guys.......i just read what those brutal and horrible ISIS terrorists wrote in their newest 15th issue of magazine called DABIQ . they have wrote several articles about christianiy. i think we all should read them.
Dabiq Issue 15 (Shawwal) “Break the Cross”
Break the Cross
O People of the Scripture, let us reach an agreement, that we will only worship Allah, making no partners for Him, and that none of us will adopt lords besides Him. If you turn away, then you must bear witness that we have submitted to our Lord (Al ‘Imran 64).
Indeed, the Gracious Lord has never left man without guidance. Whenever mankind strayed from His worship, He sent them a messenger bringing both warning and glad tidings. Those who worshiped other than the Creator were warned of punishment, torment, and eternal damnation, and those who persevered upon the worship of the True King were promised forgiveness, salvation, and everlasting bliss. But how astray mankind often chooses to be.
The call of Noah, simply reminding those in his time to worship the Lord of Adam, their shared ancestor who had not long passed away, was answered by a mere handful, as the rest were punished with the Flood. Then Abraham, calling his father and clan to the denial of idols and to the worship of the Creator, was rejected and thus set out to pursue the service of his Lord in another land. After Joseph, a son of Israel, brought the grandsons of Isaac into Egypt, wherein they were enslaved by Pharaoh, the Lord sent Moses to rescue them, so that they might devote themselves completely to His worship, unto a land where they would rule by His Law and under His watch. And even after multiple miracles were provided to them, from the plagues sent against the people of Pharaoh to the splitting of the sea and the descent of manna from the heavens, some of those with Moses believed, as others took – at the very same time – created things to worship instead of worshiping the Creator alone. Then, to speak on the corruption of the Jews and to herald his return as the promised Messiah, who will face the Antichrist in the end times, Jesus Son of Mary came to the tribes of Israel, but was met with fierce opposition. It is just as the Lord said, explaining this phenomenon of the majority’s rejection of the truth, “And most of mankind refuse [to follow anything] but disbelief” (Al-Isra 89).
As is well known, these messengers did not come empty-handed. Each of them brought with him a message, often in the form of a scripture, something for the educated to read and comprehend, yet with the simple command of monotheistic worship of the Creator that even the illiterate could follow. So Moses was given the Torah, by which the Tribes of Israel were governed for many generations. But they strayed from its original message, even with their very own scribes changing its text, as the Tanakh testifies, “How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law (Torah) of the Lord is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie” (Jeremiah 8:8). So then Jesus brought the Gospel, confirming what came before him of the Torah and permitting – by the permission of his Lord – some of what was forbidden therein. It was reported that he said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17). However, just as the Torah was not fully preserved, even altered, the Gospel was also corrupted. Its original would be lost, with the oldest related manuscripts written only as commentary to the original. So instead of having an altered “Gospel of Jesus,” one finds the Gospel according to Matthew, then Mark, then Luke, then John, each with a unique take on various aspects of Jesus’ teachings, sometimes outright contradicting one another. To say the least, the authentic scripture was lost and the people strayed.
As per the divine way of the Lord, another messenger was sent to bring the lost flocks back to the path of righteousness. He would be the awaited Prophet foretold by Moses and the coming Advocate prophesied by Jesus. Moreover, he would bring a message holding the promise of divine protection and heralding its bearer as the Seal of the Prophets, the final messenger, sent not to the Tribes of Israel alone – but to all of mankind. For the same Lord who sent Moses and Jesus also sent Muhammad, about whom He said, “Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but [he is] the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets” (Al-Ahzab 40), and about whose message He said, “Verily We revealed the Reminder and verily We shall preserve it” (Al-Hijr 9).
Seeking the Truth
Falsehood should be rejected because it is false, just as the truth should be accepted and followed because it is true. It is not a matter of tradition, for the Lord has ordered that all nations be called to His worship. The pagan who feigns the excuse that religion is no more than family tradition should not be left to his deviance without receiving proper admonition. No one should.
Likewise, no nation – no matter how originally pure – is free of corruptive infiltrations. Even the nation of Muhammad, as the years passed following his death, fell victim to various deviations in creed – some even reaching apostasy – at the hands of those who rejected a correct understanding of faith, of Allah’s oneness, and of the divine law in general. This was as the Prophet foretold, “You shall follow the way of those before you, span by span, cubit by cubit. Even if they entered a lizard’s hole, you would enter it also.” His companions asked, “Do you mean the Christians and the Jews?” He said, “Who else?” (Al-Bukhari and Muslim).
And while the deviations of the Christians and Jews are already undoubtedly clear, as the Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet have detailed such to us, one need not look far into their own history, biblical texts, and Church writings to see the corruptions. In fact, the Bible declares of itself, “behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie” (Jeremiah 8:8). Likewise, the self-declared apostle, Paul of Tarsus, was a known criminal who persecuted the believers and even admitted to being a liar, yet he was taken as the foremost authority for Trinitarian Christians, who outlived, through every violent means, their Unitarian predecessors.
So how could one determine that a scripture is true and authentic? There are at least three major conditions that any intelligent person could deduce for the basis of authenticating a text that is claimed to be divine in origin. First, that the message is pure, untainted by pagan creed, as stark monotheism is the only acceptable form of belief for a people who reflect over the knowable universe. Second, that the message is free of any contradictions, as such is not befitting of the Wise and All-Knowing Lord. This does not mean that it is void of what might seemingly be “contradictory,” but through analysis, study and discovery, one can conclude that two ostensibly conflicting materials refer to different situations or contexts. Rather, there should be no irreconcilable contradiction. The third condition is simple chain-based authenticity. That is, it should be proven that it was passed down generation to generation by reliable transmitters, thus showing it is indeed the message given by the messenger, not by someone else.
Breaking the Cross
When the Messiah, Jesus Son of Mary, returns in the end days to battle the Antichrist – the false Messiah – and his army, of the myths he will debunk once and for all are those of his crucifixion and divinity. This will be when he breaks the cross, as was foretold by the Prophet Muhammad, who said, “By the One in whose Hand is my soul, very soon shall the Son of Mary descend in your midst, being an equitable judge. He shall break the cross, kill the swine, and put aside the jizyah. Wealth shall flow until no one accepts it, and until a single prostration will be more beloved than the world and all that it contains” (Al-Bukhari and Muslim).
