Click to View

Appendix C: Some Questions Answered

Back To Main Index
Back To Main Text


This section is dedicated to other questions or topics which are perceived to be of utmost importance For Those Who Want Truth. Obviously in such a small book we cannot address all the questions known to be in people's minds, but it is hoped that what is presented will sufficiently help those who seek a greater understanding of the Way. 

"Jesus Will Descend ... Break Crosses"?

While the people of Islam have been adamant that Jesus himself despises the cross, they have yet to take the time to examine carefully their evidence concerning this matter. A favourite Hadith on the matter of the cross shows again how contrary the 'evidences' are to this, and other, doctrines.

What is perceived by Islam as Jesus' position concerning the cross is found in the following Hadith from Sahih Muslim:

"Jesus will descend, he will break crosses, kill swine and abolish the Jizyah..." (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 1, p. 92, #287)

Here we have Jesus altering the 'eternal shari'ah which Muhammad brought' by abolishing the Jizyah [tax on people who reject Islam but must then become subject to Islam's 'protection']. Yet, what a cost, for this is something only a presiding Prophet is believed to be able to do, and so 'inspiration' will open again with Jesus!

As the Noble Qur'an also states:

"As the Divine Inspiration has stopped after the death of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and will not resume except at the time of the Descent of 'Iesa (Jesus) - son of Maryam (Mary) and he (i.e. Jesus) will rule with justice by Islamic law..." (Notes, p. 1174)

Jesus thus eclipses Muhammad! And this is not lost on other followers of Islam who recognise this problem and disagree over it. 

For example our one writer shouts:

"Some traditions 'encourage' us to 'believe' that the descent of Isa is necessary because he would break the 'cross', as if the Last Prophet was a failure in the combat with 'Christianity'!" (Deep..., p. 289)

And no wonder for it is here that one recognises that such matters are built upon 'evidence' which contradicts what Islam claims for Muhammad. Yet because it upholds what it claims about Jesus and the cross, Islam finds it necessary to rely upon it in order to attack the crucifixion at any cost.

However, while we saw earlier that the 'ascent' (going up to Heaven) of Jesus was argued over, so too is even the future 'descent' of Jesus. Some

Back To Top


Back To Main Text

declare it is not in the Traditions:

"The only important matter wherein I may have differed with the majority relates to the death of Jesus Christ. But, in the first place the belief that Jesus is alive somewhere in the heavens has never been included among the essentials of Islam. It has never been included among the religious doctrines of the faith of Islam. There are Muslims who still believe that four Prophets are alive, Khidr, Idris, Elias and Jesus Christ, but that is not an article of faith with any Muslim. Many learned Muslims have held such belief regarding the first three to be based upon Israelite stories and as having nothing to support it in the Holy Qur'an and authentic Hadith. They are not looked upon as unorthodox for that reason. ...I may call the reader's attention to another fact as well. Most learned Muslims all over the world, if not all, are to-day convinced that Jesus Christ died like other prophets and many of them have given expression to such views, among them being the famous Mufti Muhammad 'Abdu-hu and Sayyid Rashid Rada of Egypt." (The Holy Qur'an, Preface, M. Ali).

Others admit is in the Traditions, but that they are not reliable ones(!):

"Here it would not be out of place to mention our well-known contemporary writer, the compiler of Tafheem-ul-Quran [i.e. Maududi] has also frankly confessed in this work that the idea of Isa's future descent is extra-Qur'anic. One of the great scholars of the recent past Professor Nawab Ali, in his book Suhuf-e-Samawi, clearly states that the traditions regarding the descent of Isa do not at all come to the standard set for accepting a statement to be a tradition of the last Prophet. Similarly another great scholar Allama Emadi who died at the age of ninetyfour (sic) and who was regarded an expert in ilm-ur-rijaal categorically states in his book, At-talaaqu marrataani, that the belief about the 'Promised Madhi' or the 'Promised Maseeh' is nothing more than mere conjecture and is based on absolutely unreliable traditions. The same view is expounded by Allam H.R. Kandhlawi." (Deep..., p. 294f)

It is not a small matter that all this confusion on even the topic of 'cessation of prophetic 

inspiration' results from trying to establish a religion by using Islam's 'method' of uncertain 'sources'. 

And a glance at Appendix B will show just how impossible it is for modern Islamic scholars to do anything about it since many of the greatest Islamic scholars would have to be accused of blasphemy or gross ignorance of Islamic theology since it was they who transmitted all this as their best materials on Islam!

It is not really surprising after all we have seen that matters of such great importance in building an image of Jesus hating the cross are only upheld by 'sources' of this type. How can anyone in Islam expect the People of the Gospel to reject what their Scripture declares for such as this?

Back To Top


Appendix C: Some Questions Answered

Back To Main Text

"Jesus Will ... Kill Swine"?

Yet there is another matter to be comprehended in the Hadith just mentioned, and that is the assertion that Jesus will "kill swine", implying he was against the eating of pork. 

The Tabi'i Luke, in his Gospel record, states clearly that Jesus had "declared all foods clean": 

"Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean'.

After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body. [In saying this he declared all foods 'clean'.] 

He went on: "What comes out of man is what makes him 'unclean'. For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean'." (Injil Mark 7:14-23) 

The context of this cannot be misinterpreted - there is absolutely no reason for anyone to accept Muhammad's assertion that God changed His mind on the matter. Muhammad did not speak for the True God when he declared that the eating of pig was wrong.

Paraclete , Paracultos, Paraclytos OR Parqaleeta? 

The followers of Islam have also been claiming that the Bible has been altered because the Greek manuscripts contain the word Paraclete meaning 'the Comforter' in John 14:16, whereas those in Islam claim it was periclytos, or as others say, peracultos, or, as still others claim parqaleeta, which, they say, means 'praised one', and claim was a reference to Muhammad.

In what we are about to examine the translator of Sahih Muslim begins by acknowledging that the words Muhammad and Ahmad are quite different, and then states that the Greek text 'originally' had a word which has the same meaning as Ahmad! All this shows there is "only conjecture to follow": 

"The only difference between Muhammad and Ahmad is that the former implies one who is to be praised most for his eminent qualities and the latter means one who is praised in the best manner and in the best style. 

Prophecies about the advent of Muhammad (may peace be upon him) as the last Prophet are met with in the previous sacred books, e.g. the last of the

Back To Top


Back To Main Text

Israelite Prophets, Jesus, promised his people the arrival of the comforter: "If you love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever" (John, xiv, 15-16) 

There is a preponderance of evidence to support the view that the original word which has been translated as Comforter is not Paraclete, but Paracultos which means praised, illustrious and implies the same as Muhammad and Ahmad." (Sahih Muslim, English version, Vol. 4, p.1254, ft. 2648; emphasis added). 

Not only does the word Ahmad not have 'the same' meaning as 'Muhammad', but Yusuf Ali says:

"In the reflex of the Gospel as now accepted by the Christians, Christ promised another Comforter (John 14:16): the Greek word Paraclete which the Christians interpret as referring to the Holy Spirit is by our Doctors taken to be Periclyte, which would be the Greek form of Ahmad." (The Holy Qur'an, footnote #1127; emphasis added) 

At least Yusuf Ali only accuses us of 'interpreting' the Greek word Paraclete, and not of having changed it! However, Yusuf Ali confusedly says something different elsewhere:

"The Greek word translated "Comforter" is "Paracletos", which is an easy corruption from "Periclytos", which is almost a literal translation of "Muhammad" or "Ahmad"". (The Holy Qur'an, footnote #416) 

It is obvious that his words are all speculation for although it may be "an easy corruption" in terms of the Qur'an with no fixed text in its early written form, we have seen that it is not so "easy' with the fixed text of the Greek Gospel records and mutawatir and tawatur fixed texts of a multitude of languages! There is no 'Proof" for his allegation! 

