From: jodar@chaph.usc.edu (Nicholas Jodar)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: Re: Questions about Quran
Date: 26 Dec 1992 21:52:32 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu
Summary: LOTS OF ANSWERS...
Keywords: All Kinds of Questions
Originator: gwydion@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu


Assalaamu Alaikum,...


Auzu Billahi Min Ash-Shaitan Nirajeem.  Bismillah...


In article <1992Dec13.212339.14140@zip.eecs.umich.edu> khushro@niagara.eecs.umich.edu (Khushro Shahookar) writes:

K> I have some questions regarding the Quran based on Dr. H. Siddiqui's
K> article, and other articles. I was unable to reach Dr. Siddiqui by email, so
K> I would appreciate it if Dr. Siddiqui or some other kind soul answered them.


Greetings, Khushro....

I am somewhat puzzled by some of the questions you raise,
seeing as how they have been answered before, (both here on the
net, and through email).  But I'm quite willing to answer them
again.  There may be others who haven't had a chance to hear this
stuff, yet.

I will assume that all questioning is done in good faith, and
will endevour to answer in a like manner.  If, however, anyone 
chooses to ignore the facts presented herein, that's between
them and Allah (SWT).  Those with knowledge can only present it.
Whether or not others choose to believe it is up to them.  As 
always, I will do my best to clearly delineate that which is
fact from that which is my opinion, and will leave such 
questions as I cannot answer to those who know more.  

I AM NOT A SCHOLAR.  My knowledge is miniscule.  I therefore
encourage (nay, *BEG*) the audience to verify everything I say by
looking it up for themselves.  That's how _I_ learned....

That said, let's get started, inshallah....


-H. Siddiqui [previously said]:
S> Muslims don't believe in original sin, so they don't agree that someone
S> has to die for it. The whole idea of original sin is illogical and bet-
S> rays common sense. Why should someone be punished for the sin of other?
S> Moreover, in our understanding while Adam and his wife, Hawa (Eve) did
S> break the commandment of Allah as a result of their *forgetfulness*,
S> they later repented, and Allah forgave them. Indeed, our Lord (Allah) is
S> Rahman and Raheem. 

[to which Khushro responded:]
K> If the Muslims don't believe in original sin, then I would like to know in a
K> little more detail what is the Quran's view of the incident of Adam.
K> In particular, have we inherited the mortality and the
K> condemned state of living outside heaven as a result of his original sin?
K> or was Adam a mortal like us before his original sin?

I will start by pointing out that only some sects of
Christianity believe in 'original sin,' and that the Doctrine of
Atonement was promulgated by the Church three to four centuries
after Jesus (AS) was taken up.  Such a doctrine contradicts the
Bible, which states quite clearly that men are damned by their 
own deeds.

(Right about now, the Christians are yelling 'Proof!  Proof!'....)

[Citing from the 1952 RSV--the most accurate English translation
I know of:]

'The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor
shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man
shall be put to death for his own sin.' 
[Deut. 24:16]

Seeing as how this is a lengthy article, I'd like to keep it
short by citing only one or two relevant passages.

(But no, the Bible-thumpers in the audience demand more!  Do 
they still deny the obvious?  Okay, more.)

'But every one shall die for his own sin; each man who eats sour
grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge.' 
[Jer. 31:30]

'The soul that sins shall die.  The son shall not suffer for
the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the
iniquity of the son:  the righteousness of the righteous shall be
upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon 
himself.'
[Ezek. 18:20]

('But that's from the Old Testament!' they cry.  Okay, now the NT.)

'Judge not, that you be not judged.  For with the judgement you
pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be
the measure you get.'
[Mat. 7:1-2]

'He who plants and he who waters are equal, and each shall
receive his wages according to his labor.'
[1 Cor. 3:8]

(Still not convinced?)

'...but Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and do not
hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.'
[Matt. 19:14]

(They've fallen silent.  We'll take that as agreement and 
move on.) 

As I was saying, a person is damned by their own acts.

K> Also, if Allah forgave them, then why did he not take them back into heaven?
K> This proves that they were not forgiven. Allah is not so unjust that He
K> would "forgive" someone and still keep on punishing him. 

Brother Ahmed (ahmed@dsg.cs.tcd.ie) responded:
A> Adam disobeyed Allah, Satan also disobeyed Allah. What is the punishment
A> of Satan, Hell for ever. While for the case of Adam he was only sent to
A> his destination, the earth. 

What Shaitan did was to teach Adam (AS) and his wife that they
could disobey Allah (AWJ).  The Believers have been trying to 
recapture that complete obedience ever since....

Allah (SWT) says quite clearly that the reason that Adam (AS) and
his wife were cut off from Paradise, no longer able to see the
face of Allah (AWJ), was because they disobeyed 'Him' while there
were IN Paradise, and they could SEE 'Him.'

This world is a test.  Those who seek Allah (SWT), worship 'Him,'
and obey 'Him' in this world get to RETURN to Paradise.  Why?
Because they tried to obey 'Him' even in the hell of this world.
In Paradise, they will get their fondest desire:  to sin no more.
They will be in the presense of Allah (AWJ), pleased with 'Him' 
and 'He' pleased with them, FOREVER.  This, despite the fact that 
nobody will ever be able to 'earn' such a treasure.

