Ahmad

According to the Koran, Jesus predicted a prophet to come after Him whose name would be "Ahmad," i.e. 'Helper,' a name Mohammed applied to himself:

"And remember when Jesus the son of Mary said, ‘O children of Israel! of a truth I am God’s apostle to you to confirm the law which was given before me, and to announce an apostle that shall come after me whose name shall be Ahmad!’ But when he (Ahmad) presented himself with clear proofs of his mission, they said, ‘This is manifest sorcery!’" (Koran Sura 61:6)

In the Bible, Jesus promises the advent of a Helper, a Comforter, an Advocate:

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you." (John 14:26).

The Helper, or Comforter, that Jesus promised is not a man who happens to be named 'Ahmad,' but God the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity. In the Koran and in Islamic theology, the Holy Spirit is often confused with the Angel Gabriel, a created being. But in the Bible, in both testaments, the Holy Spirit is God. The promise is given that He will dwell in believers: "Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." (John 14:17). But Mohammed ibn Abdallah does not dwell in his followers. And isn't it more than a little bit of a stretch to identify this lascivious man, by profession a warlord, with 'the Holy Spirit.'

Mohammed was not original in identifying himself as the Comforter. Mani made the same claim centuries before when he, too, assembled a new religion from bits and pieces of Christianity, Judaism, gnosticism and native religions:

"Mani, however, said that he was the Paraclete Spirit, and calls himself an apostle of Christ on some occasions, and the Paraclete Spirit on others." (Epiphanius, Panarion, Books II and III, Section V, Against Manichaeans, Chapter 46 [66], 12,6)

The promise of the Holy Spirit was not a promise of another prophet in centuries to come, but for "not many days" from the Lord's ascension: “And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, 'which,' He said, 'you have heard from Me; for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.'” (Acts 1:4-5). To apply this prophecy to Mohammed ibn Abdallah means there were six long centuries separating the prophecy from its fulfillment. But Jesus does not suggest any such length of time; He promises He will not leave His disciples orphans: "I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:18). If the Mohammedan interpretation were correct, then He left them orphans. The same New Testament which records the promise also records its fulfillment: "This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear." (Acts 2:32-33). This is not an open or unfulfilled prophecy.

It Mohammed really were the promised 'Ahmad,' then he would not have spoken of himself:

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you." (John 16:13-14).

How ironic to realize that if Mohammed ibn Abdallah had even a little of God the Holy Spirit's self-effacing character, that would have been sufficient to cleanse the Koran of all the 'God and His Apostle' passages, where this fallible, ignorant man is placed on a plane with God.

Indeed prostration is one of several attitudes and postures of prayer mentioned in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament. Some of these Biblical 'falling down' references might relate to something like being 'slain in the spirit.' Realizing that flat on one's face is not the commonest Bible posture for prayer, and that no such procedure is commanded of God, the believer is almost tempted to retort, “So the Lord said to Joshua: 'Get up! Why do you lie thus on your face?'” (Joshua 7:10). Nevertheless some of the Old Testament references do indicate prostration, like the following:

Abraham prostrated himself before the Lord: "And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, and said, My Lord, if now I have found favor in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant. . ." (Genesis 18:1-3). Notice that Abraham, a very wise man and undoubted monotheist, sees three but addresses one Lord. It is good to follow his eminent example.

The Koran reports, albeit incompletely, this momentous visitation from God:

"Hath the story reached thee of Abraham's honored guests?
When they went in unto him and said, 'Peace!' he replied, 'Peace: — they are strangers.'
And he went apart to his family, and brought a fatted calf,
And set it before them. . .And he conceived a fear of them." (Koran, Sura 51:26-28).

Abraham's visitors ate, ". . .he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat." (Genesis 18:8), though some people foolishly make this a criterion of Deity. Muslims say they share the faith of Abraham. If only it were so! If, like Abraham, they saw three, yet confessed one Lord, they would share his faith.

