HADITH OF THE DAY

Bismillah Walhamdulillah Was Salaatu Was Salaam 'ala Rasulillah

As-Salaam Alaikum Wa-Rahmatullahi Wa-Barakatuhu

Knowledge - 29th Rabi al-Thani 1433 (22nd March 2012)

Narrated 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud (Radi-Allahu 'anhu):

The Prophet (Sallallahu 'Alaihi Wa Sallam) said, "Do not wish to be like
anyone except in two cases. (The first is) A person, whom Allah has given
wealth and he spends it righteously; (the second is) the one whom Allah has
given wisdom (the Holy Qur'an) and he acts according to it and teaches it
to others." (Fateh-al-Bari page 177 Vol. 1)

Bukhari Vol. 1 : No. 73
Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN

Sokoto State On Fire As Two Christians Defecates On Holy Qur'an

The ancient city of Sokoto was thrown into chaos this evening Sun 2 April 2011 as a result of the provocative action of two Christians. The infamous duo were reported to have defecated on the Muslim's Rock of Faith, the Holy Qur'an. As at the time of filling this post the whole story is hazy and not clear. My sources are only able to confirm that the old Islamic Centre erupted in a tumult this evening as the story of the dastard act fills the city.

A lot of cars were reported burnt while one of the culprits was also rumored to have been killed by the mob while the second accused is said to be taking refuge inside the Sultan's Palace. No official confirmation of the story has however been released by the authorities in Sokoto.

Abubakar Aminu Giginya

CATHOLIC PRIEST CHARGED WITH RAPE OF 14-YEAR-OLD

German prosecutors say a Roman Catholic priest has been charged with twice raping a 14-year-old girl 20 years ago.

Osnabrueck prosecution spokesman Alexander Retemeyer said on Tuesday that 50-year old man, then a chaplain, used force to coerce the girl into having sex with him and threatened her with punishment by God, newsvine.com reports.

Prosecutors say that the priest, who has been relieved of his duties by the church, has admitted sexual contact with the girl.

The complainant said she had a sexual relationship marked by violence with the chaplain over three years. But Retemeyer said only two incidents were sufficiently substantiated for charges to be filed.

The woman contacted the diocese of Osnabrueck earlier this year amid a widening abuse scandal in Germany.

Source: The Punch of Wed, 25 Aug 10, World News Page 70.
Abubakar Aminu Giginya

CHAPTER THREE OF THE BOOK

“THE DIVINE SONSHIP OF CHRIST”

“O people of the book! Commit no excess in your religion: Nor say of God ought but the Truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God and His word, which he bestowed on Mary, so believe in God and His messengers…”
Holy Qur’an 4:171

We briefly hinted, in the last chapter, that the divine sonship of Christ was due to the Christians a priori belief ‘that sin is originally inherited by men.’ and that ‘a blameless sacrificial lamb is the only remedy to that inherited sin.’ Now we will take a critical look at the validity of the Christian’s quasi-metaphysical postulate which says that Jesus is the only begotten son of God, the most high.

Before we go forward it will be good if we quote a Christian authority (e.g. Abd-al-Masih), and see what is the Christian standpoint with regard to the divine sonship of Christ. Therefore, we quote thus:

“For a Muslim it is unthinkable that God has a son who is equal to Him in power and glory”. (Abd-al-Masih)

This makes it crystal-clear that the Christian’s a prior assumption is that Jesus Christ is really the Son of God, and that he is equal with God in power and Glory. This is why the Christian is made to repeat, again and again, that: “Jesus is the only begotten son of God, and he (Jesus) is begotten and not made.” This Christian Catechism was derived from the book of John, which read thus:

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
John 3:16 (KJV)

According to the Christian authorities, ‘this single verse (i.e. John 3:16) have been translated from its original Greek and Hebrew form into about one thousand one hundred (1100) different languages of the world.’ (See the Introduction to the New Testament: With Psalms and Proverbs, published and distributed by the Gideon’s International). What a stunning and astonishing achievement for show! Well, we are not going to accept the Christian dogma just because of this outstanding record. However, we will “prove all things; and hold fast (to) that which is good…” (I Thessalonians 5:21), and also, we are going to “… Abstain from all appearance of evil.” (I Thessalonians 5:22)

We are now going to embark on a rigorous and soul-shaking journey. Therefore, the reader ought to empty his mind of all forms of bias, bigotry, preconceived notions, a priori and(or) quasi-logical deductions. I will need the attention of the reader’s mind, his soul and his spirit in their free and natural tune. This is because we are going to tangle with solid, heart-breaking facts that will objectively wreck havoc on the Christian’s long-standing emotions, trust and belief toward the dogma of the ‘divine sonship of Christ’.

Without taking any deep survey of the contents of the Christian Bibles, I am sure you will come across tens (hundreds or thousands) of sons or daughters of God - for I assures you, as my teacher Ahmed Deedat (May God bless him in life and in death) said, ‘God has children (i.e. sons and daughters) by the tones in the Christian Bibles.’ I know you may want to know ‘where have all this God’s children been hidden in the Christian Bibles?’ That is a very simple work. Just take any one of the existing Bibles, and start flipping through the pages right from Genesis up to where you can afford to reach, and by the time that you are finished with it you will have an appreciable number of verses that either talk about ‘a son of God’, ‘a daughter of God’, or even ‘sons’ or ‘daughters’ of God. However, in order to ease your task, I will provide you with a couple of verses that talk of ‘sons’ and ‘daughters’ of God right inside the Christian Bibles. However, for you my fellow Muslim brother, you should know that these couple of verses are a vital preaching tool for you with which you can shake the foundation of the faith of any Christian that is ignorant of their existence. So why not try and discuss them with your Christian friend(s). Some of these references, staring from the Old Testament, are as follows.

a. “…The sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose… when the sons of God came into the daughters of men, …”
Genesis 6:2-4

b. “Thus says the Lord, Israel is my First-Born son…‘Let my son go…’ ”
Exodus 4:22-23

c. “I (i.e. David) will tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to me: ‘you are My son, today I have begotten You.’ ”
Psalms 2:7

d. “…For I (God) am a father to Israel, and E’phraim is My first-Born.”
Jeremiah 31:9

e. “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.”
Matthew 5:9

f. “…Adam, which was the son of God.”
Luke 3:38

g. “For as many as are led by the spirit of God, they are the children of God.”
Romans 8:14

h. “… Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them”
Job 1:6 and 2:1

j. “When the morning stars sang together, and the sons of God shouted for joy.”
Job 38:7

I think the above nine references suffice for our present discourse. We may now ask the Christian evangelists: “From where does all these sons and daughters of God comes from? Is it from the last Testament of God to mankind (i.e. the Holy Qur’an) - God forbid? Is it from the Avesta of the Zoroastrians? Or the Hindu’s Veda’? Or the Angas, and Upangas of the Jainists? Or the Tipitaka of the Buddhist? The Granth of the Sinkhist of India? The Tao Te Ching of the Taoists of China ? The Confucian Wu Ching and Ssu Shu, in China? Or the Kojiki and Nihon Shoki of the Shintoists of Japan?” My answer to that is : None at all. Rather, all of them emanated from the Christian’s holy Book. Furthermore, we will ask the Christians: “How can all these verses be reconciled with the Christian’s catechism of John 3:16?” But, you never know with the Christian protagonists: This is because the crafty and cunning Christian foxes have devised a simple way of avoiding this type of question(s) from a Muslim. They will quickly point to the questioner that: ‘Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God, in that Jesus was begotten and not made.’ Then, we the Muslims are advised by the great Titan (i.e. Ahmed Deedat), that we should equally ask the Christians on, “What do they mean by the phrase ‘begotten and not made’?” With just that, you are assured that the Christian will then, either avoid the whole question (all together); or he will try to dribble his way out of the discussion by resorting to the use of an impossible number of words and phrases. (But my best bet is most of them will ‘keep their trap shut’ and start looking at you ‘like a mesmerised geese.’

For they do not know what to say, and they never will! Therefore, it is left for us (we the Muslims) to show the Christians the answer to the question. To this end, I will quote what my brother and our master, i.e. Dr Deedat, have to say and I quote:

‘ “Reason For objection”

‘The Muslim takes exception to the word “begotten”, because begetting is an animal act, belonging to the lower animal functions of sex. How can we attribute such a lowly capacity to God?’
(Ahmed Deedat, 1985.)

Therefore, since begetting is a sexual function of animals, it implies that “God cannot beget a son, and neither can he ‘sire’ a son (as an American once told Deedat in the course of a dialogue that he - Deedat - had with the American).” However, what if the Christian protagonists refuse to agree with the above answer, then our best bet is to ‘let the Bible speak (for itself).’

In Psalms 2:7 above, it was quoted that: “God (the Almighty) told the prophet David (AS)” that, “he (i.e. David, AS) is also a begotten son of God.” That makes two begotten sons of God, which means the Christian Bible have once again contradicted itself. But, in the Revised Standard Version (RSV) that ‘was revised by the thirty two scholars of the highest eminence, backed by fifty cooperating denominations’ - see the preface to the RSV, 1901, re-revised in 1946-52 and edited in 1971 - the Christian scholars were not unaware of this fact. So during their revision and editing of the Christian scriptures, they resolved and unceremoniously expunged the word “begotten” from the context of John 3:16 in their RSV. What is now left are just the wordings: ‘For God so loved the world that He gave His only son…” Surprisingly, this gallantry of the DDs (Doctors of Divinity) and PDs (professors of Divinity) of Christendom was done so silently as if it is of no significance at all. Therefore, this implies that the term “begotten” is not a genuine Title of Jesus Christ, but that it was cooked (or hoaxed) by the crafty Christian monkeys during the course of Christian History. This implies that the statement of Dr Ahmed Deedat as quoted above is the gospel truth. Consequently, Jesus is in no way any different from the other many sons and daughters of God - as contained in the Christian Bibles.
As the saying goes: ‘once a thief, always a thief,’ so I will not be surprised to hear that there still exist a “doubting Thomas” that is still not at all (or not fully) satisfied by the above reputation of the exclusive title of Jesus that say he is the “Only son of God.” Well, since the Christians are not better than kids (or programmed machines) in their reasoning, let us enlighten the Christian world further by quoting the words of Jesus that proves, beyond any reasonable doubt, that he (i.e. Jesus) is not the only son of God. Furthermore, it will be good to understand that the Bible, like any other eastern book is full of eastern proverbs, similes, metaphors, allegories, parables, etc.; and that these figures of speech are only (fully) understood by the easterners, or students that are taught by the easterners. Therefore, let it be clear that, ‘in the language of the easterner, and in the idiom of the easterner’ the term “son of God” is a harmless expression that signifies a God – fearing person, a saint or a Religious person.’ Thus, we should not derive any weird meaning (or ambiguous meaning) out of this ‘harmless eastern expression’.

First, in the Gospel according to St John, a drama (or a scene) took place (within the inside parts of the temple of Solomon) between Jesus Christ and the Jews. The drama (or scene) went like this. (The reader should note that it is the writer who quoted the passage in the form of a play.)


The Scene

‘It was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem, (and) it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the portico of Solomon. So the Jews gathered round about him and said:

‘JEWS: “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.

‘JESUS: (he answered them,) “ I told you, and you do not
believe. The works that I do in my father’s name, they bear witness to me; but you do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep. My Sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give them eternal life, and they shall not perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. My father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the father’s hand. I and the father are one.”

‘JEWS: (Took up stones again to stone him.)

