The
recent Fort Hood massacre has gotten the attention
of the media (and rightly so). It has once again brought to the forefront the
issue of whether the actions of Muslims such as Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s are
motivated by the teachings of Islam or are such atrocities at odds with what
Islam says concerning the treatment of non-Muslims.
Hasan himself thought that his actions were justified
by the teachings of Islam and even gave a presentation to senior Army
doctors on June 2007 where he demonstrated that Muslims were expressly
forbidden from helping and befriending non-Muslims (*; *). In his presentation
Nidal Hasan mentioned the problems the military could encounter from Muslims
conflicted about fighting wars in Muslim countries. As his own slides show
Hasan also believed and was convinced that Muslims were commanded to attack and
subjugate the non-Muslims if and when they had the ability to do so.
There were Muslims who actually praised what Nidal
Malik Hasan did and even encouraged other fellow believers to carry out similar
attacks against the infidel armies who plan on “invading” Muslim lands in order
to spread their “mischief ”:
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/11/fort-hood-massacre.html
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/11/revolution-muslim-street-dawah.html
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/11/revolution-muslim-yousef-al-khattab-and.html
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/search/label/Fort%20Hood%20Massacre
However, not all Muslims shared these sentiments.
Certain Muslim “scholars” and dawagandists claim that Nidal Hasan violated the
teachings of Islam by breaking the covenant that he made with the “infidels”.
These propagandists argue that Islam condemns the violation of oaths and
commands Muslims to honor their treaties and contracts (*; *).(1)
In this article we are going to examine the
teachings of Islam to see whether the actions of Major Hasan were in direct
violation of what the Quran and Muhammad taught, or do the so-called authentic
Islamic sources condone such murderous and treacherous acts.
The Islamic Prohibition on Befriending and Aiding Non-Muslims
In the first place, Major Hasan wasn’t supposed to
be in the army of the “infidel” since aiding and befriending the disbelievers,”
especially Jews and Christians, is a direct violation of the Quran:
O ye who believe!
Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends
(auliya). They are friends
(auliya) one to another. He among you who taketh
them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not
wrongdoing folk. S. 5:51 Pickthall
Muhammad is reported to have told the Muslims that they should only
associate with fellow believers and warned that a man eventually ends up
following the religion of his friend:
Narrated AbuSa'id
al-Khudri: The Prophet said: Associate only with a believer, and let
only a God-fearing man eat your meals. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 41,Number 4814)
Narrated AbuHurayrah: The Prophet said: A man follows the religion of
his friend; so each one should consider whom he makes his friend. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 41, Number 4815)
According to the Quran the only time a Muslim can befriend a disbeliever
is if s/he lives in a situation in which the unbelievers outnumber them and/or
the Muslims do not have the ability to subjugate them:
Let not the believers take disbelievers
for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no
connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it
were) security. Allah biddeth you beware
(only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying. S. 3:28 Pickthall
Here is how noted Muslim scholar and expositor Ibn Kathir explained this
passage:
The Prohibition of Supporting the Disbelievers
Allah prohibited His believing servants from becoming supporters of the
disbelievers, or to take them as comrades with whom they develop friendships, rather than the
believers. Allah warned against such behavior when He said…
(And whoever does that, will never be helped by Allah in any way) meaning, whoever commits
this act that Allah has prohibited, then Allah will discard him. Similarly,
Allah said…
(O you who believe! Take not My enemies and your enemies as friends,
showing affection towards them), until…
(And whosoever of you does that, then indeed he has gone astray from the
straight path.) [60:1]. Allah said…
(O you who believe! Take not for friends disbelievers instead of believers. Do
you wish to offer Allah a manifest proof against yourselves) [4:144], and…
(O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as friends,
they are but friends of each other. And whoever befriends them, then surely, he
is one of them.) [5:51].
Allah said, after mentioning the fact that the faithful believers gave
their support to the faithful believers among the Muhajirin, Ansar and
Bedouins…
(And those who disbelieve are allies of one another, (and) if you do not
behave the same, there will be Fitnah and oppression on the earth, and a great
mischief and corruption.) [8:73].
Allah said next…
(unless you indeed fear a danger from them) meaning, except those
believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the
disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the
disbelievers OUTWARDLY, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded
that Abu Ad-Darda' said, "We smile in the face of some people ALTHOUGH OUR
HEARTS CURSE THEM.'' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, "The TUQYAH is
allowed until the Day of Resurrection... (Tafsir Ibn Kathir; underline and capital
emphasis ours)
Ibn Kathir wasn’t alone here, nor is his interpretation simply an outdated
medieval position. Here is what the Salafi scholars at www.islamqa.com say:
In the Quraan, it says that we can
not take the Kuffaar as awliyaa, but what does that mean? I mean, to what
degree? Can we do business with them still? If I'm at school, can we play
basketball with them? Can we talk to them about basketball and stuff? Can we
hang out with them as long as they keep their beliefs to themselves? The reason
I ask is because someone I know does hang out with them in this way and it
doesn't affect his beliefs, but I still tell him, "Why don't you hang out
with the muslims instead?" He says that most or many of the Muslims drink
and take drugs where they hang out and they have girlfriends and he's afraid
that the sins of the Muslims will lure him, yet he's sure that the Kufr of the
Kaafirs will not lure him because that's something that isn't attractive to
him. So is hanging out with them, playing sports with them, and talking with
them about sports considered as "taking them as awliyaa instead of the
believers" keeping in mind that he is doing that for his own eemaan?
Praise be to Allaah.
Firstly:
Allaah has forbidden the believers to take the kaafireen (disbelievers) as
friends, and He has issued a stern warning against doing that.
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“O you who believe! Take not the
Jews and the Christians as Awliyaa’ (friends, protectors, helpers), they are
but Awliyaa’ of each other. And if any amongst you takes them (as Awliyaa’),
then surely, he is one of them. Verily, Allaah guides not those people who are
the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers and unjust)” [al-Maa’idah 5:51]
Shaykh al-Shanqeeti (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: In this verse
Allaah tells us that whoever takes the Jews and Christians as friends is one of
them because of his taking them as friends. Elsewhere Allaah states that taking
them as friends incurs the wrath of Allaah and His eternal punishment, and that
if the one who takes them as friends was a true believer he would not have
taken them as friends. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “You
see many of them taking the disbelievers as their Awliyaa’ (protectors and
helpers). Evil indeed is that which their ownselves have sent forward before
them; for that (reason) Allaah’s Wrath fell upon them, and in torment they will
abide.
