Aleteia has published an extraordinarily irresponsible piece by Philip Jenkins, entitled “The Muslim Jesus.” Jenkins is the politically correct professor who has claimed to have found that “the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible.” In this new piece he claims that the Islamic tradition has preserved some sayings of Jesus that could be authentic — basing his argument on the fact that they sound rather like other sayings attributed to Jesus, particularly in their exhortation not to value this passing world. He produces six sayings to support this, three from Islamic tradition and three from Christian non-canonical sources, claiming that the impossibility of distinguishing them from each other supports the authenticity of the Islamic sayings.
This is, of course, palpably absurd. Otherworldly sayings can be found in all manner of non-Christian traditions. The fact that they’re otherworldly doesn’t mean that Jesus said them. What’s more, his own argument cuts against itself, for he says: “Such words would have been treasured by Eastern Christian monks and hermits, in lands like Syria and Mesopotamia. We also know that from earliest times, some Christian monks and clergy accepted Islam. The Koran reports how their eyes filled with tears, as they prayed, ‘We do believe; make us one, then, with all who bear witness to the truth!'” If such words were treasured by Eastern Christian monks and hermits, and only some but presumably not all Christian monks and clergy accepted Islam, why is there no trace of these sayings in Eastern Christian traditions? It just happened that all the Christians who had preserved these sayings converted to Islam?
And even if these are authentic sayings of Jesus that have been preserved only in Islamic tradition, what are we supposed to get from that? What is Jenkins’ point? There is nothing in the supposed Islamic sayings of Jesus that he quotes that adds anything to our understanding of Jesus, or to the font of the world’s wisdom. Also, significantly, Jenkins does not bother to inform his readers that the Qur’an says that those who believe in the divinity of Christ are unbelievers (5:17, 5:72), or that Jesus was not actually crucified (4:157), or that those who say Jesus is the Son of God are accursed (9:30), or that Muslims should wage war against Christians until they submit to Islamic hegemony (9:29). He makes no mention of this notable hadith:
Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, “By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the Cross and kill the pig and abolish the Jizya (a tax taken from the non-Muslims, who are in the protection, of the Muslim government). Then there will be abundance of money and no-body will accept charitable gifts. (Bukhari 3.34.425)
Breaking the cross and killing the pig signifies abolishing the false Christianity, the Christianity that holds that Jesus was crucified and does not keep food laws. By abolishing the jizya, this Muslim Jesus is destroying the dhimma, the “protection” that Christians have when they submit to Islamic rule, thus leaving them with the choices only of converting to Islam or being killed.
This supremacist and violent vision is at the heart of the Islamic idea that Christianity in all its forms, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant, is a twisting and hijacking of the original religion of Jesus, which was and is Islam. This is replacement theology par excellence, and renders all current forms of Christianity renegade and illegitimate. This idea is at the core of the Muslim persecution of Christians worldwide, from Nigeria to Libya to Egypt to Syria to Iraq to Pakistan to Indonesia. But Jenkins makes no mention of that escalating persecution, either. The thrust of his piece appears to be that sure, they’re killing Christians and dismissing Christianity as a mutant version of the teachings of Jesus, but look, they have some of Jesus’ original sayings! It thus appears as if his article is designed to render Christians uncritical and complacent in the face of the advancing jihad.
“The Muslim Jesus: Jesus sayings we never thought we had,” by Philip Jenkins, Aleteia, June 30, 2014:
Around the year 1600, the Indian emperor Akbar built a splendid ceremonial gate at Fatehpur Sikri, and on it he inscribed words attributed to Jesus, son of Mary: “The world is a bridge: pass over it, but do not build your house upon it.”
It’s an evocative saying, one of many attributed to Jesus in the Islamic tradition. But is there any chance that such words might have any authenticity, any connection with the historical Jesus? Actually, the chances are greater than you might think, and like a good professor, I am going to illustrate that with a short quiz.
The Koran includes a good deal of material about Jesus. More relevant for present purposes are the many stories and saying gathered by Muslim sages over the following centuries, which have been collected by modern scholar Tarif Khalidi in his book The Muslim Jesus: Sayings and Stories in Islamic Literature. Khalidi argues that together, these constitute a whole Muslim Gospel.
Often, the Muslim Jesus closely recalls the language and thought of early Christian scripture, with only the slightest modifications from the familiar gospels. This is particularly true in the oldest layer of sayings and stories, from the 9th century. Jesus points to the birds of the sky and how God cares for them; he urges his followers to lay up treasures for themselves in heaven; they should not cast pearls before swine. In perhaps 30 cases, the resemblances to the Synoptic gospels are overwhelming. Also, very few of these “Muslim Jesus” sayings include any distinctively Islamic ideas.
These texts seem to take us back to an authentically primitive stage in the formation of the New Testament. Scholars agree that the earliest records of Jesus took the form of sayings, or sequences of sayings, with very little of the narrative that we know from the canonical gospels. One such (hypothetical) sayings collection was “Q,” which was a critical source for both Matthew and Luke. Christians remembered Jesus’s words, and only later did authors come along and sew those isolated fragments into more complete units, which were then written down. Sayings that did not find their way into the canonical text continued to float free as agrapha, “unwritten,” or unrecorded. We know them because they appear frequently in quotations by early Church leaders, or in alternate manuscript readings of the New Testament.
And that takes us back to the Jesus sayings recorded by early Muslim commentators, which in their style and format bear a surprising resemblance not to the canonical gospels, but to a sayings source like “Q.” It looks almost as if those scholars had access to sayings and constructed a plausible narrative around them, but that was not necessarily the same framework provided by the Christian evangelists. Might they have used something like “Q,” perhaps even a now-lost Jewish-Christian sayings source?
To illustrate the “early Christian” feel of these sayings from the Muslim Gospel, I offer a random mix of sayings credited to Jesus, with some taken from the early Christian agrapha (non-canonical writings), and the rest from the Muslim Gospel. Which Jesus said what?
1. Be in the middle, but walk to the side.
2. Become passers by.
3. Those who are with me have not understood me.
4. Blessed is he who sees with his heart, but whose heart is not in what he sees.
5. I am near you, like the garment of your body.
6. Satan accompanies the world.Here are the answers: 1, 4 and 6 are Muslim; 2, 3 and 5 are Christian. If I had not supplied that information, it would be very difficult to tell the two categories apart. Apart from New Testament textual specialists, I doubt that even most scholars of early or medieval Christianity could get a perfect score on deciding which was which.
This degree of similarity is amazing given the chronology. All the Christian examples date from the second or third centuries, none of the Muslim examples is recorded before the ninth century. Yet they breathe exactly the same atmosphere.
It’s actually not too hard to see how such early sayings would have been preserved and transmitted, and the clue might be in the world-denying quality of many sayings — the world is a bridge! Such words would have been treasured by Eastern Christian monks and hermits, in lands like Syria and Mesopotamia. We also know that from earliest times, some Christian monks and clergy accepted Islam. The Koran reports how their eyes filled with tears, as they prayed, “We do believe; make us one, then, with all who bear witness to the truth!”
But however it happened, here is a startling thought: perhaps the Muslim tradition gives us several dozen more plausible Jesus sayings than we ever thought we had.
Jay Boo says
The Qur’an is nothing but a slaver’s manual.
Muslims who follow it wish to enslave others to deny their own slave status.
They crave Islam’s approval and become shackled to depression, unrelenting emptiness while longing to break free yet are so afraid of criticism that they dare not leave.
