THE BOOK
ISLAM AND THE BIBLE
Before we reach Discourse 4, however, more preparatory knowledge is required, not the least of which is, of course, Islam’s position on the Bible. For at this point in the Work, perhaps the greatest clash between Islam and Christianity takes place there --- precisely from out of the Bible. It is a Book vociferously condemned by something like 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide in 2017, primarily because of the concept of “Sonship of God”.
From the very inception of Islam --- but after the death of Muhammad --- through the era of the “Crusades”, and thence to the Muslim Army incursions into Europe. The French king, Charles Martel, [Charles the Hammer] secured victory at the Battle of Tours; a battle that was later credited for saving Western Europe from the Muslim invasions and was thus a turning point in European history. History affirms what Islam denies; that the religion is a “Religion of Conquest”, for it has consistently tried to destroy Christianity and Judaism –- the “People of the Book” -– exactly as it does today.
Islam does not have the military capability to wage an all-out conventional war with any of the major powers, for that would result in virtual annihilation, so must resort to guerrilla/terror tactics to try to achieve the religion’s avowed and long-term goal. So public beheadings of Christians, particularly, are the terror- tactic of choice for one group of “Muslims” bent on destroying at least some of the “People of the Book”.
We have three primary aspects here that seem to be so reviled by the Muslim religion that somehow, someway, they must be negated, and those believers converted to accept, in Islam’s words, “the only acceptable religion for the entire world”. However, along with that, a new Dark Age; for it would not be the Islamic world of a bygone era --- their once “Golden Age” of great learning and magnanimity towards all other beliefs. No. it would be akin to a “Hitlerite” world of another Dark Age of “Unreason”.
So: Let’s itemise the three major aspects of Islamic attack on the “People of the Book”:
| 1) | The Bible as a source of Truth. |
| 2) | The central theme in the New Testament of Jesus as The Son of God |
| 3) | The notion that Another, and not Muhammad, comes as The Spirit of Truth. |
In the final analysis, there is only one agency powerful enough to finally force all religions, all human ideas, to bend to Its Will; to therewith destroy all posturing, all blustering, all vitriol to support a given religious position --- and that is DIVINE TRUTH AND LAW.
That does not mean the very strange term, “religious truth”. Since “Ultimate Truth” has no real affinity with man-made religions, the very “Bringer” of that Truth must necessarily be from the Source of Truth --- from THE CREATOR. In contradistinction to the “scholars” of Islam, we proclaim that reality! Reader, you have heard this before, but it doesn’t matter, for it is absolutely imperative that we constantly underpin that crucial fact.
Now, to seriously garner greater Islamic opinion about the three points of “The Book” and “The People of The Book” we have notated, let’s look at a few relevant verses from the Koran. Surah 2 (The Cow), respectively: verses 109, 111 and 112, along with Ali’s commentary on all three. That should provide the kind of Muslim insight we need for this segment of our “continuing journey into real revelation”.
‘Many of the people of the Book wish that they could turn you back into disbelievers after you have believed, out of envy from themselves, after truth has become manifest to them,a but pardon and forgive, till Allah bring about His command. Surely Allah is possessor of power over all things.’
‘And they say: None shall enter the Garden except he who is a Jew, or the Christians.a These are their vain desires. Say: Bring your proof if you are truthful.’
‘Nay, whoever submits himself to Allah and he is the doer of good (to others), he has his reward from his Lord, and there is no fear for such nor shall they grieve.’
Ali’s commentary on all three verses follows:
109a. The Jews were so inimical to Islam that, knowing it to be a religion based on the Unity of God (*) as their own religion was, and knowing that it led men to a life of righteousness and turns them away from the path of evil, they longed, and in fact did their best by joining hands with the idolatrous enemies of Islam, to turn them back into idolatry. Elsewhere the followings words occur about the Jews: “Hast thou not seen those to whom a portion of the Book was given? They believe in sorcery and diviners and say of those who disbelieve: These are better guided in the path than those who believe.” (4:51). The Muslims are, however, told to pardon and forgive.