This includes Adam (AS) and his wife....

K> Allah is not so unjust that He
K> would "forgive" someone and still keep on punishing him. According to the
K> Quran, what is the connection between Adam's original sin and the human race
K> living outside heaven? What was the reason for only 2 humans to ever live in
K> heaven, and the others to live outside? Why is it not possible that Adam's
K> sin is the reason for this?

A> What we know and can tell about Allah is what he told us. He created
A> Adam and his off spring to dwell in the earth, even his body was made
A> from soil (like the earth).  The sin can be seen as a turn point to start 
A> the next and the real phase of Adam's life, although it came as a kind of a
A> punishment.

It only seems like punishment to those who have the wrong
perspective.  To others, it is a blessing.

Ignorance allows Shaitan to mislead a person.  If Khushro knew 
that there are humans living in Paradise right now, he wouldn't 
be saying the things he is saying.  Most of his questions are
answered quite clearly in the Qur'an, but it seems he hasn't
bothered to read it.
>H. Siddiqui:
>> MY RESPONSE to this is that it is agreed upon by most Biblical scholars
>> that all the New Testament books are of pseudopigraphic origin,including
>> the gospels, the epistles of John, Peter and James. The author of John's
>> gospel or his epistles is not the same John, the disciple of Jesus. 
>> Of course, you are not going to find the "Theou" in the so-called Ancient
>> Manuscripts (which don't date older than the middle of the 4th century)
>... and many other paragraphs where you doubt the authenticity of the Bible.
>
>Then how do you interpret the Quran's verses which say that the Taurat and
>Injeel were given by Allah, that Allah's word cannot be changed, and that
>these books are available today in the original form to be looked up?

Time for some facts, inshallah....

1)	The Taurat ('Law') and the Injil ('Gospel') were given by
	Allah (AWJ) to Moses (AS) and Jesus (AS).  They tried to
	pass Allah's Word on to their followers;

2)	Allah (SWT)'s Word doesn't change, but the word of men 
	has and does (see any old history book for an example);

3)	The Taurat was written down by Moses (AS) and some of his
	followers.  It was contained in one 'book.'  Compare this
	with the 'Old Testament' (or even the Jewish Bible)
	today.  Are they the same?  No.  Western Scholars say
	that the OT we have today isn't even an original, but a
	composite of several writings.  The Qumran Scrolls offer
	an earlier rendering of the OT, but the Israeli
	Government and Christian Church refuses to let Scholars 
	study the documents.  Why?  Good question....

4)	The Injil was oral, and in Aramaic.  The closest thing to
	it is a single narrative by the Apostles Matthew, Peter,
	Thomas and Barnabas, the so-called 'Gospel of Barnabas,' 
	(written in Hebrew and Greek by Matthew and Barnabas)
	which miraculously defies attempts to both hide it and 
	destroy it.  Compare this with the NT, containing third- 
	to fourth-hand accounts, by anonymous authors....  Again,
	the Qumran Scrolls have direct connections to the GoB,
	but the Church has consistently blocked such research.  
	Why?  Good question....

5)	Even if one refuses to believe the Experts, (a useful 
	habit, at times...), there is the evidence of the
	Scriptures themselves.  In any decent court of Law, the
	accused is allowed to defend himself.  What does the
	Bible say about the Church's claim of its being 'Holy?'
	(Read 'the literal Words of Allah, pure and intact'...) 
	It says that's a lie.  It also contradicts much of the
	dogma of the Christian Church.  (For that matter, it 
	contradicts itself, even on important points of 
	doctrine.  But that's another discussion entirely.)

It is obvious, to anybody who knows anything about the Bible
and/or its creation, that the Bible itself is NOT the Word of
Allah (SWT).  To believe such, one would have to believe in a god
of confusion who lies.  This is not acceptable to rational men,
and most Christians reject the 'fundamentalist' point of view.

K> 41:43. Naught is said to you but what was said indeed to the 
K> apostles before you; surely your Lord is the Lord of 
K> forgiveness and the Lord of painful retribution.

A> Yes, this was said to all apostles.

Over and over and over again....  But some people still refuse to
accept it....

K> 6:34. And certainly apostles before you were rejected, but they
K> were patient on being rejected and persecuted until Our help
K> came to them; and there is none to change the words of Allah,
K>                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
K> and certainly there has come to you some information about the
K> messengers.
K> 
K> This clearly states that although the previous apostles were rejected, still
K> there was no one who changed the words of Allah. ie the books are not
K> corrupted, only the number of followers is limited. There is nothing in this
K> verse that suggests that the "no change" guarantee is limited to the Quran;
K> in fact, the entire verse is about previous scriptures and previous
K> prophets. 

A> Perhaps you are confused by the underlined statement. The words of Allah
A> means the Will and the command of Allah. So the command of Allah will be
A> and His will cannot be changed, by whatever rejection and whatever
A> persecution happened.  This has nothing to do with the words of any
A> scripture. 