The truth of the matter is found in this same footnote #416, where Yusuf Ali shows he is not making his comments (allegations) from personal knowledge of the Injil (Gospel) records for he states:

"the future Comforter cannot be the Holy Spirit as understood by Christians, because the Holy Spirit already was present." 

He obviously had not read the full text he is using from the Gospel of John where the 

Companion John recorded Jesus as saying:

"If you love me, you will obey what I command. I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counsellor to be with you for ever, the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him for he lives with you and will be in you... All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counsellor, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."" (John 14:15-18, 25-26) 

Plainly, not only was it to be the same Holy Spirit who had indeed been "already 

present", but now He would indwell them - forever. It is obvious

Back To Top


Appendix C: Some Questions Answered

Back To Main Text

that Yusuf Ali had "only conjecture to follow", and these 'conjectures' were not his own but were what he heard from others. He was actually ignorant of the Gospel text. 

On the other hand, Ibn Ishaq (d. 151 AH), in his biography (sirah) of Muhammad's life refutes all that these men say:

"Among the things that have reached me about Jesus the Son of Mary stated in the Gospel which he received from God for the followers of the Gospel...It is extracted from what John the apostle set down for them when he wrote the Gospel for them from the Testament of Jesus Son of Mary. .."..But when the Comforter has come whom God will send to you and the Spirit of truth which will have gone forth from the Lord's presence he (shall bear) witness of me and ye also, because ye have been with me from the beginning. The Munahhamana (God bless and preserve him) in Syriac is Muhammad; in Greek he is PARACLETE. " (Sirah, #149; emphasis added). 

Evidently the Islamic scholars were not striving with the facts in the early days, but acknowledged freely that the word Paraclete was in the Greek text of the Injil. They simply decided that this same word referred to Muhammad. 

One more thing to note is that since this Syriac word Munahhamana means 'life-giver' and particularly 'someone who raises from the dead', it cannot refer to Muhammad any more than the word Paraclete can. 

Also we find Dr. M. Muhsin Khan of the Islamic University, Medinah, writing under the heading 'Biblical Prophecies on the Advent of Muhammad (pbuh)':

"Muslim theologians have stated that the person who is described by Jesus to come after him - in the above verses [the verses cited by him were Jn. 16:16; Jn. 16:12-14; Jn. 16:5-8; Jn. 15:26-27; Jn. 14:15-16] does not comply with any person but Muhammad (pbuh), the Apostle of God. This 'person' whom Jesus prophesied would come after him, is called in the Bible 'Parqaleeta'. This word was deleted by later interpreters and translators and changed at times to 'Spirit of Truth'; and at other times, to 'comforter' and sometimes to 'Holy Spirit'. The original word is Greek and its meaning is 'one whom people praise exceedingly'. The sense of the word is applicable to the word 'Muhammad' (in Arabic)." (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 6, Notes to English version; underlining added)

Yet, if Islamic scholars actually KNEW something on this matter they would not publish 

such divergent 'speculations' on what is considered to be such a crucial piece of 'evidence' in its behalf for Muhammad. 

Further, neither the early manuscripts of the Companion and Tabi'un Gospel records, nor the other Tabi'un and ievidence agrees with him! This shows again that Islam has "only conjecture to follow", not 'evidence'. The same can be said of the following where we note an

Back To Top


Back To Main Text

extension of this speculation by Dr. Muhsin Khan:


John 14:15-16 --

"If you love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the father and He shall give you another Comforter that he may abide with you forever."

Muslim theologians have said that "another Comforter" is Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah; and him to "abide forever" means the perpetuity of his laws and way of life (Sharia`) and the book (Qur'an) which was revealed to him." (The Noble Qur'an, p. 1188f; Notes by Dr. Hilali and Dr. Muhsin Khan, Islamic University, Madina, ) 

We have already seen that this "forever" has failed.

As for us, we know the Holy Spirit who was here promised for he dwells with us as the promise of Jesus clearly states.

'The Gospel Of St. Barnabas? 

Both the isnad (chain of transmitters) and the matn (content) of the 'Gospel of Barnabas' are clear 'Proof' that it is not a true Gospel record (memoir). The simple fact that it is written as a historical account by a man, instead of containing only 'the Words of God', should have caused all in Islam to reject it if they were truly zealous to believe the 'Words of God only' belief! 

Furthermore, to accept as 'the true Gospel' a book which denies outright the content of the Qur'an shows that the followers of Islam are clutching at straws. They want to see Muhammad's name 'somewhere' - and at any cost! 

Yusuf Ali writes:

"Further, there were other Gospels that have perished, but of which traces still remain, which were even more specific in their reference to Muhammad; e.g., the Gospel of St. Barnabas, of which an Italian translation is extant in the State library at Vienna. It was edited in 1907 with an English translation by Mr. Londsdale and Laura Ragg." (The Holy Qur'an, footnote #416; emphasis added). 

Indeed, the original translators of this 'gospel' of Barnabas, Laura and Lonnsdale Ragg, whose name alone is allowed to remain on the first page of most Islamic printings, stated in notes in their 1907 translation that it was a forgery. They based this on its content (matn). Certain in Islam who have reprinted this 'gospel', have not only removed these notes, but place their own notes at the end, and in them they have been overtly dishonest about the content. 

However, an examination of the matn (content) shows the truth about this so-called 'gospel':

Back To Top


Appendix C: Some Questions Answered

Back To Main Text

1) In verses 97, 191 Jesus denies he is the 'Messiah' (al-Masih), and declares that rather Muhammad is the promised 'Messiah' - thus denying the Qur'an and Ahadith which proclaim that Jesus is al-Masih (the 'Messiah' in Hebrew i.e. the 'Christ' in Greek) who will fight al-Masih al-Dajjal (the anti-Messiah, or anti-Christ) (see Sahih Muslim, vol. 1, p. 109, #323- 325). 

Furthermore, the same translator of Sahih Muslim, Saddiqi, quotes the 'Gospel of Barnabas' extensively, including this specific assertion that Muhammad is the Messiah:

""Then said the priest: How shall the Messiah be called, and what sign shall reveal his coming?

"Jesus answered; 'The name of the Messiah is admirable, for god Himself gave him the name when he had created his soul, and placed it in celestial splendour.' God said: 'Wait Muhammad...I shall send thee as my messenger of salvation...'" (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, p. 1254f, footnote #2648) 

Yet elsewhere he states:

"1823. The word masih ... stands for both Christ and Dajjal. Jesus Christ is called Masih because his healing touch could, by the Grace of God, cure leprosy and restore the sight of the blind. Dajjal is also called Masih... He is called Masih on account that he will make a false claim of being Christ." (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p. 693, footnote 1823).

The claim that Muhammad is the Messiah (al-Masih, the Christ) is just as false as the one the true al-Masih al-Dajjal (anti-Christ) will make. And no wonder, for everyone who opposes the truth about Who Jesus is and what He accomplished on the cross for the Atonement of Sin is by definition an al-Masih al-Dajjal - an Anti-Christ!! 

In fact Jesus' Companions and Tabi'un recorded that he had said that many false Christs would come and say they were he. The claim in the 'Gospel of Barnabas' that Muhammad is the 'bringer of salvation' is one claim that belongs ONLY to al-Masih.

There is only one True al-Masih - the Messiah, the Christ, the (not by sex) Son of the Living God Who was to die for the sins of the world as foretold by the prophets.

2) Verse 20 describes Jesus and Barnabas sailing by ship from the sea of Galilee to Nazareth, a city up in the mountains! No water exists between these two places!

