Shi'i beliefs

in the Bible

by
Thomas McElwain

Reproduced with permission by the

Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project team

Brought to you by:

Imperial College Ahlul Bayt Society

0
 Contents

The Bible in a Nutshell .................................... 2

The Fragrance of Islam ................................. 12
The Family of Abraham (as): A Social,
Economic, Political and Religious Model.... 28
The Sacrifice of Abraham (as), What Is All
the Fuss? ......................................................... 54
Daniel (as): A Young Muslim Refugee and
How He Coped ............................................... 82
The Book of the Gospel Rediscovered..... 101
The Gospel: The Secret the Church Never
Told................................................................. 122
The Word Muhammad in the Bible............ 144
The Word ‘Ali in the Bible............................ 158
Hussein (as) and Psalm 74 ........................ 183

1
 The Bible in a Nutshell

The purpose of this lecture is to establish the fact

that it is just as easy to prove Islam using a proof-
text method of appeal to the Bible as it is to
prove any of the forms of Christianity that use
that method. It is not the intention to suggest that
the proof-text method is sufficient or even valid.
In a systematic review such as this, it is necessary
to note all convolutions. The desire to show to
what extent the Bible is the common property of
Middle Eastern religions, at least on some level,
leads to the necessity of approaching the text
from a proof-text point of view as well as from
more sophisticated methods.

Before approaching the specifics, a pilot project

that seeks to establish whether basic Islamic
issues are to be found in the Bible is in order. If
they cannot be found, then it is of no use to take
the trouble of further examination. The specific
issues chosen for this task are those fundamentals
known in Shi’ite Islam as the roots of faith. We
have already examined the Sunnite pillars of faith
in some detail. Rather that going into such detail
at this point for the roots according to Shi’ite
Islam, we shall merely make a brief mention of
each one. However, some of them are amplified
by related issues that appear important because of
Christian doctrine.

2
These roots of faith are five. The first is the
oneness of God. This is amplified here by texts
relating to the belief that God does not incarnate,
that there is no salvation in the son of man, and
that God is changeless. The second root of faith
is the justice of God. The third root of faith is
prophethood. This has already been examined in
general in the light of many texts above, but here
the particular reference to Muhammad is
mentioned. This will form the focus of latter
discussion as well. The principle of divine
guidance is the fourth root. This is amplified by a
Biblical reference to the word Ali. The final
principle of faith is the Day of Judgment, which
has also been dealt with in detail above, but is
here amplified by its relationship to the gospel or
message of Jesus (as).

I have given a transliteration of the proof-texts

underlining the significant portions. This is
expecially necessary in the two or three cases in
which I have radically disagreed with the
commonly used translations.

There is only one God.

Psalms 86:10 (Hebrew) atta Elohim levaddekha.

For you are great, and do wondrous things: you
are God alone.

Isaiah 45:5 (Hebrew) ani YHWH we-en ‘odh

zulathi en elohim: a-azerkha welo yedha’tani. I

3
am the LORD, and there is no other, there is no
God beside me: I girded you, though you have
not known me.

That one God is just, and the only Saviour.

Isaiah 45:21 (Hebrew) Haggidhu wehaggishu af

yiwwa’atzu yakhdaw: mi hishmia’ zoth
miqqedhem me-az higgidhah halo ani YHWH
we-en odh elohim mibbal’adhi el tzaddiq
umoshia’ ayin zohathi. Tell it, and bring them
near; indeed, let them take counsel together: who
has declared this from ancient time? who has told
it from that time? have not I the LORD? and
there is no other God beside me; a just God and a
Saviour; there is none beside me.

God is not a man or the Son of man.

Numbers 23:19 (Hebrew) lo ish el wikhazzev

uven adham weyithnetham: hahu amar welo
ya’ase wedhibber welo yeqimenna. God is not a
man, that he should lie; neither the son of man,
that he should repent: has he said so, and shall he
not do so? or has he spoken, and shall he not
make it good?

Notice that according to the text God is not a

human being, not “the son of man,” not any
“person” or “persons” at all, not one person nor
three persons.

4
The Son of man cannot save you.

Psalms 146:3 (Hebrew) al tivtkhu vindhivim:

beven adham she-en lo theshu’a. Put not your
trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom
there is no salvation.

God does not change.

pasa dosiv agayh kai pan dwrhma teleion anwyen

estin katabainon apo tou patrov twn fwtwn par w
ouk eni parallagh h trophv aposkiasma James
1:17 (Greek) pasa dosis agathe kai pan dorema
teleion anothen estin katabainon apo tou patros
ton foton par o ouk eni parallage e tropes
aposkiasma. Every good gift and every perfect
gift is from above, and comes down from the
Father of lights, with whom is no variableness,
neither shadow of turning.

If God does not change, as this Bible passage and

several others maintain, then God does not
incarnate, since incarnation requires change. God
does not change into anything, not even a man.

God reveals His message to humankind

through His servants the prophets.

Amos 3:7 (Hebrew) ki lo ya’ase adhonay YHWH

davar ki im gala sodho el ‘avdhaw hannevi-im.
Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he will
reveal his secret to his servants the prophets.

5
Many people will not believe the message of
God through Muhammad (as).

Psalm 106:24 (Hebrew) wayyim-asu be-eretz

Hamda: lo he-eminu lidhvaro. Indeed they
despise the land of Muhammad, they do not
believe his word.

The biased translator wishes to translate the name

Muhammad, thus making “pleasant land” instead
of “the land of Muhammad.” But this is not
possible, because the sentence goes on to say “his
word.” The possessive pronoun is masculine,
showing Hamda to be a proper masculine name,
rather than a feminine common noun as the
ending might suggest. There are a number of
such names in the Bible, feminine in form but
masculine in meaning.

God made Abraham (as) a guide for all

nations, in the following words spoken to him.

Genesis 12: 3 (Hebrew) wa-avarkha

mevarakhekha umqallelkha a-or: wenivrekhu
vekha kol mishpekhoth ha-adhama. And I will
bless them that bless you, and curse him that
curses you: and in you shall all families of the
earth be blessed.

6
Moses (as) prayed for a divinely appointed
guide to come after him.

Numbers 27: 16 (Hebrew) Yifqodh YHWH

Elohe harokhoth lekhol basar: ish ‘al ha’edha.
asher yetze lifnehem wa-asher yavo lifnehem wa-
asher yotzi-em wa-asher yevi-em: welo thiheye
‘adhath YHWH katz-tzon asher en lahem ro’e.
Let the LORD, the God of the spirits of all flesh,
set a man over the congregation, 17 Which may
go out before them, and which may go in before
them, and which may lead them out, and which
may bring them in; that the congregation of the
LORD be not as sheep which have no shepherd.

The principle of a divinely appointed leader goes

back earlier than Moses (as), but here we see
Moses (as) praying on behalf of one such figure.

Moses (as) invoked the name of Ali (as) in

speaking to the Pharaoh.

Exodus 8:5(9) (Hebrew) wayyomer Moshe

lefar’o hithpa-er ‘Ali lemathay a’tir lekha
wela’avadhekha ul’ammekha lehakhrith
hatzfarde’immimmekha umibbattekha raq baye-
or tish-sha-arna. And Moses said to Pharaoh,
Glorify Ali: when shall I intreat for you, and for
your servants, and for your people, to destroy the
frogs from you and your houses, that they may
remain in the river only?

7
The translation which says “Glory over me”
simply does not make sense.

The people of Israel sang about Ali (as) as they

walked in the wilderness.

Numbers 21:17 (Hebrew) az yashir yisra-el eth

hash-shira hazzoth ‘Ali ve-er ‘enu lah. Then
Israel sang this song, Ali (the Exalted one) is a
well (of water); sing to it.

The translation that says “Rise up, O well” only

fits a surealistic painting. In reality, wells do not
fly.

David (as) prophesied the coming of Islam.

Psalms 29:11 YHWH ‘oz le’ammo yitten:

YHWH yevarekh eth ‘ammo vash-shalom. The
LORD will give strength to his people; the
LORD will bless his people with Islam.

The word Islam is cognate with the Hebrew word

for “peace.” It is the proclamation of
reconciliation and peace, not only between God
and humankind, but between one nation and
another, one family and another, one individual
and another. It also reconciles the opposing
“parts” into which humankind would divide the
impartial God into the one true God without parts
and without limitations. Islam, meaning peace, is
peace in every possible sense.

8
God will forgive those who pray towards His
house, according to the petition of Solomon
(as).

1 Kings 8:30 (Hebrew) weshama’ta el tekhinnath

‘avdekha we’ammekha yisra-el asher yithfallu el
hammaqom hazze: we-atta tishma’ el meqom
shivtekha el hash-shamayim weshama’ta
wesalakheta. And listen to the supplication of
your servant, and of your people Israel, when
they shall pray toward this place: and hear in
heaven your dwelling place: and when you hear,
forgive.

Forgiveness depends on the grace of the one true

God alone, with nothing added, no sacrifice
human or otherwise. It is offered to those who
turn in prostration toward Him, repenting and
asking forgiveness.

God will take vengeance on the wicked and

reward His worshippers on the day of
judgement, as He promised Moses (as).

Deuteronomy 32:41-43 (Hebrew) im shannothi

beraq kharbi wethokhez bemishpot yadhi: ashiv
naqam letzaray we limsan-ay ashallem. ashkir
khitz-tzay middam wekharbi tokhal basar:
middam khalal weshivya merosh par’oth oyev.
harninu ghoyim ‘ammo ki dham ‘avadhaw
yiqqom: wenaqam yashiv le’atzaw wekhifer
adhamatho ‘ammo. 41 If I whet my glittering

9
sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment; I
will render vengeance to mine enemies, and will
reward them that hate me. 42 I will make mine
arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall
devour flesh; and that with the blood of the slain
and of the captives, from the beginning of
revenges upon the enemy. 43 Rejoice, O ye
nations, with his people: for he will avenge the
blood of his servants, and will render vengeance
to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his
land, and to his people.

Of nearly one hundred texts mentioning the

Gospel, only one actually tells us what the
message of the Gospel contains, the Gospel in
a nutshell.

Revelation 14:6,7 kai eidon aggelon petomenon

en mesouranhmati econta euaggelion aiwnion
euaggelisai touv kayhmenouv epi thv ghv kai epi
pan eynov kai fulhn kai glwssan kai laon. legwn
en fwnh megalh fobhyhte ton yeon kai dote autw
doxan oti hlyen h wra thv krisewv autou kai
proskunhsate tw poihsanti ton ouranon kai thn
ghn kai thn yalassan kai phgav udatwn.
Revelation 14:6-7 (Greek) kai eidon angelon
petomenon en mesuranemati ekhonta evangelion
aionion evangelisai tus kathemenus epi tes ges
kai epi pan ethnos kai fylen kai glossan kai laon:
legon en fone megale fobithete ton theon kai dote
avto doksan oti elthen e ora tes kriseos avtu kai
proskynesate to poiesanti ton uranon kai ten gen

10
kai ten thalassan kai pegas ydaton. And I saw
another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having
the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that
dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and
kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying with a
loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for
the hour of his judgment is come: and worship
him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and
the fountains of waters.

The Gospel in a nutshell is three commands: Fear

God (that is, do as God commands instead of
conforming to what the neighbor thinks), glorify
God (that is, recognize God alone as the source
of all good things and give thanks to Him), and
pray to Him in prostration. The Gospel gives two
explanations for these commands: everyone is
going to be held accountable to God in the
judgement, and God is deserving of worship and
obedience because He is the Creator of all things.

Obviously it is necessary to go beyond a mere

proof-text method. However, the experiment of
proof-texting shows that Islam is clearly as
capable of being established on the basis of proof
texts as any tradition that has ever appealed to
texts as evidence of its system of doctrine and
practice.

11
 The Fragrance of Islam

Islam and Christianity have had a mottled history

of confrontation. They are sister faiths having
roots in Middle Eastern monotheism and still
have a great deal in common. Yet they have been
pitted against each other throughout the history
of Islam since the appearance of the prophet
Muhammad (upon whom be peace) in the
beginning of the eighth century CE. The two
faiths have been associated with opposing
cultural, social and political systems for over
fourteen hundred years, and yet Muslims and
Christians have had enormous influences one on
the other.

Although Islam can be more truthfully said to

have been spread by the caravan than by the
sword, neither faith has been a stranger to
violence. Yet the word Islam comes from the
same root as peace. Surely anyone claiming to be
a Muslim who does not foster peace is making a
false claim. Much has been made of violent acts
in recent times, but it should be remembered that
all of these are in the context of quarrels among
wealthy oil families, both Western and Middle
Eastern. At times they are able to agree, despite
their differences of religion, and when they do
not, religion is only a pretext. Christianity and
Islam share a belief in a figure known to the
former as antichrist and to the latter as dajjal. In

12
Islamic belief, this figure has only one eye. Those
who have only one eye, an eye for oil, and no eye
for social justice, morality and ethics other than
to appeal to them as a pretext for their own
agenda, surely betray both Islam and Christianity.

The incident of the woman anointing the feet of

Jesus (as) with fine perfume brings to mind a
certain tradition often quoted by orientalists. It is
said that the Prophet (as) once said that he had
loved women, and that he had loved sweet odors,
but that the solace of his soul had been prayer. It
is my purpose to open a few of the perfume
bottles of Islam from the Christian Scriptures
themselves, so that the Christian can enjoy both
the savour of Christ who accepted the sinful
woman and her gift as well as the faith of the last
of the prophets. At the same time, it should be
remembered that Islam is not based on the Bible,
but on the holy Qur’an and the traditions of the
prophet and his family (as).

Tawheed or the Unity of God

“Say, He, God, is one (alone). God, the needless,

He does not beget nor is He begotten, and there
is none like Him, no not one.” Qur’an 112. This
text is used by millions of Muslims daily as a part
of their prayers. It expresses the first and
foremost principle of Islam, the unity and
uniqueness of God. In this matter, Islam contrasts

13
with Christianity, which acknowledges a trinity,
or one god in three persons.

We find the Christian Scriptures wholly agreeing

with this basic Islamic principle of faith. In
Deuteronomy 32:39 we find God Himself
speaking “See now that I, even I, am he, and
there is no god with me.” In his prayer Nehemiah
(9:6) confessed “Thou, even thou, art Lord alone,
thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens,
with all their host, the earth, and all things that
are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and
thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven
worshippeth thee.” Jesus agrees that this is the
first principle of faith when he says in Mark
12:29 “The first of all the commandments is
Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord.”
St. Paul, apostle beloved of Christians says in 1
Corinthians 8:6 “But to us there is but one God,
the Father, of whom are all things.”

The Justice of God

The second great principle of Islamic faith is the

assurance that God is not arbitrary, but
essentially just. The justice of God is expressed
in Qur’an 3:17 “God (Himself) witnesses that
there is no god but He, and (so do) the angels and
those possessed of knowledge, standing firm for
justice, (there is) no god but He, the Mighty the
Wise.” The same great attribute is mentioned
many times in the Bible. In Deuteronomy 32:4

14
we read “He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for
all his ways are judgement: a God of truth and
without iniquity, just and right is he.”

Muslims understand that God’s justice is

essential and intrinsic. Justice is not a separable
attribute, nor even a part of God, but God’s very
being. The unity of God implies to the Muslim
that God has no limits nor parts. Having no
limits, there is no limit to God’s perception and
knowledge. Having no parts, God must be
impartial. The unity of God implies His intrinsic
justice. He has all knowledge of every situation,
and being impartial, He is perfectly just.

The Apostleship

The third great principle of Islamic faith is

apostleship. This is expressed in the holy Qur’an
10:47. “And for every people (was sent) an
apostle; and when came their apostle, the matter
between them was decided with equity and they
shall not (in the least) be done (any) injustice.”
This text of the Qur’an notes that the justice of
God requires Him to reveal His will to all
humankind. Therefore He has sent prophets to all
nations. Islam requires belief in all true prophets,
both the prophet mentioned in the Bible and
those mentioned in the Qur’an. Muhammad (as)
is the last of the prophets sent by God. Thus
Qur’an 33:40 says “Muhammad is not the father
of any of your men, but an Apostle of God and

15
the last of the prophets: And God is of all things
ever the Knower.”

In the Christian Scriptures we find the same

principles. In Amos 3:7 it says “Surely the Lord
will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto
his servants the prophets.” The question arises
whether or not Muhammad (as) is mentioned in
the Bible. Many texts might be applied to him,
but several mention him by name. One of the
most important of these is Psalm 106:24, which
says “They despise the land of Muhammad
(Hebrew Hamda), they believe not his word.”
This is a Biblical prophecy indicating that when
Muhammad (as) should come, many would find
an excuse not to believe in him because of his
country of origin. Indeed, we find this to be the
case.

Divine Guidance

The fourth great principle of Islamic faith is

divine guidance. It is also a logical deduction
from the principle of the unity of God. The unity
of God implies His justice. God’s justice implies
verbal revelation of His will, otherwise He would
be unjust in holding people accountable for their
actions. But verbal revelation, the word of the
prophets, implies further guidance, guidance in
action, guidance in flesh and blood. A good
illustration of this is an assembly kit. When you
buy something that needs to be assembled, there

16
is always a printed instruction manual. Most of
us have experienced how confusing such manuals
can be. If there is someone who has done it
before to show us how, we find the task much
easier. The divine guide is one appointed by God
to show us how to implement the revealed will of
God.

In any practical situation, there are matters about

which we might have questions that recourse to
the Scriptures is insufficient. Even after reading
the Bible and the Qur’an, we are unsure what to
do. The role of the divine guide is to show us
what to do. The Arabic word for the divine guide
is Imam, although this is often used merely to
refer to a simple leader of prayer. The word
leader in referring to the divine guide is much
more than that, however. The holy Qur’an
mentions that God made Abraham (as) not only a
prophet, but a leader or Imam for humankind, in
Qur’an 2:125 “And remember when his Lord
tried Abraham with certain words then he
fulfilled them: He said, Truly I make you an
Imam for humankind…”

The principle of divine guidance runs like a

golden thread throughout the Christian Scriptures
as well. The necessity of divine guidance is
expressed very neatly in the story of Philip in
Acts 8:30-31 “Philip ran thither to him, and heard
him read the prophet Esaias, and said,
Understandest thou what thou readest? And he

17
said, How can I, except some man should guide
me?” The statement of the Ethiopian shows
clearly that the writings of the prophets are not
enough. There must also be a divine guide to
implement them in practice.

The leadership of Abraham (as) continued

through his descendants, finally coming to the
holy Prophet Muhammad (as), who passed it on
to his cousin and son-in-law Ali ibn abi Taleb
(as). This was done publicly after the event of the
Prophet’s (as) last pilgrimage to Mecca. The
greater portion of the Muslims at the time were
witnesses to the fact. At that time Ali (as) was
appointed, and the appointment has gone down to
eleven of his descendants, the last of which is
believed to be still living and ruling. The Bible
also shows a number of series of twelve leaders,
such as the twelve patriarchal reigns in Genesis,
the twelve sons of Ishmael, the twelve sons of
Jacob, the twelve judges of Israel, the twelve
righteous kings of Judah, and the twelve disciples
of Christ (as).

The Day of Judgement

The differences between the Islamic and

Christian concepts of the Day of Judgement are
difficult to find, and hardly to be understood by
any but the specialist, so close are the two faiths
in this regard. This is the final great principle of
Islamic faith, and it is mentioned in many

18
passages of the holy Qur’an, such as 99:6-8 “On
that day people will come out (from their graves)
in (scattered) groups, to be shown their own
deeds. Then he who has done an atom-weight of
good shall see it. And he who has done an atom-
weight of evil shall see it.” Jesus makes the same
point in Matthew 12:36 “But I say unto you, That
ever idle word that men shall speak, they shall
give account thereof in the day of judgement.”

Thus there are five great principles of Islam. The

unity of God implies His justice. The justice of
God implies the necessity of revelation.
Revelation implies someone to implement it.
Finally, human beings are held responsible for
how they relate to the revelation of God’s will.
Besides the five great principles of Islamic faith
there are many practices that logically proceed
from them, as well as being expressed in
revelation. Ten of these are traditionally
considered to be basic. These are daily prayer in
prostration, fasting during the month of
Ramadhan, pilgrimage to the house of God in
Mecca, charity taken from one’s assets, charity
taken from one’s profits, jihad or endeavour in
the way of God, enjoining good, opposing evil,
respect for godly people, and avoidance of
wicked people.

19
Prayer in Prostration

Muslims are known particularly for their daily

prayer in prostration. Therefore the holy Qur’an
(6:163) states “Say: Truly my prayer and my
sacrifice, my life and my death, (are all only) for
God, the Lord of the worlds.” Actually Islamic
prayer is better described in the Bible than in the
Qur’an. Every time and gesture of Islamic prayer
in prostration is mentioned in the Bible. Nearly
every common phrase of the prayer is to be found
in the Psalms of David. It is one of the
incongruities of reality that Muslims follow the
Bible so closely in their prayer, while Christians
and Jews have developed extra-Biblical practices
of prayer. Yet the latter claim to base their
practice on the Bible, whereas Muslims do not.
Muslims base their practice on the Qur’an and
tradition. If anything can be said about
humankind, it is that we are irrational.

The example of Jesus praying in prostration is

mentioned in Matthew 26:39 “And he went a
little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed.”
Prayer as specific times in the day is also
mentioned in the Bible, Psalm 32:6 “For this
shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a
time when thou mayest be found.” Also Psalm
69:13 “But as for me, my prayer is unto thee, O
Lord, in an acceptable time.” The cry “Allahu
akbar” is mentioned as belonging to prayer in
Psalm 35:27; 18:5,6; 30:8; 34:3; and 55:16.

20
Standing, bowing, kneeling, and prostrating are
all gestures of prayer in the Psalms. Prayer
towards the house of God is commended in
Psalm 5:7 “But as for me, I will come into thy
house in the multitude of thy mercy; and in thy
fear will I worship toward thy holy temple.”

Islamic prayer brings the individual into paradise

itself. When I began dialogue with Muslims, one
of the first things I was told was “If you only
knew how sweet is prayer in prostration, you
would fight us to get it.” That is entirely true.

Fasting

In Qur’an 2:183 it says “O you who believe!

Fasting has been ordained to you as it was
ordained to those before you so that you might
guard yourself (against evil).” Interestingly
enough, fasting is not mentioned in the books of
Moses (as) except for the forty day fast of Moses
(as) himself. A similar fast was performed by
Jesus (as) upon receiving the Gospel, and by
Muhammad (as) as well. Yet we know that
fasting in the ninth lunar month, the month of
Ramadhan, was practiced from early times, as the
Qur’an indicates. Evidence of this is in Jeremiah
36:9 “And it came to pass in the fifth year of
Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, in the
ninth month, that they proclaimed a fast before
the Lord to all the people in Jerusalem, and to all
the people that came from the cities of Judah

21
unto Jerusalem.” We know that this was a
common religious practice from the fact that this
king was not a righteous one. He did not
proclaim anything good unless it was an
established practice.

The reason for fasting is to help us to guard

ourselves against evil. That is, it fosters doing the
right thing. It makes us stop to reevaluate our
lives and redetermine to act in ethical, moral, and
just ways.

Pilgrimage

It is incumbent on every Muslim to go to the

house of God in Mecca at least once in a lifetime
if possible. It says in the Qur’an (22:27) “And
proclaim to the people the Pilgrimage! They will
come to you on foot and on lean camel, coming
from every remote (high) way.”

Pilgrimage to Jerusalem is mentioned often in the

Gospel in relation to Jesus (as). But Jesus (as)
prophesies in John 4:21 that the time will come
“when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet
at Jerusalem, worship the Father.” Muslims
believe that the Pilgrimage to Mecca refers back
to the experience of Abraham, who rebuilt the
house of God there, making it a holy place down
to our days as well. At the beginning of his
ministry, Muhammad (as) continued the direction
of prayer towards Jerusalem. It was only later

22
that the prophecy of Jesus (as) was fulfilled, and
Mecca rather than Mount Gerazim or Jerusalem,
became the proper place of pilgrimage and the
right direction of prayer.

Charity

Charity is enjoined on Muslims in the holy

Qur’an 2:43 “Establish the prayer and give away
the poor-rate and bow down (praying).” In the
sermon on the mount Jesus (as) begins Matthew
six with four verses enjoining charity. Charity
has always been a primary Christian duty, and in
this the two faiths of Islam and Christianity are
very much agreed. In some sense we can take
Matthew six as a summary of the teaching of
Jesus (as). In Matthew five Jesus merely
establishes his adherence to the law. In Matthew
seven he describes the day of judgement. The
meat of this sandwich is Matthew six, and the
first principle of Matthew six is alms in charity. It
is interesting to note that the rest of the chapter
deals with prayer in prostration, fasting, and, in
the last half, probably with pilgrimage.

Holy War

There are four kinds of holy war in Islam:

striving with the self, striving with one’s wealth,
striving with knowledge, and striving with the
sword. These may well be in order of importance,
the last being the least. Therefore the Qur’an

23
(9:41) says “Go forth (with) light and heavy
equipment and strive in the way of God with
your property and your selves, this is better for
you, if you knew (it).”

