Is Jesus Christ the "Begotten" Son Of God?

According to the Bible every righteous person who follows the Commandments of God is referred to as ‘son of God’. As the Bible says,
"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." (Romans 8:14)

In the Bible, God has thousands of sons. It is mentioned in:
a. Luke: 3 v. 38: "…Adam, which was the son of God."
b. Genesis, 6 v. 2: "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were fair…."
c. Exodus, 4 v. 22: "…Israel is my son, even my firstborn".”…For I (God) am a Father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn."
d. Psalms, 2 v. 7: "…the LORD hath said unto me, (David) ‘Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee.’"
e. Matt 5 v.9- “Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the sons of God”.
f. Jeremiah 31 v.9- Ephraim is my first-born.
g. In Acts 17 v. 29- “For as much then as we are the offspring of God”.
Here all of humankind is referred to as ‘offspring’, metaphorically.
The Christians agree with the reasoning but say that "but Jesus (pbuh) was not like that". God made Adam, and God made every living thing, but ‘Jesus was the begotten son of God, begotten not made’. And the Christians quote from the Gospel of John, Chap 3 verse 16: 
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Meaning of the word ‘begotten’
When asked the meaning of the word ‘begotten’ the Christian will rarely be able to explain. Begetting is an animal act belonging to the animal function of sex. ‘Begotten’ means "sired".
How dare the Church attribute such a lowly function to God?

The word ‘begotten’ has been thrown out of the Bible:
The word ‘begotten’ mentioned in the Gospel of John, Chap 3 vs. 16 has been thrown out from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible as an interpolation, as a fabrication. The Revised Standard Version has been revised by 32 Christian Scholars of the highest eminence, backed by 50 different co-operating denominations and these Scholars have removed this blasphemous word without any ceremony as an interpolation, concoction, fabrication, and adulteration. Yet the majority of Christians are unaware of this important fact because they do not read their own Bibles. The priests in their sermons continue to use this blasphemous verse and indoctrinate the masses with false teachings. So if you are still using this blasphemous word, please stop using it because it does NOT exist in the original manuscripts of the Bible and has been thrown out of the Bible.

Don't forget to read more about Jesus Christ and please share this post.

Is Qur'an The Word Of God? (Part 1)

Islam is not the name of some unique religion presented for the first time by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) who should, on that account be called the founder of Islam.The Qur'an states that Islam - the complete submission of man before his one and only Unique Creator - is the one and only faith and way of life consistently revealed by God to humankind from the very beginning. Noah, Solomon, David, Abraham, Moses, Isaac and Jesus - prophets who appeared at different times and places - all propagated the same faith and conveyed the same message of Tawheed (Oneness of God), Risaalat (Prophethood) and Aakhirah (the Hereafter). These prophets of God were not founders of different religions to be named after them. They were each reiterating the message and faith of their predecessors.

However, Muhammad (pbuh) was the last Prophet of God. God revived through him the same genuine faith which had been conveyed by all His Prophets. This original message was earlier corrupted and split into various religions by people of different ages, who indulged in interpolations and admixture. These alien elements were eliminated by God, and Islam - in its pure and original form - was transmitted to humankind through Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Since there was to be no messenger after Muhammad (pbuh), the Book revealed to him (i.e. the Qur'an) was preserved word for word so that it should be a source of guidance for all times.
Click here to Get Your Free Copy Qur'an, so that you can analyze it yourself as well (translations in up to 30+ languages will soon be added so keep visiting)

The miracle of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), i.e. the Qur'an, is for all times

All the previous Prophets of God were sent only to their people and their nation and their complete message was meant for a particular time period. Therefore the miracles they performed such as parting of sea by Prophet Moses (pbuh), giving life to the dead by Prophet Jesus (pbuh), etc. convinced the people of that time but these miracles cannot be analyzed and verified by us today.

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is the last and final Messenger of God, sent for the whole of humankind and the message he delivered is for eternity. The Qur'an says:

"We sent you (Prophet Muhammad) not but as a mercy for all creatures." (Al-Qur'an 21:107)

Therefore the miracle of the last and final Messenger should also be everlasting, examinable and verifiable by people of all ages, after its revelation. Though Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) performed several miracles as are mentioned in the Hadith (recorded traditions, sayings and actions of the Prophet), he never emphasized them. Though we Muslims believe in these miracles we only boast of the ultimate miracle given to him by Almighty God, which is the Qur'an.

Al-Qur'an is the miracle of all times which proved itself to be a miracle 1400 years ago and which can be reconfirmed today and forever. In short, it is the Miracle of Miracles.

Many people have a misconception that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is the founder of the religion of Islam. However, Islam is in existence since the first man (Prophet Adam) first set foot on earth. Since then, Almighty God sent several prophets and revelations, the last in this chain being Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and the Qur'an.

Three options regarding authorship of the Qur'an

Probably, the only point of agreement amongst those who have the slightest knowledge of the Qur'an irrespective of whether they are Muslims or not, is that the Qur'an was recited for the first time by a man who was born in Makkah in Arabia in the 6th century (C.E.) by the name of Muhammad (pbuh).

Regarding the sources of the Qur'an there can be three basic assumptions for a non-Muslim:
a) Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) himself was the author of the Qur'an; consciously, sub-consciously or unconsciously.
b) Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) learnt it from other human sources or copied or adopted from previous scriptures or revelations.
c) Qur'an has no human author but it is a word for word revelation from God.

Muhammad (pbuh) was not the author of the Qur’an

1. Muhammad (pbuh) never claimed the authorship of the Qur’an

It is highly abnormal to challenge the testimony of someone who disclaims responsibility for producing a great work, whether literary, scientific or other. Yet this is precisely what orientalists and others, who are suspicious about the origins of the Qur'an, do when they claim that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was the author of the Glorious Qur'an.

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) never ever claimed responsibility for originating it. He honestly said that it was Allah who revealed this Scripture to him. To think otherwise is illogical because it would mean that he was telling a lie.

From history we learn that between his youth and the prophetic mission that commenced at the age of 40, he had never been known to lie. He was so well known for his truthfulness, honesty and chastity that he was given the title "Al-Ameen" i.e. "The trust worthy" by friends and foes alike. Then why should he lie at the age of 40 while claiming to be a messenger of God?

It is interesting to note however, that although many of the Meccan Pagans rejected Islam and regarded the Prophet as a liar, they nevertheless trusted him and deposited their valuables with him for safe-keeping. This is apparent from the fact that when the Prophet decided to leave Makkah to foil an assassination attempt on him, he left the valuables with Hazrat Ali (R.A.) to distribute it to the rightful owners.

Once when Abu Sufiyan, one of the pagan chiefs of Makkah, went to Emperor Heraclius to ask for his support against the Prophet, on being questioned whether the Prophet had been accused of lying, prior his to claim to be a Prophet or whether he had betrayed his trust, Abu Sufiyan the arch enemy of the Prophet had to answer "No". Thus even his opponents acknowledged his sincerity, truthfulness and honesty.

What logical reason can a person think of, for Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to lie while stating that he was a Prophet and not the author of the Qur'an?

 Let us now analyze some more probabilities given by skeptics of why Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) could have written such a Book without claiming its authorship.

2. Material gain as the motive

Some may argue that Muhammad (pbuh) falsely attributed the Qur’an to God and called himself a Prophet for material gain. I do agree that there are several people who falsely claim to be prophets, saints and preachers for material benefits and thus become rich and lead luxurious lives.

