---

Azahari Hassim

Does the prophet like Moses mentioned in Deuteronomy 18, verse 18, refer to the Messiah?

According to many interpretations, Deuteronomy 18, verse 18, does refer to the Messiah. In Jewish tradition, this verse is often understood as a prophecy about a future prophet who will be like Moses.

This belief is based on the idea that Moses was a unique and significant figure in Jewish history, and that another prophet like him would arise in the future to guide and lead the people of Israel. Many Jewish scholars and commentators have identified this prophet as the Messiah, who will possess similar qualities and fulfill similar roles as Moses.

Holy Quran 7:157

Who follow the messenger, the gentile Prophet, described in the Torah and the Gospel, who bids things noble and forbids things vile, makes lawful what is clean, and prohibits what is foul, who relieves them of their burdens, and the yoke that lies upon them. Those who believe and honour and help him, and follow the light sent with him, are those who will attain their goal.”

Does the Quran mention Muhammad as the Messiah whom the Jews await?

In the Quran, Muhammad is not explicitly referred to as the Messiah whom the Jews await. However, there is an indirect mention in Surah 2, verse 89, that can be interpreted in this context.

Surah 2, verse 89, states, “And when there came to them a Book from Allah confirming that which was with them – although before they used to pray for victory against those who disbelieved – but [then] when there came to them that which they recognized, they disbelieved in it; so the curse of Allah will be upon the disbelievers.”

This verse is believed by some scholars and interpreters to refer to a prophecy mentioned in Jewish scriptures about a future prophet who would come after Moses. According to this interpretation, the Jews were awaiting this promised prophet or Messiah.

Muslims believe that Muhammad is the final prophet sent by Allah and consider him as fulfilling various prophecies mentioned in previous religious texts. Therefore, some Muslims interpret Surah 2, verse 89, as indirectly referring to Muhammad as the awaited Messiah.

It’s important to note that interpretations of religious texts can vary among different scholars and individuals. While some may see a connection between Muhammad and the awaited Messiah based on this verse, others may have different interpretations or understandings.

William Muir:

“The character of Muhammad, his sayings and doings, as drawn by the earliest and most authentic records, is a historical picture which needs no adventitious coloring to attract the eye.”

William Muir, a 19th-century British historian and scholar of Islam, presents a detailed historical analysis of Muhammad’s life in his work “The Life of Mahomet.”

Muhammad, Torah and Hebrew prophets

Does Hagar’s prophecy in Genesis 21, verse 18, predate the Torah given to Moses?

Yes, Hagar’s prophecy in Genesis 21, verse 18, predates the Torah as given to Moses. The Book of Genesis, which includes the story of Hagar, is considered part of the Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible) and traditionally attributed to Moses. 

However, the events described in Genesis, including Hagar’s encounter with God and the prophecy concerning her son Ishmael, are believed to have occurred long before the time of Moses, around the patriarchal period.

The narrative in Genesis 21 describes Hagar and Ishmael in the context of Abraham’s family and is thus seen as part of the pre-Mosaic tradition. The Torah, or Pentateuch, as a compilation and codification, is generally understood to have been formalized during the time of Moses, which occurs much later in the biblical timeline. 

Therefore, the events and prophecies in Genesis can be considered as part of the earlier history before the giving of the law to Moses.

What is the argument put forth by those who support the idea that the prophethood of Muhammad is linked to Hagar’s prophecy, which predates the Torah, in contrast to Hebrew prophets who are associated with the Torah? Consequently, Muhammad, in contrast to Hebrew prophets such as Jesus, is not bound by the laws of the Torah.

Supporters of the idea that the prophethood of Muhammad is linked to Hagar’s prophecy, which predates the Torah, argue that this connection sets Muhammad apart from Hebrew prophets who are associated with the Torah. Here is a detailed explanation of their argument:

1. Pre-Torah Origins of Hagar’s Prophecy: Proponents argue that Hagar’s prophecy, as mentioned in Genesis 21, verse 18, predates the Torah given to Moses. This prophecy concerns Hagar’s son, Ishmael, who is promised to become a great nation. This predates the formalization of the Torah, which is traditionally attributed to Moses and his time.
2. Reiteration and Fulfillment in Islamic Rituals: The Torah reiterates Hagar’s prophecy, but its fulfillment is seen in Islamic practices, particularly the Hajj pilgrimage. The Hajj, which involves rituals connected to Hagar and Ishmael, is viewed as a direct link to their legacy. This pilgrimage is a central practice in Islam, signifying the prophecy’s fulfillment and its importance in Islamic tradition.

3. Marginalization by Ancient Israelite Scribes: It is suggested that ancient Israelite scribes attempted to downplay the significance of Hagar and Ishmael due to theological and political reasons. This marginalization aimed to elevate the prominence of Isaac and the Israelite lineage over Ishmael. The argument posits that the biblical narrative was shaped in a way that selectively emphasized aspects favorable to the Israelite lineage.

Contrast with Hebrew Prophets

1. Association with the Torah: Hebrew prophets are closely linked to the Torah, which is seen as the foundation of their prophetic authority. The Torah, given to Moses, contains the laws and ethical teachings that Hebrew prophets were tasked with interpreting and enforcing. This connection establishes a continuous line of prophetic tradition rooted in the Mosaic covenant.
2. Muhammad’s Independent Prophetic Lineage: In contrast, Muhammad’s prophethood is associated with the Abrahamic covenant through Ishmael, rather than the Mosaic covenant. This distinction is significant in Islamic theology, which views Muhammad’s message as a continuation and fulfillment of the Abrahamic faith, independent of the Mosaic laws. This perspective underscores the universality of Muhammad’s revelation, intended for all humanity, rather than being confined to the specific legal and ritual practices of the Jewish people.

Theological Implications

1. Universal Prophetic Tradition: By associating Muhammad with a prophecy that predates the Torah, supporters argue that prophetic messages have been universal and ongoing throughout human history. This places Islam within a broader, inclusive prophetic tradition that transcends Jewish ethnic and religious boundaries. It emphasizes the continuity of divine guidance from the time of Abraham through to Muhammad.
2. Distinct Covenants:. The argument also highlights the existence of distinct covenants in the Abrahamic religions. While the Hebrew prophets operate under the covenant of Moses and the Sinai revelation, Muhammad is seen as part of the covenant given to Abraham and Ishmael. This theological distinction reinforces the idea that different prophetic traditions are validated by separate covenants within the broader framework of Abrahamic faiths.

In summary, the argument linking Muhammad’s prophethood to Hagar’s prophecy emphasizes its pre-Torah origins, fulfillment in Islamic Hajj, and the marginalization of Hagar’s significance by ancient Israelite scribes. This perspective contrasts Muhammad’s universal and independent prophetic lineage with the Hebrew prophets’ association with the Torah, highlighting distinct covenants and a broader prophetic tradition.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

There is a belief that Jesus was a messiah in the same sense as other messiahs before him. Scripturally, Jesus was not the apocalyptic messiah who was predicted by the Hebrew prophets to establish God’s kingdom in the Holy Land. Could you kindly provide an explanation for the meaning of the preceding statement?

