Azahari Hassim

The book “Muhammad in the Bible” by Prof. Abdul Ahad Dawud (formerly Rev. David Benjamin Keldani), is an analysis that argues that Prophet Muhammad is prophesied in both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. The author, a former Christian priest who converted to Islam, presents theological arguments supported by biblical texts, linguistic analysis, and historical context.

Key Themes and Arguments:

1. The Author’s Background:

Prof. Abdul Ahad Dawud, previously Rev. David Benjamin Keldani, was a Roman Catholic priest of the Uniate-Chaldean sect.
His conversion to Islam was based on his deep study of Christian scripture, concluding that Muhammad was the promised prophet mentioned in the Bible.

2. Muhammad in the Old Testament:

The book presents linguistic and contextual analysis to show that Muhammad is the “Promised One” foretold in the Hebrew scriptures.
The term “Himda” (חֶמְדָּה) in Haggai 2:7, which is commonly translated as “the desire of all nations”, is argued to be referring to Ahmed (another name for Muhammad).
The Book of Deuteronomy 18:18, which speaks of a prophet like Moses, is interpreted to refer to Muhammad, not Jesus, because Muhammad, like Moses, was a lawgiver.

3. The Birthright and the Covenant:

The book argues that Ishmael, not Isaac, was the rightful heir of Abraham’s covenant because he was the firstborn.
It asserts that the biblical narrative has been altered to favor Isaac, even though God’s original promise was to Ishmael and his descendants.

4. Muhammad in the New Testament:

The Gospel of John 14, verse 16, John 15, verse 26, and John 16, verses 7 to 14) refer to the coming of the Paraclete, often translated as the “Comforter” or “Advocate.”
The book argues that the Greek term “Paracletos” (παράκλητος) was likely a mistranslation of “Periclytos”, meaning “the praised one” (Ahmed, a name of Muhammad).
Jesus is said to have predicted Muhammad’s arrival as the final Messenger of God.

5. Comparison Between Jesus and Muhammad:

The book highlights key differences between Jesus and Muhammad, arguing that Jesus did not bring a new law, whereas Muhammad did—aligning him with Moses as predicted in Deuteronomy 18, verse 18.
It also argues that Jesus’ message was for the Children of Israel, whereas Muhammad’s message was universal.

6. Biblical Prophecies of Arabia and the Coming of Islam:

Isaiah 42 is interpreted as predicting Muhammad’s arrival, pointing to Kedar, a reference to Ishmael’s descendants, which includes the Arabs.
The mention of Paran in the Bible (Deuteronomy 33:2, Habakkuk 3:3) is linked to Mecca, Muhammad’s birthplace.

Conclusion:

The book aims to demonstrate that Muhammad is the final prophet prophesied in the Bible, and it challenges Christian interpretations that reject this claim. It is a theological and historical argument advocating for the Islamic perspective on biblical prophecy.

Quoted by Rev. David Benjamin Keldani:

“I must remind Christians that unless they believe in the absolute unity of God and renounce the belief in three persons, they are certainly unbelievers in the true God. The Old Testament and the Qur’an condemn the doctrine of three persons in God. The New Testament does not expressly uphold or defend it; even if it contains hints and traces regarding the Trinity, it holds no authority at all because it was neither seen nor written by Christ himself, nor in the language he spoke, and it did not exist in its present form and content for at least the first two centuries after him.”

Reinterpreting the “Son of Man”: Prof. Abdul Ahad Dawud’s Perspective in Muhammad in the Bible

In his groundbreaking work Muhammad in the Bible, Prof. Abdul Ahad Dawud—formerly Rev. David Benjamin Keldani, a former Catholic priest—presents a provocative and meticulously reasoned argument that challenges traditional Christian interpretations of the “Son of Man” figure in biblical literature.

According to Dawud, the title “Son of Man” has been misunderstood and misapplied over centuries, and he asserts that its true referent is not Jesus Christ, but rather the Prophet Muhammad.

1. Jesus’ Reluctance to Claim the Title

Dawud begins his analysis by addressing the silence of Jesus regarding the title “Son of Man.” Drawing from historical and textual evidence, he argues that Jesus consciously avoided adopting this title. In Muhammad in the Bible, Dawud notes that had Jesus claimed to be the “Son of Man” as portrayed in the apocalyptic visions of the Hebrew Scriptures, it would have rendered him “ridiculous in the eyes of his audience”. Faced with Messianic expectations, Dawud suggests that Jesus had only two options: to either reject the Messianic prophecies as interpolations or to embrace them fully by claiming the title—something Jesus notably refrained from doing.

2. The Quranic Terminology

A key theological point raised by Dawud is the distinction made in the Quran, where Jesus is never referred to as the “Son of Man.” Instead, he is consistently called the “Son of Mary”. Dawud interprets this linguistic choice as deliberate and meaningful. In his view, since Jesus was born of a virgin, he had no biological father and thus could not be accurately described as the “Son of Man.” According to Dawud, this reinforces the argument that Jesus does not fulfill the criteria associated with the “Son of Man” in biblical prophecies.

3. Prophecies and Apocalyptic Visions

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of Dawud’s thesis is his reinterpretation of biblical apocalyptic literature. He argues that the “Son of Man” described in texts like the Book of Daniel and other visionary writings more accurately describe the life, mission, and characteristics of Prophet Muhammad. From global impact and moral authority to the establishment of divine law and finality of prophecy, Dawud asserts that Muhammad uniquely fulfills these prophetic descriptions—traits which, he argues, are not fully manifested in the life of Jesus.

4. A Historical Reassessment

In the concluding sections of his book, Dawud posits that the early Church engaged in what he terms a “policy and cunning propaganda” to align Jesus with the Messianic expectations surrounding the “Son of Man”. He contends that Jesus himself never claimed this identity, and that it was the later ecclesiastical narrative that retroactively applied the title to him in order to appeal to Jewish expectations of a coming Messiah. Instead, Dawud believes that Jesus deliberately left the title unclaimed, reserving it for the true fulfillment of the prophecy—Prophet Muhammad.

Conclusion

Prof. Abdul Ahad Dawud’s Muhammad in the Bible offers a radical re-examination of long-held beliefs within Christian theology. By reinterpreting the “Son of Man” through a Qur’anic and historical lens, Dawud challenges readers to rethink the identity of the prophetic figure awaited in Jewish and Christian tradition. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his conclusions, his work remains a thought-provoking contribution to interfaith dialogue and comparative theology.

Does the phrase “the night visions” in Daniel 7 refer to Muhammad’s Night Journey?

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.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

What is the rationale behind the theological implications of the correlation between Surah 17 verse 1 and verse 7 of the Quran, which indicates that Judaism as a sacrificial religion has been abolished?

Surah 17 of the Quran, known as “Al Isra” (The Night Journey), contains verses that reference the Israelites and events associated with them. Let’s explore the verses you mentioned:

1. Surah 17 verse 1:

“Exalted is He who took His Servant by night from al Masjid Al Haram to Al Masjid Al Aqsa, whose surroundings We have blessed, to show him of Our signs. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Seeing.”

This verse refers to the Isra, or the Night Journey, where Muslims believe that the Prophet Muhammad was taken from Mecca to Jerusalem and then ascended to the heavens (the Miraj). Al Masjid Al Aqsa is identified with the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

2. Surah 17 verse 7:

“If you do good, you do good for yourselves; and if you do evil, [you do it] to yourselves. Then when the final promise came, [We sent your enemies] to sadden your faces and to enter the temple in Jerusalem, as they entered it the first time, and to destroy what they had taken over with [total] destruction.”

