Saturday 14 September 2024

Re: Did Prophet Muhammad eat pork [Ibnu Taimiyah: Minhaajus-sunna 5:91] ?!

 Question:

Is this is a hadith? Is it authentic?

MESSANGER of ALLAH ate PORK
Ibnu Taimiyah: Minhaajus-sunna 5:91; and Hayaatul-quluub by Majlisiy page 359.

"It was narrated by Aisha, and was received from Abu Swaileh from Ibn Abbas and Jabir bin Abdullah: They said that the Messenger of God and his companions were tired of the long journey. They arrived at the home of Fatma, a friend of her friend. Allah's Apostle asked, "Do you have any meal?" Fatma answered yes. Allah's Apostle once again asked if she had any prey. Fatma answered, I have wild pork. So the Messenger of God and his companions "ate pork" in the wild until they were satisfied."

Answer:

Praise be to Allah,

The claim that the Messenger of Allah (Muhammad ﷺ ) ate pork is not supported by authentic Islamic teachings or credible hadith. In Islam, the consumption of pork is explicitly prohibited, as stated in multiple verses of the Quran, such as:

  • Surah Al-Baqarah (2:173): "He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah..."
  • Surah Al-Ma'idah (5:3): "Forbidden to you (for food) are dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah..."

The reference you provided from Ibn Taimiyah's works is fabricated and does not appear anywhere in the book [Page 91 from vol. 5 can be found here ] and the context of such claim lacks authenticity. Generally, Islamic scholarship emphasizes that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ did not consume pork and that any claims suggesting otherwise should be critically examined being against established Islamic texts.

Allah knows best.

Wednesday 14 August 2024

Jesus title in quran 4:157 as "the Messenger of Allah".

 Question:

Did the Jews admit that Jesus is the Messenger of Allah based on Quran 4:157 ?

Answer:

Praise be to God. Let's revise the context:

The People of the Scripture ask you to bring down to them a book from the heaven. But they had asked of Moses [even] greater than that and said, "Show us Allah outright," so the thunderbolt struck them for their wrongdoing. Then they took the calf [for worship] after clear evidences had come to them, and We pardoned that. And We gave Moses a clear authority. (153) And We raised over them the mount for [refusal of] their covenant; and We said to them, "Enter the gate bowing humbly", and We said to them, "Do not transgress on the sabbath", and We took from them a solemn covenant. (154) And [We cursed them] for their breaking of the covenant and their disbelief in the signs of Allah and their killing of the prophets without right and their saying, "Our hearts are wrapped". Rather, Allah has sealed them because of their disbelief, so they believe not, except for a few. (155) And [We cursed them] for their disbelief and their saying against Mary a great slander, (156) And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. (157) Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise. (158)


Muslim Scholars understood the mention of 'the Messenger of Allah' as:

  1. Mockery from the Jews, as they deny it and do not acknowledge him as a prophet. They said it in mockery, similar to Pharaoh's statement: 'Indeed, your messenger who has been sent to you is indeed a madman' (Surah Ash-Shu'ara: 27).
  2. or this is part of God's words to praise and exalt Him above the accusations and exaggerations falsely attributed to him. God may replace their ugly mention with a good mention in recounting their words; this elevates Jesus above what they used to say about him and honors what they intended to convey.

  And Allah knows best.

Tuesday 13 August 2024

"Pride is My cloak.." Explaining Hadith Abu Dawud 4090 , Muslim 2620, Ibn Majah 4174

 Question: 

Can you explain this hadith:

عَنِ الأَغَرِّ أَبِي مُسْلِمٍ، - عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، - قَالَ هَنَّادٌ - قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏: قَالَ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ 

" الْكِبْرِيَاءُ رِدَائِي وَالْعَظَمَةُ إِزَارِي فَمَنْ نَازَعَنِي وَاحِدًا مِنْهُمَا قَذَفْتُهُ فِي النَّارِ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ 

The Prophet (ﷺ) said: Allah Most High says: "Pride is my cloak and majesty is my lower garment, and I shall throw him, who vies with me regarding one of them, into Hell. "

Answer:

Praise be to God,

This hadith is also reported by Imam Muslim:

عَنْ أَبِي مُسْلِمٍ الأَغَرِّ، أَنَّهُ حَدَّثَهُ عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ الْخُدْرِيِّ، وَأَبِي، هُرَيْرَةَ قَالاَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ "‏ الْعِزُّ إِزَارُهُ وَالْكِبْرِيَاءُ رِدَاؤُهُ فَمَنْ يُنَازِعُنِي عَذَّبْتُهُ ‏"‏ ‏.‏

Abu Sa'id Khudri and Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying:
Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, said: Glory is His lower garment and Majesty is His cloak and (Allah says, ) He who contends with Me in regard to them I shall torment him.