Slavery’s excuse, excuses itself, surrounded by Islam’s compromised reality, in which truth becomes stuck in Islam’s dark dream.
The Qur’an is basically a sharia cook book
Followers of the once very popular 60’s television series ‘The Twilight Zone’
might recall an episode titled “To Serve Man”
To those who are unfamiliar, I will attempt a brief summary.
Alien beings arrive on earth uninvited declaring that they come in peace
and soon begin to convince a skeptical public of their good intentions
with the help of progressive minded culturally enlightened intellectuals.
When one of a staff of US government cryptographers translates their ‘book’ title
to mean ‘TO SERVE MAN’ everyone is relieved and overjoyed and soon all the (leftists)
pat themselves on the back as if to say “see we told you so”
Later on to everyone’s horror it is discovered that
‘TO SERVE MAN’ is actually a COOKBOOK.
RG says
@Jay Boo
Wow! You’re comment is amazing and full of incite! Thanks!
rev g says
“Get thee behind me, allah!”
Mychal says
You got that right
Keith says
I think I would rather have him in front of me, at least I could see what weapons he had in his hands so could take some protective actions.
John C. Barile says
Such insight incites a terrified awakening of our instinct for self-preservation. Better that we preserve ourselves than that we should be preserved for later consumption by an alien crocodilian race.
John C. Barile says
Such insight incites a terrified awakening of our instinct for self-preservation. Better that we preserve ourselves than that we should be preserved for later consumption by an alien crocodilian race.
JS says
The Quran is a perfect example of plagiarism. Muhammad plagiarized the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament.. Violence, intimidation and subjugation in the name of Islam are simply cover-ups .
Kepha says
JS, I’m of the mind that a lot of the Qur’an is Muhammad’s own imagination tempered with a fair amount of his Arab tribal heritage. The “biblical” material in the Qur’an impresses me as information that Muhammad received orally during his travels; and some of it is clearly legendary rather than from the books of the Bible themselves. For instance, in Surah 19, where Abraham argues with his father against idolatry, I suspect an echo of material that was in the Midrash Rabbah of Genesis, which expands Joshua’s reminder to the Israelites that their fathers (including Terah, father of Abraham) worshiped “other gods” beyond the Euphrates (Jos. 24:2 ff.); and the business of Jesus speaking while an infant, which is from the non-canonical Protevangelium of James.
“Plagiarized” suggests that Muhammad actually read the Old and New Testaments, which I find unlikely.
Kereru says
It is believed that the many Biblical ‘howlers’ made in the Qur’an are testament to the Torah being transmitted orally by travelling Jews, and the allusions to Jesus Christ by Gnostic sects.
I quote: ‘It wasn’t necessary for Muhammad to be literate in order to borrow stories from previous scriptures. Muhammad only needed to hear these stories orally for borrowing to take place. After hearing these stories Muhammad revised them to suit his theological presuppositions and then tried to pass them off as revelation from God.’
Furthermore Mohammed, when assailed by entities in his cave, declared them to be ‘djinns’ (demons) and was terrified, even to the point of wanting to commit suicide to be rid of them, but was persuaded that it was the angel Gabriel who had spoken to him. After all the twists and turns of the transmission of the Qur’an, including burning earlier texts when they fell out of favour, it is little wonder it is confusing, contradictory and almost incomprehensible, or that its doctrines inspire such hatred of ‘the other’.
Amber says
Kepha,
I read somewhere that Muhammad actually learned about the Bible from his child-bride Aisha’s uncle. He then decided to change it and claim he was a prophet.
I haven’t looked further into this yet although it is interesting.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
The Qur’an is nothing but a slaver’s manual.
Oh don’t be so harsh, Boo. Islam is a co-optive belief system at its core, the central tenet of it being that the Jews and Christians blew the implementation of the commands of Yahweh. Hell, they even got his personal name wrong; it’s Allah not Yahweh. No wonder the Moslems are so pissed.
As a system that stands on the shoulders of the two religions it hates, Islam gets a couple of advantages. One is that it filled a vacuum back in the early 600s, letting them vault from pagan rock worship to ideals honed over thousands of years. The other is that it softened its targets to conversion, forced or otherwise. If Mom and Dad are considering going Moslem, doing so is made easier by Islam being one of the three great Abrahamic faiths.
Elliott says
APF – I’d like to correct a rather significant error in your comment.
In Judaism there is not such concept / name as “YAHWEH”. The name that appears in Jewish / Hebrew scriptures is printed with 4 letters from the Hebrew alphabet (in fact three letters as the second letter re-appears as the fourth letter). However, it is NOT pronounced per the letters in the text (for which the English equivalents are “Y”, “H”, “V”, “H”). Briefly, this name of God was once uttered only once a year, during the Day of Atonement (“Yom Kippur”) service in the inner area of the Temple (Tabernacle in the wilderness before entering C’na’an) as part of the request for forgiveness. Since the destruction of the two Temples in Jerusalem, we do not pronounce this name of God. Although the 4-letter word IS printed in all our liturgy, it is pronounced in a Totatly different way.
Ice Star says
Elohim is also a name used by the Hebrews. My point was that the deity of the Old and New Testament is NOT Mohamed’s Allah.
But thank you for the correction.
Beth says
+1
(thumbs up!)
Jay Boo says
Their desperation to hide away Islam’s 1400 years of disgrace and give Islam a new face is kind of sad.
Jay Boo says
When a Muslim prepares to honor kill his daughter he does not ask himself “WWJD”.
voegelinian says
WWMD? WMDs.
Jay Boo says
True
Which proves that Muhammad has absolutely no legitimacy with his blasphemous attempt at claiming Jesus as a stepping stone to his malicious ego and claim of Muhammad being a prophet.
Jay Boo says
Muhammad’s claim of being a prophet.
rev g says
For one thing, the time span of the barbarity of the quran was less than a single generation. How many generations are covered in the Old Testament?
Not much basis for comparison.
Of course, the violent conquests of the OT were also events limited in scope, one time events. Similar events in the quran led to pronouncements making such actions commands from allah in perpetuity.
Again, no basis for comparison.
Lastly, doesn’t islam lay claim to the works of Judaism and Christianity as well? In that manner, every violent act of those works would only be a preface to the acts of the quran.
No matter how you add it up, it is BS.
CogitoErgoSum says
Jesus is the Son of God.
(Yes, I used the present tense.)
Champ ✞ says
Bravo!!!
Jay Boo says
JESUS — A gift of redemption
verses
Muhammad — A cursed chain of condemnation
Tradewinds says
Jesus is the Son of God and God.
No, Jesus is NOT the mass-murdering Arabian pagan moon deity Allah.
Islam and Muslims – a curse and plague on the world.
Himalayan Pony says
I feel the same…what a blasphemy… but good news
http://www.newswithviews.com/Daubenmire/dave363.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/Daubenmire/dave364.htm
They took the billboard down, if it is the same one 🙂
RG says
Haha! “Jesus is muslim”–indeed–and the devil is sooo sweet and innocent and friendly-like! What a crock!
Hey, CES, I just thought of some “is” sayings regarding islam:
islam “is” a lie!
mohammed “is” dead and burning in hell as we speak!
allah “is” a demon and a false god!
AND, all who are deceived by “is”lam “is” gonna end up in hell right there with along with their brother “is”hmael!
Hmmmm!!!
Oh yeah, JESUS “IS” LORD!!!!!
