ANSWER TO CHRISTIAN DILEMMAS
"Christ in Islam" is really Christ in the Quran: and
the Holy Quran has something definite to say about every abberation of
Christianity. The Quran absolves Jesus (pbuh) from all the false charges
of his enemies as well as the misplaced infatuation of his followers.
His enemies allege that he blasphemed against God by claming Divinity.
His misguided followers claim that he did avow Divinity, but that was
not blasphemy (kufr) because he was God. what does the Quran say?
Addressing both the Jews and the Christians,
Allah says:-
O PEOPLE OF THE BOOK! COMMIT NO EXCESSES IN YOUR RELIGION:
NOR SAY OF GOD AUGHT BUT THE TRUTH.
CHRIST JESUS THE SON OF MARY WAS (NO MOR THAN) AN APOSTEL
OF GOD, AND HIS WORD, WHICH HE BESTOWED ON MARRY, AND A SPIRIT PROCEEDING
FROM HIM: SO BELIEVE IN GOD AND HIS MESSENGERS...
{Holy Quran 4:171}
GOING TO EXTREMES
"O People of the Book:" is a very respectful title with
which the Jews and the Christians are addressed in the Holy Quran. In
other words, Allah is saying - "O learned People!" "O People
with a Scripture!" According to their own boast, Jews and the Christians
prided themselves over the Arabs, who had no Scripture before the Quran.
As a learned people, Allah pulls ;up both the contending religionists
for going to either extremes as regards the personality of Christ.
The Jews made certain insinuations about the legitimacy of Jesus (pbuh)
and charged him of blasphemy by twisting his words. The Christians read
other meanings into his words: wrench words out of their context to make
him God.
The modern-day Christian - The hot-gospeller - the Bible thumper - uses
harsher words and cruder approaches to win over a convert to his blasphemies.
He says:
- "EITHER JESUS IS GOD OR A LIAR"
- "EITHER JESUS IS GOD OR A LUNATIC"
- "EITHER JESUS IS GOD OR AN IMPOSTER"
These are his words - words culled from Christian literature. Since no
man of charity, Muslim or otherwise, can condemn Christ so harshly as
the Christian challenges him to do, perforce he must keep non-committal.
He thinks he must make a choice between one or the other of these silly
extremes. It does not occur to him that there is an alternative to this
Christian conundrum.
SENSIBLE ALTERNATIVE
Is is not possible that Jesus is simply what he claimed to be - a prophet,
like so many other prophets that passed away before him? Even that he
is one of the greatest of them - a mighty miracle worker, a great spiritual
teacher and guide - the Messiah! Why only God or Lunatic? Is Is "lunacy"
the opposit of "Divinity" in Christianity? What is the antonym
of God? Will some clever Christian answer?
The Quran lays bare the true position of Christ in a single verse, it
says:
- That he was the son of a women, Mary, and therefore a man;
- But an apostle, a man with a mission from God, and therefore entitled
to honour;
- A Word bestowed on Mary, for he was created by God's word "Be"
(kun), and he was; 3:59.
- A spirit proceeding from God, but not God; his life and apostles,
though we must pay equal honour to him as a man of God. The doctrines
of trinity, equality with God, and sonship, are repudiate as blasphemies.
God is indepent to all needs and has no need of a son to manage His
affairs. The Gospel of John (whoever wrote it) has put a great deal
of Alexandria Gnostic misticism round the doctrine of the word (Greek,
Logos), but it is simply explained here and our sufis explained here
and our Sufis work on this explanation."
{A. Yusuf Ali's comment on verse 171 above.
JESUS QUESTIONED
Reproduced below are verses 119 to 121 from Sura Maida (Ch.5) depicting
the sence of Judgement Day, when Allah will questino Jesus (pbuh) regarding
the misdirected zeal of his supposed followers in worshipping him and
his mother: and his response -
119. And behold! God will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst
thou say unto men, Worship me and my mother As gods in derogation of
God'?" He will say: Glory to Thee! Never could I say What I had
no right (To say). Had I said Such a thing, Thou wouldst Indeed have
known it. Thou knowest what is In my heart, though I Know not what is
In Thine. For Thou Knowest in full All that is hidden.
