Jeffrey Lang – Is Muhammad a Prophet of God 173
AI: Summary ©
The speakers discuss the implications of the Bible, including its universal message and weight on Christian beliefs. They emphasize the importance of forgiveness and the use of words to point to Jesus as a representative of God. The speakers also discuss the confusion surrounding Jesus's credibility and the importance of reading the Bible and understanding the title of Deuteronomy. They emphasize the need for graduation from false prophets and the importance of graduating from false promises. The conversation ends with a promise to continue the discussion later.
AI: Summary ©
We'll, continue with, our next session, and,
our next session
is,
titled
is Mohammed, a prophet of God.
And
for this session, as you might have
noticed in the other sessions,
we
took the path as
Jesus Divine, and now we move into the
second part of prophethood,
which is Muhammad,
Prophet of
God. And,
we're gonna start with a presentation
from
the Muslim side, and then,
comments by the, Christian side. So are you
ready, mister Jamar? Yes. You're gonna make the
presentation yourself?
Yourself? The brothers,
asking me to,
to do that, so don't mind.
Okay.
I have to begin first of all
in the same spirit
that was used in some previous presentation
by beginning with the points that I perceive,
of course, my Christian brother may disagree with
that,
but the point I I believe are
reasonably agreed to between the 2 groups.
1,
the historical
existence of prophet Mohammed and the fact that
we have plenty of information about him much
more as compared, for example, with information about
other prophets because of the length of his
mission for 23 years, and of course, the
relative recency of his coming.
Secondly,
that there's no question that he claimed
to be a prophet from God and to
be the last and final
messenger of God, and the question of authenticity
of that will come in the discussion of
the Quran.
3,
I don't think there is any difference that
prophet Muhammad claimed
that that the Quran was verbatim, the word
of God dictated to him by Angel Gabriel.
I'm not saying that they agree with the
claim, but I'm saying the claim was made,
I think this is point of agreement.
Firstly,
that there is no denial that there have
been multitudes
throughout human history, in the last 1400 years,
100 of millions of people
who accepted this claim,
making Islam not only an Arabian religion, which
is not, but actually a universal faith,
and a complete way of life, and reported
to be the fastest spreading religion in the
world, whether you talk about Africa, Asia,
or America, and Europe, for that matter. I
think there's little disagreement also on that.
Fifthly,
that his life, if one were to check
the most authentic sources and objectively without any
bias, will find a life of a man
with complete integrity and devotion to God. He
was called by his contemporaries, Al Amin, the
truthful or the trustworthy.
That, Muslims also
and Christians
alike,
would
conclude that his coming brought about major changes
in the world,
restoration of the worship of the one true
God, not only in Arabia, but in other
parts of the world
as well. That it brought enlightenment and development
in science and technology that provided the genesis
for the European renaissance. That the life of
the world and of Muslims was were completely
transformed
as a result of his mission.
The areas of difference perhaps
arise in my perception because again,
among Christians, there are all kind of variations
and there are some Christians
who talk to me personally,
who will say we believe in Muhammad as
a prophet.
But in any case, I the general attitude
is that he was not a prophet,
the Quran is not the word of God
and we'll come to that in the topic
of, of the Quran.
Many would say,
if he's not a false prophet or impostor,
at best they describe him as a mere
reformer,
religious, political,
social type of of reformer,
or at best a prophet in an emasculated
type of definition that sometimes lead to contradiction
that will be coming forth when we we
discuss this.
The second point of,
possible disagreement also,
is that Muslim belief on the authority of
the Quran, which is to them is number
1, the first most important reference.
As well as their understanding of many references
in the Bible,
that prophet Mohammed indeed was the one or
the personality
about whom many prophets in the past spoken
especially Moses, Jesus and others and that he
came actually to complete the mission
and conclude the
the chain of revelation that was given to
these prophets, before. This is definitely a point
I understand of different
understanding.
If I have time, I can give some
of the reasons why Muslims believe in this.
If time is up, I could, answer that
in a form of a question. So you
still have time? The reason again to put
it in a capsulized form, why must it
accept that?
Well, first of all,
that prophet Mohammed did claim that for himself
in no uncertain terms, that he is who
is a prophet. And we have seen in
an earlier discussion, the question of Jesus claims
for himself has been subjected to a great
deal of argumentation. I don't think there is
any difference that prophet Mohammed did make that
claim. It is not that somebody great was
living, and then his followers later on, oh,
Muhammad was so great, he must have been
a prophet. I don't think this should be
a point of difference at all.
Secondly,
Muslims have reasons to believe
that you could have not been lying
when he made that claim of revelation on
a number of grounds.
One, his absolute integrity that was known even
among his enemies, even before he was a
prophet.
That during his entire life, not once he
was even caught as making a single lie.
They have reason to believe it, secondly, because
in his own life and sacrifice,
it did not show a profile of an
impostor.
In fact, he lived in a poorer state,
in suffering, in pain, much more than he
would have been as a successful merchant living
comfortably without claiming property. That's not a profile
of an imposter.
Firstly, Muslims accept that because
there is no evidence whatsoever,
any credible argument that could be made historically
or scientifically,
that he was crazy, God forbid, or that
he was epileptic as some superficial writers in
the past have claimed,
that the nature of the Quran and celebration
does not show this kind of mental disturbance.
The Quran is not a result of that
mental disturbances.
So there is no reason to be like
him, there is no reason to say he
was crazy or hallucinating.
Number 5, Muslim accepted also because there have
been supporting evidence to that like other prophets.
There have been numerous miracles, not only the
Quran, which I'm coming to, but also there
have been many authentic physical miracles, much more
authentic than many other miracles attributed to, great
figures, before him, the greatest of which is
the Quran, but that's another topic.
Sixthly, Muslim accept that because they saw in
his life
embodiment of the truth and teaching.
He taught, as we mentioned yesterday,
Aisha, his wife described his character as the
Quran, he was a walking Quran. The word
of God actually
was more than just a word in a
book, but was also manifested and exemplified
in his behavior. So the word of God
did not become a book.
Finally,
Muslim accepted also because the kind of teaching
he brought forth, removed all riddles and confusion
in the lives of people,
corrected matters of
diversion in belief
that were introduced by human confusing human theology
and philosophy,
brought the most perfect
and most,
noble concept
of Tawhid, which is much more than monotheism
as we said before,
restored the devotion of God and in the
brought the sense of balance in worship
between the Jewish
formalism,
and ritualism,
or the looseness on the other side by
providing a reasonable balance. The ethical teaching he
brought, the complete and comprehensive guidance to the
life and finally,
as Jesus peace be upon him, once foretold,
when he was warning
his people, beware they will be false prophets.
So they asked him, how do we know
them?
That question is significant.
Because if Jesus meant to say that there
will be absolutely no prophet after me, He
would not give His disciples any criterion to
distinguish between true and false prophet. So his
answer said from their fruits he shall know
them.
And in fact whenever muslims were committed not
paying lip service, not using Islam for political
reasons, or nationalistic
to hide nationalistic aspiration as we see today
in different points of history. Whenever Muslims indeed
were truly sincere and committed
to the message of Islam brought through Prophet
Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa sallam, they were totally
transformed. As our brethren were talking about the
disciples whose life changed when they encounter Jesus
and his teaching. You find also numerous examples
of people who were murderers, were very very
bad in terms of their moral character, they
totally changed.
And the fruit,
resulted from this has provided guidance to the
world, spiritually
and materially. And whenever Muslims deviated from that
path, you find that they went down the
drain. So that again shows that indeed from
their fruits
ye shall know them.
Alright. This, particular topic puts, us as Christians
in a extremely awkward position,
because now we are touching on very sensitive
matters,
of faith.
It wasn't a sign topic, and so I
take it in that spirit.
Normally,
I would not,
talk about
the prophet Mohammed,
because I feel it is,
insensitive
often for Christians to do so. But with
that in mind,
let me just, make some comments. Let me
also say I have tremendous respect,
for the,
prophet Mohammed,
and for the way he was,
used to preach
and tell people in a polytheistic
context,
to return to the one creator God,
that the Bible speaks about.
Let me also say that,
I don't
have problems with saying that, Mohammed had a
prophetic role
in his context.
Christians think of the Kingdom of God, that
is the kingly rule of God, as being
broader than the church itself.
Furthermore,
Christians think,
often Christians speak in terms of special and
general revelation and would say that there is,
revelation
available
to all people,
in nature and in our consciences.
I would even go beyond this in relationship
to,
Mohammed
in that, so much of what Christians would
consider special revelation, that is that which is
in the Bible
and, in Christ. We see so much of
that reflected in the Quran,
that,
we certainly affirm this.
As I've indicated,
I will have no problem with saying that
Mohammed had a prophetic role contextually.
That is,
he was in
a context of polytheism, the worship of many
gods,
a context very similar to the prophets of
the Old Testament.
And his message in many ways,
reflected that, prophets of the Old Testament.
Turn from your gods. Turn from your idols.
Turn to the 1, creator God,
of the universe.
However, historically,
I have some problems.
I'd say chronologically,
I can ascribe to him a prophetic role.
Historically, I have some problems because I see
the message of of Mohammed
as, in many ways, a reversion,
to the Old Testament,
message.
And so I see it as a b
c a pre,
Christian message in some ways.
You see, because the epistle to the Hebrews,
the writer says,
in days of old, God spoke through the
prophets. But in these last days
and the last day seems to be a
reference to the,
a new quality,
the coming of the kingdom
in Christ, which will ultimately be fulfilled in
his second coming.
But,
in these last days, he has spoken to
us in his son. And so there is
a,
unique
quality
about,
the revelation
of Christ.
That's where I find problems with Mohammed because,
from a New Testament perspective,
if Muslims interpret the Quran correctly, or is
if most Muslims interpret the Koran correctly,
it seems to us
that Mohammed is giving misinformation
about,
God in Christ
and misinformation
about,
the crucifixion.
If, again,
and there are differences of interpretation even among
Muslims about, surah 4 verses 157
through 159.
But Matthew 24 verses 23 through 27
says that those who give miss information about
Christ
are,
false prophets, and this is something that we
have to wrestle
with.
You see, we also have, or at least
I also have certain problems with the equality
of some of the revelation,
that I find in the,
Quran.
Not only is, Muhammad accused by his enemies
in Surah 25 verses 56 or 45, depending
on your translation,
listening to tales of the ancients dictated
morning and,
evening.
So that there seems to be a human
source of, much
of at least some of his information.
But,
some of what I find in the Quran
does not seem to reflect
the canonical
scriptures,
which Jews and Christians had in their hands
and are referred
to, by Mohammed.
But,
refer
to other sources,
that we can identify today. For example, a
source that puts Abraham in the fiery furnace,
and which seems to be,
a
misunderstanding
of the text where ur is misunderstood
as,
or or nor.
And, we can go into that more later.
Furthermore,
it is
I have we have to wrestle with certain,
passages
like, sort of 33 verses verses 36 through
38,
where,
Mohammed is given,
what
appeared certainly to his wife, Aisha, as a
convenient revelation where he's given permission to marry
the wife of his adopted son.
And, Aisha is quoted in the traditions as
saying, truly thy lord makes haste to do
thy pleasure,
which would suggest a certain questioning,
of the message there.
Again, I don't I realized to ascribe sins
to a prophet does not mean a person
is not
a prophet from a biblical point of view.
Although increasingly
in history, Muslims have tended to feel that,
prophets are sinless. They just make mistakes.
But I we've got to wrestle with
passages
like Surah 4 verse,
5th excuse me. Surah 40 verse 57, ask
forgiveness for thy sin.
Surah 47
verse 21, for your sin, ask forgiveness.
482,
that god may forgive thee thy sins of
the past and those to follow.
And, I have looked in the ancient Arabic
commentaries on this, and they don't try to
explain
apparently, because, apparently, the earliest commentators
did not feel that a prophet had to
be,
sinless. And,
certainly,
Christians don't feel a prophet has to be
sinless, but I think it does raise certain,
problems to at least,
common,
more recent interpretations
of what apropit is. So these are, some
of the areas that we,
have to deal with.
Furthermore,
problems we have to deal with is just
the fact of,
Mohammed and the early Meccans raiding camel caravans.
One of the big problems is In Mecca?
What? In Mecca, you said?
No. Went from Medina. The caravans going into
Mecca. I realized that,
that can can be explained. But these are
things that, if a prophet
is sinless,
we have
at least I have problems,
with this.
And, I think I've, said enough to indicate
that, we have a tremendous respect
for him. I would allow for God even
working through him.
But when it when,
the Quran gives misinformation
from our point of view,
about Christ,
we have
trouble at that point calling,
him a true prophet. But there may be
others here who want to,
If If you have any more comments to
add, please.
Basically,
my attitude is
God gives a prophet.
The Christian
prophet. I cannot lose.