‘JESUS: (Answered them,) “I have shown you many good
works from the father; for which of these do you stone me?”

‘JEWS: (Answered him,) “It is not for good work that we
stone you, but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

‘JESUS: (Answered them,) “Is it not written in your law, ‘I
said you are gods’? If he calls them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken), do you say of him whom the father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘you are blaspheming’ because I said, ‘I am the son of God’? If I am not doing the works of my father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the father is in me and I am in the father.”

‘JEWS: (Again they tried to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands.)’
John 10:23-39

“…Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most high.” (Psalms 82:6.) That was the exact scripture which Jesus referred to in the dialogue above. How strange?! What?! Calling human beings ‘the Children of God’ and ‘gods’?! These might be the reaction(s) of the westerner (or the westernised person), but the easterner, will simply laugh and point out that the terms ‘gods’, ‘Children of God’ and(or) ‘Son/Daughter of God’ are all metaphorical (and not literal) in meaning. Excellent! This was just what Jesus Christ was trying to remind his fellow Jews that were itching to stone him to death at the flimsiest excuse! Alas! Do you now realize that you have, for a long time, been taken for a ride; that all along you have vested and invested your emotion, trust and belief in concocted and fabricated human doctrines (and dogmas)?! Nevertheless, the Christian should know that all is not lost, for if he is ready to accept the truth (i.e. Islam) and throw away his long established (and long standing) prejudices and beliefs, then (s)he should know that the door of repentance is still wide open, and that Islam will give him(her) the warmest (and most suitable) welcome that was ever accorded his(her) person. If Christianity is no more, why not try Islam: the current religion for the present and the future?!

Well! For us to rest the matter, let us see what the Holy Qur’an has to say about the divine sonship of Jesus Christ, and also about those who hold that ominous belief. This is what Allah says:

1. “O people of the book (i.e. the Christians and the Jews)! Commit no excess in your religion. Nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the Son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God and His word, which He bestowed on Mary a Spirit proceeding from Him. So believe in God and His messengers…”
Holy Qur’an 4:171

2. “Christ the son of Mary was no more than an apostle; many were the apostles that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both ate their (daily) food. See how God doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they (i.e. the Christians) are deluded away from the truth!”
Holy Qur’an 5:75

3. “The Jews call Uzair (Ezra) a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old use to say. God’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the truth! They take their priests and their anchorites to be their Lords in derogation of God, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but one God: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from, having the partners they associate (with Him).”
Holy Qur’an 9:30-31

4. On the last day, the following dialogue will take place between God (the Almighty) and Jesus Christ. Thus, we read:

GOD: (‘And behold! God will say:) “O Jesus the Son
of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, ‘worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of God’?”

JESUS: (‘He will say:) “Glory to Thee ! Never could I

38

say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou
knowest what is in my heart, though I knowest not what is in Thine. For Thou knows in full all that is hidden. Never said I aught to them except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, ‘ worship God my Lord and your Lord’ (see John 20:17); and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt among them; When Thou didst take me up Thou was the watcher over them, and Thou art a Witness to all things. If Thou dost punish them, they are Thy servants: If Thou dost forgive them, Thou art the Exalted in Power, the Wise.”
Holy Qur’an 5:119-121

Lastly, in the Bible, Jesus was reported to have made a statement that tallies much with the above Qur’anic viewpoint. The statement that was accredited to Jesus by the Biblical witnesses is as follows:

“Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my father (i.e. God) who is in heaven. On that day, many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophecy in your name, and cast out demons in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers (i.e. workers of iniquity or men of lawlessness).’ ”
Matthew 7:21-22

Then the one Trillion Naira questions are: Who are those calling Jesus their Lord today? Who are those that claim to be performing miracles, wonders and signs in the name of Jesus? What is it that they are doing that makes them to be workers of iniquity (or evildoers, or men of lawlessness as the case may be)? The only answer to all of the above questions is simple, i.e. ‘it is the Christians, of course’! And they worship others in derogation to God!

Jesus also said:

“While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Thy name: those that Thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.”
John 17:12
This tally with Qur’an 5:119-121 quoted above.

CHAPTER TWO OF THE BOOK

CHAPTER TWO
THE CONCEPT OF “ORIGINAL SIN”

“No bearer of burdens can bear the burdens of another…”
Qur’an 6:164

“…Every man shall be put to death for his own sin…”
Deuteronomy 24:16

One of the basic differences between Islam and Christianity is the nature of the way in which the two religions conceive the idea (or reality) of sin. In Islam, sin simply means an intentional (or an unintentional) slip or mistake that human beings do commit from time to time - or in other words an offence committed against their fellow humans, animals or against God - throughout their secular and(or) religious life. The idea of sin here (i.e. in Islam) implies disobedience to divine command(s) or injunctions that are set out by God or His prophets; or a misapplication of God’s command and(or) injunction by a created being - i.e. human beings. In Islam, sin arises due to man’s lower desires, and man’s weaker natures - like hunger, lust, etc. On the other hand, in Christianity, ‘sin came to the world (or arose) due to the transgression of the first human couples – i.e. Adam and Eve (See Genesis 3:1-24, and Romans 5:17),’ and therefore, “every human-being (Since all human’s are the progeny of these two couples) have sinneth and fallen short of the glory of God.” Hence, for the human race to be free from this sin, according to Christianity, a sacrifice must be made in order to atone for that sin committed by Adam and Eve. (See Romans 5:15-21; Romans 6:6; and Romans 6:23.) This is clearly in contrast to the Islamic view of ‘forgiveness of sins’ (See Holy Qur’an 39:53).

To begin with, let us start by analysing the dogma of the “originality of sin”. In Christian theology, this dogma is of vital and significant importance. In fact, it could be said that, logically, it is this dogma that makes a Christian a Christian, and a non-Christian a non-Christian. This is due to the fact that, in a logical sequence, the concept of Original sin implies the need for atonement, and atonement can be made possible only when the sacrificial lamb (i.e. the person to be sacrificed) is himself free from any sin. Thus, it is the need for atonement that conditioned Jesus Christ (AS) to be the divine son of God (and consequently God himself) - i.e. if he is to overcome death and subdue sin. In short, the ‘divine sonship of Christ (AS)’, ‘the dogma of the Trinity,’ and ‘the atonement of sins through the blood of Jesus Christ (AS)’ all arose due to the originality of sin in Christendom. However, one may ask, ‘how justifiable is it for one to inherit the sins that he was not responsible for?’ ‘Is that not tantamount to saying that God is unjust in His dealings?’ The zealous Christians have devised a scriptural basis to justify this by quoting: “… I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children… of those who hate me…” (Exodus 20:5) in order to prove their dogmatic postulate that, ‘people can (and have already) inherit sin from their parents.’ At this moment, I will like my Muslim reader to understand one basic thing, and that is: a Christian mind have been inoculated and conditioned since it’s early growth-years to accept the teaching that ‘all are sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God;’ ... and that anybody who want to re-programme the Christians’ mindset will strike against a brick wall. They were equally made to believe that: “only the blood of Jesus washes away sins.” (See Roman 3:10, 3:23, John 1:12, Romans 6:23 and I Corinthians 15:3-4.) Therefore, to the Christian, the concept of “Original sin” is not ominous at all. Our duty as Muslim is only to re-programme those innocuous Christians by either convincing them through reasoning and dialogue, or by implanting the seed of doubt (i.e. doubt on the authenticity of their beliefs) into their minds and wait for that seed-of-doubt to germinate and blossom into a mature seedling which we will nourish with the waters of reasoning and the fertilizers of facts and logic. At this point, let us look up to the ‘Holy’ Bible for our holy witness as to the authenticity of the dogma of the ‘Originality of sin.’

When we read Exodus 20:5-6, i.e. the proper context of the verse quoted above in support of the Christians’ assertion, we will come to regard the Christian clergy as the real masters of the art of deception - i.e. because they are good at quoting half-truths. On reading the half-quoted verse above in its proper context, we will be appalled to read:

“…I the lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the Children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love (i.e. loving kindness) for those who love Me and keep my commandments.”

This is the proper context as against the version that the Christians want us to accept. Thus, it is now explicitly clear that it is those member of “the third and fourth generation” who “hates God and disobeyed His commandments” that will be “visited” for their “iniquity”; while “thousands” among them who “love God and obeyed His commandments” will be shown “Loving kindness” by God. Hence, we may conclude that only those children that followed their fathers in committing sin against God will be punished from generation to generation; while all those children and(or) children’s children who loved God and obeyed His commands will equally have their reward with God. Nevertheless, let us still search for more concrete proofs against the dogma under analysis.

First, in the book of Deuteronomy, the Lord of horsts says:

“The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor shall the children be put to death for the fathers; everyman shall be put to death for his own sin.”
Deuteronomy 24:16

Then if the lord of horsts has so decreed that we can’t kill children for their parents’ sin, and that nor can we kill parents for their wards’ sin; then how could we condemn the entire human race for having inherited a sin that they have not committed? Why should we regard the sin committed by Adam and Eve as an “original sin” that is afflicting the whole of mankind, rather than regarding it as wholly their own “cup of tea”? How can we effect this transfer of sin, which God further says (i.e. in the book of Jeremiah) it is impossible? In the book of Jeremiah, Jehovah further says that:

“In those days (i.e. the last days) they shall no longer say: ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’ But every man shall die for his own sin; each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set an edge.”
Jeremiah 31:29-30

This is another explicit denial of the dogma of ‘original sin’ by the bible (itself) as a fabricated hoax. This is because if every man must be tried and condemned for his own sins - as is the case with those whose teeth can only be set on edge if only they should eat sour grapes, then it follow that no one have ever inherited any sin from any one. In fact, it means that sin is (and was) never transferable.

The lord’s statement in the quoted verses from the book of Ezekiel - as shown below - is our third holy witness with which to prove how false and how illogical the ominous dogma of “Inherited sin” is even to the followers of the biblical-church.


“What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes…’? As I live, says the Lord God, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel. Behold, all souls are Mine; The soul that sin shall die.

“If a man is righteous and does what is lawful and right…he is righteous, he shall surely live, says the Lord God …

“Yet you say, ‘why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is lawful and right and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffers for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

“But if a wicked man turns away from all his sins which he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions of which he has committed shall be remembered against him for the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. HAVE I ANY PLEASURE IN THE DEATH OF THE WICKED, SAYS THE LORD GOD, AND NOT RATHER HE (i.e. the wicked) SHOULD TURN FROM HIS WAY (i.e. that of wickedness) AND LIVE?”
Ezekiel 18:2-23

Here, I will regard the above verses first, as excellent and beautiful. This is because they constitute an exactitude of what the Muslims’ point of view is with regard to the issue of sin and its so-called originality. An analysis of the above quoted verses will explicitly prove that:

i. As long as God lives - which He will always do - Israel shall no longer use the proverb of eating sour grapes to justify their unorthodox behaviour of punishing children for their parents’ evil deeds or vice-versa;

ii. That all souls belongs to God who will in turn punish all offending souls and reward all those obeying ones - i.e. on a strict personal merit basis;

iii. God too will not hold children in lieu of their parents, nor parents in lieu of their wards, but everyone for his own sins (doings);

iv. The lord forgives offenders their sins without remembering any sin against them, nor metering out punishment to any such offenders who sincerely repent to Him (and further, mend their ways); and

v. the lord doesn’t derive any benefit or pleasure in slaying offenders, but rather He prefer them to repent and live. Thus, it follows that the dogma of the originality (or inheritance) of sin is a hopeless, baseless and an illogical hoax; while the dogma of ‘atonement through the blood of Jesus Christ’ is yet another baseless hoax - i.e. as we will come to see later.