The hadith is understood in the following manner:

God Almighty said: 'Pride is My cloak and greatness is My garment,' meaning that these are attributes specific to Me and thus are not suitable for anyone else. Anyone who disputes these attributes is disputing a characteristic of Mine. If pride is only appropriate for Me, then anyone who is arrogant towards My servants has wronged himself; Al-Ghazali explained.
It is as if He is saying: 'Pride is only suitable for Me because those beneath Me possess attributes of creation that are inherent to them, and signs of incapacity are evident upon them.'
Therefore, anyone who disputes either of these attributes, I will throw them into the Fire for their desire to claim what is only fitting for the All-Powerful, the Compeller, the Strong, the Mighty, the Self-Sufficient, the Exalted, Glory be to Him. 'There is nothing like Him' (Quran 42:11).

Be attached to the attributes of His Lordship, and realize the attributes of your servitude. He prevented you from claiming what is not yours from what is for the created. So does He permit you to claim His description, while He is the Lord of the worlds?

This warning indicates that arrogance and pride are among the major sins. 

Allah knows best.


Saturday 4 May 2024

When the Well Ran Dry: Prophet Muhammad's Miracle at Hudaybiya

The miracle of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ at Al-Hudaybiya is a well-known story, demonstrating the Prophet's extraordinary connection with God and his ability to perform miraculous acts. The incident occurred during the Treaty of Hudaybiya, a pivotal moment in the Prophet's journey and the history of Islam.

As the Prophet ﷺ and his companions approached Hudaybiya, they faced a severe water shortage. The available water source, a small well, was barely sufficient for the large group of people, and it quickly became depleted. The companions grew increasingly thirsty and anxious. They complained to Allah's Messenger ﷺ; of thirst.
 
Bukhari 2731

 
 
Sensing their distress, the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ retrieved an arrow from his quiver and instructed his companions to place it in the well. With unwavering faith and trust in their Prophet, they followed his command.
Remarkably, as soon as the arrow touched the well, a miraculous transformation occurred. The well sprang forth with an abundance of fresh, pure water, quenching the thirst of the entire group. The water flowed generously, filling their containers and providing ample sustenance for their journey.
This miraculous event served as a powerful reminder of the Prophet's unwavering divine support of his message.
 
Bukhari 2731 
 
"..The Prophet (ﷺ) changed his way till he dismounted at the farthest end of Al-Hudaibiya at a pit (i.e. well) containing a little water which the people used in small amounts, and in a short while the people used up all its water and complained to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ); of thirst. The Prophet (ﷺ) took an arrow out of his arrow-case and ordered them to put the arrow in that pit. By Allah, the water started and continued sprouting out till all the people quenched their thirst and returned with satisfaction. .."


نَزَلَ-  - بِأَقْصَى الْحُدَيْبِيَةِ، عَلَى ثَمَدٍ قَلِيلِ الْمَاءِ يَتَبَرَّضُهُ النَّاسُ تَبَرُّضًا، فَلَمْ يُلَبِّثْهُ النَّاسُ حَتَّى نَزَحُوهُ، وَشُكِيَ إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ  الْعَطَشُ، فَانْتَزَعَ سَهْمًا مِنْ كِنَانَتِهِ، ثُمَّ أَمَرَهُمْ أَنْ يَجْعَلُوهُ فِيهِ، فَوَاللَّهِ مَا زَالَ يَجِيشُ لَهُمْ بِالرِّيِّ حَتَّى صَدَرُوا عَنْهُ

Saturday 24 February 2024

Forgiveness comes without blood

 by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons)