This verse refers to the punishment meted out to the Israelites due to their disobedience and recalls the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.

The argument you’re referencing seems to derive from the juxtaposition of these verses in the same chapter. By connecting the Night Journey of Prophet Muhammad to Al Masjid Al Aqsa (associated with the ancient Jewish Temples) with the subsequent verse about the Temple’s destruction, one might argue that it signifies a transfer of religious legitimacy from the Israelites to the followers of Muhammad.

The theological implication drawn from this, as posited in your question, is that the Quran might be suggesting that the original sacrificial religion of Judaism (centered around the Temple) has been superseded or “abolished” by Islam.

The Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, which commemorates Muhammad’s Night Journey, symbolizes the continued connection between Abrahamic faiths. Islam is often seen as the final message that surpasses Judaism and Christianity.

Some scholars believe the Night Journey of the Prophet Muhammad to Heaven is theologically related to Daniel 7 verse 13. How is this argument explained?

The argument connecting the Night Journey of the Prophet Muhammad to Heaven with Daniel 7 verse 13 is based on theological interpretations that draw parallels between the two events. Here’s an explanation of this argument:

1. The Night Journey of Prophet Muhammad (الإسراء والمعراج):

According to Islamic tradition, the Night Journey (الإسراء) and Ascension (المعراج) is a miraculous event in which the Prophet Muhammad was transported from Mecca to Jerusalem and then ascended through the heavens, meeting various prophets and eventually coming into the presence of Allah.

2. Daniel 7 verse 13 in the Bible:

In the Book of Daniel in the Old Testament of the Bible, specifically in Daniel 7 verse 13, there is a prophecy that says: “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days (that is, God) and was presented before him.” This verse is often interpreted as a reference to a messianic figure.

The argument connecting these two events revolves around the idea that both the Night Journey of Prophet Muhammad and the vision of “one like a son of man” in Daniel 7 verse 13 involve a figure coming into the presence of God. Some scholars, particularly in comparative religion and interfaith dialogue, suggest that there are thematic similarities between these events:

Divine Revelation: In both cases, there is a profound encounter with the divine. Prophet Muhammad ascended to the highest levels of heaven, and in Daniel 7 verse 13, the figure of “one like a son of man” is presented before the “Ancient of Days,” who is a divine entity.

Prophetic Roles: The figure in Daniel 7 verse 13 is often associated with a messianic or prophetic role. Similarly, Prophet Muhammad is considered the final prophet in Islam, and his Night Journey is seen as a confirmation of his messianic or prophetic role.

It’s important to note that this argument is primarily a matter of theological interpretation and interfaith dialogue. Different scholars and religious traditions may have varying perspectives on the significance and connections between these events.

Islamic Interpretation of Daniel 7: The Fifth Kingdom as the Rise of Islam

Numerous biblical scholars maintain that the four beasts described in Daniel 7 symbolize four distinct kingdoms: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Subsequently, the establishment of the kingdom of God is noted.

In contrast, certain Islamic scholars assert that the fifth kingdom, which they identify as the kingdom of God, corresponds to Islam, as it arose subsequent to the Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire. What is the rationale behind this interpretation?

The Islamic interpretation of the prophecy in Daniel 7, which identifies the “fifth kingdom” (the kingdom of God) with Islam, is based on historical and theological reasoning. Here are the key points behind this interpretation:

1. Historical Succession of Empires

Daniel 7 describes four beasts representing four successive kingdoms. Many biblical scholars identify these as Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome.
Islam emerged in the 7th century CE, after the decline of the Western Roman Empire and during the weakening of the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire. Since Daniel’s vision mentions the establishment of God’s kingdom after the fourth empire, some Islamic scholars argue that Islam, which emerged after Rome, fulfills this prophecy.

2. The Fall of the Byzantine Empire and the Rise of Islam

The Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire was a dominant power before Islam’s expansion. Islamic scholars argue that with the conquests of the Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates, Islam effectively replaced Byzantine rule in large parts of the Mediterranean, the Levant, and North Africa.
The rapid spread of Islam and its dominance over former Roman territories is seen as a fulfillment of the prophecy that a divine kingdom would supersede worldly empires.

3. The Concept of God’s Kingdom in Islam

Jesus did not equate the kingdom of God that he preached with the religion of Christianity. Rather, the concept of the “kingdom of God” is frequently linked to the arrival of a figure resembling a son of man as described in Daniel 7.
Islamic scholars, however, interpret God’s kingdom as a system of governance based on divine law (Sharia). Since Islam established a political-religious order that claimed to rule by divine law, it is seen as fulfilling the vision of God’s kingdom replacing human empires.

4. Islam as a Universal and Everlasting Kingdom

Daniel 7, verse 14 describes the final kingdom as one that will never be destroyed. Islamic scholars argue that Islam, despite historical challenges, continues to be a major global faith and political influence.
The continuity of Islam as a religious and civilizational force is seen as evidence that it aligns with the prophecy of a kingdom that endures.

5. The Role of Prophet Muhammad in Quranic Prophecy

Some Islamic scholars extend this interpretation by linking it to prophecies about a future religion of Islam. They cite Surah 61, verse 9 of the Quran:

Muhammad’s establishment of a religious-political order is viewed as the fulfillment of the divine kingdom prophesied in Daniel.
Conclusion

“He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion however much idolaters may be averse.”

Islamic scholars interpret Daniel 7’s prophecy through a historical and theological lens, identifying Islam as the divine kingdom that follows Rome. They argue that Islam’s rise, territorial expansion, and legal-political system based on divine law fulfill the vision of a God-ordained kingdom that replaces human rule.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

What does Pauline Christianity mean?

Pauline Christianity refers to the form of Christianity that follows the beliefs and teachings of the Apostle Paul, particularly emphasizing salvation by faith in Jesus Christ and not by adherence to the Mosaic Law.

Pauline Christianity and Ebionism are two distinct religious movements that emerged in the early years of Christianity.

Pauline Christianity refers to the teachings and beliefs associated with the apostle Paul, also known as Saint Paul. After his conversion to Christianity, Paul played a significant role in spreading the message of Jesus Christ throughout the Roman Empire.

He emphasized faith in Jesus as the means of salvation and argued for a universalist approach, welcoming both Jews and Gentiles into the Christian community. Paul’s writings, which form a significant portion of the New Testament, laid down theological foundations for many aspects of Christian doctrine.

Ebionism, on the other hand, was a Jewish-Christian movement that arose during the same period. The Ebionites were primarily Jewish followers of Jesus who maintained their adherence to Jewish laws and customs.

They believed that Jesus was not divine but rather an ordinary human being chosen by God as His Messiah or anointed one. According to Ebionite beliefs, salvation could only be achieved through strict observance of Mosaic Law (the Torah) along with faith in Jesus as the Messiah.

The main point of contention between Pauline Christianity and Ebionism lies in their understanding of Jesus’ divinity and his relationship with Judaism. While Pauline Christians saw Jesus as both fully human and fully divine, emphasizing faith over works for salvation, Ebionites regarded him solely as a human prophet sent by God within a Jewish context.

These two movements had different views on various theological matters such as circumcision, dietary laws, Sabbath observance, and more. Pauline Christians believed that these practices were no longer necessary for salvation since they considered themselves under a new covenant through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. In contrast, Ebionites continued to observe these Jewish rituals alongside their belief in Jesus.

Over time, Pauline Christianity gained wider acceptance among Gentile converts while distancing itself from its Jewish roots. As a result, it became dominant within the early Christian community, eventually evolving into what is now known as mainstream Christianity. Ebionism, however, gradually faded away and became marginalized as a minority sect.

