The Blood Atonement

The third part of the Christian dogma of the Atonement is that Jesus paid the penalty for the original and other sins of men by his death on the cross of Calvary, and that salvation cannot

be obtained without belief in the saving power of his blood. This is what we read in the First Epistle of St. Peter:

"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot."[1]

And this is what two modern Christian apologists (a Protestant and a Roman Catholic ) have written,:

"We pass on now to the doctrine of the Atonement, which is that Christ's death was in some sense a sacrifice for sin, and thus reconciled (or made 'at - one') God the Father and sinful man. And though not actually stated in the Creeds, it is implied in the words, was crucified also for us, and who suffered for our salvation"[2]

"Since Christ, God and man, had taken upon Himself our sins (by His death on the cross) in order to atone for them by giving satisfaction to God's outraged justice, he is the mediator between God and man. "[3]

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, whether the former is willing or not, is the height of injustice.

Christian apologists try to defend this by saying that Jesus Christ willingly suffered death to pay the price for the sins of men. To this our reply is:

Firstly, it is not historically correct to say that Jesus had come to die willingly and deliberately for the sins of men. We read in the Bible that he did not wish to die on the cross. For, when he knew that his enemies were plotting against his life, he declared that his "soul was exceedingly sorrowful unto death", he asked his disciples to keep watch over him to protect him from his enemies and he prayed to God,

"Abba, Father, all things are possible unto Thee; take away this cup from me; nevertheless not what I will, but what Thou wilt."

(Mark 14:36)

Secondly, 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.

Thirdly, 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. The Qur'an says:

(To God does not reach the flesh or the blood (of animals they sacrifice), but unto Him is acceptable righteousness on your port.)

(22:37)

The doctrine of the Atonement makes the First Person of Godhead into a blood-thirsty tyrant in order to demonstrate the self-sacrificing love of the Second Person. To a dispassionate critic, the sacrifice of the Second Person appears as much misplaced and meaningless as the demand of the First Person is cruel and sadistic.

Arthur Weigall makes the following significant comment on the doctrine of the Atonement:

"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."[4]

The Christian scheme of salvation is not only morally and rationally unsound, but also has no support of the words of Jesus. Jesus may be said to have suffered for the sins of men in the sense that, in order to take them out of darkness into light, he incurred the wrath of the evildoers and was tortured by them; but that does not mean that his death was an atonement for the sins of others and that only those who believe in his blood would be forgiven. Je-sus had come to rescue men from sin by his teaching and the example of his godly life, and not by deliberately dying for them on the cross and offering his blood as a propitiation for their sins. When a young man came and asked him "Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" he mentioned nothing about his atoning sacrifice and the redeeming power of his blood. His reply was the same as that of every other prophet. For he said:

"Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God; but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."

(Matthew 19:17)

"Keep the commandments" that, according to Jesus, was the way to eternal life. Salvation could be gained by believing in God, eschewing evil and doing good, and not by accepting Jesus as the redeemer and believing in his blood atonement.

The dogma of the Atonement is unsound, for (1) man is not born in sin, (2) God does not require a price to forgive the sinners, and (3) the idea of substitutionary or vicarious sacrifice is unjust and cruel. By sinning we do not harm God, but ourselves. The stain of sin on our souls can be removed, not by the suffering or death of any other person, whether the latter be willing or unwilling, but by our own repentance, turning away from evil and doing good. And so, when Adam, after the act of disobedience, repented and submitted himself completely to God, his sin was forgiven. Neither is the sin of Adam inherited by the children of Adam, nor did it require the suffering and death of Jesus Christ to be forgiven. The truth is that Jesus did not die on the cross at all. The doctrine of the Atonement is a denial of the Justice and Mercy of God.

Islam rejects this dogma. It declares that the forgiveness of sins cannot be obtained by the suffering and sacrifice of any other person, human or divine, but by the Grace of God and our

own sincere and persistent efforts to fight against evil and do good:

(That no laden one shall bear an0ther's load, and that man hath only that for which he maketh effort, and that his effort will be seen.)

(The Glorious Qur'an 53:38, 40)

(Whosoever goeth right, it is only for the good of his own soul that he goeth right, and whosoever erreth, erreth only to its hart. No laden soul can bear another's load.)

(17:15)

Islam promises salvation (which in the religion of the Qur'an means the achievement of nearness to God and the development of all the goodness in man) to all those who believe in God and do good deeds:

(Nay, but whosever surrendereth his purpose to God while doing good, his reward is with his Lord; and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve. )

(2:112)

[1]The Bible, l Peter, 1:18, 19.

[2]W.H. Turton, the Truth of Christianity, P. 289.