3) The Bible quotations in it are from the Latin 'Vulgate' translation which didn't exist until about 380 AD - more than 300 years AFTER this 'gospel' was supposedly written. As Yusuf Ali says:

'The Vulgate was a Latin translation made by ...St. Jerome, from Hebrew,

Back To Top


Back To Main Text

early in the fifth century A.D., superseding the older Latin versions." (Appendix II, p. 284)

One example of this can be found in the words of the footnote of Sahih Muslim just preceding the quote we cited from the 'Gospel of Barnabas'. There we find the phrase 'do penance' spoken to Adam:

"Go ye both from paradise and do penance, and let not your hope fail..." (p.97)

The term 'do penance' appears ONLY in the Latin Vulgate (see Appendix D on Roman Catholicism) whereas the Greek Scripture ONLY speaks in terms of 'REPENT'.

4) In verse 54, a Denarius is said to equal 60 minuti which were coins used under Caliph Malik in 685 AD, but not in the time of the real Barnabas, before 100 A.D.. 

5) In verse 91 the Roman army in Israel alone is said to have numbered 600,000 men, yet historical data shows that the entire Roman empire's army numbered only 300,000 - in its far flung regions. 

This 'gospel' also contains a number of portions which are peculiar to the writings of the poet Dante who lived in about 1300 AD/670 AH. This indicates the probable date of 'manufacture' of this fabricated 'gospel'. 

This clearly marks the isnad (chain of transmitters) as terminating with the person who forged it sometime after the 13th century A.D. (670 AH), not with the Barnabas of the Bible who didn't know Jesus anyway, but only Paul. 

[NOTE: The above information has been taken mainly from The Islamic Christian Controversy, Sec. IV, The Gospel of Barnabas, p. 84ff, G. Nehls]

"Our God and Your God Is One"?

One thing is certain from the true state of the Qur'an and Islam, and that is that no doctrine - and especially not those concerning God - espoused by them can be accepted as representing the True God, even though the Qur'an says:

"And dispute ye not,

With the People of the Book,

Except with means better

(Than mere disputation), unless

It be with those of them

Who inflict wrong (and injury):

But say, "We believe 

In the Revelation which has 

Come down to us and in that 

Which came down to you;

Back To Top


Appendix C: Some Questions Answered

Back To Main Text

Our God and your God

Is One; and it is to Him

We bow (in Islam)"" (Q 29:46b)

Not only does Islam not "dispute with better means", but we all know that neither does it believe in "the Revelation which came down to" us. 

For once we must assert what Yusuf Ali would assert is the stand of Islam: 

"God is One and His Message cannot come in one place at one time to contradict His Message in another place at another time in spirit..." (The Holy Qur'an, Y. Ali, ft. 3475). 

God did not change His mind after Jesus came and made a Blood Atonement in fulfilment of what was revealed in the Torah and the Prophets! And, as we have seen, neither did anyone 'falsify' the Gospel records. It is clearly Islam which has gone astray and refused the "Word of God".

Finally, neither can we accept the assertion that "our God and your God is One"; or, to use the Arabic words, we cannot accept that "Our Allah and your Allah is One".

Yes, the Arabic word 'Allah', at least according to the Ahadith literature, seems to have been used by both Jews and Christians in the Hijaz.

Yet this does not mean that they held, as some modern followers of Islam do, that this was for them 'the name' of the True God. Far from it. 

Since their original Scriptures were in Hebrew and Greek - meaning that neither Moses nor Jesus spoke Arabic as some in Islam assert - it only meant that they were in a foreign land where everyone from Polytheist to follower of Islam used the term Allah ('the God') to refer to what they each perceived as 'the High God'. 

The 'High God' was perceived by each group as the One Who ultimately answered their prayer, as opposed to the lesser gods whose favour some believed could be sought to intercede on their behalf with the 'High God'. No term seems to have been in existence in the Arabic language which would allow one group to indicate a Higher God than what everyone else was depicting. 

The People of the Book were thus merely using local terminology to indicate that they too acknowledged their God as 'the High God' - but in this case it was the True High God as He had revealed Himself. To them, by definition, the True God was known as "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" as revealed to Bani Israel whom the True God chose as the vessel for His Revelation. From them the knowledge of this God it was to go to the

Back To Top


Back To Main Text

 whole world. 

The rejection by both Jews and Christians of Muhammad's assertion that he too was serving "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" despite the names of these men in the Qur'an, revealed a great deal. 

Clearly, their rejection of the assertion in the Qur'an that "Our God and your God are one" - and by now it must be acknowledged that it was Muhammad's assertions in the Qur'an and not those of the True God - was in fact a clear declaration that "your High God and our High God are NOT one". 

But why were the Christians and Jews - all of the People of the Book, the People of Learning - rejecting Muhammad's declaration that he served the same High God?

First, the Jews who were in possession of the Torah and Prophets would have had to ignore what the True God had revealed through the Prophets and which was recorded in their own Scriptures in order to accept Muhammad's Allah ('High God'). 

Several things show this.

The true God had given His people the written testimony of the Torah and the Prophets, and His warning through the Prophet Isaiah was that if anyone spoke "not according to this word they have no light of day" he was to be ignored. Muhammad spoke against the Revelation in these writings.

This was notable in two areas.

(a) No Prophet was foretold of in these writings as yet to come, and everyone in Islam knows Bani Israel were still waiting for al-Masih [they rejected Jesus' claim to be that One] and that he was expected to come from Bani Israel and no other people group. 

(b) The "prophet like me" who Moses spoke of, was plainly to be another Israelite, one "from among your own brothers" (Deut. 18:15f).This is clear from the context of this passage of the Torah which is a flowing account of the events of that time (not verses which have no relation to those around them and in need of 'something else' like the Qur'anic verses). 

Let us view everything in its context.

In Deut. 17 the topic of choosing a king to rule over them is raised and they were told:

"Be sure to appoint over you the king the Lord your God chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a brother Israelite." (Deut. 17:15; underlining added). 

Back To Top


Appendix C: Some Questions Answered

Back To Main Text

In this flow of discussion Chapter 18 begins with discussing the inheritance of the 

priestly tribe among the Israelites, the Levites, and of them it was said:

"The shall have no inheritance among their brothers; the Lord their God is their inheritance." (Deut. 18:2) 

Again, it is obvious that these were Israelites. 

In this process of God's planning for His people, we find that the promise to send a prophet like Moses was first intended as an introduction of the line of Prophets for Israel's guidance once Moses was dead, and this plainly was to be more Israelites. 

This can be seen from the context of the passage which states:

"The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practise sorcery or divination. But as for you, the Lord your God has not permitted you to do so. The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him. For this is what you asked of the Lord you God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, "Let us not hear the voice of the Lord our God nor see this great fire any more, or we will die." 

"The Lord said to me, "What they say is good. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth and he will tell them everything I command him. If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death. (Deut. 18:14-20)

God was first of all planning for the continuous input of His Guidance to the Israelites through prophets chosen from amongst themselves. They were never going to have 'an outsider' being prophet over them as they were God's chosen nation from among all the nations on the face of the earth. 

Jesus also made it plain that the Revelation of Salvation was from Bani Israel to the rest of the world, not visa-versa:

"You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews." (Injil John 4:22)

Having examined these two points, we can understand why Bani Israel said straight away to Muhammad that there was no 'covenant' written about him in the Torah and Prophets! Muhammad was not a "brother Israelite" or descendant of Isaac. Rather the followers of Islam claim he was descended from Ishmael. 

As for the Christians in Hijaz, this last point was instrumental for them rejecting Muhammad also, for they knew that Jesus was the final great

Back To Top


Back To Main Text

Prophet who came to fulfil what was written about himself in the Prophets and other Scripture. 