And so
I've had myself to come to a readiness
to accept, well, maybe Mohammed is a prophet
and,
try to be as honest as I possibly
could investigating
that.
So but I think
the burden of proof
lies upon the Muslim because there have been
hundreds of people who have come along and
said they are prophets.
For example, the,
the Muslim will not accept, the
as a prophet. Here's one who claimed to
be a prophet in,
the last century,
and yet you do not accept him.
There's a man named Joseph Smith.
Joseph Smith in the last century too. It
says here reading about this in 18/20 claimed
a heavenly vision,
which he said, singled him out as the
Lord's anointed prophet for this dispensation.
Though it was not until 18/23
with the appearance of Angel Maroney
at the quaking Smith's bedside
that,
Joseph Smith began his relationship
to the,
revelation.
And then it goes on to say,
the angel Moroni, the the glorified son of
1 Mormon,
the man for whom the famous book of
the same name is entitled, appeared beside Joseph's
bedside
and three times repeated his commission
to the awestruck,
Joseph Smith.
And, Joseph Smith wrote this down at a
later point. Now there's a difference here. Joseph
Smith is able to write himself.
Islam, of course, claims that Muhammad was
was illiterate.
But here's a man who's claiming to be
a prophet.
Now if Joseph Smith is a prophet, I
have to be open to that possibility.
But but the but the burden of proof
is upon the Mormons
to show that I should give up belief
in Jesus. And then there's another problem.
Having known
Jesus and what he can give, the relationship
he can give me to God,
I find I don't need any more.
Jesus said he will give to those of
eternal life.
He gives for forgiveness of sins. He gives
the Holy Spirit.
He he promises to prepare a place in
heaven for us.
All of the spiritual needs are taken care
of.
Everything after that
is sort of,
just a,
unnecessary.
So as I look upon
other prophets and the Bible also does say
there are other prophets after Jesus. There's one
Agabus who's a prophet. In fact, he talks
about the whole category of,
spiritual gifting for people who are prophets,
but they do not,
change
the the revelation or constitute
some new or reform
of existing religion.
Thank you. Okay. Doctor. Martin.
Just a brief comment.
I agree that,
there's no a priori reason
to deny
prophethood
in some sense
to Mohammed.
The decisive criterion
for me
as to a prophet
is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus
Christ.
And
where I see,
where the content of that prophetic message
is confirmed
by that
in Jesus Christ.
I fully
affirm
that prophetic message.
But as mentioned before, where there is
disagreement,
then I have
then I have difficulties.
But the criterion for me
is
the life, death, and resurrection
of Jesus Christ.
Thank you.
I'll move forward. Yes. I think this is
one of the areas where
Christians struggle very hard along about what thinking
of Mohammed and the prophet of of Mohammed.
I think there are many things that
he did and said and accomplished
that, I, as
reflected on this over the years, that
somehow the way of Christ and the way
of Mohammed,
while they share much in common, There are
some, you know, very fundamental
differences.
And even if we set aside the divinity
of Christ for the moment,
somehow,
the way that Jesus walked,
his ministry,
the things that he taught,
the passion of Christ,
the death of Christ, the resurrection of Christ,
All of this
is
God's way
of ultimately
overcoming
evil,
and setting us free from the power of
Satan.
It is God's way of redeeming, we could
say, the world.
It's not something that just happened
circumstantially.
Jesus went the way of the cross because
the Romans were so powerful.
There was no other alternative.
This was really God's way
But somehow coming to grips with evil, and
in that struggle,
conquering and overcoming evil,
and so setting us free and letting us
share in God's victory.
I don't see that in Mohammed. I see
a very different style, a very different
path that he
trod.
One sees this very clearly, I think, in
the Medina
passages.
But the idea of,
of victory through defeat,
a victory through suffering,
of bearing the sins, and then bearing them,
bearing them away.
I I don't see this in Mohammed, and
I don't hear Muslims talk about that either.
That's not perhaps the role that they see
Mohammed as fulfilling this. God's way
of ultimately
overcoming the powers of darkness and of evil.
If it is, then, you know, I think
we need to talk about these things, the
way of Christ, even apart from his divinity.
Just the very way of Christ
and the way of Mohammed. To me,
while they share much, seems to me these
very fundamental differences These are things I hope
that we can talk about. Thank you. Can
we move?
Yes. I think everyone has a chance now.
Okay. Well, first of all,
the,
the points made by doctor Woodbury that the
rule of the prophet was valid in its
polytheistic
context,
and the distinction between private revelation and public
revelation,
or general revelation. In fact, the Quran testifies
that the revelation given to the Prophet in
addition to the private one, is in in
essence really,
for all mankind.
The verse in the Quran, We have not
sent you O Muhammad except as Mercy, rahmatalalalameel,
to the whole world.
In the Quran, he is instructed,
You ayo Ar Rasulubalaknaunzilayilaykamrabbik,
O Messenger, convey that which has been revealed
to you from your Lord. The evidence is
just overwhelming to come back and say that,
the revelation was, a special revelation to the
prophet.
The question of context, again, sometimes is exaggerated.
Many historians
and the Quran itself testifies to the fact
that it was not necessarily a totally polytheistic
type
of, setting in a sense of believing of
many gods. And the Quran itself mentioned, when
those pagan Arabs were asked
about who created the heavens and earth, they
say God,
Allah.
But they say those idols, they worshipped only
as intermediaries to bring them closer to God.
So I don't think we're really talking just
in a purely polytheistic type of,
upsetting as you might say perhaps in the
Hindu faith
or or Greek
approach. It's quite different. It's a question of
intermediary,
which is relevant in the case of Christianity.
In another sense, those talk idols and intermediaries.
In the case of Christianity, of course Jesus
is regarded as mediator and the Quran condemn
both. So that's far from being a message
only to his people.
In the Quran also, there are numerous place
which addresses the people of the book, I.
E. Jews and Christians in particular,
and correct them. Actually like one verse,
Oh people of the book, don't exaggerate in
your religion, and don't say anything about God
which is not true.
Jesus, son of Mary is no more than
than a prophet, many prophets went before him.
So that shows again that the message of
the Quran even from the early Makki period,
was addressed to the whole of mankind. There
are actually that speak about the universality
and generality of the message of the Prophet.
Secondly, on the question of, historically, you said
that there's a sort of reversion,
to the old testament
and the provision of misinformation
about the deity and crucifixion or the stories
of some prophet. I think the question comes
back again, where did the misinformation
come from? On what basis are we saying
that the Quran contains misinformation
rather than saying that the previously recorded,
record that's available, actually gave misinformation
and again this is not a muslim point
of view as we have seen again, scholar
after scholar have indicated that many of the
information that you find in the bible are
not necessarily a reflection of what,
the original prophets thought. There is doubt about
even the author said that the topic that's
coming at a later time. So where the
misinformation came from? Doctor Lang referred earlier to
the gospel of Thomas, which doesn't speak about
the crucifixion of Jesus. It speaks about him
watching even the crucifixion, the gospel of Barnabas,
and I know it contravention as it may
be. So the question here, where did the
misinformation
come from? From the Quran?
Or from the records that preceded the Quran?
Now, when you say that the Quran says
that,
there is some reference to the Quran being
derived from previous scriptures because it talk about
Asatir al Awaleen. You perhaps
did not remember to quote the remaining part
of the verse which responds to that.
Say O Muhammad, the one who revealed it
is the one who knows the secret of
heavens and earth. And if the pagan Arabs
would try to, to find any flaw
with the teaching of the Prophet,
by raising these silly claims that he based
it on previous scriptures, failed. And the Quran
was revealed not once,
over 23 years the challenge was coming to
them day after day after day. None of
them could come up with any critical evidence
that the Prophet actually is facing death. So
the Quran mentioned that not as a proof
that the Quran was derived from previous scriptures,
but to say they accuse this, but it
responds.
Had this been any credible accusation, and the
Prophet is making up the Quran, he would
not mention it. How do you mention some
accusation against yourself?
That means it's a very empty accusation and
that's why Quran the Quran freely mentioned and
say, produce Hatu Qur'anakum. Produce evidence if you
have any evidence. They failed miserably over 23
years.
The reference that you made that some of
the problem that you had, doctor Woodbury, was
the character of the Prophet, peace be upon
him.
It sounds quite offensive to the Muslims and
I must be open with you on this.
To for on one hand for some Christian
brethren to say we respect the Prophet,
that he did great things, maybe God even
had revealed certain truth through him.
But in the second part of the verse,
we're accusing him of giving misinformation I. E.
Lying by giving information in the Quran and
claiming that it came from God because God
doesn't give misinformation.
Or to, say that, in the Quran there
is something by way of marriage of convenience
suggested there, which in one sense again, belying
him. I respect him who is a liar,
who says
that, God forbid,
I, God said this, you could marry,
the Zaynath, the daughter of your so called
adopted and I come to that question, adopted
son, yet he claimed that the whole liberation
is from God. I think this is an
issue that I referred to earlier that even
some of our Christian brethren,
who even say we acknowledge Muhammad as a
prophet, it's provided an emasculated picture and sometimes
leading what what I called earlier self contradiction.
We don't want just make a statement for
public relations really, we have to be honest
about it, either we give evidence or
we take one position or the other. And
for your information,
the marriage of Zainab has been discussed quite
clearly in the Quran itself, let alone even
interpretation.
It has absolutely nothing to do with marriage
of convenience.
Zain was not,
was not the adopted son of the Prophet
in a sense that is understood here in
the West, and the legal system in Islam,
and that's the reason for that revelation according
to the Quran
itself, is that a person who is adopted,
used to be regarded as a blood
child,
and as such it would be improper
for the father, quote unquote, the adopting father
to get married to the divorcee
of his adopted son.
Secondly, according to the western system also, it
still continues and that was among the Arabs,
that the adopted son also inherits
just like a natural son.
Islam came to forbid that and even before
the marriage, even before the marriage of the
Prophet to the wife,
the divorcee
of Zayd who was his adopted
son,
that the verse itself or the surah, surah
30 says Azza begins actually with negation
of the fact that the blood child is
not to be regarded. You could be kind
as a foster parent, but not in the
Jahili or the pre Islamic system, which again
like I said, basically the Western system.
And as such there is absolutely nothing wrong
with that, and the permission was given from
God. In fact, the Prophet himself was hesitant
according to the testimony of the Quran. وَالَةq
Malahu Mufti
And as Muftazir indicates the Prophet was even
hesitant when God informed him
that Zayd has a big dispute with his
wife that he will ultimately divorce her and
that God will command the Prophet, not marriage
of convenience.
The God will command, that was nakaha, the
text of the Quran, we gave her to
you in marriage.
God commanded the Prophet to get married in
order to break that vicious cycle of this
old kind of things, thinking that existed,
among them. And the Prophet was hiding was
hiding.
I didn't say marriage of convenience. Yeah. Or
whatever.
Question about characters, whichever way. He was talking
about
what would seem to be
Let's be let's be frank about it. No.
Listen to the Quran because the Quran speaks
about it. Leave alone, The Quran itself speak
about it. And to say that this was
of convenience mean it was and lying and
saying that this is revelation for God. Let's
put the score quite clear on this. Doctor.
And the let me finish We're running out
of time, please. We're running out of time,
so you should make the conclusion and, you
know, delay the rest of the Okay. On
the question of, of the then
the question of verses in the Quran that
speaks to the prophet seek forgiveness of your
sin. I think again there is a problem
here with understanding the context of the Quran
and the language of the Quran itself also.
As far as the language is concerned, the
linguist make a distinction between
and that was never mentioned about the prophet.
And Itm actually means deliberate disobedience of God.
No where in the Quran does it accuse
the Prophet of committing Itm deliberate disobedience.
Secondly, there is Fahesha.
Fahesha which means something which is very bad
in its evilness.
Like vulgarity, like adultery, or fornication. Nowhere in
the Quran does it say that about the
Prophet Muhammad or any other Prophet for that
matter. And then linguistically there is another term
which appears in the verses that you quoted,
Them. And the word Them
actually means something that could be inattention,
a matter of inattention.
And actually it could mean them but also
in a sense of
in the sin that people committed against you.
That also is, you know, acceptable linguistically.
But even if you take that meaning then
we have to put it in the proper
context as well described by Muslim,
mystics.
Hasalatul Abraar Sayyatul Mukarabeel
It depends on the level of spirituality.
For a common man like me, if I
do something very good and say this is
great, goodness that I did.
For a more pious person, what I did
is sinned.
It's worth nothing.
So they depending on the level you go,
so once you move to the level of
prophets,
known it is well known and just one
minute more, just to finish that point. It
is well known.
The phraseology in the Quran is quite clear
that many times it addresses people
through the Prophet.
And when it says, wastaq al idam beq
seek forgiveness, it's actually teaching to the Umman,
that give you more evidence if I have
time, of the Quran addressing people through the
Prophet. And that teaches people humility. Here is
the pure person.