[3]J.F. De Grool, Catholic Teaching, p. 162.

[4]Arthur Weigall, The Paganism in Our Christianity.


IslamBasics

God's Justice

The second part of the Christian doctrine of the Atonement is that God's Justice requires that a price must be paid for the original and other sins of man. lf God were to pardon a sinner without punishing him would be a denial of His Justice. The Rev. W. Goldsack writes in this connection:

(lt should be clear as day light to anyone that God cannot break His own Law: He cannot forgive a sinner without first giving him an appropriate punishment. For if He did so, who would call Him Just and Equitable."[1]

This view shows complete ignorance God. God is not a mere judge or king. He is, as the Qur'an describes Him, "Master of the Day of Judgment". He is not only Just but also Merciful and

Forgiving. If He finds some real good in a man or sees that he is sincerely repentant, having a real urge to conquer the evil within him, then He may forgive his failings and sins altogether. And this stretch of imagination can be called a violation of His Justice. After all, the only proper motive for punishment is to check evil and reform the offender. To punish a person for his

past sins, even after he has repented and reformed himself, is a sign of vengeance and not of justice. A God, Whose 'Justice' requires compensation for every fall and sin of man is no better

than Shylock. The God that we worship — the Creator and Sustainer of all the worlds — is the God of Love and Mercy. If He prescribes a law and a way and demands obedience, it is not for His own benefit, but for the benefit of mankind. And if He punishes a man for his faults and sins it is not for His own satisfaction or compensation, as the Christian dogma proclaims, but to check evil and purify the sinner. Hell itself is like a hospital, where the spiritually ill - those afflicted with the diseases of malice, hatred, selfishness, callousness, falsehood, dishonesty, greed, impurity, arrogance, etc. - are cured through the fire of suffering and remorse. But those who have the persistent urge to do good and the sincerely repentant will find God Ever-Ready to forgive their failures and sins without demanding any compensation from them, or from anyone else. Is this not what the prophet Ezekiel proclaimed in the verses of the Bible that we have quoted above? And is this not what Jesus taught in his beautiful parables of the Lost Sheep, the Lost Coin and the Prodigal Son? Can we trace the origin of the doctrine that unless every sin is compensated for and someone punished, God's Justice would be outraged to the man who taught us to pray to God in these words "Forgive us our debts as we have forgiven our debtors"? Forgiveness of a sinner after punishing him, or someone else on his behalf, is no forgiveness at all. God can and does forgive the faults and sins of those in whom He sees real goodness and those who have turned away from their sins and reformed themselves without punishing them or any other person on their behalf, and this is not against God's Justice.

In fact this alone is true forgiveness. Thus we read in the Glorious Quran:

(Say: O My people, who have acted extravagantly against your own souls, despair not 0f the Mercy of God, for He forgiveth the sins altogether. Lo! He is all-Forgiving, All-Merciful. So turn unto Him repentant, and surrender unto Him, before there come unto you the chastisernent,

When ye cannot be helped.)

. (39:53.54)

(Whoso doeth evil or wrangeth his 0wn soul, then seeketh Pardon of God (and reformeth himself), will find Gad Forgiving, Merchful. Whose cammitteth sin, committeth it only against himself God is All-Knowing, All-Wise.)

(4:1 IO-111)

[1]Rev. W. Goldsack, the Atonement, p. 5.


IslamBasics

Re: Bukhari 5917 explained

Question: Can you explain this hadith:

"The Prophet (ﷺ) used to copy the people of the Scriptures in matters in which there was no order from Allah."

Sahih al-Bukhari 5917

 Answer:

Praise be to Allah, 

Here is the full text of the hadith:

عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ ـ رضى الله عنهما ـ قَالَ كَانَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم يُحِبُّ مُوَافَقَةَ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ فِيمَا لَمْ يُؤْمَرْ فِيهِ، وَكَانَ أَهْلُ الْكِتَابِ يَسْدِلُونَ أَشْعَارَهُمْ، وَكَانَ الْمُشْرِكُونَ يَفْرُقُونَ رُءُوسَهُمْ، فَسَدَلَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم نَاصِيَتَهُ، ثُمَّ فَرَقَ بَعْدُ‏.‏

The Prophet ﷺ used to like to adopt the customs of the People of the Book in matters not specifically commanded by Allah. The People of the Book would let their hair hang down, while the polytheists would part their hair. So the Prophet ﷺ adopted the practice of letting his hair hang down from his forehead, and then parted it afterwards.  [Sahih al-Bukhari 5917]

Explanation:

Diverting from the practices of the disbelievers is a general principle, so that they could be distinguished by their actions and appearances. In this hadith, Abdullah bin Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, informs that the Prophet ﷺ used to let his hair hang down - without dividing it into two halves - because the polytheists used to divide their heads from the middle into two parts. The people of the Book, the Jews and the Christians, used to let their hair hang down.

