Who Heard the Prayer of Gethsemane?

Who heard the prayer in Gethsemane?

Reading through the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane’s Garden struck my attention. A prayer which showed unwillingness and submission from the son to the father, but what struck me the most was the confusion of who heard the prayer and how was it recorded in three of the four above gospels?

After the last supper Jesus predicts Judas’ betrayal as well as Peter’s denial. Jesus takes his disciples and goes to Gethsemane. He requests from his disciples to stay while he goes further away to pray taking with him only Peter, James and John in which he then asks them to keep watch as he moves further away from them in order to pray as he felt sorrowful and troubled.

Matthew 26
36 Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.” 37 He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled. 38 Then he said to them, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.” 39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

Mark 14
32 They went to a place called Gethsemane, and Jesus said to his disciples, “Sit here while I pray.” 33 He took Peter, James and John along with him, and he began to be deeply distressed and troubled. 34 “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death,” he said to them. “Stay here and keep watch.” 35 Going a little farther, he fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him. 36 “Abba, Father,” he said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”

What was the distance Jesus moved away from the disciples (Peter, James and John)? The Gospel of Luke provides us with an estimation.

Luke 22
39 Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him. 40 On reaching the place, he said to them, “Pray that you will not fall into temptation.” 41 HE WITHDREW ABOUT A STONE’S THROW BEYOND THEM, knelt down and prayed, 42 “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” 43 An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. 44 And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.

For further clarification let’s look at Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

And he was withdrawn from them, That is, from the three disciples, Peter, James, and John, whom he took along with him, leaving the rest at some further distance; and from these he removed,  about a stone’s cast; fifty, or sixty feet(1) from the place where they were:

and kneeled down and prayed; the following prayer.

Fifty to sixty is between 15.24 to 18.288 meters

Having noticed that Jesus distanced himself from the disciples and remained in solitude praying (where he could not be heard) taking breaks to check on his disciples only to find them fallen asleep.

Matthew 26
40 Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Couldn’t you men keep watch with me for one hour?” he asked Peter. 41 “Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”42 He went away a second time and prayed, “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.”43 When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. 44 So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing.45 Then he returned to the disciples and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the hour has come, and the Son of Man is delivered into the hands of sinners. 46 Rise! Let us go! Here comes my betrayer!”

Mark 14
37 Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Simon,” he said to Peter, “are you asleep? Couldn’t you keep watch for one hour? 38 Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.” 39 Once more he went away and prayed the same thing. 40 When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. They did not know what to say to him. 41 Returning the third time, he said to them, “Are you still sleeping a:? Enough! The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is delivered into the hands of sinners. 42 Rise! Let us go! Here comes my betrayer!”

Luke 22
45 When he rose from prayer and went back to the disciples, he found them asleep, exhausted from sorrow. 46 “Why are you sleeping?” he asked them. “Get up and pray so that you will not fall into temptation.”

In conclusion, as the disciples were distanced away from Jesus and since they were constantly falling asleep, the question we ask again is who heard Jesus’ prayer and how were they recorded into the Bible? Interestingly the Gospel according to John does not mention specifically what took place in the prayer and simply states the following:

John 18
18 When he had finished praying, Jesus left with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley. On the other side there was a garden, and he and his disciples went into it.

Missionary Mishaps: Another One Bites the Dust

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Many missionaries flock to our Facebook page in an effort to ‘guide’ us to the ‘truth of Christianity’. To their detriment, they find themselves in discussions which break their delusion and of which send them hurtling towards a manifest realization about the faulty foundations of the mind numbing modern Christian religion. This is perhaps a sad demise for a missionary who gave the impression that he was determined, yet as we’ve seen, it is difficult for these missionaries to have any impact upon educated Muslims:

cc-2013-missionaryexplodes

 

 

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Second Child Death from Christian ‘Faith Healing Couple’

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Once again, a child has to pay the price for over zealous Christian behaviour. For far too long, the Christian right has drilled a literal study of the Bible into the hearts and minds of the fickle and feeble minded believers. We’ve been misfed the archaic and fraudulent narrative of the purported Gospel of Mark’s Great Commission:

14 Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen. 15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues;18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.” – Mark 16:14-18.