What exactly is the cause behind the fascination with blood sucking vampires in the western culture that has given rise to a plethora of vampire themed movies like Twilight and the like? Christianity is the predominant religion in the west. It spends so much time talking about drinking blood and its importance for the attainment of “eternal life”. Could it be that this blood based salvation/atonement doctrine is the impetus behind the popular culture phenomenon of vampires? In the vampire myth the creature sustains its existence by consuming blood. In Christian theology to attain eternal life one must accept the blood of Jesus and in Catholicism in particular the partaking of the Eucharist which involves the drinking and eating of the actual blood and flesh of Jesus is foundational. Can you see the parallel? Is it possible that the popular vampire myth has its roots in the Christian obsession with blood? I leave that for the readers to dwell upon. In this article we shall explore the issue of forgiveness in Christianity and if what it teaches is coherent and true or just plain false.
As we have mentioned above in Christian theology the shedding of Jesus’ blood is foundational. In fact, it is the key to forgiveness and salvation. One Christian blogger named John Chingford wrote an article entitled “Reply to a Rabbi Why There Can’t Be Forgiveness Without Blood Sacrifice” in which he argues for the Christian case that blood is absolutely necessary to render void the sins of man. The Wiersbe Bible Commentary in its commentary on Hebrews 9 says, “God’s principle is that blood must be shed before sin can be forgiven (Lev. 17:11).”[1] The People’s New Testament Commentary on Hebrews 9:22 says, “Without shedding of blood is no remission. Every sin under the law required atonement, and no atonement could be made without blood.” [2] The average Christian says that the only way for sins to be absolved or atoned is through the blood of Jesus.
When we examine the Bible closely we see that what is preached by Christians and Hebrews 9:22 which says that “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” are not compatible with the overwhelming verses and passages found in both the Old and New Testaments that convey the idea of forgiveness without the need of anyone’s blood, Jesus or otherwise. In Mark 1:4 we read,
“John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.”
This was years before the alleged crucifixion ever took place. There was no blood involved. He was calling for the remission of sins from the baptism of repentance. The People’s New Testament says that John in the above verse, “makes the temple sacrifices unnecessary for forgiveness and reconciliation with God…”[3] which means that blood is not really necessary for forgiveness of sins after all! In the next chapter in Mark 2, verse 5 we read the following,
“When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”
Where was the blood atonement to remove the sins of the paralytic? This too took place long before the alleged crucifixion yet he was forgiven! What was the purpose behind the alleged sacrifice of Jesus exactly? Christians tell us that it is to facilitate the forgiveness of sins which is necessary for entrance into paradise. But we have just illustrated with two explicit verses that God is not incapable of forgiving sins without the shedding of blood. Be it the blood of Jesus, sheep, ram, bulls or cows. If God can forgive without blood then that clearly renders the alleged crucifixion redundant and simply cruel, inhumane and barbaric.
In Luke 15, verses 11 to 32 we read about the parable of the Prodigal Son. In this story the son runs away from the father and goes into difficulty and suffering. He later comes to his senses and makes a return to his father. The father is overjoyed and calls for celebration. The son confesses that he sinned against heaven and against his beloved father, but because of his realisation and repentance the father remarks, “For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found”. This parable captures the true and original teaching of Jesus about forgiveness and atonement. One has only to make a sincere resolution not to commit past errors and sincerely pray and ask God for forgiveness to earn His pleasure and be cleansed of sins. Blood is not necessary for the forgiveness of sins.
More passages dealing with this issue are cited in Salvation Only Comes Through Sacrifice!

References:
[1] Wiersbe, W.W. (2007). The Wiersbe Bible Commentary. Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook. p. 830
[2] Boring, M.E. & Craddock, F.B. (2004). The People’s New Testament Commentary. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. p. 701
[3] Ibid. p. 107

Friday 23 February 2024

There is No Salvation Without Sacrifice!