In the patriarchal age, men prostrated themselves not only to God but also to rulers. But during the Lord's earthly ministry, this was not very common. Later the Byzantine emperors would demand the full frontal face-plant from those ushered into their august presence, but that offensive practice had not yet started; in this period, even the Roman emperor did not expect prostration. Nevertheless, the disciples prostrated themselves before the Lord: "And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him." (Matthew 28:9); "And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." (Matthew 28:17). This Greek word, 'proskuneo,' did not originally mean 'bow down,' but after it was used in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew 'shachah,' as it is for instance in the passage just mentioned, Genesis 18:2, it does come to have that implication. It originally meant something like 'blowing a kiss,' a gesture of adoration which the pagans made to their idols, so the Seventy evidently felt it would serve for 'bow down,' a change of posture that implies worship. Making this change of posture shows that the petitioner is humbling himself before Almighty God.

A variety of postures and attitudes of prayer are mentioned in the New Testament. Prostration before God may not have been all that common, but let us concede for the sake of the argument that the disciples were in the habit of prostrating themselves before Almighty God. We have just seen them doing it, in Matthew 28:9 and 28:17. They'd done it before: "Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God." (Matthew 14:3). So do wise men: "And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh." (Matthew 2:11). People in trouble bow down before the Lord: "And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean." (Matthew 8:2). "While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live." (Matthew 9:18). Like the leper we are unclean, like the little girl we are dead in sin, so why not prostrate ourselves before the Lord, Almighty God, and ask Him to heal us?

Daniel 2:46, however, shows Nebuchadnezzar falling down on his face before Daniel, a mere man: "Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face, prostrate before Daniel, and commanded that they should present an offering and incense to him." But this practice was not acceptable to everyone; see Acts 10:25-26: "And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man." Peter, who had been instructed by the Lord, did not consider prostration before a mere man acceptable practice.

The four-and-twenty elders fall down upon their faces:

"The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." (Revelation 4:10-11).

Notice before Whom they fall down, the "four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb" (Revelation 5:8). People can 'fall down' onto their knees, like the old song says: 'Four-and-twenty elders on their knees, Lord have mercy if you please.' The four-and-twenty elders, however, do fall on their faces in worship: "And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God. . ." (Revelation 11:16). This would be something for Muslims to emulate!

Possibly too, like other anti-trinitarians, they think there is something in Christ's prayer at Gethsemane, beyond His posture, that makes for their side.

A Prophet from Among Your Brethren

As noted, Muslims are apt to apply Messianic prophecies to the unlettered Arabian prophet, even though their own holy book identifies Jesus as the Messiah of the Jews. One of these promises was uttered by Moses. The Book of Deuteronomy speaks of a prophet to arise amongst the people in the future. Unfortunately for the claims of Mohammed ibn Abdallah, this prophecy is already 'taken;' Jesus is the prophet who was to come:

"For Moses truly said to the fathers, ‘The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear in all things, whatever He says to you. And it shall be that every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’ Yes, and all the prophets, from Samuel and those who follow, as many as have spoken, have also foretold these days." (Acts 3:22-24).

Corruption of the Text

In Koranic verses like the one above, Mohammed speaks in an objective way about the gospel and the scriptures "in your hands," in the hands of the "People of the Book." There is no hint in his language that the gospel, or evangel, was unknown, was lost at the time, was a secret, hidden book given by Allah to Jesus, or was in fact the 'Gospel of Barnabas.' Nor does Mohammed present any other novel or unusual understanding of what the 'gospel' might be. It is what the Christians treasure, and is open to inspection. They are able to judge by this criterion.

Later, this would change, as it became apparent the Christians were inspecting their gospel and determining that Mohammed was a false prophet, inasmuch as his revelations differed from what had been handed down before. Later Muslim generations therefore searched the scriptures for any hint they had been corrupted or damaged in transmission. An example of the kind of Bible text they seek is Jeremiah 23:36:

"And the oracle of the LORD you shall mention no more. For every man’s word will be his oracle, for you have perverted the words of the living God, the LORD of hosts, our God." (Jeremiah 23:36).