111a. The address hitherto has been particularly to the Jews, but the “people of the Book” include both Jews and Christians, and along with the idolaters they were both opposed to Islam; and hence the Christians are now expressly spoken of. That the Jews denounced the Christians and the Christians denounced the Jews is expressly stated in v. 113, and hence what is said here may be expanded thus: The Jews say that none shall enter the Garden except a Jew and the Christians say that none shall enter the Garden except the Christians. Both degraded religion to a set of doctrines, and leading a life of righteousness was not considered as of the essence of religion. (**)
112a. The Jews and the Christians are told that their assertions that only the Jews and the Christians will be saved are groundless. It is entire submission to Allah and the doing of good to His creatures that is the true source of salvation, (**) and that is what Islam means according to the Holy Qur’an. ...
My comments on asterisks (*) and (**) in Ali’s explanations of 109a, 111a, and 112a.
(*) ‘The Unity of God’: In terms of the many Koranic verses stating that Allah is One unto Himself and “needs no other”, and Ali’s fulsome commentary endorsing the fact, the term, Unity of God, seems to be completely pointless. What does “unity” --- of one thing, one object, one person, one God -– actually mean? It is very confusing, for a “One” is obviously “a Unity unto itself”. It cannot be a duality, or any other kind of multi-entity; such a strange, illogical term. Is the term some kind of imperative where Koranic scholars must stress such a thing as “a singular Unity” for Muslims in order to permanently lock into the religion the “Muslim absolute” of “no Sonship”? We think that that is the case here!
(**) The age-old religious longing to “enter paradise” is certainly alive and well in Ali’s essay and, of course, we have one religion stating that only the believers of that religion have the right to enter paradise. In this case it is Islam, but virtually all religions believe the same of their particular faith. The difference in the thinking of the “big three, however, is the claim to The Creator Himself in the first place, and thence to whatever else may be associated with Him. This despite the fact that all “three” notionally accept that there is a separation between Him in His unapproachable Majesty and human beings on earth.
Surely if one believes there is a “Paradise” and that one can enter into it, then one must also accept there must be some fairly precise “Rules” to be acknowledged --- and obeyed --- long before being permitted entry. So: Regardless of one’s “religion”, what about simply obeying The Divine Laws of Creation first?
Why don’t we? Well: Here is the general gist of that trend, and it comes from the hand of The Spirit of truth Himself. Firstly, He warns of a particular human propensity -- heed His words here, reader -- “to saunter stupidly through life” and then at the last moment expect to be “saved” from our own stupidity!
His analogy: If a Priest, Pastor, Pope, Shaman, or Imam sows wheat, he will not reap rye. If he sows corn, he will not reap barley. There is the essence of the inviolable Law of “Sowing and Reaping” --- the great “Law of Reciprocal Action”. We reap what we sow, irrespective of our individual religion. So, it is not the religion that guarantees the possibility of any individual entering Paradise, but that it is absolutely dependent upon that individual obeying The Laws of Creation, not rules of a religion.
Reader: Mark this well, for from His All-Truth we will later expand your knowledge of The Law considerably. Then you may better understand the foolishness of human religiosity. We will look at one more Koranic verse (3:64) and M.M. Ali’s fulsome dissertation on it. (Emphases are mine.)
‘Say: O People of the Book, come to an equitable word between us and you, that we shall serve none but Allah and that we not associate aught with Him, and that some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah. But if they turn away, then say: Bear witness, we are Muslims.a’
64a ‘These are the very words occurring in a letter which the Prophet wrote to Heraclius in the year 6 A. H. (B 1:1). Similar letters were written to several other potentates among whom was Muqauqis, (*) the King of Egypt, and the discovery of the letter written to him furnishes proof of the reliability of the reports relating to the Prophet in general, for the manuscript letter contains the very words given in the Hadith. In this verse the Jews and the Christians are called upon to accept the broad principles of the faith of Abraham, which were also the basic principles of the faith of Islam. The reference in the sentence some of us shall not take others for lords is to the practice prevailing both among Jews and Christians, and at present among Muslims too (**), or take religious leaders as invested with divine powers, which is more clearly enunciated in 9:31: “They take their doctors of law and their monks besides Allah.”