In service to the Lord, the Creator and True King, what follows is part of the mission to break the cross, to crush the false notions of Christianity to which millions of people ignorantly adhere. Based on the above-mentioned conditions of judging a scripture’s authenticity, it shall be shown that the true religion of Jesus Christ is a pure monotheistic submission – called Islam – and that when he returns in the final days, the Messiah will adhere to the Law of Muhammad and wage jihad for the cause of Allah.
Furthermore, while quotes from the Bible are mentioned herein, they cannot be accepted as being revelation preserved in its original wording. However, as the Quran has confirmed, Moses did undoubtedly receive the Torah, David the Psalms, and Jesus the Gospel. Orders to worship the Lord alone and to follow the Prophet Muhammad remained therein as a proof against the People of the Scripture. Likewise, whatever calls to paganism, belittlement of the prophets, and absolute contradiction is definitely false. As for what has not been verified or negated by the Quran and the Sunnah, then due to the overall doubts surrounding which parts of the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel were preserved and which parts were corrupted, one cannot affirm it nor deny it. The Prophet Muhammad has said, “Do not affirm [the narrations of] the People of the Scripture and do not belie them” (Al-Bukhari).
The Name of “God”
The English word “God” has various theoretical origins. Regardless, it was not remotely a word spoken by the Semitic family of prophets, whose father is Abraham, with descendants including Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. As for the language family spoken by such prophets, they used the root letters ALH for the Supreme Being. In Hebrew, the name of the Almighty is “Elohim,” with -im being a suffix of respect. The Syriac dialect of Aramaic calls the Lord “Elaha.” Even earlier Semitic languages, like Chaldean, spoken in the time of Abraham, would have referred to the Creator as “Il,” without the H, which is also an Arabic word related to divinity. Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, after listening to some of Musaylimah the Liar’s claimed revelation, said, “This is not from Il,” i.e. this is not divinely inspired. Strong mentioned in his Hebrew dictionary, entry 410, that “el or ale” is used in reference to anything related to “God (god),” as in names ending with -el, like Israel, Gabriel, Michael, and so on.
While “god” has become an English word that simply means “something worshiped,” it is incorrect to use “God” as the proper name for the Creator, as He has referred to Himself in a number of Semitic texts with the ALH root. As such, one should adhere to referring to the Lord by His actual name, with which He was comparatively referred to by any of the Semitic prophets – like Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. And that name in Arabic – the only preserved Semitic language – is “Allah,” which comes from the word “ilah,” meaning “the one who deserves to be worshiped.”
Textual Authenticity
One of the most important aspects of any text claiming religious truth is its authenticity. It must be known whether or not the scripture is truly that of whom it is attributed. In that vein, most of the Bible in general is written by unknown authors. Likewise, history and the very text of the Bible itself casts much doubt on the overall authenticity of this scripture.
Jews had a history of state establishment and a foothold in the land. Though eventually defeated, they had ample time to circulate the Torah, which would have been preserved if it were not for the deceptive scribes who were charged with its keeping. Jeremiah 8:8 reads, “How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law (Torah) of the Lord is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.’” On this verse, the biblical “scholar” Adam Clarke commented, “It is too bold an assertion to say that ‘the Jews have never falsified the sacred oracles;’ they have done it again and again. They have written falsities when they knew they were such” (Commentary on the Bible). This was verified by Allah in His saying, “Of the Jews are those who alter the words, changing their meanings” (An-Nisa 46), and in His saying, “And indeed of them is a group who twist their tongues with the Scripture, that you would consider it from the Scripture, but it is not from the Scripture. And they say it is from Allah, but it is not from Allah. And they knowingly speak lies against Allah” (Al ‘Imran 78).
As for the earliest Christians, including the apostles of Jesus, others in that time, and their students, then they had no public venue. They maintained no authority. Their lives were wrought with persecution and, thus, obscurity. It is no wonder that there is not a single surviving original manuscript of the Christian scriptures, or even an authentic oral transmission thereof. Regarding authorship of the gospels, then even those of them who are claimed to have been disciples of Jesus have no evidence to back them up. The Gospel of Matthew makes no mention of its author, as even the title “of Matthew” was added later. The Gospel of Mark was purportedly written by Mark the Evangelist, a supposed disciple who rejected Christ but later allegedly repented, though even this authorship is doubted, and its earliest manuscript is from the 4th century. The Gospel of Luke is said to have been written by a Greek who was not a disciple of Jesus, but rather of Paul, who was also not a disciple of Jesus. And even that authorship is doubted. As for the Gospel of John, it was authored by multiple revisers, none of whom were John the Evangelist.
Furthermore, language is essential to any scripture, as text is best understood through the language in which it was written – and divine inspiration is only fully understood through the language in which it was revealed. Aramaic was spoken by some in Jesus’ time. And Hebrew was the historic language of the Israelites. However, the earliest copies of the Christian texts (and not even the originals, which no longer exist) were written in Koine Greek, the official language of eastern Roman rule.
So there should be no doubt that the text of the modern Bible is not the actual words and exact teachings of the original prophets like Moses and Jesus. To further demonstrate this, one only needs to look at the numerous contradictions and false statements found throughout the text itself.
From Its Very First Pages
All praise belongs to Allah who makes the truth easily apparent to those who seek it. The biblical scribes were moved by their ignorance and arrogance to write things that a knowledgeable person’s intellect simply cannot accept, especially one who claims to believe in the Wise and All-Knowing Lord. These contradictions are apparent on the very first pages of the forged Torah.
In Genesis, the first book of the Old Testament, one finds, “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, ‘You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die’” (2:16-17). Thus the Jewish scribes quote the Creator as asserting that if Adam eats from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, he shall surely die that very day. Thereafter, it mentions the story of Satan – the serpent – tempting Adam’s wife. “Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, ‘Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?’ And the woman said to the serpent, ‘We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’’ But the serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil’” (Genesis 3:1-5).