Everyone recognises that the Christians always had many grounds for rejecting the Qur'an. It was a writing which not only disagreed with the Torah and Prophets which they held dear, but it denied everything which Jesus said had been fulfilled about himself in them as his Companions and irecorded in the Gospels. 

There he is often recorded by his Companions and Tabi'un as having told them the truths of what was written about himself in these prophetic writings. This included his Deity, Incarnation, (non-sexual) Sonship and his being the Final Priest and ONLY Intercessor - an Intercession which is carried on even now on our behalf. [We have not mentioned his Atoning death on the cross for the sin of the world since we have noted that not everyone in early Islam agreed that the Qur'an was against the death on the cross!]

Thus, when the Christians of the Hijaz read from Jesus' Companions and Tabi'un that "the prophet like me" who Moses wrote about was Jesus, they knew it was the truth and that what was being asserted for Muhammad was false. 

So the Christians had every reason to reject Muhammad as a false prophet who denied the very "Words of God" and the "Word of God" (the Revelation of His Will)! No Christian ever felt the need to apologise for having to make such a statement. The followers of Islam, or should we say, of Muhammad, know this very well.

When the Companion John recorded from Yahya (John the Baptist) that "whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for the wrath of God remains upon him" (see Injil John 3:36) and "Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out o be a liar, for he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son." (1 John 5:10) - he meant it!! 

It is self evident also that though everyone in the Hijaz was using the term Allah ('the God' / 'High God') the 'High God' of Muhammad was NOT accepted as the same as the 'High God' of the Christians and Jews! 

This means that Muhammad was a lost soul having nothing to do with the True God and the True God had nothing to do with Muhammad. It means that Satan had taken hold of Muhammad's life to perpetrate many false accusations against the True God's Religion. Seeing 1/5th of the world following the religion of Islam today, we can see that through

Back To Top


Appendix C: Some Questions Answered

Back To Main Text

Muhammad Satan was making one of his most concerted efforts to drag men to Hell. In the local motive it was probably the tribal effort to rule, but in the economy of the spiritual realm Satan was making one of his most powerful post-Atonement efforts against God and men's souls.

The Godhead - A Solitary Unity OR A 'Tri-Unity'?

We have to acknowledge that Islam's concept of the 'Unity of God' is a decisive factor in determining that "our God and your God" are NOT 'One'.

To some, this is perceived to be a Christian 'mistake'. However, Christians assert that the Tri-Unity of the Godhead is evident in the Hebrew language of the Torah and Prophets. We need only examine these to see how and why.

We note that when Deputations of Christians came to Muhammad, it is reported that they said they believed a Trinity because their Scriptures recorded God as saying "lets us" and not "let me". There is every truth in what they said for this is something that is present in the Torah.

The words "let us" often follow the word Elohim, a name for God which is often repeated in the Torah and Prophets. It is a plural noun found in verses of the Torah such as Genesis 1:26:

"And God [Elohim] said "Let us make man in our image""

After the Fall of Adam we find:

" And the Lord God [Echad Elohim] said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." (Genesis 3:22, 23)

The followers of Islam are not all ignorant of this. Thus we find Mr. Deedat stating 

concerning Genesis 1:26:


The poor benighted Christians misunderstood the word "image" as well as the word "us" in the preceding quotation at the very beginning of the Bible. Christians interpret the word "us" to imply the existence of a combination of "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" of their Holy Trinity. They fail to realise that in Hebrew as well as in Arabic there are two types of plurals. There is a plural of numbers as well as of respect and honour." (What Is His Name?, p. 18)

While our topic is not the Christian perception of the 'image of God', we recall from Sahih Muslim, the volumes of which Mr. Deedat sells, the following Hadith extolling the Sunnah of Muhammad on the subject:

" Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, created Adam in His own image with His Length of sixty cubits..." (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, p. 1481, #6809;

Back To Top


Back To Main Text

emphasis added)

However, the present writer would note that in a recent conversation with a follower of Islam he was asked "Do any Jews ever acknowledge anything other than the solitary unity in the Godhead?" To which the writer was able to respond that indeed they do, for many Rabbis who turn from the Mishna to read the Torah DO INDEED acknowledge that the plurality is plainly in the Hebrew text! In South Africa one ministry of the Gospel to the Jewish people publishes a book full of their testimonies.

One may well ask what they find in the Torah that causes them to believe such a thing. Of course, first it is because they know Hebrew and second, it is because they see the evidence in the Torah which men like Mr. Deedat would have people ignore.

Not surprisingly, in this same booklet Mr. Deedat tries to blame 'the Europeans' for the "let us" in the translations of the Torah:

"The suffix "IM" of the word "Elohim" is a plural of respect in Hebrew.

(Remember that in Arabic and Hebrew there are two types of plurals. One of numbers and the other of honour as in Royal proclamations. Since the plural of honour is uncommon in the language of the European, he has confused these plurals to connote a plurality in the "godhead," hence his justification for his Doctrine of the Holy Trinity - The Father, Son and Holy Ghost.) (What Is His Name?, p. 26)

Why Mr. Deedat loves to mock the people of Islam in general, and especially those who are innocent, and treat them with disdain by his misleadings we cannot say. But time and again he does so.

In another booklet which he publishes under the IPCI label, the Jews are blamed:

"But the Jews are using wrongly the plural form Elohim which denotes more than one God." (Christian Muslim Dialogue, H. M. Baagil, p. 7; Islamic Vision)

As for the truth, as mentioned above, many are the Rabbis (Jewish religious leaders) who have turned from reading the Mishna (a compilation of traditions made almost in Muhammad's time) and read the Torah and have come to realise the implications of the presence of the word ELOHIM, a word for God which is plural in number! 

They have also come to read the Prophets which has opened their eyes to the fact that Jesus is their Messiah (al-Masih) and an understanding of his Atonement made on the cross.

However, there is yet another matter which shows clearly the PLURAL. That is that the word Elohim does not always appear alone, but sometimes in conjunction with the word ECHAD. 

This word ECHAD occurs in many differing contexts all of which

Back To Top


Appendix C: Some Questions Answered

Back To Main Text

espouse the fact of a 'plurality in unity'.

Thus, when Joshua came back from scouting the Promised land of Canaan for Moses, he and Caleb were carrying a huge cluster of grapes on a pole. The Torah describes the many grapes as belonging to a single cluster by using the word ECHAD.

When the Torah states that "a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and the two shall become one flesh", the word used is ECHAD. This indicating that there are still two individual bodies despite the physical union.

Again, when the Torah describes the masses of Israelites responding to God's call saying they responded "as one man", the word used to indicate this 'plurality in unity' is ECHAD.

ECHAD Elohim describes the 'plurality in unity' in the Godhead. That is why these words are found in such contexts as the account of Adam and Hawwa [Eve] and are accompanied by the words "let us":

"And Echad Elohim said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take of the tree of life and eat, and live forever." So Echad Elohim banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken." (Genesis 3:22-24)

Many more of such contexts occur in the Torah. It is not from 'tampering' but from is part of the REVELATION the True God gave through the prophets.

One result of understanding the True Revelation is that when Jesus is revealed as "God in flesh" we know that the Throne of Heaven was not empty - one thought which plagues the followers of Islam concerning the Incarnation.

Another 'outwitting' based on falsehood about the Hebrew language is found in an assertion concerning the word ALLELUYA. Some in Islam want to find the word 'Allah' somewhere/anywhere in the Bible and so they allege that the word ALLELUYA should be divided into Alle-lu-ya and, they allege, that 'Alle' means 'Allah', and 'YA' means 'oh'.

However, again the experts who know the Hebrew language assert that the word YA refers to God and ALLELUYA is ONE WORD which means "Praise to God!".

The wicked 'outwittings' of those in Islam have become a game with men's eternal lives being played with by uncaring persons under Satan's control.