As should be apparent, the words of the Bible are the pure words of God, not the perverted words of the false prophets. The bruising verbal battles between the unlettered Arabian prophet and the Jews and Christians have left their mark in the Koran, as they may well have left scars on the embattled prophet's ego; he accuses them of dishonesty. He is not saying, you have, quite blamelessly, inherited a text corrupted by others in the distant past; he is accusing them, quite personally and specifically, of malfeasance:

"O Apostle! let not those who vie with one another in speeding to infidelity vex thee;— of those who say with their mouths, ‘We believe,’ but whose hearts believe not;— or of the Jews — listeners to a lie — listeners to others — but who come not to thee. They shift the words of the law from their places, and say, ‘If this be brought to you, receive it; but if this be not brought to you, then beware of it.’ For him whom God would mislead, thou canst in no wise prevail with God! They whose hearts God shall not please to cleanse, shall suffer disgrace in this world, and in the next a grievous punishment;

"Listeners to a falsehood and greedy devourers of the forbidden!"

(Koran Sura 5:45-46)

Was the shifting of the words Mohammed accused them of a matter of rejiggering the written text, or was it a fault of verbal exposition? Since Mohammed did not know how to read Hebrew, and perhaps did not know how to read at all, in his disputes with the Jews, the text of scripture was available to him only as they read it aloud. The Old Testament text is not so fluid and mutable that it was still undergoing rapid evolution in the seventh century. Muslim interpreters who take the Koranic accusations in reference to the written text end up accusing these seventh century Jews, on the outskirts of empire, of doing what was quite impossible for them to accomplish. We know what the Bible looked like in the seventh century: very much like it looks today! There are in the West skeptics who think we cannot go back to the original text. There are no skeptics who think we cannot know how the Bible read in the seventh century, or that it has changed greatly from that time to this. If Mohammed is accusing the Jews of seventh century Arabia of doctoring the written text, his accusations are crazed and hysterical; if he is accusing them of faults of verbal exposition, his accusations are meaningful and fitted to the circumstances, though the accused would no doubt turn respond, 'That's what you are, what am I?'

This is one of a very few instances where the gospels record Jesus' sayings in the Aramaic He actually spoke rather than in Greek translation. Early witnesses mention an original Gospel of Matthew in Aramaic or Hebrew; regardless, the other New Testament writings were conceived in Greek from their inception. Other instances include Mark 5:41, "Talitha cumi (little girl arise)," and Mark 7:34, "Ephphatha (be opened)." These instances are the exception which proves the rule. The Holy Spirit has no aversion to translation; Jesus' words are generally given in Greek with no record provided of the Aramaic ipsissima verba.

The actual words are here given for their evidentiary value. Psalm 22 contains remarkable prophecies of the crucifixion, such as, "For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture." (Psalm 22:16-18). That the Messiah's hands and feet would be "pierced" did happen; that his tormentors would cast lots for His clothing also did happen. That He could count his ribs may be the result of dehydration on the cross. When the last marathon runners struggle along toward the finish line after the TV camera trucks have departed and the elite runners are long gone, their skin has a taut and sunken cast owing to dehydration.

The Messiah carried our sin for us, in fact, He was made sin for us: "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." (2 Corinthians 5:21). He must have felt a veil of shadow fall over His communion with the Father and the Holy Spirit, because "Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity..." (Habakkuk 1:13). That contamination which made it impossible for us to stand before God's holy face was all on Him.

What must the witnesses beneath the cross have thought when they heard Jesus utter these words? They must have realized it was Psalm 22. In the midst of that horror, helplessly watching death by torture, did they understand this prophetic psalm is playing out, in real time, as they watch? Even the hostile by-standers, the scoffers, must have complained, 'That impostor stayed in character throughout.' The Messiah was expected to say this, at least by those who counted Psalm 22 a Messianic psalm. The rule is exemplified in Acts 2:29-30: if a psalm is not fulfilled in David or Solomon, because the events in their fullest sense never happened to David or Solomon, then it is not about David or Solomon. It must be about the Messiah. Certainly David was never crucified, yet Psalm 22 describes a crucifixion. No doubt anyone can say "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me"; merely saying that does not make one the Messiah, and yet the Messiah did say that, just as it was prophesied He would. Perhaps the evangelists transcribed the original words to satisfy the Berean purists, who wanted to know exactly what He said, to determine whether it lined up precisely with what was prophesied or was a hair's breadth off. Giving the Greek alone is imprecise, because there may be more than one way to translate a phrase into another language.