In summary, Pauline Christianity and Ebionism represent two distinct branches of early Christianity with differing beliefs on Jesus’ divinity and the role of Jewish law. While Pauline Christianity emphasized faith in Jesus for salvation and embraced Gentile converts, Ebionism maintained strict adherence to Jewish customs alongside their belief in Jesus as the Messiah.

The Gospel of Matthew: Challenging Pauline Doctrine by Upholding the Torah in the Gospel Narrative

The Gospel of Matthew is believed to have been written between 70 to 80 AD, while the Epistles of Paul were written between 50 to 64 AD. It’s important to note that these dates are approximate and subject to some scholarly debate.

In the 80s, a few years after the death of Paul but before the Book of Acts was written, the author of the Gospel of Matthew condemned Paul’s central teaching, and, interestingly, he did so through the words of Jesus. In the Sermon on the Mount, for instance, we find the following passage attributed to Jesus:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets… For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.

Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5 verses 17 to 19).

This is a crucial passage for understanding Matthew’s Jesus. As a strict follower of Moses’ law, Jesus did not believe in the abolition of Torah. This passage is aimed squarely at the heart of Paul’s teaching, which had denied the validity of Jewish law.

It is also very easy to see Paul and his followers in the last phrase “whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teachers others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.” Paul’s Christ Movement was the only religion on the horizon teaching that people should not observe the law.

Matthew sent a stern warning to those who would find Paul’s position attractive: Jesus would not have agreed with you. He made clear to his followers that Paul’s religion was not for them. Steer clear of these people was his advice. Their message violates the religion of Jesus.

Abandonment of Torah was not consistent with the religion taught and practiced by Jesus. Matthew’s Jesus was even more stringent than the Pharisees and required his followers to live up to the challenge of the higher righteousness.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

Some argue that Isaiah 54 refers to Hagar, with the term “barren” in verse 1 signifying Hagar’s land, the prophecy of which in Genesis 21:18 remains unfulfilled. Paul knew this and changed its interpretation to Sarah instead. How is their reasoning justified?

The argument that Isaiah 54 refers to Hagar rather than Sarah is based on a few key points:

1. The Use of “Barren” in Isaiah 54:1

• Isaiah 54:1 states: “Sing, O barren, you who have not borne! Break forth into singing, and cry aloud, you who have not labored with child! For more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married woman,” says the Lord.
• Some argue that “barren” here refers metaphorically to Hagar’s land (often linked to the wilderness) rather than Sarah.
• Genesis 21:18 contains God’s promise to Hagar that Ishmael will become a great nation, which some see as unfulfilled. They suggest that Isaiah 54:1 could be referencing a future fulfillment of Hagar’s descendants prospering.

2. Paul’s Interpretation in Galatians 4:27

• Paul quotes Isaiah 54:1 in Galatians 4:27, but he applies it to Sarah, linking it to the Christian message of freedom.
• He contrasts Hagar (the old covenant, slavery) with Sarah (the new covenant, freedom), seeing Sarah as the “barren” woman whose descendants (through Isaac and Christ) would become more numerous.
• Critics argue that Paul reinterpreted Isaiah 54:1 for his theological agenda, deviating from what they see as the original reference to Hagar.

3. Hagar as the “Desolate” One and Sarah as the Woman with a Husband

• The term “desolate” (שׁוֹמֵמָ֛ה, shamemah) in Isaiah 54:1 could be understood as describing Hagar’s situation after being cast out in Genesis 21. Her experience of abandonment mirrors the condition of the “desolate woman” in Isaiah 54:1.

In contrast, Sarah is understood as the Woman with a Husband, who ultimately bore Isaac within the covenant.

• Some suggest that, in its original context, Isaiah 54 speaks of restoration and an expansion of Hagar’s descendants, rather than Sarah’s.

4. Unfulfilled Promise in Genesis 21:18

• The promise to Hagar that Ishmael would become a great nation is seen as an ongoing prophecy.
• Those who argue for Hagar’s connection to Isaiah 54 suggest that Paul’s interpretation suppresses the potential application to Hagar’s descendants.

5. Isaiah 54:4-6 – Allusions to Hagar

These verses express themes of shame, abandonment, and restoration:

• Verse 4:
“Fear not; for thou shalt not be ashamed neither be thou confounded; for thou shalt not be put to shame; for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more.”
This reflects Hagar’s experience of humiliation when she was cast out. God’s reassurance in Isaiah 54 mirrors His promise to care for Hagar and Ishmael (Genesis 21:17-18).

• Verse 5:
  “For your Maker is your husband—the Lord Almighty is his name.”
  While Hagar was abandoned by Abraham, God Himself took the role of protector and provider for her, signifying divine restoration and care.
• Verse 6:
  “The Lord will call you back as if you were a wife deserted and distressed in spirit—a wife who married young, only to be rejected.”

This resonates with Hagar’s story of rejection and distress. Just as God assured Hagar that her son would thrive and become a great nation, Isaiah 54:6 portrays a compassionate God who calls back the rejected and restores their dignity.

Conclusion:

The argument that Isaiah 54 refers to Hagar relies on a specific interpretation of “barren” and the idea that Genesis 21:18 remains unfulfilled. However, Paul’s reinterpretation aligns with a longstanding theological framework in which Isaiah 54 symbolizes Israel and, by extension, the new covenant. While some may argue that Paul altered the original intent, his reading follows common Jewish exegetical methods of reinterpreting scripture in new covenantal contexts.

The Apostle Paul and the people of Kedar

Paul claimed that he was an apostle to the Gentiles. What was his connection to the people of Kedar, who were Gentiles and would enter God’s fold as predicted in Isaiah 42 verse 11 and Isaiah 60 verse 7? Kedar was the son of Ishmael, the ancestor of the Arab people.

This is a very interesting question. Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles, meaning that he preached the gospel of Jesus Christ to the non-Jewish nations. He traveled extensively throughout the Roman Empire, visiting places such as Cyprus, Asia Minor, Greece, Macedonia, and Rome. He also wrote many letters to the churches he founded or visited, which are part of the New Testament.
While Paul’s ministry was mainly directed towards the Gentiles in various regions, there is no specific mention or connection between Paul and the people of Kedar in the New Testament.

The people of Kedar were a nomadic tribe of Arabs, descended from Ishmael, the son of Abraham and Hagar. They are mentioned several times in the Old Testament as examples of the distant nations that would worship the true God. Isaiah 42 verse 11 and Isaiah 60 verse 7 are two of the prophecies that foretell the inclusion of the people of Kedar in God’s salvation plan.

The references to Kedar in Isaiah are prophecies that speak about the inclusion of Gentiles into God’s fold. These prophecies imply that people from various nations, including the descendants of Kedar, would come to worship and acknowledge God.

Although Paul’s mission was to bring the message of salvation to the Gentiles, his primary interactions were with the Greco-Roman world rather than specific Arab or Ishmaelite communities. However, there is no specific mention of Paul having a direct connection to the people of Kedar mentioned in those specific verses of Isaiah.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

Paul claimed that he was an apostle to the Gentiles. What was his connection to the people of Kedar, who were Gentiles and would enter God’s fold as predicted in Isaiah 42 verse 11 and Isaiah 60 verse 7? Kedar was the son of Ishmael, the ancestor of the Arab people.

This is a very interesting question. Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles, meaning that he preached the gospel of Jesus Christ to the non-Jewish nations. He traveled extensively throughout the Roman Empire, visiting places such as Cyprus, Asia Minor, Greece, Macedonia, and Rome. He also wrote many letters to the churches he founded or visited, which are part of the New Testament.
While Paul’s ministry was mainly directed towards the Gentiles in various regions, there is no specific mention or connection between Paul and the people of Kedar in the New Testament.