All these evidences may be swept aside by a cornered Christian as being worthless since they are drawn solely from the Old Testament. In view of this possibility, we will now turn our searchlight on the New Testament to achieve the same aim. From the Gospel “according to St. Matthew”, we read the following dialogue (i.e. between the master and his disciples).

DISCIPLES: “Master, who is the greatest in the Kingdom of heaven?”

JESUS: (Called a child and put the child in the midst of his disciples and said)

“Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

“Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin (Greek: causes to stumble), it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”
Matthew 18:1-6

The following basic points could be deduced from the short dialogue that was presented above.

a. Jesus’ answer to the question, ‘who is the greatest in the Kingdom of heaven?’ was: “He who enters heaven as sinless as a child”; and

b. To cause a (sinless) child to commit sin (i.e. to stumble, in Greek), is a grievous sin.

We can then rationally conclude that:

i. Children are born sinless - which is the reason why none can enter Paradise unless (s)he becomes like a child; and

ii. It is the adults (or grownups) that do lead small children to committing sin, and that they will be punished for that.

Therefore, if the children are born sinless (according to Jesus Christ, AS), then we can conclude (with 100 percent degree of certainty) that they did not inherit a single stain of sin from their parents; and it implies that no one ever inherited any sin in the first place. See, also, Mark 10:13-16 for the same incident.

In another place, in the same book of Matthew, Jesus was reported to have said:

“For the son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of His father (i.e. in the Glory of God), and then he will repay every man for what he has done.”
Matthew 16:17

Here, Jesus was telling his disciples, and the whole of his true followers that, in the last day, he will come and judge every one of them according to what he has done during his life on earth - i.e. he (Jesus) will judge the good or bad works of people, and not the sins or good works that they have inherited from their parents. Therefore, it implies that inherited sin will not be considered at all on the Day of Judgment. Hence, inherited sin is of no importance and it is, therefore, a fabrication that was hoaxed in the history of Christianity. Also, see Revelation 22:12.

Paul who was the champion and the most ardent proponent of the dogma of inherited sin also confirms the above statement that was made by the Biblical Jesus (i.e. in the epistle of Paul to the Romans) when he says:

“For he (i.e. Jesus) will render unto everyman according to his work…”
Romans 2:6

As the above statement has been explained, I will not bother you with any unnecessary repetitions of doing so again. However, it is of import for us to know that even Paul himself - who was the self-acclaimed champion of the dogma of Inherited sin, and the atonement of all sin through the blood of Jesus Christ (AS, see Romans 1:12; 3:23; 6:23, and I Corinthians 15:3-4) - have clearly shown us the truth and thereby contradicting himself. Also, see I Corinthians 3:8 and II Corinthians 5:8. You see! Cunning leads to nothing but self-deceit and self-destruction. Therefore, you should have nothing more to do with the dogma of original sin. Consequently I will advise, my Christian brethren to drop the dogma now and accept what God, Jesus, Ezekiel, Jeremiah and Paul have said regarding the concept of repentance and forgiveness of sin and its none-transferability.

As it is, one cannot tell what a cornered Christian might do! When cornered, the Christian become more cunning than ever, for they have been so programmed. However, our duty as Muslims is only to deliver the message; and it is God alone who can make any person to see the brightness of the Islamic light and accept that Islamic light as the true guidance for the conduct of his(their) life(ves). Therefore, as cunning as the Christians are, I know some of the cunning and craftily reverend fathers (or mothers) could make a twist of the whole argument by pointing out (to their followers, or listeners) that: “What the dogma of original sin is saying in essence is that everybody is born as a potential sinner, i.e. all have inherited (and are born with) the potentiality to commit sin from Adam and Eve; and not that everybody is born as an absolute sinner.”

Furthermore, in order to prove and defend their outdated religion from going into oblivion, they will say that: It is for the fact that man was born with carnal desires and instincts (that always leads him to sin) that the need for the cross arose; and that it is only the suffering by Jesus on the across and (subsequently) in hell that can take away the impact (or consequences) of such carnal desires and instincts that do lead man into sin. If that is the real picture, then let us follow the Christians in their own game - by accepting the new proposition that the term ‘Original sin’ really means the ‘potentiality in man to commit sin’. Then we can theorise as follows, “Mary (AS) also has inherited that stain ingrained in her and therefore Jesus Christ (AS) too have inherited the same stain from his mother (i.e. since ‘what is good for the goose is also good for the gander’).” Therefore, if this is the case, Jesus Christ cannot satisfy the requirements that are needed from the sacrificial lamb, the Chief of which is unblemishness - since he too is logically proven to be a sinner (i.e. one that has inherited the potentiality to commit sin from his mother) - May God forbid! Thus, it means that the Christians are still wallowing in the oceans of sin since the supposed atonement of sin by the blood of the Biblical Jesus Christ can, in no way, atone for the sin that he himself is a co-partner to. As simple as that, but if the Christians are stubborn enough they may still say they don’t agree. So let us catch them in their own lie. Our argument here will then be, ‘if Jesus has really atoned humanity of its sins on the cross, then it follows that the solution to that potentiality to commit sin have been administered in solving that same problem. Therefore, it followers that the potentiality to commit sin have been done away with, and it has become a thing of the past, long buried and long forgotten. My questions here are: Don’t we still have sin in the world? Are our new born still not born with that potentiality to commit sin? If the answers are all “yes”, then of what use was the atonement (or rather how effective is the remedy to sin that was administered by the atonement through the blood of Jesus Christ)? If the answers are “no”, then my brethren I say you are a bunch of mighty liars and a group of idealists rooming about in the distant nowhere that is called ‘fantasy land’. To end this chapter, let us see what the Holy Qur’an have to say.

“Say: ‘O my servant who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of God: for God forgives all sins: for He is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.’”
Holy Qur’an 39:53

Allah (SWA) also says:

“No bearer of burdens can bear the burdens of another.”
Holy Qur’an 6:164

In order to finally rest the matter, here is what Allah (S.W.A.) said when the first couples - i.e. Adam and Eve - disobeyed the injunctions of Allah that forbade them to eat of a certain tree that lies in heaven. He said thus:

“Then did Satan (i.e. the Devil) make them (i.e. Adam and Eve) slip from the (garden), and get them out of the state (of felicity) in which they had been. We (i.e. God) said: ‘Get you down, all (ye people), with enmity between yourselves. On earth will be your dwelling place and your means of Livelihood for a time.’

“Then learnt Adam from his lord words of Inspiration, and his Lord turned towards him, for He is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.’

“We (i.e. God) said: ‘Get ye down all from here; and if, as is sure, there comes to you guidance from Me, whosoever follows My Guidance, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. But those who reject faith and belie our signs they shall be companions of the fire; they shall abide therein.’ ”
Holy Qur’an 2:36-39
Such was the revelation of the truth, in the most beautiful language that befits only the Majesty of Allah to compose and(or) reveal.

CHRISTIANITY: REALITY OR DOGMATISM? (A MUST-READ FOR EVERY SEEKER OF TRUTH)

Assalamu ala-matittaba' al-huda!

Below is the introductory text of a book I'm writing with the same title as this post. I am appealing to all meaningful people who come accross this blog to please help me by posting contributions, questions, criticisms and suggestions with regard to the content, authenticity of the quoted scriptural passages as well as the veracity of the argument/logic in what I'm saying so that together with you my readers we will be able to find that path that'll lead to our eternal salvation through this excercise and many more to come insha-Allah. I'm not promoting hate or animosity between the christians and the muslims but rather, as the Vatican has urged us, as well as in accordance with God's directive that we should prove all things and hold fast to that which is good I present to you the introductory part of my humble write-up. Thank you so much.

CONTENTS

Dedication…………………………………………..…i

Acknowledgement ………………………………….ii

Content …………………………………………….….v

Foreword: By Sheikh Husseini Yusuf Mabera..vii

Prologue………………………………………………ix

1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………...1

2 THE CONCEPT OF “ORIGINAL SIN”……………7

3. THE “DIVINE SONSHIP OF CHRIST”………….21

4. THE “DOGMA OF THE TRINITY (3=1?!)”……33

5. “CRUCIFIXTION AND ATONEMENT BY THE BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST (AS)”?!.....................73

5. CONCLUSION………………………………….108

Epilogue…………………………………………..110

Bibliography……………………………………..113

FOREWORD By Sheikh HUSSEINI YUSSUF MABERA

The theory of the so-called original sin, atonement of sin through the blood of Jesus Christ, the concept of trinity, divine sonship of Christ and Salvation in Christianity are some of the elements that make Christianity to be a mask on the face of Jesus Christ (AS). The Christians believe in the mask, but they rejected Jesus Christ (AS) whose original teachings have been pontifically distorted by the Bible thumpers and other Doctors of Divinity in Christendom.

It is a pity that, in spite of the intensive theological readings and researches in the Bible library, the professional Christian propagandists and visionists who claim to be the custodians of the HOLY GHOST are still unable to find out the basic truth about the personality of Jesus Christ and his doctrines. Though the Bible contains spurious contradictions and historical fallacies, it still contains facts and guidelines that can help the Christian researchers to find out the true religion of God.

This educative comparative religious book titled: “CHRISTIANITY: REALITY OR DOGMATISM?!” Written by Aminu Buba Tela Giyawa is one of such facts and guidelines that every true and sincere Christian must read. The book is not only a challenge to the followers of Christianity, but it is also a lamp that can be used by any Muslim (who is interested in the study of comparative religious studies) to walk in the dark Ocean of Christianity. With this book in your hand, you can make any Christian hot-gospeller - such as the Jehovah Witnesses - to sweat profusely. If any Christian should read this book and still remain a Christian, it means that the understanding of the truth must have been removed from him. May Allah reward the author for his well-researched work whose aim is to educate both the Muslims and the Christians alike.

Mabera, Mallam Husseini Yussuf Mabera.
Sokoto.