Muhammad’s (pbuh) financial position was better off before than after the announcement of his Prophethood. At the age of 25, he married Khadija (ra), who was a very rich and wealthy businesswoman, 15 years before he claimed Prophethood. His financial position and life standard after claiming Prophethood was unenviable.

a. One of the wives of the Prophet (pbuh), Ayesha (R.A.) narrates that a month or two would go by without fire being lit in their house because there was nothing to cook. They survived on dates and water. Sometimes this diet was supplemented with goat’s milk from the people of Madinah. (According to Riyad-As-Saliheen by An-Nawawi, Hadith no. 492)

b. This was not just a temporary sacrifice but a way of life. This was at a time when Muhammad (pbuh) could have lived like a king, if he so wanted. There was a sort of discontent and protest by those close to him as to why should they live in poor condition when they could avail of all the luxuries. The Prophet was disturbed with their discontent and a revelation came commending him to tell his wives:

‘O Prophet! Say to your Consorts: "If it be that you desire the life of this world and its glitter then come, I will provide for your enjoyment and set you free in a handsome manner. But if you seek Allah and His Messenger and the Home of the Hereafter, verily Allah has prepared for the well-doers amongst you a great reward.”’
(Al-Qur'an 33:28-29)

This evidence is also recorded in Sahih Bukhari & Sahih Muslim.

c. Abu Zarr (ra) and Abu Hurairah (ra), the companions of the Prophet (pbuh) narrated that Muhammad (pbuh) never kept back any gifts and provisions secured for future use, but spent what he had on the poor and needy. (According to Riyad-As-Saleheen, Hadith No. 465 and 466)

d. Inspite of the victories and achievements of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), at the time of his death, he was in debt, and his shield was in the hands of a Jewish citizen of Madinah as a co-lateral for his debt.
(According to Riyad-As-Saleheen, Hadith No. 504)

e. If Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) would have actually been the author of the Qur’an and would have lied for material gains, that it is a book of God, he would have never mentioned in the same Qur’an:

“Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say:

‘This is from Allah’ to traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write and for the gain they make thereby.” (Al-Qur'an 2:79)
This verse rebukes those persons who changed the previous Revealed scriptures, or authored books with their own minds and said, “this is from God” for their personal material benefit. If Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had himself written the Qur’an, there were chances that at some point of time he would have been exposed, be
considered the biggest hypocrite (God forbid), and would be cursing himself in his own book, which is illogical.


Is it possible that Muhammad (pbuh) might have claimed Prophethood in order to attain Status, Power, Glory, and Leadership?

a. Muhammad (pbuh) has universally been acknowledged as one of the most successful leaders in human history. A Christian scholar Michael H. Hart has given a list of what he considers the hundred most influential men in history, from Adam to the present time, along with a list of reasons for his ranking, in his book ‘The 100 – a Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History’. This unbiased Christian scholar placed Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) on top of the list. He concluded the biography with the words,
“It is this unparalleled combination of secular and religious influence which I feel entitles Muhammad (pbuh) to be considered the most influential single figure in human history”.

b. A man with his qualities could claim leadership and assume power even without claiming Prophethood. Moreover, his character suggests that he was neither a power monger, nor a glory seeker. The desire to enjoy status and power is usually associated with good food, fancy clothing, magnificent places, monumental palaces, colourful guards and indisputable authority. Despite his social standing as a Prophet and heavy responsibility as a statesman, Muhammad (pbuh) used to milk his goat, mend his clothes, repair his shoes and help with the household work. His life was an amazing example of simplicity and humility. He sat on the floor. He went to the market to shop with no guards or provisions and accepted invitations to dine with the poor and ate graciously whatever was served.

c. He talked and listened patiently to anyone who approached him. So much so that the Qur’an says that his detractors complained saying:

“O! He listens to everyone.” (Al-Qur'an 9:61)

d. Once a representative of pagans named Utbah came to the Prophet (pbuh) and said that if he gave up preaching the message of the Qur’an, they would make him the wealthiest man in the community and their leader with absolute power or even crown him as the king, if he wanted. The only concession they wanted from Muhammad (pbuh) in return was to give up the new claim that ‘there is no god but one Universal God of all people’. If the Prophet (pbuh) was a seeker after power, glory and wealth, he would not have missed this golden opportunity. However he rejected the proposal using the verses that were revealed to him from Allah in Al-Qur'an 41:1-38.

e. Later another approach was made to the Prophet (pbuh) from delegation of the pagan nobles. The Prophet (pbuh) refused to compromise on the divinely inspired message which he had been sent with to deliver saying: “I did not bring this message on my own, nor in pursuit of your money or respect or leadership. God has sent me as a messenger to you and has given me a book, the Qur’an….”

f. On another occasion, they tried to persuade him through his beloved uncle Abu Talib to accept worldly power and prestige in return for giving up his Prophetic Mission. He said, “Oh! My uncle, if they put the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left hand, in order that I should give up this mission of mine, I will never do it until I die in defence of this truth, or God decides whatever He Pleases.”

g. The death of Muhammad’s (pbuh) most beloved son Ibrahim (ra) coincided with the eclipse of the sun and people regarded it as a miracle from God that the heaven and the earth were mourning at the death of Ibrahim. Muhammad (pbuh) was very angry with them and said:

“The sun and the moon do not eclipse because of the death or life of someone but they are two signs amongst the signs of Allah”. (Sahih Bukhari Vol. 2, Hadith No. 152)

h. Are these the characteristics of a power-hungry or a self-centered man? What could justify such a life of suffering and sacrifice, even after he was fully triumphant over his adversaries? What could explain the humbleness and nobility, which he demonstrated in his most glorious moments when he insisted that success is only due to God’s help and not due to his own genius?

Moral Reformation :
The Qur’an says: Who can be more wicked than one who invents a lie against Allah or says “I have received inspiration” when he has received none or (again) who says “I can reveal the like of what Allah has revealed?” (Al-Qur’an 6:93) This verse prescribes the most humiliating punishment for such liars. If Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was the author of the Qur’an, was he deceitfully ascribing it to God and describing himself as the most wicked man? Had he been the author of the Qur’an, there was every possibility that his fabrication might one day be uncovered and get him into trouble.

a) A similar warning is given in the Qur’an in the following verse: “And if the messenger were to invent any sayings in Our name We should certainly seize him by his right hand And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart: Nor could any of you withhold him (from Our wrath).” (Al-Qur’an 69:44-47) There are several such verses in the Qur’an e.g. Al-Qur’an 42:24 & 16:105.

b) Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did not deliver the whole Qur’an at one sitting. He recited it piecemeal over a period of about 23 years during which any question would be answered. The Qur’an says: “If you ask about things when the Qur’an is being revealed they will be made plain to you” (Al-Qur’an 5:101) People took this opportunity to ask a wide range of questions covering subjects like intoxicants, gambling, charity, new moon, menstruation, spoils of war, or even historical figures like Zulqarnain. Therefore the Qur’an mentions in several places “They ask thee concerning such and such matter. Say: it is so and so”. In no way could Muhammad (pbuh) have known in advance the questions he would be asked, thus perfectly matching his reformation purposes for which he had set out to write the Qur’an. It would be foolish for a Prime Minister who wants to talk about the transportation facility in his country to call a press conference and invite the press to ask any question. They may choose to inquire about the food situation or even about political prisoners.

c) There is sufficient proof in the Qur’an against this moral reformation theory because Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) himself is corrected by the Qur’an in several places. Once while Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was deeply engrossed, trying to convince the teachings of Islam to pagan Quraish leaders of Makkah, a poor Muslim blind man, Abdullah Ibn Umm-Makhtum interrupted the discussion because he wanted to learn the Qur’an. The Prophet (pbuh) did not appreciate this interruption, which was evident by his frowning. Although the prophet (pbuh) did not say a word yet a revelation was consequently sent which is preserved forever in the Qur’an. “The (Prophet) frowned and turned away because there came to him the blind man (interrupting). But what could tell you but that perchance he might grow (in spiritual understanding)? Or that he might receive admonition and the teaching might profit him?” (Al-Qur’an 80:1-4) Anyone besides the Prophet (pbuh), whether saint or sinner, would not have been questioned so. But he, whose gentle heart ever sympathized with the poor and affected, got new light from above, and without the least hesitation published this revelation in the Qur’an. Subsequently every time he met this blind man, he received him graciously and thanked him that on his account, God had remembered him. There are several similar verses in the Qur’an e.g. in response to Prophet’s (pbuh) oath of not taking honey, Al-Qur’an 66:1 was revealed. In context of revenge of Hamzah (ra) death, Al-Qur’an 16:126 was revealed. In context of prisoners of war for ransom, Al-Qur’an 8:67 was revealed. When Prophet (pbuh) had prayed for a hypocrite, Al-Qur’an 9:84 was revealed.

Don't forget to check other parts of the topic when they are published on Qur'an

Was Jesus Christ Really Crucified?

This is the last in the series of three posts about the Christian concept of salvation through the cross.
The first post was "Is Salvation Through The Cross Possible?"
The second post was "Did Jesus Christ Go Willingly On The Cross?"
For a person to be crucified he must die on the cross. So if I could anyhow prove from the Bible that Jesus Christ did NOT die on the cross then there is NO crucifixion and also NO salvation through the cross.