The belief that Jesus was a messiah in the same sense as other messiahs before him refers to the idea that he was seen as a savior figure who would bring about spiritual redemption and salvation. In this context, messiah is understood as a leader or deliverer chosen by God to fulfill a specific role in the divine plan.

However, scripturally speaking, Jesus was not the apocalyptic messiah that many Jews were expecting based on the prophecies found in Hebrew scriptures. The traditional Jewish understanding of the apocalyptic messiah was of a powerful political and military leader who would liberate Israel from its enemies, establish God’s kingdom on earth in the Holy Land, and rebuild the Holy Temple in Jerusalem.

Jesus’ teachings and actions did not align with these expectations of a conquering warrior king. Instead, he preached about love, forgiveness, and spiritual transformation. He emphasized inner righteousness over outward displays of power. This led many Jews to reject Jesus as their expected messiah, that is, the apocalyptic messiah.

In Christian theology, Jesus is believed to be the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies in a different way than what was traditionally expected. Christians see Jesus as the ultimate savior who brings salvation through his sacrificial death and resurrection, rather than through political conquest.

So, when it is said that Jesus was not the apocalyptic messiah predicted by Hebrew prophets to establish God’s kingdom in the Holy Land, it means that his role and mission were different from what many people at that time were anticipating based on their interpretation of scripture.

Scholar John Bright:

“In the decree of Cyrus, we witness a unique instance where a foreign ruler is seen as the instrument of God’s plan, fulfilling the role of a messiah in delivering Israel from exile and allowing the rebuilding of the Temple.”

In his work “A History of Israel,” John Bright discusses how Cyrus is uniquely positioned as a foreign messiah in biblical history.

---

Who in the Old Testament is anointed with sacred oil to be God’s Messiah?

Numerous figures in the Old Testament were consecrated with holy oil to symbolize their appointment as holy messengers, commonly known as messiahs (anointed ones). Among them were:

1. Kings: The most prominent examples are the kings of Israel and Judah. For instance:
   Saul: Anointed by the prophet Samuel to be the first king of Israel (1 Samuel 10, verse 1).
   David: Also anointed by Samuel to succeed Saul as king (1 Samuel 16, verse 13).
   Solomon: Anointed by the priest Zadok and the prophet Nathan to succeed David (1 Kings 1, verse 39).
2. Priests: The high priests and their successors were also anointed with sacred oil, signifying their holy office. For example:
   Aaron: Anointed by Moses to serve as the first high priest (Leviticus 8, verse 12).
3. Prophets: Occasionally, prophets were anointed to signify their special role and mission. For example:
   Elisha: Anointed by Elijah to be his successor as a prophet (1 Kings 19, verse 16).

In the Old Testament, the act of anointing priests, kings, and prophets with holy oil was a crucial ceremony that identified them as “messiahs” or “anointed ones” in their specific positions.
The term “Messiah” is not restricted to one person but refers to different individuals who are anointed for specific purposes as directed by God.

Jesus, Muhammad, and the Davidic Messiah

In Matthew 22, verse 45, Jesus posed a question to the Pharisees. How can the Messiah be considered David’s descendant if David himself refers to him as ‘Lord’?

The following is an excerpt from Willmington’s Bible Handbook notes on Matthew 22, verses 42 to 45:

Jesus now asked a question of the Pharisees: They accepted Psalm 110 as a prediction of the Messiah, yet they considered that he would be a merely human descendant of David. If that were the case, asked Jesus, why did David refer to him as “Lord”? Both the deity and humanity of the Messiah are taught clearly in the Old Testament but the leaders could not see it. Jesus had finally silenced his critics once and for all.

Some Islamic scholars believe that, although Jesus was considered a messiah, he never publicly claimed to be the Davidic messiah whom the Jews were expecting. Moreover, it appears that in Matthew 22, verses 42 to 45, Jesus did not emphasize his divinity as most Christian commentators claim, but rather rejected the notion that the Messiah would be a descendant of David.

Islamic scholars argue that Jesus did not refer to himself but to someone other than him, that is Prophet Muhammad who was seated at the right hand of God. Similarly, while Jesus understood himself to be a prophet, he never publicly claimed to be the prophet mentioned in Deuteronomy 18, verse 18. How is this argument explained?

Islamic scholars present a nuanced interpretation of Jesus’ role as the Messiah and his relationship to the prophecies in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. Their arguments often center around specific biblical passages and the broader theological context within Islam.

Jesus as the Messiah and the Davidic Lineage

In Islam, Jesus (Isa) is recognized as the Messiah (Al-Masih), but this title does not carry the same connotations as it does in Christian theology. The Quran refers to Jesus as the Messiah eleven times, emphasizing his role as a prophet and messenger of God rather than a divine figure or a political savior from the line of David. This interpretation aligns with the Islamic view that Jesus did not claim divinity or a unique messianic kingship in the way that some Jewish and Christian traditions suggest.

Interpretation of Matthew 22, verses 42 to 45

In Matthew 22, verses 42 to 45, Jesus questions the Pharisees about the Messiah’s lineage, asking why David calls the Messiah “Lord” if the Messiah is his son. Some Islamic scholars have interpreted this passage as indicating that Jesus was referring to someone other than himself. Jesus was distancing himself from the traditional Jewish expectation of a Davidic Messiah. They contend that Jesus denied the future Messiah’s lineage from David and instead highlighted an inconsistent interpretation of messianic prophecy by the scribes.

Jesus and Prophet Muhammad

Some Islamic scholars extend this interpretation to suggest that Jesus was alluding to another figure who would fulfill the messianic expectations more completely. They propose that this messianic figure is Prophet Muhammad, who is considered the Seal of the Prophets in Islam and is believed to have brought the final and complete revelation from God. This perspective is supported by the belief that Jesus foretold the coming of Muhammad, aligning with the Islamic view that all prophets, including Jesus, pointed towards the final messenger.

Jesus and Deuteronomy 18, verse 18

Regarding Deuteronomy 18, verse 18, which speaks of a prophet like Moses, Islamic scholars argue that Jesus did not publicly claim to be this prophet. Instead, they believe that this prophecy refers to Muhammad, who, like Moses, brought a comprehensive law and led a community of believers. This interpretation is consistent with the Islamic view that Muhammad fulfills the role of the final prophet, bringing the last and complete message from God.

Conclusion

Islamic scholars argue that Jesus, although being a messiah like other messiahs before him, did not claim to be the Davidic Messiah in the traditional Jewish sense and that he did not see himself as the prophet mentioned in Deuteronomy 18, verse 18. Instead, they believe that these roles were fulfilled by Prophet Muhammad. This interpretation is rooted in a broader theological framework that sees Jesus as a significant prophet and messenger who foretold the coming of Muhammad, the final prophet.