PROLOGUE

1. (a) “…I the Lord your God am a Jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the Children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love (i.e. loving kindness) to thousands of those who love me and keep My commandments.”
Exodus 20:5-6

(b) “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor shall the children be put to death for the fathers; everyman shall be put to death for his own sin.”
Deuteronomy 24:16

(c) “…Truly, I say unto you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of Heaven.”
Matthew 18:3

(d) “…He (Jesus) will render to everyman according to his deeds.”
Romans 2:6

(e) “Say (O Muhammad): ‘O My servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of God: For God forgives all sins: For He is oft-forgiving Most Merciful.’”
Holy Qur’an 39:53

(f) “…No bearer of burdens can bear the burdens of another (man).”
Holy Qur’an 6:164

2. (a) “…Is it not written in your law, ‘I said you are gods’?...”
John 10:34

(b) “O people of the book (i.e. the Jews and Christians)! Commit no excess in your religion: Nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God and His word, which He bestowed on Mary, so believed in God and His Messenger…”
Holy Qur’an 4:171

3. a. (i.) “Now is my soul troubled (i.e. Jesus’ soul): and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour: Father glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from Heaven, saying, I have both glorified it and will glorify it again…Jesus answered and said, this voice came not because of me, but for your sake.”
John 12:27-30 (KJV)

(ii.) “He has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; and he has not hid his face from him, but He heard, when he cried.”
Psalms 23:24

(iii.) “The righteous cry, and the Lord heard, and delivereth them out of their troubles…The lord is nigh unto them that are of a Broken heart; and saved such as be of a contrite spirit. Many are the afflictions of the righteous; but the Lord delivereth him out of them all. He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.”
Psalms 34:15-20

b. “That they (i.e. the Jews) said (in boast), ‘We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of God’;-but they killed him not, nor crucify him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjectures to follow, for of a surely they they killed him not: Nay, God raised him up unto Himself; and God is Exalted is power wise…”
Holy Qur’an 4:157-8

c. “And if Christ be not risen then is our preaching vain, and your (i.e. The Christians’) faith is also vain…ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen in Christ are perished. If in this world only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.”
I Corinthians 15:14-19

4. a. (i.) “…I (Jesus) can of mine own self do nothing…”
John 5:30


(ii.) “…The son can do nothing of himself…”
John 5:19

(iii.) “…I (Jesus) cast out devils by the spirit of God…”
Matthew 12:28

(b) “To whom will you liken Me (God) and make Me equal, and compare me, that we may be alike?”
Isaiah46:5

(c) “And this is life eternal that they might know thee the only True God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”
John 17:3

(d) “They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a trinity: For there is no god except God. If they desist not from their words (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.”
Al-Qur’an 5:76









CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

‘Say: “O people of the Book! Come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but Allah: That we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not from among ourselves, Lords and patrons besides Allah.” If they turn back, say ye: “Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to God’s will).” ’
Al-Qur’an 3:64

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. All obedience and total submission be to Allah (SWA) who created the heavens and the earth without any previous model! God it is who created Adam without a Father! He alone deserves to be worshipped! He alone deserves to be feared! Moreover, He alone deserves to be asked for help! We should bow down to Him alone; and we should vow with His Name alone! I praise Him in the most pure, eloquent and befitting terms.

Benefic prayers and Salutations be upon our noble prophet, Mustapha (Pbuh); The noblest of the Truth bearers, the most luminous of all heavenly sent lanterns, and the guide to the right path. May the peace and blessings of Allah (SWA) be upon his noble progeny, his rightly guided wives and companions, and the entire Muslim Ummah, Amin.

This little book is my personal effort toward aiding our Jihad against the tottering forces of Christendom. The Purpose of this book is to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Christianity is merely a collection of man-made dogmas, traditions and beliefs. This was born out of the need to refute a certain book, titled: “Why is it difficult for a Muslim to become a Christian?” written by one Abd-al-Masih. However, due to some reasons of logic and space, I was made to modify some of the materials in my other book - i.e. “Christianity was not for all Nations!” - into the present work. However, the two have now come to assume completely different spirits, as well as different objectives. While the present work wants to prove that Christianity is mere dogmatism created by human beings; the other work has its objective in answering the question: “Why is it difficult for a Muslim to become a Christian?” Thus even though the two share some common views and references, yet their objectives and thrust vary greatly.
The present work tried to take the bull by the horns, i.e. by attacking the most sacred, as well as the most vital dogmas of Christianity, viz-a-viz: The concept of original sin; the divine sonship of Christ; the Trinitarian doctrine; the so-called crucifixion and resurrection of Christ; atonement through the blood of Christ; and lastly, the ascension of Christ. All these were logically and scripturally refuted as mere inventions of the early Christians and(or) the enemies of Christ. I hope this work will serve as my ransom against the blazing flames of the hellfire, and the raging flames of the fire of passion, Amin.

CHRIST IN ISLAM

The text below is an exact copy of the book, "Christ in Islam!" written by the lateTitan Sheikh (Dr) Ahmed Deedat (may Allah be pleased with him reproduced word for word in order to introduce this site. Please leave your comments, criticisms and questions an posts on this blog and insha-Allah I'll try as much as possible to answere or respond as appropriate. Thank you very much and bissalam ala manittaba'al huda!

Chapter One: Christian Muslim Responses

Debate on TV

At the end of the debate - "Christianity and Islam" - which appeared on the SABC-TV program "Cross Questions" on Sunday 5th June 1983, the Chairman, Mr. Bill Chalmers commented: "I think it can be said from this discussion that there is, at present, somewhat more accommodation on the Islamic side for the founder of Christianity than there is on the Christian side for the founder of Islam. What the significance of that is, we leave it to you, the viewer, to determine, but I do think you will agree that it is a good thing that we are talking together."

"Bill" as he is popularly addressed, without any formalities, on all his programs, by all his panelists, is extremely charming and stupendous in his humility. He is a picture of what the Holy Qur’ân portrays of a good Christian:

"...And nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say: 'We are Christians': because among these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world. And they are not arrogant." (The Holy Qur’ân 5:82)

Jesus - His Status

Were the Muslims on the panel trying to placate the viewers out policy, deceit or diplomacy? Nothing of the kind! They were only articulating what God Almighty had commanded them to say in the Holy Qur’ân. As Muslims, they had no choice. They had said in so many words: "We Muslims believe, that Jesus was one of the mightiest messengers of God that he was the Christ, that he was born miraculously without any male intervention (which many modern-day Christians do not believe today), that he gave life to the dead by God's permission and that he healed those born blind and the lepers by god's permission. In fact, no Muslim is a Muslim if he or she does not believe in Jesus!"

Pleasant Surprise

Over 90% of the people who witnessed this debate must have been pleasantly, but skeptically, surprised. They might have not believed their ears. They must have surmised that the Muslims were playing to the gallery - that they were trying to curry favor with their fellow Christian countrymen; that if the Muslims would say a few good words about Jesus, then in reciprocation the Christians might say a few good words about Muhammed (may the peace and the blessings of God be upon all His righteous servants, Moses, Jesus, Muhammed...etc.); that I scratch your back and you scratch my back - which would be a sham or hypocrisy.
Hate Cultivated

We cannot blame the Christians for their skepticism. They have been so learned for centuries. They were trained to think the worst of the man Muhammed, (salla Allah u alihi wa sallam), and his religion. How aptly did Thomas Carlyle say about his Christian brethren over a hundred and fifty years ago: "The lies which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man (Muhammed) are disgraceful to ourselves only." We Muslims are partly responsible for this. We have not done anything substantial to remove the cobwebs.
Ocean of Christianity

South Africa is an ocean of Christianity. If Libya boasts the highest percentage of Muslims on the continent of Africa, then the Republic of South Africa would also be entitled to boast the highest percentage of Christians. In this ocean of Christianity the R.S.A. - the Muslims are barely 2% of the total population. We are a vote less minority - numerically, we count for nothing; politically, we count for nothing; and economically, one white man, as Oppenheimer, could buy out the whole lot of us, lock, stock and barrel.

So if we had feigned to appease, we might be excused. But no! We must proclaim our Master's Will; we must declare the Truth, whether we liked it or not. In the words of Jesus: "Seek ye the truth, and the truth shall set you free" (John 8:32).

Chapter Two: Jesus in the Qur’ân

Christians Unaware

The Christian does not know that the true spirit of charity which the Muslim displays, always, towards Jesus and his mother Mary spring from the fountainhead of his faith - the Holy Qur’ân. He does not know that the Muslim does not take the holy name of Jesus, in his own language, without saying Eesa, alaihi assalam ("Jesus, peace be upon him")

The Christian does not know that in the Holy Qur’ân Jesus is mentioned twenty five times. For example:

"We gave Jesus, the son of Mary, clear signs and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit" (The Holy Qur’ân 2:87)

"O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary..." (3:45)

"...Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of god..." (4:171)

"...And in their foot steps we sent Jesus the son of Mary..." (5:46)

"And Zakariya and John, and Jesus and Elias: all in the ranks of the righteous." (6:85)

Jesus - His Titles

Though Jesus is mentioned by name in twenty-five places in the Holy Qur’ân, he is also addressed with respect as: Ibn Maryam, meaning "The son of Mary"; and as the Maseeh (in Hebrew it is the Messiah), which is translated as "Christ". He is also known as Abdullah, "The servant of Allah"; and as Rasul u Allah, the messenger of Allah.

He is spoken of as "The Word of God", as "The Spirit of God", as a "Sign of God", and numerous other epithets of honor spread over fifteen different chapters. The Holy Quran honors this mighty messenger of God, and the Muslims have not fallen short over the past fourteen hundred years in doing the same. There is not a single disparaging remark in the entire Quran to which even the most jaundiced among the Christians can take exception.

Eesa Latinised to "Jesus"

The Holy Qur’ân refers to Jesus as Eesa, and this name is used more times than any other title, because this was his "Christian" name. Actually, his proper name was Eesa (Arabic), or Esau (Hebrew); classical Yeheshua, which the Christian nations of the West latinised as Jesus. Neither the "J" nor the second "s" in the name Jesus is to be found in the original tongue - they are not found in the Semitic languages.

The word is very simply "E S A U" a very common Jewish name, used more than sixty times in the very first booklet alone of the Bible, in the part called "Genesis". There was at least one "Jesus" sitting on the "bench" at the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin. Josephus the Jewish historian mentions some twenty five Jesus' in his "Book of Antiquities". The New Testament speaks of "Bar-Jesus" a magician and a sorcerer, a false prophet (Acts 13:6); and also "Jesus-Justus" a Christian missionary, a contemporary of Paul (Colossians 4:11). These are distinct from Jesus the son of Mary. Transforming "Esau" to (J)esu(s) - Jesus - makes it unique. This unique (?) name has gone out of currency among the Jews and the Christians from the 2nd century after Christ. Among the Jews, because it came to be a name of ill - repute, the name of one who blasphemed in Jewry; and among the Christians because it came to be the proper name of their God. The Muslim will not hesitate to name his son Eesa because it is an honored name, the name of a righteous servant of the Lord.

Chapter Three: Mother And Son

Mary Honored

The birth of Jesus Christ is described in two places of the Qur’ân - chapter 3 and chapter 19. Reading from the beginning of his birth, we come across the story of Mary, and the esteemed position which she occupies in the House of Islam, before the actual annunciation of the birth of Jesus is given:

"'Behold'! the angels said: 'O Mary! God hath chosen thee and purified thee, and chosen thee above the women of all nations" (3:42)

"Chosen thee above the women of all nations." Such an honor is not to be found given to Mary even in the Christian Bible! The verse continues:

"O Mary! Worship thy Lord devoutly: prostrate thyself, and bow down (in prayer) with those who bow down." (3:43)

Divine Revelation

What is the source of this beautiful and sublime recitation which, in its original Arabic, moves men to ecstasy and tears? Verse 44 below explains:

"This is part of the tidings, of the things unseen, which We reveal unto thee (O Muhammad!) by inspiration: Thou wasn’t not with them when they cast lots with arrows, as to which of them should be charged with the care of Mary: nor wasn’t thou with them when they disputed (the point)." (3:44)

Mary's Birth

The story is that the maternal grandmother of Jesus, Hannah, had hitherto been barren. She poured out her heart to God: If only God will grant her a child, she would surely dedicate such a child for the service of God in the temple.

God granted her prayer and Mary was born. Hannah was disappointed. She was yearning for a son, but instead she delivered a daughter; and in no way is the female like the male, for what she had in mind. What was she to do? She had made a vow to God. She waited for Mary to be big enough to fend for herself.

When the time came, Hannah took her darling daughter to the temple, to hand over for temple services. Every priest wanted to be the god-father of this child. They cast lots with arrows for her - like the tossing of the coin - head or tail? Eventually she fell to the lot of Zakariya, but not without a dispute.