81. And had they believed in Allaah, and in the Prophet (Muhammad) and in
what has been revealed to him, never would they have taken them (the
disbelievers) as Awliyaa’ (protectors and helpers); but many of them are the
Faasiqoon (rebellious, disobedient to Allaah)” [al-Maa’idah 5:80-81]
Elsewhere Allaah forbids taking them as friends and explains the reason for
that, as He says (interpretation of the meaning):
“O you who believe! Take not as friends the people who incurred the Wrath
of Allaah (i.e. the Jews). Surely, they have despaired of (receiving any good
in) the Hereafter, just as the disbelievers have despaired of those (buried) in
graves (that they will not be resurrected on the Day of Resurrection)” [al-Mumtahanah
60:13]
In another verse Allaah explains that this is so long as they are not taken
as friends because of fear or taqiyah (i.e., being friendly with them in order
to avoid harm); if that is the case then the one who does that is excused.
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Let not the believers take the disbelievers as Awliyaa’ (supporters,
helpers) instead of the believers, and whoever does that, will never be helped
by Allaah in any way, except if you indeed fear a danger from them” [Aal
‘Imraan 3:28]
This verse explains all the verses quoted above which forbid taking the
kaafirs as friends in general terms. What that refers to is in cases where one
has a choice, but in cases of fear and
TAQIYAH it is permissible to make friends with them, as much as is essential to
protect oneself against their evil. That is subject to the
condition that one's faith should not be affected by that friendship and the
one who is behaves in that manner out of necessity is not one who behaves in
that manner out of choice.
It may be understood from the apparent meaning of these verses that the one
who deliberately takes the kuffaar as friends by choice and because he likes
them, is one of them. End quote. Adwa’ al-Bayaan, 2/98,99
One of the forms of making friends with the kaafirs which is forbidden is
taking them as friends and companions, mixing with them and eating and playing
with them.
In the answer to question no. 10342 we have quoted Shaykh Ibn Baaz as saying:
Eating with a kaafir is not haraam if
it is necessary to do so, or if that serves some shar’i interest. But they
should not be taken as friends, so you should not eat with them for no shar’i
reason or for no shar’i purpose. You should not sit and chat with them and
laugh with them. But if there is a reason to do so, such as eating with a
guest, or to invite them to Islam or to guide them to the truth, or for some
other shar’i reason, then it is OK.
The fact that the food of the People of the Book is halaal for us does not
mean that we may take them as friends and companions. It does not mean that we
may eat and drink with them for no reason and for no shar’i purpose.
Shaykh Muhammad al-Saalih al-'Uthaymeen was asked about the ruling on
mixing with the kuffaar and treating them kindly hoping that they will become
Muslim. He replied:
Undoubtedly the Muslim is obliged to HATE the enemies of Allaah and to disavow them,
because this is the way of the Messengers and their followers. Allaah says
(interpretation of the meaning):
“Indeed there has been an excellent example for you in Ibraaheem (Abraham)
and those with him, when they said to their people: ‘Verily, we are free from
you and whatever you worship besides Allaah, we have rejected you, and there
has started between us and you, hostility and hatred for ever until you believe
in Allaah Alone’” [al-Mumtahanah 60:4]
“You (O Muhammad) will not find any people who believe in Allaah and the
Last Day, making friendship with those who oppose Allaah and His Messenger
(Muhammad), even though they were their fathers or their sons or their brothers
or their kindred (people). For such He has written Faith in their hearts, and
strengthened them with Rooh (proofs, light and true guidance) from Himself” [al-Mujaadilah
58:22]
Based on this, it is not permissible for a Muslim to feel any love in his
heart towards the enemies of Allaah who are in fact his enemies too. Allaah
says (interpretation of the meaning):
“O you who believe! Take not My enemies and your enemies (i.e. disbelievers
and polytheists) as friends, showing affection towards them, while they have
disbelieved in what has come to you of the truth” [al-Mumtahanah 60:1]
But if a Muslim treats them with KINDNESS and gentleness in the hope that they
will become Muslim and will believe, there is nothing wrong with that,
because it comes under the heading of opening their hearts to Islam. But if he despairs of them
becoming Muslim, then he should treat them accordingly. This is something that is
discussed in detail by the scholars, especially in the book Ahkaam Ahl al-Dhimmah by Ibn al-Qayyim.
Majmoo’ Fataawa al-Shaykh
Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, 3, question no. 389. (Question #59879: What is meant by
taking the kuffar as friends? Ruling on mixing with the kuffar; bold and capital emphasis
ours)
And here is the counsel they gave to a Muslim enlisted in an “infidel”
army:
I work in the army of a non-Muslim
state, and there are wars between them and the Muslims. What is the ruling if
they send me with a division of this army to wage war against the Muslims? As a
Muslim, my feelings are that I never want to fight against Muslims in any war. What
should I do?
What is the ruling if I go…?
Praise be to Allaah.
If you are sent to wage war against the Muslims, then it is not permissible
for you to take part at all. Helping the kaafirs against the Muslims is a form
of major kufr which puts one beyond the pale of Islam. Allaah says concerning one who supports the mushrikeen (interpretation
of the meaning):
“And if any amongst you takes them (as Awliyaa’, i.e., friends), then
surely, he is one of them”[al-Maa’idah 5:51]
With regard to how you may get out of this situation, and what excuse you
can give to get out of this dilemma if it happens, we ask Allaah to help you,
and we suggest that you consult some Muslims who have relevant knowledge or
experience.