That last sentence is not quite accurate, although one more 
familiar with Arabic can give a better rendering of the phrase's 
meaning.  The Laws given to the Prophets (AS) has always been the
same.  

'Scripture' =/= 'The Word of Allah.'  

The Satan-Worshippers have 'Scriptures,' yet very few argue that
they received it from Allah (AWJ)....  Auzu Billahi....

Be careful, when reading a translation, not to infer things.  A 
translation, by definition, is only an approximation of the 
original text.

K> 2:41. And believe in what I have revealed, verifying that which is 
K> with you, and be not the first to deny it, neither take a mean 
K> price in exchange for My communications; and Me, Me alone should 
K> you fear.
K> 
K> May I ask what book Allah is referring to when He says "verifying that
K> which is with you"?  If the Bible has been corrupted / altered / 
K> was never written by Jesus's disciples, then where is this other book 
K> which according to Allah's own words is supposed to be "with us"? 

Khushro, you're not even taking the passage in context....

A> This is talking to the children of Israel, to believe in the Quran which
A> is verifying the message they already have, the bible.

To be more specific, the Bible contains the Truth in it along
with the lies.  For example, it fortells the coming of 
Muhammad (SAW).  There were Jews who not only expected him, but
were eagerly awaiting him.  And when he showed up, they declared
their allegiance to him.  Same thing with the Christians at that
time.  Entire crowds declared themselves muslim when the awaited 
Messiah appeared.  How did they know it was him?  Because their 
Scripture described him to a 'T.'

K> 5:43. And how do they make you a judge and they have the
K> Taurat wherein is Allah's judgment? Yet they turn back after
K> that, and these are not the believers.
K>
K> Once again the Quran says that they "have" the Taurat, note the tense. 

Note that it also says 'wherein is Allah's judgement,' not 'which
is Allah's judgement.'  Why?  Because there are also things in 
there which are NOT from Allah (SWT).  

A> This [passage] shows how the children of Israel are fanatic. They know that
A> Muhammed (saw) is the true messenger, and that his message is the truth,
A> but they  don't like to accept that. However they don't stick to their
A> Book, and they try to avoid the law in the Taurat, and seek the
A> judgement of Muhammed (saw), hoping that it could be easier. So
A> effectively they believe in nothing.
A> 
A> However, this made no indication about the corruption of the Taurat.

Western Scholars point out that the Taurat had already undergone 
changes 3500 years ago....

A> Also it didn't say that Taurat is authentic. It referred to a particular
A> judgement in the Taurat, which was about the penalty for the adulter,
A> which was stoning to death. They tried to hide this judgement because
A> the adulter was one of the high people, but when thay went to the
A> Prophet Muhammed(saw), he pointed to them the judgement in there book. 
A> 
A> However, this shows the attitude of those people to hide the truth.

K>I had asked about this on the net before, but it seems no one has a
K>satisfactory answer. The best explanation that I received is the following,
K>which is obviously unsatisfactory in the light of 2:41 and 5:43

We can't help it if you choose not to hear us....

Did you bother to look up all the places in the Qur'an where
Allah (SWT) condemns those who changed the Scriptures?  Let me
give you some passages to start with....

2:79; 2:101; 2:211; 3:23-24; 3:77-78; 11:110...

If you want more, let me know.

Brother Nabeel (nabeel@sce.carleton.ca) said:
N> As you yourself quoted from Koran above, God revealed Torat, Injil and
N> Koran. Our interpretation of revelation is that God passed those books
N> (through some angel, Gabriel) to those prophets. Now who says that God passed
N> John's Gospel to anybody? Or Luke's Gospel? Or Nichola's (?) Gospel (which
N> was found early this century in excavations)? And probably many other Gospels
N> we do not know about? The answer is no one. We Muslims do not think that
N> Torat and Injil related in Koran is the Bible. You probably know that the
N> Gospels are narrations and interpretations of the Desciples of what they
N> lived with Jesus...

Specifically, the Canonical Gospels are collections of oral
histories narrated by anonymous persons to an anonymous author.
(Western Scholars have only hazarded to guess one of the authors'
names, at this point....)

K> Then I ask where is this other "Taurat" and "Injeel" narated by Gabriel,
K> which the Quran says is supposed to be "with us"? In fact, Islam quotes the
K> prophesies for Muhammad in the Taurat and Injeel as proof for itself. How
K> can we recognize the validity of this proof if the real Taurat and Injeel
K> are lost, and no one even knows what they said?

One of the things the Qur'an says is that it is a litmus test for
the remains of the Scriptures we have.  In other words, if it
agrees with the Qur'an, then it's true.  If it contradicts the
Qur'an, then it's false.  If neither, then we don't know.

One thing is certain:  Unlike any other Scripture, nobody has 
ever been able to find anything but confirmation for what is 
contained within the Qur'an.  (Although they keep trying....)