CogitoErgoSum says
RG, if you could see me now, there IS a smile on my face. Thanks.
gerard says
Amen!
Dave says
These words by Wales’ own Philip Jenkins were apparently given in an interview in May 2010 on NPR.
The Christian lad’s words have probably been plucked out of radio obscurity by Aleteia for propaganda purposes with what’s going on with ISIS.
We ignored those words then – we’ll ignore these words now.
voegelinian says
These words by Wales’ own Philip Jenkins were apparently given in an interview in May 2010 on NPR.
…
We ignored those words then – we’ll ignore these words now.
Speak for yourself, Dave. As Spencer noted above in his introduction, Jihad Watch did not “ignore those words then”:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/03/here-we-go-again-more
“The Christian lad’s words have probably been plucked out of radio obscurity by Aleteia for propaganda purposes with what’s going on with ISIS.”
Correction: PC MC Proto-Dhimmi Christian. And all critiques of Islam are relevant to why they are trying to kill us (and too often succeeding).
CogitoErgoSum says
Where is this huge billboard in the picture above? As a Christian, I find it offensive and my feelings are hurt. What if I put up a big sign saying, “Muhammad was a pedophile, rapist and murderer.”….? What do you think would happen?
CogitoErgoSum says
I see Himalayan Pony provided information in a response above about the billboard’s location being in Columbus, Ohio. Glad it’s no longer carrying that message. Thanks, HP.
jewdog says
This guy is just another one of those kumbaya-driven wannabees who sit around smoking weed, fantasizing about Islam as the Religion of Peace, and pasting coexist bumper stickers on their KIA Souls. ISIS will behead you anyway, infidel.
mike ryan says
Most of the violent incidents in the Hebrew Bible are literary devices that are used to teach the consequences of the Bible’s major them: Live justly and kindly. As the sages put it long ago “The sword comes to the world because of justice delayed and justice denied.” This is arguably one of the Tanakh’s most important lessons.
In contrast, the Quran contains violent commands that are still valid and binding upon the Muslim believer.
jewdog says
I just finished reading Atkinson’s three volume military history of World War II in Europe and Africa. It was extremely violent in its narrative, but in no way advocated violence – quite the opposite. The Bible is like that in that it is historical narrative and does not advocate contemporary violence.
Jay Boo says
@mike ryan
That message needs to get out into the MSM
instead of Rosie O’Donnell being able to claim that Christianity is just as violent as Islam on the talk show ‘The View’ immediately after 911 without an honest debate.
Walter Sieruk says
The “Jesus” of Islam and the Quran may be Muslim but the Jesus of the Bible and Christianity is not a Muslim. For unlike the Muslim “Jesus” the Jesus of the Bible is the Son of God the Father. As seen in Matthew 3:16,17. 16:16. John 3:16,17,36. First John 2:22,23. Furthermore,unlike the Islamic “Jesus” the Jesus of the Bible is also the God the Son. As shown in Hebrews 16-8. with emphasis on verse 8. Likewise, the Jesus of the Bible is God with the Jesus of Islam is not. This Jesus was and is God may be seen, for example, in John 1:13. Colossians 1:15-17. Romans 9:5. Second Peter 1:1. Titus 2:13. First John 5:20. Moreover, just by comparing the Old Testament with the New Testament will further confirm Jesus to be God. As in comparing Isaiah 45:22,23. with Philippians 2:5-11. Also by comparing Psalm 89:8,9. with Matthew 8:23-27 will further show Jesus to be God. Even by comparing the New Testament book together will show Jesus to be God. As in comparing John 5:22. with Romans 14:12. The list can go on but this should be enough to show that the Bible Jesus is not the Islamic “Jesus” The teaching of the Quran about who Jesus really is stand in strong contrast the Bible Jesus. in the light of this it’s therefore fitting to site Isaiah 8:20 which reads “To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to the word then it is because there is no light in them.” [KJV]
In other words if a religion or teacher or a man who claims to be a prophets speaks doctrine that are in contradiction to the teaching of the Bible then that religion ,teacher or man how says he’s a prophet is a false religion , teacher , prophet that have no light in them. Therefore the “Jesus” of Islam is a false “Jesus”in contrast to the true Jesus of the Bible, Who is God.Thus Islam is exposed in the light of the Bible to be a false religion that was started be a false prophet, Muhammad. Of such a false way to God the Bible wards wands of Proverbs 14:12. John 14:6. The Jesus of the Bible did predict and warned about the coming of such men as Muhammad. For Jesus taught “Beware of false prophets,which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” Matthew 7:15. The Bible further warns that “many false prophet are gone out into the world.” First John 4:1. [KJV]
john spielman says
Philip Jenkins is a liar and deceiver and filled with the spirit of the antichrist. The same evil spirit that filled that old dead demon possessed pedophile pseudoprophet Muhammed
Islam_Macht_Frei says
Allah is Satan.
And Muhammad is his messenger.
Ice Star says
I noticed a few things missing .
For context..
1. Muslims claim all people are born Muslim.
2. Mohamed claimed Christians and Jews corrupted the teachings of Jesus and the Hebrew prophets.
It was up to Mohamed to fix this.
3. Mohamed was the “last prophet” of the Hebrew/Christian religions.
He claimed/usurped Jewish and Christian traditions and teachings with absolutely NO validation except his own claims.
4.Mohamed and Jesus are polar opposites.
5. Allah is NOT another name for Yahweh. Each deity is distinctly different in personality, interaction with followers,and requirements for worship.
This “professor” is ignorant and professing BS.
Kereru says
I would add to No 4 that Mohammed was a ‘prophet’ who never prophesied.
No 6:
Compare and contrast the attributes of YHWH and Allah. A few examples:
YHWH is knowable and desires a relationship with mankind. Allah is utterly unknowable and does not.
YHWH is Love and is unchanging. Allah is moody and capricious.
YHWH is Three in One, Father, Son & Holy Spirit. Allah is not a father, and does not love humanity with a father’s heart.
YHWH sent Jesus to set mankind free. Allah has put his followers in bondage.
YHWH offers salvation through the death and resurrection of His Son. The followers of Allah do not know whether they have done enough to please Allah to be granted salvation.
And there are many more…..
Ice Star says
There is a fantastic book called Jesus and Muhammad: Profound Differences and Surprising Similarities by Mark A Gabriel that does a fascinating comparison also.
Allah – the Moon God
The Archeology of The Middle East
The religion of Islam has as its focus of worship a deity by the name of “Allah.” The Muslims claim that Allah in pre-Islamic times was the biblical God of the Patriarchs, prophets, and apostles. The issue is thus one of continuity. Was “Allah” the biblical God or a pagan god in Arabia during pre- Islamic times? The Muslim’s claim of continuity is essential to their attempt to convert Jews and Christians for if “Allah” is part of the flow of divine revelation in Scripture, then it is the next step in biblical religion. Thus we should all become Muslims. But, on the other hand, if Allah was a pre- Islamic pagan deity, then its core claim is refuted. Religious claims often fall before the results of hard sciences such as archeology. We can endlessly speculate about the past or go and dig it up and see what the evidence reveals. This is the only way to find out the truth concerning the origins of Allah. As we shall see, the hard evidence demonstrates that the god Allah was a pagan deity. In fact, he was the Moon-god who was married to the sun goddess and the stars were his daughters.
The reader must know that Ismael was a Hebrew.