The Source of His Message

This was the story. But where did Muhammed, salla Allah u alihi wa sallam, get this knowledge from? He was an Ummi, Arabic for "unlettered". He did not low how to read or write. He is made by God Almighty to answer this very question in the verse above, by saying that it was all by divine inspiration. "No!", says the controversialist. "This is Mohammed’s own concoction. He copied his revelations from the Jews and Christians. He plagiarized it. He forged it."

Knowing full-well, and believing as we do, that the whole Qur’ân is the veritable Word of God, we will nevertheless agree, for the sake of argument, with the enemies of Muhammed, salla Allah u alihi wa sallam, for a moment, that he wrote it. We can now expect some cooperation from the unbelievers.

Ask him: "Have you any qualms in agreeing that Muhammed was an Arab?" Only an ignorant will hesitate to agree. In that case there is no sense in pursuing any discussion. Cut short the talk. Close the book!

With the man of reason, we proceed. "That this Arab, in the first instance, was addressing other Arabs. He was not talking to Indian Muslims, Chinese Muslims, or Nigerian Muslims. He was addressing his own people, the Arabs. Whether they agreed with him or not, he told them in the most sublime form, words that were seared into the hearts and minds of his listeners that Mary the mother of Jesus, a Jewess, was chosen above the women of all nations. Not his own mother, nor his wife nor his daughter, nor any other Arab woman, but a Jewess! Can one explain this? Because to everyone his own mother or wife, or daughters would come before other women.

Why would the prophet of Islam honor a woman from his opposition! and a Jewess at that! belonging to a race which had been looking down upon his people for three thousand years? Just as they still look down upon their Arab brethren today."

Sarah and Hagar

The Jews learn, from the Bible, that their father, Abraham, had two wives Sarah and Hagar. They say that they are the children of Abraham through Sarah his legitimate wife; that their Arab brethren have descended through Hagar, a "bondwoman", and that as such, the Arabs are an inferior breed.

Will anyone please explain the anomaly as to why Muhammed, salla Allah u alihi wa sallam, if he is the author, chose this Jewess for such high honor? The answer is simple, he had no choice he had no right to speak of his own desire. "It is no less than an inspiration sent down to him." (53:4)

The Chapter of Maryam

There is a Chapter in the Holy Qur’ân, named Surat u Maryam "Chapter Mary", named in honor of Mary the mother of Jesus Christ, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him; again, such an honor is not to be found given to Mary in the Christian Bible. Out of the 66 books of the Protestants and 73 of the Roman Catholics, not one is named after Mary or her son. You will find books named after Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul and two score more obscure names, but not a single one is that of Mary!

If Muhammed, salla Allah u alihi wa sallam, was the author of the Holy Qur’ân, then he would not have failed to include in it with Mary, the mother of Jesus, his own mother Aamina, his dear wife Khadija, or his beloved daughter Fatimah. But No! No! This can never be. The Qur’ân is not his handiwork!.

Chapter Four: The Good News

" 'Behold!' the angels said: 'O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him: his name will be Jesus, the son of Mary; held in honor in this world and the hereafter; and (of the company of) those nearest to Allah." (3:45)

"Nearest to God," not physically nor geographically, but spiritually. Compare this with "And (Jesus) sat on the right hand of God." (Mark 16:19). The bulk of Christendom has misunderstood this verse as well as many others in the Bible. They imagine the Father (God) sitting on a throne, a glorified chair, and His Son, Jesus, sitting on His right hand side. Can you conjure up the picture? If you do, you have strayed from the true knowledge of God. He is no old Father Christmas. He is beyond the imagination of the mind of man. He exists. He is real, but He is not like anything we can think of, or imagine.

In eastern languages "right hand" meant a place of honor, which the Holy Qur’ân more fittingly describes as "In the company of those nearest to Allah." The above verse confirms that Jesus is the Christ. and that he is the Word which God bestowed upon Mary. Again, the Christian reads into these words, a meaning which they do not carry. They equate the word "Christ" with the idea of a god-incarnate; and the "Word" of God to be God.

"Christ" Not a Name

The word "Christ" is derived from the Hebrew word Messiah, Arabic Maseeh. Root word masaha, meaning "to rub", "to massage", "to anoint". Priests and kings were anointed when being consecrated to their offices. But in its translated Grecian form, "Christ" seems unique: befitting Jesus only.

Christians like to translate names into their own language; like Cephas to "Peter" , Messiah to "Christ". How do they do that? Very easily. Messiah in Hebrew means "Anointed". The Greek word for anointed is Christos. Just lop off the 'os' from Christos, and you are left with "Christ"; a unique name!

Christos means "Anointed", and anointed means appointed in its religious connotation. Jesus, peace and blessing be upon him, was appointed (anointed) at his baptism by John the Baptist, as God's Messenger. Every prophet of God is so anointed or appointed. The Holy Bible is replete with the "anointed" ones. In the original Hebrew, he was made a Messiah. Let us keep to the English translation "anointed."

Not only were prophets and priests and kings anointed (Christos-ed), but horns, and cherubs and lamp-posts also.

"I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar ..." (Genesis 31:13)

"If the priest that is anointed do sin ..." (Leviticus 4:3)

"And Moses... anointed the tabernacle and all things that was therein..." (Leviticus 8:100)

"..the Lord shall...exalt the horn of his anointed" (I Samuel 2:10)

"Thus saith the Lord to his anointed to Cyrus..." (Isaiah 45:1)

"Thou art the anointed cherub..." (Ezekiel 28:14)

There are an hundred more such references in the Holy Bible. Every time you come across the word "anointed" in your Bible, you can take it that that word would be christos in the Greek translations, and if you take the same liberty with the word that the Christians have done, you will have Christ Cherub, Christ Cyrus, Christ Priest and Christ Pillar, ...etc.

Some Titles Exclusive

Although, every prophet of God is an anointed one of God, a Messiah, the title Maseeh or Messiah, or its translation "Christ" is exclusively reserved for Jesus, the son of Mary, in both Islam and in Christianity. This is not unusual in religion. There are certain other honorific titles which may be applied to more than one prophet, yet being made exclusive to one by usage: like "Rasulullaah", meaning "Messenger of God", which title is applied to both Moses (19:51) and Jesus (61:6) in the Holy Qur’ân. Yet "Rasulullaah" has become synonymous only with Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, among Muslims.

Every prophet is indeed a "Friend of God", but its Arabic equivalent "Khalillullaah" is exclusively associated with Father Abraham. This does not mean that the others are not God's friends. "Kaleemullaah", meaning "One who spoke with Allah" is never used for anyone other than Moses, yet we believe that God spoke with many of His messengers, including Jesus and Muhammed, may the peace and blessings of God be upon all His servants. Associating certain titles with certain personages only, does not make them exclusive or unique in any way. We honor all in varying terms.

Whilst the good news was being announced (verse 45 above) Mary was told that her unborn child will be called Jesus, that he would be the Christ, a "Word" from God, and that...

"He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous." (3:46)

"At length she brought the (babe) to her people carrying him. They said: 'O Mary! truly a strange thing has thou brought!'. 'O sister of Aaron!, thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!' " (The Holy Qur’ân 19:27-28)

Jews Amazed

There is no Joseph the carpenter here. The circumstances being peculiar, Mary the mother of Jesus had retired herself to some remote place in the East (19:16). After the birth of the child she returns.

A. Yusuf Ali, comments in his popular English translation of the Qur’ân:

"The amazement of the people knew no bounds. In any case they were prepared to think the worst of her, as she had disappeared from her kin for some time. But now she comes, shamelessly parading a babe in her arms! How she had disgraced house of Aaron, the fountain of priesthood!

"Sister of Aaron": Mary is reminded of her high lineage and the unexceptionable morals of her father and mother. How, they said, she had fallen, and disgraced the name of her progenitors!

What could Mary do? How could she explain? Would they, in their censorious mood accept her explanation? All she could do was to point to the child, who, she knew, was no ordinary child. And the child came to her rescue. By a miracle he spoke, defended his mother, and preached to an unbelieving audience."

Allah azza wa jall says in the Qur’ân:

"But she pointed to the babe. They said: 'How can we talk one who is a child in the cradle?' He (Jesus) said: 'I am indeed a servant of Allah (God): He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet: 'and He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me prayer and charity as long as I live. '(He hath made me) kind to my mother, and not overbearing or unblest; 'So Peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life again)'!" (19:29-33)

His First Miracle(s)

Thus Jesus, peace and blessings be upon him, defended his mother from the grave calumny and innuendoes of her enemies. This is the very first miracle attributed to Jesus in the Holy Qur’ân that, he spoke as an infant from his mother's arms. Contrast this with his first miracle in the Christian Bible, which occurred when he was over thirty years of age:

"And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, they have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, 'Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.' His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. And there were set there six water pots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the water pots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now." (John 2:110)

Since this miracle, wine has flowed like water in Christendom. Many reason that what was good for the Master is good enough for them. Jesus was no "kill-joy" they say. Didn't he make good potent wine, that even those "well drunk", those whose senses had been dulled could make out the difference? "That the best was kept for the last.". This was no pure grape juice. It was the same wine that, according to the Christian Bible, enabled the daughters of Lot to seduce their father (Genesis 19:32-33). It was the same wine which the Christian is advised to eschew in Ephesians 5:18 - "And be not drunk with wine..."

It is that innocent (?) 1% potency that eventually leads millions down into the gutter. America has 10 million drunkards in the midst of 70 million "born-again" Christians! The Americans call their drunkards "Problem Drinkers". In South Africa, they are called "Alcoholics"; drunkard is too strong a word for people to stomach.

But the Prime Minister of Zambia, Dr. Kenneth Kaunda, does not hesitate to call a spade a spade. He says, "I am not prepared to lead nation of drunkards", referring to his own people who drink intoxicants.

Whether the water "blushed" or not "seeing" Jesus, we cannot blame him or his disciples for the drinking habits of his contemporaries. For he had truly opined, "have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now" (John 16:12). Mankind had not reached the stage of receiving the whole Truth of Islam. Did he not also say "You cannot put new wine into old bottles"? (Matthew 9:17).

"Mother" or "Woman"?

According to St. John, in the fourth verse above, describing the marriage feast at Cana, we are told that Jesus, peace and blessings be upon him, behaved insolently towards his mother. He calls her "woman," and to rub more salt into the wound he is made to say "what have I to do with thee?" What connection is there between you and me, or what have I got to do with you? Could he have forgotten that this very "woman" had carried him for nine months, and perhaps suckled him for 2 years, and had borne endless insults and injuries on account of him? Is she not his mother? Is there no word in his language for "mother"?

Strange as it may seem, that while the missionaries boast about their master's humility, meekness and long-suffering, they call him the "Prince of Peace" and they sing that "he was led to the slaughter like a lamb, and like a sheep who before his shearer is dumb, he opened not his mouth", yet they proudly record in the same breath, that he was ever ready with invectives for the elders of his race, and was always itching for a showdown i.e. if their records are true:

"Ye hypocrites!"
"Ye wicked and adulterous generation!"
"Ye whited sephulcres!"
"Ye generation of vipers!"
and now to his mother: "Woman..."

Jesus Defended

Muhammed, salla Allah u alihi wa sallam, the Messenger of God, is made to absolve Jesus from the false charges and calumnies of his enemies.

"And He (God Almighty) hath made me (Jesus) kind to my mother, and not overbearing or unblest" (19:31).

On receiving the good news of the birth of a righteous son Mary responds:

"She said: 'O My Lord! how shall I have a son, when no man hath touched me?"