Cyrus is praised in the Book of Isaiah (Isaiah 45:1) as a “Messiah” or “anointed one” chosen by God to restore the Israelites to their homeland and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. In the Book of Ezra, Cyrus’s decree allows the Jews to return to Jerusalem, highlighting his role as a liberator and a proponent of religious tolerance.

The Hebrew Bible

---

---

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

What was the description of Allah according to the Arabs prior to the emergence of Islam?

Prior to the emergence of Islam, Arabian beliefs were primarily polytheistic, involving the worship of many gods and goddesses. Allah was recognized among these deities and was considered the Supreme God or the God of gods, often linked to creation, the heavens, and high virtues such as mercy and compassion.

Allah was known to them according to the impression from the Holy Quran, (in Surah 29, verse 61 and Surah 31, verse 25) where it is indicated that even in pre-Islamic times, if the polytheists were asked who created the heavens and the earth, they would have surely said, “Allah.”

However, their understanding and worship of Allah were not monotheistic as in Islam. They worshipped other gods alongside Allah and embraced a number of ritualistic practices.

Interestingly, the word Allah itself means “the One True God” in Arabic, and it was used by both Jewish and Christian Arabs to refer to the monotheistic deity. So, even before Islam, the concept of Allah existed, albeit in different contexts and beliefs.

In conclusion, prior to the emergence of Islam, Arabs recognized Allah but did not single him out exclusively for worship.

Was the term “Allah” used by Christian Arabs to refer to God prior to the rise of Islam in the Arabian Peninsula?

The term “Allah” was indeed used by Christian Arabs to refer to God prior to the rise of Islam in the Arabian Peninsula. The word “Allah” is derived from the Arabic words “al-ilah,” which means “the God.” It was a common term used by Arab Christians, Jews, and pagans alike to refer to their respective deities before the advent of Islam.

Christian Arabs who spoke Arabic as their native language would use the term “Allah” in their religious texts, prayers, and everyday conversations when referring to God. This practice predates Islam and continued even after the spread of Islam in the region.

The use of the term “Allah” by Christian Arabs highlights the linguistic and cultural continuity between pre-Islamic Arabia and early Islamic societies. It also demonstrates that monotheistic beliefs were present among various religious communities in the region long before Islam emerged as a major religion.

Edward William Lane
(British Orientalist and Lexicographer):

“Allah is the proper name of the deity, acknowledged by the ancient Arabs before the introduction of Christianity and Islam. It is a word that signifies the universal, singular nature of the divine being.”

Linguistic Connections: The Word for God in Jesus’ Aramaic and its Relation to Arabic ‘Allah

How the word “God” is pronounced in the language of Jesus?

The language spoken by Jesus and the people of his time was Aramaic. In Aramaic, the word for “God” is “Alaha” (ܐܒܐ). This is the term Jesus likely used when referring to God. It is important to note that Aramaic has different dialects, so the exact pronunciation might vary slightly depending on the specific dialect spoken in Jesus’ region.

What is the connection between “Allah” and the word of God in the Aramaic language in Jesus’ time?

In Jesus’ time, the common language spoken in the region was Aramaic. The word for God in Aramaic is “Alaha” or “Elaha” which is similar to the Arabic word “Allah.” Both words are derived from the Semitic root “il” which means God.

So, the word for God in the Aramaic language spoken during Jesus’ time, “Alaha,” is linguistically related to the word “Allah” in Arabic. This linguistic connection highlights the shared heritage and linguistic roots of the Semitic languages spoken in the region, including Aramaic and Arabic.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

Some argue Isaiah 42 might be referring to the prophet prophesied by Moses in Deuteronomy 18, verse 18. How is their interpretation presented?

Some scholars believe that Isaiah 42 is referring to a prophet who was prophesied by Moses in Deuteronomy 18, verse 18. In Deuteronomy, Moses predicts that God will raise up a prophet like him from among the brethren of the Israelites, and whoever does not listen to this prophet will be held accountable.

In Isaiah 42, the passage describes a servant of God who will bring justice to the nations and establish righteousness on earth. This servant is described as being chosen by God and having a special relationship with Him. Some argue that this description aligns with the characteristics of the prophet foretold by Moses. They believe that the servant in Isaiah is seen as a messianic figure.

The interpretation presented by those who believe Isaiah 42 refers to the prophet mentioned in Deuteronomy 18, verse 18, is based on similarities between the descriptions of both figures in their respective passages. They argue that these similarities suggest a connection between the two prophecies and point to a fulfillment of Moses’ prediction in Isaiah’s prophecy.

Surah Al-Furqan (25:1):

“Blessed is He (Allah) who sent down the Criterion [of right and wrong, i.e., the Quran] upon His Servant that he may be to the worlds a warner.”

This verse highlights Muhammad’s role as a messenger tasked with delivering the Quran to humanity.

---

Muhammad is identified as a servant of Allah in the Quran. There are those who posit that the reference to the servant of the Lord in Isaiah 42, specifically verse 11 which mentions Kedar, may be alluding to Muhammad. How do they present and support this argument?

Those who posit that the reference to the servant of the Lord in Isaiah 42, specifically mentioning Kedar, may be alluding to Muhammad, often present and support this argument based on several key points:

1. Kedar’s Descendants: In Isaiah 42, verse 11, it mentions Kedar, who was the second son of Ishmael and, according to Islamic tradition, is considered the ancestor of the Arabs. The argument is that since Muhammad was an Arab, and he came from the lineage associated with Kedar, this reference could be an allusion to him.
2. Characteristics of the Servant: The description of the servant in Isaiah 42 aligns with certain traits that are associated with Muhammad in Islamic tradition. The servant is described as bringing a new law, being a light for the nations, and engaging in conquest and warfare. Proponents of this argument argue that these attributes are consistent with the mission and actions of Muhammad.
3. Similarities in Language and Prophecies: Some commentators draw parallels between the language used in Isaiah 42 and certain prophecies and descriptions related to Muhammad in Islamic sources. They argue that linguistic and conceptual similarities between Isaiah 42 and Islamic teachings support the idea that Muhammad is the servant referenced in the passage.
4. Connection to Monotheism: Proponents of this argument also highlight the emphasis on monotheism in Isaiah 42, which they relate to the monotheistic message of Islam and the role of Muhammad as a carrier of the monotheistic faith in the Arabian Peninsula.

It’s important to note that this interpretation is based on a specific reading of the text and is subject to debate and interpretation within different religious traditions. Not all scholars or religious authorities agree with this perspective, and there are varied understandings of the meanings and implications of the servant mentioned in Isaiah 42. Different religious communities and denominations may have distinct interpretations of these passages based on their particular religious and theological frameworks.