Therefore, the Prophet ﷺ agreed with the people of the Book and disagreed with the idolaters, because the people of the Book were closer to the truth than the polytheists. The Prophet ﷺ loved to agree with the people of the Book in matters where there was no revelation, and his agreement with them was because he had to agree with one of the two groups, so he chose to agree with the people of the Book because they were still following some of the remains of the religion of the prophets, which had not been distorted or changed. Later, when only the people of the Book remained and most Arabs entered the religion of Allah in masses, he parted his hair, contrary to the people of the Book, and ordered to part the hair contrary to the Jews and Christians.

This hadith explains the legitimacy of parting the hair.

The hadith ensure that the people of Islam are distinguished from others such as people of the Book and polytheists. [ See Hadith Encyclopedia ]

Imam Ibn Hajar commented:

وكأن السر في ذلك أن أهل الأوثان أبعد عن الإيمان من أهل الكتاب ، ولأن أهل الكتاب يتمسكون بشريعة في الجملة فكان يحب موافقتهم ليتألفهم ولو أدت موافقتهم إلى مخالفة أهل الأوثان ، فلما أسلم أهل الأوثان الذين معه والذين حوله واستمر أهل الكتاب على كفرهم تمحضت المخالفة لأهل الكتاب...

    وقد جمعت المسائل التي وردت الأحاديث فيها بمخالفة أهل الكتاب فزادت على الثلاثين حكما ، وقد أودعتها كتابي الذي سميته " القول الثبت في الصوم يوم السبت ".

"And it seems that the reason for that is that the people of idols are further from faith than the people of the Book, and because the people of the Book cling to a law as a whole, the Prophet ﷺ loved their agreement to draw them to Islam, even if their agreement led to opposition to the people of idols. So, when the people of idols, who were with him and around him, embraced Islam and the people of the Book continued in their disbelief, the opposition became purely to the people of the Book....

I have compiled the issues whose hadiths ordered to divert from the practice of People of the Book, and they have exceeded thirty rulings. I have deposited them in my book, which I named 'Al-Qawl Al-Thabit Fi Sawm Yawm Al-Sabt' (The Confirmed Statement Regarding Fasting on Saturday)."

In conclusion, Muslims used to consider people of the book more close to the truth because they have remnants of divine revelation (That's why they were happy when Romans defeated Persians).

Later, when Jews and Christians started to express enmity and aggression against Muslims, things changed and Prophet Muhammad ﷺ prohibited emulating them.

And Allah knows best!

 

The Original Sin

 The fourth Christian dogma is that of the Atonement. Christianity declares that by disobeying God's Order not to eat of the forbidden fruit of knowledge, Adam sinned. The sin of Adam is inherited by all the children of Adam: all human beings are born sinful. The requirement of God's Justice is that a price must be paid for every sin. God cannot and will not allow a single sin to go unpunished. Now the only thing which can wipe out sin is the shedding of blood. As St. Paul Puts it,

"Without the shedding of blood there is no remission"

(Hebrews 9:22)

But this blood must be perfect, sinless, and incorruptible blood.

"As the original sin, being directed against God, was of infinite proportion, it demanded infinite recompense."

So Jesus Christ, the Son of God who had come from heaven, shed his holy, sinless blood, suffered indescribable agony, and died to pay the penalty for the sins of men. Because Jesus was

infinite God, he alone could pay the infinite price of sin. No one can be saved unless he accepts Jesus Christ as his redeemer. Everyone is doomed to suffer eternally in Hell because of his

sinful nature, unless he accepts atonement made for his sins by Jesus Christ by his blood?[1]

This dogma is divided into three parts: (i) the Original Sin, (ii) the belief that God's Justice requires that the penalty of blood must be paid for sin, and (iii) the belief that Jesus has paid the

price for the sins of men by his death on the cross and that salvation is only for those who believe in his vicarious sacrifice.