Jesus on the Cross

It was Sunday morning, when Mary Magdalene alone (Mark 16:9 and John 20:1) visited the tomb of Jesus.
The question arises: "Why did she go there?" "TO ANOINT HIM", Mark 16:1 tells us. The Hebrew word for anoint is "masaha", which means to rub, to massage, to anoint. The second question is: "Do Jews, Christians or Muslims massage dead bodies after 3 days?"
The answer is "No!"
It would, however, make sense if she was looking for a LIVE person.
Jesus disguises as a gardener. WHY? Because of fearing the Jews. Do dead bodies fear Jews?
No, of course NOT because dead bodies do not die twice as the Book of Hebrews 9:27 says
". . . it is ordained unto all men ONCE to die, and after that the judgement."
So Jesus disguised as a gardener to save his life because he was alive.
Mad with happiness, Mary Magdalene lunges forward to grab her Master, to pay reverence.
Jesus says,
"Touch me not!For I am not yet ASCENDED unto my Father."(John 20:17)
Jesus is saying: "I HAVE NOT DEAD YET!" "I AM ALIVE!"
"And they (the disciples), when they heard that he was ALIVE, and had been seen by her (Mary Magdalene), they BELIEVED NOT."(Mark 16:11)
When Jesus(pbuh) goes to his disciples and says,
"Sholam Alekum" meaning "May peace be on you"(Luke 24:36)
"But they(disciples) were terrified and affrighted and supposed that they had seen a spirit."
(Luke 24:37)
They were afraid for they thought they were seeing the born again ghost of Jesus(pbuh) they had heard everything from heresy, since ". . . THEY ALL FORSOOK HIM AND FLED."(Mark 14:50)
Seeing his disciples fear and guessing their mind Jesus(pbuh) says
"Behold (have a look at) my hands and my feet, that it is I myself (I am the same fellow, man!): handle me and see; for A SPIRIT has no flesh and bones, as you see me have.. . . And he showed them his hands and his feet."(Luke 24:39-40)
In other words, Jesus was telling his disciples, when he said: "Behold my HANDS and my FEET", that the body he wanted them to see, feel and touch was not a SPIRITUAL body, nor a METAMORPHOSED body, nor a RESURRECTED body. Because a resurrected "body"becomes spiritualised!
One may ask "Who says that resurrected persons will be spiritualised?"I say, "Jesus!" He asks: "Where?" I say: "In the Gospel of Luke; go back four chapters from where Jesus said: 'A spirit has no flesh and bones', that is, to Luke 20:27-36, and you will see. . .". The Jews were coming to Jesus again and again with posers and riddles. They come to him concerning a Jewess who had seven husbands, according to a Jewish practice - if one man dies leaving no offspring behind, then the 2nd brother of the deceased husband takes her to wife, to give her his seed. But when he fails and dies, the 3rd takes her on; and so on and so on. In the case before Jesus, seven brothers had this one woman, one after another. All the seven brothers died, and in time, the woman also died. There was no problem while each was trying to fulfil his duty - it was ONE by ONE! But the question of the Jews was that, at the RESURRECTION, which one was going to have this woman, because they had all "HAD" her here! The picture the Jews are trying to conjure up in Jesus' mind is that if the seven brothers are resurrected simultaneously at the RESURRECTION, and the woman also, then there will be a war in heaven among the seven brothers, all claiming the woman as his own wife, because they had "all had her". In short, which fellow will have this woman as his wife in heaven? In answer to that, Jesus says: "Neither shall they die anymore" - meaning that the resurrected persons will be immortalised: Needing no food, no shelter, no clothing, no sex, no rest. "For they are equal unto the angels," meaning that they will be ANGELISED, they will be SPIRITUALISED, they will become SPIRITUAL CREATURES, they will be
SPIRITS! As regards himself, four chapters further on he says: "A spirit has no flesh and bones, as you see me have" - I am NOT a spirit, I am NOT a ghost, I am NOT a spook, I am NOT RESURRECTED! I am the same living Jesus - ALIVE!
To assure them further, to calm their shaky nerves, he asks: "Have you here any meat",
i.e. anything to eat? "And they gave him a piece of broiled fish and of a honeycomb, and he took it, and DID EAT before them." To prove what? To prove that he was ALIVE.
Matthew records that the learned men among the Jews -the Scribes and Pharisees - came to Jesus and asked,
With righteous indignation Jesus replies:
God commanded Jonah to go to Nineveh and warn the Ninevites to repent from their "evil ways,
and from the violence that is in their hands." (Jonah 3:8) But Jonah was loath to go as a warner unto the Ninevites, so he goes to Joppa instead of Nineveh, and takes a boat to run away from the Lord's command. While at sea, there was a terrible tempest. According to the superstition of the mariners, a person fleeing from his Master's command creates such a turmoil at sea. They began to enquire among themselves and said,
Though there was a temporary lapse on the part of Jonah in fulfilling his mission, he manfully and most courageously volunteers:
 When the shipmaster and the crew threw him overboard, was Jonah dead or alive?
A fish swallows Jonah. Was he dead or alive when swallowed?
Was he dead or alive when "JONAH PRAYED UNTO THE LORD HIS GOD OUT OF THE FISH'S BELLY?" (Jonah 2:1)
ALIVE! Surely dead men don't cry and don't pray!
For three days and three nights the fish takes him around the ocean: dead or alive?
On the third day it vomits him on the seashore: dead or alive? A-L-I-V-E!
What had Jesus prophesied about himself? He said: "AS JONAH WAS ..... SO SHALL THE SON OF MAN BE" "soos Jonah" - "njenga Jonah" - LIKE JONAH. And how was Jonah? Was he dead or alive  for three days and three nights? Alive! ALIVE! ALIVE!
Some Christian missionaries argue that the prophecy is about the time factor?
Lets consider it.
Jesus was put in the tomb on Friday evening and he was NOT in the tomb by Sunday morning. So
he must have escaped from the tomb before the Sunday morning. Hence he was in the tomb for
the Friday night, Saturday day and Saturday night, that would be 2 nights and 1 day, while the prophecy says 3 days and 3 nights. SO IT DOES NOT FULFILL THE TIME FACTOR. NOW THE ONLY THING TO FULFILL THE PROPHECY WOULD BE FOR JESUS(PBUH) TO BE ALIVE?
Lets check the Bible to see if Jesus(pbuh) fulfills the prophecy or not.
According to the Gospel writers, the Jews and the Romans managed to have Jesus on the cross by the 6th hour, that is by 12 noon; and by the 9th hour(Matthew 27:46), that is, by 3 o'clock he had given up the ghost - he had died (?). Strange people, these Jews! As much as they were in a hurry to mount Jesus on the cross, no sooner had they succeeded, they were once more agitated to bring him down. Can you imagine why? Their religious scruples - the Sabbath! They were warned in the "fifth Book of Moses":
"His body (any crucified person) shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day, (for he that is hanged is accursed of God), that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance."(Deuteronomy 21:23)
Was the prayer of Jesus (pbuh) being answered? He had cried to the loving father in heaven for help, with strong crying and tears:
"And being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat was, as it were, great drops of blood falling down to the ground."(Luke 22:44)
Paul confirms that his supplications did not fall on deaf ears:
"Who, in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was HEARD in that he feared."(Hebrews 5:7)
What does it mean "God heard" his prayers! It means that God accepted his prayers. Now Jesus cried for help, and God heard (accepted) his prayers:
"And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him."(Luke 22:43)
Strengthening him in the faith, in the hope that God will save him. This is actually what he was beseeching God to do for him. When and how rests alone in the Hands of God. His ways are not our ways. Count the blessings so far:
(a) An assurance from Heaven.
(b) Pilate finds him, not guilty!(John 18:38)
(c) His wife shown a dream in which she is told that no harm should come to Jesus.
(Matthew 27:19).
(d) Legs not broken!(Psalm 34:20)*
(e) In a hurry to bring him down from the cross.

*The fourth above: "and they break not his legs", we are told was in fulfillment of a prophecy:
"He keepeth all his bones, not one of them is broken."(Psalm 34:20)
If the bones of a victim were to be protected from harm, then they could only be of benefit if the person was ALIVE!