The Servant in the book of Isaiah and the Paraclete in the Gospel of John

The Servant in the messianic prophecy of Isaiah in Chapter 42 and the Paraclete or the Spirit of truth in the prophetic words of Jesus in the Gospel of John chapter 16 verse 13 are the reference to the identification of the Prophet like Moses predicted by Moses in Deuteronomy in Chapter 18 verse 18.

The scholars of the dead sea scrolls style him as a prophetic Messiah or Messianic prophet.

This new Moses, prophesied by Moses, elaborated by Isaiah, proclaimed by Jesus and awaited by the Samaritans is none other than the Prophet of Islam.

Allah in the Quran testifies to the fact that Muhammad is that prophet. Allah says in Sura 7 verse 157:

”Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel which are with them. He will enjoin on them that which is right and forbid them that which is wrong. He will make lawful for them all good things and prohibit for them only the foul; and he will relieve them of their burden and the fetters that they used to wear. Then those who believe in him, and honour him, and help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him, they are the successful.“

---

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

Does Deuteronomy 18, verse 18, contain a messianic prophecy?

Deuteronomy 18, verse 18, is often discussed in the context of messianic prophecy. Some interpretations suggest that it could be seen as a messianic prophecy, as it talks about a prophet who will come in the future and speak on behalf of God.

However, others argue that this verse is specifically referring to a line of prophets to come after Moses, rather than a single messianic figure. Ultimately, the interpretation of whether or not it contains a messianic prophecy is subjective and varies among different religious traditions.

The verse says:

“I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.”

The identity of the prophet mentioned in this verse is a point of debate among different religious traditions. Here’s a breakdown of the main interpretations:

1. Christianity: Christians generally believe this prophet refers to Jesus Christ. They see Jesus fulfilling the characteristics mentioned in the passage, like speaking God’s words and performing miracles.
2. Islam: Muslims believe the prophet refers to Muhammad, the founder of Islam. The phrase “and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him” pertains to the Quran, the sacred text of Islam.
3. Judaism: Traditionally, Orthodox Jews believe the prophet refers to Joshua, Moses’ successor, who led the Israelites into the Promised Land.

Certain Jewish individuals do not consider Deuteronomy 18, verse 18, to be a commonly accepted messianic prediction. Instead, it is understood as referring to a line of prophets that God would send to the Israelites to guide them, starting with Joshua and continuing through the history of the Jewish people with prophets like Samuel, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and others.

Some Jewish interpretations might see it as referring to a specific future messianic figure who, like Moses, would be a leader, lawgiver, and prophet.

Thomas Carlyle:

“The lies (Western slander) which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man (Muhammad) are disgraceful to ourselves only.”

The Prophethood of Muhammad and the Hebrew Prophets: Exploring Biblical and Theological Foundations

In Genesis, chapter 21 and verse 18, an important prophecy and interaction between God and Hagar regarding Ishmael is mentioned.

The verse states:

“Arise, lift up the lad and hold him with your hand, for I will make him a great nation.“

One hypothesis proposes that the prophethood of the Hebrew prophets is tied to the Torah given to Moses, whereas Muhammad’s prophethood is associated with the prophecy of Hagar which predates the Torah. How is this idea presented?

The hypothesis you mention explores the relationship and distinctions between the prophethood of the Hebrew prophets and that of Muhammad, focusing on their respective biblical and theological foundations. This idea can be presented and analyzed through various religious, historical, and scriptural perspectives:

The prophethood of the Hebrew prophets is often seen as being linked directly to the Torah, which according to Jewish tradition, was given to Moses by God on Mount Sinai. This link is crucial because it establishes a continuous line of prophetic authority and teaching that is rooted in the laws and ethical teachings of the Torah.

The prophets following Moses are considered to have the role of interpreting, enforcing, and expanding upon the Torah’s teachings.

In contrast, Muhammad’s prophethood is sometimes associated with the prophecy attributed to Hagar. Hagar, according to the Genesis account, was the servant of Abraham and Sarah, and mother of Ishmael, who is considered by Muslims to be an ancestor of Muhammad.

This association is used to argue that Muhammad’s prophetic lineage predates the Mosaic Torah and is linked instead to Abrahamic covenant through Ishmael.

This hypothesis suggests that there are distinct covenants in the Abrahamic religions that validate different prophetic traditions. The Hebrew prophets fall under the covenant of Moses and the Sinai revelation, while Muhammad is considered under the covenant given to Abraham and Ishmael (as Hagar’s son).

This distinction is important in Islamic theology which views Islam as a continuation and fulfillment of Abrahamic faith, independent of the Mosaic laws.

The idea also touches upon the nature of the revelations received by the prophets. The Torah is often viewed as a national revelation aimed at the Jewish people, containing civil, moral, and ceremonial laws specifically designed for them.

In contrast, Muhammad’s revelation (the Quran) is considered universal, intended for all humanity, and not tied to the specific legal and ritual practices of the Jews.

By associating Muhammad with a prophecy that predates the Torah, this hypothesis also underscores the notion that prophetic messages have been universal and ongoing throughout human history. This could be seen as an attempt to place Islam within a broader, inclusive prophetic tradition that transcends Jewish ethnic and religious boundaries.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

Some believe that the “seed” mentioned in Genesis 22, verse 18, is not Jesus because of his statement in Matthew 15, verse 24. How is this argument articulated?

The argument concerning the “seed” mentioned in Genesis 22, verse 18, and Jesus’ statement in Matthew 15, verse 24, involves interpreting biblical texts and understanding the scope of Jesus’ mission according to the New Testament.

In Genesis 22, verse 17 to 18, God promises Abraham,

“I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring (seed) all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.”

This promise, particularly the part about “through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed,” is seen by Christians as a messianic prophecy referring to Jesus Christ. The argument that it refers to Jesus is supported by passages in the New Testament, such as Galatians 3, verse 16, where Paul explicitly identifies Christ as the “seed” to whom the promise was made.

However, some argue that the “seed” mentioned in Genesis cannot be Jesus based on His statement in Matthew 15, verse 24. In this passage, Jesus says,

“I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

This statement is made in the context of Jesus initially refusing to help a Canaanite woman who asks Him to heal her demon-possessed daughter. Jesus’ declaration of being sent only to the lost sheep of Israel is interpreted by some as evidence that His mission was exclusively to the Jewish people, not to all nations.

Thus, the argument against Jesus being the “seed” mentioned in Genesis 22, verse 18, is articulated by pointing out a perceived contradiction between the universal blessing promised to Abraham’s seed (implying a mission to all nations) and Jesus’ own words limiting His mission to the Israelites.

Critics of the view that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Genesis prophecy might argue that if Jesus Himself stated His mission was only to the Israelites, then He cannot be the “seed” through whom all nations on earth are blessed, as described in Genesis.