Back To Top


Back To Main Text

Is The 'West' Christian?

Many in Islam, seeking to establish grounds against the Gospel, make accusations which attribute even the worst immorality in the West to 'reliance upon Salvation through the Blood Atonement' - something most people in the West do not hold to!

As a result they attribute every action of the West to "Christianity", and so attribute every form of atrocity to 'the result of a culture that believed in the Blood Atonement'. 'Be saved and do anything' is what Islam accuses Christianity of teaching. 

However, this shows either people's almost total ignorance of true Christianity and of the difference between "the West" and Christianity, or their deliberate misrepresentation of these. We have already seen how the records of the Companions of Jesus refute such an accusation.

On top of this, Christianity is not a 'religious-political' system like Islam, despite the claims of Roman Catholicism (the Popes) which falsely terms itself 'Christian', or of those kings in England involved in the Crusades, who, whether they truly believed the Gospel or not, were not, according to the writings of the Companions and Tabi'un of Jesus, the heads of religious-political systems since such a thing does not exist in the Christian Faith. 

This should be obvious from Jesus' words to Pilate "If my kingdom were of this world, my servants [in reference to legions of angels] would fight for me." (John 18:36). Jesus' kingdom is heavenly, not earthly, and we are part of it. 

Thus no nation can be 'Christian' in a political sense, and so the actions of no country can be attributed to its being 'Christian'.

Yet again we find that this stand of Islam too has simply been another 'outwitting', something which is asserting 'look at the Christians, their beliefs only make them think they are free to sin, and so they sin freely' - all the while implying without saying it, that those who declare themselves 'Muslims' are not like these supposed 'Christians'. 

But, we need only note Maududi's scathing assessment of those who follow Islam to see how shallow this is:

"Assessment of our Testimony by Example 

Let us turn to our testimony by example. It represents a worse picture than that of our testimony by precept. There is, no doubt, a small number of righteous persons among us whose practical lives reflect the true image of Islam, but what about the general mass? The manner in which individual Muslims represent Islam in their practical lives is that persons trained under the influence of Islam are in no way better or different from individuals

Back To Top


Appendix C: Some Questions Answered

Back To Main Text

brought up under the influence of pagan faiths. In fact, the former are worse than the latter in many respects. For instance, they can tell a lie; they can commit breach of trust; they can do injustice; they can deceive people; they can turn back from their undertakings; they can commit felonies and dacoities; they can cause riots and create chaos; and they can indulge in all obscene and immoral acts. In all these perverse activities their average standard is in no way less than the standard of any non-believing nation." (The Evidence of Truth, Maududi, p.14f.) 

Perhaps we should attribute this condition of the people of Islam to following what must be a Hadith Qudsi we noted earlier which claims to present the words of the Deity. In it the man continues to sin repeatedly until the Deity is claimed to have said:

"A servant of Mine committed sin and realised that he has a Lord who forgives sins and takes accounts of sins. Do whatever you like for I have pardoned you." (Sahih Muslim, #280, Vol. 1, p. 89)

What, then, is the true reason that those in Islam point the finger falsely at others? Jesus said such people are afraid to come to the Light because their evil deeds would be exposed:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but shall have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God." (John 3:19). 

In the case of the followers of Islam, rather than admit that they have not found peace with God they remain in their religion and in their sinful ways because they do not want the Light. They end up attacking others and lying in their attempt to make those who love the Light appear worse than they! 

Be certain that you cannot look upon 'the West', nor 'Romanism' as if those in them should show you Christianity. They are not of the heavenly kingdom. Neither are many who an be found in the Institutions which are now termed 'Christian'. [See Appendix D for some guidance concerning the Denominations and Roman Catholicism]

As Jesus said: 

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." (Matt. 7:13,14)

Back To Top


Back To Main Text

He also said:

"I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture. The thief comes only to kill and destroy. I have come that they may find life, and have it to the full." (Injil John 10:9,10)

No-one can enter the sheepfold of the True God unless they believe in Jesus and the Atonement which he accomplished according to the revealed Will of God.

Some Comments On Changes In Islamic Thought Over Time

Although it must be admitted that some write merely as parrots of what someone else has told them, Islamic scholars seem to make every attempt to 'outwit' their people. Such things are obvious from the way they write. We begin with Yusuf Ali who states:

'But when were these four Gospels written? By the end of the second century A.D. they were in existence, but it does not follow that they had been selected by that date to form a canon.". (The Holy Qur'an, Appendix III). 

Knowledge of the inadequacy of the text of the Qur'an must be behind such an 'outwitting', for the true origins of the Gospels (memoirs of the Companions and Tabi'un of Jesus) is historical 'Proof' of two matters. 

Firstly, it is 'Proof' that the 'sent down' teaching (i.e. that 'Books' pre-existed and were revealed) was something new that came with Muhammad, for the Gospels were written by the Companions and Tabi'un of Jesus as early recorded history of all sorts, and the manuscripts, show. And secondly, it is 'Proof' that they were not only "in existence", but had been written well before the end of the 1st century A.D. - in fact during a period covering the middle of the first century - nowhere near 199 A.D..

As we have seen. quotations from the writings of various people who lived at the end of the second century A.D. show us that in fact not only was the origin of the four Gospels well known, but that these were the only ones approved by the Community of Believers. 

Why should it be so strange to those in Islam that the other Tab'un and Tab Tabi'un of Jesus should continue to recognise the accepted and firm Beliefs of the Companion and Tabi'un records which they all adhered to and loved, and preserve them?!

If one examines al-Nadim's Fihrist (advertised for sale by the Muslim Digest UK in 1997) one finds his testimony to the acknowledged content of the Last Testament. He (d. 380AH/990AD) too does not flinch and lists the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, as well as Acts [FrAkis] and the Epistles.
He also said:

"I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture. The thief comes only to kill and destroy. I have come that they may find life, and have it to the full." (Injil John 10:9,10)

No-one can enter the sheepfold of the True God unless they believe in Jesus and the Atonement which he accomplished according to the revealed Will of God.

Some Comments On Changes In Islamic Thought Over Time

Although it must be admitted that some write merely as parrots of what someone else has told them, Islamic scholars seem to make every attempt to 'outwit' their people. Such things are obvious from the way they write. We begin with Yusuf Ali who states:

'But when were these four Gospels written? By the end of the second century A.D. they were in existence, but it does not follow that they had been selected by that date to form a canon.". (The Holy Qur'an, Appendix III). 

Knowledge of the inadequacy of the text of the Qur'an must be behind such an 'outwitting', for the true origins of the Gospels (memoirs of the Companions and Tabi'un of Jesus) is historical 'Proof' of two matters. 

Firstly, it is 'Proof' that the 'sent down' teaching (i.e. that 'Books' pre-existed and were revealed) was something new that came with Muhammad, for the Gospels were written by the Companions and Tabi'un of Jesus as early recorded history of all sorts, and the manuscripts, show. And secondly, it is 'Proof' that they were not only "in existence", but had been written well before the end of the 1st century A.D. - in fact during a period covering the middle of the first century - nowhere near 199 A.D..

As we have seen. quotations from the writings of various people who lived at the end of the second century A.D. show us that in fact not only was the origin of the four Gospels well known, but that these were the only ones approved by the Community of Believers. 

Why should it be so strange to those in Islam that the other Tab'un and Tab Tabi'un of Jesus should continue to recognise the accepted and firm Beliefs of the Companion and Tabi'un records which they all adhered to and loved, and preserve them?!

If one examines al-Nadim's Fihrist (advertised for sale by the Muslim Digest UK in 1997) one finds his testimony to the acknowledged content of the Last Testament. He (d. 380AH/990AD) too does not flinch and lists the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, as well as Acts [FrAkis] and the Epistles.