So here the scribes have “God” announcing to Adam that he will die if he eats from this tree, and here is Satan calling “God” a liar, saying that instead of dying, whoever eats of the tree will actually become “like God!” Certainly, Satan is the liar, but the lying scribes of the Jews have sided with Satan and agreed with him in the following passages, in that after Adam and his wife ate from the tree, they did not die, but it is instead found, “Then the Lord God said, ‘Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever’” (Genesis 3:22). The mention of the tree of eternal life shows that Adam was already a mortal according to the Bible, thus denying anyone’s interpretation that eating from the tree of knowledge made him a mortal, thus only symbolically “dying” that very day.
There are also theological contradictions that begin with sound principles, like, “And also the Glory of Israel [‘God’] will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret” (1 Samuel 15:29). Yet in the very same chapter, one finds that, “The word of the Lord came to Samuel, ‘I regret that I have made Saul king’” (1 Samuel 15:10-11). Similar alleged statements of deficiency are ascribed to the Lord throughout the Bible; far exalted is He above such deviant claims. For example, in their altered Torah, one finds, “And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart” (Genesis 6:6), as well as, “And the Lord relented from the disaster that he had spoken of bringing on his people” (Exodus 32:14), and the Hebrew for “relented” here is the same that was used for “regret” in 1 Samuel. This obvious “change of heart” is a lie against the Lord, as His knowledge and wisdom are beyond Him decreeing something that He would ever regret.
This contradictory and illogical pattern continues throughout most of the Old and New Testaments – as will be mentioned further. Several instances will cause a dedicated student to be confounded to provide a solid answer to seemingly simple historical questions, especially when one considers that the history is supposedly divinely inspired. The Bible is also riddled with numerical inconsistencies and confusion not acceptable to a text of a perfect origin, nor to one in which it is said, “For God is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33, KJV).
Pagan Trinity Versus Monotheist Unity
The concept of the Trinity, that “God” consists of three persons, who are all “gods” themselves, specifically “God” the Father, “God” the Son, and “God” the Holy Spirit, is the pillar of pagan Christian theology. But it was not always so. Actually, one finds a historic disconnect between the beliefs, on this issue, of the Eastern Church of the Levant and Byzantium and those of the Western Church of Rome, the latter supporting the pagan concept of human divinity and the former making a clear separation between god and man.
For example, Theodotus of Byzantium (late 2nd century CE) was a Christian writer of the second century who believed that Jesus was a non-divine man, who was born of the Virgin Mary and who became the anointed-one, i.e. the Christ, at his baptism. There was also Paul of Samosata (200-275 CE), who was the Bishop of Antioch – not a low position – and who believed and preached that Jesus was neither a god nor part of some polytheistic concept called “Trinity.” However, due to complaints from the Trinitarian clergy of Italy, their fellow pagan Roman emperor Aurelian helped remove Paul from his position. Even some “Church-recognized saints” rejected the Trinity, including Lucian of Antioch, who either died or was killed in 312 CE.
The debate between Trinitarians and Unitarians reached the heights of popularity during the fourth century of the Christian calendar with the contenders Arius (250-336 CE) and Athanasius (296-373 CE). Arius, who adopted the creed of Lucian of Antioch, held that Jesus – while blessed with both prophecy and a virgin birth – was a human subordinate to the Almighty Creator. Athanasius, on the other hand, was a staunch supporter of the pagan idea that Jesus – the “Son of God” – was of the same essence as that of his “Father,” making both equal and forming, along with the “Holy Spirit,” a triune godhead.
An attempt to settle this dispute was presented at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, where the infamous Nicene Creed was concocted after the Trinitarians simply outnumbered the Unitarians. This resulted in a number of bishops from various parts of the Roman Empire being excommunicated for siding with Arius and not accepting the Trinity. This did not last long, as thereafter one finds some archbishops of Constantinople, like Eusebius and Eudoxius, holding “Arian” creeds and who managed to have the pagan Athanasius removed from his position. Indeed, the list of other bishops who supported the “Arian” creed of theological unity is extensive, and it is merely a scholastic deception and political scheme to suggest that the majority of Christians have always held Trinitarian beliefs. Rather, it is clear that the concept of the Trinity went through centuries of modification to meet the political demands of Roman society, to appease pagan emperors and a polytheist elite. This is ever apparent to those who study this history and to those who know that the 25th of December – chosen by Trinitarians as Jesus’ birthday – was the day pagan Romans celebrated the birth of Sol Invictus, their “sun-god.”
The battle between Trinitarian and Unitarian forms of Christianity, while certainly religious in nature, was ultimately only decided for the “Church” by political force. Notably, the Roman emperors of the fourth century played a key role in this battle. The pagan Roman Emperor Constantine, supporting his Trinitarian allies, had all of Arius’ writings burned. However, on his deathbed, Constantine accepted Arius’ understanding of Christianity and was baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was the strongest proponent of Arius at the time. Eusebius was also in charge of sending Arian teachers to teach religion to the first Gothic Christians, who in turn rejected the Trinity for subsequent generations. Constantine’s sons Constantine II and Constans were politically-motivated supporters of the Trinitarians, while their brother Constantius II was dedicated to the Arian cause. The latter was succeeded by Julian, an apostate from pagan Christianity to Roman idolatry, who cared little for both sides of the dispute. Then came Jovian, who supported the Trinity, and after him was Valens – an Arian in creed. But his death brought the end of imperial support for Unitarianism and subsequent Roman emperors made Trinitarian Christianity the state religion.
These disputes spawned various sects over the centuries. Of those who rejected the Trinity, there came Aëtius of Antioch and a number of bishops, including Theodulus, Eunomius, Paemenius and Euphronius, as well as the historian Philostorgius. Following them in the fifth century was Nestorius (386-450 CE), the Archbishop of Constantinople, the highest clerical rank in the early Eastern Church. He rejected calling Mary the “bearer of God,” thus refusing the “godhood” of Jesus himself. After facing persecution by the Trinitarians, his followers were forced to recant or flee. Many fled to Arabia, where the awaited Prophet mentioned in Deuteronomy was expected to appear.