 by Ibn Anwar

Christians declare that there is no forgiveness or salvation except through the shedding of blood i.e. sacrifice. They will go on to say that the Islamic idea of God just forgiving a sinner's sin is unjust and they will then give their rationalisations for saying this. If asked,"Where does it say that God cannot forgive except through some sort of sacrifice?" the Christians will quote,".Without shedding of blood there is no atonement" (Hebrews 9:22)
Before I continue , I'd like to put forth several questions for you the readers to ponder on.
1. If I can show even one instance where God in the Bible forgave a person's sin without sacrificial rites how will that stand in light of the Christian notion that it is unjust for God to simply forgive?
2. If it is shown that God can forgive sin without blood sacrifice, what then is the significance of Jesus' alleged sacrifice?
3. If it is proven that God had no problem at all in forgiving sins without blood sacrifices then why did he have to crucify His only "begotten" son, Jesus and declare to the whole world that from then onwards the only way to forgiveness is through Jesus' death? Why would He radically change His nature when it's stated in Malachi 3:6,"For I am the Lord, I DO NOT CHANGE"?
Let us now proceed to the textual evidences.
The book of Jonah, Chapter 3 (In the NKJV, the heading "Nineveh Repents" is given)
NLT
Then the Lord spoke to Jonah a second time: "Get up and go to the great city of Nineveh, and deliver the message I have given you."
This time Jonah obeyed the Lord's command and went to Nineveh, a city so large that it took three days to see it all. On the day Jonah entered the city, he shouted to the crowds: "Forty days from now Nineveh will be destroyed!" The people of Nineveh believed God's message, and from the greatest to the least, they declared a fast and put on burlap to show their sorrow.

When the king of Nineveh heard what Jonah was saying, he stepped down from his throne and took off his royal robes. He dressed himself in burlap and sat on a heap of ashes. Then the king and his nobles sent this decree throughout the city:
"No one, not even the animals from your herds and flocks, may eat or drink anything at all. People and animals alike must wear garments of mourning, and everyone must pray earnestly to God. They must turn from their evil ways and stop all their violence. Who can tell? Perhaps even yet God will change his mind and hold back his fierce anger from destroying us."
When God saw what they had done and how they had put a stop to their evil ways, he changed his mind and did not carry out the destruction he had threatened."
In short, God forgave the people of Nineveh without a single demand for blood sacrifice.

Is intercession between us and God for forgiveness required?
"As surely as I live, says the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of wicked people. I only want them to turn from their wicked ways so they can live. Turn! Turn from your wickedness, O people of Israel! Why should you die?" (Ezekiel 33:11)
The word "turn" here in Hebrew is shuvu which is similar with the word teshuvah which carries the same meaning as tawbah in Arabic i.e. return/repent.
"And suppose I tell some wicked people that they will surely die, but then they turn from their sins and do what is just and right. For instance, they might give back a debtor's security, return what they have stolen, and obey my life-giving laws, no longer doing what is evil. If they do this, then they will surely live and not die. None of their past sins will be brought up again, for they have done what is just and right, and they will surely live." (Ezekiel 33:14-16)

Neither sacrifice nor intercession for forgiveness is demanded
"The person who sins is the one who will die. The child will not be punished for the parent's sins, and the parent will not be punished for the child's sins. Righteous people will be rewarded for their own righteous behavior, and wicked people will be punished for their own wickedness. But if wicked people turn away from all their sins and begin to obey my decrees and do what is just and right, they will surely live and not die. All their past sins will be forgotten, and they will live because of the righteous things they have done." (Ezekiel 18: 20-22)
Firstly, in the verses quoted above one can clearly see that the idea of inherited sin is totally debunked. Secondly, repentance is taught as a means for salvation and that if repentance is sought and one adheres to that which is lawful, ALL one's past sins will be forgotten. This amazing show of mercy from God is again FREE of any blood sacrifice.
The same message is repeated again in the same chapter :
"And if wicked people turn from their wickedness, obey the law, and do what is just and right, they will save their lives. They will live because they thought it over and decided to turn from their sins. Such people will not die." (Ezekiel 18: 27-28)
"Therefore, I will judge each of you, O people of Israel, according to your actions, says the Sovereign Lord. Repent, and turn from your sins. Don't let them destroy you!"(Ezekiel 18:30)

God is MERCIFUL and is not required to kill anyone for atonement of your sins!
"O my God, lean down and listen to me. Open your eyes and see our despair. See how your city?the city that bears your name?lies in ruins. We make this plea, not because we deserve help, but because of your mercy." (Daniel 9:18)

What is true sacrifice in God's eyes?
"The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart" (Psalm 51:17)
"Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams" (I Samuel 15:22)
Christians as taught by Paul ALWAYS say that obedience and works are worthless. Accept Jesus' sacrifice and you will be saved! JUST BELIEVE! Faith comes first, then works will ensue. Yet, in 1 Samuel 15:22 we see a different idea. The Christian point of view is apparently in reverse to that of God's as portrayed in 1 Samuel 15:22 ! If God said once that obedience is better than sacrifice, how can He again radically change that and reverse the idea? Hmm..I think something fishy is afoot.

AGAIN neither sacrifice nor intercession is required!