As to the first part, the Rev. De Groot writes:

"Scripture teaches us that Adam's sin passed unto all men (our Blessed Lady excepted). For in the words of St. Paul: Therefore as by the offence of one (Adam) unto all men to condemnation; so also by the justice of one (Christ) unto all men to justification of life. For, as by the disobedience of one man (Adam) many were made sinners, so also by the obedience of one (Christ) many shall be made just. (Rom. 5:18,19). These words make it plain that all men have inherited Adam's sin."[2]

Like many other Christian beliefs, the doctrine of the Inherited Sin also finds no support in the words of Jesus or of the prophets who had come before him. They taught that every man was accountable for his own actions; the children will not be punished for the sin of their father. For instance, it is written in the Book of prophet Jeremiah:

"In those days they shall say no more, the fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But everyone shall die for his own iniquity, every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge."[3]

The prophet Ezekiel also rejected the dogma of the Original Sin in almost the same words:

"The word of the Lord came unto me again, saying, what mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, the fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge. As I live, saith the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine, as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine; the soul that sinneth, it shall die. But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, and hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbor's wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman, and hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with garment, he that hath not given forth on usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man, hath walked in My Statutes, and hath kept My Judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord God... 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. But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all My Statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die."[4]

That Jesus himself regarded children as innocent and pure, and not as born in sin, is clear in his reported saying:

"Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of God. Verily, I say unto you whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein"

(Mark 10:14,15)

Islam condemns the dogma of the Original Sin and regards the children as pure and sinless at birth. Sin, it says, is not inherited, but it is something which each one acquires for himself by doing what he should not do and not doing what he should do.

Rationally considered also, it would be the height of injustice to condemn the entire human race for the sin committed thousands of years ago by the first parents. Sin is a willful transgression of the Law of God or the law of right and wrong. The responsibility or blame for it must lie only on the person who has committed it, and not on his children.

Man is born with a free will, with the inclination and the capacity both to do evil and also to fight against it and do good. It is only when, as a grown-up man, capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, he makes a wrong use of his freedom and falls a prey to temptation, that sin is born in him. That many men and women have resisted and conquered evil inclinations and lived their lives in harmony with the Will of God is clear from the sacred records of all nations. The Bible itself mentions Enoch, Noah, Jacob, John the Baptist, and many others as being perfect and upright and among those who feared God and eschewed evil.

It is the height of misanthropy and cynicism to consider children to be sinful at birth. How unreasonable and hardhearted a man can become by believing in the dogma of the Inherent Sin

shown by the theological dictum of St. Augustine that all unbaptised infants are doomed to burn eternally in the fire of Hell. Till recently, the unbaptised infants were not buried in consecrated grounds in Christendom, because they were believed to have died in the Original Sin.

The very basis of the doctrine of the Atonement, that is the belief in the Original Sin, having been found to be wrong on the authority of Jesus Christ as well as reason, the superstructure of dogma built on it must also be false. But let us consider the Christian scheme of salvation a little further.

[1]Cf. God's Plan For Your Salvation, Phoenix Arizona, U.S.A.

[2]Rev. J. F. De Groot, Catholic Teaching, p.l40.

[3][3]The Bible, Jeremiah, 31:29-30.

[4]The Bible, Ezekiel, is; 1-9, 20-21 .


IslamBasics

Why Do Christians Believe in Original Sin?

 "Original Sin" is Confusing and Problematic


The concept of Original Sin is indeed amongst one of the most problematic in Christian theology. Not only is it NOT found in the Old Testament but Jesus never taught this foreign belief either. The suspicious origin of this belief is further highlighted by parts of the Bible which seem to be contradicting the Original Sin concept – amazing!

This post will consist of two parts; firstly a short video by BeholderGuard highlighting the passages in the Bible which seem to counter the concept of Original Sin, and secondly the Bible verses in question will be quoted and commentary added as well as further discussion being put forward in order to help the reader to realise the concept of Original Sin is not one taught by God, Jesus or any Old Testament Prophet (it is taught by a man who never met Jesus, named Paul)

Why is the Original Sin not in Genesis?

You would expect an author who believes in the Original Sin to make mention of it when referring to the results of Adam’s sin; in the Bible this would be in Genesis (Genesis chapter 3). However, this belief of Original sin is not only absent in Genesis but the entire Old Testament fails to mention it, thus the Prophets never taught this foreign belief (the same applies to Prophet Jesus)

Is the Original Sin concept Biblical?

It is neither in the Old Testament nor in the Gospel accounts. Paul introduces this concept in Romans:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned Romans 5:12 (also see 1 Cor. 15:22 and Rom. 5:17-19).

So is it Biblical? It depends on your definition of "Biblical". If you allow the teachings of Paul to be included in the Bible then the concept of Original Sin is indeed Biblical (albeit somewhat contradictory to earlier portions of the Bible). If you disregard Paul’s teachings then the concept of Original Sin is unbiblical. It is a very taxing conundrum the Christian is facing. The Old Testament certainly offers Paul no help but piles on the misery by militating against the belief in question

The Old Testament Contradicts Paul’s concept of Original Sin

As BeholderGuard mentions; Ezekiel 18 is key in this regard.