Archaeologists have uncovered temples to the Moon-god throughout the Middle East. From the mountains of Turkey to the banks of the Nile, the most wide-spread religion of the ancient world was the worship of the Moon-god. In the first literate civilization, the Sumerians have left us thousands of clay tablets in which they described their religious beliefs. As demonstrated by Sjoberg and Hall, the ancient Sumerians worshipped a Moon-god who was called many different names. The most popular names were Nanna, Suen and Asimbabbar. His symbol was the crescent moon. Given the amount of artifacts concerning the worship of this Moon-god, it is clear that this was the dominant religion in Sumeria. The cult of the Moon-god was the most popular religion throughout ancient Mesopotamia. The Assyrians, Babylonians, and the Akkadians took the word Suen and transformed it into the word Sin as their favorite name for the Moon-god. As Prof. Potts pointed out, “Sin is a name essentially Sumerian in origin which had been borrowed by the Semites. ”
In ancient Syria and Canna, the Moon-god Sin was usually represented by the moon in its crescent phase. At times the full moon was placed inside the crescent moon to emphasize all the phases of the moon. The sun-goddess was the wife of Sin and the stars were their daughters. For example, Istar was a daughter of Sin. Sacrifices to the Moon-god are described in the Pas Shamra texts. In the Ugaritic texts, the Moon-god was sometimes called Kusuh. In Persia, as well as in Egypt, the Moon- god is depicted on wall murals and on the heads of statues. He was the Judge of men and gods. The Old Testament constantly rebuked the worship of the Moon-god (see: Deut. 4:19;17:3; II Kngs. 21:3,5; 23:5; Jer. 8:2; 19:13; Zeph. 1:5, etc.) When Israel fell into idolatry, it was usually the cult of the Moon-god. As a matter of fact, everywhere in the ancient world, the symbol of the crescent moon can be found on seal impressions, steles, pottery, amulets, clay tablets, cylinders, weights, earrings, necklaces, wall murals, etc. In Tell-el-Obeid, a copper calf was found with a crescent moon on its forehead. An idol with the body of a bull and the head of man has a crescent moon inlaid on its forehead with shells. In Ur, the Stela of Ur-Nammu has the crescent symbol placed at the top of the register of gods because the Moon-god was the head of the gods. Even bread was baked in the form of a crescent as an act of devotion to the Moon-god. The Ur of the Chaldees was so devoted to the Moon-god that it was sometimes called Nannar in tablets from that time period.
A temple of the Moon-god has been excavated in Ur by Sir Leonard Woolley. He dug up many examples of moon worship in Ur and these are displayed in the British Museum to this day. Harran was likewise noted for its devotion to the Moon-god. In the 1950’s a major temple to the Moon-god was excavated at Hazer in Palestine. Two idols of the moon god were found. Each was a stature of a man sitting upon a throne with a crescent moon carved on his chest . The accompanying inscriptions make it clear that these were idols of the Moon-god. Several smaller statues were also found which were identified by their inscriptions as the “daughters” of the Moon-god. What about Arabia? As pointed out by Prof. Coon, “Muslims are notoriously loath to preserve traditions of earlier paganism and like to garble what pre-Islamic history they permit to survive in anachronistic terms.”
During the nineteenth century, Amaud, Halevy and Glaser went to Southern Arabia and dug up thousands of Sabean, Minaean, and Qatabanian inscriptions which were subsequently translated. In the 1940’s, the archeologists G. Caton Thompson and Carleton S. Coon made some amazing discoveries in Arabia. During the 1950’s, Wendell Phillips, W.F. Albright, Richard Bower and others excavated sites at Qataban, Timna, and Marib (the ancient capital of Sheba). Thousands of inscriptions from walls and rocks in Northern Arabia have also been collected. Reliefs and votive bowls used in worship of the “daughters of Allah” have also been discovered. The three daughters, al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat are sometimes depicted together with Allah the Moon-god represented by a crescent moon above them. The archeological evidence demonstrates that the dominant religion of Arabia was the cult of the Moon-god.
In Old Testament times, Nabonidus (555-539 BC), the last king of Babylon, built Tayma, Arabia as a center of Moon-god worship. Segall stated, “South Arabia’s stellar religion has always been dominated by the Moon-god in various variations.” Many scholars have also noticed that the Moon-god’s name “Sin” is a part of such Arabic words as “Sinai,” the “wilderness of Sin,” etc. When the popularity of the Moon-god waned elsewhere, the Arabs remained true to their conviction that the Moon-god was the greatest of all gods. While they worshipped 360 gods at the Kabah in Mecca, the Moon-god was the chief deity. Mecca was in fact built as a shrine for the Moon-god.
This is what made it the most sacred site of Arabian paganism. In 1944, G. Caton Thompson revealed in her book, The Tombs and Moon Temple of Hureidha, that she had uncovered a temple of the Moon-god in southern Arabia. The symbols of the crescent moon and no less than twenty-one inscriptions with the name Sin were found in this temple. An idol which may be the Moon-god himself was also discovered. This was later confirmed by other well-known archeologists.
The evidence reveals that the temple of the Moon-god was active even in the Christian era. Evidence gathered from both North and South Arabia demonstrate that Moon-god worship was clearly active even in Muhammad’s day and was still the dominant cult. According to numerous inscriptions, while the name of the Moon-god was Sin, his title was al- ilah, i.e. “the deity,” meaning that he was the chief or high god among the gods. As Coon pointed out, “The god Il or Ilah was originally a phase of the Moon God.” The Moon-god was called al- ilah, i.e. the god, which was shortened to Allah in pre-Islamic times. The pagan Arabs even used Allah in the names they gave to their children. For example, both Muhammad’s father and uncle had Allah as part of their names.
The fact that they were given such names by their pagan parents proves that Allah was the title for the Moon-god even in Muhammad’s day. Prof. Coon goes on to say, “Similarly, under Mohammed’s tutelage, the relatively anonymous Ilah, became Al-Ilah, The God, or Allah, the Supreme Being.”
This fact answers the questions, “Why is Allah never defined in the Qur’an? Why did Muhammad assume that the pagan Arabs already knew who Allah was?” Muhammad was raised in the religion of the Moon-god Allah. But he went one step further than his fellow pagan Arabs. While they believed that Allah, i.e. the Moon-god, was the greatest of all gods and the supreme deity in a pantheon of deities, Muhammad decided that Allah was not only the greatest god but the only god.
In effect he said, “Look, you already believe that the Moon-god Allah is the greatest of all gods. All I want you to do is to accept that the idea that he is the only god. I am not taking away the Allah you already worship. I am only taking away his wife and his daughters and all the other gods.” This is seen from the fact that the first point of the Muslim creed is not, “Allah is great” but “Allah is the greatest,” i.e., he is the greatest among the gods. Why would Muhammad say that Allah is the “greatest” except in a polytheistic context? The Arabic word is used to contrast the greater from the lesser. That this is true is seen from the fact that the pagan Arabs never accused Muhammad of preaching a different Allah than the one they already worshipped. This “Allah” was the Moon-god according to the archeological evidence. Muhammad thus attempted to have it both ways. To the pagans, he said that he still believed in the Moon-god Allah. To the Jews and the Christians, he said that Allah was their God too. But both the Jews and the Christians knew better and that is why they rejected his god Allah as a false god.