And the Quran tell him seek forgiveness of
God. Just like Jesus in the Lord's prayer,
forgive us our sins. Jesus was included. This
is the humbleness that should be demonstrated by
the prophets. There are more important points that
I saw because of the time. Thank you.
I think,
I'll take
one one from the Muslim side and we'll
move to the question. It's unfair. No. It's
not it's not unfair.
Because it took more time. We will come
back. So equal time. Go ahead, sir. I
I just wanted to address the issue of,
overcoming evil and the message of,
of, Christianity was mostly one of how to
deal with suffering and
overcoming evil through suffering.
No. I'm not going to argue about that
or say that's a bad message or anything
to that effect. I only wish to say
from the Muslim perspective,
The,
Quran
was revealed
not to glorify
Mohammed
and not simply
to teach,
the Muslim
to how to suffer
or how to be patient in suffering.
The Muslim sees,
the Quran's message as much more comprehensive.
It's not simply and and the teachings of
Mohammed, for example, also. It's it involves, of
course, the message is there how to bear
up under suffering and to suffer,
with patience
and dignity.
But it's also the the the message also
entails
how to act when one is victorious.
How to
in the inevitability,
conflict with other peoples and in the inevitability
of war. How to fight and fight justly.
How to fight a just conflict and hide
how to fight,
a humane war. The the central message of
the Quran is not about Prophet Muhammad, peace
be upon him. And I know that's difficult
for Christians to understand where the central concept
revolves around
Jesus Christ. For the the name Muhammad, for
example, peace be upon him, only appears 3
or 4 times in the entire text. If
that much, I don't have an accurate count
with
me right now. The Essential Message, in short,
is basically to preach submission to God.
To correct from the Muslim point of view
and a Koranic point of view, earlier distortions
of that truth.
And to guide the believer to to his,
moral and spiritual growth and to,
obtain nearness to God and to,
receive and experience
the infinite love and mercy and compassion that,
flows from God. Thank you.
But we'll move now to your side. So
do you have any comments to make?
We we didn't Or question? For the question.
I know. Alright. I know. So please let
me
manage it in this way.
I can just mention,
one small point on the, dam issue. Again,
it it's not a major issue for the
Christian because,
the Bible describes prophets sort of warts and
all.
It has sinful
beings and it does not,
detract,
from their
profit ness.
What determines their profit ness is whether,
God spoke through them.
But, both,
Andre
Tor Andre and Anna Marie Shimmel,
in books on, the prophet Mohammed,
have traced how historically
the earliest
commentators and I have
worked through the Arabic of the earliest commentators
on words like them and so forth,
Seems the earliest people accepted
that,
Mohammed was a sinful
man.
And but then the fear the, theology
developed,
that he and the other prophets were without
sin.
And,
this can be this has been shown by
Tor Andre and Anna Marie Schimmel in the,
records. And so,
if
sinlessness
is considered to be a sign of
prophethood,
which,
apparently Muslims make it.
It,
it is,
it's difficult for us to put the 2
together.
Okay. Okay. Let's go to,
just This one other thing. Where we figure.
That is one
be confusing. Let's take one at a time.
Let them take it? Correct. Okay. Then then
we can one
one point.
Doctor Woodbury, with all due respect,
what do you say about Jesus himself
seeking forgiveness for his sin included with others?
Now you're gonna tell me that he is
speaking as a man?
You're referring to the no. No. If you
are referring to the Lord's prayer, if you
will notice that this follows the
disciples saying, teach us how to pray.
And so he puts it in that context
of a plural, this is how you pray
when you pray. Say
our father. Fine. He is not told to
make this confession for himself.
But,
in my reading of these verses I referred
to in the Koran, which is
repeatedly
told to be in plain Arabic.
There is no,
preface on,
teach us how to pray or anything like
this. This seems to be a direct reference
to Mohammed.
There is one point to mention here.
First of all,
I would like to use the Quran itself
as a reference for the sins of Prophet
Mohammed.
Can I? Would this be satisfying to you
if I do that?
Okay. Well, well, go ahead. Okay. I will.
I will. Not be mentioned in the Quran.
Fine.
Fine. If, if the Quran talks and mentions
something,
right? Or the Bible talks and he mentions
something, right? But then leaves it up to
our imagination,
it will be up to everybody's speculation.
The Quran does not do that. That is
not the style of the Quran. The Quran
did not only hint but deliberately
explained
issues in which the prophet
did mistakes,
and the Quran corrected him on account of
different issues. I take for example,
in Surah Abasa, I don't know the number
I can give it to you now.
Surah Abasa, in the last chapter of the
Quran, the prophet has been,
brought to the attention
that you prophet Mohammed was sitting with rich
people, and a poor blind man came approaching
you. Number 80. And I'm Surah number 80.
And here you are not paying attention to
him.
You're paying attention to the rich. And the
Prophet was sitting with those rich guys, the
heads of the tribes trying to call them
to Islam. And he thought this is more
important,
so God is considered this a mistake, so
he's guiding him to this. On another account,
when Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala reveals the verse,
O Prophet Muhammad, why prohibit
thee?
What is made halal for thee? What is
made lawful for thee? And then he continued
to refer to him that he did not
want to marry,
this woman,
the wife of Zayed after she is divorced
because of the norm
established in Arabia then. So God is telling
him that is not right, it is wrong.
We are establishing a new law here. Those
claimed adopted sons, and the word claimed is
the word acclaimed is used deliberately
to explain to the Prophet and to the
Muslims after him that those claims
do not make those adopted sons real blood
cells. So it is a correction to the
Prophet. So when God reveals to him
the word,
seek forgiveness for your sins,
and the Quran did not leave it to
our speculations
as to what kind of sins did he
do. The Quran mentioned them. Had the Quran
been the word of Prophet Muhammad,
why should it mention his own sins?
Or why did the prophet
leave claims and accusations against his wife, it's
safe for 15 days? Why would Prophet Muhammad
not,
answer immediately when 2 of
the pagan Arabs approached him, Al Nogar and
Abharat,
and they first, Prophet Mohammed tell us about
the story of the people of the cave.
And he did not answer for 15 decades.
Right? Well this is not a problem for
the Christians because we don't I I would
like to add one more point. It is
not a problem for the Christians because the
Christians accepted
Paul as an authentic source of revelation, while
Paul ended up admitted lies.
It is no problem for the Christians, but
it is a problem for us.
Just one quick addition, the question of infallibility
of the Prophet, I think is a is
a bit confusing here. When Muslim believe in
the infallibility, not only of Prophet Muhammad of
all prophets, we're not saying that they're not
humans, but infallibility applies to 2 aspects. 1,
the correctness in conveying the message of God.
And that's why I disagree with doctor Woodbury
when we're saying the prophets in the bible
are simple. We don't believe they were sinful
in that sense. And there there is no
parallel in the Quran of David committing adultery
with the wife of Uria
or Aaron acquiescing to the making of the
golden calf or Solomon's heart being inclined
to the to the pagan,
gods of his wife. There is absolutely no
parallel because according to Muslim understanding of infallibility
that it precludes any confusion of belief. Secondly,
it precludes any major sin that blemishes the
moral character of the person that disqualifies him
from being the exemplification
of the moral
ethical message that he came to teach, and
that's why we don't believe that David, for
example, committed adultery.
But in terms of making mistakes of interpretation
or istihad,
there is no problem at all on that,
and that applies to Jesus, to Moses, to
Muhammad, to any other prophet in history. It
depends on how much information do we have
about their life. And even the incident that,
Shakir mentioned,
was not an incident that the prophet really
was,
attracted by the glitter of the rich. His
rationale was that those are powerful people, other
people will follow them. If he attack them
to the truth, he would remove the oppression
on the poor people, and might also encourage
other public
to embrace Islam. And then the question that
was raised earlier about the attacking the caravans,
I think that's a total misrepresentation
quite frankly of what happened. Muslims were suffering,
and the Prophet suffered, not unlike Jesus. Jesus
suffered for 3 days, for 3 years.
Prophet Muhammad and the Sahaba suffered for 13
years, all kind of torture, and they followed
that. If Jesus lived more, he might have
adopted a different approach. For 13 years, not
3 years, they suffered. So that concept was
there, suffering and sacrifice.
Now when they were kicked out under persecution,
lost their homes, lost their property, and it
was reported by some historians that some of
these property were taken away by the pagan
Arabs.
Muslims were more than justified to
intercept
the caravan of the unbelievers
who took away their property. Just like when
you have a state of war in the
modern terms, You have every right to have
locate, you have every right to take the
property of the enemy who have already taken
your land and your property. Thank you.
Mister Justin, please.
Well, it is quite clear from the Koran
itself that he's supposed to ask forgiveness for
something.
And even if you
use a tactic which could be used even
with,
the sin of,
David, which, is is, clearly,
attested to.
You could say in Hebrew,
he you could say in Hebrew, there are
are are some 10 words for sin.
And if you wanna soften the effect of
that, say, well, when in Psalm 51,
David,
admits his sin, he doesn't use all 10
of those
terms for sin. He uses just one. Then
you could say, well, there's this other term.
He didn't use that.
But it really doesn't make any difference which
term for sin you use or which level
of,
sin. Surely, some sins are worse than others.
And and we're not saying that Mohammed did
the worst of all sins, but we are
saying that it's clear from the Quran that
he needed forgiveness.
And if the Quran is correct, there must
have been something that needed forgiving.
And it is speculation to limit it to
certain things. You don't know just what how
many sins or what areas of sin were
referred to there. But what is clear is
that there is forgiveness
that is, essential according to the Quran itself.
Without if there's if there's no sin, there's
no need for forgiveness.
I'll ask you one question or any of
the brothers, Christian brothers
here on the planet. Do you know what
the word that appears in the Quran in
Arabic mean?
What various shades of meaning of the word
That the verses that doctor Woodbury referred to?
Speaks out of the flow there, doctor,
how Very Well, what do you tell us?
I'll tell you, yes, but I'm just asking
you, so that you're making interpretation, just to
see what what basis you have. Yeah. Go
ahead. Well, it relates to some kind of
forgiveness covering,
Covering is one meaning. Do you know are
you aware also that
means protect?
To protect you from sin, and this is
one legitimate interpretation that was given.
It it is. Right now? The Quran was
revealed in Arabic,
Reverend Chastain. It has to be understood within
the expression in the Arabic language. The earliest
commentators
don't understand it in that way though. Okay.
I would They didn't say that the prophet
was
simple in the sense that you're trying to
bring about to disqualify him from prophethood.
And if we take the word them because
this the interpreter also have to refer to
the wording of the Quran.
And there is difference, big difference between the
words zam and Tahisha and Ethn. And then
like Shaker said,
no problem, All prophets, not only Muhammad, all
prophets could make and are capable
of making mistake,
mistakes of interpretation
with good intention,
not to deliberately
disobey God. There could be no apology for
that, there's no problem. That's the humanity of
God. Something when Jesus spoke to his mother,
and he called her woman, instead of saying
mother.
Is this a mistake? Or is this,
the show of kindness that he even personally
called people too, to their parents?
I I think we have covered this. It's
a mistake. I think I think, I think
I have to stop you for for a
while. Okay? And we're gonna listen to you.
So could you
please do you have do you have anything
to
add? Or ask me.
Do you do you foresee doctor
Cole is is leaving in about 20 minutes.
He's got a plane to leave. So Of
the new You would like to You were
describing the the comparison of Jesus and Mohammed.
Is that something you wanna develop, or is
there something you wanna talk about? Because,
Paul has to leave your He's leaving Maybe
I'll just say a short word. First of
all, let me say, a personal word of
of thanks,
to all of you for this
wonderful opportunity
to be with you and to get to
know you and for your very warm hospitality.
Even though we are talking about issues that
we have some very important differences,
though I think we have some deep unities
also that are the context for our being
able to speak.
Even though we have these differences,
friends can have differences, and that's the meaning
of a friendship.
So I want to thank you very much.
I say this because I have to leave
about, 10 to 1
to get back to Minnesota.
One thing I would just like
to say very briefly is I I think
it is I feel it is
somewhat unseemly as, I think, Woodbury mentioned earlier
to,
to
besmirch
the character of of Mohammed.
I I do not know
all of the details that have been discussed
here,
But
as has been said in in in the
biblical understanding of prophethood,
there is not a requirement of perfection,
to guarantee that prophethood. So that is simply
not, I don't think, a fundamental
issue,
between us.
What
I find,
is
quite is decisive for me
is
the the fundamental
style
or
shape
of the prophethood
of Mohammed
and of Jesus.
I do not
agree
that
the death of Jesus,
was
accidental.
I think I think the scriptures are very
clear
that,
Jesus faced death,
in full knowledge
and in full determination
not to raise his hands against his enemies.
That was a matter of principle.
