Category Archives: Refuting Islam

32 Reasons why the Gospel Of Barnabas is a 16th Century Forgery written by Muslims.

32 Reasons why the Gospel Of Barnabas is a 16th Century Forgery written by Muslims.

The Koran teaches that someone who looked like Jesus was crucified on the cross in a case of mistaken identity. Many Muslims appeal to the Gospel of Barnabas as proof that the unknown look alike was Judas Iscariot.

  • “they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them” (Qur’an 4:156)
  • “Verily I say that the voice, the face, and the person of Judas were so like to Jesus, that his disciples and believers entirely believed that be was Jesus” (Gospel of Barnabas)

Historical discovery of the Gospel of Barnabas in 1709 AD:

  1. The “Gospel of Barnabas” (G.o.B.) first appeared in Holland in 1709. This manuscript was written in Italian and supplied with footnotes in poor Arabic. The sources of the “Gospel” are unknown. This document is now preserved in the Imperial Museum in Vienna.
  2. George Sale translated the Qur’an from Arabic into English in 1734. In his preface, he mentions another copy of the same “Gospel” in Spanish. This document is lost and all we know about it is what Sale wrote down. It says in a statement on the title page that it was a translation from the Italian by a Spanish Muslim named Mostafa de Aranda (Aranda is a town in Spain). It further mentions that the Italian text had been stolen by a monk, Fra Marino, from the papal library, while Pope Sixtus V was having a little nap. After reading it Fra Marino became a Muslim. Since that time, Muslims have claimed that the “Gospel of Barnabas” is an authentic Gospel, perhaps even the “original” one. In 1907 the G.o.B. was translated into English by Laura and Lonsdale Ragg. In the introduction, they provide internal and external evidence to the effect that the G.o.B. was a Medieval forgery.
  3. Since then Arabic and Urdu translations have been produced, all, however, without the introduction by the Raggs. Lt.-Col. M.A. Rahim (Pakistan) reprinted the G.o.B. in English in 1973, again omitting the introduction, but substituting another one written from the Islamic point of view.
  4. The Gospel of Barnabas has been extensively used by Muslims to demonstrate that the Bible has been corrupted, when measured against a Gospel that was hidden away for nearly two millennia. Needless to say, the G.o.B. largely confirms the teaching of Islam concerning Jesus.
  5. To believe that the Gospel of Barnabas is anything other than a 16th century fraud is an assault on common sense.

The content of the Gospel of Barnabas:

  1. Above all, the entire G.o.B. endeavours to show the superiority of Muhammad over Jesus.
  2. Of the G.o.B. presents another Gospel narrative, i.e. another record of the life and ministry of Christ. On most doctrinal points it differs widely from the accepted Gospel account and in such a way that the Islamic version of Jesus is emphasized.
  3. Jesus Christ is neither the Son of God, nor divine. He is rather: “the voice crying in the wilderness” to prepare the way for the coming Messiah, Muhammad. In the G.o.B. Christ is not the Messiah, but assumes instead a role similar to that of John the Baptist in our Gospel account. John the Baptist is not mentioned in the G.o.B. Consequently, the emphasis in the G.o.B. is on the coming of Muhammad, the saviour of the world (Chapter 96b and 97b, etc.). As might be expected, Christ was not crucified (in agreement with Sura 4:156), but instead Judas was killed in His place. During the period of His supposed arrest, Christ was hiding in a house in the garden of Gethsemane from where He was taken out by four (!) archangels (a much later tradition or legend) through the window and ascended into the third of seven heavens.

32 reasons why the Gospel of Barnabas is a forgery written in 1585 AD:

Click to View“Internal Evidence is supplied by the content of the book itself. Any writing is sure to bear the mark of a particular age. The style, language and subject matter of the book will betray it.” (Gairdner, page 9).

Click to View“If someone brought you a film which he claimed to have been made in 1905 and started to screen it and it looked every bit like an old film, with old clothes and fashions, you might believe him. If, however, in the middle of a scene … you saw a Concorde going across the sky, you would say … ‘This film is a fabrication.'” (John Gilchrist). A. Irrefutable proof the Gospel of Barnabas was written around 1585 AD:

  1. Most suspicious of course, is any mentioning of the name of Muhammad. (In Chapters 44, 54, 112, 97 and 163, etc.) It is particularly suspicious, since all the other evidence points to the fact that the whole of the G.o.B is a Medieval forgery. But other Islamic thought is also reflected in the G.o.B.
  2. In Chapter 54, the Italian text mentions a denarius, which is made up of 60 minuti. These gold coins were used only in Spain under Khalif Abdul Malik (in 685 A.D.).
  3. The Italian poet Dante lived about the time of the composition of the G.o.B. (1265-1321) and it is interesting to notice a number of quotations from Dante’s works in the G.o.B. There are many and they can hardly be regarded as coincidences. The G.o.B. quotes Jesus as saying to Peter: “Know ye therefore, that hell is one, yet hath seven centres one below another. Hence, even as sin is of seven kinds, for as seven gates of hell has Satan generated it: So are seven punishments therein.” (Chapter 135a). This is exactly what Dante says in Cantos V, VI, etc. of his “Inferno”. Again “Barnabas” says that God, having created the human senses, condemned them “to hell and to intolerable snow and ice” (Chapter 106, which corresponds with Cantos XXVIII and III of the “Inferno”). The description of human sins and their returning at the end like a river to Satan, who is their source, is another indirect quotation from Dante’s description of the rivers of hell. Similarly, the passages about the believers going to hell, not to be tortured, but to see the unbelievers in their torments, recalls to mind Dante’s picture of the same. The differentiation between degrees of glory, and the absence of all feuds and jealousies in heaven, are taken entirely from Dante’s “Paradise”, Canto III. But still stronger evidence that “Barnabas” quotes directly or indirectly from Dante is his description of the “Geography of Heaven”. There “Barnabas” agrees with Dante and contradicts even the Qur’an itself. The Qur’an (Sura 2:29) says that the heavens are seven in number, while “Barnabas” gives the number as nine (Chapter 178a) (Gairdner, pages 19-21). These few indications are sufficient evidence that the writer of the G.o.B. must have been acquainted with the writings of Dante and consequently must have I lived after Dante, or else been a contemporary of his.
  4. First we should like to observe that all quotations in the G.o.B. from Old and New Testament are taken from the Vulgate translation. (Approximately 380 A.D.) This Latin Bible has been used in the Catholic Church ever since. The above is an example of an anachronism because the G.o.B. is supposed to date from before the Vulgate was written.
  5. In Chapters 91-92 we are told that Jesus and His disciples kept “the 40 days”. The context clearly shows that this refers to the period of Lent before Easter, celebrated by the church, but from a very much later period than the days of the early church. (The church meditates at this time on the suffering of Christ, which was obviously unknown when Christ was still alive). We find that Lent was celebrated only from the fourth century A.D. onwards. Jesus and His disciples are said to have gone for the 40 day fast to Mount Sinai. which is some 450 km away. There is no report in the New Testament to confirm this.
  6. In Chapter 3 of the G.o.B. the birth of Christ is described as having been painless. This belief was not current in the Church before Thomas Aquinas (died 1278) but is mentioned in Sura 19:23
  7. Not before the Fourth Century A.D. was the title “Virgin” given to Mary, yet it appears in the G.o.B.
  8. Origen A.D. 184-254 was the first scholar to assume that Mount Tabor was the Mount of Transfiguration. The Bible does not confirm this. The Christian tradition that it was Mount Moriah begins only in the Third Century, and yet the G.o.B. contains this information.
  9. The G.o.B. mentions four archangels, which is also a tradition of the church that dated from the early Medieval period.
  10. In Chapter 82 mention is made of the “Years of the Jubilee, which now cometh every 100 years.” The Year of Jubilee, according to the Old Testament, was every 50th year (after seven times seven years). The origin of this faulty information is as follows: In the year A.D. 1300 Pope Boniface the VIII instituted the Jubilee as a centenary event. Owing to its financial success, however, Pope Clement VI reversed Boniface’s decision and celebrated the next Jubilee in 1350. This was thus the only time that the Year of Jubilee was intended as a centenary occasion – it never was in practice. (Gairdner, page 19).
  11. Eve is said to have eaten an “apple” in Paradise (Chapters 40 and 41). We are well aware that Eve ate an unspecified fruit, but the belief that this was an apple dates from a very much later date.
  12. Another proof of the G.o.B. being Medieval in origin, is that we have a report (Chapter 99) of a duel between two rival lovers. This type of chivalry was a creation of Medieval society (Gairdner, page 24).
  13. In Chapter 39 Adam sees bright writing and the content is none other than the Kalimah. There is only one God” and “Muhammad is the Messenger of God.” (The Kalimah is an Arabic word which has found its way to other languages of Muslim people. It refers to the declaration which brings a person into the fold of Islam. Anyone who wishes to be a Muslim must declare that he believes in the Oneness of Allah and in the Prophet as Allah’s messenger.)
  14. The surprised reader of the G.o.B. finds Nazareth on the shore of Lake Galilee (Chapter 20), whereas it is a town miles away from the Lake, surrounded by mountains.
  15. In the next chapter, we see Jesus going UP to Capernaum, whereas Capernaum is situated right on the shore of the Lake.
  16. In Chapter 151 we are told that Jesus embarked on a ship (from Nazareth?) and next we read that he arrived in Jerusalem. We might well ask whether this was also done by boat?
  17. We are further informed that a certain dispute would have ended in war, but the Romans assembled three armies each numbering 200,000 men at Mizpeh (Chapter 91). The entire Roman army at that time numbered only 300,000, however. (Encyclopedia Britannica).
  18. According to the G.o.B. Jesus was born when Pilate was governor, but in fact he only became governor between A.D. 26 and 27.
  19. In Chapter 145 of the G.o.B. Pharisees date back as far as the time of Elijah and there were supposed to have been 17,000. In fact, history first knows about Pharisees seven centuries later, in the period between 135-104 B.C.
  20. We find it highly suspicious and wrong to read that the Torah was written by an Ismaelite (Chapter 192).
  21. In Chapter 152 we are informed that soldiers were “rolled out of the temple as one rolleth casks of wood when they are washed to refill them with wine.” Wooden barrels were invented 2000 years ago in Gaul but were not used in the East in New Testament times. Wine and other liquids were stored in skins.
  22. In Chapter 6 another interesting common error is found. It speaks here of the three Magi or wise men coming from the East. The New Testament does not specify the number, but gives a list of three gifts that were brought by the Magi, namely gold, myrrh and frankincense. This later led to the assumption that there were three wise men from the East. But this belief certainly does not derive or date from the New Testament.
  23. In the G.o.B. (Chapter 1) “Barnabas” is called an Apostle. This is not correct in its implication. Although Barnabas is referred to as an Apostle (Acts 14:4,14), the G.o.B. concept is quite different. The conversion of Barnabas took place after the Day of Pentecost and consequently he does not qualify for apostleship as outlined in Acts 1:21-22 (and bearing in mind I Corinthians 15:8, 9:1-2, 1:1, Romans 1:1 etc.).
  24. “Jesus drew near to the Priest (High Priest) with reverence, but he was wishful to bow himself down and worship Jesus, when Jesus cried out: ‘Beware of that which thou doest, Priest of the Living God! Sin not against our God!” (Chapter 93). Jesus accepted worship many times in scripture because He is the creator.
  25. In “the true book of Moses … (it) is written that Ishmael is the father of Messiah, and Isaac the father of the messenger of the Messiah” (Chapter 191).
  26. In Chapter 222, the last chapter of the G.o.B., we read: “After Jesus had departed (after having been raised from his hiding place through the window of the house in the Garden of Gethsemane) the disciples scattered through the different parts of Israel and of the world, and the truth, hated of Satan, was persecuted, as it always is, by falsehood. For certain evil men, pretending to be disciples, preached that Jesus died and rose not again. Others preached that he really died, but rose again. Others preached and yet preach that Jesus is the Son of God, among whom is Paul deceived.” The G.o.B. herewith endeavours to correct preceding Gospels and Paul. We wish to ask the question when and how was the writer aware that the disciples had scattered throughout the different parts of the world? This question is left open, but easily answered by us, for we believe that it is yet another anachronism.
  27. In Chapter 97 Muhammad is clearly called the Messiah. The Qur’an, as well as the Bible confers this title on Jesus. It is somehow strange to realize that in the introduction of the G.o.B. Jesus is called Christ and in Chapters 42 and 82 “Barnabas” denies that Jesus is the Messiah. Only a theologically very ignorant person could have made such statements, because “Christos” is the Greek word for the Hebrew “Messiah”.
  28. In Chapter 80 of the G.o.B. we find a story about Daniel, which has it that he was taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar while he was yet two years old. This statement, it will be observed, is incompatible with what may be inferred from the Bible narrative. According to the latter, it was in the second year of his reign that Nebuchadnezzar had his famous dream, which Daniel interpreted. “Then the King gave Daniel high honours and many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief prefect over the all-wise men of Babylon.” (Daniel 2:48). Now if we suppose that Nebuchadnezzar captured Daniel in the first year of his reign (the earliest possible date, which could be assigned to Daniel’s captivity) and that, according to “Barnabas”, Daniel was then two years old, it would follow then that in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, Daniel was only three years old (Gairdner, page 26). Daniel was in fact born in 621 B.C. and the captivity began in 605 B.C., so he was 16 years old when taken prisoner.
  29. Jesus prayed five times a day according to the G.o.B. and all the Muslim prayer times are mentioned. (Drs. J. Slomp, page 128).
  30. The Islamic concept of “the Book” is found in Chapter 10, where we read that the angel Gabriel presented to Jesus as it were a shining mirror, a book, which descended into the heart of Jesus. This corresponds very well with Suras 5:49 and 2:97.
  31. We read that Ishmael was offered on the altar by Abraham (Chapter 44). This is clearly an Islamic concept.
  32. God is said to be the God of Abraham, ISHMAEL and Isaac in Chapter 212. It should read, according to the O.T. the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob.