(One example:  the Qur'an says that Pharoah's body was saved as 
a Sign.  The mummy of that same Pharoah has traces of salt water 
on it....)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW TOPIC:  The Gospel of Barnabas
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Siddiqui:
S>  And we do believe that any christian who truly searches
S> the truth and believes in the content of the Gospel, will be naturally
S> inclined to become a Muslim. (Let me caution you that we do not know
S> how authentic the Gospel is, whether or not it was a true rendition of
S> the original Gospel in Greek. 

[NOTE:  The original Injil was oral, given in Aramaic.  The GoB
was written in Greek and Hebrew.  See above for details.]

S> We, Muslims, simply do not have anything
S> to do with the Latin version.) Some christian theologians biasedly do
S> hint that it might have been a Muslim gospel, written by Fra Marino,
S> who might have been a Muslim. 

This line of speculation doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

S> There are no end to such imaginations and
S> theories in the minds of christian theologians and missionaries.
S> I read a number of these writings by missionaries, and simply laugh at
S> their childish accusations and fumblings.

K> If so, how do you resolve the
K> contradictions between Barnabas and the Quran. If someone has read the
K> Gospel of Barnabas, can he please quote from it to settle these points:

A> I haven't read the Gospel of Barnabas, 

I have.  There is one (1) discrepancy between the GoB and the Qur'an.

One.

Anybody who want to can read it themselves.  I will not reproduce
the GoB here on the net....

Still, it's quite interesting to note that simple fact....
The Bible is full of contradictions and historical inaccuracies
and conflicts with established scientific facts, but the GoB not
only avoids such error but agrees completely with the Qur'an
_except on one point._

It says 'Nine' heavens instead of 'Seven.'

Anybody who's read the Qur'an knows there are Seven Heavens.  All
Muslims know this.  Why is this error here?  Allah knows....  I
can tell you one thing it does, however, is to prove that the
GoB was not fabricated by followers of Muhammad (SAW) the way 
whats-his-name fabricated the Shroud of Turin.  No Muslim would 
ever say 'Nine' Heavens, nor would they espouse some of the things
the GoB says.  The GoB doesn't contradict the Qur'an, but it
contains additional information no follower of Muhammad (SAW)
would know about, much less write about.

A> but I will go through the given 
A> text. I expect that there could be differences as a result of either
A> misunderstanding the Quran or misunderstanding the Gospel.

[Note:  '3>' refers to Jorge, I believe; another speaker.]
K>3> Sox, David. The Gospel of Barnabas. 1984:

NOTE:  Mr. David Sox is neither an authority, nor a Scholar, 
but his argument is included for extraneous reasons.  Mr. Sox has
seen fit to support his speculation upon the analysis of Lonsdale
and Laura Ragg, two archeologists/historians who studied the GoB
briefly many years ago.  

Despite the Raggs' disclaimer regarding their own work, (pointing 
out that much of the research was done at odd times and in odd 
places, far from sources of reference, and that there was a 
liklihood of error), their paper has been the sole support of all 
commentary aimed at discrediting the authenticity of the GoB.  

Modern Western Scholars believe that there is an excellent chance 
that the GoB is indeed authentic, but the Christians Church and
Israeli Government has continued to deny access to various 
ancient manuscripts.

K>3> Barnabas is at variance with the Koran on a number of important and minor
K>3> points.  

That point has already been refuted.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*PLEASE NOTE:  The question is 'How does the GoB contradict the Qur'an?'*
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

K>3> First,  it states that Mary experienced the birth of Jesus without
K>3> pain, which contradicts the Koran.

A> You see here is one. Where did the Quran say that the birth was painful?
A> and why didn't David Sox give any references? There isn't such thing.

No, there is not.  But Mr. Sox continues, anyway.

There is no contradiction between the Qur'an the the GoB here.

K>3> The  Raggs think this passage may
K>3> constitute  'a trace of apocryphal gospel', but indicate that the birth
K>3> without pain was also 'an accepted tradition of Latin medieval
K>3> Christianity'. 

Early offshoots of the Nazarene Church survived outside of the
Roman Empire (having being driven out by the Christians), and
managed to protect many of the true teachings of Jesus (AS).
Even today, there are Christians who still know that Jesus (AS)
was only a man....  In general, however, the teachings of Jesus
(AS) have been painted over or forgotten with time.

There is no contradiction between the Qur'an the the GoB here.

K>3> A variety of Gnostic-style parables, miracles and stories are included in 
K>3> the gospel, yet certain well-known accounts which have clear Gnostic 
K>3> literary parallels, such as those of Jesus speaking from the cradle, the
K>3> appearance of a miraculous spring for mother and child in the desert and 
K>3> the infant Jesus' creation of birds from clay, are not to be found there.

A> This does not mean contradiction. Does it?

He's saying that some things in the GoB aren't in the Gnostic
writings.  (Which is to be expected.)  He has also missed a 
fact:  Jesus (AS) wasn't an infant when he created the bird 
from clay.  ('Infant' being the stage from 3-8 months, if my 
memory is correct.)

There is no contradiction between the Qur'an the the GoB here.

A> However, I will not continue further with this issue, because: First,
A> as I have said my knowledge of the Gospel is very little, and second, 
A> the knowledge of David Sox and his points are not substanciated, so as
A> to encourage me to go further.