Thus the principle of Islam is to struggle or

strive, first of all with oneself to maintain right,
then with one’s wealth, intellectual capacity, and
arms. Islam is not a pacifist religion, but military
action is carefully circumscribed. Unfortunately
most of the military action down through history
has not been justifiable on Islamic principles.
War to enhance territory and wealth is not
justifiable, and this is the general situation.
“Jehad should be exclusively in the way of the
Lord and never for any territorial ambition.”
(Introduction to the Holy Qur’an, S. V. Mir
Ahmed Ali, page 123a).

Recent research suggests that Jesus (as) was not

the sweet and effeminate saviour that many
believe him to be, but a Zealot, establishing
himself as the divinely appointed leader in the
face of the Roman occupation. Whether or not
that be the case, Christianity was spread
throughout Europe by the sword and later
throughout the world through colonial
occupation. The greatest holocaust, insofar as the
numbers of victims is concerned, was not the
Jews in Europe in the 1940s, but the Indians in
Mexico, of whom more than twice as many died
in only half the time, during the first few years of

24
Christian conquest, many of them being baptized
against their will before being killed.

Islam is the faith of peace, and Muslims should

invite Christians to join them in walking the
middle line, not declining war when it is
necessary to defend peace and justice, but
fearlessly condemning the terrorism, violence,
and oppression that is so visible in the present
world as a result of politico-economic conflict.

Enjoining the good and opposing evil

This practice of Islam is expressed in the holy

Qur’an 3:109 “You are the best group that has
been brought forth for mankind: you enjoin
goodness and you forbid evil, and you believe in
God; and if the people of the Book had (also)
believed (similarly) it had surely been better for
them; of them (only some) are believers and most
of them are perverse.”

The same principle is reiterated in Psalm 45:7

“Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest
wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath
anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy
fellows.” It is said that all are responsible to
foster good and oppose evil to the best of their
ability, if not by actions, then by words, and if
not by words, then by thoughts. According to
Islam good is whatever is in accordance with

25
revealed divine law, and evil is anything that
opposes it.

Respect for the godly and avoidance of the

wicked

This Islamic principle is mentioned in the holy

Qur’an 42:23 “That is of which God gives the
glad tidings to His servants who believe and do
good deeds; Say: I demand not of you any
recompense for it (the toils of apostleship) but the
love of (my) relatives, and whosoever earns
good, We increase for him good therein, truly
God is Oft-Forgiving the most Grateful (One).”
Attachment to the godly refers to two groups:
firstly to the worthy descendants of the Prophet
(as) and specifically the divinely appointed
guides, and secondly to those who earn good, or
by their behaviour show their attachment to the
will of God.

The same principle is found in the Bible as well,

for example, in Malachi 3:18 “Then shall ye
return, and discern between the righteous and the
wicked, between him that serveth God and him
that serveth him not.” The idea is to put a
distinction between those who do right and those
who do not. This is the basic criterion of
distinguishing between people, and it implies that
other criteria are wrong. Thus we should not
distinguish between people on the basis of their
wealth, race, appearance, or mental or physical

26
capacity. We should respect people uniquely for
the degree to which they show evidence of
adherence to divine law and foster it. Attraction
to celebrities is thus un-Islamic.

Down through the centuries Islam has been

taught with the fingers of the hand, to make
things simple and easy to remember. There are
five basic principles and ten basic practices.
These constitute the basics of Islam, but there are
many other matters of grave importance, such as
the many practices of purity, modesty, and
justice. But these are all implicit in the one great
principle that God is one.

27
 The Family of Abraham (as): A Social,
Economic, Political and Religious Model

1. Definitions and Goals.

The study to follow is based on the story of the

family of Abraham (as) as described in the
Biblical passage of Genesis 12-22. It is an
uncritical contemplation of the Massoretic text of
the Genesis story in the Bible as it stands in the
Hebrew. The question I pose is not how the
original narrator understood the matter of the
family. Rather, I pose the question of how a
historically significant text, one attached to
several great religious traditions over more than a
thousand years, can be understood in the light of
the family values of one of those traditions. This
purpose would be gainsaid by appealing to
historical criticism, since it is the text as it stands,
rather than its sources, which is of relevance to
the questions posed. Systematic investigation can
be applied within those parameters, and that is
the purpose of the following essay.

After presenting the problem, the methodology

will be simply to approach the texts using the
word family to see what narrations and actions
impinge on its use in the text of Genesis. To that
extent analysis cannot differ from one observer to
another. I have divided this into two parts. The
first is a general overview of the use of the word

28
family in the whole body of the Hebrew Bible.
The second is a more specific investigation of
each passage in the story of Abraham in which
the basic social elements of the family are
prominent. I shall go beyond this, however, to
point out similarities and parallels with Islamic
values. From a scholarly point of view such
parallels are either fortuitous, or merely reflect
the fact that Islam shares to some extent a
common geographical and cultural ethos with the
Genesis record.

The family is the central subject of the two

positive commands in the Decalogue (Exodus
20:1-17). The Sabbath commandment limits the
authority of the parents on children, on workers,
and on domestic animals. The following
commandment requires children to honour their
parents. These two commands, according to the
Decalogue, comprise the whole positive duty of
humankind. The importance of the family is thus
not only central but vital.

The very first command of the Bible is in

Genesis 1:28 “And God blessed them, and God
said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and
replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have
dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the
fowl of the air, and over every living thing that
moveth upon the earth.” The command to
reproduce according to this passage is half of the
duty of humankind, the other half being to have

29
dominion. The family is the centre of human
responsibility before God.

The word generally translated family in Hebrew

is mishpekhah, but occurs for the first time in
Genesis 8:19, where it is translated “kinds.”
“Every beast, every creeping thing, and every
fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth,
after their kinds, went forth out of the ark.”

The translator is obviously ill at ease with the

word family as applied to animals. However, this
is the first and defining occurrence of the word in
the Scriptural canon. The context gives two
distinct connotations of the word. The first relates
to the pair of unclean animals taken into the ark,
and the second relates to the group of seven clean
animals taken into the ark at the beginning of the
flood. These two groups have potentially
changed during the time in the ark, and these
changes have turned them into “families.” The
first change relates clearly to both groups, and
this is reproduction. Both groups have become
families through reproduction, and the addition
of offspring is a binding and defining feature of
the family. The second group, that of seven
clean animals, adds another feature besides
descent in defining the family. This is the feature
of flocking, or cooperative life. These two
features overlap and define the family as a group
of relatives who live in proximity and are

30
mutually dependent on each other for a
livelihood.

The use made of the word mishpekhah in

Jeremiah 15:3, where it is translated “kinds,” is a
single and unusual case. There even the sword is
in a particular kind or family.

The next occurrence of the word mishpekhah is

in Genesis 10:5, and is even more illuminating as
a defining text.“From these were parceled out the
areas of the peoples in their lands, each according
to his language; according to their families in
their peoples.” This is the first text where the
word family is applied to human beings. The
context defines the political and social geography
of the whole world. The implied concept of
family thus pretends to be universal and
normative. The text is most interesting in its
implications. It makes a common language the
defining feature for ethnic groups. These ethnic
groups have defined areas of residence. Finally,
the ethnic group consists of smaller units, which
are called families. These families are logically
defined by Genesis 8 as biologically related
people living in proximity and dependent on one
another for their livelihood.

What is outstanding here is that no other social or

political groupings are acknowledged in the
whole world. There are only ethnic groups
defined, not by political features, but by

31
residence and language. There is no implication
of further cooperation within the ethnic group as
a whole. The real social, political, and economic
unit is the extended family. This textual intent
could be either descriptive or proscriptive, but the
context of Genesis 10 would imply very strongly
that it is proscriptive. It remains to be seen how
and to what extent this may be modified.

The other texts which affirm this concept of the

family are Genesis 10:18, et al. 24:38, et al.
36:40; Exodus 6:14, et al. Numbers 1:2, et al.
3:15, et al. 4:2, et al. 11:10; 26:5, et al. 27:1, et al.
33:54; 36:1; Deuteronomy 29:18(17); Joshua
6:23; 7:17; 13:15, et al. 15:1, et al. 16:5, et al.
17:2; 18:11, et al. 19:1, et al. 21:4, et al. Judges
1:25; 9:1; 1Samuel 9:21; 10:21; 18:18; 20:6, 29;
2Samuel 14:7; 16:5; Jeremiah 1:15; 2:4; 3:14;
Amos 3:2; Nahum 3:4; Zechariah 12:12, et al.
14:7; Psalm 22:27(28); 96:7; Job 31:34; 32:2;
Ruth 2:1, et al. Nehemiah 4:13(7); Esther 9:28;
1Chronicles 2:53, et al. 4:2, et al. 5:7; 5:19(4) et
al 7:5; 16:28.

Since the family has such an important defining

role in Scripture, it is therefore of prime
importance to take note of divine guidance in
regard to the family. Much of revelation deals
with one or another aspect of the family, so that it
is impossible to deal with all of it in one study.
Nevertheless, the main features become apparent
as we contemplate the life of one individual who

32
has been for thousands of years the model of
virtue for all people. The Biblical prophet says in
Isaiah 51:2 “Look unto Abraham your father, and
unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone,
and blessed him, and increased him.” We are
always justified in beginning with the example of
Abraham (as), for God says in Qur’an 2:124
“And remember that Abraham was tried by his
Lord with certain Commands, which he fulfilled:
He said: "I will make thee an Imam to the
Nations." He pleaded: "And also (Imams) from
my offspring!" He answered: "But My Promise is
not within the reach of evildoers." And further in
Qur’an 2:130 “And who turns away from the
religion of Abraham but such as debase their
souls with folly? Him We chose and rendered
pure in this world: And he will be in the
Hereafter in the ranks of the Righteous.”

I have therefore chosen to examine some salient

features of the main passages relating to the
family of Abraham (as) as the story appears in
Genesis 12 to 22. I take the passages in order of
appearance, and attempt to investigate them
systematically. Beyond that, however, I have
addressed the text with certain questions in mind,
which are reflected in the various sections of the
study below. For the purposes of this study, I
have accepted the Biblical text as it reads in the
Massoretic Hebrew version without reference to
textual criticism.

33
2. A blessing for all families of the earth

Genesis12:1 “Now the LORD had said unto

Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy
kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land
that I will shew thee: 2 And I will make of thee a
great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy
name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: 3 And I
will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that
curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the
earth be blessed.”

This text establishes the principles of true faith,

but beyond this it also establishes the family as
the basic social unit of existence. It does not
recognise political entities as such, but only the
authority of the divinely appointed ruler in
Abraham (as) on one hand, and all the families of
the earth on the other. The act of blessing
Abraham (as), and consequently his divinely
appointed descendants serving as prophets and
guides, implies the duty of submission to their
authority. All families are thus directly under the
authority of Abraham (as) or his duly
commissioned successor to authority.

The social implications of this passage are

enormous. The authority and submission reigning
between all families and the divinely appointed
ruler ignores to extinction all other attempts to
control society. It undercuts the validity of all
forms of government. It opposes all seemingly

34
natural social forces with a particular institutional
control. Finally, it raises the family as the only
visible institution with divine approval, an
institution placed directly under the control of
Abraham (as) and his successors. This great fact
in practice means that care must be taken to walk
the narrow line between the social, political,
economic and religious forces which would
annihilate the family by usurping the proper
bases of sovereignty.

3. Taqiyya: preserving the family from the

evils of society.

Genesis 12:10 “And there was a famine in the

land: and Abram went down into Egypt to
sojourn there; for the famine was grievous in the
land. 11 And it came to pass, when he was come
near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai
his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair
woman to look upon: 12 Therefore it shall come
to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that
they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill
me, but they will save thee alive. 13 Say, I pray
thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with
me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because
of thee.”

Preserving the right relationship between the

family and divine authority sometimes requires
careful planning in how to relate to human
authorities. The story of Abraham (as) instructing

35
his wife to engage in taqiyya or dissembling is
the model of reference for such situations. It
logically implies a number of things. It is
necessary to foresee the areas of conflict between
divine law and human institutions. It is
furthermore necessary to form strategies for
avoiding such conflict insofar as possible. Such
strategies must place adherence to divine law
above openness to usurping authorities. The
result may be taqiyya, that is, dissembling the
truth before officials when it is necessary to do so
to avoid compromising divine law.

Such a scenario is of course an extreme case. In

most situations strategies can and must be formed
which permit an open relationship to non-Islamic
government and society on one hand, while
providing for a family life within the parameters
of divine law on the other.

4. Compromise: preserving peace within the

family.

Genesis13:8 “And Abram said unto Lot, Let

there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and
thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen;
for we be brethren. 9 Is not the whole land
before thee? separate thyself, I pray thee, from
me: if thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go
to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand,
then I will go to the left.”

36
The experience of Abraham (as) reported here
notes that he was willing to suffer financial loss
or at least compromise his potential for profit in
order to keep peace within the family. The story
indicates that he gave Lot (as) the first choice for
pasturage, and was left with the least fertile areas.

The relevance of this matter goes far beyond the

quality of family life as such to a well-defined
socio-economic policy. The logical implication
of this episode in the life of Abraham (as) is that
profits must be insinuated into the family context.
The family as the basic social unit is also the
basic economic unit. Business which is divorced
from the family situation does not have a valid
basis, and the concept of a professional life
which ignores the ramifications of the extended
family is a non-scriptural idea. The purpose of
attaining wealth must be the maintenance and
enhancing of the family and its welfare, not the
enhancement of a personal career. As we
compare this to the economic trends in recent
decades, it appears that the acquisition of wealth
has largely been deflected from the family to
broader social and political arenas on one hand,
and to personal and individualistic goals on the
other. This tendency is highly questionable in
principle, and in practice appears to have
weakened the role of the family. It has also
created an artificial problem of such magnitude

37
that many are unable to see any alternative
structures, and this is the problem of the
individual and society. A return to a Scriptural
notion of the family as the central element of
society would not merely give answers to such
issues, but annihilate the very perceptional cadre
which has produced them.

The family is made up not only of parents and

small children, but of a wider lineage of adults.
The modern trend towards ignoring these ties in
business and professional life has clearly resulted
in the breakdown of both the wider family and
the relations between parents and dependent
children. The purpose of this breakdown, if it is a
purposeful phenomenon, is to facilitate invalid
controls, both governmental and industrial,
within society. The result of the implementation
of such invalid controls exacerbates the tension
between individual and society and thus creates a
vicious circle.

A correction of this breakdown of the family will

often entail compromise of the potential for
profit. Only a clear understanding of this can
facilitate its implementation. Although there will
immediately arise on the part of the Westerner
the criticism that nepotism is unjust, the principle
remains. A brother or cousin is a preferable
business partner than a stranger. This strengthens
the family and weakens illicit forces.

38
This is perhaps one of the Scriptural, Islamic
values most neglected by Muslim immigrants in
the West. Despite the fact that the rush to earn is
often accompanied by a very real economic
support of the extended family remaining in the
home country, there is evidence that
individualistic professional values acquired in the
West are eroding both the awareness of the
Islamic principles involved and the will to
incorporate the extending family in one’s
economy. This is only natural, since it is an
unbalanced situation which places the economic
burden on one or a limited number of individuals.
The immigrant situation is intrinsically harmful
to the family, and unless conscious measures are
taken to counteract this evil, it will eventually
result in the loss of other spiritual values.

5. Reproduction: a central reason for living in

families.

Genesis 16:1 Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him

no children: and she had an handmaid, an
Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. 2 And Sarai
said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath
restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in
unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain
children by her. And Abram hearkened to the
voice of Sarai.

The fundamental concern of Abraham (as) as he

appears in the Genesis story is his desire to have

39
children. This overrides all other interests. His
interest is not informed by a personal
idiosyncrasy, but by the divine will itself. It is
thus normative. Taking the Abrahamic example,
we should be more interested in making heirs
than we are in providing inheritance. Another
clear contrast with the values of the present world
we live in arises here. The family is the only
existing regenerative source of society. The
importance of propagation in the mind of both
Abraham (as) and his wife is such that they are
willing to compromise the peace of the family in
order to accomplish it. Polygamy in the Bible is
first noted in an unrighteous society (Genesis
4:23). The first model of marriage is
monogamous (Genesis 2:23,24). Nor is there a
command in Genesis to engage in polygamy.
However, the polygamy of Abraham (as) is not
stated to be outside the divine will, and it never
required repentance or atonement. It resulted in
the divinely willed birth of Ishmael (as), although
it also resulted in a disruption of family peace.

Polygamy was practised by many of the

righteous examples of the Bible, and although it
is the object of limiting legislation, it was never
forbidden. The holy Qur’an limits the number of
wives to four, but under very severe restrictions.
In view of all of the circumstances, there is no
evidence that we are justified in suggesting that
Abraham (as) made a mistake in taking a second
wife. The birth of Ishmael (as) is clearly planned

40
and desired by both God and Abraham (as), to
say nothing of Abraham’s first wife, Sarah, as
reported in Genesis.

The lesson to be learned from this is not freely to

engage in polygamy, but to realise to what extent
reproduction is important to human society. We
have only to refer to the text in Genesis 1 quoted
above to remind ourselves that reproduction is
half of the whole positive duty of humankind.

The question of polygamy is one of the most

burning issues in the dialogue between Islam and
Christianity. It must be kept foremost in mind
that the Bible and the Qur’an are in clear
agreement on this matter. The ideal is
monogamous marriage, but polygamy within
certain constraints is not forbidden, and serves
some very pragmatic needs. Christianity in
forbidding polygamy outright and absolutely,
besides going beyond the Scriptural limits, has
not been able to produce an example of a society
where the ideal of monogamous marriage is
thereby maintained in all its glory. On the
contrary, Christian societies have always been
characterised by sexual excesses and social
scandal. In Islamic societies a reluctant loosening
of the constraint of absolute monogamy may
have raised the status of women to some extent
from the horrors of prostitution, but unfortunately
other social and economic factors have often in
practice mitigated the gains. Had Islam spread

41
among less patriarchal peoples, its ideals might
have shown more successful examples in this
matter.

From a purely logical point of view, given the

command of Genesis 1, every normal, healthy
individual should have the right if not the
obligation to marry and reproduce. In a society
where there is a specific percentage of more
women than men, there should be an equal
percentage of occurrences of polygamy.
However, where this is the case, the
preponderance of additional women generally
occurs at a higher age. Correspondingly, to be
logical, the second wife should be noticeably
older rather than younger. This might not always
serve the purpose of propagation, but it would
serve the purpose of women’s right to marry.
Having said that, it is necessary to note that
according to the Biblical narrative polygamy in
the case of Abraham was only tolerated as long
as Sarah, the first wife, tolerated it. Social issues
aside, the choice devolves on those involved, not
on outsiders. Even under legal pressure to accept
a polygamous relationship, the Bible recognizes
the right of the individual to refuse it, as in the
case of the other redeemer of Ruth (Ruth 4:6).
Personal interests, specifically the desire to
maintain a monogamous family, may thus
override polygamy even in the limited cases in
which polygamy in the levirate is prescribed by
the Torah. Much could be said about the issue

42
from the individual and psychological point of
view, and the evils of polygamy are obvious to
everyone. But in terms of society as a whole, the
institution of polygamy is one of two alternatives.
Either polygamy must be accepted to a limited
extent, or the institution of celibate monasticism.
If all men married, the need for polygamy would
be greatly reduced, if only by the fact that fewer
women would be available. The present Western
standard of a growing singles society is
completely unacceptable if for only one reason.
Social and political control of a society of singles
is easier than that of families. Those who have
children naturally engage themselves in
influencing society in favour of their children’s
safety and well-being. Those who do not have
children are oftentimes more inert in opposing
oppression in the areas relating to education and
the development of children. While singles may
be very active, even more active than married
people, in some social issues, their attention is
more immediate, and the long-term direction of
social development, which depends on children,
is neglected. The tendency in the West is toward
inhuman totalitarianism hidden beneath a
plethora of immediate issues in crises. One of the
best ways of reversing that would be a social
movement toward marital commitment and the
founding of families, even in some situations
including polygamy.

43
6. Circumcision: defining social boundaries.

Genesis 17:9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou

shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy
seed after thee in their generations. 10 This is
my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me
and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child
among you shall be circumcised.

At the time of the coming of the Gospel, Judaism

was split on the question of whether a convert or
proselyte was required to be circumcised. This
same question continued to split the community
of the followers of Jesus (as). The writings of St.
Paul reflect that local situation in many vehement
expressions condemning the circumcision of
adult proselytes. The question of the
circumcision of male children, however, is never
discussed in the New Testament epistles. The
practice of the circumcision of children remains
valid and normative from its institution in the
family of Abraham (as) down to the present day.

Circumcision was given to Abraham (as) as a

sign of his faithfulness in obedience to God. It
was to be an identifying mark through
succeeding generations. The mark of
circumcision identified families into which
marriage was possible or appropriate. It
continues to a large extent to inform modern
society in the same way. Male circumcision is
one of the primary means parents have for the

44
continued protection of their daughters.
Circumcision acts as a guardian in two ways.
First of all it has an effect on health and hygiene,
both of the husband and wife. It is thus one of the
most important factors in family life.
Furthermore, it represents the likelihood that
one’s daughter who has become a wife will be
dealt with in terms of divine law rather than in
terms of economic or social competition, where
the average status of women declines, if only
because of their biologically determined
handicaps to engage in such competition for
survival, that is, the normal conditions of
pregnancy and breast-feeding as well as the
average physical strength of women being less
than that of men. Circumcision becomes a sign of
women’s rights under divine law, and thus has a
very direct social significance. Circumcision of
males defines their family as a participant in
society. Failure to circumcise male children puts
the family outside the pale of regulated society
into the state in which lawless competition
determines all behaviour. This is basically the
situation resulting from Christian rejection of
circumcision and its underlying principles.

An implication of circumcision as the defining

feature of social boundaries is the suppression of
the importance of other boundary-defining
devices. Circumcision implies the extension of
social boundaries over racial, national, and
sectarian limits, and creates the umma or people

45
of God. It aids the family in its confrontation
with usurping social and governmental agencies
by creating a social grouping which ignores their
hegemony.

7. Hospitality: the family meeting society.

Genesis 18:2 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, 3
And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in
thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy
servant: 4 Let a little water, I pray you, be
fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves
under the tree: 5 And I will fetch a morsel of
bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye
shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your
servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said.

Qur’an 11:69 There came Our Messengers to

Abraham with glad tidings. They said, "Peace!"
He answered, "Peace!" and hastened to entertain
them with a roasted calf.

In the ideal society, where the family is the unit

of religion and government, temporary isolation
from the extended family, because of travel or for
other reasons, can create situations of crisis in
security. Non-scriptural forms of government and
business, with their peace-keeping forces and
hostelries, can blind one to the divinely

46
established extended social role of the family.
The family is the centre of hospitality, and
hospitality is a sacred duty for the preservation of
peace and security. The breakdown of this
practice is one of the foremost sources of the
excuse to engage in non-scriptural governmental
and business activities. Therefore the sacredness
of hospitality cannot be underestimated.

The example of Abraham (as) was to feed and

refresh travellers whom he did not know. Such
hospitality in this example is an activity in which
the whole family shared. The provision of the
necessities of life falls on the family. But when
one is separated from one’s family, that provision
must fall on other families. The only alternative
is to provide other institutions, and these have
proved to be not only non-scriptural, but to have
by and large a detrimental effect on spiritual
values. The loss of extended hospitality is related
to a consequent need for accommodation and
food from institutions other than the family. To
the extent that these institutions are divorced
from the family, they foster isolation,
unfavourable forms of entertainment, and
eventually prostitution, intoxication, and other
excesses. At a certain point these excesses are
perceived as a problem in Western societies, but
the root of the evil is never understood, and for
this reason the solutions are never effective. The
trend can be effectively reversed by simply

47
reinstating the Scriptural value of hospitality as a
central characteristic of the family.

8. Divine Guidance: confronting convention

with obedience to God.

Genesis 22:1 And it came to pass after these

things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said
unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I
am. 2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only
son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into
the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a
burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I
will tell thee of.

Qur’an 37:101 So We gave him the good news of

a boy ready to suffer and forbear. 102 Then,
when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious)
work with him, he said: "O my son! I see in
vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what
is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as
thou art commanded: Thou will find me, if Allah
so wills one practicing Patience and Constancy!"

103 So when they had both submitted their wills

(to Allah), and he had laid him prostrate on his
forehead (for sacrifice), 104 We called out to
him, "O Abraham! 105 "Thou hast already
fulfilled the vision!" --Thus indeed do We reward
those who do right. 106 For this was obviously a
trial-- 107 And We ransomed him with a
momentous sacrifice: 108 And We left (this

48
blessing) for him among generations (to come) in
later times: 109 "Peace and salutation to
Abraham!"

The story of Abraham (as) sacrificing his eldest

son has provided material for conflict between
the religious traditions, one side claiming that
Isaac (as) was the son named and the other side
claiming that Ishmael (as) was the son of
promise. Such controversy overlooks the cultural
context of the event as well as its implications. In
order to see the social implications of this event,
it is necessary to review its cultural and religious
milieu. The sacrifice of children was widespread
in ancient times and especially prevalent in
Canaanite religion. The substitutionary sacrifice
of children in a rite of passage or initiatory ritual
has been just as widely spread. The Biblical text
is permeated with the typical phrases of such an
initiatory ritual. It is clear that Abraham (as)
performed this rite for each of the first-born sons
of his wives, for both Ishmael (as) and Isaac (as).
What is of particular importance is the fact that
Abraham (as) performed this rite while living
among people who actually killed their own
children in sacrifice to Canaanite gods. He
showed his faith in being willing to flaunt social
and religious convention. The sacrifice of
children was considered absolutely essential to
the well-being of society in that part of the
Middle East at that time. By failing to kill his
first-born children, Abraham (as) opened himself

49
to violent criticism. His performance of a
substitutionary rite probably did little to allay
that, although the rumour that the sacrifice was
prevented by divine intervention may have
reduced the danger. But to the extent that their
flaunting of convention became known, the
family of Abraham (as) may have been exposed
to outright danger from an enraged populace. The
social ramifications of Abraham’s faithfulness to
divine law when it ran contrary to popular
custom are deep and significant.