Back To Top


Appendix C: Some Questions Answered

Back To Main Text

Further, he relates, "the "Old Form" was the ancient basis for the Jewish sect and the "New Form" for the sect of the Christians" (Vol. 1, p.45).

This is how the Gospels, indeed the entire New Testament, was understood by those in early Islam. It must be, as is noted in the following quotation, that only later, in the time of ibn Hazm, did Islamic scholars begin to recognise the conflict between the content of the Injil and the "finalised beliefs" of Islam, that it was decided to cry 'alterations'! Sadly it seems that many in Islam love such 'outwittings' more than they love truth:

"As studies of Islamic apologetics have shown, it was only with Ibn-Khazem, who died in Cordoba in 1064, that the charge of falsification was born.

In his defense of Islam against Christians, Ibn-Khazem came up against the contradictions between the Qur'an and the Gospels. One obvious example was the Qur'anic text, 'They slew him not, and they crucified him not' (Surah 4,156). 'Since the Qur'an must be true,' Ibn-Khazem argued, "it must be the conflicting Gospel texts that are false. But Muhammad tells us to respect the Gospel. Therefore the present text must have been falsified by the Christians.' His argument was not based on historical facts, but purely on his own reasoning and on his wish to safeguard the truth of the Qur'an. Once he was on this path, nothing could stop him from pursuing this accusation. In fact, it seemed the easiest way to attack the easiest way to attack the opponents. 'If we prove the falsehood of their books, they lose the arguments they take from them'. This led him eventually to make the cynical statement: 'The Christians lost the revealed Gospel except for a few traces which God left intact as argument against them'.

Many of the great Muslim thinkers have, indeed, accepted the authenticity of the New Testament text. Listing the names of these men seems a fitting conclusion to this essay. Their testimony proves that Christian-Muslim dialogue need not for ever be stymied by the allegation introduced by Ibn-Khazem. Two great historians, Al-Mas'udi (died 956) and Ibn-Khaldun (died 1406), held the authenticity of the Gospel text. Four well-known theologians agreed with this: Ali at-Tabari (died 855), Qasim al-Khasani (died 860), 'Amr al-Ghakhiz (died 869) and, last but not least, the famous Al-Ghazzali (died 1111). Their view is shared by Abu Ali Husain Ibn Sina, who is known in the West as Avicenna (died 1037). Bukhari (died 870), who acquired a great name by his collection of early traditions, quoted the Qur'an itself (Sura 3,72.78) to prove that the text of the Bible is not falsified." (Can We Trust The Gospel?, J. Wijngaard; as cited from The Islamic Christian Controversy, G. Nehls, p. 1f; emphasis added)

Thus, why should the followers of Islam today decry the historical origin and acceptability of the Revelation transmitted in the Gospel records which by comparison with what Islam claims for the Qur'an and Sunnah is

Back To Top


Back To Main Text

so clearly portrayed? Ignorance of the truth about them seems to be the reason. 

For someone like Yusuf Ali, a knowledgeable scholar who mentioned some of the aforementioned early Christian writers in his Qur'an Notes yet not only distorted their Beliefs, but ignored their statements about the authors of the Gospels, religious bias seems to be his motive. 

All this is obviously part of the 'outwittings' of those who see themselves as 'the Ummah of Muhammad' by those who lead them. 

Yet, we cannot consider this surprising since the Ahadith seem clearly to portray Muhammad doing this very thing. It seems that everyone is simply following his example (Sunnah). 

We note from ibn Ishaq that several Jews came to Muhammad and said:

"'Do you not allege that you follow the religion of Abraham and believe in the Torah which we have and testify that it is the truth from God?' He replied, 'Certainly, but you have sinned and broken the covenant contained there-in and concealed what you were ordered to make plain to men, and I dissociate myself from your sin,' They said, 'We hold to what we have. We live according to the guidance and the truth and we do not believe in you and we will not follow you.' So God sent down concerning them, 'Say, O Scripture folk, You have no standing until you observe the Torah and the Gospel and what has been sent down to you from your Lord.'" (Sirah, Suhuf 397)

It is not possible to raise the accusation of 'alteration' of the Torah and Injil records from this. Instead it shows Muhammad claiming to accept the Torah and Injil of his day while trying to force people to accept the Qur'an on top of what they possessed - something they refused to do.

We do find Muhammad in a well-known Hadith caught in a circumstance which shows he had really only practicing his Sunnah of 'outwittings' when he declared he accepted the Torah:

"Jabir reported that 'Umar b. Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) brought to Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) a copy of the Torah and said: Allah's Messenger, this is a copy of the Torah. He (Allah's Messenger) (peace and blessings be upon him) kept quiet and he (Hadrat 'Umar) began to read it and the (colour) of the face of Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) underwent a change, whereupon Abu Bakr said: Would your mother mourn you. Don't you see the face of Allah's Messenger? 'Umar saw the face of Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and said: I seek refuge from the wrath of Allah and the wrath of his Messenger. We are well pleased with Allah as Lord, with Islam as religion, with Muhammad as Prophet. Whereupon Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said: By Him in Whose hand is the life of Muhammad even if Moses were to appear before you and you

Back To Top


Appendix C: Some Questions Answered

Back To Main Text

would follow him leaving me aside you would certainly have gone away with error; for if (Moses) had been alive (at this time) he would certainly have followed my prophetical ministry. (Darimi)" (Mishkat-ul-Masabih, translated by Abdul Hameed Siddiqui, Vol. 1, p. 120, #194; emphasis added)

It seems obvious that Muhammad, after acknowledging that following Moses' Torah was 'following the religion of Abraham', later repudiated this, for when a Companion got his hands on a copy of the Torah, Muhammad was unwilling to let him read it. The text shows plainly that Muhammad was not declaring the Torah corrupt, but was now stating that to follow Moses was to go astray! Things had changed!

The same can be seen in another Hadith:

"177 Jabir reported that when 'Umar came to Allah's Messenger (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), he said: We hear the narrations from the Jews which sound pleasing to us, so should we not write some of them; whereupon he said: Do you want to be baffled as were baffled the Jews and the Christians, I have brought to you (guidance) bright and pure and if Moses would have been alive by now there would have been no alternative left for him but to follow me. (Transmitted by Ahmad, Baihaqi in Shu'ab-ul-Iman)" (Mishkat, Saddiqui, Vol. 1, p. 113f, #177)

Again, one cannot overlook the fact that while today the followers of Islam admit they are baffled by the layout and content of the text of the Qur'an. then Muhammad was claiming that his followers would become "baffled" if they knew the content of the Torah! He admonished them not to even record it! They were now being told that Moses would abandon the Torah and follow Muhammad if he were around!

The only possible explanation for this sudden turnaround would be that he feared the people might find out the truth - that what Muhammad had proclaimed as 'revelation' was actually innovation, teachings in direct opposition to what the True God had declared to Moses. It was mis-guidance, NOT 'GUIDANCE'.

[We can see why the followers of Islam are confused, the one group declaring the Torah as 'abrogated', the other crying "corruption!"! Muhammad has left them confused by his antics. They need only look at the Sunnah and all will become clear.]

One does not have to look far to find evidence of this, for Moses recorded from God that if a man divorced his wife and she married another, the first man was forbidden to marry her ever again as God said "the land would be polluted". Yet Muhammad turned "God's Words" upside down and declared that even if a man divorced his wife and she had not yet married another, he could not remarry her until she married and slept with another man!! The exact opposite 'revelation' from what God gave to

Back To Top


Back To Main Text

Moses! No wonder Muhammad's face went red with rage!

Do we wonder, then, to find Muhammad telling people that they can lie after Jesus said that all lies come from Satan?!