For the second time in a row, a Christian couple has refused medical treatment for their ailing child, which has resulted in the death of their second child. NBC News (Philadelphia) reports:

A couple that was sentenced to probation after their 2-year-old died in 2009 from pneumonia have had another child die.

Herbert and Catherine Schaible, fundamentalist Christians who believe in the power of prayer ahead of modern medicine, recently had their 8-month-old son die, according to Philadelphia Police spokeswoman Jillian Russell. It wasn’t clear when the child died, or the cause of death, but the death hasn’t been ruled suspicious, Russell said. The child was taken to a funeral home by an as yet unknown individual and the undertaker alerted police, Russell said.

During their trial, the Schaibles’ lawyers said the parents were targeted because their fundamentalist Christian beliefs espouse faith healing.

It is quite unfortunate that this has happened once more. This should serve as a wake up call that Christian scholars should do right by their studies and remove these man-made verses from their ‘scripture’, so as to avoid the murder of innocent children due to an interpolated man made dogmatic theological farce.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Did Jesus (p) abolish Jewish Kosher?

Did Jesus (p) abolish Jewish Kosher?

Question Mark

Introduction

 

It is highly probable that the Christian next-door is into an all-inclusive dietary practice. S/he would not be scrupulous with the foods being consumed as Jew (or a Muslim) would be. It is almost considered lawful to consume food items which are prohibited in the Bible. Sadly enough, many Christians try to prove their position from the Bible itself! In fact some Bible versions have taken it for granted that Jesus (peace be upon him) allowed every food for them rescinding Mosaic Laws! One such incident happened at this very blog when a Christian used biblical passages to support his view.

Therefore, we have decided to take a close look into the matter if it is really permissible that a Christian consume any food that s/he like even those forbidden in the Bible. We would consider one of the most famous of the New Testament passage herein.

 

The Jesus (p) Yardstick

 

The Jews to this date scrupulously observe what is called as the “Kosher”. Kosher is basically the Jewish dietary law. The practice of Kosher does get its support from the Bible. Consider the following passage for instance:

 

Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination. Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby.  For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy. This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth: To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.  (Leviticus 11:42-47, King James Version)

 

Jesus (peace be upon him) for the known fact that he was a “Jew” must have observed the dietary Law. In fact, not just “dietary” Law, Jesus (peace be upon him) wanted to surpass every Pharisee and Scribe of his time by observing all the Laws of the Old Testament:

 

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-20, King James Version)

 

 

Did Jesus (p) allow all kinds of food?

 

 

 

On the foregoing it is hard to assume that Jesus (peace be upon him) would have allowed dietary practices against God’s Laws! Then what did Jesus (peace be upon him) mean when he said,

 

 

There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. (Mark 7:15, King James Version)

 

 

Apparently it seems like Jesus (peace be upon him) allowed consumption of all foods irrespective of the Old Testament rulings on them. In fact the Good News Edition of the Bible has already construed Jesus’ (peace be upon him) statement as permission for every kind of food. In between verse 19 and 20, Good News Editions brackets the following declaration:

 

 

“In saying this, Jesus declared that all foods are fit to be eaten”

 

Nevertheless, a closer look into the passage reveals that Jesus (peace be upon him) never intended to allow all foods lawful for his disciples. It is vitally important to understand the setup and context which led to Jesus’ (peace be upon him) statement:

 

Chapter 7 begins with Pharisees and doctors of the Law in a dispute with Jesus (peace be upon him). For the Pharisees, Jesus’ (peace be upon him) disciples were not up to the mark as far as observing the rituals were concerned. The Pharisees were particularly upset with the disciples not ritually cleaning their hands before eating food:

 

 

“Some Pharisees and teachers of the Law who had come from Jerusalem gathered round Jesus. They noticed that some of his disciples were eating their food with hands which were ritually unclean – that is, they had not washed them in the way the Pharisees said people should” (Mark 7:1-2)

 

 

For the Pharisees it was important to wash hands ritually since they inherited it from their forefathers (c.f. Mark 7:3). However, Jesus (peace be upon him) had other views. For him the act (of cleaning hands) was mere show of hypocrisy devoid of any sincere God-consciousness:

 

 

“Jesus answered them, “How right Isaiah was when he prophesied about you! You are hypocrites, just as he wrote: These people, says God, honor me with their words, but their heart is really far away from me….” (Mark 7:6)

 

 

Jesus (peace be upon him) also recognized that the ritual of washing hands before eating was a man-made innovation which was never part of God’s Laws:

 

 

“It is no use for them to worship me, because they teach man-made rules as though they were God’s laws!’ “You put aside God’s command and obey the teachings of men”” (Mark 7:7-8)

 

 

It is not difficult to understand the perspectives of Pharisees and Jesus (peace be upon him). While the Pharisees would act as sticklers, ironically, not to God’s Laws but to mere mundane innovations, Jesus (peace be upon him), on the other hand, would not only denounce any innovation in God’s religion but he also would strive for spirituality and God-consciousness even in the rituals. It was under this context that Jesus said,

 

 

“Listen to me, all of you, and understand. There is nothing that goes into a person from the outside which can make him ritually unclean. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that makes him unclean” (Mark 7: 14-15)

 

 

Consider the construction of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) statement in the first place: If Jesus’ (peace be upon him) intent would have been merely to allow all foods permissible for his disciples then he would not probably had started his statement with a strong exhortation to “listen” him carefully and “understand”. Obviously there was much more to be understood than what would apparently appear from his words. Through such a cautious expression, Jesus (peace be upon him) wanted his disciples to be careful to second part of his statement where he alarms his audience from the evils that “comes out of a person that makes him unclean”.

 

 

As obvious as it is, Jesus (peace be upon him) definitely shifted the focus from mere man-made formalities to higher acts of spirituality. For him, the need of the hour was not bickering over “rituals” and systems but inner uprightness. In fact, Jesus (peace be upon him) explicitly chided the Pharisees, in the same context, merely a few statements earlier, towards their moral degradation in the name of observing “rituals”:

 

 

“And Jesus continued, “You have a clever way of rejecting God’s law in order to uphold your own teaching. For Moses commanded, ‘Respect your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever curses his father or his mother is to be put to death.’ But you teach that if a person has something he could use to help his father or mother, but says, ‘This is Corban’ (which means, it belongs to God), he is excused from helping his father or mother. In this way the teaching you pass on to others cancels out the word of God. And there are many other things like this that you do”” (Mark 7:9-13)

 

 

Understand that for Jesus (peace be upon him) the Pharisees were not qualified to be talking about ritual niceties when they had devised ways how they could be excused from helping their own aging parents! For Jesus (peace be upon him) the demand of ritual cleaning was as folly as the excuse of the “Corban”, let alone the fact that the ritual it was an innovation. In this context, therefore, when Jesus (peace be upon him) stated that nothing that goes in defiles a person, then Jesus (peace be upon him) was not really talking about permissibility of foods as he was concerned about refuting the snares of Pharisees.

 

We can further appreciate that (i) Jesus (peace be upon him) did not construct his statement more obviously as “nothing that a person eats”; rather he said “nothing that goes into a person”! This is more than just a hint that Jesus (peace be upon him) was not really concerned about food here. Furthermore, (ii) Jesus (peace be upon him) is comparing food (goes in) and actions (comes out), or at least talking about both of them simultaneously, when both are quite disparate! These should help us interpret Jesus (peace be upon him) correctly that he was not as much concerned and discussing food and its rulings as he was vexed with the inner corruption of the same Pharisees advocating their (man-made) rituals. This understanding is further corroborated by the fact that where Jesus (peace be upon him) devotes only a verse (v.19) for things going into a person, he devotes four verses (vv. 20-23) into explaining about the evils emanating out of men.