The people of Kedar were a nomadic tribe of Arabs, descended from Ishmael, the son of Abraham and Hagar. They are mentioned several times in the Old Testament as examples of the distant nations that would worship the true God. Isaiah 42 verse 11 and Isaiah 60 verse 7 are two of the prophecies that foretell the inclusion of the people of Kedar in God’s salvation plan.

The references to Kedar in Isaiah are prophecies that speak about the inclusion of Gentiles into God’s fold. These prophecies imply that people from various nations, including the descendants of Kedar, would come to worship and acknowledge God.

Although Paul’s mission was to bring the message of salvation to the Gentiles, his primary interactions were with the Greco-Roman world rather than specific Arab or Ishmaelite communities. However, there is no specific mention of Paul having a direct connection to the people of Kedar mentioned in those specific verses of Isaiah.

Connecting the Dots: Isaiah 60:7, the Hajj Ritual, and the Prophecy of Ishmael’s Descendants

Some believe that Isaiah 60, verse 7, is related to the Hajj ritual, and is the fulfillment of Hagar’s prophecy regarding Ishmael in Genesis 21, verse 18. How is this interpretation presented?

This is an interesting question. The interpretation that Isaiah 60, verse 7, is related to the Hajj ritual and the fulfillment of Hagar’s prophecy regarding Ishmael is based on the following assumptions:

The verse reads:

“All the flocks of Kedar will be gathered to you, The rams of Nebaioth will serve you; They will go up on My altar with acceptance, And I will glorify My glorious house.”

The flocks of Kedar and the rams of Nebaioth in Isaiah 60, verse 7, refer to the descendants of Ishmael, who was the son of Abraham and Hagar, and the ancestor of the Arabs. Kedar and Nebaioth were two of Ishmael’s sons (Genesis 25, verse 13).

The altar and the glorious house mentioned in Isaiah 60, verse 7, refer to the Kaaba. The Kaaba is a sacred building in Mecca that has a cube shape. Muslims believe it was constructed by Abraham and Ishmael. It serves as the direction of prayer and is also the destination for the Hajj pilgrimage.

The acceptance of the offerings on the altar and the glorification of the house in Isaiah 60, verse 7, refer to Muslims performing their Hajj, known as the Feast of Sacrifice. This sacrifice is performed in remembrance of Prophet Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son Ishmael and as a demonstration of submission to Allah’s will.

Furthermore, it is a prophecy of God’s acceptance and blessing of the Ishmaelites, who worship Him at the Kaaba in sincerity and submission, as He promised Hagar in Genesis 21, verse 18,

“I will make him into a great nation.”

This interpretation is presented by some Muslim scholars and commentators, who see it as a proof of the truth and validity of Islam and the Hajj ritual.

The Prophecy of Hagar and Its Fulfillment: A Comparative Analysis of Genesis 21:18 and Isaiah 60:7

There is a belief that the prophecy of Hagar in Genesis 21, verse 18, holds more weight than Isaiah 60, verse 7, which is linked to and completes the former. How is this understanding conveyed?

The belief that the prophecy of Hagar in Genesis 21, verse 18, holds more weight than Isaiah 60, verse 7, which is linked to and completes the former, can be understood through a close examination of the biblical texts and their contexts. Here’s how this understanding is conveyed:

1. Genesis 21, verse 18 (The Prophecy of Hagar).

This verse is part of the story where God speaks to Hagar after she and her son, Ishmael, are sent away by Abraham. Hagar is distraught, fearing for her son’s life in the desert.

The verse reads:

“Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation.”

This prophecy directly promises that Ishmael will become a great nation. This is a foundational promise, as it assures Hagar of her son’s future and his importance in God’s plan.

2. Isaiah 60, verse 7 (Completion of the Prophecy).

This chapter of Isaiah deals with the future glory of Zion, depicting a time of great prosperity and the gathering of nations to honor God.

The verse reads:

“All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto thee, the rams of Nebaioth shall minister unto thee: they shall come up with acceptance on mine altar, and I will glorify the house of my glory.”

Both Kedar and Nebaioth are descendants of Ishmael. This verse indicates the fulfillment and continuation of the promise given to Hagar, showing that Ishmael’s descendants will play a significant role in the future worship and honor of God.

3. Interconnection and Weight:

The prophecy in Genesis 21, verse 18, is seen as having “more weight” because it is the initial divine promise regarding Ishmael, establishing his importance and future. It is a direct communication from God to Hagar at a crucial moment. Isaiah 60, verse 7, is viewed as the completion or continuation of this promise. It confirms and elaborates on the fulfillment of God’s plan for Ishmael’s descendants, showing their eventual integration into the worship of God and their contribution to the glory of Zion.

The “weight” of Genesis 21, verse 18, lies in its foundational nature, while Isaiah 60, verse 7, provides a more detailed and expanded vision of the fulfillment of that initial promise.

This understanding is conveyed by recognizing that the original promise to Hagar is the cornerstone of the prophecy concerning Ishmael and his descendants.

The later prophetic vision in Isaiah builds upon this foundation, demonstrating the fulfillment of God’s promise in a broader and more comprehensive way. Therefore, while Isaiah 60, verse 7 is significant in its completion of the prophecy, Genesis 21, verse 18, holds a primary and foundational weight in the narrative.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

Genesis 21, verse 18, reads:

“Arise, lift up the boy and hold him in your hand; for I will make him a great nation.”

Did Paul know the significance of the prophecy of Hagar’s descendants as Gentiles and what lies in store for them in future?

Paul the Apostle, a key figure in the New Testament known for his epistles and missionary work, does not specifically address the prophecy of Hagar’s descendants as Gentiles in his writings. To understand this question, we need to break down several components:

1. Hagar’s descendants: In the Book of Genesis in the Old Testament, Hagar is the Egyptian servant of Sarah, Abraham’s wife. Hagar bears Abraham a son named Ishmael after Sarah herself is initially barren. God promises Hagar that he will make Ishmael’s descendants into a great nation.
2. Gentiles: The term “Gentiles” traditionally refers to non-Jewish people. In the context of the New Testament and Paul’s writings, Gentiles are often the audience of his missionary work, as he is known as the “Apostle to the Gentiles.”
3. Paul’s understanding of prophecy: Paul was well-versed in Hebrew scripture and often referenced Old Testament prophecies to support his teachings about Jesus Christ. However, he does not directly link the prophecy concerning Hagar’s descendants with the future of the Gentiles in his epistles.

Paul’s primary concern regarding the Gentiles was their inclusion in the salvation brought by Jesus Christ, as he believed that through Jesus, both Jews and Gentiles were offered salvation and could become part of the people of God. This is a theme that Paul revisits multiple times, emphasizing that faith in Christ, rather than adherence to the Law of Moses, is the path to righteousness and inclusion in God’s promises.

In Galatians 4, verses 21 to 31, Paul does use the story of Sarah and Hagar allegorically to contrast the old covenant under the law (associated with Hagar, Mount Sinai, and slavery) with the new covenant of freedom and promise (associated with Sarah and the Jerusalem above).

However, this allegory is meant to illustrate spiritual concepts rather than to provide commentary on the future of specific ethnic descendants.

The future of Hagar’s descendants, or Ishmaelites, as understood in biblical prophecy, is not a topic Paul explicitly addresses in terms of specific outcomes or roles for them in future events. He did not reveal what lies in store for Hagar’s descendants in the future. His focus is more on the spiritual implications of faith and the unity of believers under the new covenant in Christ.