And what I do not hear in the
Quran,
in the message of the Quran,
is the message of Jesus
when he says, I came not to be
served,
but to serve and to give my life
as a ransom for many.
That spelling out
of the character of God
in that way
is something I don't find
in in the Quran. And,
so that gives me difficulty.
Okay. I I would like I
would like. Can, can we get either doctor
he didn't speak till now, so we'll listen.
I I I wouldn't take too long, Hamid.
Okay? There's no noise in that, sir. Sorry.
I have a couple of comments here that
I would like to make on what Doctor
Woodbury and
Doctor Vogler and Doctor Myerson have said about,
Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.
Doctor Woodbury said that he's having difficulty
with what is written in the Quran because
he considered that as a reversion
to the Old Testament's
prophets and what they thought. We consider that
as a correction
to,
the mistakes
and misinformation
that had crept into the original message that
had been
taught by God Almighty through all
his prophets.
Doctor Morrison said that the fundamental issue or
the difficulty that he is having
is that Muhammad peace be upon him does
not testify to the divinity of Jesus that
Jesus came to die,
for the cross.
But he ignored
the point that these are the church made
council formulated
doctrines. These are not actually the teachings
of, Jesus,
peace be upon him. As a student of
the bible and of the Quran, I can
clearly
see that the message of,
Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph,
Moses,
Solomon, David,
Jesus and Mohammed stand on one side of
the issues
and the
church and the council teaching that had been
debated later on and established as original Christian
doctrines stand completely
on the other side of the fence.
My dear friend, Harold said that
the main issue for,
Jesus, peace be upon him, to conquer evil
And doctor Meyerson also said that he does
not see anything in the Quran
that relates to what Jesus said.
However he ignored
the points
in Saint Luke in which Jesus asked his
followers
to sell their shirts to buy a sword
and the verse that says but for my
enemies bring them under my feet and slay
them before my eyes.
So these are verses that attributed to the
person of Jesus.
Reverend Boglar also said that the whole issue
here is to conquer
evil. But if you look at any
Christian
society,
I I have not seen that conquering of
evil.
I have seen as a matter of fact,
the tremendous
increase
in the most heinous
crimes from adultery to murder,
to insist,
to every kind of sin.
So how come if this is true how
come these Christian societies have not accomplished the
conquering over
evil? Yeah. I would love to hear a
response from you, please.
Well, concerning the societies,
it is,
clear in the scripture that the
Christianity
relates to those who take it seriously individually.
So there's a Christian belief. You really don't
have Christian nations.
As you know, Islam unites politics and religion
and Christianity is making a distinction between them.
So where you have to measure the effectiveness
of
fact that
which attracts many Muslims to come here. In
fact, many come here implying greater liberty here
than they had in Muslim countries.
They're coming here, but
one of the disadvantages,
of course, is that, if you have much
liberty, people will abuse it and you'll have
a sin. If you have a repress
society,
perhaps something somewhat like Islam,
you won't be able to, say, buy *
magazines, but there'll be other kinds of sins.
So it's just a
a different
kind of sin that occurs in other societies.
The Bible is clear. All have sinned and
come short of the glory of God. All
individuals and all societies are sinful. It's just
a matter of degree.
So we don't think that or we wouldn't
try to prove that, say, our religion is
better than yours because
we don't do certain sins and and so
you do or vice versa. We're we're not
trying to,
to say that. Well, first of all, you
see the repressive
Islamic societies.
If you are referring to the political society,
those have nothing to do with Islam and
you're talking about the openness of the western
societies.
And now can you give me one single
society throughout history other than the days of
the Crusaders
that had applied the principles of Christianity and
would you consider it as a Christian nation?
One single one?
I I just explained to you that, we
don't deal with societies. We're talking about individuals.
So I I must You didn't hear me.
I said
the Christian is talking about distinction between politics
and religion
and so you have to evaluate in the
lives of those who are following Jesus,
that is real Christians and not people who
call themselves or who are called by others
Christians.
Doctor,
Jeffrey has a point and he's been,
trying to make it now almost 20 minutes.
I I only just wanna comment. It's probably
too too late now, about the idea of
prophets and sin.
The idea in Assad is a little bit
different than it is in, in Christianity.
It's like to doctor Jamal Badawi said, prophets
may make mistakes, but not on the level
of,
as the as the bible shows, prophets making
mistakes.
When a prophet makes a mistake, I think
you could probably relate. A Christian could definitely
relate to what I'm about to say. When
the Canaanite came to Jesus, Canaanite woman came
to Jesus and asked her her asked him
for help. And he said,
he answered her, I was only sent to
the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
And then he answered again, it's not fair
to take the children's bread and throw it
to the dogs.
Then he changed his mind about that and
and helped her.
Similarly, the Muslims, as the brother mentioned, have
a situation where a blind man comes to
Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, for help.
And, he sort of frowns because he's desperately
trying to convey this message to, some disbelievers.
And then he,
Quran corrects him. And as a matter of
fact, he always, upheld that as an example.
That's how Muslims conceive of things. A prophet
may make a mistake of that sort, but
it's never as Doctor. Jamal Badawi said, an
intentional
rebellion against the will of God or a
or a defiling act. And
act. And, you know, I think if we
look at that passage in the New Testaments,
both Muslims and Christians will agree that, you
know, that was probably not best,
for Jesus
to say that. And he might have been
trying to convey a message. But the fact
that he corrected himself on that,
that could be seen in the same sort
of light. That, you know, it's not really
a sin. It's, it's
a mistake. And, he probably did better after
that,
when he corrected his behavior. He didn't correct
himself.
He helped her. And if you look at
the context, you'll see that the woman was
not offended. And she she understands the that
here's Jesus taking a woman seriously, which is
really quite remarkable in that society. Normally,
the religious teacher would not even deal with
a a woman because she was not expected
to understand spiritual things. But she gives a
response and there's an interplay that takes place
and we see the heart of Jesus in
blessing her. Sure. Does that mean that he
continued to hold the belief
that other than the Israelites
are dark? Is this what you're suggesting? He
what he's he he's showing to her and
she understands apparently or else she wouldn't have
come to a Jew in the first place.
Well She understands something about the Jews because
they're neighbors.
And so,
she comes to him and she's asking for
help. And in the Jewish view, you know,
the Gentiles were dogs. And so, he's showing
to her what,
what the Jewish view is. But at the
same time, she understands from her response in
the context. It's it's inappropriate for some person
2000 years later
to say, well, this is what it meant
or this was what really happened. The woman
in that context, she knows what was happening,
and she was not offended.
And and so, there's no evidence there of
a mistake. And Jesus specifically says, who of
you who condemns me of a sin? He
challenges anyone
to to present anything that he did,
that was sinful. And that would be very
arrogant if he, in his own conscience,
knew that he had committed sin.
But Well, what the Quran itself calls him
the pure. He's supposed to be the sinless
prophet, you're believing. Yes. Well, I mean, that's
your inter okay. You're interpreting it in a
way and rationalize in a way that you
could accept.
I'm just saying that similarly, when the Muslims
to see that example in the Quran, they
don't understand that as a rebellion against God.
They see that as a choice he made
and then he,
was corrected and and corrected,
and took a different,
posture after that. Why call a woman? The
point of
it
is is is this is not a direct
rebellion. But to call a woman, refer to
her people as dogs, I think most of
us would think of that as not a
very nice thing to do. Some would, but
she did. And even many a Christian commentator
has commented on the same verse and made
the same remark I've done. What did she
do by the way to show acceptance? Can
you tell us what did she do, the
woman, to show that she's happy he said
it? Well, in saying he blesses her. Did
she get what she No. No. No. No.
No. No. No. What she did? I think
what he did. She's not offended. I think
it boils down quite frankly to one thing.
That you want to give yourself a right
that you don't want to give to others.
When you asked about them, I didn't just
make an argument, we made an argument on
linguistic basis, on the context of the Quran,
on historical fact, and you say no, you're
trying to interpret it to, you know, Sutures.
Cool it down. Yet, you give yourself the
right to use the term dogs, referring to
people, which is a very offensive term regardless
whether it's true or false. It's not a
semitic. And to say no this is not
a sin. I think the proper way to
me, looking at it,
that alright it's a human mistake on the
part of Jesus the human. It's a human
mistake on the part of prophet Muhammad,
you know,
and he's giving preference to the rich people
rather than the poor person at that moment
for a good purpose.
So why dispute about it? Why not give
each other the same right rather than just
try to make exclusive demands on it? Secondly,
before doctor Martinson leaves, I did I just
wanted the two points because he said there
is nothing in the Quran about this idea
of serving rather than being served. No. It
is in the Quran in fact. First of
all, when the Quran stays,
Allah has purchased from the believer their property
and their lives, that they will be rewarded
for paradise. It means that it is a
life of sacrifice.
The life of prophet Muhammad peace be upon
him, in case there was any indirect
interpreted insinuation,
He did not come to be served.
He came to serve. In fact, he was
richer as a merchant before prophet.
He died with his shield
in collateral with a Jew.
When Omar once entered in his room, he
started to cry because he found that the
prophet was leaving on a rough mat that
left
marks on his body. His wife said that
sometimes a month and two
would pass by without a single cooked meal
and he could have had the whole world
at his fingertip.
So the mission of the prophet was not
to get people serving, he was serving them
and he lived and died as the simplest
poor. In fact, he was using he used
to pray, Oh God, make me live as
poor, die as poor, and make me in
the day of judgement, in
the company of the poor. As far as
the question of forgiveness, it is amply in
the
Quran. Whoever forgives and make peace his
reward is with Allah.
Good and evil are not to be equated,
repel evil with good.
Yes, the Quran gives the opportunity for retaliation
when it works, when it's needed. But in
the meantime, it's always said, if you forgive,
it is better. So I just wanted to
clarify that issue that it is not really
that
difference or gap that you might be thinking
about. It's just in the context of the
universality of Islam and the comprehensiveness of its
teaching to deal with varieties of situations.
I I I don't want I didn't want
to in intimate that there is not the
notion of service in the Quran because I
I think that,
would be wrong. What I was trying to
say there was
that the service to which Jesus was committed
was a service unto becoming,
a ransom.
That is not
the Council of Nicaea. This is in the
New Testament.
And Jesus did deliberately did not raise his
hand against his enemies. It was in the
face of his enemies
that,
Jesus was silent
and prayed for their forgiveness.
And when, the disciples raised the sword, Peter
used a sword to try and and protect
Jesus.
Jesus says put it down.
I could I could summon a host of
angels to come and deliver me.
So my my
my point was
that, the
the humiliation of Jesus,
becoming
a victim of his of his enemies,
This was a deliberate
demonstration on the part of Jesus. He would
not
destroy them. He was there to love them
and give his life. Even here I find
an area of similarity because we have to
understand it also in the top context in
which Jesus came. Here, even his closest
followers, according to the new testament, ran away
when he was arrested.
Had he known that those people could stand
up to the tyrannical power of the roman
empires, God knows, how can we tell now
that he would have not fought. Secondly I
say that also as not a gap between
muslims and christians because prophet Muhammad peace be
upon him, under similar circumstances
never lifted a hand against his any, not
for 3 years, I repeat again, for 13
years. That was the context
of the situation under which he lived. You're
too masters of Jews. Yes. I may
If I may have something I took a
responsibility or at least the permission of Mohammed.
He abails responsibility for that.
Now, you can't say never lifted a hand.
2 massacres of Jews
in 2 occasions.
No. No. No. No. You're talking about the
Medanip period. Let's not mix the Meccan and
Medanip period.
Horace.
No, I think the I'm sorry this is
I'm sorry this is not deliberate but this
is misinformation.
That's why I was asking Doctor. Woodbury earlier
when he said raiding the caravan in Mecca,
it's not in Mecca. And again, the same
mix is taking place here.
This never happened in Mecca, this happened in
Medina and was as a result of betrayal
of the Jews
during the time of war which is the
height reason in any country and this was
not the judgment of the Prophet, it was
the judgment of the Sa'd ibn Mu'adh who
was chosen by them to pass a sentence
on them. So let's not mix this period,
my statement stand correct for completely 13 years
the Prophet never lifted a a finger or
allowed even his followers, actually his followers came
to demand some stand against those persecutors,
and the Quran actually testifies to that. Alhamtara
illa laveenakid Allahum kufu idiyakum waqimusara those enthusiasts.
It says they were taught who is hold
your hands and establish prayer. Focus on the
spirituality.
So that's why I say again that is
not a gap really, more than Jesus, much
more, 4 times as long.
Muslims and prophets never left their finger. If
I may add something doctor Martin, you correct
me if I'm wrong. Didn't Jesus call upon
his disciples,
let that who has a garment
sell it and get a sword? Did they
do it?
There are are lots of,
That was the time they were he was
to be arrested. Right? No. No. No. No.
No. No. That was that was long before.