In summary, based on Jesus’ statement, some believe that Jesus saw his mission primarily as being directed towards the Jewish people and not necessarily towards all humanity. Therefore, they argue that it is unlikely for Jesus to be directly linked to the “seed” promised to Abraham in Genesis 22, verse 18.

Holy Quran 3:49

وَرَسُولًا إِلَىٰ بَنِىٓ إِسْرَٰٓ

And (make him, Jesus) an apostle to the children of Israel:

Genesis 22:18: Muhammad, the Hajj, and Differing Interpretations Across Abrahamic Faiths

Did Muhammad, through the Hajj ritual, fulfill the prophecy mentioned in Genesis 22, verse 18?

The verse you are referring to, Genesis 22, verse 18, reads: “And through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.” This promise is made to Abraham after he demonstrates his willingness to sacrifice his son (Isaac, according to the Bible; Ishmael, according to Islamic tradition).

Many Jewish and Christian theologians interpret the “offspring” (or “seed”) mentioned in this verse as a reference to the line of descendants that would lead to the Jewish people, and by extension, to Jesus Christ in Christian theology. Through this lineage, blessings would be conferred to all nations.

In Islamic theology, however, the “offspring” or “seed” in Genesis 22, verse 18, is often interpreted as referring to Ishmael, the son who was nearly sacrificed according to Islamic tradition. Muslims believe that the Prophet Muhammad, as a direct descendant of Ishmael, fulfills this prophecy, as it is through him that all nations are blessed with the message of Islam. 

The lineage of Prophet Muhammad through Ishmael is considered important in Islamic belief because the near-sacrifice event, believed to involve Ishmael instead of Isaac, is central to the Abrahamic covenant. Muslims believe that the final and complete message of God to humanity, Islam, came through this prophetic lineage.

The Hajj ritual, which commemorates events in the lives of Abraham, Hagar, and Ishmael, can be seen by Muslims as a testament to the fulfillment of this prophecy. Every year, followers of Islam globally gather in Mecca to take part in the Hajj pilgrimage, commemorating the tradition of Abraham’s near sacrifice of his son Ishmael. 

It symbolizes the universality of the blessings promised to Abraham’s descendants. For many Muslims, this pilgrimage is a manifestation of the blessings through Ishmael’s lineage, culminating in Muhammad and the global reach of Islam.

However, this interpretation is not universally accepted, especially among Jewish and Christian theologians, who typically see the “offspring” or “seed” in Genesis 22, verse 18, as referring to Isaac’s line, ultimately leading to the people of Israel and, in Christian theology, to Jesus Christ. Interpretations of scripture are deeply influenced by religious, theological, and cultural perspectives.

In summary, while some Muslims assert that Muhammad, as a descendant of Ishmael, fulfills the prophecy in Genesis 22, verse 18, through the message of Islam and rituals like the Hajj, this interpretation is specific to Islamic theology. It reflects the belief that Ishmael, rather than Isaac, was the son nearly sacrificed and that Muhammad, as Ishmael’s descendant, brings blessings to all nations. This view is not shared by all Abrahamic faiths.

The right of Ishmael as being the firstborn of Abraham

Genesis 16, verse 3, is a verse from the Bible that describes a key event involving Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar. In this verse, Sarai (later known as Sarah), the wife of Abram (later known as Abraham), gives her Egyptian maidservant Hagar to Abraham as a wife to bear children, as Sarah had not been able to conceive. This action marks a significant moment in the narrative, as it leads to complex family dynamics and consequences in the story of Abraham and his descendants.

Genesis 16, verse 3, reads:

And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.

Deuteronomy 21, verses 15 to 17, is a passage from the Old Testament of the Bible that addresses the rights of a man concerning his sons, particularly in the context of inheritance. The verses outline conditions for a man who has two wives, one he loves and one he does not. The law states that when dividing his inheritance among his sons, he must not favor the son of the loved wife over the son of the unloved wife. Instead, he should acknowledge the firstborn son, regardless of the mother’s status. This passage emphasizes fairness and the importance of honoring the firstborn in matters of inheritance.

Deuteronomy 21, verses 15 to 17, reads:

If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:

Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:

But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.

The belief that the Abrahamic covenant was fulfilled through Ishmael rather than Isaac, including the promise of land from the Nile to the Euphrates and the blessing to all nations through Abraham’s seed, is held by some, particularly within Islamic tradition. Here’s a more detailed articulation of their argument:

Ishmael and the Covenant.

1. Ishmael as the Firstborn: Supporters of this view argue that Ishmael, being Abraham’s firstborn son, was the original heir to the covenant. They emphasize that Ishmael was the first child of Abraham, born to Hagar, Sarah’s Egyptian maidservant.
2. Sacrifice Narrative: They contend that the narrative of Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son originally referred to Ishmael, not Isaac. This is based on the belief that ancient scriptures were altered by Israelite scribes to emphasize Isaac’s role.
3. Blessing and Land Promise: The promise of land from the Nile to the Euphrates and the blessing to all nations is seen as applying to Ishmael’s descendants. Islamic tradition views Ishmael as an ancestor of the Arab peoples, and thus sees the fulfillment of these promises through the Islamic Hajj and in the rise of Islamic civilization.

Scriptural Alteration Argument

1. Scribal Changes: They argue that ancient Israelite scribes altered the scriptures to shift the focus from Ishmael to Isaac. This was done to establish a theological foundation for the Israelites’ claim to the land and their unique covenantal relationship with God.
2. Evidence from Quranic Texts: The Quran refers to the story of Abraham and his son, implying that Ishmael was the one to be sacrificed. This, combined with historical accounts and interpretations, is used to argue for the primacy of Ishmael in the covenantal promises.

---

What was the rationale behind the prophet’s decision to present his firstborn instead of his other sons, as detailed in the Bible (Micah 6, verse 7)?

The verse reads:

“Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?”.

The rationale behind the prophet’s decision to present his firstborn instead of his other sons in Micah 6, verse 7 is likely based on the cultural and religious significance of the firstborn in ancient Israelite society.

In many ancient cultures, including Israelite culture, the firstborn held a special status and had certain privileges and responsibilities. This included being the primary heir to the family’s inheritance and having a special connection to the divine.

By offering his firstborn, the prophet may have been trying to convey the seriousness and gravity of the situation. This action would have been a powerful symbol of sacrifice and devotion, as the firstborn was typically seen as the most valuable and cherished among the children.

It could also be seen as a way of emphasizing the depth of the prophet’s regret and repentance for his transgressions, as offering one’s firstborn would have been an unimaginable and incredibly difficult act for any parent.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

The Prophet said:

فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ تَوَكَّلَ لِي بِالشَّامِ وَأَهْلِهِ.

Allah, the Almighty, has entrusted the Sham and its people to me.
(Hadith Musnad Imam Ahmad).

Some believe the above hadith is related to establishment of Islamic caliphate in the region of the Sham (‎الشَّامِ). They point to the Arabic word ‎“تَوَكَّلَ”. What is the definition of “Sham”? How is their argument articulated?