Despite the historical debate that revolved around the Trinity, simple logic proves the polytheistic nature of this concept. Since the Trinitarians claim that “the Father is God,” that “the Son is God,” that “the Holy Spirit is God,” and that each is a distinct person, then there are undoubtedly three “gods” in this doctrine. The very definition of polytheism is “the belief in multiple gods;” so, by definition, Trinitarian Christianity is a religion of polytheism. Their rebuttal, that the Trinity is a mystery, is nothing but a copout for someone with no argument for his foolishness. They would have done better to recognize the complete absence of a trinity in pre-Christian Judaism, as well as to consider related theological verses in the Old Testament, as in, “For I the Lord do not change” (Malachi 3:6).
As for the textual evidence supplied by their clergy, it is both scant and downright inadmissible. The concept of the Trinity is easily the most important aspect of modern Christian theology, as it is the main idea surrounding every Christian’s object of worship. Yet, though it is of such extreme significance, there is no direct text in the entire Bible indicating this creed. That is, there is no verse directly stating that “God is three: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” This posed a major problem for later Trinitarian clergy, whose only solution was to insert such alterations to an existing verse, deceiving countless adherents into believing that the Trinity is supported by the Scripture. In the first of John’s epistles, one might find, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” (1 John 5:7, KJV).
This verse contains what is called the Comma Johanneum, the clause that follows the words “for there are three that bear record.” Regardless of its origin, which is disputed, there is textual agreement that this mention of “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost” is spurious, being neither found in any of the oldest manuscripts nor used by any early Trinitarians against Arius and his fellow Unitarians – though if authentic, it would have certainly been taken as a supporting evidence. As such, more recent versions of the New Testament omit this modification. However, it is still found in the “official” Latin and subsequent Western European translations, which have been used by most Christians for the past hundreds of years.
Others tried to justify the Trinity linguistically, pointing to the Hebrew word for the Almighty, “Elohim,” which is grammatically “plural.” But if plurality was the context in which they sought to understand the word “Elohim,” they would have to concede that there are multiple gods and not just one, which most dare not say lest they be exposed. As for the shameless of them, those who would concede this, they must then consider themselves essential polytheists. Rather, the -im plural suffix is used here and elsewhere as a majestic “plural,” which is a reference to a single entity while exalting its mention through plurality. This is no different than the very common usage, throughout the very monotheistic Quran, of the majestic plural for Allah, who said, “And We did not send any messenger before you but We would inspire unto him that, ‘there is no god except Me, so worship Me’” (Qaf 43).
The Fatherless Jesus
Along with the Trinity, an important discussion in Christian history was that of the nature of Jesus. Likely due to a population of priests coming from religious backgrounds of worshiping the Olympian “gods” and their “children,” whom they viewed as “demi-gods,” the question about Jesus – whom they called the “Son of God” – was significant to them. Rather than accepting him as a human being like other mortal prophets before him, they sought to elevate his status, as divine, to appease their pagan inclinations.
The Aramaic word for son is “bar.” The same word could also mean “heir,” “beloved” or “pure,” as in Psalms 73:1, which includes “li-bari lebab,” “for those pure of heart.” If Jesus actually did recognize himself as the “bar” of Allah, as the Christians claim, then he would have meant that he inherited the message of Allah, or that he was Allah’s beloved, or that he was a pure worshiper of Allah. With these other options for understanding this word, why would the “Church” insist that the meaning of bar is simply “son?” It could have been that poor translations from Hebrew and Aramaic to Greek and Latin were to blame, as most of the “Church Fathers” were native Greek and Latin speakers. But it is most likely that the pagan influence of pre-Christian Rome was the biggest factor for such a deviation.
Regardless, another obvious corruption is the claim that Jesus was not only “the Son of God,” but even “the only begotten” at that, while David is claimed to have said, “The Lord said to me, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you’” (Psalms 2:7). In Exodus, Moses is supposedly told by the Lord, “Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, Israel is my firstborn son’” (Exodus 4:22). There are several other instances in the Bible that mention supposed “sons of God,” that they include the angels, as in Genesis 6:2 and Job 1:6, or all those who make peace, as in Matthew 5:9, or all who are led by “the Spirit of God,” as in Romans 8:14, or all who believe, as in John 1:12 and Galatians 3:26. The apologetic argument that there is a difference between being “begotten,” i.e. born, and being a symbolic child is dismissed by the very wording of John the Evangelist, who said, “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God” (I John 5:1).
If it is said that since he had no earthly father, being born of a virgin, he must therefore have a heavenly father – and this is indeed an argument some Christians use – then such is a logical fallacy that simply does not follow. Rather, a person who has no earthly father is merely a person who has no earthly father. There is no logical derivation that requires him to therefore have a non-earthly, or heavenly, father.
Instead, one only needs to look at the example of Adam, the father of mankind, who himself had neither mother nor father – whether earthly or heavenly. And even though he lived in the paradisal Eden, had angels bow to him, and had Allah speak to him, teaching him the names of all things, and became the father of all prophets and messengers, as well as of Mary, the mother of Jesus, they neither exalt Adam as “God’s son” nor even as “Jesus’ father,” while they quote Jesus as naming himself “Son of Man,” a clear reference to his greatest ancestor, Adam. Indeed, Allah said, “Verily the example of Jesus according to Allah is like that of Adam. He formed him of earth and then said, ‘Be,’ so he became” (Al ‘Imran 59), that is neither Adam nor Jesus were made through procreation, but by the mere command of Allah for them to exist.
The full reality of Jesus is mentioned in the Quran, in a verse directed to Christians and Jews, as Allah said, “O People of the Scripture, do not transgress in your religion and do not speak about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus Son of Mary, is but the Messenger of Allah and His Word He cast into Mary, and a spirit of His. So believe in Allah and His Messengers, and do not say He is three. Cease! Such is better for you. Allah is only one god, glorified is He above having a son. To Him belongs what is in the heavens and what is in the earth. And sufficient is Allah in whom to puts one’s trust” (An-Nisa 171).
Was Jesus Really Crucified?