Before. There there are there are lot a
lot of symbolic statements of That's me.
Yes. Or if your hand,
drops,
That's me. Yes. Or if your hand,
robs, then cut it off. No. If your
hand stems, if you cut it off. Cut
it off. Yeah. I would have no eyes.
I would have no hands. I was long
ago madam. Then the sashal of Jesus in
the past, that's not me.
The point is,
there
are lots of very sim there are lots
of statements of a symbolic
character in in in the words of Jesus
that point
to, that call us to account for who
we are and how we use the gifts
and the members that God has given us
in this implementation. That would be simply ridiculous.
Then why don't we take the same symbolic
interpretation for the same verses coming from the
same
interpretation
for the same verses coming from the same
New Testament that you are,
telling us that proves the divinity of Jesus?
Why aren't we why are we using a
double standard here?
When we come, for instance, to the the
death of Jesus, and he says,
not to use the sword, that is not
a symbolic statement.
And when Jesus says, I came not to
be served, but to serve and to give
my life life a ransom for many, it
was not a symbolic statement. It was a
statement
covered in blood. How about the one when
he said, I came not to send peace,
but fire. Was it symbolic?
Jesus was calling
people to account,
and he brought judgment into the world.
And there were those who would accept and
those who would reject.
And that split communities
because it just as it did in Mecca.
It split the Meccan community when Mohammed came
with the word of judgment.
And,
so that that that word of judgment that
calls people to account results in divisions because
some will accept and some will reject. But
you said he died for all of our
sins.
He loved you Muslims, non Muslims, believer, disbelievers.
Now you talk about the split.
And when I quoted the Bible yesterday,
talking about sending people to hellfire that's unquenched.
It is not going to to fade. It's
unquenched fire. Fire. And to Jesus instructing people,
if your eye calls you to sin, they'll
pluck it out. If your hand calls you
to sin, then cut it off. It is
better to get to * to to paradise
with a cut hand maimed,
rather than get to hellfire
with 2 hands. I I I can't relate
what you're saying to what he's saying.
Oh, sorry. Go ahead.
And it's not a matter of interpretation. It's
a matter of the text he says and
the text you're saying, they are not coinciding
to even come closer
to any,
consistent I I guess I fail to,
be able to comprehend what you're saying because
I would have plucked my eyes out long
ago and cut off my hands long ago.
And,
to literalize
sayings of that kind are simply,
calling for literalizing. I'm sorry. If I'm understood
in this way it is a misunderstanding.
What I am saying is Jesus and this
was my main point. You brought yesterday's discussion
today. My main point today is you're saying
that Mohammed did this, Mohammed fought, Mohammed killed.
I'm saying, Jesus called his disciples
to sell their garments
and buy swords. Muhammad,
when he was commanded by God, after 13
years of patience and torture, and humiliation, and
extortion,
when he was called by God to call
his people, he also called them to get
the sword.
Jesus disciples did not get the sword. Muhammad
disciples got the sword. Now, what is the
difference between the 2? To to us Muslims,
they are the same. Muhammad and Jesus are
the same. The difference is the way you
look at it.
That's all.
They all were the same thing. But the
disciples were weak or were not ready or
whatever, so they did not get the sword.
When when it came down go ahead. Alright.
What we're talking about in the New Testament
context
was the little sword for self defense
that was often carried against bandits and things
of that nature.
It's the difference
between,
self defense there
and which Jesus would not even allow for
himself,
you know, with his,
when they came to crucify him. So it's
a difference between self defense
and,
the offensive
wars,
which started
before the death of Mohammed
to,
around Arabia itself and then continued. We could
discuss it one at a time, but the
a session of this sort, we cannot really
exhaust
what battle and when and why. You know
that. It cannot be exhausted here. So, this
point to be read at this time, it
is never gonna be covered. You know that,
we can sit aside and discuss it. Alright.
Well then, look at this verse. Jesus said
to Pilate, my kingdom is not of this
world. If it were, my disciples would fight
for me.
But you see, he wasn't trying to build
that kind of a kingdom.
The kind that and this, I think, would
be one of the,
differences we would see between,
Jesus and, Mohammed. May I may I just,
have your attention, please? Doctor Paul will make
his final comment because he's gone right now.
I just want want to once again say
thank you very much, and I'm sorry that
I can't continue in the in this very
weighty conversation. And I wish you all God's
rich blessing.
One thing,
that I want to say is
in conversations like this,
I
always have a heavy heart
because
we Christians talk a lot
about the love of God
and the self giving of God
and the death
of Jesus Christ
is willingness
to go to death for the sake
of humanity.
But
if you look at Christian history,
you could not believe that there was such
a claim.
So I want to say that I enter
into conversations of this kind with a great
heaviness of heart, and I want to say
that.
Okay.
Thank you, doctor Paul. We'll continue with the
discussion.
I'd like to give him a chance to
please,
just give him a hug. Yeah. Say thank
you.
Hi, on behalf of before he leaves, on
behalf of the Muslim team, we would like
to express our
gratitude and appreciation for the very kind words,
by doctor Martinson,
whom I I say I'm proud to have
been involved with him in a dialogue in
Minnesota, and finally, a very good example of
what all the prophets have thought. Thank you.
The,
I'm having a little bit of difficulty here
that I can see a double standard.
When it comes to,
the sword, we are told that the sword
that Jesus spoke about was the little
personal sword that people will carry in their
belt. Obviously, this is not in the bible.
This is doctor, Woodbury's,
interpretation.
And when it comes to the sword that
that Muslims talked about that was invading sword,
I would like to point out to Doctor.
Woodbury, the first the word sword itself
does not appear in the Quran anywhere.
But the word sword appears in the New
Testament.
So this is one point that I like
to make. The second point that Checher was
trying to emphasize
that Jesus in no uncertain
terms
asked his disciples
to sell your own share
and buy a sword. To do what
with that sword?
To,
to walk in a parade in downtown or
something like that? If I am going to
sell my own share
to buy a sword, it is very obvious
it is for self defense.
Now, if prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him,
was a man
that was advocated violence or was vindictive
or was a man that believed in force
for the sake of force,
then how can you explain that when he
entered Mecca victoriously,
the very same people
that had kicked him out, humiliated him,
prosecuted him, prosecuted his followers,
abandoned him, banished him from entering the Mecca
even to do the pilgrimage,
killed his followers, killed his disciples, confiscated their
property.
How can you explain if this not a
man of peace and a man of harmony?
How can you explain
his
when he entered Mecca that he forgave
really all his enemies
and never took one single retaliation against them?
That,
we would certainly commend.
And,
we we commend it, very strongly. Let me
let me say that's spirit of forgiveness
except against
the poet
where, he was not as forgiving.
We commend where he was, not where he
was not.
But, just compare,
Surah 9 verse 29 through 35.
Fight against those who do not practice the
religion of truth of those who have been
given the book until they pay the tribute
being subdued.
And contrast
this with,
my kingdom is not of this world. If
it were, my disciples would fight for me.
There there's a a
contrast in in ethos
there.
It is one of the places, although,
I earlier stressed some of the discontinuity
between Old and New Testament,
There is a continuity here which I don't
find in Islam,
and that is the suffering servant,
concept,
which,
doctor Badri has has indicated there's an element
of this here. So I'm not saying it's
absent.
But this,
concept in Isaiah 53
of accepting
the the stripes upon oneself
and not just waiting for a time where
you will be in the majority
and then can expand the kingdom. That's a
really difference in in style or e ethos
here between Mohammed and Jesus. Okay. Sure. And
then Okay. Can you answer? Yeah.
I would like, I know doctor
wants to comment on the historical context of
that revelation. I'll I'll let him do that
in a second.
But I have to admit that when I
first read the Quran coming from a Christian
background, I did see a, I did feel
a difference.
And the and the difference I felt was
that the Koranic conception of our earthly life
is very dynamic.
The model is to strive against wrong and
uphold right on an individual and a collective
level.
And it's this concept that is at the
center of the that our lives are we're
here to strive, to struggle, to defend right,
to oppose the transgressors
and,
charity and virtue and etcetera, and that is
our spiritual growth.
So, you
know, every Muslim would appreciate,
you know, the claim that 1 and cert
under certain circumstances should surrender himself to to
resign himself to his fate, to accept death.
You know, even on sometimes rather than retaliate.
But from the Muslim conception, the Quranic conception,
our life is not just that. We're here
also to oppose wrong, defend right, uphold good.
So that message
from from the Muslim perspective,
the ground is more balanced. The emphasis is
more balanced and more realistic and pragmatic and
practical.
I'd like also to respond to the, point
raised earlier by doctor Woodbury about the, of
so called offensive war.
I think, again, one has to understand the
context historically of it, as well as the
context also of the Ayah in Surah Tawba
that you've heard in Surah number 9.
It is well known that, the Prophet sent
messages to the various rulers of the Byzantine
and Persian empires inviting them to Islam in
a very peaceful way.
And that, as you know, these were the
2 tyrannical superpowers in the world at the
time.
Some of them responded by killing the messenger
of the prophet. Imagine when the American ambassador
sent in a country and the ruler of
that country kills him. That's an act of
war. No question about it.
Some of them showed their, arrogance like the,
one of the rulers who wrote to his
local governor in Yemen, and he said we
heard this Arab who's claiming to be a
prophet receiving revelation, go and bring me or
ask him to repent or else bring me
his head.
There have been instance of people who were
Christians who accepted the message of Islam that
were persecuted and killed by their rulers.
Examples of people who wanted to become Muslim
but were oppressed by those oppressive rulers.
There was no way, there was no way
that this kind of oppression would continue and
the concept of Jihad in Islam is not
only for the limited self defense in the
narrow sense of it, but also for the
assurance of the security,
religious freedom, and political freedom of those even
who are outside of the boundaries of Islam.
Even if there is 1 muslim living elsewhere,
he has the right to have his right,
being defended.
So the, the fight against the Persian and
Byzantine. In fact, it was a liberation force.
I think many historians will agree with this.
And I refer you to a christian writer,
Thomas Arnold in his book, preaching of Islam.
And he's a he was a christian missionary
in India, could not be accused of the
writing from a muslim point of view. When
he discusses
in country after country, region after region in
the world, how Islam spread, it wasn't really
the use of force or compulsion, but actually
it was liberating force. At one point, he
said that the christians in Egypt, under muslim
rule, were far ahead of the way they
were treated by their core religionists, the Byzantium,
and at one point he said they had
absolutely nothing to complain about.
He didn't say it was all perfect, he
said it meant for a period of time
they had nothing to complain about except the
corruption of their own clergy. The context of
Surah Al Tawba that you refer to Surah
9, it deals basically with that situation.
Specially the northern tribes,
Arabian tribes
that were Christian, that were used by the,
the 2 emperors, by the Romans, some were
used by, you know, the Persians to make
trouble
for that Muslim Ummah. If Islam did not
take the position, Muslim did not take the
position, again it's those
dangerous sources of trouble
and try to subdue them. Subdue them in
a sense of at least making sure that
they either, if they become muslim they become
brothers. If they don't want to become muslim,
they have to pay the tribute
which is symbolical,
of acceptance of the authority of muslim and
almost like a peace treaty more or less,
a token on that respect. So I think
when you're relating to their concept you find
that again it's far from being. And my
final comment on that, again,
I keep repeating this, but it's very important.
One cannot say take this simplistic argument or
comparison, oh, look Jesus was this, Mohammed was
this, Jesus was this. Because the context of
various prophets in the old testament,
or the case of Jesus, or prophet Muhammad,
were different.
It was they got it quite legitimate for
Moses to stand against the tyranny of the
pharaoh. And actually it's a matter of pride
for Jews and Muslims that God intervened on
the side
of the Israelites against that tyranny.
David when he fought,
again,
it was
establishment
of the right of of his people. So
we cannot really just take one period of
history under certain circumstances, when Christians were very
few, persecuted, have a very powerful, overwhelming any
and try to make a kind of interpretation
or inferences that there is a big difference
attitude. The attitude of forgiveness is there among
all prophets.
Attitude of seeking peace is there. Circumstances sometimes
necessitate a different approach to deal with different
contextual type of problems.
Thank you.
Go ahead. I think it's quite clear that
Jesus doesn't ask for forgiveness anywhere. You know,
whatever Jesus taught about a sword,
there's no evidence,
that he killed anyone. He didn't need to
ask forgiveness or anything, nor did he kill
anyone. Now, we're not saying that Muslims are
not able to do good
or that, Mohammed is totally evil. We are
we are admitting that it's a mixed thing.
We are saying that what he did,
were were mostly good and admirable things, but
he made not mistakes
only. But these things are sins. They're they're
because they need to be forgiven.
But I think, as you see,
Mohammed is a warrior. He's participating in the
army. Deal with that. Okay.
He was the Muslim forces were warrior forces.