Christians may ask now, then what is the real way of attaining salvation in Christianity?
I would let Jesus(pbuh) himself answer this question for you.
"And behold, one came and said unto him, ‘Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, ‘Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."[The Bible, Mathew 19:16-17]
One of the scribes once asked Jesus (pbuh) as to which was the first commandment of all, to which Jesus (pbuh) merely repeated what Moses (pbuh) had said earlier:
"Shama Israelu Adonai Ila Hayno Adonai Ikhad."
This is a Hebrew quotation, which means:
"Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord."[The Bible, Mark 12:29]

Did Jesus Christ Willingly Go On The Cross?

This is the second in the series of three posts about the Christian concept of salvation through the cross.
The first post was be "Is Salvation Through The Cross Possible?"
The third post would be "Was Jesus Christ really crucified?"
Christian missionaries claim that Jesus Christ willingly went on the cross for the sins of the humanity. Lets analyse what does the Bible say about this.
Jesus Christ with the Cross

The royal entry of  Jesus(pbuh) and the COUP by Jesus(pbuh) and his disciples to establish the "Heavenly Kingdom" proves premature and turns out to be a failure. Click here to know about the coup to establish the heavenly kingdom.
Jesus(pbuh) prepares his disciples for the fight and instructs them to get armed after he comes to know about Judas's treachery.
"When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye anything?" And they said, "Nothing."
Then said he unto them, "But now, he that hath no purse, let him take it, and likewise his bag; and he that hath no SWORD, let him sell his garment and buy one!"(Luke 22:35-36)
The disciples were already armed.
". . . Lord, behold, here are two SWORDS." And he said unto them, "It is enough". (Luke 22:38)
Some Christian missionaries claim that these swords were spiritual swords. Let me make it clear "spiritual swords do NOT cut physical ears as a disciple of Jesus(pbuh) did.
"And, behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his SWORD, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and cut off his ear."(Matthew 26:51)
There is clear change of tactics on the part of Jesus(pbuh). He used to tell his disciples
"turn the other cheek"; "to forgive seventy times seven." Now he asks his disciples to get armed. WHY?
The situation and the circumstance have changed and as with any wise and able general, the
strategy must also change.
Jesus(pbuh) works like a master tactician and leads his troops to Gethsemane. Gethsemane -an olive press - a courtyard built of stone walls some 5 miles out of town. On the way, he unburdens to them the seriousness of the situation. He places eight of the eleven disciples at the entrance to the courtyard, commanding them:
". . . Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder."(Matthew 26:36 )
Why did they all go to Gethsemane? To pray?
Could they not have prayed in the upper-room? Could they not have gone to the Temple of Solomon, a stone's throw from where they were, if prayer is all that they wanted to do? No! They went to the Garden so that they might be in a better position to defend themselves!
Observe, Jesus does not take the eight with him to pray. He positions them strategically at
the entrance to the courtyard; armed to the hilt, as the circumstances would allow:
"And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee. . .Then saith he unto them. . . tarry ye here and watch with me."(Matthew 26:37-38 )
Where is he taking Peter and John and James now? Further into the Garden! To pray? No! To
make an inner line of defence - he had put eight at the Gate, and, now these zealous Zealots
(the fighting Irishmen of their day), armed with SWORDS, to "wait and watch" - TO KEEP
GUARD! The picture is very vivid; Jesus leaves nothing to our imagination. A-n-d HE (alone)

Jesus Christ Prays For Rescue
". . . and began to be sorrowful and very depressed. Then saith he unto them, 'my soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death' . . ."
"And he went a little further, and fell on his face (Exactly as the Muslim does in Salaat), and prayed, saying, 'O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt'." (This is the quality of a good Muslim who submits his will to the will of God).(Matthew 26:37-39)
"And being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat was, as it were, great drops of blood falling down to the ground."(Luke 22:44)
Why was Jesus(pbuh) crying? Was he crying to save his own skin?
He was crying for his people - the Jews. They held a queer logic, that if they succeeded in killing any would-be Messiah (Christ), it would be a sure proof of his imposture. For God Almighty will never allow His truly "anointed one" (Christ) to be killed - (Deuteronomy 18:20).
The missionaries use this event to argue that Jesus(pbuh) was destined to die for the Original Sin and their actual sins as decided in the heavenly contract. That even before the material universe came into being, there was a contract between "Father and son," and that in the year 4000 A.A. (After Adam)
Jesus seems completely unaware of the contract. From the "call to arms" in the upper-room, and the masterful deployment of forces at Gethsemane, and the blood-sweating prayer to the God of Mercy for help, it appears that Jesus knew nothing about the contract for his crucifixion.
If this was God's plan for a vicarious atonement to redeem mankind, then obviously He had chosen a wrong substitute. This candidate was most reluctant to die. Arming! Wailing! Sweating! Crying! Complaining!
Jesus even complains on the cross.
"Eli, Eli, La'ma sabach'thani? . . . Why hast thou foresaken me?"
Strange as it may sound, after every outpouring of prayer, Jesus Christ found his disciples lulled to sleep at their post. Again and again he bewailed: "What could ye not watch with me for one hour?" - (Matthew 26:40). "And again he (Jesus) went away, and prayed, and spoke the same words. And when he returned, he found them sleep again . . ." -(Mark 14:39-40).
The Christian scholars are no less wily in their translations and manipulations of the Bible. They have changed the words "Roman soldiers" to simply "soldiers" and from the word soldiers to now "band of men" and "the guard".
"Judas then, having received a BAND OF MEN1 and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh there with lanterns and torches and weapons."(John 18:3)
"Band of men": here and in verse 12 following, the words in the so-called original manuscripts are speira and chiliarchos respectively. Both Roman military terms, meaning "cohort" and "tribune". "That John is the first Evangelist to mention Roman soldiers among the party which went out to arrest our Lord . . ." See Knox's - "A New Testament Commentary", page 260.
The disciples were caught as the Englishman would say with their "pants down".2 Literally they were caught napping. The enemy trod over them rough-shod. Only one of the soldiers of
Christ had the presence of mind to ask:
". . . Master, shall we smite them with the sword?"(Luke 22:49)
But before Jesus could attempt a reply, the impetuous Peter struck out with his sword and cut off the right ear of one of the enemy. Jesus had not anticipated Roman soldiers.
Realizing that the tables were turned against his misconceived strategy, he advises his disciples:
". . . Put up again thy sword into its place; for all they that TAKE THE SWORD shall PERISH WITH THE SWORD."(Matthew 26:52)
Did Jesus not know the truth of this statement when he ordered his disciples to sell their garments and buy SWORDS? He surely did! Then why the contradiction now? There is really no contradiction! The situation changes, so the strategy must also change. He had sense enough to realise that against trained and well-equipped Roman soldiers it would be suicidal for his sleepy warriors to offer even a pretence of resistance.
Why do not the Christian controversialists give their "Lord and Master" credit for this simple common-sense? Because they have been programmed for a period of two thousand years that Jesus, the "lamb", the "prince of peace", couldn't harm a fly. They overlook the other side of his nature which demanded blood and fire! They forget his instructions to his soldiers regarding those of his enemies who would not like him to rule over them, to bring them forth:
". . . and SLAY1 them before me."(Luke 19:27)
"Think NOT that I am come to send PEACE on earth; I came NOT to send PEACE, but a SWORD."(Matthew 10:34)
"I am come to send FIRE on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? Suppose ye that I am come to give PEACE on earth? I tell you, NAY; but rather DIVISION."(Luke 12:49 & 51)
The march on Jerusalem had fizzled out. The sabre-rattling in the Garden had proved abortive. As there is a reward for success, likewise there is a price for failure. The odds are heavy! Hence the trial, the tribulation, the turmoil and the sweat and blood.
With heavy hands, the Roman soldiers dragged Jesus (pbuh) from Gethsemane to Annas, and
from Annas to Caiphas the High Priest, and on to the Sanhedrin as directed by the Jews, for trial and execution. Jesus(pbuh) was repeatedly put to trail.
The hot-gospellers are getting hoarse in the throat, singing and shouting, that Jesus was led "to the slaughter like a lamb, like a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth" - (Isaiah 53:7). Poor deluded souls, they hymn songs: "Hy het sy monde nie oop gemaak nie! Hy het sy monde nie oop gemaak nie!" (And he opened not his mouth). When you meet these cultists in the flesh, please ask them, "Did Jesus speak with his mouth closed?" How did the following utterances which are attributed to Jesus, escape his lips without him opening his mouth;
a. Before Pontius Pilate: "My kingdom is not of this world" - (John 18:36).
b. Before the Sanhedrin: "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil, but if well, why smitest thou me?" - (John 18:23).
c. Before God in the Garden: "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away . . ."
(Matthew 26:39).
We Muslims believe in the many, many miracles of Jesus, but we would be reluctant to believe that he dabbled in ventriloquism. Again and again, whenever the need arose, during his trials and tribulations, Jesus opened his mouth with telling effect, "according to the Scriptures". But for those who refuse to see or hear, we can only seek solace in the words of the Master:
". . . they seeing, see not; and hearing, they hear not, neither do they understand."(Matthew 13:13)
So Jesus Christ NEVER wanted to go on the cross and that is why he armed his disciples, escorted them to a place they could better defend, prayed to be rescued, defended himself in the tribunals and even complained to God when he was put on the cross.