As for those modern apologists who claim that the crucifixion of Jesus is a historical fact that none can deny, then this is something upon which the very text of the Bible casts doubt. The Synoptic Gospels, those of Matthew, Mark and Luke, share the same basic storyline and information of the alleged crucifixion, each with only minor deviations from the others. The Gospel of John, however, stands distinct from the others in a very telling way. Regarding the crucifixion, John states that Jesus unequivocally carried his own cross to the place he would be crucified. “And he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called the place of a skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha” (John 19:17).
The others, however, belie this statement. In Matthew, “As they went out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name. They compelled this man to carry his cross” (27:32). In Mark, “And they compelled a passerby, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry his cross” (15:21). And in Luke, “And as they led him away, they seized one Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, and laid on him the cross, to carry it behind Jesus” (23:26).
Matthew continues, “And when they came to a place called Golgotha (which means Place of a Skull), they offered him wine to drink, mixed with gall, but when he tasted it, he would not drink it. And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots. Then they sat down and kept watch over him there. And over his head they put the charge against him, which read, ‘This is Jesus, the King of the Jews’” (Matthew 27:33-37). So after mentioning the transfer of the cross to Simon, and no mention of it returning to Jesus, there is a string of pronouns that apparently refer to Simon – not Jesus, i.e. “offered him wine,” “he tasted it,” “he would not drink it,” “they had crucified him,” “divided his garments,” “kept watch over him,” and “over his head.” A stark similarity is found in Mark’s account.
It is of the utmost importance to understand the historical implication of this situation. That is, Simon was from the Roman province of Cyrenaica, present day Barqah Wilayah of the Islamic State. Like other Roman citizens, his status as a freeman saved him from undue arrest and ill treatment by the Roman military and government. There is no reason, at least not given or rationally clear, why he would have been forced to carry the cross on Jesus’ behalf. If Jesus was utterly worn out due to torture and the harshness of his treatment, as some allege, then there would have been a countless number of slaves, an already convicted criminal, or one of Jesus’ own disciples whom the guards could have employed for this task. But here, one sees that it was Simon of Cyrene, a Roman citizen with no known criminal record and no attachment to Jesus’ call, but who instead “was coming in from the country,” who carried the cross in Jesus’ stead.
Basilides, an early Christian preacher who died around 140 CE, was convinced – likely due to studying the Gospel of Matthew with his teachers, who reportedly had an authentic copy thereof – that Jesus was not crucified, but that it was Simon of Cyrene who died upon the cross. Irenaeus quotes Basilides’ belief, saying, “Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error” (Against Heresies I 24:4).
This belief, that Simon was crucified instead of Jesus, survived among Christians for centuries and appears in the third century Second Treatise of the Great Seth, written from the first person perspective of Jesus, stating, “For my death, which they think happened, (happened) to them in their error and blindness, since they nailed their man unto their death… It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. It was another upon whom they placed the crown of thorns… And I was laughing at their ignorance.”
If it is said that Simon was a Jew, so he could have been forfeited such “Roman-only” rights, then this is ridiculous for two reasons. Firstly, the Jews themselves made the claim against Jesus and sought his death and the Romans agreed to their demands. Secondly, the Romans had laws by which they lived, and any Roman citizen, even if he was a Jew, had rights that no Roman authority would violate – at least not in public. It is written in Acts, regarding the interrogation of Paul by the Roman tribune and centurion, “But when they had stretched him out for the whips, Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, ‘Is it lawful for you to flog a man who is a Roman citizen and uncondemned?’ When the centurion heard this, he went to the tribune and said to him, ‘What are you about to do? For this man is a Roman citizen.’ So the tribune came and said to him, ‘Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?’ And he said, ‘Yes.’ The tribune answered, ‘I bought this citizenship for a large sum.’ Paul said, ‘But I am a citizen by birth.’ So those who were about to examine him withdrew from him immediately, and the tribune also was afraid, for he realized that Paul was a Roman citizen and that he had bound him” (22:25-29).
Indeed, the tribune – a Roman official – was afraid after realizing that he had bound, i.e. compelled and subdued, a Roman citizen. What then of compelling Simon of Cyrene, a Roman citizen coming in from the country, even if a Jew, to bear the cross on behalf of a supposed convicted criminal? Regardless, he was not a Jew. Other than naming his sons Alexander and Rufus, both traditionally Roman names, his name was recorded in all three gospels as “Simon,” an Ancient Greek word meaning “flat-nosed,” and not “Simeon,” which is the Greek spelling of the Hebrew name “Shim’on” – as some linguistically ignorant apologists claim to be his original name. Furthermore, Cyrene in that time was colonized by a majority Greek population.
So even per the biblical account of the crucifixion according to the Synoptic Gospels, it can be deduced that Jesus was not crucified. Rather, the truth is that it was only made to appear as such. And while it is unknown exactly who was on the cross, as there is no authentic scripture giving his name or background, it certainly was not Jesus. On this point, Allah said of the Jews, “And their saying that, ‘We killed Christ, Jesus Son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah,’ but they did not kill him, and they did not crucify him, but it was made to appear to them as such. And those who disagreed regarding that are in doubt of it. They have no knowledge thereof, but they only follow conjecture. And they did not kill him with certainty” (An-Nisa 157).
Paul the Imposter
While Christians claim to be followers of Christ, one finds their doctrines are overwhelmingly supported by Pauline writings. In fact, Paul – known in Hebrew as Saul – authored most of the New Testament epistles. He claimed to have been taught the Gospel by Jesus himself, even though he never met him. He said, “For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:11-12). Not surprising, his doctrine quite often contradicted the words of Jesus as recorded in the four Canonical Gospels. Paul was initially an enemy to Nazarenes, the original Christians. He explained his hatred for Jesus, saying, “I myself was convinced that I ought to do many things in opposing the name of Jesus of Nazareth. And I did so in Jerusalem. I not only locked up many of the saints in prison after receiving authority from the chief priests, but when they were put to death I cast my vote against them. And I punished them often in all the synagogues and tried to make them blaspheme, and in raging fury against them I persecuted them even to foreign cities” (Acts 26:9-11).