They did
expand to Europe, not at the invitation of
the people of Spain and France. They didn't
send a letter, come and make us Muslim.
You're violating the very criteria that you set
earlier. This thing's in between the
I stay I kept quiet while you were
talking. Would you permit me to finish it?
Okay. Okay. Thank you. Alright.
So I think the history of Islam shows
that as Christianity,
it says, you have certain standards we would
like to see attained,
but they're imperfections. Now a man like Arnold,
there are a lot of many scholars who
would disagree with the man.
Usually in each country that he touches.
For example, the India Rizkie talks about this
and he contradicts Arnold's,
opinions because he shows that force was used.
Force was used going to, how did Islam
get to Europe? How did it get all
the way across Africa? It wasn't by invitation.
So force has been used in Islam and
is permitted when there's Islam. But that's that
that is not more primary issue. The issue
is about a prophet here. And I would
say that,
for a Christian, our question is, do we
need a new prophet? There are plenty of
prophets.
I think the real problem, we don't need
any more prophets because we already know what
god wants us to do. And,
and especially if a prophet tells us to
do things that are in contradiction
to what the past has given to us.
That is, if Jesus
teaches that it's not what goes into the
mouth that defiles a man or what comes
out, then if later another prophet comes along
and says, well, certain foods do defile,
but that's in contradiction to what Jesus taught.
If Jesus taught, it's not in any one
direction, either this mountain nor that mountain. There
is no special direction or place that is
important.
And then another prophet comes along and tells
us we're supposed to pray in the direction
of Mecca.
Well, then we say, well, this is in
contradiction to the to the light that god
has already given to us and makes us
question whether,
this teaching is true. If if there's a
stress on the external
in prayer,
washing washing the hands. And Jesus has already
taught us that you clean the inside of
the cup, and that's what counts, not,
cleaning the external man. And then we have
a stress on external cleanness, which is fine
as it goes, but it is, again, clear
contradiction to what has already been taught.
If we have a legal system set up
where you how do you please God by
fulfilling certain requirements.
And whereas, even as far back as Abraham,
we see a doctrine where God is so
good and gracious. He wants to give us,
as a gift, salvation
without us having to pay for it in
any form.
And, this teaching we see in the New
Testament. Now these fundamental things are being contradicted
by a new teaching. It raises questions in
our minds. Then there's one final issue I
want to,
touch
on. Perhaps the the profit issue is is
the wrong question.
I mean, you men set the agenda for
these questions, and perhaps I would say it
differently. But the issue is is,
about Mohammed being a prophet. Now maybe this
is the wrong, issue.
As far as I'm concerned,
so what if you were?
What we need and what is the critical
issue is not who is the last prophet,
but who is the last mediator.
And you find as you get into the
the teachings of all the prophets, there's one
first and last mediator, and what we need
is one to reconcile us with God, to
bring us close to God. A prophet doesn't
deliver from sin.
A prophet doesn't give forgiveness.
A prophet doesn't necessarily relate us directly to
God and guarantee to us eternal life. Jesus
said, he had the right and authority to
give to those who come to him eternal
life. And this is something beyond the role
of a prophet. So we're saying Jesus had
a role beyond that of a prophet. And
we don't want to say to you, well,
our prophet can beat up your prophet or
our prophet better than your prophet. Thank you.
That's a good question. Thank you. I think
we have to start the question and answers.
Right. Let me just get a quick Alright.
The final question is just to respond to
that.
Yes. Do we have time after that after
that?
I just wanted to make sure that to
make a point that, reverend Chasten violated the
very criteria that he was talking about with
with which I did agree. Your forgiveness. When
he says, when you're forgiven. You're forgiven. Okay.
Thank you. When we should not mix between
the teaching of the religion
and the actions of the people. Whether you
talk about Muslims, even though, you will find
some people would say, that expansion in Europe
was also in response to the crevity of
the crusade. But aside, even if Muslims were
wrong in that, it doesn't. But when doctor
Woodbury Again,
when doctor Woodbury for example was quoting the
Quran, I said, no. That's the teaching of
Islam, not the behavior of Muslims because it's
the word of God. That's why I have
to go into some lens in explaining that
it doesn't mean what he was proposing to
to to say.
Secondly, when you say no, not where Jesus
was asked to do this, not where Jesus
was sent. I refer you to, famous biblical
scholar, Dennis Nynham.
When he encounter people who keep saying oh
Jesus was absolutely pure, Jesus did this. He
said on what basis are we making those
fancy statements? He said first of all, if
you look at the exact word of Jesus,
verbatim,
in the whole gospels, 4 gospels,
you find that it comes it boils down
basically to an event going over 2 weeks
with the exception of course of the 40
days in the wilderness about which he says
we don't know much anyway. He said on
what basis do we make this big generalization
about the record of a prophet, whose mission
was 3 years, and whose verbatim words cover
and span of only 2 weeks.
And then we make all kind of interpretations
about that. Now, in the case of prophet
Muhammad, you get a man who lived for
23 years and have these volumes,
gives you full details about various aspects of
his life. I think I think the comparison
here is not really,
is not fair. The final issue that you
raised about
externality, do you need another prophet? Don't forget
that in the bible itself also speaks about
prophets,
teaching people to purify them for the prayer.
But I think, with all due respect, you
made misinterpretation
of what the Quran deal with, when it
deals with evolution or prayer. Quran does not
emphasize the
external cleanliness.
And in the Arabic language the word tahara,
freedom from undefinite applies as well also to
the cleanliness
within. So it's both, cleanliness from within and
from without. The Quran does not emphasize formalism
as you seem to have insinuated.
Actually the Quran says it is not righteousness
to turn your face towards the east or
west.
The prayer towards the Kaaba is simply because
the first house on earth to be built
for the worship of the one God by
Abraham even before the temple in Jerusalem. Do
we need a new prophet? Yes we did.
Because there was a great deal of confusion
from our perspective
about God, a great deal of theological and
philosophical argument that divided people and tore them
apart.
There have been deviation in the
resulting from the lack of clarity,
of comprehensive, realistic way of life that people
can apply the teaching in war, in peace,
in marriage, in divorce. That was lacking because
the message of Jesus was intended as a
continuation
to the message
of the Israelites. So we need a new
prophet, definitely we need it. Specially one whose
revelation has been preserved and that would be
the topic, of course. Thank you, doctor Angela.
We'll move to the question, please.
Thank you.
As far as,
a prophet and that's what we're supposed to
be talking about, whether Mohammed was a prophet.
And,
what I wanted to ask the panel because
I am ignorant. I don't know. But what
are the criteria
that, historically that we look at to determine
whether someone is a prophet
and is the Christian criteria the same
as what the, Islamic people look at?
Because they do recognize
many of the same prophets
and,
if you can define that criteria for me
briefly, please, then, yes.
And then where
in your opinion, does
Mohammed not fill that criteria?
Well, I would be
willing to say,
to begin with, you have to back up.
Do me a favor. Get this close. Okay.
We have to back up.
A prophet is 1, who in some way
is,
has a link with the spirit of God.
You look in the Old Testament and the
New Testament,
it appears that prophethood
is a result of in some way God
working through his spirit
to,
give a man, in some cases, a woman,
to the sense
of his special calling. So it may be
very subjective.
But through his
preaching and ministry, which may encounter suffering and
often does because people are sinful wherever they
are, whatever it is.
And he may encounter,
persecution,
but it's a link with the,
with God through the Holy Spirit, which he
is giving forth,
God's message. But it it cannot be in
contradiction to fundamental teachings
of the past that have been established by
former prophets.
And this is why the Christian says, I
am ready to believe any prophet god sends.
I just have to have the evidence.
I put forth the idea of Joseph Smith.
Now why do you reject Joseph Smith? He
claims to be a prophet.
And the the Bob in, in the last
century, also in the Middle East, claimed to
be a prophet. And there have been dozens
and dozens of others. Well, there need to
be some criteria, and I think you gave
a very good question. But I would just
very quickly just state those 2,
those items as, as elements that would go
into prophethood.
A prophet
is
somebody who
speaks
on behalf of God.
Sometimes,
it is divided into
foretell
and forthtell.
That is,
one who,
speaks to a generation
such messages as to repent or whatever God
has to say to those people then.
And, then frequently,
and in the case of the Old Testament
prophets in particular, this involved a foretelling
of the future.
Therefore, the way to,
see whether or not
a prophet
was true,
in some
cases
meant waiting to see if what they foretold,
came about.
And so you have the old testament prophets,
re foretelling
the return of the Israelites
from the exile.
So and Ezra 11
indicates that the prophecy of Jeremiah is fulfilled
when you have those from the exile returning
in 539.
So this would be a way to check
a prophet
to see whether,
he or she was, fortunate. And you you
don't think that this applies to prophet Mohammed,
do you? This was part of
Okay.
In my awareness, there were not he did
not foretell things in the future that can
yet that
can yet be checked. He did spot to
speak about the end day and so forth.
But,
I don't think of any place in the
Koran where he foretold something
that would
that,
happened within the historical period now.
Just
you you wanna follow-up? I just wondered if
there's anything,
you say that you don't know of anything
that he foretold that has come
about.
But, do you have any evidence of of
things that he foretold that Became false. That
came falsely. Yeah. That did not happen the
way he foretold them.
That would show him as a false
prophet as well. I don't think of anything
at this point.
But, I think Before before we move to
the other point, I'd like to hear a
response because they have a Get an answer
also from the Muslim side. Yes. Based on
the criteria that doctor was very mentioned,
how do you see it? Does it apply
to prophet Muhammad? The three condition mentioned earlier,
that the person
in contact with the spirit of God, and
that's what the Quran is really all about,
speaks on behalf of God, actually the Quran
itself addressed the Prophet say, Muhammad,
even the style of the Quran chose that
he was told. So in that sense, yes.
Secondly, that
he may face sacrifice and persecution,
Yes, he did. And words very patient and
very forgiving.
Number 3 that he would not violate all
that teaching, it's a matter of interpretation.
Prophet Muhammad
did not violate the all that teaching of
all the prophets, Here O Israel, the Lord
our God is 1. He contradicted the misinterpretation
and Muslim understanding of Firoz and came afterward.
So in that sense, he did not contradict
the established tradition of Taqih. That's why this
is not only a Muslim view, Hans Kung,
says that the concept, the purity or the
concept of monotheism that has been preached by
all of the prophets in the old testament,
and confirmed by prophet Muhammad, he admits
should never be compromised. So again, depends how
you interpret it, which is the truth. Can
we move to the other question? But in
addition, there's just the three things I'd like
to add. 1, is that you should claim
to be a prophet. Number 1. Not people
make a claim about him. That is irrelevant.
Number 2, the question of prophecies.
I accept what mister Woodbury say that, and
there's evident There is no evidence whatsoever that
the prophet ever made a prophecy that came
to be false. But I disagree with him
respectfully
in the say in saying that there have
been no prophecies made. There have been numerous
prophecies made. No. I Some of which
No. I that have been fulfilled. Yes. There
is the last day coming. During his time
and after his time. In Iran. Yes. In
the Quran, there is reference to that. The
the feet
of the Byzantine, of the Romans.
There is also mention about what will happen
to Abu Lahab, I'm just giving highlights. Abu
Lahab, that he will die as an unbeliever.
What will happen in the hadith about the
Muslims being victorious over the Persians?
The, that Muslims at one time will will
conquer
Constantinople.
And there are also other signs that still
waiting in terms the day of judgement and
some of which are amazing and have already
came to pass when he speaks about the
iron speaking.
Probably a reference to the radio of people
going to the mosque on something looks like
they settled but not settled. People driving to
the mosque now in cars. And there are
still others
about known as the alamatussa,
the signs, minor and major signs of the
hour. But as doctor Woodbury said and I
completely agree with this, there has been no
single
prophecy, and there are many many prophecies that
the prophet made that proved to be untrue.
And finally, there's one aspect that I leave
to the next topic, that the prophet also
should have some evidence
that he's a prophet by something unusual. Not
just small tricks of magic or anything, something
really profound,
stunning, challenging that shows he's a prophet like
Moses,
the birth of Jesus, his miracles and the
Quran in the case of the prophet. But
that's In fact, this in itself, this question
is a whole topic. You see what I'm
saying? So
I'm I'm sure every one of us over
here
would have a list of,
items to add.
So I would kindly ask you to move
to the other people. If you like to.
I wish we started with the question of
the gentleman. What are the criteria of the
prophets? Not discuss it in detail. That's true.
How does it apply to prophet Mohammed or
not? Okay.
Certainly, in the Old Testament, there were the
court prophets. There were schools of prophets. There
were true prophets, and there were false prophets.
There were many prophets.
And it was always a struggle to,
determine who was the true prophet.
And the government, of course, had their own
and who would speak for them. And the
schools had theirs, and then you had the
the others. So it was a constant tension.