120. "Never said I to them Aught except what Thou Didst command
me To say, to wit,'Worship God, my Lord and your Lord'; And I was a
witness Over them whilst I dwelt Amongst them; when thou Didst take
me up Thou wast the Watcher Over them, and Thou Art a witness to all
things.
121. "If Thou dost punish them, They are Thy servents: If Thou
dost forgive them, Thou are the Exalted in power, The Wise."
CLAIMED NO DIVINITY
If this is the statement of Truth from the All-Knowing, that "Never
did I say to them anything other thenwhat I was commanded to say, that
is WORSHIP GOD< WHO IS MY LORD AND YOUR LORD", then how do Christians
justify worshiping Jesus?
There is not a single unequivocal statement throughout the Bible, all
its 66 volumes of the Protestant versions, or in the 73 volumes of the
Roman Catholic versions, where Jesus claims to be God or where he says
- 'worship me.' Nowhere does he say that he and God Almighty are one and the same person.
The last phrase above - "one and the same person" tickles
many a "hot-gospeller" and "Bible-thumper," not excluding
the Doctor of Davinity and the Professor of Theology. Even the new converts
to Christianity have memorised these verses. They are programmed like
zombies to rattle off verse, out of context, upon which they can hang
their faith. The words "ARE ONE" activates the mind by association
of memories. "Yes", say the Trinitarians - the worshippers of
three gods in one God, and one God in three gods - "Jesus did claim
to be God!" Where?
REVEREND AT THE TABLE
I had taken Rev. Morris D.D and his wife, to lunch at the "Golden
peacock." While at the table, during the course of our mutual sharing
of knowledge, the opportunity arose to ask, "Where?" And without
a murmur he quoted, "I AND MY FATHER ARE ONE" - to imply that
God and Jesus were one and the same Person. That Jesus here claims to
be God. The verse quoted was well known to me, but it was being quoted
out of context. It did not carry the meaning that the Doctor was imagining,
so I asked him, "What is the context?"
CHOCKED ON "CONTEXT"
The Reverend stopped eating and began staring at me. I said, "Why?
Don't you know the context?" - "You see, what you have quoted
is the text, I want to know the context, the text that goes with it, before
or after." Here was an Englishman (Canadian), a paid-servant of the
Presbyterian Church, a Doctor of Divinity, and it appeared that I was
trying to teach him English. Of course he knew what "context"
meant. But like the rest of his compatriots, he had not studied the sense
in which Jesus (pbuh) had uttered the words.
In my forty years of experience, this text had been thrown at me hundreds
of times, but not a single learned Christian had ever attempted to hazard
a guess as to its real meaning. They always start fumbling for their Bibles.
The Doctor did not have one with him. When they do start going for their
Bibles, I stop them in their stride. "Surely, you know what you are
quoting?" "Surely, you know your Bible?" After reading
this, I hope some "born-again" Christians will rectify this
deficiency. But I doubt that my Muslim readers will ever come across one
in their lifetime who could give them the context.
WHAT IS THE CONTEXT?
It is unfair on the part of the Reverend, having failed to provide the
context, then to ask me, "Do you know the context?" "Of
course," I said. "Then, what is it?" asked my learned friend.
I said, "That which you have quoted is the text of John chapter 10,
verse 30. To get at the context, we have to begin from verse 23 which
reads:
23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.
John, or whoever he was, who wrote this story, does not tell us the
reason for Jesus tempting the Devil by walking alone in the loin's den.
For we do not expect the Jews to miss a golden opportunity to get even
with Jesus. Perhaps, he was emboldened by the manner in which he had literally
whipped the Jews single-handed in the Temple, and upset the tables of
the money-changers at the beginning of his ministry (John 2:15).
24 Then came the Jews round about him. And said unto him, How long
dost thou make us to doubt? if thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
They surrounded him. Brandishing their fingers in his face, they began
accusing him and provoking him; saying that he had not put forth his claim
plainly enough, clearly enough. That he was talking ambiguously. They
were trying to work themselves into frenzy to assult him. In fact, their
real complaint was that they did not like his method of preaching - his
invectives, the manner in which he condemned them for their formalism,
their ceremonialism, their going for the letter of the law and forgetting
the spirit. But Jesus could not afford to provoke them any further - there
were too many and they were itching for a fight. Discretion is the better
part of valour. In a conciliatory spirit befitting the occasion -
25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and you believed not: the works
that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto
you.