Definition of “Sham” (الشَّامِ):

It is an Arabic term historically used to refer to the region commonly known today as the Levant. This region encompasses several modern-day countries, including:

Syria
Lebanon
Jordan
Palestine
Israel

It is a region with significant historical, religious, and cultural relevance within the Islamic tradition and also in the broader Middle Eastern history.

Articulation of the Argument:

Supporters of the view that the hadith relates to the establishment of an Islamic caliphate in the region of Sham argue their case as follows:

1. Divine Mandate:

The verb تَوَكَّلَ means to entrust, rely upon, or delegate responsibility to someone. When used in this hadith, it implies that Allah has entrusted or vested a particular responsibility to the Prophet Muhammad regarding the region of Sham and its people.

2. Vision of Governance:

By declaring that “Allah has entrusted me with Sham and its people,” the Prophet may be indicating a divine endorsement for governance or leadership over this region. This is seen as a sign that the area holds special significance and is destined for a particular kind of leadership.

3. Historical and Religious Importance:

Sham holds a crucial place in Islamic history and eschatology. It was a major center of early Islamic civilization and later became a vital part of various Islamic caliphates, including the Umayyad Caliphate, which had its capital in Damascus.

4. Connotation of تَوَكَّلَ:

The word تَوَكَّلَ does not just convey a simple trusting; it suggests a deep and complete reliance and entrustment. This profound sense of divine trust can be seen as an indication of a significant leadership role for the Islamic community in that region.

5. Legacy of the Prophet’s Teachings:

The fact that the Prophet Muhammad would mention that Allah entrusted him with Sham can be interpreted as a directive for his followers to see this region as a central area for Islamic governance and societal development.

Key Points in Their Argument:

Linguistic Interpretation:

Emphasis on the word تَوَكَّلَ (entrusted) as an indicator of divine delegation and responsibility.

Geopolitical Importance: Recognition of Sham as a historically and religiously significant region in Islam.

Leadership & Governance:

Viewing the hadith as a sign of endorsement for establishing a caliphate or Islamic government in the region.

Historical Context:

Understanding the Islamic historical narratives and prophecies that highlight the role of Sham in Islamic governance.

By linking the hadith to the establishment of an Islamic caliphate, they argue that the Prophet’s statement is not merely about spiritual or moral guidance but also about a concrete, divinely sanctioned political vision for the region.

Origen of Alexandria:

“If we had to pray towards a particular place, as is customary among some, we should be justified in praying toward Jerusalem because it was there that the holy presence of God appeared and the divine presence was seen in the Temple.”

Holy Quran 21:71

وَنَجَّيْنَٰهُ وَلُوطًا إِلَى ٱلْأَرْضِ ٱلَّتِى بَٰرَكْنَا فِيهَا لِلْعَٰلَمِينَ

And We delivered Abraham as well as Lot to the land which We had blessed for all people.

Muhammad’s Night Journey and the Holy City of Jerusalem

It is believed that Muhammad’s Night Journey serves as a divine sign, indicating the abrogation of Jewish ownership of the Holy City of Jerusalem and its transfer to Muslims. How is this argument explained?

Some scholars and Muslim believers argue that the Night Journey symbolizes the transfer of religious authority from the Jews to the Muslims. They contend that because the Prophet Muhammad traveled to Jerusalem and then ascended to the heavens, it signifies a divine affirmation of Islam as the final and true religion, superseding earlier religious traditions.

In this interpretation, it is believed that during the Night Journey, Muhammad received divine confirmation that Jerusalem would be a significant place for Muslims. The transfer of ownership from Jews to Muslims is seen as a symbol of the shift of religious authority from Judaism to Islam.

This interpretation is often associated with the concept of abrogation (naskh) in Islamic law. Abrogation, guided by the belief in progressive revelation, holds that certain earlier rulings or traditions may have been replaced or superseded by subsequent divine revelations. Some Muslims see Muhammad’s Night Journey as a momentous event that signifies the transition from Judaism to Islam as the true faith, with Jerusalem being a central focal point in this transition.

---

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

Did John’s prophecy pertain to Jesus?

There is a debate among scholars regarding the interpretation of John the Baptist’s prophecy in Mark 1, verses 7 to 8. The passage mentions, “After me comes the one more powerful than I, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” Some argue that this prophecy may not necessarily be referring to Jesus.

This viewpoint is based on the observation that John the Baptist did not overtly follow Jesus as his disciple. John carried on with his ministry and was subsequently put in prison, separate from the ministry of Jesus.

Additionally, there was a dispute between John’s disciples and Jesus’ disciples over ceremonial washing (John 3, verse 25), and John even sent his disciples to ask Jesus, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?” (Matthew 11, verse 3; Luke 7, verse 19).

These actions suggest that John maintained an independent ministry and allowed room for questioning Jesus’ identity. Supporters of this viewpoint argue that if John truly believed Jesus was the one he prophesied about, he would have likely followed Jesus more devotedly.

Furthermore, they point out that the “one more powerful” could fit various Jewish eschatological figures such as the apocalyptic Messiah, a prophet like Moses, or the heavenly Son of Man.

In the context of Matthew 22, verses 41 to 45, a scholarly debate arises between Jesus and the Pharisees concerning the genealogy of the Messiah, who was not a direct descendant of David. This suggests that Jesus may have been referring to a person previously identified by John.
Supporters of this theory suggest that the person identified as John and Jesus could potentially be Muhammad, the revered prophet of Islam, instead of the anticipated Davidic Messiah.

There is a belief that Jesus was a messiah in the same sense as other messiahs before him. Scripturally, Jesus was not the apocalyptic messiah who was predicted by the Hebrew prophets to establish God’s kingdom in the Holy Land. Could you kindly provide an explanation for the meaning of the preceding statement?

The belief that Jesus was a messiah in the same sense as other messiahs before him refers to the idea that he was seen as a savior figure who would bring about spiritual redemption and salvation. In this context, messiah is understood as a leader or deliverer chosen by God to fulfill a specific role in the divine plan.

However, scripturally speaking, Jesus was not the apocalyptic messiah that many Jews were expecting based on the prophecies found in Hebrew scriptures. The traditional Jewish understanding of the apocalyptic messiah was of a powerful political and military leader who would liberate Israel from its enemies, establish God’s kingdom on earth in the Holy Land, and rebuild the Holy Temple in Jerusalem.

Jesus’ teachings and actions did not align with these expectations of a conquering warrior king. Instead, he preached about love, forgiveness, and spiritual transformation. He emphasized inner righteousness over outward displays of power. This led many Jews to reject Jesus as their expected messiah, that is, the apocalyptic messiah.

So, when it is said that Jesus was not the apocalyptic messiah predicted by Hebrew prophets to establish God’s kingdom in the Holy Land, it means that his role and mission were different from what many people at that time were anticipating based on their interpretation of scripture.