Al-Kindi, one of the early Christian apologists against Islam, pointed out that Islam and its god Allah did not come from the Bible but from the paganism of the Sabeans. They did not worship the God of the Bible but the Moon-god and his daughters al-Uzza, al-Lat and Manat. Dr. Newman concludes his study of the early Christian-Muslim debates by stating, “Islam proved itself to be…a separate and antagonistic religion which had sprung up from idolatry.” Islamic scholar Caesar Farah concluded “There is no reason, therefore, to accept the idea that Allah passed to the Muslims from the Christians and Jews.” The Arabs worshipped the Moon-god as a supreme deity. But this was not biblical monotheism. While the Moon-god was greater than all other gods and goddesses, this was still a polytheistic pantheon of deities. Now that we have the actual idols of the Moon-god, it is no longer possible to avoid the fact that Allah was a pagan god in pre-Islamic times. Is it any wonder then that the symbol of Islam is the crescent moon? That a crescent moon sits on top of their mosques and minarets? That a crescent moon is found on the flags of Islamic nations? That the Muslims fast during the month which begins and ends with the appearance of the crescent moon in the sky?
CONCLUSION
The pagan Arabs worshipped the Moon-god Allah by praying toward Mecca several times a day; making a pilgrimage to Mecca; running around the temple of the Moon-god called the Kabah; kissing the black stone; killing an animal in sacrifice to the Moon-god; throwing stones at the devil; fasting for the month which begins and ends with the crescent moon; giving alms to the poor, etc.
The Muslim’s claim that Allah is the God of the Bible and that Islam arose from the religion of the prophets and apostles is refuted by solid, overwhelming archeological evidence. Islam is nothing more than a revival of the ancient Moon-god cult. It has taken the symbols, the rites, the ceremonies, and even the name of its god from the ancient pagan religion of the Moon-god. As such, it is sheer idolatry and must be rejected by all those who follow the Torah and Gospel. moongod.htm
Further information: thoroughly study the links in this file and also in The Cult of the Moon God The Vatican and Islam
citycat says
I did wonder that in the old testament when someone was said to have lived 900years that perhaps really it should have said 900moons, which is around 70years. I guess that is the case. Interesting, the moon plays a large part in the religions.
Tradewinds says
Absolute sheer idiocy. Who is this clown?
somehistory says
Jenkins has provided the bologna and if two slices of bread were available, a sandwich could be made. But it wouldn’t be edible or eatable as it contains so much blasphemy as to make one sick. Makes for nausea just to read of it and realize that some people out there may believe it.
Michael Lumish says
One small point of correction.
No one who is familiar with professor Phillip Jenkins would ever call him “politically correct.”
I studied under him for awhile at Penn State and I can assure you that his reputation within the department was much more that of a “conservative.”
I tended to think of the guy, who is quite brilliant, by the way, as an independent, right-leaning iconoclast.
I did not always agree with him, but he was always interesting.
Terrific writer and teacher, in my opinion.
voegelinian says
No one who is familiar with professor Phillip Jenkins would ever call him “politically correct.”
I studied under him for awhile at Penn State and I can assure you that his reputation within the department was much more that of a “conservative.”
The term “politically correct” (or its refinement, PC MC — Politically Correct Multi-Culturalist) is imprecise, but it’s all we have to denote a massive sociopolitical (and psychological) phenomenon that has become mainstream and dominant throughout the entire West in the last half century or so.
Misunderstandings about the term abound. One typical one, of which Michael Lumish has yet to be disabused, is that one cannot be both conservative and PC at the same time. Closely related to this misunderstanding is the one that assumes that PC is perfectly synonymous with Leftism.
In fact, one phenomenon that has been clarified by the problem of Islam as it has been aggressively (if not too often horrifyingly) brought to our attention by innumerable Muslims around the world, is that it seems the majority of conservatives throughout the West are PC MC about Islam. Conservatives do show promising signs of being able to think outside the Box on the problem of Islam and of inching their way steadily (albeit sometimes glacially) along the Learning Curve, better than the Leftists; but in the Glass Half Empty perspective, too many of them also show an outrageous retardation in this regard.
Wellington says
In agreement, voegelinian, with your 5: 20 P.M. post. I expect modern liberals to be fools about Islam (and so much else), with the refreshing exception here and there, but when conservatives aplenty are also fools on Islam, it makes me wonder if my long-term optimism may not be warranted.
RodSerling says
Michael,
Would you not agree that Jenkins is politically correct regarding Islam?
voegelinian says
Why do these one-time commenters, like “Michael Lumish”, who we only see pop up once on JW comments, deposit their large turd then never return to respond to the good questions raised by those who have put their time in here at JW?
Wellington says
I am a proud alumnus of Penn State, ML, but I submit to you that Jenkins has still failed miserably. You know, it’s not enough to be a conservative. You must first and foremost be correct—–in alignment with the truth. Jenkins’ clearly isn’t, just as Bush 43 on the matter of Islam wasn’t.
Jenkins couldn’t even distinguish between the Bible often “merely” being descriptive while the Koran is ALWAYS prescriptive. Not only am I not impressed by Jenkins but I submit to you he is part of the greatest problem the entire West faces today, to wit, continued exculpation of Islam, continued tu quoque reasoning where Islam is concerned, in short continued stupidity——and please keep in mind that the most destructive stupidity is that proffered by so many of the best educated.
Kereru says
Well said, Wellington. The dreaming towers of academe seem to be producing more dreamers than ever.
Islam_Macht_Frei says
As for “Which Jesus said what?” – it reminds me of a thing I saw a while back with quotes from the Koran and Hadith and from Mein Kampf – you had to guess which was which. Except for the style of the language, you couldn’t tell….
Uri says
http://pedestrianinfidel.blogspot.com/2006/05/koran-versus-mein-kampf.html?m=1
Elise says
Islam steals stories from the Old Testament and attempts to steal stories of Jesus from the New Testament. The Good News from Jesus is free will, faith, hope and love; things that Islam will never teach or provide. Islam is the true religion of Satan who continues to preach fear, hate, dishonesty and enslavement
Thomas Hennigan says
It is no secret that those who cooked up the Koran in the 8th century used Christian heterodox sources such as gnostic gospels. These disqualify themselves right from the start and they are dualistic. The gnosticism of Basilides and Velentine, as well as Marcion and others is mostly phantasy. Lots of the material found in apopryphal gozpels is taken from the canoniical gospels. The gnostics held that the apostles had handed over a secret teaching of Jesus and that they were privy to it. St. Irenaeus and other Christian apologists demolished that argument by inviting anyone to check out the teaching of the Apostles by going tothe Churches which they founded. In fact, he gives a list of the bihops of Rome from Peter to his time in order to strengthen hhis argument of apostolic succession in the major churches and first of all Rome, where both St. Peter and St, Paul were martyred.
It is generally recognized that perhaps some sayings attributed to Jesus found in apophryphal gospels could be traced back to Jesus, but not all of them were heretical or gnostic either.
Is he trying to say that sayings of Jesus, not found in the canonical gospels were discovered by Islamic scholars in the 9th century?