It wasn't always clear at the time
who was the true prophet. In fact, often
the the true prophet at the time was
persecuted, turned out,
denied,
and it wasn't until later
that, you know, that he was in a
sense rewarded and
considered to be a true prophet.
After his prophets? Yeah.
Yes. After a time, after events sort of,
rolled down and,
but often at the time, they they were
they were persecuted, and many were killed. Yeah.
Okay.
Why don't you move to the maybe it's
a good give maybe it would I think
I suggest to give a courtesy to the
sisters first. They still don't have a chance,
and then come to brother Hamzal, and then
I have several comments. First of all,
thinking about at the beginning, why we believe
that the prophet Mohammed was not in fact
a prophet or or not was not a
prophet but is not
superseding.
Please keep the mic closer here. Sorry.
Almost everyone
mentioned.
I don't believe that the prophet Muhammad's message
is relevant because the Bible says it's not.
Because it contradicts what the Bible says. Because
it contradicts what Jesus came to tell me.
I don't need another prophet because
this is what the Bible says.
With all due respect, I don't believe that
that's
that that's a fair and honest examination. As
Muslims, what we
what we try to do is take the
the Bible for itself and as itself.
We examine that. Does that make sense? Is
that verifiable? Not can we understand it, can
we verify it? Is that actually what it
says? Is it historically accurate?
If that's not the case, on those grounds,
we
we, you know, from the Bible itself,
do not believe that Jesus was, in fact,
the son of God. I think that you
have to take the Quran for itself
and examine it in and of itself and
then say, not because the Bible says, but
because I don't believe the Quran is reliable,
then that would be an acceptable reason.
Secondly, I think that we have a basic
difference in the in the understanding of the
concept of God in that you you were
talking about the way of Jesus is to
overcome sin. The way of Jesus is to
come and conquer sin and to conquer evil.
God was struggling with how to conquer evil.
To the Muslims, this is an abhorrent concept.
We don't believe that God needs to struggle
with evil.
God
evil is under him. Evil is irrelevant to
him. I mean, we struggle with evil and
God helps us struggle with evil, but he
does not himself need to attain the ability
to forgive
by any act, sacrifice or otherwise. He can
forgive because that's his prerogative because he made
it and he knows what what will happen.
I don't want any any comments. Okay? I
I wanna take a few more comments from
the audience over here before we move into
you.
First of all, let me thank you all
of you for this opportunity
and,
this is something really worthwhile to listen to.
But let me say this as individual,
not very well educated.
Man, let me go back as individual.
I lived with the Jewish before I came
to United States,
and I attend the Christian school for many
years.
I born from Muslim parents.
And I came to this country to seek
a freedom,
political freedom. I was listening to you here
for 2 days.
I
got a little bit confused
sometime
with all my respect to religion.
When I raised as a small boy,
I've been told that through my Quran and
my parents,
I believe in Judaism and I believe in
Christianity.
And unfortunately, with my living in this country
or
the Western world, when you mentioned Muslim, sometime
you have to spell it.
And when you say Quran, they don't know
what I'm talking about. But I know about
the books of the Jewish. I know the
book of the Christian.
And Islamic force you to believe on them.
To make things simple in 20th century,
for the Christian, unfortunately, I don't have any
of my cousins here sitting today.
How can we
convince ourselves
through the Quran,
the Bible,
the Zaboor,
the Torah, the 4 books.
How can we direct all our attention to
1 God?
What is the easiest way for you to
tell me?
There is no
God, but one God.
Period.
I don't have to go through Mary,
Jesus,
Moses,
Abraham, or anybody.
Now,
I learned from my Quran to love, respect,
and believe in other religion.
And unfortunately, I can't find it in some
other religion, believe as much as strong as
I am.
How can you tell me
to believe in one God,
period,
and not get involved with something else?
Because nothing
will save me, make me the right direction
except one God.
I don't want to be confused
with all my love and respect to all
religion.
Thank you. That's not on the Well So
maybe it should get this in another session.
I think the answer for this question will
come eventually in the other sessions, especially in
the one on salvation. So Okay. We'll delay
the salvation.
Don't forget. Don't forget. Yes. I'd just like
to,
make a couple of comments before I post
my question.
Prior,
before rather, you were speaking about this, business
of,
Jesus,
peace be upon him, referring to, people as
dogs and so forth. And
I Referring to what? To people as dogs.
And, that, the gentleman that left us, he
said that,
that this Canaanite lady was not offended by
this speech.
But according to the scripture here, it says
that she was in fact offended by the
speech because he said, even master, even the
dogs,
eat the crumbs that fall from the master's
table. So she was very offended by that
remark.
And Jesus, according to the scripture here, never
apologized for that. Now we as Muslims, we
don't believe these types of statements, but I'm
just pointing out what is here in the
gospels.
Also further
in Matthew chapter 7 verse 6, it says,
give that not not which is holy unto
dogs,
nor cast that pearls before swines.
So now it's even an increase there
in name calling.
Dogs and swines. And I wanna know who
are these dogs and swines. There's there's no
chance for anybody to,
take offense to that now. It's a whole
nation of people perhaps.
Again, on the respond on this now. Yeah.
Again, on the question of, Jesus
and his,
being either meek or being warrior like,
we find that there was a tradition back
in his day that one coming into Jerusalem,
which was a holy city,
just like Moses when he went up into
the mountain was required to remove his shoes,
that anyone riding on a mount of any
sort was required to dismount
when he came into Jerusalem. But Jesus, the
first time in his life in the gospels,
required a mount for that purpose, to ride
in, to show a sense of authority and
rulership.
And one of the first things he did
when he got into the town there was
to go right to the temple there and
begin
to chase out those money changes there, ripping
them single handedly according to what we understand
here. I wanna know what type of conduct
was that,
in light of what you were suggesting before.
Also, this business about the swords and so
forth, we say that Jesus, in fact, did
command his disciples to get swords when he's
seeing the danger that was approaching,
and that they did that and he moved
them in a strategic type of a situation
where that they could defend themselves,
only re requiring them to lay down those
swords, seeing as a strategist that he was,
that, he would be outnumbered. It would be
like suicidal type of attempt. So we say
that was the case there. But my question
to you
is
when you talk about prophethood, and we as
Muslims, we believe that Jesus, peace be upon
him, was a prophet of God and an
honorable servant of God. But the criteria seems
to be here in Deuteronomy
about how can we tell a judge the
quality,
of a prophet. And here we have in
Deuteronomy,
it says there
in, chapter 18,
verse 20, it says, but that prophet, which
shall presume to speak a word in my
name, which I have not commanded him to
speak, all shall speak in the name of
other gods, even that prophet shall die. Now
you tell us in Matthew 28/19 that Jesus
said,
go baptize in the name of the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Ghost, which is
a strange God to the Hebrew people. They
never heard this terminology again before or prior
to that and that Jesus was put to
death. But my question now is this prophecy
here,
this, qualification here, which says that when that
prophecy will speak in the name of the
Lord,
when a prophet shall speak in the name
of the Lord, if that thing follow not
nor come to pass,
then that thing is not which that which
the Lord has spoken. Now my question is
about the things that Jesus prophesied in the
name of God which did not come to
pass, such as in Mark,
Matthew chapter 10 verse 23 when Jesus said
you will not have gone over all the
cities of Jerusalem before the son of man
be come. It never fulfilled. When Jesus said
in Mark chapter 9 verse 1, that some
of you standing here will not see death
until he returns. They died over and over
again. And that the whole generation in Mark
chapter 13 verse 30 would not perish before
he comes. I wanna know where why weren't
those prophecies fulfilled?
Thank
you. Thank you. Did you want me to
Well, go go ahead.
Well, you know, there you have a half
a dozen things there, at least, that,
need,
addressing.
You talked initially about the woman, whether she
was offended or not. Thank you. I keep
forgetting.
I would just have to contradict you. That's
all. There's no evidence that she was offended.
In fact, she uses the same term. If
she were offended, she wouldn't use it. But
she recognizes
he's engaging in an intellectual exchange with her,
taking us seriously.
And then
she sort of plays the game with him.
And from that,
he,
gives her blessing. But he can see
her response and we believe that Jesus knew
her heart and he would use that that
language with her, but maybe not with some
others because
he sensed where she was and he could
do that safely.
And the end result was blessing. But I
I would just deny what you say that
she was offended. I don't see any evidence,
in the tent. It doesn't seem to be.
If she were offended, she may have just
turned or gone away or
or just criticized him or or who you'd
have called me a dog or or or
anything like that. But, no, she continues and
she realizes
it's a teaching method that he's using.
The whole thing is a a procedure that
the prophet uses,
to teach and he's using this symbolism.
Now when he talked about dogs and swine,
again,
this they're not literally 4 footed animals that
he's talking about.
It's,
metaphoric language here.
And so,
I think you need to,
interpret it that way when he said, tell
Herod that fox.
Talking about the king.
Well, he wasn't actually saying that there was
an animal on the throne there. But Herod
had fox like
characteristics.
What they whatever. Then to find out what
they were, then it's helpful to know the
culture at that time.
So I think it's reading into it too
much. We can, from the 20th century, start
reading back into the 1st century and and
being maybe more
dogmatic about what it means then we have
legitimacy.
Let's see. There are some other things that
you said there about,
I forget now. Something The writing. The writing.
The prophecies that were not fulfilled. I'm sorry?
Well, well, again, this is a matter of
interpretation. He did send out a short mission.
There were a couple of short missions he
sent out before he was to make the
rounds of the city. He had a his
teams go out
before he himself was to come to those
cities. And when
he came
into that city
preaching the Kingdom of God, since he was
the legitimate king,
the kingdom of God would come in the
form of the king whose right it was.
Oh, so you disagree with my interpretation. Yeah.
But then it's a matter of
opinion against mine. Quoting the scripture on that
or you it's become an authority. Explain.
I'm trying to answer what your your assertion
was. That this is a false prophecy. I'm
saying that that is not legitimate, at all.
It's not necessary. You see, this was the
call. This was the mission that Jesus had,
sent his disciples out on. He said, go
not in the way of the city of
the Gentiles or any city of the Samaritans
into ye not, but go ye rather to
the lost sheep. Okay. You turn around. Matthew
10. Yes. Matthew chapter 10 verse 5 and
6. And then he says in Matthew 1023,
he's telling them now that how the imminent
return of Christ as it goes, that how
soon he'll be back. This is why I'm
doing that. That number is loaded. Yeah. So
now he said that you will not have
done just what I told you to do.
You will not have gone over with all
those cities before I'm back again. Yeah. The
image of return. So now they went over
the cities for 2000 years, and he's not
back.
Well, we have to have an extensive course
in New Testament theology to explain this. One
thing is it's linked with the day of
Pentecost.
Jesus said he he would send another comforter,
and he uses a Greek word like himself.
And,
and and many Christian theologians believe fulfillment is
the coming of the Holy Spirit. Word aloes
is used there.
Yes. Very good. You're you're very good. But
that means Well, let let me let me
just finish my statement. Okay?
Also, there's another element built into the whole
teaching about the kingdom of God. If you
know about the kingdom of God, you know
what? There's a whole lot of teaching in
the new testament about this doctrine. It's very
complex. You can't pull out one verse and
and and make it you have to get
the whole picture.
And part of that was an an element
of contingency
built built in,
so that there's a preaching going abroad
and,
kingdom of god in the future. There's a
time element in here. You gave me a
different explanation now, than what you set out
to give me in the beginning, but what's
up?
It is complex. You asked I think we,
we we getting very close and we already
passed the time.
So what I'd like to do is just,
That's that's the last
comment or question. Okay? Because we have
to finish this session. Thank you.
Well, I have a real short comment before
I ask my question.
And the the comment is is that you've
said over and over again about
the the lessons in the New Testament
or in the Old Testament.
You can't just pick out separate verses. You
have to take the whole thing
altogether.
So, you know, it it it sounds like
it's rather difficult for a person like one
of us
wanna study the bible and grab the lesson
that it it contains. I mean, that we
need a theologian
to explain it to us.
Well, because all of us,
the Muslims here, they they give you certain
examples.
They pull out a a verse.
And
sometimes it's within the context, sometimes it's not.
But still, you know, you keep falling back
on well, you know, you need you need
to read you need to grab the whole
picture before you can grasp what we're trying
to tell you.
That's my comment and I'll let you comment
on that. And the second, my question is
is that,
doctor Bedouin, you've written, quite a few pamphlets
on on,
the prophet Mohammed being prophesied in the bible,
and nobody has picked up on on that
any. I I'd be really interested in having
a few examples and seeing what the
the knowledge
Christians have in response.
Thank you.
Well, being,
being listened to
you wanna answer first?
Okay. That's fine. If he wants to give
a couple of samples and I'll read Yeah.
That's good. Yeah. Or one. Okay.