We want to emphasize to you the necessity of finding other employment and
of leaving service in the army of the kaafirs, because that implies helping
them, strengthening them and increasing the numbers of their fighters and
supporters – unless your work can bring some benefits to the
Muslims, such as giving information and secrets of the kaafirs to the Muslims
so as to help the Muslims, or if your work is purely da’wah, such as giving khutbahs and leading
prayers for the Muslims in the kaafir army whilst also advising them to avoid
any work that will strengthen the kaafirs. We ask Allaah to keep you safe from
temptation and to give you a good end in this world and in the Hereafter. (Fatwa No. 14004: It is
not permissible for a Muslim to fight with kaafirs against the Muslims at all; bold and underline
emphasis ours)
See also their following answers to similar questions:
http://islamqa.com/en/ref/26118
http://islam-qa.com/en/ref/3885/military
http://islam-qa.com/en/ref/8797/army
The Muslim scripture
further forbids the unlawful killing of fellow believers:
It is not for a believer to kill a
believer except (that it be) by mistake, and whosoever kills a believer by mistake, (it is ordained that) he
must set free a believing slave and a compensation (blood money, i.e. Diya) be given to the
deceased's family, unless they remit it. If the deceased belonged to a people
at war with you and he was a believer; the freeing of a believing slave (is
prescribed), and if he belonged to a people with whom you have a treaty of mutual
alliance, compensation (blood money - Diya) must be paid to his
family, and a believing slave must be freed. And whoso finds this (the penance
of freeing a slave) beyond his means, he must fast for two consecutive months
in order to seek repentance from Allah. And Allah is Ever All-Knowing,
All-Wise. And whoever kills a believer intentionally,
his recompense is Hell to abide therein, and the Wrath and the Curse of Allah
are upon him, and a great punishment is prepared for him. S. 4:92-93 Hilali-Khan
And do not kill anyone which Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause. And whoever is killed (intentionally with
hostility and oppression and not by mistake), We have given his heir the
authority [(to demand Qisas, Law of Equality in punishment or to forgive, or to take Diya (blood
money)]. But let him not exceed limits in the matter of taking life (i.e. he
should not kill except the killer only). Verily, he is helped (by the Islamic
law). S. 17:33 Hilali-Khan
It is interesting that Nidal Hasan himself quoted these very passages in
slide 12 of his presentation. Thus, Hasan knew very well that aiding the
“infidel” in “attacking” Muslims in their lands was a direct violation of the
teachings of Islam.
Islam on waging war and spreading mischief
The Quran threatens to punish anyone who would spread mischief and/or seek
to wage war against Allah and his “messenger:”
Because of that We ordained for the
Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder,
or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all
mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all
mankind. And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear proofs,
evidences, and signs, even then after that many of them continued to exceed the
limits (e.g. by doing oppression unjustly and exceeding beyond the limits set
by Allah by committing the major sins) in the land! The recompense of those who
wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief (fasadan) in the land is only that
they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on
the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this
world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter. S. 5:32-33
Hilali-Khan
According to Muslim scholars waging “war” and spreading “mischief”
encompass more than just physical fighting. It also includes such things as
spreading a religion other than Islam and/or disobeying the express commands
and prohibitions of Allah:
Fasad
Fasad, literally 'corruption', in
Qur'anic terminology, means creating disorder and corruption earth BY FOLLOWING
A PATH OTHER THAN GOD’S. Islam maintains that true peace and happiness emanate
ONLY THROUGH THE OBSERVANCE OF GOD’S COMMANDS and through making a conscious
effort to see that His laws alone are implemented in every sphere of life.
Fasad occurs when man violates God's laws and disobeys Him. Fasad may therefore
be partial as well as total; partial when one disregards God's law in one
aspect of life while acknowledging His sovereignty in other spheres. If a
society is based on the denial of God, that society is bound to be a corrupt
and exploitative society - hence full of fasad. (Glossary of Islamic Terms, compiled by Ishaq Zahid;
capital emphasis ours)
Ibn Kathir explains that:
The Punishment of those Who Cause Mischief in the Land
Allah said next…
'Wage war' mentioned here means, OPPOSE AND CONTRADICT, and it includes
DISBELIEF, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the
land refers to various types of evil. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Volume 3, p. 161: capital emphasis ours)
He further says in reference to Q. 2:11-12 which uses the same wordfasad:
Meaning of Mischief
In his Tafsir,
As-Suddi said that Ibn `Abbas and Ibn Mas`ud commented…
"They are the hypocrites. As
for…
<"Do not make mischief on
the earth">, that is DISBELIEF AND ACTS OF DISOBEDIENCE."
Abu Ja`far said that Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said that Abu Al-`Aliyah said that
Allah's statement, ...
, means, "Do not
commit acts of disobedience on the earth. Their mischief is DISOBEYING Allah,
because whoever disobeys Allah on the earth, OR COMMANDS THAT ALLAH BE
DISOBEYED, he has committed mischief on the earth. Peace on both the earth and
in the heavens is ensured (and earned) through obedience (to Allah)."
Ar-Rabi` bin Anas and Qatadah said similarly. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) Volume 1, Parts 1 and 2 (Surat Al-Fatihah
to Verse 252 of Surat Al-Baqarah), abridged by a group of scholars under
the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam
Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; First
Edition: January 2000],pp. 131-132; capital emphasis ours)
And:
Types of Mischief that the Hypocrites commit
Ibn Jarir said, "The hypocrites
commit mischief on earth BY DISOBEYING THEIR LORD on it and continuing in the
prohibited acts. They also ABANDON WHAT ALLAH MADE OBLIGATORY AND DOUBT HIS
RELIGION, even though He does not accept a deed from anyone EXCEPT WITH FAITH
IN HIS RELIGION and certainty of its truth. The hypocrites also lie to the
believers by saying contrary to the doubt and hesitation their hearts harbor.
They give as much aid as they can, against Allah's loyal friends, and support
those who deny Allah, His Books and His Messengers. This is how the hypocrites
commit mischief on earth, while thinking that they are doing righteous work on
earth."
The statement by Ibn Jarir is true, taking the disbelievers as friends is one
of the categories of mischief on the earth... (Ibid., p. 132; capital emphasis ours)
Hence, from an Islamic perspective what Major Hasan did was noble since he
sought to prevent the “enemies” of Allah from “invading” Muslim lands and
spreading their “mischief.”