"Then if my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land. " (2 Chronicles 7:14)
"Finally, I confessed all my sins to you
and stopped trying to hide my guilt.
I said to myself, "I will confess my rebellion to the Lord."
And you forgave me! All my guilt is gone." (Psalm 32:5)

"Yet he was merciful and forgave their sins
and did not destroy them all
.
Many times he held back his anger
and did not unleash his fury!
For he remembered that they were merely mortal,

gone like a breath of wind that never returns
." (Psalm 78:38-39)
"Who is a God like you,
who pardons sin and forgives the transgression
of the remnant of his inheritance?
You do not stay angry forever
but delight to show mercy. " (Micah 7:18)

"Perhaps the people of Judah will repent when they hear again all the terrible things I have planned for them. Then I will be able to forgive their sins and wrongdoings." (Jeremiah 36:3)
"Let the wicked change their waysand banish the very thought of doing wrong.
Let them turn to the Lord that he may have mercy on them
.
Yes, turn to our God, for he will forgive generously
." (Isaiah 55:7)

 

God forgives not because of lamb, sheep or goat but.
"I?yes, I alone?will blot out your sins for my own sake and will never think of them again." (Isaiah 43:25)

He forgives not because of all your sheep or goats, but, it is because He is Compassionate and Merciful!
"Unfailing love and faithfulness make atonement for sin. By fearing the Lord, people avoid evil." (Proverbs 16:6)
Again, no sheep, goats, elephants, chickens or humans, but, through love of God and faithfulness of men towards his Creator is sin atoned. In addition, the verse informs us that God says that people avoid evil due to their FEAR of God which is contrary to standard Evangelical thought which says evil is avoided simply because of faith in Jesus and the crucifixion.

The following passage is rather telling
"What makes you think I want all your sacrifices?"
says the Lord. "I am sick of your burnt offerings of rams
and the fat of fattened cattle.
I get no pleasure from the blood
of bulls and lambs and goats.
When you come to worship me,
who asked you to parade through my courts with all your ceremony?
Stop bringing me your meaningless gifts;
the incense of your offerings disgusts me!
As for your celebrations of the new moon and the Sabbath
and your special days for fasting?
they are all sinful and false.
I want no more of your pious meetings.
I hate your new moon celebrations and your annual festivals.
They are a burden to me. I cannot stand them!
When you lift up your hands in prayer, I will not look.
Though you offer many prayers, I will not listen,
for your hands are covered with the blood of innocent victims.
Wash yourselves and be clean!

Get your sins out of my sight.
Give up your evil ways.
Learn to do good.
Seek justice.
Help the oppressed.
Defend the cause of orphans.
Fight for the rights of widows.

"Come now, let's settle this,"
says the Lord.
"Though your sins are like scarlet,
I will make them as white as snow.
Though they are red like crimson,
I will make them as white as wool.
If you will only obey me, you will have plenty to eat.
But if you turn away and refuse to listen,
you will be devoured by the sword of your enemies. I, the Lord, have spoken!"
(Isaiah 1:11-18)
From the verses presented right from the beginning until now we see time and again God saying that the way to forgiveness and remission of sins is NOT just by believing in some sacrifice or do some sacrifice , BUT, OBEY OBEY OBEY and BE FAITHFUL TO HIM! In the above given passage of Isaiah we see that God did not just refuse to accept sacrifice but He even hated it and instead demanded REPENTANCE and OBEDIENCE. Thus after disclaiming and discrediting sacrifices, God gave them the following solutions(with no mention of sacrifice) :
1. Wash yourself and be clean
2. Give up sins
3. Learn to do good
4. Seek justice
5. Help the oppressed
6. Defend the orphans
7. Fight for widows