Isaiah 54 and Hagar: Reassessing Paul’s Interpretation in Galatians 4

Some argue that Isaiah 54 refers to Hagar, with the term “barren” in verse 1 signifying Hagar’s land, the prophecy of which in Genesis 21:18 remains unfulfilled. Paul knew this and changed its interpretation to Sarah instead. How is their reasoning justified?

The argument that Isaiah 54 refers to Hagar rather than Sarah is based on a few key points:

1.The Use of “Barren” in Isaiah 54:1

• Isaiah 54:1 states: “Sing, O barren, you who have not borne! Break forth into singing, and cry aloud, you who have not labored with child! For more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married woman,” says the Lord.
• Some argue that “barren” here refers metaphorically to Hagar’s land (often linked to the wilderness) rather than Sarah.
• Genesis 21:18 contains God’s promise to Hagar that Ishmael will become a great nation, which some see as unfulfilled. They suggest that Isaiah 54:1 could be referencing a future fulfillment of Hagar’s descendants prospering.

2. Paul’s Interpretation in Galatians 4:27

• Paul quotes Isaiah 54:1 in Galatians 4:27, but he applies it to Sarah, linking it to the Christian message of freedom.
• He contrasts Hagar (the old covenant, slavery) with Sarah (the new covenant, freedom), seeing Sarah as the “barren” woman whose descendants (through Isaac and Christ) would become more numerous.
• Critics argue that Paul reinterpreted Isaiah 54:1 for his theological agenda, deviating from what they see as the original reference to Hagar.

3. Hagar as the “Desolate” One and Sarah as the Woman with a Husband

• The term “desolate” (שׁוֹמֵמָ֛ה, shamemah) in Isaiah 54:1 could be understood as describing Hagar’s situation after being cast out in Genesis 21. Her experience of abandonment mirrors the condition of the “desolate woman” in Isaiah 54:1.

In contrast, Sarah is understood as the Woman with a Husband, who ultimately bore Isaac within the covenant.

• Some suggest that, in its original context, Isaiah 54 speaks of restoration and an expansion of Hagar’s descendants, rather than Sarah’s.

4. Unfulfilled Promise in Genesis 21:18

• The promise to Hagar that Ishmael would become a great nation is seen as an ongoing prophecy.
• Those who argue for Hagar’s connection to Isaiah 54 suggest that Paul’s interpretation suppresses the potential application to Hagar’s descendants.

5. Isaiah 54:4-6 – Allusions to Hagar

These verses express themes of shame, abandonment, and restoration:

Verse 4:
“Fear not; for thou shalt not be ashamed neither be thou confounded; for thou shalt not be put to shame; for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more.”

This reflects Hagar’s experience of humiliation when she was cast out. God’s reassurance in Isaiah 54 mirrors His promise to care for Hagar and Ishmael (Genesis 21:17-18).

Verse 5:
“For your Maker is your husband—the Lord Almighty is his name.”

While Hagar was abandoned by Abraham, God Himself took the role of protector and provider for her, signifying divine restoration and care.

Verse 6:
“The Lord will call you back as if you were a wife deserted and distressed in spirit—a wife who married young, only to be rejected.”

This resonates with Hagar’s story of rejection and distress. Just as God assured Hagar that her son would thrive and become a great nation, Isaiah 54:6 portrays a compassionate God who calls back the rejected and restores their dignity.

Conclusion:

The argument that Isaiah 54 refers to Hagar relies on a specific interpretation of “barren” and the idea that Genesis 21:18 remains unfulfilled. However, Paul’s reinterpretation aligns with a longstanding theological framework in which Isaiah 54 symbolizes Israel and, by extension, the new covenant. While some may argue that Paul altered the original intent, his reading follows common Jewish exegetical methods of reinterpreting scripture in new covenantal contexts.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

One verse often cited in discussions of supersessionism in Islam is Surah Al-Ma’idah (Capter 5, verse 48):

“And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth.”

This verse suggests that the Quran serves as a confirmation and criterion over previous scriptures, reflecting the concept that Islam completes and supersedes prior Abrahamic religions. This idea is central to Islamic theology, emphasizing that the Quran is the final and most complete revelation from God.

Islam is considered as a restored religion of Abraham due to Judaism corrupting their text as regards a son whom Abraham was commanded to sacrifice. At the same time, Christianity corrupted their scripture concerning the oneness of God and the rite of circumcision. What is the explanation for this?

The belief that Islam is a restored religion of Abraham stems from the belief that both Judaism and Christianity deviated from the original teachings of Abraham. According to Islamic beliefs, Judaism corrupted their text by incorrectly interpreting the command to sacrifice a son, as mentioned in the Quran. Muslims believe that Abraham was commanded to sacrifice his son Ishmael, not Isaac as mentioned in the Hebrew Bible.

Similarly, Muslims believe that Christianity corrupted their scripture by deviating from the belief in the oneness of God (monotheism) and by modifying the rite of circumcision. Islam emphasizes the concept of tawheed, which is the belief in the oneness of God, and questions the Trinity as mentioned in Christian theology. Islam also practices circumcision, although the method and significance may differ from those in Judaism and some Christian traditions.

These differences and perceived corruptions are seen from the perspective of Islamic theology, which asserts that Islam is the restoration of the original teachings of Abraham, as revealed in the Quran.

Why don’t Jews and Christians convert to Islam?

Jews and Christians considering conversion to Islam may be faced with theological and historical factors that could pose challenges to their decision.

Converting to Islam can be challenging for Jews and Christians primarily because of the significance of the Hajj ritual. This ritual emphasizes that God designated Abraham’s lineage through Hagar and Ishmael, rather than through Sarah and Isaac.

In this context, it is believed that God made a covenant with Abraham through Ishmael instead of Isaac, alongside the special status given to the Israelites under the Sinai covenant. Additionally, in Islamic tradition, it is Ishmael, not Isaac, whom God instructed Abraham to sacrifice.

The Hajj pilgrimage in Islam is a central religious duty that commemorates the events surrounding Abraham, Hagar, and Ishmael. The ritual commemorates Hagar’s search for water for her baby Ishmael and the construction of the Kaaba (House of God) by Abraham and Ishmael.

The ritual emphasizes the significance of Ishmael in Islamic tradition, as it is believed that Ishmael, not Isaac, was the son whom God commanded Abraham to sacrifice. This differs from the Jewish and Christian narrative, where Isaac is the central figure in the sacrifice story. This variation in narrative can pose a considerable theological challenge for Jews and Christians contemplating a conversion to Islam.

Another point of divergence is the selection of Abraham’s family through Hagar and Ishmael in Islamic tradition, as opposed to Sarah and Isaac in Judeo-Christian tradition. For Jews and Christians, the covenant with Isaac and the lineage tracing through him are central to their religious identity. Converting to a faith that reveres Ishmael’s lineage may challenge their established beliefs and traditions.

Participating in the Hajj and reenacting Abraham’s actions can symbolize the affirmation of Ishmael’s significance in Islamic theology. This could pose a conflict for Jews considering conversion to Islam, as it may be seen as contradictory to their understanding of God’s covenant with Isaac.

In summary, the argument for the difficulty of Jewish and Christian conversion to Islam revolves around the differing beliefs regarding the selection of Abraham’s family and the prominence of Ishmael in Islamic tradition. The Islamic narrative highlights Ishmael’s key role in the Abrahamic covenant, while Isaac is linked to the Sinai covenant.