The angel says in reply:

"He said: 'Even so: Allah (God) createth what He willeth: when He hath decreed a matter He but sayth o it 'Be,' and it is! And Allah (God) will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Torah (Law) and the Gospel," (3:47-48).

Chapter Five : Qur’ânic and Biblical Versions

Meeting the Reverend

I was visiting the "Bible House" in Johannesburg. Whilst browsing through the stacks of Bibles and religious books, I picked up an Indonesian Bible and had just taken in hand a Greek - English New Testament, a large, expensive volume. I had not realized that I was being observed by the supervisor of the Bible House. Casually, he walked up to me. Perhaps my beard and my Muslim headgear were an attraction and a challenge? He inquired about my interest in that costly volume. I explained that as a student of comparative religion, I had need for such a book. He invited me to have tea with him in his office. It was very kind of him and I accepted.

Over the cup of tea, I explained to him the Muslim belief in Jesus, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. I explained to him the high position that Jesus occupied in the House of Islam. He seemed skeptical about what I said. I was amazed at his seeming ignorance, because only retired Reverend gentlemen can become Supervisors of Bible Houses in South Africa. I began reciting from verse 42 of chapters 3 of the Holy Qur’ân:

"'Behold!' The angels said: 'O Mary, Allah hath chosen thee...'"

I wanted the Reverend to listen, not only to the meaning of the Qur’an, but also to the music of its cadences when the original Arabic was recited. Rev. Dunkers (for that was his name) sat back and listened with rapt attention to "Allah's Words".

When I reached the end of verse 49, the Reverend commented that the Qur’ânic message was like that of his own Bible. He said, he saw no difference between what he behaved as a Christian, and what I had read to him. I said: "that was true". If he had come across these verses in the English language alone without their Arabic equivalent, side by side, he would not have been able to guess in a hundred years that he was reading the Holy Qur’ân. If he were a Protestant, he would have thought that he was reading the Roman Catholic Version, if he had not seen one, or the Jehovah's Witness Version or the Greek Orthodox Version, or the hundred and one other versions that he might not have seen; but he would never have guessed that he was reading the Qur’ânic version.

The Christian would be reading here, in the Qur’ân, everything he wanted to hear about Jesus, but in a most noble, elevated and sublime language. He could not help being moved by it.

In these eight terse verses from 42 to 49 we are told:

(a) That Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virtuous woman, and honored above the women of all nations.

(b) That all that was being said was God's own Revelation to mankind.

(c) That Jesus was the "Word" of God.

(d) That he was the Christ that the Jews were waiting for.

(e) That God will empower this Jesus to perform miracles even in infancy.

(f) That Jesus was born miraculously, without any male intervention.

(g) That God will vouchsafe him Revelation.

(h) That he will give life to the dead by God's permission, and that he will heal those born blind and the lepers by God's permission, ... etc.

"Chalk and Cheese"

The most fervent Christian cannot take exception to a single statement or word here. But the difference between the Biblical and the Qur’ânic narratives is that between "chalk and cheese". "To me they are identical, what is the difference?" the Reverend asked. I know that in their essentials both the stories agree in their details, but when we scrutinize them closely we will discover that the difference between them is staggering.

Now compare the miraculous conception as announced in verse 47 of the Holy Qur’ân with what the Holy Bible says:

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was in this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, (as husband and wife) she was found with child of the holy ghost."(Matthew 1:18)

Master Dramatizer

The eminent Billy Graham from the United States of America dramatized this verse in front of 40,000 people in King Park, Durban, with his index finger sticking out and swinging his outstretched arm from right to left, he said: "And the Holy Ghost came and impregnated Mary!" On the other hand St. Luke tells us the very same thing but less crudely. He says, that when the annunciation was made, Mary was perturbed. Her natural reaction was:

"How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" (Luke 1:34) meaning sexually.

The Qur’ânic narrative is:

"She said: O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" (3:47) Meaning sexually.

In essence there is no difference between these two statements "seeing I know not a man" and "when no man hath touched me". Both the quotations have an identical meaning. It is simply a choice of different words meaning the same thing. But the respective replies to Mary's plea in the two Books (the Quran and the Bible) are revealing.

The Biblical Version

Says the Bible:

"And the angle answered and said into her: 'The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee" (Luke 1:35)

Can't you see that you are giving the atheist, the skeptic, the agnostic a stick to beat you with? They may well ask "How did the Holy Ghost come upon Mary?" "How did the Highest overshadow her?" We know that literally it does not mean that: that it was an immaculate conception, but the language used here, is distasteful. Now contrast this with the language of the Qur’ân:

The Qur’ânic Version

"He said (the angel says in reply): 'Even so: Allah (God) createth what He willeth: when He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!' " (3:47)

This is the Muslim concept of the birth of Jesus. For God to create a Jesus, without a human father, He merely has to will it. If He wants to create a million Jesus' without fathers or mothers, He merely wills them into existence. He does not have to take seeds and transfer them, like men or animals by contact or artificial insemination . He wills everything into being by His word of command "Be" and "It is".

There is nothing new in what I am telling you, I reminded the Reverend. It is in the very first Book of your Holy Bible, Genesis 1:3 "And God said..." What did He say? He said "Be" and "It was". He did not have to articulate the words. This is our way of understanding the word "Be", that He willed everything into being.

Choice for His Daughter

"Between these two versions of the birth of Jesus, the Qur’ânic version and the Biblical version, which would you prefer to give your daughter?" I asked the supervisor of the Bible House. He bowed his head down in humility and admitted "The Qur’ânic Version."

How can "a forgery" or "an imitation", as it is alleged of the Qur’ân, be better than the genuine, the original, as it is claimed for the Bible? It can never be, unless this Revelation to Muhammed is what it, itself, claims to be viz. The pure and holy Word of God! There are a hundred different tests that the unprejudiced seeker after truth can apply to the Holy Qur’ân and it will qualify with flying colors to being a Message from on High.

Like Adam

Does the miraculous birth of Jesus make him a God or a "begotten" Son of God? No! says the Holy Qur’ân:

"The similitude of Jesus before Allah (God) is that of Adam; He created him from dust then said to him: 'Be', and he was." (3:59)

Yusuf Ali, comments in his notes in the Qur’ân translation:

"After a description of the high position which Jesus occupies as a prophet in the preceding verses we have a repudiation of the dogma that he was God, or the son of God, or any thing more than man. If it is said that he was born without a human father, Adam was also so born. Indeed Adam was born without either a human father or mother. As far as our physical bodies are concerned they are mere dust.

In God's sight Jesus was as dust just as Adam was or humanity is. The greatness of Jesus arose from the divine command 'Be': for after that he was more than dust a great spiritual leader and teacher"

The logic of it is that, if being born without a male parent entitles Jesus to being equated with God, then, Adam would have a greater right to such honor, and this no Christian would readily concede. Thus, the Muslim is made to repudiate the Christian blasphemy.

Further, if the Christian splits hairs by arguing that Adam was "created" from the dust of the ground, whereas Jesus was immaculately "begotten" in the womb of Mary, then let us remind him that, even according to his own false standards, there is yet another person greater than Jesus, in his own Bible . Who is this superman?

Paul's Innovation

"For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God... Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life..." (Hebrews 7:1,3)

Here is a candidate for Divinity itself, for only God Almighty could possess these qualities. Adam had a beginning (in the garden), Jesus had a beginning (in the stable); Adam had an end and, claim the Christians, so had Jesus "and he gave up the ghost". But where is Melchisedec? Perhaps he is hibernating somewhere like Rip Van Winkel (a fairy tale character who slept for many ages.)

And what is this "Hebrews"? It is the name of one of the Books of the Holy Bible, authored by the gallant St. Paul, the self appointed thirteenth apostle of Christ. Jesus had twelve apostles, but one of them (Judas) had the Devil in him. So the vacancy had to be filled, because of the "twelve" thrones in heaven, which had to be occupied by his disciples to judge the children of Israel (Luke 22:30).

Saul was a renegade Jew, and the Christians changed his name to "Paul", probably because "Saul" sounds Jewish. This St. Paul made such a fine mess of the teachings of Jesus, peace blessings be upon him, that he earned for himself the second most coveted position of "The Most Influential Men of History" in the monumental work of Michael H. Hart: The 100 or The Top Hundred or the Greatest Hundred in History. Paul outclasses even Jesus because, according to Michael Hart, Paul was the real founder of present day Christianity. The honor of creating Christianity had to be shared between Paul and Jesus, and Paul won because he wrote more Books of the Bible than any other single author, whereas Jesus did not write a single word.

Paul needed no inspiration to write his hyperboles here and in the rest of his Epistles. Did not Hitler's Minister of Propaganda Goebbels say: "The bigger the lie the more likely it is to be believed'? But the amazing thing about this exaggeration is that no Christian seems to have read it. Every learned man to whom I have shown this verse to, seemed to be seeing it for the first time. They appear dumbfounded, as described by the fitting words of Jesus:

"...seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." (Matthew 13:13)
The Holy Qur’ân also contains a verse which fittingly describes this well cultivated sickness:

"Deaf, dumb and blind, will they not return (to the path)." (2:18)

The Sons of God

The Muslim takes strong exception to the Christian dogma that "Jesus is the only begotten son, begotten not made". This is what the Christian is made to repeat from childhood in his catechism. I have asked learned Christians, again and again as to what they are really trying to emphasize, when they say: "Begotten not made".

They know that according to their own God given (?) records, God has sons by the tons:

"...Adam, which was the son of God."(Luke 3:38)

"That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair... And when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them..." (Genesis 6: 2,4)

"...Israel is My son, even My firstborn:" (Exodus 4:22)

"...for I (God) am a Father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn." (Jeremiah 31:9)

"...the Lord hath said unto me (David): 'Thou art My son: this day have I begotten thee." (Psalms 2:7)

"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." (Romans 18:14)

Can't you see that in the language of the Jew, every righteous person, every Tom, Dick and Harry who followed the Will and Plan of God, was a "Son of God". It was a metaphorical descriptive term commonly used among the Jews. The Christian agrees with this reasoning, but goes on to say: "but Jesus was not like that". Adam was made by God. Every living thing was made by God, He is the Lord, Cherisher and Sustainer of all. Metaphorically speaking therefore God is the Father of all. But Jesus was the "begotten" Son of God, not a created Son of God?
Begotten Means "Sired"!

In my forty years of practical experience in talking to learned Christians, not a single one has opened his mouth to hazard an explanation of the phrase "begotten not made". It had to be an American who dared to explain. He said: "It means, sired by God." "What!" I exploded: "Sired by God?" "No, no!" he said, "I am only trying to explain the meaning, I do not believe that God really sired a son."

The sensible Christian says that the words do not literally mean what they say. Then why do you say it? Why are you creating unnecessary conflict between the 1,200,000,000 Christians and a thousand million Muslims of the world in making senseless statements?

Reason for Objection

The Muslim takes exception to the word "begotten", because begetting is an animal act, belonging to the lower animal functions of sex. How can we attribute such a lowly capacity to God? Metaphorically we are all the children of God, the good and the bad, and Jesus would be closer to being the Son of God than any one of us, because he would be more faithful to God then any one of us can ever be. From that point of view he is preeminently the Son of God.

Although this pernicious word "begotten" has now unceremoniously been thrown out of the "Most Accurate" version of the Bible, the Revised Standard Version (R.S.V.), its ghost still lingers on in the Christian mind, both black and white. Through its insidious brainwashing the white man is made to feel superior to his black Christian brother of the same Church and Denomination. And in turn, the black man is given a permanent inferiority complex through this dogma.