 

 

 

 

 

Being Consistent

 

 

We expect persisting Christians to argue that Jesus (peace be upon him) allowed all foods since it does not enter into the heart – where intentions for actions emanate – rather it goes straight into the stomach where it is digested and is done with:

 

 

“You are no more intelligent than the others,” Jesus said to them. “Don’t you understand? Nothing that goes into a person from outside can really make him unclean, because it does not go into his heart but into his stomach and then goes on out of the body.”(Mark 7: 19)

 

 

Obviously the reasoning is very narrow and does not accommodate the context. Furthermore, such an argument is awfully inconsistent with the food offered to idols since, of surety, they also do not enter the heart but go to stomach and yet Christians are forbidden to eat them:

 

 

“It is my opinion,” James went on, “that we should not trouble the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead, we should write a letter telling them not to eat any food that is ritually unclean because it has been offered to idols;” (Acts 15: 19-20)

 

Much like the Pharisees, James is also concerned with “ritual uncleanness”. If Jesus (peace be upon him) has declared that “nothing” going in defiles men then James should not be concerned about the food offered at idol altars especially when James and every other Christian believer knows that every eatable is in reality created by the living God and not dead idols. Consequently, Christians should consistently obey Jesus (peace be upon him) and eat the food offered to idols as, “because it does not go into his heart but into his stomach and then goes on out of the body.”

 

 

Paul was also against eating food offered to idols:

 

Consider the people of Israel: those who eat what is offered in sacrifice share in the altar’s service to God. Do I imply, then, that an idol or the food offered to it really amounts to anything? No! What I am saying is that what is sacrificed on pagan altars is offered to demons, not to God. And I do not want you to be partners with demons. You cannot drink from the Lord’s cup and also from the cup of demons; you cannot eat at the Lord’s table and also at the table of demons. Or do we want to make the Lord jealous? Do we think that we are stronger than he? (1 Corinthians 10: 18-22)

 

 

 

If food is just-food without any scruples of God-consciousness since they merely have to enter stomach and not heart then why is Paul so concerned about food offered to idols! If, “Nothing that goes into a person from outside can really make him unclean” then why is it an issue whether the food is offered at the altar of God or “demon”? Similarly, how does one become a partner of demon when Jesus (peace be upon him) declared the “outside” food cannot really make him “unclean”?

 

On the same line of reasoning, if that “what comes out of a person that makes him unclean” (Mark 7:20) and the (Christian) believers have become pure in their association with Christ (peace be upon him) then how come anything constitute “the cup of demons”.

 

These queries are irreconcilable if we continue to misinterpret Jesus’ (peace be upon him) statement merely to satisfy our eating appetites.

 

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

 

 

Therefore, it seems that Jesus’ (peace be upon him) expression is more about moral sanctity of men than rulings on foods. In fact, we do not find any real reason why Jesus (peace be upon him) need to discuss food-rulings at all since (i) Jews were abreast of Mosaic commandments already and Jesus (peace be upon him) had initially upheld every facet of the Laws. And (ii) there is no hint that Jesus (peace be upon him) ever ate food which was condemned as defiling by the Laws. Add to it that Jesus (peace be upon him) considered the act of ritually washing hands as mere innovation. Consequently, a mere innovation could not possibly decide cleaning/defiling of men and thus Jesus (peace be upon him) could say that nothing going “in” without this man-made ritual cleansing could defile men as an expression to debunk innovations in the religion! Furthermore, if Jesus (peace be upon him) is (mis) understood for permitting “any” food then, consistently, even food offered to idols would become lawful! This obviously is a problem.

 

On the foregoing, if we are to be careful towards the text and sincere towards the speaker, especially when he himself is not around to explain the imports, then we would have to accept that Jesus (peace be upon him) did not really gave permission to the Christians to choose dietary at their free will.

 

 

Notes:

 

  • Unless otherwise mentioned, all biblical texts taken from the Good News Edition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Boston Marathon Bomber Suspect’s Uncle Speaks Out

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

The Uncle to the suspected bombers delivers such an amazing speech that I think all persons, whether Muslim or non-Muslim can appreciate this man’s wisdom, composure and foresight:

(Note: Wait 18 seconds for the audio to kick in properly, patience is a virtue.)

To the detriment of the hateful fear mongering of David Wood (the cross dressing Evangelical sociopath), the Uncle is a proud Muslim immigrant (that ought to get his panties in a bunch (with his Act 4 America Friends) – quite literally since he’s a cross dresser) to America!