---

Some Islamic scholars question the authenticity of parts of the Torah, especially the story of Hagar and Ishmael. They argue that Genesis 21, verse 9 to 10, might have been added later, as Islamic tradition states this event occurred before Isaac’s birth, depicting Ishmael as an infant, unlike the Torah’s portrayal of him as older and mocking Isaac.

Additionally, the identities of the intended sacrifice differ: the Quran claims it was Ishmael, while the Bible states it was Isaac. This inconsistency leads some scholars to challenge Genesis 22, verse 2, where Isaac is called Abraham’s “only son,” since Ishmael was his firstborn for fourteen years.

In Islamic tradition, Ishmael is significant, especially in relation to the Prophet Muhammad’s lineage, and is seen as more important in the Abrahamic covenant, while Isaac is linked to the Sinai covenant.

In summary, the Islamic view raises doubts about certain Torah passages, suggesting timeline alterations in Genesis 21 and identifying Ishmael as the son in Genesis 22, verse 2, instead of Isaac.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

The British-Israel Theory, also known as British-Israelism, is a belief system that claims that the people of the British Isles, specifically the Anglo-Saxon peoples, are the direct descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. This theory emerged in the 19th century and has since been associated with various religious and nationalist movements.

Historical Background

1. Emergence: The concept began to take shape in the late 19th century, particularly during the period of British imperial expansion. As the British Empire expanded, some individuals began to draw parallels between the successes of the British Empire and the biblical narrative of the Israelites.
2. Influence of Christianity: The theory was largely propagated by Protestant Christian groups who saw it as part of a divine plan. They believed that the Anglo-Saxon people were chosen by God, analogous to the chosen people of Israel in the Bible.
3. Notable Figures: Important proponents of the theory include John Wilson, who published “Our Israelitish Origin” in 1840, and the British-Israelites, a group that promoted these ideas through pamphlets, books, and public lectures.

Key Tenets

1. Identity of the Lost Tribes: According to this theory, the ten tribes of northern Israel, which were conquered by the Assyrians and subsequently “lost” to history, migrated to Europe and eventually settled in Britain. Proponents often claim that the Anglo-Saxon peoples embody the essence of these tribes.
2. Biblical Connections: Advocates frequently cite various biblical passages to support their claims, believing in a direct lineage from biblical figures and asserting that historical events align with the narrative of the Israelites.
3. Divine Destiny: The theory often intertwines with notions of predestination, suggesting that Britain has a special role in world history and fulfills biblical prophecies, particularly those relating to the Second Coming of Christ.

Cultural Impact

1. Militarism and Nationalism: The theory found particular resonance in the context of British nationalism during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, at a time when there was considerable interest in imperial expansion and identity.
2. Movement and Organizations: Various groups have emerged from the British-Israel theory, including the British Israel World Federation and other smaller sects. These groups often promote a blend of theology, history, and nationalism.
3. Criticism and Controversy: The British-Israel theory has faced significant criticism from historians, theologians, and geneticists alike. Many argue that it reflects a misinterpretation of both biblical texts and historical evidence. Critics label it pseudohistory and point out that genetic studies do not support the claims of a direct line from the Ten Lost Tribes to the modern British population.

Modern-Day Relevance

In contemporary times, some groups continue to espouse British-Israelism, often aligning it with nationalist or even supremacist ideologies. However, it remains largely marginalized within mainstream academic and religious discourses.

Summary

In summary, the British-Israel Theory is a controversial belief that links the Anglo-Saxon people to the ancient Israelites, positing a connection that is both historical and theological. While it has played a role in the development of certain nationalist sentiments, it remains controversial and lacks empirical support from the academic community.

The British-Israel theory (also known as Anglo-Israelism) is the belief that the people of Great Britain (and sometimes other Western European nations) are descended from the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. This theory was popularized in the 19th and early 20th centuries, with various scholars, theologians, and writers commenting on or promoting the idea. Below are some notable scholars and figures who have addressed or been associated with the British-Israel theory:

1. John Wilson (1782–1875)

A Scottish theologian and one of the earliest promoters of British-Israelism.

Quote: “The Saxons, the Danes, and the Normans are all of the same stock, and their ancestors may be traced to the lost tribes of Israel.” (Lectures on Our Israelitish Origin, 1840)

2. Edward Hine (1825–1891)

A leading British-Israelite writer in the 19th century.

Quote: “The people of the British Isles are the literal descendants of the lost House of Israel, and the promises given to Abraham have been fulfilled in them.”

3. Rev. Joseph Wild (1834–1908)

A Canadian preacher who wrote extensively on British-Israelism.

Quote: “England is the land of Joseph, and her people are the people of the lost tribes. The marks of Israel are upon the Anglo-Saxon race.”

4. William Pascoe Goard (1863–1937)

A leading British-Israelite scholar and writer.

Quote: “The throne of David has been preserved in the British monarchy, fulfilling the divine covenant that David’s descendants would reign forever.”

5. J.H. Allen (1847–1930)

An American advocate of British-Israelism.

Quote: “The Saxons are Isaac’s sons, and the promises to Israel have found their fulfillment in the Anglo-Saxon race.” (Judah’s Scepter and Joseph’s Birthright, 1902)

6. Herbert W. Armstrong (1892–1986)

Founder of the Worldwide Church of God and a proponent of British-Israelism.

Quote: “The United States and Britain are the modern descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh, the birthright nations of Israel.” (The United States and Britain in Prophecy)

Criticism by Scholars

Many mainstream historians and theologians reject British-Israelism, arguing that it is based on pseudo-historical claims.

Professor Norman Cohn (1915–2007) (historian):

Quote: “British-Israelism is an example of how nationalist ideology can distort history to suit its own ends.”

The Rev. Canon W.H. Bennett (critic of British-Israelism):

Quote: “The theory is unsupported by serious scholarship and has no basis in biblical or historical fact.”

The Ten Lost Tribes of Israel

The following is an excerpt from A Popular Dictionary of Judaism by Lavinia and Dan Cohn-Sherbok.

TEN LOST TRIBES:

The tribes in the Northern Kingdom who were conquered by the Assyrians in 721 BCE. The ten Northern tribes almost certainly intermarried with the surrounding peoples and lost their separate identity. 2 Kings Chapter 17 maintains they were exiled by the river Gozan and the rabbis taught that they dwelt beyond the River Sambatyon. The Samaritans are probably descended from some of the tribes and, during the course of history, various other groups have been identified with ten lost tribes including the British, the Japanese, the Afghans, and certain Red Indian tribes.

The idea that the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel migrated to distant lands has led to various theories, some with historical evidence and others rooted in legend and speculation. Here’s a summary of how different groups, including the British, Japanese, Afghans, and certain Native American tribes, have been linked to the Lost Tribes:

1. British-Israelism (British)

Theory: British-Israelism, a belief that gained traction in the 19th and 20th centuries, holds that the British people, particularly the Anglo-Saxons, are descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes.

Justification: Some proponents cite linguistic similarities between Hebrew and English words.
The Stone of Scone, used in British coronations, is sometimes linked to the biblical Stone of Jacob.
The British monarchy is said to be a continuation of the Davidic line.
Some connect the movement of the Scythians (believed by some to be Israelites) into Europe with the eventual settlement of Anglo-Saxons in Britain.

Criticism: Mainstream scholars dismiss this theory as pseudohistory, lacking archaeological and genetic evidence.

2. Japanese-Israelite Theory

Theory: Some theories propose that the Japanese people or certain Japanese clans, such as the Shinto priestly families, descend from the Lost Tribes.
Justification:
Japanese customs resembling Jewish traditions, such as ritual purification, shinto priestly garments similar to the Jewish ephod, and some linguistic similarities.
The Hata clan, an ancient family of silk weavers, is believed by some to have Jewish ancestry.
The Torii gates in Shintoism are thought by some to resemble the gates of the ancient Temple in Jerusalem.
Criticism: Most scholars consider these similarities to be coincidental or due to cultural diffusion rather than direct descent.