Others love to play the games of Muhammad too, like Ahmed Deedat who wrote:

"The "gospel" is a frequently-used word, but what Gospel did Jesus preach? Of the 27 books of the New Testament, only a small fraction can be accepted as the words of Jesus. The Christians boast about the Gospels according to St. Matthew, according to St. Mark, according to St. Luke and according to St. John, but there is not a single Gospel "according" to (St.) Jesus himself ... In his life-time Jesus never wrote a single word, nor did he instruct anyone to do so. What passes off as the "GOSPELS" today are the works of anonymous hands!" (Is The Bible God's Word?, p. 8)

Nothing could not be further from the truth. But that's where such men want to be - far from the truth. They have been so caught up in years of 'outwittings' that they have lost control of their faculties of reason, and, they do not care that Heaven or Hell are at stake for themselves or for others! How one can be like this we do not know.

Rather, it is obvious that there never was 'a Gospel of Jesus' which Jesus received from God but didn't record. Nor can a rational mind say that the fact that the Gospel records (memoirs) being written by men (especially the Companions and Tabi'un of Jesus) can in any way indicate they do not transmit the Gospel Message - and the fall of the Qur'an is only further 'Proof' for this. Historical reality needs to be faced.

With all the evidence being what it is, one cannot cling any longer to such things which were first asserted in an isolated corner of the Arabian desert and which deny what God has so openly revealed before the rest of the world!

'Outwittings' of these types have only one purpose, to mislead Those Who Seek Truth from knowing the truth about the Gospel Message, and so prevent them from examining themselves before the true God. Such wickedness is unparalleled.

Again we recall the man who wrote:

"However one may deplore it, perversity of conscience in religious matters is the order of the day and lying and wilful tampering of truth and concealing of evidence is considered meritorious service to religion.... We are passing through an age in which the main strength of our religion is held to consist in keeping people ignorant of the true facts." (A.F Badshah Husain, B.A. Author of 'Translation of the Holy Qur'an')

Why is it that the people of Islam often know these things, and seem to

Back To Top


Appendix C: Some Questions Answered

Back To Main Text

follow happily - like it is a 'religious game'?

This is not new behaviour, for God even had to rebuke His people, Bani Israel, for similar behaviour as well as for listening to false prophets, etc., saying:

"Your lips have spoken lies." (Isaiah 59:3)


"The prophets prophecy lies, and the priests rule by their own authority, and my people like it that way. But what will you do in the end?" (Jeremiah 5:31).

People who 'like it that way' follow such people even when they know they are telling lies. They show they have no love for the truth about the true God, and have not seriously considered what they will "do in the end" on Judgement Day when it will be Heaven or Hell!

But even the 'anti-Christian' heretics of the early years knew the origin of the Gospels. As Eusebius (c. 300 AD) wrote some 300 years before Muhammad's time:

"So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these, each one of them endeavours to establish his own particular doctrine." (Against Heresies, Book III) .

It is very important to note that the heretics tried to distort the content of the four Gospel records because they, and everyone else, knew these were the record of Jesus' Companions and Tabi'un.

The four Gospel records thus held Apostolic (Companion) authority, the apostles having been delegated authority by Jesus to spread the religion he espoused, and as such their writings and the writings of those who recorded their Beliefs, were the very thing the heretics wanted to twist so they could convince the people who accepted their origins that the heretical beliefs had their origins in those of authority.

It is for this reason that men like Mr. Deedat hope to create enough confusion about the Gospels that the people of Islam will consider them 'unworthy'. And it is for this reason he writes of things which everyone already knows:

"Of the alleged Gospel writers, viz., Matthew, Mark, Luke and John it can be categorically stated that 50% were not even the elected Twelve Disciples of Jesus (pbuh)." (Crucifixion..., p. 7)

What a waste of paper. It is all because the followers of Islam, although knowing little about the Gospel records, do know full well just how useless the Qur'an is on its own, and how vastly it is reliant upon not only an 'oral tradition' which differs as to what the Companions said, but which was recorded much, much, much later - and was disagreed over.

Back To Top


Back To Main Text

It is thus necessary to degrade the excellent quality of the things of the Injil records (Companion and Tabi'un memoirs) - things which Islam would be all too happy to laud if it had them - or risk Islam's followers recognising their true worth.

Anyone who has a conscience will see all this.

Did Adam 'Sin'?

The record of the Torah as well as of the Companions and Tabi'un of Jesus indicates that through Adam's sin all men came under the power of sin and so are in need of redemption. Mankind is thus born in sin. This teaching has been treated as a 'corruption' and a 'distortion' by the followers of Islam.

It is not surprising that after the Truth came, Satan initiated a belief that 'everyone is born on the millet of Islam', i.e. are claimed to have a nature which is right with God from their birth. This, it is believed, would cause them to grow up as 'Muslims' (actually 'muslims', implying 'submitted') if they did not fall under the influence of parents who caused them to become Jews or Christians.

"There is none born but is created to his true nature (Islam). It is his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a Magian..." (Sahih Muslim, #6423, Vol. 4, p. 1398)

The footnote to this Hadith states:

"2901. This hadith states a fundamental principle of Islam which repudiates the idea of the original sin or pre-natal sin, and holds that everyone comes pure from the Hands of his Maker and is born in the nature of Islam. It is his parents, his social environments which cause him to deviate from his true nature and set him on wrong paths."

Another Hadith states:

"Had his parents been Muslim, he also would have remained a Muslim." (Sahih Muslim, #6429, Vol. 4, p. 1399)

One can readily see that the belief concerning whether or not Adam sinned and passed sin to all his offspring is central to the understanding of the need of all mankind for a Saviour.

This declares, contrary to the later Islamic assertion, that it is not a matter of mankind beginning 'on the right path' and only needing to adhere to certain rules to remain there, or simply requiring a 'benevolent forgiveness' of any sins made.

With regard to this issue of sin, it cannot be seriously considered, as Islam accuses, that the Torah is inaccurate in what it portrays on this topic. Nor can an accusation be accepted that the Companions of Jesus would

Back To Top


Appendix C: Some Questions Answered

Back To Main Text

portray falsehood on this topic after having spent three years with Jesus who they portray clearly as upholding the Torah and writings of the Prophets as Scripture giving Divine guidance!

For example, the prophet Isaiah recorded the following words of God:

"Review the past for me, let us argue the matter together; state the case for your innocence.

Your first father sinned; your spokesmen rebelled against me" (Isaiah 43:26, 27)

Despite the assertions of Islam against such being the condition of Adam and mankind, we find some very strong evidence in this regard within both the Qur'an and the body of Ahadith.

First, the Qur'an, Surah 7:

20. "Then began Satan to whisper

Suggestions to them, bringing

Openly before their minds

All their shame

That was hidden from them

(Before): he said: "Your Lord

Only forbade you this tree,

Lest ye should become angels

Or such beings as live forever."

21. And he swore to them

Both, that he was

Their sincere adviser.

22. So by deceit he brought about

Their fall: when they

Tasted of the tree,

Their shame became manifest

To them, and they began

Top sew together the leaves

Of the Garden over their bodies.

And their Lord called

Unto them: "Did I not

Forbid you that tree,

And tell you that Satan

Was an avowed enemy unto you?"

23. They said: "Our Lord!

We have wronged our own souls:

If Thou forgive us not

And bestow not upon us

Thy Mercy, we shall

Certainly be lost.

24. (God) said: "Get ye down,

With enmity between yourselves.

On earth will be your dwelling-place

Back To Top


Back To Main Text

And your means of livelihood, -

For a time."

The followers of Islam have done everything possible to make this say something other than it obviously does. However, that the Qur'an portrays Adam and Hawwa (Eve) as admitting they had sinned and that without God's forgiveness of this sin they would be "lost" is clear to anyone.

That the consequences of their sin was strife is also plain in that they are told "get down with enmity between yourselves". This is not a state of 'blessedness', but a 'fallen' state.