Does Islam represent the concept of “the Kingdom of God” as taught by Jesus and John the Baptist?

Did Jesus and John the Baptist announce the coming of the kingdom of God?

Yes, both Jesus and John the Baptist announced the coming of the Kingdom of God. John the Baptist’s ministry focused on repentance and emphasized the nearness of the Kingdom. John’s message in the Gospels urges individuals to repent and return to God, preparing for the arrival of the Messiah, referred to as the “son of man” in Jesus’ parables, who will establish the Kingdom.

Jesus continued this theme in His ministry, often speaking about the Kingdom of God in His teachings. He used parables, miracles, and sermons to explain the nature of this Kingdom, addressing its spiritual dimensions and moral implications.

Did Jesus equate the kingdom with the religion of Christianity?

No, Jesus did not explicitly equate the Kingdom of God with what later became known as Christianity. The term “Christianity” was not used during His lifetime; the followers of Jesus were initially seen as a Jewish sect.

In summary, Jesus and John the Baptist announced the coming of the Kingdom of God, but Jesus did not equate this Kingdom directly with the religion that later emerged as Christianity.

It is thought that Christianity originated as an apocalyptic group within Judaism, with Jesus proclaiming the arrival of the son of man and his Kingdom as described in the Book of Daniel. Islamic scholars believe that this apocalyptic figure, son of man, is none other than Muhammad who established Islam in the land where God promised to Abraham in Genesis 15, verse 18. Islam is regarded as the kingdom of God preached by Jesus. How is their argument articulated?

The argument by some Islamic scholars that the apocalyptic figure referred to by Jesus is Muhammad, and that Islam is the kingdom of God as preached by Jesus, is based on a reinterpretation of certain Biblical and Qur’anic texts. Here’s how the argument is articulated:

1. Jesus and the Son of Man:
   In Christian eschatology, the “Son of Man” is an apocalyptic figure described in the Book of Daniel and in the Gospels. Jesus speaks of the coming of the “Son of Man” who will establish God’s kingdom.
   Islamic scholars who subscribe to this interpretation propose that the “Son of Man” could be a symbolic reference to Muhammad, who they argue, fulfilled this prophecy by establishing Islam from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates River including the Arabian Peninsula, a land promised to Abraham’s descendants.
2. The Kingdom of God:
   In Christian theology, the “Kingdom of God” or “Kingdom of Heaven” is often understood as a spiritual realm where God reigns supreme, and which will be fully realized in the eschatological future.
   Islamic scholars who support this view argue that Jesus’ references to the coming “Kingdom of God” were not about a spiritual kingdom, but a prophetic kingdom established on earth. They interpret this kingdom as the Islamic state that Muhammad established in Medina and later expanded throughout Arabia and beyond.
3. The Covenant and the Land Promise:
   In Genesis 15, verse 18, God promises Abraham’s descendants a specific land. Jewish and Christian interpretations traditionally see this as a promise fulfilled in the biblical history of Israel.
   However, some Islamic scholars reinterpret this promise in the context of Islam, suggesting that the true fulfillment of God’s covenant and the promised land is seen in the establishment of Islam from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates River, a promise made to Ishmael instead of Isaac. They argue that Islam, as the final and complete religion, fulfills this covenant.
4. Prophecies and Islamic Tradition:
   Islamic tradition holds that Muhammad is the “Seal of the Prophets,” completing the line of prophets that includes Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. Some scholars interpret Jesus’ statements about a future prophet (like the “Comforter” in John 14, verses 16 to 17) as references to Muhammad.
   They argue that Jesus was predicting Muhammad’s arrival, and that the establishment of Islam represents the realization of the kingdom Jesus spoke of.
5. Theological Implications:
   This argument hinges on the belief that Islam is the final and most complete form of the Abrahamic faith, and that previous scriptures (Torah, Psalms, Gospels) were either incomplete or have been altered over time. The Qur’an is seen as the final, unaltered word of God, and Muhammad as the last prophet who brings the ultimate message.

In summary, the argument is built on a re-interpretation of Jesus’ teachings and the apocalyptic expectations found in the New Testament, suggesting that these were actually referring to the coming of Muhammad as a “son of man”and the establishment of Islam, which they view as the true “Kingdom of God.”

Holy Quran 3:39

Then the angels called to him (Zachariah) as he stood praying in the sanctuary: That Allah gives you the good news of John verifying a Word from Allah, and honorable and chaste and a prophet from among the good ones.

John Baptist

Like Jesus, John the Baptist is born in miraculous circumstances. In Luke (1:5–23), an angel of the Lord visits Zechariah, an aged priest, and his barren wife Elizabeth. He announces that they will have a son and that he will become a great man of God. Such is Zechariah’s disbelief at this revelation—owing to their age— that God strikes him dumb. Zechariah recovers his speech when Elizabeth gives birth to their son, John. Luke confirms that the birth occurs just months prior to that of Jesus (1:36).

John becomes a preacher, living an austere and hermitic life in the desert. He preaches a message advocating both confession and repentance, and offers baptism in the River Jordan to all who heed him. John speaks, above all, of a “greater one” who will come after him—the Messiah prophesied in the scriptures. John’s preaching ultimately leads to his downfall, when he warns King Herod against marrying his brother’s wife. The king marries her anyway, but she never forgives John, and John is eventually beheaded on the whim of her daughter, Salome.

---

“John’s message of the kingdom of God is eschatological, calling for urgent repentance in light of an imminent divine intervention.”

R.T. France – British New Testament scholar:

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

How do some argue that the phrase “the night visions” in Daniel 7, verse 13 refers to Muhammad’s Night Journey to the seventh heaven to meet God instead of Jesus, whose ascension did not occur at night?

Some argue that the phrase “the night visions” in Daniel 7, verse 13, refers to Muhammad’s Night ( الإسراء والمعراج) rather than Jesus’ ascension based on the following points:

1. The term “night visions” directly suggests an event that takes place at night. Muhammad’s Night Journey, which is said to have occurred during the night, aligns with this description. In contrast, Jesus’ ascension is generally not described as happening at night in Christian texts.
2. According to Islamic tradition, during the Isra, Muhammad traveled from Mecca to Jerusalem and then ascended through the heavens in the Mi’raj. He is described as having profound spiritual experiences, meeting past prophets, and ultimately coming into the presence of God.

In Daniel 7, verses 13 to 14, “one like a son of man” is seen coming with the clouds of heaven and approaching the “Ancient of Days” (interpreted by scholars as God). This imagery of traveling through the heavens and meeting a divine figure has parallels with Muhammad’s Night Journey.