3. Afghans (Pathans/Pashtuns)

Theory: The Pashtun (Pathan) tribes of Afghanistan and Pakistan are widely believed, especially among their own traditions, to be descendants of the Lost Tribes.

Justification: Many Pashtun tribal names, such as Yusufzai (“sons of Joseph”), resemble biblical names.
Their customs, such as circumcision on the eighth day, avoiding pork, and levirate marriage, are similar to Jewish practices.
Ancient Muslim historians like Al-Biruni and Ibn Khaldun recorded traditions connecting the Pashtuns to the Israelites.
DNA studies have been inconclusive, but some genetic markers have been found that could link them to the Middle East.

Acceptance: This is one of the more widely held theories, with support from some historical and genetic evidence.

4. Native American Tribes (Red Indians)

Theory: Certain Native American tribes, particularly among the Cherokee, Hopi, and some others, have been linked to the Lost Tribes.
Justification: Some early European explorers, such as James Adair, observed customs among Native American tribes that he believed were Jewish in origin (e.g., purification rituals, feasts similar to Passover, and the use of sacred names for God).
The Book of Mormon, in Mormon theology, teaches that some Native Americans descended from Israelite tribes that migrated to the Americas.
Some Native American oral traditions include references to a great migration from the East.

Criticism: There is no genetic or archaeological evidence to support the claim that Native Americans are directly linked to the Israelites. Most of their ancestry traces to Asia via the Bering Strait migration.

Conclusion

While the Pashtun (Pathans) have the strongest historical and traditional connection to the Lost Tribes, the British, Japanese, and Native American theories are mostly speculative.
Most scholars believe that the Lost Tribes assimilated into surrounding cultures, primarily in the Middle East and Central Asia.
The topic remains fascinating from a historical and mythological perspective, but genetic and historical evidence does not strongly support most of these claims.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

Jewish beliefs indicate that there were no prophetic warnings concerning the destruction of the Second Temple, in contrast to the warnings issued regarding the First Temple. Conversely, Surah 17:4 and 7 of the Quran affirm the existence of a prophecy pertaining to the destruction of the Second Temple, referencing the divine message conveyed by Jesus and John the Baptist.

The claim that there were no prophetic warnings about the destruction of the Second Temple in Jewish tradition, while the Quran affirms such prophecies, presents an interesting contrast between these religious perspectives.

Jewish Perspective

In traditional Jewish belief, there is indeed a notable difference in the prophetic warnings regarding the First and Second Temples:

1. First Temple: The destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE was preceded by numerous prophetic warnings, particularly from prophets like Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
2. Second Temple: There is less emphasis on explicit prophetic warnings about the Second Temple’s destruction in 70 CE within mainstream Jewish sources.

Rabbi Joseph said, “Prophecy ceased during the time of the Second Temple, and thus there was no prophet to warn of its destruction as there had been for the First Temple.” This statement suggests that during the period of the Second Temple, which stood from around 516 BCE to 70 CE, there were no prophets who received divine messages or visions to warn the people about the impending destruction of the temple.

Islamic Perspective

The Quran, in Surah 17 (Al-Isra), verses 4 and 7, does refer to two instances of destruction and defilement of the temple:

“And We conveyed to the Children of Israel in the Scripture that, ‘You will surely cause corruption on the earth twice, and you will surely reach a degree of great haughtiness’… ‘So when the final promise came, We sent your enemies to sadden your faces and to enter the temple in Jerusalem as they entered it the first time, and to destroy what they had taken over with total destruction.’”

The verse addresses two instances of corruption by the Children of Israel and describes divine punishments for these transgressions. The verses suggest that the first punishment corresponds to the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple. The second punishment is interpreted by many Islamic scholars as referring to the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE. The Quran states that enemies would enter “the Masjid” (interpreted as the Temple) and destroy it with utter devastation, just as they did during the first instance.

Islamic commentators often link this prophecy to historical events, with some identifying Jesus and John the Baptist as figures who warned against corruption and foretold divine retribution. These figures are seen as part of God’s message to guide and warn their communities before calamity struck.

Christian Perspective

The New Testament records Jesus predicting the destruction of the Second Temple. For example, in Matthew 24:1-2, Jesus says:

“You see all these things, do you not? Truly I say to you, there shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

This prophecy is seen by Christians as being fulfilled when the Romans destroyed the Temple in 70 CE.

In conclusion, while traditional Jewish sources may not emphasize prophetic warnings about the Second Temple’s destruction to the same degree as the First Temple, both Islamic and Christian traditions do record such prophecies. This difference in emphasis reflects the distinct theological perspectives and historical interpretations of these religious traditions.

The destruction of the Second Temple

The destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem occurred in 70 CE and is a pivotal event in Jewish history. Here’s a summary of the key points:

Background:

Second Temple Period: The Second Temple was constructed in 516 BCE, replacing Solomon’s Temple, and it became the center of Jewish worship and national identity.

Roman Rule: By the 1st century CE, Judea was under Roman control, leading to tensions between the Jewish population and Roman authorities.

Key Events Leading to Destruction:

1. Jewish Revolt: In 66 CE, a Jewish rebellion against Roman rule broke out, driven by religious and political discontent.

2. Siege of Jerusalem: The conflict escalated, culminating in the Roman siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE, led by General Titus.

The Siege and Destruction:

Roman Assault: The Romans surrounded the city, cutting off supplies and engaging in brutal tactics to break the Jewish defenses.

Fall of the Temple: On Tisha B’Av (the 9th of Av in the Hebrew calendar), the Romans breached the walls of the city. They set fire to the Temple, leading to its complete destruction.

Aftermath: The destruction of the Second Temple marked the end of the Second Temple period, leading to significant changes in Jewish life, including the shift towards rabbinic Judaism and the diaspora.

Significance:

Cultural Impact: The destruction had a profound impact on Jewish religion and identity, leading to mourning rituals and the development of new religious practices.

Historical Memory: Tisha B’Av is observed as a day of mourning for the destruction of both the First and Second Temples.

This event remains a critical moment in Jewish history, shaping religious practices and cultural identity for centuries to come.

Islamic Interpretation of Daniel 7: The Fifth Kingdom as the Rise of Islam

Numerous biblical scholars maintain that the four beasts described in Daniel 7 symbolize four distinct kingdoms: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Subsequently, the establishment of the kingdom of God is noted. In contrast, certain Islamic scholars assert that the fifth kingdom, which they identify as the kingdom of God, corresponds to Islam, as it arose subsequent to the Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire. What is the rationale behind this interpretation?

The Islamic interpretation of the prophecy in Daniel 7, which identifies the “fifth kingdom” (the kingdom of God) with Islam, is based on historical and theological reasoning. Here are the key points behind this interpretation:

1. Historical Succession of Empires

Daniel 7 describes four beasts representing four successive kingdoms. Many biblical scholars identify these as Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome.
Islam emerged in the 7th century CE, after the decline of the Western Roman Empire and during the weakening of the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire. Since Daniel’s vision mentions the establishment of God’s kingdom after the fourth empire, some Islamic scholars argue that Islam, which emerged after Rome, fulfills this prophecy.