I, on the other hand, will continue.  Those hungry for
information, read on....

K>3> Not only does Jesus foretell the coming of Muhammad in Barnabas, but the
K>3> Prophet is the promised Messiah.  It does not occur to the writer that the
K>3> appellation 'Christ' is the Greek word  for 'Messiah', and he seems equally
K>3> unaware that in the Koran Jesus is 'al Masih'  (Messiah).  

Congratulations.  You have brought up still another point as
evidence that one of Muhammad (SAW)'s followers did not write 
the GoB.

There is no contradiction between the Qur'an the the GoB here.

K>3> (The Arabic and
K>3> first Urdu translations of Barnabas tried to hide the contradiction
K>3> by writing Masiya instead of al Masih!)  

I believe 'Masiya' means 'Messiah' in Urdu.  'Al Masih' is
Arabic, of course....

In any case, Jesus (AS) is referred to as 'al Masih Bani Israil.'
(Translation:  'The Annointed One of the Children of Israel.')
In fact, the Anti-Christ is also referred to as 'al Masih.'  

Jesus (AS) is referred to as 'Christ' in the GoB, but he denies 
being the 'one expected.' (ie. 'Muhammad,'SAW) 

There is no contradiction between the Qur'an the the GoB here.

K>3> The Gospel role of John the Baptist as Jesus' forerunner 
K>3> is eliminated in Barnabas, and that position is given to Jesus. 

This is false.

Jesus (AS), according to the GoB, is the precursor of Muhammad (SAW),
'pointing the way.'  Other than the fact that prophecy which
Jesus (AS) mentions in the GoB ('...a voice crying in the 
wilderness...') is defined as applying to John (AS) in the 'Gospels' 
which mention it (Mt, Mk, and Lk).

In other words, the GoB neither supports nor contradicts the
existence and practices attributed to John (AS) in the CG's.
The GoB DOES contradict the opinion of the authors of the CG's 
in applying the prophecy to Jesus (AS) instead of John (AS).  
(John--AS--didn't apply it to himself....)  There is also a 
contradiction between the GoB and the CG's in that part of
the speech of Jesus (AS) is attributed to John (AS) in the 
some of the CG's (Mk, Lk, and Jn).

BUT, there is no contradiction between the Qur'an the the GoB here.

K>3> Neither John nor his father, Zechariah, who are both 
K>3> mentioned several times in the Koran, ever appears in Barnabas.

This is true.  The GoB is an account by the Apostles of Jesus
(AS), something which according to the CG's happened AFTER Jesus
(AS) talked with John (AS).  The 'Gospel According to John' 
makes no mention of John (AS), either.  Zechariah (AS) is only 
mentioned in the 'Gospel According to Luke.'  What point is Jorge
trying to make here?

There is no contradiction between the Qur'an the the GoB here.

K>3>      The gospel makes Muhammad to be the Messiah in no uncertain terms, and
K>3> the Raggs ask if he also is accorded the title of Paraclete, as Sale had
K>3> suggested.  'Paraclete' is the Gospel of John's epithet for the Holy Spirit
K>3> and has been traditionally translated 'comforter'.  The Latin Vulgate
K>3> translation is 'advocate', which is preferred by many modern commentators. 
K>3> Scholars have noted the affinity of a Koranic reference to the Paraclete of
K>3> St. John's  Gospel, which has:
K>3> 'But when your Advocate has come, whom I will send you from the Father 
K>3> ... he will bear witness to me'  (John 15.26).  Sura 61.6 of the Koran
K>3> presents Jesus as saying to the 'Israelites':  'I am sent forth to you by 
K>3> Allah to confirm the Torah already revealed and to give news of an apostle
K>3> that will come after me whose name is Ahmad.'  That last word has usually 
K>3> been interpreted as being another name for Muhammad.

'Ahmad' is indeed another name for 'Muhammad.'  (Similar to the
way 'Nick' is another name for 'Nicholas.')  'Ahmad' is the same
word as 'Paraclyte' in Greek, hence the 'noted affinity.'

The correct translation of the passage cited is:

'But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the
Father, even the spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father,
he will bear witness to me;'
[John 15:26]

I will simply point out here that the 'comforter/advocate/whatever'
mentioned in the Bible is stated to be a man, and that all of the
possible renderings of 'Paraclete' were well-known qualities of
the man Muhammad (SAW).  (The qualities noted for the 'Paraclete'
also describe Muhammed--SAW.)

There is no contradiction between the Qur'an and the GoB here.

K>3>     In Barnabas, the proclamation that Jesus is 'giving news of an apostle'
K>3> who will follow him is not veiled.  The name Muhammad is repeatedly used, 
K>3> but whether a precise identification between the Christian Paraclete and
K>3> Muhammad is presented in Barnabas, the Raggs say, 'No more ... and no less
K>3> than does the Qur'an itself'.  

In other words, Jesus (AS) describes Muhammad (SAW) as the
'Counselor,' and the Raggs don't disagree with that.