It's quite obvious from the book of Genesis
that God
made a promise to place all the nations
of the earth through the descendants of Abraham.
While yes, there is mentioned that the covenant
was made with Isaac, but it also said
that the son of the bond woman, I
e Ishmael, will also be blessed amply.
If you look at the history of the
Abrahamic family tree, you'll find that all Israelite
prophets came through the second son
of Abraham,
that is Isaac.
The famous The most famous historical figure from
the descendants of Ishmael is prophet Mohammed, peace
be upon him.
That to me by itself is sufficient that
the blessing to both branches of the house
of Abraham has been achieved already historically.
Secondly,
in the book of Deuteronomy,
in chapter 18 verse 18,
and the continuing verses after that, I understand
that most Christian theologians and Paul had made
misinterpretation to refer that to Jesus, again the
time doesn't allow, and as my sister said,
there's a whole booklet on that subject comparison
between Moses and Jesus versus Moses
and Mohammed.
Jesus here was speaking or Moses was speaking
addressing the Israelites in his presence before his
departure. And he says God will send you
from among your brethren. Admittedly, brethren could mean
Israelites or close kin, but the Israelites were
already there. And the term of brethren has
been used frequently in the bible also to
refer to the closest kin to them especially
the Ishmaelites.
And he says a prophet like unto me,
I'm not going through the comparison but just
one point.
If the christians believe that Jesus was not
only a prophet and priest or messenger and
priest, but also a son of God, then
there is no comparison whatsoever
with Moses.
The only one who had the same claim
as Moses as being nothing but a prophet
and messenger of God is none but prophet
Muhammad peace be upon him. In the book
of Deuteronomy in chapter 33 also, in the
beginning, it speaks about God coming from Sinai,
a possible reference to the Torah given to
Moses. Rising from the hills of Syr in
Palestine, the town or village of Sayed, it's
possibly a reference to the coming of Jesus.
Then it says come from Mount Paran. Mount
Paran according to the bible is the place
where Hagar and Ishmael settled which is historically
known and undeniably being Makkah. There have been
lots of confusion in some dictionaries of the
bible. They give contradictory explanation but Faran has
already been mentioned in the bible and we
know where Ishmael and Hagar,
settled. In the book of Isaiah,
especially in chapter,
42 when it speaks about the elect of
God.
And it ties the advent of that person
with the joy that will come today, kedar.
And kedar according to the bible are the
children of Ishmael
I. E. The arabs who will be happy
with this. There is even a prophecy about
the, the battle of battle in Isaiah.
Amazingly,
when it speaks about the in chapter 21,
in particular verses 13 through 17,
it describes with great accuracy, Halatami could give
you the details
of the people that And connected again with
the
number of the that will be diminished.
So the evidence is simply overwhelming and the
same thing goes on the paraclete. It requires
more time to explain, but I would say
yes.
Muslims on the authority of the Quran, number
1, which is their basic reference,
as claim that all prophets including Jesus
prophesied the advent of prophet Muhammad. This is
mentioned in no unmistakable
terms in the Quran. On the basis of
the authority of the Quran, the Muslim is
open to look into the bible. Anything in
the bible that would confirm the last revelation
is acceptable
and I think there is ample evidence but
time doesn't allow to go in more detail.
Thank you. Please, no more comments. Doctor Witherick,
please. Alright. I will just deal with the
one prophecy,
and,
at some other time, we can deal,
with others.
But the Deuteronomy
1818 prophecy,
has been mentioned. Let me read it. I
will raise up for them a prophet like
you from among their brethren, and I will
put my words in his mouth, and he
shall speak to them that all all what
that I command him
from among your brethren. Now let's look at
the context from the book itself. Deuteronomy
18, same chapter, the first two verses.
The Levitical priest, that is all the tribe
of Levi, shall have no portion or inheritance
with Israel.
They shall have no inheritance among their brethren.
So Israel and brethren
are,
equated there. Judges 2013,
but the children of Benjamin
would not hearken to the voice of their
brethren,
the children of Israel.
Here their brethren is specifically stated to be
the other tribes of Israel as distinct from
the tribe
of Benjamin.
Then one other passage, again, from Deuteronomy, because
we are trying to get our
definition from,
the same book. Deuteronomy
17, 14, and 15. When you enter the
land which the Lord your God gives you,
and you possess it and live in it,
you shall say, I will set a king
over me like the nations who are around
me. You shall surely set a king over
you
whom the Lord your God chooses from among
your countrymen.
You shall set as king over yourselves, you
may not put a foreigner of yourselves who
is not your,
countryman.
This is the same,
word, however, in the Hebrew that is translated,
in the other passage
as,
brethren.
Now if it was to be also, it
says, it is to be a prophet like
you, like you, Moses.
Now let's,
look at some of the parallels here.
Moses and Jesus were both Israelites.
Moses and Jesus both had left Egypt to
for perform God's work, and that Mohammed wasn't
there. Moses and Jesus were so great wealth
to share the poverty of their people,
which,
we have no evidence of Mohammed doing,
and
on and on. But the main I think
the main thing I want to, point out
there is just the matter of,
among your brethren, which in that context,
certainly means,
an Israelite, which, Mohammed was not.
And, certainly, the New Testament took this to
be Jesus.
The Bible often calls Jesus a prophet as
well as the son of God.
Many references could be given, but Matthew 1357,
And,
I I think I'll stop at that point
there. I think it's enough to show that,
this passage is not understood in the Bible
as referring. In the next
3 minutes, can I have a dialogue between
both of you? Okay. Please. I must comment
first of all that doctor is holding, putting
together so many things from so many different
differences in rebuttal, in what I consider to
be unsuccessful rebuttal really of what I said
about the prophecy which was the departing message
of Moses. I refer to this book, who
wrote the Bible that shows that even the
has been written by different authors. So you
might have remains of what was there by
way of revelation,
and there's also the politics and the rivalry
between the priests from the descendants of Moses
and the the priests from the descendants of
Er. Yet, most of the points raised I
would say respectively, they are irrelevant to that
particular prophecy. Number 2 number 2. The question
of comparison between Moses, Jesus and Muhammad.
When you say Moses and Jesus were both
Israelites, that's the description that apply apply to
dozens of other prophets.
But look at it this way,
Moses and Mohammed were born naturally,
not Jesus.
Moses and Mohammed
both encounter their enemies
physically,
and had victory over them, not Jesus.
Moses and Mohammed died of natural causes,
not Jesus.
Moses and Muhammad were claimed only to be
prophets of God and nothing but, not Jesus.
So you could go on and I could
give you 10 of them that shows indeed
that the closeness and affinity.
To say that Moses and Jesus went persecuted
to Egypt, well, by analogy also prophet Muhammad
left from Makkah to Medina.
It doesn't have to be the same place,
but the same event in the life that
happened in the life of the 3 prophets.
But definitely the affinity or the similarity.
Moses,
came with a complete code of law.
Jesus said, I came not to destroy the
law or prophet, I came to fulfill and
his teaching was more spiritual to balance the
overemphasis on the law. Prophet Muhammad peace be
upon him brought a complete code of law.
With all that, we cannot say or not,
but both of them were Israelites. I think
the similarity
between them as well as the difference Thank
you, doctor Jesus. From among your brethren and
The word brethren has been used
Bible.
Just just a second. That same chapter, he
uses it, the Israelites in that same chapter.
It is used also in the bible several
times to In that same chapter? Yes. But
Same chapter. But Moses was Same contact? Just
a minute. Moses was giving that message to
the Israelites
in his presence,
before his departure, before his death. If he
meant that someone from among you standing here,
he said from among you, not your brother.
Doctor Woodbury,
that's Well, basic basically, that's it. The the
past the context says, among your brethren, that
chapter defines what your brethren are. So
I feel that, to
make it refer to somebody,
who is not from among his brethren is
really stretching that prophecy. There's one definition here
about brethren, by the way, and the context
is more important. This is also again the
biblical dictionary. But I'm talking about the verse,
the passage, the chapter itself, the context of
it. No. The context of it is that
parting message and that's why that's what already
there.
Now the He he didn't say you are
brothers.
He he used a different term. There is
a usage for the word brothers in the
Bible, Bible, and the term brother
Okay?
What if we use this? If there is
no reference, there is no commonality.
There is no base to to agree with
this agree on. See, here's what it says.
It says about it denotes a brother or
a kinsman
in the plural. A community
based on identity of origin or life.
Okay? Based on upon identity or a common
identity of origin or life. Which means
someone
who is the offspring
from the same origin.
Had he meant the the Israelites themselves, he
didn't have to use the word that goes
back far looking for the origin. He would
have used your own brothers, or your own
selves, or you.
If I Yeah. Excuse me.
If I were to say, as I've said
to, audiences before that I can see Mohammed
in terms of prophethood, maybe like Moses,
that there are many similarities,
in fact, between Mohammed and Moses.
That wouldn't satisfy
the the Muslim community, I'm sure,
because,
for us, a greater than Moses is here,
in Jesus the Christ. Right. Christ,
is
more than Moses. He's more than a prophet.
I'd be I'd be happy to say. And
if you're happy that that we would link
that I would link, Mohammed
with a a prophet like Moses,
that there were many similarities,
fine. But, I have a feeling that
that that would not, satisfy at all. We
would be heavier if you say that Mohammed,
Moses, and Jesus
are equal and they are great prophets from
God. We will be much heavier if you
Yeah. Well, then then then if I said
that then I would become a Muslim. No.
But see, there is one point there is
one point that is missing here, Hamid. There
is one point that's seriously missing. Prophet Jesus,
still in the bible.
He warned against false prophets.
Had he himself not
known
that a prophet is coming, and may other
false prophets come and clear prophethood? Why did
he have to warn
his own disciples and people
to be aware of false prophets?
He would have said to them, no prophets
after me.
Can I please?
I read that
demonstrates that you can select certain parallels between
Moses and Mohammed or Moses and Jesus and
choose the things that you wanna stress. If
you wanna stress some, maybe, political things or
external things, perhaps
you may come in one direction. Beautiful. But
what is clear
is that, Jesus taught in John
chapter 4 that salvation is of the Jews.
And the issue then is one of salvation.
And therefore, we think that
the stream of prophecy,
which will result in salvation for mankind, including
all the Gentiles,
will be something that comes through the Jewish
stream, which then is in accord with the
idea that the brethren
or the is is is a Jew. And
Jesus said in John 11 I just wanna
read a couple of verses, then I'll be
quiet.
And Jesus said,
I told you, and you do not believe
the works that I do in my father's
name, these bear witness of me.
My sheep hear my voice, and I know
them and they follow me.
I,
and I give eternal life to them.
And this is in accord with this concept
that salvation is of the Jews and Jesus
is the instrument by which eternal life is
given. And all of you who are eager
to find eternal life will find that seriously
taking Jesus in this matter, apart from whether
he was a prophet or not, Jesus is
the prophet had had the additional function of
giving forgiveness of sins,
reconciliation
with God,
and giving eternal
life. If that interpretation is true, then Jesus
is only man, not God. Because if you
continue with the verse, it says that he
will speak in the name of God, that
means he is not God. And this is
what God tells him, and God will put
the word in his mouth, so he is
not God. Okay. You choose one or the
other. I'll choose this. There's one verse in
Timothy where it says, there is one God,
amen,
and one mediator between man and God, the
man Christ Jesus.
He calls a man there and even this
man, if you're willing to humble yourself, he
will save you. For correction, reverend Chastain. There
is one God, the father.
Yes. That that one God here being identified
as the father. You keep saying there is
one God and one mediator, the man Jesus
Christ. And you keep dropping out the word
the father.
So Paul here is identifying 1 God, the
father,
and a different
man by the name of Jesus, different entity.
Who is a Who is a prophet from
God? Not only that, but he he went
on in Matthew 23, chapter, verse 8 to
say, call no man upon the earth your
father because one is your father.
Even Christ and you all are brothers. He
included himself.
Not to be called God, not to be
called good. You call him good, you meet
him in the dark judgment.
And we'll meet him too.
In Jesus name. You're calling upon doctor Gamal
to humble
himself, and Jesus will say that I'm calling
upon you to claim anything for Jesus. And
he will come on the day of judgement,
having we prophesied in thy name, having we
preached in thy name. He will say, depart
from me. I don't know you. I'm trying
to make it easy for you. One more
verse. And this is eternal life
that they may know thee, the only true
God
and Jesus Christ who thou hast sent.
We believe that. Okay. We believe that. And
you will be able to Well, we believe
that. That they might they might know Thee.
So he is referring to God. And it
comes to the only true God and then
he identifies
the self as Jesus Christ. I'd like to
thank you all for this nice discussion.
And I think it's it's getting, you know,
every time I wanna stop it, you jump
in and,
hot. Inshallah, we will continue
after
the break.
We'll start again at 3 o'clock. I'd like
to thank you all, and let us