3. The mention of the “clouds of heaven” could be metaphorically linked to the ethereal and divine nature of Muhammad’s ascent through the heavens, which is a central element in the Night Journey narrative.
4. Some Muslim scholars see Daniel’s vision as prophetic, foretelling not just events relevant to Jewish history but also later significant religious events. They interpret the “one like a son of man” as a reference to a future prophet who would establish a new era, which Muhammad is believed to have done in Islam.
5. In the vision, the figure receives authority, glory, and sovereign power, and all nations serve him. Supporters of this interpretation argue that Muhammad’s establishment of Islam fits this prophecy as he united tribes and established a widespread religious and political community.

While these arguments are compelling within an Islamic interpretive framework, this interpretation is not widely accepted in Christian and Jewish traditions.

However, it’s important to note that these interpretations are not mainstream and are often viewed within the context of interfaith dialogue or polemics.

Traditional Jewish and Christian interpretations generally identify the “one like a son of man” as a messianic figure, often associated with Jesus in Christian theology, while in Jewish thought, it can be seen as a representation of Israel or the Messiah.

John Esposito:

“The Night Journey is a central event in the life of Muhammad, the founding prophet of Islam. It marks the moment when Muhammad is spiritually exalted and shown the vastness of God’s universe.”

The Prophecy of Daniel: Constantine the Great and Muhammad the Prophet

Some believe that Daniel 7, verse 25 alludes to Constantine the Great, who presided over the council of Nicaea, while Daniel 7, verse 13, points to Muhammad’s Night Journey. How is this argument explained?

This is a very controversial argument that is not widely accepted by most biblical scholars and Christians, who believe that Daniel 7, verse 25, and Daniel 7, verse 13, refer to the Antichrist and the Messiah, respectively. However, some people who support this argument explain it in the following way:
They claim that Constantine the Great, who was the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity and who convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, was the little horn of Daniel 7, verse 25, who spoke pompous words against the Most High and tried to change the times and the laws.

They argue that Constantine corrupted the original teachings of Jesus and imposed his own doctrines and creeds on the Christian church, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, the observance of Sunday instead of Saturday as the Sabbath, and the celebration of Easter instead of Passover.

They also accuse Constantine of persecuting and oppressing those who did not conform to his version of Christianity, such as the followers of Arianism, who denied the divinity of Jesus.
Arianism sparked significant debates within the Church, particularly during the early Ecumenical Councils. The First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD condemned Arianism, affirming the doctrine of the Trinity and the full divinity of Christ. The Nicene Creed established the belief that the Son is “begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father.”

Islamic scholars claim that Muhammad, who was the prophet of Islam and who claimed to have a miraculous Night Journey from Mecca to Jerusalem and then to heaven in 621 AD, was the Son of Man of Daniel 7, verse 13, who came with the clouds of heaven and was given dominion, glory, and a kingdom by the Ancient of Days, that is God.

The term “night visions” directly suggests an event that takes place at night. Muhammad’s Night Journey, which is said to have occurred during the night, aligns with this description. In contrast, Jesus’ ascension is generally not described as happening at night in Christian texts.

They argue that Muhammad was a true prophet of God who restored the pure monotheism that was lost by Constantine and his followers. They also assert that Muhammad’s kingdom is an everlasting kingdom that will never be destroyed, and that all nations and peoples of every language will serve him or submit to his law.
In summary, these are a few points made by Islamic scholars to back the notion that Daniel 7, verse 25, and 7, verse 13, refer to Constantine as the little horn who established the Trinity at the Council of Nicea, and Muhammad as the Son of Man who encountered God on his Night Journey to the seventh heaven.

---

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

Some believe that the gospel of Paul is at odds with the teaching of Jesus. How is this argument articulated?

This is a complex and controversial topic that has been debated by scholars and theologians for centuries. There is no definitive answer, but some of the main arguments are:

Some believe that Paul’s gospel of grace and justification by faith contradicts Jesus’ gospel of the kingdom of God and obedience to the law. They claim that Paul distorted or ignored the teachings of Jesus, and introduced new doctrines that were not in line with the original message of Jesus and his Jewish followers.

Some believe that Paul’s gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection as the core of salvation history differs from Jesus’ gospel of God’s reign as the fulfillment of Israel’s hopes. They argue that Paul focused more on the person and work of Jesus, while Jesus focused more on the will and action of God.

Some believe that Paul’s gospel of inclusion of the Gentiles and freedom from the law opposes Jesus’ gospel of Israel’s restoration and observance of the law. They assert that Paul compromised or abandoned the Jewish identity and heritage of Jesus and his followers, and created a new religion that was detached from its Jewish roots.

These are some of the main ways that some people argue that the gospel of Paul is at odds with the teaching of Jesus. However, there are also many others who defend the harmony and continuity between Paul and Jesus, and who seek to reconcile their apparent differences by considering their historical, cultural, and theological contexts. Ultimately, this is a matter of interpretation and faith, and one that requires careful study and respectful dialogue.

Karen Armstrong:

“Paul’s teaching was quite different from that of Jesus. Whereas Jesus preached about the Kingdom of God, Paul’s gospel was about Jesus himself. Paul, therefore, can be seen as the second founder of Christianity.”

Jesus and Paul on Zionism: Exploring Apparent Contradictions

Does Jesus contradict Paul regarding Zionism?

Jesus says in Matthew 8, verses 11 to 12:

I tell you that many people from the east and the west (referring to Gentiles) will come and join Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven for a feast.

“But the citizens of the kingdom (referring to the Jewish nation) will be cast out into darkness, where there will be crying and grinding of teeth.”

Some believe many modern Christians support the Zionist ideology because of Paul’s statement in Romans 11 verse 28, which contradicts the statement of Jesus in Matthew 8 verse 12. How is this interpretation explained?

The interpretation that many modern Christians support Zionist ideology based on Paul’s statement in Romans 11 verse 28, despite the apparent contradiction with Jesus’ statement in Matthew 8 verse 12, is a viewpoint held by some proponents of Christian Zionism. Here is how this interpretation is explained:

In Romans 11 verse 28, Paul writes,

“As regards the gospel, they (the Jews) are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.”

Christian Zionists argue that this verse indicates that, despite the rejection of Jesus by some Jews, God’s covenantal love for the Jewish people and His promises to them are irrevocable.

They interpret this verse as a testament to the ongoing significance of the Jewish people in God’s plan and the fulfillment of His promises to Israel. Christian Zionists believe that the establishment of the modern state of Israel is a manifestation of God’s faithfulness to His covenant with the Jewish people.

Regarding the apparent contradiction with Jesus’ statement in Matthew 8 verse 12, Christian Zionists argue that Jesus’ words were specific to a particular context and time. They contend that Jesus was addressing the religious leaders of His day who rejected Him, rather than making a sweeping statement about the entire Jewish people. They maintain that Paul’s teachings in Romans 11 provide a broader perspective on God’s enduring love for the Jewish people.

It is important to note that not all Christians interpret these verses in the same way, and there are varying theological perspectives on the relationship between Christianity and Zionism. These interpretations are subject to debate and can differ among individuals and Christian denominations.

Search

Search