Islam on the Permissibility of Violating Oaths and Covenants
These propagandists further failed to inform their readers that Islam
actually allows Muslims to break their agreements and vows:
Freedom from (all) obligations (is declared) from Allah and His Messenger to
those of the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the
Oneness of Allah), with whom you made a treaty. So travel freely (O Mushrikun - see V.2:105) for four
months (as you will) throughout the land, but know that you cannot escape (from
the Punishment of) Allah, and Allah will disgrace the disbelievers. And
a declaration from Allah and His Messenger to mankind on the greatest day (the
10th of Dhul Hijjah - the 12th month of Islamic calendar) that Allah is free
from (all) obligations to the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) and so is His Messenger. So if you (Mushrikun) repent, it is better for
you, but if you turn away, then know that you cannot escape (from the
Punishment of) Allah. And give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful torment to
those who disbelieve. Except those of the Mushrikun with whom you have a
treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported
anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term.
Surely Allah loves Al- Mattaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).
Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic
calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) wherever you
find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and
every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way
free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And if anyone of the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters,
pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) seeks your protection then grant
him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Qur'an), and then
escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not.
How can there be a covenant with Allah and with His Messenger for the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah)
except those with whom you made a covenant near Al-Masjid-al-Haram (at Makkah)? So long, as
they are true to you, stand you true to them. Verily, Allah loves Al-Muttaqun
(the pious - see V.2:2).
How (can there be such a covenant with them) that when you are overpowered by
them, they regard not the ties, either of kinship or of covenant with you? With
(good words from) their mouths they please you, but their hearts are, averse to
you, and most of them are Fasiqun (rebellious disobedient to
Allah). They have purchased with the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allah
a little gain, and they hindered men from His Way; evil indeed is that which
they used to do. With regard to a believer, they respect not the ties, either
of kinship or of covenant! It is they who are the transgressors. But if they
repent, perform As-Salat(Iqamat-as-Salat)
and give Zakat, then they are your brethren in religion. (In
this way) We explain the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses,
lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) in detail for a people who know. But if they
violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion with
disapproval and criticism then fight (you) the leaders of disbelief (chiefs of
Quraish - pagans of Makkah) - for surely their oaths are nothing to them - so
that they may stop (evil actions). Will you not fight a people who have
violated their oaths (pagans of Makkah) and intended to expel the Messenger,
while they did attack you first? Do you fear them? Allah has more right that
you should fear Him, if you are believers. Fight against them so that Allah
will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them
and heal the breasts of a believing people, And remove the anger of their
(believers') hearts. Allah accepts the repentance of whom He wills. Allah is
All-Knowing, All-Wise. S. 9:1-15 Hilali-Khan
We shall see shortly see that, contrary to the assertions of the above
passage, it was Muhammad who broke his treaty with the pagans first, not
the other way around. Moreover, the pagans had already surrendered and come
under the subjection of Muhammad when these verses were composed, and as such
they posed no serious threat to him or his followers. For more on this
issue we recommend the following rebuttal.
Source. http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/hasan_islam1.html
Continues with Part Ib
IHS
K. Dayton Hartman II
Aside from the issues covered in my previous articles appearing on Answering
Islam, another factor in Islam’s denial of the Trinity has to do with the
sonship of Jesus Christ. The following article will examine (albeit briefly)
the Muslim conception of Jesus’ sonship and then provide the orthodox Christian
position.
Arabia Prior to Islam
Prior to the introduction of Islam, the people of the
Arabian Peninsula were largely nomadic and principally polytheistic.1 In the midst of this polytheism, however, there
existed a monotheistic minority know as the Hanifs. Within some scholarly
circles it is believed that the Hanifs were a codified group or
movement of neo-Abrahamic monotheists entirely independent of Judaism.2 However, it must be
admitted that details from this period of history are scant to say the least and
any proposition based upon the known data is ultimately conjecture rather than
established fact. It is interesting to note that Khadijah, Muhammad’s first
wife, had a cousin named Waraqa ibn Naufal who was reported to be a Hanif.3 Further, Al-Bukhari reports that Muhammad
personally encountered a few professing Hanifs.4 In addition, according to Al-Bukhari it was
Waraqa, a Hanif, who convinced Muhammad that he was not demon
possessed, but rather was a true prophet of Allah.5 Therefore, it is quite
possible (and in fact very likely) that this pre-Islam, monotheistic group
had a direct effect upon Muhammad’s theology; a group that, interestingly
enough, eventually had three of its four named adherents find their way to
becoming professing Christians.6
A great deal of difficulty exists in concretely
describing the indigenous religions of the Arab people during Muhammad’s time.
While it is known that the Arabs indulged in a mixture of polytheism and
animism, their exact level of adherence to these deities is uncertain.7 The central shrine in Mecca, the Ka’bah, was ruled by the supreme
god, Allah; however, it also contained a number of idols dedicated to various
other deities.8 While some during this period recognized Allah
as the supreme god, there was an overall tendency to view other deities as
intercessory beings.9 This fact is implied by the Qur’an in Surah
29:61-65. The text states that, while many acknowledge Allah as supreme in
times of need, they would ultimately return to their polytheism during times of
peace.10 Thus, in the face of paganism a supreme deity,
Allah, was recognized.11
During this period, there were various Jewish,
Zoroastrian, and Christian (largely outside the bounds of historic orthodoxy)
settlements within Arabia.12 According to some scholars many of the known
Christian settlements of the period were mostly comprised of Nestorians and
Monophysites.13 The Nestorians taught that “… two persons
as well as two natures in[dwelled within] Christ.”14 This would mean that “… when Christ sacrificed
His life on the cross, it was not the person who is also divine, the Son of
God, who died for us.”15 The Monophysites, on the other hand, denied
that Christ possessed a fully human and a fully divine nature. This belief
went against the orthodox teaching that the two natures existed alongside one
another, undiminished and unmixed. According to some sources, these settlements
held positions of influence, albeit to a small degree, on the Arabian
Peninsula. As a result, their theological positions were known by
at least some throughout the region.16 Some scholars believe that the existence of such
groups potentially impacted the development of Islamic theology, as well
as Muhammad’s understanding of Christianity.17 However, in light of the Muslim understanding of
the Qur’an’s origination, it would not matter who Muhammad came into contact
with from within the outskirts of Christendom, because the Qur’an as Allah’s direct
word by its very nature necessitates an accurate account of orthodox Christian
belief entirely untarnished by Muhammad’s faulty understanding of Christian
theology.