Read the Washington Post’s coverage of the Uncle Ruslan interview here. It’s a must read, here’s a quick excerpt:

This is the sort of inspiring speech that we all hope we could give, under any circumstances — much less the one in which he was asked to step up and speak up. Anything that rears its head after moments of tragedy, he covered. He was irate at the perpetrators of this violence and said they did not deserve to be on this Earth.

He acknowledged our unhappy tendency to spread the blame to entire groups. (“He put a shame on our family. … He put a shame on the entire Chechen ethnicity because now everyone blames Chechens…. When a Muslim or a person of color does something, someone always has to defend the whole community.”)

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

An Open Letter to Samuel Green from Yahya Snow

Note: The following is an open letter to Samuel Green as posted by Br. Yahya Snow as is found on his website.

Hi Samuel Green,

I’m writing to you with some great concern as I notice you are still listed as a contributor on answeringmuslims.com.
Recently I visited the Answering Muslims blog and on the front page I noticed two obscene postings which a regular Christian missionary would find to be incompatible with Biblical teachings and evangelism. I assume you are indeed somebody who is solely interested in discussion with Muslims with an intent on Christian evangelism.
Now you may be wondering as to which posts on ‘your’ blog I found distasteful and anti-Christian. Well the first was a post which contained a video of a ‘gang rape’. I did not view the video at all and nor would I recommend you or anybody else view such material. However, I did read about the contents of this sexual assault video and denounced such postings – see here.

This is of course something that one would not expect to be viewing on a site which is supposedly upholding and preaching the Gospel. I trust you are with me on this assessment.

The other video was of a bikini model (who happens to be a Muslim). Again, what is the purpose of such a posting? I understand your colleagues, David Wood and Sam Shamoun, do go to extreme lengths to bash/goad Muslims but surely this is not compatible with the Bible and is only undermining your evangelical efforts.

In the blogosphere, folk such as David are heavily dependent on viewers and attention as it’s directly linked to their earnings. There must be a line drawn between indecency and attention-grabbing.

The two posts I have outlined to you are indeed indecent by any definition and are not unprecedented as some while ago I did post about a similar incident concerning ‘your’ site:

http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/david-wood-displaying-nudity-and.html

Rather perversely it reflects on the regard the administrators of ‘your’ site hold their followers (largely Christians who are anti-Muslim/Islam?). I mean, why in the world post such vulgar material if you didn’t feel that’s something your viewership/readership would lap up? It speaks volumes in how ‘your’ administrators view their supporter’s general level of morality…don’t you think?

I know Mr Wood is not the most Biblically-observant Christian – as evidenced by his flagrant disregard of Deut 22:5 here –  however that’s no excuse for him to overstep boundaries of decency and nor is it an excuse for other Christians (especially other contributors such as yourself, Anthony Rogers and Hogan Elijah Hagbard) to at least have a word. It only takes folk to sit on their hands for evil to go unchecked.

I would also like to point out –I haven’t seen such material on sites governed by serious Muslim representatives/apologists. I mean, if I was to frequent sites ran by Bassam Zawadi, Ali Ataie, or Dr Shabir Ally. I would not see such videos.

I understand Dr Nabeel Qureshi has left that site – he from what I recall would have at least had some sympathy for such concerns. I trust you will have similar sympathies and hope you do offer some sort of action to ensure posts such as these are no more.

I would also recommend you view two of the most outrageous distortions to simply insult the brother of Prophet Jesus (Prophet Muhammed pbut) that I have come across in recent times – propagated by your colleagues. Nobody with any sort of commitment to truth and fairness would support support or propagate suchlike.

You see Samuel, as Muslims we understand that you may want to discuss and even proselytize to us but there is no way base-lies and distortions which are simply geared towards hurting Muslim sensibilities are going to go un-rebuked or un-condemned.

 PS: I would try to communicate with Mr Wood but he seems to be one for keeping his viewers away from anything which is criticizing or refuting of him. I guess censorship is his shield for now. Whatever happened to having rebuttals, strong argumentation and logic as a response. He has censored at least two different individuals who have presented him with links showing his cross-dressing argumentation to be nothing but a mischievous stretch.