Bibliography:

  1. “The Gospel of Barnabas” edited and translated by Lonsdale and Laura Ragg (1907), published by Begum Aisha Bawany Wakf Bank House No. 1 Habib Square M.A. Sinnah Road Karachi – Pakistan
  2. “The Gospel of Barnabas, an Essay and Inquiry” by Selim ‘Abdul-Ahad and W.H.T. Gairdner. (1975)
  3. Publishers: “Henry Martyn Institute of Islamic Studies”. P.O. Box 153, Hyderabad, India.
  4. “Pseudo-Barnabas in the context of Muslim-Christian Apologetics” by Dr. Jan Slomp. (1974) Published by: “Christian Study Centre” 126-B Murree Road, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
  5. A paper by J.N.J. Kritzinger entitled “The Gospel of Barnabas Carefully Examined”
  6. “Origins and Sources of the Gospel of Barnabas” by John Gilchrist
  7. “Missing Documents from the Gospel of Barnabas” by Adam Peerbhai
The Forgery of the Gospel of Barnabas

The Forgery of the Gospel of Barnabas

Imagine someone claimed to find a new sura in the Muslim Qur’an. However, the earliest copy was not in Arabic, nor in a language of the Bible, but in Italian in the Middle Ages. Imagine there were things in the sura that contradicted what was in the rest of the Qur’an, as well as the Bible. Imagine that it also contained historical errors, and implied that people in Mohammed’s time lived the same way Europeans lived during the Middle Ages.

You might have some questions, to say the least! What is the evidence (if any) of authenticity and chain of transmission, why should it not be rejected, just as other historically late fanciful hadiths and other alleged writings of Mohammed are rejected?

The rest of this paper gives the precise reasons why all orthodox Muslims and Christians should agree that the Gospel of Barnabas is a Medieval forgery.

Basic Background

The Gospel of Barnabas is known only in Italian, and no ancient writer ever referred to it. It mentions things that were not used until centuries later. Furthermore, other gospel forgeries written in Arabic were also found in Granada. They were discovered after 1588, and the forgers were Moors. Though one Muslim writer, Ata ur-Raham, has confused this with another writing called the Letter/Epistle of Barnabas, there is no similarity except for the name.

Contradicting both the Bible and Qur’an

Jesus is not the Messiah. ch.83 p.181 ch.97 p.223 ch.42 p.97 (Jesus is called the Messiah/Christ in Suras 5:75; 5:17 (2x), 3:45; 4:157, 171, 172, 9:30)
The Messiah is Mohammed. ch.97 p.225-227
A prophet’s words are only to the people they were sent to. ch.43 p.101 (Sura 4:150-151 says not to separate between messengers)
Ishmael was the ancestor of the Messiah. ch.190 p.425; ch.191 p.407; ch.208 p.459; ch.43 p.103
God created all things for Messiah. ch.191 p.427
God created everything for Mohammed ch.39 p.91 “[Mohammed] shall be my messenger, for whom I have created all things; who shall give light to the world when he shall come; whose soul was set in a celestial splendour sixty thousand years before I made anything.”
“The messenger of God [Mohammed] shall answer: ‘O Lord, I remember that when thou didst create me, thou saidst that thou hadst willed to make for love of me the world and paradise, and angels and men, that they might glorify thee by me thy servant.”ch.55 p.131. Also ch.56. p.133
Without faith in Mohammed, none will be saved. (Most Muslims do not believe you should have saving faith in Mohammed.) ch.192 p.429

Some Other Differences with the Bible

Jesus is a voice in the wilderness. ch.42 p.97
Angels “rolled” the soldiers away for Jesus. ch.153 p.355
Mohammed is coming. Ch.44 p.105

Some Other Differences with the Qur’an

These contradictions with the Qur’an or unusual teachings not present in the Qur’an also might make Muslims wary of appealing to this “Gospel”.