Is Salvation Through The Cross Possible?

This is the first in the series of three posts about the Christian concept of salvation through the cross.
The second post would be "Did Jesus Christ willingly go on the cross?"
The third post would be "Was Jesus Christ really crucified?"
In this post we will analyze if this concept is anyhow in accordance with Bible, logic and justice.

The Christian Cross

Almost everyone would be familiar with verse of the Bible always quoted by Christian missionaries.
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die"(Ezekiel 18:4 & 20)
These Christian missionaries do NOT to complete the verse, neither quote the very next verse, but they rather jump 500 years to quote John(self proclaimed disciple of Jesus Christ) saying
"All have sinned."(Romans 3:23)
Then they try to prove that since every soul has sinned and that is why Jesus has to be crucified to free every soul from its sins and especially from the original sin.
I can challenge that there would hardly be any Christian, who knows the complete verses (Ezekiel 18:4 & 20). Almost every believing Christian knows the half verse, but does NOT know the full verse.
 Lets see what is so dangerous in these verses that the missionaries avoid them so skilfully.

"The soul that sinneth, it shall die. But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right" (Ezekiel 18:4-5)

So according to verse 5, the very next verse, the soul should be just and do the lawful and right things and the soul will NOT die because the word "BUT" clearly states the vice-versa of "it shall die", which means in verse 5 that after being just and doing the lawful and right the soul shall NOT die then the sinful soul should be just and do the lawful and right to avoid its death rather than crucifying Jesus for his sins.
The Bible also says;

"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)

This verse (when quoted completely) proves that the father is NOT responsible for the sins of the son and son is NOT responsible for the sins of the father. So there is NOTHING like original sin and in the same way Jesus Christ can NOT bear the iniquity of anybody(can NOT pay for their sins).

Is this concept logical?
Would a master kill his loved one or son for the mistakes of his servants?
NO certainly NOT!
It would be illogical and God can NOT be illogical. Since God is all powerful he can simply forgive his servants if He wants without any of this.

Is it just and merciful?
Suppose, it someone raped your mother(GOD FORBID) and the rapist believes that Jesus Christ paid for his sins. So according to this logic God will forgive him and NOT hold him accountable for this rape. Would it be just on the part of God? Certainly NOT and God can NOT be unjust.

The concept of salvation through the cross even goes against the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Because Jesus Christ NEVER told anybody to believe that he paid for their sins NOT even after his SO-CALLED resurrection.

Jesus Christ in fact taught the exact opposite of this
Consider the following incident mentioned in the Bible:
"And behold, one came and said unto him, ‘Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?’ And he said unto him, ‘Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.’ " [The Bible, Mathew 19:16-17]

Jesus Christ also said in the Bible
"Think not that I have come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I have not come to destroy, but to fulfil.For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." [Matthew 5:17-18]

So according to Jesus Christ in order to attain salvation one should keep the commandment and the first and most important commandment that one should at least follow to attain salvation is mentioned by mentioned by both Moses in Deuteronomy 6:4 and Jesus Christ  and in the Gospel of Mark 12:29
"Shama Israelu Adonai Ila Hayno Adonai Ikhad."
This is a Hebrew quotation, which means:
"Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord."

Was Islam Spread By The Sword?

It is a common complaint among some non-Muslims that Islam would not have millions of adherents all over the world, if it had not been spread by the use of force. The following points will make it clear, that far from being spread by the sword, it was the inherent force of truth, reason and logic that was responsible for the rapid spread of Islam.
1. Islam means peace
Islam comes from the root word ‘salaam’, which means peace. It also means submitting one’s will to Allah (swt). Thus Islam is a religion of peace, which is acquired by submitting one’s will to the will of the Supreme Creator, Allah (swt).

2. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace
Each and every human being in this world is not in favour of maintaining peace and harmony. There are many, who would disrupt it for their own vested interests. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace. It is precisely for this reason that we have the police who use force against criminals and anti- social elements to maintain peace in the country. Islam promotes peace. At the same time, Islam exhorts it followers to fight where there is oppression. The fight against oppression may, at times, require the use of force. In Islam
force can only be used to promote peace and justice.

3. Opinion of historian De Lacy O’Leary
The best reply to the misconception that Islam was spread by the sword is given by the noted historian 
De Lacy O’Leary in the book “Islam at the cross road” (Page 8): “History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated.”

4. Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years.
Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. The Muslims in Spain never used the sword to force the people to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims. There was not a single Muslim in Spain who could openly give the adhan, that is the call for prayers.

5. 14 million Arabs are Coptic Christians
Muslims were the lords of Arabia for 1400 years. For a few years the British ruled, and for a few years the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.

6. More than 80% non-Muslims in India
The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. If they wanted, they had the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. All these non- Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the sword.

7. Indonesia and Malaysia
Indonesia is a country that has the maximum number of Muslims in the world. The majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. May one ask, “Which Muslim army went to Indonesia and Malaysia?”

8. East Coast of Africa
Similarly, Islam has spread rapidly on the East Coast of Africa. One may again ask, if Islam was spread by the sword, “Which Muslim army went to the East Coast of Africa?”

9. Thomas Carlyle
The famous historian, Thomas Carlyle, in his book “Heroes and Hero worship”, refers to this misconception about the spread of Islam: “The sword indeed, but where will you get your sword? Every new opinion, at its starting is precisely in a minority of one. In one man’s head alone. There it dwells as yet. One man alone of the whole world believes it, there is one man against all men. That he takes a sword and try to propagate with that, will do little for him. You must get your sword! On the whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can.”

10. No compulsion in religion
With which sword was Islam spread? Even if Muslims had it they could not use it to spread Islam because the Qur’an says in the following verse: “Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error” [Al-Qur’an 2:256]

11. Sword of the Intellect
It is the sword of intellect. The sword that conquers the hearts and minds of people. The Qur’an says in Surah Nahl, chapter 16 verse 125: “Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious.” [Al-Qur’an 16:125]

12. Increase in the world religions from 1934 to 1984
An article in Reader’s Digest ‘Almanac’, year book 1986, gave the statistics of the increase of percentage of the major religions of the world in half a century from 1934 to 1984. This article also appeared in ‘The Plain Truth’ magazine. At the top was Islam, which increased by 235%, and Christianity had increased only by 47%. May one ask, which war took place in this century which converted millions of people to Islam?

13. Islam is the fastest growing religion in America and Europe
Today the fastest growing religion in America is Islam. The fastest growing religion in Europe in Islam. Which sword is forcing people in the West to accept Islam in such large numbers?

14. Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson
Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson rightly says, “People who worry that nuclear weaponry will one day fall in the hands of the Arabs, fail to realize that the Islamic bomb has been dropped already, it fell the day MUHAMMED (pbuh) was born”.

You can also read about JIHAD and Why Most Of The Muslims Are Fundamentalists And Terrorists?

Why Are Most Of The Muslims Fundamentalists And Terrorists?