It is possible that he changed his personal mission after his alleged conversion. However, it is more likely that he intentionally sought to deviate the monotheistic Nazarenes in order to tarnish Jesus’ name – even if it meant Paul’s own persecution – as is the way of the treacherous Jews, who are famous for corrupting the Scripture. This is evidenced by that after his supposed conversion, he remained a liar and even adamantly opposed the divine Law of Moses while upholding obedience to the laws of man. Alleging adherence to the teachings of Christ, he taught things that directly opposed what Jesus brought. Such should be expected of Paul, who spoke harshly against the Law of Moses, saying things like, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law” (Galatians 3:13). Instead, he claimed, “But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law” (Galatians 5:18). This is like the extreme Sufis who claim that when a person reaches a high spiritual status, the Shari’ah no longer applies to him – a concept roundly rejected by all Muslims.
Paul also wrote, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. […] because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:4-9). This complete disregard for Mosaic Law is incompatible with the words ascribed to Jesus, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:17-20). By Matthew’s “testimony” of Jesus’ words, Paul shall be called least – rather, he will not even enter heaven as his righteousness (obedience to the Law) did not exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees. Instead, it is as the Prophet Muhammad said, “Verily Allah does not look at your images and your wealth, but he looks at your hearts and your deeds” (Muslim).
As for being a liar, Paul testified against himself, saying, “For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law, though not being myself under the law, that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some” (1 Corinthians 9:19-22). So instead of being firm upon the truth of a single message, he would pretend to be a Nazarene, a Jew, a Gentile, and anything else for the sake of duping people into accepting him. His explanation is no more than a diplomatic justification for a major sin.
But beyond these things, one must ask: Why is Paul, someone who never even met Jesus, considered the foremost authority on Christianity in a time when Jesus’ actual disciples lived? Many Christians point to a story, told by Paul himself, in which Christ appears to Paul and appoints him as his representative on earth. In front of Herod Agrippa II in Caesarea, Palestine, Paul told the story of his conversion on the road to Damascus. He said, “In this connection I journeyed to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. At midday, O king, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, that shone around me and those who journeyed with me. And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ And I said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles – to whom I am sending you to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me’” (Acts 26:12-18). This encounter was only witnessed by Paul, a known antagonist and proven liar, as those who were with him could not comprehend what was being told, as he himself claimed, “Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me” (Acts 22:9), or in the contradicting report, “The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one”(Acts 9:7)
Regarding supposedly divine visions that actually cause corruption, Ibn Taymiyyah said, “Many people have seen such apparitions, assuming them to be of Allah – exalted is He – but they are really of Satan. This kind of story occurred to more than one person, some of whom Allah protected by allowing them to recognize it was Satan. An example is that of Shaykh ‘Abdul-Qadir [al-Jilani] in his famous narrative, in which he said, ‘I was once in worship, when I saw a great throne – upon it light. It said to me, ‘O ‘Abdul-Qadir! I am your Lord, and I have permitted to you what I forbade to others.’ So I said, ‘Are you Allah, the One who there is no god but Him?! Be gone with you, O enemy of Allah!’ That light diffused and became darkness. It then said to me, ‘You escaped from me by your comprehension of religion, by your knowledge, and by the your spiritual awareness. Indeed, I have already seduced seventy men in this way.’’ When he was asked how he knew it was Satan, he said, ‘By his saying to me, ‘I have permitted to you what I forbade to others,’ for I knew that the Shari’ah of Muhammad will not be abrogated or replaced. And because he said, ‘I am your Lord,’ and he was unable to say, ‘I am Allah, the One who there is no god but Me’’” (Qa’idat Jalilah fit-Tawassul wal-Wasilah).
If Paul did in fact see something then it was not Jesus whom he saw on the road to Damascus, but Satan, he who inspired unto Paul to permit what was forbidden, abandon the Law, and worship Christ instead of Allah. It is remarkably written in their own texts that Jesus said, “For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray” (Matthew 24:5).
Moving Forward
After showing the above – and knowing that there are many other considerations of weakness in Christianity – one should follow through, reflecting on the Lord’s tradition of sending messengers to guide people back to His worship. As the revelation Jesus came with was altered and lost, it was only a matter of time that the Creator of mankind would send another messenger. And knowing that the Bible was corrupted does not disqualify it from retaining some of its original message. Indeed, apart from the contradictory and clearly human alterations, one finds numerous verses of monotheism and divine law in the Old Testament and references of truth scattered throughout the New Testament.
The Bible never precluded the existence of prophets after Jesus. As such, a Christian must consider claims of prophecy thereafter, but should follow some basic, sound criteria for determining the truth of anyone’s claim to prophethood. Otherwise, one would be left to either accept every claim, no matter how ludicrious or blasphemous it may be, or reject every claim, thus abandoning the belief in prophets without due evidence. Following such criteria will show that, after Jesus, there has been only one true prophet – Muhammad – whom the Quran declares to be the final messenger of the Lord, thus sealing the way for any liar to come after him and call himself a prophet.
The first and perhaps greatest condition for accepting the claim that a prophet has come is the soundness of his creed. If he came with something that would twist worship away from the Creator and towards the created, then this would be a telltale sign of false prophecy and satanic intervention. Muhammad came with nothing less than pure monotheism. Despite its importance, the Trinity is not mentioned in any direct way – and only through corrupt interpretations – throughout the entire body of the Scripture. This is in stark contrast to the Quran, which explicitly states that there is no god except Allah dozens of times, and in perhaps countless other inexplicit ways, repeatedly mentioning His oneness, that there is nothing like Him whatsoever, that He has no children and no partners, and that all worship must be for Him alone.
Another condition would be that this prophet should be a role-model for those whom he calls. A known murderer, fornicator, thief, liar, or otherwise immoral person would not fit this description. On this, Allah said of His Prophet, “Surely there is a good role-model for you in Allah’s Messenger” (Al-Ahzab 21). Even before becoming a prophet, Muhammad was known to his people as “al-Amin,” the trustworthy, and no one – even his fiercest enemies – would argue against his high moral character.