Faithful Muslims who do not have works will be in Hell for 70,000 years. ch.137 p.319
Mohammed will go to Hell and be terrified as he beholds the punishment of others. ch.135 p.315
Mary gave birth to Jesus without pain. ch.3 p.9
Unlawful to hate anything except sin. ch.86 p.199
God is a father. ch.133 p.307
God is our Father. (-no sons, though) ch.17 p.31,33
There shall be no envy in Heaven ch.177 p.401
Jesus would sleep in like manner [die] and be speedily awakened. Ch.193 ‘Weep not, for Lazarus sleeps, and I am come to awake him.’ The Pharisees said among themselves: ‘Would to God that you did so sleep!’ Then Jesus said: ‘My hour is not yet come; but when it shall come I shall sleep in like manner, and shall be speedily awakened.’ Then Jesus said again: ‘Take away the stone from the sepulchre.’ Said Martha: ‘Lord, he stinks, for he has been dead four days. ‘Jesus said: ‘Why then am I come hither, Martha? Believe you not in me that I shall awaken him?’

General Errors – Sailing to Inland Cities

These mistakes demonstrate the author knew very little about the geography and history of Palestine.

Jesus went to the Sea of Galilee, and having embarked in a ship sailed to his city of Nazareth. ch.20 p.41 (Nazareth is inland.)
Romans said the idols were almighty. ch.152 p.353
Canaanites despised Pharisees. ch.144 p.335
Pharisees in Jesus’ time were very strange in their ascetism. ch.145 p.337-339
Funny things about Pharisees. ch.143 p.343-345
Rome has 28,000 gods. ch.152 p.353
Roman Senate decreed that none should call Jesus God of Son of God. ch.98 p.227, or speak of Jesus ch.157 p.367
Roman Senate’s decree. ch.210 p.461
People who preached penitence were called Nazarenes (after Jesus). ch.194 p.433
Judas smiled when the disciples mistook him for Jesus. ch.216 p.471
Israel says Jesus was God or the Son of God. ch.138 p.321
Barnabas was one of the disciples of Jesus. ch.83 p.191, ch.88 p.205, ch.19 p.39, ch.72 p.167
There was a great famine in Israel in Jesus’ time. ch.138 p.321
God gave Jesus bad consequences because others called Jesus God. ch.112 p.257
The mountains (plural) of Samaria. ch.81 p.189

Historical Anachronisms

Historical problems mention European things of the Middle Ages, which are out of place in Jesus’ time.

Coins in chapter 54 (golden denarius divided into sixty minuti) were Spanish.
Abraham’s father claimed there were an infinite number of gods. (The Sumerians did not have the concept of infinity) ch.26 p.57
“Whereupon, as the food was going down [Adam’s throat], he remembered the words of God; wherefore, wishing to stop the food, he put his hand into this throat, where every man has the mark.” (“Adam’s apple” was first a Medieval European phrase) ch.40 p.93
Pilate was governor when Jesus was born. ch.3 p.7
Jews taught to fast, do alms, make prayer, and go on pilgrimage. ch.89 p.207
Jubilee is now every 100 years. ch.83 p.191-193
Kings’ barons. ch.131 p.301
You desire horses like knights. ch.69 p.159
The burden of the republic. ch.69 p.161
Courtiers. ch.133 p.307
After the nightly prayer. ch.131 p.299
Pinnacle where the scribes used to preach. ch.127 p.291, ch.129 p.297, ch.12 p.19
Prodigal son, new [leg] hose. ch.147 p.241
God is not composite. ch.161 p.377
Man is composite. ch.168 p.389
Lazarus and his two sisters were proprietors in other towns of Magdala and Bethany, just like in the Middle Ages! ch.194 p.433
Jesus (really Judas) was dressed as a juggler. ch.217 p.475
Fistula (A medical term not used until the Middle Ages for a drainage opening made in the body) ch.120 p.275
Jesus could not read at age 12. ch.9 p.15
Do penance. ch.121 p.277
Jesus made prayer in union with the messenger of God and heard Mohammed’s voice. ch.84 p.195

These “more than a few” errors prove that the book was written during the Middle Ages in Europe.

Clues on Who Wrote This Forgery

An Italian printer named Arrivabene in 1547 published the first Italian translation of the Koran. The writer of the Gospel of Barnabas was not well versed in Biblical history nor in orthodox Muslim theology, but apparently he (or she) was very knowledgeable of European Medieval customs. The Italian of the Gospel of Barnabas had evidence of both Venetian and Tuscan dialects. Latin spellings showing Latin Vulgate influence. There are also influences from Dante’s works.

There were Arabic notes in the margin. However, as David Sox (p.51) mentions, they were not written by an orthodox Muslim. The Raggs conjecture that since the dark green, oriental-type binding is very similar to the binding of a Turkish document of 1575 in the Venetian archives, the binding and marginal notes could both have been done in Constantinople.

First Suspect: Fra Marino was the father inquisitor of Venice from 1542 to 1550, and perhaps his motive was revenge (Sox p.68). Felice Peretti (the future Pope Sixtus V) was a severe, devoted inquisitor of Venice who made many enemies. In the sixteenth century there were 843 trials for Protestantism and Anabaptism, 65 for blasphemous speech and 148 for sorcery in Venice alone (Sox p.57). In the 1530’s Venice was criticized for its tolerance. An Augustinian friar was punished for teaching heresy at the Church of St. Barnabas in Venice (Sox p.59). A handwriting analysis of Fra Marino’s handwriting and the Gospel of Barnabas show they could have come from the same person according to David Sox p.70.

Second Suspect: Anselmo Turmeda (who later became Abd-Allah ibn Abd Allah) from Majorca, Spain, studied in Bologna for ten years. In his biography, written 1383-1390, he claimed to be a priest before his conversion to Islam. His teacher at Bologna was a crypto-Muslim. De Epalza (p.63-64) says he was a converted Franciscan who took revenge on Christianity after his conversion to Islam. The mention of Spanish coins in the Gospel of Barnabas supports this theory.

Other Suspects: Other Gospel forgeries, these at least written by Moors in Arabic, are from Grenada. None was known prior to 1588 though.

Conclusion

Imagine you were a Muslim who was told that someone found a lost “book” from God. Among other things, this “Sura” mentioned that Mohammed sailed on a boat to Mecca, and this Sura contradicted the teaching of the Bible and contradicted the Qur’an on ten points. The oldest manuscript of the alleged Sura was written in Italian, which is both not a Mideastern language and did not even exist in the time of Mohammed. Finally, this supposed Sura had some historical customs which did not occur until 1,000 years later in Europe.

It is safe to say a Muslims would probably have a few questions, to say the least. Before you embrace this medieval forgery as an authentic work that shows the “real” teachings of Jesus, remember that this work contradicts the Qur’an, too.

Suggested Reading

Geisler, Norman and Abdul Saleeb. Answering Islam. (Baker Books) 1993.

Gilchrist, John. Origins and Sources of the Gospel of Barnabas (Jesus to the Muslims) 1979.

Ragg, Lonsdale and Laura (translators). The Gospel of Barnabas. Bakhtyar Printers, Lahore, Pak., 1981

Part 5 - Does John 14_16-20 refer to Mohammad

Part 5 – Does John 14_16-20 refer to Mohammad

Muslims appeal to verses like John 14:16-20, where Jesus says, “And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper..”Most Muslims quote only the first half of this verse, and then shut the Bible! If Jesus stopped at this point, one could speculate about the identity of this Helper. But Jesus clearly identifies Him by continuing, “that He (the Helper) may abide with you forever – the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.” From the earliest centuries of Islam, Muslim scholars have endeavoured to prove that this Helper was Muhammad, the prophet of Islam. It is argued that the Greek word paracletos, which is translated ‘Helper,’ should be pareklutosor ‘praised one,’ meaning Ahmad or Muhammad. This is proof, they say, that the Biblical text has been changed! However, any knowledgeable
scholar in the field will tell you that there is no evidence at all for this ‘corruption.’ All of the Greek manuscripts in existence, which predate Muhammad, say parakletos, not paraklutos. There are more than 70 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in existence today, dating from before the time of Muhammad, and not one of them uses the word paraklutos! All use the word parakletos. In fact the word paraklutos does not appear anywhere in the Bible!

Let us look at the specific details of the arrival and identity of this parakletos, ‘Helper,’ and see if they fit Muhammad:

1) He will give you another Helper
Even if, as Muslims claim, the original word was Paraklutos, the sentence would read, “He will give you another praised one.” It makes no sense and is completely out of context. What
Jesus is saying here is this, ‘I have been your Helper, Counselor, Comforter. I still have many things to teach you, but I will send you another Helper like me.’

2) He will give you another Helper – The Spirit of Truth
The one obvious fact that emerges is that the Helper is a Spirit. Has Muhammad ever been called the Spirit of Truth?

3) He will abide with you forever
In no sense was Muhammad ever with Jesus’ disciples, let alone permanently. Muhammad was born in the 7th century after Christ. He lived only 62 years and then died. He did not live with
his companions forever, did he? His body was buried in Medina. But Jesus said that the promised Helper would be with His disciples forever. The one referred to cannot possibly be
Muhammad.

4) The Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot see
According to this prophecy, the world cannot receive the Helper because it can’t see Him. Thousands of people saw Muhammad during his lifetime, for he was visible. The invisible Helper
cannot be the visible Muhammad.

5) You know Him for He dwells with you
Jesus is clearly talking about someone with whom the disciples were familiar. Was Muhammad known to them? Of course not. He was born more than five hundred years later.