For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son--both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die Ezekiel 18:4

Also:

The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him. Ezekiel 18:20

Ezekiel 18 clearly shows each individual is responsible for their own sin. Surely the foreign belief of Original Sin is confusing in the light of Ezekiel 18.

2 Kings refutes the idea sin is passed onto posterity

Yet he did not put the sons of the assassins to death, in accordance with what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses where the LORD commanded: "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sins." 2 Kings 14:6

Clearly dying for your own sins indicates you are not responsible or lumbered with your forefather’s sin. Again, the question is asked; if God really wanted us to believe in Original Sin then why have this verse and Ezekiel 18 in the Bible?

A departure from the Bible: Original Sin is problematic as it seems unfair

Why should an innocent baby be born with Original Sin? Christians do believe all are unclean (including babies), Saint Augustine:

No one is clean, not even if his life be only for a day (A dictionary from Biblical tradition in English literature, p.577)

Jesus Refutes Paul’s idea of Original Sin?

However, things get even more confusing as Paul’s belief is shot down by Jesus himself; Jesus intimates children are innocent:

Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." Matthew 19:14 (also view Mark 10:14 and Luke 18:16)

Conclusion

The Original Sin is amongst the most problematic beliefs a Christian adopts – it is clearly a product from Paul’s devices. The Christian is left with the dilemma of why did Jesus never teach such a doctrine and why does he appear to contradict Paul.

Islam frees you from such a headache

“Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free”

  incarnation

Further Reading: Misha’al Ibn Abdullah’s What Did Jesus Really Say?

Forgiveness

Addendum

Does Psalm 51:5 teach the Original Sin?

No.
We have already seen Old Testament Biblical passages which militate against the idea of Original Sin. However, a commentator did bring up Psalm 51:5 as an Old Testament verse to support the idea of the Original Sin. Here is the ESV translation of the said verse:

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

As you can see for yourself, this verse is not teaching the Original Sin, it seems to be about the sinful act of adultery yielding a child; the Psalm is thought to be a projection upon the future child of an adulterous relationship.

However, the NIV translation does seem to teach a branch of the Original Sin (i.e. babies are with sin):

Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

So which translation is correct?

Firstly, if the NIV translation (the one teaching Original Sin) is correct then the Bible-believing Christians will have contradictions on their hands. The verses mentioned in the opening article on the topic of Original Sin (Ezekiel 8:4 and 20, 2 Kings 14:6) would be deemed as contradicting Psalm 51:5, thus further discrediting the Bible.

However, in my research of Psalm 51:5 I have found three more verses (from the OT) which seem to refute the idea of Original Sin. The first two go together(Jeremiah 3:25 and Genesis 8:21); they appear to indicate a human only becomes sinful from his/her youth, i.e. at the time of discernment between right and wrong (good and evil). In fact Jeremiah 3:25 indicates humans sin from their youth onwards, thus the idea of Original Sin upon babies seems to be in real question here.

This age of discernment between good and evil appears to be mentioned in Isaiah 7:15-16 as well.

See appendix one for these three Bible verses in full.

Going back to Psalm 51:5, which translation is correct?

The NIV translation seems to be in error and appears to be unfaithful as the NASB, ESV and KJV all disagree with the NIV translation. The three aforementioned translations all indicate the child was conceived in sin UNLIKE the NIV which suggests the child was sinful at the time of birth.

New American Standard Bible (NASB):

Behold, I was (A)brought forth in iniquity,And in sin my mother conceived me.

King James Version (KJV):

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me

English Standard Version (ESV):

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

So there is NO teaching of Original Sin in this verse! The verse is concerning the sin of adultery; it does not mean the child is born with sin. In fact the verse does not make mention of Adam's sin.

Commentary on Psalm 51:5 refutes the Original Sin

This verse has already been explained by T.W Brents and the explanation denounces the idea of Original Sin:

Whatever may be the meaning of this passage, it can not be the imputation of sin to the child. ‘In sin did my mother conceive me:’ that is, she acted wickedly when I was conceived. Were the wife to say, ‘In drunkenness my husband beat me,’or the child that ‘in anger my father whipped me,’ surely no one would attribute drunkenness to the wife or anger to the child; neither can they impute the sin of the mother to the child (1957, 133, 134).
(Sourced from: http://www.christiancourier.com/arti...pplied-passage)

So is the Original Sin mentioned in the Old Testament?

No, the idea of Original Sin seems to be shunned and denounced by the Old Testament authors. We have already realised that Jesus never taught the concept of Original Sin and moreover we see the Gospel accounts (Matthew 19:14 (also view Mark 10:14 and Luke 18:16) indicate Jesus considered children as innocent (thus refuting Original Sin).