This question is often hurled at Muslims, either directly or indirectly, during any discussion on religion or world affairs. Muslim stereotypes are perpetuated in every form of the media accompanied by gross misinformation about Islam and Muslims. In fact, such misinformation and false propaganda often leads to discrimination and acts of violence against Muslims. A case in point is the anti-Muslim campaign in the American media following the Oklahoma bomb blast, where the press was quick to declare a ‘Middle Eastern conspiracy’ behind the attack. The culprit was later identified as a soldier from the American Armed Forces.
Fundamentalism & Terrorism
Note:- This is part of our series answering the top 3 misconceptions about Islam, which are:

1 - Jihad

2 - Muslims are Fundamentalists & Terrorists

3 - Islam was spread by the sword

Let us analyze this allegation of ‘fundamentalism’ and ‘terrorism’:
1. Definition of the word ‘fundamentalist’ 
A fundamentalist is a person who follows and adheres to the fundamentals of the doctrine or theory he is following. For a person to be a good doctor, he should know, follow, and practise the fundamentals of medicine. In other words, he should be a fundamentalist in the field of medicine. For a person to be a good mathematician, he should know, follow and practise the fundamentals of mathematics. He should be a fundamentalist in the field of mathematics. For a person to be a good scientist, he should know, follow and practise the fundamentals of science. He should be a fundamentalist in the field of science.

2. Not all ‘fundamentalists’ are the same
One cannot paint all fundamentalists with the same brush. One cannot categorize all fundamentalists as either good or bad. Such a categorization of any fundamentalist will depend upon the field or activity in which he is a fundamentalist. A fundamentalist robber or thief causes harm to society and is therefore undesirable. A fundamentalist doctor, on the other hand, benefits society and earns much respect.

3. I am proud to be a Muslim funda-mentalist
I am a fundamentalist Muslim who, by the grace of Allah, knows, follows and strives to practise the fundamentals of Islam. A true Muslim does not shy away from being a fundamentalist. I am proud to be a fundamentalist Muslim because, I know that the fundamentals of Islam are beneficial to humanity and the whole world. There is not a single fundamental of Islam that causes harm or is against the interests of the human race as a whole. Many people harbour misconceptions about Islam and consider several teachings of Islam to be unfair or improper. This is due to insufficient and incorrect knowledge of Islam. If one critically analyzes the teachings of Islam with an open mind, one cannot escape the fact that Islam is full of benefits both at the individual and collective levels. The most misunderstood Islamic fundamental is Jihad, which I have answered in the post JIHAD.

4. Dictionary meaning of the word ‘fundamentalist’ 
According to Webster’s dictionary ‘fundamentalism’ was a movement in American Protestanism that arose in the earlier part of the 20th century. It was a reaction to modernism, and stressed the infallibility of the Bible, not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record. It stressed on belief in the Bible as the literal word of God. Thus fundamentalism was a word initially used for a group of Christians who believed that the Bible was the verbatim word of God without any errors and mistakes.

According to the Oxford dictionary ‘fundamentalism’ means ‘strict maintenance of ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion, especially Islam’. Today the moment a person uses the word fundamentalist he thinks of a Mus- lim who is a terrorist.

5. Every Muslim should be a terrorist 
Every Muslim should be a terrorist. A terrorist is a person who causes terror. The moment a robber sees a policeman he is terrified. A policeman is a terrorist for the robber. Similarly every Muslim should be a terrorist for the antisocial elements of society, such as thieves, dacoits and rapists. Whenever such an anti-social element sees a Muslim, he should be terrified. It is true that the word ‘terrorist’ is generally used for a person who causes terror among the common people. But a true Muslim should only be a terrorist to selective people i.e. anti- social elements, and not to the common innocent people. In fact a Muslim should be a source of peace for innocent people.

6. Different labels given to the same individual for the same action, i.e. ‘terrorist’ and ‘patriot’ 
Before India achieved independence from British rule, some freedom fighters of India who did not subscribe to non-violence were labeled as terrorists by the British government. The same individuals have been lauded by Indians for the same activities and hailed as ‘patriots’. Thus two different labels have been given to the same people for the same set of actions. One is calling him a terrorist while the other is calling him a patriot. Those who believed that Britain had a right to rule over India called these people terrorists, while those who were of the view that Britain had no right to rule India called them patriots and freedom fighters.

It is therefore important that before a person is judged, he is given a fair hearing. Both sides of the argument should be heard, the situation should be analyzed, and the reason and the intention of the person should be taken into account, and then the person can be judged accordingly.

7. Islam means peace
Islam is derived from the word ‘salaam’ which means peace. It is a religion of peace whose fundamentals teach its followers to maintain and promote peace throughout the world. Thus every Muslim should be a fundamentalist i.e. he should follow the fundamentals of the Religion of Peace: Islam. He should be a terrorist only towards the antisocial elements in order to promote peace and justice in the society.


Many Christians believe in Trinity that 'God is three in one.' Lets analyse if the logic they use to prove 'Trinity' is really logical and if 'Trinity' has any Biblical base or NOT.
Is Trinity logical?
First Argument:
A person can also be a father, a brother and a businessman at the same time, but yet, he is one and the same person. Then why 
cannot God be "one in three" i.e. God the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost?

The same person can be a father, a brother and a businessman at the same time.
a.   But suppose the sister of that man tells him a secret, it is but natural that the father and the businessman also will know about it. Contrary to this, Jesus (pbuh) has said in the Bible, in the Gospel of Mark, chapter 13 verse 32
"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."
Here the knowledge of the hour is only known to the Father and not to the Son, indicating that God and Jesus (pbuh) Christ are not one and the same person.

b.   A human being can be a father, a brother, and a businessman at the same time, but if the brother dies, even the father and the businessman will die. Thus, when the Christians say that Jesus (pbuh) died on the cross they will have to agree that God and the Holy Spirit also died.

Second Argument:
The concept of "Trinity" can be explained by giving the example that water can be present in three states, i.e. as solid e.g. 
ice, as liquid e.g. water and gas e.g. vapour, yet it is one and the same water.

I agree that water can be present in three states, that is solid, liquid and gas, as ice, water and vapour but in all three states the matter is the same i.e. H2O and contains two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen. The material and components are the same although the form of the matter differs. Water remains H2O in the solid form i.e. ice. It remains H2O in the form of gas i.e. vapour. However, in case of Trinity, besides the form changing even the components and material themselves change. The Father is God and Jesus (pbuh) is man, and the Holy Ghost is a spirit and all three are not made up of the same matter or component.
Man contains flesh and bones, whereas God and spirit do not contain flesh and bones. Man requires to eat, etc., whereas God does not require to eat. No wonder Jesus (pbuh) says in the last supper, in the upper room mentioned in the Gospel of Luke, chapter 24 verses 39 to 43
"Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet.
And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
And they gave him a piece of broiled fish, and of an honeycomb."
And he took it, and did eat before them.

The word ‘Trinity’ is not mentioned in the Bible, but in the Qur’an
The word "Trinity" does not exist anywhere in the whole Bible, but it is mentioned in the Glorious Qur’an in the following places:
a. In Surah Nisa chapter 4 verse 171
"Say not ‘Trinity’: desist: It will be better for you for Allah is one God." [Al-Qur’an 4:171]
b.   A similar message is repeated in Surah Maidah chapter 5 verse 73
"They do blaspheme who say Allah is one of three In a Trinity: for there is No god except One God. If they desist not From their word (of blasphemy), Verily a grievous penalty Will befall the blasphemers Among them." [Al-Qur’an 16:125]

The closest verse regarding "Trinity" in the Bible, has now been thrown out of the Bible
The verse in the Bible which is closest to "Trinity" and is often quoted by Christian missionaries is the
first Epistle of John, chapter 5 verse no 7
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one."
In the Revised Standard Version of the Bible (R.S.V.) revised by 32 Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by 50 different co-operating denominations, this verse which is the keystone of the Christian faith has been removed as an interpolation, as a fabrication and as a concoction. It has not been expunged from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible by the Muslims or by non-Christian scholars, but by 32 Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by 50 different cooperating denominations as an interpolation, as a concoction and as a fabrication because this verse does not exist in the original manuscript.

Jesus (pbuh) never claimed Divinity
There is NOT a single statement in the complete Bible where Jesus Christ himself says,"I am God" or "Worship me." Some Biblical are misquoted to give the impression that Jesus Christ claimed divinity. Such verses have been refuted in the post Did Jesus Christ Claim Divinity? Concept of God is discussed in detail in the post Concept Of God In Christianity.
Jesus (pbuh) never spoke about Trinity i.e. three in one. On the contrary he says in:
a.  The Gospel of Mark ,chapter 12, verse 29 "Shama Israelu Adonai Ila Hayno Adonia Ikhad" It is a Hebrew  quotation which means: "Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord."

b. The Gospel of John, chapter 14 verse 28 "My father is greater than I."

c.  The Gospel of John, chapter 10 verse 29 "My Father... is greater than all."

d. The Gospel of Mathew, chapter 12, verse 28 "… I cast out devils by the Spirit of God…."

e. The Gospel of Luke, chapter 11 verse 20 "…I with the finger of God cast out devils…."

f.  The Gospel of John, chapter 5 verse 30 "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgement is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me."