As for the argument about violence in the Bible, that is the Old Testament or Hebrew Scriptures, historical critical study of the Bible has been very helpful to us in order to understand and interpret such texts. For instance, in the Book of Joshua, it is stated that Joshua made a lightening campaign against the Cananean cities and killed their inhabitants including women and children. However, other biblical texts which better correspond to what happened, indicate that the Israelits slowly penetrated into the Promised Land beginning with the hilly and uninhabited areas. Also, the Bible generally presents God as the first cause who does absolutely everything, but we know that God doesn’t operate in that way in human affairs, and that there are secondary causes. Plus, for Christians, beginning with St. Paul, all of the Old Testament is to be interpreted in the light of Jesus Christ, he being the center and foundation of all, from creation to the his second coming. God chose a primitve people and over almost two millenia led and guided them from out barbarous ways to his final revelation in Jesus Christ, Son of God. He was perfect man and had human ancestors, many of whom were not necessarily saintly or holy. Polygamy was common among kings and others until after the return from the exile. Jesus even corrected Moses about divorce and presented himself as “greater than Jonas” (one of the prophets) and “greater than Solomon (the epitome of wisdom according to the Old Testament). So, for Chritians the whole of the Hebrew Scriputres are to be interpreted in the light of Jesus and some of them are superseded such as the dietary laws, whilst other parts like the decalogue, psalms, the prophets are extremely important for Christians. St. Augustine stated “in novo patet quod in vetere latet”, “in the New Testament what is hidden in the Old becomes clear”.
So, the argument about violence in the Bible as understood by Christians is no problem for us, as one the one hand it must be understood and interpreted according to the historical critical method and Jesus is the center and foundation of it all and all is fulfilled in him.
Salome says
Gnostic rubbish.
Thomas Hennigan says
It is no secret that those who cooked up the Koran in the 8th century used Christian heterodox sources such as gnostic gospels. These disqualify themselves right from the start and they are dualistic. The gnosticism of Basilides and Velentine, as well as Marcion and others is mostly phantasy. Lots of the material found in apopryphal gozpels is taken from the canoniical gospels. The gnostics held that the apostles had handed over a secret teaching of Jesus and that they were privy to it. St. Irenaeus and other Christian apologists demolished that argument by inviting anyone to check out the teaching of the Apostles by going tothe Churches which they founded. In fact, he gives a list of the bihops of Rome from Peter to his time in order to strengthen hhis argument of apostolic succession in the major churches and first of all Rome, where both St. Peter and St, Paul were martyred.
It is generally recognized that perhaps some sayings attributed to Jesus found in apophryphal gospels could be traced back to Jesus, but not all of them were heretical or gnostic either.
Is he trying to say that sayings of Jesus, not found in the canonical gospels were discovered by Islamic scholars in the 9th century? In fact, the apopryphical gospels come from the second to the fourth century. It would seem strange that no Christian writer in those centuries discovered such sayings. In any case, it is only conjecture and as such it is not reliable. It is also difficult to see how Islamic scholars baasing themselves on the twisted and false interpretation of practically everything taken from both Testaments could possibly have been able to have any appeciable discernment about supposed authentic sayings of Jesus. The false Islamic conception of Jesus would have blinded them.
As for the argument about violence in the Bible, that is the Old Testament or Hebrew Scriptures, historical critical study of the Bible has been very helpful to us in order to understand and interpret such texts. For instance, in the Book of Joshua, it is stated that Joshua made a lightening campaign against the Cananean cities and killed their inhabitants including women and children. However, other biblical texts which better correspond to what happened, indicate that the Israelits slowly penetrated into the Promised Land beginning with the hilly and uninhabited areas. Also, the Bible generally presents God as the first cause who does absolutely everything, but we know that God doesn’t operate in that way in human affairs, and that there are secondary causes. Plus, for Christians, beginning with St. Paul, all of the Old Testament is to be interpreted in the light of Jesus Christ, he being the center and foundation of all, from creation to the his second coming. God chose a primitve people and over almost two millenia led and guided them from out barbarous ways to his final revelation in Jesus Christ, Son of God. He was perfect man and had human ancestors, many of whom were not necessarily saintly or holy. Polygamy was common among kings and others until after the return from the exile. Jesus even corrected Moses about divorce and presented himself as “greater than Jonas” (one of the prophets) and “greater than Solomon (the epitome of wisdom according to the Old Testament). So, for Chritians the whole of the Hebrew Scriputres are to be interpreted in the light of Jesus and some of them are superseded such as the dietary laws, whilst other parts like the decalogue, psalms, the prophets are extremely important for Christians. St. Augustine stated “in novo patet quod in vetere latet”, “in the New Testament what is hidden in the Old becomes clear”.
So, the argument about violence in the Bible as understood by Christians is no problem for us, as one the one hand it must be understood and interpreted according to the historical critical method and Jesus is the center and foundation of it all and all is fulfilled in him.
Kepha says
Prior to this article, most of what I knew about Jenkins was his study of Asian and African Christianities in the early centuries and early middle ages. It was a good layman’s introduction to these “lost Christianities”–done in, significantly, by Islam–and a worthwhile reminder that Christianity was not always a “European” religion (indeed, for the average Syrian, Mesopotamian, or Egyptian Christian of, say, A.D. 450, Europe was the “barbarous mission field”).
Hence, I’m a little disappointed with his take on Islam and its theology; as well as an appalling insensitivity to what the Bible’s violence is all about (try covenantal cursings which worked themselves out in the history of pre-exilic Israel).
No Fear says
The Quranic story of Jesus turning clay into birds is taken (stolen) from the “Infancy Gospel of Thomas” , an apocryphal text which was available in the Arabian peninsular at the time of Mohammed. Much of the Quran is plagiarised, even from apocryphal texts! So much for it being the “eternal and unchanging word of God”. More like a syncretic cut and paste job.
Champ ✞ says
The Muslim Jesus? No!
Is Jesus God in the flesh? Yes!
http://www.gotquestions.org/God-in-the-flesh.html
Zimriel says
You ask “If such words were treasured by Eastern Christian monks and hermits, and only some but presumably not all Christian monks and clergy accepted Islam, why is there no trace of these sayings in Eastern Christian traditions?”
Hey, I can answer this one! There survive MANY traces of these sayings in Eastern Christian traditions as they existed as of Arabic literacy 650-850 AD. This is all that matters for the thesis of Jenkins (and of Khalidi).
Alfred Resch, “Agrapha: Aussercanonische Evangelienfragmente” notes plenty of cases where the Patristic authors noted noncanonical sayings of Jesus. This was a second-hand preservation of apocrypha, sure; but it is enough to put those sayings into the hands of contemporaries to Islam.
And it wasn’t all that second-hand. Take “The Gospel of Peter”: its best (Egyptian) manuscript dates to the Islamic era (we’re all talking about the written copies, not the original composition). The “Diatesseron” as well is widely considered to be the version of the Injil extant in Arabia at the time (although this one, I’ll grant, had slipped out of orthodox circles by then). A little more googling would certainly uncover more.
Robert Spencer says
Zimriel
I am not surprised to note that you rather severely missed both my point and Jenkins’ point.
apran says
Saying “Jesus is a muslim” is a blasphemy. If we use the way of Islam, we should kill those who say that. Fortunately (or unfortunately) we don’t use the way of Islam.
Truth Seeker says
The statement ‘Jesus is Muslim’ is Greater Taqiyya. Jesus taught to Love enemy and Pray for them. Mohammad taught ‘Create enmity with your Neighbor, labeling and finish him.
thomas_h says
“Jesus is a Moslem.”
What ‘s next? “Allah is God”?
aton says
Max Hastings, a respected commentator in the Daily Mail, said much the same thing. He says:
“I recently read both the Koran and the Bible from cover to cover, and can assure you that the latter is more bloodthirsty.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2664118/MAX-HASTINGS-Yes-West-fought-Muslim-world-centuries-But-Islam-accept-blame-todays-bloody-chaos.html
Why do these respected authorities lie like this. He has not read the Bible from cover to cover (nobody has) and he has most certainly not read the Koran to write such cr@p. So why do they all lie?