As previously mentioned, the foreign concept of Original Sin first came into existence by a man named Paul. He seems to be contradicting the Old Testament as well as Jesus.

Is the Original Sin moral?

The moral dilemma continues for the Christian who believes in the Original Sin. Why are babies born with sin and thought to be hell-bound if unbaptized? St Augustine was a strong advocate for this idea of Original Sin:

In truth, all men who are sullied by the original sin were born of Adam and Eve [Augustine, vol 2, p 633].

Thus St Augustine believed babies were born with sin, is this just? Furthermore Augustine believed unbaptized babies went to hell:

Augustine believed that the only definitive destinations of souls are heaven and hell. He concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell as a consequence of original sin [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin] 

Appendix 1

The three new Bible verses which appear to militate against the idea of Original Sin:

Jeremiah 3:25 (English Standard Version)

25(A) Let us lie down in our shame, and let our dishonor cover us. For(B) we have sinned against the LORD our God, we and our fathers, from our youth even to this day, and we have not obeyed the voice of the LORD our God."

Genesis 8:21 (English Standard Version)

21And when the LORD smelled(A) the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart, "I will never again(B) curse[a] the ground because of man, for(C) the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth.(D) Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done.

Isaiah 7:15-16 (English Standard Version)

15He shall eat(A) curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16(B) For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be(C) deserted

Original Sin, Redemption, & Divinity of Christ

By: Mushfiqur Rahman

Original Sin, Redemption, & Divinity of Christ

Original Sin
There is no "original sin" in Islam. First of all, it is true that Adam and Eve committed sin by disobeying God. But they were both forgiven by God. Secondly, one man's action cannot be the burden of another man. Every individual is responsible only for his or her actions. Thus, every child is born pure and sinless. The world he sets foot in is also seen as a positive ground for him to cultivate. Not only is he born without sin, but also he is born actually with a set of positive things to help him in his cultivation of the world: 1) God places love and mercy in the hearts of his parents who would nurture him and take care of him until he is grown up 2) He is given by God a array of fine tools that he can utilize in fulfilling his role on earth: knowledge, wisdom, intellect, conscience, logical deduction, etc. The world, further, is not seen as something evil; rather it is seen as a positive field that is ready for him to cultivate. Thus, in Islam, every child is born with a positive start who sets foot in a positive world. This is, of course, a major doctrinal difference between Islam and Christianity. That can be explained in light of the historical development of the Christian doctrines and the Church during the first few centuries after Jesus (pbuh). For example, the theory of the original sin was developed by St. Paul, and not by Jesus.

Divine Redemption
Just like a child is not responsible for the actions of another person, so his sins cannot be also redeemed by another person. Just as sins cannot be transferred, so cannot be the credits. Every individual is an independent person who is responsible for his or her actions alone. There is no salvation, for there is no original burden. One's success in the Hereafter lies in his living a righteous life in this world. Faith is important, but faith without deeds will not earn him any good. My purpose here is to only explain what Islam is and not discuss the doctrinal development of Christianity. But it would be relevant here to mention that the theory of divine redemption (that Christ died for our sins) like the theory of original sin was also developed by St. Paul. Both of these theories go together. Because there was an original sin, now there was a need for redemption. The later, then, called for the divinity of Christ. With this, I will now answer some of your questions.

Question 1: Is Allah the Same as the Christian God?
As I have mentioned in my previous email, Allah is the same universal God who created the universe and Who is worshipped by all Jews, Christians, Muslims, and other faith communities. I have also mentioned some of His attributes in my email. Where you come across any specific difference, whether in attribute or in understanding, then I can specifically discuss that topic if you write to me about it. The rest of the issues come from assumptions that are simply not correct. In saying so, I am blaming those who may have conveyed such ideas to you. That is why I mentioned previously that one should undertake an objective study without any preconceived notions. Anyway, to answer your questions, Muhammad (p) did not claim that "Allah" is a greater god than the god believed by Jews and Christian. He is the same God. Neither did he choose one of the 360 gods to come up with the "greatest" god. This assumption is the basis of most of your questions; therefore, it suffices here to say that the assumption is incorrect. Why Jews and Christians do not accept Muhammad can be explained by the same reason as why Jews do not accept Jesus. Jesus (p) did not bring any new message but spoke of the same eternal message of God to the humanity: believing in God, living a righteous life, Day of Judgment, accountability of actions, and so on. This message was the same as preached by the previous prophets, but its spirit was lost. Thus Jesus came as a renewer of the message of God. He was, of course, rejected by the Jews. Identical case is with Muhammad (p). He came as a reformer like Jesus (p) with the same message but was rejected by the Jews and the Christians.