6) He dwells in you
The Helper was to be in the disciples. How could the Helper be Muhammad? Muhammad was a flesh and blood person who is no longer alive. Muhammad is not in Jesus’ followers and never will
be.

What can we conclude? Was Muhammad alive at the time of Jesus’ apostles? No. Was Muhammad ever called the ‘Spirit of Truth’? No.

Did Muhammad live with the apostles forever? No.

Did Muhammad live inside the apostles? No.

This prophesy cannot be a reference to Muhammad. Who is it about? The Bible states the truth in the following verses. “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.” (John 14:26). It is certain, then, that the Helper is the Holy Spirit (Ruh Al-Kudus) of God.
The fulfilment of this prophecy occurred within a matter of days.Only fifty days after the resurrection of Jesus, the disciples received the Helper on the day of Pentecost. Jesus had told them to wait in Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit, the Helper, should come (Acts 1.4-8). The Holy Spirit came upon them while they were all together, praying in the city. “They were all filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2.3-4). The Holy Spirit was with the disciples in the person of Jesus while Jesus was still on earth, and the Holy Spirit was in the disciples’ hearts from the day of Pentecost and forever.

The Helper is indeed the Holy Spirit of the living God. We all need Him to open our eyes so that we can see who Jesus is and what He has done for sinners like us. The Helper is only given to those who believe the Gospel; that Jesus died for our sins and rose again. This is what makes someone a Christian. Only those who believe receive the Helper. You can receive
the Holy Spirit today by genuinely inviting Jesus into your life and receiving Him as your Saviour.

Having examined the context, it is evident that John 14:16-20 has nothing to do with Muhammad!

Conclusion
All of these verses, (and others that Muslims refer to), can be understood with a little study and consideration of the context. Those who apply these passages to Muhammad demonstrate that they have only a superficial understanding of the Bible. The truth is available for anyone who is willing to examine it. Searching for the truth requires effort, yet it can be done. As Jesus said, “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32).

Part 4 - Does Isaiah 42 refer to Mohammad

Part 4 – Does Isaiah 42 refer to Mohammad

Muslims claim that the servant Isaiah 42:1 mentioned is “Ahmad” which is Muhammad, “the false prophet”.

Let’s set the record straight.

First of all, Isaiah is a prophet whom the Qur’an NEVER mentioned by name, so how do Muslims actually know that he was one of the prophets since they also cling to the claim that the Bible is corrupt? According to Qur’an 2:79; they are subjected to eternal damnation for assuming things that Allah did not reveal, if Isaiah was not a prophet, by suggesting that Isaiah 42 is from Allah.

Secondly, Isaiah was a prophet that explicitly prophesied the most about the coming Messiah. He talked about His virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14); His Deity – Immanuel, which means God with us (Isaiah 7:14), that He is Might God (Isaiah 9:6-7); and His sacrificial death (Isaiah 53); which Islam completely denies.

So, how could this prophet (Isaiah) prophecy about a ‘supposed’ coming prophet (Muhammad), who would deny most of his prophecies; is beyond me!

Of course, Muslims have the answer which is, “Oh, all of his other prophecies are corrupted but this chapter 42 is definitely talking about Muhammad”. It amazes me how Muslims can’t even realize how inconsistent, ridiculous and asinine they sound sometimes.

Jesus said that He came to fulfil the law and the prophets (Matthew 5:17); thus we expect Him to fulfil Isaiah 42 if, indeed, He was telling the truth. So let’s see if Isaiah 42 if fulfilled in Him (Jesus):

Isaiah 42:1-4,

1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. 2 He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. 3 A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. 4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.

After Jesus healed a man on a Sabbath Day, the Pharisees conspired to kill Him but knowing what they planned to do to Him; Jesus didn’t confront them but rather simply left. When that happened, Matthew, quoting Isaiah 42:1-4, records:

14 Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him. 15 Jesus, perceiving that, withdrew from there. Great multitudes followed him; and he healed them all, 16 and commanded them that they should not make him known: 17 that it might BE FULFILLED which was spoken through ISAIAH THE PROPHET, saying, 18 “Behold, my servant whom I have chosen my beloved in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my Spirit on him. He will proclaim justice to the nations. 19 He will not strive, nor shout; neither will anyone hear his voice in the streets. 20 He won’t break a bruised reed. He won’t quench smoking flax, until he leads justice to victory. 21 In his name, the nations will hope.” – Matthew 12:14-21

Peter re-echoed this in his epistle,

22 Who (Jesus) did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously – 1Peter 2:22-23

A similar verse as Isaiah 42 is Isaiah 61 which was also fulfilled by Jesus in Luke 4:16-21,

16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up for to read. 17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, 18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. 20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 And he began to say unto them, this day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. – Luke 4:16-21

Did Muhammad keep quite when people stood against him? I don’t think so; he killed anyone standing on his way.

In the same Isaiah 42, God said His name is Yahweh (Isaiah 42:8), which Muhammad NEVER mentioned, why is that?

As we see, Isaiah 42 was fulfilled by Jesus already, so it is impossible that Muhammad came to fulfil it. Muhammad denied some of Isaiah’s prophecies, namely the Deity of Christ and His sacrificial death as mentioned above. Therefore, he was a false prophet and Muslims are condemned by their god for believing something that didn’t come from him.

Jesus called Himself, the Seal of prophets – the Last to come:

Do not work for the food that disappears, but for the food that remains to eternal life – the food which the Son of Man will give to you. For God the Father has put HIS SEAL OF APPROVAL on him.” – John 6:27

A parable about Him being the last to come,

1 He began to speak to them in parables. “A man planted a vineyard, put a hedge around it, dug a pit for the wine press, built a tower, rented it out to a farmer, and went into another country. 2 When it was time, he sent a servant to the farmer to get from the farmer his share of the fruit of the vineyard. 3 They took him, beat him, and sent him away empty. 4 Again, he sent another servant to them; and they threw stones at him, wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully treated. 5 Again he sent another; and they killed him; and many others, beating some, and killing some. 6 Therefore STILL HAVING ONE, HIS BELOVED SON, HE SENT HIM LAST to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 7 But those farmers said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ 8 They took him, killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard.– Mark 12:1-8

The servants that were sent before the Son (Jesus) were the prophets. Jesus is the Son of God whom He sent last. No wonder the book of revelation records:

18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book, IF ANYONE ADDS to them, may God add to him the plagues which are written in this book. 19 IF ANYONE TAKES AWAY from the words of the book of this prophecy, may God take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book. – Revelation 22:18-19

Muhammad is a false prophet; he can never be the servant of God mentioned by Isaiah. He denied Jesus as the Son of God and God as Father. The Bible calls that type of person an antichrist and liar:

Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the Antichrist, HE WHO DENIES the Father and the Son. – 1 John 2:22

Come to Christ O Muslims, you can’t win against the truth.

Justified By Faith Alone In Christ Alone

Justified By Faith Alone In Christ Alone

Muslims love to wrongly apply Matthew 5:17-20 as justification for living by and subject to the Law as if Jesus makes that the sole object and the Law the only thing that gets us saved. They could not be more wrong as this Post will demonstrate.

Firstly let’s set out the passage:

“Don’t assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For I assure you: Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all things are accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches people to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:17‭-‬20 HCSB)

Jesus is speaking to the crowd in response to the Pharisees’ accusation that Jesus was trying to abolish the Law of God. Jesus refuted this accusation, saying that His purpose in appearing before men was not to abolish anything. Rather, Jesus came to fulfill the Law. The word fulfill in Greek is ‘pleroo’, (Strongs G4137) which is also translated “to complete.” In other words, Jesus came to complete or accomplish the entire Law.

He goes on to say that heaven and earth will not pass away until the entire Law of God has been accomplished. Jesus is the One Who accomplishes God’s Law by keeping the entire Law perfectly. Jesus never sinned during His earthly life, and so as He went to His death on the cross, He had accomplished or completed all the requirements of God’s Law. Jesus was referring to His completing of the Law when on the cross He said, “It is finished.”

The Pharisees were accusing Jesus of setting the Law aside, while they endeavored to keep it in their own strength. Jesus condemned the Pharisees and anyone else who tried to follow their example by saying that unless they could keep the Law even better than the Pharisees kept it, they could not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. This was a daunting challenge, because the Pharisees were scrupulous followers of the Law. They were the ultimate of human endeavour to reach God. If the Pharisees didn’t have enough righteousness on their own to enter Heaven, then who could?

Obviously, Jesus was alluding to that answer. No one can earn their way into Heaven, because no one is righteous enough to make it through works. This is precisely why Jesus came to fulfill the Law on our behalf, so that His perfect work could be credited to us on the basis of faith.

Now that the Law has been completed by Jesus on our behalf, we are no longer obligated to keep it ourselves. That is not to suggest that the Law itself has gone away, but only that our obligations to keep it is gone, because Jesus has already kept (i.e., fulfilled, completed, accomplished) it for us. Likewise, anyone who discounts the importance of God’s Word will suffer loss.

