in past history was the unaltered Injil in circulation?
2. That our Gospels have suffered corruption. The following five questions are definite and we have a perfect right to ask them;
(a) Was such corruption or alteration intentional?
(b) Can you point out in my Bible one such passage?
(c) How did this passage read originally?
(d) When, by whom, how or why was it corrupted or altered?
(e) Was such, corruption of the text or of the meaning?
3. That our Gospels are "faked" substitutes for the original Injil. Or that our Gospels are the handiwork of men, not the noble Injil which descended upon Jesus. A little questioning will usually reveal the true situation, that usually the Moslem making the charge is woefully ignorant of the Bible or New Testament as it actually existed in the past or exists today.
BEFORE GOING ON TO THE LATTER HALF OF THIS DISCUSSION, A REMINDER IS IMPORTANT THAT AS SOON AS THE OBJECTOR IS WILLING TO SENSE THE FLIMSINESS OF SUCH A CHARGE WE SHOULD PRESS HOME SOME TEACHING FROM OUR SCRIPIURES, THAT OUR EFFORT MAY BE POSITIVE AND NOT NEGATIVE."
HAVE MUSLIMS THE ANSWER?
Have we as Muslims no answers for these questions? If you, gentle reader have read this book you will admit that Ceo G. Harris has no feet to stand on. I have been able to give actual pages from the Bible to disprove his assertions.
MUSLIMS CHALLENGED
On page 16 of Geo G. Harris' book he teaches his comrades a basic missionary rule in order to corner the Muslim prospective:
"In this chapter it is assumed that the question of the authenticity and genuineness of our scriptures has been raised by the Mohammedan. When this is the case, before we undertake defense of our position we should bear in mind a basic rule. THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS WITH THE MOSLEM." 1
Praise be to Allah that in my 40 years of disproving the authenticity of the Bible which the Christians have so boldly asked for, I have been able to win the day.
Remember, we Muslims do not go door to door peddling our religion. Whereas Christians of different denominations encroach upon our privacy and peace and take advantage of our hospitality to harass the unwary Musalman.
Those who are afraid to project the truth when they are provoked by these Christians, who even go to the extent of insulting our beloved Nabee Muhummed (S.A.W.) should re-examine their Eemaan.
The lectures I hold are to sound out these slinking missionaries who "attack" the home and hearth of the unsuspecting Muslim who goes about minding his own business.
The lectures are also aimed at restoring the damaged dignity of the Muslim who has been ruffled by the ruthless attacks of the Christian pedlar. Ask the poor Muslims of Chatsworth, Hanover Park or Riverlea2 as to how they are subjected to the tyrany of certain missionaries.
If this humble little contribution of mine "Is the Bible God's Word?" finds a place in the Muslim home as a bulwark against the missionary menace my effort would be amply rewarded.
A greater reward would be if even one sincere disciple of Jesus (on whom be peace) were to be led to the truth and be removed from fabrications and falsehood.
The greatest reward of course lies with Allah Almighty whom I supplicate for guidance and mercy and pray and crave that He accepts my effort which I dedicate to Him in all humility.
may Allah the almight guides us all to his worship.
Reply:I believe in Jesus as a beloved Prophet of God, as a human who was sent to his people in order to guide them. I do not believe that he's God or God's Son.
How come no one has ever been able to find logical reasons to explain the concept of Trinity?
You gave me verses from the Bible, supporting your point of view.
Mind if I give you verses from my Holy Quran, supporting my view as well? Here:
Quran, 4:171: "O People of the Book (i.e., Christians and Jews)! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His messengers. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs."
5:73: "They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them."
5:75: "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!"
5:77: "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."
So, sir, do you see why I (a Muslim) don't believe that Jesus is God or God's son? Because I believe my Faith is 100% correct, and I try to follow it always to the best of my ability. I'm not asking you to believe the same thing I'm believing, but I'm just helping you realize that people have their own Faith and have reasons for doing so--just as you have your reason.
Peace and blessings of God be upon you!
Reply:There is some power beyond the reach of the man which nobady has the second thought.But it need not be Jesus Christ It may be somebady else for somebody.So do your work sincerely with the belive in god or almighty without any expectaions
Reply:please don't bother about any specific yes or no. we like to hear ,see or live the lives of heros .it is quite possible that they may come from various fields but the fact is we follow them in every way possible . Jesus had shown us the way to live. it is not not the easy life but you get through trials if you follow him .that makes you a better person . it is all that i care for .him being a god or human does not make any difference to me for i love him for the idea his instills in me .
Reply:I believe there was once a holy man called Jesus but he wasn't a god. He was a normal man like Buddha or the prophets Moses, Mohammed and John the Baptist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)