The Greek does not precisely match up between the NT and the Septuagint. Oddly enough Matthew 27:46 has "thee mou," the LXX "o theos mou," though more often it's the New Testament which has nominative for vocative. If the evangelists offered only the Greek, the Bereans might say, 'Well, that gives the gist of it, but how do we know the Messiah said exactly what the Messiah was supposed to say? Surely He didn't say it in Greek.'

What Jesus said is Aramaic not the original Hebrew of Psalm 22, but the New Testament authors seem to identify the two languages (see Acts 21:40), which are related in any case. Ahmad Deedat's Arabic is another allied language.

The cry of dereliction is in there, in the original, just as Jesus cried it, for its value as evidence that Jesus is the Messiah. He said what the Messiah was to say, He did what the Messiah was to do, He was crucified as the Messiah was to be crucified, He rose from the dead as the Messiah was to rise, therefore He is the Messiah.

Popular Muslim author Ahmad Deedat makes a valid point that the Aramaic word here used for God, 'Eloi,' is similar to the Arabic 'Allah.' Unfortunately he follows it up with a fanciful derivation of 'Hallelujah,' which means 'Praise Jah!' It has nothing to do with 'Oh Allah!' This line of argument is all the odder in that Muslims do not believe Jesus died on the cross: "Judas truly did nothing else but cry out: 'God, why hast thou forsaken me, seeing the malefactor hath escaped and I die unjustly?'" (Gospel of Barnabas, Chapter 217). It is far from obvious why Ahmad Deedat sought significance in what someone other than Jesus said from the cross.

Lord, Lord

This verse does not say, 'No one who says to me, "Lord, Lord," will enter the kingdom of heaven,' but "Not everyone." The Lord is denouncing, not Christians, but hypocrites, as in Matthew 15:7-8: "Hypocrites! well has Isaiah prophesied about you, saying, This people honor me with the lips, but their heart is far away from me. . ." (Matthew 15:7-8):

"Inasmuch as these people draw near with their mouths and honor Me with their lips, but have removed their hearts far from Me, and their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men, therefore, behold, I will again do a marvelous work among this people. . ." (Isaiah 29:13-14.)

To a Muslim expositor like Ahmed Deedat, it is self-evident that those condemned in Matthew 7:23 are all those and only those who call Jesus 'Lord,' and this is precisely why they are condemned: because they call Jesus 'Lord'! This leaves Muslims safe, because they do not call Him 'Lord.' But how can this interpretation be sustained against the rest of the New Testament, where it is plain that 'Lord' is the normal title by which the disciples address Jesus? Nor does He condemn them for so doing:

"You call Me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you." (John 13:13-15).

This Bible fact does not involve us in any contradiction of Matthew 7:21, because the text says, 'not everyone:' "ου πας." Ahmed Deedat reads the text as if it said, 'No one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven.' Is it not apparent that 'not everyone' does not mean the same thing as 'no one'? There is a subset of those who say 'Lord, Lord,' who will not be saved, because they are evil-doers: they are hypocrites. Compare, 'Not everyone who starts a new business will make a million dollars.' True, and some will lose their shirts. But this does not mean that no one who starts a new business will make a million dollars. If you want to make a million dollars, then starting a new business might very well be a viable way to attain your goal, albeit not one whose success is guaranteed. And maybe, after all, the population of those who are unwilling to take any risk, but nevertheless want to make a million dollars, and even succeed in doing so, is small.

In the end, all people, even Muslims, will call Jesus 'Lord:'

"Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:9-11).

It would be better to do it now, when it is credited to your account, not later, when it counts for nothing against your certain condemnation.

Bible Contradictions

With the sweetest naivety in the world, the unlettered Arabian prophet told his followers to check with the Christians about his revelations, they would verify that he was the real deal and his information is sound. Of course they did not, and do not. Thereupon his followers got into the 'Bible contradictions' business:

"The three evangelists, told that Jesus will rise from the dead on the third day (see Matthew 17:23, Mark 9:32, Luke 18:33), and that did not happen. He stayed – in any way - not more than one day and two nights." (Was Jesus Crucified for our Atonement? Monqith Ben Mahmoud Assaqar, PhD., p. 75.)

It was a Jewish convention to count partial days as whole days:

"This is taken to signify then that part of a day is equivalent to a whole day. But has he not stated this once already?" (Babylonian Talmud, Nazir 6a).