In addition to these Christian settlements, there
were a number of Christian slaves living on the Arabian Peninsula.18 According to those who opposed Muhammad’s
monotheism, the prophet received his information concerning Allah from these
Christian slaves; however, this assertion cannot be concretely confirmed or
rejected.19 Regardless, Muslim tradition does preserve
accounts, not inherently improbable, concerning several Meccan Arabs who
possessed knowledge of Jewish and Christian scriptures, and these figures are
generally accepted by Muslim opinion as having had close relations with
Muhammad and even affected his spiritual development.20 Whether directly influenced by “Christian”
heretics or by Muslims who received second-hand information pertaining to the
biblical text, it is plausible that Muhammad’s conception was likely
influenced by those acquainted with a variety of Christian theological
positions. However, it must be pointed out that even if Muhammad’s
understanding of Christian doctrine was delivered via second-hand information
or through theologically sub-biblical positions, this does not provide an adequate explanation for the Qur’an’s
misrepresentation of what orthodox Christians actually believe. Even
if Muhammad was unaware of what the Christian Scriptures actually teach
regarding the nature of God, surely Allah would have known. Therefore,
regardless of the potential influences upon Muhammad’s understanding of
Christian belief, if the Qur’an is
truly settled in heaven and originates from Allah it should have accurately
recounted what Trinitarians themselves profess to be true.
Muhammad was a member of the Quraish tribe and was
born near Mecca in A.D. 570. After being orphaned as a child, Muhammad’s
merchant uncle, Abu Talib, became the young boy’s guardian. By the time
Muhammad began his career as a prophet in A.D. 610, he had spent more than
fifteen years in the caravan trade. It is quite probable that during his
travels, Muhammad encountered various monotheistic movements, including the
aforementioned theological schools of Christianity. In his biography of
Muhammad’s life, Ibn Ishaq records an encounter between the prophet and a
Monophysite monk in Syria.21 In addition, Ibn Ishaq proposes that Muhammad
was briefly under the influence of an Ethiopian Christian while living in Mecca.22
The deeply religious Muhammad eventually developed
one guiding principle in the midst of his polytheistic context: a single
transcendent God must exist. As a result, Muhammad believed that his calling
was to restore mankind to the original monotheism of Scripture, a monotheism he
understood to be transgressed by many, including Jews and Christians.23 According to F.E. Peters: “… what distinguished
Muhammad from his Meccan contemporaries was (1) his belief in the reality of
the Resurrection and the Judgment in both flesh and spirit, and (2) his
unswerving conviction that the ‘High God’ was not only unique but absolute;
that the other gods, goddesses, jinn and demons were subject and
subservient to Him…”24 Through his reflection on the oneness of Allah,
and through the reported recitations he claims to have received from the angel
Gabriel, Muhammad formulated his theology concerning the divine being. This
eventually led to the development of Islam’s central doctrine, tawhid.
The central message of Muhammad’s career was the
absolute unity of Allah.25 Thus, it should come as no surprise that the
theme of unity and oneness permeates the text of the Qur’an. In Taha Unal’s
estimation, “The Divine Unity (tawhid) is the highest conception of
deity, and is the basic element which gives Islam its essential color.”26 Unal adds, “Tawhid is the source of hope,
determination, patience, firmness, and courage, and also of happiness and
spiritual satisfaction.”27
Is Jesus the physical Son of God?28
In light of the material presented regarding
pre-Islam Arabia, it is no surprise that the Qur’an unabashedly attacks the
notion that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The idea that Allah sired
Jesus Christ in a physical sense is repugnant to Muslims. In pre-Islam Arabia,
tribal people attributed physical wives (Surah 72:3), daughters (Surah 6:100;
16:57; 17:40; 37:149-153; 43:19; 53:27), and sons (2:116; 6:100-101; 10:68;
17:111; 18:4; 19:91-92; 21:26; 25:2) to a high god. As a result, Muslims
currently reject any theological concepts which they believe entail similar
relationships with Allah.
The most explicit passage in the Qur’an condemning
the Trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ
appears in Surah 5:116, “And behold!
Allah will say: ‘O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me
and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah?’” Ibn Taymiyya believes
that this passage conclusively shows that Christians attribute a physical wife
to Yahweh.29 The logic behind Ibn Taymiyya’s assertion is
quite consistent with Muslim assertion that the Qur’an is perfect and
originates from the will of Allah. Ibn Taymiyya proposes that in spite of what
the Christian Scriptures actually record regarding the nature of God and
regardless of what Christians have historically believed about the nature of God,
because the Qur’an teaches that Christians believe Yahweh has a female
consort, then in the face of all known data, it must be true.
Similarly, Surah 2:116 depicts Christians as
holding the belief that Allah physically fathered Jesus Christ. Commenting on this passage, Yusuf Ali writes:
It is derogation from the glory of God—in fact it is
blasphemy—to say that God begets sons, like a man or an animal. The Christian
doctrine is here emphatically repudiated. If words have any meaning, it
would mean an attribution to God of a material nature and of the lower animal
function of sex.30
The Qur’an, on a number of occasions,31 condemns the belief of Allah having offspring.
However, the greatest condemnation is clearly directed towards Christians who
believe that Jesus is the Son of God.32 The reason for such
opposition is because Muslims believe that Christians understand the Fatherhood
of God in a physical sense.
Once more in Surah 39:4, the concept of divine
paternity is attributed to Christians, and is subsequently condemned. However,
this passage offers an alternative to “begetting.” The text reveals that, if
Allah had wanted a “helper,” he would not have needed to sire him in a physical
sense, but would instead have created him. If Allah has no wife, as the
Qur’an undeniably teaches,33 then he can have no son. The idea that he would
lower himself to the level of creatures for the sake of procreation is entirely
blasphemous.