Jesus is the One Who kept and taught the Law, and as a result, Jesus will be the One Who is called great in the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 5:19). We should not teach believers to follow the Law out of obligation, but neither should we teach that the Law is no longer in force. Rather, we teach that the Law has been fulfilled by Christ’s work, and we rest in His perfect accomplishment of the Law rather than in our own futile efforts to keep it.

Further on at the conclusion of chapter 5 we find this even more daunting challenge by Jesus to round off all He has just said:

“Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48 HCSB)

The word “teleios” (Strongs G5046) that is translated “perfect” literally means “be complete.” So often, the New Testament and the Old Testament will describe people as being upright and righteous—not in the sense that they have achieved total moral perfection, but rather that they have reached a singular level of maturity in their growth in terms of spiritual integrity. However, in this statement, it’s certainly legitimate to translate it using the English word perfect. For example, “Be ye complete as your heavenly Father is complete.” Now remember that your heavenly Father is perfectly complete! So if we are to mirror God in that way, we are to mirror him in his moral excellence as well as in other ways. In fact, the basic call to a person in this world is to be a reflection of the character of God. That’s what it means to be created in the image of God. Long before the Sermon on the Mount, God required the people of Israel to reflect his character when he said to them, “Be ye holy even as I am holy.” He set them apart to be holy ones. The New Testament word for that is saints.

Can you attain the moral perfection of a Holy God by good works Muslims?

No you cannot. For us to be sanctified we need the shed blood of Jesus to wash us clean.

And this is another reason why not the least stroke of a pen will vanish. The Law now serves only to condemn us. It can NEVER I repeat NEVER justify us.

Many in Israel died precisely because they did not know the reason why the law was given. You can’t make the most of it unless you know what it is there for. If you don’t know why the traffic light is red, you may get smashed in the intersection.

In many areas of life yours is to reason why lest you do and die. And that includes the law of God. If we don’t understand why it was given, we can kill ourselves with it. Paul said in Romans 9:32 that the reason Israel stumbled into destruction was not that they didn’t pursue the law, but that they pursued it in the wrong way: from works and not from faith; in the effort of the flesh instead of the power of the Spirit. In other words, moral effort can be a mortal sin.

Satan clothes himself as an angel of light and makes the very commandments of God his base of operations. Hey presto we have Islam. And the human heart is so inveterately proud and unsubmissive that it often uses religion and morality to express its rebellion. This is why Islam appeals to the pride of men who want to attain their own salvation.

As Romans 10:3 says, “In seeking to establish their own righteousness, they would not submit to the righteousness of God.” The pursuit of righteousness can lead to perdition. So Galatians admonishes us:

“Why then was the law given? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise was made would come. The law was put into effect through angels by means of a mediator. Now a mediator is not for just one person, but God is one. Is the law therefore contrary to God’s promises? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that was able to give life, then righteousness would certainly be by the law. But the Scripture has imprisoned everything under sin’s power, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Before this faith came, we were confined under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith was revealed. The law, then, was our guardian until Christ, so that we could be justified by faith. But since that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:19‭-‬26 HCSB)

Muslims now understand why the law was given and don’t be bewitched into pursuing it in a way that leads to death, but only in a way that leads to life.

■ The Law is Impotent to save us

A seminal text is Romans 8:1-4:

“Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. [2] For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. [3] For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, [4] so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” (Romans 8:1-4)

“For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh” has four statements in it:

(i) God condemned sin in the flesh.

(i) He did this by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin.

(iii) The law was not able to do this.

(iv) The reason the law could not do this was because of our flesh.

Let’s focus on the last two to answer two questions:

  1. What was it that the law could not do? And,
  2. Why couldn’t it do it?

The reason this is such a vital message is that the two things that the law could not do are things that are absolutely necessary for us to experience if we are to have eternal life, and, even though the law could not and cannot do them, people still turn to the law to get them done. In other words, it is tremendously relevant to your life Abrahim Abdulhamid to know what the law cannot do for you, lest you labour in vain there for the help you can only get from Jesus Christ.

The Law Could not Justify or Sanctify Us

First, then, what is it that the law could not do? The answer is given twice in Romans 8:1-4, once in verses 1-2 and once in verses 3-4. Verse 1 says, “There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” This is what we call justification – if we are in Christ Jesus – that is, if we are united to Jesus by faith in him – our condemnation from God because of our sin is taken away. God acquits us. Counts us righteous. Justifies us. He does not look upon us any longer as guilty and condemned, but as forgiven and righteous because of what Jesus did for us.

Then comes verse 2: “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.” This is what we call ‘sanctification’. After we are justified, and because we are justified, the Spirit of God is poured out in our lives and begins to free us from the dominion of sin and death. This means that Christians are not only “counted” righteous in justification, but actually transformed by the Spirit of God into more and more actually righteous, loving, holy people. This is the practical evidence that we have trusted Christ and are united to him and are justified in him.

Now my answer to our question is that these two things are what the law could not do. The law could not justify us and the law could not sanctify us. It was powerless to do both of these things. The first sign of this is that verse 3 begins with “for.” You could read it like this: Justification is “in Christ” (verse 1), and sanctification is “in Christ” (verse 2), for the law could not do these things, only Christ could, and so God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.

That’s the first answer to the question from verses 1 and 2. Justification and sanctification come to us by union with Christ Jesus (“in Christ”) for the law could not make them happen.

Now the same answer comes in verses 3 and 4 as well. Verse 3 says that what the law could not do is condemn sin in the flesh, that is, it could not deal with sin, absorb its punishment, remove our condemnation. So God did this by sending Jesus into the world to die for us: “For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh.”

So here we have the same point as verse 1: There is no condemnation because God executed the condemnation for our sin on his Son. That is the basis of our justification. That is what the law could not do. It could not remove the condemnation for our sin. It could identify it and name it and point away from it and stir it up and rub it in. But it could not remove our punishment. God did that in Jesus’ death. So again we see that justification is something the law could not do.

Now verse 4, like verse 2, says that this justification leads to sanctification, which was also something the law could not do – since it could not justify us. Notice verse 4 begins with “so that.” This is a purpose of God’s condemning sin in the flesh. God put our condemnation on Jesus and provided the basis for our justification “so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” Walking according to the Spirit is what we mean by sanctification. So what we see here again, as in verses 1 and 2, is that sanctification is the result or the effect of justification. And that means that both justification and sanctification are what the law could not do.

You can see it most easily if you just say verses 3 and 4 like this: What the law could not do God did, namely two things: he condemned sin by sending his Son to die for us, and because of thisbasis for justification he enables us to fulfill the essence of the law by giving us the Holy Spirit. That is what the law could not do: justify us and sanctify us. It could not remove our condemnation or bring about our transformation. And yet both of these are absolutely necessary if we are going to be saved in the last day and have eternal life.

■ The Law Could not Justify Us Because We Were of Flesh

So we need to ask now: Why could the law not do these two things? Because if we can see the reason for this weakness clearly, we will be protected from the deadly mistake of counting on the law for justification and sanctification. And, even better, we will know where to look for the declaration that we are right with God and for the transformation that follows.

And that is so crucial for us all. You may be wondering how these Christians think about salvation and about how to get right with God and have eternal life. Well we think about it the same way Biblical Christians have thought about it for centuries: this is historic Christianity. The law – the ten commandments and the other rules that Moses gave the people of Israel – cannot make you right with God and cannot transform you into the kind of righteous and loving persons you want to be.

Why not? Verse 3 answers: “For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did.” The problem with the law is not that its commandments are evil (Romans 7:12), but that we are evil (Romans 7:14). The word “flesh” does not mean skin, in Paul’s vocabulary. It means our old fallen nature. We will see this next week in the following verses where he contrasts the mind of the flesh and the mind of the Spirit. The flesh is what we are and what life is without God and his gracious, saving work by the Spirit. That is what the law encounters when it comes to us.

So what is the weakness of the law? The weakness of the law is that it was not designed to redeem fallen, condemned, rebellious, selfish people like us.

Think about this first in relation to justification. The reason we need to be justified is that we stand under the condemnation of God because we are fallen. Remember Romans 5:18, “Through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men.” Flesh is what we are by human nature, and what we are by human nature is under condemnation. What is the remedy for condemnation? If you are guilty of a capital offense and under the condemnation of a death sentence from God, what will save you?

I’ll tell you what will not save you. Commandments will not save you when your problem is guilt and condemnation. What happens when commandments come? Paul tells us in Romans 7:9, “When the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.” The commandments don’t bring about redemption, they bring about wrath. Romans 4:15, “The law brings wrath.” A man who is guilty and under legal condemnation will not be saved by commandments; he will be saved by acquittal. He needs a judge to pardon and forgive. He needs justification by faith and not by works of the law. That’s why Paul comes to the end of his long indictment of the human race in Romans 1-3 by saying, “By works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20).

So the law could not do what absolutely has to be done if we are to be rescued from our guilt and condemnation: it could not justify us. It could not set us right with God. It could not take away our guilt. It could not absorb our condemnation. What it did was show us our guilt (Romans 3:20; 7:7) and to make us even more sinful by stirring up the rebellion of our flesh (5:20; 7:5). “Through the commandment sin [becomes] utterly sinful” (Romans 7:13).