Again, I invite you to take a stance.

I would also like to take this opportunity to invite you to Islam. Please think about this before going to bed tonight. I strongly recommend you put any bias to one side and pray to God on this tonight.

May Allah bless us all further. Ameen

Thanks

Yahya Snow

Fox News Contributor Calls for Death of all Muslims

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

cc-2013-erikrush

In expected news today, a well known right-wing Fox News anti-Muslim zealot has called for the death of all Muslims in light of a bomb explosion in Boston during the Boston Marathon late Monday afternoon. So far, 2 deaths have been reported with no confirmed reports of what the cause was behind the blast. Sadly, seeing the opportunity to promote fear and disharmony, Erik Rush (pictured above) had this to say:

cc-2013-boston

 

Apparently, the deaths of two, calls for the deaths of all. Sadly, this is the world we live in, and we are not expecting to see any condemnation of such a hateful message by any right-wing Christian group, media outlet or organization.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Further reading:

Ibrahim’s Demise and its Implication on the Prophethood of Mohammad (p)

Ibrahim’s Demise and its Implication on the Prophethood of Mohammad (p)

 

Question Mark

Ibrahim was one of the few sons that the Prophet of Islam had (peace be upon him). Sadly he passed away as a mere toddler. The books of Seerah narrate the hapless incident in some detail. The following are the words of Ibn Sa’d [1.] – one of the early biographers:

 

“He (Ibn Sa’d) said: Al-Fadl Ibn Dukayn informed us: ‘Abd al-Rahman Ibn al-Ghasil informed us on the authority of ‘Asim Ibn `Umar Ibn Qatadah, he on the authority of Mahmud Ibn Labid; he said:

 

The sun eclipsed the day Ibrahim, the son of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, died. Thereupon the people said: The sun eclipsed because of the demise of Ibrahim. The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, came out when he heard this. Thereupon he praised and glorified Allah and then said: After that, 0 people ! verily the sun and the moon are the signs of Allah and they do not eclipse because of the death or life of any one, when you perceive this, hasten to the mosques. His eyes had tears. They said: 0 Apostle of Allah ! do you weep although you are the Apostle of Allah? He said: Verily I am a human being whose eyes shed tears and whose heart fears, and we do not utter”  ([p.86] Account of Ibrahim the Son of the apostle of Allah (May Allah bless him), Volume 1, Parts 1.37.41, Ibn Sa’d’s Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir),

 

 

The coincidence of solar eclipse with the demise of Ibrahim must have been the best opportunity for the Prophet (peace be upon him) had he any ulterior agenda. A community so deeply rooted in superstition and polytheism must have easily accepted the injunctions of Mohammad (peace be upon him) and his authority had he (mis) used the celestial phenomenon.

On the contrary, we find Mohammad (peace be upon him) acting as he ought to act: as a bona fide apostle of Allah (SWT). Uninterested from any hidden motives, Prophet (peace be upon him) disabused that the eclipse was not consequential to the demise of his son. In fact his words, “…they do not eclipse because of the death or life of any one” further explains that he did not took for his son any special privilege than “any one” else when he had all the opportunity to do so. Furthermore, the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not give any superstitious twist to the celestial bodies for they are merely “the signs of Allah”; His mere creation in the house of Islam; they do not represent any “moon god”.

Let alone any worldly motive, we do not think that the Prophet (peace be upon him) would have been much blamed had he used the incident to at least extricate the non-believers from idolatry, shirk and blasphemy into the fold of Islam! Saving people from idolatries and blasphemies could have been much better choice than not to allow them to believe that the sun eclipsed because of the unfortunate occasion of Ibrahim’s death. But he did not even do that. He did not dupe anyone into the fold of Islam based on the extraterrestrial event.

Although it is just another incident proving the noble character and the true nature of his divine mission but for us it is enough to prove that he was indeed the Apostle of Allah (SWT).

 

Footnote:

[1.] Anti-Islamic propagandists love using biographical works Ibn Sa’d and others to demonize Islam. So we thought it would fair if we use the same book. Otherwise there are more reliable books on Seerah available.

 

« Older Entries Recent Entries »