A Brief overview of the Islamic idea of sin and atonement
Islam like Judaism teaches that sin is not inherited. Every person is accountable for his own deeds and no one will be responsible for the error of another. The Qur'an says :
" Whoever goes right, then he goes right only for the benefit of his ownself. And whoever goes astray, then he goes astray to his own loss. No one laden with burdens can bear another's burden." (Surah Al-Isra', verse 15)
"And no bearer of burdens shall bear another's burden, and if one heavily laden calls another to (bear) his load, nothing of it will be lifted even though he be near of kin." (Surah Fatir, verse 18)
"Whosoever does righteous good deed it is for (the benefit of) his ownself, and whosoever does evil, it is against his ownself, and your Lord is not at all unjust to (His) servants." (Surah Fussilat, verse 46)
Islam does not consider sacrifice a method of atonement for sins even though sacrificing animals is a feature in Islam. For example, during Eid Al-Adha animals like camels or cows are slaughtered. However, this is not done in order to remit sins but rather to remember and commemorate the incident between Abraham a.s. and his son Ismail a.s. i.e. that Abraham was commanded to sacrifice his son, which he attempted, but, God through His divine Mercy replaced that sacrifice with a ram. The Qur'an says about sacrifice :
"It is not their meat nor blood that reaches Allah: it is your piety that reaches Him."(Surah Al-Hajj, verse 37)
This message is somewhat similar to a Biblical verse which says:
"For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgement of God rather than burnt offerings" (Hosea 6:6)
The Qur'an like the verses in the Bible presented in this article teaches that in order to gain atonement for sins one has to sincerely ask for forgiveness to God Almighty and resolve not to repeat the same error again. The Qur'an says :
"Say: "O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah: for Allah forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Turn ye to our Lord (in repentance) and bow to His (will), before the Penalty comes on you: after that ye shall not be helped" (Surah Al-Zumar, verse 53)
"Verily! Allah Accepts the repentance of those who do evil in ignorance and repent soon afterwards, to them Allah will turn in Mercy, for Allah is Full of Knowledge and Wisdom. And of no effect is the repentance of those who continue to do evil, until death faces one of them and he says "now have I repented indeed", nor of those who die rejecting faith: for them have we prepared a chastisement most grievous." (Surah Al-Nisa', verse 17)

Conclusion
From the overwhelming Biblical scriptures presented in this paper it is clear that blood atonement and sacrifice is not as significant or important as many Christians try to make it out to be. The fact that God had no problem and was not shy to accept the repentance of his servants free of sacrifice shows that Jesus' alleged sacrifice for the remission of sins of mankind was not really necessary on God's part. In fact, the idea seems quite contradictory to God's supreme Mercy and Compassion.
I would like to end the discussion with the following Biblical verse :
"To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice." (Proverbs 21:3)

Wallahu'alam bisawab. Allah knows best.

 

Thursday 22 February 2024

The ‘Atonement’ doctrine of paganism

 The Bible rejects the doctrine of ‘atonement’. We are responsible for our own sins:
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deuteronomy 24:16)
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. (Ezekiel 18:20)
But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. (Jeremiah 31:30)
Give them according to their deeds, and according to the wickedness of their endeavours: give them after the work of their hands; render to them their desert. (Psalms 28:4)
According to [their] deeds, accordingly he will repay, fury to his adversaries, recompence to his enemies; to the islands he will repay recompence. (Isaiah 59:18)
For many nations and great kings shall serve themselves of them also: and I will recompense them according to their deeds, and according to the works of their own hands. (Jeremiah 25:14)
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. (Matthew 16:27)
7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams,
with ten thousand rivers of oil?
Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression,
the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?

8 He has showed you, O man, what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.
(Micah 6:7-8)

The doctrine of ‘atonement’ doesn’t make sense. The Church has turned Jesus into something very disgusting. The early Jewish Christians never believed in such doctrines like the ‘blood atonement’. The Bible teaches that ‘human sacrifice’ is wrong, a strictly pagan ritual, not a Jewish practice.

"God sacrificed his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their own sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."
(John Dominic Crossan, Who is Jesus? p. 145-146)

Perhaps I am lacking in piety or some basic instinct, but I know I am not alone in finding the idea of Jesus’ death as atonement for the sins of all humanity on one level bewildering and on the other morally repugnant. Jesus never to my knowledge said anything to indicate that forgiveness from God could only be granted after or because of the cross. (For Christ’s Sake Oxford University Press, Toronto, 1986 pg. 75, Tom Harper

This doctrine is a blasphemy against the justice of God. It is highly unjust, inhuman and ungodly, to sacrifice the life of an innocent man, for washing off the sins of sinners. God Almighty is never unjust even in least degree, how this injustice and unkindness can ever be attributed to Him. God Almighty is Absolute and Merciful enough to forgive the sins, even without sacrifices. (Dr. Roshan Enam, Follow Jesus or Follow Paul? p. 52)