The Catechism of the Church
a. According to the Catechism of the Christian Church, "The Father is a person, the Son is a person, and the Holy Ghost is a person; but they are not three persons but one person."
Person, person, person but not 3 persons but 1 person! What language is this?
1 + 1 + 1 = 3 and not 1. 1 x 3 = 3 and not 1.
What makes a person different than the other person? It is his personality.

b. If we have three identical triplets and one of them commits murder, should we hang the other two? The answer is ‘No’, because he is a different person having a different personality.

c. When the Christians speak about the Father in Heaven they have a certain mental picture in mind, of an elderly man some what like Santa Claus sitting on one of the planets with the earth as his foot stool. When they speak about the son, they have a certain mental picture in their mind. A tall handsome man, who has a beard and long hair; somewhat like Jeffery Hunter who did the role of Jesus (pbuh) in the film ‘King of Kings’. When they speak about the Holy Ghost they have a certain mental picture in mind like that of a dove that came upon Jesus (pbuh) when he was baptised or like a spirit at the feast of Pentecost. If we ask the Christians "How many mental pictures do you have when you speak about Trinity?" they say "We have only one picture". They lie when they say this, for 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 and not 1.

Refuting The Allegation Of Paedophilia

by: Br. Donald Morgan

The marriage of Prophet Mohammed(pbuh) is often put to criticism and some even put forward the allegation of pedophilia. In this post I will briefly throw some light on the reason behind the marriage and answer the questions 'Couldn't the marriage be delayed?' and 'Would I do the same?' Finally we would examine the allegation of paedophilia.

Reasons Behind The Marriage
The most prominent reasons were of characteristics of intelligence and smartness that Aisha(ra) started showing even in her early years. Prophet Mohammed(pbuh) married Aisha(ra) because she would be more able to transmit reports of what he did and said. Since most of the wives of Prophet Mohammed(pbuh) aged from 40 to 65 or even above, Aisha(ra) was likely to live longer to be a source of knowledge for the Muslims. In fact Aisha(ra) was a reference for the companions of the prophet in regard with their affairs and rulings. Aisha(ra) was a scholars as she taught 70+ scholars including Abu Huraira, who has narrated the highest number of hadithes more than two thousand.

Couldn't The Marriage Be Delayed?
It is to be noted that the marriage was only consummated 3 years after it took place. The number of years Aisha(ra) spent with the prophet are already limited and any further delay would have had further reduced them. A delay would have meant the loss of a great portion of the wealth of knowledge transmitted by Aisha(ra).

Would I do the same?
First, I would NEVER be able to get a girl of the stature of Aisha(ra). It is IMpossible.
Second, even if for the sake of argument lets suppose that I do manage to get such a girl, but I am NOwhere near the stature of Prophet Mohammed(pbuh).

What I will attempt to do is offer an argument against Muhammad being a paedophile. This argument will be concrete and definitive in nature. By the end of this argument, there should be no loose ends or room for alternative narratives or interpretations. So please, take the time to read this essay carefully.

Before I dive right into the subject, I feel that it is important to stress that when examining the life of Muhammad, from a historical standpoint, it becomes important to create and maintain a sense of separation. We must separate the historical aspects of Muhammad’s life from his religious life. In order to come to a consensus about the historical Muhammad being a paedophile or not, we must examine the circumstances, environment and mentality of the people living during the time of Muhammad. Whether or not his message, Islam promotes paedophilia is another discussion in itself that deals with Muhammad, the religious figure.

“The Fallacy Of Presentism”
In order to fully understand and utilize this argument, you must first know what Presentism is. Most people are unfamiliar with this term, and trying to find this word in online dictionaries is useless, as all of the online dictionary sources I have checked do not have a proper definition for this word in its context.
What is presentism, and how does it discredit the claims of pedophilia against the prophet Muhammad? In order to understand presentism, we must consult with historians and what they have to say about the subject.
The American Historical Association defines presentism as being:
“the tendency to interpret the past in presentist terms”

In other words, presentism is using modern day critiques of past events. These critiques may include social changes and “norms”, political or religious views, modern interpretations, etc. Professor SF Murphy, who is a published author and an expert in military history wrote an article titled “Pondering the Fallacy of Presentism in History Classes and in American Science Fiction”. In this article he states the following about presentism:

“And herein lies the core problem, the fallacy of presentism. Presentism is when a student of history takes their present day values system and makes a historical interpretation through that filter or bias.”

In his article, SF Murphy talks about the decision made by the USA to use atomic bombs against the Japanese. He focuses in on a pivotal figure in the decision of the US to use atomic bombs; Perry, when discussing the relevant issues. Murphy points out, that most of his students are quick to use modern day standards when judging America’s decision to use atomic bombs. He says:
“What is probably most likely is that the students in question feel that if Perry and Biddle had a respect for Japanese culture in a 21st Century American sense, then perhaps the war could have been avoided. And herein lies the core problem, the fallacy of presentism. Presentism is when a student of history takes their present day values system and makes a historical interpretation through that filter or bias.”
Murphy then goes on to illustrate the fallacies associated with making such connections. He says:
“If only Commodore Perry had been through a sensitivity session. If only he had our 21st Century values. Well, you can and probably should make a moral judgment on those grounds, but does it get at the historical truth of the matter? Do we gain a clear perspective of what Perry was thinking in the 1850s?”
Finally, Murphy delves deeper into the issue by stating:
“Or perhaps I should put it this way. To expect Commodore Perry to behave as a 21st Century US Naval Officer would is no different than expecting Socrates to hold forth on the Petrine Theory of Papal Supremacy. It’d be pretty difficult for Socrates, Plato or Aristotle to do any such thing as the Catholic Church didn’t exist yet. Or perhaps just as unlikely would be to expect Marcus Tullius Cicero to write extensive essays on the Enlightenment or Marxism.
Out of what time warp is Perry supposed to get these values? He isn’t a product of 21st Century America, he is a product of early 19th Century America. He simply wouldn’t see the problem of contact with Japan in the same manner as we do.”
At this point in time I would like to go back to the American Historical Association and their view of presentism. They do not hesitate in illustrating the fallacies of presentism. They make this perfectly clear when they state:
“Presentism, at its worst, encourages a kind of moral complacency and self-congratulation. Interpreting the past in terms of present concerns usually leads us to find ourselves morally superior; the Greeks had slavery, even David Hume was a racist, and European women endorsed imperial ventures. Our forbears constantly fail to measure up to our present-day standards. This is not to say that any of these findings are irrelevant or that we should endorse an entirely relativist point of view. It is to say that we must question the stance of temporal superiority that is implicit in the Western (and now probably worldwide) historical discipline.”
At this point in time you may be asking what relevance this has with Muhammad and his wife Aiesha. In order to answer this very important question, we have to look at the word pedophile. We have to examine its origins, as well as its inception.

Once we expose these truths, you will see how the argument of Muhammad being a pedophile is baseless, without merit, and analytically incorrect, not only from a logical standpoint, but from a historical one as well.

The origin of the word pedophile derives itself from Greek word “paidofhilos”, meaning “loving children”. The actual word “pedophile” and its negative connotations were not introduced into modern society until the 1950’s.

Prior to the 1950’s the word pedophile, with its understanding and scientific insight, was non-existent. The generations who lived prior to the invention and advent of the word did not see any problem with the concept of an older man taking a wife,whom by today’s standard would be considered a minor. It is no coincidence that we see laws restricting this type of relationship in the Western world cropping up at about the same time paedophilia was being introduced into western society.

In his article titled “The History of Marriage as an Institution”, Larry Peterson, Ph.D states the following about marital relationships in America, before the 1950’s:
“Throughout most of the 19th century, the minimum age of consent for sexual intercourse in most American states was 10 years.In Delaware it was only 7 years. As late as 1930, twelve states allowed boys as young as 14 and girls as young as 12 to marry (with parental consent).”