As a mercy from the Lord and as a challenge to those who hesitated to believe, the prophets worked miracles by the Almighty’s permission. Just as Moses parted the sea by Allah’s leave, and as Jesus healed the blind and raised the dead through the will of the Almighty, so too did Muhammad bring that which struck the doubters of his people with awe. The greatest of these miracles was the Quran itself. The Arabs had always been known for their poetry and focus on their language, each tribe reveling in its own dialect. Competitions were common, as one poet would challenge another, usually from different tribes or clans, to impromptu poetic battles. Pageants were held in the great markets of Arabia to determine whose command of the language was best. But Muhammad was not a poet and the Quran is not poetry. Yet when these Arabs, even those who disbelieved in the Quran, heard its recital, they attested to its non-human origin – the believers affirming it as divine and the disbelievers alleging it inspired by jinn or through magic. However, due to its lack of error and completely monotheistic message, the latter among the Arabs eventually succumbed to the truth, that the Quran is Allah’s word, which cannot be imitated or successfully challenged. Other miracles performed through Muhammad included the splitting and merging of the Moon, feeding hundreds with a small amount of barley, once even feeding 900 soldiers with only a few dates, quenching an entire army’s thirst with water that poured from his fingers, and more than dozens of other miracles that were reported by large groups of people. He also told of what was yet to come, all of which unfolded as he said it would, as well as giving the news of the Negus’ death on the very day he died in Abyssinia, hundreds of miles away from the Prophet.
The Prophet of Deuteronomy
Previous revelation telling of a coming prophet is indeed a grace from the Lord. In reference to Muhammad, Allah said, “Those who follow the Messenger, the illiterate Prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel” (Al-A’raf 157). This would be a truly bold claim for someone to make in sixth century Arabia, a region hosting Jewish tribes and Christians who would frequent the ever popular markets. But indeed, it is mentioned in what they have of the Torah that the Lord said, “I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him” (Deuteronomy 18:18).
This verse describes a prophet like Moses from among the brothers of the Tribe of Israel, namely the Tribe of Ishmael, whom is unanimously agreed to be the ancestor of the ‘Adnani Arabs, to whom the Tribe of Quraysh, the Clan of Hashim, and thus Muhammad, belong. He would recite, from his own mouth, the Lord’s words, as the Quran is known to be (not merely meanings “inspired” to mortal authors, as the Bible is claimed to be); and he will say whatever his Lord commands him to “Say!” Yes, as in the more than 200 places in the Quran where Allah commands Muhammad to “say.” For example, “Say, ‘Which thing is greatest in testimony?’ Say, ‘Allah, a witness between me and you. And this Quran was inspired unto me, that with it I might warn you and whomever it reaches. Do you really testify that there are other gods with Allah?’ Say, ‘I do not testify.’ Say, ‘There is only one god and I am innocent of what you associate with Him in worship’” (Al-An’am 19).
And as the sign in Deuteronomy is that “he shall speak to them,” it is only fitting to note that a number of the verses containing the command to “say” are directed to the People of the Scripture themselves, as in the verse, “Say, ‘O People of the Scripture, come to a word, common between us and you, that we will not worship except Allah, making nothing a partner to Him, and that we do not take each other as lords beside Allah.’ Then, if they turn away, then say, ‘Testify that we have submitted’” (Al ‘Imran 64). And, “Say, ‘O People of the Scripture, you are upon nothing until you uphold the Torah, the Gospel, and what your Lord revealed to you’” (Al-Maidah 68). And, “Say, ‘O People of the Scripture, do not exaggerate beyond the truth in your religion, do not follow whims of a people who were misguided afore, and they already misguided many, straying off the path’” (Al-Maidah 77). Likewise, “And they said, ‘Never shall any enter the Garden, except those who were Jews or Christians.’ Say, ‘Bring forth your proof if you are truthful’” (Al-Baqarah 111). “And they said, ‘Be Jews or Christians to be guided.’ Say, ‘Rather, the religion of Abraham, inclining to the truth, and he was not of the pagans’” (Al-Baqarah 135).
This Torah-based prophecy was awaited by the Jews, even into Jesus’ time and beyond, as is clear in the New Testament, regarding John the Baptist being questioned about his status, “They asked him, ‘Then why are you baptizing, if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?’” (John 1:25). This shows that the interpretation that “the Prophet” of Deuteronomy is Christ or John the Baptist, as held by various Christian sects, is not supported by their own texts. Rather, there is no other person in history better fitting such a description of this coming prophet than Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, who has become known by both friend and foe as “the Prophet.”
Likewise, Jewish tribes – notably the Cohen families of Quraydhah and Nadir, as well as the Manasseh tribe of Qaynuqa – moved to the north of Paran (i.e. Hijaz) awaiting the Prophet, seeking the one who fits the description by the signs mentioned to them in their Torah and other scriptures. A famous pre-Islamic account, told by the Jews of Yathrib, tells of how two rabbis saved the town from complete destruction at the hands of a Yemeni king by explaining that the awaited Prophet shall come from Mecca and settle in Yathrib – which is exactly what Muhammad did. Zayd Ibn Sa’nah, a Jewish scribe of Yathrib in the time of Muhammad, saw all the signs and embraced Islam and fought alongside the Prophet in many battles, eventually being killed for the cause of Allah in the Battle of Tabuk. Another Israelite scholar, ‘Abdullah Ibn Salam, also accepted Muhammad as the Prophet and followed him as one of his close companions. Of the Christians, it is well known that most of the Tayy tribe of Arabia became Muslims after ‘Adi Ibn Hatim – son of the famously generous Hatim at-Tayy – and Zayd al-Khayl met the Prophet and accepted Islam.