Trust Jesus, not Law-Keeping

So if you want to be set right with God, don’t look to the law. If you want to be acquitted and justified, don’t depend on law-keeping. No amount of law-keeping can turn the verdict of guilty to not-guilty. One thing can change that verdict that hangs over your head: the perfect Son of God living and dying in your place. For his sake alone God counts you to be righteous when you trust him.

Hence Romans 3:28, “We maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.” Trust Jesus, not law-keeping.
So the law cannot justify us because we are in the flesh, meaning we are fallen and condemned. And commandments of the law cannot remove guilt and condemnation. Only Christ can.

■ Why Is It that the Law Could not Sanctify Us?

Now we turn to sanctification. Why can’t the law sanctify us? Why can’t it make us holy and righteous and loving people?

It is a burning issue today how Christians can live in love and righteousness in the fragile world we have just moved into where fear and anger lie just beneath the surface of our lives. Fear of anthrax and bombs and the collapse of life-sustaining infrastructures we have always taken for granted. And anger at someone or some people and we are not even sure who.

Do you have the resources in you to be confident and fearless and courageous and patient and kind and fair and loving and sacrificial, not returning evil for evil, but blessing those who curse you and praying for those who persecute you (Romans 12:17; Matthew 5:44)? Where will you look for this? Will you look to the law?

It won’t work. Look to Christ. The living, divine, loving, omnipotent Lord who died for you and rose again and promises to be with you and help you and satisfy your longings in life and death. Look to him. The law cannot sanctify you, but Christ can.

If you need to get right with God as we enter 2019, look to Christ, not the law. And if you need help being a loving and righteous person as we enter a new year – and who doesn’t – look to Christ, not the law

■ The Law Cannot Conquer the Flesh

But there is a vital reason why the law cannot sanctify or transform: It cannot conquer the flesh. That is, it cannot change us at the root of our nature: our fallenness and rebellion against God. It cannot take away our reluctance to love God and our treasonous preference for God’s gifts above God (Romans 1:23). On the contrary, Paul teaches us that the law aggravates our sin and stirs up our rebellion.

Let’s review a few of those places where Paul says this, so that we arm ourselves from thinking that the law can get anywhere with our deep rebellion, which Paul calls our “flesh” in Romans 8:3 – “what the law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh.”

■ The Law Came to Increase Transgressions

Let’s look at Romans 5:19-21. Paul closes his contrast of Adam and Christ like this: “For as through the one man’s [Adam’s] disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One [Christ] the many will be made righteous.” Now this raises the question: “Well, if righteousness comes to us through the obedience of Christ, and not through our own obedience, then why the law? Isn’t the law given to provide righteousness?” Paul answers in verse 20, “The Law came in so that the transgression would increase.”

In other words the law is not the remedy for our condemnation or our rebellion. In fact, it is given to turn our inner rebellion into more blatant and visible transgressions. We see this again in Romans 7:5:

“While we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.”

In other words, the law does not conquer the flesh, it rouses the flesh. The law plays into the hands of our own sinful passions and stirs them up.

We see the same thing in Romans 7:8:

“But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind.”

The law does not conquer the flesh, on the contrary, it gives the flesh another base of operation. Another place to show its rebellion.

So Paul asks in Romans 7:13: “Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me?” He answers, “May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good [the law!], so that through the commandments sin would become utterly sinful.”

So the function of the law is to make sin more visible in transgressions, more blatant and prevalent in rousing the flesh, and more manifestly vicious in its use of what is good to do its ugly work.

This message is repeated again in Galatians 3. Paul contrasts the inheritance of life promised to Abraham by faith with the idea that it could be secured by law. He says in verse 18:

“For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. (19) Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made.”

Transgressions Increased to Display More Grace and More Glory

So we ask, Why? Why would God design redemptive history like that? Why would he add the law to increase the trespass? Back to Romans 5:20. Verse 20 begins, “The Law came in so that the transgression would increase.” Then, to show where God is really going in his purpose, Paul immediately adds: “But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more.”

God’s purpose to increase the transgression by introducing the law was not an end in itself. It was an occasion for displaying more grace.

And the ultimate purpose is seen in verse 21:

“So that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

The ultimate aim is to make sure that Jesus Christ gets the glory for the triumph of righteousness in the world – both in justification and sanctification.

That leads us to the last reason the law can’t sanctify us. But before we turn there, make sure you see this second point: the law can’t remedy our rebellious reluctance to treasure God because it stirs it up. Our sinful love of independence and control and self-exaltation simply makes the law into a new theater for revolt. The law gets taken captive by the flesh and made a servant of sin. If we turn to the law to fix our rebellion and the our adulterous indifference to God, it will not work. We will only become worse.

■ The Law Couldn’t Give the Son the Glory for Justification & Sanctification

The last reason the law cannot sanctify we just saw at the end of Romans 5: God’s purpose is to sanctify us in a way that the credit and the glory for our liberation and transformation go to Jesus Christ, not to ourselves and not to the law. Therefore God calls us not to turn to the law for transformation – for love and holiness and Christ-likeness – but to turn to the living Christ, who worked for us in history and works in us now by his Spirit.

The law cannot magnify the Son of God as more glorious and more valuable and more desirable than the pleasures of sin. Only when Christ himself wins our affections over all contestants will he get the glory God means for him to have. Even if you did turn to the law and experience some measure of success in becoming a law-abiding person (as the Pharisees certainly did, including Saul of Tarsus) Christ would get no honor from that. But God’s whole purpose in the plan of redemption is that his Son get the glory not only for our justification, but also for our sanctification. And this the law could not do.

■ The Key to Sanctification: Walking by the Spirit

What then is the key to sanctification – holiness, love, Christlikeness? Verse 4 says the key is to walk by the Spirit. “God condemned sin in the flesh (4) so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” I’m going to argue in the weeks to come (from Romans 13:8 and Galatians 5:14) that the “fulfillment of the law” is a life of Christ-exalting love. But for now just focus on the means appointed by God to get there: “Walking by the Spirit.”

Whose Spirit? Romans 8:9-10 tells us:

“However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.”

The “Spirit of God” and the “Spirit of Christ” and “Christ” appear to be inseparable and almost interchangeable ways of describing the life-changing presence of God in the life of the believer.

■ Conclusions

The concluding points to make are these:

□ it is not by turning to the law that we fulfill the law and lead lives of love, it is by turning to the living Christ.

□ The power of sanctification is not the law, but the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ.

□ And the instrument of our appropriation of this power is not to turn to the law but to fix our gaze and our faith on the glory of Christ crucified and risen, reigning and indwelling.

□ The key is Christ, seen and savoured above all things. That is the power that sanctifies. And this is the method of holiness that glorifies him, not the law and not us. Amen.

Primary Source: https://www.desiringgod.org

Part 4 - Does John 14:16-20 refer to Mohammad?

Part 4 – Does John 14:16-20 refer to Mohammad?

Muslims appeal to verses like John 14:16-20, where Jesus says, “And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper..”Most Muslims quote only the first half of this verse,
and then shut the Bible! If Jesus stopped at this point, one could speculate about the identity of this Helper. But Jesus clearly identifies Him by continuing, “that He (the Helper) may abide with you forever – the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.”
From the earliest centuries of Islam, Muslim scholars have endeavoured to prove that this Helper was Muhammad, the prophet of Islam. It is argued that the Greek word paracletos, which
is translated ‘Helper,’ should be pareklutosor ‘praised one,’ meaning Ahmad or Muhammad. This is proof, they say, that the Biblical text has been changed! However, any knowledgeable
scholar in the field will tell you that there is no evidence at all for this ‘corruption.’ All of the Greek manuscripts in existence, which predate Muhammad, say parakletos, not paraklutos. There are more than 70 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in existence today, dating from before the time of Muhammad, and not one of them uses the word paraklutos! All use the word parakletos. In fact the word paraklutos does not appear anywhere in the Bible!

Let us look at the specific details of the arrival and identity of this parakletos, ‘Helper,’ and see if they fit Muhammad:

1) He will give you another Helper
Even if, as Muslims claim, the original word was Paraklutos, the sentence would read, “He will give you another praised one.” It makes no sense and is completely out of context. What
Jesus is saying here is this, ‘I have been your Helper, Counselor, Comforter. I still have many things to teach you, but I will send you another Helper like me.’

2) He will give you another Helper – The Spirit of Truth
The one obvious fact that emerges is that the Helper is a Spirit. Has Muhammad ever been called the Spirit of Truth?

3) He will abide with you forever
In no sense was Muhammad ever with Jesus’ disciples, let alone permanently. Muhammad was born in the 7th century after Christ. He lived only 62 years and then died. He did not live with
his companions forever, did he? His body was buried in Medina. But Jesus said that the promised Helper would be with His disciples forever. The one referred to cannot possibly be
Muhammad.

4) The Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot see
According to this prophecy, the world cannot receive the Helper because it can’t see Him. Thousands of people saw Muhammad during his lifetime, for he was visible. The invisible Helper
cannot be the visible Muhammad.

5) You know Him for He dwells with you
Jesus is clearly talking about someone with whom the disciples were familiar. Was Muhammad known to them? Of course not. He was born more than five hundred years later.