There is no contradiction between the Qur'an and the GoB here.
In fact, there are none in this article.  This leads me to ask
Khushro why he brought the question up in the first place....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW TOPIC:  The 'Seal'/Justice & Mercy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

K> Also  Quran 16:108. These are they on whose hearts and their hearing 
K> and their eyes Allah has set a seal, and these are the heedless ones.
K> How is that fair and just? What is the fault of those who Allah chose not to
K> guide? Why should they go to hell? How can they even try to heed if Allah
K> himself set a seal on their hearts, their hearing and their eyes? In many
K> other verses the Quran says that Allah guides whoever He pleases. How do
K> these verses not conflict with our free will?

A> This is one of the difficult questions.

No it's not.  The answer is just confoundingly simple.  I'll let
Brother Ahmad have his say first, and then I'll give the answer,
inshallah.

A> Every descendent of Adam is subject to err and to sin, but the mercy of
A> Allah is great. Without the mercy of Allah, no one can enter Heaven by
A> his deeds only, even the Prophet Muhammad (saw), as he said himself.

True.

A> Allah is fair and merciful. He is fair, so He will consider every thing
A> we do, good or bad. 

True.

A> Bad deeds vary in their value. Some of them are minor sins and some are
A> major ones. Minor sins can be expiated by good deeds, and major sins
A> require repentance and repair.  The biggest sin is rejecting God, or
A> considering associates or alternatives with Him. This cannot be expiated
A> by any thing.

How can Allah (SWT) give 'His' Mercy to a person if they reject 
'Him'?  'He' can't force it on them....

A> What is the role of the Mercy of Allah ?
A> 
A> It is effective in this life and in the second life. Doing good deeds is
A> a mercy of Allah, repenting and repairing for sins is also a mercy of
A> Allah, otherwise we may not be able to repent. Then forgiveness at the
A> day of Accounts is the Ultimate Mercy.

Allah (SWT)'s Mercy just sits there, like a cookie on a plate,
ready and waiting for us whenever we desire to take it.  No 
matter how badly we screw up.  That's Ultimate, Unconditional 
Mercy.

A> The mentioned verse 16:108 refers to one type of people; those who
A> reject Allah, with their free will, and insist on that, their destiny is
A> easily determined. There is no hope, they are the loosers in the
A> hereafter.

Allah (SWT) doesn't force anybody to go to Heaven....  They have
a choice, and 'He' lets them make it.

A> I will give a simple example. If I am a teacher, and suppose that I am
A> fair, and merciful. I would expect three types of students.  good
A> students, weak students, and careless students.
A> 
A> Good students, will pass the exam. Fair?
A> Weak students, I try to help them; extra work, extra hours, etc.
A> Merciful? 
A> However, I can make a very difficult exam, and very strict marking, so
A> that all good and weak students may fail. Can I ? Yes. But since I am
A> fair and merciful, I would not do that.
A> 
A> Careless students, they don't come to the classes; they ignore the
A> tests, and they may not come. How can I help them, no way.
A> For those, I don't need to wait for the results of the exam. I can tell
A> the result, in advance, and I can put a red circle in front of their
A> names ( similar to the seal ).

The analogy breaks down, at this point....  Unlike us, Allah
(SWT) is not limited by Time.  He knows the Past, Present, and
Future, all at once.  The Seal is not something that is slapped
on as a punishment.  The Seal is there because the sinner WANTS
IT.  See below for details.

A> This is a simple example, and I think you can extend it further until
A> you reach to some level where you can feel how Allah will manage us in
A> the day of account. I am not saying that you will have an exact picture
A> of the whole situation of the day of judgement, but at least some
A> feeling.
A> 
A> Since you gave a quotation of verse 16:108, I would like to say, please
A> read from 16:105 up to 16:109. This will give you a clearer picture.

It always helps to read passages IN CONTEXT....

A> It is a comparison between two types of people, one type pretends that he
A> rejects Allah (forced to do that), while his heart is full of faith,
A> those Allah forgives them. The other type are those who reject Him, and
A> are insisting and happy to do that. This type of people is very easy for
A> Allah to fortell that they are the loosers, so He can put a mark on them
A> even before the day of Accounts. This mark is expressed in 16:108 as a
A> seal. 

Again, that's not accurate about the Seal....

A> For penitent people, the thinking of such a seal will drive them to
A> change their attitude, when committing a sin, before getting sealled,
A> and for those who reject Allah and continue in their sins, they will not
A> heed, as if the seal is truly put on them.
A> So in fact, this does not contradict with the mercy of Allah. It
A> reflects both the knowledge and the mercy of Allah, especially for those
A> who deserve it.

Okay!  My turn! :-)  This is all speculation, based on personal
experience.  Only Allah (SWT) knows why 'He' does anything....

[Speculation ON]

Allah (SWT) is both MOST JUST and MOST MERCIFUL.  These two
properties are NOT contradictory.

Allah (SWT) is MOST JUST.  'He' gives you only what you deserve,
only what you ask for.

Allah (SWT) is MOST MERCIFUL.  'He's' willing to forgive all your
sins if you sincerely ask 'Him' to, and 'He' takes care of you
and nurtures you even when you don't appreciate 'Him.'