Brain-washed Inferiority

The human mind can't help reasoning that since the "begotten son" of an African will look like an African, and that of a Chinaman as a Chinese, and that of an Indian like an Indian: so the begotten son of God aught naturally to look like God. Billions of beautiful pictures and replicas of this "only begotten son of God" are put in peoples hands. He looks like a European with blonde hair, blue eyes and handsome features like e one I saw in the "King of Kings" or "The Day of Triumph" or "Jesus of Nazareth". Remember Jeffrey Hunter? The "Savior" of the Christian is more like a German than a Jew with his polly nose. So naturally, if the son is a white man, the father would also be a white man (God?). Hence the darker skinned races of the earth subconsciously have the feeling of inferiorly ingrained in their souls as God's "step children". No amount of face creams, skin lighteners and hair strengtheners will erase the inferiority.

God is neither black nor white. He is beyond the imagination of the mind of man. Break the mental shackles of a Caucasian (white) man-god, and you have broken the shackles of a permanent inferiority. But intellectual bondages are harder to shatter: the slave himself fights to retain them.

Chapter Six: Answer to Christian Dilemmas

"Christ in Islam" is really Christ in the Qur’ân: and the Holy Qur’ân has something definite to say about every aberration of Christianity. The Qur’ân absolves Jesus, peace and blessings be upon him, from all the false charges of his enemies as well as the misplaced infatuation of his followers. His enemies allege that he blasphemed against God by claiming Divinity. His misguided followers claim that he did avow Divinity, but that was not blasphemy because he was God. What does the Qur’ân say ?

Addressing both the Jews and the Christians, Allah says:

"O People of the Book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah (God) aught but the truth. Christ Jesus son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah (God), and His Word, which he bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah (God) and His messengers..." (4:171)

Going to Extremes

"O People of the Book" is a very respectful title with which the Jews and the Christians are addressed in the Holy Qur’ân. In other words, Allah is saying "O Learned People!", "O People with a Scripture!" According to their own boast, the Jews and the Christians prided themselves over the Arabs, who had no Scripture before the Qur’ân. As a learned people, Allah pulls up both the contending religionists for going to either extremes as regards the personality of Christ.

The Jews made certain insinuations about the legitimacy of Jesus and charged him of blasphemy by twisting his words. The Christians read other meanings into his words; wrench words out of their context to make him God.

The modern day Christian, the hot - gospeller, the Bible thumper, uses harsher words and cruder approaches to win over a convert to his blasphemies.

He says:

(a) "Either Jesus is God or a liar"

(b) "Either Jesus is God or a lunatic"

(c) "Either Jesus is God or an impostor"

These are his words, words culled from Christian literature. Since no man of charity, Muslim or otherwise, can condemn Christ so harshly as the Christian challenges him to do, perforce he must keep non-committal. He thinks he must make a choice between one or the other of these silly extremes. It does not occur to him that there is an alternative to this Christian conundrum.

Sensible Alternative

Is it not possible that Jesus is simply what he claimed to be, a prophet, like so many other prophets that passed away before him? Even that he is one of the greatest of them, a mighty miracle worker, a great spiritual teacher and guide - the Messiah!. Why only God or Lunatic? Is "lunacy" the opposite of "Divinity" in Christianity? What is the antonym of God? Will some clever Christian answer?

The Qur’ân lays bare the true position of Christ in a single verse, followed by a note by Yusuf Ali's:

"That he was the son of a woman, Mary, and therefore a man;"

"But a messenger, a man with a mission from Allah (God), and therefore entitled to honor."

"A Word bestowed on Mary, for he was created by Allah's word 'Be', and he was;"(3:59).

A spirit proceeding from Allah (God), but not Allah: his life and mission were more limited than in the case of some other messengers, though we must pay equal honor to him as a prophet of Allah. The doctrines of Trinity, equality with God, and sons, are repudiated as blasphemies. Allah (God) is independent of all needs and has no need of a son to manage His affairs. The Gospel of John (whoever wrote it) has put a great deal of Alexandrian Gnostic mysticism round the doctrine of the Word (Greek, Logos), but it is simply explained here."

Jesus Questioned

Reproduced below are verses 119 to 121 from the Chapter of Maeda (chapter 5 of the Qur’ân) depicting the scene of Judgment Day, when Allah will question Jesus, peace and blessings be upon him, regarding the misdirected zeal of his supposed followers in worshipping him and his mother: and his response,

"And behold! Allah will say: 'O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah?' He will say: 'Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.

'Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, 'Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord'; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them, and Thou art a witness to all things.

'If Thou dost punish them, they are Thy servant: If Thou dost forgive them, Thou art the Exalted in power, the Wise.'" (5:116-118)

Claimed No Divinity

If this is the statement of truth from the All-Knowing, that "Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, 'Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord'", then how do the Christians justify worshipping Jesus?

There is not a single unequivocal statement throughout the Bible, in all its 66 volumes of the Protestant versions, or in the 73 volumes of the Roman Catholic versions, where Jesus claims to be God or where he says "worship me". Nowhere does he say that he and God Almighty "are one" and "the same person."

The last phrase above "one and the same person" tickles many a "hot-gospeller" and "Bible-thumper," not excluding the Doctor of Divinity and the Professor of Theology. Even the new converts to Christianity have memorized these verses. They are programmed to rattle off verses out of context, upon which they can hang their faith. The words "are one" activates the mind by association of memories. "Yes", say the Trinitarians, the worshippers of three gods in one God, and one God in three gods, "Jesus did claim to be God!" Where?

Reverend at the Table

I had taken Rev. Morris D.D. and his wife, to lunch at the "Golden Peacock." While at the table, during the course of our mutual sharing of knowledge, the opportunity arose to ask, "Where?" And without a murmur he quoted, "I and my father are one" to imply that God and Jesus were one and the same person. That Jesus here claims to be God. The verse quoted was well known to me, but it was being quoted out of context. It did not carry the meaning that the Doctor was imagining, so I asked him, "What is the context?"

Choked on "Context"

The Reverend stopped eating and began staring at me. I said, "Why? Don't you know the context?", "You see, what you have quoted is the text, I want to know the context, the text that goes with it, before or after." Here was an Englishman (Canadian), a paid servant of the Presbyterian Church, a Doctor of Divinity, and it appeared that I was trying to teach him English. Of course he knew what "context" meant. But like the rest of his compatriots, he had not studied the sense in which Jesus had uttered the words.

In my forty years of experience, this text had been thrown at me hundreds of times, but not a single learned Christian had ever attempted to hazard a guess as to its real meaning. They always start fumbling for their Bibles. The Doctor did not have one with him. When they do start going for their Bibles, I stop them in their stride: "Surely, you know what you are quoting?", "Surely, you know your Bible?" After reading this, I hope some "born-again" Christians will rectify this deficiency. But I doubt that my Muslim readers will ever come across one in their lifetime who could give them the context.

What is the Context?

It is unfair on the part of the Reverend, having failed to provide the context, then to ask me, "Do you know the context?" "Of course," I said. "Then, what is it?" asked my learned friend. I said, "That which you have quoted is the text of John chapter 10, verse 30. To get at the context, we have to begin from verse 23 which reads:

23. "and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon's Colonnade." (John 10:23).

John, or whoever he was, who wrote this story, does not tell us the reason for Jesus tempting the Devil by walking alone in the lion's den. For we do not expect the Jews to miss a golden opportunity to get even with Jesus. Perhaps, he was emboldened by the manner in which he had literally whipped the Jews single-handed in the Temple, and upset the tables of the money changers at the beginning of his ministry (John 2:15).

24. "The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." (John 10:24).

They surrounded him. Brandishing their fingers in his face, they began accusing him and provoking him; saying that he had not put forth his claim plainly enough, clearly enough. That he was talking ambiguously. They were trying to work themselves into a frenzy to assault him. In fact, their real complaint was that they did not like his method of preaching, his invectives, the manner in which he condemned them for their formalism, their ceremonialism, their going for the letter of the law and forgetting the spirit. But Jesus could not afford to provoke them any further there were too many and they were itching for a fight.

Discretion is the better part of valor. In a conciliatory spirit, befitting the occasion:

25. "Jesus answered, I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me,"

26. "but you do not believe because you are not my sheep." (John 10:25-26).

Jesus rebuts the false charge of his enemies that he was ambiguous in his claims to being the Messiah that they were waiting for. He says that he did tell them clearly enough, yet they would not listen to him, but:

27. "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me."

28. "I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand."

29. "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.." (John 10:29).

How can anyone be so blind as not to see the exactness of the ending of the last two verses. But spiritual blinkers are more impervious than physical defects. He is telling the Jews and recording for posterity, the real unity or relationship between the Father and the son. The most crucial verse:

30. "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30).

One in what? In their Omniscience? In their Nature? In their Omnipotence? No! One in purpose! That once a believer has accepted faith, the Messenger sees to it that he remains in faith, and God Almighty also sees to it that he remains in faith. This is the purpose of the "Father" and the "son" and the "Holy Ghost" and of every man and every woman of faith. Let the same John explain his Gnostic mystic verbiage.

"That they all may be one as thou. Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us..."

"I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one..."(John 17:20-22)

If Jesus is "one" with God, and if that "oneness" makes him God, then the traitor Judas, and the doubting Thomas, and the satanic Peter, plus the other nine who deserted him when he was most in need are God(s), because the same "oneness" which he claimed with God in John 10:30, now he claims for all "who forsook him and fled" (Mark 14:50). All "ye of little faith" (Matthew 8:26). All "O faithless and perverse generation" (Luke 9:41). Where and when will the Christian blasphemy end? The expression "I and my Father are one," was very innocent, meaning nothing more than a common purpose with God. But the Jews were looking for trouble and any excuse will not do, therefore,

31. "Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him,"

32. "but Jesus said to them, I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

33. "The Jews answered him, saying : 'For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself a God.'" (John 10:31-33).

In verse 24 above the Jews falsely alleged that Jesus was talking ambiguously. When that charge was ably refuted, they then accused him of blasphemy which is like treason in the spiritual realm. So they say that Jesus is claiming to be God "I and the Father are one". The Christians agree with the Jews in this that Jesus did make such a claim; but differ in that it was not blasphemy because the Christians say that he was God and was entitled to own up to his Divinity.

The Christians and the Jews are both agreed that the utterance is serious. To one as an excuse for good "redemption", and to the other as an excuse for good "riddance". Between the two, let the poor Jesus die. But Jesus refuses to co-operate in this game, so:

34. "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your Law, `I have said you are gods'?"

35. "If he called them `gods,' to whom the word of God came --and the Scripture cannot be broken--,"

36. "what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, `I am God's Son'?" (John 10:34-36).

Why "Your Law"?

He is a bit sarcastic in verse 34, but in any event, why does he say: "Your Law"? Is it not also his Law? Didn't he say: "Think not that I am come to destroy the Law of the prophets: I am come not to destroy, but to fulfill (the Law). For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one Jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:1718).

"You are Gods"

"You are gods:" He is obviously quoting from the 82nd Psalm , verse 6, "I have said, ye are gods: and all of you are the children of the most High."