Question 2: Did Prophet Muhammad Receive Inspiration From the Same Source?
The answer to your question is "Yes". All prophetic inspirations come from the same source - God Almighty. And all prophets speak the truth. The "test" of a prophet can be made by an objective study of the message he preaches and his life as a prophet. The message should be consistent with the message preached by all other prophets. It should be clarified here that the job of a prophet is not to mere make prophecies about future events. Rather, it is to re-energize the message of God to the humanity and provide them guidance so that they can live a righteous life according to the will of God. That is why "messenger" would be a more appropriate word than "prophet".

Question 3: Prophecies about the Coming of Jesus
Stating first that my purpose is not to hurt one's religious belief, I would like to say, as a student of history, and purely from historical perspective, that the Old Testament books are not considered 100% authentic historical documents. It is an established fact that these books were written over a period of 800 years by different authors at different times. They were compiled from oral traditions that were passed from generations to generations. Textual changes depending on the understanding of the scribes were common. Commentaries made by different scribes would later be considered by future generations to be part of the text. At occasions books or parts of books would be lost, requiring re-creations as in the case of the Torah which was lost when Jerusalem was burned down in the 6th century BC. Thus from the point of view of neutral history, God's message in the OT books has been mixed with the cultural elements of the Israelite traditions. This can be verified by studying the history of the Old Testament. Thus, a Muslim considers that the OT books do contain God's message but it also contains cultural traditions that are not God's message. Muslims neither reject the OT books completely, nor accept them with the understanding that they contain God's words 100%. Now let us come back to the question of the prophecies mentioned in the OT. If there is any prophecy about the coming of Jesus, well and good. Muslims certainly believe in Jesus as a prophet of God. But if one considers himself fair-minded and takes on an objective analysis of the OT prophecies and gives Jesus and Muhammad equal rights under objective study without discounting one or the other under a pre-conceived mind, one will find that there are also prophecies in OT that point to Muhammad. If you are sincerely interested in this topic, then you can borrow a book from me the title of which is "Muhammad in the Bible" (it was written by a Christian scholar named Rev. David Keldani who accepted Islam). Having said this, I would like to ask you: do you think these "600 prophecies" you mentioned exclusively point to Jesus and not to any other historical person? If your answer is yes and if you think that you have come to that conclusion after making an objective study of these prophecies without discounting one person or another or giving preference to one person or another, then perhaps we can freely and openly discuss your analysis. There is one thing that I can guarantee you about myself: you will find me, God willing, an unbiased person.

Divinity Of Christ
You have mentioned that the Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John clearly points to the divinity of Christ. This may be the belief, but I am sorry that this is not based on facts. If divinity of Jesus is the central theme of Christianity, they the gospels should clearly establish that fact. Jesus should clearly and repeatedly say in the gospels that he is divine, that he is one of the 3 gods, that people should worship him as god. But that is not to be found in the gospels, contrary to what an ordinary Christian would believe. You will not find the word "Trinity" anywhere in the 4 gospels, although it is a fundamental theme of Christianity. If it is of any interest to you, then perhaps you can undertake a study of the early Christianity and see how the Christian doctrines and the early church was developed. If the fairness of the Muslims' claims are questioned, then one can read books written by Christian historians themselves. If you like to engage with me in discussion about the early history of Christianity, then I would be happy to. Here, I would simply mention that the divinity of Christ was established by the church not prior to the 4th century. It was only then the current four gospels were accepted as canonical and all the other gospels available were destroyed. That council is called the "Council of Nicea" which was held in 325 AD. It was called for by the emperor Constantine to settle disputes that was sweeping the Christian world about whether Jesus was god or whether he was man. Obviously, many of the gospels that were destroyed portrayed Jesus to be man. The divinity of Jesus and the concept of the Trinity not only sets Christianity apart from Islam but from the teachings of the Old Testament as well where all prophets preached pure monotheism. I am sure you will find my statement difficult to accept, but there is a substantial difference between the Christianity that Jesus (p) preached and the Christianity that is known today. This is not just what Muslims claim, but this is what western scholars of history tell us as well. These are all later developments that have been attributed to Jesus, corrupting, unfortunately his pure message. And there is one person who can be credited for this more than any other: St. Paul. Indeed, according to some, St. Paul should be considered the real founder of Christianity, not Jesus:

"Paul's influence on Christian theology has been incalculable. His ideas include the following: Jesus was not merely an inspired human prophet, but was actually divine. Christ died for our sins, and his suffering can redeem us. Man cannot achieve salvation by attempting to conform to biblical injunctions, but only by accepting Christ; conversely, if one accepts Christ, his sins will be forgiven. Paul also enunciated the doctrine of original sin. .. Indeed, the influence of Paul's ideal has been so great that some scholars have claimed that he, rather than Jesus, should be regarded as the principal founder of the Christian religion." - Michael H. Hart, "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History", New York, 1978.