The sacrifice of Abraham (as), both in the case of

Isaac (as) and that of Ishmael (as), has far-
reaching implications. Conformity to social
conventions which are contrary to divine law is a
great temptation. It is easy to pretend that such
conformity is necessary for the preservation of
peace. In the light of Abraham’s (as) actions, it
would appear that such contentions are mere
excuses for the desire to be like the ungodly. The
Abrahamic example informs us first of all that
obedience to divine law is of more importance
than conformity in the name of peace. It is the
only means of preserving the family in the face
of a challenging society. It is the only means of
redeeming that challenging society and bringing
a sane influence to bear upon it.

The rite itself, however, raises other questions.

The substitutionary, redemptive rite for the first-
born son of every woman does not have universal

50
application. It is already given a different
configuration in the Mosaic ritual. It has been
replaced in Islam with a commemorative rite
during the pilgrimage. This is an example of the
shift in practice which has taken place over the
ages. All prophets have been given the same faith
and message, and to a great degree the same
practices. But there is and has always been an
area in which practice varies. These variations
can be seen in the writings of the prophets, but
they are most prominent in the application of
divine law made by the divinely appointed
guides. As people are faced with the details of a
particular situation, the application of divine law
may vary as it meets the practicalities of that
situation.

Apparently in the time and place of Abraham

(as), the redemptive rite served the purpose best.
In our own day, the commemorative rite is for
our best good, and has therefore been prescribed
for us in the Qur’an. The example of Abraham
(as) is one of obedience in any case, and his
example inspires us to obey God rather than to
conform to non-scriptural practices in whatever
place or time we live. This implies seeking and
following divine proof, adhering to the guidance
of the divinely appointed for our own time. The
fact that this issue lies within the context of a
matter which shows change down through the
ages is important. There is a temptation to
consider that only the universally binding issues

51
are of importance. Abraham was faithful even in
a matter of only temporary validity. The
implication is that the Scripturally-oriented
family ought not to conform to non-scriptural
social mores even in matters which may seem of
little importance.

9. Summary.

The description of the family of Abraham (as) in

the Book of Genesis is most thought-provoking
as it relates to the social issues of ancient as well
as modern times. Several issues and principles
arise naturally from the text. The first is that the
Scriptural foundation of society, the family,
escapes all social and political controls to be set
directly under the authority of the divinely
appointed representative of God on earth. The
family has the duty to preserve itself from those
influences in society which countermand divine
law even to the extent of engaging in
dissimulation if necessary. On the other hand, the
family has the duty to compromise its potential
for economic profit if necessary in order to
maintain its integrity and peace. The family as
the sole regenerative source of society has the
duty of reproduction and may, according to
Scripture, even engage in polygamy if necessary
to maintain itself as a moral influence over and
against social excesses. The family as the only
truly valid unit of society determines and defines
social boundaries through the practice of the

52
circumcision of male children, thus creating a
society based on divine law and the interests of
the weak over and against a society based on
ruthless social and economic competition. The
central characteristic of the family, hospitality,
when taken as a social institution, is one of the
foremost barriers to such social excesses as
unfavourable entertainment, prostitution, and
intoxication. Finally, it is the duty of the family
to maintain adherence to divine law in the face of
social pressures to conform to other standards.

While Islamic law is based on the Qur’an and the

Sunna, an inspection of the Biblical texts relating
to Abraham (as) prove to be vitally enlightening
as a confirmation of the abiding value of Islamic
values on the role and influence of the family in
society.

53
The Sacrifice of Abraham (as), What Is
All the Fuss?

There is a traditional approach to the problem of

the sacrifice of Abraham of one of his sons. Most
commentators agree that the story represents a
divine test, whereby Abraham’s faithfulness was
proven. The idea is that God gave him a
command to sacrifice his beloved son, and in
showing himself willing to do so, he showed his
extraordinary faithfulness and obedience to God.
Muslims, Jews and Christians agree on this point.

The traditional point of contention is in that the

Bible reports the sacrifice for Isaac (as), whereas
the Qur’an reports it for Ishmael. The result has
been disagreement between Muslims on one
hand, and Christians and Jews on the other, on
the question of which son was supposed to be
sacrificed as a test of obedience.

There are a few alternative suggestions, but the

most novel one I have discovered is that of
Rabbi Ben-Yehuda. Rabbi Ben-Yehuda has
suggested that Isaac was actually sacrificed
according to the story in Genesis 22, and later
resurrected to marry Rebecca. In this essay, I
examine this theory in detail, and offer an
anthropologically based alternative. Ben-
Yehuda’s evidence is carefully weighed here and
found wanting. The fact that Isaac is called

54
Abraham’s only son suggests a different
interpretation of the events altogether, one which
takes into account the rite of passage as an
explanation of redemption ritual for the first-born
of every woman.

In The Institute of Judaic-Christian Researcher,

Volume 1, November 1986, Rabbi E. Ben-
Yehuda published an article entitled The
Sacrifice of Isaac. The author gives only one
stated purpose for the examination of this issue.
“All Jewish responses have come up short before
the Christian claim that the enormity of the
sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross makes it
absolutely necessary for all Jews to accept his
Messianic role as well as his divinity. The
following dissertation tries to show that the Jews
had an incident in their history long predating the
Passion which had a similar impact upon the
Jewish outlook” (page 1). The only stated motive
is “coming to grips” with that issue.

The point of departure is the idea that there is a

weakness in Jewish faith if there is no sacrifice
for sin by which God may grant grace to
humankind. “Since sacrifices are no longer
offered in Judaism, where do you expect to find
God’s grace?” (page 2). The rabbi finds the
missing foundation of grace in the binding of
Isaac. “In the liturgy, again and again we mention
“the binding of Isaac” as a cause for God to

55
automatically forgive the sins of Isaac’s
descendants” (page 2).

After this introduction, the rabbi finds the

following evidence that Isaac was actually
sacrificed as reported in Genesis 22, and then
later raised from the dead.

It is questionable that an omniscient God would

need to “test” Abraham. The radical N-S instead
of N-S-H is the word actually used. Thus, the
translation of “test” is a misunderstanding of the
text. It should rather be “banner” or “example”,
instead of “test” (page 2).

Why should the mere binding of Isaac be such an

earth-shattering event as the Jewish liturgy
suggests? (page 2).

“Jewish commentary states ‘God Himself

commanded the offering of Isaac – but would
Abraham allow a mere angel to countermand his
Maker?’” “The commentary explains, ‘the angel
spoke to Abraham and Abraham refused to stop,
saying God commanded, only He can stop me’”
(page 2).

The command not to injure Isaac meant that he

must be offered whole and uninjured (page 3).

The words can be interpreted as ‘another ram’ or

‘an after-ram’ (page 3).

56
Tahat bno means under his son rather than
instead of his son (page 3).

“This thing” and “you did not spare your son” in

Genesis 22:15-17 indicate that Isaac was
sacrificed (page 3).

The text reports that both Abraham and Isaac

went up, but that only Abraham returned (page
3).

Abraham went directly to Be’er Sheva. Genesis

23:2 reports that Sarah died in Kirjath-arba.
Therefore Abraham could not face Sarah after
sacrificing Isaac, and Sarah died of sorrow upon
hearing that Isaac was dead (page 3).

Genesis 23:2 reports that Abraham “came” to

mourn for Sarah, but no mention is made of Isaac
(page 3).

Genesis 24 describes obtaining a wife “for

Isaac”, that is, Abraham would raise up seed in
Isaac’s name. There is no input of Isaac, but
Rebecca is asked if she would agree. Rebecca
was shocked to find Isaac alive, so she fell off
her camel and covered her face (page 3).

Isaac came from the way of the well lahay roi’,

the well of Life of Him who sees me, which is a
reference to his having been resurrected (page 4).

57
The reference of resurrection in Jewish prayers is
in the present (page 4).

Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death

upon his marriage to Rebecca three years after
the event, showing that he had just learned of it
when he was resurrected (page 4).

The Jewish practice of Kidush Hashem is based

on the death and resurrection of Isaac (page 4).

I shall examine each of these arguments in order.

It is questionable that an omniscient God would

need to “test” Abraham. The radical N-S instead
of N-S-H is the word actually used. Thus, the
translation of “test” is a misunderstanding of the
text. It should rather be “banner” or “example”,
instead of “test” (page 2).

The radical N-S-H is used 36 times in the

Hebrew Scriptures almost always with the clear
sense of “putting to the test”. Examples are
Exodus 15:25; 1Samuel 17:39 and 1Kings 10:1.
Genesis 22:1 does not appear to depart from this
clear usage. However, if the text does in fact
mean that God “made an example” of Abraham,
rather than “putting him to the test”, the result
does not appreciably foster any particular
interpretation of the sacrifice of Isaac. It does not
indicate that Isaac was therefore actually
sacrificed rather than merely bound to the altar.

58
Why should the mere binding of Isaac be such an
earth-shattering event as the Jewish liturgy
suggests? (page 2).

If there is a continual reference to the binding of

Isaac in Jewish literature, this does support the
rabbi’s contention that the experience of Isaac
had a great impact on Jewish faith. It does not
follow that Isaac was actually sacrificed. It does
not even thereby follow that the belief that Isaac
was sacrificed was ever widespread in Judaism.
The liturgical reference quoted notes “binding”,
not actual sacrifice. As such, it speaks against the
rabbi’s premise.

“Jewish commentary states ‘God Himself

commanded the offering of Isaac - but would
Abraham allow a mere angel to countermand his
Maker?’” “The commentary explains, ‘the angel
spoke to Abraham and Abraham refused to stop,
saying God commanded, only He can stop me.’”
(page 2).

This argument is based on the conflict between

the messages of Elohim God in Genesis 22:1-2
and of the angel of the Lord in Genesis 22:11-12.
The implication is that Abraham perceived these
as two conflicting commands, originating in two
different sources, and chose to obey Elohim God
as having greater authority than the angel of the
Lord.

59
The problem with this interpretation is that there
is no other precedent in the Hebrew Scriptures
for the angel of the Lord contradicting God. In
fact, the angel of the Lord so closely represents
YHVH that he sometimes speaks in the first
person I as YHVH, note Genesis 16:10, and even
me at the end of Genesis 22:12. The linguistic
confusion between the angel of the Lord and
YHVH Himself is compounded in Genesis 18
where the celestial figures are never called
angels, but only men and YHVH, who behaves
and acts like a man. A case could be made, at
least in Genesis 18 and Genesis 22:12, for
YHVH being an elliptical expression for angel of
the Lord (YHVH). In Genesis 19 the same
figures are consistently called angels.

Genesis 22:12 maintains agreement between

Elohim God and the angel of the Lord. It states
for I know that thou fearest God. In sum, the text
gives no support for a conflict between God and
the angel of the Lord.

The command not to injure Isaac meant that he

must be offered whole and uninjured (page 3).

This argument accepts agreement between the

angel of the Lord and God. The words of the
angel by this interpretation do not prohibit the
sacrifice of Isaac, but rather prohibit injuring
Isaac before the sacrifice. The import of the

60
words would thus be that Isaac must be in perfect
condition at the moment of the sacrifice.

Since this argument is in conflict with the third

argument, one or the other interpretation must be
chosen. Both are not acceptable. If we accept two
possible interpretations of the first half of verse
12, the second half will clarify which of them is
valid. According to argument four, the meaning
of the text would read thus: “Do not injure Isaac,
because the sacrifice must be unblemished: for
now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou
hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from
me.” There is no sense connection between the
first and second half of the verse. According to
the traditional interpretation the sense of the text
would read thus: “Do not injure Isaac or carry out
the sacrifice to completion: for now I know that
thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld
thy son, thine only son from me.” In this case, the
text is coherent. The first half interrupts the
sacrifice, and the second half indicates that the
test is finished, since Abraham did not withhold
his son.

The words can be interpreted as “another ram” or

“an after-ram” (page 3). The implication is that
the ram is an additional sacrifice to the sacrifice
of Isaac, since it is “another” or “after”. The KJV
translates “ahar/other/after” as “behind him” with
the pronoun in italics, indicating that it is added.
The NIV leaves out the word altogether, saying

61
“there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its
horns.”

In this point the rabbi is right. The most

linguistically logical understanding of the words
is another ram. It is also correct that Isaac is the
only figure which could be the first ram, since it
has been made plain that no other animal was
provided in Genesis 22:7. It does not follow,
however, that Isaac was therefore sacrificed. It
only follows that he was a ram to be offered up.
The ram caught in the bushes was another
sacrificial animal.

Tahat bno means “under” his son rather than

“instead of” his son (page 3).

It is true that the word tahat means under. It is

used as such in Genesis 1:7. However, the word
also means instead of, and is used as such in
Genesis 2:21 “and he took one of his ribs, and
closed up the flesh instead thereof”. It would be
nonsense to translate under in this case. The word
is used as instead of in Genesis 4:25; 30:15;
Leviticus 14:42; 2Samuel 19:14. It is used as
under in Genesis 7:19; Exodus 32:19; and
possibly 1Chronicles 29:34. It is used in the
sense of for the sake of in Exodus 21:26. It is
used as by means of in Psalm 66:17. It is used as
whereas in Isaiah 60:15. Finally it is combined
with other particles for other meanings in the
book of Jeremiah. The great variety of meanings

62
for the word, and the fact that it is used in the
sense of under in a minority of the biblical cases,
speaks against the rabbi’s proposal. Finally, the
sense of under makes no sense at all. If the ram is
sacrificed under Isaac, how was it placed, since
Isaac was already bound to the altar? If the ram is
sacrificed under Isaac, then it seems that the ram
is not ahar/another/a second but the first. The
translation of instead of is the only translation
that makes any linguistic sense at all.

“This thing” and “you did not spare your son” in

Genesis 22:15-17 indicate that Isaac was
sacrificed (page 3).

The rabbi refers to the expression in Genesis

22:16 hast not withheld thy son to show that
Isaac was sacrificed. The same expression, loo
chasakhtaa eth binkhaa, is found in Genesis
22:12. In Genesis 22:12 Abraham had clearly not
yet sacrificed Isaac, and yet he had already
fulfilled whatever it meant not to have withheld
him. Since the expression clearly does not refer
to having carried out a burnt offering in Genesis
22:12, there is no reason to suppose that it refers
to having carried out a burnt offering in Genesis
22:16.

The text reports that both Abraham and Isaac

went up in Genesis 22:8, but that only Abraham
returned in Genesis 22:19 (page 3).

63
The rabbi’s report of the text is exact. The fact,
however, that both are mentioned on the trip up,
and only one on the trip down, does not mean
that Isaac did not return. In Genesis 12:14 it says
that Abram was come into Egypt. It does not say
that Sarai went with him. In fact, the preceding
verses show that Abram was afraid to take her
with him to Egypt. Using the rabbi’s method of
interpretation, we might infer from this that at the
last moment they decided she should not go,
rather than lie about their relationship. Yet,
despite the fact that the text states only that
Abram went down to Egypt, lo and behold, the
same verse continues “the Egyptians beheld the
woman that she was very fair”. If it were not for
verse seventeen, where Sarai’s name is
mentioned, we might even conclude, using the
rabbi’s method of interpretation, that Abram had
a different and temporary wife for the trip to
Egypt.

Genesis 22:19 concludes that they went together

to Be’er Sheba. Although the young men are also
mentioned, we have as much right to conclude
that Isaac went along as we do to conclude that
Sarai went down into Egypt in Genesis 12.

Abraham went directly to Be’er Sheva. Genesis

23:2 reports that Sarah died in Kirjath-arba.
Therefore Abraham could not face Sarah after
sacrificing Isaac, and Sarah died of sorrow upon
hearing that Isaac was dead (page 3).

64
The rabbi suggests that Abraham went to Be’er
Sheva instead of returning to Sarah. But Genesis
21:33, only two verses before that command to
sacrifice Isaac, Abraham is living in Be’er Sheva.
Although the text does not say so, it might not be
too much to assume that his wife Sarah was
living there with him. Genesis 21:34 indicates
that Abraham lived in Be’er Sheva for a long
time. The expression many days does not have
the connotation it does in English of only a few
weeks. It is similar to the expression in Psalm
23:6, translated by both the KJV and NIV as for
ever. There is a break in the narrative with
Genesis 22:1, so it is possible to suggest that
Abraham was living at that time in parts
unknown. But the fact that Genesis 22:19 says
that he went to Be’er Sheva suggests strongly
that he started out from there, and that Sarah was
waiting for him there, unless indeed she was
waiting with the young men. The text just does
not mention Sarah at all, and by the rabbi’s
reasoning, as we shall see, that could very well
mean she was dead, and resurrected to die again
in Genesis 23.

The best way to understand the text is to assume

that Abraham and Sarah were living at Be’er
Sheva at least until the close of Genesis 22:19.
There is another break in the narrative at Genesis
22:20, which continues into the beginning of
Genesis 23. There is therefore no textual reason
to assume that Abraham was avoiding Sarah.

65
Genesis 23:2 reports that Abraham “came” to
mourn for Sarah, but no mention is made of Isaac
(page 3).

The rabbi suggests that Isaac must have been

dead because he is not mentioned to have been
present at the funeral of his mother Sarah. Again,
such a conclusion from what the text does not say
is unwarranted, as we have already seen. It is
clear that Sarah went down into Egypt, even
though the text only said that it was Abraham
who went down. It is clear that Sarah was alive
during the time of Genesis 22, even though it
does not state that she was present at so
important a rite of passage as the sacrifice of her
son Isaac. It is also clear from the text that Isaac
is alive at the death of his mother. He was still
alive in Genesis 22:12 and in Genesis 24:6.

Genesis 24 describes obtaining a wife “for

Isaac”, that is, Abraham would raise up seed in
Isaac’s name. There is no input of Isaac, but
Rebecca is asked if she would agree. Rebecca
was shocked to find Isaac alive, so she fell off
her camel and covered her face (page 3).

The rabbi’s first point is that Abraham should

redeem Isaac, who was dead, by raising up seed
with a wife for Isaac. This argument is destroyed
by the fact that in Genesis 24:6 Abraham
commands the servant not to take his son Isaac
back to the land of his kindred. The implication is

66
clearly that Isaac was alive and that the wife was
for him personally.

The rabbi’s second point is that there is no input

from Isaac, while Rebecca’s opinion is closely
investigated. Therefore, Isaac is dead. However,
there is no need to mention Isaac’s input, since
we can safely assume that at the ripe age of forty
he was very willing to marry. His input need be
mentioned only in the contrary case. The close
investigation of Rebecca’s opinion is not in
conflict with the practice of arranged marriages
or with Middle Eastern marriage standards. To
think the contrary is merely a Western prejudice.

The rabbi’s third point is that Rebecca’s

behaviour in falling off the camel and veiling
herself indicates surprise at Isaac’s resurrection.
Genesis 24:64 says that she alighted from the
camel. The root is N-P-L which indeed is
commonly used in the sense of falling. It is one
of the two general words used for getting down
from a mount or vehicle, however. It is used as
such in 2Kings 5:21 as well as Genesis 24:64.
The rabbi’s interpretation is neither linguistically
natural nor necessary. The experience of a
woman falling from the height of a camel, which
is much higher than a horse, would necessitate
much more than merely adjusting her veil. In the
country areas of the Middle East today it is still
the practice for a woman to get down from a
mount if she meets a man coming toward her on

67
the road. There is nothing in Rebecca’s behaviour
to show surprise. On the contrary, her behaviour
is normal, which speaks against any surprise
resurrection.

Isaac came from the way of the well lahay roi’,

the well of Life of Him who sees me, which is a
reference to his having been resurrected (page 4).

The rabbi interprets Isaac coming from the way

of the well lahay roi’ as evidence of his having
been resurrected. However, the words do not
have this symbolic meaning in the text. They
refer to a literal well of water so named by Hagar
in Genesis 16:13-14. The meaning of God seeing
is attached to the experience of Hagar, not to
Isaac. It is not in the least an evidence of Isaac’s
having been resurrected.

The reference of resurrection in Jewish prayers is

in the present (page 4).

The rabbi concludes that the reference in Jewish

prayers to God raising the dead, since it is
couched in the present tense, whatever he means
by that, since there is no present tense in Hebrew,
implies that God is already now a raiser of the
dead. Since God is already now a raiser of the
dead, He must have resurrected Isaac. If we
accept the rabbi’s premise that God is already
now a raiser of the dead, it does not imply that
Isaac is one of those raised. There are biblical

68
references to other people who were raised from
the dead, namely the widow’s son at the time of
Elijah (1Kings 17:17 ff), and the Shunamite
woman’s son at the time of Elisha (2Kings 4:8
ff). If the argument turns on the time, based on
the fact that there is no resurrection mentioned in
Genesis before Isaac, it also raises a theological
issue of even greater moment. If God is supposed
to become a raiser of the dead at a certain
moment, rather that be a raiser of the dead
essentially, then there is an implication of change
in God as well as God being subservient to time.
The Rabbi’s presupposition is precisely that of
secularism, which is in fact a form of
Christianity. It presupposes time and space to be
absolute and in effect a deity, so that even God is
controlled thereby.

Although Jewish prayers may indicate something

of importance in Jewish life, which was the
purpose of the rabbi’s study in the first place,
they cannot provide evidence on whether or not
the text of Genesis actually reports a real
sacrifice and resurrection or not.

Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death

upon his marriage to Rebecca three years after
the event, showing that he had just learned of it
when he was resurrected (page 4).

It does not follow. It is certainly possible that

Isaac might have mourned his mother for as long

69
as three years, to the extent that his marriage was
a comfort to him. There is no evidence for Isaac’s
death and resurrection in this.

The Jewish practice of Kidush Hashem is based

on the death and resurrection of Isaac (page 4).

Although a belief in the death and resurrection of

Isaac may have had an impact on some Jews to
inspire them to be faithful in martyrdom, that
belief is hardly essential to such faithfulness.
Such faithfulness is not evidence either for belief
in the death and resurrection of Isaac, nor for the
factuality of the event.

At this point it is possible to make a general

evaluation of the study. The first problem is the
rabbi’s motive and premise. His motive is
skewed, so his results cannot help but be skewed.
The only proper motive for studying the text is to
find truth, the truth about what was originally
meant by the text and how that might apply to
one’s own faith and experience. The rabbi is not
interested in finding the truth but, by his own
words, he is motivated by the desire to find
Christian motifs in Judaism. He wants to find a
functional replacement for the death of Jesus on
the cross as a channel of divine grace. With this
purpose in mind, he latches on to the sacrifice of
Isaac.

70
The premise also remains undemonstrated. The
premise is that faith in the martyred and
resurrected one will automatically make it
possible for God to forgive sin. Although this
premise is accepted by Christianity, a Jewish
scholar has the duty of demonstrating its validity.
The rabbi makes no attempt to do so. He merely
accepts this Christian viewpoint and begins from
there. This is a serious methodological flaw.

There are several types of weaknesses in the

rabbi’s argumentation. First of all, there are
several linguistic errors. It is as though the
computer mindset has deprived researchers of
basic linguistic intelligence. To choose one
meaning of a word and apply it across the board
constitutes a mechanical superficiality and lack
of analytical integrity that would have been
unthinkable before the age of mechanical
translators. Such methodology is found in the
rabbi’s way of handling the words tahat (instead
of) and tippol (she got down). His use of these
words is outright error of translation.

There are other linguistic problems as well.

Symbolic interpretation is unacceptable when the
text clearly has a literal meaning. The rabbi
makes this mistake in dealing with the expression
well of lahay roi’. Another linguistic error is to
give the same expression in the same context two
different meanings, unless the context requires it.
The rabbi does this with the expression hast not

71
withheld thy son, which occurs twice in the
passage in question. Finally, the rabbi presents
linguistic arguments that are not relevant to the
question as though they were, as in his treatment
of the radical N-S-H.

There are errors of logic as well. The rabbi

presents conflicting interpretations of the
meaning of Genesis 22:12 as evidence for the
same interpretation of Isaac’s sacrifice. This is
logically impossible and greatly weakens his
argument. The rabbi draws unwarranted
conclusions from things left unstated in the text:
that Isaac did not return with Abraham after the
sacrifice, that Isaac did not attend his mother’s
funeral, and that Isaac was not involved in plans
for his marriage. Argument based on nothing
cannot be worth more than zero. Finally, the
rabbi makes mistakes in logic by drawing
unwarranted conclusions from statements in the
text. He draws the conclusion that Sarah was in
Kirjath-arba when Abraham was in Be’er-Sheva
on the basis of the fact that she died there. The
data in the text are insufficient to draw that
conclusion.

The rabbi draws conclusions on mistaken cultural

and psychological assumptions. He errs in
finding investigation of a woman’s feelings
incongruous with arranged marriage. He errs in
thinking that Isaac would not mourn for his
mother for up to three years.