2. The Fall of the Byzantine Empire and the Rise of Islam

The Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire was a dominant power before Islam’s expansion. Islamic scholars argue that with the conquests of the Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates, Islam effectively replaced Byzantine rule in large parts of the Mediterranean, the Levant, and North Africa.
The rapid spread of Islam and its dominance over former Roman territories is seen as a fulfillment of the prophecy that a divine kingdom would supersede worldly empires.

3. The Concept of God’s Kingdom in Islam

Jesus did not equate the kingdom of God that he preached with the religion of Christianity. Rather, the concept of the “kingdom of God” is frequently linked to the arrival of a figure resembling a son of man as described in Daniel 7.
Islamic scholars, however, interpret God’s kingdom as a system of governance based on divine law (Sharia). Since Islam established a political-religious order that claimed to rule by divine law, it is seen as fulfilling the vision of God’s kingdom replacing human empires.

4. Islam as a Universal and Everlasting Kingdom

Daniel 7, verse 14 describes the final kingdom as one that will never be destroyed. Islamic scholars argue that Islam, despite historical challenges, continues to be a major global faith and political influence.
The continuity of Islam as a religious and civilizational force is seen as evidence that it aligns with the prophecy of a kingdom that endures.

5. The Role of Prophet Muhammad in Quranic Prophecy

Some Islamic scholars extend this interpretation by linking it to prophecies about a future religion of Islam. They cite Surah 61, verse 9 of the Quran:

“He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion however much idolaters may be averse.”

Muhammad’s establishment of a religious-political order is viewed as the fulfillment of the divine kingdom prophesied in Daniel.
Conclusion

Islamic scholars interpret Daniel 7’s prophecy through a historical and theological lens, identifying Islam as the divine kingdom that follows Rome. They argue that Islam’s rise, territorial expansion, and legal-political system based on divine law fulfill the vision of a God-ordained kingdom that replaces human rule.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

The excerpt below is sourced from Peake’s Commentary on the Bible:

John the Baptist, however, an ascetic in both dress and habit of life, spoke with a ring of authority like that of the old prophets of Israel. It seems clear that John had no developed theological or ethical message to present to his people. At best he was merely a voice crying in the wilderness who exemplified the spirit of Elijah, the prophet whose coming again was anticipated in popular belief before the great and terrible day of the Lord’ (Malachi 4:5; Mark 9:12). John was an apocalyptic figure announcing the near approach of God’s judgment on men’s sins and proclaiming a baptism of repentance unto remission of sins in preparation therefor.

The baptism by John in running water was an apocalyptic sacrament that to his mind symbolised the genuine baptism in the stream of fire issuing from the throne of God, which the ’Coming One’ proclaimed by him would administer (see Carl H. Kraeling, John the Baptist (1951), 118-122). John never applied the term ‘Messiah to the Coming One whom he announced. This Coming One was to act as judge of men, sorting out the chaff from the wheat on the threshing-floor of judgment in his time, and the figure who most nearly fits this description is that, not of the Messiah as popularly conceived, but rather of the ‘Son of Man’ of 1 Enoch 37-71, who comes for judgment rather than for the salvation of the people of God.

---

The phrase “Son of Man” has been a source of significant debate among scholars, particularly regarding whether Jesus used it to refer to himself or to someone else. Here are some reasons why certain scholars argue that the “Son of Man” in Jesus’ parables and teachings could refer to someone other than Jesus himself:

1. Third-Person Language:
   In many instances, Jesus speaks about the “Son of Man” in the third person, rather than directly identifying himself with the title. This detachment can suggest he is speaking of another figure. For example, in passages like Matthew 24, verses 27 to 30, Jesus describes the coming of the Son of Man with great power and glory, which some interpret as a future figure distinct from himself.
2. Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition:
   The term “Son of Man” has roots in Jewish apocalyptic literature, particularly in the Book of Daniel (7, verse 13 to 14), where “one like a son of man” appears as a heavenly figure given dominion and authority by God. In this context, the “Son of Man” is seen as a messianic or eschatological figure who plays a central role in God’s final judgment and the establishment of God’s kingdom. Some scholars argue that Jesus may have been referring to this separate, messianic or eschatological figure rather than to himself.
3. Jesus’ Use of the Term:
   Jesus often used the “Son of Man” title in ambiguous or enigmatic ways, which may reflect his intention to describe a transcendent figure rather than himself. For example, in Mark 8, verse 38, Jesus speaks of the Son of Man coming “in the glory of his Father with the holy angels,” a portrayal that aligns with Jewish expectations of a messianic or eschatological figure.
4. Theological Development in the Gospels:
   Some scholars suggest that the Gospel writers, particularly in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), may have retroactively identified Jesus with the “Son of Man” figure to emphasize his role as the Messiah and judge. In other words, the original sayings of Jesus might have referred to a different eschatological figure, but later Christian theology reinterpreted the phrase to apply to Jesus himself.
5. Differences in Early Christian Traditions:
   There is evidence of diverse interpretations of the “Son of Man” within early Christian communities. Some groups may have understood Jesus to be pointing to an external figure who would fulfill apocalyptic roles, while others equated Jesus directly with the “Son of Man.” This diversity reflects the theological fluidity of the term in the first century.
6. Passages Suggesting Distinction:
   In passages like Luke 12, verses 8 to 9, Jesus states that “the Son of Man will acknowledge before the angels of God those who acknowledge him.” This phrasing could imply a distinction between Jesus and the Son of Man, as Jesus refers to someone else who will perform this act.

Conclusion:

The debate hinges on whether Jesus’ use of the term was self-referential or pointed to an external, divine figure. Scholars who argue for a distinction highlight the third-person language, Jewish apocalyptic background, and potential theological developments in the Gospels. This ambiguity leaves room for varied interpretations of one of the most complex and debated aspects of Jesus’ teachings.

Who Was John the Baptist in the Context of Judaism?

John the Baptist (Yochanan the Immerser in Hebrew)

Heritage and Family Background:

John the Baptist was born into a Jewish priestly family. His father, Zechariah, served as a priest in the Temple, which positions John within the religious elite of ancient Jewish society. This priestly lineage provided him with a deeply rooted connection to Jewish religious practices and customs.

Jewish Context of His Ministry:

John’s ministry took place within the context of Second Temple Judaism. He practiced and preached in the same cultural and religious milieu that was characterized by various Jewish sects, such as the Pharisees and Sadducees. His teachings were steeped in Jewish traditions and scripture.

Call for Repentance and Ritual Immersion:

He is known for his call for repentance, urging people to return to God and prepare for the coming of the Messiah. John emphasized the importance of spiritual renewal and moral rectification. His practice of ritual immersion (Tevilah) served as a symbol of purification, and it was a well-established Jewish practice to cleanse oneself in water as part of repentance rituals.

Adherence to Jewish Religious Framework:

Throughout his life and ministry, John operated entirely within the Jewish religious framework of his time. His teachings and actions were aligned with Jewish Law (Halacha) and the prophetic traditions of the Hebrew Bible. He did not advocate for the creation of a new religious system but rather sought to reform and renew Jewish faith and practice.

Judaism’s Perspective on John the Baptist:

In Jewish tradition, John the Baptist is not recognized as a prophet. While his role as a preacher and reformer is acknowledged, Judaism does not view him as a divinely appointed prophet akin to figures such as Moses, Isaiah, or Jeremiah. The criteria for prophethood in Judaism are specific and include direct revelation from God, which John does not fulfill according to traditional Jewish beliefs.

Conclusion:

In summary, John the Baptist is regarded as a significant religious figure within the context of Judaism, recognized for his calls to repentance and his role as a precursor to Jesus in Christian tradition. However, he is firmly rooted in the Jewish religious context and is not considered the founder of a new faith or as a prophet in Judaism.

Search

Search