Any person who sincerely and objectively undertakes the study of the development of Christianity will not only find that the actual message of Jesus has been lost by doctrines developed by others but will also find, if his study of Islam has also been objective, that Islam actually has restored the true image of Jesus, which is: he was a human being and a messenger of God who he preached God's unity and invited people to obey God.
This email brings about some of the doctrinal differences between Islam and Christianity. In doing so, it was not my intent to hurt one's religious feelings nor was it my desire to emphasis on dissimilarities. They only came up as I had to address some of your questions. But I would like to emphasis here that I have not tried to propagate my faith here but tried to remain objective by relying on neutral history in discussing some of the doctrinal issues.

Original Sin does not exist!

 The root of Christianity is the original sin upon which the crucifixion is justified and used for the benefit of Christians. If original sin is thrown away, then the crucifixion becomes dead.

None of these two man-made beliefs are true and original sin is nowhere to be found in the entire Bible.

Gen. 3:14
"And the Lord God said unto the serpent, 'Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life'".

This is a curse upon the serpent and that too only a worldly one.

Ezek 18:4
Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Ezek 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die.

(Deuteronomy 24:16)
“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.”

The Bible is very clear that no person will be responsible for the sins of others. Each person is answerable for himself alone and cannot blame it on Adam and Eve.

This concept matches exactly the Qur’anic point on this issue.

(Quran 6:164)
“No person earns any (sin) except against himself (only), and no bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another.”


Some contradictory verses do exist in the Bible which Christians use to defend this man-made concept of original sin. If we take a closer look at these verses, we see that they too do not talk about the original sin the way Christian believe it to be.

For example:

Gen 3:17
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life;

Gen 3:18
Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

Gen 3:19
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.


These verses might appear to be about the original sin but if we read them carefully, we see that they only talk about worldly punishments and nothing more.

Where in the Bible is it written that man is destined to eternal damnation for the inherited sin?

Where does the Bible say that the sole or main purpose of Jesus was to undo what Adam had done?

John 1:29
The next day John sees Jesus coming unto him, and says, Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world.

Prophets are sent by God to be examples of the message they have brought. Prophets are sent to bring mankind on the right path and to lead them away from a sinful life. Therefore, Jesus takes away the sins of the people by guiding them and showing them the right path. Secondly, Jesus never says such a thing, it is John who does so.
Rom. 5:12
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"
Rom. 5:19
"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners,..."
These verses say that due to the sin of Adam, death arises. Not eternal death but death in the world. This is the appropriate interpretation; otherwise, there is a contradiction with the following verses:
Jer. 31:29-30
"In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge."
Ezek 18:4
Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Ezek 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die.
(Deuteronomy 24:16)
“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.”

The death being talked about is the death in this world and not punishment in hell.
Prov.20:9
"Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?"
The way to cleanse oneself from sin to clean one’s heart and not to believe in crucifixion or Trinity.
Psalms 51:5
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
The above verse needs to be seen in context to be understood fully.
51:1
Chief Musician, A Psalm of David, when Nathan the prophet came unto him, after he had gone in to Bathsheba. Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.

51:2
Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.

51:3
For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin ever before me.

51:4
Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done [this] evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, [and] be clear when thou judgest.

51:5
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

If we read in context, we see that the person saying these words is actually a sinner, see verse 3 and 5. This shows that this person was actually a sinner himself and talks about sins happened before him.
Nathan came from Aaron's wife who was a fourth generation bastard son of Judah, so her sons were fifth generation sons. As the bible says, God's law specifically banned bastards and their descendants from entering the assembly of Yahweh for at least ten generations(Dt. 23:2).
According to the bible, David was a ninth generation bastard. David was the 9th generation son of Perez, the bastard son of Judah and Tamar.
His lineage is shadowed and shameful: his father descended from Moab, a product of incest between Lot and his daughter after Sodom's destruction, down through Ruth, a Moabite convert.

David was believed to be bastard by his father and brothers. Such allegations have been made against Prophet David.
I was shapen in inequity can be taken as two meanings, first that when he was in his mother's belly and was being taken a shape and the second is his growing up days.
Whichever way you take it, the sin being talked about is personal and not hereditary.
If you take,
I was shapen in iniquity

as growing up days, even then these sins are personal. King David is accused of deceit, adultery and murder in the Bible.
It is surprising that such a huge concept of Christians, 'Original Sin' has no mention in the bible.

Source