72
There are at least two more fatal flaws in the
rabbi’s study. The first is the dependence on a
conflict between Elohim God and the angel of the
Lord. There is no precedent for this in Scripture,
the text does not require it, and it raises
problematic theological issues for which the
rabbi makes no account. The idea of a conflict
between Elohim God and the angel of the Lord is
totally unacceptable on the basis of the biblical
text.

The second fatal flaw is the rabbi’s failure to

consider texts which clearly speak against the
death and resurrection of Isaac. Among these is
Genesis 24:6, which states Isaac to be alive at a
point when according to the theory he had not yet
been resurrected.

The study is also flawed by the failure to

consider texts in the passage which actually do
present problems. The most obvious of these are
Genesis 22:2 and Genesis 22:16, where Isaac is
called the only son of Abraham. There was never
a time when Isaac was Abraham’s only son. This
is the one feature of the story which most
obviously demands attention, and we may thank
Rabbi Ben-Yehuda for raising the issue.

The rest of this study will re-examine the biblical

text, but with the motive of explaining what
appear to be inconsistencies in it. The basic
assumption is that the Masoretic Text of the

73
Hebrew Bible, at least insofar as Genesis 22 is
concerned, is consistent and can be successfully
harmonised with itself.

In Genesis 22:2 (and in Genesis 22:16), Isaac is

called the only son of Abraham. This is
inconsistent with the report in the Masoretic Text
of Genesis 16:15 which states that Hagar bore
Abram a son called Ishmael. In Genesis 17:17-
19, it is apparent that Ishmael was alive before
the birth of Isaac. Genesis 21:2-3 reports the birth
of Isaac after the circumcision of Ishmael at the
age of thirteen (Genesis 17:25). Finally, Genesis
25:9 reports Ishmael to be alive after the events
in Genesis 22. Isaac was not, therefore, according
to the text the only son of Abraham at the time of
the events in Genesis 22 or at any time previous
to them.

There are other problems with the story besides

the textual one. Judaism generally interprets the
story as a revelation to Abraham that God does
not accept human sacrifice. The Christian
interpretation of the story generally emphasises
the lesson of obedience. The Christian is thus
faced with a theological conflict in the command
to offer the son as a burnt offering. Such a
command conflicts with the commandment in
Exodus 20:13, Thou shalt not kill. Although
theologians may well resolve the issue somehow
in their own minds, most Christians are left in a
quandary. They cannot understand how God

74
could command anyone actually to kill his own
child.

If we understand the story as it generally is – that

God actually commanded Abraham to kill his
own child – then there are some narrative
problems with the story as it appears in the Bible.
The conversation in Genesis 22:7-8 does not fit
into the course of events in which Abraham
intended actually to kill Isaac. Isaac asks where
the lamb is, as though a lamb were going to be
offered and not himself. Abraham answers as
though a lamb were going to be offered and not
Isaac. Furthermore, there is no evidence to follow
that Abraham informed Isaac later of the true
character of the sacrifice, yet Isaac is a willing
and knowing participant throughout.

What the Bible actually describes is an event in

which a father takes his son, goes to a secluded
place in a totally male group which is left to
guard, further secludes himself with his son,
performs a mock sacrifice of the son, then
sacrifices an animal as a burnt offering, and
returns apparently without the son.

Throughout the process, Isaac is called the only

son. He is so called nowhere else in the Genesis
recital. This factor is unique to this event. The
event consists of sacrificial actions and a series of
statements or questions and responses. The text
presents itself as consistent, despite the

75
incongruity of some of the speeches. The text
ignores the theological problems of divine
temptation and human sacrifice, as though these
were not issues.

At this point we have exhausted the biblical

information. It is necessary to look for
explanatory material outside the text itself. There
are several factors to look for. If possible, we
should find examples of mock sacrifices of
young men by their fathers or other authorities
followed by a replacement sacrifice of an animal.
These sacrificial events should include a series of
speeches which might ignore the factual
situation.

In 1909, A. van Gennep identified precisely this

type of situation in his book Les rites de passage.
The rite of passage of this type is performed on
boys of a certain age, although there are similar
rites in some societies dealing with girls as well.
The rite always includes set speeches in what is
called an initiatory structure. There is a mock
killing of the youth, a replacement animal
sacrifice, and a mock resurrection of the youth.
There is often a period of seclusion for the youth
or especially seclusion from the opposite sex. At
the end of the rite, the youth has passed from
childhood to adulthood, and may marry and carry
out other adult behaviour; or he passes from one
status to another in his adult life.

76
Although the liturgy or ritual of the rite of
passage is usually found in non-literate societies,
there are examples of texts with an initiatory
structure in the various classical religious texts of
the world. One of these is the first section of the
Kathopanishad, one of the Vedic Upanishads
known in classical Hindu Scriptures. There are
certainly more precedents for initiatory structure
in ancient religious texts from around the world,
and there is no reason at all why we should not
expect to find one in the Bible. It is clear that the
story of the sacrifice of Isaac contains all the
essentials of such a sacrificial ritual.

If the story is reporting a rite of passage liturgy,

the speeches are set speeches relating to the
ritual. They are certainly presented as having
occurred on a particular time in a particular place
with specific individuals involved, but they must
be understood to have occurred in the case of
every young man in the given culture when
appropriate.

The rite begins with the instigation of God, who

calls Abraham in Genesis 22:1. The response of
God in verse 2 is also couched in the traditional
phrases of the ritual. This explains why Isaac is
consistently called the only son here. It is a part
of the ritual. It is possible that the ritual is in
reference to the first-born of every woman. The
marking of the first-born is a consistent feature
through much of the Bible. The consecration of

77
the first-born of every woman is described first in
Exodus 13 and in later passages. The expression
would generally hold true, and would only fail in
the situation of polygamy, as in the case of
Abraham. Yet even in the case of polygamy, the
same ritual words would be attached to the
sacrificial event, since the same traditional
liturgy or appropriate words for the sacrifice
would always be used.

The common traits of a rite of passage fit into the

Genesis story like this. The all-male group leaves
on a three-day trek (Gen. 22:3,4). Those not
actively participating are left to wait and guard
(Gen. 22:5). Most rites of passage include such
ritual paraphernalia as wood for an offering, fire,
and a weapon (Gen. 22:6). Most rites of passage
include a standardised text of speeches and
responses between the officiant and the initiate
(Gen. 22:7,8). Most rites of passage include
sacrificial preparations and a mock sacrifice of
the initiate in which he is bound or locked in a
dark enclosure (Gen. 22:9-10). Most rites of
passage include a substitution sacrifice which is
found in a series of speeches, substituted for the
initiate, and sacrificed (Gen. 22:11-13). Many
rites of passage include the naming of the place
or the renaming of the initiate or, more rarely, the
officiant (Gen. 22:14). Most initiatory rites of
passage end with a blessing on the initiate, an
instatement into adulthood or the appropriate
status (Gen. 22:15-18). Some rites of passage end

78
with the youth being required to find his own
way home, to demonstrate his newly gained
status (Gen. 22:19).

The text of Genesis 22 has been examined from

the point of view of an initiatory structure as a
rite of passage. No inconsistencies with this
theory of interpretation were found in the biblical
text.

The reinterpretation of the text as a rite of

passage provides a means of accounting for most
of the potential inconsistencies of Genesis 22.
The incongruities of the speeches, with the
glaring inconsistency of calling Isaac Abraham’s
only son, are seen to be completely consistent
with a rite of passage. The theological
inconsistency of commanding a human sacrifice
disappears. The temptation of God is reduced to
the requirement of redeeming the first-born of
every woman, or expressing that Abraham is a
model for future generations.

The question may be raised whether we have the

right to interpret the text as an initiatory structure
since there is nothing in the text which says it is
such. One might raise a stronger case against
another interpretation. To interpret the text
otherwise would leave us with the problems
mentioned above, some of which are crucial and
some of which are glaringly apparent. We are
justified in accepting an initiatory explanation for

79
more reasons than that it is so wide-spread
throughout the world in many cultures in
Australia, Asia, Africa and America. The fact
that initiatory structures are found in other
religious texts, such as the Kathopanishad,
although certainly suggestive, does not impel us
to accept it in the case of a biblical text. We are
justified in accepting the initiatory interpretation
because the redemption of the first-born is
commanded in Exodus 13 and described and
alluded to many times. Anything that is
commanded and alluded to must also have a
practice. It is the practice that is described in
Genesis 22.

It must be mentioned that this text, the Sacrifice

of Isaac, has had a great impact on religious
experience. The misconception that God might
tell someone to engage in human sacrifice has
opened the way for criticism of religion
altogether on one hand, and to extreme cases of
unstable practice on the other. Within Judaism, it
appears that the moral of the story is that God
taught Abraham in a graphic way that He did not
accept human sacrifice. It was so graphic because
the practice of human sacrifice in Canaan might
otherwise have influenced Abraham and his
descendants.

Christianity has seen the moral of the story to be

that Abraham’s obedience is an example for all to
follow. Both Judaism and Christianity have used

80
the story as a source of criticism of Islam. The
Qur’an (33:103-106) reports the same events for
Ishmael instead of for Isaac. The Muslim
commentator might refer to the “only son” in
Genesis 22:2 as a remnant of the true text
referring to Ishmael, who was the only one who
was ever the only son of Abraham in real life.
Such a commentator would suggest that the text
was corrupted by the Jews to tell about Isaac
instead.

In an initiatory scenario, the facts would have

been different. Both Ishmael and Isaac, both
being first-born of their mothers, would have had
to be redeemed. The initiatory redemption, the
substitutionary sacrifice was performed for both
of them. In the end, the biblical text is coherent,
and the Bible and the Qur’an are both right.
Everyone is disarmed and we are all faced with
living together in peace. Can we rise to that
challenge?

81
 Daniel (as): A Young Muslim Refugee
and How He Coped

It is not an anachronism to call Daniel (as) as

Muslim. This is not merely true because the holy
Qur’an refers to Biblical figures as Muslims. Nor
is it merely a recognition of the fact that Daniel’s
(as) tomb continues to exist in Iran and is still the
site of devotional visits by Muslims. I use the
word to refer to someone who intends to submit
entirely to the will of God, and this is, in my
opinion, the only valid usage of the word. All
people, no matter what religious community or
organization lays claim to their allegience, are
Muslims, if their intention is to submit their lives,
belief, and behaviour to the will of the one true
God, Creator of all things.

The experience of Daniel (as) as described in the

book of the Bible that bears his name is surely a
prime example of such submission. On more than
one occasion he and his companions are reported
to have risked their lives by disobeying the king
in order to be faithful to their commitment to the
will of God. I shall examine three of those
occasions here, since they particularly deal with
issues of interest to Muslims.

1. The Permitted Diet

The first narrative is found in Daniel 1:1-20.

82
1 ¶ In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim
king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of
Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it. 2 And
the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his
hand, with part of the vessels of the house of
God: which he carried into the land of Shinar to
the house of his god; and he brought the vessels
into the treasure house of his god. 3 And the
king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his
eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the
children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of
the princes; 4 Children in whom was no blemish,
but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and
cunning in knowledge, and understanding
science, and such as had ability in them to stand
in the king's palace, and whom they might teach
the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans. 5
And the king appointed them a daily provision of
the king's meat, and of the wine which he drank:
so nourishing them three years, that at the end
thereof they might stand before the king. 6 Now
among these were of the children of Judah,
Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: 7 Unto
whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names: for
he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar;
and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of
Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abednego.

8 ¶ But Daniel purposed in his heart that he

would not defile himself with the portion of the
king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank:
therefore he requested of the prince of the

83
eunuchs that he might not defile himself. 9 Now
God had brought Daniel into favour and tender
love with the prince of the eunuchs. 10 And the
prince of the eunuchs said unto Daniel, I fear my
lord the king, who hath appointed your meat and
your drink: for why should he see your faces
worse liking than the children which are of your
sort? then shall ye make me endanger my head to
the king. 11 Then said Daniel to Melzar, whom
the prince of the eunuchs had set over Daniel,
Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, 12 Prove thy
servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them
give us pulse to eat, and water to drink. 13 Then
let our countenances be looked upon before thee,
and the countenance of the children that eat of
the portion of the king's meat: and as thou seest,
deal with thy servants. 14 So he consented to
them in this matter, and proved them ten days.
15 And at the end of ten days their countenances
appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the
children which did eat the portion of the king's
meat. 16 Thus Melzar took away the portion of
their meat, and the wine that they should drink;
and gave them pulse.

17 ¶ As for these four children, God gave them

knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom:
and Daniel had understanding in all visions and
dreams. 18 Now at the end of the days that the
king had said he should bring them in, then the
prince of the eunuchs brought them in before
Nebuchadnezzar. 19 And the king communed

84
with them; and among them all was found none
like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah:
therefore stood they before the king. 20 And in
all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the
king enquired of them, he found them ten times
better than all the magicians and astrologers that
were in all his realm.

The first thing to note about this story is that the

young people were captives. They were separated
from their families, whose fate is unknown to us
and perhaps to the young people themselves.
There is every possibility that they had died in
the siege or in the battle of Jerusalem. So the
young people were not only captives, but
possibly orphans as well. Furthermore, they had
gone through the ordeal of becoming eunuchs,
which was not only humiliating to the highest
degree, but definitely life-threatening. It had been
impressed upon them that the reason they had
suffered all of these things was because their
religion and culture were inferior to those of their
captors.

On the other hand, these young people were

selected for the highest possible honours. Their
success in the reconditioning and education being
offered them depended on strict submission, but
was potentially a road to the greatest honours. So
both their suffering and the honours placed
before them provided the highest possible

85
incentives for relinquishing the principles of their
childhood faith.

The story describes their refusal to eat food that

was forbidden by divine law. The divine law of
Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 is essentially
the same as that of Shi’ite Islam. Sunni Islam
differs from it in admitting all sea creatures, and
Judaism differs from it in forbidding the mixing
of milk and meat. This is the law to which Daniel
and his friends were faithful.

The four young men were most diplomatic in

approaching the matter. The text, however, notes
that Daniel purposed in his heart. This means that
he would refuse to eat forbidden foods at any
cost, even at the cost of his life. The officer
himself even feared for his life. The text seems to
indicate a miraculous intervention in favour of
the young men, although the debilitating effects
of rich foods and alcohol on the other students
may have contributed to the relative excellence
of the four young men as well. Whatever the
cause, the text clearly fosters absolute
faithfulness. Liberal scholars indeed place its
writing in the post-exilic period, which was an
era of profound contemplation of these issues in
the face of Hellenizing persecution of faithful
Jews.

The word “pulse” here refers to a bland, meatless

diet, apparently the simple peasant diet that was

86
generally available, probably made up of coarse
barley bread and lentils. It was certainly not
interesting, varied, or attractive to young people.
But it was the only alternative to the court diet,
which consisted of fine foods containing flesh
from animals that were slaughtered without
draining the blood according to divine law, and
species of animals that were forbidden by divine
law. Some have considered Daniel to represent a
vegetarian faction within Israelite religion at the
time, but this is not justifiable. The reason they
were reduced to eating the simplest vegetarian
food was because acceptable flesh foods were
unavailable. There was no one even qualified to
slaughter them properly.

The position of the four young men is an extreme

example of what Muslim immigrants as well as
those born in non-Muslim societies have to face.
There is suffering on one hand, the punishment
dealt out by society for non-conformity to non-
Islamic customs. On the other hand, there is
every inducement to seduce Muslim children to
be unfaithful to Islamic (and thereby Biblical)
principles by reaching for achievements offered
in non-Muslim societies. Although it is not likely
that any Muslims in non-Muslim countries
actually face death for refusing to eat non-halal
meat, still the pressures to do so are sufficient to
induce many to conform. A review of the
experiences of Daniel might make such people

87
pause to think about their behaviour and the
reasons for it.

2. Idolatry

The second story is found in Daniel 3:1-27.

1 Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of

gold, whose height was threescore cubits, and the
breadth thereof six cubits: he set it up in the plain
of Dura, in the province of Babylon. 2 Then
Nebuchadnezzar the king sent to gather together
the princes, the governors, and the captains, the
judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the
sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, to
come to the dedication of the image which
Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up. 3 Then the
princes, the governors, and captains, the judges,
the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and
all the rulers of the provinces, were gathered
together unto the dedication of the image that
Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up; and they
stood before the image that Nebuchadnezzar had
set up. 4 Then an herald cried aloud, To you it is
commanded, O people, nations, and languages, 5
That at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet,
flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all
kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the
golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath
set up: 6 And whoso falleth not down and
worshippeth shall the same hour be cast into the
midst of a burning fiery furnace. 7 Therefore at

88
that time, when all the people heard the sound of
the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and all
kinds of musick, all the people, the nations, and
the languages, fell down and worshipped the
golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had
set up.

8 Wherefore at that time certain Chaldeans came

near, and accused the Jews. 9 They spake and
said to the king Nebuchadnezzar, O king, live for
ever. 10 Thou, O king, hast made a decree, that
every man that shall hear the sound of the cornet,
flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and
all kinds of musick, shall fall down and worship
the golden image: 11 And whoso falleth not
down and worshippeth, that he should be cast
into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. 12
There are certain Jews whom thou hast set over
the affairs of the province of Babylon, Shadrach,
Meshach, and Abednego; these men, O king,
have not regarded thee: they serve not thy gods,
nor worship the golden image which thou hast set
up. 13 Then Nebuchadnezzar in his rage and
fury commanded to bring Shadrach, Meshach,
and Abednego. Then they brought these men
before the king. 14 Nebuchadnezzar spake and
said unto them, Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach,
and Abednego, do not ye serve my gods, nor
worship the golden image which I have set up?
15 Now if ye be ready that at what time ye hear
the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut,
psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of musick,

89
ye fall down and worship the image which I have
made; well: but if ye worship not, ye shall be cast
the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery
furnace; and who is that God that shall deliver
you out of my hands? 16 Shadrach, Meshach,
and Abednego, answered and said to the king, O
Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer
thee in this matter. 17 If it be so, our God whom
we serve is able to deliver us from the burning
fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine
hand, O king. 18 But if not, be it known unto
thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor
worship the golden image which thou hast set up.

19 Then was Nebuchadnezzar full of fury, and

the form of his visage was changed against
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego: therefore he
spake, and commanded that they should heat the
furnace one seven times more than it was wont to
be heated. 20 And he commanded the most
mighty men that were in his army to bind
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and to cast
them into the burning fiery furnace. 21 Then
these men were bound in their coats, their hosen,
and their hats, and their other garments, and were
cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.
22 Therefore because the king's commandment
was urgent, and the furnace exceeding hot, the
flame of the fire slew those men that took up
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. 23 And
these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and
Abednego, fell down bound into the midst of the

90
burning fiery furnace. 24 Then Nebuchadnezzar
the king was astonied, and rose up in haste, and
spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we
cast three men bound into the midst of the fire?
They answered and said unto the king, True, O
king. 25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four
men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and
they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is
like the Son of God. 26 Then Nebuchadnezzar
came near to the mouth of the burning fiery
furnace, and spake, and said, Shadrach, Meshach,
and Abednego, ye servants of the most high God,
come forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach,
Meshach, and Abednego, came forth of the midst
of the fire. 27 And the princes, governors, and
captains, and the king's counsellors, being
gathered together, saw these men, upon whose
bodies the fire had no power, nor was an hair of
their head singed, neither were their coats
changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on
them.

This story refers to a time when the companions

of Daniel were no longer youths, but mature
functionaries in Babylon. The significance of the
story lies in the fact that they are clearly able to
survive in the pagan or secular state and still be
true to their childhood faith. This one exceptional
event merely confirms this. The story states the
deliverance to be miraculous, however,
indicating that their success was dependant on
more than mere luck, diplomacy and skill.

91
The first think that will strike the Muslim reader
is the king’s reference to one like the Son of God.
It is interesting that this is the only reference to
the Son of God in the Hebrew Scriptures,
although the Greek New Testament includes it a
number of times in a number of ways. It is
notable that the concept of the Son of God,
insofar as Scripture goes, was invented by a
pagan king while engaging in idolatrous worship.
That ought to give pause for reflection.

The most obvious issue in this story is the issue

of prostration in worship to the image of an idol.
There is a secondary issue that is not quite so
obvious, and that is the role of music. Music is
almost universally a vehicle for worship. There
are many reasons for this. One is that music
creates unified action, making concerted
congregational liturgy possible with a minimum
of directions. Another reason is that music
transmits a common emotion or purpose to the
group directly without appeal to reason and the
act of decision. In this case it is clear that music
is being used for even more sinister purposes and
in even more manipulative ways.

An examination of the musical terms found in

Daniel three gives indication of this misuse of
music. The word translated “psaltery” in verses
5, 7, and 15 above is sumponyah and appears to
be based on the Greek word meaning “to sound
together” from which we also have the English

92
symphony. The ancient use of sounding tones
together to produce certain effects by their
intervals is widespread and well-known to
musicologists. The art was highly developed by
the Sumerians, from whom it was inherited by
the Babylonians. It is conceivable that the
Babylonians could produce intervals of sound
that effected prostration on the crowds of people.
In other words, they were forced to fall down by
the sound of the music itself. In that case, we are
justified in seeing the intention of the text to
report a miracle in that the three men were able to
resist the effects of the music and remain upright
before the golden image. It is very possible that
this miracle was seen to have reinforced their
intention to faithfulness even in the face of
threatened death.

The connection between idolatry and music is

one often overlooked, but one that is clearly
consonant with Islamic thought. Music in non-
Islamic societies that has the reputation of being
secular is not thereby divorced from idolatry. It is
not the repute of the music that is significant, but
the very character of the music. Mass
contemporary concerts are characterized by
stereotyped bahviour particular to those events,
behaviour that is a forced form of idolatry in the
guise of swaying, raising the hands, hysterical
shouting, and swooning. None of these behaviour
patterns occur normally without the stimulation
of the required music. Research has shown such

93
music to be not only associated with chemical
addiction, but to be an addiction in itself. But
research is hardly needed to demonstrate the fact,
as every observer and every participant is able to
satisfy him or herself of the fact directly.

The story of Daniel’s three friends is a vivid

reminder not only of the Islamic principle of
avoiding idolatry in all forms, but of the Islamic
warning against the misuse of music. Muslims
living both in supposed Muslim societies and
those living in other societies are all susceptible
to the detrimental effects of music. The witness
of the book of Daniel is that such music in itself
constitutes idolatry, and as such in Islamic terms
is shirk.

3. Prayer in Prostration

The third story of the book of Daniel that is

highly relevant to Muslim life is the famous story
of Daniel (as) in the lions’ den as reported in
Daniel 6.

1 ¶ It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom an

hundred and twenty princes, which should be
over the whole kingdom; 2 And over these three
presidents; of whom Daniel was first: that the
princes might give accounts unto them, and the
king should have no damage. 3 Then this Daniel
was preferred above the presidents and princes,
because an excellent spirit was in him; and the

94
king thought to set him over the whole realm. 4
Then the presidents and princes sought to find
occasion against Daniel concerning the kingdom;
but they could find none occasion nor fault;
forasmuch as he was faithful, neither was there
any error or fault found in him. 5 Then said these
men, We shall not find any occasion against this
Daniel, except we find it against him concerning
the law of his God.

6 ¶ Then these presidents and princes assembled

together to the king, and said thus unto him, King
Darius, live for ever. 7 All the presidents of the
kingdom, the governors, and the princes, the
counsellors, and the captains, have consulted
together to establish a royal statute, and to make
a firm decree, that whosoever shall ask a petition
of any God or man for thirty days, save of thee,
O king, he shall be cast into the den of lions. 8
Now, O king, establish the decree, and sign the
writing, that it be not changed, according to the
law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth
not. 9 Wherefore king Darius signed the writing
and the decree. 10 Now when Daniel knew that
the writing was signed, he went into his house;
and his windows being open in his chamber
toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees
three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks
before his God, as he did aforetime.

11 ¶ Then these men assembled, and found

Daniel praying and making supplication before

95
his God. 12 Then they came near, and spake
before the king concerning the king's decree;
Hast thou not signed a decree, that every man
that shall ask a petition of any God or man within
thirty days, save of thee, O king, shall be cast
into the den of lions? The king answered and
said, The thing is true, according to the law of the
Medes and Persians, which altereth not. 13 Then
answered they and said before the king, That
Daniel, which is of the children of the captivity
of Judah, regardeth not thee, O king, nor the
decree that thou hast signed, but maketh his
petition three times a day. 14 Then the king,
when he heard these words, was sore displeased
with himself, and set his heart on Daniel to
deliver him: and he laboured till the going down
of the sun to deliver him. 15 Then these men
assembled unto the king, and said unto the king,
Know, O king, that the law of the Medes and
Persians is, That no decree nor statute which the
king establisheth may be changed. 16 Then the
king commanded, and they brought Daniel, and
cast him into the den of lions. Now the king
spake and said unto Daniel, Thy God whom thou
servest continually, he will deliver thee. 17 And
a stone was brought, and laid upon the mouth of
the den; and the king sealed it with his own
signet, and with the signet of his lords; that the
purpose might not be changed concerning Daniel.

18 ¶ Then the king went to his palace, and passed

the night fasting: neither were instruments of

96
musick brought before him: and his sleep went
from him. 19 Then the king arose very early in
the morning, and went in haste unto the den of
lions. 20 And when he came to the den, he cried
with a lamentable voice unto Daniel: and the king
spake and said to Daniel, O Daniel, servant of the
living God, is thy God, whom thou servest
continually, able to deliver thee from the lions?
21 Then said Daniel unto the king, O king, live
for ever. 22 My God hath sent his angel, and
hath shut the lions' mouths, that they have not
hurt me: forasmuch as before him innocency was
found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I
done no hurt.