The verse under discussion lays down the basis of the study of comparative religion. Anyone who studies religious literature on a wide scale will find that the basic doctrines of Islam are the greatest common measure of the truth contained in the different religions of the world. The doctrine of Unity as taught by Islam affords an illustration. All higher religions start on the basis of Divine Unity which is thus common to all, but then each religious system has its own peculiarities unknown to all others. Islam alone is free from all these additions to the basic doctrine, and it preaches Unity in its simplest form and rejects all additions which are here classified as three: 1. Worshipping others than God and addressing prayers to them. 2. Associating anything with Him which consists of ascribing Divine attributes to others. 3. Taking others as Lords besides God which consists of rendering to others the perfect obedience which is due to God alone. There are no idols, no gods, no incarnations of the Divine Being, no sons of God (***), and finally no pirs and priests to be followed blindly.’
We should bring to your serious attention the fact that an actual and supposedly sacrosanct religious tenet crucial to the Muslim Faith i.e., --- that Muhammed “could not read or write” --- is completely destroyed in M.M. Ali’s “scholarly” commentary on verse 3:64. (PART IV will give full explanations about Muhammed actual “education”, which is here supported by Ali, the much- respected Muslim scholar!)
(*) Now: Whether Muqauqis actually existed by name and precise deed as espoused by Ali seems to be open to considerable debate among ‘online’ academics and historians. Even “Britannica” does not appear to have an absolute position on it. Muslim scholars, however, have only certainty.
(**) Ali’s identification of what he terms a problem of “the present”, vis-à- vis the emergence of Islamic leaders rather shatters the notion that Islam is not hierarchical in any way. Yet history identifies a number of Muslim leaders, and certainly battles between various Islamic factions over ideology. The “faith” is not as “cosy” and perfect as Ali tries to portray it.
(***) Under the aegis of The Divine Laws of Creation, belief or disbelief in Jesus as a Son of God is almost irrelevant. That is not to say that getting it right -- one way or the other --- is not crucial to one’s spiritual ascent --- or fall; for it certainly is! In this particular dissertation by M.M. Ali, the Muslim world once more states its opposition to any notion of such a belief. Yet such strong condemnation --- surely stated literally millions of times since the inception of Islam -- is recorded in equally strong measure on the Akashic Chronicle.
Of course, the very words of both Muhammad and Jesus are recorded there too. As previously stated, it is a Chronicle to which we have access. In its later commensurate Discourse, and in similar resonance with The All-Truth, we will “draw aside the veil” to “Read the Record”, exactly as it is, on this subject and many others.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
In his inimitable style, M.M. Ali offers a final position on where the Koran sits; not just here on earth among the religions but, according to his extensive interpretation, one would believe in the whole of Creation. From M.M. Ali’s fulsome INTRODUCTION to his translation/interpretation of the Koran, we herewith reproduce a significant block of his preparatory explanations for this crucially-formative DISCOURSE 2: THE “SONSHIP OF GOD”.
For the whole world will soon awaken to a reality that was long- prophesied, but, in the end -- as is the fatuous human way -- was not just completely missed, but really not even wanted. M.M. Ali will once more speak, and we will comment where we deem it necessary:
INTRODUCTION. 3. RELATION TO EARLIER SCRIPTURES
Previous Scriptures recognized.
The Holy Qur’an requires a belief not only in its own truth but also in the truth of previous scriptures delivered to the prophets of the different nations of the world. At its commencement, it lays down clearly:
“And those who believe in that which has been revealed to thee and
that which was revealed before thee” (2:4).
The universality of what was received before is clearly accepted:
“And there is not a people but a warner has gone among them” (35:24).
“And for every nation there is a messenger” (10:47).
Lest anyone should be misled by the names of a few prophets mentioned in the Holy Qur’an, it is stated:
“And certainly We sent messengers before thee --- of them are those We have mentioned to thee and of them are those We have not mentioned to thee” (40:78; 4:164).
Thus the Holy Qur’an accepts the truth of the sacred books of the world, and hence it is again and again spoken of as a Book verifying that which is [comes] before it. The basis of the relation in which the Holy Qur’an stands to other scriptures is, therefore, that they are all members of one family; they all have a Divine Origin. (*)
(*) We certainly have no argument with Ali here for there is certainly no doubt that the great spiritual men who were tasked for their missions brought Truth to the particular peoples concerned. For what cannot be denied is that which they have in common are concepts that are clearly timeless, and thus of Truth from a Divine Origin. A case in point: All state the most basic aspect of the great Law of Love: “Do for others as you would want others to do for you.”