This dogma is not only a denial of the mercy of God but also of His justice. To demand the price of blood in order to forgive the sins of men is to show a complete lack of mercy, and to punish a man who is not guilty for the sins of others… We fail to see how the suffering and death of one man can wipe out the sins of others. It sounds something like the physician breaking his own head to cure the headache of his patients. The idea of substitutionary or vicarious sacrifice is illogical, meaningless and unjust.
(Mrs. Ulfat Aziz- Us- Samad, Islam and Christianity, International Islamic Federation of Student Organization, pp. 50-51)

The unreliability of the gospels appears to be admitted by the Church itself. The metaphysics of Christianity today is not even based on what is in the gospels. The established church is founded on the doctrine of original sin, of atonement and redemption, of the divinity of Jesus, of the divinity of the Holy Ghost and of Trinity. None of these doctrines are to be found within the gospels. They were not taught by Jesus. They were the fruits of Paul’s innovations and the influence of Greek culture and philosophy. (Muhammad Ataur- Raheem, Jesus Prophet of Islam, 1992 edition, p. 196)

“… the idea that shedding of blood is necessary to appease the wrath of God has come into Christianity from the primitive man’s image of God as an all-powerful demon. We see no connection at all between sin and blood. What is necessary to wash away sin is not blood, but repentance, remorse persistent struggle against evil inclinations, development of greater sympathy for mankind and determination to carry out the Will of God as revealed to us through the prophets”. (IBID, Mrs. Ulfat Aziz-Us-Samad, p. 51)


“We can no longer accept the appalling theological doctrine that for some mystic reason a propitiatory sacrifice was necessary. It outrages either our conception of God as Almighty or else our conception of Him as All-Loving. The famous Dr. Cruden believed that for the purpose of this sacrifice ‘Christ suffered dreadful pains inflicted by God’, and this, of course, is a standpoint which nauseates the modern mind and which may well be termed a hideous doctrine, not unconnected with the sadistic tendencies of primitive human nature. Actually, it is of pagan origin, being, indeed, perhaps the most obvious relic of heathendom in the Faith”. (Arthur Weigall, The Paganism in Our Christianity)


'My long-time view about Christianity is that it represents an amalgam of two seemingly immiscible parts--the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. Thomas Jefferson attempted to excise the Pauline parts of the New Testament. There wasn't much left when he was done, but it was an inspiring document.' (Christianity Betrayed (2 Volume Set)Letter to Ken Schei,)

“The church`s God son who is supposed to have been born of the substance of God from the beginning of eternity is nowhere mentioned in the scriptures nor the God son who would be second person of the trinity descended from heaven and become flesh this is only human invention and superstition as such should be discarded.” (Francis David by W.C Gannett)

The Gospels are Unreliable!

The four Gospels are anonymous, and they were composed decades after the departure of Jesus. The early Church Fathers fail to mention them; they fail to address the miraculous events recorded in the Gospels. They never allude to the existence of the four Gospels. Non-Christian and Jewish historians never mention the Gospel events, or the resurrection of Jesus!

Philo Judaeus, the Jewish philosopher, who lived during the mid-1st century, does not mention the ‘darkness’ or the ‘earthquake’ which allegedly occurred when Christ was crucified (Matthew 27:45, 28:2)

Lloyd Graham writes:

“… We have here a good example of the credulity of Western man. For two thousand years he has been reading about this convulsion and “darkness over all the earth” without ever questioning it or demanding proof of it. Yet had it happened, would not some of those able historians have recorded it? Why did they not?” (Deceptions & Myths of the Bible, Lloyd Graham p. 349)

“I wish all fundamentalists would take special note that while these quite public, literally stupendous events are alleged to have taken place, not a single other contemporary source can be found to corroborate or confirm them --- even though this was at a time and in a place where capable observers, recorders of remarkable happenings, historians, and others were in no way lacking. There is not a smidgeon of a trace of historicity to be found”. (Tom Harper, The Pagan Christ, p. 149)

The non-Christians historians fail to mention the resurrection prove that it was a HOAX. Surely, if the resurrection of Jesus occurred, the writer Philo Judaeus (50 C.E.) and others would have recorded it.