The story is of a time far later than our first

meeting with Daniel (as) as a youth. This is
significant, for it shows that Daniel (as) retained
the forms of worship and the principles of faith
that he had attained as a child throughout a long
and brilliant diplomatic career in a heathen court.
Even if he had retained these as a fresh youth,
one might have expected him to conform over
time and with maturity. But we find that he has
not done so.

There are several points of particular significance

here. The first is Daniel’s (as) obvious belief that
public prayer in prostration towards the holy city
three times a day was obligatory. If he had not
thought it obligatory, he would certainly have
discontinued it for the mere thirty days of the

97
prohibition. It was thus more than his stated
custom. It was the expression of his deep
religious belief.

Besides the obligation of the prayer, we need to

note the obligatory elements of the prayer as
well. First, it is addressed to God alone.
Secondly, it takes place at regular daily intervals,
which are specifically early morning, afternoon,
and evening. Thirdly, it includes the physical
posture of prostration. Fourthly, it takes place in
a specific direction, that is, the city of Jerusalem.
The place of sacrifice and worship was moved to
Jerusalem at the time of David (as) where it
remained until the time of Muhammad (as).
Jerusalem was the focus of prayer or the kibla of
Daniel’s time. It is necessary to note that the
temple of Jerusalem had been destroyed probably
at the time when Daniel (as) was taken captive.
We thus find Daniel (as) praying in the direction
of a pile of rubble for seventy years or so. We
find him doing so even at the risk of his life. One
is overcome with awe before faith of this
magnitude, but the implications are devastating
for contemporary behaviour. One wonders by
what right have the people of any religious
tradition paying lipservice to the Bible
relinquished the practice of daily, regular prayer
in prostration towards the holy city. This one
narrative alone identifies the Bible as the book of
those who pray daily in prostration and of no
other people.

98
Although all three of these narratives from the
book of Daniel make strong appeal to miraculous
divine intervention, they also raise a very
relevant issue. That issue is the possibility of
maintaining a pure and active faith and practice
within a hostile environment. This is precisely
what Muslims are called upon to do, not only in
Western societies but oftentimes under the neo-
colonial regimes of the Middle East and other
parts of the world. The book of Daniel is a strong
witness that this is not only possible, but that it is
the only right alternative.

Two factors are involved in the process, and it is

not my intention to proclaim them as the right
way for Muslims to go. Nevertheless, they arise
naturally from the text. The first is the attitude of
courtesy and diplomacy on the part of the four
men in every situation. That is, the do not rise up
in rebellion. They do not start revolutions in Iraq
or Iran. They deal with the existing powers in
ways that are open to them. Secondly, they make
no compromise whatsoever with their belief and
practice. The result is polite insubordination. It is
effective because they are willing to lay their
lives on the line.

It appears clear that the book of Daniel is a

Biblical text containing issues of the highest
relevance specifically to Muslims. It thus shows
the Bible to be much the property of Muslims,
much more so than the property of the religious

99
traditions that actually claim it, but which deny in
practice the sacred duties expressed in its pages.
Beyond this, the book of Daniel appears to be
worthy of further, more detailed study for the
contemplation of strategies for dealing with these
issues that continue to be relevant in the
contemporary world. A two-pronged approach,
on one hand using valid means of action and
avoiding violence, and on the other absolute
adherence to Islamic principle and practice,
might be far more productive than the
perpetration of such tragedies as the events of 11
September 2001.

100
 The Book of the Gospel Rediscovered

Wherever I go to lecture I hear one question first

of all: “What is the true Gospel of Jesus (as)?”
There is always someone who wants to know
whether the book of the Gospel has been
irretrievably lost, or whether it is to be found
among the apocryphal gospels not included by
the Church fathers in the canon of the New
Testament. I have invariably had to answer that
unfortunately all of the books which claim to be
the Gospel of Jesus (as) contain passages that are
clearly corruptions of the original text, so that
even if we could point to one or another book as
that received by Jesus as the Gospel, it would not
be perfectly intact. This is an area in which
historical criticism has serve us well.

The canonical gospels, or the books in the

Christian Bible which are called gospels, do not
claim to be the message of God sent down to
Jesus (as). They do not correspond to what the
holy Qur’an calls the Injil or Gospel, nor is such
a document mentioned in them. They bear the
title in Greek, evangelion, from which comes the
Arabic word Injil, but they do not claim to be
divine messages as such. Rather, they are
collections of stories about what Jesus (as) did
and said. As such, they are much more in the
character of Islamic hadith literature than they are
in the character of a revealed book as Muslims

101
think of it. Some of the gospels not included in
the Bible are collections of sayings, but even
these generally remind us more of ahadith than of
the holy Qur’an or the Hebrew prophetic
writings. None of the so-called gospels even
claims to be a book sent down from God to Jesus
(as). All of them claim to be the work of one
author-witness, not always an eye-witness, but
historical criticism leads us to doubt even that in
most cases.

Much has been written about the value and

validity of the Gospels, both canonical and
apocryphal, that we have in our possession. This
scholarship might make us turn our sights
towards other sources, such as new archeological
finds, in our search for the Injil mentioned in the
holy Qur’an. So far little in that way has turned
up. The Qumran texts, to cite the most popular
source, might contain some passages worthy of
examination by the criteria presented below, but
do not provide us with a book that in itself could
be considered the lost Gospel of Jesus (as).

There is another possibility. It may be that the

true Gospel, the book of revelation sent down to
Jesus (as) lies buried, not in a cave or under
debris of dust and stones, but under the encrusted
additions to one or another of the Gospels we
possess. The possibility that the true Gospel
might be a portion, rather than the whole, of any

102
one of the candidates, seems to have escaped the
notice of most seekers.

An examination of the extant Gospels may well

bring to light such a document, a book which can
be truly considered the revelation once sent down
to Jesus the Messiah (as). Before beginning such
an examination, however, it is necessary to lay
down some criteria by which we might recognize
a book of revelation. I offer the following
criteria.

1) The Gospel might exist as fragments of

the original, part of which has been lost
and part of which may have been
preserved imperfectly.

2) A book of revelation will be couched

mainly in words that can best be ascribed
to God Himself, rather than to the
prophet.

3) A book of revelation will be highly

relevant to the specific religious problems
of the time. It will point out innovations
as false, and call people to return to
forgotten or neglected principles in earlier
revelation.

4) A book of revelation will not conflict

with the basic principles of faith declared
in earlier revelations.

103
Thus there are considerations of the state of the
document, style of speech, relevance, and
consistency. By applying these four criteria, there
is every likelihood that if any portion of the true
Gospel of Jesus (as) remains hidden within the
extant gospels, we shall be able to identify it. The
criteria are precise enough to distinguish the true
Gospel from other material.

Although the material at first appears rather

abundant, the second criterion, that of style,
requires us to examine only the discourses, and to
chose among them those which are couched in
words that might best be ascribed to God rather
than the prophet. Such an exercise immediately
excludes the bulk of material. Some passages in
the apocryphal gospels might require further
examination, but among the canonical Gospels
only the following remains as a candidate after
applying the criterion of style: Matthew 23. The
contents of this passage are found scattered
through discourses in Luke 11-13, but far more
fragmented than in Matthew 23. This suggests
that other parts of Jesus’s discourses may also be
quoted from the original Gospel, without this
being apparent. The passage in Matthew 23,
however, is clearly one which demands closer
examination.

The criterion of style is difficult to apply in

detail, because the Gospel must have been
originally given in Hebrew or possibly Aramaic,

104
while it has come down to us in Greek. The
original language is lacking altogether, although
the Syriac versions may come closer to it than the
Greek ones, despite the fact that they are
probably further translations from the Greek.

The first stylistic criterion is the ascription of

speech to God. The whole passage is consistent
with this beginning with verse two and ending
with verse 35. Verse 36 begins with the words
“Truly I say to you” and this may mark the point
at which Jesus (as) speaks with his own
words.Verses 37 and 38 are therefore ambiguous
as to whether they form a part of the divine
revelation or constitute the commentary attached
to the revelation by the prophet. Verse 39
includes the expression “you shall not see me,”
with the word “me” clearly referring to the
speaker, that is, the prophet himself. Thus verse
39 forms the last possible limit of the divine
revelation. We can conclude that at least verses
2-35 may form the text of the Injil sent down to
Jesus (as) or a part of it.

A second stylistic criterion might be whether the

text shows any likeness to earlier texts of
revelation. In terms of length, it is short, but
within the bounds of known texts of revelation.
The book of the prophet Obadiah consists of only
21 verses, and several others are not much
longer. On that basis, the passage in question
could actually be the entire text of the Injil, or the

105
greater part of it. As it stands it forms a coherent
whole. Most prophetic writings echo something
of the revelation to Moses (as). The greater
portion of Matthew 23 consists of woes. Woes
are known as a literary device in several prophets
and are one of the most prevalent forms of
Hebrew prophetic utterance. The canonical
paradigm is in Deuteronomy 27:15-26, but the
form is otherwise common. Jesus himself (as),
like other prophets before him, uses the device in
his own words in Luke 6:24-26.

In sum, the criterion of style, based on literary

form, length of the document, and ascribability of
the speech to God, is consonant with the theory
that Matthew 23 is a text of divine revelation.

The third criterion is that of relevance. The times

of Jesus (as) gave evidence of very particular
problems. These were based on the ways in
which the various sects of Judaism, faced with
Roman rule, sought to accommodate the
principles of their faith in view of survival. Two
issues were crucial: first, to minimize the
principle of divinely appointed leadership which
might be seen as a threat to Roman power, and
second, to circumvent any practices which might
conflict with Roman life. Finally, we should
expect to find a condemnation of any who
engaged in these two forms of accommodation to
Rome. In brief, we should expect Jesus to point
out 1) a weakened reliance on divinely appointed

106
leadership which might be a threat to Roman
rule, 2) specific features of neglecting the law or
misapplying it, and 3) condemnation for such. An
examination of the text of Matthew 23 reveals
that every verse falls into one of these three
categories. The text is thus established as relevant
to the times, and therefore consonant with the
theory that it is a text of divine revelation.

The fourth criterion is whether or not the text

conflicts with earlier revelation. An examination
of the passage does not reveal any point which is
in conflict with the earlier extant revelation as we
have it in the Hebrew writings. Several passages
of the law are cited and commented upon in ways
consonant with the Hebrew prophets, namely, in
terms of justice. The final criterion is satisfied in
this. However, the unicity of God is the central
issue of revelation, and it is also explicitly
maintained in verse 9. The passage can thus be
seen not to conflict with earlier revelation, but
rather to agree with it in both content and spirit,
and to cite it in several matters.

On the basis of all four criteria, it is possible to

say that Matthew 23:2-35 is a likely candidate as
the Injil of Jesus referred to by the holy Qur’an,
or a portion of it. The rest of the canonical gospel
material is largely of the character of hadith or
tradition, and describes more or less accurately,
to the extent one can rely on the opinion of
researchers, the words and actions of Jesus (as).

107
The True Book of the Gospel: Matthew 23

1¶ Then Jesus spoke to the multitude, and to his

disciples, 2 And said, The scribes and the
Pharisees sit in Moses' place: 3 So everything
they tell you to observe, observe and do; but do
not follow their example, because they do not act
as they speak. 4 For they mandate heavy burdens
and hard to carry, and lay them on men's
shoulders; but they themselves will not move
them with one of their fingers.

The Beginning of the discourse establishes the

theme of divine guidance and its misuse. The
reference to Moses’ seat (as) reveals this clearly.
Those who have usurped this appointment are
called scribes and Pharisees. The scribes
probably relate specifically to the Saduccees,
who were the official guardians of the faith,
collaborators with Rome. They limited the
application of the law to its narrowest sense, thus
minimizing any conflict with the ruling power.
The Pharisees dispensed with the need for divine
guidance by laying down scholarly principles of
interpretation. This rejection of the divinely
appointed leader made it possible to apply the
law, through rabbinical interpretation, to a
broader segment of life without becoming a
threat to Roman hegemony.

In verse three the Gospel recognizes that these

two sects maintain the law in some sense, so that

108
when they say that the law must be upheld, they
are correct and may be followed. However, their
own behaviour is not according to the law, at
least in that they ignore divine guidance or the
divinely appointed leadership.

This seems to be a citation of the prophet

Malachi 2:7,8. For the priest’s lips should keep
knowledge, and they should seek the law at his
mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of
hosts. But you are departed out of the way, you
have caused many to stumble at the law; you
have corrupted the covenant of Levi, says the
Lord of hosts. This text is relevant to the
situation, but more importantly situates this
passage as a continuation of Malachi, that is, as a
prophecy which logically follows the book of
Malachi. The book of Malachi is the last book of
prophets, and in the Christian Scriptures
immediately precedes the Gospel of Matthew.

There is some textual variation in verse four in

regard to heavy burdens, but it does not modify
the meaning. Verse four adds that their
interpretation, which ignores divine guidance, is
actually more difficult to observe than verdicts
made under divine appointment. That is, qiyas or
rabbinical method, is a burdensome approach and
turns divine law into a harsh system difficult to
carry out.

109
5 But everything they do, they do to be seen by
others: they make their phylacteries broad, and
enlarge the borders of their garments, 6 And love
the highest places at feasts, and the chief seats in
the synagogues, 7 And greetings in the markets,
and for people to call them, Rabbi, Rabbi.

This text points out that the rabbinical method of

attaining a verdict, or the use of qiyas, leads to
action which may be termed mura’i, or action
performed for the purpose of being seen and
respected by others. Two examples of this are
given in making phylacteries large, and
lengthening the fringes on their garments. The
enlarged phylacteries and the extravagantly long
garment fringes have become standard in modern
Jewish practice, so that they are no longer a sign
of mura’i action. The size of these no longer
varies. It does not appear that phylacteries and
fringes as such are condemned here. Both are
based on Mosaic law, but it seems that the
phylacteries arose through a misapprehension of
Deuteronomy 6:8. Once Hebrew lost its character
as the spoken language of the people rabbis often
erred in misplaced concreteness. The abstract
meaning of the terms of Deuteronomy 6:8 are
implicit from Exodus 13:9, where the same
expressions are applied to unleavened bread,
which cannot be placed between the eyes or worn
on the hand.

110
By the same token, fringes refer in Mosaic law to
the tied ends of the woof of a woven outer cloak
in one piece, corresponding to a modern blanket.
The application of such to an undergarment has
no prophetic justification. Thus both practices as
a form of spiritual show are irrelevant to modern
life, but specifically relevant to first century
Palestine.

The expressions of these verses make no

comment on the validity of using phylacteries
and fringes as such, or attending feasts,
synagogues, and markets. The comment is purely
in reference to seeking admiration and status. The
use of the term rabbi is dealt with in the next
verse.

8 But you, do not be called Rabbi: for your

Master is one, even Christ; and all of you are
brothers.

The use of the term rabbi is forbidden on the

basis that it conflicts with the authority of the
Messiah. The text here concentrates on the aspect
of Jewish accommodation to Rome which
denigrates divine guidance, that is, the divinely
appointed leader.

9 And call no one on earth your father: for your

Father, who is in heaven, is one.

111
This text continues the argument against the
proliferation of religious authorities to the
detriment of the authority of the divinely
appointed. It does not refer to the physical,
biological relationship, but to the use of the word
father as a term of respect for those in authority.
At the same time the text affirms the unicity of
God. The reference is oblique, because the
unicity of God was never questioned in the
context of Jesus (as) and first century Judaism.
There is no need to belabour it.

10 Do not be called masters either: for your

Master, even Christ, is one.

Here the text reaffirms the divine appointment of

leadership. The reaffirmation takes the local
situation into account. This was the principle that
first century Judaism, particularly its leadership,
denied.

11 But the one who is greatest among you shall

be your servant. 12 And whoever exalts himself
shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself
shall be exalted.

Status-oriented Roman society had had an effect

on Jewish society. The text here attempts to
reverse that.

13 ¶ But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees,

hypocrites! Because you shut people out of the

112
kingdom of heaven: for you do not go into it
yourselves, neither do you let those enter it who
want to go in.

Here begin the woes, or condemnations. It has

been established that the major sects and
leadership of first century Judaism had
accommodated to Rome by denigrating the role
of the divinely appointed leader and by adopting
illicit ways of interpreting and applying the law.
These are condemned, with the series of woes
following. As compared to the New Testament
generally, this chapter is particularly well
preserved. In some manuscripts, however, this
and the following verse are reversed.

14 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

Because you eat up widows' houses, and make
long prayer for a pretence: therefore you shall
receive the greater condemnation.

The social concern here is typical of the Hebrew

prophetic utterance, and another evidence that
this passage may be the lost Gospel of Jesus (as).

15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees,

hypocrites! Because you go across sea and land
to make one convert, and when he is made, you
make him twice the child of hell as you
yourselves.

113
Unlike today, first century Judaism was a
proselytizing faith. The matter dealt with here is
the fact that the proselyte would be unaware that
changes had taken place in the faith through
accommodation to Rome, and thus would be
more likely to embrace the wrong system whole-
heartedly. The convert is more enthusiastic than
one born in the faith.

16 Woe to you, blind guides, who say, Whoever

swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever
swears by the gold of the temple, he is
responsible. 17 Fools and blind ones: which is
greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifies the
gold? 18 And, Whoever swears by the altar, it is
nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on
it, he is responsible. 19 Fools and blind ones:
which is greater, the gift, or the altar that
sanctifies the gift? 20 Whoever therefore swears
by the altar, swears by it, and by everything on it.
21 And whoever swears by the temple, swears
by it, and by the one him that dwells in it. 22
And the one that swears by heaven, swears by the
throne of God, and by the one who sit on it.

This is a reference to the kind of misapplication

of the law which arises through the use of a false
method of attaining a verdict. Application by the
divinely appointed leader is always just, but
application by the machinations of a scholar will
provide means of circumventing the law for those
who look up to his expertise. The relationship

114
which automatically arises between a scholar and
an authority demanding a verdict from him is a
corrupting one. The specific matter here is the
formulation of a legal oath, with the specification
that a formal error relieves the client of
responsibility. The practice thus would be to
include a formal error whenever one wished to
give the impression of making an oath, yet with
the intention of disregarding it. The obvious
injustice of such an action cannot be missed by
the poorest observer, yet all non-imamic law is
based on such circumvention. The common term
is loophole.

The word “fools” in verse 19 is missing in some

manuscripts.

23 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees,

hypocrites! Because you pay tithe of mint and
anise and cummin, and have omitted the
weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy,
and faith: you should have done these, and not
have left the other undone. 24 Blind guides, who
strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

Here the text reverts again to the typical social

concern to be found in the Hebrew prophets.
Again, this is evidence that this passage belongs
to the same tradition as the Hebrew prophets in
contrast to the rest of the material in the Gospel
of Matthew. The clear implication is that this is a

115
part of the book called Injil in the holy Qur’an
and sent down to Jesus (as).

25 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees,

hypocrites! Because you make the outside of the
cup and the platter clean, but inside they are full
of extortion and excess. 26 Blind Pharisee, first
clean what is inside the cup and platter,so that
the outside of them may be clean also. 27 Woe
to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
Because you are like white-washed sepulchres,
which indeed appear beautiful on the outside, but
inside are full of dead men's bones, and of all
uncleanness. 28 Even so you also outwardly
appear righteous to people, but inside you are full
of hypocrisy and iniquity.

These condemnations turn on the matter of

hypocrisy. The implication is that false methods
of attaining verdicts, methods invented for the
purpose of accommodating with Rome for
survival, lead to hypocrisy if only because the
verdicts so obtained do not correspond with the
real needs of humankind, as do those attained
through the intervention of a duly appointed
divine representative. Justice cannot be attained
or maintained except by following the divinely
given process of prophecy and divine guidance.

29 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees,

hypocrites! because you build the tombs of the
prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the

116
righteous, 30 And say, If we had been in the
days of our fathers, we would not have
participated with them in taking the blood of the
prophets. 31 So you are witnesses about
yourselves, that you are the children of those who
killed the prophets. 32 Fill up then the measure
of your fathers. 33 Serpents, generation of vipers,
how can you escape the damnation of hell?

The awfulness of these final woes perhaps goes

beyond the expressions of the Hebrew prophets
themselves, but is a logical continuation of them.
The question of how to escape damnation is
answered in the following verse, which is to
follow the prophets, the divine guides (sophos),
and scribes or transmitters of the written law.

Jesus (as) does not condemn building the tombs

of the prophets and garnishing their sepulchres as
such, any more than he condemns paying tithes.
What he condemns is the hypocrisy of doing so
while failing to follow the prophets. This is
therefore an oblique justification for caring for
and visiting the tombs of the prophets and divine
guides (the righteous), a practice which has given
rise to some division in Islam.

34 ¶ So see, I send to you prophets, and wise

men, and scribes: and some of them you will kill
and crucify; and some of them you will beat in
your synagogues, and persecute them from city to
city:

117
The way of salvation is clearly given: it is to
follow the instruction of the prophets, submit to
the authority of the divinely appointed leaders
(sophos), and follow those who transmit the
written law. This is followed by the prophecy
that the first century Jews will fail to do this, and
rather participate in the destruction of those sent
to them by God.

35 That upon you may come all the righteous

blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of
righteous Abel to the blood of Zacharias son of
Barachias, whom you killed between the temple
and the altar.

This prophecy probably refers to the destruction

of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., although the whole
condemnation is addressed not to the Jewish
people but to their leaders. Nevertheless, the
innocent died with the guilty.

36 Truly I say to you, All these things shall come

upon this generation.

Here no doubt begins Jesus’s (as) commentary on

the Gospel. He notes that it will be fulfilled on
the contemporary generation, which we see to be
historically accurate. The attempted collaboration
with Rome did not succeed, partly because of the
irritation to the Romans caused by the Zealots
and partly because of the perfidity of the
Sadduccees. The Pharisees survived to bring

118
rabbinical method to a point of perfection.
Rabbinical method cannot be treated with the
same condemnation as it is here, for it is no
longer an attempt to accommodate to Rome, but
has become crystalized into a religious system in
its own right. It must be judged in part today for
other features: 1) the misapplication of certain
features of law, 2) failure to recognize the
Messiah, 3) failure to recognize the final prophet,
and 4) failure to integrate divine guidance into
the establishment of right practice. These
obviously have their roots in the original
accommodation to Rome. This should have been
avoided (hindsight is unfortunately more clear-
sighted than foresight) by recourse to taqiyya or
disimulation following the example of Abraham
(as), rather than any form of accommodation with
Rome.

It ought to be pointed out that if this is the Gospel

or Injil more or less as Jesus (as) received it,
there are vast implications for Christianity. First
of all, the Gospel relates primarily to the specific
problems within first century Judaism. It does not
support or imply the establishment of a system of
faith distinct from first century Judaism, not to
mention the faith implicit in the Hebrew
Scriptures now contained in Christian Bibles.
The content of the Gospel emphatically opposes
all accommodation with Rome. Unfortunately,
Christianity as a historical phenomenon is hardly
anything but an accommodation to Rome. The

119
Gospel text does not support the doctrine of the
Trinity. Rather, it opposes it with the clear
presupposition of the unicity of God. The Gospel
text does not support the atonement for sin on the
cross. Rather, it states categorically that salvation
is the product of obedience to divine law as
transmitted through the prophets, the divinely
appointed leaders, and those who transmit the
written law. Finally, there is no justification for
the establishment of any such institution as the
Christian Church has become. On the contrary,
the authority of divine guidance in the divinely
appointed leader is maintained throughout. If the
Gospel contains strong language in
condemnation of the Jewish leadership in the first
century, its implied condemnation of the
Christian establishment is devastating.

Despite the fact that the text relates clearly to a

particular time and place with its particular
problems, it can still serve as a witness of what
has always been the right way. First, there is a
strong witness of the unicity of God in verse 9.
Social concerns imply divine justice time and
again. Then the principle of prophecy is strongly
expressed. The need for adherence to the divinely
appointed leader is a central issue. Finally,
human responsibility is maintained even in the
face of oppression and the temptation to
accommodate for survival in a world without
respect for divine law. All comes to a head in the
proclamation of divine judgment. These five

120
great principles of true faith are the core of the
Gospel.

121
 The Gospel: The Secret the Church
Never Told

The Christian Church has been claiming to

represent the Gospel of Jesus Christ (as) for
centuries. The amazing fact is that Christians
never actually tell anybody what the Gospel is
according to their own sacred book, the New
Testament. Any Christian can tell you what the
Gospel is, if you ask him. But the answer is
invariably different from the answer given by the
New Testament itself.

What is the big secret the Church is keeping

under cover, and why do they not want you to
know about it? You are about to find out what the
big secret is, but the reason the Church has been
hiding the facts is something only Christian
leaders can explain.

Most Christians one meets contend that the most

important thing to know is the Gospel. Yet when
one asks them what the Gospel is, the answer
vary. The more liturgical types tend to say that
the Gospel is the written portion of the Bible
which describes the life and death of Jesus (as)
on earth. This is a good answer as far as it goes,
for each of the four canonical Biblical books
referred to as the Gospel contain the word in their
title, to evangelion, in Greek. But these titles
have all been added by a late hand. The more

122
evangelical types answer something on the
following order: “The Gospel is the good news
that Jesus died to atone for our sins on the cross
so that we might be saved through faith in Him.”