Jesus, continues: "If he (i.e. God Almighty) called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (meaning that the prophets of God were called 'gods') and the scripture cannot be broken..." (John 10:35), in other words he is saying: "you can't contradict me!" Jesus knows his Scripture; he speaks with authority; and he reasons with his enemies that: "If good men, holy men, prophets of God are being addressed as 'gods' in our Books of Authority, with which you find no fault, then why do you take exception to me? When the only claim I make for myself is far inferior in our language, viz. 'A son of God' as against others being called 'gods' by God Himself. Even if I (Jesus) described myself as 'god' in our language, according to Hebrew usage, you could find no fault with me." This is the plain reading of Christian Scripture. I am giving no interpretations of my own or some esoteric meaning to words!

Chapter Seven: "In The Beginning"

"Where does Jesus say: 'I am God,' or 'I am equal to God,' or 'Worship me'?" I asked the Rev. Morris again.

He took a deep breath and took another try. He quoted the most oft-repeated verse of the Christian Bible - John 1:1.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Please note, these are not the words of Jesus. They are the words of John (or whoever wrote them). Acknowledged by every erudite Christian scholar of the Bible as being the words of another Jew, Philo of Alexandria, who had written them even before John and Jesus were born. And Philo claimed no divine inspiration for them. No matter what mystical meaning that Philo had woven around these words (which our John has plagiarized), we will accept them for what they are worth.

Greek not Hebrew

Since the manuscripts of the 27 Books of the New Testament are in Greek, a Christian sect has produced its own version and has even changed the name of this selection of 27 Books to Christian Greek Scriptures! I asked the Reverend whether he knew Greek? "Yes," he said, He had studied Greek for 5 years before qualification. I asked him what was the Greek word for "God" the first time it occurs in the quotation "and the Word was With God"? He kept staring, but didn't answer. So I said, the word was Hotheos, which literally means "The God".

Since the European (including the North American) has evolved a system of using capital letters to start a proper noun and small letters for common nouns, we would accept his giving a capital "G" for God; in other words Hotheos is rendered "the god" which in turn is rendered "God".

"Now tell me, what is the Greek word for "God" in the second occurrence in your quotation - "and the Word was God"? The Reverend still kept silent. Not that he did not know Greek, or that he had lied, but he knew more than that; the game was up. I said: "the word was Tontheos, which means "a god".

According to your own system of translating you aught to have spelt this word 'God' a second time with a small 'g' i.e. 'god', and not 'God' with a capital 'G'; in other words Tontheos is rendered "a god". Both of these, "god" or "a god" are correct.

I told the Reverend: "But in 2 Corinthians 4:4 you have dishonestly reversed your system by using a small 'g' when spelling 'God' "(and the devil is) the god of this world." The Greek word for "the god" is Hotheos the same as in John 1:1. "Why have you not been consistent in your translations ?" "If Paul was inspired to write hotheos the God for the Devil, why don't you use that capital 'G'?"

And in the Old Testament, the Lord said unto Moses: "See, I have made thee a god to Pharoah" (Exodus 7:1). "Why do you use a small 'g' for 'God' when referring to Moses instead of a capital 'G' as you do for a mere word 'Word' - "and the Word was God."?

"Why do you do this? Why do you play fast and loose with the Word of God?" I asked the reverend. He said, "I didn't do it." I said, "I know, but I am talking about the vested interests of Christianity, who are hell-bent to deify Christ, by using capital letters here and small letters there, to deceive the unwary masses who think that every letter, every comma and full stop and the capital and small letters were dictated by God (Capital 'G' here!)."

Chapter Eight: What is left

Three Topics

It can hardly be expected in a small publication of this nature that one can deal with all the references about Jesus, peace and blessings be upon him, interspersed throughout the fifteen different chapters of the Holy Qur’ân. What we can do is to give a quick glance to the index page reproduced from the Qur’ân earlier in this letter.

Here we find three significant topics, not dealt with yet in our discussion:
Not crucified, (4:157).
Message and miracles,(5:113, 19:30-33).
Prophesied Ahmed, (61:6).

Regarding the first topic, "not crucified", I had written a booklet under the heading "Was Christ Crucified?" some twenty years ago. The book is presently out of print, and further, it needs updating, for much water has passed under the bridge since it first saw the light of day.

As regards the third topic mentioned above, "Prophesied Ahmed", I propose to write a booklet under the title "Muhammed, salla Allah u alihi wa sallam, the Natural Successor to Christ" after I have completed "Was Christ Crucified?", I hope to complete both these projects soon, Insha Allah! (Arabic: "By the will of Allah").

The Way to Salvation

We are now left with Topic No. 2, "Message and miracles". The message of Jesus was as simple and straight forward as that of all his predecessors as well as that of his successor Muhammed, salla Allah u alihi wa sallam, namely "Believe in God and keep His Commandments". For the God who inspired His Messengers, is an unvarying God and He is consistent: He is not the "author of confusion" (1 Corinthian14:33).

A law abiding Jew comes to Jesus seeking eternal life or salvation. In the words of Matthew:

"And behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." (Matthew 19:16-17)

You will agree, that if you or I were that Jew, we would infer from these words that, according to Jesus, peace and blessings be upon him, salvation was guaranteed, provided we kept the commandments without the shedding of any innocent blood. Unless, of course Jesus was speaking with tongue in cheek; knowing full well that his own "forthcoming redemptive sacrifice", his "vicarious atonement" (?) for the sins of mankind, was not many days hence.

Why would Jesus give him the impossible solution of keeping the Law (as the Christian alleges) when an easier way was in the offing? Or did he not know what was going to happen, that he was to be crucified ? Was there not a contract between Father and Son, before the worlds began, for his redeeming blood to be shed? Had he lost his memory? No! There was no such fairy tale agreement as far as Jesus was concerned. He knew that there is only one way to God, and that is, as Jesus said, "keep the Commandments"!

Miracles, What They Prove

Regarding his miracles: the Holy Quran does not go into any detail about blind Bartimus or about Lazarus or any other miracle, except that he (Jesus) defended his mother as an infant in his mother's arms. The Muslim has no hesitation about accepting the most wondrous of his miracles - even that of reviving the dead. But that does not make Jesus a "God" or the begotten "Son of God" as understood by the Christian.

Miracles do not prove even Prophethood, or whether a man is true or false. Jesus himself said:
"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."(Matthew 24:24)

If false prophets and false Christs can perform miraculous feats, then these wonders or miracles do not prove even the geniuses or otherwise, of a prophet.

John the Baptist, according to Jesus, was the greatest of the Israelite prophets. Greater than Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah and all, not excluding himself: in his own words:

"Verily I say unto you, among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist..." (Matthew 11:11)

Not excluding Jesus: because, was he not born of a woman - Mary?

The Baptist, greater than "all", yet he performed not a single miracle! Miracles are no standards of judging truth and falsehood.

But in his childishness, the might Christian insists that Jesus is God because he gave life back to the dead. Will reviving the dead make others God too? This perplexes him, because he has mentally blocked himself from the miracles of others who outshine Jesus in his own Bible. For example, according to his false standard:



Moses is greater than Jesus because he put life back into a dead stick and transmuted it from the plant kingdom to the animal kingdom by making it into a serpent (Exodus 7:10).

Elisha is greater than Jesus because the bones of Elisha brought a man back to life merely by coming into contact with the corpse (2 Kings 13:21).

Need I illustrate to you a catalogue of miracles? But the sickness persists - "it was God working miracles through His prophets but Jesus performed them of his own power." Where did Jesus get all his power from? Ask Jesus, and he will tell us:

Power not His Own

"...All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." (Matthew 28:18)

"...I cast out devils by the Spirit of God then the kingdom of God is come unto you." (Matthew 12:28)

"I can of mine own self do nothing " (John 5:30)

"I with the finger of God cast out devils" (Luke 1 1:20)

Borrowed Power

The "power" as he says is not his, "it is given unto me". Given by whom? By God, of course! Every action, every word he attributes to God.

Lazarus

But since so much is made of Jesus' mightiest miracle of reviving Lazarus from the dead, we will analyze the episode as recorded in John's Gospel. It is astonishing that none of the other Gospel writers mention Lazarus in any context. However, the story is that Lazarus was very sick, his sisters Mary and Martha had made frantic calls for Jesus to come and cure his sickness but he arrived too late, actually four days after his demise.

He Groaned

Mary wails to Jesus that had he arrived in time, perhaps her brother would not have died; meaning that if he could heal other peoples' sicknesses, why would he not have healed her brother, a dear friend of his. Jesus says that "even now if ye have faith, ye shall see the glory of god." The condition was that they should have faith. Didn't he say that faith could move mountains?

He asks to be taken to the tomb. On the way, "he groaned in the spirit". He was not mumbling; he was pouring out his heart and praying to God. But while he sobbed so bitterly his words were not audible enough for people around him to understand. Hence the words "he groaned". On reaching the grave, Jesus "groaned" again; perhaps, even more earnestly and God heard his groaning (his prayer), and Jesus received the assurance that God will fulfill his request. Now, Jesus could rest assured and command that the stone which was barring the tomb, be removed so that Lazarus could come back from the dead. Without that assurance from God, Jesus would have made a fool of himself.

Avoiding Misunderstanding

Mary thinks of the stink because her brother had been dead for four days! But Jesus was confident and the stone was removed. Then he looked up towards heaven and said:

"Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me." (John 11:41-42)

What is all this, play - acting? Why all the drama? Because he know that these superstitious and credulous people will misunderstand the source of the miracle. They might take him for "God". Giving life to the dead is the prerogative of God alone. To make doubly sure, that his people do not misunderstand, he speaks out loudly that the "groaning" was actually his crying to God Almighty for help. The prayer was incoherent as far as the bystanders could discern, but the Father in heaven had accepted his prayer, viz. "thou hast heard me".

Furthermore, he says, "thou hearest me always"; in other words, every miracle wrought by him was an answer by God Almighty to his prayer. The Jews of his day understood the position well, and they "glorified God", as Matthew tells us of another occasion when the Jews exclaimed "for giving such power unto men" (Matt. 9:8).

In fact, Jesus gives his reason for speaking loudly. He says, "that they may believe that thou has sent me." One who is sent is a messenger, and if he be sent by God, then he is a Messenger of God i.e. Rasulullah. Jesus is referred to in the Qur’ân asRasulullah ("Messenger of Allah").

Alas, this attempt by Jesus to prevent any misunderstanding, as to who really performed the miracle, and that he was in fact only a messenger of God, failed. Christians will not even accept the unambiguous disavowal of Jesus, nor the testimony of Peter, the "Rock" upon which Jesus was supposed to build his Church. Peter truly testified:

"Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, A man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know. " (Acts 2:22)

Case Not Hopeless

This very same message is repeated by God Almighty in the Holy Qur’ân, following the annunciation. In verse 49 of chapter 3, Allah makes it clear that every sign or wonder that Jesus performed was "By Allah's leave," by God's permission. Jesus says so, Peter says so and God says so; but the stubborn controversialist will not listen: prejudice, superstition and credulity die hard. Our duty is simply to deliver the Message, loud and clear, the rest we leave to God. The case is not altogether hopeless for Allah tells us in His Holy Book:

"And among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors." (3:110)

"Among them", meaning among the Jews and the Christians, there are two types of people; the one group described as people of faith to whom this book is addressed, and the other as rebellious transgressors. We must also find ways and means of getting at them. Our literature is eminently suited to cater for all. Pass them on to your non - Muslim friends after reading.

Open the Holy Qur’ân and make your Christian friends and acquaintances to read the verses discussed in this book. Then we can truly conclude:

"Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute.

"It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah (God) that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, 'Be', and it is.

"Verily Allah is my Lord and your Lord: Him therefore serve ye: this is a Way that is straight." (19:34-36)