6) He dwells in you
The Helper was to be in the disciples. How could the Helper be Muhammad? Muhammad was a flesh and blood person who is no longer alive. Muhammad is not in Jesus’ followers and never will
be.

What can we conclude? Was Muhammad alive at the time of Jesus’ apostles? No. Was Muhammad ever called the ‘Spirit of Truth’? No. Did Muhammad live with the apostles forever? No. Did
Muhammad live inside the apostles? No. This prophesy cannot be a reference to Muhammad. Who is it about? The Bible states the truth in the following verses. “But the Helper, the Holy
Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.” (John 14:26). It is certain, then, that the Helper is the Holy Spirit (Ruh Al-Kudus) of God.
The fulfilment of this prophecy occurred within a matter of days.Only fifty days after the resurrection of Jesus, the disciples received the Helper on the day of Pentecost. Jesus had told them to wait in Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit, the Helper, should come (Acts 1.4-8). The Holy Spirit came upon them while they were all together, praying in the city. “They were all filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2.3-4). The Holy Spirit was with the disciples in the person of Jesus while Jesus was still on earth, and the Holy Spirit was in the disciples’ hearts from the day of Pentecost and forever.

The Helper is indeed the Holy Spirit of the living God. We all need Him to open our eyes so that we can see who Jesus is and what He has done for sinners like us. The Helper is only given to those who believe the Gospel; that Jesus died for our sins and rose again. This is what makes someone a Christian. Only those who believe receive the Helper. You can receive
the Holy Spirit today by genuinely inviting Jesus into your life and receiving Him as your Saviour.

Having examined the context, it is evident that John 14:16-20 has nothing to do with Muhammad!

Conclusion
All of these verses, (and others that Muslims refer to), can be understood with a little study and consideration of the context. Those who apply these passages to Muhammad demonstrate that they have only a superficial understanding of the Bible. The truth is available for anyone who is willing to examine it. Searching for the truth requires effort, yet it can be done. As Jesus said, “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32).

Part 3 - Does Song of Solomon 5:16 refer to Mohammad?

Part 3 – Does Song of Solomon 5:16 refer to Mohammad?

His mouth is full of sweetness. And he is wholly desirable. This is my beloved and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem,” (Song of Solomon 5:16).

Muslim Arguments The word translated here “wholly desirable” is the word “machamadim.” The word sounds a lot like “Muhammad,” though it is in the plural form. Some Muslims argue that this should be understood as the name Muhammad.
They contend that the small differences in pronunciation are irrelevant and that it is in the plural form as a sign of respect. Therefore, they say, this is a plain prophecy of Muhammad. Jews and Christians translate it as “wholly desirable” or “altogether lovely” to hide this clear reference to the Muslim prophet. “His mouth is full of sweetness” is said to be a reference to the giving of the Quran.

Christian Response To any Christian remotely familiar with Song of Solomon, the first appropriate response to this argument is honestly a hearty laugh. This is obviously a love song between Solomon and his bride, and to put Muhammad in the place of the bride’s beloved turns the book into nonsense. The context is clearly about the passionate love of a marriage and is sometimes rather descriptive. It could not possibly be about some future prophet bringing a new book.

Additionally, the argument hinges on the idea that, in the original Hebrew, the personal name of Muhammad is there. It plainly is not. The Hebrew word “machmad” means “desirable” or when used as a noun, “desirable thing” or “lovely thing.” The plural form used here, “machamadim,” is an emphatic form and so is translated “wholly desirable” or “altogether lovely.” The fact that it sounds kind of like a name in another language from a different time period is obviously irrelevant to the meaning of the word.

This word is used throughout the Old Testament. It is not a unique word. If the word secretly means the personal name “Muhammad,” then in places like Hosea 9:16 where God pronounces judgment on Ephraim and promises to slay even “your beloved” (machamadim) we should read this as a promise by God that He would slay Muhammad in judgment, right? No Muslim would want to say that, of course. And they don’t need to because the word quite obviously doesn’t mean Muhammad. If it
did, why would ancient translations from before the time of Muhammad
consistently translate it just as we do today? They would have no reason to try and hide Muhammad’s name when the man had not yet even been born and so obviously could not yet be rejected by any of them. The Greek Septuagint translation of Song of Solomon was completed sometime around the first century B.C., hundreds of years before Muhammad. It reads: “he is altogether an object of desire.” The old Latin text of the 5th century AD, still well before Muhammad, reads: “he is all lovely.”

The translation here is not controversial. No one is hiding anything. An eager bride finds her husband-to-be wholly desirable. She does not consider her future husband to actually be a prophet who will come a thousand years after she is dead. Since there is no personal name “Muhammad” in this text, there is absolutely no reason to think that this passage has anything to do with the
future Muslim leader.

Much more could be said, as this argument is so absurd. It is worth at least pointing out lastly that the same chapter in which these Muslims attempt to show that the beloved groom of Song of Solomon is actually Muhammad opens with this beloved groom drinking wine with his milk and urging all his friends to imbibe with him. As Islam strictly forbids alcohol, it is clear that this beloved groom not only isn’t Muhammad but does not even share the moral convictions that Muhammad would later promote. He urges people to do what Muhammad would call a
sin. Thus, on every level, this argument simply doesn’t hold water.

Having examined the context, it is evident that Song of Solomon 5:16 has nothing to do with Muhammad!

Part 2 - Does Isaiah 29:12 refer to Mohammad?

Part 2 – Does Isaiah 29:12 refer to Mohammad?

A second verse that Muslim apologists refer to in support of their claims is Isaiah 29:12 – “Then the book is delivered to one who is illiterate, saying, ‘Read this, please.’ And he says, ‘I am not literate.’”Muslims insist that: (a) the book referred to in this verse is the Qur’an; (b) the one to whom the book is delivered is Muhammad; and (c) the one who orders Muhammad to read the book is Gabriel. They suggest that Muhammad fits the description of this individual, since he was illiterate when the angel Gabriel revealed the words of Allah to him.

Once again we must not take the words out of their context. To understand the context of the verse, we must remember that Isaiah (who lived in the 8th century B.C.) is known as the ‘messianic prophet’ because he prophesied so many details about Jesus Christ—not Muhammad. In Isaiah 29 God pronounces judgements on Judah for her sins at that time (i.e. 702 B.C.).

The passage indicates that within a year, the great Assyrian king Sennacherib would lay siege to Jerusalem (vs. 3). Jerusalem (called ‘Ariel’) would be attacked by her enemies and punished for her sins against God, and then those enemies in turn would receive their just deserts (vs. 4-8).

God’s people were in deliberate spiritual blindness. To them the Bible was a closed book, and Judah’s false prophets were not helping the situation (vs. 9-10). Notice that Isaiah then describes the unwillingness of the people of his day to heed the truth, by comparing them to a literate person who is told to read something, but refuses, excusing himself by saying the document is sealed (vs. 11). Isaiah then likens the people to an illiterate person, who excuses himself by saying he cannot read (vs. 12).

The point is that the people of Isaiah’s day refused to pay attention to God’s Holy Word as spoken through His prophets. They did not want it! Verses 13-16 explain that because of their closed minds, they will suffer for their rejection of God’s Word when the Assyrians arrive to besiege the city, but, as usual, God reveals a better day when people will listen (vs. 17ff.).

Having examined the context, it is evident that Isaiah 29:12 has nothing to do with Muhammad!

Part 1 - Does Deuteronomy 18:18 refer to Mohammad?

Part 1 – Does Deuteronomy 18:18 refer to Mohammad?

Muslims refer to Deuteronomy 18:18 (Tawrat) where God says to Moses, “I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him.”Muslims believe that this prophet was Muhammad. Abraham had two sons; Ishmael and Isaac. It is assumed that ‘their brethren’ refers to the Ishmaelites, and since it is assumed Muhammad was descended from Ishmael, he must be the prophet. However, a brief look at the background of the prophecy reveals that it was not the Ishmaelites who were in mind.
Who is God referring to with the words “them” and “their”?
My father used to work as a teacher. He often helped me with my homework. Whenever I asked him about the meaning of a word he would tell me to read the whole sentence or paragraph. I usually discovered the meaning myself just by reading the word in context! This is exactly what we must do when we read the Bible. We can’t just pick a word or paragraph out of context and make it say what we want. We must look at the whole context.
This prophecy is part of a discourse in which God gave Moses certain directions about the way the people of Israel (especially the Levite tribe) should conduct themselves once they reached the promised land. The first two verses of the chapter clearly reveal who God was referring to as ‘their brethren:’ “The priests, the Levites—all the tribe of Levi—shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel; they shall eat the offerings of the Lord made by fire, and His portion. Therefore they shall have no inheritance among their brethren; the Lord is their inheritance, as He said to them” (Deuteronomy 18:1-2).
It is clear that God is talking about the Levites. ‘Their brethren’ are the other tribes of Israel. Moses states that God will raise up a prophet like himself from among the Jews, from among their brethren. The prophet will be a Jew. Muhammad was not a Jew. He was born an Arab. The Arab people are not one of the tribes of Israel. So Muhammad was not Moses’ brother.