No contradiction.  See?

FREE WILL:  Lots of people are confused about this one....  Free
Will is simply the ability to disobey Allah (SWT).  Out of all
Creation, only mankind and Jinn ('Spirits') have Free Will.
Everything else obeys Allah (SWT) without question.

Some Christians will say 'What about the angels?  They have Free
Will, because Satan rebelled.'

Shaitan (and his followers) are JINN.  Read the Qur'an.  It says
so, right there.  It also says that the angles were created to
'obey' Allah (SWT).  No Free Will.

But what does Free Will amount to?  Think.  If Allah (SWT) knows
everything, including what is good for 'His' Creation, and if
'He's' never wrong, than what is the effect of going against
'His' wishes?  That's right:  Free Will is the ability to screw up.

But hey, it's our choice.  Allah (SWT) says 'This way to Heaven,
and that way to Hell.'  We get to pick.  We can even switch paths
at any time.  ('I've changed my mind....')  Allah (SWT) is MOST
JUST, and if we want to earn our way to Hell, then by golly we 
get it.

Allah (SWT) will not Guide a person to Hell.  But if they demand
it, 'He'll' plug up their ears for them so that they no longer
have to listen to the Truth.  'He'll' blind their eyes for them
so that they no longer have to see It.  Now they can't be Guided
anymore, and they're 'Sealed.'  Still, they keep striving after
Hell, and Allah (SWT) gives them all the rope they need to hang 
themselves.  Then, after they've finally gone and done so, and 
they're in Hell, what will they say?

'Let us go back, so that we can choose Heaven, instead!'

...to which Allah (SWT) will reply:

'I gave you an entire lifetime to choose it, and you demanded
Hell.  I offered you Guidance but you demanded to blind and deaf
to it.  I offered you Mercy, but you insisted on being cut off
from Me.  I gave you exactly what you asked for, what you worked
so hard to achieve.  You have nothing to argue with, and you 
know it.'

...and those in Hell will be wretched because they know they did
it to themselves.

[Speculation OFF]

S>H. Siddiqui:
S> Most Muslims did not know about the existence of this (Gospel of Barnabas)
S> version until in 1907. L. and L. Raggs, missionary christians who also
S> mastered in Dante's writings, translated the Latin version into English.
S> When the translated copies started selling fast, 

This is fact.

S> and fearing that it
S> may lead to some English-speaking christians to change faith and become
S> Muslims, 

This is speculation.

S> thus defeating the very purpose for which the Raggs initially
S> translated the Latin version, all the copies were removed from market
S> and not a single copy in English was to be found anymore. 

'Not a single copy' sounds like an exaggeration.

S> However, two
S> copies ended up in the Library of Congress in Washington D.C and British
S> Museum. The access to the translated copy in Britain was restricted away
S> from Muslims. One English Muslim was able to make a photo-copy of the
S> Ragg's translation two decades ago, since then the book has been reprin-
S> ted by a few publishers, notably, Kazi Publications in Chicago and Ame-
S> rican Trust Publications in USA. 

The ATP translation, with notes by M.A. Yusseff, is quite
informative, using additional outside sources (eg. Qumran
Scrolls) in the footnotes.  It is usually out of stock.... :-)

(I've bought three or four copies of the GoB, myself, but people
keep 'borrowing' them....)

K> This is not a question about the Quran, but I wanted to verify the
K> truthfulness of Dr. Siddiqui's claims, when he says "and not a single copy
K> in English was to be found anymore." I checked 2 libraries at random - the
K> University of Michigan and the University of California, and both of them
K> have 1907 editions. I presume other libraries have it too.

Okay, well, _I_ have a question! :-)

Are these '1907 editions' reprints, or originals?  If they are 
not originals, then the veracity of Brother Sidiqui's claim 
remains undetermined....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW TOPIC:  Polygamy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

K>----------------------------------------
K> Non-Siddiqui Articles:
K>
K> There was an article posted on polygamy, which quoted the following 2 verses
K> of the Quran that seemed to be contradictory. Can someone explain what these
K> verses mean and how they relate to each other?
K>
K> 4:3. And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards
K> orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and
K> three and four; 

Something lost in this particular translation is the fact that
the passage reads as a recommendation to marry the widows 
and/or orphans if there is no other way to take care of them.

Allah (SWT) knew there would be situations like the one in
Bosnia, right now.  (ie. Almost no men....)

K> but if you fear that you will not do justice
K> (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands
K> possess; this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the
K> right course.

Dealing 'justly' with them, in this ayat, refers specifically to
treating the fairly.  (ie. Clothing them, feeding them, housing
them, etc.)

K> 4:129. And you have it not in your power to do justice between

There is no 'And' in this clause.  It is a statement:  You cannot
possibly feel equally among your wives.'

K> wives, even though you may wish (it), but be not disinclined (from
K> one) with total disinclination, so that you leave her as it were in
K> suspense; and if you effect a reconciliation and guard (against
K> evil), then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

(This translation isn't as good as the one I have....)