M. Ali even calls it "spiritual death":

"It was therefore just the opposite of what the Devil stated it to be. It was the tree of death, the spiritual death of man the tree of evil. (p. 20, ft. 62)

In the next footnote he says:

"The result is that they were made to depart from the happy condition in which they were." (ft. 63)

The body of 'authentic' Ahadith also asserts this 'fall' :

"There was argument between Adam and Moses. Moses said to Adam: You are our father. You did us harm and caused us to get out of Paradise. Adam said to him; You are Moses. Allah selected you (for direct conversation with you) and wrote with His own hand the Book (Torah) for you, Despite this you blame me for an act which Allah had ordained for me forty years before He created me." (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, #6409; emphasis added)


"Moses said to him: You are the same Adam who misled people, and caused them to get out of Paradise. Adam said: You are the same (Moses) whom Allah endowed with knowledge of everything and selected him amongst the people as a Messenger. He said: Yes. Adam then again said: Even then you blame me for an affair which had been ordained for me before I was created." (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, #6410; emphasis added)


"Moses said: ... Then you caused the people to get down to the earth because of your lapse. Adam said: ... What is your opinion, how long Torah would have been written before I was created? Moses said: Forty years before. Adam said: Did you not see these words: Adam committed an error and he was enticed to do so? He (Moses) said: Yes. Thereupon, he (Adam) said: Do you then blame me...?" (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, #6411; emphasis added)

In each of these we find strong words: you did us harm ... You blame me.; you ... misled people... You blame me.; Because of your lapse... You blame me.

It is not easy to simply cover up such words with a denial of the Torah's account of Adam's sin. Yet the followers of Islam do try.

We note, however, the discrepancies between the translation of Hadith

Back To Top


Appendix C: Some Questions Answered

Back To Main Text

#6411 as it appears in each of Sahih Muslim and Mishkat, even though both have been translated by the same man, Abdul Hamid Saddiqi.

As just noted in #6411 the words are "Then you caused the people to get down to the earth because of your lapse" and "Adam committed an error and he was enticed to do so?" In Mishkat we find the translation:

"Moses said: ... Then you, because of your failing, made the people come down upon the earth.... Adam said: Did you find in that: 'And Adam disobeyed his Lord and committed error?'... (Muslim)" (#81, p. 55, Vol. 1; emphasis added)

Which of these is the true rendering? Did Adam "disobey his Lord"? Does anyone in any religion consider it 'minor' for anyone, let alone a Prophet to do so? Was he "enticed to do so"?

We note also portions of two Ahadith from Sahih Muslim which are extremely explicit:

"(378) Abu Huraira reported: ... Some people would say to the others: Don't you see in which trouble you are? Don't you see what (misfortune) has overtaken you? Why don't you find one who should interceded for you with your Lord? Some would say: Go to Adam. And they would go to Adam and say: O Adam... Intercede for us with thy Lord. Don't you see in what (trouble) we are? Don't you see what (misfortune) has overtaken us? Adam would say: Verily, my Lord is angry to an extent to which He had never been angry before nor would he be angry afterward. Verily, He forbade me (to go near) that tree and I disobeyed Him." (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 1, p. 129; emphasis added)

A different version of the same Hadith states it as:

"They would come to Adam and say: O our father, open for us the Paradise. He would say: What turned ye out from Paradise was the sin of your father Adam." (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 1, p. 132, #380; emphasis added)

What we find here is exactly what the Torah and the record of the Companions and Tabi'un of Jesus tell us. Adam sinned and disobeyed God's command.

Yet we are not finished with the evidence for we find also:

"Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: When Allah created Adam, He touched his back and there fell from his back every soul that He would create from his offspring till the Day of Resurrection and He created between the eyes of every person a gleam of light. Then he presented them to Adam and he said: My Lord who are they? He (the Lord) said: They are your offspring. He (Adam) saw a person from amongst them and he felt attracted towards him and the sparkle of light between his two eyes. He said: My Lord, who is he? (The Lord) said: It is David. He (Adam) said: My Lord how much span of life have you allotted to him? He replied: Sixty years. He said: My Lord, enhance his age from my age (to the extent of forty years). Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him)

Back To Top


Back To Main Text

said: Then Adam completed his age but only forty years were left that there came to him the angel of death. Thereupon Adam said: Are not forty years left from my age? The angel said: Did you not confer to your son (forty years). Adam denied it and so did his offspring deny. Adam forgot and ate (the fruit) of the tree and so his offspring also forgot and he (Adam) committed error and so did his offspring commit error. (Tirmidhi)' (Mishkat, Vol. 1, #118, p. 76; emphasis added)

Clearly Adam is here credited with outright lying to what is reputed to be the angel of death sent by the Deity.

This again cannot be seen as a 'small sin', the type which many in Islam would only like the Prophets to be seen as capable of. Rather it shows rebellion against the will of the Deity, the very kind of thing over which Islam rejects the Bible's accounts of the lives of the prophets!

Finally, we are told: Adam denied ... his offspring denied; Adam forgot and ate (the fruit) of the tree and so his offspring also forgot; Adam committed error ... his offspring committed error.

This shows a clear consequence of the sin of Adam impacting upon the people who came after him. This can only be avoided by employing the method of changing the meaning of the nass as we have seen employed by the scholars in Islam.

Mankind is in a 'fallen' state, and in need of a Redeemer, so that even the prophets sin. Jesus is that Redeemer - the Sinless One.

Were The Gospel Records Or The Torah In Arabic In Muhammad's Day?

Although Mr. Deedat has acknowledged the Bible in "Eleven different dialects of the Bible for the Arab's alone!" (Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction?, p. 6)), he is loathe to admit just how early anything existed in Arabic.

In his oft noted manner when opposing truth, he makes an ambiguous assertion to avoid facts on this matter:

"We must remember that there was no Arabic Bible in the sixth century of the Christian era, when the Holy prophet dictated the Qur'an." (Ibid., p. 43)

Perhaps the Taurat (Torah) and Prophets [i.e. The Old Testament] was not in Arabic since Bani Israel (the Jews) are said to have read the Torah in Hebrew and explained it in Arabic:

"155 It is reported on the same authority [i.e. Abu Huraira] that some people of the Book used to recite the Torah in Hebrew and then explained it in Arabic. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: Neither testify the people of the book nor do belie them but simply say: We affirm our faith in Allah and what has been revealed to us. (Bukhari)" (Mishkat, Saddiqui, Vol. 1, p 102f)

However, as we noted, 'Umar had his hands on a Torah and began

Back To Top


Appendix C: Some Questions Answered

Back To Main Text

reading it, something which enraged Muhammad. What languages did 'Umar know?

Yet, Mr. Deedat goes even further and states:

"The Bible was not translated into Arabic until the tenth century of the Christian Era, so no Arab living before the year 1000 would have had the opportunity to examine the written text of the Bible in his own language." (Al-Qur'an the Miracle of Miracles, p. 11, ft. (2))

Yusuf Ali makes some helpful comments for us on this matter. He mentions about the Injil:

"...the Peshitta (Syriac) version of the eastern Christians, which was produced about 411-433 A.D. and which was used by the Nestorian Christians. It is probable that the Peshitta was the version (or an Arabic form of it) used by the Christians in Arabia in the time of the Apostle." (The Holy Qur'an, Appendix III).

Here is one portion of the Bible that existed in the Hijaz (Mecca/Medinah) in Muhammad's time.

Further, the Injil was, as noted earlier from Von Denffer, also copied into Arabic in Mecca by Waraqa, Khadijah's cousin, according to Sahih Muslim #301. It was therefore present in Mecca before Muhammad claimed to be receiving new revelation.

Back To Top



Click to View