The Gospels are unreliable because they were written very late; decades after the 12 apostles were martyred. Read the quotations below:

"The gospels are all priestly forgeries over a century after their pretended dates."
(Joseph Wheless, The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, Acharya S)

The books [canonical gospels] are not heard of till 150 A.D., that is, till Jesus had been dead nearly a hundred and twenty years. No writer before 150 A.D. makes the slightest mention of them." (Bronson, C. Keeler, A Short History of the Bible)

"The Four Gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle of the second century. His writings in proof of the divinity of Christ demanded the use of these Gospels had they existed in his time. He makes more than 300 quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but none from the four Gospels. (The Book Your Church Doesn’t Want You to Read, Tim C. Leedom

“Not a single Gospel was written down at the time of Jesus, they were all written long after his earthly mission had come to an end” (Maurice Bucaille, The Bible, the Quran, and Science p. 127),

“Each of the four canonical Gospels is religious proclamation in the form of a largely fictional narrative. Christians have never been reluctant to write fiction about Jesus, and we must remember that our four canonical Gospels are only the cream of a large and varied literature” (Rendal Helms, Gospel Fictions p.11)


The earliest documents of the New Testament are the epistles of Paul, allegedly written in 55-64 C.E. There is no evidence that Paul had written 1 and 2 Timothy.

The first thing we need to force into our minds is that when Paul wrote these words, there were no such things as written Gospels. This means that the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection so familiar to us, as told by these Gospel writers, were by and large unknown to Paul and to Paul’s readers(Resurrection: Myth or Reality?, p. 48)

What does this mean? The resurrection accounts in the four Gospels contradict the testimony of Paul. Hence, Paul contradicts the Gospels on a simple event which is supposed to be the foundation of Christian religion. We have five conflicting versions of the resurrection in the New Testament.

If Paul is the first writer, then he must be relaying the earliest tradition, yet the Gospels, written many decades later, record an entirely different story. This certainly proves that the resurrection was fabricated in the oral tradition, because there’s not a single reference to the resurrection by historians like Philo Judaeus, and the testimony of Josephus is wholly agreed to be a forgery.

The earth-shattering statement:

There is no reference to Jesus’ death as a crucifixion in the pre-Markan Jesus material
(Mack Burton, Who Wrote the New Testament, The Making of the Christian Myth, p. 87)

Since the Gospel of Mark was written very late, the crucifixion story did not exist before its composition. Scholars’ conjecture that Mark was written after the Jewish War (66-70 C.E.) yet this assertion based on the tradition of Papias is wholly unreliable. The Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea (died. 340 CE) said that Papias is untrustworthy, a man of limited knowledge.

The epistles of Paul do not record the crucifixion story, the Q gospel falls into the same category of silence, and the Didache. We have no choice to believe that the crucifixion story was invented by the oral traditions.

The scholar Rendal Helms describes the unreliability of ‘oral tradition’

This literature was oral before it was written and began with the memories of those who knew Jesus personally...

But oral tradition is by definition unstable, notoriously open to mythical, legendary, and fictional embellishment (Gospel Fictions Randal Helms, p. 12)

The oral tradition circulated amongst the early followers of Jesus, who knew him personally. Paul, the corrupter of the Gospel, had never met Jesus. He failed to derive any traditions from the apostles; instead Paul hibernated in Arabia for three years, fabricating his own “traditions” about Jesus. The alleged ‘darkness’ and ‘earthquake’, and Matthew’s ‘rising of the saints’ (Matthew 27:52) were probably Gospel embellishments. No historian refers to them.

The Gospel of Mark was the first to document the “passion” narrative:

“Mark was the first author to attach the passion narratives in written form to the story of the life of Jesus of Nazareth” (Rendal Helms, p. 57)

The writer of Mark was dictating false information relayed to him by oral tradition. He was the first writer to mention the “passion” story. Paul never appealed to the sayings of Jesus, so how can he possibly record any crucifixion? He did not.

Paul did not know anything about Jesus and his teachings. The stories recorded in the four Gospels are never related by him, or even alluded to. Paul did not know the fictional ‘empty tomb’ story. He recorded a spiritual resurrection whereas the Gospels say it was ‘physical’.

The ultra-conservatives keep insisting on a “physical” resurrection of Jesus. Paul, whose work pre-dates the first Gospel, insists on the exact opposite. His fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians could not possibly be clearer. I invite you to read to reread that passage for yourself. This passage is almost pure Platonism. Paul knows only a spiritual resurrection.
(Tom Harper, The Pagan Christ, p. 174)
Continue on with Part 4.
The ‘Atonement’ doctrine of paganism