If we examine the character of Muhammad, we can easily see the fallacy connected with branding him a pedophile. Muhammad lived during the 7th century, in Arabia. He lived well over a thousand years before the inception of the term paedophile. This fact alone renders any such labels attributed to Muhammad as analytically incorrect and without merit. No Historian would make such a claim against Muhammad because he/she is fully aware of the fallacy of presentism. To the contrary, Muhammad lived in a place and a time where his marriage to Aisha was socially acceptable. These types of marriages (older man to much younger woman) were freely being practiced in Arabia, Europe, Asia and the rest of the known world. In order for the claim of paedophilia to be historically and thus correctly attached to Muhammad, the critics of Islam must offer evidence showing that society, during the 7th century, viewed marriages between older men and much younger woman as being something negative,disgusting or socially unacceptable. If they are unable to do so, and believe me they will not find any such information, as it does not exist, then the critics of Islam should cease in labelling Muhammad a pedophile. To borrow from Murphy, who I quoted earlier (I made some word substitutions to drive home the point):

“Out of what time warp is Muhammad supposed to get these values? He isn’t a product of 21st Century America, he is a product of 7th Century Arabia. He simply wouldn’t see the problem of marriage to Aiesha in the same manner as we do.”
“If only Muhammad had been through a sensitivity session. If only he had our 21st Century values.”
If we take into account, the findings made by Larry Peterson, Ph.D, whom I quoted earlier, the American people or the “so called” civilized western society of the 1930’s, 40’s and 50’s would have seen no problem with a 7th century man named Muhammad marrying a much younger woman named Aisha. If the American people who lived prior to the 1950’s read the Hadiths that state Aisha was between 9 to 12 years of age when she got married; surely they would not seen any problem with the marriage, since their laws, at the time, stated a woman could be married as early as 7 years of age. Surely, they would not have referred to Muhammad as being sick or mentally ill, as this type of marriage was deemed Godly and normal to them as
well. To make such assertions would be contradictory or hypocritical, on their part, because their fellow countrymen had also done the same, with the permission and consent of the American Government.
If we examine history with a little more detail, as it pertains to marriage and customs, we see similarities between the marriage customs of 7th century Arabia, and 19th century America, with regards to older men having “child” brides.
The Byzantine Emperors of the 12th century would often take brides as young as 8 years of age. In their article titled “Agnes-Anna of France,wife of Alexius II and Andronicus I of the Comneni Dynasty”, Lynda Garland and Andrew Stone state the following historical facts:
“Child brides, whether Byzantines or foreign princesses, were the norm rather than the exception, especially from the late twelfth century.”
“certainly it was unusual under normal circumstances for Byzantine girls to marry before the age of twelve.”
They go on to mention examples of such marriages in the Byzantium Empire:
1. They state that Agnes was 8 years old when she was to be married.
2. Alexius I Comnenus was 12 years old when she was married.
3. Margaret- Maria married Isaac Angelus when she was 9 years old.


Even Jewish or Israelite customs dictated that a man could take for himself a young bride. The Baker Ency. of the Bible says about Jewish marriage customs in volume 2, page 1407, under "Marriage":
"Subsequently, minimum ages (for marriage) of 13 for boys and 12 for girls were set."
Jewish Oral tradition also states that Rivka was 3 years old when Yitzchock (A man in his 40’s) married her.

Most historians agree that the life expectancy for men and women during ancient times was much lower than we have today. Some attribute this to our advancements in medicine and technology, while others point out the fact that infant mortality rates back in ancient times were much higher than what we have today. Other considerations like living conditions and demographics are also taken into consideration when speaking about life expectancy. This fact sheds light upon the reasoning behind women being married at such young ages in the ancient world. Shorter life expectancy meant that it was of the utmost importance for a man and woman to be wed as soon as possible, to ensure the survival of the race and the continuation of the family lineage.

The longer a woman waited to be married, the less likely it would be for her to conceive a child. If we look at the ancient Romans, as an example, we can see that the average life expectancy would have been between 25 – 35 years of age. SEE HERE...

Another aspect to paedophilia that I find relevant to this discussion is the basic character traits one would expect to see in a paedophile. Pedophiles come in all sizes, shapes, races, genders, economic backgrounds etc, so it becomes quite difficult to pin this title on any single type of person. Over the years, however, psychiatrists and those associated with the study of human behaviour have developed a “profile” or descriptive analysis of a paedophile. This “profile” is based on countless surveys and/or case studies into paedophilia.
In their article titled “Psychopathology and Personality Traits of Pedophiles”; Lisa J. Cohen, PhD and Igor Galynker, MD, PhD state the following facts about paedophiles:
“Classified in DSM-IV and DSM-IV-TR as a paraphilia, pedophilia is characterized by persistent sexual attraction to prepubescent children
The Encyclopaedia of Mental Disorders says:

“ Paedophilia is a paraphilia that involves an abnormal interest in children. A paraphilia is a disorder that is characterized by recurrent intense sexual urges and sexually arousing fantasies.”

If you noticed, in the definition of what it is to be a pedophile, both reputable sources I have quoted state that a paedophile typically has a persistent and recurrent intense sexual attraction or urges to prepubescent children. This factor becomes important because when studying case files of paedophilia, doctors and even law enforcement have come to the conclusion that a paedophile is a repeat offender, who will continue to satisfy their sexual urges towards children, until stopped.

The National Alert Registry sheds light on this topic. They state that:
“Most paedophiles are multiple offenders and are involved with a number of kids.”

Upon examination of Muhammad and his relationships with his wives, one can easily see that he does not fit the “profile”, as outlined above. In total, Muhammad had eleven wives.
They were:
1. Khadijah: Married Muhammad when she was 40 years old
2. Saudah: Married Muhammad when she was 50 years old
3. Aiesha: Disputes over her age. Let’s assume she was between 9-12
4. Hafsah: Married Muhammad when she was 21 years old
5. Zainab: Married Muhammad when she was 50 years old
6. Ume Salma: Married Muhammad when she was 29 years old
7. Zainab: Married Muhammad when she was 38 years old
8. Javeria: Married Muhammad when she was 20 years old
9. Ramla Ume-Habibah: Married Muhammad when she was 36 years old
10. Safia: Married Muhammad when she was 17 years old
11. Maimoona: Married Muhammad when she was 27 years old
Aisha is the only wife of Muhammad who was very young at the time of her marriage. This becomes an important fact in itself because if one was going to make the argument for paedophilia, one would expect to see a list of wives whom, for the majority, were very young when they married Muhammad. The fact that Muhammad had only one such wife proves that he did not suffer from the persistent and recurrent intense sexual attraction or urges to prepubescent children, that is commonly associated with paedophilia. It also proves that Muhammad was not a “repeat offender”, as such a person would have had more than one young
Common sense would dictate that if Muhammad were indeed a pedophile, he would have had a long line of young girls as brides at his disposal. This is not a far fetched idea because what we must remember is that Muhammad was a ruler. He had the total devotion of his followers and influence in Arabia (In Madina when he made the Hijra and later when he peacefully conquered Makkah and Arabia). The Muslims at that time never doubted Muhammad and his decisions because of their love and respect for him. They truly believed he was a prophet from God and the bearer of God’s final revelation to mankind. If Muhammad was an evil or vile paedophile, as described by the anti-Islamic movement, he would have taken advantage of his position and power.

He would have had a literal “Buffet” line of young girls to quench his recurrent, intense sexual attraction or urges towards prepubescent children. This would have been easy, especially after conquering Makkah because Muhammad had final say in all affairs, both religious and political.
In closing, I would like to state that those who freely, and without proper analysis of history, label Muhammad as being a paedophile are indeed in error. The system they use to prove their case is analytically flawed and incorrect because it applies 21st century understandings to 7th century customs and traditions. If all reputable historians agree that this type of cutting and pasting of past events with present understanding is flawed, shouldn't those who ignorantly label Muhammad a paedophile concur with historical analysis, as presented by historians?
To close, I would like to quote the American Historical Association.
“ Presentism admits of no ready solution; it turns out to be very difficult to exit from modernity or our modern Western historical consciousness. But it is possible to remind ourselves of the virtues of maintaining a fruitful tension between present concerns and respect for the past. Both are essential ingredients in good history. The emergence of new concerns in the present invariably reveals aspects of historical experience that have been occluded or forgotten. Respect for the past, with its concomitant humility, curiosity, and even wonder (as Caroline Bynum reminded us in a memorable presidential address), enables us to see beyond our present-day concerns backward and forward at the same time. We are all caught up in the ripples of time, and we have no idea of where they are headed.”