I followed the advice of my evangelical friends

and took a look at the Greek Scriptures, the
central Christian source of faith and practice, to
see what the Bible says the Gospel is. All of the
passages quoted in this study are from the book
called the New Testament. If the Gospel is a
particular message, the New Testament ought to
be very clear about exactly what that message is.
I was not surprised to find that the word Gospel
appears nearly a hundred times in the King James
Version of the New Testament to translate the
Greek word to evangelion, a word often
translated into common speech as the “good
news.” I was surprised to find that the word is
almost always used in a sentence which
presupposes that the reader already knows what
the good news is. The context may say something
about the Gospel, about its power or glory or
even affliction. It may say something, and most
generally does, about the preaching of the gospel,
by whom and where and under what
circumstances. The texts which mention the
Gospel without defining it clearly, without telling
what the message actually is, are the following:
Matthew 4:23; 9:35; 11:5; 26:13; Mark 1:1; 8:35;
10:29; 13:10; 14:9; Luke 4:18; 7:22; 9:6; 20:1;
Acts 8:25; 14:7; 14:21; 15:7; 16:10; Romans 1:9;

123
1:15; 10:15; 10:16; 11:28; 15:16; 15:19; 15:20;
15:29; 1 Corinthians 4:15; 9:12; 9:14; 9:16; 9:17;
9:18; 9:23; 15:1; 2 Corinthians 2:12; 4:3; 4:4;
8:18; 9:13; 10:14; 10:16; 11:4; 11:7; Galatians
2:5; 2:14; 4:13; Ephesians 6:15; 6:19; Philippians
1:5; 1:7; 1:12; 1:17; 2:22; 4:3; 4:15; 1
Thessalonians 2:2; 2:4; 2:8; 2:9; 3:2 1; Timothy
1:11; 2 Timothy 1:8; Philemon 1:13; Hebrews
4:2; 1 Peter 1:12; 4:6; 4:17. Anyone can examine
these texts personally, but without finding
anything in the text or context to indicate exactly
what the message of the Gospel is, exactly what
the apostles or Jesus (AS) were preaching as the
Gospel. This leaves us with a mere handful of
texts which reveal anything about the Gospel at
all. It is fairly easy to review them and
summarize the information they contain.

The first text is in Mark 1:14,15 “Now after that

John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee,
preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And
saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of
God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the
gospel.” Mark 1:14 says that Jesus (as) came
preaching the Gospel. Verse 15 tells what Jesus
(as) actually said when he preached the Gospel.

So we can take Mark 1:15 as a summary of the

Gospel as Jesus (as) preached it. It contains two
items of news or information, and two
commands. The first item of information is that
the time is fulfilled, that is, that the predicted

124
time of some prophecy had come to a terminus.
The second item of information is that the
kingdom of God is near. These two pieces of
information were very apt for the time and place.
They are not universal or eternal messages. They
relate specifically to the hopes of the Jews in
Palestine at that period of the Roman Empire.
The clear implication is that the prophecies gave
a specific time for God to set up a kingdom or
reign on earth, and that reign should penetrate the
Roman empire at the time and place at which
Jesus (AS) appeared as Messiah. The Gospel
portrayed here as information is very local in
character.

The two commands given in function of that

information are a bit more universal in scope.
The first command is to repent. The second is to
believe the Gospel, that is, the message that
God’s kingdom was about to penetrate the
Roman Empire. The word translated “repent” is
metanoeite which comes from metanous. Just as
metaphysics goes beyond the physical to the
matters of the mind, this “metanoia” goes beyond
the matters of the mind. In other words, Jesus
(AS) appears to be telling the people not to be
deceived by what they see and think, but to go
beyond that to realize something that their minds
could not tell them, that what he is saying is true,
that God is about to set up His kingdom. The
clear inference is that despite the situation and

125
what it seems to be, they owe their ultimate
allegiance to God.

The next text is in Mark 16:15,16. “And he said

unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach
the gospel to every creature. He that believeth
and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned.” This text does
not give more detail about the content of the
message at all. It refers to the delivering of the
message, and the results of it. Some will believe
and be saved, and others will not believe, and be
damned. That is, some will realize that they owe
ultimate allegiance to God, and believing that,
they may be saved. Others will deny obedience to
the sovereignty of God, and consequently will be
lost. An interesting point is that baptism is
mentioned along with belief as one of the
requisites for being saved. Baptism is not very
well defined in the New Testament either. It
arose out of the Jewish practices of ablutions, in
two contexts. The one was conversion to
Judaism, and the other was the baptism of
repentance, such as that represented by John. The
baptism which came into use among the early
followers of Jesus (as) doubtlessly included those
characteristics, and apparently more as well. But
whatever it meant, it was clearly within a purity
code with a practice of ablutions. Furthermore,
whatever it meant, it was not a part of the
proclamation of the Gospel, but a result and

126
response to it, one coupled with belief in the
sovereignty or “kingdom” of God.

Baptism is the first matter that is associated with

the Gospel in this text, but it is not the only one.
If it is intrinsic to the Gospel proclamation itself,
then the issues in the following texts are as well.
That is, if we accept baptism as a part of the
Gospel message, then we must accept casting out
devils, speaking in tongues, handling serpents,
drinking poison without being hurt, and healing
the sick by laying on hands. Mark 16:17-18.
“And these signs shall follow them that believe;
In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall
speak with new tongues; They shall take up
serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it
shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the
sick, and they shall recover.” There are episodes
described in the four Gospels and in the Book of
Acts which describe all of these events as taking
place. But they are not essentially and
intrinsically the message of the Gospel. The
Gospel is not the good news that people will start
picking up snakes.

The context of the preaching of the Gospel is

described with colorful detail, but the actual
content of the message is given only briefly and
rarely. Nevertheless, an occasional word can shed
light on the nature of the Gospel message. Such
is found in Acts 20:24 “But none of these things
move me, neither count I my life dear unto

127
myself, so that I might finish my course with joy,
and the ministry, which I have received of the
Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of
God.” Here the sentence ends with what could be
stated in ordinary speech as “the good news of
the gift of God.” This text does not tell what that
gift is. If we ponder it in the light of Mark 1:15, it
suggests that the gift of God is the replacement of
human despotism with the rule of God. But the
text does not state this.

It is significant that the Gospels and the Book of

Acts do not give direct information on what the
Gospel is except in Mark 1:15. We are
completely dependent on that one text to know
what the Gospel is. At this point we turn to the
epistles. There is only one relevant text in the
epistles written by a man who actually knew and
heard Jesus (as) proclaiming the Gospel. That is
1 Peter 1:25 “But the word of the Lord endureth
for ever. And this is the word which by the
gospel is preached unto you.” The enlightening
bit of information given here is that the Gospel is
preached or proclaimed by means of the “word of
the Lord.” In the context, the word of the Lord
can only refer to the Hebrew Scriptures, and to
nothing else. At this point we are justified in
affirming that the Gospel is the message that God
is sovereign, that is, that allegiance and
obedience are due to Him, even in so despotic a
society as the Roman empire, and that this

128
message is proclaimed by the use of the Hebrew
Scriptures.

Having got a clear idea from those witnesses of

the Gospel who claim to have heard it directly
from the mouth of Jesus (as), we can now turn to
the epistles of Paul. The writings of St. Paul,
according to St. Peter, are difficult to understand.
Furthermore, he is not a direct witness. Rather,
he claims to be a witness on the basis of a vision
long after the disappearance of Jesus (as). He
never knew Jesus (as) personally. He claimed to
have met Jesus on the road to Damascus, and on
the basis of that visionary experience, he made
several assumptions. First of all, it is clear that he
assumed that Jesus (as) had been killed. He had
this merely on hearsay. He was not there to see it
happen, and cannot therefore be a valid witness
of the fact. Secondly, having seen Jesus (as) in
vision, he assumed that he had been resurrected
from the dead. St. Paul had belonged to the sect
of Pharisees, who were criticized by the
Saduccees among the Jews for believing in the
resurrection from the dead. Paul latched on to
this visionary experience to begin to proclaim the
resurrection. He went around stirring up
controversy among Jews over the question of the
resurrection and for this he was finally
imprisoned and sent to Rome for trial. St. Paul’s
proclamation of the Gospel is submerged in this
course of events in his personal life. The story is
found not only in his epistles, especially the

129
beginning of Galatians, but also in the last half of
the Book of Acts.

The first text of relevance is Romans 1:1 “Paul, a

servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle,
separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had
promised afore by his prophets in the holy
scriptures.)” At this point Paul’s concept of the
Gospel overlaps completely with what we have
seen among the eye-witnesses. But Paul goes on
to add his own cogitations and understanding of
the Gospel in verses three and four. “Concerning
his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made
of the seed of David according to the flesh; And
declared to be the Son of God with power,
according to the spirit of holiness, by the
resurrection from the dead:” What he says here
may very well be true, but it is an addition
determined by his personal experience, and not a
part of the Gospel as proclaimed by Jesus (as)
and his eye-witness apostles. It is missing in
Mark 1:15, the only expression of the content of
the Gospel to be found overtly stated by the
evangelists. It has more to do with Paul’s
confrontation with the Saduccees about the
resurrection than it does with what we find Jesus
(as) actually saying in Mark 1:15. St. Paul repeats
this allegation on one other occasion. 2 Timothy
2:8 “Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of
David was raised from the dead according to my
gospel.” Here he admits that this clause is a part

130
of “my” Gospel, not necessarily a part of the
original.

Now whether or not we can accept what Paul

says about the resurrection as true, there is one
thing that is of primary importance. What is the
result or response of Paul’s Gospel? It is found in
verse 5 “By whom we have received grace and
apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all
nations, for his name.” Paul’s Son of God and
resurrection theme, arising from his sectarian
experience as a Jew, is a parenthesis which does
not effect the core of his Gospel. He has clearly
repeated the apostolic Gospel in verses one and
two, which is the proclamation of the sovereignty
of God even in the Roman empire. The result of
that proclamation, even after Paul’s discursus
into Jewish sectarian conflict is still the same as
that of the other apostles: grace for obedience to
the faith. St. Paul, despite his personal distraction
and despite not being a direct eye-witness to the
proclamation of the Gospel, still preserves the
apostolic proclamation of the sovereignty of God
and the good news of grace for obedience even
under Rome.

Paul’s input is truly illuminating. In Romans 1:16

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ:
for it is the power of God unto salvation to every
one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the
Greek.” He gives us two new pieces of
information here. The first is that the Gospel

131
contains power. That is, it is not merely the
proclamation that people ought and must obey
God rather than Caesar no matter what the
consequences. It is also a gift of power, that is,
the possibility to put into practice obedience to
God despite the human institutions which oppose
it. Thank God for Paul, for it is only at this point
that we can see why the Gospel is actually good
news. News of the duty of civil disobedience is
not good news unless there is a guarantee that it
can be more or less successfully carried out. St.
Paul reiterates this in Romans 16:25 “Now to him
that is of power to stablish you according to my
gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ,
according to the revelation of the mystery, which
was kept secret since the world began.” St. Paul
returns to this subject in another epistle 1
Thessalonians 1:5 “For our gospel came not unto
you in word only, but also in power, and in the
Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know
what manner of men we were among you for
your sake.” The second bit of information is that
the kingdom of God, that is, submission to the
sovereignty of God, is not for Jews only, but for
others as well. The kingdom of God is at least as
universal as the Roman empire.

In the next Pauline text there is another new bit

of information. Romans 2:16 “In the day when
God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus
Christ according to my gospel.” Here Paul does
not go into the detail of what he sees as Jesus’s

132
(as) role in judgment, but he does point out that a
proclamation of the judgment of God is a part of
the Gospel which he preaches. This was implicit
in Jesus’s (as) proclamation in Mark 1:15, but not
stated. The sovereignty of God implies the duty
of obedience, and the duty of obedience implies
accountability. Paul is thus consistent in the
application of the primitive Gospel.

In another Pauline epistle we find Paul affirming

the distinction we made between baptism and the
Gospel on the basis of Mark 16. 1 Corinthians
1:17 “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to
preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest
the cross of Christ should be made of none
effect.” He does not go into detail here on what
he means by the cross of Christ. The point he is
trying to make, however, has to do with the
rhetorical principles he finds most effective in
preaching the Gospel. He does not rely on
wisdom of words. This may be a reference to
Hellenistic philosophy. If so, this may be an
indication of agreement with Peter, that the
Gospel is to be preached through the medium of
the Hebrew Scriptures.

Paul’s proclamation of the Gospel, as we have

seen, is characterized by two things. First, he is
highly personal, mixing his Jewish sectarian
conflicts into his proclamation. Second, he is
deeply astute in bringing out the very real
implications of the Gospel in terms of divine

133
power and judgment. This could only put him in
a position in which he was misunderstood by
some and definitely in conflict with others. Much
in the Book of Acts and the Pauline epistles bears
this out. One indication is his reference to
multiple gospels in Galatians 1:6-9 “I marvel that
ye are so soon removed from him that called you
into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Which is not another; but there be some that
trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of
Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven,
preach any other gospel unto you than that which
we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, If any
man preach any other gospel unto you than that
ye have received, let him be accursed.” Paul
indeed found areas of confrontation, and this was
inevitable. It is not certain, however, that there
were real disagreements at that point among the
followers of Jesus (as) on the content of the
Gospel.

Paul follows this tirade with a description of his

visionary experience. Strangely enough, he
appeals to the visionary experience as a better
guarantee of validity than eye-witness report.
Galatians 1:11; 2:1-2 “But I certify you, brethren,
that the gospel which was preached of me is not
after man. And I went up by revelation, and
communicated unto them that gospel which I
preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them

134
which were of reputation, lest by any means I
should run, or had run, in vain.”

There is a text to follow which is susceptible to

misunderstanding. Galatians 2:7 “But
contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of
the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as
the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter.”
The careless reader may think that this refers to
the two gospels noted earlier, and that one of the
gospels included the rite of circumcision and the
other rejected it. That is not the import of the
sentence. Rather, it merely divides the territory of
proclamation. Peter is given the proclamation to
Jewish people, and Paul is sent with the good
news to non-Jewish people. The messages are
ostensibly the same.

Paul, being sent to the non-Jews, is more fully

aware than others of the universal character of
the Gospel message. He thus gives an interesting
bit of information about the very content of the
Gospel. The Gospel includes the message that all
nations will be blessed in Abraham (as).
Galatians 3:8 “And the scripture, foreseeing that
God would justify the heathen through faith,
preached before the gospel unto Abraham,
saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.” The
idea is that, rather than God’s kingdom being
limited to Jews, it is promised from the beginning
to be on the basis of the faith of Abraham (as),
and for all nations. Again, thank God for St. Paul.

135
This information would otherwise have been
missing from the New Testament. It constitutes a
reaffirmation that the Gospel is a recalling to the
faith of Abraham (as) and is for all nations. St.
Paul affirms this universality in Ephesians 3:6
“That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of
the same body, and partakers of his promise in
Christ by the gospel.”

St. Paul mentions the word Gospel again in

Ephesians 1:13 “In whom ye also trusted, after
that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your
salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye
were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise.”
This text is less rich in information than in
promise. Paul here enlarges upon the theme of
power to accomplish the Gospel in the use of the
words “sealed with that holy Spirit of promise.”
This expression no doubt reflects St. Paul’s
awareness of the very real and practical
difficulties of obedience to God in a despotic
regime. He also affirms Peter’s statement that the
Gospel is to be proclaimed by the medium of the
Hebrew Scriptures or the “word of truth.”

Much has been made in some circles about the

Gospel being the good news of salvation without
good works, or the works of the law. Much of the
discussion is based on the expressions of St. Paul.
The subject is far too complex to discuss here,
but it is clear that Paul does not envision a
salvation without good works. The first reason is

136
a logical one. Paul’s concept of the Gospel does
not depart from that of the apostles, and he more
clearly than any other introduces the
accountability of judgment in the Gospel itself.
The second reason is that Paul actually states in
connection with the Gospel, that right behavior is
necessary. Behavior is what the old word
“conversation” means as used in the following
text. Philippians 1:27 “Only let your conversation
be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that
whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I
may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one
spirit, with one mind striving together for the
faith of the gospel.”

St. Paul refers to judgment in connection with the

Gospel in a very positive sense in Colossians 1:5
“For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven,
whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth
of the gospel.” This hope is reiterated in
Colossians 1:23 “If ye continue in the faith
grounded and settled, and be not moved away
from the hope of the gospel, which ye have
heard, and which was preached to every creature
which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made
a minister.” Here Paul repeats the Abrahamic
universality.

This contrast of hope and damnation, so

reminiscent not only of Jesus’s (as) words on
many occasions but of the many similar
expressions in the Qur’an, come up again and

137
again in the brief, early epistles of Paul to the
Thessalonians. 2 Thessalonians 1:8 “In flaming
fire taking vengeance on them that know not
God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord
Jesus Christ.” 2 Thessalonians 2:14 “Whereunto
he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of
the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

It is probably in this context of judgment that we

should read St. Paul’s words to Timothy. 2
Timothy 1:10 “But is now made manifest by the
appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath
abolished death, and hath brought life and
immortality to light through the gospel.” Paul has
noted the role of Jesus (as) in the judgment
without defining it in the context of the Gospel as
such. His expressions here apparently mean that
Jesus (as) in mediating the Gospel to humankind,
played a key role in abolishing death and
bringing life and immortality in the context of the
judgment.

We have noted how St. Paul was an ambiguous

character. For the most part he illuminated the
expression of the Gospel which had been left far
from clear in other parts of the New Testament.
Yet, not being an eye-witness, he was also more
impressed with events outside the life and
teaching of the real, historical Jesus, and this left
a mark on his understanding. We can now go
back to the two remaining passages written or

138
reported by people who knew Jesus (as)
personally.

Jesus (as) makes a reference to the Gospel in an

extended passage in Matthew 24:4-28. The
passage is an answer to a question about the time
of the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the
world. He prophesies that the Gospel should be
preached to the whole world, and reiterates that
the Gospel is “of the kingdom”, that is, relating
to the message of God’s sovereignty. Matthew
24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be
preached in all the world for a witness unto all
nations; and then shall the end come.

The truly defining text on the Gospel does not

appear until the end of the book, as though the
New Testament writers were holding this big
secret until the end. The final mention of the
word to evangelion, the Gospel is found in
Revelation 14:6-7 “And I saw another angel fly
in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting
gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the
earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and
tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice,
Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of
his judgment is come: and worship him that made
heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains
of waters.” Although much information has been
gleaned about the Gospel from the New
Testament texts, only this one along with Mark
1:15 actually gives anything like a

139
comprehensive view of the content of the Gospel
message. It is interesting to note that this is the
only text that gives real detail about the content.
It is just as interesting to see that there is not the
slightest mention or reference to the proclamation
of a vicarious sacrifice for sin on a cross or
anywhere else. That message, true or not, is not a
part of the New Testament Gospel. If it is a part
of any gospel, it must be a part of one of those
other gospels St. Paul referred to as being
accurst.

First of all, this Gospel is termed the eternal

Gospel. It is stripped of any local aspects that
might have been attached to the Gospel as
reported by the evangelists and apostles about
Jesus’s (as) time. This definition of the Gospel is
at the heart of the Apocalypse of St. John, a book
that has baffled commentators for centuries and
been the subject of the most varied
interpretations of its obscure symbols and cryptic
expressions. But these two verses are as clear,
understandable, and bereft of any vestige of
obscure symbolism as is possible. The real, true,
eternal Gospel is expressed here in one brief
verse which cannot be misunderstood by any
human being who has acquired the capacity to
use human language. The Gospel of Revelation
14:7, the only expression of the Gospel that
exists in the Bible besides Mark 1:15, and the
only detailed expression of the Gospel to be
found in the Bible, contains three brief

140
commands: fear God, give glory to God, and
worship God.

These commands may seem somewhat imprecise

at first glance. However, they contain some
rather precise implications. The fear of God does
not refer to terror or horror. Rather, it refers to
those influences which we experience as exterior
to ourselves but which determine our behavior
and choices. These influences are those of
authority and those of peers. By accommodating
our behavior to the demands of ungodly
government and ungodly neighbors, we
relinquish the fear of God. On the contrary, by
taking the divine opinion into consideration
instead of the opinion of peers, we can
acknowledge divine law. This is what is meant
by fearing God. To fear God is to recognize the
very principles expressed in the Gospel as found
in Mark 1:15.

The meaning of giving God glory is somewhat

easier to grasp without explanation. It means
quite literally to include as a central part of the
liturgical act to glorify God verbally in an
expression such as subhan Allah, glory to God. It
has a meaning in terms of attitude, however, as
well. Just as human institutions and individuals
can steal the fear of God by demanding
conformity, they can steal the glory of God by
demanding recognition and credit. To give God
glory implies recognizing God as the source of

141
all good things. For this reason many people
answer expressions of gratitude by saying
“Thanks be to God.”

The third imperative is proskyneesate, which is

translated “worship.” The actual meaning of the
Greek word, however, is to fall down in
prostration. It is reliance on another gospel to
suggest that mental recognition of God’s
authority relieves us of the responsibility to carry
out what many might consider mere forms of no
intrinsic value. Whether or not there is intrinsic
value in the formal gestures of prayer, there is
most certainly intrinsic value in the obedience
which carrying them out entails. Of the three
commands included in the Biblical definition of
the Gospel, and there are only three, one is the
command to pray in prostration. Any concept of
the Gospel that ignores the practice of prayer in
prostration is a non-Biblical one. There are so
few defining expressions of the Gospel in the
Bible that it is impossible to ignore any of them
and remain within a Biblical framework.

Besides the three imperatives that make up the

Gospel, there is an explanatory phrase for why
we should fear God and give God glory. The
explanation is that we are facing judgement. This
explanation is the logical one for the first two
imperatives. The realization of impending
judgment should have the power to free us from
peer pressure and reliance on human authorities.

142
In a similar way, and more positively, the fact
that God is our judge should encourage us to
remember to give God recognition and credit for
all good things.

Finally, there is an explanatory phrase for the

third imperative, again one which is supremely
logical in view of the command to pray in
prostration. The explanation is simply that God
has created all things. This is the one great
defining aspect separating God from all other
things. There is only one Creator and all other
things are His creations. This is the Gospel
definition of God, which is no definition in terms
of limitation at all, but the recognition that as
Creator and Sovereign, He cannot be defined or
limited by any created thing.

A careful review of the Biblical references to the

Gospel dispels the first impression that the New
Testament fails to give a clear exposition of its
character and content. Although the texts that are
truly defining are few in number, they are clear
and unequivocal. The Gospel is simply a call to
recognize God alone as Creator and Sovereign
Judge, and to order our behavior in view of that
realization, without reference to creed, priest,
church or sacraments. There is another word for
religion that consists in the submission of the
individual to God. That word is Islam.

143
 The Word Muhammad in the Bible

This brief study seeks to answer the simple

question of whether or not the Hebrew Bible
refers to the word Muhammad, or more
specifically to one of its Hebrew cognates, as a
proper name. The usefulness of such a task is
clear. If such a usage can be attested, the many
descriptive passages that some scholars have
appealed to in reference either to the prophet or
the Mahdi of that name (upon whom be peace)
gain in validity.

The larger problem set forth behind this study is

whether the Bible contains material in reference
to the figures of the prophet or the Mahdi (as) in
Islamic thought. Obviously the Bible has been
interpreted in specific ways by Jewish, Christian
and other scholars in reference to the Messiah,
Elijah, or another awaited prophet, and these
traditional ways of applying the Scriptures may
conflict with Islamic interpretations related to the
prophet or Mahdi (as). This is especially likely to
be the case, since many of the possible
candidates are passages already understood in
Messianic terms. Jewish and Christian
understanding differs, sometimes applying a
passage to the awaited Messiah on one hand and
to Jesus (as) on the other. To attempt to bring a
further figure into this complex adds to the

144
confusion. It is therefore essential to approach the
matter systematically.

The first step in approaching this problem ought

not to be to propose such new interpretations of
old and controversial texts. That task should be
relegated to a later stage altogether. Rather, the
first step is to note whether the names of the
prophet and Mahdi are used in the Hebrew
Scriptures in some cognate form, and whether
these are associated with factors suggesting the
Islamic figures as the terminus of such prophetic
expressions. The second step is to examine the
functions of the Mahdi in comparison with the
body of Biblical Scripture in order to identify
parallels. Obviously such parallels will be more
convincing to the skeptic once a clear reference
to a specific name can be produced.

Among the many names of the Prophet (as) and

the Mahdi (as) is of course Muhammad. This is
the name most likely to be evident in the Bible,
and must therefore be examined first. On the
other hand, this name is ambiguous, since it
refers not only to the Mahdi (as), but to other
Imams as well. It will thus be necessary in this
study to find a Hebrew cognate, show that it is
used as a specific name, and find factors that
point directly to the prophet and the Mahdi (as).
Unless this can be achieved, further examination
of the Bible will be largely fruitless in regard to
this subject. Without a demonstration that this

145
name has significance among the prophecies of
prophets to come and the end-time, functional
descriptions, the application of texts already
applied to other messianic figures, will continue
to have little force outside Islam.