Who then fits the description of a prophet like Moses? Jesus Christ does. The New Testament (Injil) as a whole makes it plain that Moses’ prophecy in Deuteronomy Chapter 18 was fulfilled in Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Jesus Himself said, “if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me” (John 5:46-47). He never said “Moses wrote about Muhammad.”

In the Gospel of John 1:45, we read words spoken by the apostle Philip: “We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote—Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus was born of the tribe of Judah through Mary. Thus He was a Jew, an Israelite like Moses.

In Acts chapter 7 of the New Testament, Stephen says clearly that Moses foretold Jesus Christ. The apostle Peter declares the same thing in Acts 3:19-23, “Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began. For Moses truly said to the fathers, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear in all things, whatever He says to you. And it shall be that every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’”

Having examined the context, it is evident that Deuteronomy 18:18 has nothing to do with Muhammad!

The Quran Scientific Miracle Scam

THE Quran SCIENTIFIC MIRACLE SCAM

How many times have you heard the favourite Muslim line: “There are scientific miracles in the Quran!” For decades, the Islamic world accepted they were far behind in the sciences unlike the West. Then came along a “hero” to the Arabs, Maurice Bucaille (1920-1998), a French physician of then king Faisal of Saudi Arabia. He published a book in 1976, The Bible, Quran and Science. In it, he attacked the inspiration of the Bible and cited several areas where the Quran allegedly agreed with modern science – proofs that the Quran is divine. The book paid off and Dr Bucaille went laughing to the bank.

Since then, Muslims have found a sanctuary in his theory. I’m sure if Dr Bucaille had been an African, the Arabs wouldn’t have batted an eyelash. But once a westerner (Caucasian) writes just a sentence in favour of Islam, it must make the headlines. After Dr Bucaille’s lofty appraisal of the Quran, he still didn’t convert to Islam. He remained a devoted Roman Catholic till death. Why? If he really believed that the Quran agrees with modern science and read in it that all infidels will roast in Hell, why didn’t he convert to Islam? You see, it was all for the oil money.

Today, “Bucailleism” – the idea that there are scientific miracles in the Quran – is a main topic of Islamic dawah books and videos. Muslim youths sing Bucaille’s arguments like a national anthem. But not all Muslims are excited with such buffs. Respected Muslim scholars like Maulana Ashraf Ali and Nomanul Haq have opposed “bucalleism.” Pakistani Nobel Laureate Physicist, Dr Abdus Salam counters: “There is no such thing as islamic science, nor Jewish science, Hindu science…nor Christian science.”

Come to think of it, if the Quran is so “scientific,” how come it doesn’t explain nuclear physics, quantum mechanics or molecular genetics? Why did all the great scientific discoveries of antibiotics, steam turbines, aircraft, electricity or computers come from the “infidel” Westerners instead of the turbaned sheikhs? Why is the Islamic world more eager to make bombs than vaccines? Even the term “scientific miracles” is a paradox. Sciences are not miracles and miracles are not scientific. It’s as inane as saying “elastic glass.”

In his debate with Dr Campbell, Dr Naik said: “In the olden days, it was the age of miracles, the Quran was a miracle of miracles. Then in the age of literature and poetry, it was a masterpiece. Now we are in the age of science and technology.”

This drivel reminds me of junk food – it fills you up but lacks wholesome nutrition. The Quran didn’t exist until the 7th century AD, so when was the time-frame of this “age of miracles?” Of course, Islamic miracles have long ceased, since they were either tales made up by Muhammad or his followers. Now, if the Quran was ever a “masterpiece” of literature and poetry, I can assure you that all non-Muslims would have converted to Islam, but they haven’t. In fact, the Quran is a badly written book plagued with many factual errors. This is why bucailleism is such a risky business; it exposes the Quran to scientific scrutiny.

Dr Naik continues: “The Glorious Quran is not a book of science, it’s a book of signs. And there are more than 6,000 signs in the Quran of which more than a thousand speak about science.”

These are word games. Signs are not “sciences,” they are supernatural feats while Science can be emperically tested and repeated. More than “a thousand sciences” in the Quran? This man is a politician. He should apply for the Indian cabinet.

Let’s check out some of these Quranic “scientific miracles”:

  1. The Big Bang

It is said that the Quran describes the ‘big bang’ theory in which one primary nebula separated with a big bang giving rise to galaxies. This is often laced with Sura 21:30: “Do not the unbelievers see? That the heavens and earth were joined together and we clove them asunder.”

Muslims really need to read up about the Big Bang. This theory stipulates that about 13.7 billion years ago, a tremendous explosion started the universe. Prior to this event, all the energy that transformed the matter was contained at one infinitely small point (not a nebula!) The explosion purportedly resulted into particles that gave rise to matter as well as space and time. Since the galaxies were not all clumped together, the idea of heavens and earth “being separated” as the Quran says is nonsense.

In their fervour (or rather ignorance) to find science in the Quran, the scientific miracle fans overlook the fact that the big bang theory excludes creationism which the Quran teaches. Big bang is a theory, not a scientific fact. If it’s true, then the story of God creating the earth or Adam and Eve is false. Only atheists believe in the big bang. Muslims can’t have it both ways. Besides that verse used as “proof” contradicts another one which says:
“Moreover he comprehended in his design the sky and it had been (as) smoke. He said to it and the earth ‘Come ye together willingly or unwillingly…” (Q 41:11)

In Sura 21:30, Allah is separating the heavens and the earth while in Sura 41:11, he is joining them together. Two opposite versions of the same creation event! How can such a contradiction come from God? It’s even amusing that the Quran claims heaven was a smoke.

II. Egg-Shaped Earth?

Muslims claim that the Quran foretold the shape of the earth centuries before modern science. Q 79:30 “He made the earth egg-shaped.”

The trick here is that the Quranic version quoted is of Rashad Khalifa (a man denounced as a cultist by majority Muslims). All other versions read differently:

“He spread out the earth” (Pickthall)
“He extended the earth” (Ali);
“He spread the earth (Hilali-Khan)
“He spread forth the earth” (Sher Ali)
“He stretch out the earth” (Palmer)

Far from accurately telling us the shape of the earth, this verse is actually teaching a flat earth. The Arabic word translated as “spread out” is Dahaha and all Arabic dictionaries define it as a flat bed prepared by an ostrich to lay its eggs on. Sly Muslim scholars latch on to the word “egg” and insist that the word means egg-shaped. No, the earth is geoid, not “egg shaped.” In Muhammad’s time the earth was erroneously believed to be flat and that was exactly how he described the earth in the Quran:

“And He it is who hath outstretched [Madda] the earth and place on it the firm mountain.” (13:3)

“And the earth we spread out [Madadnaha]” (15:19)

“(Yea, the same that) has made for you the earth (like a carpet) spread out [Mahdan].” (43:10)

The Arabic words Madda, Madadnaha and Mahdan all mean flat. This was why a Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz, once dogmatically declared that the earth was flat. This is a shameful error, not a scientific miracle.

III. Oceanography

It is said that the Quran agrees with modern oceanography which states that when two types of water flow into one another, a slanting area is formed or an “unseen barrier.” Q 25:53 “It is Allah who let free two flowing bodies of water- one sweet and palatable, the other salt and bitter. Though they meet, they do not mix. Between them is a barrier which is forbidden to be trespassed.”

There are no “invisible barriers which is forbidden to be trespassed” between two waters. No science textbook makes such a claim. Waters do not mix immediately because of differences in temperature and density, but they do eventually. Muhammad being a superstitious man thought there was an invisible barrier between such waters. His modern followers are no different, in spite of their academic titles.

IV. Mountains and the Sinking Sun

We are told that the Quran agrees with the modern theory of plate tectonics which says that mountains work as stabilizers and act as support for the earth.
Q 16:15 “And He has thrown onto the earth mountains lest it shake with you.”

This is nonsense. Mountains do not stabilise the earth. They actually result from the movements and instability of the tectonic plates. Another ridiculous verse is: “Have We not made the earth a bed? And the mountains as pegs?” (78:7). This a cave man thinking. The earth is geoid, not flat. Muhammad being an illiterate thought the mountains are just like the pegs the old Arabs insert into the ground to support their tents.

As if these are not bad enough, Sura 18:86 says Dhul Qarnain travelled “until he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water.” Muhammad thought the earth was flat and once the sun “sinks into a murky stream” sunset came about! How can such a stupid statement come from God?

When I was a boy, there was a bedtime story we used to read. It’s a story about a village of fools who saw the moon’s reflection in their stream for the first time, felt the moon must have fallen into it. So all the villagers – both young and old – came out with nets, boats, rakes, buckets and surrounded the stream to pull the moon out of it. Today, the Quran has made a village of fools out of many Muslims. We can still pardon the ignorant 7th century Arabs who fell prey to Muhammad’s lies, but how can we pardon the educated Muslims in this 21st century who still want to be fooled?

There seems to be a beam of cloud that blocks the mind of Muslims who promote the “scientific miracle” drivel. The longer it stays, the more fame and wealth their leaders get. There are no miracles in the Quran. The only miracle is the willingness of people to be fooled.