Islam: If you did that, if you really could do that, you would leave the rest of the world alone and simply be content with YOUR RELIGION -- for you -- exactly as your Qur’an instructs you to do, vis-à-vis:
“We have truly shown him the way; he may be thankful or unthankful (76:3.)
”The Truth is from your Lord; so let him who please believe and let him who please disbelieve” (18:29.)
Reader, that was a slight but I think worthwhile digression from our main theme –- to which we now return.
Guardian of previous scriptures.
The Verifier (**) of the sacred books of the world, however, occupies a unique
position among them. The relation in which the Holy Qur’an stands to earlier
scriptures is thus lucidly set forth by the Holy Book itself:
“And We revealed to thee the Book with the truth, verifying that which is before it of the Book and a guardian over it” (5:48).
The Qur’an is thus not only a verifier (**) of the sacred books of all nations as stated above; it is also a guardian over them. In other words, it guards the original teachings of the prophets of God, for, as elsewhere stated, those teachings had undergone alterations, and only a revelation from God could separate the pure Divine teaching from the mass of error which had grown around it. (***) This was the work done by the Holy Qur’an, and hence it is called a guardian over the earlier scriptures. Of all the scriptures, it has particularly chosen the Gospels to show in what ways erroneous doctrines had almost entirely suppressed the truth preached by a prophet of God. They seem, moreover, to have been chosen as an example, for how could earlier scriptures escape alterations, if the teachings of so recent a prophet as Jesus Christ could not be handed over intact to posterity?
(**) The “Verifier”: A powerful claim, and with regard to our subject matter, perhaps much that is valid does, indeed, reside there. In the context of the times of Muhammad and his true mission, and certainly if he was Divinely- ordained as the actual Spirit of Truth, then “Verifier” would have to be an absolutely sacrosanct term. However:
(***) “Verifier” has to mean “Final Arbiter”. As Ali rightly notes: “only a revelation from God could separate the pure Divine teaching from the mass of error which had grown around it”. In that context a “Verifier” or “Final Arbiter” has to be 100% correct 100% of the time. For in order to guard all of The Truth it must possess no flaw, no gaps in all that it says, not the tiniest bit --- no room for error! Especially around “Sonship of God”, it cannot afford to be wrong. Dangerous!
The Qur’an as a judge in existing differences.
The Holy Quran claims that it further came as a judge to decide (****) the
differences between the various religions:
“We certainly sent messengers to nations before thee. ... And We have
not revealed to thee the Book except that thou mayest make clear to
them that wherein they differ” (16:63, 64).
As already stated, the Qur’an proclaimed that prophets had been raised in every nation, and, therefore, that every nation had received guidance from God, yet nation differed from nation even in the essentials of faith. The position of the Holy Qur’an was, therefore, essentially that of a judge deciding between various claimants.
(****) This is a most interesting statement by Ali. Since the Koran is inevitably forever tied to Muhammad; is the Koran the judge of all religions, or is Muhammad? Given the reverence amongst Muslims for Muhammad --- yet noting his great humility in Service to God --- it is difficult to reconcile the rhetoric of Islam here with the man or the Prophet. Ali continues:
It explains all obscurities.
The most important point to be borne in mind in connection with the relation of the Holy Qur’an to the earlier scriptures is that it makes clear what is obscure in them and explains fully what is there stated briefly. Revelation, according to the Holy Qur’an, is not only universal but also progressive, and it attains perfection in the Final Revelation. (*****) A revelation was granted to each nation according to its requirements, and in each age in accordance with the capacity of the people of that age. (*****) As the human brain became more developed, more and more light was cast by revelation on matters relating to the unseen, on the existence and attributes of the Divine Being, on the nature of revelation from Him, on the requital of good and evil, on life after death, and on paradise and hell. It is for this reason that the Holy Qur’an is again and again called a Book “that makes manifest”. It shed complete light on the essentials of the faith and made manifest what had hitherto of necessity remained obscure.
(*****) In association with the two asterisk points, Ali has correctly understood the historical reality of the progression of Truth given to the various peoples of the world, and that it only “attains perfection in the Final Revelation”. For every devout Muslim, the Koran simply has to be that pinnacle. Any other belief is anathema, and surely riven with the “religious fear” of not reaching paradise.