I have asked for a retraction, but no joy as yet.
Aton
AfricanChristian says
Actually the fact that mohammad’s angel left muhammad in fear and without any clear message is the first proof to reject mohammad and isalm. The angel of GOD Gabriel never left his message receivers in fear and confused.
“Don’t be afraid, Mary. You have found favor with God.”Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. (in the Gospel of Luke)
That’s how Gabriel interacted with whom he brought God’s messages. I’m not sure if the angel ever introduced himself to muhammad as gabriel. the only story i know is that his wife and her uncle convinced him that it was angel gabriel.
Stand Fast in the Liberty says
Excellent point!
voegelinian says
I’m afraid (pun intended) that this common assumption is simply not true (see my argument in a comments thread here at JW five years ago). One wonders why this assumption seems so common in the Counter-Jihad; perhaps a combination of childish jingoistic bravado and of a general modern loss (affecting many Christians, modernized despite themselves) of the sense of the numinous.
citycat says
It’s the usual, demonise the enemy, all part of jihad.
An attempt to intellectually bamboozle muslims to believe even more, to fight even more for jihad, especially in these days where they have intelligence to deal with.
Quite a subject to get one’s head around without doing the maths.
I have read both books, the Koran is the most evil book i’ve read. The heaviness is in both, but the heaviness in the Bible, particularly the old testament, which what it’s got to do with Jesus i don’t know, is God being heavy.
There is no comparison in terms of morality between the two, the koran is vile.
The bible has some wisdom, i didn’t notice much if any in the koran.
duh_swami says
Gabriel did it. Long winded , incoherent, Gabriel, who just couldn’t stop talking about Jesus. Jesus, this and Jesus that.
It’s odd that Allah would send Gabriel, since it is Mercury who is the ‘Messenger of the gods’, and Mercury is a ‘god’ which is higher up the food chain then a mere angel.
sinantara says
Not only Jesus, Adam is supposed to be Muslim to. So do all prophets in the Old and New Testaments. With of course, Arabic names. Abraham is Ibrahim, Mozes is Musa, Jesus is Isa(there are 25 prophets, and Muhahmmad is the last. And if Jesus is called the son of God, then Muh is the beloved of God (habibiullah). But read the hadith of Law Laak, الحديث: لولاك, it explains that Muh is MORE than the Son of God… –
(‘If not for you (O Muhammad!) I would not have created creation’)
What do the respected ‘Ulama of the religion and Shari’ah say about the hadith: لولاك لولاك ما خلقت الأفلاك – “Law laaka law laaka maa khalaqtal aflaak”. Which book is this hadith in? Is the Prophet of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) the reason for creation or not? Are there other ahadith that support this narration?
Answer: Indeed the Prophet of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) is the reason for the creation of Adam ‘alaihis salam and the universe. If the Prophet of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) was not in existence, then the ‘Arsh and Kursi, Lawh and Qalam, the Skies and the Earth, Heaven and Hell, the trees and stones and all other creatures would not exist.
And while the lafdh in question is not considered an authentic wording from the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam), it is, as Mullah al-Qaari said, “Though al-Saghanee says this is mawdu even so I say its meaning is saheeh (authentic) even if it is not a hadith.” Please read about Ibn Taymiyyah and his discussion of the hadith law laaka in Majma` Fataawa Ibn Taymiyyah.
There are many ahadith to this effect.
Hadith 1: al-Hakim in his Mustadrak, Baihaqi in Dalail an-Nubuwah, Tabarani in his Kabeer, Abu Na’eem in his Hilya and ibn Asakir in Tarikh Damishq report from Sayyiduna Ameer al-Mu’mineen ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab Farooq al-A’dham (radiyallahu ta’ala anhu) that:
The Prophet of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) said: “Allah said: When Adam made the mistake, he asked: O Allah! I ask you for the sake of Muhammad to forgive me. Allah said: O Adam! How do you recognise Muhammad when I have not yet created him? Adam said: O Allah! When you created me and blew into me the spirit, I lifted my head and saw written on the ‘Arsh ‘La ilaaha illallah Muhammadur rasoolullah’. So, I got to know that you would only join your name with him who is most beloved to you. Allah said: O Adam! You have spoken the truth. Indeed Muhammad is more beloved to me than anything and when you asked me for his sake, I pardoned you. If Muhammad was not in existence, I would not have created you” (Also from Imam Subki in Shifa as-Siqam and Shihab in Naseem)
Please read about Ibn Taymiyyah and his discussion of the hadith of Adam’s forgiveness in Majma` Fataawa Ibn Taymiyyah.
Hadith 2: Hakim in Mustadrak and Abu as-Shaykh in Tabaqaat al-Isfahani’ in a report from Sayyiduna Abdullah ibn Abbas (radiyallahu ta’ala anhuma) that:
“Allah revealed to Prophet ‘Isa ‘alaihis salam that: O ‘Isa! Have faith (imaan) in Muhammad and order your ummah to do the same. If Muhammad was not in existence, I would not have created Adam nor would I have made heaven or hell”. (Also from Shaykh Taqi ad-Din Subki in Shifa as-Siqam and Shaykh al-Islam al-Bulqini in his Fatawa and ibn Hajar in Afdal al-Qur’an).
Hadith 3: Dailami in Musnad al-Firdaus reports from Sayyiduna Abdullah ibn Abbas (radiyallahu ta’ala anhuma) that:
“the Prophet of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) said that Jibra’il came to me and said that Allah says: If you were not created, I would not have made the heaven or hell”.
Hadith 4: ibn Asakir reports from Salman al-Farsi (radiyallahu ta’ala anhu) that:
“Jibra’il came to the Prophet of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) and said that Allah says: I have not created anyone who is more honoured to me that you. I have created the world and all that is therein so that they may know the rank that you possess. I would not have created the world if I had not created you”.
Hadith 5: Imam Shihab ad-Din ibn Hajar ‘Asqalani says:
“These reports say that if Muhammad (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) were not created then Allah would not have made the skies nor the Earth, neither heaven nor hell, neither the sun nor the moon”.
There are many other ahadith on this subject which have been collected by Imam Ahmad Rida Khan Barelwi in his brilliant ‘Tajalli al-yaqeen baana nabiyyina sayyidil mursaleen’ and it is without doubt that the righteous ‘ulama have addressed the Prophet of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) as the “Reason for the creation of Adam and the universe”. If the sayings of our ‘ulama are collected, this would cover a voluminous book. A few are noted below.
Hadith 6: see the discussion of the very important hadith of Jaabir.
Excerpt 1: Imam Saif ad-Din Abu Ja’far bin Umar al-Humairi al-Hanafi in his ‘al-Durr al-tanzeem fee mawlid al-nabi al-kareem’ says:
“When Allah made Adam He revealed to Adam to ask Him: O Allah! Why have you made my kuniyah as ‘Abu Muhammad’? Allah said: O Adam! Lift you head. He lifted his head and saw the noor (light) of the Prophet of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) on the ‘Arsh. Adam asked: O Allah! Whose is this noor? Allah said: It is a Prophet from your progeny. His name is Ahmad in the skies and Muhammad on the Earth. If he were not created, I would not have created you or the skies and the Earth”.