The Hebrew cognate of the root from which the

name Muhammad is derived is hmd, which
means “to desire, pamper.” The Arabic
connotation of “to praise” is not found in modern
Hebrew. The noun form is a feminine with the
common feminine suffix added. It is used twelve
times in the Hebrew Scriptures, four of which
appear in the construct. There is no problem with
the use of this word as a masculine proper name,
as there are many examples of seemingly
feminine forms being included in a masculine
name, and vice versa.

The first task is to establish whether or not this

word is used as a proper name in the Hebrew
Scriptures. We can immediately dispense with
the occurrence of the word in the construct in
Daniel 11:37, where it is translated “the desire”
of women. It is clearly and unequivocally used as
a proper name in Psalm 106:24. Yea, they
despised the pleasant land, they believed not his
word.

By leaving the word untranslated, we get the

following rendering of the verse. Yea, they
despised the land of Hamda, they believed not his

146
word. The final half of the verse includes the
possessive suffix “his,” which needs an
antecedent. The nearest possible antecedent is the
enigmatic Hamda. Unless this word is conceived
as a masculine proper name, there is no natural
antecedent for the possessive. The fact that
Hamda is the only possible antecedent for the
masculine possessive that follows shows that it
must be seen as a masculine proper noun rather
than a feminine common noun.

It remains to understand to whom this verse

refers. Seen in terms of the Islamic concept of the
Mahdi (as), the verse makes little sense. On the
other hand, seen in terms of the prophet of Islam,
Muhammad (as), it makes a good deal of sense. It
can easily be understood as referring to the fact
that when the prophet Muhammad (as) came,
many people did not believe his word, because
they despised his origins in Arabia. Of course the
context of the verse is a reference to the Exodus,
so the primary application of the name should
normally be a person involved at that time. None
can be found. Even if one could be found, the
secondary application of the prophecy would
clearly refer to the Prophet (as).

It is clear that the word Hamda is used at least

once in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to a
human being, and that reference contains a
significant parallel to the life of the prophet
Muhammad (as). It remains to be seen whether

147
there are other references to the word Hamda that
can or must be seen as a proper name, and
whether any of these refer either to the prophet
Muhammad (as) or to Muhammad al-Mahdi
(as).

There is an ambiguous reference to the death of

Jehoram in 2 Chronicles 21:20 that applies the
word Hamda to the king. 2 Chronicles 21:20
‘Thirty and two years old was he when he began
to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years,
and departed without being desired. Howbeit
they buried him in the city of David, but not in
the sepulchres of the kings.’ The word Hamda is
translated here as “desired.” This translation is
slightly distorted, since the noun substantive is
used without an adjectival positioning. However,
the translation is certainly possible. If the word is
meant to be a proper name, the relevance is great.
The implication would be that at the time every
king of Judah was evaluated as to whether he
fitted the criteria of the awaited Hamda. The
name itself suggests this awaiting, that the people
knew that Hamda was coming and longed for or
desired him. The king is buried with the nostalgic
remark that he did not turn out to be Hamda. In
this case there is no contextual evidence pointing
out whether the prophet (as) or the Mahdi (as) is
meant.

An occurrence of the word in the construct in the

same sense, in reference to the anointing of Saul

148
as king, is found in 1 Samuel 9:20. Here the king
is called the desire or Hamda of Israel. The
expression is put to Saul in a future sense, thus
showing it to be in the context of a messianic
hope.

Another appearance of the word comes in 2

Chronicles 32:27 ‘And Hezekiah had exceeding
much riches and honour: and he made himself
treasuries for silver, and for gold, and for
precious stones, and for spices, and for shields,
and for all manner of pleasant jewels.’

The translation of “pleasant” is a little forced

here, but possible despite its slightly enigmatic
character. The translation of keley as “jewels” is
rather interpretive, since the word has a broad
range of meanings more clearly related to
utensils and tools. Coming after “shields,”
another translation would appear in order. It is
possible that there was at the time an expression
“instruments of Hamda” which had a meaning
not now known, but referred to the awaited and
desired one. That this is the case is suggested by
the repetition of the expression in Jeremiah 25:34
Howl, ye shepherds, and cry, and wallow
yourselves in the ashes, ye principal of the flock:
for the days of your slaughter and of your
dispersions are accomplished, and ye shall fall
like a pleasant vessel.

149
The same expression appears, this time translated
vessel instead of jewels. It could just as well be
understood as “instruments of Hamda.” That this
is a technical term the meaning of which has
been lost is clouded by the fact that it is
arbitrarily translated with a different expression
nearly every time it occurs. A similar usage for
the word in the construct, and in reference to the
vessels of the temple, is found in 2 Chronicles
36:10. Another example is Nahum 2:9 ‘Take ye
the spoil of silver, take the spoil of gold: for there
is none end of the store and glory out of all the
pleasant furniture.’ The exact word keley, which
was “jewels” and “vessel” before, is arbitrarily
‘furniture’ here. There is finally a second verse in
which the expression is translated ‘pleasant
vessels.’ Hosea 13:15 Thou he be fruitful among
his brethren, an east wind shall come, the wind of
the LORD shall come up from the wilderness,
and his spring shall become dry, and his fountain
shall be dried up: he shall spoil the treasure of all
pleasant vessels.

The fact that fully half of the passages containing

the term Hamda pair it with keley goes far
toward confirming the theory that this is a
lexicalized expression. Whatever ‘instruments of
Hamda’ are, they make it clear that Hamda was a
figure that was desired and awaited and had
captured the minds of the populace to such an
extent that the name appeared as an expression
referring to some kind of instruments, whether

150
the unlikely jewels or vessels or furniture of
some kind, or something else, is meant.

Another idiom, less relevant to the present

question, uses the plural of the word, hamdoth. It
is translated several ways, but generally means
‘desired, precious, beloved.’ It appears in 2
Chronicles 20:25 with keley, referring perhaps to
precious stones. Perhaps the use of the plural
distinguishes it from the idiomatic expression in
the singular examined above. It occurs with other
words in Daniel 10:10,11,19; 11:43.

We have seen that one passage (Psalm 106:24)

demands the interpretation of Hamda as a proper
name. 2 Chronicles 21:20 permits the
interpretation of Hamda as a proper name, but
does not require it grammatically. It may require
it semantically. If so, it and like references
intimate a prophetic expectation attached to
kings. The other passages suggest a technical
term inspired by the hold this awaited one had on
the popular imagination. The remaining two
passages are in the same category as 2 Chronicles
21:20, which could be translated as a proper
name or as a common noun, although their
semantic weight falls on the side of a proper
name as well.

The following text using the word Hamda is

Jeremiah 3:19 ‘But I said, How shall I put thee
among the children, and give thee the land of

151
Hamda, a goodly heritage of the hosts of nations?
and I said, Thou shalt call me, My father; and
shalt not turn away from me.’

These words are addressed to the people of

Judah. Because of their behavior, God asks how
He can count them as sons and allow them to live
in the land of Hamda. He answers that He can do
so if they acknowledge Him as father and if they
do not turn away from Him, that is, if they
repent. The context is that of impending
deportation, which does in fact take place, since
the people do not repent. The figure of speech,
sons and father, in relation to God implies a
relationship of obedience, as a child to its father.
This is the required relationship between God
and humankind. Humankind is obliged to obey
God or suffer the consequences. The Jews of the
time, through failure to obey God, were deported
to Babylon first and finally under protest from
Jeremiah, to Egypt. Thus they lost the right to
live in the land of Hamda and take their place
among the sons of God, that is, those obedient to
Him. The context makes it clear that the land of
Hamda is the land promised to Abraham (as) and
his descendants. The fact that the expression
parallels that of Psalm 106:24 might lead us to
consider this also to be a proper name, although
the context here does not require it.

Does this text have any eschatological

implications, that is, can it be applied to the

152
figure of the Mahdi? The text clearly applies
primarily to the time of the prophet Jeremiah
(as). The reaction of Judah to Jeremiah’s
prophecy was failure to repent with the result of
deportation. The final portion of the text seems to
indicate that the Jews would respond by
repenting, which we see that they did not do at
the time of Jeremiah. There is therefore every
reason to give the text an eschatological
application. Applied in an eschatological way,
the implication is that the Jews are given a
chance to repent and thus take their place among
the nations who are obedient to God. This is
consonant with the eschatological hope and the
figure of the Mahdi, who should fill the earth
with justice. In this sense, the land of Hamda
must be the whole earth to be inhabited by those
who respond with repentance to the call of the
Mahdi (as), here referred to by his primary name
of Muhammad or Hamda.

The reference to the land of Hamda has an

eschatological application here. This means that
we may justified in attributing an eschatological
application to Psalm 106:24 as well, since the
expression is the same. Psalm 106:24, which is
the vital text to show that Hamda is a personal
masculine name in the Hebrew Scriptures, ought
then to have a dual application, that is, to both the
prophet Muhammad (as) and the Mahdi (as).

153
The land of Hamda is also mentioned in
Zechariah 7:14 ‘But I scattered them with a
whirlwind among all the nations whom they
knew not. Thus the land was desolate after them,
that no man passed through nor returned: for they
had laid desolate the land of Hamda.’

This text seems to refer to the diaspora of the

Jews among all nations. The last half of the text
is enigmatic and suggestive. The first desolation
of the land is the desolation of having lost its
population. That no man passed through nor
returned refers specifically that no Jews were
living or traveling there. The last clause is
introduced with the Hebrew copula we-, but the
authorized translator interprets it correctly as an
explanatory attachment, giving the cause of what
went before. The Jews had not laid any physical
land desolate. ‘Laying the land of Hamda
desolate’ must be understood in a figurative
sense. To give a literal sense to this clause would
be redundancy on the level of saying that water is
wet because it is wet.

The expression ‘land of Hamda’ is used three

times in Scripture, which is a great proportion of
the whole corpus. It has almost as great a claim
to lexicalization as the expression “instruments of
Hamda.” But its meaning is far clearer. Several
levels of meaning appear. The bottom layer is a
reference to the land promised to Abraham (as) in
Genesis 12:1-3. The promise that in Abraham

154
(as) all families of the earth should be blessed
already at the beginning takes on an
eschatological perspective that has not gone
unnoticed by non-Muslim scholars. The ‘land of
Hamda’ is the heritage of Abraham (as) in its
eschatological sense. Laying the land of Hamda
desolate implies spoiling the covenant of
Abraham, that is, basically introducing injustice.
The prophets are clear in their denouncing of
Israel for injustice to the weak, and this is one of
the foundations for the exile. This is repeated for
the diaspora, as prophesied by Zechariah (as).

All of this affirms the application of the

expression ‘land of Hamda’ in an eschatological
sense and by the same token to the figure of the
Mahdi (as).

In sum, all of the texts are potentially examples

of the use of the word Hamda as a masculine
personal name. One of these, Psalm 106:24,
requires this interpretation, and the others, within
their context, are best understood by appeal to
this usage. Thus the Biblical usage of this word
can be seen to be uniform and consistent. Psalm
106:24 is also unique in that it must be applied
primarily to the prophet Muhammad (as). Its
eschatological implications are dependent on the
lexicalization of the expression ‘land of Hamda.’
A dual application may be seen in all of the other
texts as well, although most of them show a clear
reference to eschatology, and by implication the

155
possibility of perceiving in them a reference to
the Mahdi (as).

There is an occurrence of the word Hamda in the

construct in Haggai 2:7ff ‘And I will shake all
nations, and the Hamda of all nations shall come:
and I will fill this house with glory, saith the
LORD of hosts. The silver is mine, and the gold
is mine, saith the LORD of hosts. The glory of
this latter house shall be greater than of the
former, saith the LORD of hosts: and in this
place will I give Islam [shalom], saith the LORD
of hosts.’

This particular usage, with the construct, speaks

against interpreting the word Hamda in this case
as a proper name. However, the text is late, and
the lexicalized expressions might have become so
ingrained that the proper name had become
synonymous with an awaited figure. Perhaps a
middle ground translation of the term would best
express the meaning of the text: ‘the desired one
of all nations.’ The reconstructed temple did not
last to see a messianic figure at all. It was
desecrated, reconsecrated, and renovated beyond
recognition by Herod. So neither Jesus (as) nor
Muhammad the prophet (as) could fulfill literally
the first promise. A literal fulfillment would have
to be sought in the Maccabean period. Given the
vocabulary, the night ascent of Muhammad (as)
is as good a fulfillment of this prophecy as any
history has to offer. The translation of shalom as

156
Islam rather than the generalized term “peace” is
predicated on the tone of the sentence, which is
specific. The grace of a particular event is
implied.

There is a single occurrence of an interesting

form of the word including the participial prefix
as in Arabic, and what appears to be a plural
suffix in form. This is mahamadim in Song of
Solomon 5:16. This cannot be a plural, however,
since the referent is clearly stated to be masculine
singular in the preceding words. Song of
Solomon 5:16 ‘His mouth is most sweet: yea, he
is altogether lovely (Hebrew: Mahamadim). This
is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters
of Jerusalem.’

At this point it may seem surprising to what

extent these texts actually express details in the
ministries of the prophet Muhammad (as) and the
Mahdi (as). However detailed these references
may be, an examination of the texts referring not
to the primary name, but to other epithets and
their surrounding ideas, is likely to show an array
of detail of convincing proportions, especially
considering that the word Hamda is used as a
proper name with eschatological connotations.

157
 The Word ‘Ali in the Bible

The word cali is used 226 times in the Hebrew

scriptures. The following study examines all of
these occurrences at least briefly. The Massoretic
text of the Hebrew Bible is the source, but I have
ignored the Massoretic pointing of the word cali,
rather examining each context for clues to which
pointing and consequently which meaning of the
word is to be preferred.

Most of the time the word cali is a preposition,

either with or without the first person singular
pronominal suffix. The first occurrence with the
pronominal suffix is in Genesis 20:9 Then
Abimelech called Abraham, and said unto him,
What hast thou done unto us? and what have I
offended thee, that thou hast brought on me and
on my kingdom a great sin? thou hast done deeds
unto me that ought not to be done. The following
texts, the great preponderance of passages
including the word cali, seem to have the same
meaning, that is, “upon me” or something
similar. Genesis 27:12; 13; 30:28; 33:13; 34:12;
34:30; 42:36; 48:7; 50:20, Numbers 11:11;
14:35; 22:30; Judges 7:2; 19:20; 20:5; 1 Samuel
17:35; 21:15; 22:8,13; 23:21; 2 Samuel 1:9; 3:8;
14:9; 15:33; 19:38; 1 Kings 2:4; 14:2; 22:8,18; 2
Kings 16:7; 18:14; 1 Chronicles 22:8; 2
Chronicles 18:7; 18:17; 36:23; Ezra 1:2; 7:28;
Nehemiah 2:8; 2:18; 6:12; 13:22; Esther 4:16;

158
Job 7:12; 7:20; 9:11; 10:1; 13:13,26;
16:9,10,13,14,15; 19:5,6; 19:11; 19:12; 21:27;
29:13; 30:1,12,15,16; 31:38; 33:10; Psalm 3:1(2);
3:6(7); 13:2(3); 13:6(7); 16:6; 17:9; 22:13;
27:2,3; 31:13; 32:4,5; 35:15; 35:21; 35:16,26;
38:2(3); 38:16(17); 40:7,12; 41:7; 41:9(10);
41:11; 42:4(5); 42:5(6); 42:7(8); 42:11(12); 43:5;
54:3(5); 55:3(4); 55:4(5); 55:12(13); 56:5(6);
59:3(4); 60:8; 69:9(10); 69:15(16); 86:14;
88:7(8); 88:16(17); 88:17(18); 92:11(12); 109:2;
109:5; 116:12; 119:69; 139:5; 142:7(8); 143:4;
Proverbs 7:14; Ecclesiastes 2:17; Song of
Solomon 2:4; Isaiah 1:14; 61:1; Jeremiah 8:18;
11:19; 12:8,11; 15:16; 18:23; 49:11;
Lamentations 1:15; 3:5,20,61,62; Ezekiel 3:22;
8:1; 11:5; 35:13; 37:1; 40:1; Daniel 4:34; 4:36;
7:28; 10:8; 10:16; Hosea 7:13; Hosea 11:8; Joel
3(4):4; Jonah 2:3(4); 2:7(8); and Malachi 3:13.

The first occurrence of the word as a preposition

without suffix is in Genesis 49:17, which is a
poetic passage. Indeed, the form is typical of
poetic style. Genesis 49:17 Dan shall be a
serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that
biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall
backward. Similarly the word appears to be used
as a simple preposition without suffix in Genesis
49:22; Deuteronomy 32:2; Job 6:5; 8:9; 9:26;
15:27; 18:10; 20:4; 29:3,4; 30:4; 33:15; 36:28;
38:24; 41:30; Psalm 49:11; 50:5,16; 92:3(4);
94:20; 108:9(10); 131:2; 142:3(4); Proverbs 8:2;

159
30:19; Isaiah 18:4; Lamentations 4:5; and Micah
5:(6)7.

In 1 Samuel 1-4 is found the story of the house of

Eli. The name is also mentioned in 1 Samuel
14:3; 1 Kings 2:27; This proper name of the high
priest and judge of Israel before Samuel is
written cAli. The pointing with the long e merely
reflects the more complex vowel system of
Hebrew as compared to Arabic. Arabic cognates
with a appear in Hebrew with either a or e, and
often preferably e. The segholate character of
Hebrew thus clouds the fact that the name is
precisely the same as the Arabic c Ali. There are
some striking parallels as well as direct contrasts
between the Biblical Eli and Imam cAli (as). The
first cAli had two unrighteous sons who led the
people into disaster. The second one had two
sons who became righteous leaders. There is a
parallel between the two figures from a historical
perspective as well. The Samaritans claim that
Eli caused the rift between Samaritans and Jews
by his false claim to the priesthood. The division
between Shi’ite and Sunnite Islam surrounds the
claims of the figure of Imam cAli (as).

The first clear passage in which the word must be

translated as the imperative singular of the verb
“to go up” is in 1 Samuel 25:35 So David
received of her hand that which she had brought
him, and said unto her, Go up in peace to thine
house; see, I have hearkened to thy voice, and

160
have accepted thy person. Similarly the word
occurs in Isaiah 21:2; 40:9; Jeremiah 22:20; and
46:11.

The word appears with the meaning of “leaves

of” in Nehemiah 8:15 And that they should
publish and proclaim in all their cities, and in
Jerusalem, saying, Go forth unto the mount, and
fetch olive branches, and pine branches, and
myrtle branches, and palm branches, and
branches of thick trees, to make booths, as it is
written.

The first text that requires reevaluation is Exodus

8:(5)9.

And Moses said unto Pharaoh, Glory over me:

when shall I intreat for thee, and for thy servants,
and for thy people, to destroy the frogs from thee
and thy houses, that they may remain in the river
only?

It is not likely that anyone would pretend that the

phrase “glory over me” makes any sense at all.
The assumption of the translator is that the word
here is the preposition with the pronominal
suffix, which is of course the dominant usage of
the word in the Torah, especially in the prose
passages. There seems to be no questioning of
the preposition and suffix themselves, while the
hesitancy about how to understand the verb
placed with the preposition and suffix is of

161
longstanding debate, going back to the
Septuagint (LXX) underlying the Vulgata
expression constitue mihi, appoint me (a time).
Reference to the Masoretic text has led most
translators to reject the Septuagint and Vulgata
alternative for something presumably based on
the Hebrew text, whether or not it makes sense.

Those translators requiring meaning in their

translation have tended to read an unwarranted
expression into the Hebrew in the sense of “do
me the honor to...” an interpretation that goes
back at least to Luther. Wavering between sense
and nonsense is illustrated by the Webster
original, which was “Glory over me” and the
revised Webster which is “Command me,”
apparently accepting the LXX over the Masoretic
text. In sum, three alternatives are to be found in
the more commonly known translations. The first
follows the LXX-Vulgata tradition. The second
tries to make sense of the Hebrew Massoretic text
by attributing unattested meanings to the
preceding verb. The third translates the
Massoretic verb correctly, producing nonsense in
the word cali by insisting that it is a preposition
with suffix.

An alternative is to accept the Massoretic verb as

it stands and attribute a non-prepositional
meaning to the word cly. The choices are one of
the verb forms “to rise,” or one of the proper or
common noun meanings. The position requires

162
the latter, rather than the imperative verb. The
choices are thus basically “glorify my leaf,”
“glorify a pestle or pistil” or “glorify cAli.” The
common nouns do not make sense, and the
second meaning is not even attested in Scriptural
Hebrew. An Arab will immediately suggest a
reference to the Deity, as “exalted.” This word,
however, in the Hebrew text, would consist in an
Arabicism. We are thus left with the enigmatic
“glorify cAli,” in reference to an unknown named
figure, or reference to God under the term,
something that appears to be more or less without
precedent in Biblical Hebrew. The reflexive
sense of the verb could be thought to imply the
necessity of a preposition before the object.
However, the lack of the preposition is almost the
rule in poetic passages, and is not lacking in the
Torah as well. Thus these two alternatives are
otherwise perfectly feasible.

The rest of the texts must be examined in the

light to two questions. The first is whether or not
the word should be translated as one of the
common alternatives noted above (as a
preposition, a preposition with the suffix, the
verb imperative, or as “leaves of” or “pestle.”).
Once these meanings are eliminated, we are left
with the alternatives of Exodus 8:(5)9. The
second task is to determine whether the text
refers to Imam Ali (as) or some other figure.

163
There is nothing in Exodus 8:(5)9 to indicate
whether a human or divine figure is meant. The
Muslim reader will immediately doubt whether
the word is an epithet of God, since it is generally
used so in the holy Qur’an. The translators of the
Bible, however, have generally neglected that
possibility, probably from hesitance to impose an
Arabicism on the Biblical Hebrew text rather
than bias. We can only hope to answer the
question by an examination of all of the texts.
Failing that, recourse to extra-biblical sources
will be necessary

Such texts as Numbers 11:13 and 14:27 could

conceivably be translated cAli as well as a form
of interjection, something on the order of “ya
Ali!” Numbers 11:13 Whence should I have
flesh to give unto all this people? for they weep
unto me, saying, Give us flesh, that we may eat.

Numbers 14:27 How long (shall I bear with) this

evil congregation, which murmur against me? I
have heard the murmurings of the children of
Israel, which they murmur against me. The
second occurrence, however, in Numbers 14:27
can only be translated as in the Authorized
Version. Even without this evidence, however,
the structure of the sentences makes the
authorized translation preferable.

The structure of Numbers 14:29 is neutral, and

would actually as such allow the translation with

164
c
Ali as easily as “against me.” The witness of
verse 27, however, speaks against cAli as the
better alternative. Numbers 14:29 Your carcases
shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were
numbered of you, according to your whole
number, from twenty years old and upward,
which have murmured against me.

Numbers 21:17 is the second text that translators

have been willing to leave in a form void of
meaning, in the figure of the flying well. It is
doubly troublesome in lacking an explanatory
context.

Numbers 21:17 Then Israel sang this song,

Spring up, O well; sing ye unto it. The authorized
translator writes words more appropriate to Alice
in Wonderland than to scriptural translation.
Most others do little better. Douay, Darby, The
Jewish Publication Society Bible, The Twenty-
first Century King James, Green’s Literal
Translation, The Modern King James Version,
The New King James Version, la Bible nouvelle
edition de Geneve, the Webster and most other
are satisfied with this interpretation. The Bible in
Basic English tries to avoid the problem of the
flying well by replacing it with the obedient well
that comes when called: Then Israel gave voice
to this song: Come up, O water-spring, let us
make a song to it. Other translators have
recognized the problem and tried to make sense
of it by referring to the springing up of the water

165
from a fountain. Among these are Finnish
translation of 1938, the Swedish translation of
1917, and la nuova Diodati 1991. These are
roughly “surge out, o well!” English translators
are willing to depend on the ambiguity of the
word “spring” in English. A few translators
assume a preposition between the verb and the
noun, thus making the noun the direction of
movement rather than the vocative. This relieves
us of the rather forced speech to a well. Among
these are the redivierte Schlachter Bibel 1951 Da
sang Israel dieses Lied: «Kommt zum Brunnen!
Singt von ihm! It is rare to find help from the
LXX in this dilemma, but perhaps Luther’s
original is such an example Da sang Israel dieses
Lied, und sangen umeinander über dem Brunnen.
The translators in the revision of Luther have
succumbed to the general fascination with
nonsense. Even the Vulgata is surprisingly
interpretive with the LXX with tunc cecinit
Israhel carmen istud ascendat puteus
concinebant. Young makes a novel contribution
by rejecting the Masoretic pointing of the word,
thus changing it from an imperative to the
preposition. (Young’s literal translation. Then
singeth Israel this song, concerning the well--
they have answered to it. In so doing, Young is
the only translator to write a grammatically
sensible translation. However, by doing so, he
suppresses the song itself, thus raising the issue
of what “this” can possibly refer to. In sum,
almost every possible configuration has been

166
tried. The implication is that no translator
actually knows what the verse means.

There is a construction that is completely normal

and understandable in Hebrew, whereby cAli is
the subject and the well the predicate: cAli is a
well. It is not clear, however, to whom this
proper name refers.

It is possible, but not necessary, to translate cAli

as a proper name in Numbers 24:6.