Jesus rebuts the false charges of his enemies that he was ambiguous in
his claims to being the Messiah that they were waiting for. He says that
he did tell them clearly enough, yet they would not listen to him, but
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither
shall any man PLUCK THEM OUT OF MY HAND.
29 My Father which gave them me, is greater than all, and no man is able
to PLUCK THEM OUT OF MY FATEHR'S HAND.
How can anyone be so blind as not to see the exactness of the ending of
the last two verses. But spiritual blinkers are more impervious then physical
defects. He is telling the Jews and recording for posterity, the real
unity or relationship between the Father and the son. The most crucial
verse -
30 I and my Father are one.
One in what? In their Omniscience? In their Nature? In their Omnipotence?
No! One in purpose! That once a believer has accepted faith, the Messenger
see to it that he remains in faith, and God Almighty also sees to it that
he remains in faith. This is the purpose of the "Father" AND the "son" AND the "Holy Ghost" AND of
every man AND every women of faith. Let the same John explain his
Gnostic mystic verbiage.
That all may be ONE: as thou. Father, art in me, and
I in thee, that they also may be ONE in us...
I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in ONE...
{John 17:20-22}
If Jesus is "ONE" with God, and if that "ONENESS" makes him God, then the traitor Judas, and the doubting Thomas, and
the satanic peter(Check note 1), plus the other nine
who dreserted him when he was most in need are God(s), because the same
ONENESS which he claimed with God in Jhon 10:30, now he claims for ALL
"who forsook him and fled" (Mark 14:50) - ALL "O
faithless and perverse generation" (Luke 9:41). Where and when
will the Christian blasphemy end? The expression "I and my Father
are one," was very innocent, meaning nothing more then a common
purpose with God. But the Jews were looking for trouble and any excuse
will not do, therefore, -
31 The Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from from my
Father; for which of those works do you stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but
for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man makest thyself a God.
In verse 24 above the Jews falsely alleged that Jesus was talking ambiguously.
When that charge was ably refuted, they accused him of blasphemy (Kufr) which is like treason in the spritual realm.So They say that Jesus is
claiming to be God -'I and my Father are one" .'The Christians agree
with the Jews in this that Jesus (pbuh) did make such a claim; but, differ,
in that it was not blasphemy because the Chirstians say that he was God
and was entitled to own up to his Divinity.
The Crisitians and the Jews are both agreeed that the utterance is serious
.To one as an excuse for good 'redemption', and to the other as an excuse
for the good 'riddance'. Between the two, let the poor Jesus die. But
Jesus refusues to co-operate in this dirty game, so -
34 Jesus answered them, is it not written in your law, I said, Ye
are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture
cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world,
Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the sort of God?(Check
note 2)
WHY "YOUR LAW"?
He is a bit sarcastic in verse 34,but in any event, why does he say: "Your Law"? Is it not also his law? Din't he say: THINK
NOT THAT I AM COME TO DESTROY THE LAW OR THE PROPHETS: I AM COME
NOT TO DESTROY, BUT TO FULFIL (the Law). FOR VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU, TILL
HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS AWAY, ONE JOT (Check note 3)
OR ONE TITLE SHALL IN NO WISE PASS FROM THAT LAW, TILL ALL BE FULFILLED.
(Matthew 5:17 - 18).
"YE ARE GODS"
"Ye are gods:" He is obviously quoting from the 82nd
Psalm (verse 6) - "I have said, YE ARE GODS: and all of you are,
the children of the most High."
Jesus, continues, "If he (i.e. God Almighty) called them
gods, unto whom the word of God came (meaning that the prophets of
God were called 'GODS') and the scripture cannot be broken (in
other words - YOU CAN'T CONTRADICT ME!)." - Jesus knows his Scripture;
he speaks with authority; and he reasons with his enemies that "if
good men, holy men, prophets of God are being addressed as "GODS"
in our Books of Authority, with which you fine no fault - then why do
you take exception to me? - When the only claim I make for myself is far
inferior in our language, viz. "a son of God" as against
others being called "GODS" by God Himself. Even if I
(Jesus) described myself as "god" in our language, according
to Hebrew usage, you could find no fault with me." This is the plain
reading of Christian Scripture. I am giving no interpretations of my own
of some esoteric meaning to words! |
