|
LESSONS TO BE LEARNED FROM JEWS AND CHRISTIANS The objection raised by the clergy to printing and translating the Bible is an example of the biased approach of fanaticism. “It is true that by the invention of printing, the number of books marked a tremendous increase, contributing to the education of the public at large; however, it is also a fact that differences of opinions and dissensions among the public followed a similar trend. Men were henceforth asking questions and calling to doubt the tenets inculcated into their brains. They read, understood and prayed in their own tongues. Under the circumstances there was no more need to consult priests to be enlightened on religious issues. This was naturally to the detriment of the clergy. In order to keep them immune, the religious precepts should be the exclusivity of the clergy.” It was the clergy that had forestalled and retarded the development of sciences. The division into factions and sects of the clergy led to untold bloodshed. The public who tried to pray in its own tongue was subjected to the ordeal of excommunication, of granting of indulgences, of papal inquisitions to combat so-called heresies. The Suras The Cattle, 154, and The Purgatory, 145 are in the same vein. Despite the fact that the Jews had in their hands the revelation that had been sent down to them through Moses, they created additional authorities under the names of Mishna and Gamara. The fanatics of Judaism had much in common with those of Islam. TRINITYThe oldest New Testament in our hands today is a Latin translation. This Gospel, originally revealed in Aramaic, is no more. We do not know what the original words were that found their equivalent in Latin as ‘Father’ and ‘Son.’ However, even in the Latin version we observe that these words are used not only for Christ but also for the whole of mankind. Every one of God’s creatures is referred to as Son and God, Father.The expressions ‘son’ and ‘father’ are but metaphorical expressions. We invite you to pay attention to the transformation of the expression ‘Son of Man’ mentioned in the first Gospel into ‘Son of God’ in the King James Version. In the following verse in the Gospel according to Matthew it is interesting to note the adulteration of the expression ‘father’: THE CHURCH IS THE MAIN RESPONSIBLE BODYWe observe that no man is to be called ‘father’ on earth since the only father is the One who is in heaven. ‘Father’ is the biological begetter of man. It is our belief that the expression translated with the word ‘father’ here must have corresponded to a word that connoted the Creator. However, the translations are not to blame in the first place, since an impartial observer must have interpreted the expression, taking into consideration its metaphorical meaning.The interpreters of Catholic and Orthodox sects are of the opinion that the name ‘son’ is metaphorically used for believers and in the true sense for Jesus. This debatable issue is rendered still more difficult since the original Gospel is not available, whereas the Quran is there in its original form. Therefore, it easy to sort out what is foreign to the God’s revelation. We must be reminded here of the fact that the church was the clergy. The tribunal that decided to put Christ to death consisted of rabbis. The greatest injury inflicted to the revealed religions has been by certain rabbis, priests and imams. It is a pity that the Muslims listen to these words as if a fairy story were being told. These stories are in fact parables told to set an example for the future of mankind. The clergy had been ascribed the attribute of divine authority while in Islam imams assumed the divine authority having the power to issue fatwas, ijtihads and sectarian decrees! Just like in the case of Christianity that does not fail to find pretexts for justifying the ways that the Catholic and Orthodox clergy have adopted, so have the Islam of traditionalists. Desmond Tutu, the Nobel Prize winning priest from South Africa, has the following to say about how the Church exploits religion for material ends. “When the missionaries came over to Africa we had our lands and they had their Bible. Then they told us to close our eyes and pray. When we opened our eyes, however, we saw that the Bible was in our hands and the land was in their possession.” There are examples to follow in all these for the Jews and the Christians as well as for the Muslims. The followers of these three religions cannot truly understand their religion unless they shove away the sects and their chiefs. What is preached today is neither the religion of the original Bible, nor of the Torah, nor of the Quran. The dictates of the sects, the saints and rabbis have replaced them. What was human was disguised in a holy garb, so that the holy was coupled with human interpolations. Another perversion in religions has been to mystify the manifest truths of the scriptures by willful shifting of the meanings of words. ALLUSIONS TO MUHAMMAD IN THE TORAH AND THE GOSPELSAn instance of the alterations made in the Torah and the Gospels is the misinterpretation of passages that made allusions to the advent of Muhammad.The Hebrew word ‘himada’ mentioned under Verse 7 of Haggai stems from the same root as H M D. in the Arabic language which is the root of the name ‘Muhammad’ carrying more or less the same meaning. Thus the name of the Prophet or the meaning of his name is mentioned with reference to a glorious event that was to take place in future. The advent of Muhammad that succeeded the Bible and addressed his message announcing God’s existence for billions of years was that glorious event. The word shalom (peace) in Verse 9 also comes from the same root as the word Islam. 16 – And I will ask the Father and He will give you another Helper (Paraclete) to be with you forever 8 – And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment. 21 – And they asked him: “What then? Are you Elija?” He said: “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” And he answered: “No.” WHO CAN BE THE ONE THAT IS SAID TO COME AFTER CHRIST AND PREACH ONE GOD?According to the quotations above, it is clear that another prophet was expected. The history has not witnessed any other person who assumed the qualities of a prophet other than Muhammad. The fact that the words peryclitos and Muhammad have the same connotation must not be interpreted as pure coincidence. Prof. Maurice Bucaille has criticized the interpretation according to which the word paraclete meant the Holy Spirit (Gabriel) and contended that the word paraclete made allusion to a prophet whose advent had been foretold. The point, according to him, is not a question of inspiration by the Holy Spirit, but has the connotation, as in Greek, of spreading among men. The Greek words aquo and laleo can be interpreted as having to do with physical bodies having the organs of hearing and speech, which cannot be ascribed to the Holy Spirit. Therefore, he says, the paraclete in the Gospel according to St. John refers to a physical being like Christ himself endowed with the senses of hearing and speaking. The Greek text definitely requires this. He is convinced that Christ had foretold the advent of a prophet that was to succeed him, a person endowed with the sense of hearing and speech through which he would be communicating God’s message to mankind. The available texts’ treatment of the Holy Spirit seem to have been altered on purpose with a view to changing the meaning inherent in the message that heralded the advent of a prophet after Jesus Christ. This was due to the wishes of the clergy to see Christ as the last of the prophets.TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS16 - You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? 17 - So every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 – A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 - Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 - Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. Nowhere in any of the gospels it is said that no other prophet will come. The following criteria is given in the gospel: “Examine the fruit and distinguish the one who is a liar.” If no other prophet had been predicted to come after Jesus Christ, he might have said “Whoever comes after me claiming to be a prophet, he is a liar.” The method that Jesus suggested to tell the true and false prophets apart is sufficient proof of the advent of a prophet after Jesus. This fact should constitute acceptable evidence for the Christians. Somebody who came after Jesus, who believed in one God, who put his trust in God, who loved Him and was instrumental in establishing societies that had got rid of their idols, could not be any person other than Muhammad. Despite all these explicit evidences and signs in the Old Testament and the New Testament, rabbis and Christian clergy have vied with one another to hush them up.;The viewpoints of the Catholic or Orthodox churches, the Pope in Rome and the archbishops whose names are not mentioned in any one of the gospels seem to be more authoritative than the scriptures for the majority of the Christian population. We vent our anger at popes and archbishops, the Catholic and Orthodox sects; yet, we have a natural affection for the Sunni and Shii sects, the hadiths and the sectarian imams! |