Excerpt 2: Sayyidi Abul Husain Hamdooni Shadhili writes in his Qasida Daaliyah that:
“The dear Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) is the essence of the universe and is the reason for all creation. Had he not have been, then nothing would have come into existence”.
Excerpt 3: Imam Sharaf ad-Din Abu Abdullah Muhammad Busiri writes in his Qasida Burda that:
“If it was not for the Prophet of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) then the world would not exist”.
Excerpt 4: Imam Shaykh Ibrahim Baijuri writes in the commentary of Imam Busiri’s poem:
“If the Prophet of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) had remained non-existent, then the universe would not have come to be. Allah said to Adam: If Muhammad had not existed, I would not have created you. Adam is the father of all men and whatever is in the Earth has been created for man. So when Adam was created due to the existence of the Prophet of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam), then it is obvious that the whole world was created due to him. Hence, the Prophet of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) is the cause and the reason for all existence.
Excerpt 5: ‘Allama Khalid Azhari, commenting on the Burda, says:
“It is because of the Prophet of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) that the world was bought from non-existence to existence”.
Excerpt 6: Imam Mulla Ali Qari writes:
“If it were not for the blessing and the generosity of the Prophet of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam), then the whole world would not have existed and apart from Allah, nothing would exist.
Excerpt 7: ‘Allama Abul Ayash Abdul Ali Lakhnawi writes in his ‘Fawatih al-Rahmoot Sharh Musallam al-Thuboot’ that:
“If the Prophet of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) were not in existence, then the blessings of Allah would not have blessed the creation”.
Only an ignoramus will argue against the authenticity of the subject matter, that is, that the Prophet of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) is the reason for creation. It is due to him that Allah, the Almighty, created the Universe.
(This answer has been translated by Muhammad Aqdas from Mufti Zafar ad-Din al-Bihari al-Ridawi’s (rahimahullah) collection of fatawa ‘Naafi’il bashar fee fatawa zafar’. It is a question asked by Shaykh Rahim Bakhsh of Rawalpindi received by Mufti Zafar ad-Din on 15th Rajab, 1324 AH. Mufti Zafar ad-Din was one of the foremost students of Imam Ahmad Rida Khan Barelwi (rahimahullah). [source at http://www.aqdas.co.uk]
Then, the quran is uncreated…Meaning, on level with Allah. And if Muh is in the quran, well, what have we here, a Trinity?
Himalayan Pony says
Keep believing these lies and at least when you die you will realize that you have been duped ! Of course Jesus or Moses or any of the prophets can’t be muslim. If you really seek the Truth you will understand this. But if you want to go with the flow (believe all these lies) then you will remain ignorant. Listen to what the Bible says: “And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” Revelations 22:19 – May God guide you.
AnneM says
It is all about a false god and and a false prophet, period.
chanah says
muhammad and his first wife where both Jewish, and muhammad knew how to read and write as recorded in the hadith, their uncle where a Jew who had converted to Christianity, I have heard this from several Christian Iranian, and it’s also recorded in the hadith, if he where illiterate then how could he maintain his first wives business
ecosse1314 says
Certainly will not argue with you over the illiteracy question as you have proved your expertise on that point.
You may like to provide proof that mohamhead and his first wife were jews….or are you just making it up.
Beth says
The Truth about the one and only true Christ:
The way God proves Himself to be true – is by prophecy. Time and time again, He does this throughout the Bible.
Here, in this present day – the whole world is witness to the last and greatest prophecy of our times; Palestine.
In the beginning of the Bible, by Moses, the end-time prophecy was given that not only says what will happen – but gives the name also. Here it is, thousands of years later – and that prophecy is happening right before our very eyes. This is how to know which Lord is the real one.
Exd 15:14 The people shall hear, and be afraid: sorrow shall take hold on the inhabitants of Palestina. {In the song of Moses….The saints ‘sing’ this song/prophecy – Rev 15:3)
Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
2nd witness) Joe 3:4 Yea, and what have ye to do with Me, … Palestine?
3rd witness) Isa 14:31 Howl, O gate; cry, O city; thou, whole Palestina, art dissolved: for there shall come from the north a smoke, and none shall be alone in his appointed times.
That scripture given by Isaiah is in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The whole book of Isaiah is in the Dead Sea Scrolls and it is word-for-word with the book that we have today (in the King James and Geneva Bibles).
I mention the Dead Sea Scrolls because they give undeniable proof that the name Palestine is mentioned in the Old Testament and that it stands condemned. They cement the proof for the Old Testament – simply because it would be ludicrous to claim that the words were changed. They were written (and hidden) before the time of Christ, before the Roman empire and well before the Koran came along – and were kept untouched until 1947 (because no one knew of them). The Scrolls dispell the lie of the muslims – that the words were changed.
The name Palestine orginated with Moses – not the Roman empire. Islam would have everyone believe it originated with the Romans – but that is because Islam stands to lose if the world learns where the name Palestine truly came from. This is a fact that would destroy Islam.
Then they will argument that the name mentioned in the Bible is Philistine – not Palestine.
Hebrew Lexicon:
Pelishtiy: Translation = Philistine
Pelesheth: Translation = Palestine
Pelesheth is the name that is in the Dead Sea Scrolls (besides, Philistine is a race – not a name).
Here is an important part: The Koran never even mentions the name Palestine – and yet – there is was – the whole time – “in the book that Moses brought” (quote from the Koran).
There it was – and prophet of Islam never even mentions it. And here it is today – setting the whole world on fire.
This is how to know which Lord is the true one.
And then there is this:
The koran calls the Son of God an abomination and denies the Father and the Son:
009.030 – 037.151 – 037.152 – 019.088 – 019.089
1Jo 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1Jo 5:12
He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
I’m going to trust the Lord Who proves Himself to be true by Prophecy – and what a Prophecy it is!
Jay Boo says
Jesus is Muslim sign
Brought to by the same people who demand groveling reverence from non-Muslims toward Muhammad.
(PBUH) not
voegelinian says
“The koran calls the Son of God an abomination and denies the Father and the Son”
This really is the crux of the whole issue. It should immediately shut down all “inter-faith” relations.
The extent to which Christians are ignorant of Islam extends even to some Christians who assert that they condemn Islam. I recently witnessed three Christians unrelated to each other who articulated to someone why they refuse to accept that Allah is God. Not one of these three brought up the most important reason: Allah commands his believers to reject Christ’s divinity — and by extension (and explicitly so) commands his believers to reject the Trinity. Then, when I pointed this out to them, their eyes glazed over and they did not respond.
voegelinian says
“Not one of these three brought up the most important reason: Allah commands his believers to reject Christ’s divinity — and by extension (and explicitly so) commands his believers to reject the Trinity.”
I forgot to add the horrible corollary of Islam: This is no mere theological disagreement. Allah also commands his believers to fight and kill those who promote Christ’s divinity — unless they submit to dhimmitude and behave (and even then, they must live in fear of the fickle fanaticism of the Muslims under whose rule they would have submitted themselves).
Jay Boo says
This is an extremely important but often overlooked issue.
A Qur’an reading Muslim’s goal is to call all other religions invalid.
Some Muslims do a smiley-faced Interfaith dance around this issue to appear tolerant.
These same shameless Muslims will turn bug-eyed red in the face with self-righteous anger the moment the see an opportunity to play the avenging victim in Allah’s name at the mention of Christ’s divinity.
Beth says
“This really is the crux of the whole issue. It should immediately shut down all “inter-faith” relations.”
Exactly!
Couldn’t agree more with you voegelinian!