Understanding that prior to the advent of Islam,
Arabs believed that Allah engaged in sexual activity, it is not shocking to
find that Muslims abhor the concept of “begetting.” Undoubtedly, Muhammad
perceived this language to mean that Christians believe that God literally
engaged in sexual intercourse with Mary, the mother of Jesus. In light
of the historical and religious context into which Muhammad was born, it is
no surprise that he would object to a doctrine he believed mirrored the pagan
“trinities” existing in Arabia. In summary,
the Qur’an proposes that Christians believe the following. First, Mary is
literally the wife of God. Second, Allah physically engaged in sexual
intercourse with Mary and Jesus of Nazareth is the physical offspring resulting
from this carnal encounter. Third, the Christian concept of the Trinity
resembles paganism, teaching that a high god (Yahweh) took for Himself a wife
(Mary) and sired a half-man-half-God son.34
Christian Response
In the Arabic language, two terms are used
to express the concept, “son of.” The first is walad,35 which is used to describe offspring resulting
from the sexual union of a male and female. The second word, ibn,
can be used metaphorically. It is utilized to describe a close relationship
between persons, or persons to things, without necessarily implying a physical
paternal connection.36 For example, a traveler “… [i]s spoken of as a
son of the road” (ibnussabil).37 Yet, such a statement does not imply that a
sexual relationship, resulting in a child, has occurred between a human
being and the road.
Nearly every passage in the Qur’an that denies the
sonship of Jesus Christ utilizes walad. The single
reference that employs ibn to describe Christ‘s sonship is Surah 9:30; however, when
taken in the context of the entire Surah, it is clear that the reference
actually refers to physical sonship.38 Orthodox Christianity would only use the term ibn, in its metaphorical
sense, to explain Christ’s relationship to the Father. Therefore, in Arabic
the Scriptures call Christ ibnu’llah, not waladu’llah.
Some older english translations of the Bible utilized
the most unhelpful formulation “only begotten.”39 The phrase translated in the King James Version
as “only begotten Son” ismonogenes huios (μονογενηςυιος). However, one should not take this in a literal, physically paternal
sense. For instance, huios (son) has been used metaphorically throughout the New Testament. In Mark
3:17, James and John are referred to as “Sons (huios) of Thunder.” Furthermore,
in Galatians 3:26 Paul writes that all believers are “Sons (huios) of
God.” These references are clearly intended to be figurative. The translation
of monogenes as “only begotten” is a
result of the King James translators retaining Jerome’s Latin translation of
the term, unigenitus, meaning “only begotten.” However, the Latin text
existing prior to Jerome’s translation did not use the Latin unigenitus when describing God the
Son; instead, it utilized the term unicus, meaning “only.”40
In order for the Greek manuscript to warrant the
translation “only begotten,” the Greek term being translated would need to be monogennetos. To translate monogenes as “only begotten” is, without question, incorrect.
Commenting on this mistranslation, James White noted that;
The key element to remember in deriving the meaning
of monogenes is this: it is a
compound term, combining monos, meaning only,
with a second term. Often it is assumed that the second term is gennasthai/gennao, to give birth, to beget. But note that this family of
terms has two nu’s, νν, rather than a single nu, ν, found in monogenes. This indicates that the
second term is not gennasthai but gignesthai/ginomai, and the noun form, genos.41
The term genos means “kind,” or “race.”42 When the two terms monos and genos are combined, the reference
is intended to convey that Christ is “unique, the only one of his kind.”43 Additionally, William
Mounce explains that monogenes can only be understood as stressing the unique nature of Christ; it
cannot and should not be understood to imply any type of biological siring.44
This metaphorical understanding of sonship is
demonstrated in the book of Hebrews. The author of Hebrews refers to Isaac as
Abraham‘s “only begotten son.”45 Making use of the same term found in John 3:16
to describe the father-to-son relationship (monogenes), the author of
Hebrews notes the unique nature of Isaac as the promised child from God. The
Muslim reader will readily admit that Abraham had multiple children; therefore,
the intent of the text is to stress that Isaac is Abraham’s unique son, not his
only son.46 Craig Keener believes the use of the term monogenes in John 3:16 is intended to
call to mind the traditional Hebrew understanding of Isaac. Just as Abraham
gave Isaac, God the Father has not given merely a son but the unique, beloved
Son with whom there is no comparison.47 In the same manner, Christ should be understood
as the unique, one-of-a-kind, “Son of God.” Christ’s Hebrew contemporaries
understood His claim to be the Son of God as an equation with God rather than a
statement of biological origin. When Jesus was before Pilate the Jewish
authorities charged, “We have a law, and
by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God.”48 Thus, His sonship declared His full deity,
not a biological origination.
The text of Scripture further demonstrates that
the Muslim notion of the New Testament portraying Christ as the biological Son
of God is in error. The birth narrative
in Luke’s Gospel makes no mention of natural conception resulting from a sexual
union. After Gabriel informed Mary that she would carry a Son, she asked,
“How can this be, since I am a virgin?”49 Gabriel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon
you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason
the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.”50 The narrative is completely devoid of any sexual
interaction between God the Father and Mary; rather, the reader is informed that it is
through the working of the Holy Spirit that the virgin conceived. Commenting on
this fact, Wayne Grudem states, “Scripture
clearly asserts that Jesus was conceived by a miraculous work of the Holy
Spirit…”51 Thus, the text of both John’s and Luke’s Gospels
depict Christ as uniquely, rather than biologically, the Son of God. Further,
Christ is the Son of God not because of conception, but because of His economic
relationship to the Father. Therefore, the Qur’an is not rebutting the text
of Christian Scripture but is reacting against a misunderstanding of orthodox
Christianity at best and more directly Arab paganism.
Does Allah have a Son?