Also in the current Torah, one finds, “And God came from Sinai; he dawned upon them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran” (Deuteronomy 33:2). While the verbs “came,” “dawned,” and “shone” are in the past tense, there is consensus among biblical scholars that other than the mention of Sinai, this verse prophesies future events. The “coming” from Sinai is no doubt a reference to the Lord speaking to Moses atop Mount Horeb in Sinai. As for the “dawning” from Seir, then it must refer to the beginning of Jesus’ mission, which was at Nazareth, a town not far from Seir, which was both a mountain and a village, located between Tiberias and Acre (Mu’jam al-Buldan). Regarding the “shining” from Mount Paran, then the mountain region of Hijaz – where Mecca is located – was known by the Hebrews as Paran, and the message of Muhammad is indeed a shining light. Allah said, “O People of the Scripture! Surely Our Messenger has come to you, clarifying to you much of what you used to conceal and pardoning much. Surely a light from Allah has come to you, as well as a clear book” (Al-Maidah 15). Furthermore, there is no doubt that Mecca was the dwelling place of Ishmael and his mother Hagar, whom the Lord guided to the well of Zamzam, which is found in the sanctuary of Mecca. This story is mentioned clearly in Genesis 21, where in reference to Ishmael, it says, “He lived in the wilderness of Paran” (Genesis 21:21). The previously-mentioned verse in Deuteronomy 33 ends with, “and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them” (33:2, KJV). The historian Ibn Ishaq wrote about the day Mecca was conquered by the Prophet that “all of those who took part in the conquest of Mecca – of the Muslims – were ten thousands” (Sirah Ibn Hisham), and indeed the law brought by the Prophet Muhammad was fiery for those who disobeyed. Smith and Van Dyck, in their Arabic translation of the Bible, had “and from his right hand, there was the fire of a Shari’ah of theirs.”
Of note, a chapter of the Quran begins, “By the fig and olive, by the mount of Sinin, and by this secure land” (At-Tin 1-3). Muslim scholars have linked the reference of the fig and olive to the Levant, which is a fertile home to these trees, and particularly Palestine, where Jesus was born, raised, and taught. They link the mount of Sinin, another name of Sinai, to Mount Horeb, where Moses received inspiration from his Lord. And as for “this secure land,” then there is no doubt it refers to Mecca and its surroundings – that is, Paran.
The Paraclete
Telling his disciples of one who will come after him, Jesus is recorded as saying, “Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Paraclete will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged” (John 16:7-11).
The Greek word for Paraclete, as recorded in the surviving manuscripts, is “Parakliton.” With its meaning being “one who helps another, who is being judged, by interceding for him,” i.e. an intercessor or advocate. Reading the “i” as an “e,” that is “Parakleton,” would result in the meaning of the word being “the praised one,” (as para- is a suffix of being, and kleton means “praise”). This is the direct translation of the name Muhammad, synonymous to the name Ahmad, which means “one defined by praise.” It is as Jesus actually said, “O Children of Israel, I am Allah’s Messenger to you, verifying what I have of the Torah and heralding another messenger who will come after me. His name is Ahmad (i.e. one defined by praise)” (As-Saff 6). The Prophet himself said, “I am Muhammad and Ahmad” (Al-Bukhari and Muslim).
Though it is certain that the original was altered, whether through error or Satanic tampering, reading the word to mean “intercessor” is still more accurate to indicate Muhammad than any other proposed person. The Prophet Muhammad said, “Each prophet prays a plea that is answered, and I made my plea to intercede for my nation on the Day of Resurrection” (Al-Bukhari and Muslim). He explained this intercession, telling that, on the Day of Judgment, people will flock to Adam, then Noah, then Abraham, then Moses, and then Jesus, seeking them to intercede with Allah on their behalves. Each of them will deny the responsibility and recommend they go to the one after him. The last of them, Jesus, responds to their request for intercession, saying, “My Lord’s wrath has never been as intense as today, nor shall it be again. My soul! My soul! My soul! Go to someone else. Go to Muhammad!” At this, they will go to him and say, “O Muhammad, you are the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets, and Allah has forgiven your previous sins and those you were yet to commit. Intercede for us with your Lord! Do you not see our condition? He will then go to the Throne and fall in prostration to his Lord. Allah will then teach him something of His praise untaught to anyone before him. It will then be said, “O Muhammad! Raise your head. Ask and you shall be given. Intercede and your intercession shall be granted.” He will then raise his head and say, “My nation, O my Lord! My nation, O my Lord! My nation, O my Lord!” It will then be said, “O Muhammad! Enter whomever of your nation has nothing for which to account into the rightmost gate of Jannah” (Al-Bukhari and Muslim). The Prophet will continue, saying, “O my Lord! My nation, my nation!” So Allah will say, “Go forth and take out of the Fire whomever in whose heart has a barley stone’s weight of faith.” He will do so and repeat his plea until he intercedes for his entire nation, those of them who possessed the slightest faith (Al-Bukhari and Muslim).
The statement, “And when he comes, he will convict the world,” is a clear indication of a global mission, not one designated to his people alone. Allah said, “Say, ‘O mankind! Verily I am Allah’s Messenger to all of you’” (Al-A’raf 158). This is different from the specific mission of Moses and Jesus, both of whom were sent only to the Children of Israel. Those Christians who think Jesus was sent also to the Gentiles (i.e. non-Jews) should read that, “He [Jesus] answered, ‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel’” (Matthew 15:24). Even his disciples were supposedly given strict orders about to whom they should preach the gospel, “These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, ‘Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel’” (Matthew 10:5-6).
“Concerning sin, because they do not believe in me,” meaning his conviction will be against a world of people who do not believe correctly about Jesus, as even the Christians go to extremes, through their sinful worship of him. “And as Allah said, ‘O Jesus Son of Mary! Did you tell the people, ‘Take me and my mother as gods beside Allah?’ He said, ‘Glorified are You! It is not for me to say that which I do not deserve. If I said it, You would have known it. You know what is in myself, but I do not know what is in Yourself. Verily You are the Knower of the Unseen’” (Al-Maidah 116).
Likewise, the correct belief about Jesus was mentioned by Allah, who said, “The Messiah, Jesus Son of Mary, is but the Messenger of Allah and His Word He cast into Mary, and a spirit of His. So believe in Allah and His Messengers, and do not say He is three. Cease! Such is better for you. Allah is only one god; glorified is He above having a son” (An-Nisa 171).
“Concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer;” so he will reteach those who strayed, during centuries of having no preserved divine message, the meaning of righteousness. This is found in the Quran, as Allah says, “It is not righteousness to turn your faces to the east and west, but righteous is whoever believes in Allah, the Last Day, the angels, the Scripture, and the Prophets, and gives the wealth he loves t