In other words, Allah (STW) says, 'Even though you can't love
them all the same, treat all your wives fairly.'

K> 4:3 says that "if you fear that you will not do justice
K> (between them), then (marry) only one" otherwise marry up to 4

A> This is O.K.

K> whereas 4:129 seems to say that you will definitely not be able to do
K> justice between them but marry them anyway, as long as you don't totally
K> disregard one of them.

A> This is not O.K.
A> 
A> There are two kinds of justice indicated in the two verses. The 
A> justice of dealings and the justice of feelings.  

There is some confusion because of the translation into 
English....

A Muslim must treat all of his wives FAIRLY.  This is not the
same as treating them EQUALLY.  A wife is being treated FAIRLY
when she feels the situation is acceptable to her.  She is not
being treated fairly if she is unhappy.

It is not possible for a man to treat all his wives EQUALLY, as
they all have different needs, and his feelings toward them are
all different.  Still, he is commanded to treat them FAIRLY or
else to accept divorce (initiated by either him or his wife).

A> Verse 4:3 says that
A> one has to be just in his treatment and dealling with his
A> wives otherwise don't go for more than one. 

This is accurate.

A> Verse 4:129 refers to the
A> justice of feelings, which is not possible to have the same feeling to
A> all your wives, and here Allah is giving His advice as not to be
A> disinclined from one,....
A> Of course the feeling, which is not controllable, should not affect the
A> justice of dealling.

This last point is one of the bases of Muslim moral conduct.

A> As an example: a judge in the court may have a case where his son is
A> involved with other people in a guilt. Surely the feeling of the judge
A> towards his son is different than the others, but he cannot be blamed
A> for that. However, the son should not be given a special treatment, and
A> the law should be applied equitably to all the people involved regardless 
A> of any feelings. This this is not impossible, and there are many
A> realistic examples where the feelings do not influence the deallings.

K> Further 4:3 says that if you cannot do justice between them, then
K> marry only one "or what your right hands possess". What does this mean? 

A> I couldn't get the question, but if you are asking about the meaning of
A> "what your right hand possesses" then it means the slave mades that you
A> possess. These were not counted as wives. 

If a Muslim married a slave, the slave attained free status.
This is only one of the ways Allah (SWT) encouraged the abolition
of slavery.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW TOPIC:  Apostacy in Islam (A Hot Topic)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

AK>A.R.Khan:
AK> I have copied above the translation as given in Sahih Bukhari. Now,
AK> if you Brothers consult pages 45-47 in Volume 9 of Sahih Bukhari
AK> as Translated by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Hadiths 57-59, it is
AK> clearly mentioned that the punishment of apostacy is death, 

Nope.  Read those Ahadith again.  I have them right here in front
of me, and there's nothing in there which says that the
punishment of Apostacy is death.  I see the death of an Apostate,
and I see Muslims fighting those who refuse to obey the Shariat,
but nothing on Apostacy == Death.  Nowhere.

AK> NOT AFTER THREE TIMES APOSTACY as I earlier mentioned, although I
AK> clearly remember I read somewhere. 

The 'three-times thingie' is in the Qur'an:

'Those who believe, then reject Faith, then believe (again) and
(again) reject Faith, and go on increasing in Unbelief--Allah
will not forgive them nor guide them on the Way.'
[4:137]

It is often interpreted that Allah (SWT) will not accept a person
after they reject Islam three times.  One should take into
account the 'AND' clause, however....

AK> One Brother raised
AK> the question : Do we have to wait for three times? The point
AK> is if one goes out of Islam he IS OUT OF ISLAM with the difference
AK> that a KAFIR who turns back from Islam is more harmful
AK> than an OUTSIDER KAFIR because turning back may affect the faith 
AK> of others. 

That is true, but there is no penalty in this life for Apostacy.
All of the discussion regarding this subject inspired me to
research, and I'll be writing an article on the subject when I
return to school in mid-January, inshallah.

In short:  The Qur'an and Ahadith contradict any notion that
Apostacy in Islam carries a penalty of death.

K> My question is what about those who were born in a Muslim family and were
K> made to follow Islam since before they even understood Islam fully?

Many Muslims have been Muslim all their lives and they don't
understand Islam fully....

K> Does 2:256 "Let there be no compulsion in religion" not apply to them? 

It applies to everybody, at all times.

K> Do they not have the right to study various religions and choose one for
K> themselves at some time during their lives? 

One would hope that such a survey would include studying
Islam....  There is only one reason to reject Islam:  ignorance.

K> Thank you for your assistance
K> -KHUSHRO

Don't thank us, thank Allah (SWT)! :-)

Gee,...  I sure hope you read this article, inshallah....


-AQ

[I beg Allah's forgiveness for my weakness and insufficiency in ]
['His' service, and I ask for his protection from Shaitan and   ]
[from my own Desires.  None can protect me except Allah.  If I  ]
[have made any errors, I beg Allah to bring them to my attention]
[so that they may be corrected.  If I have made none, then it is]
[only through the Grace of Allah and all praise is due only to  ]
['Him.'  This article may be freely copied and redistributed.   ]