The Authorized Version is As the valleys are

they spread forth, as gardens by the river's side,
as the trees of lign aloes which the LORD hath
planted, and as cedar trees beside the waters. All
translators seem to accept the interpretation “by
the river.” Furthermore, it parallels what follows,
“beside the waters.” Semantically and
syntactically there seems to be no better
alternative. If one understands cAli as a proper
name here, the translation might read (following
the Authorized Version otherwise): Ali is like the
valleys that spread forth, like gardens, a river: as
the trees... No linguistic arguments favour this
interpretation. However, its position so close to
Numbers 21:17, the similar references to water
(well, river), and the further consideration that
almost the entire book of Numbers contemplates
the question of leadership authority, are factors
that speak in favour of cAli as a proper name in
this text also.

167
Deuteronomy 17:14 also deserves attention. The
Authorised Version has this as When thou art
come unto the land which the LORD thy God
giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell
therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me,
like as all the nations that are about me... The
significant phrase is “a king over me” or cAli
melekh. If cAli were an epithet (exalted), it
should come after the word “king” rather than
before it. As it stands, it could be translated “I
will set cAli king like all the peoples that are
around me.”

This implies that the personage of cAli is king of

all the peoples around. The Authorised Version
also has hermeneutical problems. The actual
narrative relative to the establishment of kingship
in Israel is found in 1 Samuel, and is clearly ill-
advised. It requires the establishment of the
unacceptable monarchy of Saul as a bridge to the
acceptable dynasty of David (as). The critical
study of Deuteronomy would date it as a later
text, in which case there would be no problem.
As it stands, the acceptability (with reservations)
of the monarchy in Deuteronomy conflicts with
the policy of Samuel. Probably the verse should
stand as interpreted by the Authorised Version,
whatever the hermeneutical problems may be.

In 1 Chronicles 28:19 there is an occurrence of

the word that could well be translated as an
epithet. The Authorised Version has this as All

168
(this, said David,) the LORD made me
understand in writing by his hand upon me, even
all the works of this pattern. The relevant phrase
is “miyyadh YHWH cAli.” The translator has
rearranged the words in translation probably
because he does not, on the basis of philological
reasons, accept the possibility of understanding
c
Ali as an epithet. A Qur’anic translator would
have thought of this alternative first and perhaps
have ignored the other altogether, but would at
the same time lay himself open to charges of
Arabicism. Many translators have noticed the
awkwardness of including “upon me” in the text,
and have merely disregarded it, as does the
American Standard Version: All this, (said
David,) have I been made to understand in
writing from the hand of Jehovah, even all the
works of this pattern. Others reinterpret it as a
preposition with an eliptical object as does the
Revised Standard Version All this he made clear
by the writing from the hand of the LORD
concerning it, all the work to be done according
to the plan. In the latter cAli is translated with
some imagination as “concerning it.”

The more straightforward translation would be

“The whole in writing from the hand of YHWH
c
Ali made clear...” This could be understood as
“He made clear the whole in writing by the hand
of YHWH cAli.” The interpretation “cAli made
clear the whole in writing by the hand of
YHWH” ignores Hebrew syntax. cAli must

169
therefore refer to God in this text. The concrete
meanings of the words should probably give way
to their more abstract meanings, thus “The whole
by decree from the authority of YHWH cAli
made clear...” If this is an acceptable
interpretation, it would provide a Hebrew
precedent for the use of the word as an epithet,
the exalted, as in Arabic.

A strange syntactical configuration is one found

in Nehemiah 5:7. The Authorised Version has
this as Then I consulted with myself, and I
rebuked the nobles, and the rulers, and said unto
them, Ye exact usury, every one of his brother.
And I set a great assembly against them. The
relevant phrase is “with myself” which seems to
translate libbi cali. The full phrase is “my heart
reigned cali. The word is syntactically in the
position of a prepositional phrase. This is the
only occurrence of the expression in the
Scriptures, and it may well not mean “I consulted
with myself.” It would seem more likely to
suggest that his heart, the seat of his cogitations,
reigned over him, thus influencing him to act as
follows. In any case no reference to a proper
name can be inferred.

Much of the Book of Job is ambiguous, but the

word cali appears in such a context only once, in
Job 29:7. The Authorised Version has it When I
went out to the gate through the city, when I
prepared my seat in the street! No translators

170
seem to see real alternatives to this interpretation.
Several Spanish translations disregard the
prepositional meaning and read “judicial” or
something similar for cali. Another adjectival
alternative might be “leafy,” but neither of these
is relevant to the proper name Ali.

Psalm 7:8(9) has an interesting case. The

Authorized Version renders this The LORD shall
judge the people: judge me, O LORD, according
to my righteousness, and according to mine
integrity (that is) in me. There is no reason
whatsover to add “that is” to the text. The final
word is just as clearly a vocative as is the word
YHWH at the pausal midpoint of the verse. The
two words parallel each other. In this case the
word Ali most readily relates to God, and is thus
possibly a second precedent for the epithet. On
the other hand, there is no reason to prohibit
addressing a human figure in the second clause,
that is, appealing to Ali as judge.

An interesting expression appears in Psalm

42:6(7). This is rendered in the Authorised
Version as O my God, my soul is cast down
within me: therefore will I remember thee from
the land of Jordan, and of the Hermonites, from
the hill Mizar. The relevant phrase is cali nafshi.
There are several cases when the preposition
occurs before a noun with the same suffix, and
these are merely circumlocutions expressing
possession. The same structure appears here.

171
However, it appears ambiguously, since cali
appears between Elohay and nafshi, and could
stand as easily with one as the other. The
expression could be interpreted as “my God
exalted.” In this case cali would be an epithet
referring to God, either as a proper name or as an
attribute, but again an Arabicism unrecognized
by Biblical scholars.

Another case of possible reference to God may

be seen in Psalm 56:12(13). The Authorised
Version gives Thy vows (are) upon me, O God: I
will render praises unto thee. A more
straightforward interpretation would render both
words at the beginning as vocatives, thus cAli
Elohim. This interpretation would require the
third word, “thy vows,” to go with the rest of the
sentence. The midpoint pausal does not exclude
that possibility. The translation would then read
“O exalted God, (by) thy vows will I render
praises unto thee.” Again, this would require the
acceptance of an Arabicism.

Psalm 57:2(3) presents another possibility of a

vocative parallel. The Authorised Version gives
I will cry unto God most high; unto God that
performeth (all things) for me. Here again the
Qur’anic translator would immediately see two
parallel epithets after the word El. Many verses
of the Qur’an terminate in precisely this way.
Thus we should read “I will cry unto God most
high; unto God Accomplisher, Exalted.” This is

172
especially interesting, since it uses the expanded
word from the same root as Ali, celyon. This
form of the word Ali is the one generally used in
Hebrew in reference to God.

Psalm 86:13 is ambiguous, and could be

translated in either of two ways. The Authorized
Version gives For great (is) thy mercy toward
me: and thou hast delivered my soul from the
lowest hell. The alternative would be “For great
(is) thy mercy, O cAli...” In this case the name
again would refer again to God.

There is a final verse in Ezekiel 3:14 where the

word could just as well be translated as an epithet
of God. The Authorised Version gives So the
spirit lifted me up, and took me away, and I went
in bitterness, in the heat of my spirit; but the hand
of the LORD was strong upon me. The
alternative translation would be “...the hand of
the LORD exalted was strong.”

The texts examined may be placed in several

groups. The first includes cases of ambiguity
which do not contribute toward finding the word
c
Ali used as a proper name or epithet. The second
includes cases of ambiguity in which the word
c
Ali could just as well be translated as a proper
name or epithet, but in which cases the
translators have never chosen to do so. The third
group includes cases of ambiguity in which the
word cAli could best be translated as a proper

173
name or epithet, but in which cases the
translators have sought awkward alternatives,
often adding words not found in the original.

The texts remain troublesome. There are texts

that can clearly best be translated as referring to a
proper name or epithet. These suggest that others,
ambiguous ones, might also best be interpreted in
this way. As we examine these to determine
whether the name Ali (or the Hebrew segholate
form Eli) is meant, we see that some of these, if
they are interpreted as epithets or proper nouns,
must refer to God. In that case, an Arabicism
produces a parallel term to the common Hebrew
term Elyon.

Nevertheless, there are two considerations to

note. The first is that several of the ambiguous
names, notably those in the Torah, associate the
name cAli with a source of water. This brings to
mind Qur’anic associations, specifically the pool
of Kauthar and the role given to cAli (as) in that
regard. While it is not possible to state that the
word cAli in the Hebrew Scriptures is used in a
prophetic sense in regard to cAli (as), there are
passages that seem to be evocative of that. They
are ambiguous, and perhaps refer to God, but the
possibility remains that they are faint intimations,
or perhaps more than faint intimations of a
promised figure to come.

174
The second consideration is that non-Muslim
Biblical scholars have not taken note of the fact
that the epithet cAli as applied to God in the
Qur’an has striking parallels in the Hebrew
Scriptures, not only in the Psalms but in several
other passages. This failure is only to be
expected, since it requires the acceptance of an
Arabicism. The positive result of this study is to
show that the Hebrew Scriptures and the holy
Qur’an are perhaps closer to each other in
expression than has generally been
acknowledged. In any case, either the acceptance
of the term as meaning “exalted” on one hand, or
as a proper name on the other, seems to be the
best way of accommodating those texts of
Scripture that until now have been glossed over
with translations having little or no meaning.
Either solution brings the Bible closer into accord
with Islam.

175
 Ghadeer in the Bible

The word ghadeer in the Bible appears as the

Hebrew word for wall or fence. As such, it is
generally proper to translate it. However, the wall
or fence is often used is a most suggestive and
even clearly symbolic way, and with only three
or four exceptions seems highly significant to the
events known as Al-Ghadeer in Islamic tradition.

The first occurrence of the word is in the story of

Balaam, the ancient Persian prophet, in Numbers
22. This prophet was asked to curse the people of
God, and instead of refusing to do so, he inquired
of God whether he might do so or not, hoping
that God would give him permission of take the
reward offered for doing so. He set out against
God’s command, at which point Numbers 22:24
says “the angel of YHWH stood in a path of the
vineyards, a wall (ghadeer) on this side, and a
wall (ghadeer) on that side.” Balaam did not see
the angel, but his donkey, in seeking to turn
aside, crushed his foot against the wall. Since that
occasion, ghadeer has been a symbol of the wall
by which God reveals the right way, and the wall
against which those who choose not to be rightly
guided bruise their ankles. Another text using the
word as a fence or wall to show the right path is
Job 19:8.

176
The word is used again in reference to the
descendants of Simeon, who destroyed the last of
the Amelekites at the command of God. It says in
1 Chronicles 4:39,40 that “they went to the
entrance of Gedor, even unto the east side of the
valley, to seek pasture for their flocks. 40 And
they found fat pasture and good, and the land was
wide, and quiet, and peaceable; for they of Ham
had dwelt there of old.” The Massoretic scribes
have arbitrarily vocalized the word as Ghedor,
but the word in the original text is precisely the
same as that of Numbers 22. This passage
suggests a further symbolism for the word
Ghadeer. It is an unexpected source of well-being
and felicity. Pasture for the flocks is already
well-known in the Hebrew Scriptures in
connection with divine guidance, as seen in the
famous Psalm 23.

The word Ghadeer is vocalized as such in Ezra

9:9. “For we were bondmen; yet our God hath
not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath
extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings
of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the
house of our God, and to repair the desolations
thereof, and to give us a wall in Judah and in
Jerusalem.” The building of a wall in this text has
its literal sense, but the expressions, especially
here, are heavily weighted with symbolism. This
is intimated by the use of the expression “to
give.” The literal wall of Jerusalem was build
with human hands, but the ghadeer itself was

177
something given by God. What was given was a
re-establishing of the center of faith and
authority. It must be noted that the ghadeer in this
situation was contested by the Samaritans. From
an Islamic point of view, although in some
aspects there is more in common with
Samaritanism than Judaism, this ghadeer appears
to be correct and justified. The Samaritans did
not accept some of the prophets mentioned in the
Qur’an, whom the Jews of the time did accept. It
was this ghadeer in Jerusalem and Judah that
differentiated between the divinely established
authority and the unacceptable authority of the
Samaritans. There is thus a perfect parallel
between the ghadeer of Ezra and that known
from Islamic tradition. This text also mentions
the Persian connection already noted in Numbers
22.

There are two prophetic passages of import in

regard to the word ghadeer. The first is in the
context of fasting in Isaiah 58:12. The relevant
expression is “repairer of the breach.” The word
is pointed as godeer, that is, a participle, thus
meaning “the one who is fencing up the breach.”
It might just as well be a construct of ghadeer,
thus meaning “the fencing up of the breach.” In
any case, it refers to a human figure. Up to verse
five, the prophet’s words apply to the people,
who fail to serve God properly by fulfilling the
forms of fasting but continue to act unjustly. The
pronoun “you” changes to the singular in verse 7,

178
after which the human figure of the ghadeer is
described. These words apply most specifically
to Imam Ali (as), who was appointed at Al-
Ghadeer.

Isaiah 58:7 “Is it not to deal thy bread to the

hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast
out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that
thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself
from thine own flesh? 8 Then shall thy light
break forth as the morning, and thine health shall
spring forth speedily: and thy righteousness shall
go before thee; the glory of the LORD shall be
thy rereward. 9 Then shalt thou call, and the
LORD shall answer; thou shalt cry, and he shall
say, Here I am. If thou take away from the midst
of thee the yoke, the putting forth of the finger,
and speaking vanity; 10 And if thou draw out thy
soul to the hungry, and satisfy the afflicted soul;
then shall thy light rise in obscurity, and thy
darkness be as the noonday: 11 And the LORD
shall guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul
in drought, and make fat thy bones: and thou
shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring
of water, whose waters fail not. 12 And they that
shall be of thee shall build the old waste places:
thou shalt raise up the foundations of many
generations; and thou shalt be called, The
repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to
dwell in.”

179
The many expressions of this passage all fit the
character and actions of Imam Ali very well.
There are many narrations referring to the Imam
(as) feeding the hungry. He also functioned to lift
the burdens of the people, and dispelling
backbiting and falsehood. But the text
emphasizes the direct divine guidance that was
given to the Imam.

The two passages in Ezekiel give quite a different

message. They focus on the failure of Israel to
fulfill their God-given role of leadership in
propagating monotheism in the world. Ezekiel
13:5 “Ye have not gone up into the gaps, neither
made up the hedge for the house of Israel to stand
in the battle in the day of the LORD.” This brings
up the context of the need for the proclamation of
Al-Ghadeer. Both Jews and Christians eventually
failed to carry out the divine mandate. Therefore
it was necessary to correct their failures through
the revelation of the Qur’an, and the
establishment of a “fence” or ghadeer to preserve
divine law for the world. The text notes that the
house of Israel will have to answer for the failure
in the day of judgement.

This failure is even more clearly pinpointed in

Ezekiel 22:30 “And I sought for a man among
them, that should make up the hedge, and stand
in the gap before me for the land, that I should
not destroy it: but I found none.” The Imamate

180
comes into its own specifically with Imam Ali at
the proclamation of Al-Ghadeer.

Psalm 62 is one of the Imamic Psalms, having

twelve verses. The word ghadeer appears in the
third verse, the one in any series of twelve
usually evoking the experiences of Imam
Husseyn (as). The entire Psalm dears with the
issue of divine authority. But verse 3 touches on
the question of accepting, or in this case, not
accepting the man established by God to
represent His authority on earth. Psalm 62:3(4)
“How long will ye imagine mischief against a
man? ye shall be slain all of you: as a bowing
wall shall ye be, and as a tottering fence.” Here
ghadeer is translated as “fence.” The word “ish”
or “man” as used in the Psalms often has Imamic
implications, as is clearly seen in Psalm 1:1. The
implication is that those who should imagine
mischief against “a man” or the Imam and who
should kill him, will in the same way also be
slain themselves. The Imam is equated directly
here with the ghadeer or fence that indicates the
right path.

This warning against those who break the

covenant of ghadeer is repeated in Ecclesiastes
10:8 ”He that diggeth a pit shall fall into it; and
whoso breaketh an hedge, a serpent shall bite
him.” The prophet promises that whoever breaks
ghadeer will be bitten by a serpent. The
preceding reference to a pit of course primarily

181
means the setting of a trap for another. However,
the whole verse has an eschatological tone,
suggesting either punishment in the grave for
failure to recognize the Imam or punishment in
the judgement.

182
 Hussein (as) and Psalm 74

The word Hoosen is found in Exodus 25:7;

28:4,15,22,23,24,26,28,29,30; 29:5; 35:9,27;
39:8,9,15,16,17,19,21; and Leviticus 8:8. In
every case it refers to the article of clothing worn
by the ministering high priest on his chest, and
containing twelve stones engraved with the
names of the twelve tribes and the Urim and
Thummim, oracular stones used to ascertain the
divine will. No other word is used in the Hebrew
Scriptures from the same root at all. The word is
therefore quite different from Hamda and Ali, the
former of which appears clearly as the name of
an awaited prophet in Hebrew Scripture, and the
latter of which can also best be translated as
sometimes referring to a divinely appointed
human figure.

The use of the word to refer to a symbol of the

priest’s bearing the names of the people before
God is of course tempting. The feelings it may
evoke in relationship to the grandson of the
prophet, the Imam Hussein (as), are deep, but
hardly convincing to the researcher or skeptic.

One must admit the total lack of linguistic

evidence for the names Hasan and Hussein (both
of the same root) in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Furthermore, the many references that speak to
the Muslim mind about Hussein (as) are already

183
co-opted by Christians in reference to Jesus (as),
or by Jews in reference to the awaited Messiah
(as). Among these are the famous Isaiah 53 so
often used by Christians as a prophecy of the
crucifixion, but which seems so clearly to parallel
the experiences of the martyred Hussein (as).

There are other texts, less often noted by non-

Muslims, that by their content lend themselves to
application to the Imam (as). Among the best-
known of these is Jeremiah 46:6,10. “Let not the
swift flee away, nor the mighty man escape; they
shall stumble, and fall toward the north by the
river Euphrates…. For this is the day of the Lord
GOD of hosts, a day of vengeance, that he may
avenge him of his adversaries: and the sword
shall devour, and it shall be satiate and made
drunk with their blood: for the Lord GOD of
hosts hath a sacrifice in the north country by the
river Euphrates.” The implication, from the
Islamic point of view, is that this is a promise
that God will avenge the attack on His beloved
Hussein (as) and his companions at Karbela, on
the Euphrates River. Despite the striking parallel
of such passages to the events, there are many
barriers to their acceptance as evidence of
Biblical support for Islam. The liberal denial of
prophecy altogether aside, the psychological
resistance to such an interpretation is prodigious.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the

possibilities of more objective evidence. The

184
weakness of linguistic evidence does not mitigate
structural evidence. Obviously structural
evidence in itself is insufficient, but it provides a
schema that greatly strengthens the objectivity of
the evidence of content and context. What must
be examined is the many series of twelve that
exist in the Bible for evidence of characteristics
for each of the twelve slots in the series, and
whether or not those characteristics parallel those
of the twelve Shi’ite Imams (as) and
correspondingly of Imam Hussein (as) in
particular. These series are specifically the twelve
reigning patriarchs of the Book of Genesis, the
twelve sons of Ishmael (as), the twelve sons of
Jacob (as), the twelve judges of the Book of
Judges, the twelve righteous kings of Judah, and
the twelve apostles of Jesus (as). Aside from
series of human figures, there are many series of
twelve to be found in the Bible. Among these are
passages containing twelve sections, and
passages containing twelve references to a
particular word. The former type is particularly
fruitful. There are a number of such passages in
the Book of Psalms, including many Psalms of
twelve verses each, and most notably the series
of twelve Psalms entitled Psalms of Asaph. A
careful comparison of the twelve Psalms of
Asaph to the names of the twelve sons of
Ishmael, which give the clues to the
characteristics of each of the twelve slots, shows
that these Psalms reflect the character of each of
the twelve Imams.

185
We shall focus specifically on Psalm 74, which
is, within this schema, prophetic of the
martyrdom of Imam Hussein (as). It is the third
of the Psalms of Asaph.

1 ¶ <<Maschil of Asaph.>> O God, why hast

thou cast us off for ever? why doth thine anger
smoke against the sheep of thy pasture?

The maschil is a didactic Psalm, one for

instruction. The instruction is not necessarily in
the wisdom genre, nor even law. It can be
instruction in prophecy in the sense of future
events. The content of this Psalm appears strange
as a subject of instruction, since it is couched in
words of appeal to God to intervene in a difficult
situation. In fact, this appeal to intervene is the
anguish the Psalmist feels as he contemplates the
future event about which he is instructing.

The word Asaph means a convener or collector,

and is probably a title conferred on the one who
convened the liturgical choir established by
David (as), noted in 1 Chronicles 6:39. This may
have been taken as a personal name, or having
been born to the post may have been given a
name appropriate to his activity.

As the prophet contemplates the tragedy of

Karbela, he exclaims these words in anguish. It is
possible that David (as) wrote this Psalm,
although many researchers suggest that it was

186
written by Asaph. It is also possible that David
(as) was an ancestor of Imam Hussein (as)
through a marriage contracted when he was a
refugee among the Arab Kedarites, from whom
the prophet Muhammad (as) is descended.
Whether or not the prophet sees Imam Hussein
(as) as a son, his anguish is similar to that of
those who are horrified in all generations by the
suffering he went through. The Hebrew
expression does not imply that God is the
originator of the tragedy or that it is a
punishment. Such expressions in Hebrew merely
refer to God’s sovereignty as a basis for making
an appeal for help.

2 Remember thy congregation, which thou hast

purchased of old; the rod of thine inheritance,
which thou hast redeemed; this mount Zion,
wherein thou hast dwelt.

Verses 2 and 3 begin by giving a pre-Islamic

context. The appeal is for God, at the event of
Karbela, to remember the great things He did in
ancient times to save His faithful people. The
text, being didactic, uses the supplication
language to insist on the need for divine
deliverance. The rod of inheritance suggests that
Imam Hussein (as) is descended from David (as).
Redemption does not imply saving from sin, but
that the person involved is especially beloved by
God. The reference to Mount Zion is probably
specific, although the word itself could refer to

187
any fortress. However, it is more likely that we
should see here the idea that the place of the
martyrdom of Imam Hussein thereby gains the
same sanctity, at least in some sense, as the house
of God, which at the time of David was Quds or
Jerusalem.

3 Lift up thy feet unto the perpetual desolations;

even all that the enemy hath done wickedly in the
sanctuary.

The expression “lift you your feet” is again an

appeal to save, but as a didactic Psalm its main
import is to describe the situation as hopeless
without divine intervention. The expression
“perpetual desolations” aptly describes the
tragedy of Karbela. The Psalmist draws the
divine attention to what the enemy has done to
the “holy ones,” and by so doing draws the
attention of the listener as well.

4 Thine enemies roar in the midst of thy

congregations; they set up their ensigns for signs.

Verse four refers to the great tumult of enemies

brought against the congregation of Hussein (as).
It mentions the ensigns or banners that they
raised against him.

5 A man was famous according as he had lifted

up axes upon the thick trees.

188
6 But now they break down the carved work
thereof at once with axes and hammers.

Verses five and six refer graphically to the

mutilation of the bodies at Karbela. It uses a
continuation of the temple figures of the
preceding verses. It is not unknown to compare
people to trees, especially wooden
embellishments in the temple. The sanctuary or
temple or house of God is made up of the “people
of the house.” By defacing the people of the
house, the enemy was effectively carving up the
house of God itself.

7 They have cast fire into thy sanctuary, they

have defiled by casting down the dwelling place
of thy name to the ground.

Verse seven is a graphic description of the

vandalizing of the camp of Hussein (as).

8 They said in their hearts, Let us destroy them

together: they have burned up all the synagogues
of God in the land.

Verse eight is a prophecy of the fact that the

enemies of the Imam (as) had firmly decided to
destroy him and his companions altogether. The
prophecy continues by saying that in so doing
they had effectively, from their own point of
view, destroyed every place of prayer on earth.
This is an extension of the figures in verse six.

189
9 We see not our signs: there is no more any
prophet: neither is there among us any that
knoweth how long.

Verse ten is a lament referring to three aspects of

Karbela. At that point the banners of the Imam
(as) were not to be seen flying. Secondly, there
was no prophet. Thirdly, there was none among
us “that knoweth how long.” That is, the man of
knowledge, the Imam, had been martyred. The
verse begins with the fact that the colors were not
flying, and mournfully goes on to the fact that the
prophet (as) was no longer. Furthermore, the last
living one of the holy house that the prophet had
gathered under his mantle was dead. There was
no longer anyone to know how long.

10 O God, how long shall the adversary

reproach? shall the enemy blaspheme thy name
for ever?

Verses ten and eleven refer to the condition of

enemy dominance over the imamate. This began
effectively with the martyrdom of Imam Hussein
(as) and will end at the return of the Mahdi (as).
The condition is one of blasphemy. Usurper rule
is blasphemous, since no matter what position a
ruler takes on the matter of the oneness of God, if
he takes power for himself without divine
authority, his action is blasphemous. This is the
condition of all rulership that does not
acknowledge the imamate.

190
11 Why withdrawest thou thy hand, even thy
right hand? pluck it out of thy bosom.

Verse eleven uses rhetorical question and an

imperative appeal to continue the prophecy in
this didactic Psalm. There are two possible
implications in this context. For God to pluck His
hand out of His bosom means the rectification of
what happened in Karbela. It may refer only to
the return of the Mahdi. On the other hand, it
could well refer to the resurrection and
reappearance of Imam Hussein.

191