Without question, the Qur’an denounces the idea of
Allah fathering a son in the genetic sense. Interestingly, the Qur’an
addresses Muhammad’s course of action pending the figurative establishment of
Allah having a son. According to Surah 43:81, “Say: If the All-merciful [God] had a son, I would be the very first
to worship [him].” Some Islamic commentators believe that in this
passage Muhammad was stating that, if it could be proven that Allah had a son,
he would be the very first to submit unto and worship him.52 Commenting on Surah 43:81, Yusuf Ali states
that, “The prophet of Allah does not
object to true worship in any form. But it must be true: it must not
superstitiously attribute derogatory things to Allah, or foster false ideas.”53 If one takes the Surah in its context, it would
appear that Muhammad made this statement because of his conviction that
Allah has no son; yet, if Allah’s “fatherhood” could be established he would be
willing to accept the son of Allah as God.54 Arab Christian Chawkat Moucarry notes that famed
Muslim commentator Fakhr-ul-Din Razi believes that, of all the possible
interpretations of this Surah, the preceding is the most viable.55 For Moucarry, Fakhr-ul-Din’s interpretation raises
a few questions. He asks, “Is there
really evidence that God has no son? If so, where is this evidence? What if the
case for God having a son is made? Are Muslims prepared, like the Prophet, to
worship and to serve him?”56
In continuation, the most famous Surah to reject
the idea of Allah having a son was not historically used as a refutation of the
Christian doctrine of incarnation, but was instead a criticism of Arab
polytheism.57 Surah 112:1-4 reads, “Say: He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begets
not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.” Moucarry
proposes that the use of this Surah as a condemnation of the Christian
understanding of the Son of God comes long after it was used against its
intended targets, pagan Arabs. It is only after the expansion of Islam that
this Surah was understood as a repudiation of Christian Trinitarianism.58 Moucarry believes that if the Muslim interpreter
intends to remain literally and historically grounded in the text of the
Qur’an, he must acknowledge this fact.59
Conclusion
Muhammad’s knowledge of the orthodox doctrine of the
Trinity (which was well established by the sixth century A.D.) is questionable
at best. The Qur’an clearly misrepresents what Christians actually believed
and still do believe about the triunity of God. However, the Qur’an rightly
and accurately condemns the pre-Islam polytheism that permeated the Arabian Peninsula. What Muhammad denied then was the
pagan deities of his native peoples, yet he mistook the Christian doctrine
of the true Trinity as being nothing more than a Christianized version of pagan
belief. With Muhammad’s primary denial of the Trinity being aimed at the
doctrine as it relates to the Sonship of Jesus Christ, and with that notion
being corrected above, what then can be said in denial of what Christians
actually believe regarding the Trinity and the incarnation of Jesus? Simply put, Muhammad denied the very
same doctrines that Christians have denied for over two-thousand years.
The
difference being that for over fourteen-hundred years Muslims, as prescribed by
the Qur’an, have attributed to Christians a belief that no orthodox Christian
has ever held to. So, did Muhammad
deny the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity as it relates to the incarnation of
Jesus Christ? No!
1 William Montgomery Watt. A Short history of Islam (Boston, MA: OneWorld
Oxford Publishing, 1996), 9.
2 Winfried Corduan believes this monotheism
represents Arab vestiges of original monotheism. Winfried Corduan. Neighboring Faiths (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1998), 79. Cf. Timothy Tennent. Christianity at the
Religious Roundtable (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 143.
3 Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad translated by Alfred
Guillaume (Oxford University Press, 1979), 99. Interestingly enough the Qur’an
refers to Abraham as a true Muslim Hanifa. See S. 3:67.
4 Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 67, Number 407. This text was
retrieved from this Answering Islam article.
5 Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 1, Number 3. See previous link.
6 J. Spencer Trimingham, Christianity among the
Arabs in Pre-Islamic Times (London: Longman Group, 1979), 263.
7 Watt, 9. According to Samuel Zwemer, pre-Islamic
poetry portrays Allah as a supreme god. Samuel Zwemer, Islam: A Challenge to Faith (New York: Laymen‘s
Missionary Movement, 1907), 12.
8 Tennent, 142.
9 Surah 10:19, 39:3.
10 Watt, 50. Surah 29:61-65 “If indeed thou ask them who has created the heavens and the earth and
subjected the sun and the moon (to his Law), they will certainly reply,
"Allah". How are they then deluded away (from the truth)? Allah
enlarges the sustenance (which He gives) to whichever of His servants He
pleases; and He (similarly) grants by (strict) measure, (as He pleases): for
Allah has full knowledge of all things. And if indeed thou ask them who it is
that sends down rain from the sky, and gives life therewith to the earth after
its death, they will certainly reply, "(Allah)!" Say, "Praise be
to Allah." But most of them understand not. What is the life of this world
but amusement and play? but verily the Home in the Hereafter,- that is life
indeed, if they but knew. Now, if they embark on a boat, they call on Allah,
making their devotion sincerely (and exclusively) to Him; but when He has
delivered them safely to (dry) land, behold, they give a share (of their
worship to others)!” Cf. Surah 23:84-89. All quotations from the Qur’an are
taken from Yusuf Ali’s translation.
11 Ibid, 52.
12 Tennent, 79. Such Christologies would be
officially condemned as heresy by the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451.
13 Ibid.
14 Norman Geisler & Abdul Saleeb. Answering Islam: The
Crescent in Light of the Cross (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002), 274.
15 Ibid.
16 William Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Mecca ( London: Oxford, 1965),
27.
17 Norman Anderson, ed. The World’s Religions (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1976), 54.
18 Ghada Osman, “Foreign Slaves in Mecca and Medina
in the Formative Islamic Period” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations Vol. 16 No. 4 (October
2005), 345. Cf. Watt, Muhammad at Mecca,
27.
19 Ibid.
20 Tarif Khalidi, The Muslim Jesus (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 2001), 21.
21 Ibn Ishaq, 79-81.
22 Ibid, 180.
23 Tennent, 147.
24 F.E. Peters, “The Quest for the Historical
Muhammad”, International Journal of Middle East Studies. Vol. 23 No. 3. (August 1991), 301.
25 Abdel Mahmud, The Creed of Islam (London: World of Islam
Festival Trust, 1978), 20.
26 Taha Unal, The Crossroads (Izmir, Turkey: Kaynak
House of Publication, 1993), 29.
27 Ibid, 30.
28 It should be noted that some object to the
observations that follow in this section. The claim is that the Qur’an does not
misrepresent the Trinity. Rather, some claim that Christians did and do in fact
worship the virgin Mary as part of the Godhead. For instance, Dr. Mohar Ali
makes the claim that Christians worship Mary as God. However, Dr. Ali fails to
note when and where this occurred and with whom it occurred. Further, he fails
to note that if any Christians did in fact worship Mary as a god (a tenuous
position at best) they did so in direct opposition of the Christian Scriptures,
orthodox Christian belief, and virtually all Christian institutions throughout
history. In other words, Dr. Ali fails to add anything to the conversation;
rather, he is merely regurgitating previously tackled arguments. For further
observation you may access his book here.
29 Ibn Taymiyya, A Muslim Theologians
Response to Christianity. (Delmar, NY.: Caravan Books, 1984), 260.
30 Yusuf Ali, The Meaning of the Holy
Qur’an. (Beltsville, MD: Amana
Publications, 1989), 286.
31 Surah 16:57; 17:40; 37:149.
32 Maulana Ali. The Religion of Islam. (Lahore, Pakistan:
Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha‘at Islam, 1983), 148.
33 Surah 6:101.
34 Unal, 34. Cf. Tennent, 146.
35 Hans Wehr. Dictionary of Modern Written
Arabic (London: MacDonald and Evans, 1961), 1097-1098.
36 Ibid, 76.
37 Geisler & Saleeb, 249. Cf. Surah 2:215.
38 Surah 9:30 “The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah,
and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their
mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say.
Allah.s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!”
39 For more information, this article.
40 “In the Cathedral of Vercelli, Italy, is the
most notable of the Old Latin MSS, Codex Vercellensis(a), supposedly written in
A.D. 365 by Eusebius, Bishop of Vercelli. In this document, which contains the
Gospels, with lacunae, the word monogenes in John 1:14, is; in 3:16, it is
translated with the Latin word unicus (only), not unigenitus (only begotten).
Dale Moody, “God’s Only Son: The Translation of John 3:16 in the Revised
Standard Version.” The Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 72:4 (1953), 214.
41 James White, The Forgotten Trinity (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany
House Publishers, 1998), 201-202.
42 D.A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academic, 1996), 30.
43 Cleon Rogers J.r. & Cleon Rogers III, The New Linguistic and
Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1998), 185.
44 William Mounce, Mounce’s Complete
Expository Dictionary of Old Testament and New Testament Words. (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 2006), 1214.
45 Hebrews 11:17, “By faith, Abraham, when he was
tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up
his only begotten son.”
46 Carson, 31.
47 Craig Keener, The IVP Bible Background
Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993),
270-271.
48 John 19:7.
49 Luke 1:34
50 Luke 1:35. Cf. Matthew 1:18-24.
51 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology. (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1994), 529.
52 Chawkat Moucarry, The Prophet and the Messiah (Downers Grove, IL: IVP,
2001), 187.
53 Yusuf Ali, 1279.
54 Ibid.
55 Moucarry, 187-188.
56 Ibid.
57 Ibid, 189.
58 Ibid. It should be noted that even if such a
proposition is historically accurate, the Qur’an does explicitly condemn in
other passages Christian doctrine as a whole.
59 Ibid.
Source: http://answering-islam.org/authors/hartman/sonship.html
IHS
By Anthony Rogers
Introduction
Given that many others have done this before, the
following aims to be a (relatively) short but pungent reply to the Muslim claim
that Muhammad's coming was prophesied in Deuteronomy 18.
In fact, not only is it
certain from the Qur’an that Muhammad performed no miraculous sign or wonder to
confirm that he was a prophet from God,4 it is just as certain that he
performed no sign or wonder such as would identify him as the prophet like unto
Moses, a point on which, once again, the Qur’an agrees: “But (now), when
the Truth has come to them from Ourselves, they say, ‘Why are not (Signs) sent
to him,like those which were sent to Moses?’”
An Additional Set of Problems
To further complicate matters, the argument that Deuteronomy 18 prophecies
the coming of Muhammad rests on several hotly disputed assumptions, such as
that the Arabs are descended from Ishmael, and that Muhammad was illiterate,
not just unlettered, the latter being a technical term for Gentiles or people
generally unlearned when it came to the Jewish and Christian scriptures. It
also ignores that the prophecy excludes from its purview anyone who speaks in
the name of any other God than Yahweh, which Muhammad did by speaking in the
name of a god whose descriptive nature and character are decidedly contrary to
the Bible, as well as anyone who makes a prediction that does not come to pass,
which Muhammad did many times over.
In other words, even if all the other qualifications were met by Muhammad,
that is, even if it could be shown that the passage is really talking about
a future descendant of Ishmael who would be so unlike Moses in the key features
of his prophetic office as any one person could be, and as Muhammad certainly
was, then Muhammad would still be disqualified.
Conclusion
The Muslim idea that the passage refers to an Arab who didn’t speak with
God and didn’t perform any miracle flounders over and over again on all the
salient points of the prophecy. In light of this fact, Muslims would do well to
disabuse themselves of the absurd notion that Muhammad is prophesied here in
Deuteronomy 18.
For all the verbal legerdemain employed by Muslims in an attempt to conjure
Muhammad up out of Deuteronomy 18, the fact is that any prophet, who would lay
claim to fulfilling Deuteronomy 18, must be an Israelite, must speak face to
face with God, and must have a ministry marked by divine approval. And
Muhammad just didn’t cut the muster, for he failed not on one, or two, but on
all three points.
In conclusion, not only was Muhammad not the prophet foretold in
Deuteronomy 18, but according to that very passage he was not a true prophet
at all. Accordingly, although Muhammad uttered many curses and imprecations
on anyone who would deny him the all important title of prophet, and even
though he would often buttress this demand by saying that Allah would punish
those who do not submit to him as the messenger of Allah, according to
Deuteronomy 18 there isn’t the slightest reason for anyone to fear, for these
are the words of a presumptuous man. Indeed, the divine command is, “Do not
be afraid of him.”
Continue with Part
II.
Footnotes
1 See also S. 44:30-33.
2 Yusuf Ali notes on this verse: “Allah spoke to
Moses on Mount Sinai. Hence the title of Moses in Muslim theology: Kalim Allah: the one to whom Allah
spoke.” (Footnote #670)
3 This verse is plagued with problems for Muslims,
for not only does there seem to be a discrepancy among the translators, with
some translating it as “with some Allah spoke”, rather than “with one of them
Allah spoke”, but it also seems to suggest that Moses and Jesus were both
“preferred” or “gifted” above Muhammad, for the former spoke to Allah directly
and the latter had miraculous signs.
4 Surah 2:118; 2:145; 6:37; 6:109; 10:20; 11:12; 13:7;
13:27; 17:59; 17:90-93
Source: http://answering-islam.org/authors/rogers/not_afraid1.html
IHS