"Rami b. Hama demurred: Why indeed should she not count it, and why should not we also count it, seeing that we have an established rule that part of a day is regarded as the whole of it?" (Babylonian Talmud, Niddah 33a).

'Bible contradictions' as a rule are distinctly unimpressive disparities which only go to show, for example, that the four gospels are four independent accounts relying on selected witness testimony. They are by no means irreconcilable contradictions, as advertised. The rules for generating 'Bible contradictions' rely on strange logic, such as the rubric that any incident recorded by one evangelist only must have been made up by that evangelist: "There are many events, which might be important, were mentioned only by one evangelist and were ignored by the others." (Was Jesus Crucified for our Atonement? Monqith Ben Mahmoud Assaqar, PhD., p. 30). This author goes on to assume that such accounts are self-evident fiction. Does anyone read newspaper accounts that way?

These 'Bible contradictions' have become the staple of modern Muslim evangelism, but many of them were popular staples of the German enlightenment. David Friedrich Strauss, an ardent Hegelian, appreciated what Hegelians perceive as Christianity's near approach to the truth. It was almost there, just not quite: Hegelians think that mankind is the incarnation of God, not a particular man. To make the particular general, all that is required is to reassign the gospels from the category of biography to myth. This is what 'Bible contradictions' are made for, to discredit the gospels as history. And don't you want to be God, too? Or is that really how Muslims think?

Some popular 'Bible contradictions' found on the internet serve only to show poor mastery and understanding of the Bible languages. For example, are there two cock crows or one?:

"And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice." (Mark 14:30)

"Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice." (Matthew 26:34).

This would be a dandy Bible contradiction, but for the fact that one of the four Roman night-watches was called 'first cock-crow.' It is therefore the second cock crow which announces the dawn.

"How many times did the cock crow?

"Peter followed Jesus (PBUH), from a distance, to watch his prosecution. Jesus (PBUH) told him that he (Peter) will deny him (Jesus (PBUH), three times in that night before the rooster crows two times according to Mark; "Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice." (Mark 14/72); one time according to the other three evangelists. Luke said, "Before the cock crow this day thou shalt deny me thrice." (Luke 22/61), (see Matthew 26/74, John 18/27). Three evangelists (Luke, Matthew, and John) mentioned only one crowing in the story, unlike Mark, who mentioned two crowing." (Was Jesus Crucified for our Atonement? Monqith Ben Mahmoud Assaqar, PhD., p. 16).

As so often with 'Bible contradictions,' there is considerably less here than meets the eye. It seems likely Mark was trying to do no more than prevent a misunderstanding in his readership.

Altogether Lovely

Some Muslims say that Mohammed ibn Abdallah is the beloved of the Song of Solomon, who is "altogether lovely." Strangely, though, they don't allow any pictures of him! They riot in the streets, murder, loot, and burn buildings, should anyone anywhere put crayon to paper and scrawl a likeness. When a claim is made, but the only possible form of evidence which might validate the claim is ruled out in toto, on principle, a priori, then not only has the claim not been validated, it cannot be validated. But conceding for the sake of argument that Mohammed was comely, let us compare him with Jesus, even under the Koran's version of events (was not crucified/did not die). Mohammed ibn Abdallah has been moldering in the tomb for some centuries; how comely is he now? Jesus did not see corruption: "He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption." (Acts 2:31). When an interred body needs be exhumed, onlookers are met with a horrifying, nightmarish display. So who is "altogether lovely:" one who is lovely for a brief period, like the blooming of a rose, followed by withering and decay, or one who is lovely still? You be the judge; compare for yourself:

Jesus in the Koran

The 'Jesus' of the Koran is in some ways a familiar figure and in other ways unfamiliar. He has an unfortunate tendency to belittle and condemn His followers, while praising and elevating the Muslims. In some ways, the role of Mohammed has expanded to fill the vacancy left by dethroning Jesus: Mohammed, in the hadith, has become the intercessor between man and God. What is the portrait of Jesus traced in the Koran?:

In some ways a familiar figure and in other ways unfamiliar, the 'Jesus' of the Koran has developed a tendency to spout bad arguments against His deity. These and other rather time-worn arguments heard from Muslims are already familiar to people who talk with the Jehovah's Witnesses and company: